They will be. Per this https://flyinginireland.com/2021/03/aer-lingus-lay-off-shannon-staff-until-june/

"it is understood that two Airbus A330’s will take up UK markings in the coming weeks. EI-ELA and EI-EDY will become G-EILA and G-EIDY respectively. Two Airbus A321LR’s due for delivery this year will go directly to the UK register on delivery as G-EILG and G-EILH. "

LAXffDUB wrote:

I'm curious. Will the British AOC require the aircraft have "G" registrations?

Yes it does.

Could be a massive error of judgment launching this year.

gkirk wrote:

Could be a massive error of judgment launching this year.

Or a stroke of genius. Time will tell as always.

Luftymatt wrote:

LAXffDUB wrote:

I'm curious. Will the British AOC require the aircraft have "G" registrations?

Yes it does.

First will be G-UKEI i believe.

Will be interesting to see how much traffic will be generated now that all flights are going to have a BA codeshare on them.

CWL757 wrote:

Luftymatt wrote:

LAXffDUB wrote:

I'm curious. Will the British AOC require the aircraft have "G" registrations?

Yes it does.

First will be G-UKEI i believe.

David_Itl posted the registrations 3 posts above yours!

A333 G-EILA anD G-EIDY
A321NX G-EILG and G-EILH

A320B737NGCapt wrote:

CWL757 wrote:

Luftymatt wrote:

Yes it does.

First will be G-UKEI i believe.

David_Itl posted the registrations 3 posts above yours!

A333 G-EILA anD G-EIDY
A321NX G-EILG and G-EILH

Apologies, I somehow missed that.

Which terminal and lounge will they use? Any word on this new One World lounge in T2?

gkirk wrote:

Could be a massive error of judgment launching this year.

If we get the beginnings of normality by 21st Jun as per the unlock plan, do we really want people off globetrotting overseas bringing back new strains from the US? Am hugely pro aviation but long haul in 2021 just screams wrong right now, the risk of locking down again as a result of a new imported strain concerns me.

skipness1E wrote:

gkirk wrote:

Could be a massive error of judgment launching this year.

If we get the beginnings of normality by 21st Jun as per the unlock plan, do we really want people off globetrotting overseas bringing back new strains from the US? Am hugely pro aviation but long haul in 2021 just screams wrong right now, the risk of locking down again as a result of a new imported strain concerns me.

There’s just as much risk of new strains emerging domestically or regionally. The most notable already did emerge in the UK. COVID-19 originated somewhere. There will always be a risk of diseases being imported. Do you stay locked down forever?

The US is doing well with its vaccination programme as is the UK so really both places should work well for flights. And if tests are still required as seems to be the case at least for now then it’s probably as safe as it’s going to be.

David_itl wrote:

They will be. Per this https://flyinginireland.com/2021/03/aer-lingus-lay-off-shannon-staff-until-june/

"it is understood that two Airbus A330’s will take up UK markings in the coming weeks. EI-ELA and EI-EDY will become G-EILA and G-EIDY respectively. Two Airbus A321LR’s due for delivery this year will go directly to the UK register on delivery as G-EILG and G-EILH. "

Thanks!

I'm probably not the only person to find that reality ironic...

skipness1E wrote:

gkirk wrote:

Could be a massive error of judgment launching this year.

If we get the beginnings of normality by 21st Jun as per the unlock plan, do we really want people off globetrotting overseas bringing back new strains from the US? Am hugely pro aviation but long haul in 2021 just screams wrong right now, the risk of locking down again as a result of a new imported strain concerns me.

I don't see how the risk profile of importing new strains is materially different from long haul routes as it is from short haul. It also does not address the risk of domestic mutation.

What you appear to be advocating is a complete, Australasian style, prohibition on all international travel. The consequences of which are clear and likely to end any private interest and involvement in the entire aviation sector in the U.K.

It’s a balance, but in my view we have little choice but to trust the science.

David_itl wrote:

lWith a potential for Caribbean route(s) according to this https://antiguaobserver.com/tourism-minister-talks-up-liat-importance-to-discussions-with-major-airlines/

'"Efforts to maintain control and improve the efficiency of the Antigua-based carrier will likely increase over the course of the next few months, as Fernandez explained in Parliament yesterday, LIAT will play a critical role in the government’s negotiations with airlift partners. “Just last week, Aer Lingus contacted us and they want to fly to the Caribbean, so they will be offering a flight – Dublin, Manchester, Antigua. Of course, this is important for us because it will open up the northern part of England."'

