Aviation Discussion

[daikilo]

One thing I've always found odd is how, on the ground, the E70/75 sits with a slightly nose-up attitude, yet the E90/95 sits with slightly nose-down attitude.

Wing and I believe landing gear differences, 90/95 being longer would be more constrained on rotation angle otherwise (take-off, landing).

 

[AlterEgo]

Wing and I believe landing gear differences, 90/95 being longer would be more constrained on rotation angle otherwise (take-off, landing).

Makes sense. I've always thought the E90/95s have quite a high angle of attack on approach and landing, too.

 

[atillathehunn]

Lovely flight from Athens to Manchester with Aegean Airlines, five (!) drinks runs and a proper hot meal with salad and dessert. First flew with them back in 2008 but they are really cheap for the quality of service, beating BA by some margin!

Aegean's amazing service combined with Turkish's economy food flying to points near east is pretty fantastic. And Aegean have announced Manchester going four-weekly from December until January, then back down to twice weekly until summer '17. Quite disappointing with Manchester losing the third daily Istanbul flight as well.

I don't know why BA bother flying their Band 4 product to Istanbul - TK knocks spots off them, usually with an A330 from LHR to boot. TK has an impressive route network and if you were really tied to OneWorld you'd fly to Qatar rather than run the gauntlet of LHR.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...flights-from-aberdeen-and-edinburgh-1-4311893

The services are due to start in March next year, an industry allocation system for landing and take-off time slots at the London hub shows. The slots have been available since Virgin Atlantic scrapped its Little Red flights on the routes last year, after two years of attempting to compete with British Airways. Flybe said in July it had suspended an option to take up the slots in October. A spokeswoman for the airline said last night: “As a matter of practice, Flybe does not comment on speculation around potential decisions before such time as is appropriate. “Flybe has applied for the slots to operate at Heathrow, and that is a matter of public record.”

Read more at: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...flights-from-aberdeen-and-edinburgh-1-4311893

 

[me123]

Struggling to see where their niche in the market is at LHR. Even if they offer codesharing, I doubt they'll be offering anything new as they struggle to fit into a crowded marketplace. Virgin had a brilliant product, and reasonably good connections to a long haul network, and failed. FlyBe will be offering less than Virgin would have done. They'll be operating small planes into an airport with a high cost base, which will push fares up.

Best of luck to them, but I doubt they'll pull it off.

 

[Butts]

Struggling to see where their niche in the market is at LHR. Even if they offer codesharing, I doubt they'll be offering anything new as they struggle to fit into a crowded marketplace. Virgin had a brilliant product, and reasonably good connections to a long haul network, and failed. FlyBe will be offering less than Virgin would have done. They'll be operating small planes into an airport with a high cost base, which will push fares up.

Best of luck to them, but I doubt they'll pull it off.

It's only a couple of years ago that they virtually pulled out of Gatwick wholesale citing high costs so Heathrow does seem a bit strange.

I think they are better off sticking with London City.

 

[atillathehunn]

It's only a couple of years ago that they virtually pulled out of Gatwick wholesale citing high costs so Heathrow does seem a bit strange.

I think they are better off sticking with London City.

I would imagine that they'll do better than Little Red only on the grounds that they can whore themselves out to many people for codeshares. Out of MAN they do SQ, VS, DL, CX, EY, EK, TCX I imagine they're gambling on the same for LHR.

 

[me123]

VS did have good codesharing as well. In addition to themselves and Delta (offering pretty comprehensive transatlantic coverage), they also had Singapore Airlines, Air New Zealand, Transaero (Russia), South African Airlines and Air China at the very least. Between all of these, they covered generally the same routes that the MAN codeshares operate (VS operate to Hong Kong, so CX would be a duplicate). VS/DL will want to feed to the long haul network via direct EDI and GLA to JFK flights, and I don't know if Virgin would want to see another airline succeed where they failed so may be reluctant to support flyBe. TCX is obviously an irrelevance at LHR.

So the market would be limited based on their existing codeshares. They'd need to find more in order to make any sizeable dent into the market - Air India would be a good choice to start with perhaps? They already do that at BHX, and it's a destination not widely served in the UK. With a large Indian population across the country, there'll be plenty of people looking to visit family and friends.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Just on that topic, about Codeshares. Is a flight announced as a codeshare only when there are passengers onboard from that airline? You see some BA domestic flights announced as Iberia, Qatar etc. codeshares sometimes, but not others.

 

[atillathehunn]

VS did have good codesharing as well. In addition to themselves and Delta (offering pretty comprehensive transatlantic coverage), they also had Singapore Airlines, Air New Zealand, Transaero (Russia), South African Airlines and Air China at the very least. Between all of these, they covered generally the same routes that the MAN codeshares operate (VS operate to Hong Kong, so CX would be a duplicate). VS/DL will want to feed to the long haul network via direct EDI and GLA to JFK flights, and I don't know if Virgin would want to see another airline succeed where they failed so may be reluctant to support flyBe. TCX is obviously an irrelevance at LHR.

