Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is BA Suspending Routes?  
User currently offlineMonkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4235 times:

Hi all....

I've seen loads of posts on here recently about BA suspending routes, many of the posts seem to feel that BA has not fully considered the implications of doing this.

Anyway, last week I picked up the latest copy of the weekly 'BA News' (Staff paper) and there was a whole spread in there about the job of 'Network Planning'. It went on to describe all its duties, which includes deciding to suspend a route.

From Robert Boyle, Diector of Commercial Planning, BA:

"BA's route network strategy can be divided into three main categories. Heathrow serves as the airline's hub, serving point-to-point and transfer flows. Gatwick is biased toward shorthaul point-to-pont services, leisure oriented longhaul destinations, and serving US destinations, which are prevented by bilateral agreement from being operated from Heathrow. The third is BA's regional network, mainly serviced by BA citiExpress. Before prposing to suspend an exisiting route, network planning will monitor the route for a period of time and try various actions to stem losses. For example they may ask the sales or marketing teams to give the route a more specific focus, and perhaps review fares. To reduce the routes costs, network planning may also consider changing the aircraft to a smaller type, or reducing frequencies. If these measures fail to improve results, network planning looks at whether the route is making a positive contribution to the route network as a whole. For example, a route may not be profitable in it's own right, but it may add high volume demand onto other routes in the network. Only after these factors have been considered will network plan that a route be suspended. Once they have agreed to a detailed proposal about suspending or adding a route, network planning presents this to the leadership team, who make the final decision."

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4079 times:

Why not rename this - 'Why are BA starting routes?' (PVG, BLR, VNO, SKG, SPU, HME) - or are you more a 'glass half empty' sort of person?  Big grin

User currently offlineSpeedbird2155 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 879 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4024 times:

I think this post is simply in response to those persons who seem to think that BA should fly routes just to be able to say that they fly to certain places and to emphasis that if the route doesn't serve BA's financial position, then it will be dropped.

User currently offlineMonkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3934 times:

RTFM...indeed, this is a post aimed for those to read that don't understand why BA suspend routes and make comments like 'but BA has been flying there for 50 years' or 'everytime I flew that route the plane was full'. It was to have an (albeit indirect) positive spin to it.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Indeed I am a big BA fan and one of their loyal employees.


User currently offlineRTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

Monkeyboi - yep - me too! And also tired of the 'the plane's full why stop flying there?' threads. Not that this is the only place; there's one in the BA News letters page every other week..  Smile

User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Airlines are a business, plain and simple. If a route is not making money, why operate it? As to their EU operations, maybe they should create a wholly owned subsidiary, that way it won't impact so much on their profitable operations.

They say they are barely breaking even on their EU ops, so why keep them? If they are so important for their long-haul, so be it, then don't complain.


User currently offlineMadhatter From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

The emphasis that BA do appear to be placing is on maintaining their intercontinental long haul services and that appears to be where the money is being made if their European services are just breaking even yet they're still making a profit. A controversial move would be to break up the airline again into what it was prior to 1974 and have to seperate carriers - one concentrating on short haul and the other on long haul. The short haul carrier would be a franchise operation under the BA name but this would be able to merge BA Citiexpress into it as well. A lower cost operation such as GB Airways operates could work very well whilst still maintaining a great feeder service for the long haul routes. This would also be a way around possible merger issues with Iberia regarding giving up slots at LHR as the main long haul BA would control less slots and thus would not need to give up slots? Just a thought?

User currently offlineDalavia From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3563 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (reply 5):
As to their EU operations, maybe they should create a wholly owned subsidiary


You could call the European operation BEA, and the long-haul operations BOAC.

Probably not an original thought though!


User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

And what if GB airways ceases to be a BA franchisee, what will happen to all BA destinations served by GT and which were transeferred to them like FAO, OPO and AGP.


Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week ago) and read 3361 times:

You could call their South American routes Iberia!!

User currently offlineDiesel1 From UK - Wales, joined Mar 2001, 1639 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3272 times:

Orion...

To follow the historical slant that Dalavia gave in his response, then rather than Iberia, the South American routes should be BSAA... Big grin



I don't like signatures...
User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting AIR MALTA (reply 8):
And what if GB airways ceases to be a BA franchisee, what will happen to all BA destinations served by GT and which were transeferred to them like FAO, OPO and AGP.


GB's franchise agreement with BA runs until 2010 and anything might happen between now and then.

For routes that BA operated in its own right but are now operated by GB Airways under the franchise agreement, the rights would revert to BA. BA would then have to choose whether to operate the route itself or relinquish it. GB Airways could then tender for the route but might face competition from bmi among other UK carriers.

Many of the routes currently operated by GB Airways as franchise partner are routes that GB established in their own right, partially under the BA umbrella with the affiliate membership of the oneworld global airline alliance. If the franchise agreement terminated, GB would have to decide whether it had the full resources to continue the route as an independent carrier.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Its worth looking at what happened when Maersk Uk/Duo stopped flying, having been a BA franchise carrier out of Birmingham. Some of the routes BA restarted themselves, some they just dropped all together, figuring they weren't worth it. Would be the same with any other franchise carrier such as GB. If it was a lot of routes, they could conceivably farm them out to another carrier as franchise.


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
User currently offlineDoorsToManual From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

Regarding the franchise/route agreements, I know for a fact that another BA franchise, Bmed owns all of the slots it uses at LHR, even those used to operate former BA mainline routes (THR, AMM, DAM etc.)

If in theory BA and Bmed parted ways, am I right in thinking the above routes would revert to BA, but not the slots?


User currently offlineMonkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Madhatter, i'm sure BA would LOVE to do what you propose....turn the LHR short-haul 'mainline' operation into a CitiExpress sunsidiary or have the staff working to a contract similar to those of the crews at the LGW 'euro-gatick' operation.

There is one major stumbling block though.....the 4,000-odd cabin crew and 500 pilots with 'mainline' contracts at LHR short-haul and their Trade Unions. I can't speak on behalf of the pilots, but for the Cabin Crew 90% are in the rather militant 'BASSA' union. All our union negotiated payments, number of days off, conditions etc actually form part of our 'Contract of Employment' and cannot be changed without the Union gaining the permission of it's members. No changes in our hours worked, pay, break periods, days off, leave entitlement (all of which are very generous) etc can be enforced by the management.


User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

Quoting Monkeyboi (reply 14):

rather militant BASSA union

Why would a union be "militant"? Not to digress from the post, but what grevious unholy sin has BA committed in the world of aviation industrial relations to warrant a union being "militant".

Obviously, BA management have been concerned for some time that the EU ops were not contributing much to the group as a whole. I think most of their profits on the transatlantic were about even for the losses on their short-haul, and that was pre 9/11!

They say they are breaking even now, which given the current climate, is no mean feat. But I guess it's not good enough.


User currently offlineMonkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

Scotron 11.
The union-management relationship within BA in-flight services department can be quite a strained one. Obviously the management come up with these ideas to reduce costs, but can't introduce them because of the union. The unions stamp of approval is not only required for making changes to our terms and conditions but also anything from reducing crew numbers on flights to changing the in-flight service. The history isn't great with the last strike occuring in 1997 and costing BA millions. There are two unions within BA for cabin crew, BASSA, who claim to represent 90% on the short-haul cabin crew (and 85% of long-haul cabin crew). And 'Cabin Crew 89 union' (the more BA management 'friendly' union) who for somewhat dubious reasons do not release their membership figures. But taking into account the fact that a small percentage of the crew are in no union it's membership probably stands at about 5%.

Although BA's short-haul network as a stand-alone network does not generate profit, they are ESSENTIAL for feeding BA's long-haul flights. Indeed, on the huge profit making trans-atlantic routes around 40-55% (depending on the route) of the passengers on-board have used a BA short-haul flight to transfer via LHR.

BA short-haul, while expensive, is a necessary evil for BA. Short-haul would be nothing without having the long-haul network to feed onto. And the long-haul network would struggle without the feed from the short-haul network.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is BA More Profitable Then AF, LH, KL? posted Thu Aug 18 2005 21:47:42 by Concorde001
Why Is BA Reducing LHR-Alexandria Flights? posted Thu Mar 17 2005 01:05:26 by Horus
Why Is BA Not Willing To Give Up LHR Slots? posted Sun Jan 27 2002 02:26:42 by Jiml1126
Why Is BA's European Operations Lousy? posted Tue Feb 6 2001 19:12:18 by TWAneedsNOhelp
Is BA Looking To Drop Domestic Routes? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 10:14:28 by Drinkstrolley
Why Is AA Cheaper Than BA For The Same Flights? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 22:55:14 by Highpeaklad
Why Is SQ Using Their B772 On Regional Routes? posted Sun Sep 26 2004 16:18:07 by Fluorine
Why Is Altitude In Metres In China? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 22:19:14 by JezUK77
Why Is Boeing Confident On 787 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:22:08 by SJCRRPAX
Why Is The Boeing 720 Weaker And Lighter? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 16:57:56 by Duke