British Airways - 2
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates are amazing, however the connecting experience is often painful much like LHR due to the fact passport control is very local....
Departures level at DXB can be very congested at peaks. And there is often a queue for the numerous Gents facilities in the Business Class Lounge
However I look forward to my next visit now that the EK A380 concourse has just opened for a few flights and will get progressively busier in the next couple of months.This should ease the pressure on the existing facilities. And of course in the A380 concourse, J and F passengers can walk straight out of the lounge to the gate and into the upper deck of the aircraft on the level without getting in the way of Y passengers....
An infinitely preferable experience than BA
Last edited by Suzeman; 5th Jan 2013 at 17:25.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: dublin
Age: 64
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DXB connections
I have to say Bussiness travel with Emirates is about 10 years ahead of BA in LHR for ROI pasengers and that is a shame and in my opinion BA will NEVER get back those eastbound high yield pasengers from ROI and maybe even NI Scotland and North England ....I never thought I would see that happen , ever.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What passport control at DXB?? When connecting at DXB you only go through a security check before being fed into the departures level. Plenty of security check points and staff at peak hours - never had to wait too long to go through.
An infinitely preferable experience than BA
Speaking of ten abreast, Americans new B77Ws will have this more compact layout, I wonder how long BA will continue with nine abreast in Y?
Pub time....
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 5th Jan 2013 at 18:34.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Age: 58
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What would help people like myself is the removal of APD to allow more services from the regions, as I have mentioned before Manchester has lost potential flights to Dublin because of APD"
Only in the heads of people from Manchester.
Dublin is in a different country. It serves a different market. The two do not compete at all except in the sense of airlines allegedly "pitting them against each other" to extract the best deal on cost base.
You want to serve Ireland - you fly to Dublin (or Cork, Shannon etc). Manchester is not a substitute for serving the Irish market just as Dublin is not a substitute for the North of the UK.
This is just a needless extension of the siege mentality among some MAN supporters vis a vis London.
Only in the heads of people from Manchester.
Dublin is in a different country. It serves a different market. The two do not compete at all except in the sense of airlines allegedly "pitting them against each other" to extract the best deal on cost base.
You want to serve Ireland - you fly to Dublin (or Cork, Shannon etc). Manchester is not a substitute for serving the Irish market just as Dublin is not a substitute for the North of the UK.
This is just a needless extension of the siege mentality among some MAN supporters vis a vis London.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would help people like myself is the removal of APD to allow more services from the regions, as I have mentioned before Manchester has lost potential flights to Dublin because of APD
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing to do with MAN V LON or MAN V DUB.
My point was that APD is damaging the aviation industry in the U.K.
Secondly that when choosing whether to operate to particularly airports airlines have from what I am aware chosen Dublin over Manchester.
I want airports all over the U.K. to be successful and it is being hampered by many things one being what I highlighted which is tax. The other of course is the failure of successive governments to bite the bullet and allow a further runway at Heathrow.
My point was that APD is damaging the aviation industry in the U.K.
Secondly that when choosing whether to operate to particularly airports airlines have from what I am aware chosen Dublin over Manchester.
I want airports all over the U.K. to be successful and it is being hampered by many things one being what I highlighted which is tax. The other of course is the failure of successive governments to bite the bullet and allow a further runway at Heathrow.
Last edited by pwalhx; 5th Jan 2013 at 19:53.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly that when choosing whether to operate to particularly airports airlines chose Dublin over Manchester.
EK and EY were at MAN before DUB, AA opened JFK-MAN but pushed DL off the route, UA opened IAD from both and reduced EWR from both.
MAN has Quator, Air Transit have larger presance at MAN over DUB.
I don't see how DUB is harming MAN but APD is affecting Long Haul growth from accross the UK and needs to be reviewed.
Last edited by Jamie2k9; 5th Jan 2013 at 19:56.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Age: 58
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I abolsutely accept the point that APD is damaging to UK aviation.
