MANCHESTER - 5
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to look ahead ...
OK, so BA's MAN-JFK route - the service which time forgot - is finally to be withdrawn. A disappointment certainly, but the end of the world? Perhaps not.
MAN has two daily services to EWR with COA and a daily service to JFK with DAL plus some fifth freedoms with PIA. There is every possibility that these could increase capacity if demand so warrants, and even if they don't the withdrawal of BA as a direct competitor will enhance the viability of the services which remain. Personally, I would now like to see Delta maintain a daily frequency on the route year-round; perhaps afew of us should e.mail them and ask if this will be their intention following the demise of BA. But whatever happens, Manchester has the New York route covered with upto three flights daily. With recession setting in that capacity may be ideal for sustainable operation at a profit in the medium term.
I shed few tears about the withdrawal of "Cockney Airways" from Manchester. Now they can give their full attention to serving those few British who were born within earshot of Bow Bells. Long may it sustain them! From a Manchester point of view, it has never upset me that BA failed to support MAN as they so often promised to do; their misleading rhetoric and false promises grated, but their ultimate business decision to commit only to the minimum I could live with. What really DID upset me was the ability BA had to strangle development at MAN by other carriers. They would object to applications by other carriers - even on routes which they did not themselves offer; they would suddenly 'occupy' routes where competition did arise (remember the L1011 schedule to HKG just after Cathay's original launch?). Remember how QANTAS pulled out of MAN - just after BA had bought a stake in them! Remember the 'Oneworld' saga which saw Iberia off MAN-MAD (Are BA still flying that one themselves by the way ; oh no, they're not are they?). They had politicians convinced that BA's interests and 'British Interests' were synonymous, and that direct scheduled services to the regions by foreign carriers were somehow not in the 'British Interest'. And worst of all, they had earlier generations of Manchester Airport management fearful to negotiate with rival airlines based on threats of withdrawal, or curtailment of future growth. Well, that happened anyway.
So there's a great big silver lining with all this. What leverage does BA have over Manchester now? ABSOLUTELY NONE ! Withdraw the Shuttle, eh? Well wouldn't that be a threat! MAplc can now approach any carrier it likes without fearing reprisals by any other carrier; no airline at MAN is now so dominant that it can use its ability to withdraw as a meaningful threat. MA can offer terms to whichever companies best serve the airport's future requirements, and hopefully the agenda of all concerned will be to make routes successful and profitable, rather than to occupy routes just enough to make them unattractive to others.
And what about we the customers? BA is now one airline amongst several offering nothing more than feed to its hub(s) [LHR and LGW]. But BA has a problem. Their painful reputation for canceling MAN Shuttles at the drop of a hat means that regular travelers no longer trust them. And the discredited Heathrow experience in particular is one that well-informed customers strive to avoid. How often do Lufthansa, KLM, SAS, Finnair, Turkish, Brussels Airlines, Emirates etc cancel flights ex-MAN to their own hubs? Very rarely, I can tell you. But BA? That is another story, and BA's propensity to cancel Shuttles goes back way beyond the latest sorry episode at T5. So as customers we have a logical choice ... to book with BA, or not.
In Summer 2006, I booked a cruise with Princess Cruises out of Fort Lauderdale. Princess said they organised inclusive flights and would contact me with details. They phoned back and said they intended to book me with BA routing MAN-LHR-MIA. I replied, "In that case, quote me for cruise only. I will arrange my own flights from Manchester." Surprised, they said that BA flights via LHR would be cheaper; "Not cheap enough!" I replied. But in the end I didn't need to arrange my own flights: Princess came back and booked me MAN-ORD-MIA with AAL. All I had to do was ask. Come the day of travel, a security scare had paralysed UK airports. BA had immediately cancelled all its Shuttles for the day. Their desk was beseiged by distraught passengers - some destined for the same cruise as myself. AAL55 departed late, but it did depart. ORD was chaotic, but a fantastic lady from AAL rebooked my party onto the last ORD-MIA flight of the day. Only two parties from MAN made it to the ship. Ourselves and one other couple. The gentleman told me he had refused to fly BA via Heathrow because they had let him down before; he and his wife had travelled aboard AAL55 also. All the other Manchester passengers missed the boat - literally. And I didn't meet many from EDI/GLA/BFS/NCL/ABZ.
