Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Channex757 wrote:If we take both successful flights, both benefit from having substantial tour operators attached. TCX is part of Thomas Cook and VS has Virgin Holidays. That's immediately significant market upside with people visiting New York for leisure reasons. There is also UA's EWR flight but that's in its own niche. I didn't include UA as it isn't a JFK operation.
VS also benefits from a strong partner in DL, who are an active codesharer and not just one doing it out of some kind of alliance setup. If anyone has shoved AA off the route my money is on it being the DL/VS partnership. Just a better offering all round.
I'm still surprised UA let ORD go when BMI withdrew. Their aircraft were regularly doing MAN-ORD 75% or more full, so when BD moved the A330s to LHR it was screaming for UA to take it on. UA could have given AA a serious run for their money at ORD, and AA are only doing MAN-ORD half-heartedly these days.
atl100million wrote:
and there is a good chance that US airlines can figure out how to make the A321LR work for flights from the US NE (BOS and NYC) to the UK. The problem for the 321 is that it realistically can't do continental Europe.
chrisp390 wrote:If a market like PHL-BRU cannot work with substantial premium traffic on one end and plenty of US connections on the other, how is PHL supposed to work as a hub for all these secondary destinations?
atl100million wrote:MAN happens to be a decent-sized market which does have lower fares than LHR but, in the absence of additional slots at LHR, figuring out how to operate from MAN is a viable alternative to growing one's UK presence.... and conversely, pulling out of MAN is a decision to become more focused on London which is itself seeing plenty of low fare carrier growth.
mark1484 wrote:Going slightly off topic, did AA ever run their DC10s into MAN?
User001 wrote:I can see Level being the fit for MAN eventually.
Basically a stand alone unit, doesn't need the feed that BA/EI/IB need, LCC product to meet TCX in particular head on, A330 product similar to TOM, low frequency multiple route demographic. Could even meet a potential Norwegian head on, although D8 would likely just be MAN-PVD/SWF/BDL at most.
Can see MAN-FLL/MCO/OAK/CUN/POP all 2 weekly each (MCO probably 5 weekly). If they do go for JFK then only daily will be able to compete so probably looking at 2-3 A330 base.
If they got very brave then BKK/BOM/CPT could even be for the taking!
Channex757 wrote:If we take both successful flights, both benefit from having substantial tour operators attached. TCX is part of Thomas Cook and VS has Virgin Holidays. That's immediately significant market upside with people visiting New York for leisure reasons. There is also UA's EWR flight but that's in its own niche. I didn't include UA as it isn't a JFK operation.
VS also benefits from a strong partner in DL, who are an active codesharer and not just one doing it out of some kind of alliance setup. If anyone has shoved AA off the route my money is on it being the DL/VS partnership. Just a better offering all round.
I'm still surprised UA let ORD go when BMI withdrew. Their aircraft were regularly doing MAN-ORD 75% or more full, so when BD moved the A330s to LHR it was screaming for UA to take it on. UA could have given AA a serious run for their money at ORD, and AA are only doing MAN-ORD half-heartedly these days.
by738 wrote:Where are the VS 'transfer flows' originating from for MAN longhaul?
CHI2DFW wrote:
I keep hearing BA will pick up ORD-MAN and AA will seasonally add ORD-BHX on one of those 757s.
Who knows, DY and WW have shaken up the "low end" market, but the FF $ are not impressed,
DobboDobbo wrote:The big disparity East v West is that the MEB3 hubs are dominant compared to direct routes when compared to the various westbound routes (direct and into the hubs).
Incremental strengthening of the inbound traffic, extending MANs surface catchment, additional feed at MAN, and the north's economic growth should lead to more and more routes (east and westbound) becoming viable...
Flighty wrote:I am actually surprised AA's CLT-MAN did not survive as a daily (they tried it right?) That surprises me more than the JFK-MAN situation. And it suggests the MAN route is really fundamentally weak.
chepos wrote:Flighty wrote:I am actually surprised AA's CLT-MAN did not survive as a daily (they tried it right?) That surprises me more than the JFK-MAN situation. And it suggests the MAN route is really fundamentally weak.
It was summer seasonal in 2014 with a 757, most prob cut into the PHl route.
DobboDobbo wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:How does NYCMAN not work with a BA-AA JV? They should easily be the top performer in the market. Something is fundamentally not working...
Product
Price
Performance/Punctuality
Combination of the above.
winginit wrote:MaverickM11 wrote:How does NYCMAN not work with a BA-AA JV? They should easily be the top performer in the market. Something is fundamentally not working...
It's not as though AA can tap into BA flow opportunities over MAN, and I'll argue that you've got a metal mismatch on the route at the very least. Apart from AA already serving MAN from both ORD and PHL, they're up against MT and VS, who are both more capable of capturing the predominantly UK POS traffic mix with their strong respective MAN presences. Combine that with a relatively lacking product and a challenging yield climate and you've got yourself a laggard.