But i'd contend that maintaining that DUB has gained at MAN's expense is incorrent, though I can see how people arrive at that conclusion.
Airline PR often revolves around such nuggets as "due to UK APD, we have decided to grow at DUB/CDG/CPH/OSL instead". This PR suits the airline for obvious reasons, but it's incorrect for them to assert that these places are "in competition" with one another.
While operating costs of one airport versus another are important to an extent, it's the revenue environment that really attracts an airline. Do they wish to serve that particular market?
I've witnessed quite a bit of bad feeling towards DUB on these forums and on others, from MAN suporters in particular, on the basis that DUB is allegedly "stealing" business from MAN despite the fact they are in two different countries and dont compete for the same passengers.
Undoubtedly, the two cities comprise similarly sized markets, which share a lot in common, but they are just that - two distinct markets.
But i'd contend that maintaining that DUB has gained at MAN's expense is incorrent, though I can see how people arrive at that conclusion.
Airline PR often revolves around such nuggets as "due to UK APD, we have decided to grow at DUB/CDG/CPH/OSL instead". This PR suits the airline for obvious reasons, but it's incorrect for them to assert that these places are "in competition" with one another.
While operating costs of one airport versus another are important to an extent, it's the revenue environment that really attracts an airline. Do they wish to serve that particular market?
I've witnessed quite a bit of bad feeling towards DUB on these forums and on others, from MAN suporters in particular, on the basis that DUB is allegedly "stealing" business from MAN despite the fact they are in two different countries and dont compete for the same passengers.
Undoubtedly, the two cities comprise similarly sized markets, which share a lot in common, but they are just that - two distinct markets.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only example that I know of where MAN has been competing with Dublin for long haul flights is Etihads additional services to Abu Dhabi, where the airlines publicly said it would increase frequency to one or other of the airport, Dublin got these extra flights.
Was one of the American carriers looking at MAN or DUB for the new flights to Washington or Charlotte???
EI-BUD
Was one of the American carriers looking at MAN or DUB for the new flights to Washington or Charlotte???
EI-BUD
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please read what I have put carefully I never said Dublin had stolen anything from Manchester or meant it was at the expense of Manchester, my intention was to say that when there was a decision whether to operate to Dublin or Manchester the reason I was told Dublin was chosen was because of APD.
Please do not try to start a Manchester v Dublin spat as that most certainly was not my intention.
And yes Charlotte was one that was mentioned to me.
I really wish I had not said anything as my intention was not to start such a furore.
Please do not try to start a Manchester v Dublin spat as that most certainly was not my intention.
And yes Charlotte was one that was mentioned to me.
I really wish I had not said anything as my intention was not to start such a furore.
Last edited by pwalhx; 5th Jan 2013 at 21:22.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Age: 58
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry mate, I didnt mean to imply that it was you starting a spat.
I was just referring to a general thing among some contributors (and not necessarily on this forum).
I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying though - APD is bad for the UK, and especially the UK regions.
I was just referring to a general thing among some contributors (and not necessarily on this forum).
I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying though - APD is bad for the UK, and especially the UK regions.
Last edited by justanotherloser; 5th Jan 2013 at 21:37.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Frank
Do you think BA would agree to serve all those UK airports for say 10 years if they got the extra runway (s) at LHR?
they'd really strengthen their case politically
But of course they won't - what they want is more interlining long haul passengers”
Don’t want to repeat the point made by Skipness, but the extra longhaul interlining pax have to come from somewhere, and domestic connectivity adds to the longhaul-to-longhaul potential. With adequate slots available, as there would be with 3-4 rwys, they could do both.
Quote: “Remember, the taxpayer subsidises the “privatised” rail industry far more than what it did when BR was ever around, in fact “renationalisation” would mean more of the money will be going to towards the railways rather than waste and dividends”
Not an answer to the question unfortunately, just an irrelevant (but accurate) fact about another industry.
Quote: “When you mean “Europe’s five major hubs” do you mean LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA and MUC?”
