Continental Airlines from Manchester

Continental Airlines To Go Double-Daily To New York using 757's! I know lots of us go to Florida via NY but using 757's instead of a 777 is not good in my opinion?

Heres what they say................


Continental Airlines, the world’ s sixth largest airline and OAG Airline of the Year 2004, today announced it will increase seat capacity and flight frequency on its Manchester-New York non-stop service from June this year.*

Effective June 10, 2005 (westbound), Continental will operate two daily Boeing 757 flights from Manchester to New York/Newark in place of a single daily Boeing 777 service.* The new schedule, which will operate year round, represents seat capacity increases on the route of 21 per cent over Summer 2004 and 46 per cent over Winter 2004/2005.*

“By doubling the frequency of our Manchester flights and providing more seats, we will be able to offer trans-Atlantic travellers in the North West greater choice and flexibility than ever before,” said Bob Schumacher, the airline’s Senior Director U.K. & Ireland.* “Our customers will be able to choose between a mid-morning and an early-afternoon departure from Manchester and benefit from an even greater range of quick and easy connecting flights at our New York hub.”

The schedule of the existing Manchester-New York/Newark service will change effective June 10, 2005 (westbound).* Flight CO21 will depart Manchester daily at 09:30 a.m., arriving at New York/Newark at 12:05 p.m. the same day.* Flight CO20 will depart New York/Newark daily at 7:45 p.m., arriving at Manchester at 7:40 a.m. the following day.

The schedule of the additional Manchester-New York service will be as follows: flight CO101 will depart Manchester daily at 1:30 p.m., arriving at New York/Newark at 4:05 p.m. the same day.* Flight CO100 will depart New York/Newark daily at 10:00 p.m., arriving at Manchester at 9:55 a.m. the following day.

The new flight schedules have been conveniently timed to connect at New York/Newark with an extensive network of service throughout the U.S.A., Canada and Latin America.* Continental is the only major airline to operate a hub in the New York City metropolitan area – Newark Liberty International Airport.* Located just 16 miles from downtown Manhattan, Liberty International offers the fastest surface transfer journeys to many parts of the city, including the AirTrain service to New York Penn Station in midtown Manhattan.* One-way fares between Liberty International and New York Penn Station are $11.55 on NJ Transit and $23 on Amtrak and journey time is less than 30 minutes.

Passengers arriving at Liberty International on Continental flights from Manchester can use exclusive immigration and customs facilities in Terminal C3, Continental’s Global Gateway, and connect quickly and easily with Continental's 407 daily services from Liberty International to 170 destinations throughout the Americas, including 143 served non-stop, in almost all cases without changing terminals.*

All the flights will be operated by 172-seat Boeing 757 aircraft, carrying 16 passengers in the BusinessFirst cabin and 156 in Economy.**

BusinessFirst won the Best Executive/Business Class award in the OAG Airline of the Year Awards in both 2004 and 2003, based on voting by frequent flyers worldwide.* BusinessFirst was also voted Best Transatlantic Business Class among U.S. airlines in Conde Nast Traveler magazine’s Business Travel Awards 2004 – for the 7th year running.


Continental has been operating a Manchester-New York service since 1995.

Lucy, what have you got against 757's....

Ralph

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by MoodyVilla
Lucy, what have you got against 757's....

Ralph
[/quote]

I used to operate this route when I was cabin crew for BA and personally I don't think a single aisled aircraft is right for transatlantic or longhaul flights, the 767 and 777 are much better suited for both passenger and crew comfort[msnwink]

I actually like the layout of the 757, especially the BA config there seems to be loads of space; admittedly though, I haven’t gone over the Atlantic in one.

I really don't like the 777 layout. We flew on a continental 777 and it was a real nightmare to move around. I was stuck in the centre and trying to get to the toilets was a pain.

Hmmm - transatlantic on a 757 - not for me. I prefer a bit more room to move about and stretch my legs.

American Airlines fly a 757 from Manchester to Boston in the summer. I have flown on it a couple of times and I will be using it 3 times this year.

It is not a much longer trip than, say Miami to the West Coast of USA. Last time(with a strong tailwind) the journey back took less than 5 hours.

I think they have done this as they are now operating a daily service from Belfast with the 777.

DOM

Robert

I'm on the BOS-MAN 757 in May. Plenty of legroom isn't there???

I think that those of us who live in the North of England have to welcome any new services from Manchester. I only wish 1 of the major carriers would introduce a direct MAN-MCO service to challenge the Virgin monopoly.

