MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Americans can't have it both ways, they want to sell lots of T7's & B787, but don't want them flying back to the USA, having said that EK are a serious threat to what is left of Europe's flag carriers, Lufthansa & Air France KLM are living in a world that no longer exists & IAG must be praying that LHR doesn't get another runway.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LINIDA - I think IAG are coping better than the other european carriers against the MEB3. WW has not complained about them in quite the same way as a number of other european airlines have, neither has he chosen to complain about Norwegian Long Haul but I guess for the time being BA has the strongest transatlantic network of anyone from one hub.
WW's complaining is focussed almost solely on the Government dithering around about LHR getting a new runway if at all. If/when LHR does I think this would be an advantage to BA more than anyone as they will be able to expand and strengthen their hub there, and provide more feed for their important transatlantic routes and even some of their up and coming eastbound routes.
WW's complaining is focussed almost solely on the Government dithering around about LHR getting a new runway if at all. If/when LHR does I think this would be an advantage to BA more than anyone as they will be able to expand and strengthen their hub there, and provide more feed for their important transatlantic routes and even some of their up and coming eastbound routes.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a long history or airlines having 5th freedom rights from the UK to New York, Kuwait, Bangladesh, PIA immediately come to mind and I am pretty sure without digging there have been plenty of others, I am not sure it would be such a problem that some would indicate.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I posted above, it wasn't the US that kicked up about the MXP-JFK flight, it was the Italians.
Sure if EK wanted to fly MAN-USA then that would be fine. MAN-Canada would be different though as they are non to keen on letting them get a foothold in the Canadian market.
Sure if EK wanted to fly MAN-USA then that would be fine. MAN-Canada would be different though as they are non to keen on letting them get a foothold in the Canadian market.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember Nigel US Air are part of the American group now or will be
in stages like Continental/United so there will bve a lot of changes
within and Charlotte may well end being a hub, i can see American
changing the Charlotte flight to a Miami one as it has a lot more going for it
Ian
in stages like Continental/United so there will bve a lot of changes
within and Charlotte may well end being a hub, i can see American
changing the Charlotte flight to a Miami one as it has a lot more going for it
Ian
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LNIDA that's scaremongering with stilts. Emirates have a fortress hub in Dubai which they increasingly fly to the US direct with, anything else is tinkering around the edges. Your claim that IAG are afraid of LHR expansion is so far off the mark as to be fanciful. If EK did launch MAN-NYC, they might knock one of the US carriers off the route and screw ongoing connectivity for MAN pax in doing so. Result!!! Er not.
Careful what you wish for methinks.
Careful what you wish for methinks.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the present scenario I don't think we need to be at all careful about wishing for a carrier such as EK on MAN-NYC. Bring them on. MAN currently offers just two flights per day to NYC, and those operated by B752. Not exactly overkill, and this thread has already mentioned the high fares which have resulted from this capacity squeeze. MAN has successfully supported far more capacity on routes to NYC in the past; a share of the seats on an additional B77W would be entirely within the ballpark of what the route has supported previously. Existing operators on MAN-NYC have had plenty of time and opportunity to upgrade their offerings but have elected not to do so (probably because of their own capacity dumping at LHR). If someone comes to take their cake away at this point, the US carriers would have only themselves to blame.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness one echo
LHR slot shortage has distorted competition in the UK for decades, bmi was run into the ground by inept management and an owner who knew the real value of the airline rested on its access to LHR not the number of passengers it carried or profitability
A four runway solution at LHR unconstrained by slot restrictions would result in lots of new entrants to the transatlantic market that BA dominates. Prices would fall, yes of course brand BA would do well, but BA cost base is well above EKs
It is the airlines and pilot groups in the US that are up in arm about foreign carriers and that is protectionism pure and simple, not stilts, thankfully so far the DOT has seen through this.
Lets see how they handle the Norwegian route application ?
Re EK fortress, well true enough, but your not suggesting we fly there to fly to the US, its the threat to Europe-USA routes
Manchester is interesting, it seems that it might be on the threshold of a break through on long haul, but its still a do it your self hub and that as you know only to well is what Norwegian are after at LGW rightly or wrongly ??
