Oliver18 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 13 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
According to business traveller the decision is expected to favour Virgin and Bmi. Seems a bit cheeky that BMI should get anything considering they have never shown any interest in India prior to the new biliateral agreement. Virgin have shown their dedications for the last 4 years!!
Does it seem fair that 3 UK airlines are competing in India, yet only one indian carrier (air India) to compete against 3 UK airlines. I think BMI should if waited until the next bilateral agreement before they get thei own rights cause Virgin had to wait 4 years. It looks as though they are stealing Virgin's chances.
Just my opinion
or got to :
then click on title: Airlines await CAA decision on India flights
MANmatt From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 969 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2760 times:
I read in this months edition of Aviation News magazine that bmi want to serve mumbai daily and bangalore 6 weekly. Dont know how they plan on this, this would require two a/c being based at LHR, and i cant see them giving up two daily flights at MAN just yet for this flights, maybe IAD would go, but definitely not ORD or the recently started LAS, plus BGI, etc. Mind you, this is bmi we are talking about here, so anything could be possible!
MrNiji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2678 times:
Does it seem fair that 3 UK airlines are competing in India, yet only one indian carrier (air India) to compete against 3 UK airlines.
What a weird thought... why shouldn't it be fair if only one Indian carrier has the permission from the Indian side to offer flights to GB? Sometimes, an overdrive in competition can be harmful for the industry per se..
By the way, Oliver18, welcome to a.net.. just saw that it was your first post here...
AIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2602 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
That is really bad for BA. I tought BA would have the chance to finally add flights to India. I think BA struggles with those bilateral agreement compared to the likes of LH and AF. BA can not add flights to India, to Shangai, to the USA, etc because of those bilateral and as soon as something changes, it has to compete with two airline. No wonder why AF or LH are now ahead of BA because in their local markets, they have no competition at all.
Trident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2627 times:
Oliver18 - seems a bit odd to say that an airline should be penalised for not publicly shouting about wanting to operate a route it has not got authority for. Using your logic no airline would ever be able to operate any route unless they had wanted to for years!
Madhatter From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
I think you have to look at the airlines with the most feed and that have the most to loose from missing out on this opportunity. With Virgin granted they have a viable argument that they cannot operate their 3xweekly service to Delhi profitably but they have gained a lot from the CAA with regards to Shanghai and they can grow in other areas and do not face the same problems in competing internationally as BA does. BD whilst they do have a large feed at LHR what with their own network and also their Star Alliance network from UA and SK for example they do not have any LHR international service and so this would be an anomaly in their network and one which would not benefit them as much as BA.nBD can and do feed their international traffic successfully into both LHs and SKs markets out of LHR. If BA were sidelined majorly in this area they would be at a severe competitve disadvantage to the European airlines that they are trying to compete with. LH has expanded into Bangolore and are looking at expanding into other areas and increasing frequencies in existing markets which will take traffic away from BA unless they can keep up. Not being biased towards any airline but VS and BA in my opinion should be the airlines that gain the most from these additional frequencies.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2237 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2418 times:
IF VS and BD do get these rights expect BA to appeal. Whatever the outcome there will be probably be an appeal by one side or another. Personally I favour BA and VS getting these rights for the reasons expressed above, namely that AF and LH are stealing a march on BA on a European level and simply allowing BD into the market in the name of competition on a UK-India level would be short sighted. Plus, to be fair, VS have come out with some favourable decisions in the past couple of years - Shanghai, Port Harcourt, Sydney (Pending I know, but BA might have fancied these rights itself given that QF holds all 28 Australian frequencies). And while VS initially lost out with Las Vegas after BA got Denver, it got there when BA dropped PIT.
Basically I hope the CAA take a wider view than simply UK-India and take into account European competition. VS daily to BOM and DEL with BA operating an additional four frequencies to MAA and three weekly to Bangalore would open up new routes and add competition. If more frequencies are allowed next yaer after new talks then look at allowing BD into the market, but not one so restricted as now.
Lol, but then I'm jumping the gun before the announcement!