VS additional frequencies to IAD/BOS/EWR over the summer

[The_Banking_Scot]

Hi,

From the VS website;

http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/press_release.view.do?press_id=2032

These will be evening departures to BOS/IAD with daylight flights back to the UK ( three times weekly)


Good news:D

Regards

TBS

[colegate]

Daylight eastbound flights are very demanding on aircraft scheduling. To do waht they are doing must have meant that they had at least 1.5 aircraft doing nothing this summer.

[doublesix]

So Virgin are introducing 'additional' flights to the states from the London area. What a pity they and others can't seem to realise that mankind does exist north of Watford and people in the frozen north might appreciate not having to travel south before a nine hour flight.:*

[WHBM]

Daylight eastbound flights are very demanding on aircraft scheduling.

Actually these Virgin flights will be more efficient than the traditional daylight flight timings, which prevent a round trip in one day. Because the departures from the US are earlier than previously the case for eastbound daylights, after arrival at Heathrow at 19.30, although they couldn't quite take up the return transatlantic departure, they could interwork onto the late evening Virgin departures to Lagos or India, and therefore could be done efficiently with just one extra aircraft covering the new operations. Those current Lagos/India aircraft have been around for several hours since their previous inbound and will handle the new westbound evening transatlantic trips instead.

mankind does exist north of Watford

Yes Virgin realise this and have operated a Manchester - Orlando flight for years, on which they seem to have achieved zero growth unlike London routes. Particularly for premium pax, and also for inbound US pax, the market mix just does not seem to be there. Many airlines, not least BA, have thrown bucketloads of their shareholders money at long-haul Manchester flights over the years and lost it.

[doublesix]

WHBM.

I'm not in a position to question your statement re load factors on the Manchester-Orlando route so I won't.
What I can't understand though is American, US Air, Continental, BA,Delta, BMI all operate daily flights to the US with apparently good load factors, (or I assume they wouldn't operate them). American are also shortly to operate a new route to Boston. If they can do it why can't Virgin?

[WHBM]

doublesix:

You doubtless realise this is like trying to do a degree-level Airline marketing course in a couple of paragraphs ! But I'll have a go, then others can join in too maybe.

US carrier operations to provincial airports are littered with failures too. Look at AA - gave up BHX-ORD, gave up MAN-DFW some years ago, GLA-ORD now summer only, even gave up STN-ORD which was a right failure. Northwest used to be on Manchester (and Glasgow) to Boston some years ago - they gave up. BA operated for some time MAN-LAX - gave up. BMI doing well at MAN ? Remember they suddenly canned the Washington flight last winter and leased the aircraft out to South African

If AA can give BOS-MAN a go why can't Virgin ? A good example. Two key opposites to success on a route. Keep the costs down and keep the revenue up. AA are in a position to manage both in a better direction than VS.

AA are using an aircraft (757) smaller than Virgin possess. AA have never used a 757 across the Atlantic before; things must be really marginal for them.

AA have a base at BOS, Virgin do not have a crew or an aircraft base at either end of the route and would have all the overheads of establishing one (the Orlando flight has been contracted out to Air Atlanta for this reason), or would have to position crews daily. They can't "W" from the existing LHR-BOS flight as this is a 744 this summer and any Manchester flight would surely merit a smaller aircraft.

AA can deliver lots of connecting traffic to Boston on their own network (81 arrivals daily). Virgin have no connections at either end and would have to depend on point-to-point traffic only. The AA flight would certainly not have been started if they did not have this feeder network already in place.

[Ringwayman]

WHBM

Northwest have never operated passenger services to MAN - just a 2 weekly 747F around 1979/1980.

AA have used 757 across the pond (try MAN-JFK in summer 1995).

As for the BOS route , AA and MAN have made mention that Boston is the largest market in the US that does not have non-stop service to MAN, so they are pretty much expecting it to be point-to-point.

