Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Aka London Airways Thread  
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6614 times:

Ok, at the moderators request, lets have a discussion regarding British London Airways.
Discuss why BA/LA are so London orientated, why they have almost deserted everywhere outside of London, and whether they should be allowed to call themselves "British" Airways.

Discuss...


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
115 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6574 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Thread starter):
Ok, at the moderators request, lets have a discussion regarding British London Airways.
Discuss why BA/LA are so London orientated, why they have almost deserted everywhere outside of London, and whether they should be allowed to call themselves "British" Airways.

So can we widen this to all those many other international airlines who barely operate international flights with their own metal outside one or two home bases?.......because that would cover most legacy airlines in Europe and most in the rest of the world too  Wink



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineSpeedbirdEGJJ From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 430 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6514 times:

If the regions dont make a contribution to the overall economic viability of the airline, its pretty much a 'no brainer' really. The days of flying an archaic and obsolete route network in the name of prestige just doesn't cut the mustard. The regions have been tried in various guises over the past few years and just haven't really offered anything.

Yes the cost base is an issue in an increasingly cut throat low cost market, but to think its possible to match the loco's on price whilst still offer the whole 'BA' package was never realistically going to work. The difference here between the regions and to an extent LGW when compared to LHR, is that the average yield on any given route is substantially lower. Its all well and good attracting passengers with a £69 lead in fare but its only sustainable with a % of seats sold at a higher fare level, which just wasnt really happening, or a least not often enough, to make those routes pay.

If you take AF for example, their regional network is flown for the most part by its regional franchise / subsiduary partners, specifically designed to carry out that task. With this advantage you are able to set your cost base to suit your market. It does work in the UK, and for BA, for example GB airways are able to sucessfully serve markets that BA mainline most likely couldn't, but the whole BA Connect / BRAL / Citiexpress situation was born from a different animal, and its always been my personal opinion that without wiping the slate clean, the regional market we see today was never going to be a particuarly happy staming ground.


User currently offlineCambrian From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 619 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6482 times:

The argument about profitability from the regions is a valid one. If there is no money to be made, then that should be the death knell of any loss-making service.

However, BA's objective has been to protect fortress Heathrow at all costs. Is it possible to operate short, medium and long haul flights from the regions? Of course. Did BA have the will to make this happen? Arguably not. BA aren't even committed to Gatwick, so the regions have no chance.

BA have also missed an opportunity to diversify their exposure to risk by being so dependent upon Heathrow.

As to the name, arguably BA do not deserve the epithet, "British". Even before the BA Connect carve up, they had shrunk outside London, and did not even serve Wales at all since their retreat from Cardiff. The growth of the present BA domestic routes was achieved by the take over of several regional carriers (including Cambrian!) who were committed to their base airports. Take over by BEA, then BA resulted in homogenisation and gradual withdrawal from the regions. The logical conclusion to this process is the current BA Connect debacle, which will see the UK's second city, Birmingham, without any BA service.


User currently offlineAirways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6452 times:

BA has in recent years preferred to encourage people to fly on domestic services via LHR rather than have dedicated point-to-point services from the regions.

So, they have left it to others such as Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Continental, KLM, Air France, Lufthansa to take passengers away from LHR by operating regional routes.

Whether or not the above carriers make much money is up for debate. The regions are indeed often lower yield, and provide less first class or business class passengers.

However, parts of the LHR BA model depends upon feed from transfer traffic and I'm sure for BA if Paris CDG provides greater opportunities than, say, EDI, GLA or MAN then quite rightly they will support CDG. That's what shareholders would expect .

Remember when BA used to fly dedicated 737-200s from Manchester and Birmingham? Remember when Birmingham had the A319s? Remember when Manchester had the Pakistan flights (and LAX direct back in 1993 or so). Remember when BHX and GLA had BA services to JFK and Boston? Ah the days when London Airways wasn't as obvious...

Airways45


User currently offlineSpeedbirdEGJJ From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 430 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6411 times:

Quoting Cambrian (Reply 3):
However, BA's objective has been to protect fortress Heathrow at all costs. Is it possible to operate short, medium and long haul flights from the regions? Of course. Did BA have the will to make this happen? Arguably not. BA aren't even committed to Gatwick, so the regions have no chance.

You make a valid point cambrian, but i think sometimes too much is made of the decision to concentrate ops at LHR at the expense of the regions. It could be argued that the airline doesnt have the man power, aircraft or resources to economically operate these services, in which case the theory of concentrating ops from LHR seems a sound financial one. The UK market in general, is in a state of transition, the surge of loco's in the regions has required BA to step back and look at how best to defend its market position. I'm convinced that the best way to do this is to concentrate the business on the higher yielding traffic ex London, and let the loco's fight it out for the regional business.

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 4):
Remember when BA used to fly dedicated 737-200s from Manchester and Birmingham? Remember when Birmingham had the A319s? Remember when Manchester had the Pakistan flights (and LAX direct back in 1993 or so). Remember when BHX and GLA had BA services to JFK and Boston? Ah the days when London Airways wasn't as obvious...

