|
   |
Home >> Forum >> BA to start London City-New York service with 318 Civil aviation forum
BA to start London City-New York service with 318
Return to the forum index - Post a message for this thread
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 05 Feb 12:09 |
|
| |
What a bright idea!
http://www.londoncityairport.com/index.php?mode=news&action=showStory&sId=1074
Another new scheduled transatlantic route using single-aisle jet. 318 is designed to carry about 110 pax in 2-class. BA's configuration of only 32 ClubWorld flatbeds on this jet means that:
1. This bird will be flying an ultra-light pax/payload.
2. It'll hv plenty of load allowance for extra fuel to cross the pond in any weather yr round.
3. Pax boarding/disembarkation will probably take less than 5mins so BA's planned min check-in time of 15mins before departure is entirely possible(I believe it's at least 60-75mins @ LHR even for ClubWorld pax).
4. EOS and SilverJet will feel pretty upset about BA as they
lose mkt share in this premium segment due to the long drive fm the city to Luton/Stansted.
IMHO, this is an extremely smart strategy to carve out a small but super rich/fat mkt niche. It's not hard to figure out how many bankers, lawyers & stockbrokers who fly frequently between their offices in Manhattan and London financial district will jump to this service immediately even if BA is gonna charge extortion-level fares(Remember, many of these guys used to pay for seats in Concorde that were comparable in size to those on Ryanair/EasyJet). Imagine if U basically hv an nearly unlimited corporate travel budget, how will U choose to fly fm London to meetings in NYC?
A) Stuck in permanently hopeless London traffic to get to LHR(Being a banker, of course U won't get there by the tube). Once arrived, join the mob scene and fight your way through various queues @ check-in/security/immigration/boarding - what an exciting way to spend 2-3hrs fm the moment U leave office to flight departure!
B) Enjoy a much shorter taxi ride(Even when traffic is bad in central London) fm your office to LCY. Once arrived, enter the half-empty terminal where no queues can be found anywhere. U also won't hear crying/yelling children nor gangs of vacationers perpertually blocking the middle of any hallways like in LHR. Best of all, U'll hv plenty of time to enjoy your MOET Chandon @ the premium lounge before U take a relaxing short stroll to your departure gate practically located just across your lounge chair. What a boring way to spend 1hr fm the moment U leave office to flight departure!
I suspect more major airlines will copy this BA strategy. Also, why stop @ LCY-NYC? If the max range of 318/736 can stretch longer, Hong Kong,Tokyo,Dubai,etc. may be next. Who knows, we may finally see an uprise in all-premium configured 318/736 sales as captain bill has predicted earlier.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 05 Feb 21:09 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 06 Feb 0:37 |
|
| |
Even in that configuration, a 318 loaded with enough fuel for a trip across the pond may run into difficulty with that runway, I know it is certified to operate there, but it still could be tight on occasion.
If it can operate though it'll be great for BA, a clever move.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 06 Feb 16:35 |
|
| |
A good question? Can an A318 operate with full fuel and PAX/baggage etc etc to cross the Atlantic and as you mention is the runway at LCY is short. And probably gets the larger aircraft BAE 146 A318 not operating on a full load of fuel as the routes that are operated out of there are as far as I know not more than 2 hours flying. I presume that BA has done some research on this or it could be an ebarrassing situation with 100 or so pax stuck at LCY cause their A318 can't get of the ground.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 06 Feb 16:44 |
|
| |
I saw in another forum that they may do a fuel stop in somewhere like Cardiff or Shannon, but in my opinion that would completely undermine the advantage of the service, if they had to do a fuel stop you might as well go to Heathrow.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 07 Feb 0:26 |
|
| |
yes the time it would take to stop in Shanon or somewhere would add what a good hour on to the trip. Then it would be a pointless thing to do. What I would do is consider using a regional airport such as LTN or BOH. My reason for this is that both airports are within an 1.30 min drive ( in good traffic, Ive done it in 1.20 to BOH and that was in a ford KA) youll be able to fly direct without a tech stop and also have the adv of a uick check in time and the area around these 2 airports has a wealth of large financial houses JP Morgan being one of them with large offices very close to that of BOH
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 07 Feb 7:11 |
|
| |
I can tell you that this is still a pipe dream for BA and you will notice that no start up date has been given. No confirmed delivery date has been given by Airbus for the delivery of an A-318 to BA and if and when the service starts there will be a fuel stop at Shannon westbound and at Bangor/Gander eastbound so I don't see the merit in this one but well what do I know.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of SJR - Sent 07 Feb 11:05 |
|
| |
Maybe BA could take out some seats and fit an extra fuel tank but i doubt its worth it since the A318 is small anyways and if they were planning all biz class like i suspect they were then its not going to have any more seats than a large business jet. As for this i would suggest maybe they could fly the A318 with an aerial refueling pumb and pump gas from a specially fitted 747 but they would probably need military pilots to fly the thing and to make modifications to a plane to deliver the fuel could be risky as the would the refueling period although i see no reason it cant be done since the military can do it.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 07 Feb 14:01 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 07 Feb 18:33 |
|
| |
Lets be realistic any refueling is probably going to be done on the ground!!! 