Virgin ops: I''ll bet that the 2003 passenger figures beat the 2002 figures, and that should they operate throughout winter 04, the 2004 figures will beat the 2003 figures. Amazing what extending the operations to year round can do. And the importance of this MAN operation for them can be summed us thus from the History section of their website:

"Since then, Virgin Atlantic has become the second largest long-haul international airline operating services out of London's Heathrow and Gatwick Airports to 22 destinations all over the world - from Shanghai to the Caribbean and, of course, the US."

So they deny knowledge of themselves flying from MAN and I'm still waiting for the MIA service that Branson said he would establish in 1987 when opening the 1986 Northern Holday Travel Show.

[Caslance]

AFAIK, AA are planning to use B767-300 equipment on the Boston route.

I could, of course, be wrong.....:ooh:

BTW - Northwest have never operated PAX flights to Manchester, or scheduled flights of any kind to Glasgow.

[marczac]

one class B757 will operate.

[Going loco]

It’s simple. There are airports that are hubs and there are airports that feed hubs. Heathrow is a hub, Manchester is a feeder and so it will always be.

Where people seem to get their knickers in a twist is over the airlines that feed their hubs which are further away e.g. CO, AA, BD, EK, DL, US, SQ, MH. This is because passenger stats from the CAA show connecting passengers as arriving and departing at these hubs and not their ultimate origin and destination. So "experts" whose ability to interpret CAA data is limited by being able to divide one number by another start saying “203.5467 people travel on every Delta flight between MAN and ATL, therefore isn’t it a huge success and isn’t it a disgrace that BA don’t offer a service, blah, blah blah….”

Yeah, right.

What these people really need to do is to stump up some cash and buy some proper O&D market research from the CAA. See where passengers are really travelling to and then put yourself in the position of being responsible for deciding how to utilise a $$$$ asset and ask:

i) are the volumes sufficient to sustain a point to point service
ii) what proportion of this volume will pay club / first class fares
iii) how price sensitive are these volumes to competition from other airlines who will still be offering the destination indirectly via their own hubs
iv) does the route offer greater profit potential than using the asset on other routes
v) even if the answers above look encouraging - are there enough of these routes to allow us to open a multiple aircraft base and therefore get the necessary cost, marketing and crewing efficiencies

Here’s a clue. This is how airlines work. This is why they employ people whose ability to evaluate the financial performance of new routes is more developed than being able to open up the CAA data files and divide one number by another

loco

[nef]

Caslance,

NW most definately did operate a scheduled GLA-BOS service in the early 1990s - I used it in 1994 to travel GLA-BOS-SEA and return. It was discontinued late in 1994 I think.

[Caslance]

NW most definately did operate a scheduled GLA-BOS service in the early 1990s Hmm.....you live and learn, eh?

What equipment did they use?

Wait a minute......do you mean Prestwick, nef??

[WHBM]

Ringwayman:

Thanks for the info about a prior AA 757 operation at Manchester. Unfortunately it also draws attention to yet another AA service to provincial Britain (MAN-JFK) that had to be given up.

I would be most surprised if much more than 50% of the AA pax from Manchester this year are only point-to-point to Boston. Even on an AA route like LHR-LAX, where you would think there is not much to go on to beyond LAX, it always surprises me how many passengers are transferring on at LAX to other flights, eg elsewhere in California, Nevada, etc.

Boston the largest market in the US not served from Manchester ? I would have thought it was Los Angeles, which has more transatlantic flights and is a much larger urban area.

Caslance:

Already confirmed is the former NW service through Glasgow, now given up. It ran for quite some years with DC-10s, and I think this is one of the operations that transferred from Prestwick to Abbotsinch when transatlantic flights were permitted at the latter. There are some old photographs of the DC-10s in Scotland on airliners.net . My error about the NW Manchester flights which were freight-only.

Going loco:

I think you and I are speaking the same language about why there are not more intercontinental operations out of Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow. Provincial politicians in particular seem unable to grasp these aspects of airline economics.

[Curious Pax]

I think the quote when the AA MAN-BOS service was announced was that it was the largest market on the Eastern seaboard of the US without a service.

