Discussion:
The next doomed Stansted NYC business jet
(too old to reply)
Recliner
2017-01-10 00:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>

This looks like the next dead cert failure.

A genuinely private business jet that flies when and where you want it to
is one thing, but a shared, scheduled weekly service in a small, cramped
business jet to Stansted is another, particularly at higher than first
class fares. Someone wanting to fly in comfort from NYC to Canary Wharf or
the City would be much better off flying on BA's daily direct flight from
London City airport.
John Levine
2017-01-17 19:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.

But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.
Recliner
2017-01-17 21:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.
I wondered if LGA's executive jet FBO could be used?
http://www.talonairjets.com/laguardia-lga-private-jet-charter

After all, the service will be using executive jets.
John Levine
2017-01-17 22:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.
I wondered if LGA's executive jet FBO could be used?
http://www.talonairjets.com/laguardia-lga-private-jet-charter
It said the Marine Air Terminal, which is the original airport
building, used by flying boats taking off and landing on the water,
with fabulous art deco details. It's had its ups and downs but was
extensively refurbished about 20 years ago. It's currently used for
the Delta shuttle and for private jets. Finding a place for two biz
jets a week is not the problem, the problem is that there's nobody to
clear incoming passengers through customs and immigration when they
arrive.

I suppose that for two flights a week with a dozen people they could
pay to have some customs staff come up from JFK for an hour or so,
but the whole thing seems dodgy.

R's,
John
Recliner
2017-01-17 23:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.
I wondered if LGA's executive jet FBO could be used?
http://www.talonairjets.com/laguardia-lga-private-jet-charter
It said the Marine Air Terminal, which is the original airport
building, used by flying boats taking off and landing on the water,
with fabulous art deco details. It's had its ups and downs but was
extensively refurbished about 20 years ago. It's currently used for
the Delta shuttle and for private jets. Finding a place for two biz
jets a week is not the problem, the problem is that there's nobody to
clear incoming passengers through customs and immigration when they
arrive.
I suppose that for two flights a week with a dozen people they could
pay to have some customs staff come up from JFK for an hour or so,
but the whole thing seems dodgy.
Presumably they'll use whatever arrangement is currently used with other
private jets, which already use LGA for long haul flights. I notice their
announcement mentions that customers will "Proceed rapidly through
customs".
Roland Perry
2017-01-18 09:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.
Does it say the flights are non-stop?

Perhaps they'll clear customs/immigration en-route, as BA does at
Shannon for its flights from London City Airport.

As for the business model - perhaps they have one (or two) customers who
have commissioned a regular trip, and this is a way of selling a few
more seats on the plane?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-18 10:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.
Does it say the flights are non-stop?
I'm pretty sure they're non-stop.
Post by Roland Perry
Perhaps they'll clear customs/immigration en-route, as BA does at
Shannon for its flights from London City Airport.
No need. LGA already handles long haul business jets, providing customs and
immigration facilities, just as are available at many other small airports
used by private jets. Just because they aren't provided for larger
commercial jets doesn't stop them being available for small business jets
carrying a handful of people, whose identities will already have been
notified.

Presumably they have to be pre-booked, to ensure that the staff are
available. For example, I don't think the Harrods terminal at Luton is busy
enough to have full-time customs and immigration staff, but they come over
when needed.

Also, many private jet flights are not physically checked. Like boats, they
notify customs, but if the passengers say they have nothing to declare,
customs may choose to accept their declaration without physically being
present, just as most pax going through the green channel aren't stopped.
Presumably they need, at most, one immigration officer, but perhaps even
that may not be needed.
Post by Roland Perry
As for the business model - perhaps they have one (or two) customers who
have commissioned a regular trip, and this is a way of selling a few
more seats on the plane?
Unlikely, I'd have thought. Surely regular passengers would rather fly
first class from Heathrow, or on the existing LCY JFK flights? And people
who routinely use business jets won't want to share them with strangers. A
packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight.
Roland Perry
2017-01-18 10:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<140628376.506425659.583158.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 10:02:07 on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
As for the business model - perhaps they have one (or two) customers who
have commissioned a regular trip, and this is a way of selling a few
more seats on the plane?
Unlikely, I'd have thought. Surely regular passengers would rather fly
first class from Heathrow, or on the existing LCY JFK flights? And people
who routinely use business jets won't want to share them with strangers.
One of their USPs is reducing the "overhead" time at the airports both
ends (and the NY end being closer to Manhattan).

