So, what's the craic with the BD announcement? Any news today? Was out of town.....

Nothing in Concrete, But the BD decision seems likely under the 'Eco Climate'

If I worked for MAN Airport I would be 'unhappy' with BD.

MAN could turn into a 'Loco' Airport quite easily??

Couldnt agree more .....

All we need now is for American, Continental, Delta, US Airways, Qatar, Emirates, Etihad, Lufthansa, KLM, Air France, Swiss, SN Brussels, Finnair,SAS Singapore, Virgin, Pakistan, Libyian, Cyprus, Air Malta, Turkish, Saudia etc etc to up stick and leave overnight and it will become said "LOCO" airport

O dear....get a grip :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Did the BA 1502 get a rainbow shower on arrival this morning?

Goodbye BA.

It's been......emotional. :(

Re Turin
 

Speaking as a Brummie, Turin - I bet that it is a sad day for all concerned. Another PPRUNER called BA, London Airways, a long time ago. He/She was right. Sadly BA may become only a LHR/LGW operation in the future. Sad little bit of History for the NW of England.

CAT III

Are Ba already now officially a LHR/LGW airline after the end of the MAN-JFK route?

was that not there last route originating outside of London....?

pretty poor effort all round really from the "national" flag carrier

For the millionth time, BA couldn't make money outside London due to the legacy cost base they were saddled with from their days as a heavily unionised state carrier. The JFK competes with Continental to Newark and Delta to JFK, it was losing business and money. Worth remembering that a lot of Manchester passengers used MAN-LHR-JFK as well. We had similar issues when we had a direct GLA-JFK as the better option was often via London !

BA ain't the "national" carrier any more in that sense and it isn't 1979. Air France long haul is all at Paris, Swiss has a single JFK rotation to Geneva, everything else is in Zurich. That's the business model, that's the way they make money. It's a business not a charity. When BA flew from the regions they bled money nearly every single year. That market is best left to others who can do it profitably.

BA
 

No Skip your right, they are not the national carrier anymore. (in any sense)
They are the world's favorite airline!!:mad:

If "a lot of Manchester passengers used MAN-LHR-JFK", it begs the question of how hard they tried to convince them to use the non-stop route. Unless the LHR routes are unprofitable and need the regions to make them profitable. If BA bled money from the regions, it begs the question how with a little tinkering and a bit of investment, Flybe can make money. Sorry, all BA were ever interested in was to get people going through Heathrow to the detriment of the all those outside of Oikland (i.e. south east England)

Ringwayman......

Have to agree with you.

As another regional example, when BA pulled out of BHX, the press articles from BA were around "lack of demand" for services....... yet when other airlines arrive they can fill the aircaft AND make money.

And before anyone harps on about yield .....yes the regions can fill aircraft up from the front. As an example, I understand that EK can fill business class quite easily with traffic via their DXB hub.

Also, at the "back of the bus" on point to point routes, money is still there to be made if you have the right operating model. BA appear to be taking the easy option to not tackle their high cost delievry model and hope they can continue to make money at LHR ....how long will it last ? With greater competition at Heathrow and a newer generation of carriers moving into the regions offering great choice ..... it will be interesting to see what business is left for BA in say 5 years time.

It amazes me that other airlines can make it work in the regions, yet BA struggled.

I read an earlier post that says about BA saying "it's not the national carrier and its not 1979" .... perhaps BA need to learn it's not 1979 !

Just my 2p's worth ....:ouch:

Compare the Emirates cost base with the BA one, the Qatar cost base with BA etc. These are newish airlines with no legacy union issues. Compare the then self handling BA with third party handled almost everyone else. In a tough market it all adds up !

Delta operate connections through their JFK and Atlanta hubs
Continental their Newark hub
US Airways through their Philadelphia hub
American through their Chicago O'Hare hub
Emirates through their Dubai hub
Etihad through Abu Dhabi hub
Singapore through their Changi hub
Qatar through their Doha hub
even
KLM through their Schipol hub
Air France through their CDG hub
and
BA through their Heathrow hub.

Outside the BMI and Virgin beach fleet routes, the only long haul other route is BMI to Chicago which shared through United ( I think ) and is on the verge of suspension.
The old BA European routes and now operated by flybe and easyJet amongst others with the option remaining to book over LHR of you like BA miles. The BA JFK stuck out like a sore thumb and costs rose when the crew base at Manchester was closed. Also BA could not offer onward connections beyond JFK. Times change alas, even the long standing American service which used to be remarkably profitable is now looking weaker due to the increased competition going 5 weekly this winter. Actually having read that above list again, that's actually a damn good choice of airlines (!)

Why all the BA bashing, if the Manchester to New York route is so lucrative why have London Airways Mark 2, BMI or London Airways Mark 3, Virgin Atlantic, jumped in to operate the New York route.

And while we are at it, why don't these airlines open a hub at Manchester and add routes to Lisbon, Madrid, Vienna, Warsaw, Rome, Moscow, Bangkok, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, Johannesburg, Los Angeles et al if the market is so strong in the North of England.

