Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question About BA At SAN  
User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4684 times:

BA flew to SAN for 15 years (1987/8-2003), and was SAN's only consistent transatlantic service. Early flights were flown with British Caledonian 747-200s, then BA DC-10s, 747-400s, and finally the nonstop flight from 2001-2003 with a 777.

According to many past posts, BA stopped flying to SAN because of low loads in First and Business classes in the 777. My question is, what were loads like on the 747-400 one-stop that was flown from 1998-2001? And did the 747 loads lead to the nonstop with the smaller 777?

Thank you very much,
san747


Scotty doesn't know...
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

Hey SAN747 -

Sure wish I could help you on that one. I know that BA was always bound and determined to get a plane into SAN, but until there were sufficient 777's, it simply wasn't possible. Considering how long they continued the one-stop flights, it would seem that there must have been sufficient business travellers to warrant the flight with a tech-stop in PHX.

As for both SAN-LHR and SAN-YYZ on AC, both of those flights were aimed primarily at the business traveller, and both were terminated soon after 9/11. With airlines in struggling financial situations, it is simply more cost-effective to route passengers to SAN through one of the alliance partners' hubs rather than staff an airport with their people for just one flight.

Not much help - sorry.  frown 



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4603 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't have an answer for your questions but I will correct some factual errors from your post.

The route started as SAN-LAX-LGW operated by BCal with a mixture of 742s and DC-10s in 1988 or 1989. Almost immediately BCal was taken over by BA which continued to operate the route for another couple of years until being terminated around 1991 (time of 1st Gulf War) if I remember correctly. This first service always operated via LAX.

There was then a seven year interruption in service.

When BA resumed service in 1998, they operated DC-10s LGW-PHX-SAN. These were then upgraded to 744s in 1999 or 2000 before being replaced by the nonstop 777 to LHR.

There are some nice photos in the database, do a search for BA and BCal at SAN.


User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4597 times:

Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 2):
When BA resumed service in 1998, they operated DC-10s LGW-PHX-SAN. These were then upgraded to 744s in 1999 or 2000 before being replaced by the nonstop 777 to LHR.

The Non-stop was actually from LGW!

Will BA ever bring back SAN or will VS ever start SAN?

Rob!


User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4566 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Rob,

Good point. The nonstop 777 was initially to LGW but then was transferred to LHR.

BA will back in SAN someday when they have an aircraft (787 perhaps) better sized for the flight. I've heard that the 777 couldn't take off with a full load of cargo from SAN's runways and clear Pt. Loma... I've also heard there weren't enough butts filling the first class seats.

VS should look into serving SAN... when they get some smaller aircraft with a better climb rate.


User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4561 times:

Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 4):
BA will back in SAN someday when they have an aircraft (787 perhaps) better sized for the flight. I've heard that the 777 couldn't take off with a full load of cargo from SAN's runways and clear Pt. Loma... I've also heard there weren't enough butts filling the first class seats.

VS should look into serving SAN... when they get some smaller aircraft with a better climb rate.

Would SAN every make the runway longer just for VS?

Couln't a fully loaded 767 make it from LON to SAN non-stop, or is it just that BA don't want to base a single 763 at LGW?

Would BA ever add on SAN from PHX again?

Rob!

[Edited 2005-06-08 19:59:24]

User currently offlineBeany From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

Quoting B742 (Reply 3):
The Non-stop was actually from LGW!

Changed to LHR around October 2002 IIRC. Same time as the non stop PHX and DEN were transferred to LHR


User currently offlineNicksair From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 484 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

Just a minor correction. BA restarted service to SAN in 1996 with DC-10's. It was in 1998 that they started service with 747-400's.


Nicholas William Reed KSAN/KLAX/KSFO
User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't think SAN would build a runway extension just for Virgin even if there was room at the end of the runway for an extension. Unfortunately, there's not any room and there might be some NIMBY opposition to blasting a corridor through the Pt. Loma ridge.

