MANCHESTER - 5
Just a footnote about BA's protestations about making a loss on the MAN -JFK route. We have been here before with the MAN-LAX route that operated for two summer seasons using a 767 in the late '90s. Although popular and well supported it was eventually binned as being unprofitable. As soon as that happened we went to 3 x daily out of LHR.
Enter a new accountant at BAR Manchester, who had the unenviable task of unravelling some creative "cross -subsidies" at BAR in an attempt to justify continuing or closing the bases. He was badly briefed by his boss and delved into the longhaul program without being asked to...........
Yes - you've guessed it
The route turned out to have made a tiny profit of £250,000 which was hidden by loading costs and stripping revenue. The freight income being credited to LHR for instance.............
Enter a new accountant at BAR Manchester, who had the unenviable task of unravelling some creative "cross -subsidies" at BAR in an attempt to justify continuing or closing the bases. He was badly briefed by his boss and delved into the longhaul program without being asked to...........
Yes - you've guessed it
The route turned out to have made a tiny profit of £250,000 which was hidden by loading costs and stripping revenue. The freight income being credited to LHR for instance.............
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Usually in a bar!
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should have the balls to just say we need the 767 down South as a replacement for the 777 that crashed. Manchester is an easy target and it finally gets them out of anywhere north of london. To say they have suspended the route is a lie. Its cancelled never to return. BA do well from pushing people through mostly Heathrow so let them get on with it. Virgin and BMI make flights work from here so it shows where BA have there priorities.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what its worth I for one, will never fly BA again and in general discussion with my friends and business colleagues neither will they, nor do they intend on using LHR.
EK, EY, SQ, BD, Virg, Flybe and Finnair ! get most of their business.
EK, EY, SQ, BD, Virg, Flybe and Finnair ! get most of their business.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's no surprise that London Airways have stopped the JFK flight, but it's a complete shame.
I know for a fact that load factors have always been good on this flight, as has yield. Unfortunately, London have always "handicapped" this flight, charging BAR an extortionate price for the freight capacity and other such tactics to make it look like an unprofitable service, the opposite is however true.
God bless NWH and all who have flown on her.
I know for a fact that load factors have always been good on this flight, as has yield. Unfortunately, London have always "handicapped" this flight, charging BAR an extortionate price for the freight capacity and other such tactics to make it look like an unprofitable service, the opposite is however true.
God bless NWH and all who have flown on her.
For the five years that the MAN JFK was on the BACX and BAConnect books, we were always told by the CEO that it was a good earner and it was partly responsble for keeping the whole regional operation chugging along. So someone is lying.
It made a profit, so why are BA now saying that it has always struggled and they couldn't turn it round.
It made a profit, so why are BA now saying that it has always struggled and they couldn't turn it round.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: 2010, NSW
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the MAN-JFK did make a profit when fuel prices weren't over $100 a barrel, companies allowed most executive to travel in Club, there were a few connection ex-MAN.
For all those who are saying BA has turned it's back on MAN...apart from LH which other major European carrier operates longhaul from a city other than it's main hub?? Germany is twice as big as the UK, and Munich is a bonafide tourist/business destination with a huge industrial/tourist catchment area. Remember LH doesn't even operate from BER (Germany's capital) longhaul, as there is no high yield. AF only operates from CDG, KLM from AMS, LX is moving almost all longhaul to ZRH, AZ can't make up it's mind whether to concentrate on FCO or MXP/LIN...IB with it's massive network to Latin America fly none of it from BCN.
Only carriers in countries that are greatly than larger the UK, does one carrier operate longhaul from more than one city (e.g. QF, AC, SA, US carriers, Indian Carriers). The Japanese carriers who once upon a time thought KIX was an alternate to NRT have moved most longhaul operations back to NRT.
While this decision may look like BA is desserting it's final outpost in the regions, BA is not unique. Most major "flag" carriers prefer to concentrate on 1 hub city. I for 1 love Manchester, think it's a fab city, with all the cosmopolitan features of London without the attititude. However, it's not possible to escape the fact that London is the centre of Government, commerce and tourism for the UK. HIstoric ties or past performance are not reasons for BA to keep routes...MAN-JFK has fallen victim to the same fate as routes such as LHR-DTW, MEL, RUH/JED, etc...Willie's chopper has no time for emotion, he just wields it with cold, hard profit in the back of his head.
For all those who are saying BA has turned it's back on MAN...apart from LH which other major European carrier operates longhaul from a city other than it's main hub?? Germany is twice as big as the UK, and Munich is a bonafide tourist/business destination with a huge industrial/tourist catchment area. Remember LH doesn't even operate from BER (Germany's capital) longhaul, as there is no high yield. AF only operates from CDG, KLM from AMS, LX is moving almost all longhaul to ZRH, AZ can't make up it's mind whether to concentrate on FCO or MXP/LIN...IB with it's massive network to Latin America fly none of it from BCN.
Only carriers in countries that are greatly than larger the UK, does one carrier operate longhaul from more than one city (e.g. QF, AC, SA, US carriers, Indian Carriers). The Japanese carriers who once upon a time thought KIX was an alternate to NRT have moved most longhaul operations back to NRT.
