BNAOWB From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 400 posts, RR: 1 Posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4217 times:
Any guesses as to the rationale for BA ending BD code share at the end of March? How likely would it be for BA to begin service from LHR to any of the affected cities in Central Asia and the Middle East (TBS, EVN, IKA, ALA, FRU, DAM, BEY, AMM)? It seems BA will now have a large void in this part of the world.
BrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1291 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3664 times:
I think the codeshare was a transition that came with BMED when it was acquired by bmi.
It's anybody's guess what BA would do to provide service on these lost routes. My guess is they will not do anything and believe that RJ can cover some needs, while others will be totally lost to competition.
Time tells us that one of the great airlines in Europe has lost a lot of its clout over the past decade, and even in the previous one.
Ankaraflyjet From Turkey, joined Mar 2007, 316 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3435 times:
Time for BA to revisit its presence in former BMED destinations. In fact BD will ben hurt by this as most of former destinations need BA feed from LHR to be viable. BD does not have sufficient feed from other *A members at LHR to replace the loss from BA.
BA has lost the CIS and many ME and African destinations to *A that is good news to TK which is ideally located to cover all the traffic through IST.
BA has lots of problems at present and I do not expect them to start a new product to serve the market that is lost. Not that I support this, on the contrary, BA could easily allocate a number of A321's to start serving these destinations. I think the following would be essential;
Ankara, Beirut, Damascus, Ekaterinburg, Teheran and Almaty.
We'll wait and see how BA will try to recature lost markets which in fact they need to do to maintain as a global player with a wide network and fill the empty seats to North America from LHR.
Yegbey01 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1736 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3384 times:
I think that BD needs to work closeley with AC, United, US and CO at LHR and believe me there will be plenty of opportunities to fill the ME destinations. If anything, BA will be losing a decent amount of passengers heading to the ME/CIS because of their inability to provide the right connections
Bwaflyer From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 698 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3239 times:
Ekateringburg loads were shockingly bad - we used to operate it as a tech stop on the way to Almaty, but it couldn't survive on it's own. Ankara as well, especially in business class. Looking at the passenger manifests on most of our flights and talking to passengers about their connections, the number of pax connecting onto BA flights has grown smaller over the last year, and the vast majority connect onto UA, AC and also VS (who codeshare on many routes). The BA codeshare has become increasingly less important. BD also hold the UK route authority on most of these routes, so unless BA con persuade the UK government to renegotiate bilaterals then BA simply cannot operate these routes. We just await to see what LH's plans are for bmi going foward.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3135 times:
Quoting Bwaflyer (Reply 10): BD also hold the UK route authority on most of these routes, so unless BA con persuade the UK government to renegotiate bilaterals then BA simply cannot operate these routes. We just await to see what LH's plans are for bmi going foward.
What if there are Open Skies agreements with some of these countries? For example, in 2004, the EU and Lebanon signed an Open Skies agreement. So if BA wanted to launch BEY on its own, I would assume it could do so.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8110 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2949 times:
At the time of the BMed financial problems and prior to when BD purchased them figures were published detailing what proportion of BMed's passengers were fed to them by BA at LHR and what proportion of BMed's passengers were fed by them to BA at LHR.
I cannot find the figures. Nor can I remember them. But I do recall that BMed was highly dependent on feed from BA, primarily of passengers originating in North America. However the feed to BA from BMed was relatively minuscule.
Obviously BD will have been looking to steer transfer traffic at LHR from former BMed routes to its Star partners and, wherever possible, not to BA. So even if this feed was relatively low it would not make too much sense for BA to effectively promote the BD routes by continuing to code share on them. Certainly regular travelers to the former BMed destinations will now be aware of using BA as an option to connect with the BMed flights.
I suspect that the agreement between BA and BD over Bmed (which included the transfer of 54 weekly LHR slots to BA) included some stipulation for a time limited code share agreement, particularly as BA was not only well aware that Bishop had a put option and LH a pull option on half of BD's equity, but also knew when those options could be exercised.