Latest news with #SuperJumbo
Irish Independent
19-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Independent
Global Airlines: After its A380 flight from Glasgow to New York JFK, what next?
Global Airlines aims to buy secondhand 'SuperJumbo' jets for transatlantic travel… but regular flights have not yet materialised The usual Thursday morning bustle at Glasgow airport comprises business people flying British Airways to Heathrow and London City, island-hopping Loganair flights darting off to Barra and Shetland, and a jostle of budget airline departures on easyJet, Jet2 and Ryanair. But shortly after 11am on Thursday 15 May, an Airbus A380 took off to New York – against many predictions, including mine. The giant Global Airlines plane had spent the previous night tucked in beside the airport's west security gate, attracting a steady stream of planespotters and photographers as it sparkled in the evening sun. By the time check-in opened at 8am on Thursday morning, a throng of eager travellers had gathered in the terminal. Many were aviation enthusiasts, including 15-year-old Kyle Schmidt, who had flown in from California with his father, William. Kyle told me: 'I found it interesting because it's an all-A380 airline, and they have a good model of wanting to do nice classes of service.' Global Airlines was launched in 2021 by a young businessman named James Asquith with a unique proposition: to buy up secondhand 'SuperJumbo' jets and fly them from London Gatwick on the busiest routes to the US and beyond. The Airbus A380 has long been a passenger favourite because of the sense of space, smooth ride and quietness (especially on the upper deck). Emirates has created a highly successful business using more than 100 A380s through its hub in Dubai, including to and from Glasgow. But few other airlines ordered the plane. Many of those who did have grounded some or all of their fleets of the big jet. The four-engined double-deck aircraft has never achieved the aim of the manufacturer to create the ultimate people-mover to connect the world's hubs. Airlines prefer smaller and more efficient twin-engined planes. The aircraft graveyards of the world, notably at the French airport of Lourdes and in the high desert of California, are gradually filling with unwanted A380s. Mr Asquith's vision: to snap them up cheaply, refurbish and redeploy them on the busiest routes. The initial plans were ambitious. They included a five-class aircraft fitted with a new 'gamer' cabin, described as 'a revolutionary fifth cabin class between business and premium economy for the modern generation'. Regular transatlantic flights from Gatwick have not (yet) materialised. And after this first transatlantic round trip from Glasgow and a second this month from Manchester, no other commercial flights are currently planned. The operating structure is unusual. The start-up owns outright the 12-year-old plane, formerly flown by China Southern. But the business of actually flying it is subcontracted to the Maltese subsidiary of a Portuguese airline, Hi Fly, which has the necessary licences. The sole sales channel is a Slough-based travel agent named Travelopedia. One passenger I spoke to before the flight predicted the operation would be 'a little rocky at first', but it looked impeccable to me. You can read my timeline here. A (reported) payload of just 95 passengers on a plane fitted for five times as many meant inflight service was flawless, at least in the upper-deck economy section. This wasn't a return to 'the golden age of travel' – it was far better than that. Flight HFM380 was easily the most comfortable and fun transatlantic trip I have had. With abundant and tasty food and drink, I'd call it business-class service for an economy fare (no flat beds, but plenty of empty seats to stretch out upon). The big question is: where, geographically and commercially, does Global Airlines go from here? In aviation, one specific form of disruption is good for passengers: when an individual with a fresh idea and financial headroom takes on the aviation establishment. Each earned a knighthood for their vision of increasing competition and democratising flying. Asquith wants to raise standards. It remains to be seen whether a start-up flying a large aircraft in a crowded market is what the travelling world needs. But while the airline and the market sort themselves out, I hope you may take up an opportunity for superior transatlantic travel afforded by deep-pocketed investors aiming to, well, make aviation great again.
