United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9036 posts, RR: 16 Posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1581 times:
UK airports in decline: BA chief
By Geoffrey Thomas
AFTER 12 months running the world's biggest international airline, British Airways, Rod Eddington has blamed UK aviation officials for overseeing a 20-year decline in the industry that costs his airline $1.7 billion a year.
The former Ansett and Cathay Pacific chief executive warned in a speech to the London Aviation Club that new terminals and runways were desperately needed or the UK would become the backwater of the European air industry.
In a strong attack on UK's aviation regulators and politicians, Mr Eddington warned of disaster for UK aviation.
"They should start planning for success instead of managing decline," he said.
"Passengers can expect higher fares, overcrowding and worse services."
Mr Eddington cautioned that continuing decline would affect investment, productivity growth and jobs.
He lashed out at environmental groups which opposed developments at Heathrow and other airports because they claimed they would increase noise and fuel emissions.
Mr Eddington scoffed at this, saying that rather than suppressing growth, plans to limit capacity would lead to a build-up of traffic at airports and see more aircraft circling over airports for longer.
This would lead to more noise, more emissions, longer journey times and lost economic growth.
He said that in British aviation nothing had changed since 1988.
"At the time they talked about Terminal Five at Heathrow to solve problems but 13 years down the track not a spade full of earth has been turned," he said.
"Demand for air travel in Britain has nearly tripled since 1975, and Heathrow is operating with the same runway capacity now as then.
"Heathrow is not even the second or third best airport in Europe now, with Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam overtaking us."
He pointed to Charles de Gaulle airport near Paris as an example, which had in recent years received permission to add runways and terminals, and is served by high-speed rail links.
"In 2010 Heathrow will only rank seventh in Europe based on current policies," he said.
Since 1988, Hong Kong, Malaysia and South Korea had built completely new airports.
He predicted airport rage for Heathrow.
"Unless improvements are made, scenes like the director's cut of Blade Runner with even longer queues, frustration, inefficiencies and anger will be normal," he said.
Mr Eddington also said Heathrow was tired and dirty.
2000 West Australian Newspapers Limited
All Rights Reserved.
I thought UAL or AA is the largest airline. What do you mean by 'The biggest Interational Airline'??
Also, I would say HK has the best airport in the world. The most high tech, advanced as well as clean. Also the most expensive..........
Ryanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1454 times:
BA generates more international passenger miles than any other airline. It is the world's leading INTERNATIONAL airline.
Heathrow IS near saturation point, but what worries me is that BA are pinning ALL their hopes on the new Terminal 5 at LHR if and when it gets planning permission. They are even moving slots from LGW to LHR which seems to me to be lunacy considering the lack of space at LHR. I also think Stansted could be used a heck of a lot more than it is now.
I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
What exactly is wrong with BA's attitude?
They've made it quite clear they are here to serve the premium flyer, and NOT the Bucket & Spade brigade (aka economy pax).
I would take a guess that if this is the case, it is not worth the costs of setting up long-haul ops from regional airports.
The premium mkt is in London, period. Premium pax bring profits, the rest can be left to the others etc. etc.
It's called economic rationality, and I can't really see what the problem is!! They're certainly not doing anything wrong, and are perfectly within their rights to complain about LHR, which is all they are (and should) be concerned about.
BDRules From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 1501 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
i am always at EMA and it seems very efficient with very few delays and its got some of the best reports on turnaround times in the country and i know people will say there is not as much traffic there than at LHR but i feel it shouldnt make too much of a difference.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1401 times:
Well, my most recent post really answers the question I think, but I will nevertheless expand briefly;
I am well aware that not all Northerners are potential Y class candidates (plenty of country houses and their aristocratic owners plus businessmen etc. in the Northern cities and countryside).
However, there are simply not enough (in BA's opinion) potential premium travellers up there to justify the costs of setting up serious longhaul ops from Manch., Birmingham and others.
