Air Jamaica's return to London delayed
Published:Monday | March 21, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Janet Silvera, Senior Gleaner Writer
Western Bureau:
Air Jamaica officials might have miscalculated the ease with which the airline could return to its London route.
The airline is now confirming that its planned return to the British city has been delayed by at least eight months.
In January, the airline's chairman, George Nicholas, used the Air Jamaica 'Rebirth' launch at The Jamaica Pegasus hotel in New Kingston to announce a July 2011 return to London.
But on Saturday, acting General Manager William Rodgers said "early 2012 is a more realistic date".
According to Rodgers, a route like London takes a great deal of forward-planning.
"The availability of the Boeing 777 aircraft to be used on the route is an issue, and so is getting the slot at the preferred airport," he said.
The Boeing 777 is a long-range, wide-body twin-engine jetliner. It is the largest twinjet and is commonly referred to as the 'Triple Seven'.
The aircraft has seating for more than 300 passengers.
In addition, airlines wanting a good marketing advantage try to be featured in the tour operator brochures well ahead of time.
Absent from brochures
Air Jamaica would have been absent from the UK tour operators brochures, entering the game at such a late stage.
"We realised it would not be possible for 2011, so we are now looking ahead," said Rodgers.
The Air Jamaica Heathrow slots were sold to Virgin Atlantic in 2007 for a reported US$10.2 million.
Heathrow at the time was one of the hardest routes to come by and four years later that has not changed.
"Airlines fight over the slots," said an airline expert, who has worked in the industry for close to 30 years.
"An airline cannot up and announce their return to a slot they had before. They have to be reinstated. They have to get back the rights to the route."
At the time of the sale, the then management of Air Jamaica said it was forced to sell the routes as a result of the continuing heavy losses that could not be sustained.
The largest source of losses was the London route, which lost US$27 million in 2006 (exclusive of apportionment of overhead costs).
With few prospects for meaningful improvements in the yield and load factor for this route, Cabinet approved the withdrawal from the route, with the objective of saving up to US$30 million per year.