MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: 3 Ryde Ave
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX_LHR
It is showing as CX216/219 according to their website alongside CX357/358, so I presume there will be 2 daily flights to HKG from Manchester.
Last edited by Manchester052; 14th Aug 2017 at 13:58.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
July 2017 High Level Numbers
Passengers:
Monthly total: 3,031,844
Rolling 12 month: 27,231,037
Percentage change: +7.4%
Cargo:
Monthly total: 12,069 tonnes
Percentage change: +20.6%
Monthly total: 3,031,844
Rolling 12 month: 27,231,037
Percentage change: +7.4%
Cargo:
Monthly total: 12,069 tonnes
Percentage change: +20.6%
Last edited by Dobbo_Dobbo; 14th Aug 2017 at 11:44.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stansted and Manchester swapping CEOs from next month. Andrew Cowan back here and KOT to Stansted. Get the impression that AC good at infrastructure projects whereas KOT good at Commercial activities. Well, that's the way it comes across in the press.
Manchester 052
As stated in my previous post, I am booked on CX in December & January and have been notified by CX that 357/358 is cancelled.
However, the "new" numbers are interesting :
The outbound is now CX216 & inbound CX219
Does that mean they have left room for a 217 & 218 - twice a day sometime in the future?
Maybe Spanners can enlighten us?
As stated in my previous post, I am booked on CX in December & January and have been notified by CX that 357/358 is cancelled.
Dear Valued Customer,
We regret to inform you that flight CX358/13DEC Manchester to Hong Kong has been cancelled.
You would shortly be receiving an email from a separate email account with the updated itinerary.
We regret to inform you that flight CX358/13DEC Manchester to Hong Kong has been cancelled.
You would shortly be receiving an email from a separate email account with the updated itinerary.
The outbound is now CX216 & inbound CX219
Does that mean they have left room for a 217 & 218 - twice a day sometime in the future?
Maybe Spanners can enlighten us?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the interesting points around the new CX numbers are the fact:
-the numbers are non sequential (with not CX216/217 etc), the only Euro point to see this.
-MAN is the only 'new batch' of Euro routes to see this change into the 'legacy' CX2** numbers, away from the CX3** numbers (one wonders if a new Euro route is being launched that needs the MAN flight numbers?
-As said, these new flight numbers could fit in a 2 daily sequence. Maybe 8 or even 10 weekly to begin with?
-the numbers are non sequential (with not CX216/217 etc), the only Euro point to see this.
-MAN is the only 'new batch' of Euro routes to see this change into the 'legacy' CX2** numbers, away from the CX3** numbers (one wonders if a new Euro route is being launched that needs the MAN flight numbers?
-As said, these new flight numbers could fit in a 2 daily sequence. Maybe 8 or even 10 weekly to begin with?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traditionally the 'European' flt numbers began with a 2--, China with a 3--, I'm told it's changed due to similar flt numbers in the same airspace. CX257 and CX357, the number change is purely to separate them out, as safety is our no.1 priority!
The changeover starts W17 (30 OCT)
The changeover starts W17 (30 OCT)
Last edited by spannersatcx; 14th Aug 2017 at 16:47.
CAA criticism of Heathrow and Manchester disabled facilities, as reported by bbt
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stafford
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprise there, four carriers on MAN-New York was never going to be susitanable and I wouldn't be at all surprised if UA are the next to pull out. The more direct options TCX add the less demand there will be for connecting through hubs.
As for talk of BA taking over - the question must be how could they do any better? MAN-JFK is a joint venture so if AA are pulling out they can't be making money. With no base at MAN BA would face the extra overheads of positioning crew, aircraft etc; it just doesn't make commercial sense.
They don't have the right aircraft and if AA can't fill a 757/767 I don't see the recongifured 777s being more successful. Plus they are having a hard enough time battling Norwegian at LGW, to go up against TCX and VS at MAN would be suicide. Frequent flyers will just be funnelled through LHR, ORD or PHL.
As for talk of BA taking over - the question must be how could they do any better? MAN-JFK is a joint venture so if AA are pulling out they can't be making money. With no base at MAN BA would face the extra overheads of positioning crew, aircraft etc; it just doesn't make commercial sense.
They don't have the right aircraft and if AA can't fill a 757/767 I don't see the recongifured 777s being more successful. Plus they are having a hard enough time battling Norwegian at LGW, to go up against TCX and VS at MAN would be suicide. Frequent flyers will just be funnelled through LHR, ORD or PHL.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprise there, four carriers on MAN-New York was never going to be susitanable and I wouldn't be at all surprised if UA are the next to pull out. The more direct options TCX add the less demand there will be for connecting through hubs.
As for talk of BA taking over - the question must be how could they do any better? MAN-JFK is a joint venture so if AA are pulling out they can't be making money. With no base at MAN BA would face the extra overheads of positioning crew, aircraft etc; it just doesn't make commercial sense.
They don't have the right aircraft and if AA can't fill a 757/767 I don't see the recongifured 777s being more successful. Plus they are having a hard enough time battling Norwegian at LGW, to go up against TCX and VS at MAN would be suicide. Frequent flyers will just be funnelled through LHR, ORD or PHL.