The problem with the 767 idea (I don't think the route would necessarily have to operate from LGW as it previously operated from LHR) is that the 767 can carry a lot less cargo than the 777 or the proposed 787. The 767 isn't wide enough for standard freight containers. I've heard that there's a lot of money to be made in the belly cargo of these flights.

I don't know if BA would add SAN back on to PHX. I may be mistaken but that might necessitate moving the PHX flight back to LGW from LHR, and I doubt BA would want to do that. Furthermore, hasn't there been some talk of BA axing the PHX flight? Or am I just imagining that?


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4487 times:

According to many past posts, BA stopped flying to SAN because of low loads in First and Business classes in the 777. My question is, what were loads like on the 747-400 one-stop that was flown from 1998-2001? And did the 747 loads lead to the nonstop with the smaller 777?

It stopped because it was weight limited due to terrain and a short runway. There where plenty of pax but they took a major cargo hit. You can't make money long haul without at least decent cargo numbers.

Would SAN every make the runway longer just for VS?

On what land???? You can only make it "effectively" longer by going East anyway and you need 600' + 1000' overrun because you fall under a new construction criteria. That distance puts you in the center of I-5. You gain nothing in terrain clearance going West. Landing distance isn't a issue.

[Edited 2005-06-08 21:04:09]

User currently offlineBY188B From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4486 times:

Here's some photos of Bcal/Ba at SAN


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Alders


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Denis Roschlau


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Larry Wolff

 Smile



next flights : BD LHR-TXL J, FR SXF-STN Y, SN BRU-LHR Y, MA LHR-BUD Y, BA BUD-LHR J, BA LCY-SNN-JFK J, BA JFK-LHR J, BA
User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4483 times:

SAN-PHX loads on BA were around 35%. At current fuel costs - that is a non-starter.

The issues of BA at SAN also relate to its ability to attract the AAdvantage base here in Southern California. When AA-BA can fully code-share and have full frequent flyer reciprocity - that is when the business travelers (higher yielding and front end) would consider taking BA on SAN-LON. The heavy defense contractor base could also not take BA due to the "Fly America" regulations. Defense contractors could take a AA code share however. So the US-EU bilateral and all the Heathrow issues get sorted out first.

Also, the issue with effective operation of aircraft from SAN to Europe is not the runway length. It is the Pt. Loma obstruction. The following aircraft are capable of reaching central Europe with Pt. Loma obstruction and full pax and respectable cargo load: 777 (preferably with RR engines), A340-600/-500, 747-400ER, & 787. The 767 could probably make it to Reykjavik.

Therefore, VS would have to use the A346 - at over 300 seat capacity this would mean a less than daily flight and the lack of behind LON feed weakens this option vis a vis BA.

[Edited 2005-06-08 21:03:39]

[Edited 2005-06-08 21:05:33]


Retorne ao céu...
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

The following aircraft are capable of reaching central Europe with Pt. Loma obstruction and full pax and respectable cargo load

10,000 feet gets you a fully loaded 787-8 with 40,000 lbs of cargo. That's respectable. Only the 787-8 can do this route out of SAN profitably.


User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4464 times:

The 787-8 is expected to reach Europe with 40,000 lbs. cargo under the current runway configuration.


Retorne ao céu...
User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So what about an Emirates A380 with a full crew and 25 passengers on a good day? Would that make it from SAN to Dubai?  fluffy 

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 11):
777 (preferably with RR engines

In BA's case, yes... relative to other carriers, it doesn't matter.


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4390 times:

By the way, you have NOT lived until you stood at the corner of Lytton Street and Rosecrans Avenue (barely half a mile west of runway 27) and had a fully loaded 777 screaming over your head as it claws its way up into the sky at a much lower angle than any other plane. I did it several times just for the thrill.  eyepopping 


Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4324 times:

That is awesome PanAm747 - I wish I had done that.

Just for my own curiosity can you estimate the altitude it was flying at directly over Lytton / Rosecrans?