Wouldn't wish to dispute the actual figures about the VS MAN-MCO flights, but my own anecdotal evidence suggests that they ought to be doing very well this year. This is based on my attempts to get a return ticket for the normally quietish period between Easter and Whit. If a route is full most of the year round, it wouldn't show any growth would it (assuming they aren't going to start selling standing tickets!).

[Confirmed Must Ride]

CO doing very well out of UK provincial airports. MAN is about to be upgraded to a 772 this summer and BHX is getting a 2nd 752 flight from June. GLA getting a 764 for the summer and EDI to be opened up in June.

Would have to agree though that a lot of the traffic is not point-to point.

[Bagso]

Havn't got time to quote chapter and verse but if you do want to discuss Manchester do please get your story correct.

Well what an utter load of complete bunkum.......

As is so often the case Manchester is lumped in as a provincial airport when it is a major hub in its own right.......

The reason that many services Ex GLA and BHX failed is due to simple economics, typically lack of runway resulting in reduced operating weight etc..... however there are also other factors.

As the second city both in terms now of population and economic GDP Manchester is a totally separate case.

Many airlines have proved that if the fares are competitive (not subsidised) and both frequency and timings are good, and there is no interference from London or The Worlds Favorite you simply cannot fail...... see SIA, MAS, EMIRATES , AA, CO, USAIR, DELTA et al

SAA pulled because they were short of aircraft and after aparthied was lifted they wanted to opearte to "capital city" destinations from where they had been banned, load factors were 90% and higher than Paris when they finished.

GULF pulled because they were given rights out of Abu Dhabi, they wanted to operate to there main hub which I think was Doha!

Air India pulled because they wanted to operate to Bombay, they were only granted Dehli......again Bombay is the main hub.

Quoting the BA example of an airline which has tried and failed is utter tripe....

...they only operated Hong Kong and Islamabad as a spoiling tactic to stop Cathay and PIA establishing flights,

when they could not match them they pulled themselves.....

When they took over Cathay they pulled OUR service....at MAN

When they took over QANTAS they pulled OUR service ...at MAN

The JFK service is full all the time, the airport have pleaded with BA them to either double up or increase to a 777....


I rest my case............

[Caslance]

When they took over Cathay they pulled OUR service....at MAN

When they took over QANTAS they pulled OUR service ...at MAN
Oh? When did BA take over Cathay Pacific and QANTAS???? :confused:

And I think the good burghers of Birmingham (and even Glasgow) would have something to say about your description of Manchester as "the second city both in terms now of population and economic GDP ".:ooh:

Put simply, airlines start new routes up because they think there is a profit to be made.

Sometimes they are right - in which case the service prospers and even expands, and sometimes they are wrong - in which case the service is withdrawn and the aircraft used on other routes.

That's how it is - no vast BA-inspired conspiracy to deprive regional airports (and Manchester is a regional airport) of long-haul routes for the punters and exotic numbers for the spotters.

Just plain, boring old economics.

[Bagso]

"no vast BA-inspired conspiracy to deprive regional airports "

bloody 'ell I wouldnt' bet against it.........

I could write a book on it !

...it might not be quite as true these days but certainly in the past thats exactly what it was......

I can name about a dozen airlines that all tried and faied to get licences ex Manchester but because BA didnt want to operate and didnt like the competition they always went bleating to the Goverment who effectively supported them, stalling Manchesters real development for about 25 years.

It would not have been so bad if the simply left well alone but the were always meddling.............

Things changed in 1984 when SIA essentially threatened to scupper a major trade deal if they did not get rights into Manchester.....the Conservative goverment of the day were totally embarrased into it !

AA then applied but suprise suprise Manchester was not a part of the UK/USA bilateral air agreement so every appllication was turned down....AA only manged to get in on a temporary permit....

In the eighties BA objected to every single licence application that was applied for at Manchester.

They have NEVER been innovative just reactionary in every sense of the word.....

Everytime a new airline applied for a licence they also applied, effectively applying spoiling tactics.....

