| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 ChristiaanJ |
BA001, BA002, remember? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 7463 (23/06/09 21:32) |
BA001, BA002, now
with an A318...
Tells you all about BA and their "respect" for Concorde... "The twin-jets will stop in Shannon on the westbound service." Even more ridiculous.... they can't even do LCY-JFK non-stop. CJ |
||
 thamesweb |
|||
|
Posts: 1291 (23/06/09 22:10) |
Well, it is a STOL runway, just 3500 feet. Hardly long enough for a fully loaded transatlantic service, is it?
Use of BA001/2 flight numbers don't bother me particularly, but I wonder what sort of resistance there will be to a stop-over. Probably not much as it will be for less time than it takes to get to Heathrow from the city! I suspect a 30 minute turnaround might be possible. |
||
|
speedbirdconcorde |
|||
|
Posts: 122 (23/06/09 23:00) |
"This is BA at its best - stylish, British and ahead of the game" - Has this man been drinking the juice ?????
Yawn...... 
|
||
|
brider |
|||
|
Posts: 581 (24/06/09 06:46) |
Apparently one selling point is that passengers can go through U.S. immigration at Shannon whilst the plane is refuelling, saving time later. Perhaps BA should
buy back one of their VC-10 tankers from the RAF when they are retired and try in-flight refuelling...
|
||
|
gordonroxburgh |
|||
|
Posts: 6403 (24/06/09 07:21) |
BA001 should be for the flagship flight, maybe the A380 to JFK, but a dinky toy flying from LCY its not really the thing to do!
An act of desperation from BA? |
||
|
Centrino |
|||
|
Posts: 100 (24/06/09 09:01) |
gordonroxburgh wrote:You right ! but as they said it's a very business fly (like in a private jet), they though Concorde. |
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 289 (24/06/09 09:06) |
Seems a fitting tribute to me, taking the rich and famous from London (city) to New York in the fastest possible time. Though I would have thought LaGuardia
would be a more appropriate opposite number to LCY.
|
||
|
Peter Mugridge |
|||
|
Posts: 1780 (24/06/09 22:05) |
But is it the fastest possible time?
At 9h30 I'm wondering if it would actually be quicker to make the trek to LHR and go on a non-stop that makes the crossing in about 7h00? |
||
|
Drstrangelove |
|||
|
Posts: 1743 (25/06/09 02:23) |
At 9h30 I'm wondering if it would actually be quicker to make the trek to LHR and go on a non-stop that makes the crossing in about 7h00? Good point. Given that the Heathrow Express makes it to LHR from Paddington in about 20 min. if all is working right, I doubt one would save any time getting to LCY via the DLR from central London. In this time of economic cutbacks and increased scrutiny of corporate spending I am also dubious about how well a $9,000+ RT fare will do, even for business travelers. Good luck BA. |
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 291 (25/06/09 08:00) |
OK - Assuming central London is your starting point, LHR cannot ever compete with LCY for speed and efficiency. Have you ever travelled through LCY? Through
LHR you realistically need to be there best part of two hours before the flight to get through the massive security, the crowds and the long walks to the
gates. LCY is like a small hotel that has airplanes out the back. Security is tiny, the walks are short, there are no crowds. An hour before departure is very
comfortable. That is before you even consider he journey to the airport. LCY is a stones throw from central London, LHR is not. I live in west London but often
choose to fly from East London's LCY because of the calm simplicity, the madness of LHR hurts my head!
|
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 2920 (25/06/09 16:46) |
A Scary little 318 Crossing the Atlantic?!?
BA Would have to pay me to get on it let alone Fly the Pond on a TINY SCARE BUS eeek!  
|
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 292 (26/06/09 08:26) |
Must be really frightening for the people in the private jets then!!!!
Is an A318 not just a smaller A319, A320, A321? If they don't have problems then why would the A318? |
||
|
Peter Mugridge |
|||
|
Posts: 1782 (26/06/09 08:57) |
Speaking personally I'd rather do any flight on a narrow body than a wide body.
Unfortunately the entire surviving fleet of the first choice of such equipment has all been in various museums since late 2003... ( My second choice would be a 757... ). |
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 2926 (26/06/09 13:22) |
A Gulfstream V or Global Express which are about the same size as a 318 are far better at crossing the Atlantic as they can do it non stop and are designed
to do just such a flight even doing trans paciffic flights while the 318 is a tiny airliner with ER tankage needing a fuel stop in ireland.
BA probably think its a good idea why is a mystery if they route up via northern ireland to Gander and then JFK it is only 1,800 miles but still in a tiny Scare Bus
The BA 757 fleet is due to retire soon if my Intell has not changed. 
|
||
|
Peter Mugridge |
|||
|
Posts: 1784 (26/06/09 14:54) |
Yes Oxy, a lot of the BA 757s seem to be showing up in Air Bitain News as making their last flights for BA in recent months.
Now, if I was to do the Atlantic ( or a longer trip even ) in a biz jet, I'd probably opt for a Lear 55 ( even if it has to refuel somewhere ) as it's the only publicly available thing that can reach 55,000ft these days, is it not? View of the curvature, anyone...? :-) |
||
