Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Great news for Shannon

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Davidth88
    Registered Users Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭Davidth88


    urajoke wrote: »
    First of all they would have to find the French and German version of London City airport and then try and get AF/LH to fly from it.


    Airlines don't open routes because aviation enthusiasts thing they should.

    I don't fully agree , I know that there is quite a bit of traffic now with people that fly to the US via Dublin from England because they are fed up with the queues in the US when they get there , esp to Orlando.

    I am certain if EI had a serious marketing campaign with this , ie avoid the queues , start your holiday early etc , then there has to be a market.

    I was not advocating MAKING people stop at Shannon , I was just saying they have a USP , they should use it.


  • Options
    #93
    Suits
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭Suits


    Immigration aside for a minute. An airline is say going Frankfurt - New York. This suggestion of stopping in SNN is in force.

    They fly off track to SNN and use extra fuel doing so. They land in SNN and park for an hour with all the costs that exist there.

    They then wait as EI had to do over and over for another hour(so we're an hour late now) as old biddies etc go around duty free and hold the plane up. The plane cant leave as their bags would have to be IDed and taken off costing more time and money.

    SNN would be the new Ellis Island and huge amounts of people would the thronging around eventually making it as busy as the US was in the 1st place.

    SNN would become a US military base as their security would have to be bulked up with the numbers passing through.

    And lastly and what puts the death nail in here is that the NSA/TSA/CIA/FBI would never allow the screening of people entering the US to be done outside of the US. They tolerate the pre-clearance here as we are deemed a "friendly" nation and the people passing through are friendlies. However if you got Emirates going Dubai - SNN - JFK or Royal Saudi etc I think you would find the foot going down from the G-Men in Washington(:cool:). It would be a security nightmare waiting to happen for them.

    Oh and I think it would make us a target for the lads out east too......


  • Options
    #94
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    We are getting a bit carried away with this point.......

    No airline will deliberately stop off in SNN purely to avail of the CBP clearance for a standard commercial route. (LCY-JFK NOT being a standard flight)

    -The option of SNN was in relation to a LCC offering SNN-USA flights. SNN would be their hub with multiple shorthaul flights providing passenger traffic.
    -The presence of CBP pre-clearance increases the benefit of SNN as a jumping off point for USA flights.
    -The airport has the infrastructure for large expansion and in the current economic environment the airport are looking for business.


  • Options
    #95
    xflyer
    Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    It's one thing for passengers to choose to fly to Ireland because of the pre clearance or even for airlines to schedule flights to meet the transatlantic service. But it's quite another for an otherwise non stop flight to divert into Shannon for pre clearance. This is of no benefit to the airline and limited benefit in time savings for the passengers.

    There are routes to be had out of Shannon. It's just that they'll have to be done with a smaller, cheaper workforce. Just like Knock.


  • Options
    #96
    clintondaly
    Registered Users Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭clintondaly


    Tenger wrote: »
    We are getting a bit carried away with this point.......

    No airline will deliberately stop off in SNN purely to avail of the CBP clearance for a standard commercial route. (LCY-JFK NOT being a standard flight)

    -The option of SNN was in relation to a LCC offering SNN-USA flights. SNN would be their hub with multiple shorthaul flights providing passenger traffic.
    -The presence of CBP pre-clearance increases the benefit of SNN as a jumping off point for USA flights.
    -The airport has the infrastructure for large expansion and in the current economic environment the airport are looking for business.


    Thank You,thats my point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Suits
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭Suits


    Tenger wrote: »
    We are getting a bit carried away with this point.......

    No airline will deliberately stop off in SNN purely to avail of the CBP clearance for a standard commercial route. (LCY-JFK NOT being a standard flight)

    -The option of SNN was in relation to a LCC offering SNN-USA flights. SNN would be their hub with multiple shorthaul flights providing passenger traffic.
    -The presence of CBP pre-clearance increases the benefit of SNN as a jumping off point for USA flights.
    -The airport has the infrastructure for large expansion and in the current economic environment the airport are looking for business.

    But will a LCC really want to make a hub out of SNN? Do passengers want to fly 6-10 hours to SNN and then 1-3 onwards or would they like to spare the hastle and fly direct.
    When Ryanatlantic was muted the suggestion was Stansted, Dublin. Frankfurt, one of the Canary Islands, and one other Eastern European base. This gave them a wide enough route network and their fingers in many pies. The cost of shipping people to SNN say on a Ryanair flight from Pisa - SNN and SNN - LGA may be more to the airline than flying Pisa - LGA direct.


  • Options
    #98
    Tenger
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,862 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Suits wrote: »
    But will a LCC really want to make a hub out of SNN? Do passengers want to fly 6-10 hours to SNN and then 1-3 onwards or would they like to spare the hastle and fly direct.
    When Ryanatlantic was muted the suggestion was Stansted, Dublin. Frankfurt, one of the Canary Islands, and one other Eastern European base.........

    In my opinion the usage of SNN as the jumping off point for a TransAtlantic LCC is not a runner. The only possible option would be for FR to feed into SNN and then this future LCC to fly out of SNN.
    Even then I think they would have to offer very low fares across the pond, which MoL has promised for his much tooted RyanAtlantic venture.

    Any attempt to start this up without an existing route network would be doomed to failure.


  • Options
    #99
    roundymac
    Registered Users Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    If MOL was to start a Ryan Atlantic or what ever you want to call it, I think he would have done so by now. I think he has had a good look at it and decided that there would be too many if's and but's for his type of operation. Also the US authorities would't put the some of the carry-on the Ryanair have done; ie; some of the name calling and inuendo's against the EU and DAA just to mention a couple, plus MOL's use of the F word. The yanks would slap a massive fine or just ban him from flying to the US.


  • Options
    #100
    Turbine
    Site Banned Posts: 317 ✭✭Turbine


    roundymac wrote: »
    If MOL was to start a Ryan Atlantic or what ever you want to call it, I think he would have done so by now. I think he has had a good look at it and decided that there would be too many if's and but's for his type of operation.

    O'Leary's already said the launch has been delayed till at least 2014 because they can't source aircraft cheap enough. I can't see that situation changing over the next 2 years, and the ongoing economic crisis isn't helping things. But on the other hand, O'Leary hasn't got long left at Ryanair, so maybe he might see RyanAtlantic as his next venture.
    roundymac wrote: »
    Also the US authorities would't put the some of the carry-on the Ryanair have done; ie; some of the name calling and inuendo's against the EU and DAA just to mention a couple, plus MOL's use of the F word. The yanks would slap a massive fine or just ban him from flying to the US.

    That just sounds daft.


  • Options
    #101
    Dacian
    Registered Users Posts: 812 ✭✭✭Dacian


    roundymac wrote: »
    If MOL was to start a Ryan Atlantic or what ever you want to call it, I think he would have done so by now. I think he has had a good look at it and decided that there would be too many if's and but's for his type of operation. Also the US authorities would't put the some of the carry-on the Ryanair have done.............

    I agree, MoL spent 2008-2010 talking up a T/A ULCC venture, but so far the glut of cheap aircraft that he is waiting for has yet to happen. So I can't see it going ahead in the current economic outlook.

    (However there may be quite a few 2nd hand A330's/B767's in 3-5 years, the problem here would be that they would be 10% more fuel hungry that the competing A350/B787's)


    As regards the suggested conflict with US regulators, I would say that the normal FR PR stunts/antics would not be received as positively in the US. They have strange ideas about obedience to authority and not stabbing business partners in the back.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement