sxc

But could the plane also be reconfigured to a standard Europe config during the D check also?

NickB

Well, the D check will have to take place anyway whether or not the route continues, unless the plane is retired but this would be a substantial waste of money to dusk a relatively new plane.

BlueThroughCrimp

Doesn't matter.
7-8 year old Boeing and Airbii have been parted out, i.e. the ex-Frontier 318s, and ex-Easyjet 737-700s.

Worth more in parts than heavy maintenance costs.

NWIFlyer

Even for extremely old planes if there's a chance of selling them. When the hugely fuel inefficient ex-BMIBaby 737s were in storage at NWI they continued to receive maintenance from KLM UK Engineering who are based there - not a D check, clearly, but then the relative sale value is much less as well.

Sealink

Hmmm... maybe all all business-class service to Brussels might be needed, what with the Brexit seemingly not going away. ;-)

lost_in_translation

Interesting prospect, but not convinced that would work. Would presumably be without the pre-clearance stop given there would be no need to refuel without the LCY runway restrictions and an LHR slot pair is surely far too valuable to use on a 32 seat plane unless every seat is being sold for BA F+ prices?

TabTraveller

If only they could resurrect the proper BA1 from LHR, I'm sure it would be worth the slot pair

ianfly

I have just now been changed from BA 4 to BA2 in April. It's really messed up my plans but still better than LHR

UKtravelbear

As a leisure traveller who much preferes the CWLCY route (done it 3 times now 2 as ex-eu in the past couple of years (incidently my first CWLCY in Jan 2013 was as a result of a BA sale) this is sad news should be be made permanant.

The BA1/04 combo was my absolute favourite. The 04 meant I could still have a full day of touristing in NYC before heading to the airport and having a much more relaxed flight. Not having a lounge on arrival didn't bother me one bit.

On the pair I did in July both flights were 1/2 full though and chatting to the crew on the outbound (a Tuesday) said that was their recent experience too.


There was a thread a while ago where someone pulled the numbers from the CAA website and did an analysis of some of the changes in loads. Yes there had been a drop but the assumption that it was caused purely by TP runners abandoning the route was just that - an assumption. Especially when in the same period there had been some severe MX issues on the route. The analysis was based on making an adjustment to the number of flights operating that month rather than a comparison of the bald numbers.

DFB_london

You mean the thread where others effectively told me that the risk tot his route I had suggested was rubbish. very much 'told you so' now but sad. This looks permanent, not seasonal.

Pilot37

Here are the stats I pulled for the LCY > JFK route (a little dated now for 2016)

To avoid too much back and forth on the future (or lack) of this service I had a quick look at the CAA stats for the route over the past 2yrs (2014 and 2015) as well as January and March of 2016 (Feb wasn't available for some reason) to see how bad things actually were.

The below actual pax figures are accurate (from CAA airport data by specific route), but the approx load factors are guesses made by myself, so feel free to adjust: (my guesses are explained)

LCY>JFK>LCY pax count:

FY 2014 - 23,953
FY 2015 - 21,375
Jan'16 - 1,439
Mar'16 - 1,832

We know the service runs 5 days a week, on a twice daily basis, however August, Easter and Christmas are down periods, so I have estimated a 45 week year for calculations (feel free to increase or decrease).

45 x 5 x 2 = 450 flights a year in each direction on the route
450 x 2 x 32 = 28,800 seats available each year

FY 2014 = 23,953 / 28,800 = 83% load factor (approx)
FY 2015 = 21,375 / 28,800 = 74% load factor (approx)
Annualised Jan+Mar'16 = 19,626 / 28,800= 68% load factor

2016 is a very rough estimate given Easter was in March which should depress business loads, but the above hopefully gives some guidance on how the route is performing.We know that during this period the flights generally ran twice a day Mon-Thurs, with a single flight on Fri and Sun, hence the 2 flights x 5 days a week calculation.

Pilot37

UKtravelbear

Yes those are the figures I vaguly remember.

Need to factor in though the extended period where there was only 1 flight a day due to the MX issues but the total effect would be marginal across a whole year. Was that early 2015?

If anyone actually believes that the drops in loads is purely down to the lack of TP runners is over estimating the numbers of people doing that. Yes it would have an effect but IMHO very much on the margins.

JAXBA

Amadeus Timetable for Northern Summer 2017 is now showing as:

A few days ago it showed the 003 on Fridays - I've been checking as I'm planning a CWLCY flight next August.

NWIFlyer

I'm not sure about the fuel range for a direct flight from LHR. The Airbus website gives range as 3,600 miles in 107 seat mixed configuration. Presumably that would go up a bit in all-J config.

NYC is about 3,400 miles. Could the mileage gain for all-J give enough headroom to meet the TATL fuel contingency requirements on the longer westbound flights? It has to be close ...

mec72

Yup, I think the route was underwritten by Canary Wharf banks in the first 5 (or so) years of operations and there was a question as to what happens later. From my perspective, it was less useful since BA2 lost pre-clearance in SNN, LCY got more crowded (do I recall correctly that CWLCY passengers were escorted through security by BA staff in the very beginning?) and also since AA refitted their planes with a proper business class seat + wifi (important for me on day flights to the east coast - CWLCY used to be the only service offering wifi even though very slow and only working until you reach the US airspace - I find wifi on AA reasonably good and reliable, and it works pretty much until landing in NYC). So now for me it's a combo of AA outbound, BA UD inbound.