And the moral of the story is that we all have a choice. As customers, we can reject travel itineraries with BA over LHR and insist on a more reliable option. It isn't difficult, and as I experienced in the episode above you may be very glad you did. Use your choices as a customer ... BA is one operator amongst many, and for MAN-originating passengers a rather unreliable one. Tell your friends that Delta and Continental offer MAN-NYC anyway, tell them that avoiding the LHR hub is easy (and rewarding) to do. Tell your tour operators and travel agents to quote you for ground content alone if they only offer you flights with BA via Heathrow. They will eventually get the message! Is it unpatriotic to avoid our "flag carrier"? No - it is they who have chosen to avoid offering service to us! My loyalty is to the carriers which provide a great service from Manchester and support our regional economy by so doing. You won't find me in the BA Shuttle "cancelled" queue at LHR watching mystified as the rival BMI flight to MAN is apparently able to taxi out on time ...
BA has made its choice to serve Greater London alone. Fine. Let them do so. We have so many - better - alternative choices up here. BA's game is to force us all like sheep through Heathrow; well hey BA, we don't have to play! Let's stop moaning about BA's service ... just don't use them! And educate your friends and colleagues to understand how irrelevant BA's operation has become to the UK regions; tell them about the alternative carriers they can book and the better journey they can expect to enjoy as a result. Tell your travel agents and tour operators that you will not accept an itinerary routed via LHR. Tell your employers' business travel department that BA no longer offers the services which your corporate requirements demand. Do it tomorrow.
CHEERS TO ALL. SHED.
MAN has two daily services to EWR with COA and a daily service to JFK with DAL plus some fifth freedoms with PIA. There is every possibility that these could increase capacity if demand so warrants, and even if they don't the withdrawal of BA as a direct competitor will enhance the viability of the services which remain. Personally, I would now like to see Delta maintain a daily frequency on the route year-round; perhaps afew of us should e.mail them and ask if this will be their intention following the demise of BA. But whatever happens, Manchester has the New York route covered with upto three flights daily. With recession setting in that capacity may be ideal for sustainable operation at a profit in the medium term.
I shed few tears about the withdrawal of "Cockney Airways" from Manchester. Now they can give their full attention to serving those few British who were born within earshot of Bow Bells. Long may it sustain them! From a Manchester point of view, it has never upset me that BA failed to support MAN as they so often promised to do; their misleading rhetoric and false promises grated, but their ultimate business decision to commit only to the minimum I could live with. What really DID upset me was the ability BA had to strangle development at MAN by other carriers. They would object to applications by other carriers - even on routes which they did not themselves offer; they would suddenly 'occupy' routes where competition did arise (remember the L1011 schedule to HKG just after Cathay's original launch?). Remember how QANTAS pulled out of MAN - just after BA had bought a stake in them! Remember the 'Oneworld' saga which saw Iberia off MAN-MAD (Are BA still flying that one themselves by the way ; oh no, they're not are they?). They had politicians convinced that BA's interests and 'British Interests' were synonymous, and that direct scheduled services to the regions by foreign carriers were somehow not in the 'British Interest'. And worst of all, they had earlier generations of Manchester Airport management fearful to negotiate with rival airlines based on threats of withdrawal, or curtailment of future growth. Well, that happened anyway.
So there's a great big silver lining with all this. What leverage does BA have over Manchester now? ABSOLUTELY NONE ! Withdraw the Shuttle, eh? Well wouldn't that be a threat! MAplc can now approach any carrier it likes without fearing reprisals by any other carrier; no airline at MAN is now so dominant that it can use its ability to withdraw as a meaningful threat. MA can offer terms to whichever companies best serve the airport's future requirements, and hopefully the agenda of all concerned will be to make routes successful and profitable, rather than to occupy routes just enough to make them unattractive to others.
And what about we the customers? BA is now one airline amongst several offering nothing more than feed to its hub(s) [LHR and LGW]. But BA has a problem. Their painful reputation for canceling MAN Shuttles at the drop of a hat means that regular travelers no longer trust them. And the discredited Heathrow experience in particular is one that well-informed customers strive to avoid. How often do Lufthansa, KLM, SAS, Finnair, Turkish, Brussels Airlines, Emirates etc cancel flights ex-MAN to their own hubs? Very rarely, I can tell you. But BA? That is another story, and BA's propensity to cancel Shuttles goes back way beyond the latest sorry episode at T5. So as customers we have a logical choice ... to book with BA, or not.
