Read the forum code of contact
By: - 6th June 2006 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ow, I didnt see this coming!
Good On EMA!
Jon
By: - 6th June 2006 at 20:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lets hope this is the start of expansion of BA at NEMA.
By: - 6th June 2006 at 23:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
However, I'm sure the route will be received well at EMA as Baby don't offer destinations that far away (tad too far on the 737-300), or Easyjet.
Our B733s occasionally did it on a Sunday last winter from LBA no problemo. I believe one or two other airlines have also used the 'classic' B737s to TFS from the UK in the past too.
By: - 7th June 2006 at 10:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Big reduction on MAN flights too, with only TFS and PFS operating over the winter. Time to chuck BA out of T3!
By: - 7th June 2006 at 13:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Time to chuck BA out of T3!
Why?
1L.
By: - 7th June 2006 at 14:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why?
It was built/extended, as MAplc hazily believe that BA could extend the "hub" that was quite large there in the late 90's. That was the hope anyway, but it never materialised, and BA have underused it too much not since 2003.
with so many routes been pulled in the last 24 months, BA should not allowed to call it its "own" terminal!
bmi and baby have move over, to fill it up and relieve the already congested T1!
Don't get me wrong, BA had its own market @ MAN, but blew it with BACX. I can recall my flights in the 735's with C class fully booked, when i flew them to MXP and GVA in the 90's, and the likes of LH,AF, and KL operate with healthy C class loads, so the demand IS there
I think they should remove the BA logo off the terminal anyway, as its not a BA nor One World exclusive terminal by now
:EDIT: And i don't see the "suspended" GeeBee routes returning to MAN in '07
By: - 7th June 2006 at 15:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You really are making personal what are ultimately business decisions. I don't want to get into the "London Airways doesn't like MAN any more" debate that we have every few months, however...
That was the hope anyway
Terminals are not built in 'the hope'.
BA should not allowed to call it its "own" terminal
BA doesn't. If you are referring to the fact that it used to be called T1BA that was the airports doing and was dropped long ago at BA's request as it implied that the terminal itself was the responsibility of the airline.
bmi and baby have move over, to fill it up
Moving airlines between terminals to even up capacity is quite normal, and to 'chuck BA out' would leave T3 under capacity and T1 over capacity again.
I can recall my flights in the 735's with C class fully booked
As we often discuss on here full doesn't automatically mean profitable. How many on your flights were upgrades?
I think they should remove the BA logo
Airline logos appear all over airport buildings as information or advertising. In this case BA are advertising that T3 is the terminal they operate from. I'm sure if the other airlines at T3 paid to rent the wall space as BA do, they could have their logo added.
its not a BA nor One World exclusive terminal by nowI don't think it ever was. BA certainly never claimed more than T3 being the home of all BA flights.
i don't see the "suspended" GeeBee routes returning
Perhaps not. But if they don't you can be certain it's because they didn't perform well enough this year.
I will concede that in recent years there have been many changes for BA at MAN (as there have been throughout the airline), but they still operate an average of 50 flights a day from MAN, not including those operated by GB. That's not a small operation by anyones standards.
1L.
By: - 10th June 2006 at 23:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
bmi-star...you're talking nonesense!
By: - 11th June 2006 at 12:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seeing that is was orignally known as T1BA and was a joint venture between BA and MAN i.e. both parties chipped in with money, perhaps it was not unnatural for MAN to assume that BA would actually do something to make MAN a mini hub instead of squeezing all their partner airlines to drop MAN like a stone so that they can cart them down to LHR instead, and then wet themselves as soon as other airlines introduced competing services ex-MAN and LPL.
The supplement that was included in the Manchester Evening News would have gone out with the "blessing" of BA, but included outrageous lies about how committed they are and the basing of a 777 at MAN to operate 3 weekly MAN-ISB non-stop rather than the 3 weekly LGW-MAN-ISB service. Do YOU OneLeft recollect ANY scheduled BA 777 services out of MAN as I certainly don't!
As for the GB routes- I'm reviewing the BA timetable currently and have found most of the "normal" timetable though the TFS service is showing a mix of A321s and A320s.