BA already serves some primary regional (Euro) and national destinations from UK regional cities in any case. That's probably as much profit with minimal risk as they're likely to get from these airports. Longhaul ops are another piece of cake altogether.
And the feeder traffic?? BA already feeds it's own longhaul ops from regional airports; the rest of BA's pax are probably delivered down to LHR & LGW courtesy of BMI and other Euro airlines.
And the "fairness" thing.
As I have already said, BA already provide service from the UK's major provincial cities to London. You also have other alternatives to BA on top of that. What more do you want??!
If it's BA longahaul flights from regional airports you Northerners are after, forget it.
The options are
1) Get on a BA Shuttle down to LHR or LGW; catch your BA longhaul departure from there (fairly stress free).
2) Fly longhaul with other airlines-Delta, American, Cathay, Emirates, Singapore-they can't be that bad!
BA is doing what it considers economic sense. Sometimes economic sense means being humanely irrational.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1382 times:
I'm not going to pick on you but your lack of years and experience are showing - and I think it is you, with your aspirations to be a BA cadet who is mixing emotion and commerce.
As someone who, in one way or another, has been around aviation for almost 45 years, lived in Britain, North and South for all but 3 of those (the last three) and travelled from both ends of England around the world on business (much of it to do with aviation) I can claim just a small amount of hard earned knowledge.
First off, BA wants business - if it can get premium business fine, but until they downsize the economy cabin on a 747 to 30 seats I won't believe they are in the business of turning away people with smaller budgets. So why not serve the less congested airports where there is plenty of traffic?
There are as many people within a 75 mile radius of Manchester as there are within the same radius of central London (UK population census 1991). Between them, the Midlands and North of England have as many major company HQs, national corporate centres for overseas companies and exporting companies as the South East.
Where do you get the idea that anyone flying in economy is "bucket and spade". If you want to fly for BA, you probably won't need to know why your pax are flying - but don't expect to write such nonsense here and get away with it.
There are more business passengers flying economy around the world than fly in business or first (though all airlines hate to admit it). Companies are forever downsizing travel budgets and it is the comparatively few who travel in anything better than Y class.
As to the history of BA and its predecessors at Manchester, please don't quote just three examples at me - I've been visiting the airport since 1955, have had a little to do with marketing it and the area in general, in the past and could bore this thread stupid with the duplicity of BOAC and BA in their dealings, both in starting and stopping services to New York, Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, Hong Kong, Islamabad, Los Angeles and various destinations in the Caribbean.
As to the LA flight, that was pulling in over 90% load factors in both the cabin and the hold - but not too many business people from the North (where we count the pennies) wanted to pay over massive sums for the privilege of arriving at the same time with precious few extra comforts thrown in.
The record of BOAC/BA in putting a stop to/frustrating and delaying the start of services by other carriers on long haul routes goes back to the 1950s - and the same can be said of their attitude at Birmingham and Glasgow.
Look at the schedules from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester to London. How many of the thousands of seats a day are occupied by people who are just flying the one sector? Very few.
As someone who would be a very rich man if he had £10 for every shuttle flight he had to take to connect at Heathrow, every trip where he had to get out of bed at 4 am to make a reasonable connection to the States and arrive back on a Friday from Europe 3 hours later than a direct service would have allowed, I have a big axe to grind against BA's London orientated policy.
I've held discussions face to face over the years with King, Marshall and Ayling and their attitude has been one of London first, middle and any crumbs to the provinces.
Every other UK or foreign airline that opens up service from a provincial UK airport deserves all the praise and backing it can get - and many are valued by local businessmen and women far ahead of BA.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
Firstly, I'll accept the fact that you appear to have much more knowledge & experience than I do, being 19.
Secondly, I apologise if you felt you were being patronised by myself. I wasn't trying to be.
I am certainly not mixing my emotions with economics, and the fact that I am aspiring to work for BA has absolutely no bearing/is irrelevant to this entire thread.
"but until they downsize the economy cabin on a 747 to 30 seats I won't believe they are in the business of turning away people with smaller budgets".
