EU clears AF/KL/DL/Virgin Group deal

cokepopper · Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:18 pm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virg ... SKCN1Q11YS

Has the US cleared as well?

TropicalSky · Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:02 pm

This should be interesting to see how they manage Virgin as a group to aid their plans to be bigger @ LHR

klm617 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:41 pm

Good now maybe VS will start DTW-MAN or bring back DTW-LHR

SeanM1997 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:20 pm

Jet Airways did agree with KLM to obtain a daily slot for a second daily Delhi to London Heathrow flight but was refused by Indian regulators as Air India still had rights to a second daily Mumbai to London Heathrow route. With this take over, I can see from either W19 or S20 that Virgin Atlantic will operate an additional daily Delhi flight and codeshare with Jet Airways (as they codeshare on respective networks).

In addition, if Virgin Atlantic buys Flybe and wants to start connecting short haul feed, I could see some Air France and KLM flights being swapped with Virgin Atlantic, maintaining frequencies between LHR and CDG/AMS but freeing up aircraft for the respective carriers to use at their hubs.

Air France and KLM are sitting on a number of slots which they are using Embraer aircraft to operate (1x daily AF, 4x daily KL). If these slots can be used for Virgin long haul, it would free up their aircraft as well as allowing new long haul routes.

Expect big changes for Virgin Atlantic over the next 12 months. Their network may be completely different to what we see today.

jomur · Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:50 pm

Question is will the UK approve it after Brexit?

MIflyer12 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:59 pm

klm617 wrote:
Good now maybe VS will start DTW-MAN or bring back DTW-LHR

AA/BA couldn't even make ORD-MAN work. You keep putting your faith in losers against objective fact and reason and thus frequently face disappointment.

klm617 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:28 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Good now maybe VS will start DTW-MAN or bring back DTW-LHR

AA/BA couldn't even make ORD-MAN work. You keep putting your faith in losers against objective fact and reason and thus frequently face disappointment.

AA couldn't make ORD-PVG/PEK work but yet her were are with DTW-PEK/PVG thriving.

Many around you want to point out "reality" to you. They say, "Face the facts. Look at what-is." And we say to you, if you are able to see only what-is—then, by Law of Attraction, you will create only more of what-is... You must be able to put your thoughts beyond what-is in order to attract something different or something more.

FA9295 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:02 pm

klm617 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Good now maybe VS will start DTW-MAN or bring back DTW-LHR

AA/BA couldn't even make ORD-MAN work. You keep putting your faith in losers against objective fact and reason and thus frequently face disappointment.

AA couldn't make ORD-PVG/PEK work but yet her were are with DTW-PEK/PVG thriving.

AA ended ORD-PVG/PEK because there was way too much competition (from Hainan, United, etc.). DTW-PEK/PVG has no competition at all. It's just Delta.

User001 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:08 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Good now maybe VS will start DTW-MAN or bring back DTW-LHR

AA/BA couldn't even make ORD-MAN work. You keep putting your faith in losers against objective fact and reason and thus frequently face disappointment.

In all fairness it was the abysmal OTP and more than frequent cancellations that caused the downfall of AA MAN-ORD. You can only push people so far before they start flying other routes. With high prices and poor service, carriers like VS saw their opportunity and ate AA’s lunch.

And it’s that same VS that could start a DTW route to feed into delta. With Heathrow becoming full, Manchester is seeing a role as a secondary hub for U.K. ops. Never say never.

klm617 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:02 pm

FA9295 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

AA/BA couldn't even make ORD-MAN work. You keep putting your faith in losers against objective fact and reason and thus frequently face disappointment.

AA couldn't make ORD-PVG/PEK work but yet her were are with DTW-PEK/PVG thriving.

AA ended ORD-PVG/PEK because there was way too much competition (from Hainan, United, etc.). DTW-PEK/PVG has no competition at all. It's just Delta.

Correct like ORD is over saturated with low fares in many markets DTW-MAN on VS also could get greater yields than ORD-MAN can plus VS has brand recognition in Manchester and with the Detroit feed would work much better than an AA flight out of ORD.

BojamDelta · Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:23 pm

Slightly off topic but how long is left on the Willie and Branson bet regarding
the VS brand if it ever was serious?
Will Willie cough up?

