Manchester-3
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,822
Aer Lingus Slots were added for four long haul based aircraft, this is now reduced to three. One A321 removed leaving one A330-300 and two A321LR’s. Daily departures 1000/1105/1305z with returns 0550/0635/0735z eff.01May.
Last edited by SWBKCB; 4th Dec 2020 at 18:32.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,254
EI took two new A333s this year and retired 1 A332, and are taking 4 new LRs in 2021 so this MAN expansion is well within the capabilities of the fleet without affecting their existing ops elsewhere. Interesting to watch. If it is only to be 2 LRs in MAN then the aircraft and crews could rotate with the SNN based crews and frames on the ground in BOS and JFK and thus save on ferrying costs between MAN and Irish bases if desired. Since there's no LRs currently due to operate between Ireland and ORD (2 x A333 operate ORD from DUB per day on summer schedule) my guess is that would be the one to suffer.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,957
Originally Posted by chaps1954
It is for students returning home and there are several but hopefully it is getting closer to a resumption of services
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,180
Not aware overly specific info however if I was to make a call it will be just x2 aircraft, possibly both A330 as suggested above to fly JFK and MCO only.
What I did hear on the grapevine BOS was never planned to be daily operation so unless EI have crunched the numbers and come up with something different and think it can work.
What I did hear on the grapevine BOS was never planned to be daily operation so unless EI have crunched the numbers and come up with something different and think it can work.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,180
Again not an area I know much about but this would have to be under a UK AOC and swaps would depend how they can operate under UK AOC.
They could still face a drawn out challenge in the US for final approval not withstanding the UK-USA agreement and this was referenced in the leaked email.
The agreement for BHD-LHR isn't really clear but Stobart appear to be in the same situation.
They could still face a drawn out challenge in the US for final approval not withstanding the UK-USA agreement and this was referenced in the leaked email.
The agreement for BHD-LHR isn't really clear but Stobart appear to be in the same situation.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,089
Can you just clarify this comment please? Are you saying it's only 2 x A330's now and no A321 for which costs have been requested; or were you pointing out it's now 2 x 330's as opposed to just 1 as indicated by the slot applications, and that your earlier post of 2 x A330's and 1 x A321 still stands.
Last edited by MANFOD; 5th Dec 2020 at 10:48.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 199
At a high-intensity single-runway operation like LGW (in normal times the world's busiest single-runway commercial airport), less profitable services occupying valuable runway slots gradually get squeezed out in favour of more profitable replacements. That is what happened to the LGW-MAN route which was accounting for a typical eight slots per day, some of these at lucrative peak times. MAN wasn't specifically a 'bad' route - but increasing demand for slots meant that higher profile choices were eventually given priority. But now COVID-19 has changed everything. Suddenly, LGW has been shorn of a significant proportion of its former scheduled programme. Flights are either duplicated by services from LHR, or otherwise not viable to run at their former frequencies. Some carriers are in financial difficulty and have scaled back. Others have moved services over to LHR. Major operators are unlikely to return straight away at their previous scale of operation when business starts to come back. But valuable slots risk being forfeited under 'use it or lose it' rules if they go unused for too long. So it makes sense for a carrier such as BA to 'slot-sit' some of their slot portfolio with short routes which don't cost too much to run and which may bring in some revenue to help offset operating costs in the meantime. LGW-MAN is perfect for this purpose. It may not be a long-term proposition, but whilst it is offered some will find it useful (including me). I'll certainly make use of it if it does become available again, though I appreciate that the slots will likely be redeployed to a more prestigious service when demand returns sufficiently.
Out of interest, Manchester lost its scheduled services to London City for similar reasons. As the popularity of that airport grew, it's scarce peak runway slots became increasingly valuable, and eventually the MAN service gave way to more profitable replacements.
One more thing. The train is not a great option between MAN and LGW. There used to be a through service from Manchester terminating at Brighton, but I don't think that has run for a while now. So that means train from Manchester to Euston, taxi or tube to one of the other London stations, and a second train down to LGW. It is a slow, expensive and cumbersome journey - especially with luggage. Not a competitive option at all. And flights to LGW aren't useful only for flight connections: a decent stretch of the South Coast and South London will be much easier to access from Manchester for as long as the service lasts.
Out of interest, Manchester lost its scheduled services to London City for similar reasons. As the popularity of that airport grew, it's scarce peak runway slots became increasingly valuable, and eventually the MAN service gave way to more profitable replacements.
One more thing. The train is not a great option between MAN and LGW. There used to be a through service from Manchester terminating at Brighton, but I don't think that has run for a while now. So that means train from Manchester to Euston, taxi or tube to one of the other London stations, and a second train down to LGW. It is a slow, expensive and cumbersome journey - especially with luggage. Not a competitive option at all. And flights to LGW aren't useful only for flight connections: a decent stretch of the South Coast and South London will be much easier to access from Manchester for as long as the service lasts.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 40
Posts: 740
Not quite, MAN-LCY was axed because the West Coast Mainline improvements were complete. VLM's traffic on LCY-MAN/LPL collapsed overnight and both routes were closed soon afterwards. VLM ended up in bed with CityJet but the LCY glory days were behind them as BA got serious, built up BA CityFlyer from the rash mistakes of BACON (boom boom!) and went onto dominate the local market.
Back on topic, Virgin have resumed MAN ops as of yesterday (Sat) with B787-9 G-VOWS off to Bridgetown as VS077.
Back on topic, Virgin have resumed MAN ops as of yesterday (Sat) with B787-9 G-VOWS off to Bridgetown as VS077.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,254
Virgin and Norwegian have scaled back their ops everywhere including LGW, and I suspect many foreign carriers who operate from both LHR and LGW will concentrate on LHR for a while. New routes / opportunities exist, or at least old opportunities are gone. What is occurring now is the biggest tectonic shift in the industry for decades, possibly ever. Who knows what the new markets will be.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 199
Not quite, MAN-LCY was axed because the West Coast Mainline improvements were complete.
