I personally think in the next few weeks that IAG will confirm that they have ordered E195's as part of a fleet replacement program for LGW with the rest of the fleet being made up of A320's. The flights are likely to continue to be operated by LGW's Single Fleet operation
Dont forget the 16 C Series ordered at Paris last year by " major European carrier".........operated by Cityflyer at LGW ?.....cuts fuel costs, cuts labour costs....
BACF ordering E195s for the LGW operation is at odds with no business plan for fleet renewal at LGW being approved by either BA or IAG.
Don't forget that due to scope clauses the E195s are currently limited to less than 100 seats which works for LCY but I don't think such a configuration would work for a LGW operation.
Last edited by Omnipresent; 10th Oct 2012 at 09:22.
Surely the training/logistics costs would be too much for LGW. At least with the 320 series all the in house requirements already exist. EG Crewing and Engineering.
Don't forget that due to scope clauses the E195s are currently limited to less than 100 seats which works for LCY
Mainline operating ERJ195s would mean no SCOPE clause and seat restriction required. CFE are prevented from operating from LGW and LHR under SCOPE so there would be an industrial dispute, and a serious one at that if BA renege on that. The whole BA pilot community would be seeing their future outsourced.
Quote:
Surely the training/logistics costs would be too much for LGW
Would they need to be maintained by BA or could the CFE support and third party operation help? SCOPE only prevents flight and cabin crew I think.
Dont forget the 16 C Series ordered at Paris last year by " major European carrier".........
BA were looking at C Series, and representatives went ot Belfast to look at the assembly of the wings etc, so they certainly were looking, as one would expect, but dont know if they were the mystery order.
Lets not forget, depending on CityJets future BA may be in the fold, they would seem like the logical buyer, if they would be in a position to adsorb it so close to the challenge and cost of bmi integration, thats a different matter!
Quote:
Another rumour that has surfaced is that BACF will add E195's for a new LGW operation
Cant see 195's being ordered for LGW for 2 reasons
- Increase costs per seat at LGW lends itself to using larger aircraft
- Easyjet continued focus on business and frequency and hence cost per per seat as above
CFE have their own engineering support at LCY and from memory GLA too, however this is not British Airways Engineering. Heavy maintenance is flybe at Exeter.
BA do B737 and Airbus maintenance at the Glasgow hangar with B744 and B777s at CWL.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 10th Oct 2012 at 15:02.
Don't forget that due to scope clauses the E195s are currently limited to less than 100 seats which works for LCY but I don't think such a configuration would work for a LGW operation.
BACF don't have E195s, nor is the 195 steep approach approved or equipped. Would seem like an odd aircraft for BACF to order. Mainline at LGW with CS300s is a different matter, though I'd reckon some A319/20 NEOs being the most likely.
Cant see 195's being ordered for LGW for 2 reasons
- Increase costs per seat at LGW lends itself to using larger aircraft
Do you have any idea what sort of difference we're talking about? I thought about this coming into DBV with BE, when all the other frames were of the 150 seat variants, but clearly they can still compete in a number of markets where they are using these smaller frames.
I would expect a natural saving through using newer frames, so I was thinking of relative costs versus a newer 320 family.
Quote:
Easyjet continued focus on business and frequency and hence cost per per seat as above
Well one way to maintain frequency is to operate a smaller fleet on a more intensive basis. However, I can't see that being BA's real priority at LGW, where a lot of routes are more leisure based. Even with the "upgrade to BA" slogan, they still want to keep a tight control on costs, surely?
One other concern would be whether or not GIP would be too happy with one of their biggest clients suddenly operating routes with a c. 120 seat frame when the same markets could be served with 150-189 seaters. Of course, it isn't usually up to the airport to dictate to the airline what sort of fleet to use, but this is Gatwick after all.
Quote: "I saw that on the television on the BBC as well, and was just longing for Willie Walsh, having received that nastily-spiteful but completely incorrect comment, to continue "..... and I would have thought that having recently been the MP for Richmond, of all places, for five years recently, Mrs Kramer, you might have some understanding of how the aviation, which a significant proportion of your constituents must actually work in, and a handful of self-appointed whingers continually complain about, is organised .....".
It's programmes like this that make you realise how competent those high up in industry can be, and how completely inept those who have pushed themselves into politics are in comparison."
Quite. It also has to pointed out that the majority of the organised "handful of self-appointed whingers" who "continually complain" are, forthe most part, incomers (some may say "entryists" and "carpetbaggers" pricing out the locals, couldn't possibly comment of course).
Let's face it, these people have chosen to live here,being fully aware of the conditions.If one has enough to pay £1m+ for a house in Richmond, it's clearly a matter of choice!
Which if true would leave some questions. Would Virgin take up the 'mantle' and operate through SIN? Does the aviation industry recognise that Virgin is the national flag carrier? How would BA"s traffic be affected on SIN, BKK and possibly KUL terminators? Have Emirates got the route well and truly sown up? Their next goal surely would be the Pacific? If so then they have the world sown up.
As with the ACCC submission, the quotes in this article can be read in various ways.Would be interested to see full statement as "exploring options" doesn't really seem to commit to any particular course of action....
