This flight doesn't seem to have operated since August 3/4 and appears to be unavailable for booking. Has BA quietly discontinued this market or has there been some sort of extended technical issue with the sole A318 used to operate the route?

Plane G-EUNA at DUB now, don't know why.

G-EUNA ferried LCY-DUB on 04AUG for maintenance.

BA001 is bookable again towards the end of July.

Bookable on their website.

These flights don't operate for a few weeks in August. Demand apparently drops way down during this time and BA has been scheduling this downtime into the summer timetable for a few years now.

ScottB wrote:

This flight doesn't seem to have operated since August 3/4 and appears to be unavailable for booking. Has BA quietly discontinued this market or has there been some sort of extended technical issue with the sole A318 used to operate the route?

The sole aircraft has to do scheduled maintenance a lot so they schedule the main heavy maintenance that takes a while in the light season in August. With only one aircraft now as EUNB is sold they cannot operate the flight daily.

george77300 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

This flight doesn't seem to have operated since August 3/4 and appears to be unavailable for booking. Has BA quietly discontinued this market or has there been some sort of extended technical issue with the sole A318 used to operate the route?

The sole aircraft has to do scheduled maintenance a lot so they schedule the main heavy maintenance that takes a while in the light season in August. With only one aircraft now as EUNB is sold they cannot operate the flight daily.

GEUNB is leased I believe not sold

Gazdon121 wrote:

george77300 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

This flight doesn't seem to have operated since August 3/4 and appears to be unavailable for booking. Has BA quietly discontinued this market or has there been some sort of extended technical issue with the sole A318 used to operate the route?

The sole aircraft has to do scheduled maintenance a lot so they schedule the main heavy maintenance that takes a while in the light season in August. With only one aircraft now as EUNB is sold they cannot operate the flight daily.

GEUNB is leased I believe not sold

I thought sold to Titan Airways that leases the plane. Maybe wrong though. I thought BA got rid of it.

G-EUNB was sold to Titan; and BA001/2 stops for a few weeks every summer for planned mx

Was sort of selfishly hoping it was done... they NEVER should've sullied the historic Speedbird 001/002 with this service.

*ducks and dons flame suit*

LAX772LR wrote:

Was sort of selfishly hoping it was done... they NEVER should've sullied the historic Speedbird 001/002 with this service.

*ducks and dons flame suit*

While I don`t agree the Concorde service was sullied by this later iteration ( your suits not even scorched ),
BA had to follow it up with something, & whatever they offered would have been vastly inferior. I don`t think
you could class this later service as "poor", although I have to admit I`ve never used it.

I wonder why they do not plan to borrow EUNB from Titan as scheduled mx cover.

Tedd wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Was sort of selfishly hoping it was done... they NEVER should've sullied the historic Speedbird 001/002 with this service.

*ducks and dons flame suit*

While I don`t agree the Concorde service was sullied by this later iteration ( your suits not even scorched ),
BA had to follow it up with something, & whatever they offered would have been vastly inferior. I don`t think
you could class this later service as "poor", although I have to admit I`ve never used it.

Is slightly better than regular Club World, not that that is saying much. The cabin feels a bit less like a cattle pen.

george77300 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

This flight doesn't seem to have operated since August 3/4 and appears to be unavailable for booking. Has BA quietly discontinued this market or has there been some sort of extended technical issue with the sole A318 used to operate the route?

The sole aircraft has to do scheduled maintenance a lot so they schedule the main heavy maintenance that takes a while in the light season in August. With only one aircraft now as EUNB is sold they cannot operate the flight daily.

Summer holidays in the UK, a lot of people on leave spending time with family. I imagine very few fly J from LCY for leisure (or at least not enough to make the flight viable).

When Crossrail opens will the flight be dropped though?

Arion640 wrote:

george77300 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

This flight doesn't seem to have operated since August 3/4 and appears to be unavailable for booking. Has BA quietly discontinued this market or has there been some sort of extended technical issue with the sole A318 used to operate the route?

The sole aircraft has to do scheduled maintenance a lot so they schedule the main heavy maintenance that takes a while in the light season in August. With only one aircraft now as EUNB is sold they cannot operate the flight daily.