Correct for the first four, they are relatively close to each other. Further away is the fifth, MAD.
Quote: “Because they lack OW partners in Asia and Africa, they would have to do agreements with non-OW (including *A and ST members) airlines, it would not be the first time it had done this (they already do it with EI) and their “partners” Qantas have also do this as well”
Yes, all carriers do this as a matter of course. BTW EI was in Oneworld.
Quote: “Why do you suggest that either Doncaster-Sheffield OR Humberside is viable?”
Don’t think there would be enough business for both (or even either) as HUY and DSA are fairly close to eachother and both airports do not have good road/rail links with the towns of the area.
Quote: “Also BA does have the aircraft suitable for the thinnest of routes, when I mean “BA” however, I mean BA CityFlyer who have E170s and E190s available, not only that, but they wet-lease a Saab 2000 for the LCY-IOM route from Eastern Airways
If a E-jet is too big for the route to be viable, then perhaps BA could
wet-lease a turboprop from either Eastern Airways or Flybe (with BA livery, FF and interlining) to do the job (either a Saab 2000 or a Bombardier Dash-8 Q400)
“Commuter Flights” (I would prefer to call them “Intercity Flights”) out of LHR/LGW/LCY (preferably the latter) could work, but only if the oil price remains stable ($100-110 per barrel) and rail fares continue to rise at the rate it currently is doing for a extended period, then we might see London-Birmingham/Cardiff (and a lot more) again, if BA CityFlyer operated these routes, it could turn out to be quite lucrative…”
As mentioned before, with 3-4 rwys and more terminal capacity, anything becomes possible at LHR. The problem is convincing the politicians…………
BA is not the only UK carrier. It may be more cost-effective to collaborate with other carriers who have experience of thin routes, who can say?
Quote: “In fact of LHR gains at least 2 runways, (with all the full-service carries at LGW moving to LHR along with U2’s LGW/LTN/STN ops), it would leave Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, quite empty, certainly no need for a 2nd runway at LGW”
Indeed, but only if LHR can get 2 more rwys before LGW needs a second.
Quote: “Well I got the figure from LH’s presence in FRA and I got this from the various news reports (and Airliners.net forums) in relation to the BA/BMI deal (any idea on getting the actual figures for AMS/CDG/ORY and FRA/MUC/DUS/BER/ZRH/GVA/VIE?)
What I am saying is that this is the highest figure from one airline in a major hub airport in Europe, which the EU has not issue with, otherwise it would be insisting on a sale of some of those slots…”
Thought so, pure conjecture about the 70% slot limit at any particular airport, and nothing of substance. Let’s put this one to bed.
Do you think BA would agree to serve all those UK airports for say 10 years if they got the extra runway (s) at LHR?
they'd really strengthen their case politically
But of course they won't - what they want is more interlining long haul passengers”
Don’t want to repeat the point made by Skipness, but the extra longhaul interlining pax have to come from somewhere, and domestic connectivity adds to the longhaul-to-longhaul potential. With adequate slots available, as there would be with 3-4 rwys, they could do both.
Quote: “Remember, the taxpayer subsidises the “privatised” rail industry far more than what it did when BR was ever around, in fact “renationalisation” would mean more of the money will be going to towards the railways rather than waste and dividends”
Not an answer to the question unfortunately, just an irrelevant (but accurate) fact about another industry.
Quote: “When you mean “Europe’s five major hubs” do you mean LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA and MUC?”
Correct for the first four, they are relatively close to each other. Further away is the fifth, MAD.
Quote: “Because they lack OW partners in Asia and Africa, they would have to do agreements with non-OW (including *A and ST members) airlines, it would not be the first time it had done this (they already do it with EI) and their “partners” Qantas have also do this as well”
Yes, all carriers do this as a matter of course. BTW EI was in Oneworld.
Quote: “Why do you suggest that either Doncaster-Sheffield OR Humberside is viable?”
Don’t think there would be enough business for both (or even either) as HUY and DSA are fairly close to eachother and both airports do not have good road/rail links with the towns of the area.