You don't beleive. Do you accept the fact that your belief might be different to the FACTS?? Besides, BA aren't quite turning away Economy pax, but limiting their presence on their a/c.
"There are as many people within a 75 mile radius of Manchester as there are within the same radius of central London (UK population census 1991." etc. etc....
Yes, but are they all potential money earners for BA???
"Where do you get the idea that anyone flying in economy is "bucket and spade."
By Bucket & Spade I meant to imply people travelling on B&S fares. I am well aware Business travellers fly Y class. These pax are not BA's main concern.
Sorry, I don't resort to writing "nonsense."
"it is the comparatively few who travel in anything better than Y class."
Well, who do you think we are talking about then??!! The few that BA are interested in!!
"As to the history of BA......" Well that's HISTORY isn't it??!! Times have now changed, strategies have changed, companies have become "lean and mean" etc...
Obviously it is no longer economically viable ANYMORE & for the time being, to operate LH ops out of regional airfields!!!
"Look at the schedules from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester to London. How many of the thousands of seats a day are occupied by people who are just flying the one sector? Very few."
You are missing two points here, possibly three;
1) This is exactly what BA would rather be doing-feeding it's LGW & LHR LH flights from other regions
2) They simply are not interested in LH regional ops-it's TOO COSTLY, and NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. Think about it. And are all those seats being filled by premium pax???? I doubt it....
3) Each person on any given shuttle flight could be connecting to ANYWHERE and on ANY airline. They won't
all be flying EDI-LHR-USA. So the easiest way to go about solving this problem is just to fly ALL of them to LHR, and go from there. The alternative is too costly & complex!!
"As someone who would be a very rich man..." bla bla bla...... well, what the hell do you want me to do about it??
BA have obviously decided that regional longhaul ops are NOT VIABLE. It is applying economic rationality to it's strategy. And all you can do is moan! Now who is letting their emotions out?.....
"I've held discussions face to face over the years with King, Marshall and Ayling and their attitude has been one of London first, middle and any crumbs to the provinces".
Well doesn't that back my, rather than your,argument up??
"Every other UK or foreign airline that opens up service from a provincial UK airport deserves all the praise and backing it can get - and many are valued by local businessmen and women far ahead of BA."
Well, maybe. I have already said why BA don't adopt this strategy.
Finally, I may only be 19, but this by no means means I cannot challenge your arguments, if I think they are flawed.
And in future, please spare me your personal history/achievements.
I've also spoken to people at BA, I'm a scholar at Cambridge University studying pure math bla bla bla....
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
"And in future, please spare me your personal history/achievements"
Try that one on with your lecturers on Monday morning and you'll have an early meeting with the Dean of your Faculty.
They got where they are and I got where I am by achievements and having a history of being successful.
Achievements and history bring knowledge and experience. Many of my achievements and some of my history has been bound up with bringing aviation to the widest travelling public.
Arrogance from a wet behind the ears student who has passed a couple of exams is nothing but total rudeness.
"You don't believe. Do you accept the fact that your belief might be different to the FACTS?? Besides, BA aren't quite turning away Economy pax, but limiting their presence on their a/c."
So limiting their presence on the aircraft is not turning passengers away? Good job you are not studying logic.
""There are as many people within a 75 mile radius of Manchester as there are within the same radius of central London (UK population census 1991." etc. etc....
Yes, but are they all potential money earners for BA???"
No, they wear woad and use chariots for transport - only people in the south east of England have the business acumen, income and need to travel.
Of course they are potential travellers and could be money earners for BA if it would provide a real service.
Name me one airline in the whole history of aviation that consistently made money out of premium price passengers. Where has the real growth in passengers come from?
"By Bucket & Spade I meant to imply people travelling on B&S fares. I am well aware Business travellers fly Y class. These pax are not BA's main concern."
Good, then they will pick other airlines to fly with; BA will lose more revenue and, one day, will either turn around and become a worthwhile airline or go out of business.
With a possible recession on its way BA will be pleased to get whatever revenue it can.