Summer holidays in the UK, a lot of people on leave spending time with family. I imagine very few fly J from LCY for leisure (or at least not enough to make the flight viable).

I think that's the case most of the year. The % in J and F on LON-NYC who are business is very high. I'd imagine that would account for a tiny reduction. August is the light season for the flight hence why maintenance is scheduled for then and also plenty of other options and flights on BA to NYC from either LGW and LHR. The 32J reduction would be minimal compared with 86J 747s that fly many times a day.

Hey guys,
This flight is absolutely top of my aviation bucket list : I love using LCY and have never flown On an A318.
I just have to get from Sydney first....d'oh!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I note this was split from another thread to form this new one. As others have mentioned this flight takes a break every year at this time. Nothing to see here.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
This flight is absolutely top of my aviation bucket list : I love using LCY and have never flown On an A318.
I just have to get from Sydney first....d'oh!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I’ve done it once and had a great time. It’s definitley worth its place on the AVgeek bucket list! Sit at the back, it’s where the ‘normal’ people sit, rather than the bankers and celebs

Tedd wrote:

BA had to follow it up with something

....why?

They could've easily just retired the flight numbers.
I would argue: should've.

Who would blame them? They operated Concorde: something that only three airlines in history ever accomplished, and one of them isn't even around anymore to boast of it. If anything positive is worth retiring a flight number for, it's that.

it is nothing wrong with that. The date is block booking so they need to change oil, tires, landing gear shocks, hydraulic liquid change, many going on. Some airlines have reservation booking block date for some flights, too. you cannot see it schedules every day.

As for Titan, they're planning to reconfigure G-EUNB for all-economy.

LAX772LR wrote:

Tedd wrote:

BA had to follow it up with something

....why?

They could've easily just retired the flight numbers.
I would argue: should've.

Who would blame them? They operated Concorde: something that only three airlines in history ever accomplished, and one of them isn't even around anymore to boast of it. If anything positive is worth retiring a flight number for, it's that.

Every airline operates a "flight number 1" on a premier route dating back to Pan Am's "around the world" service if not before. Every airline is going to maintain a "flight number 1". Retiring it just because the aircraft and/or route changes, which inevitably will happen, is ridiculous. It's a flight number, not a major piece of world history. The only flight numbers that get retired are ones associated with crashes.

IPFreely wrote:

Every airline operates a "flight number 1" on a premier route

Incorrect, as plenty of airlines operate them on mundane/typical routes: LH, LA, SA, SK, etc all come to mind.

IPFreely wrote:

Every airline is going to maintain a "flight number 1".

Incorrect again, as airlines like SA, DL, (and plenty of former airlines, e.g. MX) have at times gone without a flight 001.

IPFreely wrote:

It's a flight number, not a major piece of world history.

Tell that to PA103, TW800....

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
This flight is absolutely top of my aviation bucket list : I love using LCY and have never flown On an A318.
I just have to get from Sydney first....d'oh!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Do it sooner rather than later, just in case.

I did it and had a ball! I also reviewed the whole thing on airliners.net here!

Armodeen wrote:

I’ve done it once and had a great time. It’s definitley worth its place on the AVgeek bucket list! Sit at the back, it’s where the ‘normal’ people sit, rather than the bankers and celebs

Haha! I took 1A over and came back in 7A - best of both worlds. It's such a fun flight to do!

The BA Concorde flights didn't become BA001-BA004 until the early 1990s. Prior to that I don't think BA operated BA001/BA002 and BA003/BA004 was used for LHR-BOM-HKG. With HKG still a British colony I guess was as close as BA got to a flagship route, with the Tokyo flights being BA005-BA008, then the flights to Australia being BA009-BA012.

ClassicLover wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
This flight is absolutely top of my aviation bucket list : I love using LCY and have never flown On an A318.
I just have to get from Sydney first....d'oh!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

Do it sooner rather than later, just in case.

I did it and had a ball! I also reviewed the whole thing on airliners.net here!

Armodeen wrote:

I’ve done it once and had a great time. It’s definitley worth its place on the AVgeek bucket list! Sit at the back, it’s where the ‘normal’ people sit, rather than the bankers and celebs

Haha! I took 1A over and came back in 7A - best of both worlds. It's such a fun flight to do!

Yes it was great fun, 3 FAs for 14 pax! They had bidded for it together as good friends and they had a lot of fun doing it. I was sat with another tier point runner who was on my connecting flight from DUB also!

I came back on the AA 77W (when it was a new thing) from MIA to experience that though.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
This flight is absolutely top of my aviation bucket list : I love using LCY and have never flown On an A318.
I just have to get from Sydney first....d'oh!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

I fly out of LCY a lot an a A318 is a slightly smaller A319. Air France operate them into LHR all the time, they're run of the mill TBH. By all means fly on an A318 but don't spend thousands to cross the pond the slowest way to JFK!

LAX772LR wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

Every airline operates a "flight number 1" on a premier route

Incorrect, as plenty of airlines operate them on mundane/typical routes: LH, LA, SA, SK, etc all come to mind.

If you think these "mundane/typical" routes have no historic significance than you are not the airline historian you pretend to be.

LAX772LR wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

Every airline is going to maintain a "flight number 1".

Incorrect again, as airlines like SA, DL, (and plenty of former airlines, e.g. MX) have at times gone without a flight 001

At times? As I posted, flight 1 always comes back.

LAX772LR wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

It's a flight number, not a major piece of world history.

Tell that to PA103, TW800....

"Tell it to a flight number"? You make zero sense. As I posted above, flight numbers associated with crashes are the only flight numbers that get retired.

LAX772LR wrote:

Tedd wrote:

BA had to follow it up with something

....why?

They could've easily just retired the flight numbers.
I would argue: should've.

Who would blame them? They operated Concorde: something that only three airlines in history ever accomplished, and one of them isn't even around anymore to boast of it. If anything positive is worth retiring a flight number for, it's that.

Although I'm not criticising you in any way as I'm a great fan of your posts and I particularly like your style in the way that you write but regarding Concorde if you count Singapore Airlines that's four airlines but your correct in quoting that one of them isn't even around anymore!

Please don't take my post as criticism as honestly as I do thoroughly enjoy your sharp and sometimes sarcastic posts

One thing about these flights I've always wondered. Why don't they fly into LGA? If the flight is geared towards the business man/woman and bankers wouldn't it have made sense to fly into the NYC airport arguably the closest to Manhattan? It is already precleared so essentially it is a domestic flight thus no CBP required. Aside from the fact that BA has a huge presence at JFK and it would be an extra expense/logistics pain for one flight is there any other reason to not fly the flight as LCY-LGA? Perhaps even serviced by AA staff at LGA? Thanks for the responses!

Edit: I did forget about the perimeter rule but surely an exemption could be granted for this one flight.

IPFreely wrote:

If you think these "mundane/typical" routes have no historic significance than you are not the airline historian you pretend to be.

Then by all means, please share with us the "historical significance" of the ones cited.

IPFreely wrote:

As I posted, flight 1 always comes back.

Exactly where did you post anything about "always coming back?"

IPFreely wrote:

As I posted above, flight numbers associated with crashes are the only flight numbers that get retired.

Repeating it isn't going to make it any less false than the first time you said it.

Cunard wrote:

Although I'm not criticising you in any way as I'm a great fan of your posts and I particularly like your style in the way that you write but regarding Concorde if you count Singapore Airlines that's four airlines but your correct in quoting that one of them isn't even around anymore!

I have no reason to take it as criticism, because what you're stating is not accurate.
At no point did Singapore Airlines operate Concorde.

The only association that SQ had with a Concorde was a very brief joint-marketing stint (actually two: 1977, and 1979-80) with BA, which saw Concorde G-BOAD wear the SQ livery on its left side and have Singapore stewardesses onboard as servers.

All flight crew, aircraft registration, scheduling, call-signs, etc remained solely within BA's operation/control.

LAX772LR wrote:

They could've easily just retired the flight numbers.
I would argue: should've.

Who would blame them? They operated Concorde: something that only three airlines in history ever accomplished, and one of them isn't even around anymore to boast of it. If anything positive is worth retiring a flight number for, it's that.