Bo)am

whywhyzee · Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:26 pm

They are putting a VS code on AF and KLM flights to Canada now, so it looks like they are really looking to leverage that TATL partnership. Here's me hoping they can bring back some VS Canada own metal flying.

mandyhaslott · Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:32 pm

SeanM1997 wrote:
Jet Airways did agree with KLM to obtain a daily slot for a second daily Delhi to London Heathrow flight but was refused by Indian regulators as Air India still had rights to a second daily Mumbai to London Heathrow route. With this take over, I can see from either W19 or S20 that Virgin Atlantic will operate an additional daily Delhi flight and codeshare with Jet Airways (as they codeshare on respective networks).

In addition, if Virgin Atlantic buys Flybe and wants to start connecting short haul feed, I could see some Air France and KLM flights being swapped with Virgin Atlantic, maintaining frequencies between LHR and CDG/AMS but freeing up aircraft for the respective carriers to use at their hubs.

Air France and KLM are sitting on a number of slots which they are using Embraer aircraft to operate (1x daily AF, 4x daily KL). If these slots can be used for Virgin long haul, it would free up their aircraft as well as allowing new long haul routes.

Expect big changes for Virgin Atlantic over the next 12 months. Their network may be completely different to what we see today.

I like your thinking... Let's hope there are some changes!

winginit · Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:37 am

klm617 wrote:
plus VS has brand recognition in Manchester and with the Detroit feed would work much better than an AA flight out of ORD.

You're implying there, I think, that DL has a broader network out of DTW compared to AA at ORD, which isn't true. AA has a much larger presence at ORD when compared to DL at DTW:

2018:

AA at ORD

- 155 destinations
- 34.7 million seats

DL at DTW

- 133 destinations
- 31.2 million seats

With those numbers in mind, why is it that Detroit feed would 'work much better' compared to AA's feed at ORD, which is more robust?

Additionally, the AA ORDMAN flight that failed had BA codeshare involved, and BA has much better brand recognition at MAN than VS does at present.

This whole discussion is of course for now pointless since only a single regulatory authority of three has approved this Blue Skies JV and there's still a long way to go especially with Brexit in play.

klm617 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:52 am

winginit wrote:
klm617 wrote:
plus VS has brand recognition in Manchester and with the Detroit feed would work much better than an AA flight out of ORD.

You're implying there, I think, that DL has a broader network out of DTW compared to AA at ORD, which isn't true. AA has a much larger presence at ORD when compared to DL at DTW:

2018:

AA at ORD

- 155 destinations
- 34.7 million seats

DL at DTW

- 133 destinations
- 31.2 million seats

With those numbers in mind, why is it that Detroit feed would 'work much better' compared to AA's feed at ORD, which is more robust?

Additionally, the AA ORDMAN flight that failed had BA codeshare involved, and BA has much better brand recognition at MAN than VS does at present.

This whole discussion is of course for now pointless since only a single regulatory authority of three has approved this Blue Skies JV and there's still a long way to go especially with Brexit in play.

Because Delta might be able to get higher yields out of Detroit than AA can get out of Chicago as Delta has no competition in Detroit. AA have every competitor imaginable in Chicago to deal with why do you think it has moved most of it year round international traffic out of ORD to PHL and DFW because there is not enough premium traffic to make it worth their while. Delta again has an advantage at DTW pricing power that AA does not have in Chicago. So while they may have more seats and more destinations they also have stiff competition. Plus DTW-MAN can be run with reliability out of DTW with a 757 no so for Chicago. Detroit is almost 200 miles shorter. Why do you so dislike Detroit getting any additional service and find a way to twist every possible scenario into a negative perspective.

LAX772LR · Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:58 am

klm617 wrote:
AA couldn't make ORD-PVG/PEK work but yet her were are with DTW-PEK/PVG thriving.

Not sure why I'm jumping into the pit of your general irrationality..... but it's worth noting that DTW-PEK/PVG are hub-hub routes for DL, whereas they were terminators for AA.

CZ has its secondary hub at PEK, MU has its primary hub at PVG, and DL fed into both.

AA had no mainland PRC partner during its tenure on the ORD routes, and suffered in the face of stateside and Chinese competition.

steveinbc · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:22 am

jomur wrote:
Question is will the UK approve it after Brexit?

Exactly my thoughts

FA9295 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:31 am

klm617 wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
klm617 wrote:

AA couldn't make ORD-PVG/PEK work but yet her were are with DTW-PEK/PVG thriving.

AA ended ORD-PVG/PEK because there was way too much competition (from Hainan, United, etc.). DTW-PEK/PVG has no competition at all. It's just Delta.

Correct like ORD is over saturated with low fares in many markets DTW-MAN on VS also could get greater yields than ORD-MAN can plus VS has brand recognition in Manchester and with the Detroit feed would work much better than an AA flight out of ORD.

Just because there's little competition on a route doesn't mean that yields will be sustainable. Sure, it certainly helps, but if they start DTW-MAN, a thinner route in comparison to ATL/JFK-MAN, they're going to have to fill the plane close to 100% full every single time in order to make a profit, even with much higher fares and no competition. Not to mention that higher fares would likely turn people away from the flight who are trying to be cost savvy and will just connect through ORD instead (except for some business travelers, of course--and I don't think MAN is a particularly thriving business market, but I could be wrong there).

N174UA · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:40 am

What impact (if any) might this have on the current seasonal PDX-LHR route operated by DL with a 763? This year, the route will be daily, from May through October.

With DL owning a 49% stake in VS, would it make more sense to switch this route to a VS 787, and then make it year-round? The 787 is ideal for thin routes, and to me would be a perfect match for international flying out of PDX.

FA9295 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:50 am

N174UA wrote:
What impact (if any) might this have on the current seasonal PDX-LHR route operated by DL with a 763? This year, the route will be daily, from May through October.

With DL owning a 49% stake in VS, would it make more sense to switch this route to a VS 787, and then make it year-round? The 787 is ideal for thin routes, and to me would be a perfect match for international flying out of PDX.

PDX will never see VS.

Their 787-9 is designed for "premium routes". On the other hand, Delta's 767-300 is more geared towards leisure/tourist markets. Since Seattle has a much larger business market than Portland does, DL could attract the business market in Seattle with a VS 787-9 while opening up a new route (PDX-LHR) with their own 767-300 for the leisure market/tourists.

LAX772LR · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:56 am

N174UA wrote:
The 787 is ideal for thin routes, and to me would be a perfect match for international flying out of PDX.

That's a bit on the simplistic side, seeing as VS' 789 has more premium seats to fill as well.

So if the market isn't sufficient to justify a smaller less-premium 767 yearround in the airline's eyes, then why would it somehow magically be able to sustain a larger and more premium 787?

And before you use "efficiency!" as a default answer, keep in mind that while the 787 is more fuel efficient, but the 767 doesn't have acquisition costs to contend with.

nomorerjs · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:59 am

klm617 wrote:
Good now maybe VS will start DTW-MAN or bring back DTW-LHR

Or they’ll go back to ORD, at least seasonally, as they can fill the front and back without having to worry about DL.

IPFreely · Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:07 am

klm617 wrote:
AA have every competitor imaginable in Chicago to deal with why do you think it has moved most of it year round international traffic out of ORD to PHL and DFW because there is not enough premium traffic to make it worth their while.

For AA, geography dictates that PHL and DFW don't compete with each other for passengers.

For DL, passengers in a vast part of the the US east of the Rockies can connect to many international flights in ATL or DTW with little difference in total travel time. Anytime DL adds new international service to DTW some percentage of the passengers connecting onto the flight are not new customers, but customers who otherwise would have connected in ATL. DL is not going to add service to DTW if it means lowering load factors and profits in ATL.

Galwayman · Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:27 am

jomur wrote:
Question is will the UK approve it after Brexit?

Of course they will , they’ll just be rule takers from now on and if they get too big for their boots Virgin will be toast

ELBOB · Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:39 am

Galwayman wrote:
Of course they will , they’ll just be rule takers from now on and if they get too big for their boots Virgin will be toast

Just like those other EEA rule-takers, Norway, and their never-heard-of airlines? Quite.

I've no problem with offshore ownership of airlines ( unlike the EU and its closed-club protected market ) but if owned by airlines I do believe they should be forced to rebrand to reflect their ownership, for transparency in the market. So Virgin should become Air France KLM Delta UK. If they don't like it, they can find other investors.

Sancho99504 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:15 am

LAX772LR wrote:
klm617 wrote:
AA couldn't make ORD-PVG/PEK work but yet her were are with DTW-PEK/PVG thriving.