While this decision may look like BA is desserting it's final outpost in the regions, BA is not unique. Most major "flag" carriers prefer to concentrate on 1 hub city. I for 1 love Manchester, think it's a fab city, with all the cosmopolitan features of London without the attititude. However, it's not possible to escape the fact that London is the centre of Government, commerce and tourism for the UK. HIstoric ties or past performance are not reasons for BA to keep routes...MAN-JFK has fallen victim to the same fate as routes such as LHR-DTW, MEL, RUH/JED, etc...Willie's chopper has no time for emotion, he just wields it with cold, hard profit in the back of his head.
Good posts Muizinberg, but what annoys people is when management continually lie about facts. Walsh and his poodles have a habit of it. Damn it we have enough with the Govt, but aviation? what is the point of lying about facts. If the route is doing well and is a nice little earner etc(so Management say) why chop it? Is it really because of the price of oil? Is it because BA are an aircraft down at LHR because of the B777 incident? If they would come clean and give the real reason instead of 'operational b******s then we would have more faith in them.
Watch what happens in June when T4 movements move to T5. It will be interesting to see what they lie about that.
Watch what happens in June when T4 movements move to T5. It will be interesting to see what they lie about that.
I think crewmeal has hit the nail on the head here. If BA had simply said " we are an aircraft down and have bigger fish to fry so we are taking your aircraft - sorry" most people would have understood. Still upset/angry but at least clear on the reasons. What we get are lies and spin...........
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading this MAN-JFK element of the thread with interest. As a slight aside, is anyone able to give a very rough indication of what it actually costs an airline to operate a single rotation on this route, taking into account things like fuel, crew salaries etc? I realise there will be another whole lot of factors in the melting pot, like lease fees (if apropriate), insurance etc, so the question might be a bit 'silly', but at present I wouldn't even have the first idea. I am interested to learn more about this issue of load factors vs. yield.
Many thanks.
Many thanks.
It stopped making a profit when they closed the crew base and had to run the crew from LHR on a 'W' pattern through Newark/JFK. It has operated several times recently with no crew available and no pax. Cargo only. The IFE refuses to work half the time, and the support from LHR has been minimal. It was bound to happen sooner or later. It was 'set up to fail'. That's the BA Way.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ba Man-jfk
Sadly I think the only real surprise here is that the JFK run lasted as long as it did. When I worked for them at T3 several years ago (pre Willie Walsh) the service was always dogged by rumours that Waterside weren't happy with it and it was up for the chop. Many thought it might go in the wake of September 11 but it just carried on majestically each and every day. I think the real death knell rang out with the Flybe deal, it was never going to last for long after they packed up everything else except shuttle routes at MAN.
It is hard not to get nostalgic about a service which has been operating for so long, but strategically BA just aren't interested in MAN anymore and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. It will be missed by many passengers both sides of the Atlantic and those who worked on the route over the years.
It is hard not to get nostalgic about a service which has been operating for so long, but strategically BA just aren't interested in MAN anymore and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. It will be missed by many passengers both sides of the Atlantic and those who worked on the route over the years.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Age: 39
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just the shuttles to go now - can't imagine they will last too much longer. BA obviously don't rate them too highly either as they were the first to get cancelled after the T5 debacle. Plenty of jobs at Flybe for the engineers 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ever there was a case for lobbying Gordon Brown to require British Airways to now formally change their name to London Airways this is it.
The sooner they remove theri logo from T3 at MAN the better. They will never develop the regions not now not ever. No matter what they do with Open Skies, 787's or anything.....it won't happen.....
The sooner they remove theri logo from T3 at MAN the better. They will never develop the regions not now not ever. No matter what they do with Open Skies, 787's or anything.....it won't happen.....
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always makes me laugh though how BA still perceive T3 to be their terminal. The once extravagant and exclusive building with their name glittering in neon lights is now over run by the likes of Flybe, bmibaby & easyjet. A sure sign of the times and a clear indication of those carriers who are willing to commit to Manchester and those who aren't.
The loss of JFK is no biggie. DL will probably upgrade the aircraft back to a 767 in time and there was even recent talk of a 3rd daily CO flight to EWR. Perhaps even chance for Jet2 to step in, as promised by many a loyal Jet2 fan over recent months. As for BA, very soon they'll be booted over to T1, with the 'luxury' of sharing desks with LH and LS at ground level check-in & their pitiful shuttles being dumped on remote, with the added pleasure of using the wonderful bussing gate 20! Can't wait
The loss of JFK is no biggie. DL will probably upgrade the aircraft back to a 767 in time and there was even recent talk of a 3rd daily CO flight to EWR. Perhaps even chance for Jet2 to step in, as promised by many a loyal Jet2 fan over recent months. As for BA, very soon they'll be booted over to T1, with the 'luxury' of sharing desks with LH and LS at ground level check-in & their pitiful shuttles being dumped on remote, with the added pleasure of using the wonderful bussing gate 20! Can't wait
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US
During September when US are using a 752 it seems they are running a second 752 on days 1 2 5 6.
Also I think from next month the flight code is now carried to RDU and not LAX
Viscount
Also I think from next month the flight code is now carried to RDU and not LAX
Viscount
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Stockport
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man/JFK
Success depends on commitment. As far back as I can remember BA's attitude and that of its predecessors (BEA & BOAC) has been lacklustre towards Manchester possibly to the detriment of the Airport. Maybe one day Willie and his cohorts (including the UK government) will realise there is life outside London. In the meantime good riddance BA - may others succeed.