From everyone I know who has taken BA1/2 on the A318 from LCY I've only heard praise and good stories about BA's replacement of the former Concorde flight numbers. It might be less special under consideration that there is just no replacement for the Concorde itself, but it's special in other ways. You fly a very small narrowbody transatlantic, from Londons city center to JFK airport and/or back. You have a special J cabin not found on other BA aircraft (where their J product sucks anyway, but this is a different discussion). You arrive in JFK as a domestic flight with that little stopover in Shannon. I think all this combined makes the new BA1/2 very special, too, especially considering everyone praises the service on these flights.

Realistically their won't be a new Concorde. So why not embrace what we got now? It's probably the best what we will get. And for someone living in central or eastern London or working there, flying from LCY to JFK is definetly a huge shortcut getting to New York versus taking car, taxi or trains to Heathrow, ariving their early due to the risk of traffic jams or train breakdowns in London (VERY, VERY likely), lounging for a while and then taking a regular flight into JFK which is followed by an hour in security. Can you imagine flying Concorde these days and then standing 2 hours in security in Terminal 7?

So why not give the new BA1/2 some lovin'?

CARST wrote:

So why not give the new BA1/2 some lovin'?

...nuh-uh!

I stand corrected and although I was aware of the fact that the Concorde was crewed by BA flight crews and still used the BA call signs and flight numbers and it retained it's registration unlike the Braniff operations I was always under the impression that the aircraft wearing the Singapore Airlines livery on the Port side and the fact that SQ had cabin staff members that were part of the cabin crew that there was more behind it rather than just a short lived joint marketing deal but again thanks for clarifying that.

I have to say that it was one of highlights on a nice day at LHR during that period to see the ''Singapore Airlines'' liveried Concorde (albeit on one side) passing the former Queens Building

Anyone who does want to sample the all-J class A318 is best advised not to leave it too long. Most UK-based posters believe that the opening of the new Elizabeth Line heavy rail route in stages between December this year and December next (complete with brand new trains, new tunnels under Central London etc) with no-change service from East, South East and East Central London to Heathrow will damage the viability of BA001/002. A sufficient proportion of passengers who aren't literally on the doorstep of LCY will be lured away by the frequency on offer at LHR to make the route unprofitable.

So what of the rumors of BA purchasing a couple of A220-100
aircraft?

Seems this could revitalize this service with its ability to carry more
passengers non stop in either direction

I'm booked on BA1 in mid-November, hope it'll last until then.

This is my second attempt already, the first try was in March this year but the flight got cancelled 12h ahead due to the snow chaos in London. Ended up on a 6am Norwegian (Wamos Air A332) service from LGW to still get to the US, what a downgrade

Really looking forward to it and hope there will be no snow in November in London

Regards,
Loran

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I wonder why they do not plan to borrow EUNB from Titan as scheduled mx cover.

I thought that was part of the deal when BA sold it to Titan or have Titan reconfigured it now ?

Max Q wrote:

So what of the rumors of BA purchasing a couple of A220-100
aircraft?

Seems this could revitalize this service with its ability to carry more
passengers non stop in either direction

The problem hasn't been the planes being full, quite the opposite - that's why BA3/4 was permanently cancelled. And planes are already non-stop eastbound. Westbound the stop at SNN doesn't really cost that much time for the passengers as a maximum planeload of 32 people can easily go through US CBP preclearance there while the plane refuels, and then walk straight out of the terminal at JFK instead of lining up there for CBP attention.

The advantage of the A318 is that BA has a large pool of A320-series qualified pilots and cabin crew based at LHR and LGW who can work the route. Adding a tiny number of an aircraft type entirely unrelated to anything else in the fleet reduces the flexibility of crew scheduling and increases the cost disproportionally

JannEejit wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I wonder why they do not plan to borrow EUNB from Titan as scheduled mx cover.

I thought that was part of the deal when BA sold it to Titan or have Titan reconfigured it now ?

Not yet reconfigured (this winter, supposedly), but apparently mx cover wasn't part of the deal.

Andy33 wrote:

Anyone who does want to sample the all-J class A318 is best advised not to leave it too long. Most UK-based posters believe that the opening of the new Elizabeth Line heavy rail route in stages between December this year and December next (complete with brand new trains, new tunnels under Central London etc) with no-change service from East, South East and East Central London to Heathrow will damage the viability of BA001/002. A sufficient proportion of passengers who aren't literally on the doorstep of LCY will be lured away by the frequency on offer at LHR to make the route unprofitable.

