Given that's exactly what the B767 was supposed to do before the world retreated to Alliance hubs I seriously doubt it. Remember any Jetstar punter flying direct to MAN is one less flying QANTAS.
The 767 is not as efficient as the 787 for obvious reasons. It is not fair to compare the aircraft by airline preferance over aircraft performance. Look at it this way: TOM are looking to fly to destinations such as Honolulu, Vietnam etc. - these would not have been possible with the 767.
As people have mentioned, flying Jetstar doesn't exactly mean moving over from Qantas. What a naive statement. What about EK, SQ, QR, EK, TK, AY or SK?
Not for nothing did BA sell Go, competing against yourself is seldom successful.
You mean like LH owning LX or BA owning EC? It all goes into the same pocket although they technically 'compete.'
You can have hub busting B787s at MAN or a fleet of A380s at LHR, unlikely you'll see both.
I somehow doubt that...
Despite all the codeshares, BA MAN-LHR frequencies have eroded from 12x daily to 8x daily and most Shuttle flights are operated by A319/A320 versus B752/B763 ten years ago.
Although EK, QR, EY etc. have contributed significantly, the trains are one of the massive factors.
That is because LHR connections are not attractive to us up here whether the OneLondon Alliance carriers like it or not. Their convenience is not our concern.
A couple of years ago I would agree - but have you used T5? Far better than DXB, DOH and AUH put together IMO.
EK/EY/QR/SQ have established themselves as the carriers of choice on the 'Kangaroo Route' from the North. I'm sure that QANTAS themselves are well aware that their LHR transfers are significantly disadvantaged against these more reliable and superior* products.
* 'Superior' here refers not to onboard cabin service, but to the transfer experience at LHR and the notorious unreliability of the frequently cancelled MAN-LHR Shuttles.
Lest we forget that at one point BA/QF owned the so-called 'Kangaroo route' yet the carriers you mentioned managed to dismount them from their perch. Could it not happen again?
As mentioned above, the days of terrible transfers at LHR have gone, certainly where BA is concerned!
It's not that long ago that BA were booking people over LHR-JFK rather than the direct MAN-JFK service as it can depend on "whose" passengers they are within a company. It's barmy but it's true. MAN is better off with Emirates, Etihad and Qatar, but I feel many still pine for the old legacy days of the old flag carriers and will never admit it. Now that's also barmy but I do understand it.
I think what is "barmy" is how naive people on here are. The majority of passengers that actually count (J and F) don't themselves choose who they fly with! You really think sales execs of, for example, a pharmaceutical company, decide whether they fly EK or BA simply on which they prefer? Those days went only 3 years ago. It is all down to contracts etc. If you're based in Manchester and you're having to go to SYD and your company is prone to using BA - guess what? Your going via LHR...
I know it isn't as black and white as that but remember - would BA rather have 10 F passengers flying MAN-LHR-the world on one of their A319s or 149 Y flying MAN-LHR? The shuttle isn't there to make money, it's there to provide LHR with the lucrative long haul passengers.
Just my 2 cents!