Hockey55dude From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 213 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4876 times:
Will BA ever come back to San Diego? I wish they would. Also will San Diego ever get service to Europe Again?
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4854 times:
Regretfully San Diego's stigma for international services is that is located too close to Los Angeles. With only 100 miles separating the two metro centers many foreign carriers simply view SAN as a distant suburb of Los Angeles.
To many carriers, its simply makes more sense to concentrate services at LAX since its market size is simply so much larger than split services and try make a stand alone San Diego flight work.
San Diego is likely one of the largest cities in the country whom disproportionately lacks international air service. Possibly with the advent of smaller more efficient aircraft such as the 787, San Diego one day may again see a Europe nonstop, and possibly an Asian connection also.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
AAden From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 832 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4812 times:
No way, as stated above lax is a better fit. It also might have something to do with the fact that BA is a part of oneworld and lax offers more connections.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4421 times:
As others have said, BA found it didn't have the right passenger mix and the smallest aircraft it could use effectively was the 777. Maybe with the advent of the 787, and if BA buys that aircraft, BA would return. Also, I believe that under Bermuda II BA would have to restart non-stop service from LGW, as it was only able to switch service to LHR because it was firstly the sole carrier on the route, and secondly passenger numbers had reached a certain thresh hold.
Even with smaller aircraft and no Bermuda II I wonder if BA would have other cities in the US that it would consider higher priority, i.e. on the Eastern seaboard?
Wrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4390 times:
Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 3): as it was only able to switch service to LHR because it was firstly the sole carrier on the route, and secondly passenger numbers had reached a certain thresh hold.
BA used DC-10's, 777's and 744's and if I remember, routings were LGW-LAX-SAN and later LGW-PHX-SAN
Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4315 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1): Possibly with the advent of smaller more efficient aircraft such as the 787
This is probably the correct answer, if BA orders the 787 it would have the right number of seats and the right economics for the San Diego-London route. San Diego-London is one of those routes that "should have worked", even with the larger 777.......business traffic, tourist traffic, large population served in the SAN area, unlimited connections available at LHR, pax wanting to avoid LAX, etc. Lots of good reasons, on paper atleast, to suggest that the route would be a money maker.
Didnt BA have issues with operating the 772ER out of SAN on the long segment to London? Did the restrictions result in the route being unprofitable?
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4308 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1): Regretfully San Diego's stigma for international services is that is located too close to Los Angeles.
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 5): Didnt BA have issues with operating the 772ER out of SAN on the long segment to London? Did the restrictions result in the route being unprofitable?
Dutchjet's analysis is much closer to the truth here. Sure, SAN will never have the service that LAX or SFO has, even though it is bigger than San Francisco, it is simply too close to Los Angeles. Still, it is far enough away that the difference is noticed and BA filled their 777s to Heathrow. The problem was, and always has been, SAN's short runway and terrain that cause weight hits. In BA's case, they could go full PAX/bags but couldn't carry any cargo from the port city, which would have allowed profitable operation. BA told the city that it would keep service if the airport authority were to pay the lost cargo revenue. When San Diego balked, BA went away. Miramar and/or the 787 will change that.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Radelow From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 426 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
I heard a different story. What I was told was that BA was filling Economy regularly but they just didn't have enough Business/First passengers to make it profitable.
Why not bring back the LHR>PHX>SAN routing??? I sure miss the easy connection.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4285 times:
Quoting Radelow (Reply 7): I heard a different story. What I was told was that BA was filling Economy regularly but they just didn't have enough Business/First passengers to make it profitable.
First and Club were perfectly acceptable. The problem was cargo specifically.
Quoting Radelow (Reply 7): Why not bring back the LHR>PHX>SAN routing??? I sure miss the easy connection.
Because BA fills a 744 on the PHX route (as they likely could on the SAN route if they could fly it out full) and can't carry local passengers.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
BALAX From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 187 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4285 times:
Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 3): As others have said, BA found it didn't have the right passenger mix and the smallest aircraft it could use effectively was the 777. Maybe with the advent of the 787, and if BA buys that aircraft, BA would return. Also, I believe that under Bermuda II BA would have to restart non-stop service from LGW, as it was only able to switch service to LHR because it was firstly the sole carrier on the route, and secondly passenger numbers had reached a certain thresh hold
BA operates B767-300ER's which would be an option for SAN. Remember AA operated AA136/137 LAX-LHR-LAX with a B767-300ER for years before switching to a 777. And even with the B767 AA136/137 was one of the most profitable flights for the carrier.
Briguy1974 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4276 times:
seems San Jose and San Diego will always lose out the LAX and SFO....by the way they are both bigger than San Fransisco..
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4262 times:
Quoting BALAX (Reply 9): BA operates B767-300ER's which would be an option for SAN.
No it isn't. The runway is too short for it.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
DLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 86 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 11): No it isn't. The runway is too short for it.
Am I misunderstanding something here? You are saying the runway is too short for a 767-300ER, but at one time they took 747's and 777's in there? Aren't those a lot heavier and don't those take a lot longer runway to get off the ground?
