bmi long haul for SAA

[Anne.Nonymous]

A company announcement yesterday gave the good news of two A330's starting work for SAA from Europe to Jo'burg. This can only be good news under the present circumstances!

Anne

[Max Angle]

It is good news in the short term but I worry that once again the way forward seems to hinge on doing other peoples work rather than trying to develop our own services. We have seen it before with charters, and allthe LH and SAS flying we used to do etc. I can't help feeling that if as much energy and effort had gone into our own flying we might be better off than we are now. Short term profit seems to win against long term development every time.

Anyway I am sure that the widebody boys and girls will be looking forward to a bit of winter sun in JB. Me, I prefer the grey skies of GLA, EDI and DUB!.

[teifiboy]

I agree with your sentiments but I think it's not all bmi's fault. It's a very difficult situation.

Remember that when the company decided to embark on the A330 scheme, there were very positive noises coming from influential political sources about 'open skies'. The rest is history.

As a result, I think the company has decided to take the most lucrative route possible to keep the long-haul operation a viable one.

[707]

Are these the same Airbus 330's which were parked some where in America, awaiting arrival to one of the airlines involved in Star Alliance, I think they were supposed to be going to BMI. please can you also E-MAIL me at [email protected]

[j17]

The word at Manch is that BMI is suspending its KIAD service for a while ( however long that is ) and SAA is using one of the A330 used on the KIAD route and the other A330 in Star Alliance colours which is semi stored at Manch.The next question is how can BMI operate a daily service to KORD with only one aeroplane?
in terms of maintenance and un-serviceability

[teifiboy]

do you think then that they should buy another £100 million jet and have it sit idly on the ground just in case the ORD aircraft goes tech?

[j17]

teifiboy
thats what they have been doing for months, paying MAPLC to park their 3rd A330 in Star alliance colours at the far end of T2.

[Ringwayman]

Except the 3rd one has been pressed into service when one of the other pair have had to undergo maintenance in Zurich (e.g. around 3 weeks ago) and when either aircraft has gone tech (e.g. December 2001). It was also used to "rescue" the schedule when one of them was running very late inbound to MAN.

Given that Air Atlanta normally have one or two 747s sitting at MAN, I guess that they may be used should remaining one need to have longish downtime.

For short-term problems, would they be allowed to put passengers on one of their flights down to LHR and depart on a UA flight instead?

[flappless]

I for one was delighted to see the agreement to damp lease to SAA. Well done to all those bmi people who managed to get this contract. At last there is going to be some income from the 3rd A330. I suspect that some of the pilots at bmi might sleep a bit easier because of this.

[Grabber]

Great news for BMI, but have they got a 4th 330 on order to be delivered next year? It will be a real shame to lose the MAN-IAD, anyone who has flown business class will know that it is far and away the best service across the pond!

Hopefully by the time this contract comes to completion the governments will have played fair and allow bmi to operate from LHR to the states.

[teifiboy]

j17

the reason that Bmi were paying to park the third 330 at Manchester was not to use it as a back up aircraft. Despite the extensive efforts of the company, it has been very difficult to find regular work for it. I should imagine for the year it was sat there, it was costing the company a small fortune. Thankfully the SAA contract has come along.

Unfortunately, 'open skies' looks less and less likely and the success of long-haul out of Manchester has always been linked to an eventual transatlantic operation out of Heathrow.

[WHBM]

No one forced British Midland to acquire the A330s; it was their own management decision to do so when they did and to gamble their shareholders' funds on a future decision in an area which has been a political minefield for years.

Recent statements now have a veiled threat that if they don't get rights from Heathrow soon they will shut down all Manchester transatlantic services. Well, if they did get Heathrow would they not then shut down from Manchester even faster?

Heathrow runway capacity is a finite national resource and we all know it is completely full. Any new service needs to be at the expense of an existing one, and in recent years we have seen a significant number of domestic destinations disappear from there. It is only an airline exec's perspective that says each slot has to be as high revenue-earning as possible. Fom a politician's point of view they cannot see why say, Teesside should lose all service to Heathrow just so someone can become the umpteenth airline operating a very comparable service at comparable fares from London to New York by trading slots. And neither can I.

[teifiboy]

Surely the 'airline exec' has a responsibility to maximise the revenue/profit from each pair of slots regardless of politics. Therefore if a slot used for JFK makes more money that a slot to Teesside, common sense will prevail. The accountants at BA will probably tell you that most of their profits at LHR come from long-haul.

[fadec_primary_channel]

LHR Capacity

Last time I spoke with some LHR ATC guys and girls they told me that LHR is no longer runway slot limited but a/c parking limited, i.e. they do not have enough space to park all the aircraft! Thus they put restrictions on arrivals( check out T4 in the morning!)

[Wibble Hatstand]

it was their own management decision to do so when they did and to gamble their shareholders' funds on a future decision

WHBM - bmi management=bmi shareholders! There are no external shareholders (apart from the Lufthansa stake) so the decisions they take affect their own dividends - thus they are more likely to make *profitable* decisions, if you catch my drift

[Electric Sky]

Should bmi gain permission to operate from LHR to the US they would not axe a route like Teesside. bmi currently operates a few routes for slot protection purposes like extra LHR-EDI rotations and these would be replaced by long haul if and when it came to fruition.

ES

[teifiboy]

Exactly, totally agree. Some of these 'slot-holding' extra flights in the past have not even been part of the published timetable and are operated solely for the purpose of future expasion.

[flymeagain]

Why is it BMI are so intent on flying to the U.S. from LHR when there are so many other profiable places such as the far east or South Africa that also have a high Business demand, Why is it that Sir Michael is so frightend of expanding there superior product to places that would better fit into the Star Alliance network??? new routes to the U.S. is really not the best option in the current climate. I think that Sir Michael should consider it a blessing in disguise!!But they have to be bold these days, they have an amazing product that would put to shame other carriers on any route and soon have a high demand.

[wingattack]

The option of other non US routes from LHR is limited by at least two other factors.

1. Even more restrictive bi-lateral agreements than are currently faced on the US routes.

2. Performance/range considerations for the A330.

The Company assure us that all avenues are/have been explored one of which is this SAA contract - Excellent news!

There also now appears to be a chance of a Mauritius shuttle(?) to increase utilisation of the Aircraft.

[BryanC123]

I think the reason BMI have done this is purely down to money.
And with the rumoured amount paid by SAA being $12 million you can see the attraction. As for long term who knows......