British Airways Regional routes to BACE at Manchester
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chubbs
I fully agree with your suggestion, but also feel that it is very unlikely to happen. Putting BACE on BAR terms and conditions would solve the problem, with some additional cost in terms of flight crew and cabin crew, but cancelling these out would be the large savings in required management and administration costs, as well as keeping training (conversion) costs and relocation costs down.
Of course, the passengers would still be subjected to small aircraft, and as southern softly said more will choose to go to LPL to travel on larger airliners.
I apologise if my reference to third level operators was taken to be derogatory, it was merely meant that the operators who will fly the routes will not be major airlines or even operators of boeing/airbus size jets, not a reflection in any way on the operating standards of these airlines.
I would say to those who seem keen to leap in to the lower paid positions that will be created by this closure that they should consider the future. Many presumably are only using BACE as a stepping stone, and as these jobs on BA terms amd conditions disappear it may be themselves who find that they are stuck at the BACE level.
I fully agree with your suggestion, but also feel that it is very unlikely to happen. Putting BACE on BAR terms and conditions would solve the problem, with some additional cost in terms of flight crew and cabin crew, but cancelling these out would be the large savings in required management and administration costs, as well as keeping training (conversion) costs and relocation costs down.
Of course, the passengers would still be subjected to small aircraft, and as southern softly said more will choose to go to LPL to travel on larger airliners.
I apologise if my reference to third level operators was taken to be derogatory, it was merely meant that the operators who will fly the routes will not be major airlines or even operators of boeing/airbus size jets, not a reflection in any way on the operating standards of these airlines.
I would say to those who seem keen to leap in to the lower paid positions that will be created by this closure that they should consider the future. Many presumably are only using BACE as a stepping stone, and as these jobs on BA terms amd conditions disappear it may be themselves who find that they are stuck at the BACE level.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Meanwhile, BA continue to watch as operators such as Emirates establish new regional routes right under their noses. I know Emirates have an onward route structure from Dubai, but they are growing their BHX-DXB so fast that they are thinking of replacing the 330 with a 777. (Rumour source: an Emirates Aussie A330 capt I spoke with the other day whilst visiting Flt Deck)
Sadly BA seem unable to look beyond the palm-fringed shores of Waterside and I doubt the Marketing Dept even know they have 'bases' further north than the A4.
Sadly BA seem unable to look beyond the palm-fringed shores of Waterside and I doubt the Marketing Dept even know they have 'bases' further north than the A4.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Taking a quick look at BA schedules, I was surprised to see that they actually operate more flights to continental europe destinations out of BHX than MAN, many of them by A319.
Surely BA are being squeezed by EZY and KLM-UK on MAN-AMS. The many pax transferring at AMS will naturally choose KLM-UK, and for the rest there is a frequent cheaper alternative from LPL ie EZY.
Surely BA are being squeezed by EZY and KLM-UK on MAN-AMS. The many pax transferring at AMS will naturally choose KLM-UK, and for the rest there is a frequent cheaper alternative from LPL ie EZY.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr A Tis
Couldn't agree more.
When presented with these accusations, BA hit back with the claim that their dedication to MAN is backed up by Terminal 3, which incidentally isn't big enough to handle all One World operations. Pathetic.
BA have long viewed MAN as little more than a feeder point for LHR, a policy which the general public have woken up to finally.
It seems the falling number of connecting passengers is being reflected in the downturn in pax on their shuttle, whilst bmi are seeing business loads on their own MAN-LHR services soar.
Why should you have to go via LON to get to EWR, PHL, MCO, ATL, ISB, DXB, MAU, ATH, LCA, BUD, HKG, SIN, BOM, IST, etc etc etc etc when other airlines offer point to point service ?
However, it is refreshing to see that one of the country's major airports isn't dominated by the national carrier.
Long may BA neglect MAN.
My patronage of them ceased when they pressured Qantas to terminate their MAN service and put pax on a "Qantas" 737 to LHR instead.
Perhaps when the plans for Star Alliance at MAN start to come online someone from BA might sit up and realise there is life north of London-Solihull Airport.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy the choice and better service offered by the many airlines who have shown the b a l l s to launch service to MAN where BA have not.
Couldn't agree more.
When presented with these accusations, BA hit back with the claim that their dedication to MAN is backed up by Terminal 3, which incidentally isn't big enough to handle all One World operations. Pathetic.
BA have long viewed MAN as little more than a feeder point for LHR, a policy which the general public have woken up to finally.
It seems the falling number of connecting passengers is being reflected in the downturn in pax on their shuttle, whilst bmi are seeing business loads on their own MAN-LHR services soar.
Why should you have to go via LON to get to EWR, PHL, MCO, ATL, ISB, DXB, MAU, ATH, LCA, BUD, HKG, SIN, BOM, IST, etc etc etc etc when other airlines offer point to point service ?
However, it is refreshing to see that one of the country's major airports isn't dominated by the national carrier.
Long may BA neglect MAN.