The Independent
16-03-2025
- The Independent
‘Please make this 13-hour flight even longer': how air passengers' rights rules distort behaviour
Unlike most of the other 450 passengers booked aboard British Airways flight BA11 from London Heathrow to Singapore on 30 January, I was carrying only cabin baggage. The Airbus A380 'SuperJumbo' was due to fly around 450 of us to the tropics. When, 80 minutes before the scheduled departure, a text message arrived saying the flight was cancelled for technical reasons, I had a head start. No need to join the throng waiting forlornly to collect their checked luggage from Baggage Reclaim 10. Instead, I could open discussions with ticketing staff at Terminal 5 about how BA planned to respond in accordance with air passengers' rights rules. The collection of rules known as EU261 has been in force for 20 years. The legislation has two parts: A duty of care in the event of long delays or cancellations, whatever the cause: meals, hotels and alternative transportation as appropriate Payment of hundreds of pounds in compensation for cancellations and delays of three hours or more when the airline is responsible When a friendly member of British Airways ground staff told me I had been rebooked on Qatar Airways via Doha, I gently reminded him that I had booked a nonstop flight and wished to exercise my right to 'rerouting under comparable transport conditions at the earliest opportunity'. In the two decades since the rules were poorly drafted, nothing has been done to improve them – such as replacing the term 'rerouting'. Rerouting is something satnavs do when you miss a turn or hit heavy traffic. People understand it to mean that you choose a different way from A to B. In reality, passengers whose flights have been cancelled want to be flown on exactly the same route. In many cases, this is what happens. 'Flying to your destination' is the clear and accurate term that should be used. The rules are currently under scrutiny – that is just a tiny part of what needs to be fixed. All too often, airlines flout their duty of care with impunity, due to the authorities' lack of enforcement. And the payouts resemble aviation bingo, governed more by luck than reason. Back at the ticket counter, my BA friend agreed that 'comparable transport conditions at the earliest opportunity' meant a nonstop flight on the next Singapore Airlines flight from Heathrow: SQ319, due to arrive 95 minutes after the original departure. That was the 'duty of care' half of the air passengers' rights rules in action; British Airways handed the £525 I paid for my seat to Singapore Airlines. But what about the compensation part? In the event of a long-haul cancellation, a resulting delay in arrival of two hours triggers a £260 payout; after four hours, it's £520. Assuming the plane arrived on time, I would not qualify. But an unexplained half-hour hold-up in departure put that £260 into play. If it stayed that way, my delay in arrival would be five minutes over the two-hour line. Airlines routinely 'pad' schedules, allowing extra time in order to protect connections – crucial at a hub like Singapore. So I imagined much of the delay would be made up. But nearing the city state, air-traffic controllers routed the plane on an extended approach. Touchdown was an hour and 52 minutes after my BA plane had been due to arrive – now it was all down to the crew and the length of the taxi to the gate. Please extend this 13-hour flight just a bit more, I said to myself. We pulled up dead on two hours, and I breathed a sigh of relief. It would take at least one minute to open the first door, which is the moment deemed to be the arrival time under the EU261 regulations. British Airways initially rejected my claim, saying the landing time was under two hours late, but came round and handed over almost half the fare I had paid. I have been on enough delayed flights where no compensation has been paid to be grateful for the payout. But was my inconvenience really worth £130 per hour? No. Compensation running into hundreds of pounds for relatively minor disruption is barmy. For delays, cash payouts kick in three hours behind schedule. For European flights, you get the same whether the delay is 180 minutes or 24 hours. And that cliff edge has resulted, I contend, in more flights being delayed. For example, I was waiting in Tirana for a Wizz Air flight to Beauvais in northern France. According to Flightradar24, the aircraft intended for my flight was all on schedule. Suddenly, the plane was assigned to a different route from the Albanian capital. The reason: another Wizz Air flight would have operated over three hours late. Rather than take the potential hit of perhaps £60,000 in EU261 claims, the airline shuffled the fleet – reducing the delay for that flight. Ours was 90 minutes late, which meant two flights were delayed rather than just one. The existing rules encourage consumer-unfriendly behaviour; they can't change soon enough. Simon Calder, also known as The Man Who Pays His Way, has been writing about travel for The Independent since 1994. In his weekly opinion column, he explores a key travel issue – and what it means for you.
