USAirALB wrote:

MAN is shocking to me.

PHL-MAN was one of US's most profitable TATL routes, and was one of the first routes to see the A333 upon the types introduction in 2000. When other destinations were seasonally down-gauged to a 762 MAN was consistently an A333, and I've been told that the route had a number of corporate contracts. US also ran CLT-MAN for a season with a 752...supposedly the flight performed well but did not return after the merger was finalized.

After the AA merger, ORD-MAN went from a 763 to a 752 before being dropped, dropped JFK-MAN, and PHL-MAN went from an A333 to an A332 to a 787 before also being dropped. I wonder what happened.

USAirALB wrote:

MAN is shocking to me.

PHL-MAN was one of US's most profitable TATL routes, and was one of the first routes to see the A333 upon the types introduction in 2000. When other destinations were seasonally down-gauged to a 762 MAN was consistently an A333, and I've been told that the route had a number of corporate contracts. US also ran CLT-MAN for a season with a 752...supposedly the flight performed well but did not return after the merger was finalized.

After the AA merger, ORD-MAN went from a 763 to a 752 before being dropped, dropped JFK-MAN, and PHL-MAN went from an A333 to an A332 to a 787 before also being dropped. I wonder what happened.

USAirALB wrote:

MAN is shocking to me.

PHL-MAN was one of US's most profitable TATL routes, and was one of the first routes to see the A333 upon the types introduction in 2000. When other destinations were seasonally down-gauged to a 762 MAN was consistently an A333, and I've been told that the route had a number of corporate contracts. US also ran CLT-MAN for a season with a 752...supposedly the flight performed well but did not return after the merger was finalized.

After the AA merger, ORD-MAN went from a 763 to a 752 before being dropped, dropped JFK-MAN, and PHL-MAN went from an A333 to an A332 to a 787 before also being dropped. I wonder what happened.

Pi7472000 wrote:

I am not surprised they are cut at all. I am surprised there are not more cuts. It will take a while to get this vaccine up and running to where boarders will even open this summer without quarantine. I could see just LHR, CDG, FRA for the summer.

by738 wrote:

Yet EDI apparently continues with 787’s.... something not right there.

N292UX wrote:

Looking forward to seeing those B6 A321XLRs arriving in Manchester in 2022

by738 wrote:

Yet EDI apparently continues with 787’s.... something not right there.

aviator2000 wrote:

by738 wrote:

Yet EDI apparently continues with 787’s.... something not right there.

That's what I thought. I'm not really familiar with the region, but wouldn't it make more sense to drop EDI before MAN?

Cointrin330 wrote:

Also, KEF was flown on a 757. These are now gone from the fleet. The smallest wide body at AA (788) is too much plane for that route anyway. Some of these aren't coming back until the A321XLR's arrive.

Blerg wrote:

Didn't they also fly PHL-BUD? Would be surprising if Prague was cut but Budapest wasn't.

I have a feeling Athens will also be cut especially if Greece keeps its restrictions in place.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

by738 wrote:

Yet EDI apparently continues with 787’s.... something not right there.

aviator2000 wrote:

AA started flying to PRG and VCE in 2018 only, so it's not entirely surprising to see themi cut, even though they are primarily leisure routes.

usflyer msp wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

by738 wrote:

Yet EDI apparently continues with 787’s.... something not right there.

aviator2000 wrote:

AA started flying to PRG and VCE in 2018 only, so it's not entirely surprising to see themi cut, even though they are primarily leisure routes.

US launched PHL-VCE in 2005. It is a very well established.eoute.

aerace wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

US launched PHL-VCE in 2005. It is a very well established.eoute.

And VCE relies heavily on cruise traffic. We all know where that market is right now.

Cointrin330 wrote:

Not at all surprising as as KEF and PRG are leisure routes. The MAN cut is a bit surprising though it does further illustrate (as was discussed in the EI starting MAN-BOS/JFK/MCO flights) that the market doesn't really work well and isn't profitable.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Also, KEF was flown on a 757. These are now gone from the fleet. The smallest wide body at AA (788) is too much plane for that route anyway. Some of these aren't coming back until the A321XLR's arrive.

AA can operate to KEF from the east coast with a standard B738, A319 or A320. No need for a MAX, NEO, LR or XLR, and no need for ETOPS either.

AC has been flying standard non-ETOPS, non-sharklet A319s to KEF from YYZ/YUL. So it's definitely doable if they wanted to keep KEF. I guess it's not a priority for now.

David_itl wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Not at all surprising as as KEF and PRG are leisure routes. The MAN cut is a bit surprising though it does further illustrate (as was discussed in the EI starting MAN-BOS/JFK/MCO flights) that the market doesn't really work well and isn't profitable.

