What leaves me quite bemused in this whole debate is the crazy idea (often passing completely unchallenged) that changing flights at LHR is some kind of incidental minor inconvenience which travellers will by choice overlook in favour of an (allegedly) slightly improved cabin service. The place is a total blooming nightmare! Appalling for transfers, shocking queues, aggressive and officious security bods duplicating the job that the MAN guys have already done. Don't some of these brusque, scowling individuals realise that if we had hostile intent towards a flight … well, we've just had our chance aboard the plane we've arrived on!
LHR is a dreadful transfer experience and remains a national embarrassment, despite recent improvements. Even the basic sandwiches in the eateries are given some fancy name in order to justify a GBP10.00+ price-tag. The very idea that I would shun a MAN-JFK non-stop flight to endure that nonsense (even if they offered me a flying palace ex-LHR) simply does not compute. Money talks … but not that loud!
In case you were wondering, my most recent LHR transfer was booked by a third party (destination MIA, as it happens) and no alternative from MAN was available on my travel date. Four of the five people booked to do the same transfer as me MISSED the connecting flight ex-LHR. They arrived at destination one day later having been transferred to UAL. I made my flight by running, and courtesy of knowing my way around the place a bit having been temporarily based there many years ago. Not fun.
So, would I rather fly MAN-MIA (or JFK) aboard TCX? Do you really need me to answer that?