Thomas Cook
With those charges then the 'real' schedule carriers have nothing to worry about. They are still going down the route of charging for everything, low cost ideas for high cost.
For that price you could get a Business class ticket on Air China to Beijing.
For that price you could get a Business class ticket on Air China to Beijing.
zjc123
Unless I'm mistaken, there is a big error in those flight timings on the screen dump.
When last I flew the atlantic, westbound took longer than eastbound due to the prevailing winds. On the example pasted, it takes 7:25 westbound, and 10:20 eastbound, which can't be right.
Does the return stop en route (can't see why it would) or is westbound on some type that has passed me by?
Whatever, it doesn't add up!
Unless I'm mistaken, there is a big error in those flight timings on the screen dump.
When last I flew the atlantic, westbound took longer than eastbound due to the prevailing winds. On the example pasted, it takes 7:25 westbound, and 10:20 eastbound, which can't be right.
Does the return stop en route (can't see why it would) or is westbound on some type that has passed me by?
Whatever, it doesn't add up!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stockport
Age: 56
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIA and JFK flights
Great news about the MIA and JFK flights. The game changer for me tho will be whether I can book Premium Economy without having to book a Thomas Cook Cruise.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 31
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey
I noticed the exact same as you I only took the screen print for information purposes.
You know as much as me when it comes to the information thats on the website so I cannot answer your question.
ZJC
I noticed the exact same as you I only took the screen print for information purposes.
You know as much as me when it comes to the information thats on the website so I cannot answer your question.
ZJC
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes absolutely no market sense. There is just too much competition especially for NYC!
I can't see JFK lasting longer than 1 year. You can get more for cheaper with other carriers. I still think people will choose to transit via LHR with the likes of BA.
I can only think that it might be more appetising than travelling across in that terrible AA 757 on the direct MAN-JFK.
But in all seriousness, very surprised and do not think it'll last at all.
I can't see JFK lasting longer than 1 year. You can get more for cheaper with other carriers. I still think people will choose to transit via LHR with the likes of BA.
I can only think that it might be more appetising than travelling across in that terrible AA 757 on the direct MAN-JFK.
But in all seriousness, very surprised and do not think it'll last at all.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JonnyH - You are wholly mistaken. Manchester to New York is currently served just twice daily with both rotations operated by low-capacity B752 equipment … there is far from "just too much competition". Capacity is extremely tight on the route and fares are correspondingly high (which is no doubt fine by AAL / UAL). The fact is that MAN-NYC routes have successfully supported far more capacity in the past than is currently available, and there can be little doubt that latent demand remains. Note that TCX are expected to interline with FlyBe to feed the long-haul programme from MAN, so success will not be dependent on the immediate region alone. Having said that, 14 x B752 per week plus 3 x B763 (or A332?) gives a capacity total well within historic norms for MAN-NYC. Afew punters will choose to route via LHR as you suggest (frequent flyer incentives?)… all I can say to that is they're very welcome! Give me non-stop from MAN every time.
With reference to your assertion that "you can get more for cheaper with other carriers" … well, the jury is out on that one. Be assured that the silly 'think-of-a-number' fares which appear alongside the Thomas Cook flights at the moment do not reflect the actual pricing which will apply once the full programme of tariffs is uploaded into the system. Long haul services from MAN are frequently cited as lacking premium first / business demand with the region noted instead for sourcing large volumes of leisure-orientated economy class travellers. Well, that just happens to be Thomas Cook's market niche … they will be fine. There is no shortage of demand for New York city breaks from North West England. And I do anticipate that much of the TCX capacity from MAN-JFK/MIA will in any case be sold as part of a package deal which reduces the need to attract high volumes of seat only business.
Don't worry. TCX have thought this one through.
With reference to your assertion that "you can get more for cheaper with other carriers" … well, the jury is out on that one. Be assured that the silly 'think-of-a-number' fares which appear alongside the Thomas Cook flights at the moment do not reflect the actual pricing which will apply once the full programme of tariffs is uploaded into the system. Long haul services from MAN are frequently cited as lacking premium first / business demand with the region noted instead for sourcing large volumes of leisure-orientated economy class travellers. Well, that just happens to be Thomas Cook's market niche … they will be fine. There is no shortage of demand for New York city breaks from North West England. And I do anticipate that much of the TCX capacity from MAN-JFK/MIA will in any case be sold as part of a package deal which reduces the need to attract high volumes of seat only business.
Don't worry. TCX have thought this one through.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much competition on the route wasn't directed at MAN itself, I know there's only them direct flights, both on the old 757s. But if you get a 45 minute hop from MAN-LON you've got LHR which has a hugely overcrowded JFK route. You might disagree but the prices are really competitive most of the time especially in comparison to the prices TCX are giving now (I appreciate these could drop).
