Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1120 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2116 times:
This has been discussed on here many times in recent months, it is only this weekend that the media have picked up on it.
If there is anyone to blame it is the system for allocating slots and having to use them 80% of the time. It is fair enoough when things are going well but if it creeps up suddenly like it has done with BMED and they had a slot with no route to operate it at quite short notice then there should be something there that an Airline can get the slots back after not using them for the season as long as they use the full allocation the next season.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7044 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2024 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Reply 4): Can airlines not just buy slots but not use them until they're needed?
At LHR if you do not use a slot on 80 per cent of all occasions over a certain (?) time period it is confiscated and reallocated. So no. Airlines cannot just buy slots and not use them, at least at LHR.
It sounds very expensive to to ferry a 320 from LHR to CWL every day and ferry it back the following day as BMED have been doing since the start of the winter schedules. But at least they are avoiding BAA's high parking charges at LHR.
Philb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2003 times:
Another bandwaggon for Brown, Cameron and the Greens.
It is a ridiculous waste, however, and shows up just how the system is flawed. Use it or lose it is the way to go but occupying airspace, runways and gates with no end in sight other than to hold onto slots for as long as possible is worthy of Alice Through The Looking Glass.
If an airline cannot regularly use a slot to carry passengers on a legitimate service, the slot should be given to another carrier
Boysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 915 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
Quoting BA777 (Reply 2): Its only the fact that BMED have more of an inclination towards BA (well, used to due to the ownership etc) and the media have picked up on it.
I disagree, I think it would have made the media no matter who operated the flight.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 6): At LHR if you do not use a slot on 80 per cent of all occasions over a certain (?) time period
The time period is 6 months. I agree that it is a stupid system we have in place if it encourages an airline to take such a decision. What do the rules allow? I mean could BMED not have leased the slots to another airline for the winter period? Was this ghost flight the only option available to them?
Trintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3211 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1692 times:
There we go, there are the absurdities of the rules of slots, especially at crowded airports like LHR. For starters, this sort of thing is not at all new, as indicated above - I certainly remember the QF flights with a BAe-146/ ARJ to MAN to keep the slots active. The thing is that the heavily congested LHR is still seen with such prestige that airlines will do anything to hold onto the slots there - the costs of using crew, fuel and so on is seen as minimal compared to the long-term benefits of keeping the slots. The trouble is that such flights are certainly not "green" and at this time will invariably cause controversy.
This sort of behaviour sounds suspiciously like BA - then again, KJ is a co-operative partner of BA. KJ had other problems in terms of deploying the plane elsewhere - unlike the EU, most of the destinations of KJ are outside and flights are governed by bilateral agreements limiting service numbers. Additionally, KJ cannot serve the same destinations as BA's mainline fleet so from the simple standpoint of keeping the slots they had no real options.
LHR slots cannot be held unused ad infinitum - if not used 80% of the time over a 6 month period they will be withdrawn and reallocated. On a different note, positioning flights are not really the same as these ghost flights because, while they do use slots the planes then go on to do regular services afterwards.
It must be a sight at CWL to see the BA-liveried A320s coming in daily now - I have not been down to the airport of late.
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1672 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 9): For 'certain (?) time period' read 'six months'.
No it isn't. The time periods are specifically the IATA Winter (last Sunday in October to the Saturday before the last Sunday in March) and the IATA Summer (last Sunday in March to the Saturday before the last Sunday in October) Scheduling Seasons.
Slot historicals are a very complex subject with a number of local rules and special loopholes. There are a fair number of people who specialise as consultants in this field.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2964 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1644 times:
Whoops sorry! I did honestly do a search and bought up no results... (Have now requested my thread gets deleted!)
Running a little short of time but here are my comments in the opening to my thread for the same subject:
I was just reading the below link about BMED the BA franchise that BMI has recently acquired, about flying an empty A320 from LHR to CWL, they are offering no tickets for sale on this flight... Apparently this flight has been operating six times a week for BA for quite some time, just to secure one of BA's valuable slots at LHR, until they make better useage for this runway slot.
Now BMI have taken over the BMED, the route is now due to end from next week.
I think I remember reading how Qantas operated a similar kind of flight between LHR and MAN, just to secure one of their slots.
Is this common practise at LHR, as I assume the airport operates a "Use it, or loose it!" policy on runway slots.
Does any other airports have airlines operating similar routes?
This is just my opinion...
But I think the CAA or some other related authority should intervene on these kind of flights, and force the airlines to surrender the slots it they are not willing to use the slots to fly a "proper" commercial service selling tickets to passengers.
I bet other airlines would jump at the chance of using these slots!
Im not some eco-activist and cannot admit Im as "green" as I could be! But when airlines are getting bad press here in the UK about flying and carbon emmissions. "Phantom" flights like reported above do them no favours!
Philb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1623 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 15): But I think the CAA or some other related authority should intervene on these kind of flights, and force the airlines to surrender the slots it they are not willing to use the slots to fly a "proper" commercial service selling tickets to passengers.
Exactly - not having a route structure where they can easily pick up another flight is not a reason for holding on to something badly needed by other airlines and the travelling public.
Theginge From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 1120 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1625 times:
The ending of the LHR-CWL flights as has nothing to do with BMI taking over BMED, although that article says it has. It is the fact that the IATA summer season begins in a couple of weeks when the slots will be used again for commercial services. The service would have stopped if BMI had bought BMED or not.