Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!  
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3006 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 14096 times:

In an article I read yesterday in the Birmingham Evening Mail - Willie Walsh, British Airways' CEO confirmed it was highly unlikely there would be any new long haul routes operated from Birmingham or any other regional airports for the forseeable future. All new long haul routes are likely to be focused on London with the lead up to Terminal 5 opening.

I know this probably comes as no shock to anyone but is a pitty the UK's national flag carrier is not prepared to offer people away from London further destinations to fly from. And would appear any future long haul routes from regional airports will be relied upon by foreign carriers, as per the case for the last few years.

Willie Walsh also confirmed this would remain the case until such routes could prove profitable. How can other airlines operate routes to the like of BRS, BHX, MAN, GLA and EDI profitably, when it would appear by what Willie Walsh is saying BA cannot?!

I do not know much about the German market or Lufthansa for that point (so please don't shoot me down!), but I know Lufthansa is successfully able to operate a number of longhaul flights from MUC as well as FRA.

Could BA maintain a large Hub outside of London offering connecting traffic and onward long haul flights?

Can't find the exact article, but found a similar article here...

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/...2dreturn%2dfor%2dba-name_page.html

Ohhh I forgot to mention... BA does operate ONE long haul flight away from London! - MAN-JFK.

[Edited 2006-03-05 15:27:01]

102 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 14042 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
Willie Walsh also confirmed this would remain the case until such routes could prove profitable. How can other airlines operate routes to the like of BRS, BHX, MAN, GLA and EDI profitably, when it would appear by what Willie Walsh is saying BA cannot?!

Because those routes have to rely on O&D traffic for BA. Airlines like CO can offer their passengers lot's of connections at their respective hubs (for example BRS-EWR-LAX on CO).

I can fully understand that airlines like LH have high C-loads to/from MAN, but that doesn't mean that BA can operate long haul routes from any regional city in the UK profitably.

MAN-JFK is there to stay probably, but it would be a bad decision of BA to open long haul flights to/from airports like BHX/BRS/... in my opinion.

Never considered that, if operating such a long haul flight would be profitable, that BA would be operating such flights already?

Frederic


User currently offlineBMED From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 860 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 14033 times:

Its a shame we don't see BA having a bigger hub system in that they fly smaller aircraft such as the ERJ's into LHR and LGW from smaller airports and advertising more this option.

I suppose with both the London airports however theres tight slot restrictions?



Living the jetset life! No better way to be
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 13991 times:

Some major carriers - either Euro, US, or Asian - are bound to begin longhaul service from cities outside on LON and it will be to BA's detriment.

User currently offlineDamian From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 13978 times:

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 3):
Some major carriers - either Euro, US, or Asian - are bound to begin longhaul service from cities outside on LON and it will be to BA's detriment.

It's already happening.

American:
GLA, MAN

Continental:
BFS, BHX, BRS, EDI, GLA, MAN

Delta:
EDI, MAN

Emirates:
BHX, GLA, MAN

Qatar:
MAN

US Airways:
GLA, MAN

... to name just a few ...


User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7090 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 13934 times:

How many Long haul services do AF have from outside Paris
How many Long haul services do IB have from outside Madrid



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineRdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 902 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 13914 times:

The problem for BA is simple...They cannot have connecting services in the US .for example. What should have happened when BA had BHX-JFK was codeshare with AA and this would have meant the service would have been viable. I book BHX-EWR with CO and 90% of passengers travel onwards.I book EK to various destinations ,some with a DXB stop and some not. I book KLM ,AF and LH to lots of places on the basis it is actually quicker to travel this way than go to Heathrow ....? BA are not interested in the "provinces" as shown by there decision to make the flights on BA connect low cost style but cost??

User currently offlineMonkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 11 hours ago) and read 13870 times:

This sort of thread comes up all the time.

The simple answer is: If BA thought they could make money by operating direct, long-haul services from the likes of BHX, MAN, GLA, EDI etc etc they WOULD.

If BA thought they could continue on operating BA Citiexpress on shorthaul routes from the regions with two classes, free food and drink, and turn a profit.....they WOULD.

If they had a few spare 767's or 777's sitting around, then why not, for sure, instead of having it sat on the ground try out a new long haul route.