"As to the history of BA......" Well that's HISTORY isn't it??!! Times have now changed, strategies have changed, companies have become "lean and mean" etc... "
You are showing your lack of age again and a lack of judgement. Company ethos is deeply ingrained, even in so called revamped companies. Also, if you don't look to history for background to how a company/country or individual will/could operate you make a big mistake.
Within the parameters of this topic, BOAC/BA has shaped and continues to shape the air service patterns of the UK, as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the topic knows and much of that shaping has been adverse for services from/to the provinces.
"Each person on any given shuttle flight could be connecting to ANYWHERE and on ANY airline. They won't all be flying EDI-LHR-USA. So the easiest way to go about solving this problem is just to fly ALL of them to LHR, and go from there. The alternative is too costly & complex!!"
That's arrogant accountant speak - it can be translated as "look at the bottom line, forget the service aspect" - a sure fire way to lose passengers. It makes second class citizens out of the majority of the population.
"BA have obviously decided that regional longhaul ops are NOT VIABLE. It is applying economic rationality to it's strategy. And all you can do is moan! Now who is letting their emotions out?....."
I'm not moaning or letting my emotions out - I'm stating facts. I've sat on enough Committees in the UK looking at airport and airline service policy to know what I'm talking about. I've been there, done that - not just read a text book or company press releases.
"I've also spoken to people at BA, I'm a scholar at Cambridge University studying pure math bla bla bla....
See, what relevance does that have...."
None whatsoever, that's the problem with your argument.
You are trying to justify a wannabe national airline's policy which does nothing for 75% of the country's population from the basis of a little enthusiasm, no experience and a degree course that has little to do with the real world of the traveller - business, tourist or VFR.
As a private company BA will do what it pleases BUT its current strategy is high risk. If it wishes to operate such a strategy it should declare for an open skies policy with the rest of the world to allow foreign carriers free access to all UK airports and should stop moaning about lack of capacity at BRITISH airports when it really means Heathrow, where, as the owner of the most slots, it is the architect of its own problems.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
Oh Dear Phil B,
I sometimes wonder whether I should just save my breath.......
Here we go again with the quotes.....
"So limiting their presence on the aircraft is not turning passengers away? Good job you are not studying logic."
Well, OK they ARE turning Y class pax away!!! Whatever you want, what the hell does it matter, the PREMIUM pax are what matters!!!
"Of course they are potential travellers and could be money earners for BA if it would provide a real service."
A "real service"??? What do you mean by this?? Ops to NRT, EZE, GRU etc. from MAN, BHX, and EDI??? Oh please.....
"Name me one airline in the whole history of aviation that consistently made money out of premium price passengers. Where has the real growth in passengers come from?"
Here we go again with "history".....Sorry, I am talking about PRESENT strategies at BA with reference to BA ops OUT OF THE UK!!!!
"Also, if you don't look to history for background to how a company/country or individual will/could operate you make a big mistake."
Yes, partly true, but BA is looking towards recent trends in travel, and future trend forecasts, and planning their strategy accordingly.
"look at the bottom line, forget the service aspect."
Well, the bottom line is the bottom line-making money, which now means satisfying demand in a niche market, not flying a daily LAX rotation from GLA or wherever to suit your INDIVIDUAL needs Philb......and improving service WHERE IT MATTERS is the name of BA's game.
"As a private company BA will do what it pleases BUT its current strategy is high risk."
Yes, according to YOU. Have you the same access that BA has, to it's operational stats and forecast trends???
"If it wishes to operate such a strategy it should declare for an open skies policy with the rest of the world to allow foreign carriers free access to all UK airports."
I agree! But I can understand why they don't!!!
".....should stop moaning about lack of capacity at BRITISH airports when it really means Heathrow, where, as the owner of the most slots, it is the architect of its own problems."
BA is not entirely to blame for the phenomenal success of LHR, and it's resultant congestion now, so spare me that BS!!
If anyone is to blame it's the UK Gov't for acting like pansies whenever the Environmental lobby (or indeed anyone) lashes out at them.
And BA DOES mean LHR!!! Read the article in the first post, and take note of how many times HEATHROW is mentioned!!!
BA, just like any other airline out there is OUT FOR THE MONEY, and will ruthlessly pursue this policy.
The main thrust of your argument seems to centre around the fact that you can't be bothered to get a shuttle flight down to LHR!! Give me a break.....
The truth is out there; how many longhaul flights do BA fly out of regional airports??? Answer: Not many, in fact, only the MAN-JFK flight I think.
WHY???? Answer: Cause their homework suggests IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT-ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING.
If it was, they'd obviously be providing the services wouldn't they??!!
As for your flippant comments on my status as a student, I will do the mature thing, which is to IGNORE them. Saves time too!
And why should I necessarily beleive you're the expert you claim to be????
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1355 times:
I think the following (bold) parts of this BA press release underline my arguments on BA's strategy!!!
British Airways today announced further changes to its flying programme as part of its strategy to restore its business to proper levels of profitability.
Schedule changes proposed for the summer 2001 flying season include the transfer of two longhaul routes from Gatwick to Heathrow, the suspension of one loss-making longhaul route, resumption of services to a key longhaul destination, and increased frequencies on other core routes.
In Europe, next summer's timetable will be kept more along this coming winter's lines, with a small reduction in capacity on the previous summer, although British Airways will be looking to strengthen its position on a number of key routes served from Heathrow.
The overall effect will be a capacity reduction, in terms of available seat kilometres, of 10 per cent on the summer before. That is some 2 percentage points more than previously announced. Available seat kilometres at Heathrow will reduce by 9 per cent, and at Gatwick by 15 per cent. In terms of flying hours, however, the programme is almost exactly the same as last summer's, increasing by 1 per cent overall, with a 3 per cent increase at Heathrow and 5 per cent reduction at Gatwick.
In line with other recent steps to consolidate flights to specific destinations at either London Heathrow or Gatwick - rather than split them between both airports - all flights between London and Miami will operate from and to Heathrow. This means the airline will offer two daily Boeing 747 flights between Heathrow and Miami, rather than one a day from Heathrow and one a day from Gatwick.
Services to Rio de Janeiro, which fly on to Sao Paolo, will also transfer from Gatwick to Heathrow. The airline believes profits on this route can be substantially improved through this transfer. As previously planned, daily Boeing 777s will replace the current five 747 flights a week, serving both destinations.
At Gatwick, the airline plans to "delink" the current daily Boeing 747 service to Phoenix and on to San Diego, with both destinations served with their own direct daily 777s, subject to final agreements. With this additional Californian capacity, frequencies between Heathrow and Los Angeles will remain at their winter twice daily rate, instead of thrice daily as last summer.
Also from Gatwick, frequencies to Buenos Aires will be increased - from five 747-400s a week to six 777s.
From Heathrow, British Airways will suspend all services to Kuala Lumpur from the start of next summer season, because of the poor commercial performance of the route. It will offer customers connections to Malaysia over Singapore and maintain a sales presence in the country.
However, the airline plans, subject to final agreements, to resume its own flights to Melbourne, flying from Heathrow four times a week via Singapore. Currently the only "BA" services to Melbourne are its code-shares operated by alliance partner Qantas. The reintroduction of flights by British Airways itself to the Victoria city, after a two-year break, will offer more consumer choice.
As already announced, biggest changes in the coming winter programme, effective from later this month, are to shorthaul operations:
- Routes between Gatwick and Ljubljana and Salzburg are being suspended.
- Jersey-Heathrow services are also being suspended. The Channel Island will be served with six daily flights from Gatwick by our subsidiary and franchisee CityFlyer Express.
- Services from Gatwick to Verona and Genoa will reduce from three to two a day and from two to one a day respectively.
- Operations to Venice and Bilbao will switch from Heathrow to Gatwick
- Tel Aviv services will consolidate at Heathrow, with the daily Gatwick flights sitting there alongside the existing ten Heathrow weeklies.