The golden years of regional flying indeed - however the absence of Orange tailed 319's, screming babies on the tails 737's and when an airline called Ryanair flew HS748's into Luton, highlights the way in which the regional market in the UK, probably more so than anywhere else in Europe has changed.

To reitierate my point from above the only way BA could ever aspire to make a profitable presence outside of London, the way the market is today, would be to create an airline from scratch with labour and operating costs to match.....

.... Mmm reading that back - perhaps they should call it 'GO'  Wink


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6376 times:

Of course it is easy to criticise BA for their reliance on LHR - but surely as much flack should be directed to bmi and Virgin for not taking the opportunity to develop bigger regional networks either. Long haul neither show any commitment to the regions other than a few leisure routes out of MAN and one ORD service. VS uses Gatwick as nothing more than a leisure base too. bmi with their half decent feed into MAN and a struggle to build long haul services out of LHR (with no US rights) have not taken the opportunity to build from MAN. Look at the IAD debacle.

As is well known by analysts, by and large the regions are much lower yield markets. That means there are only niche route that can really work for a high cost network operator. Far more logical for a lower cost operator like Globespan to take up these opportunites - and thats what is happening.

Short haul is another matter. BA could have made this work - but they really would have had to start from scratch to do it rather than the hash up that BA Connect was. As mentioned above - far more logical is that AF and LH way to have franchise/niche operators flying many of these services for you with smaller aircraft and lower costs.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineCambrian From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 619 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6368 times:

Quoting SpeedbirdEGJJ (Reply 5):
The golden years of regional flying indeed - however the absence of Orange tailed 319's, screming babies on the tails 737's and when an airline called Ryanair flew HS748's into Luton, highlights the way in which the regional market in the UK, probably more so than anywhere else in Europe has changed.

Yes, but these competitors were able to muscle in on the act due to traditional carriers (and BA especially) underserving, or not wanting to serve these markets.

I am also not sure how this myth has emerged that people outside the M25 can't afford to travel in the premium classes.

If anything, BA's focus on Heathrow has become an albatross. LHR is terrible for connecting, and even bad for passengers originating there. I live in Central London and wherever possible, I take Swiss or Lufthansa from London City, with a convenient connection in ZRH or FRA to almost anywhere.

If any airline deserves the title "British". it is surely KLM?


User currently offlineLite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6296 times:

I don't think anybody necessarily begrudges British Airways for trying to make themselves profitable by focusing on where the money is, London, but the way that they've treated us north of the M25 is what causes so much resentment. BA's failure to find a decent regional airline business model for the merged conglomerate that was British Airways CitiExpress was really the beginning of the end. Incompetent management, lack of investment and seemingly no interest to compete effectively with growing low-cost airlines all culminated to the mess which became BA Connect. I don't think the airline really ever had a chance, because by 2006 there were airlines with far more efficient business models who were hemming in BACON from all angles. What BA could have done potentially was to have merged Go and BACX giving BA a stronger low-cost brand from the region from the word go, ie all non LHR/LGW flying could have become low-cost, but integrated Exec Club and oneworld benefits into Go, however we know that wasn't the case. I think flybe provided the next best bet, as flybe was what BACON always wanted to be - a low-cost, regional airline. Flybe have done it successfully now for a few years, and this merger will create a far stronger regional carrier to go up against the likes of Ryanair and EasyJet. I would personally like to see BA use their 15% to encourage BA passengers to support flybe - maybe through providing some Exec Club and oneworld benefits, whilst allowing flybe to do what they do best.

User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6290 times:

You must first remember that airlines are no longer the state-owned enterprises that can offer subsidised services or services that are more for status than for profit. Like many of today's industries, airlines must swim or sink. The airlines can no longer offer services for the convenience of the public, but services where there is demand and the rewards are sufficient to generate sufficient return on the investment. The days when BA could offer frequent or direct services from smaller airports are gone, as many of these are either unprofitable or the airline's assets can be deployed elsewhere more profitably.

BA is not alone. Apart from internal services (many of which are in any event relegated to regional partners), AF, LH, IB and other major airlines are so Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid orientated, yet are there any calls for each of them to be renamed Air Paris, Luftfrankfurt or Madridaberia? Why is American Airlines allowed to call themselves American when many US cities are not their hubs? You may also argue that if AA, NW or EK can operate on (say) GLA-JFK/NEW or GLA-DXB, then why not BA? After all, GLA is on BA's domain? Simple explanation, each of AA, NW, and EK operate from JFK/NEW/DXB which are their hubs and GLA is an outpost, whereas if BA operated from GLA to any of these destinations, GLA would have to become a BA hub. The economics just do not work out.

Why has BA deserted many UK provincial airports? Like I said, the airline has to swim or sink. To swim it must be self sufficient and therefore if the economies of operating from non-London airports do not work out and/or the demand is not there, why should the airline continue operations just because the provincial airport is in Britain? If there was a demand for services, and the route could be operated profitably, BA would be there.

British Airways today is simply a name and not a state-owned carrier. There is nothing to state that they cannot be called British because they have almost deserted everywhere outside London. To say this should be applied is like saying Virgin Atlantic should drop the Atlantic, as their flights are not exclusive to flying over the Atlantic. The only stipulation is that to be the designated UK carrier on many routes, no more than 49% of BA's issued share capital can be held by non-UK domiciles.

BA did not become a major presence at LGW until the late 1980s when they took over British Caledonian. There were two main reasons for this takeover. First, BA did not want another airline getting a foothold in the UK market, as would happen had a merger taken place between BCal and SAS. Second, BA management realise that the scope to expand at LHR was restricted and the only way for the airport to expand was to develop a second hub at LGW. Remember, however, that this was a decision taken nearly 30 years ago when civil aviation was in a different political climate than today. Remember also that it is partly due to Bermuda II that some services cannot be relocated to LHR. BA did have a major presence at MAN but other carriers have appeared on the scene to dilute BA's market share. If Branson Airways wants to operate MAN-JFK where there is less demand and less premium traffic, why should BA not let them?

And the LCCs are now quickly appearing on the scene to make BA's predicament worse.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6274 times:

Quoting Cambrian (Reply 7):
I am also not sure how this myth has emerged that people outside the M25 can't afford to travel in the premium classes.

There is no myth that people outside the M25 can't afford to travel in the premium classes, but there is a reality that there is a far lower proportion to make it work profitably on regular scheduled services. There are some routes where it can work, but an awful lot than can't.

Having done enough route development work in the past, i know how much harder it is to get higher yielding traffic in the regions - and I'm someone who has done a lot of work to try and get more regional access by both UK and overseas airlines. an inevitalby London and the South East have a much higher business demand - both inbound and outbound (this is not just about UK travellers remember) on a much greater number of routes. As would be expected by the economic capital of a country. Its not just business either - LON gets a far higher number of high end tourists too.

god I've done enough route studies where the figures just haven't worked - unless regional development support is thrown into to help the route be sustainable. I wish it wasn't the case, but sadly its reality....



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6269 times:

Notice it's the Londoners defending BA  Wink  duck 


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineBA787 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting SpeedbirdEGJJ (Reply 2):

 checkmark 

Quoting SpeedbirdEGJJ (Reply 5):

 checkmark 

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 4):

Excactly.


BA have made it relatively clear that they operate a hub and spoke system, out of LHR. Yes, yes you all say, but waht about LGW? What about it, its pretty obvious why BA use LGW, shortage of LHR slots and lower costs for less profitable flights. Ask most BA employees which is seen as more important? Jus look at fleets for example, the more prestigious and well looked after A32S serve LHR ops whereas the old and tired 737s serve LGW. Another reason for LGW is all the problems with flights to the states, meaning that to offer flights to DFW, BA need to use LGW. I don't profess to understand this law thing, and don't really want to, but i think its another reason for LGW

So we've established that LHR is BAs more prestigious and more pride worthy base. I can understand why some people complain about BAs absence in the rest of the UK, but at the end of the day, BA offer connections to most UK airports from either LHR or LGW, meaning that most of the UK are within 70-100 miles from a BA flight to London, where a helluva lot of destinations await them. The routes out of other UK airports only really work with a true LCC strategy, such as flyBe or LS, the only other flights that I could see would be profitable for BA would be international (non EU) flights, especially American flights, such as MAN-JFK. I can see a BHX-JFK working, despite competition.

Also lets not forget, most of the ex BAcon routes have been taken over by flYbe, meaning that the routes are still served, by, in most cases, better looked after a/c, lower ticket prices and a bigger REGIONAL network, meaning people can fly EDI-BHX-La Rochelle. Lets be honest, BA connect a/c were a bit shit really, the ERJs were uncomfortable and the Q300s noisy. The only savior of the fleet was the AVROS, which are staying anyway.

I still hold the view that it is better for BA to get rid of these routes to someone who can serve them better, than keep operating them at a loss.

So no, i don't think London Airways is fair, because, given BA's small stake in flyBe, some could argue and I will, that BA still serves the same routes it used to and has a bigger presence in the UK than ever before.

I for one would rather fly BE than BA Connect Big grin


User currently offlineEGNM-LBA From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6185 times:

I find the whole ‘London Airways’ thing a bit tedious. It only ever seems to be uttered by people who, by the very nature of the statement, don’t know the first thing about the economics of running an airline and seem desperate to find a scapegoat for why their local airport isn’t doing so well in certain markets.
At the end of the day, the shareholders of British Airways Plc demand an acceptable return on their investment. If large-scale operations from airports outside of Heathrow and Gatwick offered those returns they would be taking them. If they weren’t, the shareholders themselves and their brokers would be placing pressure on them to do so. BA has been managed by numerous different teams over the last 20 years and the fact is none of them, including the ones headed up by an Australian and an Irishman, have been convinced by regional UK operations. Nor have various teams at Virgin or bmi. The fragility of the airline business and the wafer thin margins means that a business like BA will not walk away or ignore huge profit streams on the basis of some regional snobbery.

Ultimately it is simple. There are hub airports and there are airports that feed hubs. In the UK, Heathrow is a hub airport. Manchester, Birmingham et al are airports that feed hubs. Some of the hubs they feed are local, some are more distant. But the principle behind EK flying to Dubai and feeding their hub there, is no different to the principle of BA feeding their LHR hub or AF feeding CDG. Reading some of the ‘London Airways’ rants I am often struck by the contradictory views people put forward in this regard and they will laud EK for developing a feeder flight into DXB but bemoan BA for adopting exactly the same principle. It also strikes me that a degree of tunnel vision is present in certain areas of the UK who seem blissfully ignorant that the local councils, chambers of commerce and RDAs of many UK centres would give their high teeth for a BA link into LHR. Come to my city and ask the business community here what they would think of a 4 or 5 x daily link into T5 next year. Probably the same answer you would get in Liverpool, Sheffield, Teesside, Jersey, Inverness, the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland……


User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4920 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6148 times:

Quoting Cambrian (Reply 3):
The logical conclusion to this process is the current BA Connect debacle, which will see the UK's second city, Birmingham, without any BA service.

Being picky, but as long as Sun Air remain a BA franchise, There will be a BA service to Billund

BA are London Airways because that is were the money is with the way their current business model is. And they do have shareholders to please. So from a business perspective you cant blame BA for being London Airways. (Although if they ever try to pretend to be the UK national carrier I dont think that would be right. I would never consider using BA, KLM provide a far more convienent service from my area and many other UK regions)

However you could hardly call some off Europe's other national airlines Air Frankfurt etc. AF maintain a fairly decent presense in the French regions, especialy at Lyon. Holland doesn't have many regions, but KLM manage to maintain some services from regional airports. And Lufthansa has a two hub structure, a good presense at DUS plus sizeable operations at other regional airports including Hamburg. So why can they do it and BA can't?

I think the LoCo's are the reasons for BA almost withdrawal from the regions. There are far more LoCo's in the UK regions than in Germany or France. And theres another example of this in Spain at BCN - increased LoCo competition, IB pull most services and launch Click Air



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineCYatUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 810 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6135 times:

So what will be the name of BA flights operated by GB Airways under the BA Connect name and service. Will they retain the "pay for food and drink" policy or are they going back to BA service?

At the moment the BA website shows these flights operated by GB Airways with BA Connect service.



CY@Uk
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13211 posts, RR: 77
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6137 times:

To call BA 'London Airways', first insert large chip on the shoulder of your choice.......

Sorry, but I've been in BA long enough to have seen major commitments to the regions, since privatisation too.
What happened? My best guess is that they did not make a lot of money, or when the industry had a bad downturn (remember the one starting in Sept 2001?), they became unviable.

In an ideal world, I would much rather see much more in the regions, including international flights, long haul too.
But, as BCAL says, history and events created a second hub at LGW.

Despite everything, events outside their control, events very much in their control too, BA are still a world class international carrier, doing rather better than many.
And without a Chapter 11 umbrella, without any hand outs that a few EU carriers are STILL getting, with a major scheduled UK competitor right on their doorstep-name any other European' national' carrier with similar and is based in the EU nation that was the first to have a LCC presence and has the biggest LCC sector still.

Given the absurd title of this thread, I'd say the originator is lucky to have had the well reasoned, informative responses above from some members of this site.


User currently offlineBy188b From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6133 times:

Glaswegian here -

If we rename British Airways,

lets rename

TAP - Air Portugal to Air Lisbon
Iberia - to Air Madrid
Air France to Air Paris
SAS - to Air Copenhagen
Finnair - to Air Helsinki

....yawn

and while we are at it Air Berlin to Air Europe!  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 offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2091 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6055 times:

Well to all those who so much more than BA and say the regions are a great untapped goldmine, draw up your business plan and pop down to Barclays and see what they say!

Yes, they had 737s and later 319s operating from MAN and BHX. But the LoCos starting making inroads. They tried to downsize and go for frequency with the jungle jets and Avros above fewer flights with bigger aircraft. Didn't work either.

They tried a dual-hub at LGW, but it was too close to LHR and drove the costbase up to duplicate so many flights when the market showed the prefence was more flights from one airport (LHR) to another, rather than a 50-50 split between LGW and LHR.

Yes, flights to Belfast, Inverness, Jersey, Plymouth and Newquay have gone from LHR, but at such a slot constrained airport are you going to retain those flights when you could use the slots and fill a 747 to HKG or JFK and amke a hell of a lot more money?

All the main political parties in the UK are moving to a greener agenda. Do you want to stay in such a low-yield, cut-throat market as the UK regional one is if after the next General Election you could see massive tax hikes on domestic flights?

