New LCY Routes: AMS x 4, BCN, NCE + WAW

Old Nov 27, 07, 7:44 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 1,536
Following up on the LIN LCY issue. I find that the AP schedules are far from convenient for a UK business person. the 5.30pm departure is fine however it is the 4pm departure from LIN that restricts me. We have to fly as close to 6pm as possible and with AZ having flights from LHR to and from LIN at around 6pm, they currently have the best schedules. BA on the other hand have a 1750 departure on the BA570 and the returning 569 leaves at 1855.

MXP from LCY seems a bit of a joke, maybe for the rich private bankers in Lugano it is perfect however.
nonsoloinglese is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 7:49 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: FL350, seat 0k
Programs: SK*G, BA Silver, Flying Blue, VLM, VT Traveller, PC Platinum, BW Diamond
Posts: 3,544
Originally Posted by EvilDoctorK View Post
I think the most urgent need at LCY at the moment rather than a longer runway is increased apron space and a parallel taxi way for the full runway length to avoid having aircraft have to "backtrack" down the runway ... sometimes the ground delays can be as bad as LHR these days because of the very tight area for aircraft movements.
Yes, although unfortunately that will not happen. LCY runs ok but once flights start getting delayed everything goes to rat sh*t, aircraft cant park so hang around the apron before "creating" gate 19 and then a bus comes to pick people up to add to the apron traffic.

Passengers cant board because busses etc are moving around when really, despatchers should give priority to passengers boarding so they can free up a gate instead of standing there waiting for no traffic - theres a crossing for christ's sake, use it! THe other problem is doors cant open on arrival if the F50 is at the gate next door with engines running, not sure why as theyre a safe distance away, maybe because of blast when aircraft moves?

3 aircraft can sit at the end of the runway while waiting for a plane to land but you hardly ever see it, its a valuable buffer to reduce the strain on the apron yet you always see 1 plane moving at about 10kts up the runway preventing anyone else from moving which just creates starvation and bottlenecks in the whole system... if there is a system.
globalste is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 8:38 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: LON
Programs: BA Gold, LH SEN , A3*G & others less exciting that don't fit in my wallet
Posts: 1,091
Originally Posted by globalste View Post
THe other problem is doors cant open on arrival if the F50 is at the gate next door with engines running, not sure why as theyre a safe distance away, maybe because of blast when aircraft moves?
yeah i've noticed this alright - very annoying indeed when you arrive on stand but then can't deplane because the guy next door has his engines running but can't taxi becasue of the congestion - ... I can't say I've particularily associated it with Fokker 50s but you may well be right.

I still on balance really like LCY but it's definitely not as good as it used to be
EvilDoctorK is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 11:35 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SIN
Programs: SQ PPS, LH SEN, Amex something, nothing everywhere else
Posts: 994
Originally Posted by globalste View Post
They do have a FF program and have just introduced cards for it...
True, I should have qualified it by saying that VLM has no worthwhile FFP.

Originally Posted by EvilDoctorK View Post
yeah i've noticed this alright - very annoying indeed when you arrive on stand but then can't deplane because the guy next door has his engines running but can't taxi becasue of the congestion - ... I can't say I've particularily associated it with Fokker 50s but you may well be right.

I still on balance really like LCY but it's definitely not as good as it used to be
It's not limited to F50s, but applies to all aircraft. And it's not just running engines, but apparently once the strobe lights go on you're not allowed to disembark the neighboring aircraft. It's extremely frustrating to say the least, as the delays caused by this rule are getting worse as LCY fills up. There are plans to move to "nose-in" parking for aircraft, meaning they'll require a tug to push them back when departing, but at least you'll be able to move passengers on and off without being so constrained.

LCY is still a great airport, but it is becoming a bit of a victim of its own success.
WearyBizTrvlr is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 12:42 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AMS (SEA, JNB)
Programs: Mucci Reperateur des Coeurs Brises
Posts: 4,107
How big was LCY ever meant to become? A quick look at Google makes it seem it has reached the limits of growth, short of extending out into the Thames or Victoria docks to the west. Even then... where would the larger jets park on the apron? Was it built only for light traffic and private airport to begin with?

And although I am glad for the AMS route, any reason why? As far as I understand, LCY serves mostly the financial community and Amsterdam is not exactly a financial hub (maybe if Barkley's had succeeded in acquiring ABN Amro). Why not Luxembourg, Brussels, Düsseldorf or Geneva?
SchmeckFlyer is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 3:12 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London WC2/W1
Programs: BAEC Silver; Muccis du Monde des Peluches
Posts: 6,627
Originally Posted by spanishflea View Post
Correct. RJ100s as before but with a couple of RJ85s joining the fleet imminently to better serve the longer routes.
I don't suppose anyone knows yet how they are going to configure this RJ85s and how cramped they will be? I presume they might switch the equipment on the MAD route over to these.
LeisureFirst is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 3:13 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London WC2/W1
Programs: BAEC Silver; Muccis du Monde des Peluches
Posts: 6,627
Originally Posted by EvilDoctorK View Post
I still on balance really like LCY
And I still on balance really hate it.
LeisureFirst is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 3:24 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London WC2/W1
Programs: BAEC Silver; Muccis du Monde des Peluches
Posts: 6,627
Originally Posted by Schultzois View Post
Sorry to drift OT, but how is CE on these aircraft? Similar to Boeing/Airbus shorthaul, or a bit more cramped feeling? I notice the seating plans on all are 3-2 in CE and 3-3 in ET.
My view (see the post headed "Never again") is that if you are tall CE is unacceptably horrible and that ET is worse. And I do mean unacceptable. I would go to great lengths to avoid travelling on one of these planes.