If an airline did mange to actually start, so did they..............

It is only with the advent of BA Citi Express that dare I say it things have changed dramatically at least on the short haul front.

As for Cathay and QANTAS at the time that they operated Ex Manchester BA were the major shareholder, trust me.

We had a daily Australia service that was excellent, and profitable about 6 months after BA bought a 30% shareholding in QF the service stopped - replaced by a dedicated feeder service to London.....

BA then entered into a major codeshare with Cathay, exactly the same thing happened our service was pulled.....citing shortage of aircraft etc

but in a lazarus type recovery Cathay suddenly founde an extra aircraft about 6 months later........ result suprise suprise a 4th daily service into LHR.

[WHBM]

Oh dear me what a litany of excuses for all the failed long haul attempts from Manchester. Always the fault of the government, or Heathrow, or conniving BA, or stupid airline managments, or scheming alliances, or ..... well, everything except the right one, which is not economically viable. And if I were an airline shareholder I would be saying to my management "don't you think that enough is enough now when it comes to gambling funds on a new service there".

And unfortunately it also adds further to our long list we are building up of airlines which have tried and failed from Manchester, so you can't blame them for not trying (oh, I'm sorry, apparently you can, that's how this discussion started ...). I am trying to think of what services started from Heathrow in this time have been withdrawn, there have been a few but not in these proportions.

Manchester is not a hub airport in the normally accepted sense because it has so little connecting traffic. I know there are a lot of BA flights but like all the other operations there they are squarely aimed at O&D passengers. Interesting to know what the percentage of transit pax at Manchester is, I would guess about 1 or 2% (anyone know the figure?).

[Caslance]

And unfortunately it also adds further to our long list we are building up of airlines which have tried and failed from Manchester Before this thread starts it's long spiralling final descent into a MAN-knocking extravanganza, now would be a good time to point out that while it is true that several airlines have, as WHBM puts it, "tried and failed from Manchester", it is equally true that several airlines have made a success of long-haul services from Ringway while others have held firm, and all this through a period of recession in the industry as a whole.

As I said earlier, some try and succeed while others try and fail.

That's business for you.

[Bagso]

as I say if you are going to comment do get the facts right
young man.......

BA/ QANTAS

"In 2000, the Australian Air Commission agreed to allow Qantas and British Airways to cooperate under a Joint Services Agreement. That approval is due to expire on 21 July this year.

"Qantas and British Airways lodged a new application with the ACCC for approval for the agreement to continue to operate. The agreement provides for Qantas and British Airways to fully coordinate freight, scheduling, marketing, sales, pricing and customer service activities on both of the airlines' networks. "The decision to allow Qantas and British Airways to continue their current arrangements, for the time being, will avoid significant disruption at short notice to both the applicants and consumers"

BA/Cathay

AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION-(C)1997-2000 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD

British Airways and Cathay Pacific have signed a new Joint services agreement that is effective from 26 March 2000.

The agreement covers flights from London-Heathrow airport to Britain's four main regional airports, including Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester.

[Caslance]

What is this meant to prove?

You did use the words "take over", didn't you?

You did say that BA were the major shareholder in these airlines, didn't you?

There's a world of difference between co-operation/code-sharing and a takeover. Or didn't you realise that?

Best if you follow your own advice, I think.......................young man.:ok:

[This Charming Man]

Gents

I'm afraid you've been wound up to a tune by WBHM, his condescending tone and lack of evidence is a complete givaway. Remember he called Manchester ''provincial'' , so nuf said , smalltime , no class.