By: - 11th June 2006 at 14:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
David, as I said to bmi-star, I think you too are over-personlising what are business issues.
for MAN to assume
As I said before about hoping, no business 'assumes'.
squeezing all their partner airlines
You have proof of this do you? I would expect that if this has happened it's because the partners see the business sense in such a move.
then wet themselves
BA deals with business issues including competition on a daily basis. It doesn't 'wet' itself!
included outrageous lies
More likely statements based on the facts as they were at that point in time.
basing of a 777 at MAN to operate 3 weekly MAN-ISB non-stop
Again based on the facts as they were at the time, and certainly prior to big changes in the Pakistan market that resulted in the route not only being suspended for some considerable time, but also being weakened for BA to the benefit of PIA who were able to keep operating.
Do YOU OneLeft recollect
No I don't. But I'm sure if BA ever sees a business case strong enough to do so, they will. One other point, I'm not sure I like your use of bold capitals to shove your finger in my face!
1L.
By: - 11th June 2006 at 14:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why do people naturally expect BA to have to make a commitment to MAN to use it as a hub, BA is a private airline who operates in the interests of making money - therefore they are likely to drop any unprofitable routes, which is likely to have been the case with these routes from MAN
Wozza
By: - 11th June 2006 at 16:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Calm down please, gentlemen.
There's more than one contributor to this thread over-personalising issues and it simply won't do.
Put those handbags down, chaps.
GA
By: - 11th June 2006 at 19:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You have proof of this do you? I would expect that if this has happened it's because the partners see the business sense in such a move.
Strangely enough, all those airlines prior to BA's "suggestions" once they decided to become "best buddies" would appear to have been quite okay with MAN ops. Just coincidence that they pull out as soon as they come to commericial agreements with BA? When CX pulled out, they admitted they were more interested in promoting the MAN-LHR-HKG sector through BA codeshares than their own MAN-HKG service!
BA deals with business issues including competition on a daily basis. It doesn't 'wet' itself! .
So why do they cry like babies whenever a foreign airline wants to start a MAN service then? BA made a big point about charges not being "competitive" against other airports and MAN has certainly responded by cutting them and gaining another award. Do I see services being reinstated? No...just services being pulled.
Again based on the facts as they were at the time, and certainly prior to big changes in the Pakistan market that resulted in the route not only being suspended for some considerable time, but also being weakened for BA to the benefit of PIA who were able to keep operating.
I believe BA operated the MAN-ISB sector for at least a couple of years after T1BA was opened. Enough time for them to have introduced the 777 and perhaps enhance the bottom line, as well as increasing available capacity? It's not as though demand collapsed....it's almost as though they "willed" the route to die.
No I don't. But I'm sure if BA ever sees a business case strong enough to do so, they will..
Oh, we've given up on BA up here forever. Let's get other airlines operating here without being in BA's pocket; i'm quite sure LH will enjoy trying to convert more business passengers going onto their long-haul product by repeating the ads which suggest there's 1 airline in particular that has connecting passengers fly in economy prior to their onward journey unlike themselves who indicate that you can have all the mod cons from the off, and not just ex-MUC and FRA. LH have admitted to at least 10% of their MAN pax flying business class long-haul. I wonder just how many KL and AF fly. Pity BA seem to be quite unable find them when doing market research.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 10:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
David, everything you have said reflects business decisions made by BA regarding how it operates from MAN whilst trying to make the operation profitable as Wozza quite rightly points out. Your points about the LH operation are spot on, and mirror the way BA bring people from German regional airports to transfer at LHR when they can't fly direct.
I said at the start I didn't want to be drawn into the BA MAN thing all over again, yet somehow I have been.
Lance, I presume your comment is aimed at me. I have tried to state facts without emotion rather than opinion in this thread. My 'personalising' was in objecting to the tone and style of a statement which I felt was rather attacking. I make no apologies for that.
1L.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Strangely enough, all those airlines prior to BA's "suggestions" once they decided to become "best buddies" would appear to have been quite okay with MAN ops. Just coincidence that they pull out as soon as they come to commericial agreements with BA? When CX pulled out, they admitted they were more interested in promoting the MAN-LHR-HKG sector through BA codeshares than their own MAN-HKG service!