But BA don't. Their L/H fleet are stretched to the max as it is and any new route at the moment comes at the cost of axing or reducing frequencies on an exisiting (probably proven profitable) route.

EK have already made clear that around 75% of passengers on their GLA/MAN & BHX - DXB flights have onward connections from DXB. So what would be the point of BA competing on, say, MAN - DXB with EK if only a handful of people are actually flying to DXB?

Fact is, unless you are flying direct to NYC, ORD or DXB, most people travelling out of BHX/GLA etc etc will still have to make a connection anyway! So connect with BA in London, CO in EWR, AA in ORD, EK in DXB....it's all the same.

[Edited 2006-03-05 16:10:17]

[Edited 2006-03-05 16:11:13]

User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5128 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 13674 times:

people always look at Continental and praise them for operating from the regions, but forget one thing, all COs flights are originating from their main hub. CO are doing exactly what BA are doing, operating flights from their primary hub.

Switch things around and look at it from the other side. British Airways operate from london to:
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Los Angeles
Miami
JFK
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Fransisco
Seattle
Washington

How many of the US airlines operate from these cities to london? the reason BA can fly to these destinations is because its from their hub, the US airlines cant make these routes work to London unless they also have a hub there.

Similarly CO can make flights to EDI/GLA/BHX work because its from their hub. BA cant.



That'll teach you
User currently offlineDavidT From Switzerland, joined Oct 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 13652 times:

Wow, I never thought I'd see a post talking about BA longhaul outside of LON that forgot to mention MAN-JFK!  Smile

Thing is, BA fly MAN-JFK. AA also fly MAN-BOS and did fly MAN-MIA last summer too... you've got 3 long hauls on oneworld there from MAN. There's no reason for BA to start up, say a BOS service, because one of their partners already does it and (I'm not sure here) but I think they even codeshare on it.

It would be nice to see more planes in BA livery fly l/h out of MAN but at the moment we'll have to settle for the codeshares with AA.

In the future, if BA goes 787, then perhaps increased o&d traffic caused by manchester's growth as a city and the lower operating costs of the 787 might open up a few routes.

I hear MAN-JFK also makes a shedload for BA... over £1 million profit a year, from 1 daily service. Not bad!


User currently offlineBCA2005 From India, joined Sep 2005, 247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 13644 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 8):
Switch things around and look at it from the other side. British Airways operate from london to:
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Los Angeles
Miami
JFK
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Fransisco
Seattle
Washington

...and Newark, Detroit, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and Tampa


User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 13602 times:

There are a couple of things that need to be considered when looking at BA's decision not to offer longhaul services out of the UK regions:

1) BA has a shortage of longhaul aircraft.
The recent decision to suspend services to MEL was perhaps mainly due to aicraft shortages - while MEL may have been profitable for BA, they realised that the many aircraft used to operate this route on a daily basis could be better utilised on other more profitable routes. For example, BA have seen increasing high yielding passengers on its LHR-ISB route and it is now being upgraded to a 744 (previously used on LHR-SIN-MEL), which has a F cabin unlike the route's 772 which only had C/Y+/Y. Also BA need to increase its presence in China and India and for that aircraft are needed. Combine this with the fact that London has a huge O&D market, not to mention high yielding passengers and you can appreciate why BA will not station a longhaul aircraft outside London for many years to come. While I agree Manchester and other UK regions have potential for viable longhaul routes, have you ever noticed that none of the airlines offering longhaul services from those respective airports offer a F cabin on their routes (except MH which incidently is in financial trouble and SQ which only offers F twice weekly via ZRH - the rest of the time its C/Y)? For example if you look at EK or AA, on their services to LHR and LGW (except AA's RDU-LGW) all there aircraft have a F cabin...why? Because they know they can fill those high yielding cabins from London. However, on their services to MAN/BHX/GLA etc, there is no F cabin. In EK's case, high-density aircraft (aimed at Y passengers) are used, for example 42C/304Y is the configuration on their B772 used on BHX/MAN-DXB services. Compare that to the 14F/49C/236Y used on the London routes on the same aircraft type! BA have always chased after the high yielding passenger - that is what they are known for. Back to the aicraft shortage, BA will have to make an order soon for a replacement for its 763s and soon after that will need to think about other widebody replacements - this is for LHR only!