Quote: “Also BA does have the aircraft suitable for the thinnest of routes, when I mean “BA” however, I mean BA CityFlyer who have E170s and E190s available, not only that, but they wet-lease a Saab 2000 for the LCY-IOM route from Eastern Airways
If a E-jet is too big for the route to be viable, then perhaps BA could
wet-lease a turboprop from either Eastern Airways or Flybe (with BA livery, FF and interlining) to do the job (either a Saab 2000 or a Bombardier Dash-8 Q400)
“Commuter Flights” (I would prefer to call them “Intercity Flights”) out of LHR/LGW/LCY (preferably the latter) could work, but only if the oil price remains stable ($100-110 per barrel) and rail fares continue to rise at the rate it currently is doing for a extended period, then we might see London-Birmingham/Cardiff (and a lot more) again, if BA CityFlyer operated these routes, it could turn out to be quite lucrative…”
As mentioned before, with 3-4 rwys and more terminal capacity, anything becomes possible at LHR. The problem is convincing the politicians…………
BA is not the only UK carrier. It may be more cost-effective to collaborate with other carriers who have experience of thin routes, who can say?
Quote: “In fact of LHR gains at least 2 runways, (with all the full-service carries at LGW moving to LHR along with U2’s LGW/LTN/STN ops), it would leave Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, quite empty, certainly no need for a 2nd runway at LGW”
Indeed, but only if LHR can get 2 more rwys before LGW needs a second.
Quote: “Well I got the figure from LH’s presence in FRA and I got this from the various news reports (and Airliners.net forums) in relation to the BA/BMI deal (any idea on getting the actual figures for AMS/CDG/ORY and FRA/MUC/DUS/BER/ZRH/GVA/VIE?)
What I am saying is that this is the highest figure from one airline in a major hub airport in Europe, which the EU has not issue with, otherwise it would be insisting on a sale of some of those slots…”
Thought so, pure conjecture about the 70% slot limit at any particular airport, and nothing of substance. Let’s put this one to bed.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 6th Jan 2013 at 00:10.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Boris frankly, has not really maintained a consistent position; he seems to change his mind every time he talks about the subject…
Even for Tories in a safe seat in the areas surrounding those airports, they don’t really have much room to support expansion anyway…”
Pleased that the penny has finally dropped about Boris!
That’s why it’s SILVER Island!
Even for Tories in a safe seat in the areas surrounding those airports, they don’t really have much room to support expansion anyway…”
Why?
Quote: “Besides, the only reason I would be a MP would be support their policies anyway, not to be under the hand of a Whip…
Bet they all say that at the start!
Quote: “The problem is that the Tories need to increase the number of votes than what they got in 2010, yet no Tory government has done this since the 50s, when they had a lot of support in the North and Scotland, the economy was doing well (this was the “never had it so good era”), none of which apply today and even you must admit that Dave is more like Major than Thatcher
Also, the Lib Dems will suffer badly in 2015, UKIP is taking more and more of the Tory vote (not good in marginal seats…) and their plan to cut the number of MPs is looking increasingly unlikely…”
You’re forgetting about the Libdem marginals with Conservatives in second place, which is most of them! Now that the Libdems are in government, UKIP takes the “protest” vote that used to go to them. UKIP therefore takes votes from all parties. Many of the Libdem seat losses will go to the Conservatives. It's not as clear cut or as simple as you suggest.
Quote: “For them to win in 2015, the following must happen:
1: There is an economic miracle on the scale not even Thatcher could achive in the next 2 years (and that’s if Greece stays in the Euro and America gets a move on with fixing the budget crisis)
2: They would have to do a deal with UKIP (not an easy task)
3: Boris will have to be leader and make the most of his personality
4: They really have to criticise the Lib Dem’s and do policies that make them stand out from their partners in government
5: Ed Milliband and is fellow cabinet members are exposed as doing something really stupid (expenses, links to terrorism or child abuse…)
I am sure even Maggie in her prime would have a hard task ahead of them, I have a lot of doubts if Dave could pull it all off…
Actually Thatcher presided over two deep recessions, not an economic miracle. Useless opposition got her relected.