We already pay far more than London departures and see fewer special offers. I don't know if I will use this service but the more the merrier for me.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Katys Grandad
I think that those of us who live in the North of England have to welcome any new services from Manchester. I only wish 1 of the major carriers would introduce a direct MAN-Florida service to challenge the Virgin monopoly.

We already pay far more than London departures and see fewer special offers. I don't know if I will use this service but the more the merrier for me.
[/quote]

I totaly agree but its a case of quality vs quantity in my view[msnscared]

When I operated this route once a month the BA 767 went in for a big check and so they used a 757 and we got so many complaints from passengers as it was just not the right aircraft. The 757 was designed for short/medium haul only[msnwink]

I would have thought that the logical step-up from a 777 would be to a 747/400. Then to a pair of 767s then to a pair of 777s if capacity kept on increasing. Surely it's more economical to fly a 400 than it is to fly 2x757s?

I certainly wouldn't argue with the point you are making Lucy. You will be much better placed that I am to judge, given your experience.

As I said, I am travelling inbound on the AA BOS-MAN route next month (but not outbound). It is interesting that Robert had a mere 5 hour flight on the service and it's probably a trade off between the short journey and the suitability of the aircraft. I'll have to reseve judgement until May but 5 hours transatlantic has some real attractions for me.

MAN-EWR on a 757 doesn't appeal though.

The 5 hour flight that Robert had is not unusual if you get a good strong tail wind and the return leg is always faster due to wind anyway. You will have to let me know what you think when you get back - its always interesting to get the passengers view point - I hope its a good one[msnsmile]

I'll be happy to - I refuse to look forward to my flight home though!!!

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Snapper
I would have thought that the logical step-up from a 777 would be to a 747/400. Then to a pair of 767s then to a pair of 777s if capacity kept on increasing. Surely it's more economical to fly a 400 than it is to fly 2x757s?
[/quote]

Total agreement Steve![msnwink]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:When I operated this route once a month the BA 767 went in for a big check and so they used a 757 and we got so many complaints from passengers as it was just not the right aircraft. The 757 was designed for short/medium haul only[/quote]

Lucy,

The East Coast USA flights from UK are not really long haul, and it is well within the design range of the 757.

Incidentally the 757 has a longer range and payload than a certain single aisled aircraft that could just make it across the Atlantic; albeit it flew at Mach 2 for some of the journey!!

Katys Grandad,
Plenty of room in the AA 757 - front seats are best!

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:
Incidentally the 757 has a longer range and payload than a certain single aisled aircraft that could just make it across the Atlantic; albeit it flew at Mach 2 for some of the journey!!
[/quote]

I used to fly on the Etops 757 but I remain unconvinced that they are right for transatlantics.The only reason airlines use them is because they are cheap to operate on longer fuller flights.

The thing is though Robert we quite often did that trip in 3 hours with on average 50 passengers !!!!! She was a a whole different ball game! I actually did the Concorde tour last weekend to show my children the inside of Concorde it was a real trip down memory lane the smell inside of the leather seats and everything - OOH I miss flying on her so much[msncry][msnwink]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:The only reason airlines use them is because they are cheap to operate on longer fuller flights.[/quote]

Lucy,
That is exactly right.

Airlines - especially in America - make little profit and are always on the verge of going bust it seems. Therefore it makes little sense to operate a bigger, and less economical, aircraft when marketing studies indicate that a 757 will cope.

Having been in Concorde I couldn't believe how cramped it was inside. In my book it will go down as one of Britain's(and France's) biggest ever waste of taxpayers money. Poor space, poor range, poor payload, totally uneconomical and an evironmental disaster - but didn't it look great!!

Robert as I said on a TV programme that followed us on a London-New York flight, if you want to travel in a Rolls Royce you go First class on a 747-400 if you want to travel in a Ferrari you go on Concorde[msnwink]

How can we tell our children that we used to be able to get to NY in 3 hours but not anymore, how backward is that!

I afarid I won't have a bad word said against her she was the best[msnsmile2]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988[brAirlines - especially in America - make little profit and are always on the verge of going bust it seems. Therefore it makes little sense to operate a bigger, and less economical, aircraft when marketing studies indicate that a 757 will cope.[/quote]

Ahhhh, but ...

On the transatlantic route not every passenger is driven completely by price alone. Some of us are looking for a better product; specifically more legroom in economy. So maybe there is a market segment whereby an airline flies a bigger aircraft than necessary but offers a much improved product at a higher price.

Say an airline typically runs a 32" seat pitch in economy. What if they upped their economy fare by 30% but at the same time introduced a whopping 42" seat pitch. Personally, I think they would be full to the gubbles. It would also cost them less to fly the aircraft as fewer passengers means less baggage, less weight, and heaps less fuel to carry it all. If an airline got the sums right they might even be able to shave one or two cabin staff from the flight as well (sorry Lal!!)

