Any chance UA will start ORD-MAN? Seems like a bit of a gap in their network. Probably more for MAN, than ORD...

Also, is there enough demand for a BOS-MAN? And if so, who would operate it? DL on a 757?

Quoting 8herveg (Reply 100): Any chance UA will start ORD-MAN?

I believe it's something that they're considering. Nothing firm at the moment though.

Quoting hohd (Reply 99): May be Thai can introduce a 1 stop option to BKK via DEL or BOM. This might work, similar to the SQ 1 stop option

TG have been rumoured to be starting a service to MAN for the past 27 years that I am aware of....... There are a number of planes that sit on the ground at European airports for 6+ hours every day, A MAN-FRA-BKK service might be a nice idea using the A380 that is usually in FRA from 05.30 thru 14.10

DL removed the B757 from (most or all?) transatlantic operations, BOS is not a hub for anyone but a focus city for DL. They did take on LHR-BOS in partnership with VS but there's a limit to how much traffic the US majors can carry out of a mature market like MAN. If UA did launch MAN-ORD, would you see them still flying MAN-IAD? And would AA keep ORD witht the option to upguage traffic through PHL with the merger nearly done?

Remember any direct west coast run will cannibalise existing east coast loads and west coast is harder to make money on as it tends to be more point to point. Hence why Thomas Cook might be a better fit IMHO.

As for Thai, they're a basket case and incapable of making money, so quite how "that might work" might translate to profit baffles me. Actually worse, it also baffles them!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 103): to how much traffic the US majors can carry out of a mature market like MAN

So we're a mature market so no expansion please but let's add more to the States out of LHR because there's room for more flights to the same destinations that exist there.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 103): And would AA keep ORD witht the option to upguage traffic through PHL with the merger nearly done?

That's right. There's far too many regional flights. Best cull as many as possible because no-one from the North wants to fly.

MAN-ORD is something that UA is considering, and it would be in addition to the existing two services. Personally is prefer to see EWR back at two daily as the third service,.

Right now UA still has the exact same capacity to MAN that they did in 2008/9 in the height of the recession. With the economy recovering there is room to grow.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 105): Right now UA still has the exact same capacity to MAN that they did in 2008/9 in the height of the recession. With the economy recovering there is room to grow.

OK maybe so, but plans are made several months in advance and early 2008 was not recession in the UK or Europe. For me you can only judge mid recession planning by what was offered summer 2009 / winter 2009.2010.

If capacity in summer 2015 is above summer 2008 level we are looking good, Yes I do know that 2007 was busier at MAN than 2008 but that would have driven planned capacity for 2008.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 105): Right now UA still has the exact same capacity to MAN that they did in 2008/9 in the height of the recession. With the economy recovering there is room to grow.

Yes they're certainly is! Most flights overbooked in business and economy, the holds filled to the brim with cargo and mail. A 757 is not enough aeroplane, especially on the EWR route.

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 107): Yes they're certainly is! Most flights overbooked in business and economy, the holds filled to the brim with cargo and mail. A 757 is not enough aeroplane, especially on the EWR route.

I wasn't aware of this on the MAN-EWR route. If it's that busy, will we see it being upgraded? Perhaps to a B787?

The EWR is frequently full in business and overbooked in economy. And the fares are far from cheap, some of the economy fares closer to departure are eye watering, so yields are good too.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 103): Remember any direct west coast run will cannibalise existing east coast loads and west coast is harder to make money on as it tends to be more point to point.

Very true, but there's an incredible amount of traffic MAN - LHR/AMS/CDG - LAX/SFO.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 104): That's right. There's far too many regional flights. Best cull as many as possible because no-one from the North wants to fly.

Actually as you well know the whole point of the merger is to have synergies and economies of scale. You are (again) twisting what I am saying and misrepresenting my comment as anti-MAN.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 104): So we're a mature market so no expansion please but let's add more to the States out of LHR because there's room for more flights to the same destinations that exist there.

LHR is constrained in a way MAN is not, hence MAN-US is pretty mature, LON-US has market distorting capacity constraints.

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 107): Yes they're certainly is! Most flights overbooked in business and economy, the holds filled to the brim with cargo and mail. A 757 is not enough aeroplane, especially on the EWR route.

Agreed, a B764 at least, failing that a single daily EWR B777 surely.

Quoting mainMAN (Reply 110): Very true, but there's an incredible amount of traffic MAN - LHR/AMS/CDG - LAX/SFO.

Agreed, would be good to see someone try but I think only United of the legacies at SFO has enough connectivity at the other end to make it work.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I wondered how long it would be before this thread also fell foul of the rambling, irrelevant posts that resulted in the shutting-down of the Manchester thread on PPRuNe....

Keep it up guys, you'll soon get this one shut down too at this rate.