Interesting, I wonder if they plan on taking up popular Caribbean routes previously flown by MT; ANU, BGI, UVF, MBJ, PUJ, HAV.

Zidane wrote:

David_itl wrote:

lWith a potential for Caribbean route(s) according to this https://antiguaobserver.com/tourism-minister-talks-up-liat-importance-to-discussions-with-major-airlines/

'"Efforts to maintain control and improve the efficiency of the Antigua-based carrier will likely increase over the course of the next few months, as Fernandez explained in Parliament yesterday, LIAT will play a critical role in the government’s negotiations with airlift partners. “Just last week, Aer Lingus contacted us and they want to fly to the Caribbean, so they will be offering a flight – Dublin, Manchester, Antigua. Of course, this is important for us because it will open up the northern part of England."'

Interesting, I wonder if they plan on taking up popular Caribbean routes previously flown by MT; ANU, BGI, UVF, MBJ, PUJ, HAV.

"Trusting the science" is like "believing in the bible". In this specific case, the science has been all over the place, from SAGE going for herd immunity to the CMO presenting the world's most amateurish powerpoint in a manner that anyone on my staff would never be allowed near a client again. From Imperial's Neil Ferguson's track record of not being close to being right on his estimates, see Foot & Mouth, to say "trust the science" isn't a strategy, it's a leap of faith. Ask 5 epidimiologists and you'll get 15 opinions, they're doing their best, but it's not a robust, reassuring science like physics.

https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/aer-lingu ... ster-27868

MAN-JFK
MAN- BOS
MAN-MCO
MAN-BGI announced

Haven't seen it elsewhere but TTG are reporting that MAN- USA flights are only available with a UK point of origin. Any ideas why? That's going to be a massive handicap isn't it?

Quote: "Flights from Manchester to the United States and Barbados are operated by Aer Lingus (UK) Limited. Flights from Manchester to the United States are for United Kingdom-originating traffic only. Sales are not available to persons in the United States."

bananaboy wrote:

”Flights from Manchester to the United States and Barbados are operated by Aer Lingus (UK) Limited. Flights from Manchester to the United States are for United Kingdom-originating traffic only. Sales are not available to persons in the United States."

The statement is on the Aer Lingus website. They probably haven’t received approval yet for US point-of-sale from the DOT, with Aer Lingus UK being a new company. It’s not the first time this has happened. Expect it to be only a temporary restriction.

Regards
CROSSWIND

The UK AOC flight is due to take place on Monday (an A321LR positioning in to conduct a 5 or 6 hour flight before returning to DUB). Dot the 'i's and cross the 'rt's then everyone can book. The US DOT only ratified the UK point of sale as the CAA were happy enough for it to go ahead and so granted a temporary authority to start selling sets with that condition with full authority to follow Though it has to be said that according to airliners.net wisdom, no-one in the States wants to visit Manchester

Crosswind wrote:

bananaboy wrote:

”Flights from Manchester to the United States and Barbados are operated by Aer Lingus (UK) Limited. Flights from Manchester to the United States are for United Kingdom-originating traffic only. Sales are not available to persons in the United States."

The statement is on the Aer Lingus website. They probably haven’t received approval yet for US point-of-sale from the DOT, with Aer Lingus UK being a new company. It’s not the first time this has happened. Expect it to be only a temporary restriction.

Regards
CROSSWIND

David_itl wrote:

The UK AOC flight is due to take place on Monday (an A321LR positioning in to conduct a 5 or 6 hour flight before returning to DUB). Dot the 'i's and cross the 'rt's then everyone can book. The US DOT only ratified the UK point of sale as the CAA were happy enough for it to go ahead and so granted a temporary authority to start selling sets with that condition with full authority to follow Though it has to be said that according to airliners.net wisdom, no-one in the States wants to visit Manchester

Thank you.

skipness1E wrote:

gkirk wrote:

Could be a massive error of judgment launching this year.

If we get the beginnings of normality by 21st Jun as per the unlock plan, do we really want people off globetrotting overseas bringing back new strains from the US? Am hugely pro aviation but long haul in 2021 just screams wrong right now, the risk of locking down again as a result of a new imported strain concerns me.

After seeing what happened in Miami during spring back the thought of thousands of Brits jetting off to Florida doesn’t seem particularly wise. The US still has a very long way to go.

I doubt there will be enough to demand this summer for VS and EI to compete on these routes and even if international travel does resume I imagine a majority of people still have rolled over bookings with VS from last year.

AirBourne wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

gkirk wrote:

Could be a massive error of judgment launching this year.