There's a lot of US-focussed hi-tech companies in the Cambridge area.
Post by Recliner
A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial
flight.
I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business
jet.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-18 13:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 10:02:07 on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
As for the business model - perhaps they have one (or two) customers who
have commissioned a regular trip, and this is a way of selling a few
more seats on the plane?
Unlikely, I'd have thought. Surely regular passengers would rather fly
first class from Heathrow, or on the existing LCY JFK flights? And people
who routinely use business jets won't want to share them with strangers.
One of their USPs is reducing the "overhead" time at the airports both
ends (and the NY end being closer to Manhattan).
Yes
Post by Roland Perry
There's a lot of US-focussed hi-tech companies in the Cambridge area.
True
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial
flight.
I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business
jet.
Not compared to the significantly cheaper first class seats on a
commercial flight.
Roland Perry
2017-01-18 13:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business
jet.
Not compared to the significantly cheaper first class seats on a
commercial flight.
Regular business class is sufficiently comfortable for most people.

And: "Bliss Jet will limit seat sales well below the maximum
aircraft’s capacity for extra comfort..."
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-18 15:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business
jet.
Not compared to the significantly cheaper first class seats on a
commercial flight.
Regular business class is sufficiently comfortable for most people.
Yes, and a lot cheaper, with a choice of dozens of flights a day on the
NYC-LON route. Bliss will have just one flight a week, so most pax will
need to use another airline for one leg of a return trip. They might as
well use scheduled airlines for both legs, as they will need to do for any
trips that don't fit with Bliss's once a week service. And most corporate
execs will work for companies that have arrangements with preferred
airlines.

I'd have thought Bliss would do better to aim at a less well-served route.
Post by Roland Perry
And: "Bliss Jet will limit seat sales well below the maximum
aircraft’s capacity for extra comfort..."
They must have be reacting to feedback, but that makes the business model
trickier still.
Roland Perry
2017-01-18 15:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<439333127.506444691.903181.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 15:13:17 on Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
I expect the clients will be sufficiently comfortable in the business
jet.
Not compared to the significantly cheaper first class seats on a
commercial flight.
Regular business class is sufficiently comfortable for most people.
Yes, and a lot cheaper, with a choice of dozens of flights a day on the
NYC-LON route. Bliss will have just one flight a week, so most pax will
need to use another airline for one leg of a return trip. They might as
well use scheduled airlines for both legs, as they will need to do for any
trips that don't fit with Bliss's once a week service. And most corporate
execs will work for companies that have arrangements with preferred
airlines.
I'd have thought Bliss would do better to aim at a less well-served route.
Post by Roland Perry
And: "Bliss Jet will limit seat sales well below the maximum
aircraft’s capacity for extra comfort..."
They must have be reacting to feedback, but that makes the business model
trickier still.
In both cases, not if they are already operating the flight for a few
specific weekly commuters, and want to fill a few empty seats (maybe
even giving a discount to the regulars).
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2017-01-18 13:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
A
packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight.
if that is the case I don't see the selling point