Not sure why I'm jumping into the pit of your general irrationality..... but it's worth noting that DTW-PEK/PVG are hub-hub routes for DL, whereas they were terminators for AA.

CZ has its secondary hub at PEK, MU has its primary hub at PVG, and DL fed into both.

AA had no mainland PRC partner during its tenure on the ORD routes, and suffered in the face of stateside and Chinese competition.

Okay? AA ORD-NRT is hub-hub with JL feed, yet it's no longer daily.....

LAX772LR · Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:24 am

Sancho99504 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
klm617 wrote:
AA couldn't make ORD-PVG/PEK work but yet her were are with DTW-PEK/PVG thriving.

Not sure why I'm jumping into the pit of your general irrationality..... but it's worth noting that DTW-PEK/PVG are hub-hub routes for DL, whereas they were terminators for AA.

CZ has its secondary hub at PEK, MU has its primary hub at PVG, and DL fed into both.

AA had no mainland PRC partner during its tenure on the ORD routes, and suffered in the face of stateside and Chinese competition.

Okay? AA ORD-NRT is hub-hub with JL feed, yet it's no longer daily.....

Indeed, but seeing as no one was talking about NRT, I'm not exactly sure what your point is.....

Jomar777 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:28 am

Will this also mean VS joining (finally) the Sky Team Alliance?
Sorry for the dumb question but I struggle to see why VS is not on any alliance whereas DL (and AF and KL for that matter) are.

Richard28 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:31 am

ELBOB wrote:
but if owned by airlines I do believe they should be forced to rebrand to reflect their ownership, for transparency in the market. So Virgin should become Air France KLM Delta UK. If they don't like it, they can find other investors.

You think laws should be put in place to force companies to change their brands?

So...

IAG would not be allowed to have British Airways, Iberia, Vueling, Level, Aer Lingus?
Qantas would not be allowed to have Jetstar?
Singapore airlines would not be allowed to have Scoot or Silk Air?
etc
etc

what an odd world you live in..

GCT64 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:48 am

Jomar777 wrote:
Will this also mean VS joining (finally) the Sky Team Alliance?
Sorry for the dumb question but I struggle to see why VS is not on any alliance whereas DL (and AF and KL for that matter) are.

From the UK business traveller point of view, a strong VS help keeps BA competitive (BA seem determined to gouge their customers on price and service, perhaps a stronger VS (DL-AF-KL) will reverse that process a little).
Also it would be useful for VS to join Skyteam so that business traveller's can benefit from that (and provide more competition to BA/One World use and membership).

Obzerva · Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:04 am

Jomar777 wrote:
Will this also mean VS joining (finally) the Sky Team Alliance?
Sorry for the dumb question but I struggle to see why VS is not on any alliance whereas DL (and AF and KL for that matter) are.

Whilst it may seem logical to join the same club as all your partners, let’s flip the question.
What benefit does VS get in substantial terms from the other Skyteam members that aren’t KL, AF, DL?
If the large majority of your gains are in that group, why add extra the cost of a full membership for very little extra?

vhtje · Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:44 am

SeanM1997 wrote:
J if Virgin Atlantic buys Flybe and wants to start connecting short haul feed

Cannot be much feed, at least not from London. Flybe go to:

From LHR - ABZ, EDI and, from 31/03/2019, Newquay.

From LGW: nowhere, after Newquay transfers to LHR at the end of March.

It's looking better from Manchester with 21 destinations, but how many destinations does Virgin have from MAN?

Whatever reason VS has for buying Flybe, connections cannot be it - at least not in London.

DobboDobbo · Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:00 pm

The new CEO is attributed with the following quote on the press release for the route to Israel:

“2019 marks the start of a new phase of growth for Virgin Atlantic as we work to achieve our ambition to become the most loved travel company”

The BE / Connect Airways will obviously cause VS to grow. The quote above indicates that the growth will be different to that previously seen (presumably not just TATL). One stated objective is to feed long haul traffic at LHR and MAN. Presumably this is where VS’s future growth lies.

WayexTDI · Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:18 pm

ELBOB wrote:
I've no problem with offshore ownership of airlines ( unlike the EU and its closed-club protected market ) but if owned by airlines I do believe they should be forced to rebrand to reflect their ownership, for transparency in the market. So Virgin should become Air France KLM Delta UK. If they don't like it, they can find other investors.

Why would you force a company to rebrand to reflect ownership? In this case, there'd be only a handful of brands left in the world.

