|
Originally Posted by easyflyer83
(Post 10219532)
I don't want to sound tribal here, I've worked for both LCC and network carriers.
I think there some are being slightly unfair on easyJet. It's not their or other LCC's responsibility to boost MAN's route portfolio but to operate where the best returns are. Plus there are a number of easyJet routes that were missing from the airports network. BIO - No airline on the route TIV - Totally brand new route TLV- Maintained route after LS pulled it and when ZB collapsed BSL-Not operated since the days of Crossair SXF-Glaring omission to MAN's portfolio DME-Not operated on a scheduled basis for many years. Unfortunate timing given the struggling Russian economy and sanctions SKG- Year round service to an important Greek city that is widely used by Greek locals MRS - Don't think there was much competition ?? RAK - No scheduled competition when it was launched GRX - No competition The thing is, some enthusiasts are fickle. If OK, relaunched PRG, AZ began operating to MXP or LY does launch TLV, there will be many with more optimistic views. I'm sure easyJet will continue to launch routes that are new or underserved at MAN just like they have done with the above list. I have no real knowledge of any new routes but I could see WAW as a possibility i guess now it's on the wider network. Either way, easyJet operates more of Europes top 10 city pairs than any other airline. IMO, along with MT on long haul and BE on domestic, they are the closest that MAN has to a home carrier and they can't adequately do that by omitting the big pairings of AMS, CDG, MXP, PMI, FAO etc in a bid to ponly chasing thinner or secondary routes. |
Correct me if i'm wrong but easyJet has never publicly announced expansion and then gone back on it. Whatever goes on behind the scenes is a totally different ball game.
|
Originally Posted by easyflyer83
(Post 10219532)
I don't want to sound tribal here, I've worked for both LCC and network carriers.
I think there some are being slightly unfair on easyJet. It's not theirs or other LCC's responsibility to boost MAN's route portfolio but to operate where the best returns are. Plus there are a number of easyJet routes that were missing from the airports network. BIO - No airline on the route TIV - Totally brand new route TLV- Maintained route after LS pulled it and when ZB collapsed BSL-Not operated since the days of Crossair SXF-Glaring omission to MAN's portfolio DME-Not operated on a scheduled basis for many years. Unfortunate timing given the struggling Russian economy and sanctions SKG- Year round service to an important Greek city that is widely used by Greek locals MRS - Don't think there was much competition ?? RAK - No scheduled competition when it was launched GRX - No competition The thing is, some enthusiasts are fickle. If OK, relaunched PRG, AZ began operating to MXP or LY does launch TLV, there will be many with more optimistic views. I'm sure easyJet will continue to launch routes that are new or underserved at MAN just like they have done with the above list. I have no real knowledge of any new routes but I could see WAW as a possibility i guess now it's on the wider network. Either way, easyJet operates more of Europes top 10 city pairs than any other airline. IMO, along with MT on long haul and BE on domestic, they are the closest that MAN has to a home carrier and they can't adequately do that by omitting the big pairings of AMS, CDG, MXP, PMI, FAO etc in a bid to ponly chasing thinner or secondary routes. what I was questioning I said the longevity of some of their other routes in that I don’t believe all of these routes have the staying power for *all* of the carriers on those Routes. I don’t believe Lisbon can support 3 carriers, nor do I believe Budapest can either. Barcelona’s yields may suffer again as I not bełive easyjet will stay at 2 weekly on that route. With these concerns, it may not be Easyjet that suffer, but someone is likely to and that she not good for the bigger picture overall. fair play to Easyjet for having a go and expansion is most welcome, but don’t forget it’s only expansion if it adds, rather than just replaces something else. |
Indeed, with over-supply by LCCs on the likes of MAN-LIS we risk losing TAP with their network connectivity to Africa and South America, for the sake of a few cheap seats to the villa or a city break. Got to be careful.
|
Originally Posted by roverman
(Post 10219830)
Indeed, with over-supply by LCCs on the likes of MAN-LIS we risk losing TAP with their network connectivity to Africa and South America, for the sake of a few cheap seats to the villa or a city break. Got to be careful.
If TAP really has a useful market to otherwise unserved destinations then they will continue to operate, otherwise they will not. As long as Ryanair aren't offering MAN-LIS-GRU I don't see the issue. |
Originally Posted by boredintheairport
(Post 10219844)
But surely you're talking about different markets? TAP baulking and withdrawing MAN-GRU (given you said South America) because an LCC cut the price of MAN-LIS fares would be like KLM not offering MAN-AMS-PVG because Flybe offer MAN-AMS for €50.