Just why aren't BA flying from MAN to DXB, SIN, KUL, ORD, EWR, ATL, etc? Oh hang on, because MAN isn't a hub, whereas all those are for the respective airline. Just as BA can maintain flights from LHR to PHX, SEA, BWI, DEN that US carriers can't, and serves the most US cities overall from one airport. Do people ask why if CO can serve TXL and HAM from EWR, then why can't LH do the reverse?

As for LH, it's based in a bigger, more populous country, and has greater feed from Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, the Low Countries and the Alpine States. It's better situated hubs mean loads of feed can be drawn in. The UK is one the western fringes of Europe. One of the reasons there are so few Far Eastern flights is that other carriers can draw more European feed. To use LHR you backtrack across Europe, then fly over it again.

Would this thread exist if LHR had an extra runway and BA was able to draw in feed from a lot more regional airports? No. But some people seem to think we're still in the 1970s where competetion was a novelty.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 36
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5918 times:

I have a question regarding BA. WTF is going on with their luggage handling??? BA started flying in YYC in Dec. 2006. The amount of pax missing their baggage off this flight is ridiculous. Some pax in desperation walk over to the AC wing of the airport and start asking us AC staff about their bags! I'm not talking a bag missing here or there, I'm talking people going on a ski trip and missing everything for days on end.

What the hell is going on???

Kris



Word
User currently offlineAntonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 720 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5864 times:

all this London Airways stuff is getting tedious. What do you guys expect ?
Double daily flights ABZ - SIN, NCL - SYD, CWL - BKK, MME - SFO ???
They are doing the same as any other airline, linking their flight thru the main hub, ie LHR


User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5826 times:

Quoting EGNM-LBA (Reply 13):
It only ever seems to be uttered by people who, by the very nature of the statement, don’t know the first thing about the economics of running an airline and seem desperate to find a scapegoat for why their local airport isn’t doing so well in certain markets.

Well I DO know about the economics of running an airline, I HAVE been party to meetings discussing BA's routes out of Manchester and I HAVE 51 years of watching what BA and their predecessors have done to discourage competition and the development of services out of provincial airports.

Let's give an example from 25 years ago which was very personal. At the time I was Conference Officer for Greater Manchester and also an executive member of a Chamber of Commerce Committee working with the airport authority to develop direct routes from Manchester. Working with a Professor at Manchester University, I had won an major international conference (which attracted 1500 foreign delegates) to take place in 1985. I approached BA to be the Official Carrier and they agreed. I had expected them to offer promotional fares on the routes served into Manchester from around Europe and North America.

Not a bit of it. The only routes on which promotional fares were offered which did not involve a change at LHR were those from Glasgow, Edinburgh and the Heathrow Shuttle for London based delegates. All other delegates wishing to avail of some pretty good promotional conference fares HAD to change at LHR - even for destinations as close as Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris. As can be imagined, not too many pax were picked up from Europe and BA expressed a "disappointment" at the uptake.

London Airways is a cap which has fitted well for many years and, from today, fits even more closely. Heathrow Airways it will become as soon as it can find an excuse to ditch Gatwick, a pill once worth swallowing to get rid of BCAL and Dan Air.

Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
To call BA 'London Airways', first insert large chip on the shoulder of your choice.......

Sorry, but I've been in BA long enough to have seen major commitments to the regions, since privatisation too.

Do BA employees get Brownie points for sticking up for their management?

Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
What happened? My best guess is that they did not make a lot of money, or when the industry had a bad downturn (remember the one starting in Sept 2001?), they became unviable.

Strange. According to the figures Manchester suffered least of all airports in the UK served by BA in the aftermath of 9/11. Probably because the economy class passengers are made of sterner stuff than the pampered types who help pay your wages and live in the "South".

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 18):
Just why aren't BA flying from MAN to DXB, SIN, KUL, ORD, EWR, ATL, etc? Oh hang on, because MAN isn't a hub,

At the time you were busy being born Manchester had its BA 1-11 Division - profitable and with a breadth of services to Europe which was always seen as being the basis for a hub. To come up to date, the Connect services into Manchester only needed a little flair and vision to create a hub situation but flair and vision in the so called national airline vanished around 1939 and never came back.

As for the continued debate about yields, look at the demographics and ask why millions of business pax travel through MAN every year and "can't" support the required proportion of high yield seats. One good reason is the enticements over the years by BEA/BOAC/BA to use the London flights to connect at LHR and help boost LHR services. Can anyone supply current REAL figures for how many high yield UK based pax out of LHR actually come from the Home Counties and how many from the rest of the UK. I know in the 1980s and early 1990s it was around 65% Home Counties 45% Provinces (mainly MAN, EDI, GLA, BHX in that order) and the growth in direct services to the US and Asia ex MAN between 1988 and 1992 caused some annoyance in certain quarters at BA because the Shuttle service suffered as did certain ex London long haul services' high yield figures - there was talk of "competing with one's self".