tim
Roland Perry
2017-01-18 14:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
A
packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight.
if that is the case I don't see the selling point
It's only been mentioned several times (convenience to/from/at the
airport).
--
Roland Perry
s***@potato.field
2017-01-18 15:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:05:41 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
A
packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight.
if that is the case I don't see the selling point
It's only been mentioned several times (convenience to/from/at the
airport).
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or not.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-01-18 15:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or not.
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-18 15:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or not.
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
Some business jets fly higher and faster than airliners.
s***@potato.field
2017-01-18 15:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:43:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.
Post by Roland Perry
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
Some business jets fly higher and faster than airliners.
Some storm clouds go up to 60K feet. The only civil aircraft that could go
over them would be concorde.
--
Spud
Recliner
2017-01-18 16:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:43:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.
Post by Roland Perry
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
Some business jets fly higher and faster than airliners.
Some storm clouds go up to 60K feet. The only civil aircraft that could go
over them would be concorde.
If they're flying above the normal air routes, they probably have more
freedom to pick/change their own route.
s***@potato.field
2017-01-19 09:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:16:01 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:43:14 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.
Post by Roland Perry
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
Some business jets fly higher and faster than airliners.
Some storm clouds go up to 60K feet. The only civil aircraft that could go
over them would be concorde.
If they're flying above the normal air routes, they probably have more
freedom to pick/change their own route.
Does an executive jet have enough range to divert around a huge atlantic front,
some of which can span thousands of miles?
--
Spud
Clank
2017-01-18 18:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or not.
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
Personally, I'd pay more for a smaller plane. Then again, I love a bit of
turbulence - reminds you you're flying. Of course, I used to be a glider
pilot, so my feelings may not be mainstream.

I can confirm though that the 7 hours I didn't on a 737 a couple of weeks
ago were fucking torture.
Clank
2017-01-18 18:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clank
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or not.
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
Personally, I'd pay more for a smaller plane. Then again, I love a bit of
turbulence - reminds you you're flying. Of course, I used to be a glider
pilot, so my feelings may not be mainstream.
I can confirm though that the 7 hours I didn't on a 737 a couple of weeks
ago were fucking torture.
"Spent" not "didn't". Bloody swype.
s***@potato.field
2017-01-19 10:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:46:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Clank
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.
Post by Roland Perry
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
Personally, I'd pay more for a smaller plane. Then again, I love a bit of
turbulence - reminds you you're flying. Of course, I used to be a glider
pilot, so my feelings may not be mainstream.
I imagine its different when you're the one in control.
Post by Clank
I can confirm though that the 7 hours I didn't on a 737 a couple of weeks
ago were fucking torture.
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
--
Spud
John Levine
2017-01-19 18:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.

The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.
Theo
2017-01-19 18:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000. That's 9800nm so I assume there's a fuel stop in that.

Theo
tim...
2017-01-19 20:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Theo
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
so a full price of close to half a million

who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that?

tim
Roland Perry
2017-01-20 07:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
Post by tim...
who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that?
Even at full price, if you need all 48 seats it's cheaper than business
class.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2017-01-20 22:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an "empty
leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite direction.
oh for the whole plane load

I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started this
thread)

tim
Roland Perry
2017-01-21 11:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319
corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started
this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!

They cost "only" $90m new.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-21 12:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319
corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started
this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!
They cost "only" $90m new.
Probably a lot less than that in reality: nobody pays the list price
for planes.
Roland Perry
2017-01-21 13:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319
corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started
this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!
They cost "only" $90m new.
Probably a lot less than that in reality: nobody pays the list price
for planes.
I thought most were leased.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-21 13:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319
corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started
this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!
They cost "only" $90m new.
Probably a lot less than that in reality: nobody pays the list price
for planes.
I thought most were leased.
Many are, but in which case the leasing company (quite possibly based
in Ireland) paid much less than the list price.
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-21 17:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319
corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started
this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!
They cost "only" $90m new.
Probably a lot less than that in reality: nobody pays the list price
for planes.
I thought most were leased.
Many are, but in which case the leasing company (quite possibly based
in Ireland) paid much less than the list price.
On what basis, that they ordered a bunch of them from the manufacturer?
Neil Williams
2017-01-21 18:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
On what basis, that they ordered a bunch of them from the manufacturer?
On the same basis, presumably, that nobody pays list price for a car either.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-21 20:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neil Williams
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
On what basis, that they ordered a bunch of them from the manufacturer?
On the same basis, presumably, that nobody pays list price for a car either.
The dscounts for airliners are much steeper than even car hire companies
get. For most Airbus and Boeing models, the *discount* on list price is in
the 50-60% range:

https://airinsight.com/2016/05/16/aircraft-pricing-list-vs-market/

So that A319 will most likely have cost under $40m, rather than $90m.
tim...
2017-01-21 13:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started
this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!
I didn't really think about it

and in any case didn't know how many seats it had

it could have been 6

tim
Recliner
2017-01-21 14:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started
this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!
I didn't really think about it
and in any case didn't know how many seats it had
it could have been 6
The text you quoted said it had 48 seats.
tim...
2017-01-21 14:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319
corporate
jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the opposite
direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that started
this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!
I didn't really think about it
and in any case didn't know how many seats it had
it could have been 6
The text you quoted said it had 48 seats.
ok, i missed that as well :-(
Roland Perry
2017-01-21 15:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat
^^^^^^^
|||

**COUGH**
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Theo
A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000.
I'm guessing that's the fuel and crew cost.
Post by tim...
so a full price of close to half a million
Actually the list price for that flight is EUR 876,550 and it's an
"empty leg". So someone else must have hired it one-way the
opposite direction.
oh for the whole plane load
I thought you were quoting a per seat price (like the one that
started this thread)
Seriously? You think it costs twenty million to hire a plane for a day!
I didn't really think about it
and in any case didn't know how many seats it had
it could have been 6
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2017-01-20 14:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that?
Someone who basically has unlimited money. Affordability becomes moot,
so they buy a flight like that just as you or I might be a bit peckish
and buy a chocolate bar without much thought.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.
Recliner
2017-01-20 15:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:52:51 +0000, Neil Williams
Post by Neil Williams
Post by tim...
who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that?
Someone who basically has unlimited money. Affordability becomes moot,
so they buy a flight like that just as you or I might be a bit peckish
and buy a chocolate bar without much thought.
Someone that rich certainly wouldn't want to travel in a
not-particularly-large business class seat along with up to 47
strangers (the only slightly -- by 2.4m -- smaller BA318s have just 32
business class seats). They might prefer, for example, to travel in
The Residence, a private three-room suite in the sky:


http://thepointsguy.com/2015/12/etihad-a380-the-residence-review/

Or they'd use their own, or a leased, truly private jet, not shared
with dozens of strangers. For example, a former boss of mine has a
whole fleet of private planes, and he chooses the right one for a
particular journey). He is a qualified pilot, but of course also
employs professional pilots for longer trips (eg, California to Cape
town via London). This is one of the types he operates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G550
Roland Perry
2017-01-20 16:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Neil Williams
Post by tim...
who the **** values a small amount of extra comfort at that?
Someone who basically has unlimited money. Affordability becomes moot,
so they buy a flight like that just as you or I might be a bit peckish
and buy a chocolate bar without much thought.
Someone that rich certainly wouldn't want to travel in a
not-particularly-large business class seat along with up to 47
strangers
Nor would they be paying through the nose; about 2/3 the business class
fare. And no scheduled airline flies that route direct.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-19 20:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Theo
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000. That's 9800nm so I assume there's a fuel stop in that.
I wonder what the attraction would be? Scheduled first class would be much
more comfortable and private, at a fraction of the price.
s***@potato.field
2017-01-20 09:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:37:08 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Theo
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000. That's 9800nm so I assume there's a fuel stop in that.
I wonder what the attraction would be? Scheduled first class would be much
more comfortable and private, at a fraction of the price.
There are a lot of rich gullible people in the world.
--
Spud
Roland Perry
2017-01-20 09:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by Recliner
Post by Theo
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000. That's 9800nm so I assume there's a fuel stop in that.
I wonder what the attraction would be? Scheduled first class would be much
more comfortable and private, at a fraction of the price.
There are a lot of rich gullible people in the world.
First Class is about 6k each way, which is roughly halfway between the
full and discount prices for the charter.
--
Roland Perry
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-19 21:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Theo
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
The plane is a derivative of the BBJ, the biz jet version of the 737,
which has a range of 6200 nm with 8 passengers. Sounds like this
airline is more likely to fly the BBJ.
If anyone's at a loose end next week there's a 48-seat A319 corporate jet
flying Sydney to Lisbon next week, for an 'up to 75% off' price of
EUR110,000. That's 9800nm so I assume there's a fuel stop in that.
Theo
Flight number?
s***@potato.field
2017-01-20 09:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:31:40 +0000 (UTC)
Post by John Levine
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.