If TAP really has a useful market to otherwise unserved destinations then they will continue to operate, otherwise they will not. As long as Ryanair aren't offering MAN-LIS-GRU I don't see the issue. Let's not forget, however, that some airlines are able to stimulate/grow a market by adding a new destination, rather than purely taking a share of the existing traffic flying from, say, the North West to that destination by current means (indirect, using other UK airports etc). JUst because there is low existing demand, doesn't mean that it will always stay as such... but it may require a punt from the airline, using historic data from another similar route, to take the plunge in the first place. |
Originally Posted by UnderASouthernSky
(Post 10219866)
The issue is that airlines often make more money from straight O&D traffic to/from their hub than connecting over the hub (for a given ticket). TP probably require MAN-LIS bookings to supplement anyone travelling MAN-LIS-XXX to make the MAN-LIS route work. Losing a section of the O&D market to LIS will make the MAN-LIS less likely to be profitable.
Let's not forget, however, that some airlines are able to stimulate/grow a market by adding a new destination, rather than purely taking a share of the existing traffic flying from, say, the North West to that destination by current means (indirect, using other UK airports etc). JUst because there is low existing demand, doesn't mean that it will always stay as such... but it may require a punt from the airline, using historic data from another similar route, to take the plunge in the first place. What I find more confusing is that TAP offer pretty rubbish outbound connections to Brazil and quite a few spots in West Africa with lengthy layovers in Lisbon. |
As others have said, when a new carrier comes onto a route already served by 2 airlines, it's the extent to which it stimulates growth as opposed to re-distributing existing business, as well as maintaining yields, which are important.
Lisbon is interesting in that as far as I know easyjet are transferring the route from LPL where it did pretty well for numbers based on posts on the LPL thread. Whether those customers will be happy to fly that particular route from MAN or for convenience choose an alternative destination remains to be seen. |
With Etihad operating from November a 787-9 in place of one of its 777s at Manchester (according to UK Aviation News - Apologies I’m not able to post the link), it seems like the airport will be seeing far fewer 777s in the near future. Is anyone aware of whether this change to 787-9 is permanent for Etihad at MAN? Many thanks |
Change is likely to be permanent. However seen that from S19 the EY15/16 will change back to B777 and EY21/22 goes B787 instead. given the amount of cuts EY is making, and the fact Jet Airways is starting MAN this winter (don’t forget EY Carries a lot of connecting pax for Jet ex-MAN), I think a downgrade to B787 on one flight has meant MAN gets off incredibly lightly. |
More Thomas Cook - One off cruise flights? Diversions?
Over the last two days, Anchorage, Fairbanks Alaska and Hartford Connecticut have popped in to the schedules for Thomas Cook. (They're no longer showing). Anyone have any ideas....Hartford seems most likely to be a diversion? And ANC/FAI would be cruise related....possibly planning for S19? Thanks all. Edit - Hartford still showing: https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...0f8a0f4179.png |
HFD could be a mis-file as that’s a municipal airport unlikely to ever see intl ops. If MT were to ever start that area it would be BDL and even then an A330 is too big for the route, even if just 2-3 weekly. ANC/FAI could be cruise related, however, DE have served FRA-FAI for some time so maybe they have seen an increase in pax from the U.K. and could start a MAN flight? thanks for the update though. |
Originally Posted by LAX_LHR
(Post 10223697)
I think a downgrade to B787 on one flight has meant MAN gets off incredibly lightly. |
I agree FFMAN but many commentators highlight the fact the B789 holds 10% less pax than the B777 and I often get accused of being ‘too positive’ etc so was going along that theme. Seems I can’t win either way really. |
Originally Posted by LAX_LHR
(Post 10224112)
I agree FFMAN but many commentators highlight the fact the B789 holds 10% less pax than the B777 and I often get accused of being ‘too positive’ etc so was going along that theme. Seems I can’t win either way really. |
Originally Posted by FFMAN
(Post 10224104)
In all respects (other than for aviation enthusiasts) the switch to a 789 from a 777 is an upgrade rather than a downgrade
If I remember rightly, EY tend to nearly always use the High Y version on the MAN route of which they have only 10 examples. 5 of these ten are the oldest 777's in their fleet and I believe the leases are up in the next year and the aircraft will be Lessor returned ASAP. Bearing in mind some of the other requirements for the remaining 5 High Y aircraft such as multiple Bangkok's etc, it's no surprise and eventually I would assume MAN would go double 787-9 with a focus on slight yield improvement rather than sheer passenger numbers. At peak times, flights MAN-AUH are £700+RT, but over the last year, I've had a couple of off peak flights in the £310-330 range. That's surely not sustainable?? |
Originally Posted by roverman
(Post 10224120)
Perhaps 'down-gauge' is the right word?
Seriously though, I imagine that Etihad are well aware of how many of their pax are connecting onto BOM and the new Jet Airways service is bound to impact on that. From my perspective, the 'upgrade' on the morning service to a better aircraft would make it more of a contender for my future business |
don't forget it is also a big downgrade in cargo revenue (an often overlooked side revenue). they will lose about 3xPMCs (up to 12ton) of space with 787 from the 777.
|
From a passenger perspective the 787 is better. Certainly in business where the 777/330 business hard product simply isn't that good anymore.
|
This afternoon's EY21 arrived with 412 pax and 17 tonnes of cargo. At least that one made a profit, one assumes!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:01. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.