Juventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9249 times:
British Airways no longer Europe's top dog: A year ago, British Airways was Europe's biggest carrier. But then there was the Air France-KLM tie-up last May, which pushed British Air down to No. 2. And now, Germany's Lufthansa has overtaken BA as the continent's second-biggest airline, by passenger volume. source(USAToday)
Cornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9137 times:
Well in terms of passengers carried, BA lost the title to LH and AF a couple of years ago. I'm assuming they must have now been overtaken in RPKs. As someone who used to do the traffic stats for IATA, I can tell you that in terms of passenger numbers this has not just happened last year.
Bcal DC10 is right though, BA don't care about being the biggest any more - they could persue a strategy to do that if they wanted, but as a private company, profitability is far more important.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
Monkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9155 times:
BA's passenger numbers have been diluted so much now as so many parts of the BA operation has been turned into '100% BA owned subsidiaries' or 'franchises'. These subsidiaries figures (such as BA citi-express bases at MAN/BHX) are not included in BA passenger number figures. I think things are changing and consolidating so quick in european aviation that the 'top dog' will change as often as you change your socks! ) It is looking like Lufthansa will take over SWISS soon and i'm sure BA and Iberia aren't too far away from a merger either. Then you have Alitalia looking to join the KLM-Air France family; Olympic on the look out for a buyer.....
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19023 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9057 times:
All businesses exist to make a profit, except, of course, not-for-profit organisations. Accordingly, I think that it is important to consider it in that context rather than in size. However, it could also be important to consider many other factors leading up to profitability, for instance efficiency, treatment of stakeholders, market share, and so forth.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Bogota From Colombia, joined Sep 2004, 770 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9049 times:
What about the market share, in today´s world you either grow or you get smaller and at the end the profits follow that same path. I think BA is getting increasingly too dependent on the US market, and no company should ever be so dependent on any one market regardless of which one it is. (I wonder how BA is sorting out this year with sales in very low USD and salaries in very high GBP). BA used to be the airline you flew where ever you needed to do business, sadly (as I am a big BA fan) it just isn´t that way anymore. Service standards are getting much better in AF and LH so the differential there is very little now and unfortunately BA does not offer any more as good connections and to as many countries as the competition does.
Monkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9030 times:
BA is much more restricted in terms of capacity than AF or LH because their main base is LHR. There is simply no more room to expand. If BA wishes to start up another route, to say the far east, after all the wrangling with bi-lateral agreements and deciding whether BA or VS or BD will fly the route BA then has to use one of its existing slots.
BCal DC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 720 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8957 times:
I agree re. capacity. I'd like to see BA using more regional hubs than relying too much on LHR, which is proving to be a right pain in the arse, and I can't see T5 making it any easier. So many people have to schlep down to London to go anywhere outside Europe who would much rather go from their local airport.
Flying anywhere in the world these days from the UK regions, its just as easy to fly AF to CDG and fly on, or LH to FRA and fly on (or KLM as I did last month, to MNL via AMS) than it is at LHR with BA.
I've not tried AF or LH in economy (only in J), so can't comment on their service - is it better than BA now?
Monkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8889 times:
I don't think BA is concerned too much with VS's 30-odd aircraft operation from LHR to its handfull of routes. Indeed bmi is still the second biggest UK carrier. BA/VS/BD all face the same problem with expansion at LHR - ie capacity. BA and VS have such distinct products and ways to do things that both seem to retain their loyal following.
BA seems more concerned with the likes of EK/QR/GF and now Etihad. These carriers are very agressive in terms of pricing and advertising in the UK and also have excellent on-board services. Especially EK. It has taken so much business from BA on routes to India, SE asia and Australia via its Gulf hub and continues to expand at an astonishing rate.
I think in the future BA and VS will become closer in business. I think they will adopt a policy of 'friendly competition' (if it exists??!!) in order to protect each other from the state subsidized US carriers and agressive middle eastern carriers.
Monkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8858 times:
Bongo, as has been written in numerous other posts here, BOG and CCS while having good loads, were losing money. BA took numerous steps in order to try and make the route profitable including moving the flight from LHR to LGW, re-timing it and eventually moving it from a B777 to a B767. But the end result continued to be the same.....it lost money and did not feed enough passengers onto other more lucrative BA flights. The large majority were OD VFR traffic (origin-destination visiting friends & relative passengers) and Club/First passengers were very few and far between.
Speedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 856 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8836 times:
Bongo, a full flight doesn't mean that you are making money from it. BA is a business and if a route isn't profitable, then there is no reason to operate it, just to say that you fly to X destination. That's not good business sense.
BA might not be the largest in terms of size, but we must be doing something right and better than AF and LH based on the large number of transfer passengers we get from both Germany and France and the rest of the EU on a daily basis.