I am still amazed they got that 772 in there, the aerial photos of SAN when the 772 was in there made it look way too big for the airport! Good days though.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4214 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 8): First and Club were perfectly acceptable. The problem was cargo specifically.
Actually there was an issue with premium demand in SAN.
If you think back, you might remember the last nonstop 777 service that BA had on the route were with higher dentsity 3 class 777s, not the 4 class versions with F class.
As far as cargo, BA-LAX actually trucked a few pallets of cargo down to San Diego, so the bellies were not empty as you imply.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4214 times:
Quoting DLSLC (Reply 12): You are saying the runway is too short for a 767-300ER,
Too short for a fully loaded 763ER to take off and fly nonstop all the way to London....thats the issue. BA flew the 744 from SAN to PHX, a very short hop, which is a different situation.
DLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 86 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4208 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 14): Too short for a fully loaded 763ER to take off and fly nonstop all the way to London....thats the issue. BA flew the 744 from SAN to PHX, a very short hop, which is a different situation.
Oh okay, sorry I misread that. What about the 777, didn't that go non-stop all the way across the pond?
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
Quoting DLSLC (Reply 15): What about the 777, didn't that go non-stop all the way across the pond?
Yes, the 777 is one hell of an airplane.......but, as pointed out above, the 777 operated with weight restrictions and could not carry any cargo....such restriction cut into profits and therefore the flight was cut.
DLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 86 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4172 times:
Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the corrections Dutchjet, I guess I didn't read careful enough, sorry for the stupid questions, I should have looked closer! Thanks for the info though.
Regards,
Devin B.
RwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3016 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4152 times:
Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 10): seems San Jose and San Diego will always lose out the LAX and SFO....by the way they are both bigger than San Fransisco..
The cities, yes, they are bigger than SFO. The metro areas (the metric that actually matters) are both much smaller than SFO (although San Jose could be considered the same metro area as SFO).
Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4089 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4108 times:
Economy was regularly full on the route. I flew it there and back once and it was near enough full, and my friend (who now lives out there) flew it a lot of the time and said that it was usually a busy flight.
As others have stated, the main problem is the weight restrictions implemented on the flight due to the short runway, and has therefore lost out to LAX, and more extensively, China and India, where the aircraft could be used for better profitability.
Will BA ever come back to San Diego? Well if they get the new airport, it may be considered, but until then, i doubt it.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4106 times:
Quoting RwSEA (Reply 18): The cities, yes, they are bigger than SFO. The metro areas (the metric that actually matters) are both much smaller than SFO (although San Jose could be considered the same metro area as SFO).
SJC does indeed get "lumped" in many times within the "Bay Area".....from San Jose to SFO, its only a 34-40 mile drive....
The entire Bay Area (San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Cupertino, etc.), population is almost 7 million people..which is quite a bit....!!
Coronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1590 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4024 times:
It would be nice if VS could extend their LAS flight to SAN. Then again, didn't FirstChoice order the 787? As a leisure airline, this might be a good way of entering the SoCal with the least amount of competition. Plus easy access to cruise ships.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8553 posts, RR: 14 Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3846 times:
It would nice to see BA in SAN. My uncle used to fly that route when he went on business trips. Does BA still hold that authority for fifth freedom route?
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, RR: 51 Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3832 times:
Socal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3815 times:
26 Coronado990: Sure, they can use it westbound LHR-SAN no problem. SAN-LHR is another story as Pt Loma creates a raising terrain issue and the 767-300ER would have
27 Dutchjet: Its a nice idea....but in real life, its not going to work out, aside from the extra costs associated with putting the plane down at ONT, these types
28 BA787: Me hope BA orders the 787. I 'me guessing im not alone Tom
29 HB-IWC: Even with a B787 order there is still the Heathrow slot situation to deal with. Granted, BA owns quite a few of them, but there is a limit to how man
30 N1120A: Not including San Jose in an overall bay area metro is at least as stupid as not including Ventura, San Bernardino and Riverside counties in an overa
31 Laxintl: Also keep in mind also that the San Diego region is not a major air cargo producer on its own. So even if the runway was not an issue I would not hol
32 San747: I like the idea... I've heard that the European charter carriers like MyTravel and First Choice have expressed interest in SAN, but haven't been able
33 Oakjam: Would be nice to have more competition from more California airports to Europe. SAN-Europe would be nice, although it sucks flying there from Nor Cal
34 VV701: I had hoped that someone would argue this point. Just as UA has fifth freedom rights under Bermuda 2 to Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich and one other Germa
35 TymnBalewne: I have a very, very vague recollection of a MEX-MSY-LON service? C.
36 Steeler83: Maybe BA, or any other airline (US) could run a SAN-PIT-LHR/LGW or SAN-PHL-LHR/LGW, but again, I'll grow hairs on my back before that happens... no...
37 MSYtristar: You would be correct. Mexico City - New Orleans - London, flown by BA thrice weekly in 1982 with a L1011-500.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 213 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1965 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