If we get the beginnings of normality by 21st Jun as per the unlock plan, do we really want people off globetrotting overseas bringing back new strains from the US? Am hugely pro aviation but long haul in 2021 just screams wrong right now, the risk of locking down again as a result of a new imported strain concerns me.

After seeing what happened in Miami during spring back the thought of thousands of Brits jetting off to Florida doesn’t seem particularly wise. The US still has a very long way to go.

I doubt there will be enough to demand this summer for VS and EI to compete on these routes and even if international travel does resume I imagine a majority of people still have rolled over bookings with VS from last year.

It will depend on two things: -

* The UK not having the USA on its "red list" and whatever is announced in the framework for travel in early-April that involves quarantining
* The USA reopening its borders to those travelling from the UK

I must admit, I don't have the appetite to travel abroad this year due to the very limited options and the changing of requirements to self-isolate upon arrival from a given country at a moment's notice as seen last year. I yearn to travel, but frankly there's not much to enjoy when it comes to travelling within a pandemic and I would rather sit this year out once again in the hope things are closer to normal come 2022. I'm also yet to receive my first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, so if proof of vaccination becomes mandatory that will limit my options in the interim.

That said, I am under no doubt there are people out there who are keen to travel at the first opportunity. Each to their own.

David_itl wrote:

Though it has to be said that according to airliners.net wisdom, no-one in the States wants to visit Manchester

It's not Edinburgh, thats for sure

I would not hold out for much success with EI's gateway to the US and Caribbean from Manchester. Over time it has become clear that US-MAN-US routes generally do not work well, in spite of MAN's significant catchment area. One by one, carriers have dropped routes in the market. VS seems to have made a business of it pre-pandemic (flying out of MAN to some US destinations) because it needed a place to fly those 747s outside of the traditional season for travel to the Caribbean. The 321LR's size makes it a lower risk option for sure, as there really is nowhere else to fly them from. DUB's traffic can't grow much right now given the pandemic, SNN is effectively shut as an EI gateway. There are so many COVID and non-COVID challenges with this service from EI. Time will tell, but I don't see these routes lasting beyond a few months.

Boeing74741R wrote:

AirBourne wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

If we get the beginnings of normality by 21st Jun as per the unlock plan, do we really want people off globetrotting overseas bringing back new strains from the US? Am hugely pro aviation but long haul in 2021 just screams wrong right now, the risk of locking down again as a result of a new imported strain concerns me.

After seeing what happened in Miami during spring back the thought of thousands of Brits jetting off to Florida doesn’t seem particularly wise. The US still has a very long way to go.

I doubt there will be enough to demand this summer for VS and EI to compete on these routes and even if international travel does resume I imagine a majority of people still have rolled over bookings with VS from last year.

It will depend on two things: -

* The UK not having the USA on its "red list" and whatever is announced in the framework for travel in early-April that involves quarantining
* The USA reopening its borders to those travelling from the UK

I must admit, I don't have the appetite to travel abroad this year due to the very limited options and the changing of requirements to self-isolate upon arrival from a given country at a moment's notice as seen last year. I yearn to travel, but frankly there's not much to enjoy when it comes to travelling within a pandemic and I would rather sit this year out once again in the hope things are closer to normal come 2022. I'm also yet to receive my first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, so if proof of vaccination becomes mandatory that will limit my options in the interim.

That said, I am under no doubt there are people out there who are keen to travel at the first opportunity. Each to their own.

On EI’s add yesterday for the new services it stated that the tickets were not available for booking for people located in the U.S. Surely means they still see a chance with it.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I would not hold out for much success with EI's gateway to the US and Caribbean from Manchester. Over time it has become clear that US-MAN-US routes generally do not work well, in spite of MAN's significant catchment area. One by one, carriers have dropped routes in the market. VS seems to have made a business of it pre-pandemic (flying out of MAN to some US destinations) because it needed a place to fly those 747s outside of the traditional season for travel to the Caribbean. The 321LR's size makes it a lower risk option for sure, as there really is nowhere else to fly them from. DUB's traffic can't grow much right now given the pandemic, SNN is effectively shut as an EI gateway. There are so many COVID and non-COVID challenges with this service from EI. Time will tell, but I don't see these routes lasting beyond a few months.