In Summer 2006, I booked a cruise with Princess Cruises out of Fort Lauderdale. Princess said they organised inclusive flights and would contact me with details. They phoned back and said they intended to book me with BA routing MAN-LHR-MIA. I replied, "In that case, quote me for cruise only. I will arrange my own flights from Manchester." Surprised, they said that BA flights via LHR would be cheaper; "Not cheap enough!" I replied. But in the end I didn't need to arrange my own flights: Princess came back and booked me MAN-ORD-MIA with AAL. All I had to do was ask. Come the day of travel, a security scare had paralysed UK airports. BA had immediately cancelled all its Shuttles for the day. Their desk was beseiged by distraught passengers - some destined for the same cruise as myself. AAL55 departed late, but it did depart. ORD was chaotic, but a fantastic lady from AAL rebooked my party onto the last ORD-MIA flight of the day. Only two parties from MAN made it to the ship. Ourselves and one other couple. The gentleman told me he had refused to fly BA via Heathrow because they had let him down before; he and his wife had travelled aboard AAL55 also. All the other Manchester passengers missed the boat - literally. And I didn't meet many from EDI/GLA/BFS/NCL/ABZ.
And the moral of the story is that we all have a choice. As customers, we can reject travel itineraries with BA over LHR and insist on a more reliable option. It isn't difficult, and as I experienced in the episode above you may be very glad you did. Use your choices as a customer ... BA is one operator amongst many, and for MAN-originating passengers a rather unreliable one. Tell your friends that Delta and Continental offer MAN-NYC anyway, tell them that avoiding the LHR hub is easy (and rewarding) to do. Tell your tour operators and travel agents to quote you for ground content alone if they only offer you flights with BA via Heathrow. They will eventually get the message! Is it unpatriotic to avoid our "flag carrier"? No - it is they who have chosen to avoid offering service to us! My loyalty is to the carriers which provide a great service from Manchester and support our regional economy by so doing. You won't find me in the BA Shuttle "cancelled" queue at LHR watching mystified as the rival BMI flight to MAN is apparently able to taxi out on time ...
BA has made its choice to serve Greater London alone. Fine. Let them do so. We have so many - better - alternative choices up here. BA's game is to force us all like sheep through Heathrow; well hey BA, we don't have to play! Let's stop moaning about BA's service ... just don't use them! And educate your friends and colleagues to understand how irrelevant BA's operation has become to the UK regions; tell them about the alternative carriers they can book and the better journey they can expect to enjoy as a result. Tell your travel agents and tour operators that you will not accept an itinerary routed via LHR. Tell your employers' business travel department that BA no longer offers the services which your corporate requirements demand. Do it tomorrow.
CHEERS TO ALL. SHED.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso -
Just a brief message to confirm that your posting had not appeared when I started work on mine. I did not intend to tread on your toes.
Cheers, SHED.
(Edited to remove the word "posting" which appeared twice.)
Just a brief message to confirm that your posting had not appeared when I started work on mine. I did not intend to tread on your toes.
Cheers, SHED.
(Edited to remove the word "posting" which appeared twice.)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Shed, very well said.
BA are a complete and utter ****s, their ongoing destruction of regional air travel is nothing short of a national disgrace.
As for the 1503, BA for as long as I have known them have tried to discredit the service, it has always had high load factors, and good yield factors along with full freight loads (which BA "rented" out at ridiculously high rates to BAR to ensure that the route didn't look too profitable).
Thankfully through Star Alliance and Skyteam, Manchester still has fantastic global links through international hubs, and I would encourage everyone to tell friends, family, whoever they will listen to boycott BA and Oneworld due to their disgraceful dereliction of the regions.
BA are as shambolic a flag carrier as you will find.
BA are a complete and utter ****s, their ongoing destruction of regional air travel is nothing short of a national disgrace.
As for the 1503, BA for as long as I have known them have tried to discredit the service, it has always had high load factors, and good yield factors along with full freight loads (which BA "rented" out at ridiculously high rates to BAR to ensure that the route didn't look too profitable).
Thankfully through Star Alliance and Skyteam, Manchester still has fantastic global links through international hubs, and I would encourage everyone to tell friends, family, whoever they will listen to boycott BA and Oneworld due to their disgraceful dereliction of the regions.
BA are as shambolic a flag carrier as you will find.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post Shed, couldn't have said it better myself. Don't forget also that BA dictated their own subsidary airline at MAN. GB were limited to the routes that they could offer because BA had a noose around their neck. I find it hard to believe that JFK & other routes in times gone by were making big losses, but if they were then they've contributed to it themselves by limiting their options at Manchester and forcing people to go via LHR wherever possible.
Bagso has a point with his earlier post. MAplc still pussyfoot around BA like they're the most important attribute to the airport. They still get everything they want and more from the airport, like they always have. Completely takes the p*ss. Hopefully not for much longer though. T3 will become LoCo soon. BA will asked to move to T1. Not much room over there at the minute and with them only needing a handful of desks, let's give them the darkest dingiest corner possible!
Time MA wised up and gave the time of day to those airlines who actually have an interest in operating from Manchester instead.
Bagso has a point with his earlier post. MAplc still pussyfoot around BA like they're the most important attribute to the airport. They still get everything they want and more from the airport, like they always have. Completely takes the p*ss. Hopefully not for much longer though. T3 will become LoCo soon. BA will asked to move to T1. Not much room over there at the minute and with them only needing a handful of desks, let's give them the darkest dingiest corner possible!
Time MA wised up and gave the time of day to those airlines who actually have an interest in operating from Manchester instead.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wigan
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
master plan for tthe terminals
I heard that T2 and T3 are going to be handling 20 mil !!! passengers a year by 2030.
T1 will initially hold around 11mil a year
That means the airport will handle around 51mil passenger a year by 2030.
T1 will initially hold around 11mil a year
That means the airport will handle around 51mil passenger a year by 2030.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantastic post shed......just didn't have the time to expand the detail as you did so.....it s/b up for a "post of the year".
Ps Nobody is suggesting that we keep services simply because they are dare I say it "regional", but let us have at least have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field !!!!!!
Ps Nobody is suggesting that we keep services simply because they are dare I say it "regional", but let us have at least have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field !!!!!!
Yup, agree with shed.
The fact that the one line press release says the service is "suspended" is just to make sure One World partner American don't go sniffing around.
Time to move the Shuttles to T1, relinquish the Terraces lounge & get the old BA hangar back to full use.
The fact that the one line press release says the service is "suspended" is just to make sure One World partner American don't go sniffing around.
Time to move the Shuttles to T1, relinquish the Terraces lounge & get the old BA hangar back to full use.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, I have to compliment Shed again for a great post. This is getting to be a habit.
Re growth figures, weren't MA claiming 50m pax at 2015 at the R2 inquiry? A bit of slippage, eh?
Re growth figures, weren't MA claiming 50m pax at 2015 at the R2 inquiry? A bit of slippage, eh?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed
Heathrow is a dump best avoided, but why is it like that? to a large part it is down to location which makes growth difficult, does anyone believe it will have a third runway by 2015? so all it can do is take bigger and bigger aircraft to use the limited slot numbers available, so if you are BA then when things go wrong (and they will more often because it running at capacity 95% of the time) which flights do you cancel and you can't run them all? common sense says it has to be domestics the knock on cost of chopping international flights is just to much, so first off go MAN (travel with bmi as an option?) and so on. As you say it wouldn't happen at AMS CDG FRA because it wouldn't need to. I have operated into CDG probably 500+ times in the last 10 years and had to hold no more than a half a dozen times, with LHR i have not had to hold less 5 times.
Manchester got caught with the same Nimby's and ended up with one and half useable runways instead of two, the fact remains that in this country we avoid the making long term plans.
Manchester got caught with the same Nimby's and ended up with one and half useable runways instead of two, the fact remains that in this country we avoid the making long term plans.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is everybody that opposes runway development/terminal expansion a "Nimby/tree-hugger" on this forum?
I'm sure if somebody proposed building a nuclear power station, 6 lane motorway at the end of your street then you wouldn't be too happy about it, however, if disruption involves aviation, then it seems that nobody should moan about it.
I'm sure if somebody proposed building a nuclear power station, 6 lane motorway at the end of your street then you wouldn't be too happy about it, however, if disruption involves aviation, then it seems that nobody should moan about it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso has a point with his earlier post. MAplc still pussyfoot around BA like they're the most important attribute to the airport. They still get everything they want and more from the airport, like they always have. Completely takes the p*ss. Hopefully not for much longer though.
Looks like the love affair between MA and BA is finally over
- see the last para of this article (my underlining) from UK Airport News. This statement also appears in the Manchester Evening News. You wouldn't say something like this in public if you wanted to keep them onside.As has been said they opposed just about every long haul application into MAN as they wanted to channel everything through LHR. And remember when they binned the Pakistan services ex MAN, they claimed in the press release that this would not hit the regions as pax could be accomodated on shuttles to London. So little regard for the pax there.
After a huge lobbying campaign, the civil servants eventually twigged on that the regions had a case for direct services and if they were by foreign carriers so be it. Regional access suddenly became easier.
I look forward to London Airways disappearing into the darkest recesses of T1 ASAP.
Suzeman
-------------------------------------------------
20.04.08
Bosses at Manchester Airport are 'confident' that another airline will take up the New York route dropped by British Airways. They are already holding talks with other airlines about what it says is a 'lucrative' route.
BA announced on Friday that is to 'suspend' (axe) the daily flights to JFK airport - its last long-haul service from an airport outside London - in October. The plane used to operate the flights will be transferred to Heathorw, whilst a plane from Heathrow will move to Gatwick to allow the airline to launch a daily Gatwick - New York service.
An airport spokesman said: It's a popular route with business and leisure passengers. Civil Aviation Authority figures show more than 413,000 people flew between Manchester and New York with airlines including BA last year.
BA said it stopped the service for 'commercial reasons'. A spokesman said: It's not a decision we have taken lightly. This has been a loss-making route for some time.
A spokesman for Manchester Airport said it had not been consulted by BA about the move and the airline had made no efforts to work with the airport to save the route. US airline Delta also flies between Manchester and JFK, whilst Continental flies from Manchester to Newark, New Jersey.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 63
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABTN Article about JFK service
Dont you just love the spin (MAN-Chicago !)
British Airways (BA) will suspend its daily flights from Manchester
to New York JFK in October because of increasingly poor performance
on the route.
It will move the Boeing 767 aircraft which operated it to Heathrow,
and switch a 777 to Gatwick to fly daily services from there to JFK
on 27 October.
This will boost the carrier's capacity from the capital to JFK to 62
flights a week, with 55 already going from Heathrow.
"Passenger yield was reduced and the route was no longer viable," a
BA spokesman told ABTN. "Increased competition is a factor, and there
were not the passenger numbers to sustain it."
The four-class 777 will offer First, Club World, World Traveller Plus
and World Traveller.
BA still has a daily service to Chicago from Manchester, and the
spokesman said there is "no question mark over it," although he said
the carrier constantly reviews routes.
BA general manager network planning Lynne Embleton said: "The new
Gatwick service will give our customers even more choice when flying
between London and New York.
"Not only do we already have an extensive schedule from Heathrow to
both JFK and Newark, but next year we will launch business-only
flights from London City."
Also in October, BA will start daily short-haul routes from Gatwick
to Oporto Portugal's second largest city - and Valencia, Spain.
Second daily services to Alicante and Turin will be added from the
end of that month.
British Airways (BA) will suspend its daily flights from Manchester
to New York JFK in October because of increasingly poor performance
on the route.
It will move the Boeing 767 aircraft which operated it to Heathrow,
and switch a 777 to Gatwick to fly daily services from there to JFK
on 27 October.
This will boost the carrier's capacity from the capital to JFK to 62
flights a week, with 55 already going from Heathrow.
"Passenger yield was reduced and the route was no longer viable," a
BA spokesman told ABTN. "Increased competition is a factor, and there
were not the passenger numbers to sustain it."
The four-class 777 will offer First, Club World, World Traveller Plus
and World Traveller.
BA still has a daily service to Chicago from Manchester, and the
spokesman said there is "no question mark over it," although he said
the carrier constantly reviews routes.
BA general manager network planning Lynne Embleton said: "The new
Gatwick service will give our customers even more choice when flying
between London and New York.
"Not only do we already have an extensive schedule from Heathrow to
both JFK and Newark, but next year we will launch business-only
flights from London City."
Also in October, BA will start daily short-haul routes from Gatwick
to Oporto Portugal's second largest city - and Valencia, Spain.
Second daily services to Alicante and Turin will be added from the
end of that month.