2)Terminal 5, Debt & Pensions
BA has bigger problems to solve at the moment than occupy itself with expanding from the regions. Firstly, Terminal 5 is set to open in 2008. Between now and then (and the years prior to 2011 when the second satellite building is fully operational) BA are concentrating on a smooth transition toward single terminal operations. Firstly they will have to get an agreement with the unions on work practices. At the moment, ground staff in Terminal 1 have different work practices to their counterparts in Terminal 4. BA wants to scrap those and start afresh. Secondly, single terminal operation will mean job losses. BA is looking to cut costs even further, and Terminal 5 is a brilliant opportunity for them. Check-in staff, baggage handlers and other ground positions will all see cuts (watch out for BA's unveiling of its business plan this coming Thursday).
Also, like many other British companies, BA is having huge problems with its pension obligations. BA has a reported deficit of £1.4bn in its pension scheme! Only by cutting debt further, sorting the pension problem and more importantly consolidating its position at LHR can BA even think about expanding from the regions.

It is important to note that at the moment, BA uses the UK regions in the exact same way as AA/CO/EK/SQ/MH/US/QR/EY do. BA allows passengers from the regions to connect onward to any destinations around the world from its LHR and LGW hubs, just as EK allows in DXB, CO in EWR, SQ in SIN, AA in ORD etc. In that same operation, BA also serves any point to point traffic that may exist between LON and the regions, again just as CO, EK etc. What is missing is a BA service similar to that of PK and AI in MAN and BHX, i.e. serving point to point traffic. If BA do decide to expand longhaul from the regions (they probably will after 2010-12), then I only envisage services like MAN-JFK which are primarily aimed at O&D traffic. I may be wrong - BA may want to build up MAN like LH have MUC. However with European airline consolidation nearing and talk of BA and IB getting together , BA could use MAD instead of MAN.

[Edited 2006-03-05 17:47:47]

User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 13542 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
I know this probably comes as no shock to anyone but is a pitty the UK's national flag carrier is not prepared to offer people away from London further destinations to fly from

BA is only one of the UK's flag carriers and it hasn't been 'national' since it was privatised in the 1980s.


User currently offlineOzvirginuk From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 396 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 13475 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
I know this probably comes as no shock to anyone but is a pitty the UK's national flag carrier is not prepared to offer people away from London further destinations to fly from.



Quoting HS748 (Reply 12):
BA is only one of the UK's flag carriers and it hasn't been 'national' since it was privatised in the 1980s.

BA is NOT a flag carrier. As far as I am aware VS is the only airline that dispays the Union Flag on every plane..

Oz


User currently offlineMonkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 13475 times:

It's strange. You can argue every logical explanation on here as to why it BA does not operate from the regions.

And yet, guaranteed, within a month someone else will post a similar post. Many of them come across as if they feel a personal 'snub' or feling of being 'left out or let down' by their national carrier.

BA aren't around for the sentimental or patriotic in all of us.

Remember, we are not just talking about aircraft and fuel and start up costs for a new regional long haul route. We are also talking the cost of a new base for additional cabin crew and pilots. The cost of more hotel rooms etc etc etc.


User currently offlineBY738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2266 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 13452 times:

Quoting Ozvirginuk (Reply 13):

Why is almost every BA aircraft now carrying "UnionFlag" clour scheme now then ?


User currently offlineConcorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 13436 times:

Quoting Monkeyboi (Reply 14):
BA aren't around for the sentimental or patriotic in all of us

Correct.
While BA is a truly British institution and I for one am proud that we have such a classy and innovative 'flag carrier' renowned world over, we must remember that BA is a private company with a responsibility to its shareholders to be as profitable as possible.


User currently offlineCrossChecked From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 13294 times:

Quoting BY738 (Reply 15):
Why is almost every BA aircraft now carrying "UnionFlag" clour scheme now then ?

Because that's our livery. Virgin Atlantic is the UK's official flag carrier - a privilege bestowed upon a carrier by our Queen.