Prepare for incoming flak

gkirk wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I would not hold out for much success with EI's gateway to the US and Caribbean from Manchester. Over time it has become clear that US-MAN-US routes generally do not work well, in spite of MAN's significant catchment area. One by one, carriers have dropped routes in the market. VS seems to have made a business of it pre-pandemic (flying out of MAN to some US destinations) because it needed a place to fly those 747s outside of the traditional season for travel to the Caribbean. The 321LR's size makes it a lower risk option for sure, as there really is nowhere else to fly them from. DUB's traffic can't grow much right now given the pandemic, SNN is effectively shut as an EI gateway. There are so many COVID and non-COVID challenges with this service from EI. Time will tell, but I don't see these routes lasting beyond a few months.

Prepare for incoming flak

You're not allow to say out loud that Manchester to the US is a challenge. It's only a matter of time now until someone brings up how this is due to airlines flying the same old routes (MCO, JFK etc. - where there is demand btw. outside Covid) instead of trying DTW with 0 P2P demand

Manchester to the US can work - if you can make money without overly relying on business travel (and you have no where better to stick your planes)

I'd imagine EI has data about demand from its existing services from Manchester to the USA via Dublin. It might just be a case of adding a stop in MAN to a few of their US bound flights and if it doesn't work out, going back to flying direct. It's just a 30m flight from DUB to MAN.

If an Arline can make the West of Ireland to NYC and BOS work year-round (or nearly year-round), they should be able to make these particular routes work too. BOS is probably more marginal, but the A321LR is supposed to be the ideal aircraft for this kind of thing. The semi-decent connecting opportunities at BOS and JFK wont hurt either, but wont be the predominant market.
On the negative side Aer Lingus isn't the obvious brand to fly between the Caribbean and Manchester - but if the holidays are mainly sold by tour operators I don't think this will be a huge issue. All of that said EI have tried bases outside Ireland before - much like BA these tend to wither on the vine when better opportunities arise at DUB/LHR. Let's see what happens this time around.

It's predicated on volume, basically SNN is closed until God knows when and DUB is quite heavily reliant on business travel. MAN-US can in theory, offer high volumes of British tourists which will keep revenue coming in for Aer Lingus while business travel decides what it's going to be in 2022.

MAN-MCO is massively UK point of sale biased though. I remain doubtful that mum and dad really fancy heading to the House of Mouse with the kids on a flight where facemasks must be worn for 9 hours solid. Certainly not something I'd be paying hundreds of pounds to endure. MAN-BGI did OK for Thomson and Virgin, I don't imagine either will take this lying down. Winter bookings to Bridgetown are brave given I have little doubt there will be huge pressure to lock down once seasonal Coronavirus returns again in winter, which like flu used to before it vanished completely, it will.

Something else: There are several posters mentioning Oneworld. Aer Lingus is not joining Oneworld. They have joined the transatlantic joint venture with AA, BA, AY, and IB, all of which are in Oneworld, but fellow Oneworld member AS is not included in the JV. Maybe this is the time for Aer Lingus to rejoin Oneworld.

skipness1E wrote:

It's predicated on volume, basically SNN is closed until God knows when and DUB is quite heavily reliant on business travel. MAN-US can in theory, offer high volumes of British tourists which will keep revenue coming in for Aer Lingus while business travel decides what it's going to be in 2022.

MAN-MCO is massively UK point of sale biased though. I remain doubtful that mum and dad really fancy heading to the House of Mouse with the kids on a flight where facemasks must be worn for 9 hours solid. Certainly not something I'd be paying hundreds of pounds to endure. MAN-BGI did OK for Thomson and Virgin, I don't imagine either will take this lying down. Winter bookings to Bridgetown are brave given I have little doubt there will be huge pressure to lock down once seasonal Coronavirus returns again in winter, which like flu used to before it vanished completely, it will.

I had a 12 hour flight recently, plenty of kids with masks on. If the prospect is seeing Mickey F’n Mouse they will keep their mask on and deal with it I’ve no doubt!

MIflyer12 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

gkirk wrote:

Prepare for incoming flak

You're not allow to say out loud that Manchester to the US is a challenge. It's only a matter of time now until someone brings up how this is due to airlines flying the same old routes (MCO, JFK etc. - where there is demand btw. outside Covid) instead of trying DTW with 0 P2P demand

Manchester to the US can work - if you can make money without overly relying on business travel (and you have no where better to stick your planes)

That's a big if.

Hamburg, too. All the eligible carriers of the world are missing what a big TATL prize is Hamburg!

It would be interesting to see avg fare paid by nationality on MAN-JFK/BOS. Yes, you can get Mancunians to Florida (and Las Vegas). New Yorkers to MAN? Good luck.

