TWAneedsNOhelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 1645 times:
It's pretty to clear to any airline/aviation enthusiast that British Airways does not specialize in short range flying to the continent. Why? BA's profit center are long range 747, 777, and 767 services from LHR and LGW to points in North America, Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and Oceania.
How did BA fail so thoroughly at short flights to Europe, is their cost structure too high? Is there a skepticism by Europeans to fly BA? Did they fly the wrong planes to the wrong market? Now there is low-fare (and high fare) competition, but was there just 20-10 years?
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 7 months 3 hours ago) and read 1627 times:
The advent of no-frills airlines has
1) Allowed those who couldn't afford BA's extortionate short-haul fares to fly to Europe
2) Captured a small number of BA's business pax, tired of paying GBP250+ for a 1-2 hour flight.
Other than that, I thought their EU ops were doing fine; the problem was the EU ops from LGW, as I understand BA were making heavy losses there. They realised having two hubs close to London was a big mistake (made no sense), and are currently in the process of putting things right.
Increasing high-yield demand for certain long-haul routes has prompted BA to decide to re-allocate all of their 744 fleet back to LHR. 777's will remain to operate a handful of routes (eg. the US routes which cannot be flown from LHR).
Service on BA EU routes is generally "fair" I would say, although certainly not worth the fares they usually charge.
I flew back from Bologna last night, the return trip on GO having cost me GBP49, as opposed to BA's GBP179 on that route.
Although the no-frills airlines are doing quite well, BA don't appear bothered, as they can always rely on a hard-core group of Business pax which are prepared to pay fares of GBP700+ to fly Club Europe to Lisbon etc.
Absolutely mad if you ask me...