Thank you fo calling the Elizabeth Line by its proper name

Max Q wrote:

So what of the rumors of BA purchasing a couple of A220-100
aircraft?

Seems this could revitalize this service with its ability to carry more
passengers non stop in either direction

I don't see BA ordering "a couple". Maybe a fleet closer to a dozen to replace the Ejets at LCY eventually

LAX772LR wrote:

Cunard wrote:

Although I'm not criticising you in any way as I'm a great fan of your posts and I particularly like your style in the way that you write but regarding Concorde if you count Singapore Airlines that's four airlines but your correct in quoting that one of them isn't even around anymore!

I have no reason to take it as criticism, because what you're stating is not accurate.
At no point did Singapore Airlines operate Concorde.

The only association that SQ had with a Concorde was a very brief joint-marketing stint (actually two: 1977, and 1979-80) with BA, which saw Concorde G-BOAD wear the SQ livery on its left side and have Singapore stewardesses onboard as servers.

All flight crew, aircraft registration, scheduling, call-signs, etc remained solely within BA's operation/control.

I flew on this flight as a young lad, SIN-BAH-LHR. I would suggest you are both right as there is a very large grey area here.

The pilots were British Airways, as was the Purser. The three remaining Flight Attendants were Singapore Airlines in their uniform. In Singapore airport, there was no British Airways signage for the flight at all. As far the the public was concerned, this was a Singapore Airlines flight. I had always wondered as that is why it was the left side that was painted in Singapore Airlines colours, that is all anyone could see.

What I thought was cool was that inside, everything too was SQ. Magazines, menus, safety cards, sick bags ... even the soap in the lavs! The SQ safety card I received from the first leg is one of the rarest in my collection. It is an actual Singapore Airlines safety card, identical to the rest of their fleet at the time, not like the Braniff Concorde safety card which was a BA card rebranded with the Braniff name.

I mention the first leg, as ... when everyone reboarded in BAH, it was all BA again ... right down to the soap in the lavs!!! The Flight Attendants were now all BA. From BAH to LHR it was their flight again.

I do agree that operationally, it was entirely a British Airways flight. But ... you had to see the efforts made to make it look like Singapore Airlines on the SIN-BAH sector!

Andy33 wrote:

Anyone who does want to sample the all-J class A318 is best advised not to leave it too long. Most UK-based posters believe that the opening of the new Elizabeth Line heavy rail route in stages between December this year and December next (complete with brand new trains, new tunnels under Central London etc) with no-change service from East, South East and East Central London to Heathrow will damage the viability of BA001/002. A sufficient proportion of passengers who aren't literally on the doorstep of LCY will be lured away by the frequency on offer at LHR to make the route unprofitable.

Good point but don't forget, the Elizabeth Line operates in both directions, so opening the possibility/access to the LCY service to an audience that perhaps saw it as not viable to them previously.

I flew it again in March this year and had a conversation with the crew who mentioned contracts being renewed, so the service will continue. I cannot recall however for how long though, but I imagine a year at least.

When flying to NY I would choose this service in a heartbeat
Excellent service, a quick stop in Shannon for immigration and then at JFK it's literally 15 minute from doors to manual to being kerbside hailing a cab. I can't stand the crowds at LHR or the schlep getting there. The LCY service is far more intimate. I'm not fussed with the lounge, I just want to get to where I'm going, quickly.

If the LCY service had WiFi (think this will be the case when it returns) it would be the icing on the cake. But, the masses will decide, and once the line is in operation over time it'll contribute to the growth or demise of the service.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Max Q wrote:

So what of the rumors of BA purchasing a couple of A220-100
aircraft?