Quoting lisbonbearuk (Reply 112): I wondered how long it would be before this thread also fell foul of the rambling, irrelevant posts that resulted in the shutting-down of the Manchester thread on PPRuNe.... Keep it up guys, you'll soon get this one shut down too at this rate.

Agreed....the later posts on this thread are ridiculous speculation, not news.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111): Agreed, a B764 at least, failing that a single daily EWR B777 surely.

Am I right in thinking it was a 772 for a while back in CO days before it swapped to a 752?

Quoting lisbonbearuk (Reply 112): I wondered how long it would be before this thread also fell foul of the rambling, irrelevant posts that resulted in the shutting-down of the Manchester thread on PPRuNe....

What closed them down was the extreme narrow-mindedness of one moderator who seems to prefer a 6 word soundbite rather than having a discussion about "airport, airlines and routes" which is the name of that sub-forum,. No-one should consider the means of getting to an airport, the promotion of an airport and the positioning of the airport within a UK network as "off topic" and "rambling".

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111): Actually as you well know the whole point of the merger is to have synergies and economies of scale

so, in a similar way, we can look forward to a culling of routes at LHR then, can't we, if you expect that one out PHL or ORD should cease to feature at MAN per your "And would AA keep ORD witht the option to upguage traffic through PHL with the merger nearly done?" Oh. I forgot. We have extra CLT and PHL at LHR,. Perhaps I've been right all along. LHR is desperately low-yielding so by restricting choice out of the regions and using aircraft that don't compare favourably with those out of LHR, more passengers, particularly the premium ones, will have to use LHR.

Let's look at MAN-PHL/ORD statistics in November. Passenger numbers were down but I believe that more weather related, However, there were 18000 passengers. In the "synergies and economies of scale" world, there would be 1 flight only. 18000 passengers divided by 30 days divided by 2 days = 300 per flight. Let's say for some ridiculous reason there is 100% migration to the single service. The 772 has 260 passengers (I guess you think it will be the one with business, main cabin extra, economy). In this wonderful world, 80 passengers per day would be denied the opportunity of flying directly to the States and connect there. And for the summer season it would be a LOT more than 80 passengers per day that would be affected. At a time when MAN is getting around 5% to 6% increase in it's passengers numbers, this should help maintain the increase, shouldn't it. Answers to that question on a postcard to anyone who advocates that reducing flights and available capacity out of the regions is "a good thing".

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111): LON-US has market distorting capacity constraints.

Market distorting as in ridiculous frequencies that appear to be going one-way only.... increasing, with abundant Y class capacity that is markedly cheaper than that out of the regions that needs filling

new route: FR to STR 6 weekly from April

Quoting lisbonbearuk (Reply 112):

Quoting sk736 (Reply 113):

Thankfully you can say whatever you like on a.net unless you're abusive so anything goes. For people to speculate on here as to whether such a route or other may be viable is hugely relevant, and interesting (to me). Just scan through the stuff you don't want to read!! I'm not interested in taxiways, so I don't read about them!

Quoting Boeing74741R (Reply 114): Am I right in thinking it was a 772 for a while back in CO days before it swapped to a 752?

Yes it was DC10, B757, B772, B762/4, B757

Check the photos here.

Quoting Boeing74741R (Reply 114): Am I right in thinking it was a 772 for a while back in CO days before it swapped to a 752?

Yes, for a while it was B772 Summer and B763 winter. CO then realised that they could better use a B772 economics on a new assignment, which I am sure was true. At that point MAN went twice daily B752, which I am sure increases options through their EWR hub. When they started IAD with much fanfare all they did was move the second EWR flight, it even kept its flight number 100/101. It is no surprise that EWR is now oversubscribed. I hope that IAD is a success but they do need a B763 or B764 back for the EWR turn especially for the summer. As others have said starting ORD should be a lessor priority right now.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 119): Yes, for a while it was B772 Summer and B763 winter.

But CO didn't have any 763's until the UA merger, was it a 762?

Quoting david_itl (Reply 115): LHR is desperately low-yielding so by restricting choice out of the regions and using aircraft that don't compare favourably with those out of LHR

This I can relate directly to; twice this year I have tried to book FRA-MAN and FRA-BHX return and I am just looking at a FRA-MAN return in January and each time LHR is dramatically cheaper. The pricing for the return flights to LHR are €258 compared to €428 for MAN. The only reason I can see for this difference is too many seats on LHR services and not enough on MAN.

Which route is giving LH the better yield?

I took UA80 a few weeks ago out of MAN and was sat by door 2.

During the boarding we could hear one of the ground staff managers chatting to the cabin crew about the UA flights out of MAN.

She was stating that in summer especially both flights are frequently overbooked in both classes and that they are turning a lot of cargo away all year cause of lack of capacity.

They are fighting to either have the second EWR re-instated or have the existing one upguaged to a 767 as they feel they can fill it easily.