Flighty wrote:I am actually surprised AA's CLT-MAN did not survive as a daily (they tried it right?) That surprises me more than the JFK-MAN situation. And it suggests the MAN route is really fundamentally weak.
David_itl wrote:Flighty wrote:I am actually surprised AA's CLT-MAN did not survive as a daily (they tried it right?) That surprises me more than the JFK-MAN situation. And it suggests the MAN route is really fundamentally weak.
So fundamentally weak that MT grows their transatlantic business every year, even allowing for the MIA withdrawal (operating that route in the wrong season!). If there's anything fundamentally weak, it's AA. Passenger numbers to JFK have mushroomed since MT started and now we know that VS is overbooking on their JFK route (social media posts to MAN indicated this). Oh, it's not exactly £20.00 fares that they are doing to get business, Virgin's economy fare for a 2nd July departure returning 6th July is coming in at just under £1600/ $2064 which is only £40/$52 cheaper than LHR, Combination of poor equipment, atrocious performance and reliability and the general cop-out to route everything via LHR is why AA struggles. Hell, US introduced PHL-MAN on a 762 and upgraded to A330 inside 8 months due business demand. They worked out MAN. It's just the terrible mindset of the major airlines and forum members that MAN is just an inferior, insignificant airport that is very lucky to get any kind of long-haul that needs to be addressed.
Flighty wrote:I am actually surprised AA's CLT-MAN did not survive as a daily (they tried it right?) That surprises me more than the JFK-MAN situation. And it suggests the MAN route is really fundamentally weak.
Channex757 wrote:Nope, no com plaint.
You probably know more about the internal catfight at BA that caused their withdrawal from MAN longhaul, it's the absolute orchestras of marketing I am complaining about from both AA and BA. When you have a lock on a market (as they did), anyone in business who is serious will tell you that you work to retain that lock. Not gift it to someone else. BA and AA have never been anything more than half-hearted at trying to remain number one across the Atlantic from MAN.
The ORD flight should have been rock-solid for AA and even justified a 777 when the MD-11 was pulled. It's not rocket science; you fight to hold what you have and push outwards. They never bothered. TCX have shown that there is untapped back end traffic, and DL/VS are doing the full service thing right. Even UA's 757s are a better ride.
BA and AA have ceded a market that is either untapped or bleeding them both at MAN and at LHR.
skipness1E wrote:
I am sure Norwegian are itching to get into MAN, can't see them in BFS, SNN, DUB, EDI and LGW and NOT MAN.
skipness1E wrote:The problem with AA seems partly now to be the same as BA, why not just feed the multiple ORD, JFK, DFW, CLT, PHL via LHR with BA?
skipness1E wrote:DELTA could have kept MAN-ATL but they chose not to. United now focus so little on MAN, they offer a single B757. All of those airlines were loyal and dedicated MAN customers but you can't see MT come in undercut their spoke to hub operation with p2p for good value and see nothing change on the legacy side.
atl100million wrote:DL/VS carries a majority of its JFK-MAN passengers on DL connections beyond JFK.
uberflieger wrote:atl100million wrote:DL/VS carries a majority of its JFK-MAN passengers on DL connections beyond JFK.
Not really an ideal set-up considering its NYC pax prefer LGA. Most likely money losing
Then again Delta has no choice. They have to increase JFK volume to make it work. Wouldn't be the first time though they fail. Time will tell.
j
ADrum23 wrote:I'll ask this again.
What exactly is going on with AA? Not just here, but nationwide. It seems like they are being passive and not being aggressive like DL, defending their turf, as well as expanding (i.e, launching TATL service from non-hubs, building new hubs, etc). It seems they are content with status quo or even contracting (like in this situation at JFK).
What the heck is going on with AA?
jbs2886 wrote:ADrum23 wrote:I'll ask this again.
What exactly is going on with AA? Not just here, but nationwide. It seems like they are being passive and not being aggressive like DL, defending their turf, as well as expanding (i.e, launching TATL service from non-hubs, building new hubs, etc). It seems they are content with status quo or even contracting (like in this situation at JFK).
What the heck is going on with AA?
Ummm, no. In the past few years AA has dramatically expanded its Asian operations. It has also expanded decently in European destinations in the summer. Furthermore, AA and DL are in very different places. AA is still digesting the merger with US, while renewing a substantial portion of its fleet.
Finally, what is wrong with an airline staying status quo? They are turning out billions in profit, so they're doing something right.
chepos wrote:Flighty wrote:I am actually surprised AA's CLT-MAN did not survive as a daily (they tried it right?) That surprises me more than the JFK-MAN situation. And it suggests the MAN route is really fundamentally weak.
It was summer seasonal in 2014 with a 757, most prob cut into the PHl route.