My patronage of them ceased when they pressured Qantas to terminate their MAN service and put pax on a "Qantas" 737 to LHR instead.
Perhaps when the plans for Star Alliance at MAN start to come online someone from BA might sit up and realise there is life north of London-Solihull Airport.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy the choice and better service offered by the many airlines who have shown the b a l l s to launch service to MAN where BA have not.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, this is no real surprise from BA who have never been committed to Manchester in any way. 
They dropped MAN-Orlando,where Virgin manage six times a week, dropped Islamabad where PIA manage about 14 flights a week, dropped Hong Kong where Cathay manage daily.
You can't get on the B737 to Rome most days as it's full - but they won't increase the service, Iberia to BCN is nearly always full, but BAR will only serve BCN from BHX not MAN, Emirates daily direct DXB nearly always full - no BA option.
With the right equipment & marketing you can make money long haul from the below decks traffic, ie cargo, before you even think of the passenger side.
Lufthansa have a good network for medium / longhaul routes from the German regions.
BA = London Airways, their only interest is to shuttle to LHR. However, the punters these days much prefer to transit via AMS or FRA if there are no direct services from MAN.
Thank god for EK, IB, SIA, CX, MS, AC, CSA, PGA, PIA,AA, USA, DAL COA & BMI etc
As for the Barbie jet,
well, it may be nice to fly-but for the humble pax it's awful - no headroom, no leg room, cramped, & no room for cabin baggage. To try & provide club service is laughable, though no fault of the hard pressed two cabin crew.
In fact I have a friend who just will not fly on the E145, preferring longer routings to the claustophobic feeling he gets on the Barbie. Of course this means in effect he rarely flies BA / BAR
At least the CRJ has more room ( 4 abreast) more headroom & more cabin bag space, alas, I expect they are more expensive to buy.
Bring back the Viscount for some comfort factor !
In the long term, it's probably better that BA get off the scene & leave it to those actually interested in developing direct services from MAN
[This message has been edited by Mr A Tis (edited 30 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Mr A Tis (edited 30 June 2001).]
They dropped MAN-Orlando,where Virgin manage six times a week, dropped Islamabad where PIA manage about 14 flights a week, dropped Hong Kong where Cathay manage daily.
You can't get on the B737 to Rome most days as it's full - but they won't increase the service, Iberia to BCN is nearly always full, but BAR will only serve BCN from BHX not MAN, Emirates daily direct DXB nearly always full - no BA option.
With the right equipment & marketing you can make money long haul from the below decks traffic, ie cargo, before you even think of the passenger side.
Lufthansa have a good network for medium / longhaul routes from the German regions.
BA = London Airways, their only interest is to shuttle to LHR. However, the punters these days much prefer to transit via AMS or FRA if there are no direct services from MAN.
Thank god for EK, IB, SIA, CX, MS, AC, CSA, PGA, PIA,AA, USA, DAL COA & BMI etc
As for the Barbie jet,
well, it may be nice to fly-but for the humble pax it's awful - no headroom, no leg room, cramped, & no room for cabin baggage. To try & provide club service is laughable, though no fault of the hard pressed two cabin crew.In fact I have a friend who just will not fly on the E145, preferring longer routings to the claustophobic feeling he gets on the Barbie. Of course this means in effect he rarely flies BA / BAR
At least the CRJ has more room ( 4 abreast) more headroom & more cabin bag space, alas, I expect they are more expensive to buy.
Bring back the Viscount for some comfort factor !
In the long term, it's probably better that BA get off the scene & leave it to those actually interested in developing direct services from MAN
[This message has been edited by Mr A Tis (edited 30 June 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Mr A Tis (edited 30 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr A Tis,
Don't know if you remember the BHX-JFK service which ended a couple of years ago?
The flight was practically paid for by belly cargo, the pax generated a profit. However, this relied on them using a 767. After a couple of seasons, London wouldn't release one so they ended up with a 757 which doesn't have the cargo capacity. I can't remember the exact figures but the 757 required a load factor >100% (people sitting on the wing I guess!) in order to break even! Smart planning there eh?
------------------
Just want to say good luck, we're all counting on you .......
Don't know if you remember the BHX-JFK service which ended a couple of years ago?
The flight was practically paid for by belly cargo, the pax generated a profit. However, this relied on them using a 767. After a couple of seasons, London wouldn't release one so they ended up with a 757 which doesn't have the cargo capacity. I can't remember the exact figures but the 757 required a load factor >100% (people sitting on the wing I guess!) in order to break even! Smart planning there eh?
------------------
Just want to say good luck, we're all counting on you .......
Guest
Posts: n/a
And the same story surrounded the MAN-LAX.
One bigwig said at the time that had they been able to lease a 763 off the general market at a competetive rate, they would have been able to make money on the route.
Instead the aircraft came from inhouse...and the rest is history
One bigwig said at the time that had they been able to lease a 763 off the general market at a competetive rate, they would have been able to make money on the route.
Instead the aircraft came from inhouse...and the rest is history
