Long haul services from MAN/regional airports

[Luke Mc]

Hello. .How come, has BA concentrated its long haul services at London for a long time, and has not offered services direct from MAN and other regional airports. This is a marked contrast with other European airlines, especially Lufthansa, which has annonced it is to considerably expant its long haul services from its secondary hub, Munich, even in the wake of the new climate.. .Luke

[gofer]

Could have something to do with the mentality of those North and South of the 'Watford Gap'?. . [quote] What MAN does today, LON thinks tomorrow ! <hr></blockquote>

No I didn't say that Southpaws are 'Thick' - but it might just be a possible conclusion you would draw.

[Thunderbug]

British Airways does fly a daily MAN-JFK. Uses a 2 class (Club + Economy) 767. Rumours as to wether this will continue after March are mixed. Apparently AA were going to take the route - but with the ending of the alliance - who knows....

Not much to offer in their defence and I don't know why they don't fly other long haul services - except the usual excuse that the routes don't make money.

Previously they have flown LHR-MAN-ISB (747). MAN-LAX (767). BHX-GLA-JFK (757).

[Confirmed Must Ride]

On the GLA/BHX routes they couldnt compete with CO, who are upgrading the GLA route to B767

[682ft AMSL]

Simple economics I guess. The money in long-haul is to be made from premium-fare pax, for which the market from MAN is smaller. This is due to a) the demographics of the area vs the South East b)the fact that the market from the north is generally one-way (e.g UK originating pax and return) unlike London which benefits from inbound business and tourist traffic and c) MAN's wider catchment area (which it relies on for long-haul services) includes areas served by regional airports offering inter-lining services via LHR, AMS etc.

. .The successful trans-atlantic routes ex-MAN are those which are flown by airlines as 'spokes' feeds into their 'hub' airports in the US. e.g. DL/ATL, CO/EWR, etc. They are high volume, low yield routes. Even if BA decided to forget the premium pax and tried to compete with this sort of service ex-MAN, it would be unable to do so without a code-share agreement with a US partner.

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: 682ft AMSL ]</p>

[Ringwayman]

When the first BA/AA alliance outcome was expected to be announced, an article in the Manchester Evening News Business Section (dated 7th July 1998) appeared, of which the below is an extract:

"Tom Horton (AA V-P Europe) spoke of the benefits it will bring at the launch of their Dallas flights. He said, "Manchester has been a good market for us and I am confident Dallas will be too. I expect Miami services will be looked at next year and the alliance will bring a number of the other possilbilites including services to Boston, Los Angeles and more to JFK and Chicago. The alliance will mean that we can link up with the BA European hub at Manchester, where it has 70 departures a day.

"People flying from all over Europe to America will be able to connect at Manchester instead of having to go to Gatwick or Heathrow."

[Hand Solo]

Unfortunately the BA management mentality is that there is no life north of Watford, and all those backward Northerners want to travel to London to connect but they just don't know it. The BHX-JFK service used to operate profitably with a 767. It had enough performance to get out of Birminghams short runway with frequently a full load of cargo, much of it expensive time critical goods from the nearby JCB plant. With that cargo on board any pax were pure profit. Sadly our short sighted fleet planners in London wanted their 767 back and subbed it for a 757 - underpowered and unable to carry cargo with a decent load of pax and transatlantic fuel. Result - a profitable route bombed within months.

I should add that had the BA-AA alliance gone ahead then our American transfer pax would be most unimpressed by our offerings at Manchester. Imagine going all that way only to stand on the apron in the rain and have all your hand luggaged removed from you as you got on an Embraer!

[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: Hand Solo ]</p>

[Porky Speedpig]

628 has it spot-on (fancy a job when we've cleared out Waterside?!).. .Other routes tried since 1975, YMX, YYZ, MCO, BGI even EWR (Airtours B707) and JFK-BOS extension, the story has always been the same, Economy class full, pretty good Cargo loads as Hand testifies but ****** all up the front except Ppruners.. .And we now know what happens to BA when those up front stay away don't we........

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

In the late sixties and early seventies, there was the BA537/8. This was a BOAC Standard VC10 service. It went MAN PIK JFK BDA ANU BGI POS GEO and back. Enough nice destinations for you? It was, of course, a complete and utter nightmare! Spare a thought also for the staff in ANU and BDA. By the time the Iron Duck reached them, in either direction, the loadsheet and seat plan were a bit of a fairy story. To add to the fun, scheduled turnround times were forty five minutes, except at JFK and GEO. The flightdeck and cabin crew also operated to different slip patterns, WOT a shame!

[liam lord]

Yeah 682 is spot on.

Only thing he forgot to mention is that MAN is getting too uppity for it's own good. Any other provincial town full of drug crazed no-marks would only be interested in long-haul flights to Jamaica.

Hey sorted <img src="cool.gif" border="0">