As for talk of BA taking over - the question must be how could they do any better? MAN-JFK is a joint venture so if AA are pulling out they can't be making money. With no base at MAN BA would face the extra overheads of positioning crew, aircraft etc; it just doesn't make commercial sense.
They don't have the right aircraft and if AA can't fill a 757/767 I don't see the recongifured 777s being more successful. Plus they are having a hard enough time battling Norwegian at LGW, to go up against TCX and VS at MAN would be suicide. Frequent flyers will just be funnelled through LHR, ORD or PHL.
For J class PAX, you just can't replace even NG seats on a 752 with premium economy on TCX, let alone a reconfigured 763 or Zodiac equipped 788.
Darn.
Last edited by pilot9249; 16th Aug 2017 at 23:39.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, but the facts say that TCX are filling A330s and AA are bombing on JFK with a seasonal narrow-body service which is frankly not good enough, and the market is saying so.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how when there is good news to report, it's only a select few that comment, usually MAN locals and little debate stimulated. When there's bad news, well, seems people can't come and comment quickly enough!
All in the name of balance, apparently....
All in the name of balance, apparently....
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a Mancunian and I love my home city.
That doesn't mean I want to sit in a crappy seat when I go home.
Nor does it make MAN stronger if they lost a network carrier to a major hub and destination.
Last edited by pilot9249; 17th Aug 2017 at 13:13.
To be honest who is going to fly American when they cannot offer a service level to match their name, it is a disgrace regularly hours late on an old aircraft with poor service and as it is mainly UK pax they are speaking with their feet.It is a shame because they were a good airline but even when I first flew with them many years ago not fantastic probably not even average.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA and the JFK/NYC Market
There is no point treating this as anything other than a disappointment.
Yes, AA's transfer traffic can route via PHL and ORD (which is fine, and should help those routes).
However, the undermining of a network carrier by TCX is a trend that, whilst welcome in the sense that they offer a cracking network ex MAN, is one that I hope has limits. For example, I hope it doesn't also force UA off the EWR-MAN route.
Speculation at this stage, but you never know what is around the corner.
Yes, AA's transfer traffic can route via PHL and ORD (which is fine, and should help those routes).
However, the undermining of a network carrier by TCX is a trend that, whilst welcome in the sense that they offer a cracking network ex MAN, is one that I hope has limits. For example, I hope it doesn't also force UA off the EWR-MAN route.
Speculation at this stage, but you never know what is around the corner.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I don't go along with a notion that implies 'well they are rubbish so good riddance'. When they operate the B767, they provide 28 J class seats in a 1-2-1 format (newer version) and even if AA were not getting the take-up or yield they wanted, those Business Class pax will have to find alternatives. Hopefully, those pax transferring in the US will use PHL or ORD as mentioned by Dobbo, who I think sums up the position regarding TCX influence very well. Others may opt for better service and comfort from / via Heathrow. Those not in loyalty / frequent flying programs may switch to VS/DL from MAN.
But I don't subscribe to the idea that AA to JFK isn't really a loss.
Fortunately, MAN has produced plenty of good news in recent years.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree about service levels but the fact is that quite a lot of people are still flying with them, at least at certain times of the year. Over the last few weeks, their flights have been pretty busy, including JFK, as you would expect. Whether pax were using AA by choice or because other flights were full, I've no idea.
But I don't go along with a notion that implies 'well they are rubbish so good riddance'. When they operate the B767, they provide 28 J class seats in a 1-2-1 format (newer version) and even if AA were not getting the take-up or yield they wanted, those Business Class pax will have to find alternatives. Hopefully, those pax transferring in the US will use PHL or ORD as mentioned by Dobbo, who I think sums up the position regarding TCX influence very well. Others may opt for better service and comfort from / via Heathrow. Those not in loyalty / frequent flying programs may switch to VS/DL from MAN.
But I don't subscribe to the idea that AA to JFK isn't really a loss.
Fortunately, MAN has produced plenty of good news in recent years.
But I don't go along with a notion that implies 'well they are rubbish so good riddance'. When they operate the B767, they provide 28 J class seats in a 1-2-1 format (newer version) and even if AA were not getting the take-up or yield they wanted, those Business Class pax will have to find alternatives. Hopefully, those pax transferring in the US will use PHL or ORD as mentioned by Dobbo, who I think sums up the position regarding TCX influence very well. Others may opt for better service and comfort from / via Heathrow. Those not in loyalty / frequent flying programs may switch to VS/DL from MAN.
But I don't subscribe to the idea that AA to JFK isn't really a loss.
Fortunately, MAN has produced plenty of good news in recent years.
On the idea that service and comfort are better via LHR, again that depends on the class you are flying. I have to say I find both BA's and AA's economy products to be abysmal, if you get stuck in the LHR T5-T3 transfer it falls even farther down the list.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a loss but not a loss, depending on the time window you look and from whose vantage point. If you are high status BA/AA it is a loss. For most others, the situation is still better than before TCX jumped in. Outside of J class, TCX's product is comparable with the legacy network carriers. Also, they do provide a onward feed at JFK via JetBlue.
In terms of non-stop VS/DL are still in the market and UA to EWR (AAs departure will probably strengthen them too). All of the above would be only too happy to offer a status challenge/match to inconvenienced AA/BA card holders.