It has come to my attention that British Airways has a new flight into JFK called "Speedbird 1". Remember this flight had been the Concorde from
LHR>JFK daily. It is now a lowly A318 from Shannon. Can this be true? Do they have no respect for the past? Couldn't this flight have been given a
different flight number? I am quite shocked. Am I over-reacting? This new flight starts from LCY and continues to JFK.
New Flight Speedbird One
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Shulman |
New Flight Speedbird One |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 912 (30/09/09 16:12) |
Last Edited By: Shulman 30/09/09 16:26.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
1995hoo |
|||
|
Posts: 2565 (30/09/09 16:28) Local user |
It's their new all-business-class flight from London City. It has a stopover in Shannon en route to New York. The aircraft has 32 seats (sounds similar in
concept to the defunct Eos). Shannon has CBP preclearance facilities, so the leg from Shannon to New York is a domestic flight for purposes of connecting to
other flights or heading into the city (similar to what you get when you fly to the US from Vancouver, Toronto, Nassau, or Bermuda). The real reason for the
Shannon stopover is that London City's runway isn't long enough to allow the aircraft to take off with enough fuel to reach New York. It's
interesting, though, that they still fly into JFK. With the preclearance, you'd think they might try to get authorization to fly into LaGuardia because
it's so much easier to get to Midtown or Lower Manhattan from there. (You live in New York....does LaGuardia have a "perimeter rule" the way
Reagan Airport here in Virginia does? If so, that would definitely explain it.)
edited to add: BTW, BA were well-aware of the historical aspect of the flight number. Willie Walsh said as follows: "There is real enthusiasm from our customers for this project. This is BA at its best--stylish, British and ahead of the game. Reviving the BA001 flight number for the first long haul route out of LCY could not be more appropriate. Every aspect of this service has been designed to maximise convenience for customers to fly between the world's two biggest business centres--Wall Street and London's extended financial district in the City and Docklands."
Last Edited By: 1995hoo
30/09/09 16:30.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 3251 (30/09/09 17:25) |
Docklands is almost a City in its own rite having recently travelled through it at night it is like a Mini Manhattan except on a vastly smaller Scale.
The 5.5 Degrees approach will have made a few of the Pax arriving at LCY eyes Bulge a bit as it is Far Steeper than a normal Airport Approach path! 
|
||
|
ChristiaanJ |
|||
|
Posts: 7559 (30/09/09 18:49) |
I don't know anything about marketing...... Maybe it's a good idea?
Let me say straightaway I have no 'sentimental' or 'historic' attachment to 'BA001' or 'BA002', never flew on either. But I can see only two categories of clients.... those who flew on Concorde, and those who didn't. To those who flew on Concorde, the new 'BA001' and 'BA002' must seem like a joke. An A318, that cannot even cross the Atlantic westwards without refuelling at Shannon? It sounds like ... not one step back, but two. It sounds like the era of the DC-6 and the Constellation.... To those who did not fly on Concorde, it must seem equally ridiculous, that the socalled "prime" BA service is now a little twin-jet, that,again, can't even make the Atlantic crossing without refuelling. Or maybe indeed that's the best service BA can offer these days? I could have understood 'BA101' and 'BA102'. It would have been just that little bit less pretentious. 1995hoo, your remark about JFK is interesting. Why not LaGuardia or even Teterboro? CJ
Last Edited By: ChristiaanJ
30/09/09 20:47.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
1995hoo |
|||
|
Posts: 2566 (30/09/09 21:26) Local user |
OK, I looked it up. LaGuardia has a perimeter rule limiting flights to or from the airport to not more than 1,500 miles except on weekends (another exception
exists for flights to and from Denver). It's a locally-enacted rule, however, unlike the one that applies to Reagan, so it would theoretically be easier to
have it changed (although no doubt Continental, in particular, would fight any change due to their massive and successful operations out of Newark). The one at
Reagan is a federally-enacted limit, and every time there's an attempt to change it we wind up with a massive fight over the proposal. LaGuardia does have
immigration facilities, though, so the perimeter rule is, in theory, the only limiting factor (aside from the probable lack of room for extra flights)
preventing transatlantic operations. Delta sometimes operate 767s up there on days when the Atlanta route is particularly busy, so aircraft size isn't the
issue.
It's probably easier to get to Midtown from JFK than it is from Teterboro, all things considered. So anyway, an all-business-class route wouldn't be very viable if operations were restricted to the weekends, so that's why LaGuardia isn't an option. |
||
|
deltawings |
|||
|
Posts: 279 (01/10/09 08:03) |
Project Oxcart wrote: |
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 309 (01/10/09 10:58) |
Speedbird 1 - I would happily trade the misery of Heathrow (or any BIG airport) for the beautiful elegant simplicity of LCY, even if that does involve a 30
minute period sat comfortably in my seat on the ground at Shannon. I think this is a very fitting use of BA001, the flagship luxury service.
|
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 3253 (01/10/09 11:24) |
This shows a Landing on Runway 28 at LCY as seen from the Co-Pilots seat of a Learjet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arx2L9Nm2Ps
|
||
|
gzk6nk |
|||
|
Posts: 434 (01/10/09 12:25) |
Is the Shannon stop for re-fuelling because the baby Airbus can't T/O from LCY's short runway with full fuel?