NO it does not.at all. The route started in 1998 and got upgraded to A330s inside 9 months due to the pointy end bit of the 767 being filled. That AA has run down JFK, ORD and PHL by putting on inferior aircraft then introducing an unreliable aircraft before really going after the regular premium payer by messing around with the frequency tells us all about how serious AA has been about MAN ops since getting into bed with BA. If the MAN market isn't there for profitable transatlantic ops, why was Thomas Cook Airlines projected to make £115 million profit predominately on the back of point to point long-haul traffic ex-MAN with no business class?

David_itl wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Not at all surprising as as KEF and PRG are leisure routes. The MAN cut is a bit surprising though it does further illustrate (as was discussed in the EI starting MAN-BOS/JFK/MCO flights) that the market doesn't really work well and isn't profitable.

NO it does not.at all. The route started in 1998 and got upgraded to A330s inside 9 months due to the pointy end bit of the 767 being filled. That AA has run down JFK, ORD and PHL by putting on inferior aircraft then introducing an unreliable aircraft before really going after the regular premium payer by messing around with the frequency tells us all about how serious AA has been about MAN ops since getting into bed with BA. If the MAN market isn't there for profitable transatlantic ops, why was Thomas Cook Airlines projected to make £115 million profit predominately on the back of point to point long-haul traffic ex-MAN with no business class?

Skyblue39 wrote:

Why with all the constant excuses when a route gets pulled? Constantly trying to justify it’s the airlines fault for equipment changes? Seems like Manchester is the only airport this happens to. The reality is that AA, UA and DL have pulled out entirely of Manchester on their own metal. Either every single route they’ve pulled (ORD, JFK, CLT, PHL, EWR, IAD is the airlines fault for putting wrong EQP or frequency changes on these routes, or the market is just simply not there. Please stop with blaming the airlines, it’s becoming silly now at this point. MAN is unable to sustain so many TATL routes and can easily pass traffic via LHR/DUB/AMS air with VS.

David_itl wrote:

Skyblue39 wrote:

Why with all the constant excuses when a route gets pulled? Constantly trying to justify it’s the airlines fault for equipment changes? Seems like Manchester is the only airport this happens to. The reality is that AA, UA and DL have pulled out entirely of Manchester on their own metal. Either every single route they’ve pulled (ORD, JFK, CLT, PHL, EWR, IAD is the airlines fault for putting wrong EQP or frequency changes on these routes, or the market is just simply not there. Please stop with blaming the airlines, it’s becoming silly now at this point. MAN is unable to sustain so many TATL routes and can easily pass traffic via LHR/DUB/AMS air with VS.

Except the market is there. The longevity of the routes TELLS us that the market is there. That 1 airline ACTIVELY TELLS US that they are looking at expanding operations TELLS US THE MARKET IS THERE. That one of the routes never stood a chance is not about MAN but about an airlnie merger. That we in the MAN area have seen routes ruined by what those airlines have done appears to not even compute in some people's minds

Tell me, if you were a business traveller whose job was within 20 minutes of MAN and your main export market was around the PHL area. You regularly flew the route WITH ZERO PROBLEMS when USAirways was around then AA takes them over and all of a sudden you don't know if your flight will run next week, you don't know if your flight turns up on time, you don't know if you will be getting a shabby aircraft. Would YOU book the non-stop flight or do as they want you to do and go over LHR? I repeat. Thomas Cook Airlines was on course for £115 million profit from principally the lack-of-yield backwater operation to mostly leisure destination from a base where it appears some people think only country bumpkins live And if the market isn't there, EXACTLY WHY is Aer Lingus going to run routes that have no earthly chance of making money as you, the shining light of the world, have decided that MAN cannot sustain routes. And if EI takes over the PHL run, does this not TOTALLY destroy the idea that MAN doesn't work?

David_itl wrote:

Skyblue39 wrote:

Why with all the constant excuses when a route gets pulled? Constantly trying to justify it’s the airlines fault for equipment changes? Seems like Manchester is the only airport this happens to. The reality is that AA, UA and DL have pulled out entirely of Manchester on their own metal. Either every single route they’ve pulled (ORD, JFK, CLT, PHL, EWR, IAD is the airlines fault for putting wrong EQP or frequency changes on these routes, or the market is just simply not there. Please stop with blaming the airlines, it’s becoming silly now at this point. MAN is unable to sustain so many TATL routes and can easily pass traffic via LHR/DUB/AMS air with VS.

Except the market is there. The longevity of the routes TELLS us that the market is there. That 1 airline ACTIVELY TELLS US that they are looking at expanding operations TELLS US THE MARKET IS THERE. That one of the routes never stood a chance is not about MAN but about an airlnie merger. That we in the MAN area have seen routes ruined by what those airlines have done appears to not even compute in some people's minds

Tell me, if you were a business traveller whose job was within 20 minutes of MAN and your main export market was around the PHL area. You regularly flew the route WITH ZERO PROBLEMS when USAirways was around then AA takes them over and all of a sudden you don't know if your flight will run next week, you don't know if your flight turns up on time, you don't know if you will be getting a shabby aircraft. Would YOU book the non-stop flight or do as they want you to do and go over LHR? I repeat. Thomas Cook Airlines was on course for £115 million profit from principally the lack-of-yield backwater operation to mostly leisure destination from a base where it appears some people think only country bumpkins live And if the market isn't there, EXACTLY WHY is Aer Lingus going to run routes that have no earthly chance of making money as you, the shining light of the world, have decided that MAN cannot sustain routes. And if EI takes over the PHL run, does this not TOTALLY destroy the idea that MAN doesn't work?

aviator2000 wrote:

by738 wrote:

Yet EDI apparently continues with 787’s.... something not right there.

That's what I thought. I'm not really familiar with the region, but wouldn't it make more sense to drop EDI before MAN?

David_itl wrote:

Except the market is there. The longevity of the routes TELLS us that the market is there. That 1 airline ACTIVELY TELLS US that they are looking at expanding operations TELLS US THE MARKET IS THERE. That one of the routes never stood a chance is not about MAN but about an airlnie merger. That we in the MAN area have seen routes ruined by what those airlines have done appears to not even compute in some people's minds

MIflyer12 wrote:

N292UX wrote:

Looking forward to seeing those B6 A321XLRs arriving in Manchester in 2022

If B6 can't find better destinations than MAN for its first few XLRs, it should move them from delivery right to a crusher and save the aggravation of trying to pretend TATL was a good idea. They can find decent numbers of MINT-paying customers to LON, PAR and MAD... MAN, I wouldn't bet on that.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AA can operate to KEF from the east coast with a standard B738, A319 or A320. No need for a MAX, NEO, LR or XLR, and no need for ETOPS either.

runway23 wrote:

David_itl wrote:

Except the market is there. The longevity of the routes TELLS us that the market is there. That 1 airline ACTIVELY TELLS US that they are looking at expanding operations TELLS US THE MARKET IS THERE. That one of the routes never stood a chance is not about MAN but about an airlnie merger. That we in the MAN area have seen routes ruined by what those airlines have done appears to not even compute in some people's minds

Let's just blame everything on the merger then and forget that a substantial part of the AA leadership is from US. Are you trying to say they are all conniving against MAN in hour long meetings ?

MAN has seen DL exit in favour of VS, AA in favour of EI (probably) and UA seems to believe it can serve the market otherwise. IMHO, it proves that MAN is best served with European brands and high density aircraft as it is POS skewed and fairly low yielding. For AA, it's not as if there aren't alternative options - DUB and LHR are very short flights from MAN.

MIflyer12 wrote:

N292UX wrote:

Looking forward to seeing those B6 A321XLRs arriving in Manchester in 2022

If B6 can't find better destinations than MAN for its first few XLRs, it should move them from delivery right to a crusher and save the aggravation of trying to pretend TATL was a good idea. They can find decent numbers of MINT-paying customers to LON, PAR and MAD... MAN, I wouldn't bet on that.

MAD isn't that high yielding market. If B6 is going after forward cabin pax they will try LON, PAR, AMS, FRA, MUC, ZRH, GVA, BRU, MXP first.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AA can operate to KEF from the east coast with a standard B738, A319 or A320. No need for a MAX, NEO, LR or XLR, and no need for ETOPS either.

Not sure if it has changed, but the trans-atlantic AA/BA JV used to have a clause whereby all carriers needed lie-flat on trans-atlantic flights. Even if the clause doesn't exist anymore, I'm not sure KEF is presently worth the effort.

runway23 wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

AA can operate to KEF from the east coast with a standard B738, A319 or A320. No need for a MAX, NEO, LR or XLR, and no need for ETOPS either.

Not sure if it has changed, but the trans-atlantic AA/BA JV used to have a clause whereby all carriers needed lie-flat on trans-atlantic flights. Even if the clause doesn't exist anymore, I'm not sure KEF is presently worth the effort.

aviator2000 wrote:

GVA, MUC, BRU, MXP before Madrid? Please... don't make me laugh..

runway23 wrote:

aviator2000 wrote:

GVA, MUC, BRU, MXP before Madrid? Please... don't make me laugh..

If B6 is going for premium traffic then yes, any of those before MAD. Go and look at the yield of MAD to the US compared to any of the destinations I listed, hint it isn't pretty.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

I more surprised they aren’t suspended but just outright cut.

MrPeanut wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

I more surprised they aren’t suspended but just outright cut.

Based on comments AA / Vasu Raja made last month, it sounds like seasonal European routes/destinations are at high risk of being cut for good. In exchange, AA will more heavily rely on partners BA/IB to funnel passengers to central / Eastern European destinations.

”The other thing is also, in long-haul international. Again, another strange thing which the travel segment which is down quite a lot too. But if you look at it in the history of American, any precursor company, whether it’s airways, AMR, you name it, we’ve always tended to struggle internationally with a low exception of Latin America.

And that is something we anticipate changing materially coming out of here. So that we’ve talked about Alaska and JetBlue and we have the same opportunity in TransAtlantic and in TransPacific. That they we’ve oriented our network, the way in which we’ve configured our airplanes, the way in which we’ve endeavored to go and win business into our system hasn’t been able to produce consistently profitable international results.

But we deploy a lot of expense internationally, those live bodies cost a lot of money. So, the first part of that, like we talked about is being a lot more efficient with fleet deployment. So, we can deploy fewer airplanes to produce the same revenue. But the other thing is, is deploying them in a way we can generate year round revenues and we anticipate a lot of things both in how we connect in our partner hubs in Heathrow, Madrid....”

This all ties into AA moving into T5 at Heathrow. The T3 to T5 transfer was a very weak link for AA/BA, especially since DL/KL and UA/LH both operate out of the same terminal complex at AMS and FRA (that being said, CDG is almost as bad as Heathrow). Now with everything under one roof, it will drastically reduce MCT to streamline connections. I believe AA and IB were already co-located at MAD as well, and AA has four daily flights (JFK, MIA, DFW, PHL plus CLT seasonally) to feed into Iberia's network. Now, Iberia's European network is nowhere near what BA offers, but they provide strong support of Spain, Portugal and France plus added flows into larger, more Central European cities.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/438981 ... -decisions

MrPeanut wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

I more surprised they aren’t suspended but just outright cut.

Based on comments AA / Vasu Raja made last month, it sounds like seasonal European routes/destinations are at high risk of being cut for good. In exchange, AA will more heavily rely on partners BA/IB to funnel passengers to central / Eastern European destinations.

”The other thing is also, in long-haul international. Again, another strange thing which the travel segment which is down quite a lot too. But if you look at it in the history of American, any precursor company, whether it’s airways, AMR, you name it, we’ve always tended to struggle internationally with a low exception of Latin America.

And that is something we anticipate changing materially coming out of here. So that we’ve talked about Alaska and JetBlue and we have the same opportunity in TransAtlantic and in TransPacific. That they we’ve oriented our network, the way in which we’ve configured our airplanes, the way in which we’ve endeavored to go and win business into our system hasn’t been able to produce consistently profitable international results.

But we deploy a lot of expense internationally, those live bodies cost a lot of money. So, the first part of that, like we talked about is being a lot more efficient with fleet deployment. So, we can deploy fewer airplanes to produce the same revenue. But the other thing is, is deploying them in a way we can generate year round revenues and we anticipate a lot of things both in how we connect in our partner hubs in Heathrow, Madrid....”

https://seekingalpha.com/article/438981 ... -decisions

David_itl wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Not at all surprising as as KEF and PRG are leisure routes. The MAN cut is a bit surprising though it does further illustrate (as was discussed in the EI starting MAN-BOS/JFK/MCO flights) that the market doesn't really work well and isn't profitable.

NO it does not.at all. The route started in 1998 and got upgraded to A330s inside 9 months due to the pointy end bit of the 767 being filled. That AA has run down JFK, ORD and PHL by putting on inferior aircraft then introducing an unreliable aircraft before really going after the regular premium payer by messing around with the frequency tells us all about how serious AA has been about MAN ops since getting into bed with BA. If the MAN market isn't there for profitable transatlantic ops, why was Thomas Cook Airlines projected to make £115 million profit predominately on the back of point to point long-haul traffic ex-MAN with no business class?

bourbon wrote:

David_itl wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Not at all surprising as as KEF and PRG are leisure routes. The MAN cut is a bit surprising though it does further illustrate (as was discussed in the EI starting MAN-BOS/JFK/MCO flights) that the market doesn't really work well and isn't profitable.

NO it does not.at all. The route started in 1998 and got upgraded to A330s inside 9 months due to the pointy end bit of the 767 being filled. That AA has run down JFK, ORD and PHL by putting on inferior aircraft then introducing an unreliable aircraft before really going after the regular premium payer by messing around with the frequency tells us all about how serious AA has been about MAN ops since getting into bed with BA. If the MAN market isn't there for profitable transatlantic ops, why was Thomas Cook Airlines projected to make £115 million profit predominately on the back of point to point long-haul traffic ex-MAN with no business class?

Thomas Cook went under and didn’t make that 155mill profit.
US Air aircraft were absolute dumps. MAN might have been one place they could fill a plane up to for profit because the other airlines were making money on routes of actual significance.

That AA you keep talking about btw are the execs from America West and US Air that ruined American Airlines.