Adicool From Netherlands, joined Apr 2007, 261 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
I was wondering if you guys think that flag carriers have a certain responsibility in order to live up to their name.
For me, a flag carrier for example is LH, AF, KL...all those carriers serve their country meaning you can reach basically any big city in those countries with max. one change at their respective hubs.
BA on the other hand does not fulfill the name "flag carrier" IMHO. They don't fly to BEL for example respectively to any city in Northern Ireland.
I hope you people understand what I am trying to say. For me, a flag carrier also has to provide service to its hubs - even, and this is very important I think - if the route might not be profitable. A flag carrier should not only act in order to gain the most profit but also provide the country with a decent network. I know, especially in these days, when aviation has become less and less glamours, it might be a very naive opinion - but does anyone agree with me on this one? BA really has become a LON-Airway in my eyes.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21444 posts, RR: 24 Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1826 times:
BA is no more a British flag carrier than VS. Flag carrier is a meaningless term these days. And the only responsibility of privately-owned airlines is to generate the best returns for their shareholders. Serving unprofitable markets is certainly not one of their responsibilities.
Rivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 817 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
I'm afraid you are not living in the present. Your definition of this archaic term, 'flag-carrier', implies that such an airline must be state-owned, as it somehow has social responsibilities that do not afflict a purely commercial enterprise.
There are very few such airlines left in the western world, certainly not LH, nor KL, although AF may still receive some indirect state funding (I'm not certain of that, though).
Without state funding, and the associated notional 'social responsibility' vis-a-vis public transport, why should any airline, BA or LH or AA or anyone else have any 'duty' to their home counrty other than turning a healthy profit in order to provide jobs and assist the economy?
This flag-carrying concept is a legacy of the dinosaur era, and has no place in the contemporary aviation industry, unless you want to go back to the dark days of government control, high airfares, restrictive routes, and generally poor (indifferent) service levels.
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1690 times:
Get over this "flag carrier" fixation. All airlines are registered/head quartered in a country. They carry that country's flag. The term "flag carrier" carries no added significance or responsibility. Southwest is a flag carrier and it never leaves the the United States.
Quoting Adicool (Thread starter): For me, a flag carrier also has to provide service to its hubs - even, and this is very important I think - if the route might not be profitable. A flag carrier should not only act in order to gain the most profit but also provide the country with a decent network
I have sympathy for the poor taxpayers of those countries that support money losing industries. Airlines have no business providing welfare. If you can't afford the true cost of traveling from Point A to Point B, tough luck. Life isn't fair. Don't expect me to subsidize your travel.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1589 times:
Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 2): Without state funding, and the associated notional 'social responsibility' vis-a-vis public transport, why should any airline, BA or LH or AA or anyone else have any 'duty' to their home counrty other than turning a healthy profit in order to provide jobs and assist the economy?
While this is absolutely correct in the commercial sense, and as an advocate of the free market economy I have no problem with this. I have however been quite vociferous on other threads regarding BA's in particular, quasi-flag carrying status. In my opinion BA misuse the title British and frankly I think that upon their privatisation in the mid 1980s they should have been compelled to give up that title. The current BA 'brand' is not representative of Britain as a whole, to say nothing of their operations. Indeed as an ex-pat Scot, I have sen how this image helps distort the image of the UK abroad as a whole. For one it reinforces the popular misconception in many parts of the world that England=UK and that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of England!
BA are no more representative of the UK as a whole, than Cockney Pearly Kings and Queens are!
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5521 posts, RR: 58 Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1578 times:
Flysherwood From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 3): I have sympathy for the poor taxpayers of those countries that support money losing industries. Airlines have no business providing welfare. If you can't afford the true cost of traveling from Point A to Point B, tough luck. Life isn't fair. Don't expect me to subsidize your travel
Two comments. The UK is a geographically small country. In area it is about 10 per cent smaller than the state of Colorado. So comparing the BA network with the networks of other "flag carriers" - whatever they are - is a bit like comparing apples and pears.
Another definition of "flag carrier" could be an airline that links its country's capital with all other major capitals in the world. But that would exclude LH who do not operate between Berlin and London. Perhaps they should be called Frankfurt and Munich Airlines?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21444 posts, RR: 24 Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1483 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 7): But that would exclude LH who do not operate between Berlin and London. Perhaps they should be called Frankfurt and Munich Airlines?
LH recently announced new twice-daily TXL-LCY service starting January 14, 2008 using LH Regional (Eurowings) BAe-146.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6612 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1424 times:
Quoting Adicool (Thread starter): all those carriers serve their country meaning you can reach basically any big city in those countries with max. one change at their respective hubs.
BA on the other hand does not fulfill the name "flag carrier" IMHO. They don't fly to BEL for example respectively to any city in Northern Ireland.
But it does. These flight pairs all meet your criteria:
By the way 'BEL' is not Belfast City or Belfast International Airport. It is Belem Airport (in Brazil). And, of course, LDY is Londonderry, Northern Ireland's third airport.
TYCOON From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 329 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1384 times:
AF does have certain obligations to fly to French overseas territories ('continuité territoriale"). They receive a subsidy in the form of lower "social" charges in order to offer cheaper tickets to inhabitants of the overseas territories. But this is not reserved just for AF, but for any French carrier flying between France (the 'metropole' and the overseas territories).
Spain has a similar system whereby local residents in the Balearic and Canary Islands pay a cheaper fare when flying to mainland Spain than non-residents.
There is of course the notion in every nation of a government's right to oblige national airlines to put at the disposition of the government transport aircraft in times of crisis (natural catastrophes, wars, etc...). This exists in all European counties, Australia and even in the United States. I forget the legal term - it has been too long since I worked in aviation finance.
If you were right that would make England, a country of some 50 million people, a country with no form of national government, national legislature or national assembly. With respect this is an absurd hypothesis.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 12): With respect this is an absurd hypothesis.
Well I think you sum it up quite well...to us Scots England is an absurdity!
To be precise the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a single sovereign state formed of the union of the 4 home nations/countries, call them what you like and thier dependent territories.
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5521 posts, RR: 58 Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1233 times:
KochamLOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 277 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Its too bad how things have changed like this...
certain things dont mean as much just like 'flag carrier.' I agree that a Flag Carrier has soemthing more to live up to, but now I dont know what. It seems that whatever airline is more patriotic with their logos can call themselves call themselves a flag carrier. (Like Virgin Atlantic vs. BA)
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5521 posts, RR: 58 Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Quoting EDICHC (Reply 15): Heyy spare a guy the odd typo considering the time here!
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2007, 261 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21444 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 817 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