So the market would be limited based on their existing codeshares. They'd need to find more in order to make any sizeable dent into the market - Air India would be a good choice to start with perhaps? They already do that at BHX, and it's a destination not widely served in the UK. With a large Indian population across the country, there'll be plenty of people looking to visit family and friends.

AIUI - and I'm extremely open to correction - but part of the justification of runway 3 at LHR was increased regional connectivity. I believe Liverpool and Humberside (?) were slated, along with capacity increases to other domestic destinations. I would imagine this stretches BA's capacity a bit with short haul jets. This might be the beginning of BA sub-contracting some of that work out to Flybe. So in this regard the difference would be BA coding with Flybe (as happens out of LGW) for some routes.

Just a thought.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just on that topic, about Codeshares. Is a flight announced as a codeshare only when there are passengers onboard from that airline? You see some BA domestic flights announced as Iberia, Qatar etc. codeshares sometimes, but not others.

Do you mean announced outloud at the airport?

The flight number doesn't disappear because no passengers on it in the short term. Not announcing at the airport might be differences between staff/airlines/lost the piece of paper with codeshares written on in it.

 

[anme]

Do you mean announced outloud at the airport?

The flight number doesn't disappear because no passengers on it in the short term. Not announcing at the airport might be differences between staff/airlines/lost the piece of paper with codeshares written on in it.

Not all flights are necessarily codeshared with all partner airlines.

 

[me123]

AIUI - and I'm extremely open to correction - but part of the justification of runway 3 at LHR was increased regional connectivity. I believe Liverpool and Humberside (?) were slated, along with capacity increases to other domestic destinations. I would imagine this stretches BA's capacity a bit with short haul jets. This might be the beginning of BA sub-contracting some of that work out to Flybe. So in this regard the difference would be BA coding with Flybe (as happens out of LGW) for some routes.

Just a thought.

Yes, Runway 3 is partly justified in terms of improved connections to the airport from those of us who live outside London. Quite a lot of airports have been promised services to Heathrow once runway 3 opens (sometime in the year 2150 I would expect). I'm not sure if there's any protection for this: I would hope and expect to see slots reserved specifically for routes to UK regional airports, given that it is subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of several billion pounds. But I wouldn't be surprised if that was quietly forgotten about by the time the runway actually comes to fruition.

But that isn't now. As it stands, flyBe will be operating small jets (I assume they'll use the Embraers) into one of the most congested airports in the world, competing with a well established carrier that offers more connections. In today's world, I can't see them doing well with this.

 

[Butts]

Yes, Runway 3 is partly justified in terms of improved connections to the airport from those of us who live outside London. Quite a lot of airports have been promised services to Heathrow once runway 3 opens (sometime in the year 2150 I would expect). I'm not sure if there's any protection for this: I would hope and expect to see slots reserved specifically for routes to UK regional airports, given that it is subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of several billion pounds. But I wouldn't be surprised if that was quietly forgotten about by the time the runway actually comes to fruition.

But that isn't now. As it stands, flyBe will be operating small jets (I assume they'll use the Embraers) into one of the most congested airports in the world, competing with a well established carrier that offers more connections. In today's world, I can't see them doing well with this.

Embraers - I hope so

Are Q400 Turboprops even allowed into somewhere like Heathrow - bit like a Pacer turning up at St Pancras International

 

[AlterEgo]

Embraers - I hope so

Are Q400 Turboprops even allowed into somewhere like Heathrow - bit like a Pacer turning up at St Pancras International

Yes, KLM used to use F50s until fairly recently. A bugger to manage though due to their lower approach speed. I fully expect E195s to be used.

 

[atillathehunn]

Yes, Runway 3 is partly justified in terms of improved connections to the airport from those of us who live outside London. Quite a lot of airports have been promised services to Heathrow once runway 3 opens (sometime in the year 2150 I would expect). I'm not sure if there's any protection for this: I would hope and expect to see slots reserved specifically for routes to UK regional airports, given that it is subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of several billion pounds. But I wouldn't be surprised if that was quietly forgotten about by the time the runway actually comes to fruition.

But that isn't now. As it stands, flyBe will be operating small jets (I assume they'll use the Embraers) into one of the most congested airports in the world, competing with a well established carrier that offers more connections. In today's world, I can't see them doing well with this.

Well like I already said I think we have something unobserved here influencing the results. I don't think Flybe will be competing. I think they are likely to codeshare with BA to free up short haul frames for BA.

I think that is going to be the difference with Little Red, non-competition with BA.

And smaller planes into LHR does happen - KLM flew/flies F50s in on AMS-LHR rotations. **Oops, somebody beat me to it**
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not all flights are necessarily codeshared with all partner airlines.