Seems this could revitalize this service with its ability to carry more
passengers non stop in either direction

I don't see BA ordering "a couple". Maybe a fleet closer to a dozen to replace the Ejets at LCY eventually

That'll be quite a cutback, they've got 22 Embraers right now.
And if they did get 22 A221s, even after LCY has completed its expansion programme, there will only be 11 A221 compatible stands at the airport, so impossible to run the timetable (at some times of day they would need all 11). Don't forget Swiss already operate the type at LCY, so there's no way BA would get exclusive use of the 11 stands. This is a very small airport on a very constricted site - no aircraft parking except on the loading and unloading stands.

longhauler wrote:

I flew on this flight as a young lad, SIN-BAH-LHR. I would suggest you are both right as there is a very large grey area here.

The pilots were British Airways, as was the Purser. The three remaining Flight Attendants were Singapore Airlines in their uniform. In Singapore airport, there was no British Airways signage for the flight at all. As far the the public was concerned, this was a Singapore Airlines flight. I had always wondered as that is why it was the left side that was painted in Singapore Airlines colours, that is all anyone could see.

What I thought was cool was that inside, everything too was SQ. Magazines, menus, safety cards, sick bags ... even the soap in the lavs! The SQ safety card I received from the first leg is one of the rarest in my collection. It is an actual Singapore Airlines safety card, identical to the rest of their fleet at the time, not like the Braniff Concorde safety card which was a BA card rebranded with the Braniff name.

I mention the first leg, as ... when everyone reboarded in BAH, it was all BA again ... right down to the soap in the lavs!!! The Flight Attendants were now all BA. From BAH to LHR it was their flight again.

I do agree that operationally, it was entirely a British Airways flight. But ... you had to see the efforts made to make it look like Singapore Airlines on the SIN-BAH sector!

Not many people got to fly on the Singapore Airlines Concorde service, so you're in rare company there.

It's really interesting to know that everything was SQ on the inside, from the magazines to the menus to safety cards to the sick bags. That is pretty amazing how they changed literally everything that passengers would see, but it makes sense. I wasn't aware it was so detailed, the swap over. Now that is cool to know.

That SQ safety card for Concorde must be exceptionally rare! Thanks for sharing this information, it's great to know!

Btblue wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

Anyone who does want to sample the all-J class A318 is best advised not to leave it too long. Most UK-based posters believe that the opening of the new Elizabeth Line heavy rail route in stages between December this year and December next (complete with brand new trains, new tunnels under Central London etc) with no-change service from East, South East and East Central London to Heathrow will damage the viability of BA001/002. A sufficient proportion of passengers who aren't literally on the doorstep of LCY will be lured away by the frequency on offer at LHR to make the route unprofitable.

Good point but don't forget, the Elizabeth Line operates in both directions, so opening the possibility/access to the LCY service to an audience that perhaps saw it as not viable to them previously.

I flew it again in March this year and had a conversation with the crew who mentioned contracts being renewed, so the service will continue. I cannot recall however for how long though, but I imagine a year at least.

When flying to NY I would choose this service in a heartbeat
Excellent service, a quick stop in Shannon for immigration and then at JFK it's literally 15 minute from doors to manual to being kerbside hailing a cab. I can't stand the crowds at LHR or the schlep getting there. The LCY service is far more intimate. I'm not fussed with the lounge, I just want to get to where I'm going, quickly.

If the LCY service had WiFi (think this will be the case when it returns) it would be the icing on the cake. But, the masses will decide, and once the line is in operation over time it'll contribute to the growth or demise of the service.

Elizabeth Line opens in stages December 2018 to December 2019, so entirely possible BA would want to see what happens when it is in full operation. The problem with "the line running in both directions" is while that's true, the westward part consists of two branches, one actually to Heathrow and the other to Maidenhead and Reading which is very much Heathrow catchment. You'd have to be very determined indeed (or an a-net member) to ignore the 12 flights a day to JFK on BA/AA, and 8 flights on VS/DL, not to mention the EWR flights of UA (plus also BA and VS) all from LHR, in favour of the solitary flight from LCY

I was one of those lucky one who flew SIN-BAH-LHR on Concorde as a child, (having flown up to SIN from AKL on a Air NZ DC-10 (I think)).

Can’t remember the cabin crew uniforms, but did visit the flight deck inflight (the good old days), and still have my certificate signed by the BA Captain! Unfortunately, not to hand, so I can’t name him.

Now, as a training captain on the B777, can sill remember the flight 30+ years ago.