- Paris Orly-Heathrow flights will be halved, to three a day, before being suspended completely at the end of the winter season, but services to Charles de Gaulle will almost double, from seven to 12 a day this winter.
- Frequencies are being increased to other key European destinations, including Rome, Prague, Munich, Frankfurt and Barcelona.
Key longhaul changes this winter include the suspension of loss-making services to Tehran, with franchisee British Mediterranean taking up this route. Flights to Santiago were suspended on August 1.
The summer 2001 flying programme will require two fewer 747-400s than British Airways has at present - mainly as a result of the Heathrow-Kuala Lumpur suspension. Two more 747-400s will become surplus the following winter, with further unprofitable flying reductions anticipated.
As a result, the airline has decided to dispose of these four aircraft during the year ahead. Expressions of interest have been received from a number of parties, and negotiations are now at the final stage.
British Airways has the largest Boeing 747-400 fleet in Europe, with around 20 more of the aircraft than any of its European competitors. It currently operates 57 Boeing 747-400s in an overall mainline fleet of more than 260 aircraft. Its longhaul fleet also includes 36 Boeing 777s. The airline currently holds firm orders for nine more of these twinjets, with options on a further 16.
Meantime, the airline is reviewing its loss-making Gatwick operations and expects to begin rolling out a revised strategy for its second London base, effective from winter 2001.
Gatwick is strategically crucial to the British Airways group, and the airline will maintain a significant presence at the airport. But it has to be profitable, too. The overall aim is to produce a plan that ensures British Airways has a viable long-term future at Gatwick.
Rod Eddington, British Airways Chief Executive, said: "Our drive to return our business to proper levels of profitability is moving up a gear. The network and fleet strategies I inherited when I arrived at British Airways are exactly right - but they do not go far enough fast enough. We must address poorly performing routes and assets that are not adding value."
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1343 times:
You are full of yourself aren't you?
You are patronising and rude and full of the inexperienced twaddle of youth, backed by a little learning.
You are so full of BA you can't see the wood for the trees. Time and time again BA and its predecessors have declared routes out of the provinces to be uneconomic, only to be proved wrong by other airlines... oh sorry, that's not relevant because its history.
If you knew anything about travel, customer needs, the pressures of business and the sheer frustration of having to change at a hell hole like Heathrow you wouldn't have made that childish remark about taking the shuttle.
You say you don't want to know about the past but query my access to facts and my credentials.
So sit back and read some history Sonny:
1955 initial interest in aviation - regular visits to airfields as a child and teen.
1961 Joined the Air Training Corps, left as a Cadet Warrant Officer in 1966.
1965 First flight on business
1971 Northern Sales Manager for a printing company supplying, inter alia, RR Aero engines with component production inventory systems and many airlines with a range of engineering inventory print.
Much domestic airline travel
1978-1984 Conference Officer, Greater Manchester Council
Amongst other duties relating to developing business to the area (much of it through the airport) I sat on various airport related business tourism committees and had close links with all the major airlines serving Manchester.
Member of the Executive Committee of the British Association of Conference Towns, sat on Conference Air Traffic Development Panels.
Input to BTA Business Traffic Development Panels.
Plenty of travel on business around the world.
Also was Chairman of the Information Committee of the Society of Friends of the Manchester Air and Space Museum
1986-1989 Conference Manager EMAP Maclaren
Three years of intensive business travel.
1989-1998 Managing Director Ashdown Research and Conference Director of BCN.
Devised, organised and ran conferences on ATC, Airport Management, Airport Security, Ground Handling and Ramp Safety and Airport Environment, aimed at Government Ministers, Civil Servants, Heads of ATC Services, Airline and Airport Directors.
Sole owner of Ashdown, partner in BCN.
I was so poor at devising these events that the FAA, the European Commission, IATA, ATAG, ATC Service Directors,major airport and airline directors and equipment manufacturers queued to speak at the events and delegates from, on average, over 60 countries per event were willing to pay top dollar to attend, be the conference in the US, Europe or the Far East.