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How ‘mixed mode' could solve Heathrow's capacity crunch long before a third runway
'If you think a third runway is unpopular, try mentioning 'mixed mode' in polite Home Counties company.' That was the private response of one of the 16 transport secretaries this century when I asked whether they had considered allowing both runways at London Heathrow airport to be used for arrivals and departures at the same time. The shorthand for this technique is 'mixed mode'. For a government obsessively focused on growth, it could unlock extra capacity at the UK's biggest hub for very little additional financial cost – but, as the erstwhile minister indicated, huge political cost. At present, Heathrow dedicates one strip of asphalt to landings and the other to take-offs. The only regular use of mixed mode is between 6am and 7am daily, the busiest hour for arrivals into the airport. Planes are allowed to land on both runways. Intuitively, you might imagine that the most efficient way to operate a two-runway airport like Heathrow is to separate arrivals and departures. In fact, the opposite is true: you can extract more capacity if there is a plane coming into land a few seconds after an aircraft ahead has taken off. Heathrow at its peak has a landing every 80 seconds and a take-off every 80 seconds. But across at Gatwick, air-traffic controllers can manage an arrival and a departure in as little as 65 seconds. Mixed mode adds capacity without the need for another runway. When Sir Howard Davies's Airport Commission looked into mixed mode, they concluded: 'The increased operational flexibility could be used to enhance the resilience of the airport's operations.' Monday was messy this week at Heathrow: 36 flights were cancelled, affecting 5,000 passengers and one Qatar Airways A380 'SuperJumbo' diverted to Amsterdam after a missed approach because there was not room in the system to accommodate another go. Such disruption could become much more rare if Heathrow was open to receiving more flights. Of more interest to the airlines – and, by extension, passengers keen on more choice and lower fares – is that the technique could allow up to 60,000 more flights each year. One senior travel industry figure strongly advocates using mixed mode to increase capacity immediately. Paul Charles, chief executive of travel consultancy The PC Agency, flies through Heathrow at least twice a month. He told me: 'It's embarrassing to see Heathrow held back by the lack of expansion. Airports in most other major cities are growing substantially as their governments focus on growth. The demand to fly from consumers is certainly there. 'I suggest the government apply a two-phase expansion to Heathrow in particular. It could start immediately by allowing greater use of mixed-mode, with aircraft taking off and landing on the same runways, so unlocking greater capacity and flight volumes. 'Then it could agree to a third runway, say from 2035, subject to certain environmental criteria being met. The government would have encouraged growth straight away and Heathrow would have won its long-running request for expansion.' Many interested parties will insist it can't happen. Purely pragmatically, just because Heathrow could physically land 15 per cent more planes, doesn't mean there is the terminal and gate space to handle them. Next, the concept of respite is extremely important to many of the people living on the flight paths. On Tuesday morning, for example, a procession of planes started landing on Heathrow's northern runway from 4.30am. The first four aircraft, all coming in from Africa, flew diagonally across south London as far as Woolwich, where they turned sharp left to line up for the final approach to Heathrow. Deptford, Camberwell, Battersea, Fulham … the noise increased as the aircraft descended. Next in line, Brentford and Isleworth – which just happens to be the constituency for Transport Select Committee chair Ruth Cadbury, who is not a fan of Heathrow expansion. The MP and her constituents at least know that at 3pm the noise will cease, as landings are shifted to the southern runway. The most dramatic reduction in aircraft noise at Heathrow happened overnight in October 2003: Concorde stopped flying. The windows of west London stopped rattling at teatime and shortly after 10pm each night. Since 2006, Heathrow says, the area most impacted by aircraft noise has reduced by 41 per cent. The Davies Commission stopped well short of recommending mixed mode. But the airport assessors did say: 'Should the delivery timescale for new runway capacity be towards the longer end of the anticipated spectrum, then the case for enabling mixed mode operations at Heathrow may be stronger ... It is conceivable that this issue may become material as part of a transition strategy to the preferred longer-term option.' Residents beneath the flight path don't want mixed mode. Heathrow does not advocate the practice. But who knows what the pro-growth chancellor, Rachel Reeves, may recommend as a stepping stone to a third runway?