I've used the EWR flights a few times now and have to say its always been packed every time ive used it especially since they went to the single EWR a day.
Though I do think the 757's on that route could do with a little TLC as they are starting to look noticeably tatty inside then they were when I first starting using them 5 years ago.

Quoting oly720man (Reply 118): it was DC10, B757, B772, B762/4, B757

Close   it was 757, DC-10, 772, 764, 762, 757

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 119): Yes, for a while it was B772 Summer and B763 winter.

The B772 was an all year round feature for CO, for a good few years.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111): Agreed, a B764 at least, failing that a single daily EWR B777 surely.

Quoting 8herveg (Reply 108): will we see it being upgraded? Perhaps to a B787?

Initially (from what the UA staff have told me) the plan is to get a 767 on the EWR route, possibly a 764 as Skipness has said. Then further down the line, as more 787's come online they think that EWR will become a 787 route. Again nothing firm at this stage, just what the airline is considering.

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 123): Close it was 757, DC-10, 772, 764, 762, 757

Ah ha. I wondered if it was the 757 first. The brain cells ain't what they used to be.

Couple of pieces of BE news, both sneaked in unannounced! Weekly winter flight to Lyon started yesterday and they are going 2 daily Mon-Fri on the Amsterdam route from 2nd Feb (BE1271 dept 0750, BE1272 arr 1140)

Icelandair are offering between 3 and 5 flights a week next year.

For example, searching for flights around 20th October brings this weekly schedule: daily except Tues and Thurs.

around 5th July: flights are Mon, Wed, Fri

around 12th April: Sun, Mon, Wed, Fri

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 106): For me you can only judge mid recession planning by what was offered summer 2009 / winter 2009.2010.

Which was 2x757  

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 119): CO then realised that they could better use a B772 economics on a new assignment, which I am sure was true

CO had a desperately stretched long-haul fleet (by which I mean 764 and 772), which is why almost every route within the 757's range was operated by 757s. I'm not sure why they didn't acquire additional 777s pre-merger, but I think all those 787s arriving in 2008 (!!!) might have had something to do with it. The up-shot of this is that formerly 764/777 routes such as MAN, DUB etc. all went 757, primarily to free up capacity for other routes.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 119): At that point MAN went twice daily B752, which I am sure increases options through their EWR hub

More to the point, it increases capacity. I can't remember the figures prior to the flat-bed conversion, but using the current configuration 772>2*752 is an increase of 71 seats.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 119): I hope that IAD is a success

I hope people have discovered what an easy airport IAD is to connect at. United's terminal (C/D) is a complete dump, but I cannot think of any easier place to connect international-domestic in the USA.

Quoting oly720man (Reply 124): I wondered if it was the 757 first.

It definitely was, flew it myself about a month after the route started back in 1995. What I can't remember is when it was upgauged to a DC-10. Was that 1996 or 1997?

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 123): The B772 was an all year round feature for CO, for a good few years

About 2.5 years from ~May 1999 to post-9/11

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 123): Close   it was 757, DC-10, 772, 764, 762, 757

The 762 operated along side the 752 for the first season of double daily ops. IIRC the 767 was on CO20/21, with CO100/101 a 752. The 762 only lasted one summer.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 111): failing that a single daily EWR B777 surely.

That would be a fairly significant decrease in capacity, see above.


In passing, spare a thought for BHX and GLA. They were both DC-10 markets too at some point, and are now single daily 757s. Admittedly CO cannibalised their own GLA flight by starting EDI, which better serves inbound traffic [i]from]/i] the USA, and also gave them a competitive advantage at the time by being the only TATL carrier at EDI. EDI is now 3 daily in the summer, and GLA one. BHX is more puzzling, but CO is much smaller there than they were a decade ago.

VS having a slight bump in operations next year - A346 to LAS on Tuesdays for 8 weeks from July and MCO goes 13 weekly for the same period.

There will be days when there'll be 4 VS heavies at MAN (2 747, 1 A330 and A346 or 3 747 and 1 A330).

What? VS are starting MAN - LAS 1/weekly in the summer on an A346? That's great news!

Going 3 weekly for the peak period. It's 2 weekly summer seasonal 744

SORRY I didn't read properly and thought it said LAX not LAS   

we will have a LAX link sooner rather than later from our "based" long-haul airline

I think TCX will be ok now they switched to 8 across tbh

Quoting david_itl (Reply 131): we will have a LAX link sooner rather than later from our "based" long-haul airline

Do you mean VS? Have you got this from a specific source or are you just presuming/hoping?

It's in the drop down menu in the Thomas Cook website and has been for a few weeks! It's not been placed after Zante where there's a host of other cities which can only be reached after transferring somewhere.

Oh ok, good to know. I think a legacy airline, such as VS, would do well on the MAN-LAX route. Perhaps 4 x weekly with one of their new 787's and maybe 3 x weekly to SFO?

