Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2964 posts, RR: 1 Posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13224 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...
Sabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13170 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?
Rdwootty From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 900 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13042 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??
Monkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12998 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.
Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5047 posts, RR: 36 Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12802 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:
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.
DavidT From Switzerland, joined Oct 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12780 times:
Wow, I never thought I'd see a post talking about BA longhaul outside of LON that forgot to mention MAN-JFK!
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!
BCA2005 From India, joined Sep 2005, 246 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12772 times:
Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 8): Switch things around and look at it from the other side. British Airways operate from london to:
...and Newark, Detroit, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and Tampa
Concorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12730 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.
HS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12670 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.
Ozvirginuk From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 396 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12603 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..
Monkeyboi From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 457 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12603 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.
Concorde001 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12564 times:
Quoting Monkeyboi (Reply 14): BA aren't around for the sentimental or patriotic in all of us
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.
Ozvirginuk From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 396 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12263 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.
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.....
Wrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12237 times:
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.
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.
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
Wdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 961 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12166 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.
Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4106 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12103 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
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?
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7255 posts, RR: 14 Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11927 times:
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.