With prices most likely going to be lower, more choices of schedules (early morning, early afternoon, early evening flights), better equipment and better onboard amenities and services I think generally most people will continue doing what they're doing now. You're right in saying a lot of people may well do breaks with them but I really don't think that will allow it to be a popular and successful route still.
Also with reductions in crew being mentioned in a couple of threads then it's hardly going to make it a great onboard experience, in my opinion. Because of this and the hefty NYC hotel prices, people may do this route once a year and realise how poor the onboard service is, which I think it will be, and never use the route again. After all, who's gonna pay more for less? Which it seems like people would be doing based at today's price. The higher cabins on BA/VS/AA are a lot more ahead of the game in comparison to TCX both in relation to comfort and service (from experience). Even at the moment the loads aren't that good on the 2 existing direct routes. Most pax will still go via LHR. And that's not just a reflection on the aircraft type they use at MAN.
They only thing that I could perhaps see working is MIA if TCX market it right and utilise the flight for cruises etc. and the popular Orlando routes.
With prices most likely going to be lower, more choices of schedules (early morning, early afternoon, early evening flights), better equipment and better onboard amenities and services I think generally most people will continue doing what they're doing now. You're right in saying a lot of people may well do breaks with them but I really don't think that will allow it to be a popular and successful route still.
Also with reductions in crew being mentioned in a couple of threads then it's hardly going to make it a great onboard experience, in my opinion. Because of this and the hefty NYC hotel prices, people may do this route once a year and realise how poor the onboard service is, which I think it will be, and never use the route again. After all, who's gonna pay more for less? Which it seems like people would be doing based at today's price. The higher cabins on BA/VS/AA are a lot more ahead of the game in comparison to TCX both in relation to comfort and service (from experience). Even at the moment the loads aren't that good on the 2 existing direct routes. Most pax will still go via LHR. And that's not just a reflection on the aircraft type they use at MAN.
They only thing that I could perhaps see working is MIA if TCX market it right and utilise the flight for cruises etc. and the popular Orlando routes.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even at the moment the loads aren't that good on the 2 existing direct routes
Just because you think it's poor onboard service on TCX doesn't mean that no-one will bother altering their their travel plans. Others may be perfectly happy with it and if they are used to travelling on TCX then they may choose to go with them rather than travel south to travel west.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah and that's fair enough, it's my opinion. One of us will be proved wrong. My post wasn't necessarily saying poor service was the main reason. It was that you're paying more for less.
Don't know what stats you've been looking at recently either!
Don't know what stats you've been looking at recently either!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before the Manchester Defence League jumps all over the guy for daring to suggest this might be a challenging route to make money from...it's a fair question. There have been a catalogue of failures of operators on UK regions - US, including a fair number from MAN. Of course, no one doubts the demand exists, but as ever can this demand be served profitably. Even if it can be, is it more profitable than deploying the assets (the aircraft and crew) on other routes. History tells us that this is a tough market and APD increases and fuel costs have made it tougher still. If TCX have found a way to unpick this, then that's great and let's hope they have. Virgin clearly do well on the quasi-charter to Orlando so perhaps there are similarities (but many differences too I suspect).
I don't think there's anything wrong with being sceptical and reserving judgement at this stage and I would imagine it will be the default position for many industry observers.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being sceptical and reserving judgement at this stage and I would imagine it will be the default position for many industry observers.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I`m barking up wrong tree but a while ago wasn`t it mentioned that Thomas Cook would interline pax from Germany to US through Manchester on some routes and the reverse for pax going east
Ian
Ian
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFK & MIA
I've looked on both flythomascook and Thomas cook website and nothing appears anywhere anymore regarding these flights? Every time I look at JFK it gives me indirect with Icelandair.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North west,
There is sceptisism, which is fine (after all, this is a new direction for TCX so may not work), but then there is claiming MAN-NYC suffers poor loadings, which is not true in any shape or form.
There is sceptisism, which is fine (after all, this is a new direction for TCX so may not work), but then there is claiming MAN-NYC suffers poor loadings, which is not true in any shape or form.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
of an (allegedly) slightly improved cabin service
of an (allegedly) slightly improved cabin service
I too am bemused at the negativity about these flights (and playing devils advocate, I wonder if such negativity would have ensued if 'their' airport was to host the flights), I am now at a loss as to what exactly people want.
People bemoan lack of long haul from UK regional points, so, when such points finally get added/expanded, its somehow 'not good enough'.
BA will not base long haul in the regions again, Virgin seem happy with their current set-up at Manchester and Glasgow, so, who exactly is going to be 'good enough' to offer long haul?
When the 2 main UK long haul carriers show little interest, it is up to Thomas Cook and the likes, or being a spoke to long haul hub.
It just seems it is a never ending self loathing cycle. You want more long haul, but it seems only if the 'face' fits.......