Bit shortsighted no? How about Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool etc. Are you suggesting Americans won’t go there neither? Guess all those US carriers, plus connections on EU airlines to northern UK cities are ALL for the locals then?

Westerwaelder wrote:

Manchester to the US can work - if you can make money without overly relying on business travel (and you have no where better to stick your planes)

There are many very successful airlines who don't rely on business travel. The world doesn't revolve around and I'd suggest some are going to find that out.

I think that folk forget that Manchester United and City bring in huge loads of international guests to Manchester to watch them play games (pre-covid anyway) in that folk do travel to manchester football related. Don't forget that market. But not just manchester teams, liverpool too.

Anyways, surprised at Aer Lingus not having an attempt of Manchester - Islamabad, PIA is only serving a few days a week and Virgin I believe is 4 weekly? enough pie to go around. I know that BA had intentions of Manchester-Gatwick for the sole reason, to connect with its potential Gatwick-Islamabad service but even then thats not come to fruition yet.

RvA wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

You're not allow to say out loud that Manchester to the US is a challenge. It's only a matter of time now until someone brings up how this is due to airlines flying the same old routes (MCO, JFK etc. - where there is demand btw. outside Covid) instead of trying DTW with 0 P2P demand

Manchester to the US can work - if you can make money without overly relying on business travel (and you have no where better to stick your planes)

That's a big if.

Hamburg, too. All the eligible carriers of the world are missing what a big TATL prize is Hamburg!

It would be interesting to see avg fare paid by nationality on MAN-JFK/BOS. Yes, you can get Mancunians to Florida (and Las Vegas). New Yorkers to MAN? Good luck.

Bit shortsighted no? How about Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool etc. Are you suggesting Americans won’t go there neither? Guess all those US carriers, plus connections on EU airlines to northern UK cities are ALL for the locals then?

I would consider arguing so.

VisitBritain (https://www.visitbritain.org/nation-region-county-data?area=5010&country=2250) has aggregated data for visits, which can be sorted by country + region. Note that visits can count more than once — so, for a hypothetical tourist spending two nights in London, two nights in Cambridge, and a night in Edinburgh, they are added to the tallies not only for London, but also for Central England and for Scotland. They also note that regional counts are somewhat unstable, so take this with a grain of salt.

In 2019, there were 4.5 million US visitors to the UK as a whole, and 87% of those visits (3.9 million) included a visit to London.

Even if expanding the catchment area of a MAN flight to include Central England (425k US visitors), the North Country (392k US visitors) and Wales (121k US visitors), that still only totals to just under a million total American visits (938k). That's right: only 22% of US visits to the UK included what I'd consider a generous MAN catchment area, and that includes the university-goers in Cambridge alongside those visiting Penny Lane in Liverpool.

And, I know what the inevitable argument is: 938k visitors is a sizable number, certainly enough to support a few transatlantic flights. But, considering the fact that, with all regions tallied, there were about 6 million total visits by Americans to all UK regions for only 4.5 million people, there's also a significant amount of region-hopping occurring within these visits. And, with Americans' London-centric visiting patterns in mind, I think it's likely that many of those 938k visits were jaunts up from London for a Beatles tour or Manchester United game, not full-blown vacations that involved flying in/out of MAN. After all, I'd certainly consider flying into Heathrow and taking the train up first, not flying into MAN and taking the train down.

Are there Americans who visit the parts of Britain that could be served by a MAN flight? Sure, certainly there are a few.

But, with their mindset and vacation patterns in mind, would many of them fly into MAN for that purpose? I'd argue, likely not.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I would not hold out for much success with EI's gateway to the US and Caribbean from Manchester. Over time it has become clear that US-MAN-US routes generally do not work well, in spite of MAN's significant catchment area. .......

I cant argue with you point. It is certainly true based on past operations.
I would point out that EI are a very cautious airline. They dont do risk very often. And with their 'DUBHUB' operation over the last 10 years gaining market awareness in the UK with their operation to the USA they must have good numbers on the benefits of MAN-BGI. And EI are a very cost efficient airline as well, their operating costs are equal to many low cost operators.
But with the current global situation we could very well see it discontinued after March 2022.

superjeff wrote:

Something else: There are several posters mentioning Oneworld. Aer Lingus is not joining Oneworld. They have joined the transatlantic joint venture with AA, BA, AY, and IB, all of which are in Oneworld, but fellow Oneworld member AS is not included in the JV. Maybe this is the time for Aer Lingus to rejoin Oneworld.