A four runway solution at LHR unconstrained by slot restrictions would result in lots of new entrants to the transatlantic market that BA dominates. Prices would fall, yes of course brand BA would do well, but BA cost base is well above EKs
It is the airlines and pilot groups in the US that are up in arm about foreign carriers and that is protectionism pure and simple, not stilts, thankfully so far the DOT has seen through this.
Lets see how they handle the Norwegian route application ?
Re EK fortress, well true enough, but your not suggesting we fly there to fly to the US, its the threat to Europe-USA routes
Manchester is interesting, it seems that it might be on the threshold of a break through on long haul, but its still a do it your self hub and that as you know only to well is what Norwegian are after at LGW rightly or wrongly ??
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re MAN as a do it yourself hub, I have read that in Milan the airport effectively provides the interconnection facility and presumably covers the risk of one leg running late/cancelling. Given there is really no hub operator at MAN, that seems an attractive model to group the connecting traffic to several long haul operators. Can anyone say how it works in Milan?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If EK could get rights via MAN to the US, I have mixed feelings as to what would be the most suitable destination.
On the one hand, MAN produced data showing that NY was their most underserved route, but this included leakage i.e. pax from the catchment area not using MAN at all to get to NY. Personally, I feel the present 2 x B757s under values the route but it's anyone's guess how AA & UA would react if EK were to start. There again, EK would be attracting almost entirely O & D traffic due to the lack of connectivity, but there would be potential for attracting pax that don't currently use MAN.
There's a certain attraction in a secondary city route such as Boston, but would there be enough demand and yield for one of EK's large a/c?
Is it conceivable that EK might consider BHX as a UK transit point, providing a third flight for Dubai - BHX and extra capacity for BHX to New York? I doubt it myself, but you never know.
Perhaps transit to the US through MAN won't happen anyway (apart from PIA)
but an interesting scenario if it does.
On the one hand, MAN produced data showing that NY was their most underserved route, but this included leakage i.e. pax from the catchment area not using MAN at all to get to NY. Personally, I feel the present 2 x B757s under values the route but it's anyone's guess how AA & UA would react if EK were to start. There again, EK would be attracting almost entirely O & D traffic due to the lack of connectivity, but there would be potential for attracting pax that don't currently use MAN.
There's a certain attraction in a secondary city route such as Boston, but would there be enough demand and yield for one of EK's large a/c?
Is it conceivable that EK might consider BHX as a UK transit point, providing a third flight for Dubai - BHX and extra capacity for BHX to New York? I doubt it myself, but you never know.
Perhaps transit to the US through MAN won't happen anyway (apart from PIA)
but an interesting scenario if it does.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of offerings of the US carriers, US A332s are brand new, United also use B752s out of LHR, American also use B763s and until recently B752s as well. The main issue is the US carriers are now investing again in the hard product. AA's B77W has been a game changer for them. However the B772s are being refurbished and I suspect MAN may see them as US/AA come together. Emirates would be point to point in the US, nothing more. Indeed MAN actially is fertile territory for Norwegian Long Haul, certainly is NYC is underserved on p2p as the US majors continue to connect via EWR and JFK.
There's also the ex BMI routes to the Caribbean as well? Fertile route for a young spunky Nordic upstart with Thai cabin crews, US flight deck and registered in er....Ireland? Did I get that right? I mean there's a whole lot of those pesky overheads trampled on right off the bat!
And LNIDA, Norwegian are union busting and tramping on terms and condtions, cutting corners and creating paper companies in low regulation countries to try and get a cost base to undercut existing carriers. Pure and simple, excuse me while I don't clap. All of the much vaunted cheapness is off the back of not paying the market for people in the markets you, sorry, "they", serve.
If Emirates can serve the route from DXB without stopping in XYZ, that's what tends to happen.
There's also the ex BMI routes to the Caribbean as well? Fertile route for a young spunky Nordic upstart with Thai cabin crews, US flight deck and registered in er....Ireland? Did I get that right? I mean there's a whole lot of those pesky overheads trampled on right off the bat!
And LNIDA, Norwegian are union busting and tramping on terms and condtions, cutting corners and creating paper companies in low regulation countries to try and get a cost base to undercut existing carriers. Pure and simple, excuse me while I don't clap. All of the much vaunted cheapness is off the back of not paying the market for people in the markets you, sorry, "they", serve. If Emirates can serve the route from DXB without stopping in XYZ, that's what tends to happen.