I take your point Steve but I think that an awful lot of people do go by price alone. I have to confess that it is the major factor with me although a better product at a reasonable price would appeal. That can be hard to find and I'm sure the airlines have worked out what the market will stand.

This isn't the first year the 757 MAN-BOS service has been in service so I assume that it must be paying for the airline. Interestingly it is a 1 class plane so they don't seem to want to attract business passengers on that route.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Snapper
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988[brAirlines - especially in America - make little profit and are always on the verge of going bust it seems. Therefore it makes little sense to operate a bigger, and less economical, aircraft when marketing studies indicate that a 757 will cope.[/quote]

Ahhhh, but ...

On the transatlantic route not every passenger is driven completely by price alone. Some of us are looking for a better product; specifically more legroom in economy. So maybe there is a market segment whereby an airline flies a bigger aircraft than necessary but offers a much improved product at a higher price.

Say an airline typically runs a 32" seat pitch in economy. What if they upped their economy fare by 30% but at the same time introduced a whopping 42" seat pitch. Personally, I think they would be full to the gubbles. It would also cost them less to fly the aircraft as fewer passengers means less baggage, less weight, and heaps less fuel to carry it all. If an airline got the sums right they might even be able to shave one or two cabin staff from the flight as well (sorry Lal!!)

[/quote]

I agree Steve, although price is an important factor, comfort and safety are top of my list![msnwink]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Katys Grandad
Robert

I'm on the BOS-MAN 757 in May. Plenty of legroom isn't there???
[/quote]

Sorry to have to say this but no more leg room than normal. We did the AA route last year to Boston on the 757 and i was not impressed with it. It is a standard Domestic plane with no seat back TV's or anything like that (Not sure about 1st Class) They do have 14" TV's along the aisle of the plane and they showed at least 1 movie, but once the cabin staff start to work there is no room for any one to move. Great route as we like Boston airport but would not fly that route again.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by pieman790
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Katys Grandad
Robert

I'm on the BOS-MAN 757 in May. Plenty of legroom isn't there???
[/quote]

Sorry to have to say this but no more leg room than normal. We did the AA route last year to Boston on the 757 and i was not impressed with it. It is a standard Domestic plane with no seat back TV's or anything like that (Not sure about 1st Class) They do have 14" TV's along the aisle of the plane and they showed at least 1 movie, but once the cabin staff start to work there is no room for any one to move. Great route as we like Boston airport but would not fly that route again.
[/quote]

I rest my case!!![msnwink]

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:On the transatlantic route not every passenger is driven completely by price alone. Some of us are looking for a better product; specifically more legroom in economy. So maybe there is a market segment whereby an airline flies a bigger aircraft than necessary but offers a much improved product at a higher price.

Say an airline typically runs a 32" seat pitch in economy. What if they upped their economy fare by 30% but at the same time introduced a whopping 42" seat pitch. Personally, I think they would be full to the gubbles. It would also cost them less to fly the aircraft as fewer passengers means less baggage, less weight, and heaps less fuel to carry it all. If an airline got the sums right they might even be able to shave one or two cabin staff from the flight as well [/quote]

I completely agree with your sentiments, and more legroom is the number one priority for me personally.

However I suggest you and I may be be in the minority. American introduced their "More Room Throughout Coach" campaign a while ago, with 35 inches as the 'norm' in economy - 2-3 more than nearly every other major airline. This was the only reason I always flew AA. It has not been a commercial success and they are now reducing legroom to the 'industry standard'.

The AA Man-Bos service last year did have the extra legroom in economy. Seat back TVs or any in-flight entertainment are low down the priority list for me. I have a choice of flying Manchester to Boston or Chicago this summer with AA and I have chosen Boston each time.

Interestingly FlyWho(or whatever the are called now) have adopted your approach with masses of leg room in their cheapest cabin(silver). Their prices are very high though and it will be interesting to see if the service is a success - if they ever get off the ground(pun intended)

Well we shall have to see, for many price is a main factor and legroom not so high up (unless you are tall).

DOM

Im 5' 7" but I don't do economy[msnwink]

I'm certainly no airline industry expert but it seems pretty clear that the trend over recent years has been a move towards 'cheap no frills' flying. Easyjet, Ryanair and the rest offer a pretty basic product at low prices but have been very successful. In turn, the major carriers have been forced to follow suit. Meals, ticketing and legroom have all been sacrificed in the name of what the customer seems to want - low fares.