Correct. The J/V is not prelude to rejoining OneWorld. EI are happy to stay outside the alliance.

Eagleboy wrote:

But with the current global situation we could very well see it discontinued after March 2022.

Seeing that "Boston will be launched in Summer 2022" features prominently in the blurb and that this is a minimum 3 year deal (per all what was stated last year) with 5 aircraft (per the Irish press) we can safely rule that out. I sometimes wonder about the ultracrepidarians about how much they really know about the MAN market or aviation in general. We are told that MAN has no business market as it's heavily. skewered towards leisure travel so it makes sense to cut MAN. We are also told that business travel will be going on the backburner for the foreseeable future yet no-one bats an eyelid when United announces a non-hub to non-hub route in BOS-LHR with a premium heavy aircraft, We are now told that MAN, the apparent bastion of leisure travel, wont be able to sustain leisure routes on an airline that has a wealth of data of where people routed to over DUB and where they know there are a large but now underserved markets whose main leisure -focused airline (no course for far larger profits rhan EI) was an unfortunate casualty of the overall group failing. In the meantime, we can read about the background here https://www.anna.aero/2021/03/25/aer-lingus-to-craic-non-stop-uk-us-market-data-showcases-recent-dub-hub-success/

kxngb wrote:

Anyways, surprised at Aer Lingus not having an attempt of Manchester - Islamabad, PIA is only serving a few days a week and Virgin I believe is 4 weekly? enough pie to go around. I know that BA had intentions of Manchester-Gatwick for the sole reason, to connect with its potential Gatwick-Islamabad service but even then thats not come to fruition yet.

Well I think I can safely say there’s zero chance of this happening

N664US wrote:

I would consider arguing so.

VisitBritain (https://www.visitbritain.org/nation-region-county-data?area=5010&country=2250) has aggregated data for visits, which can be sorted by country + region. Note that visits can count more than once — so, for a hypothetical tourist spending two nights in London, two nights in Cambridge, and a night in Edinburgh, they are added to the tallies not only for London, but also for Central England and for Scotland. They also note that regional counts are somewhat unstable, so take this with a grain of salt.

In 2019, there were 4.5 million US visitors to the UK as a whole, and 87% of those visits (3.9 million) included a visit to London.

Even if expanding the catchment area of a MAN flight to include Central England (425k US visitors), the North Country (392k US visitors) and Wales (121k US visitors), that still only totals to just under a million total American visits (938k). That's right: only 22% of US visits to the UK included what I'd consider a generous MAN catchment area, and that includes the university-goers in Cambridge alongside those visiting Penny Lane in Liverpool.

And, I know what the inevitable argument is: 938k visitors is a sizable number, certainly enough to support a few transatlantic flights. But, considering the fact that, with all regions tallied, there were about 6 million total visits by Americans to all UK regions for only 4.5 million people, there's also a significant amount of region-hopping occurring within these visits. And, with Americans' London-centric visiting patterns in mind, I think it's likely that many of those 938k visits were jaunts up from London for a Beatles tour or Manchester United game, not full-blown vacations that involved flying in/out of MAN. After all, I'd certainly consider flying into Heathrow and taking the train up first, not flying into MAN and taking the train down.

Are there Americans who visit the parts of Britain that could be served by a MAN flight? Sure, certainly there are a few.

But, with their mindset and vacation patterns in mind, would many of them fly into MAN for that purpose? I'd argue, likely not.

It’s perfect sense to the rest of us, but sadly most Manchester related topics are fraught with emotion. At the expense of facts.

And before I say more... I will say I’m a Northern lad, all my childhood holiday flights were from Manchester, and my first aviation job was for a Manchester based airline, and was based at Manchester. And I loved every minute of it.

Manchester is a big volume market. No doubt.
And it’s a sizeable Trans Atlantic market. No doubt.
But the flows on Trans Atlantic are largely UK outbound. And focused on price sensitive customers. No doubt.

Yes there is some business. And some premium leisure. No doubt.

But aircraft are assets that you use where they make the most profit. For the size of the market Manchester has done well over the years on the US routes. But the hard truth is this... in isolation routes initially did well. American’s ORD route started in 1986, by 1992 it was their first European MD-11 flight, plus a second daily 767. Reportedly their most profitable European route. As time went on more US airlines came... but because people weren’t flying to Chicago, Atlanta, Washington etc they just tore up each other’s markets. That’s the problem. All the different US hub routes just compete with each other - despite looking like they’re going to different places, the final destinations of UK passengers are generally the same. So the very profitable American flight in 1992 was loss making in 2019 because people leaked over other hubs.