Retorne ao céu...
User currently offlineSeptember11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

Quoting BY188B (Reply 10):
Here's some photos of Bcal/Ba at SAN

Well done!



Airliners.net of the Future
User currently offlineTymnBalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 945 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

Simply put, BA's SAN route was unprofitable. There isn't currently the O/D traffic to support a non-stop. The flight over PHX became a challenge when it became mandatory to clear imms and customs at the first point of arrival in the United States, so a one-stop isn't really viable...especially in the world of codeshare.

BA and SAN airport tried to come to an agreement whereby SAN would subsidize the flight in the form of greatly reduced rents and landing fees but the amount needed by BA to continue the flight could not be met by SAN.

Oh, and "officially" the route is 'suspended'.  Smile

C.



Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19):
Simply put, BA's SAN route was unprofitable.

Not in terms of Passengers, only in terms of cargo. The BA 777 only had 230 seats in it with an 85% load factor. Do that same math on the 787-8.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19):
There isn't currently the O/D traffic to support a non-stop.

Load of BS.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19):
The flight over PHX became a challenge when it became mandatory to clear imms and customs at the first point of arrival in the United States, so a one-stop isn't really viable...especially in the world of codeshare.

The flight ot PHX was required in the 747-400 due to performance limitations and nothing else.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19):
BA and SAN airport tried to come to an agreement whereby SAN would subsidize the flight in the form of greatly reduced rents and landing fees but the amount needed by BA to continue the flight could not be met by SAN.

No... BA said to SAN pay for the Cargo offset ($3 million a year) and we'll play. SAN said.. Quit smoking crack and go away.

Wanna try and pull some more random BS out of your rear?

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 13):
The 787-8 is expected to reach Europe with 40,000 lbs. cargo under the current runway configuration.

Not all of Europe. But thanks for playing.


User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4146 times:

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 11):
The following aircraft are capable of reaching central Europe with Pt. Loma obstruction and full pax and respectable cargo load: 777 (preferably with RR engines), A340-600/-500, 747-400ER, & 787. The 767 could probably make it to Reykjavik.

Wait a minute... A345/6, 744? If they could, how come they were never used to SAN before (excepting 744, that flight was one-stop)? Or is that assuming a runway longer than the current one?

On an unrelated note, is SAN not really a big cargo destination? FX flies widebody cargo, as well as ABX. CAT and DHL also fly 727s... Basically, can SAN sustain a widebody international cargo service?



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4130 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20):
Not all of Europe. But thanks for playing.

All markets of significance (eg hub) including LON, CDG, AMS and FRA are within the range contours from SAN.

Quoting San747 (Reply 21):
Wait a minute... A345/6, 744? If they could, how come they were never used to SAN before (excepting 744, that flight was one-stop)? Or is that assuming a runway longer than the current one?

On an unrelated note, is SAN not really a big cargo destination? FX flies widebody cargo, as well as ABX. CAT and DHL also fly 727s... Basically, can SAN sustain a widebody international cargo service?

The 744ER pax version is only utilized by QANTAS. As for the A340-500 - I don't think any European carrier has ordered and the A340-600 at >300 seats has too much capacity for the SAN-Europe market.

The problem with international cargo is the curfew - most intl cargo carriers want to leave after 23:30.



Retorne ao céu...
User currently offlineTymnBalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 945 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4113 times:

Quoting San747 (Reply 21):
Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19):
Simply put, BA's SAN route was unprofitable.

Not in terms of Passengers, only in terms of cargo. The BA 777 only had 230 seats in it with an 85% load factor. Do that same math on the 787-8.

Loadfactor doesn't equate to profitability. Flights aren't solely profitable because of passengers. As you've said, cargo was not profitable. The flight was not profitable both above and below the wing. Unprofitable is unprofitable. Period. I don't quite get what you're trying to get at with referring to the 787-8?

Quoting San747 (Reply 21):
Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19):
The flight over PHX became a challenge when it became mandatory to clear imms and customs at the first point of arrival in the United States, so a one-stop isn't really viable...especially in the world of codeshare.