Note I can cope in a normal ET seat on most other BA planes for an hour or two and actually find the CE-convertible ones quite comfortable, so it's not as if I'm normally grumpy about BA short-haul seating.
LeisureFirst is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 3:50 pm
  #39  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,456
Originally Posted by LeisureFirst View Post
I don't suppose anyone knows yet how they are going to configure this RJ85s and how cramped they will be? I presume they might switch the equipment on the MAD route over to these.
RJ85s are more usualy 2+3, it will depend what config they are in from the airline they are coming from as I doubt BA will bother reconfiguring them.

The MAD route is the exact reason they have acquired them.
spanishflea is online now  
Old Nov 27, 07, 4:03 pm
  #40  
GLA
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: GLA... where else?!
Programs: BA VS
Posts: 431
Originally Posted by MajorVoid View Post
Does anyone know how the LCY - GLA flights are faring, in general? Have travelled that route a few times over the last few months (but never at the morning or evening peak, usually middle of day/late afternoon) and passenger loads have usually seemed pretty light to me (just as well because a full RJ is pretty uncomfortable - that's one of the downsides of BA from LCY).
Flew through LCY for the first time tonight: ZRH-LCY-GLA. It certainly knocked the socks off the outward journey through LGW yesterday!

The load for 1920 LCY-GLA (and indeed the ZRH-LCY flight) was only about 25% I would say. Judging by the constant advertising of this route up here I suspect BA are struggling to fill planes .

I must say I enjoyed the flight up but I am probably biased by a) having enjoyed stretching out in 1D and b) being still under the influence of copious amounts of BA's "finest" Bordeaux + G&Ts!
GLA is offline  
Old Nov 27, 07, 4:18 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: London WC2/W1
Programs: BAEC Silver; Muccis du Monde des Peluches
Posts: 6,627
Originally Posted by GLA View Post
FThe load for 1920 LCY-GLA (and indeed the ZRH-LCY flight) was only about 25% I would say.
When I flew LCY-MAD on possibly the busiest weekend of the year for flights to/from MAD, the plane was only about 30% full. [Note I'm not saying that particular LCY-MAD route isn't sometimes busier.] Which made it particularly sad that everyone was so uncomfortable. Even just increasing the seat pitch by 3" (so taking out about 10% of the seats) would have made the whole thing bearable.
LeisureFirst is offline  
Old Dec 19, 07, 4:34 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: EDI
Programs: BD*G -> BA Gold + A3*G (now dropped to BA Silver)
Posts: 1,083
I fail to see the point of the AMS route, VG offer an excellent service on this route which is very frequent and reasonably priced and KL caters for those who'd rather avoid LHR and use AMS as their hub (or like to collect FB miles).

BA would be competing with VG on point to point traffic and with their increased frequency of service why would anyone choose BA apart from to earn miles (on expensive fares so puts VG at a price advantage) or some allergy to the Fokkers.

I personally prefer the F50's to the RJ's (even the LX ones that have a nice comfortable Y config), KL's service on this route is adequate (and I've always found the FAs to be good on this route - 6 cans of Heineken last time, the hint is to sit in the back where they store the trolley and they'll give you more!) and VG's service is better again. I love the feeling taking off in the Fokkers on the short runway in LCY.

Although competition is usually a good thing - and VG certainly made KL improve, I think 3 operators LCY-AMS is just wasting capacity at LCY, it's good to see new destinations being tried like WAW and BCN and perhaps could have been a good idea to put more flights on popular routes that don't have a frequent service such as NCE.
browserden is offline  
Old Dec 19, 07, 6:09 am
  #43  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,525
I class LCY-BCN £554.80???!!!! There's only 1 flight a day so you can't even do a day return for that! No thanks!!!
koksy is offline  
Old Dec 19, 07, 6:25 am
  #44  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11,924
Originally Posted by browserden View Post
I fail to see the point of the AMS route, VG offer an excellent service on this route which is very frequent and reasonably priced and KL caters for those who'd rather avoid LHR and use AMS as their hub (or like to collect FB miles).

BA would be competing with VG on point to point traffic and with their increased frequency of service why would anyone choose BA apart from to earn miles (on expensive fares so puts VG at a price advantage) or some allergy to the Fokkers.
Because there are LOTS of people that travel to AMS, pay full J fares, and only travel on BA. Assuming a fair volume of those originate their journey in the City or Docklands, then this makes perfect sense to offer more choice to those customers.
Smirnoff is offline  
Old Dec 19, 07, 6:46 am
  #45  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MAN and LON
Programs: Mucci, BAEC LT Gold, HH Dia, MR LT Plat, IC RA, Kimpton Inner Circle, Amex Plat
Posts: 13,721
Originally Posted by Smirnoff View Post
Because there are LOTS of people that travel to AMS, pay full J fares, and only travel on BA. Assuming a fair volume of those originate their journey in the City or Docklands, then this makes perfect sense to offer more choice to those customers.
Exactly the recent RBS and ABN tie up will probably support this route quite nicely. I strongly suspect that these routes have been introduced at the instigation of Major Corporate BA Customers maybe even with some underwriting of PAX volumes.
Land-of-Miles is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: