Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will BA Ever Come Back To San Diego?  
User currently offlineHockey55dude From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 213 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7567 times:

Will BA ever come back to San Diego? I wish they would. Also will San Diego ever get service to Europe Again?

-Kyle

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26147 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7545 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
User currently offlineAAden From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 835 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7503 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.

User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7112 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?



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7081 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..
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7006 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?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6999 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
User currently offlineRadelow From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 426 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6989 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.  Sad


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6976 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
User currently offlineBALAX From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6976 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.


User currently offlineBriguy1974 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6967 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..

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6953 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
User currently offlineDLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6928 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.


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26147 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6905 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
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6905 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.


User currently offlineDLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6899 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?


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6890 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.


User currently offlineDLSLC From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6863 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.


User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3135 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6843 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).


User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6799 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.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6797 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....!!

http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6715 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.


Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8690 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6537 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?


Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26147 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6523 times:

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 22):
fifth freedom route?

What 5th freedom route? BA has no US 5th freedom rights.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSocal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6506 times:

Can't BA use their 767-300ER for a SAN-LHR route?


I Love HNL.............
25 Post contains images Dutchjet :
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 Post contains images 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.
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...
Will Aeroflot Ever Come Back To Miami? posted Sat Jan 22 2005 03:53:13 by Tu144d
Will Aeroflot Ever Come Back To Chicago? posted Sat Feb 28 2004 16:41:03 by AlitaliaORD
Will Delta/AA Ever Come Back To Scandinavia? posted Mon Apr 26 2004 19:27:32 by Pera
Will CO Ever Go Back To The Noon EWR-HKG? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 04:49:09 by Diesel33
Will Airtran Ever Go Back To Knoxville posted Fri Jul 29 2005 19:27:10 by Quickmover
Air Canada Back To San Diego? posted Sun Aug 22 2004 01:27:08 by Hockey55dude
Will Concorde Ever Come Back? posted Fri Oct 10 2003 21:02:54 by FunFlyer
Will Sabena Ever Go Back To Boeing? posted Wed Jul 18 2001 23:46:36 by American 767
BA Ever Back To SAN? posted Fri Jul 30 2004 05:45:19 by Radelow
Will KLM Come Back To MSP? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 05:28:14 by Af773atmsp