If I still had anything to do with the development of Manchester (area and airport) I'd be happy to see the back of BA and be looking to develop links with airlines willing to offer the product wanted by the local customers..


User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5823 times:

Quoting Antonovman (Reply 20):
all this London Airways stuff is getting tedious. What do you guys expect ?
Double daily flights ABZ - SIN, NCL - SYD, CWL - BKK, MME - SFO ???
They are doing the same as any other airline, linking their flight thru the main hub, ie LHR

And all people do is moan about the lack of BA service from their airport, and then say they're happier without BA anyway.


User currently offlineLite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5779 times:

Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 22):
And all people do is moan about the lack of BA service from their airport, and then say they're happier without BA anyway.

People are happier without British Airways, because instead in the regions we are now being treated to airlines who have an interest, and are able to put in the effort, to make flights from the regions work. We moan about the lack of BA service because had BA had the forsight to do what airlines like bmibaby and flybe are doing, then the national carrier would have a strong national presence - which other carriers seem to have been able to have adapted to.


User currently offlineEGNM-LBA From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5752 times:

Quoting Philb (Reply 21):
Well I DO know about the economics of running an airline

What is the cost per annum to BA of stationing a B777 in MAN (include here diseconomies of scale, i,e, additional engineering, schedule recovery costs etc)
What volume and yield is needed to cover this cost per seat / km and generate a return above the BA internal hurdle rate
What is the BA internal hurdle rate
Based on market research, what routes provide the necessary volume / yield to achieve or beat the hurdle rate


25 Philb : I'm not party to BA's internal workings and, anyway, your question is a nonsense in as much as stationing one solitary aircraft at a given place isn't
26 EGNM-LBA : I'm sorry Phil, but you are simply reinforcing the arguments put forward by myself and many others in this thread as to why this "London Airways" rant
27 Philb : I'll come back on this tomorrow - about to go to bed
28 Post contains images EDICHC : Kinda late on the scene to this thread considering the debate I seemed to generate on another thread As I was trying to say before my arguement is tha
29 EDICHC : Most legacy carriers only represent 1 nation. BA purports, by use of the title British, to represent the 4 constituent member nations of the UK (tech
30 Gemuser : Irrelevant! They prefer to send them via LHR because it's more profitable for them. Can't really argue with that for a commerical company, unless it'
31 Post contains images Plunaaircanada : LOL that's so true! puac
32 TristarSteve : Good morning from Stockholm. In the twenty years I have worked here BA has had flights to LHR LGW MAN BHX and for two summer seasons EDI. The flights
33 Post contains images EDICHC : Absolutely spot-on there Gemuser! See my above posts!
34 JonnyWishbone : Economically, focussing on LHR is correct for BA, but I personally feel the opportunity cost of cutting out the regions has not been truly thought abo
35 Cornish : Ok well cut out the petty north vs south line. While i may disagree with some of your arguements I respect your point of view. But don't go down this
36 VV701 : It has two hubs, FRA and MUC. Like BA it has to focus on its hub operations for economic reasons. So here is a question: If LH is the German national
37 Cornish : I know what you are saying - but your answer is not strictly accurate in that there are a number of other German airports that are not LH hubs that h
38 CaptLockheed : Who cares about BA? Just fly someone else who wants your custom.. Cross you fingers and hope for an open sky agreement and see how BA does then ... ho
39 Post contains links Philb : Please don't tell me what my motivation is and please don't patronise me. I've been watching the aviation scene in Manchester since 1956. I have been
40 EDICHC : BMI at least offer international routes out of EDI They also have their own staff presence there unlike BA in the near future.[Edited 2007-03-06 12:0
41 EGNM-LBA : It's not up for debate - it's obvious from your posts. To save me from reading the war and peace extract that follows, tell me - does it include any
42 Philb : I've seen some arrogant posts on this Forum over the years but you take the biscuit. Perhaps if you weren't so arrogant you might read the piece and
43 Candid76 : You wouldn't expect to hear this from me as a MAN diehard, but from a commercial perspective (as that is my role in the airline world) I don't entirel
44 EDICHC : Globespan does not use the word Scottish in it's name, but is Scottish based and employs Scottish staff. As I recall from the days when I worked for
45 Cornish : Yes you are. you are just damaging the credibility of your argument by saying that. Yes there are arsehole business people flying in and out of LHR j
46 Philb : Unfortunately this is all about a North South argument. Currently, by its actions, BA is making the point that the provinces, north of London, cannot
47 EGNM-LBA : Phil - I am genuinely sorry if I have offended you. I am trying to keep the debate on the crux of the issue which is commercial viability. A number of
48 Cornish : But they don't serve CPT, JNB or NYC out of Scottish airports - but they do out of MAN or LPL. From EDI, Scotland's capital and wealthiest city they
49 Gkirk : The fact that GSM does long haul from MAN isn't good enough, they are a Scottish airline so should focus on flights from ABZ, EDI and GLA. Not MAN, no
50 Philb : Fair enough, but I'm not going to spend hours working out figures based on incomplete information as I don't have access to BA's confidential figures
51 Post contains images Cornish : Is Cardiff not in the south ? Is Bristol not in the South ? Is Devon and Cornwall not in the south ? This is not a north vs south argument. It is an
52 EDICHC : Sorry but try reading my post carefully I never said I worked for Globespan. I have been consistent I have frequently stated that private companies h
53 Post contains links Philb : Perhaps before you went to India you could have done a little reserach into the distribution of the Indian ethnic market (the main driving force of U
54 Cornish : Apologies - I did indeed misread what you said. But do you not agree that Globespan should be offering more for Scottish passengers and focus less on
55 Philb : So VS will go under - despite the 49% holding of Singapore Airlines and the links to Continental? I'm beginning to wonder just where you are coming f
56 EDICHC : I don't worry too much about that, Globespan dont use Scottish in their name and nowhere do they use the Saltire as part of their logo. It's the misr
57 Cornish : And getting back to this, take away the whole BA issue for a moment and this is the most important remark in this thread. The whole nation has always
58 Post contains images EDICHC : Tell that to the average American golfer (of which there are one or two I believe), they could tell you where St Andrews is...in Scotland the norther
59 Philb : You are 110% correct. Manchester and other provincial cities with plenty to offer, both inside their conurbations and within easy reach beyond, have
60 Cornish : I said long term - and I'm not the only analyst who thinks so. As for the CO relationship - that has long been far from rosy. It suits both of them w
61 Cornish : Undoubtedly so. But the likes of Manchester and Birmingham are identified as cities in the US by many - sadly not as the original cities in the UK.
62 Post contains images Cornish : Very true and something I saw clearly when teaching EFL between my studies and before my career in aviation. Out in Eastern Europe in the early 90s w
63 Post contains images Gkirk : To be fair, would you admit to coming from Liverpool?
64 Post contains images Cornish : Hey i admit to coming from Cornwall
65 Bmiexpat : At the moment bmi fly to 6 long haul destinations, four of which are from Manchester, only two from London. They have a very successful and highly re
66 Philb : As I'm sure you know Manchester has had service to Mumbai on BA, SIA and Air India, none of which was sustainable. In some ways, to the average Indian
67 AirNZ : Sorry EDICHC, but what is technically incorrect? The United Kingdom and Great Britain are two completely different entities.......and Northern Irelan
68 Cornish : Not any more - at least in India. The new generation of Indians that are travelling now (for both business and leisure purposes and not purely for VF
69 Candid76 : Assuming Open Skies leads to the revocation of Bermuda 2, can you promise me this will still be the case? Agreed, it's a good product. It is a sepera
70 Philb : Just to move the debate to a different area, what now for BA? If I were a shareholder looking beyond short term profits I might just be asking one or
71 EDICHC : Northern Ireland is not British in as much as it is not part of Great Britain, hence the full title of the country (as stated on UK passports) The Un
72 Post contains images Strathpeffer : quote=EDICHC,reply=71]NI is not British[/quote] Don't tell the Reverend Ian Paisley! BA's BHX, MAN and Highland Division routes are emotive issues. My
73 Lite : Couldn't agree more. British Airways had the perfect opportunity with a fresh slate from the merger of some of Britain's most successful regional air
74 GDB : PhilB, no, I do not stand up for BA management thankyou very much, on the other hand, such crap is written about the airline it's often beyond belief.
75 Philb : No-one would have been happier than me to see a succesful, truly national, BA offering a range of services from a range of British airports. Have a lo
76 G-CIVP : Just one minor point. If I recall correctly, BA have not paid a dividend for the past few years, so any shareholder would have to be interested in cap
77 Post contains images BA787 : If either of you two can suggest a better alternative to BA's route map and service go ahead, considering you didn't, im guessing you just like to pi
78 FlyCaledonian : What? Yes, Great Britain refers to the Island made up of England, Scotland and Wales, but the British Isles refers to Great Britain and the island of
79 Lite : Why don't you actually read my post? I said that British Airways had huge potential in the merger of some of Britain's most successful independent re
80 BA787 : Sorry, was referring more to Captain Lockheed.
81 David_itl : One thing should be quite obvious now: there is zero chance of Britain's regions seeing any more routes on BA mainline other than a London route as I
82 Philb : No they weren't. In the days of Ryanair's 748s, ATRs and BAC 1-11s they were almost a basket case. What RRyanair did was to see a new way forward - a
83 Post contains images A340600 : Notice it's the people with any sense saying your argument is tiring, boring and pathetic. I don't see long for BA at Gatwick now, especially with th
84 Donder10 : If there are profit opportunities to be made at MAN other airlines will cease the initiative and move in,simple as that. At the moment MAN has a decen
85 StarGoldLHR : I hear that... however appears the secrets out... everytime Ive flown LCY recently the lounge has been packed out.. even the new restaurant section i
86 G-CIVP : "Perhaps you should shut up and, in your silence, ponder those points." Charming!
87 Philb : Try reading and understanding what I wrote: What part of "a similar numbet of departures between noon and 13.30" don't you understand? I have many ye
88 Philb : If you had read the reply to which I was responding you would have understood the context:
89 Bongodog1964 : GO did work, and was expanding rapidly both under full BA control, and under the subsequent private equity buy out. Its very success made it a must b
90 Philb : So what you are saying is that the BA management of the time was incompetent in its decision to sell GO. Why put a "successful" subsidiary on the mar
91 Bongodog1964 : IMO the management at the time of the GO sell off were misguided. The LCC route was (and is) the appropriate one for UK regional, and European short
92 Philb : I think you have it dead right. Connect was a mongrel cobbled together over the years by roping in good independent airlines under the pretext of off
93 Cornish : Ah but the term "The World's favorite airline" was due to it being the largest international passenger carrier in the world - so forgetting all about
94 Post contains images Strathpeffer : About three years ago I had to go to BHD from ABZ (just after BAX cancelled its direct service). I was offered ABZ - LHR - MAN - BHD even though I co
95 Humberside : If EU/US open skies gets approved, that will seriously affect BA's future at LGW. ATL/DFW/IAH will be moved ASAP to LHR leaving Gatwick with leisure
96 A340600 : GO was a success, it was just a shame that BA didn't channel the management into a different way of thinking and start to reinvent the regional produ
97 Philb : Patently it wasn't. Apart from the tests I listed and you quote if it had been a success, even to the management at BA, why did they sell it?
98 G-CIVP : A couple of points from a 'quick' read! "You mean over 30 years of lack of investment, management by accountants instead of railwaymen and not enough
99 Hammerb32 : For me there's a reality and a perception here. Many are saying that BA are moving out of the 'regions' as the London media so charmingly refers to th
100 Egmcman : What's MAN's operating costs like? because that's part of the problem as well the recent increases in tax on flying. I hope Flybe make it work.
101 A340600 : The reality is you have no idea what you're talking about. I'd love to see all these business travellers enjoying frequent flyer memberships etc sudd
102 Post contains images Planesarecool : And if you had listened in your geography lessons, you would realise that Germany and France are larger and more populated countries than the UK. And
103 Jonty : What do people expect, its a private company, they have to make money or they shut down! When they were owned by the state they could be subsidised he
104 Bongodog1964 : I can think of two reasons why they would operate LGW - MCO, firstly it might be profitable as a stand alone route as there a a few people who wish t
105 Richardw : and their flights were enjoyable. Did BA MAD-LGW last week, miserable crew, average food, not as good as Go. Did LIS-LGW on Monarch on Sunday, great
106 Post contains images A340600 : Yes but surely there is a route where they can better use the J class seats on the aircraft, charge higher for them etc, extend profit margins. Inter
107 Bongodog1964 : No Change of management, who probably didn't understand that LCC was the way forward in Europe; as we must remember that FR and EZY were much smaller
108 EDICHC : Ok the post quoted was not directed at me; but here are three examples of how BA has lost out on my custom for my last three long haul round trips fr
109 Cornish : EDICHC - while i can see what you are saying, in many many cases it can be far cheaper to fly with foreign carriers than home carriers, not just in t
110 Richardw : To clarify, it was only one member that was having a bad day, the others were great.
111 EDICHC : Exactly the point I was making, where LH doesn't serve itself you can bet you can reach it with a *A partner. Something that BA fails to do (with One
112 Sam1987 : Because they are low cost point to point airlines with completely different business models. BA is a full service hub and spoke airline, that depends
113 Philb : I just love the ways apologists for BA (sorry, London Airways) cite the business model as if it had been imposed on them. The airline has been privat
114 Donder10 : Philb, can you please suggest what kind of a network you feel BA should be operating out of MAN?
115 Philb : I don't want BA back in force at Manchester. I've said before the airport is well rid of them. But consider this: In 1980, when BA didn't have to worr
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...
Why Don't BA Operate GB Airways Flights? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 19:43:45 by 8herveg
British Airways? More Like London Airways. posted Sun Nov 27 2005 03:33:40 by ScotspanGSM
Is Next New BA Franchisee, Eastern Airways posted Thu Aug 18 2005 13:30:43 by Timetable
Thomson 752 (AKA Britannia Airways) posted Sat Jun 18 2005 23:09:44 by 666Wizard
BA At London Luton posted Wed Oct 15 2003 18:45:08 by EZYAirbus
BA And Nigeria Airways Stoping There Cooperation posted Wed Mar 28 2001 20:07:27 by Emile
BA At London posted Tue Jul 11 2000 03:36:31 by Ezra
Why No Nonstop BA Flight London-Bogota? posted Sat May 20 2000 18:47:05 by Goooooaaal
Decisions...decisions, VA Or BA To London? posted Tue Mar 14 2000 19:30:47 by Dazed767
Etihad Airways News Thread posted Thu Feb 8 2007 13:42:45 by Speedbird128