Just as in South Africa. SAA's jets carry the SA flag on the tail but that doesn't mean that the airline is the flag carrier (it is, but this is just an example).



Cabin crew, doors to manual and cross check.
User currently offlineOzvirginuk From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 396 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 13135 times:

Quoting CrossChecked (Reply 17):
Because that's our livery. Virgin Atlantic is the UK's official flag carrier - a privilege bestowed upon a carrier by our Queen.

Thanks Crosschecked.

Incidentally, VS are increasing services out of MAN this summer, with MCO BGI and UVF. If BA aren't looking to start more regional long-haul, then another airline will, proving that there is a demand. At least BA have some idea about running an airline, unlike a certain other British carrier I could mention,........ BD.....

Oz


User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 13109 times:

Look

They operate all but one of their L/H routes from London because it's their main base, and it's where there are the most people wanting to travel to/from, and where they make most of their money.
BA is a business, it's there to make a profit, not to fly the flag for Britain, or spread national pride around the globe.
I mean, supermarket companys don't open new stores where there is no profit.

Yes it would be nice to see BA fly L/H from more non London airports, but they don't have the money or aircrafts to experiement.

In short.

If BA can't see the route making a profit, they don't do it.
If they had any spare L/H aircrafts around, then they could experiemnt with L/H routes outside of London.

Wrighbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineWdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 961 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 13038 times:

BA is able to fly to more US cities from London.
CO is able to fly to more UK cities from Newark.

What BA would be doing theoretically, in regards to Continetal, be flying Longhaul flights to Europe from BOS, IAD, JKF, EWR, BWI, PIT, PHL etc etc. When you have a hub, you can fly to more destinations.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 12975 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 8):
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Los Angeles
Miami
JFK
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Fransisco
Seattle
Washington

How many of the US airlines operate from these cities to london?

LAX - UA, AA
MIA - AA
JFK - UA, AA
PHL - US
SFO - UA
IAD - UA
BOS - AA
ORD - UA, AA
EWR - CO
IAH - CO
ATL - DL
DFW - AA

Not to mention the the places BA doesn't fly to.

Quoting BCA2005 (Reply 10):
...and Newark, Detroit, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and Tampa



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 12975 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):
How many Long haul services do AF have from outside Paris
How many Long haul services do IB have from outside Madrid

Exactly!!

As has been said time and time again, London is the biggest city in the UK, just like Paris is the biggest in France, Madrid the biggest in Spain, Dublin the biggest in Ireland, and all their flag carriers have very little long haul action away from their biggest cities (usually the capital). So explain why BA should be any different?

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 11):
1) BA has a shortage of longhaul aircraft.

Not really - they operate 122 potential long haul aircraft with just a few (some of the B767's) operating on the short haul routes - but i see where you're coming from.


User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7363 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 12799 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 19):
If BA can't see the route making a profit, they don't do it.
If they had any spare L/H aircrafts around, then they could experiemnt with L/H routes outside of London.

Therefore, can one conclude that all those in favour of BA's position would now lobby BA to stop putting up the barriers that they are notorious for doing so as they've always utilised the "not in the national interest" excuse for objections. We in the majority ("not London") of the UK population do not care that other airlines are flying us into their home airports, all we aim to do is cut out the "you must fly south for your journey east/west" - and in the case of travel to Australasia make at least 2 stops whereas BHX, MAN and GLA can offer the much more appealing efforts of EK and the one-stop strategy!

Anyway, any BA route outside LHR/LGW would invariably mean paying MORE for using the "better" option (e.g. the CAA report showing how MAN-JFK is priced higher than MAN-LHR-JFK), which can hardly be considered conducive to increasing the number of seats available for South East England originating passengers as the "price sensitive" traveller who wants to fly on BA will invariably travel down on the shuttle service.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 3):
Some major carriers - either Euro, US, or Asian - are bound to begin longhaul service from cities outside on LON and it will be to BA's detriment.

Perhaps someone should mention that to Willie Walsh and see if that position will be in the shareholder's interest.

David


User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7363 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 12756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 22):
London is the biggest city in the UK, just like Paris is the biggest in France, Madrid the biggest in Spain, Dublin the biggest in Ireland

I see you missed out Frankfurt. Purely by accident of course.