The reason BA, Cathay, Qantas, Air Canada, Gulf Air, South African and Malaysia have pulled out over the years is precisely the that Manchester does not produce adequate passengers paying the premium fares. Fact!!!!

What I find interesting about this is that when BA first announced the suspension of the route, the reason stated was that it is LOSING money, now though, the official line from BA is that it is being pulled because of falling premium passenger numbers and NOT because it is losing money. Since the operation at MAN was handed over to a handling agency - who I work for, the premium pax figures have remained roughly constant at about 13J-booked/day. The back end is always full as is the belly of cargo - oh, and it has been privately admitted the the route IS profitable by BA's own senior management. Admittedly, and as Skipness has stated - not having a crew base in MAN has inflated the cost somewhat which doesn't help.
By the way - the forward bookings for the LGW-JFK have been described as somewhat Disappointing and Delta are to reintroduce a 767 on the MAN-JFK route for the Christmas period I hear. :ok:

Qantas was not given the option BA told them that they had to go as all pax were to be fed through London and I think Cathay the same, Cathay would have returned had they not had problems with Manchester/Moscow sector which BMI objected to
South African pulled the route so they could return to New York then when they did have an aircraft available they were losing money hand over fist

Air Canada were forced off the route by the competition in Air Transat, Zoom and Thomas Cook on a route that is very seasonal to say the least and very price sensitive

I think most airlines will struggle on long haul for probably another year or so
until we come out of the recession both here and in the US.

Ian

Does anyone know if Air Canada will reconsider Manchester now that Zoom have gone?

Skipness, I take that there is no AA presence at JFK then? Or was it my mistake to believe that BA and AA could codeshare beyond each other's hubs in their home countries, plus the regional long-haul (which for reasons best known to themselves, BA didn't want the MIA link to have). Now we have the prospect of anti-trust immunity, there are rumours that there are tentative plans drawn up for AA's operations to go to 2 757s to ORD, 1 to BOS (can't see it happening). 4 weekly to MIA in winter and a daily 757 to JFK (the airport that AA has no presence at?! so who's going to feed it!?).

The premium pax for the Manchester catchment area is there, but BA chose not to put them through MAN as LHR is a weak market for them and needs as much help as possible.

If BD withdraw from ORD (and the bucket and spade routes), then it'd be understandable given that the main focus was for the A330 to start long-haul ex LHR and then expand to MAN. The bucket and spade routes I'd expect VS to pick up in the mid-term; the 787 can't come quick enough as 747s are too big for the market.

Doubt AC will make a comeback to YYZ as Air Transat plans are for 4 weekly in April, 8 weekly for 3 weeks in May, 13 weekly from the last week in May to September and 11 weekly from October.

[QUOTE]but BA chose not to put them through MAN as LHR is a weak market for them and needs as much help as possible. [/QUOTE

I hope you mean the Shuttle and not Heathrow in general. BA and AA are not, I believe allowed the same freedom to code share due as say NW / KLM as they don't have anti trust immunity ( yet ). I know what you are saying but I know that there are issues with code sharing and revenue sharing with AA.

As for QANTAS being told to get out of Manchester by BA....er no. There was a sound business case for BA to simply carry the passengers on the Shuttle as it was more cost effective than flying a less than full B747 up from LHR. If QANTAS had flown MAN-BKK / SIN- SYD then you might have a better case, but regardless, at the end the B747-400 went via LHR so there was no difference on flight time and with the connection allowed more time to get the blood flowing into your legs again after flying half way round the world. All in all Emirates is a better bet I would say.

Actually Ametyst1 that's not why CX pulled out as you say, so not a FACT!!!!

With BA, the tragedy with BA is the loss of jobs/relocations amongst the remaining BA Engineering staff and anyone else affected in that worst of ways.
As for the operation of the flight, who really cares? Leave them to LHR if that's what they want. There are numerous other carriers to the US from MAN including NYC, and Newark is arguably a better airport to use for Manhattan than JFK anyway and this is where Continental go. BA are not a particularly good airline, not a particularly good employer (yes, been there), and the loss of a single daily return flight to the US isn't really a big issue for an airport with an annual pax figure IIRO 25 Million PA. Will free up a morning arrival slot for someone else.

CONGRATULATIONS to British Airways management team on it's now complete destruction of a once small hub operation.

If I am not mistaken Manchester has now becomes one of the busiest airports in Europe without any international routes flown by a former national airline of that country.

To me it feels that BA's management has wanted to get to the present route situation for years and has systematically being pulling apart the base it once had here. For a number of years it has felt that wrong decisions were being made and that hardly any effort or investment was being made to change the situation around. When you consider the small amounts of investment the regional operations of BHX and MAN have received over the years it is really no surprise that we have ended up where we are today.

The sale of BA connect to Flybe even seemed to other opportunities that were not grasped it could have retained some of it's cabin crew and used the small team for the JFK service and come to aggrements with the unions to take over the crewing of night stopping shuttle flights.

Many airlines use Boeing 757 across the Atlantic, two could well have taken over from the B767. This would have offered a greater flexibility to the travelling public, deals with Flybe to feed these flights from around the UK as code shares would have helped fill the extra daily flight.