Another one bites the dust
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On 2016-09-23 09:59:00 +0000, tim... said:

ISTR it taking about 2:40 at the time, a reduction to 2:10 is hardly
enough to scoop up the market against a 30 minute flight time

It isn't a 30 minute flight time in any useful sense. Realistically it
involves arriving about an hour before the flight

It does now

(as has long been the case),

Not the period I was referring to

you really could just turn up at the airport 20 minuets before and walk
through to the plane (carnet ticket in hand)

and needs to include getting into central London as that is where most
people are going to be going.

Quite a lot aren't

there's an awful lot of tech companies for which the onward journey involved
a taxi to somewhere in the Thames valley.

That means in practice a journey time of around two and a half hours.
Thus the difference between 2:40 and 2:10 is very, very significant, as it
is the change that tips the balance. That between 2:10 and 1:50, say,
would be much less so.

No, as I said before, it's the need to arrive at the airport
significantly earlier, thus increasing total travel time buy plane that's
killed it

That has not changed - most times I've flown recently from a proper
airport (not Stansted) I have waited no longer than about 5 minutes for
security. Stansted is mismanaged, but also is not of any relevance to BA
flights from Manchester to London.

there was a time, quite a long time in fact, when hour long queues at LHR
were not unusual

tim

Another one bites the dust
 

On 2016-09-23 10:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 11:22:48 on Fri, 23
Sep 2016, Neil Williams remarked:
ISTR it taking about 2:40 at the time, a reduction to 2:10 is hardly
enough to scoop up the market against a 30 minute flight time

It isn't a 30 minute flight time in any useful sense. Realistically it
involves arriving about an hour before the flight (as has long been the
case), and needs to include getting into central London as that is
where most people are going to be going.

Most of the people on the Manchester flight are going to another gate
at Heathrow.

Indeed. My point was in relation to why that is the case, and why rail
has the Manchester-London "standalone" public transport market sewn
up.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Another one bites the dust
 

On 22/09/2016 16:05, tim... wrote:
[...]
By implication that means a lot of people on that flight were actually
visiting London.

The exact opposite. Most of the people on the flight will have been
connecting to another, with their bags checked through. That's the
main purpose of the Manchester flights.

Not really

Back in the day it was definitely a point to point route.

Companies would buy carnets of tickets and you just turned up with one
at the desk 20 minutes before and walked on (well in theory, anyway).

I guess that this MO got killed by the need to add on an extra hour for
security clearance meaning that the time saving over the train to London
disappeared for all but a small number of final destinations.


And the fact that the train is now much faster and at a turn-up-and-go
(if you're up to paying for it) frequency.

Another one bites the dust
 

On 23/09/2016 11:22, Neil Williams wrote:
[...]
That has not changed - most times I've flown recently from a proper
airport (not Stansted) I have waited no longer than about 5 minutes for
security. Stansted is mismanaged, but also is not of any relevance to
BA flights from Manchester to London.

I went through security at Stansted this summer without waiting - I was
past security within five minutes of having got off the coach.

Things don't stand still.

Another one bites the dust
 

Mizter T wrote:

On 23/09/2016 11:22, Neil Williams wrote:
[...]
That has not changed - most times I've flown recently from a proper
airport (not Stansted) I have waited no longer than about 5 minutes for
security. Stansted is mismanaged, but also is not of any relevance to
BA flights from Manchester to London.

I went through security at Stansted this summer without waiting - I was
past security within five minutes of having got off the coach.

Things don't stand still.

I spent a full hour getting through security and to the gate at Stansted
this summer. They may not stand still, but at Stansted they are entirely
capable of going backwards.

Another one bites the dust
 

On 21/09/2016 09:48, Neil Williams wrote:
Sounds like a particularly bad day. The walk from some gates can be a
*bit* long but it's nothing on Gatwick, nor have I ever known any
airport as slow with bags as Gatwick (or Stansted).

Madrid.

Actually, Heathrow on the return (on Monday) was just as bad. After
waiting at the carousel for over half an hour they announced that the
plane door had jammed and bags were only starting to come off. That was
a lie, since I'd seen lots of bags with my flight number already.

After another 20 minutes, they announced that a container had been lost
and only just found. How do you lose a baggage container?

Result: wheels down to groundside was 1h40, wheels up to wheels down had
been about 2h10.

Another one bites the dust
 

On 22/09/2016 09:30, d wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:06:59 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
as a premium service - this was during the era when occasionally they would
fly concord on this route
Eh?? Was the concord maintenance base in manchester or something?

The Shuttle services were advertised as "turn up by X minutes before
departure and you *will* get a seat". Even if they had to fly an extra
plane for the last passenger. And if a Concorde was the only thing spare
at that moment, a Concorde is what got used.

The standard planes for the route seated 100. If passenger 101 turned up
just before the deadline, they would be offered a serious bribe to wait
an hour for the next flight. I was really annoyed to be passenger 100
the one time I used Shuttle (and wasn't in a hurry).

Another one bites the dust
 

Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 21/09/2016 09:48, Neil Williams wrote:
Sounds like a particularly bad day. The walk from some gates can be a
*bit* long but it's nothing on Gatwick, nor have I ever known any
airport as slow with bags as Gatwick (or Stansted).

Madrid.

Actually, Heathrow on the return (on Monday) was just as bad. After
waiting at the carousel for over half an hour they announced that the
plane door had jammed and bags were only starting to come off. That was
a lie, since I'd seen lots of bags with my flight number already.

It might have been true: there are both forward and aft baggage holds. It's
perfectly possible that one might have had a jammed door. Indeed, it's much
more likely that one, rather than both, might have a problem.


After another 20 minutes, they announced that a container had been lost
and only just found. How do you lose a baggage container?

They presumably have to be towed to the baggage handling area, then moved
by the automated conveyed system to where they're opened and unpacked. I
suppose it's possible they could temporarily lose track of one.


Result: wheels down to groundside was 1h40, wheels up to wheels down had
been about 2h10.

I've been on flights where the former exceeded the latter.

Another one bites the dust
 

In message , at 23:10:59 on Sat, 24 Sep
2016, Clive D.W. Feather remarked:

After another 20 minutes, they announced that a container had been lost
and only just found. How do you lose a baggage container?

You deliver it to the wrong place - perhaps a holding area for transfer
baggage - rather than to the carousel.
--
Roland Perry

Another one bites the dust
 

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 23:14:24 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

On 22/09/2016 09:30, d wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 19:06:59 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
as a premium service - this was during the era when occasionally they would
fly concord on this route
Eh?? Was the concord maintenance base in manchester or something?

The Shuttle services were advertised as "turn up by X minutes before
departure and you *will* get a seat". Even if they had to fly an extra
plane for the last passenger. And if a Concorde was the only thing spare
at that moment, a Concorde is what got used.

That's true, but I think Concorde use was planned; there wouldn't
normally be a spare, crewed Concorde hanging around with nothing to
do.