Ireland isn't "less regulated" per se. Norwegian got an Irish AOC for 2 reasons
1: Openskies (Norway not in EU)
2: Taxation. Corporate tax rate is 12.5% in Ireland.
They were looking at applying for a UK AOC too, but the Irish tax rate swung it for them. Same reason over 50% of leased aircraft in the world belong to lessors based in Ireland.
1: Openskies (Norway not in EU)
2: Taxation. Corporate tax rate is 12.5% in Ireland.
They were looking at applying for a UK AOC too, but the Irish tax rate swung it for them. Same reason over 50% of leased aircraft in the world belong to lessors based in Ireland.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]There's also the ex BMI routes to the Caribbean as well? Fertile route for a young spunky Nordic upstart with Thai cabin crews, US flight deck and registered in er....Ireland? Did I get that right? I mean there's a whole lot of those pesky overheads trampled on right off the bat! And LNIDA, Norwegian are union busting and tramping on terms and condtions, cutting corners and creating paper companies in low regulation countries to try and get a cost base to undercut existing carriers. Pure and simple, excuse me while I don't clap. All of the much vaunted cheapness is off the back of not paying the market for people in the markets you, sorry, "they", serve./QUOTE]
That's a rather less objective response than your normal very high standard Skippy
Norwegian are not union busting, NASPA are in detailed talks over the Helsinki base and BALPA are at work on LGW.
Cutting corners? no idea what your talking about? Norwegian provide crew meals, sick pay,standby pay, holiday pay, uniforms, training, the aircraft are factory fresh.
Paper companies? there are 40 people now based in Ireland....they fly to Bangkok what is wrong with Thai crew, they have US crew based in the US, Monarch do the heavy maintenance over there in sunny BHX
Yes MAN is ideal point to point long haul territory for Norwegian, but they need a local presence beyond the Nordic routes first, actually they need the route licences for LGW USA first and that is not a given
That's a rather less objective response than your normal very high standard Skippy
Norwegian are not union busting, NASPA are in detailed talks over the Helsinki base and BALPA are at work on LGW.
Cutting corners? no idea what your talking about? Norwegian provide crew meals, sick pay,standby pay, holiday pay, uniforms, training, the aircraft are factory fresh.
Paper companies? there are 40 people now based in Ireland....they fly to Bangkok what is wrong with Thai crew, they have US crew based in the US, Monarch do the heavy maintenance over there in sunny BHX
Yes MAN is ideal point to point long haul territory for Norwegian, but they need a local presence beyond the Nordic routes first, actually they need the route licences for LGW USA first and that is not a given
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are more reasons than those two Una Due Tfc. One other reason is overflying rights through Russian airspace. Today all overflying rights in the bilateral agreement between Russia and Scandinavia are assigned to SAS, and Norwegian is not allowed to fly over Russian territory. On the Asian flights Norwegian because of this have to fly between 10% and 15% extra distance (after the unrest over the Crimean Peninsula more distance had to be added).
Again Skipness, you seems to be misinformed about the crew on board the Norwegian Dreamliners:
Cabin crew: Thai, Americans and Nordic (we may at later stage see British and Spanish cabin crew).
Pilots: Europeans (they all need JAA license and passport from one of the EEA countries). The 787 chief pilot comes from Skåne/Scania, Sweden and has previously flown with Korean Air, EVA Airways, FlyMe ...
Again Skipness, you seems to be misinformed about the crew on board the Norwegian Dreamliners:
Cabin crew: Thai, Americans and Nordic (we may at later stage see British and Spanish cabin crew).
Pilots: Europeans (they all need JAA license and passport from one of the EEA countries). The 787 chief pilot comes from Skåne/Scania, Sweden and has previously flown with Korean Air, EVA Airways, FlyMe ...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes OK I suspect I have been a little harsh. I am going to try and catch a B787 from LGW to Stockholm this summer and back on the B73H perhaps. However Ireland is a flag of convenience I believe....
However I do honestly think Norwegian could carve out a very nice little point to point niche from MAN on long haul with a proper margin. That would make much more sense than hubbing at LGW to feed the New York run from London. (Well to me, but many carrier has been dazzled by London-New York). BMI had great loyalty, service and reviews at MAN then shot themselves repeatedly in the foot by hacking off those very same loyal customers.