Despite what is said on this forum, the reality is there are still many persons out there who value BA and the service we provide.
Speedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 856 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8800 times:
you are right about BA and VS woring closely together. They already in fact do this and help each other out when needed...as with the 3x week BA127 which is only operating so as to secure those slots VS. Once VS is able to use these slots, then the BA127 will stop.
Cornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 55 Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8803 times:
BA do provide a good service - and they are a business. Their Lat am network has always been weak, so it makes sense to give IB the passengers for routes that are their strength. That's what a successful alliance is all about. BA can then concentrate on routes that do make financial sense.
Size in the airline industry is not everything - you only have to look at some of the US majors right now to realise that it doesn't necessarily equate to financial strength.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 18 Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8676 times:
BA has a very difficult task. It is a public limited company and therefore answers to its shareholders, who wish to see profits and capital growth. To achieve these it must deliver a quality product - i.e. a quality service that appeals to many passengers whether they fly economy, premier economy, club or first class.
BA is under attack from all directions: It competes with other UK airlines on both long haul routes (VS and now bmi) and bmi plus the LCCs on its European/Domestic network. It competes against the subsidised US airlines across the Big Pond. It competes against the likes of Dubai Inc and their bottomless purses, and the Asian carriers on its Asian and Australian network.
BA does not have the umbrella protection of the British Government. If rights to fly new routes from LHR become available, it has to compete with VS and bmi. Imagine Air France having to compete with Corsair or AOM if new routes come up at CDG, or Lufthansa competing with Air Berlin or LTU if new routes come up at FRA. To make the competition tougher, AF and KLM merged and soon we might see LH merging with another major European airline.
I cannot understand why so many people, British people in particular, wish to knock BA. For me I am proud that it is my national airline and it will always be my first choice airline. It might no longer be the largest (or "Top Dog") in Europe, but it delivers a consistently high standard.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
Bogota From Colombia, joined Sep 2004, 770 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8613 times:
Monkeyboi, I am ( or was as I am not able to fly BA anymore out of BOG) a Gold member on my beloved BA. And the story about the route here is very different to what you have said. The flight was moved to LGW together with all other Latinamerican routes as a company strategy and was the last one to move back to LHR as it was the only one that was able to make some money out of LGW. The flight though was never re-timed (well maybe half an hour) and then went to the 767 which almost even lost me as a customer on such a terrible aircraft. There were two unfortunate events in CCS than cost BA a lot of money, one the mudslides and the other was the general strikes. So in general having most of the pax ex-BOG and not having a direct stop was the real reason. The last manager and who I knew personally said that the costs involved in stopping in CCS including that of having two sets of crew for so many days to operate this flight were very high, and that the unions would not agree to just a fuel stop in BGI on the way back to LHR to be able and make a direct BOG (as you must be aware the almost 8500 ft that BOG sits at, require special performance or low weight for take off). For many non London bound pax the stop in CCS was simply a no go, as the other carriers that operate to BOG do it non stop. It is very sad for me indeed, as I will still be going to London constantly and I have now switched to AF, who immediately BA retired from BOG, stepped up to daily flight direct from BOG. I have special feeling towards BA after so many flights with them, and now seeing the AF adds that say "looking at the UK from a different point of view, we now fly daily to Bogota" is very sad. Good luck BA and hope to see you around here again at some time.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 21 Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8601 times:
Quality not quantity. As far as service goes, BA IS a top dog airline, not just in the UK/Europe, but the world. As far as size goes, AF/KLM are two airlines merged together, one expects it to be bigger than BA. BA faces competition and financial challenges like no other airline in Europe.
UK Domestic/European competition with BMI
International competition with VS (from the UK-LHR)
Int'l competition from Europe, LH, AF, KLM etc to North America
LCC's, Easyjet, Ryanair etc.
Government-protected US airlines/Chapter 11 safety net
Competition to other parts of the world, particularly, Asia/ME against other flag carriers.
High costs - new security measures paid for by BA itself, fuel rises, insurance cost rises..etc
Operating from a slot-contrained airport like LHR with limited opportunity to grow at a rate of it's competitors like Lufthansa or Air France.
In Arsene we trust!!
25 Rtfm: Bongo: as for 'dropping many destinations', you only list CCS & BOG - how about listing the ones they are starting - PVG (Jun '05), BLR (Oct '05), VNO
26 Btblue: BA.... I keep hearing this rumour of BA merging with Iberia, is this really going to happen? Heathrow is limited in terms of slots - why have BA not c
27 Gofly: Depends how you define '' big ''. I think what was meant to be said was bmi is the UK's second biggest full service carrier Regards