Nobody said they were? I think there is confusion here. I read Tim's question as being why some flights were announced (implication: verbally by staff) as being codeshared whereas some days the verbal announcements do not say codeshare. The implication is that codeshares were possible, so assuming the same flight on different days. I did not assume he meant different flights on different days, otherwise your comment would be correct.

 

[me123]

Yes, KLM used to use F50s until fairly recently. A bugger to manage though due to their lower approach speed. I fully expect E195s to be used.

FlyBe Dash 8s have been to Heathrow in the past, under the guise of Brussels Airlines. But I'd hope that E195s are used.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Nobody said they were? I think there is confusion here. I read Tim's question as being why some flights were announced (implication: verbally by staff) as being codeshared whereas some days the verbal announcements do not say codeshare. The implication is that codeshares were possible, so assuming the same flight on different days. I did not assume he meant different flights on different days, otherwise your comment would be correct.

Yes, I'm thinking about announcements and the displays on the departures boards. You sometimes seem to get a random selection of codeshares for certain flights, while others have none.

I recall my LBA to AMS flight once being announced as a Kenyan Airlines flight, never heard it before or since. I wondered if they added them in, to avoid customer confusion, only when someone was actually booked via a codeshare.

 

[atillathehunn]

Yes, I'm thinking about announcements and the displays on the departures boards. You sometimes seem to get a random selection of codeshares for certain flights, while others have none.

I recall my LBA to AMS flight once being announced as a Kenyan Airlines flight, never heard it before or since. I wondered if they added them in, to avoid customer confusion, only when someone was actually booked via a codeshare.

You could well be right. I assume the desk agent would be able to see the ticket numbers and therefore see whether someone was booked under a KQ number or not.

 

[Butts]

FlyBe Dash 8s have been to Heathrow in the past, under the guise of Brussels Airlines. But I'd hope that E195s are used.

They have hardly got any 195's left as most of them went "off hire" to be replaced by the Q400's.

Don't BA still own part of Flybe as I'm sure that was part of the deal when BA Connect was absorbed into Flybe.

 

[atillathehunn]

They have hardly got any 195's left as most of them went "off hire" to be replaced by the Q400's.

Don't BA still own part of Flybe as I'm sure that was part of the deal when BA Connect was absorbed into Flybe.

Then I would imagine they are looking down the side of the sofa for something. Can't they get them back on lease again?

 

[AlterEgo]

They have hardly got any 195's left as most of them went "off hire" to be replaced by the Q400's.

Don't BA still own part of Flybe as I'm sure that was part of the deal when BA Connect was absorbed into Flybe.

IAG have about 15% or something in Flybe from memory.

 

[FQTV]

IAG have about 15% or something in Flybe from memory.

IAG's shareholding was significantly diluted when flybe reissued its shares a number of years ago, taking it down to below 5%.

IAG subsequently divested itself of that remaining shareholding, and no longer holds any notifiable interest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, I'm thinking about announcements and the displays on the departures boards. You sometimes seem to get a random selection of codeshares for certain flights, while others have none.

I recall my LBA to AMS flight once being announced as a Kenyan Airlines flight, never heard it before or since. I wondered if they added them in, to avoid customer confusion, only when someone was actually booked via a codeshare.

Apart from human fallibility forgetting to list all codeshares over the PA, it may be worth mentioning that not all services on a given route may be codeshared.

It's regularly the case that a codeshare will only be applied to a given service that connects to the codeshare airline's own service.

For example, Qantas operates five flights per day between Sydney Kingsford Smith and Auckland. Only the first three of them are British Airways codeshares, however; BA7417 (QF141), BA7419 (QF143) and BA7421 (QF145). The key is that it's always a specific service that's codeshared, not always all services on a specific route.

The airport's flight information display is usually accurate; this is especially obvious at smaller airports when the codeshare will often be shown alongside the prime number (as opposed to scrolling) to pad out the departures board and make it look a bit more exotic.

 

[atillathehunn]

IAG's shareholding was significantly diluted when flybe reissued its shares a number of years ago, taking it down to below 5%.

IAG subsequently divested itself of that remaining shareholding, and no longer holds any notifiable interest.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Apart from human fallibility forgetting to list all codeshares over the PA, it may be worth mentioning that not all services on a given route may be codeshared.

It's regularly the case that a codeshare will only be applied to a given service that connects to the codeshare airline's own service.

For example, Qantas operates five flights per day between Sydney Kingsford Smith and Auckland. Only the first three of them are British Airways codeshares, however; BA7417 (QF141), BA7419 (QF143) and BA7421 (QF145). The key is that it's always a specific service that's codeshared, not always all services on a specific route.

The airport's flight information display is usually accurate; this is especially obvious at smaller airports when the codeshare will often be shown alongside the prime number (as opposed to scrolling) to pad out the departures board and make it look a bit more exotic.