I was so bad and misguided in my thinking that every conference was sponsored by the likes of the EU, ATAG, Siemens, DFS Germany - to name but a few and I was retained by DFS to run an ATC Training Conference for them.
The work brought me into close contact with some of the greatest names in aviation at all levels, many of whom I can still talk to by just ringing their direct number.
Again, so stupid was I in my understanding of how the world works that, when I got tired of driving 70,000 miles per year, flying around the world and running events with an average turnover of in excess of £150,000 for an attendance of 70-80 delegates, I retired at 51 and can live comfortably for the rest of my life reading industry restricted circulation digests from IATA, ATAG, AOA, various airlines and ATC bodies, with whom I keep in close touch and who, from time to time, try to entice me to run another event.
Most of my friends hold senior posts in aviation. For over 30 years I have been able to access areas on airports, in control towers, engineering bases and airline ops rooms normally open only to industry insiders. I have more cockpit time than I care to remember.
But of course that's history and you are so anally retentive you won't believe it anyway.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1328 times:
More immature/flippant coments have now convinced me not to take you seriously anymore;
as for your history & credentials, you completely wasted your time Phil; I skipped them all. You can't prove any of the above, and the fact that you have still FAILED to put up a reasoned and concrete argument against mine, (you know what I mean, I'm sure) just further convinces me that you rushed into this argument with your emotions & personal grievences against BA first, without stopping to think whether I may have had a point.
With that attitude, why should I bother with your personal history???
You have now realised that my argument (based on economics) makes more sense than yours (based on what??-personal grievences), but can't accept the fact, especially when a 19 year old with no experience of business (bar two months at a Travel Agency) gains the upper hand in an argument-so you now resort desperately to offenseive comments in order to maintain any sense of dignity you might have left, and conveniently dodge the issues; isn't the anonymity of the Internet wonderful???
This is the impression I get in any case.....I think you know what I mean.....the style of writing in your responses gives it away....
You keep on arguing about what BA should do if it were a truly "British" airline; all based on wishful thinking. It would be most convenient for me, if BA provided a service from Cambridge Airport to Luanda, but I know why they don't!
I am arguing for what it is doing, based on rational economic principles. What is your difficulty in accepting this concept? (or is it because a 19 year old is trying to make you accept this?? )
It's obvious who is right at the moment isn't it???
I don't deny things might change, but at the moment, I can't see BA operating LH out of a variety of regional airports. Just doesn't make sense to me.
You mentioned the other international airlines at MAN etc. I have already mentioned them as well, and why they appear to be successful. They may well have soaked up the premium demand from the regions, for the destinations that they fly to-even less incentive for BA to get involved!!.
Obviously neither of us will budge from our arguments, so I propose we just drop them.
Needless to say, until I see B777's and B744's at MAN, BHX and others, I'll assume it's for a good reason.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
I started my first post to you saying I wasn't going to go for you and gave cogent answers, based on years of experience as a hobbyist, customer of and supplier to, the airline industry.
As any reasonable analyst would, I stated the facts for the majority of UK air travellers, the history of BA's regional service and tried to put their attitude in context.
You came back with an arrogant and rude attack, based on the fact the you seem to think you know every economic argument and that economics are the only reason to provide an air service and that past history is not relevant.
You also try to debunk my veracity.
When I give you chapter and verse on my background, you say you refused to read it and state your argument is based on economic principles and I refuse to see it, hinting that you suspect that I am doing this because of your age.
One day soon someone who has some authority over you will have the pleasure of bringing home to you the facts that you know very little of life and business and it might be a good idea to take into account and understand why older, more experienced, people can have just a little more idea of what make the world tick and being arrogant from a pointof relative ignorance just makes you look like a petulant child.
Hopefully they will point out that, to make any service work, you have to give the customer what they want -not what the supplier thinks they want.
For your sake, I hope your superior attitude and use of demeaning phrases to those who might just have the edge on you, doesn't land you in trouble.
Being unemployed with excellent qualifications can be a shattering experience.
Wise up. You can't learn everything from selective reading and economics - the science that one day tells us inflation of 7%s bad but when it drops to 2%, is ...bad. That tells us a weak pound is bad, but so is a strong pound.
The science that will eventually tell BA that to fill aircraft and make large profits they need volume business as premium business is a very small and limiting
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
As far as I am concerned, this written version of a presentation given by BA to it's shareholders on 7 March, 2001, really should put the final nail in the coffin:
Q. Could you come back to hubs and the future? First, where do you see Manchester in the British Airways network and, secondly, looking a little further ahead, do you believe there is a need for, or what are the benefits of, having another hub somewhere in continental Europe from your perspective? I know that Rod said in the longer term there is a need for one. What do you think that that brings to you as network planning?
Robert Boyle: I will try to answer that without getting myself into deep water, so you will permit me to be a little cagey on some aspects of that.
Clearly, Manchester is an important market for us, not least because we take a large amount of premium traffic over our London hubs and onto longhaul destinations. There are many gold card-holders who travel every day on the Manchester shuttle, so Manchester is an important marketplace for us.
We have also put a lot of network in and continue to do so to provide point-to-point services shorthaul out of Manchester. It is a tough market and we need to get our costs right and to use the right equipment type and, as I have said, the market is going in the direction of regional jets there. Those bits are clear and every time Manchester Airport come to see me, I am asked the question how about a nice hub in Manchester, we have a second runway etc.
It has never seemed to us a very compelling business case and certainly not one that we are contemplating at the moment. [THANK-YOU!!] Our strategy at the moment is to develop point-to-point services out of Manchester and, you never know, in future if that proves to be a very profitable and successful base, that is the point at which you might then seek to grow more widely. [I ackowledged that things may change IN THE FUTURE].
PPRuNe Flight Deck Qualified
Registered: Apr 2000
posted 27 April 2001 22:39
Just a quickie;
Do BA see any economic viability in operating regional longhaul hubs, apart from LHR???
Or is LHR really the jewel in their crown??
PPRuNe Flight Deck Qualified
Registered: Feb 2001
posted 28 April 2001 08:33
NO. They don't even see LGW as an important airport in their plans for 2001 as there is a big withdrawal of the long haul stuff from there.
I think that is enough for now.
Regarding your references to me being petulant, anally retentive and guarding an air of superiority whilst "attacking" your responses.
I don't consider myself as any of the above, and I think my responses to you were quite reasoned, reasonable and rational; I was most certainly not trying to "attack" you, whatever that means!!???
Furthermore, I do not consider myself superior to anyone, but that does not mean I cannot challenge others if I do not agree with them, be they older, or younger than me.
I'm sure you've heard the expression "adults are just grown-up kids".
I know what this means, and I bet you do too, so don't expect me to kiss your feet and take what you say as the gospel truth just because you happen to be older than I.
The fact is, that here you are a stranger, and I have no way of telling whether you are "for real" or just another 15-year old who can't argue properly. Sorry to be blunt, but I felt it was worth adding.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 23, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
I,m a stranger here am I?
You make a fool of yourself all the time. My profile shows I've been here a great deal longer than you.
As to who and what I claim to be, your disbelief shows a distinct lack of judgement and understanding of people. Read my many posts and you will see they hardly show the breadth of knowledge of a fifteen year old who can't argue properly.
And as to arguing properly, you have a lot to learn. When you have argued to win major business contracts worth millions, prepared countless presentations, won debating contests and been asked to lecture as guest lecturer to post graduates, come back and try to teach me something.
As to the BA presentation, I've sat on Committees and heard arguments from them about how their customers from MAN, GLA, EDI etc. are "valuable" and the song has been the same old ditty - valuable when we fly them over Heathrow.
The point about decline and congestion is one of BA's own making. They are Heathrowcentric - just as you are egocentric.