So from someone who works in this dirty game here's whats been going on at compass ,politics! BA have never liked to operate outside Heathrow and when it is seen that other airlines are doing well i.e. out of MAN and BA want a slice of the cake , then there's a problem . Because all the UK agreements stipulate that they have to be done from the same airport. So, Air India , CX ,QF etc etc are doing well out of MAN ,BA can also come on the route .. ex MAN.
This is not for the grand plan so the airlines are encouraged to operate extra services ex LHR and this allows BA to do the same. So a tie -up with BA ,LHR slots are in the bag the airlines pull out , as they need that aircraft for the LHR services ,simple ! BA can now increase services and take them on in their own back yard and everybodies happy. Sorry WBHM but I had to put you right and Lance, your right ,you are not a young man ,you've been on the Manchester avaition scene for years and therefore should of known better :D

[scroggs]

doublesix implies that there is some orchestrated plot by Virgin to marginalise Manchester by not operating lots of US services from that airport. As some have tried to suggest, though Manchester fans will not listen, the reason is that the company feels that the market at Manchester is not large enough to support a profitable service to any US airport unless one or other end of the operation is a main operating base for the carrier.

As Virgin is not going to spend many millions of pounds on a speculative base for several aircraft, any expansion of services from Manchester will be incremental and gradual. The MCO service (operated by Air Atlanta Iceland using Virgin flight deck, cabin crew and aircraft) is going year round for the first time this winter. There was to be a MAN-BGI service, but that has been put on hold for now (lack of aircraft is a major, though not the only, reason). Any expansion that does occur will almost certainly be serving the holiday market, where loads can be assessed well in advance and flights are effectively chartered by Virgin Holidays from Virgin Atlantic, removing much of the financial risk to the airline. As Virgin Holidays move many passengers through Manchester on other carriers, it is fairly easy to judge at what point it would become economic to operate Virgin Atlantic aircraft from Manchester on Virgin Holidays' behalf. Obviously, so far only Orlando has reached that economic critical mass.

The business market from Manchester is fairly small and quite fragmented - as bmi have already found. There may be as many as a few hundred businessmen and women travelling to the USA fom Manchester each day, but their destinations are many and varied - and are much easier to get to using an American carrier that integrates with its own domestic network from the hub it serves from Manchester. No UK carrier can offer the same ease of travel to secondary US destinations, and there aren't enough point-to-point travellers to justify - yet - UK carriers operating even to main destinations such as New York.

Virgin's expansion at Manchester will be driven by the holiday market. Introduction of business services will undoubtedly follow once the holiday traffic reaches sufficient levels to justify a base at MAN. That may take some time!

Finally, Colegate suggests that we must have had aircraft underemployed if we can now contemplate these extra LHR-USA services. Sorry, but quite the contrary - we are working absolutely to capacity! However, we have received three or four new aircraft in the last few months, and we are not retiring any of the current fleet. That gives us the capacity to operate new services.

[Ringwayman]

Has Scroggs forgotten that this is the 2nd time for year round VS operations to MCO and that BA do MAN-JFK?

[scroggs]

Yes, I had. :O

But the essence of my argument is unchanged - the market is not yet there for large-scale main base operations for Virgin. BA may be slightly closer to being able to do that, and can offer some economies of scale when they do, but they won't until the market (ie bookings) demands it.

[Bagso]

FT quote......

"Singapore Airlines Ltd reiterated it is keeping its options open with regard to acquiring British Airways PLC's stake in Qantas Airways Ltd".

"We are still keeping our options open. That position hasn't changed," an SIA spokesman said without giving details.

There was renewed market speculation that SIA may acquire British Airways' curret majority 17% stake in Qantas following the latter's move to take a 22.5% stake in Air
New Zealand.

SIA holds a stake of less than 5% in Air NZ.

Maybe not a takeover....but a majority shareholding in my book clearly stipulates who is running the show....

The same same applies at Cathay !!!

[Caslance]

17% is simply not a "majority shareholding", Bagso, however you look at it. As at 1/2/2004, BA actually own 19.5% of QANTAS shares, still an awful long way short of a majority and the control it would bring. (source: OneWorld website)

You also mentioned Cathay Pacific, if I remember correctly. The major shareholders in Cathay Pacific are the Swire Group(45.1%)and the CITIC Group(25.4%) - again as at 1/2/2004.(source: OneWorld website)

Ever heard the expression about stopping digging when you're standing in a hole? Just accept that you're wrong in this instance and let's move on, eh? :ok: