NEWCASTLE - 7
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
Where has this come from ??. It is the only LHR domestic route to show growth up 8% in June with increases since they stopped LGW.
There is about 40,000+ pax per month on this route with more than 60% with onward connections. I understand the Load Factor is supposedly in the high eightys ? Would seem a bit odd to drop it.
IF it did happen There would be a huge outcry from industry, M Ps etc.
No way would a LCC pick it up. Look at Jet 2 to LGW , traffic down 60% since they took over. I cant see that continuing for much longer.
There is about 40,000+ pax per month on this route with more than 60% with onward connections. I understand the Load Factor is supposedly in the high eightys ? Would seem a bit odd to drop it.
IF it did happen There would be a huge outcry from industry, M Ps etc.
No way would a LCC pick it up. Look at Jet 2 to LGW , traffic down 60% since they took over. I cant see that continuing for much longer.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NCL
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow
Folks - The rumour about BA has been doing the rounds with BA crew for 3 months. It came as a result of people looking at LGW being dropped and then guessing. There is a key difference: LGW lost money, LHR doesn't.
Think about this - BA needs feeder traffic from the regions. With NCL it has the luxury of no competition (unlike it's other domestic routes) and it doesn't have to run an hourly schedule unlike MAN / EDI / GLA. Therefore if things did go pear shaped both frequency and capacity can easily be flexed to ensure it makes money. As a minor consideration - BA also has a very large office complex on Tyneside which needs a connection to Waterside.
Long term the risk is the need for slots at LHR. Rather than chopping routes, this can be achieved by skimming a few shorthaul frequencies either from Domestic or European routes or by moving a couple of marginal European routes to LGW - NCL isn't a marginal route. Also consider this - If BA starts direct services from Europe to the US with Open Skies (route authority has already been granted), then does it need quite so many frequencies from Europe to LHR?
With T5, Open Skies, baggage issues, possible new Europe US services and a new aircraft order to sort out, I'd suggest BA has too many things on it's plate to start fixing things which aren't broken. NCL-LHR isn't broken.
You won't find a new entrant who could afford to start NCL-LHR. The slots are too valuable and the US carriers will outbid anyone tried this so the costs of entry would be prohibitive.
Currock Base.
Think about this - BA needs feeder traffic from the regions. With NCL it has the luxury of no competition (unlike it's other domestic routes) and it doesn't have to run an hourly schedule unlike MAN / EDI / GLA. Therefore if things did go pear shaped both frequency and capacity can easily be flexed to ensure it makes money. As a minor consideration - BA also has a very large office complex on Tyneside which needs a connection to Waterside.
Long term the risk is the need for slots at LHR. Rather than chopping routes, this can be achieved by skimming a few shorthaul frequencies either from Domestic or European routes or by moving a couple of marginal European routes to LGW - NCL isn't a marginal route. Also consider this - If BA starts direct services from Europe to the US with Open Skies (route authority has already been granted), then does it need quite so many frequencies from Europe to LHR?
With T5, Open Skies, baggage issues, possible new Europe US services and a new aircraft order to sort out, I'd suggest BA has too many things on it's plate to start fixing things which aren't broken. NCL-LHR isn't broken.
You won't find a new entrant who could afford to start NCL-LHR. The slots are too valuable and the US carriers will outbid anyone tried this so the costs of entry would be prohibitive.
Currock Base.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currock Base Well said, totally agree ! References on other postings to alternate carriers also seem pure fantasy, if for no other reason than lack of slots. I can't see BA dropping the LHR in the foreseable future, particularly with T5 "to feed". However if & when longhaul routes become established by other carriers such as the forthcoming eastbound DXB & and hopefully an eventual daily westbound US, then the effect on the LHR if the BAA don't sort out the current mess may warrant a further review.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: England
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant see BA dropping the LHR...NCL is the furthest city away from the capital by air in England, We would then only have connections to STN and LGW with loco's
Cant see it happening... If BA did that... EK/KL/AF would be getting a lot of their long haul biz!
Cant see it happening... If BA did that... EK/KL/AF would be getting a lot of their long haul biz!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: the lonely desert
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH6702, I very much doubt we will see Cronus or similar european airlines back at NCL operating charter services, the big 4 (soon to be the big 2!) are bringing much of their flying inhouse to their respective airlines, the smaller tour operators appear to be loosing out, as they cannot justify a full charter for such a small allocation. It appears that the consolidation in the industry will not be very good for the frequency of charter destinations from NCL, nor the variety. Frequency has been reduced, following XL's reduction in capacity with some routes (KGS, JTR, CHQ being lost and others like PFO, RHO, SSH, PMI, TFS etc reducing in frequency).
XL Airways
There are numerous reports circulating regarding XL's NCL operation next summer, all of which point towards them not re-opening their base at NCL. Indeed all of their groups flying, which is currently on sale is operated by Air Malta, using what appears to be a based aircraft, flying atleast 2 rotations per day. To me, that seems more cost effective than the groups current operation with 3 based aircraft flying one rotation per day and sitting on the apron the rest of the time. However, does this not have something to do with agreement with Finnair, where the use the aircraft on an hourly rate?
I hope, for the sake of the crews based at NCL, that all flights are not yet published and XL will have a presence as the closure of 2 charter bases within a few weeks of each other is a pity!
Heathrow
People are quite right, this one has been doing the rumour round for years, though with BA's lack of interest in regional work it could turn out to be true and the only possible carrier who would pick it up would be BMI, which would probably (and this is based entirely on guess work) mean the end of MME-LHR?
Could never see LS or the likes operating into LHR, for a start 25 minutes would never be achievable!
XL Airways
There are numerous reports circulating regarding XL's NCL operation next summer, all of which point towards them not re-opening their base at NCL. Indeed all of their groups flying, which is currently on sale is operated by Air Malta, using what appears to be a based aircraft, flying atleast 2 rotations per day. To me, that seems more cost effective than the groups current operation with 3 based aircraft flying one rotation per day and sitting on the apron the rest of the time. However, does this not have something to do with agreement with Finnair, where the use the aircraft on an hourly rate?
I hope, for the sake of the crews based at NCL, that all flights are not yet published and XL will have a presence as the closure of 2 charter bases within a few weeks of each other is a pity!
Heathrow
People are quite right, this one has been doing the rumour round for years, though with BA's lack of interest in regional work it could turn out to be true and the only possible carrier who would pick it up would be BMI, which would probably (and this is based entirely on guess work) mean the end of MME-LHR?
Could never see LS or the likes operating into LHR, for a start 25 minutes would never be achievable!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Near 54 59N, 1 37W
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EI305
EI305 left at 17.22 today instead of 15.30. Inbound arrival was a few minutes behind schedule following a late departure from DUB. Does anyone know what the problem was?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
bmi are to pull the LHR link due to increased charges by upto 70% from BAA.
It's been on the news tonight and local papers.
I think that this is the reason BA are going to pull the NCL link also!!
It's been on the news tonight and local papers.
I think that this is the reason BA are going to pull the NCL link also!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Teesside, UK
Age: 33
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR-MME he means....been rumoured for ages, personally I don't think they will go through with it, maybe a decrease in the number of flights a day to 2 or 3 (from 4 at the moment) but not a whole axe of the route. Similarly I don't think BA would get away with it on the NCL-LHR, maybe down to 3 or 4 a day from (7?) now.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
HH6702 You seem very sure BA will pull the LHR from NCL ?
So if its an increase in charges at LHR to blame why would they cut only NCL ( the only BA domestic route to LHR showing growth). Have never heard any rumors about MAN, EDI, GLA, or ABZ to LHR. If it is charges related they will cut all domestic into LHR. The effect of loosing all those connecting passengers would be enormous on the overall BA operation.
So if its an increase in charges at LHR to blame why would they cut only NCL ( the only BA domestic route to LHR showing growth). Have never heard any rumors about MAN, EDI, GLA, or ABZ to LHR. If it is charges related they will cut all domestic into LHR. The effect of loosing all those connecting passengers would be enormous on the overall BA operation.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durham
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
The local news I heard actually quoted DTV chief exec as saying BMI may be forced to pull the MME-LHR route if BAA go ahead with 70% increase in charges, it then went on to say the NCL-LHR and all other BMI and BA domestic routes would be drastically cut back if not cut altogether, this seems like a threat to get BAA to cut the increase than anything to me.
I can't believe any airline would cut all their domestic into LHR, apart from the outcry from business on the affect on domestic travel the airlines surely can't afford to lose the onward pax.
I can't believe any airline would cut all their domestic into LHR, apart from the outcry from business on the affect on domestic travel the airlines surely can't afford to lose the onward pax.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
I have absolutely no inside knowledge about what BA or BMI may, or may be not, thinking nor do I profess to understand the charging structures of the BAA to airlines at LHR.
It would, however, be interesting to know if both (LHR-NCL & LHR MME)domestic routes really do produce valuable onward traffic or whether by discounting the domestic connecting sectors (sometimes they are for free on longhaul flights) for onward/inward bookings they are taking away, or making substantial holes, in the overall profitability of the whole round trip.
I'm sure that both airlines have extremely sophisticated revenue mapping systems and know exactly what the returns are on each sector flown; so my advice is to ignore all the press hype and wait for real information from the two carriers concerned. Summer holiday time is often a 'slow news' period and our local rags and TV jump on anything to fill their copy or airtime.
GH
I have absolutely no inside knowledge about what BA or BMI may, or may be not, thinking nor do I profess to understand the charging structures of the BAA to airlines at LHR.
It would, however, be interesting to know if both (LHR-NCL & LHR MME)domestic routes really do produce valuable onward traffic or whether by discounting the domestic connecting sectors (sometimes they are for free on longhaul flights) for onward/inward bookings they are taking away, or making substantial holes, in the overall profitability of the whole round trip.
I'm sure that both airlines have extremely sophisticated revenue mapping systems and know exactly what the returns are on each sector flown; so my advice is to ignore all the press hype and wait for real information from the two carriers concerned. Summer holiday time is often a 'slow news' period and our local rags and TV jump on anything to fill their copy or airtime.
GH
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by discounting the domestic connecting sectors (sometimes they are for free on longhaul flights) for onward/inward bookings
Excellent point from fl dutchman
Have never heard any rumors about MAN, EDI, GLA, or ABZ to LHR. If it is charges related they will cut all domestic into LHR.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyman
I've had the domestic sectors added with no additional costs on JFK & JNB in the past.
Quoted both just LHR to them and then NCL to; same fare except taxes.
Not saying it is always the case but they seem to do if fairly often.
GH
I've had the domestic sectors added with no additional costs on JFK & JNB in the past.
Quoted both just LHR to them and then NCL to; same fare except taxes.
Not saying it is always the case but they seem to do if fairly often.
GH
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GH I think you may find 'in the past' being the operative word. My experience over the last few years is that what was once a free 'add on' has increased in stages is now c.£50 - £70+. A review of the current state of play on the BA booking engine should bear this out.