Read today that Shannon was the favourite for the fuel stop westbound. I really amn't convinced that this service will work with such a fuel stop, although I suppose it would cut out the hassle of Heathrow which we would be foolish to overlook.
Apparently, according to the article it would just be a regular 318 with 32 lie flat seats.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of uniden - Sent 21 Feb 9:26 |
|
| |
While the plane was being refueled at Shannon, couldn't the passengers clear U.S. immigration? On a good day this can be completed within 30 mins, which is a lot quicker than any of the N.Y. airports. It would make up for the time lost having to stop in the first place.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 21 Feb 12:09 |
|
| |
Actually I believe if they stopped in Shannon, they would have to clear immigration there. I believe, now I could be wrong, that you have to clear immigration in your last point of departure before you enter the States, so if they stopped in Shannon that would be it.
I have gone through Shannon a bit going to the states from Dublin and if you are going to stop in Shannon you cannot clear immigration in Dublin, you have to wait to do it down there.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of uniden - Sent 21 Feb 13:20 |
|
| |
It's true that flights departing Dublin and stopping at Shannon clear U.S. immigration there. This facility is definitely a bonus if flying into Kennedy and on arrival being ushered straight through immigration, passed the long queues to the baggage hall.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 21 Feb 15:59 |
|
| |
I still find it very difficult to believe a premium pax focused LCY-NYC service on a highly customized BA 318 will include a tech(refuel) stop. 1st, the mkt just won't accept it given that premium pax can already fly non-stop Luton/Stansted-NYC @ a similar service level. 2nd, many here seem to be stuck with the picture of a std config 318 carrying 100+pax and seats and baggages and food struggling to take-off @ LCY and risk a dip into the river. I agree the LCY rwy is short but don't forget the published take-off performance of 318 is mostly likely applicable only for standard variant carrying standard pax load. Yes, I know lie-flat seat is heavier than std seat but the latest lie-flat design won't be 3Xs as heavy as a std seat. Even with fuel fully loaded, this will still be 1 light aircraft @ takeoff. 1 critical factor for take-off performance is the wing which is essentially the same between a 318 and a 321. If it's good enough for a 180+seats plane, imagine how much more take-off performance it can provide for a 38seat plane. Finally, I really can't see any issue re the non-stop range of such a non-standard/super-light 318. As I hv already mentioned a few times on this forum, NH has been doing it with 73GER(737-700ER with only 48 premium seats) for mths now on the NRT-BOM route(6,796km). Given that the standard variants of the 32X family and 737NG family generally hv similar range performance, how hard can it be for Airbus to come up with its own special performance 318 configured to carry even less seats to fly LCY-JFK(5,587km)?
speedbird9468:
U said it could be an ebarrassing situation with 100 or so pax stuck at LCY . The fact is such situation is impossible with this particular BA service unless they can somehow convince 100 premium customers to share 38 seats on the same flight.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 22 Feb 0:53 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 22 Feb 11:26 |
|
| |
FLX,
what you must remember though, what this 318 would benefit from in regards to weight by having less seats would be lost by the huge fuel load it would have to take on.
I know the 318 has been certified for London city ops, but this would just be for mainly European destinations, which would typically have lighter fuel loads. so although yes it would be lighter taking off with only 32 seats, the fuel needed for it to get across the pond may be too much for the runway and this is why Shannon has probably been rumored. So to say it would be one light aircraft may not in fact be the case.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 22 Feb 18:01 |
|
| |
EI-DUB:
Points noted and afterall, U may be right. However, let's look @ the facts re LCY and the actual performance specs of a 318.
318(Std config 100+seats in 2 class with no modifications)
Take-off run @ MTOW: 1,355m
Max range fully loaded(100+pax): Over 5,900km
LCY
Rwy length: 1,508m
Distance fm JFK: 5,587km
The margins for range and rwy length are thin but certainly workable for out-of-the-box std 318. If configured to carry only 38pax+may be a bit of easy performance enhancement tweaks, a 318 can definitely fly scheduled non-stop LCY-JFK yr round. Yes, it may still need a unscheduled refuel stop occassionally in unusually bad headwinds. However, that's no diff than CO's 752s which occurs rare enough and clearly acceptable for CO customers as CO not only continue but has been expanding 752 non-stop transatlantic services. That's why I see no issues for BA to run LCY-JFK non-stop with highly customized, light load 318s.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 23 Feb 1:46 |
|
| |
I'm thinking again. If Ba want to do this in the A318 with this seat arrangment and as you mention the A318 needs 1,355m of runway @ max take off weight. Wouldn't it be more profitable to do this service in lets say a 2 class config and not neeccassereily from LCY. It could be quite a popular little niche area that could be explored and exploited
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 25 Feb 0:01 |
|
| |
Might that not defeat the purpose of it to look elsewhere??
Surely BA are aiming for corporate customers who work in The city and wish not to have to battle out to LHR with this service.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 25 Feb 6:03 |
|
| |
speedbird9468:
Now, these are not facts but only my gut feelings/personal experience re today's Inter-Continental schedule flights:
1) Avg fare for a C/J-class seat is at least 4 to 5Xs of the avg fare for a Y-class seat.
2) To match the gross revenue earned fm 38 C/J-class pax, a 2-class BA 318 must carry at least 4Xs total pax....possible only if BA also sell cabin crew seats, lavatory seats, aisle+galley standing space, cargo-hold space(Only for shorter/children pax due to severe height limit).
The point is, any airline which tries to fly 318/736(Any seating config) transatlantic will always hv significantly higher trip cost per seat relative to, say, the larger 772/A333, 763/A332 or even a 752. Such high cost is acceptable and can still generate excellent op economics if fare/yield is abnormally good(i.e. All C/J-class low density layout) and load factors are nearly guaranteed(i.e. Preferred by pax actually paying that kinda of fare). However, op economics will be supremely lousy on a std config(Doesn't include extra galley space needed for long-range op) 2-class 318/736 if the majority of pax pay, e.g., discounted Y-class fares.
EI-DUB:
I actually suspect BA will charge a small premium for LCY-JFK over LHR-JFK for the equivalent C/J-class seat/service.....well, not exactly equivalent as pax will hv the privilege of being confined in a much smaller metal tube for 7-8 hrs rather than a much bigger metal tube....
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of lidras - Sent 02 Jun 15:12 |
|
| |
Looks like its moving a step closer. A firm order for 2 a318,s has been signed. No time scale for deliveries but if airbuses press release(27th may) is correct they are definitely for the london city-new york route
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post a message for this thread
|
|
Messages must be written in english. Messages written in an another language will be deleted.
Post only messages related to the civil aviation, and do not insert any ad. Your IP is logged.
You can custom your text by using the following codes
[B]Your text[/B] : Text in bold
[I]Your text[/I] : Text in italic
[U]Your text[/U] : Text underline
[S]Your text[/S] : Text striketough
To include an Airfleets.net photo, use the code [P]Photo number[/P] |
|