David


25 Wdleiser : Berlin is larger than Frankfurt. Frankfurt is Germany's financial center though.
26 Wrighbrothers : Which is perhaps why they don't try to, I mean, if BA can't hold up LHR-MEL, then surely the can't hold up anymore routes to Australia. EK can do MAN
27 Babybus : Isn't it the case that loads and yields to the US are going down? Therefore it wouldn't make sense to operate additional capacity out of regional airp
28 Shamrock_747 : British Airways exits to make a profit and the management of the airline answer to the shareholders, not the people of the United Kingdom. If having a
29 David_itl : Who said anything about 777s at MAN? Additional 767s at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI (not necessarily at all of these airports) in the old configuration would do
30 Planesarecool : Well i'm sure they would have done it then wouldn't they. BA are obviously the experts, not you, otherwise they wouldn't be here now. Frankfurt is th
31 DavidT : Where do you propose BA fly to from MAN? The only ones I can come up would be MCO, MIA etc... AA did the latter and I think the majority of flights f
32 Monkeyboi : Too right. The mantra within BA at the moment is 'india india india'. Have we got a spare aircraft? Send it to india. Any spare slots available? use
33 Wrighbrothers : Well, they tried: (All of these routes were served by BA Regional) MAN-LAX (767)+ MAN-GLA-JFK (757) BHX-JFK (Sometimes via GLA) (757) BHX-JFK-YYZ (75
34 Concorde001 : If BA had the aircraft and resolved its problems, then I think a BA service to SIN or BKK from MAN may do well as it would allow passengers to connec
35 Donder10 : No,BA do have a tight schedule on their long haul routes in terms of available aircraft.
36 Post contains images Planesarecool : Yes, that's what i meant by: They have plenty of long haul aircraft, but their schedule leaves very little room for additional flights
37 Post contains images Fbgdavidson : I wouldn't say it means couldn't run it at a profit, just if you can utilise aircraft elsewhere for higher profit then do that. As has been mentioned
38 MainMAN : Agreed. To people like Monkeyboi and Planesarecool....this topic does come up very regularly, but the basis of it isn't people whingeing about not ha
39 HS748 : Clearly you don't understand the definition of flag carrier. A flag carrier is an airline designated by its home country to have traffic rights in a
40 Monkeyboi : I agree MainMAN, especially with the MAN case. But you have to take the distances involved with many geographically larger european countries. To be
41 David_itl : Err...there weren't too many BA transatlantic 757 flights ex-MAN! If you want to quote a year , please try to quote the correct one! MAN-LAX operated
42 DavidT : I flew it last Oct (when it was 2 class). Going out CW was pretty full with businesspeople, going back it was about 50% pleased looking kids (was emp
43 Post contains images Concorde001 : Well the City of Manchester seems to be doing very well economically (though surrounding boroughs have a long way to go). The new Spinningfields cons
44 Avianca : would Biman change in this case the route from BRU?
45 Atmx2000 : BA could make it work if they had ATI with AA and AA had a better single NYC hub. AA doesn't offer the best connections out of JFK. Not quite, BA doe
46 Hammerb32 : What routes do people think BA could fly from the regions ? MAN to JFK is proven, Pakistan stands out as the obvious choice but have PIA got this sewn
47 Planesarecool : It's not worth the risk. They already have a solid route network utilising almost all long haul aircraft every day, so they would have to drop routes
48 FlyCaledonian : The only privilege the Queen (Or Duke of Edinburgh or Prince of Wales) could bestow on an airline is to grant it a Royal Warrant, which would mean it
49 BAxMAN : Crikey! There must be something in the water to cause such delusions. Thank goodness I avoid tap water. But, come on, the guy is hardly going to say
50 Boeing744 : Also AC to MAN and GLA.
51 Superhub : I doubt it. Even in the US, I can only think of California as being the only state for which an airline has two hubs (UA in SFO and LAX). The UK is t
52 RogerThat : Willie is doing everyone a favor by confining BA ops to LON. Their club class product is the worst value in the air. Now if he would give the sack to