|
||
|
1995hoo |
|||
|
Posts: 2567 (01/10/09 13:00) Local user |
wjmartin, you don't stay in your seat at Shannon. You exit the aircraft to go through US Customs and Immigration preclearance in the terminal. But I
imagine most of the people who will use this flight will be fine with that because it means not having to do this at JFK.
|
||
|
Shulman |
New Flight Speedbird 1 | ||
|
Posts: 913 (01/10/09 15:04) |
I am actually thrilled that British Airways added a new flight into JFK but my problem is with the flight number: Speedbird 1 and 2. I agree "Speedbird
101/102 would have been a better idea. I am sure that the flight is great for those who wish to avoid the congestion of Heathrow.
|
||
|
trident man |
|||
|
Posts: 3835 (01/10/09 16:01) Local user |
The real reason for the
Shannon stopover is that London City's runway isn't long enough to allow the aircraft to take off with enough fuel to reach New York. |
||
|
1995hoo |
|||
|
Posts: 2568 (01/10/09 16:08) Local user |
Methinks trident man has plagiarized an earlier post in this thread!
(If so, I'm glad someone read the whole thing.) |
||
|
trident man |
|||
|
Posts: 3836 (01/10/09 17:20) Local user |
(If so, I'm glad someone read the whole thing.)
hoo,you are dead right... 
|
||
|
wjmartin |
|||
|
Posts: 310 (02/10/09 10:08) |
I would happily swap JFK Immigration for the US Border Post at the ghost town of Shannon. Especially if I am arriving with only 30 other PAX! A brilliant
concept, well worthy of the 001 label. It must represent the fastest door to door Atlantic crossing. Pity about La Guardia though, that would improve the idea
even more.
|
||
|
RosieBOAF257 |
You're still stuffed! | ||
|
Posts: 394 (03/10/09 09:30) |
Whether you fly Speedbird or Porky pig it seems today you're in the same boat - as opposed to aircraft
No transatlantic flights at the mo due to technical problems with the Air Traffic control system at Shannon ................... Oooooooooooooops! (Sorry can't do linky things, but I'm sure someone will oblige shortly - if not head to the Beeb homepage) Obviously all the wee leprachauns are out counting referendum votes rather than airplanes Update: Now all sorted - and it seems it was at Prestwick, so the wee Scots had the glitch: bit of a kick in the Trossachs .................
Last Edited By: RosieBOAF257
03/10/09 12:34.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 3255 (03/10/09 18:17) |
Rosie
shanwick is a Joint UK/ Irleand Oceanic Control Centre with the ATC Computers being in Scotland and the Radio Operators and Trancivers being at Shannon Ireland. I can see all kinds of OH S*** when the Computers whent AWOL! As 1st thing in the Morning the West Bound rush has Started and hundreds of Jets are Starting across the POND via Shanwick Controls area Normaly. With no Computers working nothing can leave a UK or european Airport and the same for Aircraft leaving the US and Canada the Term Raining Snakes comes to mind!
I found this in my email. PART 001 OF 001 ------------------------------------------ . REF : CLOSURE OF SHANWICK OCEANIC AIRSPACE . DUE TO : ATC SYSTEM FAILURE VALID : WEF: WIE UNTIL: ++1500++ UTC - ANTICIPATED . TFC : ALL TRAFFIC . REMARKS : -LONDON HAS ADVISED US THE PROBLEM WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE FIXED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. ALL FLIGHTS PLANNED TO ENTER THE RESTRICTED AIRSPACE WILL NOW RECEIVE A FLS MESSAGE . -FLIGHTS NOT INTENDING TO OPERATE MUST CNL THEIR FPL BY SENDING A CNL MESSAGE. . CFMU OPERATIONS DIVISION-BRUSSELS. END OF PART 001
Last Edited By: Project Oxcart
03/10/09 18:22.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
miked860 |
|||
|
Posts: 3 (05/10/09 22:59) |
It's a great way to use the numbers since these flights are dedicated business class just like Concorde was. It's not disrespecting history it is just
moving on.
|
||
|
Project Oxcart |
|||
|
Posts: 3256 (06/10/09 02:10) |
Business class?
Concorde was Rocket Class as it Cost a hell of a Lot more than Business class
|
||
|
gordonroxburgh |
|||
|
Posts: 6467 (06/10/09 06:10) |
miked860 wrote: Yes, and its also a really good PR hook for the media |
||
|
gordonroxburgh |
|||
|
Posts: 6468 (06/10/09 21:41) |
this was in the Times
Specialists in lost causes might consider taking up with the Concorde Society. I had no idea this even existed, but apparently members have been campaigning for years for the return of the supersonic plane, which those who have never flown on it might not realise was actually very cramped inside (yes, I have, oh, all right, it was a jolly). The society is angry at news that British Airways has resurrected Concorde's number, BA001, for flights from London City to New York, starting yesterday. While I have some sympathy, it must be admitted that Concorde, in the words of John Cleese, is dead. It's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible . . . I believe the columnist got the group's name a bit mixed up |
||