You are right, BA did pursuade Qantas to drop MAN and I'm sure CX were keen on using the MAN-LHR link, but there are two major points here:
1) That is the whole point of alliances, CX saw an opportunity to use its partner, and it has done so;
2) The yield per passenger out of MAN is notoriously weak compared to other UK and international airports, consequently, airlines struggle to make some routes work well. In the case of Cathay they withdrew from MAN following a worldwide downturn in traffic which put increased pressure on their yields on this route. They could not relaistically sustain operations, regardless of whether BA was involved. The advantage they had was that they could continue to have some market presence because they happen to be "in bed" with BA.
I believe BA operated the MAN-ISB sector for at least a couple of years after T1BA was opened. Enough time for them to have introduced the 777 and perhaps enhance the bottom line, as well as increasing available capacity? It's not as though demand collapsed....it's almost as though they "willed" the route to die.
Intrestingly the Pakistan market has always been difficult for BA and other European Airlines. Most of the traffic on these routes is ethnically linked, whether it be for business or for VFR (visiting friends and relatives) and it is the latter which is the largest sole market on these routes. Most travellers on thsi route actually prefer flying with PIA, which they see as their national airline, even if they actually live in the UK. This is why PIA has such a strong presence at MAN in the first place. It has always been difficult for all the other airlines to tap into this market in any substantial way. Furthermore the yield on these routes is very poor, and regardless of how well we cost cut in Europe, it is very difficult to produce a seat at the same cost as an airline like PIA. BA did have a strong presence at one time on the route, but the growth of PIA was always going to put them under pressure because as stated, most people would fly BA as second choice, and only if they couldn't get on a PIA flight. Therefore BA made a good strategic decision to drop the route. The days have gone when an airline should and could operate a route unprofitably or at least with very little return.
Also don't forget that strategies change, and the fact that BA repeatedly does so is what has helped it regain its status as the worlds most profitable airline! It would be ridiculous business sense to operate a route simply because two years earlier a commitment had been shown to it, even if circumstances had changed!!!
LH have admitted to at least 10% of their MAN pax flying business class long-haul. I wonder just how many KL and AF fly. Pity BA seem to be quite unable find them when doing market research
Again it comes down to the issue of yield, and in actual fact BA are in just the same market!!! On services from FRA and MUC, LH have already got strong yielding home markets, they can then supplement this with low yield connecting traffic because they have already made their money from the home market, and any extra income is only a bonus then. This is exactly the same as BA, they have a strong yielding market at LHR and when they offer connections from MAN they are simply adding bonus passengers to their flights, the same applies for AF. The same could not be said for many routes from MAN, which would be low yield and difficult to make a return on if direct. The one airline that differs here slightly is KLM, but then they're in a more difficult market as Holland isn't so high-yielding, and therefore they have purposefuly set out to be a feeder airline, they accept the low yields because that is the only market they have, but then don't forget that they only manage this by having a very widespread feeder network.
At the end fo the day it all comes down to YIELD. If the airliens can't make enough money per passenger then they will not operate a direct service, instead they will choose to serve a market in another way.
By: - 12th June 2006 at 14:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lance, I presume your comment is aimed at me. I have tried to state facts without emotion rather than opinion in this thread. My 'personalising' was in objecting to the tone and style of a statement which I felt was rather attacking. I make no apologies for that.My comment was exactly what it said, 1L.
It was a general observation about a number of people who appeared to be taking things too personally.
I accept no responsibility for any individual feeling it was aimed specifically at them alone.
GA
Posts: 399
By: G-OJET - 6th June 2006 at 19:51
Just read that BA Connect (operated by GB Airways) are launching EMA to TFS from 31st October this year.
Looks like they're also launching same destination from BRS, although both flights appear to be "W Pattern's".
Should be fun for the crew with lots of bus trips up and down to Manchester by the looks of it. However, I'm sure the route will be received well at EMA as Baby don't offer destinations that far away (tad too far on the 737-300), or Easyjet.
Full press release here