The flight ot PHX was required in the 747-400 due to performance limitations and nothing else.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. A one-stop flight is a challenge, and an expensive one at that. In many areas you have double the costs for half the benefits. (i.e. crews, landing fees). For BA, codeshare is more advantageous than operating the onestop or non-stop to SAN.

C.



Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlineBristolFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 8):
Furthermore, hasn't there been some talk of BA axing the PHX flight? Or am I just imagining that?

As a recent immigrant to Phoenix from the UK, I hope not! I posted a thread here about 2 months ago about the future of BA LHR-PHX and the verdict was it is safe. Did a search for the thread and it wasn't found (but they never are!).

BF



Fortune favours the brave
25 WA727 : The BA PHX-LHR 744 flight runs six days a week and BA officials several months ago were talking of adding the missing Wednesday and possibly a second
26 Boeing7E7 : Nope and the fact RR made the engines is irrelivant. Thrust is thrust. The 777-200LR can and the 787-8 can, in fact the 777-200LR perfoms a smidge be
27 N1120A : It wasn't a tech-stop in PHX. The service was to both cities and PHX has more than enough traffic to warrant the stop Excelent, especially ex-PHX Act
28 DCAYOW : The flight could have been 75% or even 100% PLF and still made it to PHX. The fuel weight would have neglible. Also, the cost to operate a tag betwee
29 N1120A : Had nothing to do with whether they could make PHX or not. It had to do with terminal and operational restrictions
30 DCAYOW : B744's can operate at SAN - apart from a few strange turns - B744s have no terminal or field (emphasize field) operational restrictions. Range/distan
31 Boeing7E7 : Really? The B787 SAN range contours with "-9 Thrust Rating" indicated the 787 could make Europe with full pax and 40,000 lbs. and 210 lbs./pax. Assumi
32 N1120A : Trent powered 772ERs at BA have greater range and takeoff performance than GE-90 powered ones, that was the point. If BA used a GE-90 powered 772IGW,
33 Boeing7E7 : If BA used a GE-90 powered 772IGW, they would have had to leave 50 passengers as well as cargo off the flight The Trent engine faces the same problem
34 DCAYOW : Hopefully the EMAS project next year will make more of the runway useful. It should be able to stop aircraft at 70 mph.
35 TymnBalewne : A 787 of any variety will not make SAN-LON profitable today. As I'm sure you're aware, the 787 hasn't flown yet. Perhaps it will make for a profitabl
36 Boeing7E7 : Hopefully the EMAS project next year will make more of the runway useful. It should be able to stop aircraft at 70 mph. That only removes declared dis
37 TymnBalewne : Good. I'm glad we agree. BA SAN was unprofitable. SAN was unwilling to subsidize the route enough through reduced landing fees and rents. Perhaps the
38 Trvlr : Good to see there's some sort of agreement, but I think you do need to remember that there are always reasons behind simple unprofitability of routes
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...
Question About Conditions At MNL "Aborted Landing" posted Sat Oct 28 2006 04:16:51 by Cjpark
Quick Question About Transit At PTY On Copa... posted Thu Oct 12 2006 06:26:26 by TWA902fly
Question About Connecting At DFW On AA posted Fri Sep 29 2006 04:28:15 by Adam T.
Question About BA And SA... posted Sun Jun 5 2005 09:09:40 by Clrd4t8koff
Some Questions About BA At JFK posted Fri Mar 25 2005 21:15:14 by Richierich
Question About BA's 777's. posted Mon Oct 18 2004 02:38:58 by COEWR2587
Question About KE At DFW posted Tue Aug 24 2004 18:37:29 by Bartond
Question About Spotting At PHX posted Wed Aug 11 2004 16:10:21 by IflyORL
BA At SAN -- Status posted Wed Apr 7 2004 06:56:57 by KLM11
Question About Spotting At LAX posted Sun Jan 11 2004 14:23:07 by Qantasclub