There'll be a 3rd rwy at LHR before options 1-4 happen! As for 5, Labour is more than capable of shooting itself in the foot, but probably not in the ways that you suggest.
Even for Tories in a safe seat in the areas surrounding those airports, they don’t really have much room to support expansion anyway…”
Pleased that the penny has finally dropped about Boris!
That’s why it’s SILVER Island!
Even for Tories in a safe seat in the areas surrounding those airports, they don’t really have much room to support expansion anyway…”
Why?
Quote: “Besides, the only reason I would be a MP would be support their policies anyway, not to be under the hand of a Whip…
Bet they all say that at the start!
Quote: “The problem is that the Tories need to increase the number of votes than what they got in 2010, yet no Tory government has done this since the 50s, when they had a lot of support in the North and Scotland, the economy was doing well (this was the “never had it so good era”), none of which apply today and even you must admit that Dave is more like Major than Thatcher
Also, the Lib Dems will suffer badly in 2015, UKIP is taking more and more of the Tory vote (not good in marginal seats…) and their plan to cut the number of MPs is looking increasingly unlikely…”
You’re forgetting about the Libdem marginals with Conservatives in second place, which is most of them! Now that the Libdems are in government, UKIP takes the “protest” vote that used to go to them. UKIP therefore takes votes from all parties. Many of the Libdem seat losses will go to the Conservatives. It's not as clear cut or as simple as you suggest.
Quote: “For them to win in 2015, the following must happen:
1: There is an economic miracle on the scale not even Thatcher could achive in the next 2 years (and that’s if Greece stays in the Euro and America gets a move on with fixing the budget crisis)
2: They would have to do a deal with UKIP (not an easy task)
3: Boris will have to be leader and make the most of his personality
4: They really have to criticise the Lib Dem’s and do policies that make them stand out from their partners in government
5: Ed Milliband and is fellow cabinet members are exposed as doing something really stupid (expenses, links to terrorism or child abuse…)
I am sure even Maggie in her prime would have a hard task ahead of them, I have a lot of doubts if Dave could pull it all off…
Actually Thatcher presided over two deep recessions, not an economic miracle. Useless opposition got her relected.
There'll be a 3rd rwy at LHR before options 1-4 happen! As for 5, Labour is more than capable of shooting itself in the foot, but probably not in the ways that you suggest.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 8th Jan 2013 at 13:27.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "The vast majority of uk regional passengers are consuming BA services in the same way they are consuming foreign ones, which is to fly from A to C via B. I'm sure it's great news for the small numbers that want to get off in Doha, Atlanta or Philly but most don't. Even Emirates is 80% connecting, so for most people they are not offering a direct service."
Exactly, good point, but there should be a choice, and that should include the option of connecting over LHR from more UK airports. Obviously this cannot happen until LHR is expanded.
As for direct longhaul flights to/from non-LHR UK airports, irrespective of any "hub-and-spoke" orthodoxies, if/when carriers can be convinced that they can make money they will be on those routes.
For most of the likely routes there are no government impositions, bi-lateral restrictions, or airport capacity constraints.
Exactly, good point, but there should be a choice, and that should include the option of connecting over LHR from more UK airports. Obviously this cannot happen until LHR is expanded.
As for direct longhaul flights to/from non-LHR UK airports, irrespective of any "hub-and-spoke" orthodoxies, if/when carriers can be convinced that they can make money they will be on those routes.
For most of the likely routes there are no government impositions, bi-lateral restrictions, or airport capacity constraints.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 6th Jan 2013 at 00:30.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank - all I'm suggesting is that BA give a guarantee on UK routes from an expanded LHR - if they don't or won't we'll know they just want to expand long haul
and that is a serious vote loser outside the London business community
and that is a serious vote loser outside the London business community
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 6th Jan 2013 at 09:56.
