Davied From South Africa, joined Oct 2004, 24 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5405 times:
I am a huge fan of British Airways and I was wondering why British Airways don't offer flights either from London Heathrow or Gatwick to Malaysia? Can anybody please tell me why these routes for BA don't exist?
HB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4541 posts, RR: 71
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5041 times:
BA last served KUL five times weekly with B772 before closing the route because of what was called the lack of yields. Before the B772, KUL was served by B744 with a tag on to Jakarta (up to 6 weekly flights) and for a short period of time with a tag on to SYD thrice weekly.
BA has closed down quite a couple of routes in Asia in the last ten years, including Osaka, Nagoya, Seoul, Manila, Taipei, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta and Colombo.
I don't believe we'll see BA back in Kuala Lumpur any time soon. The airline seems to be concentrating on reiforcing their core markets, and it is likely that Singapore and Hongkong will be strengthened further rather than resources being spread out of various (new or reopened) stations.
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3294 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4988 times:
Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 7): The airline seems to be concentrating on reiforcing their core markets, and it is likely that Singapore and Hongkong will be strengthened further rather than resources being spread out of various (new or reopened) stations.
Also remembering that all the services through Singapore are jointly done with Qantas giving BA a much better control over yields, scheduling and pricing. I doubt you'd see BA return to KL without being able to fly on to Australia under the JSA.
Also BA dont really have any LHR slots that they could allocate to the service.
AlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4964 times:
The main problem is the fact that MAS is highly and unfairly subsidized on the route. BA had to drop the route when MAS came up with silly fares that were simply impossible to compete against.
That also explains why MAS have so much frequency between KUL and LHR/MAN, as well as many other European cities. As usual, it's very easy to run an airline business with a government behind... (SQ/EK...)
HB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4541 posts, RR: 71
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4913 times:
Quoting Sydscott (Reply 9): Also BA dont really have any LHR slots that they could allocate to the service.
Given the large number of slots that BA is currently controling, I doubt there would be any problem in reallocating a slot used for domestic or European operations to accomodate additional longhaul traffic.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8350 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4679 times:
Seoul was only a tag-on to Tokyo. I'm surprised about the other Japanese routes though, I remember it was at the height of a recession that BA canned Osaka and Nagoya but I always expected them to be reinstated, certainly Osaka.
Re KL: do Qantas fly there? I remember they dropped the route for a while. Odd that such a major city could be without service from BA or QF, QF expecially cos it's so close to Oz. The Malaysian and British gov'ts had a massive falling out over something or other which affected traffic for BA. Most of MH's traffic on the route connects on to Australia or somewhere.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
It may have been at one time, but when it was dropped it was a stand-alone destination.
Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 15): Re KL: do Qantas fly there? I remember they dropped the route for a while.
No they don't; part of the reason a lot of carriers stopped flying to KUL was the very high airport charges when the new airport opened. That and the falling yields at the time meant that KUL became uneconomical to operate, especially when SIN was a better mini-hub for BA/QF.
GuyBetsy1 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 840 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4544 times:
Actually KUL has one of the regions lowest airport charges.. even when the new airport opened.
QF had already stopped flying to KUL before the new airport opened. They used to do something like SYD-SIN-KUL and v.v. with full traffic rights between SIN and KUL too!
BA did LHR-KUL-CGK v.v. BA banks heavily on the front end of the aircraft which out of Malaysia is weak.. but the back is full. But this doesn't matter to BA who would rather can the flights than fly that way.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2137 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3870 times:
Osaka, Fukuoka, Nagoya, Seoul, Taipei, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, Colombo, Perth, Brisbane, Auckland, Karachi, Jeddah, Dhahran, Riyadh, Gaborone, Durban, Lilongwe, Seychelles, Abidjan, Santiago de Chile, Bogota, Caracas, Montego Bay, San Juan, San Jose (Costa Rica), Havana, Charlotte, Pittsburg and San Diego among others have all been ditched from the BA longhaul network in the past ten years.
But Denver, Phoenix, Abuja and Luanda have all been added, Melbourne was reinstated, while Shanghai comes online in June, followed by Bangalore in October.
As has been mentioned already, BA has upped capacity on many core routes and prefers to use its alliance partners more for flights that had low frequency or were tag ons, e.g. AA at MIA for South and Central America, plus the Caribbean, IB at MAD for the same, CX at HKG for Northeast Asia and QF at SIN for Australia. BA also has its franchise carriers - Comair provide a netwrork of flights for BA from JNB, while BMED operate smaller niche longhaul routes for BA from LHR.
I would have thought that extrememly unlikely. I don't think that BA would have traffic rights between China and NZ so you would either have to take LHR-PVG seats away or you would end up with a pretty empty flight between PVG & AKL (similar issue that VS have with their LHR-HKG-SYD flight at the moment - and they do have HKG-Oz traffic rights).
With BA-QF JSA and oneworld, there are plenty of other options from LHR-AKL; either over LAX or via the SIN-SYD Kangaroo routes.
MAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3609 times:
Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 7): BA last served KUL five times weekly with B772 before closing the route because of what was called the lack of yields.
BA was actually operating 6x week 777 into KUL before they planned to revert to the 744 as GuyBetsy1 also mentioned BA was weak in the front end of the plane but cargo and economy loads were healthier than ever. The 777 'Y' cabin was too small for KUL and BA was in fact planning to revert to flying the 744 before the plug was pulled.
Quoting AlanUK (Reply 10): The main problem is the fact that MAS is highly and unfairly subsidized on the route. BA had to drop the route when MAS came up with silly fares that were simply impossible to compete against.
That also explains why MAS have so much frequency between KUL and LHR/MAN, as well as many other European cities. As usual, it's very easy to run an airline business with a government behind..
British Airways fares were often the cheaper option to Kuala Lumpur and MAS actually usually charged more as their flights were always full to the brim. MAS fares have declined SINCE BA's withdrawal in order to compete with the likes of SQ, EK, CX, QR, etc. MAS fares have also dropped since as they now have the available capacity to charge lower fares for their cheapest seats with the monopoly it has on the route. MAS obtained these additional rights into Heathrow AS A RESULT of BA's withdrawal as the UK CAA awarded them to MAS, a few months after BA surrended them.
Also note that fares to KUL continue to cost more than flights to SIN today (even BA/QF fares LHR-SIN).
Speaking to friends and family who work at Waterside. BA was due to complete a new round of talks with the CAA and DCA(Malaysia) as it was keen to return to KUL by Winter 2005. These talks were scheduled for early this year but have heard nothing since.
I think BA has realised that perhaps withdrawing from KUL was perhaps a rather short-sighted move since it paved a 'golden' route for one of its main rivals in the SE Asian/Australian region. As many would say - you keep your friends close but your enemies closer. If BA/QF still operated to KUL - you probably wouldn't have seen MAS expanding so much in both the UK/Australia over the past few years - especially since LHR/Oz are MAS' cashcow longhaul routes.
: AKL being one, others that spring to mins are MNL and PER
: The Singapore government does not subsidize SQ's operations, and neither does it inject cash into the carrier. If my memory is correct, what was more
: lets not forget oneworld. BA limits CX's options in Europe, and vice versa, for the sake of better yields and profits on the network overall. why do y
: but BA, QF and CX hardly cooperate on the OneWorld alliance in Asia - which is a shame. BA operated a 'dog-leg' code-share with CX flying LHR-HKG-KUL