In fact, I'm surprised that VS aren't going to base some of their 787's at MAN to replace the B747's/A346's. Aren't those aircraft too big to serve the MAN market? I think VS should base 5 x 787's at MAN and operate the following:

Barbados - 3 x weekly
Cancun - 1 x weekly
Las Vegas - 3 x weekly
Los Angeles - 4 x weekly
New York JFK - 7 x weekly
Orlando - 14 x weekly
San Francisco - 3 x weekly

Thoughts?

I would only say that the mouse shuttle is tremendously popular and double daily 789 might not cut it.

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 136): I would only say that the mouse shuttle is tremendously popular and double daily 789 might not cut it.

I think for 3/4 of the year it would, but perhaps between June-August, they could do 3 x daily.

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 136):

I flew on VS076 on 19th September this year onboard G-VLIP. Despite being mid-Septmber and outside the school holidays, it was full in Upper Class, PE and Economy - it made for a powerful take-off roll leaving MCO! The VS074 that day was similarly heavily loaded I believe.

I am of the opinion that VS needs something bigger than a 789 to replace the 'leisure' 747s that serve MAN. Not all routes operated by a 747 need the capacity let alone year-round, but routes such as MCO are very busy in the summer months and I don't think it'll be a wise move to cut capacity too much.

A fleet of about 8 A350-1000s split between LHR and the 'leisure' routes would work well I feel.

I suspect the use of the A346 is because there's nothing else available to operate the route within the fleet and also seeing as there will be slack in the A346 fleet with 787s now starting to be delivered. Could well be one of the last chances to see a VS A340 at MAN regularly.

Quoting 8herveg (Reply 135):

Can't see New York being launched now seeing as DL are re-launching the JFK route, unless they do a swap like with the ATL.

Hi,

Thomson are launching MAN-KEF 2x weekly from 24JAN16 thru to 06MAR16.

Thanks
ThomasCook

Noted in the Virgin booking engine is that VS85/86 on Thursdays in July and August to/from Las Vegas is also down as an A346.

In fact, the A346 is operating all Las Vegas services from 23rd July to the end of August

No official announcement so far but a 2 weekly MAN-Podgorica summer seasonal service by Montenegro Airlines is being mooted by a website dealing with former Yugoslavia aviation.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 24): They expected me to arrive at 03:35 for a 06:35 business flight to BRU for example!!

But checkin doesn't open until about 5am. MAN management are idiots!

Quoting 8herveg (Reply 108): I wasn't aware of this on the MAN-EWR route. If it's that busy, will we see it being upgraded? Perhaps to a B787?

Quoting Boeing74741R (Reply 114): Agreed, a B764 at least, failing that a single daily EWR B777 surely. The problem with UA is lack of larger aircraft, although having said that a new summer only route from EWR to VCE gets a B764. Am I right in thinking it was a 772 for a while back in CO days before it swapped to a 752?

Yes

Quoting cipango (Reply 120): But CO didn't have any 763's until the UA merger, was it a 762?

No, it was a B764.

I've flown on DC10, B777, B764 and B752 on the EWR-MAN route over the years

The other reason they switched one flight to IAD was slot constraints at EWR. At certain times of day, it's 10 or more a/c in line for take off, other times it's dead. Unfortunately the times it's dead only work for non-transatlanitc flights, i.e. 2pm departure from EWR would get in around 2am in MAN and there's no/not enough ground transportation in place at that time of day anywhere in Europe. The same goes for the return journey. To get an AM arrival time in EWR would mean leaving MAN at 5-6am and the ground transportation is a problem at that time in the morning. Add to that, the times wouldn't be suitable for business travelers, i.e. leaving EWR at 2pm would mean they'd have to leave the office in Manhattan around 12pm, meaning they lose a half day of business. Whereas now the flight leaves around 8pm so they can work until 5 then have a "relaxing" journey to EWR, not that NYC-EWR is relaxing at that time of day, but they wouldn't need to rush for check-in.

Bit of fog elsewhere on the planet caused a nice collection of long-haul flights on the ground at the same time this evening:

EY15, EY21, EK19, PK711, PK701 = 4 777s and an A330.


Also had some heavy metal on both TK flights with A330s operating, and both flights of their flights tomorrow are A330s as well

Next CX 747 retirement flight due in around 2.45pm in the form of B-HUE

Quoting david_itl (Reply 145):

Any idea what is the reason for the retirement flights going to MAN?

Think it's just clearing customs before the final flight to Kemble or Bruntingthorpe, Meant to be departing tomorrow morning but don't know what time.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 147): Meant to be departing tomorrow morning but don't know what time.

Apparently around 0925.

I caught the last CX retiree departing, lifts off like a rocket with nothing on board...perhaps the crew give the old girl some beans too on its last departure? Was good to watch anyway