53 Post contains images MMEPHX : long time lurker returning..... There are 2 chances we'll see longhaul BA service from the regions 1) Boeing or Airbus figure out a way to get a 120 s
54 BAxMAN : Hehehe.....nice trolling. Maybe you could form a group with people who have the same opinion and discuss this with all one of you. What it is to have
55 Atmx2000 : That's not a very good argument. California's population is smaller than that of the UK by a wide margin. The reason why CA can support two hub citie
56 Superhub : Indeed, my argument above was not very good. Using your argument on SFO/LAX, let's apply them to London and Manchester: 1) UK's population may be alm
57 YULWinterSkies : They could have connections through AA in JFK, BOS, MIA, ORD, LAX which is not too bad... and way better than what most major US airlines could offer
58 Jacobin777 : once PK gets their remaining 777-240LR's, they will be ending two of their JFK-MAN route for a direct flight ot Pakistan.....
59 Fbgdavidson : To avoid trashing the thread I'd be interested in you answering why the rear facing seats are so awful in the thread you started in Polls & Preferenc
60 Motopolitico : Welcome to my RR list. The thread could have ended right there as far as I was concerned. Makes perfect sense!
61 BAW716 : I've flown Club World SFO-LHR on the upper deck with the rear facing seat configuration. Thankfully, the gate agent put us in the last set of seats in
62 Atmx2000 : While that is true, quite a few people live in the MAN area, certainly comparable to the population of many US hub cities. And there is almost 15 mil
63 Oly720man : Does anyone have any real statistics for PAX travelling from the various UK airports to around the world? We can argue all day about how a MAN-west co
64 Sabena 690 : @FlyCaledonian - reply 48: that was spot on. Perhaps the dreamers (like David_Itl) can have a close look at this posting before bashing BA for not off
65 Post contains images Wrighbrothers : Yes, there were about 4 or 5. , other than MAN-LAX, all the others were ABOUT 1996/7 Well, the fact that they tried a route and failed is perhaps goo
66 DavidT : Its no rumour, the new CW seat will be unveiled this month.
67 David_itl : It went via MUC and BKK 2 weekly from 1985 to 1987 using L1011s (flight number BA22 if correctly remembered) which was transformed into a 2 weekly se
68 Planesarecool : Doesn't that tell you something? BA aren't going to add services that might make a few plane spotters happy, they're going to add flights which are c
69 Post contains images Fbgdavidson : So you fly BA Club World once without the experience of any of the other carriers mentioned and decide that is the basis for a complete strategy chan
70 David_itl : You've still not got the concept - BA is offering inferior product ex-MAN and the competition is wiping the floor with them! Fewer passengers go on B
71 DavidT : I agree that BA seem to be rather trigger happy when downgrading a/c then cancelling routes. MAN-ZRH was a route BA and Swiss have long fought over, s
72 MainMAN : I've always assumed that BA were just completely unprepared for the onslaught of LCCs affecting their MAN and BHX operations, but this can't explain
73 Wrighbrothers : Yes, but why should BA try and hold out against how ever many competerors at MAN, when they could make much more profit on more solid ground (LHR/LGW
74 Avianca : LH does, FRA,MUC,DUS
75 Wrighbrothers : I was meaning it to be a rhetorical question, but I didn't know LH flew long-haul from DUS. Wrighbrothers
76 Post contains links and images Scbriml : Dont tell Luxair then! View Large View MediumPhoto © Steve Brimley
77 Concorde001 : ...and BD , LH , AF.
78 Avianca : they do but "only" to EWR and ORD using the PrivatAir A319. well better than nothing. regards avianca
79 Trintocan : Ah, the old issue of BA and the regions arises again. Yes, I have always thought it a bit odd that BA has so drastically shrunken its service from the
80 Gkirk : The regions don't need BA, and frankyl, I don't think BA need or care for the regions. A lot of people choose to fly via AMS (KLM), FRA (LH) or CDG (A
81 Planesarecool : So one minute people are saying that they want BA flights from the regions, next minute they're saying they don't? The BA shuttles are popular with p
