NEWCASTLE
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to last nights posting indicating that NCL was on AA's "A" list for a 757 service to JFK which if they proceed with their plan would suggests that a service would commence summer / autumn 2006 then if this IS to happen certain events would have already taken place - AA would surely have checked out NCL sending some form of delegation, and possibly it is such an event that provided substance for the guy who allegedly blurted out a date "27 July" when being the worse for drink !
Personally I feel such a date to be inconsistent with the AA meeting which was only being held in early July with no confirmed decision to proceed, ie IF anything does transpire with AA later this month it is unlikely that it could be linked into the earlier proclamations as no decision was taken at that time.
Digressing slightly one has to assume that barring any unforeseen situation arising, that Newcastle ARE to get a US service within the next 18 months, but is AA to JFK when the deeper analysis is carried out, actually a better deal than say CO to EWR ?
Having transited both there are undoubtedly advantages in the CO hub at EWR to connect to onward US destinations, AA having a lesser presence at JFK.
As to CO taking up the route, is this likely ? do CO need a further, what is to the average US resident an obscure, destination? they have Scotland, "Middle England", the South, SouthWest and Northern Ireland covered. BRS it's newest route is attracting much comment and questions as to it's contribution. My view is that CO may feel that they currently have sufficient coverage, and so my money is firmly on AA.
Personally I feel such a date to be inconsistent with the AA meeting which was only being held in early July with no confirmed decision to proceed, ie IF anything does transpire with AA later this month it is unlikely that it could be linked into the earlier proclamations as no decision was taken at that time.
Digressing slightly one has to assume that barring any unforeseen situation arising, that Newcastle ARE to get a US service within the next 18 months, but is AA to JFK when the deeper analysis is carried out, actually a better deal than say CO to EWR ?
Having transited both there are undoubtedly advantages in the CO hub at EWR to connect to onward US destinations, AA having a lesser presence at JFK.
As to CO taking up the route, is this likely ? do CO need a further, what is to the average US resident an obscure, destination? they have Scotland, "Middle England", the South, SouthWest and Northern Ireland covered. BRS it's newest route is attracting much comment and questions as to it's contribution. My view is that CO may feel that they currently have sufficient coverage, and so my money is firmly on AA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will certainly be very interesting to see what, if anything, transpires on 27th July.
Current marketing strategy appears to be to make a new route announcement approximately three months before commencement of the service.
An AA operation would seem to fit a big gap in their UK coverage. A lot of pax who are already AA customers from LHR and members of AAAdvantage would welcome and make use of the new service and collect the appropriate miles. They are also part of the One World Alliance set up (with BA).
As stated, presumable some intitial talks will surely have been carried out with NCL Management.
None of the above rules out Continental though, who may well have held similar talks.
Current marketing strategy appears to be to make a new route announcement approximately three months before commencement of the service.
An AA operation would seem to fit a big gap in their UK coverage. A lot of pax who are already AA customers from LHR and members of AAAdvantage would welcome and make use of the new service and collect the appropriate miles. They are also part of the One World Alliance set up (with BA).
As stated, presumable some intitial talks will surely have been carried out with NCL Management.
None of the above rules out Continental though, who may well have held similar talks.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But are AA not part of the oneworld alliance with BA. Would BA not be annoyed at a direct service from NCL as I presume the would want to keep connections through LHR. Who knows?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have touched on the fundamental issue ! If BA was renamed appropriately, there really ought not to be a British in their name at all !
When were they ever really bothered about the North East other than to suck out the juicy transit traffic? It's a totally SE based airline, with a small outpost in "Middle England"and a small Scottish division network that exists presumably predominantly for political reasons.
If they actually cared they could have reviewd their own strategy and originated US bound flights out of NCL.
In the real world they would be in a much better position to generate revenue than say AA. They would benefit from US passenger flow from the AA alliance, they may actually create a small number of transit passengers through NCL at peak times when other flights were for whatever reason unsuitable, and surely their own marketing & tourism interests would drum up that extra 10% loads that may make such a service serious money.
So I say to any BA whingers up yours !, incidentally I'm one of those poors sods who have to endure the unenviable stress of numerous trips transitting through LHR.
When were they ever really bothered about the North East other than to suck out the juicy transit traffic? It's a totally SE based airline, with a small outpost in "Middle England"and a small Scottish division network that exists presumably predominantly for political reasons.
If they actually cared they could have reviewd their own strategy and originated US bound flights out of NCL.
In the real world they would be in a much better position to generate revenue than say AA. They would benefit from US passenger flow from the AA alliance, they may actually create a small number of transit passengers through NCL at peak times when other flights were for whatever reason unsuitable, and surely their own marketing & tourism interests would drum up that extra 10% loads that may make such a service serious money.
So I say to any BA whingers up yours !, incidentally I'm one of those poors sods who have to endure the unenviable stress of numerous trips transitting through LHR.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: the lonely desert
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is the XLA SSH flight on behalf of? It was originally meant to be TCX and TOM both using based 757. Is XLA replacing one of these or in addition to and will a 737-800 make it ok rom NCL to SSH with a full load?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XLA to SSH
I think that the XLA flight to SSH will replace TCX as its the same times and also FAO in the morning.
Expect TCX to go somewhere new maybe a new route to egypt?
Luxor?
Expect TCX to go somewhere new maybe a new route to egypt?
Luxor?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XLA 767 returned to POP after take off for some reason. Xla positioned in a 747-300 from SFB into POP to replace the 767-300. The 747-300 is due into NCL now at 15:30 today.
Avery long delay, 32 hours if i'm right.
Avery long delay, 32 hours if i'm right.