And many here herald Thomas Cook as a resounding success. And maybe it was, but they picked the dense point-to-point mainly UK origin routes, which badly hurt the US carriers’ hub traffic. And BA hub traffic via LHR for that matter.

It’s a finite market... just because your incumbents like United, Delta, American were all busy and profitable to their hubs... they’re not immune to someone else adding a load of hub-bypass capacity. When that happened the sums didn’t add up for many of them.

As to the BA bashing... they had their own terminal at Manchester. And a sizeable fleet based there. In the late 1990s mainly brand new 737-300s and EMB-145s. Serving mainly business destinations, at the time that’s what BA did. Leisure was for charter airlines. As the low cost and leisure airlines grew... BA tried to defend their traditional turf; Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Edinburgh, Milan, Zurich. The problem was that BA were really only doing point to point... whereas the likes of Swissair, Lufthansa and KLM could capitalise on their hubs to make their competing service work.

If BA had dropped all the regional/business stuff and shifted to the premium leisure market in the early 2000s, maybe they’d still be there. But even 20 years later they’re only just going into premium leisure properly at Heathrow. Until very recently it was confined to the odd weekend charter and Gatwick.

BA didn’t close their hub at Manchester because it was too profitable. On long-haul they carried on JFK to the bitter end, and attempted Barbados, Hong Kong, Islamabad, Los Angeles, and Orlando. It’d say Manchester-Los Angeles in 1993 on a 767 was pretty out there. If they weren’t interested in Manchester why would they bother starting it?

American Airlines are said to have sabotaged their Manchester flights. Well over the years, they flew to Chicago mainly, and Philadelphia after the merger. But they also tried Boston, New York JFK, Dallas/Ft Worth and Miami... often more than one attempt at each route. Is that an airline that wasn’t trying? I think AA really have given Manchester their all over the years. More than any other carrier, AA were desperate for it to work. They messed around at the end, but you have to assume because it wasn’t making money. Or it would have been protected in terms of equipment used and cancellations. Even United are now gone and not coming back under their current plans.

As far as BA interfering with their partners to withdraw from Manchester... In the 1990s the Qantas Manchester flights came via Heathrow in both directions, and the Cathay Pacific flights were via Amsterdam/Frankfurt/Zurich. So of course when they entered partnership with BA they stopped. Why would you fly a three-quarter empty 747 on a 1 hour leg when your partner has regular flights on that route? Perfect business sense for the airlines, and not massive difference to the passenger. These 1990s era flights were multi-stop anyway. But it annoyed the spotters who wanted to see Qantas, or Cathay Pacific aircraft at Manchester. On the flip side probably improved the contribution of BAs O&D reliant services to those places at the time.

It would be great for T3 British Airways to still be a hub. But I think we have to accept that the reason it’s not now, is due to market forces and evolution. Not sinister intent on BA’s part. To continue to assert that doesn’t aid credibility.

After all, after the sale of the Manchester network to Flybe, did things get any better? And that was an airline that was almost exclusively non-London.

I just believe we should move on from attacking any airline that didn’t make Manchester work as a failure on their part. Some have made it work, some have done very well, others didn’t make it work. But many of the latter gave it a good go over the years.

Take Care
CROSSWIND

Eagleboy wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I would not hold out for much success with EI's gateway to the US and Caribbean from Manchester. Over time it has become clear that US-MAN-US routes generally do not work well, in spite of MAN's significant catchment area. .......

I cant argue with you point. It is certainly true based on past operations.
I would point out that EI are a very cautious airline. They dont do risk very often. And with their 'DUBHUB' operation over the last 10 years gaining market awareness in the UK with their operation to the USA they must have good numbers on the benefits of MAN-BGI. And EI are a very cost efficient airline as well, their operating costs are equal to many low cost operators.
But with the current global situation we could very well see it discontinued after March 2022.

superjeff wrote:

Something else: There are several posters mentioning Oneworld. Aer Lingus is not joining Oneworld. They have joined the transatlantic joint venture with AA, BA, AY, and IB, all of which are in Oneworld, but fellow Oneworld member AS is not included in the JV. Maybe this is the time for Aer Lingus to rejoin Oneworld.

Correct. The J/V is not prelude to rejoining OneWorld. EI are happy to stay outside the alliance.

Some good points raised on EI. I think the 321LR's take some of the risk off but the challenges are going to be there. The aviation landscape will potentially look very different a year from now.