Oddly enough, at the same time premium travel has been enhanced giving flat beds, chauffeur services and quality dining. The end result has been that those who are able to afford the prices in business/first have become better catered for while the rest have increasingly been expected to suffer in return for cheap tickets.

As American Airlines discovered with their 'More Room' promotion. not enough travellers are prepared to pay more for a better quality product. Sadly, they have now fallen back into line with their competitors.

I agree about cheap airlines, I have used them many times for short flights
But long haul you need some comfort otherwise it can be a nightmare nothing worse than sitting for 9/11 hours
in a uncomfortable seat with no leg room
The problem is a family of 4 going on holiday the air tickets can take a big slice out of your budjet
most people are looking to get where they are going as cheaply as possible
Barbara

AA are definitely still flying with the extra legroom in economy, at least on the MAN-MIA and ORD-MAN routes. I flew with them in February/March, and this was one of the reasons for booking AA. And a very nice flight it was too. On the ORD-MAN flight every single seat was full, so I guess they are doing something right!

I completely agree that Ryanair and Easyjet offer reasonably OK, no-frills products, and for whizzing around Europe on 2-3 hour flights for weekends away they are great. Personally, I would never fly them on a transatlantic or longer haul route unless they completely re-vamped their product with more comfortable aircraft and cabin configurations. It would be like taking the tube from London to Glasgow.

Let's also not forget though that the budget operators fly into some forsaken airfields way out in the back of beyond. I made this mistake flying into Frankfurt the year before last. I thought I'd found a way to save a fortune in travelling costs by flying Ryanair, until I found out that having landed at Frankfurt Hahn it then takes between 90 mins to 2 hours to get back to Frankfurt, or you pay more for a taxi than you paid for the flight!

The day that Ryanair start to fly a 30" seat pitch between Prestwick and Tallahassee will be a great day for cheap fares to Florida. I think I'll give it a miss though.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote: AA are definitely still flying with the extra legroom in economy, at least on the MAN-MIA and ORD-MAN routes. I flew with them in February/March, and this was one of the reasons for booking AA. And a very nice flight it was too. On the ORD-MAN flight every single seat was full, so I guess they are doing something right!
[/quote]

AA announced(in very small print) that they would be phasing out their 'More Room Throughout Coach' seating. They started with some of their domestic flights and I checked with AA and all of their fleet(including on International routes) will have the reduced legroom by the end of 2005.

If you look on Seat Guru at the various aircraft that AA operate you will see this quote for the aircraft they operate between Man-Ord and Man-Mia(767-300).

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:American will be adding 8 additional seats onto these planes by June 2005, removing "More Room Throughout Coach" and reducing the seat pitch a few inches.[/quote]

How this will affect their sales is anyones guess. Regular travellers can get 'elite' status which enables them to select exit row seats, or upgrade using air-miles, so I suspect that they will still continue to fly AA if legroom is their criteria for chosing an airline.

The MAN-MIA service ends at the end of this month. When it comes back in November, it will no longer be operating a 'More Room' service. The extra seats will be installed on the MAN-ORD route by June 2005.

I have flown both routes more than once in the last few months and the additional legroom was very nice but is about to become a thing of the past.

It seems that American's retreat from 'More Room' has resulted in Continental spending $20 on an ad campaign which looks like being very embarrassing for AA. Apparently, 1 of its slogans is:

"Fly American and you could kick yourself. Literally!"

Just flown with Continental. We all agreed it was the best Americal flight company we had been with. Legroom was good in economy, comfort good, and the first class coming home was absolutely the best.
We had an 24hourdelay due to freak weather in NY, but again customer service was great, couldn't fault them at all.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Susan J
Just flown with Continental. We all agreed it was the best Americal flight company we had been with. Legroom was good in economy, comfort good, and the first class coming home was absolutely the best.
We had an 24hourdelay due to freak weather in NY, but again customer service was great, couldn't fault them at all.


[/quote]

Thats great news, what aircraft type were you on?[msnwink]

Sorry but for 4 of us to fly I usually have to get the cheapest flights I can. This means that we have to put up with no leg room. My son had to sit with his legs in the aisle last year which the stewards kept crashing into when pushing the trollies back & forth, not ideal at all but better than not going!

No idea what aircraft, Lucy - would it say on my boarding card somewhere? CO20 or 21 was flight number - helpful aren't I?

Hi,

Can anyone tell me if Continental have small tv's in the back of every seat as Virgin do?

Thank's.

John.

<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Susan J
No idea what aircraft, Lucy - would it say on my boarding card somewhere? CO20 or 21 was flight number - helpful aren't I?
[/quote]

It is normally a 767, did it have single or dual aisles? How manyseats across?[msnwink]