Yes, but if you read, we knew that and it wasn't the point of the question. We know not all flights on the route are codeshared. The question was why the same FLIGHT not the same ROUTE was announced/not announced as code share.

 

[FQTV]

Yes, but if you read, we knew that and it wasn't the point of the question. We know not all flights on the route are codeshared. The question was why the same FLIGHT not the same ROUTE was announced/not announced as code share.

OK - let me be clearer. If a flight is not announced as a codeshare over the PA, it is either:

1. The announcer has forgotten
2. It's not a codeshare flight

It is nothing whatever to do with who is booked on it, or whose ticket stock and under what flight number a passenger has been booked on it.

 

[daikilo]

I don't know the rules in all countries, but I doubt it is obligatory that any code-shares are announced over the PA, even if it may be good commercial practice to do so. I have often heard phrases such as "and our xxx alliance partners".

There are however countries where it is obligatory to print the name of the operating airline on the boarding pass, so, as a generic example, a QF flight with a BA code-share would state "operated by QFA" on any boarding passes with a BA (non-QF) flight number.

 

[freetoview33]

Qantas to fly from London to Australia non-stop

 

[me123]

Yes, London to Perth non-stop on a 787-9. BBC news article here. They foresee Perth as hub linking Eastern Australia with the UK. This will be the longest flight in the world when it launches.

An interesting idea. It's a concept that works elsewhere - one of the more notable examples being Aer Lingus using their Dublin hub to take UK and European passengers to the US. Presumably by clearing immigration in Perth during your stopover, you'll be saving time on your arrival - a bit like the preclearence in Dublin idea.

I'm quite sceptical about this working as a "gateway to Australia" idea. Particularly in economy class, 17 hours on one plane is going to be taxing for most travellers, and I'd expect that quite a few people are relieved when they get to Dubai/Singapore/wherever in the middle of the flight for a stopover - they get to stretch their legs a bit and enjoy some non-recircled air. Qantas have only just got their 787s and aren't yet using them, but the general consensus about 787s in economy class is not very positive from what I've heard. Qantas apparently offer an extra inch of legroom, but whether that will help remains to be seen. They can make claims about saving time, but to be honest if you're flying all the way to Australia saving time is probably not at the front of your mind!

I certainly wouldn't book this in economy, whereas I might do with the break elsewhere. The 787 isn't going to be premium-heavy, so whether passengers will want to sit in an economy seat for 17 hours is going to determine the success methinks.

 

[flymo]

It will no doubt be not fully booked westbound during some (or indeed all) of the year due to winds, i.e. weight restricted or it makes a fuel stop. I've been to Perth 3 times in the last 4 years and the International terminal is pants. I love Perth as a city but can't see many Aussies, or any sane person doing this from UK, unless your final destination is Western Australia.

 

[atillathehunn]

It will no doubt be not fully booked westbound during some (or indeed all) of the year due to winds, i.e. weight restricted or it makes a fuel stop. I've been to Perth 3 times in the last 4 years and the International terminal is pants. I love Perth as a city but can't see many Aussies, or any sane person doing this from UK, unless your final destination is Western Australia.

That's going to be a brutal journey.

What are the airports in the area within range to be able to accommodate the aircraft should PER become unavailable? Especially as at that point in the journey I'm sure the fuel light is fairly firmly on and everybody's hanging out the window looking for a Caltex.

Perhaps they're angling for the premium traffic who might prefer a non-stop? The mass leisure market could be attracted for the right fare? Competing against several A380s per day from several east coast cities through Dubai so seems strange to attract your own customers away from your super jumbo routes.

 

[dosxuk]

I've been to Perth 3 times in the last 4 years and the International terminal is pants.

They're not using the international terminal - all of Qantas' international flights will now be using their domestic terminal (after upgrades).

What are the airports in the area within range to be able to accommodate the aircraft should PER become unavailable?

None! Learmonth (RAAF), Darwin and Adelaide are all being mentioned as alternates though. And it's probably going the other way, needing to carry enough fuel for 30+ minutes of holding at Heathrow which will be the problem.

Perhaps they're angling for the premium traffic who might prefer a non-stop? The mass leisure market could be attracted for the right fare? Competing against several A380s per day from several east coast cities through Dubai so seems strange to attract your own customers away from your super jumbo routes.

The big advantage (which seems to have been missed by the press) is that you would clear customs at Perth with 300 other passengers, not Sydney and a few thousand. Get the timings / connections and facilities at Perth right, and it could turn out to be an attractive route.

 

[WatcherZero]

I'm sceptical, Perth area while good for tourism wont generate much domestic demand for flights to the UK for Qantas. Its like Norfolk/Suffolk having a 10,000 mile international air route when the next nearest county was 1,000 miles away.