The success of Thomas Cook demonstrates the challenge of the market. It was overwhelmingly UK point of sale, which succeeded in taking market share from the US network carriers which hastened their downsizing, Virgin was similarly successful. The market is UK outbound centric, not to say that Americans don't come in numbers, of course they do, but not in the balance and mix the US majors want. Hence United and American left and Delta handed over to Virgin. Interestingly American still plan on serving EDI, on the B788, now I suspect it won't operate this year, but it demonstrates the need for a stronger outbound market from the US IMHO.
So Aer Lingus might be exactly the right fit for MAN, unlike BMI, they're not super keen to be elsewhere.

Just read Crosswind's very eloquent post, very well said.

Eirules wrote:

kxngb wrote:

Anyways, surprised at Aer Lingus not having an attempt of Manchester - Islamabad, PIA is only serving a few days a week and Virgin I believe is 4 weekly? enough pie to go around. I know that BA had intentions of Manchester-Gatwick for the sole reason, to connect with its potential Gatwick-Islamabad service but even then thats not come to fruition yet.

Well I think I can safely say there’s zero chance of this happening

How so? There was zero chance of Virgin flying to Islamabad from Manchester but there you have it. Don't be surprised if it does.

superjeff wrote:

Something else: There are several posters mentioning Oneworld. Aer Lingus is not joining Oneworld. They have joined the transatlantic joint venture with AA, BA, AY, and IB, all of which are in Oneworld, but fellow Oneworld member AS is not included in the JV. Maybe this is the time for Aer Lingus to rejoin Oneworld.

The question is, now that Aer Lingus is owned by IAG, why are they not joining OneWorld?

I get why before the IAG purchase, but I don't see why not now.

David_itl wrote:

Eagleboy wrote:

But with the current global situation we could very well see it discontinued after March 2022.

Seeing that "Boston will be launched in Summer 2022" features prominently in the blurb and that this is a minimum 3 year deal (per all what was stated last year) with 5 aircraft (per the Irish press) we can safely rule that out. I sometimes wonder about the ultracrepidarians about how much they really know about the MAN market or aviation in general. We are told that MAN has no business market as it's heavily. skewered towards leisure travel so it makes sense to cut MAN. We are also told that business travel will be going on the backburner for the foreseeable future yet no-one bats an eyelid when United announces a non-hub to non-hub route in BOS-LHR with a premium heavy aircraft, We are now told that MAN, the apparent bastion of leisure travel, wont be able to sustain leisure routes on an airline that has a wealth of data of where people routed to over DUB and where they know there are a large but now underserved markets whose main leisure -focused airline (no course for far larger profits rhan EI) was an unfortunate casualty of the overall group failing. In the meantime, we can read about the background here https://www.anna.aero/2021/03/25/aer-lingus-to-craic-non-stop-uk-us-market-data-showcases-recent-dub-hub-success/

We are also told that Manchester has a shaky US service level particularly into New York; ill always point out that in the last SIXTY years (COVID19 effect excluded) there has been just under 4 years without scheduled flights between the city pairs and those four years were as a result of the Laker crash . Even in those four years twice weekly schedule charters were maintained by British Airtours ( using the BA authority) .
Few European capital cities can even say that .

Detroit313 wrote:

superjeff wrote:

Something else: There are several posters mentioning Oneworld. Aer Lingus is not joining Oneworld. They have joined the transatlantic joint venture with AA, BA, AY, and IB, all of which are in Oneworld, but fellow Oneworld member AS is not included in the JV. Maybe this is the time for Aer Lingus to rejoin Oneworld.

The question is, now that Aer Lingus is owned by IAG, why are they not joining OneWorld?

I get why before the IAG purchase, but I don't see why not now.

Why Oneworld brings costs and little else benefit to Aer Lingus , a group carrier that has a healthy network of EU routes from Dublin , a niche North Atlantic business and a full code share and close marketing arrangement with BA .and AA . Need the personal bribes offered by the Alliance use them.

It’s interesting that people say MAN is driven by leisure traffic. That’s true, but the majority of aviation travel is leisure, not business as is assumed. Heathrow has about 60% leisure, which is right at the bottom of the range. U.K. wide and in the US 80% of travel is leisure/holiday/VFR.
What’s clear is that MAN needs a different product mix and advertising focus from London. That’s not to say it can’t work - but beware of a finate market where frequency is not a huge driver. EI has advantages with their cost base and access to avois database. I’m not sure the brand is 100% right, but it does have recognition and a good history. If TCX was as profitable as claimed on here, there’s a good chance for these routes.