However I do honestly think Norwegian could carve out a very nice little point to point niche from MAN on long haul with a proper margin. That would make much more sense than hubbing at LGW to feed the New York run from London. (Well to me, but many carrier has been dazzled by London-New York). BMI had great loyalty, service and reviews at MAN then shot themselves repeatedly in the foot by hacking off those very same loyal customers.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5th Freedoms MAGs submission to Davies Commission
The current fifth freedom policy (the presumption in favour of granting fifth freedom rights to UK regional airports), whilst helpful, also requires reciprocal access for UK airlines. Regional airports, such as Manchester, rely on overseas airlines to maximise regional long haul connectivity.
UK airlines have consolidated their international connections at London Heathrow. As they have vested interests in their own services from London, they have in part used this to protect their own parochial interest, at the expense of new services from the regions. An example of this being the Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Manchester via Moscow in 2006, which was successfully challenged by BMI on account of the Manchester—Moscow leg, and was ultimately withdrawn. In this case, the Russian authorities were willing to grant the necessary rights to Cathay Pacific to operate the Manchester—Moscow route on a code share with a Russian airline. UK airlines, including bmi, objected to the UK DfT agreeing to this because it did not benefit UK airlines. In other words, UK airlines do not want to serve the regions internationally on a point to point basis, but do not want their overseas competitors to do so either. This has been to the detriment of UK connectivity.
Furthermore, international airlines make decisions on which markets to investigate on the basis of how likely they are to secure the flying rights, and how difficult they perceive the process would be to achieve them. We are meeting airlines that are looking to serve the UK on routes to the US, but they perceive the process of being granted these rights by the UK Government to be too difficult based on UK airline objections. UK airlines don’t fly their own scheduled services direct from the regions to key cities in the States or other long haul destinations as their interests are to direct passengers through their London hub, and so the regions suffer in terms of providing connectivity and choice for local people.
This is something that will not be changed, even with the proposal for open skies at UK regions in the Draft Aviation policy framework, which states that although reciprocal access for UK airlines will not be required, each application will be taken on a case by case basis and may not be granted for reasons such as state aid. However, airlines in receipt of state aid already operate to and from the UK. It lacks consistency therefore to restrict fifth freedom rights on this basis, a restriction which would not be in the best interests of passengers or in the interests of rebalancing the UK economy and making best use of existing capacity.
The current fifth freedom policy (the presumption in favour of granting fifth freedom rights to UK regional airports), whilst helpful, also requires reciprocal access for UK airlines. Regional airports, such as Manchester, rely on overseas airlines to maximise regional long haul connectivity.
UK airlines have consolidated their international connections at London Heathrow. As they have vested interests in their own services from London, they have in part used this to protect their own parochial interest, at the expense of new services from the regions. An example of this being the Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Manchester via Moscow in 2006, which was successfully challenged by BMI on account of the Manchester—Moscow leg, and was ultimately withdrawn. In this case, the Russian authorities were willing to grant the necessary rights to Cathay Pacific to operate the Manchester—Moscow route on a code share with a Russian airline. UK airlines, including bmi, objected to the UK DfT agreeing to this because it did not benefit UK airlines. In other words, UK airlines do not want to serve the regions internationally on a point to point basis, but do not want their overseas competitors to do so either. This has been to the detriment of UK connectivity.
Furthermore, international airlines make decisions on which markets to investigate on the basis of how likely they are to secure the flying rights, and how difficult they perceive the process would be to achieve them. We are meeting airlines that are looking to serve the UK on routes to the US, but they perceive the process of being granted these rights by the UK Government to be too difficult based on UK airline objections. UK airlines don’t fly their own scheduled services direct from the regions to key cities in the States or other long haul destinations as their interests are to direct passengers through their London hub, and so the regions suffer in terms of providing connectivity and choice for local people.
This is something that will not be changed, even with the proposal for open skies at UK regions in the Draft Aviation policy framework, which states that although reciprocal access for UK airlines will not be required, each application will be taken on a case by case basis and may not be granted for reasons such as state aid. However, airlines in receipt of state aid already operate to and from the UK. It lacks consistency therefore to restrict fifth freedom rights on this basis, a restriction which would not be in the best interests of passengers or in the interests of rebalancing the UK economy and making best use of existing capacity.