--
Spud
Recliner
2017-01-20 09:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:31:40 +0000 (UTC)
Post by John Levine
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
It depends on the wind and the loading. LHR-LAX is 4741 nm, so well within
the nominal range, but if the 737 has max payload and there's the usual
headwind, it may be insufficient.
John Levine
2017-01-20 18:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by John Levine
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
It depends on the wind and the loading. LHR-LAX is 4741 nm, so well within
the nominal range, but if the 737 has max payload and there's the usual
headwind, it may be insufficient.
I suppose, but since the last third of the flight is over southern
Canada and the US, there'd be plenty of places to land and refuel if
need be.
Recliner
2017-01-20 20:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by John Levine
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
It depends on the wind and the loading. LHR-LAX is 4741 nm, so well within
the nominal range, but if the 737 has max payload and there's the usual
headwind, it may be insufficient.
I suppose, but since the last third of the flight is over southern
Canada and the US, there'd be plenty of places to land and refuel if
need be.
True, it wouldn't be unsafe, but if headwinds are going to add an hour to
the flight, and if the plane is fully loaded (and therefore unable to carry
max fuel), they might as well plan a tech stop.
Roland Perry
2017-01-20 09:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by John Levine
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty
meaningless.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-20 10:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by John Levine
Post by s***@potato.field
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty
meaningless.
No, they always quote the range like that. Furthermore, it's usually the
max fuel, rather than max payload, range that's quoted. It's a bit like the
usually hopelessly optimistic ranges quoted for EVs or fuel
consumption/pollution for IC-engined cars.

So the real-world range for aircraft has to take into account the payload,
headwinds, ETOPS, diversion airports, runway length, elevation and
temperature of the departure airport, etc, and will always be much less
than the nominal range. Occasionally a new aircraft delivery or test flight
sets a new record distance when they've optimised everything for range, but
normal flights can't do that.

For example:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2005-11-10-Boeing-777-200LR-Sets-New-World-Record-for-Distance

One extreme example of real-world flight ranges being restricted is Easter
Island's Mataveri airport. There are no useful diversion airports on
flights from Santiago, so Santiago remains the diversion airport for the
whole flight to Rapa Nui. If the single runway at Mataveri becomes unusable
for any reason, the flight has to return to origin. As a result, only one
aircraft at a time can be en-route to the island, and LAN uses long-haul
aircraft on the route, even though a narrow-body could fly it in more
normal circumstances.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/sets/72157632333665535
Roland Perry
2017-01-20 11:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<933058783.506600445.532932.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-septe
mber.org>, at 10:35:45 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty
meaningless.
No, they always quote the range like that.
Like what - with a typical safety margin included, or without?
Post by Recliner
Furthermore, it's usually the
max fuel, rather than max payload, range that's quoted. It's a bit like the
usually hopelessly optimistic ranges quoted for EVs or fuel
consumption/pollution for IC-engined cars.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2017-01-20 12:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 10:35:45 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty
meaningless.
No, they always quote the range like that.
Like what - with a typical safety margin included, or without?
Without. They quote the maximum range with nothing in reserve. They
normally also state whether it's the max fuel or max payload range
(you can't normally have both at once).

The airlines then have to factor in all the route/flight specific
stuff when calculating the usable range. For example, you need
different reserves for different routes (Easter Island being an
example of an extreme case, where you need a huge reserve).

As another example, Qantas is introducing a new non-stop flight
between London and Perth. This will need to carry much larger reserves
on its eastbound than its westbound flights, as a flight that can't
quite make London has numerous diversion airports along its route, but
there aren't such diversions available for a flight to Perth:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-PER&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=120&EV=410&EU=kts
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2017-01-20 15:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 10:35:45 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty
meaningless.
No, they always quote the range like that.
Like what - with a typical safety margin included, or without?
Without. They quote the maximum range with nothing in reserve. They
normally also state whether it's the max fuel or max payload range
(you can't normally have both at once).
The airlines then have to factor in all the route/flight specific
stuff when calculating the usable range. For example, you need
different reserves for different routes (Easter Island being an
example of an extreme case, where you need a huge reserve).
As another example, Qantas is introducing a new non-stop flight
between London and Perth. This will need to carry much larger reserves
on its eastbound than its westbound flights, as a flight that can't
quite make London has numerous diversion airports along its route, but
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-PER&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=120&EV=410&EU=kts
When is that due to start flying?
Recliner
2017-01-20 15:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
In message
mber.org>, at 10:35:45 on Fri, 20 Jan 2017, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
Post by John Levine
It's the 737-700ER, with a range of 5,630 nm. That's enough to get
from London to anywhere in the continental US.
Not I suspect if you include fuel safety margins.
Perhaps the range has haht factored in, otherwise it's pretty
meaningless.
No, they always quote the range like that.
Like what - with a typical safety margin included, or without?
Without. They quote the maximum range with nothing in reserve. They
normally also state whether it's the max fuel or max payload range
(you can't normally have both at once).
The airlines then have to factor in all the route/flight specific
stuff when calculating the usable range. For example, you need
different reserves for different routes (Easter Island being an
example of an extreme case, where you need a huge reserve).
As another example, Qantas is introducing a new non-stop flight
between London and Perth. This will need to carry much larger reserves
on its eastbound than its westbound flights, as a flight that can't
quite make London has numerous diversion airports along its route, but
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-PER&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=120&EV=410&EU=kts
When is that due to start flying?
March 2018:
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-11/qantas-to-fly-direct-perth-london-in-17-hours-with-dreamliner>
Clank
2017-01-20 13:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@potato.field
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 18:46:29 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Clank
Post by Roland Perry
Post by s***@potato.field
737s are bad enough. I can't imagine spending 8 hours bouncing across the
atlantic in something not much bigger than a minibus, comfortable seats or
not.
Post by Roland Perry
Perhaps they fly around the turbulence?
Personally, I'd pay more for a smaller plane. Then again, I love a bit of
turbulence - reminds you you're flying. Of course, I used to be a glider
pilot, so my feelings may not be mainstream.
I imagine its different when you're the one in control.
Post by Clank
I can confirm though that the 7 hours I didn't on a 737 a couple of weeks
ago were fucking torture.
I'm surprised a 737 can fly for 7 hours without refueling. What shitty budget
airline was dishing them up for long haul? Let us know so we can avoid it.
FlyDubai. And yes, absolutely - avoid them like the plague; truly among the
worst airlines I have ever had the misfortune of flying with (and I've
flown Wizz & BlueAir.)
s***@potato.field
2017-01-20 14:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 13:11:47 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Clank
FlyDubai. And yes, absolutely - avoid them like the plague; truly among the
worst airlines I have ever had the misfortune of flying with (and I've
flown Wizz & BlueAir.)
That was the airline that had that as yet unexplained (from a pilot control
input point of view) crash in Russia last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flydubai_Flight_981
--
Spud
John Levine
2017-01-18 20:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight.
if that is the case I don't see the selling point
If they fly to Westchester and the actual goal is, say, IBM
headquarters, that's a 10 minute drive from Westchester, but a 60 to
90 minute slog from JFK.

If they go to LaGuardia, it's less pronounced but still significant.
To, say, the Citibank tower in Manhattan, it's 30 mins from LGA, an
hour from JFK.

R's,
John
Recliner
2017-01-18 21:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Levine
Post by tim...
A packed business jet will be less comfortable than a commercial flight.
if that is the case I don't see the selling point
If they fly to Westchester and the actual goal is, say, IBM
headquarters, that's a 10 minute drive from Westchester, but a 60 to
90 minute slog from JFK.
If they go to LaGuardia, it's less pronounced but still significant.
To, say, the Citibank tower in Manhattan, it's 30 mins from LGA, an
hour from JFK.
Somewhere like Westchester sounds like a more sensible base for an exec jet
service than an existing large commercial airport, though LGA would
certainly beat JFK.
Someone Somewhere
2017-01-19 17:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.
Does it say the flights are non-stop?
I'm pretty sure they're non-stop.
Post by Roland Perry
Perhaps they'll clear customs/immigration en-route, as BA does at
Shannon for its flights from London City Airport.
No need. LGA already handles long haul business jets, providing customs and
immigration facilities,
Are you sure about that? Isn't there some law about LGA that it can't
have flights with longer than a sector length of 1500 miles which would
preclude anywhere but Canada (which has pre-clearance)?
Recliner
2017-01-19 20:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
But LaGuardia is a domestic airport. It has no customs or immigration
facilities and its only international flights are from Canada, where
flights are precleared. It seems rather unlikely that the US would set
up a preclearance station at Stansted.
Does it say the flights are non-stop?
I'm pretty sure they're non-stop.
Post by Roland Perry
Perhaps they'll clear customs/immigration en-route, as BA does at
Shannon for its flights from London City Airport.
No need. LGA already handles long haul business jets, providing customs and
immigration facilities,
Are you sure about that? Isn't there some law about LGA that it can't
have flights with longer than a sector length of 1500 miles which would
preclude anywhere but Canada (which has pre-clearance)?
That restriction only applies to scheduled commercial flights. Biz jets can
and do fly long haul to/from LGA and other small airfields.
Theo
2017-01-18 13:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Levine
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
They also seem to be confused, advertising Westchester-Biggin Hill in June.
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/62199/bliss-jet-unveils-ultra-exclusive-london-new-york-service

Does Westchester have customs and immigration?

Oh sorry, Westchester and Stansted:
http://media.wix.com/ugd/22fe6d_aa60e63b0a1044e9b634c34d8325ba06.pdf

Ooops, I mean La Guardia and Stansted:
http://www.blissjet.com/where-we-fly

Third time lucky?

(links all from the Blissjet website)

Theo
Recliner
2017-01-18 15:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Theo
In article
Post by Recliner
<https://50skyshades.com/news/business-aviation/bliss-jet-to-launch-laguardia-to-london-private-jet-service-in-january>
This looks like the next dead cert failure.
This looks like vapourware. It says the New York end of the flights
will be at the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia airport, correctly
noting that it's considerably closer to midtown Manhattan than either
JFK or Newark.
They also seem to be confused, advertising Westchester-Biggin Hill in June.
http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/62199/bliss-jet-unveils-ultra-exclusive-london-new-york-service
Does Westchester have customs and immigration?
http://media.wix.com/ugd/22fe6d_aa60e63b0a1044e9b634c34d8325ba06.pdf
http://www.blissjet.com/where-we-fly
Third time lucky?
(links all from the Blissjet website)
I suppose they're struggling to find an exec jet field that will welcome
them. In principle, they could use more than one such airport if there's
the demand.
John Levine
2017-01-18 19:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Theo
Does Westchester have customs and immigration?
No, it has a handful of scheduled flights but is mostly private. I
expect whatever arrangements would be possible at LaGuardia would be
possible there.

It's very close to headquarters of large companies in Westchester and
adjacent Greenwich, Connecticut.

R's,
John
Loading...