82 Gkirk : Hence why BA are reducing frequency to EDI,GLA and NCL? Bristol and Newcastle are so close, you may as well put them equal (NCL was just a bit busier
83 Wrighbrothers : No, I think that's because they need them for other short-haul routes. Yes, what people don't see, is that BA is the largest carrier within the UK, b
84 Planesarecool : Not all flights are convenient for connections. For example, any flight down to Gatwick after noon is useless for long haul connections, unless they
85 Post contains images Gkirk : I notice it's the Londoners sticking up for BA, no shock there then Thanks to the likes of Continental, Emirates, easyJet and Ryanair, people no longe
86 Planesarecool : 1. I am not a Londoner, I live in West Sussex 2. No shock what? That we don't complain about a world class carrier not serving 167 long haul destinat
87 Post contains images Gkirk : Same difference, everyone South of Watford is a Cockney I'm just saying, it's good we now have alternatives to fly, thus avoiding the hell hole known
88 Concorde001 : By 2008 BA will be operating from T5, a truly world class terminal that may prove to be more efficient and passenger friendly than AMS, HKG and the l
89 Wrighbrothers : Well, it's close enough. Not realy, other than paying for food and perhaps prices, it's nothing like FR. You get lounge access, hot food, on-iline ch
90 Post contains images Planesarecool : Not to mention the more comfortable seats onboard the aircraft. I flew a EMB-145 a few weeks ago and found the flight very comfortable - and the sing
91 BAxMAN : You're like that member who couldn't get his head around the reasons why his cherished charter airlines were charging his granny for a cuppa and not
92 Post contains images Gkirk : Yes, I know that BA do not have to offer service from the regions, and as was mentioned earlier: What I am saying is, it would be nice if they did ac
93 Wrighbrothers : Yes, but Gemrnay is bigger than England. Also, BA will be basicaly the only airline in T5, so BA can attract customors with that fact, not having to
94 David_itl : Can you tell us what stunning opportunites for quick, convenient travel are the non-South East Englanders missing out on exactly by going one-stop vi
95 DavidT : It would be nice if BA did some long haul from MAN to alleviate pressure on their congested LHR hub (perhaps leisure flights?) although I can imagine
96 Planesarecool : BA's colours, BA's check in, BA's booking forms, chances are that as far as 90% of passengers are concerned, their GB Airways/Sun-Air/BA Connect flig
97 Post contains images DavidT : Ooooh, I beg to differ, T3 is fab!
98 BAxMAN : Talk about brick f'n wall.... The vastness of BA's network out of LHR is easily comparable, and quite probably surpasses, that of Asian hub carriers,
99 Post contains links and images Wrighbrothers : And did they not operate the route with a 744 for a bit ? (look at the comments) ? View Large View MediumPhoto © Airsnaps - WorldAirlineImages V
100 FlyCaledonian : Tongue in cheek or not, that comment sums up the attitude of many on here who think BA should run loss making longhauls from MAN. I'm a Northerner (E
101 Post contains images Oneworld1 : You speak such sense!!. Has it not occured to the moaners here that it is only federalised states that have multiple airline bases. e.g Germany+Lande
102 Atmx2000 : DFW doesn't have much oil compared to IAH. NYC has the NYSE, and more importantly the headquarters of major banks, investment houses, and other finan
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...
BA's Long-haul Flights: What % Of O+D Pax? posted Mon May 1 2006 20:32:18 by Pe@rson
No More BA Long Haul Flights At LGW posted Sun Nov 26 2000 11:00:29 by OO-VEG
Study On The Determinants Of Long-haul Flights At posted Fri Nov 26 2004 10:28:21 by Airevents
DAT Of Belgium To Start Long Haul Flights posted Thu Feb 7 2002 01:13:34 by A330DAT
BA Long Haul Deliveries For 2008/09? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:27:10 by BALAX
NW Long Haul Flights posted Sat Oct 7 2006 12:11:55 by LIPZ
UA Long Haul Flights From ORD posted Sat Sep 23 2006 17:45:40 by Qantas744ER
Intra-European Flights Outside Of Home Market... posted Sun Sep 17 2006 17:06:49 by Gilesdavies
No More Funding For Scottish Long Haul Flights posted Sun Sep 10 2006 21:42:58 by Humberside
Why No Leather Seats For BA Long Haul? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 19:23:42 by 8herveg