The Independent
28-01-2025
- Business
- The Independent
How ‘mixed mode' could solve Heathrow's capacity crunch long before a third runway
'If you think a third runway is unpopular, try mentioning 'mixed mode' in polite Home Counties company.' That was the private response of one of the 16 transport secretaries this century when I asked whether they had considered allowing both runways at London Heathrow airport to be used for arrivals and departures at the same time. The shorthand for this technique is 'mixed mode'. For a government obsessively focused on growth, it could unlock extra capacity at the UK's biggest hub for very little additional financial cost – but, as the erstwhile minister indicated, huge political cost. At present, Heathrow dedicates one strip of asphalt to landings and the other to take-offs. The only regular use of mixed mode is between 6am and 7am daily, the busiest hour for arrivals into the airport. Planes are allowed to land on both runways. Intuitively, you might imagine that the most efficient way to operate a two-runway airport like Heathrow is to separate arrivals and departures. In fact, the opposite is true: you can extract more capacity if there is a plane coming into land a few seconds after an aircraft ahead has taken off. Heathrow at its peak has a landing every 80 seconds and a take-off every 80 seconds. But across at Gatwick, air-traffic controllers can manage an arrival and a departure in as little as 65 seconds. Mixed mode adds capacity without the need for another runway. When Sir Howard Davies's Airport Commission looked into mixed mode, they concluded: 'The increased operational flexibility could be used to enhance the resilience of the airport's operations.' Monday was messy this week at Heathrow: 36 flights were cancelled, affecting 5,000 passengers and one Qatar Airways A380 'SuperJumbo' diverted to Amsterdam after a missed approach because there was not room in the system to accommodate another go. Such disruption could become much more rare if Heathrow was open to receiving more flights. Of more interest to the airlines – and, by extension, passengers keen on more choice and lower fares – is that the technique could allow up to 60,000 more flights each year. One senior travel industry figure strongly advocates using mixed mode to increase capacity immediately. Paul Charles, chief executive of travel consultancy The PC Agency, flies through Heathrow at least twice a month. He told me: 'It's embarrassing to see Heathrow held back by the lack of expansion. Airports in most other major cities are growing substantially as their governments focus on growth. The demand to fly from consumers is certainly there. 'I suggest the government apply a two-phase expansion to Heathrow in particular. It could start immediately by allowing greater use of mixed-mode, with aircraft taking off and landing on the same runways, so unlocking greater capacity and flight volumes. 'Then it could agree to a third runway, say from 2035, subject to certain environmental criteria being met. The government would have encouraged growth straight away and Heathrow would have won its long-running request for expansion.' Many interested parties will insist it can't happen. Purely pragmatically, just because Heathrow could physically land 15 per cent more planes, doesn't mean there is the terminal and gate space to handle them. Next, the concept of respite is extremely important to many of the people living on the flight paths. On Tuesday morning, for example, a procession of planes started landing on Heathrow's northern runway from 4.30am. The first four aircraft, all coming in from Africa, flew diagonally across south London as far as Woolwich, where they turned sharp left to line up for the final approach to Heathrow. Deptford, Camberwell, Battersea, Fulham … the noise increased as the aircraft descended. Next in line, Brentford and Isleworth – which just happens to be the constituency for Transport Select Committee chair Ruth Cadbury, who is not a fan of Heathrow expansion. The MP and her constituents at least know that at 3pm the noise will cease, as landings are shifted to the southern runway. The most dramatic reduction in aircraft noise at Heathrow happened overnight in October 2003: Concorde stopped flying. The windows of west London stopped rattling at teatime and shortly after 10pm each night. Since 2006, Heathrow says, the area most impacted by aircraft noise has reduced by 41 per cent. The Davies Commission stopped well short of recommending mixed mode. But the airport assessors did say: 'Should the delivery timescale for new runway capacity be towards the longer end of the anticipated spectrum, then the case for enabling mixed mode operations at Heathrow may be stronger ... It is conceivable that this issue may become material as part of a transition strategy to the preferred longer-term option.' Residents beneath the flight path don't want mixed mode. Heathrow does not advocate the practice. But who knows what the pro-growth chancellor, Rachel Reeves, may recommend as a stepping stone to a third runway?