David_itl · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:41 pm

VS at MAN operates ATL, BGI BOS, JFK, LAS, LAX, MCO plus codeshare with 9W to BOM.

raylee67 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:53 pm

Essentially there are three TATL airlines left:
AA-BA-IB-AY
UA-LH-OS-SN-SK-LX
DL-AF-KL-VS

There is not much left outside of these three giants. What's the total market share of the rest?

The same is playing out for Trans-Pacific but in a much more limited scope as the Asian airlines are not willing to cooperate with each other in a similarly tight manner as the European ones.

evank516 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:56 pm

I know DL said that there won't be any new members of SkyTeam anytime soon, but they certainly seem to be setting VS up to join. I say it's only a matter of time.

WayexTDI · Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:05 pm

raylee67 wrote:
Essentially there are three TATL airlines left:
AA-BA-IB-AY
UA-LH-OS-SN-SK-LX
DL-AF-KL-VS

There is not much left outside of these three giants. What's the total market share of the rest?

The same is playing out for Trans-Pacific but in a much more limited scope as the Asian airlines are not willing to cooperate with each other in a similarly tight manner as the European ones.

Of course, those are the airlines from both sides of the Northern Atlantic broken down by the 3 major alliances; there cannot really be a lot of space left when the majority of international airlines from both sides are part of those 3 alliances.

Aisak · Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:53 pm

Obzerva wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Will this also mean VS joining (finally) the Sky Team Alliance?
Sorry for the dumb question but I struggle to see why VS is not on any alliance whereas DL (and AF and KL for that matter) are.

Whilst it may seem logical to join the same club as all your partners, let’s flip the question.
What benefit does VS get in substantial terms from the other Skyteam members that aren’t KL, AF, DL?
If the large majority of your gains are in that group, why add extra the cost of a full membership for very little extra?

Well, Right now you don't get "benefits" from AF and KLM like they do on DL. Flying club members have the ability to earn miles and tier points on partner airlines: Singapore, SAS, Air China, Virgin Australia, Delta.....
You won't get a loyal top-tier VS Flying Club member willing to do a TATL on AF or KLM with no status recognition, lounge access, miles, baggage allowances and the typical perks that come with it.
Likewise, you wont get a Flying Blue member willing to cross the pond on VS for that same reason.

By joining Skytem, VS would be able to let members of the rest 19 skyteam airlines' FF schemes earn tier points towards status and earn/spend miles.
VS Flying club members would gain the same benefits along with lounge access, fast track, baggage handling..... on 19 airlines. But they will probably lose the ability to earn tier points towards status on non-skyteam airlines

It all depends on the appeal it has for VS managers

CaliguyNYC · Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:26 pm

SeanM1997 wrote:
Jet Airways did agree with KLM to obtain a daily slot for a second daily Delhi to London Heathrow flight but was refused by Indian regulators as Air India still had rights to a second daily Mumbai to London Heathrow route. With this take over, I can see from either W19 or S20 that Virgin Atlantic will operate an additional daily Delhi flight and codeshare with Jet Airways (as they codeshare on respective networks).

In addition, if Virgin Atlantic buys Flybe and wants to start connecting short haul feed, I could see some Air France and KLM flights being swapped with Virgin Atlantic, maintaining frequencies between LHR and CDG/AMS but freeing up aircraft for the respective carriers to use at their hubs.

Air France and KLM are sitting on a number of slots which they are using Embraer aircraft to operate (1x daily AF, 4x daily KL). If these slots can be used for Virgin long haul, it would free up their aircraft as well as allowing new long haul routes.

Expect big changes for Virgin Atlantic over the next 12 months. Their network may be completely different to what we see today.

Is the UK / India bilateral frequency capped? If so, the GOI should open this up asap. Btw, I thought Jet wanted the GOI to transfer AI's unused LHR slots to Jet so that Jet could launch LHR-BLR, not that there was only one frequency left to use and AI started LHR-BLR.

gunnerman · Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:33 pm

SeanM1997 wrote:
Expect big changes for Virgin Atlantic over the next 12 months. Their network may be completely different to what we see today.

No it won't as VS is already operating profitable routes from LHR, LGW and MAN (to a lesser extent). What's happening is that there is a transatlantic joint-venture which DL, AF, KL and VS agreed in May 2018 and for which they need regulatory approval on both sides of the Atlantic to get it working.

Sancho99504 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:19 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Sancho99504 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Not sure why I'm jumping into the pit of your general irrationality..... but it's worth noting that DTW-PEK/PVG are hub-hub routes for DL, whereas they were terminators for AA.

CZ has its secondary hub at PEK, MU has its primary hub at PVG, and DL fed into both.

AA had no mainland PRC partner during its tenure on the ORD routes, and suffered in the face of stateside and Chinese competition.

Okay? AA ORD-NRT is hub-hub with JL feed, yet it's no longer daily.....

Indeed, but seeing as no one was talking about NRT, I'm not exactly sure what your point is.....

That your reasoning for DL making a route pairing out of DTW work vs AA out of ORD. You insinuate that DL only makes it work because of feed on both ends yet AA can't make NRT work from ORD with feed on both ends...that's the point and the comparison is relevant.

LAX772LR · Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:24 am

Sancho99504 wrote:
You insinuate that DL only makes it work because

Correction: you assumed that, I didn't insinuate that.

Nowhere in my statement is the word "only" given nor implied; I simply said it's worth noting the existence/lack of double-feed for the respective carriers, not that that difference is the exclusive determinative factor.

PHLspecial · Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:14 pm

klm617 wrote:
Good now maybe VS will start DTW-MAN or bring back DTW-LHR

I will sit here and wait for PHL-MAN on VS to take on AA-BA

Boeing74741R · Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:59 pm

User001 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Good now maybe VS will start DTW-MAN or bring back DTW-LHR

AA/BA couldn't even make ORD-MAN work. You keep putting your faith in losers against objective fact and reason and thus frequently face disappointment.

In all fairness it was the abysmal OTP and more than frequent cancellations that caused the downfall of AA MAN-ORD. You can only push people so far before they start flying other routes. With high prices and poor service, carriers like VS saw their opportunity and ate AA’s lunch.

And it’s that same VS that could start a DTW route to feed into delta. With Heathrow becoming full, Manchester is seeing a role as a secondary hub for U.K. ops. Never say never.

Not to mention the inferior Y product on the 757/767's compared to the competition on the US routes out of MAN. The same aircraft were also used when AA took over MAN-JFK but now they've left that route to VS and Thomas Cook (and United MAN-EWR).

Once upon a time, it was stated on here that MAN-ORD was one of AA's best-performing TATL routes. At one point, BMI also operated their own service using A330's. Just a hunch, but I think if the route had better OTP and a better hard product, it may still be around today regardless of whether BA wanted AA to route everybody via LHR or not. I work with people who regularly fly to the US and would sometimes fly AA's MAN-ORD/JFK routes and their appraisals of the Y cabin weren't exactly positive.

User001 · Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:37 pm

No it won't as VS is already operating profitable routes from LHR, LGW and MAN (to a lesser extent)

I’m not sure why the last bit of that was a laboured point. Both MAN and LGW will operate at 6 based aircraft this summer (both 4xB744 and 2xA330), with MAN poised to overtake LGW for based ops next summer (4xB744 and 3xA330), and a lot of the media put out by VS of late insinuates MAN is the secondary base to LHR, so, seems to be holding its own against the London ops, certainly looks to be more important than LGW of late, thus, not sure the ‘to a lesser extent’ was required.

DTWLAX · Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:07 am

David_itl wrote:
VS at MAN operates ATL, BGI BOS, JFK, LAS, LAX, MCO plus codeshare with 9W to BOM.

VS does not operate MAN-LAX

FA9295 · Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:12 am

DTWLAX wrote:
David_itl wrote:
VS at MAN operates ATL, BGI BOS, JFK, LAS, LAX, MCO plus codeshare with 9W to BOM.

VS does not operate MAN-LAX

I think they had operated that route at one point for a while, but then gave it up. I could be wrong, though.

gunnerman · Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:18 am

MAN-LAX is a summer-only route for VS and MT this year. For VS it's three times a week from 26 May to 25 October using the 332.

Boeing74741R · Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:35 pm

gunnerman wrote:
MAN-LAX is a summer-only route for VS and MT this year. For VS it's three times a week from 26 May to 25 October using the 332.

And to add to that, MAN-SFO has been dropped leaving Thomas Cook as the sole operator on that route. The opposite now applies to MAN-BOS with the route now solely operated by VS with increased frequencies.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net