We got chatting with the IFM on-board a flight to Asia earlier this year. He lives in Newcastle and commutes to LHR by train as “it’s more reliable and the timings suit”.

There is Callerton Hill as well. I am not sure how much of a difference that makes.

I do the same, especially when returning from Europe. When I was doing this regularly I found a two or three hour wait at Heathrow followed by a late arrival in NCL tedious. And since I do not care for early starts, the same was true going out to Europe too. Much better to head to London on the train the day before and the day after. Longhaul is not so bad. In fact I actually prefer a flight to NCL after an early arrival. Much better to finish the journey at 10am than 6am.

I thought it was Callerton Hill which was the issue, but I may be mistaken. Though it's really only an issue for the largest widebodies. Emirates use the 777 every day and Tui use the 787 without issue.

It was always a big issue for fully loaded A321s going to southern Europe too. Quite often a tech stop in MME!

The only time I have flown between LCY and MAN was on a Friday evening, connecting in LCY on a journey from TXL to MAN. The LCY-MAN leg was fairly full, but I suspect that a high proportion of passengers were, like me, connecting from European origins, When the the trains are running normally there is a service every 20 minutes and a journey time of just over two hours. Given ground facility transit time BA would struggle to match the service level for journeys without onward connections.

A more useful presence for CityFlier at MAN would be flights to non-hub European destinations at times that would match both outbound and inbound connections with the EI transatlantic flights. Similar considerations could apply for other UK regionals where there are existing OneWorld services.

I spoke to a United FA the other day who is based in LHR and they commute from LAS!

Wow, now that is dedication!

Simply "Would it be profitable?" isn't enough of an analysis. Let's assume for purposes of this discussion a NCL-JFK (or wherever) long haul route would indeed be profitable.

The question is, "What is the MOST profitable way to deploy these limited assets (aircraft, crew, etc.)?" Sure, NCL might be "profitable" but apparently not as profitable as other options.

And don't forget the network effect. The "Why doesn't BA fly more long haul from the regions" question comes up regularly here. Each non-LHR longhaul flight would take away connecting passengers from the LHR hub and in turn affect the profitability of those long haul flights, which in turn could lead to service reductions. BA has chosen to protect its LHR hub as much as possible, which makes sense IMO.

Yes, I know; LHR is a crowded hot mess so fewer passengers passing through could improve the experience for the remaining ones. But that is not what drives airline route decisions unless it is extreme enough.

NCL will have less and less BA daily traffic over the next decade.

BA would rather use those LHR slots elsewhere and environmental matters will drive domestic to trains.

BA is already pricing out NCL-LHR flights on certain days, compared to a few years ago.

It's dreamworld to think they'll bother with setting up any LH route from NCL.

Sounds like desperation to me.

That maybe— the flights were full though (both ET and CE).

Long haul from NCL, I would just like to connect from the South West to LHR