Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA/IB Merger At BA Investor Day  
User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 17
Posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

Today (21 May) is the BA Investor Day. In addition to presenting the BA 2009-10 Financial Results the meeting had two other segments,

The first of these were presentations on the BA/IB merger. (The sdecond was the ATI Agreement for AA/AY/BA/IB/RJ on which I hope to make a second posr.) These presentations by both BA and IB senior management focussed on organisation and financials. An estimated cost savings of 250 million euros and so-called revenue synergies of 150 million euros would, it was claimed, be obtained. These financial benefits will mature over the next 5 years.

Points of possible interest from the BA/IB presentations to many a-netters include:

The largest source of cost saving (28% of total) would be in the IT area. The second largest will be from aircraft maintenance (23%) followed by Corporate Centre (14%) and Purchasing (11%) with flight related costs - on-board service, catering, fuel procurement and crew accomodation- playing a significant role in the total. Next comes Fleet cost savings (7% of total) include aligning fleet acquisition and customisation, optimising exercise of options and aligning total care agreements..

The existance of two hubs - LHR and MAD - would create opportunities. Two examples were given. Passengers flying ARN-EZE and FCO-JFK could, for example, by routing through either LHR or MAD, be given more choice and more flexibility with virtually no difference in distance flown.

The combined FF programmes will have 21 million members (Executive Club + Iberia Plus + Airmiles).compared to LH's Miles and More's 15 million and AF's Flying Blue 14 million.

The combined BA/IB would be the seventh largest cargo airline in the world (excluding the condsolidators such as FedEx and DHL). Currently BA is 9th largest behind AF/KL in first place who are followed by KE and CX.

The timetable for the merger - or the formation of the holding coompany, IAG, was given as:

June 30 2010: Pension agreement deadline

End September 2010: shareholder meetings

December 2010 completion.

Finally one point made by Willie Walsh was that BA was looking to learn from IB about the success of their third party maintenance services as BA primarily just looks after its own fleet.

Again it was stressed that BA and IB would maintain their separate identities as has happened in other international mergers.

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4459 times:

Quoting vv701 (Thread starter):

The existance of two hubs - LHR and MAD - would create opportunities. Two examples were given. Passengers flying ARN-EZE and FCO-JFK could, for example, by routing through either LHR or MAD, be given more choice and more flexibility with virtually no difference in distance flown.

If I had booked that itenirary, i would surely not want to be on the IB A346 and shorthaul flights... The difference is huge in the products and IB is really not a quality airline. Whereas if you fly AF or KL the product is almost comparable. The same thing can be said of LH, LX and OS... WW has to do something about the IB product.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

BA investor day? Why wasn't I invited? I'm an investor too... since yesterday.

User currently offlinedee-see-eit From Spain, joined Jan 2000, 435 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4406 times:

I agree about the Iberia long haul product in both classes, even if I did not fly with them for some time now, I still hear many people complaining. Why is IB so successfull then on the Central and South American network? Or why are other airlnes leaving IB alone with this profitable routes?

M


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24792 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4398 times:

To make it easy here is the link to download and review the presentation directly.
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_.../01_ID_2010_Full_presentations.pdf

[Edited 2010-05-21 09:34:00]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineavion660 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4252 times:

Quoting dee-see-eit (Reply 3):
I agree about the Iberia long haul product in both classes, even if I did not fly with them for some time now, I still hear many people complaining. Why is IB so successfull then on the Central and South American network?

no idea.. they are rubbish. However, with some planning it is possible to fly on an IB ticket (often slightly cheaper than others), but fly on other metal: LA or BA for example. I've done this to SCL...IB ticket, BA to MAD, and LA overnight to SCL from MAD. In both cases far superior service compared to IB.. even though IB and LA both use the A340. Note this was economy, I hear the IB business class is OK. using Opodo or Travelocity it's easy to arrange.


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32596 posts, RR: 72
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4190 times:

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 1):
The difference is huge in the products and IB is really not a quality airline. Whereas if you fly AF or KL the product is almost comparable. The same thing can be said of LH, LX and OS... WW has to do something about the IB product.

Iberia's product is absolutely comparable with LH, AF, KL, etc. and has improved dramatically in the past decade.

I would agree that BA's product is better, but it is also superior to the likes of Air France and Lufthansa.



a.
User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4135 times:

Quoting vv701 (Thread starter):
The existance of two hubs - LHR and MAD - would create opportunities. Two examples were given. Passengers flying ARN-EZE and FCO-JFK could, for example, by routing through either LHR or MAD, be given more choice and more flexibility with virtually no difference in distance flown.

Well this has been discussed at length before. IB covers LatAm and parts of Africa, and BA keeps Asia and OZ. The US is a split, especially with the AA joint venture. Of course in routes where both carriers fit there will be even more choice.

Quoting dee-see-eit (Reply 3):
I agree about the Iberia long haul product in both classes, even if I did not fly with them for some time now, I still hear many people complaining. Why is IB so successfull then on the Central and South American network? Or why are other airlnes leaving IB alone with this profitable routes?

IB offers more seats and a higher frequency which translates into lower prices in economy and better suitability for business passengers which connect much less than those in economy and fly solely to MAD. Unless you fly from Spain, IB tends to be the cheapest option to wherever it flies.



However it is worth noting that IB is going to upgrade massively their product. It has already changed radically over the past 2-3 years and it will continue to improve. They want to grow in high yielding petrodollar markets in Africa and Latin America for which they need a better product, and they know it. They already made a huge step forward with the Business Plus class which will be reviewed and redesigned in 2011. The same goes for long haul cattle-rack: In the last presentation of the master plan for the next few years (Plan Director) they already idenfitied long-haul economy as their biggest priority so expect a massive upgrade starting possibly as soon as next year.

I'm not expecting IB to go for a three class configuration because its routes do not demand it (with the possible exception of GRU, MEX and the US flights) but the Business product will be somewhere inbetween BA's Club World and First, with a less dense configuration than BA's planes and a wider, more personalised seat. As for economy, the long overdue PTVs will be in the mix as well.

Do not be fooled, IB will not be BA's poor sister and it's going to fight for high yielding pax as well, so long as the markets where it flies sustain them. As of now, LatAm's economic boom and the rise in African raw materials exports is making such strategy feasible.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3960 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
To make it easy here is the link to download and review the presentation directly.
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_...s.pdf

Good stuff - especially on the ATI/JV with IB and AA.

Since they still haven't even gotten final approval yet from Washington and Brussels, I certainly understand why they aren't yet getting into any details, but I will be interested to see more specifics - specifically on new routes, airport coordination and frequent flyer integration.

On the new routes, there's lots of talk on optimizing connections, enhancing hub traffic flows, etc. The additional behind and beyond traffic flows is obvious - it will just involve lots more codeshares beyond JFK and AA's U.S. gateways to basically every single city served. But when the first joint schedule is rolled out for summer 2011 (pending July 2010 ATI/JV regulatory go-ahead), there has been talk in the past about new markets being flown. Most - myself included - have tended to guess that means more AA 757s in and out of JFK. I have long contended that a daily AA 757 from JFK to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Stockholm, at a minimum, would be a huge boost.

Regarding airports, the presentation - slide 117 - talks of "building on success" on T3-T5 at Heathrow. That is rather nebulous about what might happen regarding coordination of flight operations between the two terminals. With coordinated schedules in key business markets like JFK, ORD, etc., could we see AA flights to these cities moving over to T5? I think it's fairly certain that BA won't be moving those places over to sub-par T3, but on the same token a truly-coordinated shuttle-like schedule would never reach its full potential without AA/BA flights to shared markets from the same terminal.

Beyond that, when it comes to JFK, this presentation seems to treat BA's co-location into T8 as almost a foregone conclusion. Plus, as was expected and previously discussed, it looks like the BA buildout of the to-date-unbuilt wing of T8 would basically be a BA terminal complete with their style, lounges, etc. ("adopt very best of [Heathrow] T5 at JFK," as the presentation put it).

On frequent flyer integration, slide 121 talks about "better earn and burn opportunities," which I'm sure means earn and burn between LHR and the U.S., plus "alignment to enhance the proposition," which leaves lots of question marks about who will be aligning to who's frequent flyer program. There are lots of aspects of BA's program that would cause many well-satisfied AA EXPs to go apoplectic, so that will be interesting to watch. If it really does mean enhancements, like allowing AA EXPs to use their system-wide upgrades on BA and IB flights, that would be quite popular.


User currently offlineGSTBA From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 465 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
Regarding airports, the presentation - slide 117 - talks of "building on success" on T3-T5 at Heathrow. That is rather nebulous about what might happen regarding coordination of flight operations between the two terminals. With coordinated schedules in key business markets like JFK, ORD, etc., could we see AA flights to these cities moving over to T5? I think it's fairly certain that BA won't be moving those places over to sub-par T3, but on the same token a truly-coordinated shuttle-like schedule would never reach its full potential without AA/BA flights to shared markets from the same terminal.

Only time will tell if AA will move to T5. I know that the only reason BA operate there flights to SIN, BKK and SYD from T3 is because there JSA with QF says that flights must operate from the same terminal. That was also the reason that BA didnt move those flights out of T4 before they did. The problem is that T5 even with T5C can not house all of BA's existing flights.


User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3796 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
Regarding airports, the presentation - slide 117 - talks of "building on success" on T3-T5 at Heathrow. That is rather nebulous about what might happen regarding coordination of flight operations between the two terminals. With coordinated schedules in key business markets like JFK, ORD, etc., could we see AA flights to these cities moving over to T5? I think it's fairly certain that BA won't be moving those places over to sub-par T3, but on the same token a truly-coordinated shuttle-like schedule would never reach its full potential without AA/BA flights to shared markets from the same terminal.

T3 was just undergone major refurbishment and it has a flashy lounge aimed at premium pax on the Kangaroo route os it's not exactly sub-par. As to AA and IB moving into T3 it's close to impossible since there's no space. At any given moment both IB and AA would need two to three gates each which is just too much. Even with the new satellite terminal, there is still barely no space left.

I think we're going to see coordinated shuttles for quite a long time at Heathrow...


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3781 times:

Quoting Talaier (Reply 10):
T3 was just undergone major refurbishment and it has a flashy lounge aimed at premium pax on the Kangaroo route os it's not exactly sub-par.

Compared to T5, it is sub-par.

I have used T3 countless times - both pre- and post-refurbishment, and it's definitely still not up to the level of T5 (and, frankly, T5 still isn't at the same level as the new T4 at MAD).

Quoting Talaier (Reply 10):
As to AA and IB moving into T3 it's close to impossible since there's no space.

I didn't say that AA would be moving to T5 - only select AA flights to select markets where it operates jointly with BA. For example - markets like ORD and JFK. Since both markets are served with relatively high-frequency, shuttle-like schedules between AA and BA (especially JFK), it only makes sense to consolidate those flights in one place - just as BA has done with other jointly coordinated routes in the past (BKK, SIN, SYD, HEL, MAD, BCN, etc.).


User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3719 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
I didn't say that AA would be moving to T5 - only select AA flights to select markets where it operates jointly with BA. For example - markets like ORD and JFK. Since both markets are served with relatively high-frequency, shuttle-like schedules between AA and BA (especially JFK), it only makes sense to consolidate those flights in one place - just as BA has done with other jointly coordinated routes in the past (BKK, SIN, SYD, HEL, MAD, BCN, etc.).

Maybe, but then you would have to move out some BA flights to other destinations onto T3. It works out if it's BA who's depolying capacity in T3 because it doesn't fit in T5 (such as the MAD-LHR shuttle service wholy operated from T3 both by IB and BA) and a different thing is bringing in AA aircraft onto T5 and then having to move out other BA mainline flights that don't fit with another partner like IB, AY or QF to T3. That would imply having some random flights, say a bunch of African flights operating out of T3 to make space for the AA planes. It sounds good if you have a 3x frequency, but it's in those low-freq destinations where money is made and in fact you are penalizing those high yield connecting pax and I'm not sure that is what BA has in mind. It was already a bit of a mess before with split T4/T3 operations (I still remember the posters on the Tube dividing terminals by destinations) and this doesn't help much either. It's much easier, both from the logistics as well as from pax's comfort to divide terminals in terms of airlines rather than destinations. A passenger that flies AA and then BA, who knows perfectly which metal he/she is on, won't mind changing terminals if that's how airlines operate but it will certainly question what's going on if he's dumped into a different terminal because his flight is from X rather than Y even though all other BA flights go onto T5. BA codeshared flights on T3 have a longstanding logic because of the IB/QF codeshares, and I think that's about as much hassle as premium pax can bear. If they are kept ferrying around from one terminal to another because AA only flies JFK from T5 but DFW from T3 or BA's Cape Town is from T5 but Jo'burg is T3 and so on and so forth they'll just dump it and go straight to Virgin's Clubhouse. Or even worse, fly via another European city.

Plus most of AA's traffic at LHR ends or originates in London and there are less connections than on BA flights, which ferry passengers from all over Europe. You still get American pax connecting onto other European destinations surely, but the bulk of the flight is from London. And, as you said, you can always kick in some 757s to avoid having to connect at Heathrow.


User currently offlineGSTBA From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 465 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days ago) and read 3659 times:

Quoting Talaier (Reply 7):
I'm not expecting IB to go for a three class configuration because its routes do not demand it (with the possible exception of GRU, MEX and the US flights) but the Business product will be somewhere inbetween BA's Club World and First, with a less dense configuration than BA's planes and a wider, more personalised seat. As for economy, the long overdue PTVs will be in the mix as well.

I agree I can't see IB introducing a First class product. However I can see them going to a three class configuration (business/premium economy/economy) on there longhaul aircraft.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 1):
If I had booked that itenirary, i would surely not want to be on the IB A346 and shorthaul flights... The difference is huge in the products and IB is really not a quality airline. Whereas if you fly AF or KL the product is almost comparable. The same thing can be said of LH, LX and OS... WW has to do something about the IB product.

BA and IB have said the want to offer similiar onboard products on both carriers. It will be interesting to see if IB move away from the current BOB product that they offer in economy, in favour of a service like BA's snack and drink service or will it be BA who change to a BOB product. Also currently the hand baggage allowance on a IB shorthaul flight is limited to 10kg in economy and 14kg in business, BA on the other hand have no max weight limit. Both airlines currently operate roughly the same checked baggage policy, both charge economy pax a heavy bag fee for a checked bag over 23kg but under 32kg and both airlines offer online discounts for pre paid excess baggage. It will be intresting to see if they standardise there excess baggage fees. At present the amounts charged are very different. For example on shorthaul flights:

IB charge €60/£52 for a heavy bag and charge €50/£43 online or €60/£52 at the airport for each additional bag.
BA charge £30/€35 for a heavy bag and charge £28/€32 online or £35/€40 at the airport for each additional bag.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days ago) and read 3639 times:

Quoting Talaier (Reply 12):
Maybe, but then you would have to move out some BA flights to other destinations onto T3. It works out if it's BA who's depolying capacity in T3 because it doesn't fit in T5 (such as the MAD-LHR shuttle service wholy operated from T3 both by IB and BA) and a different thing is bringing in AA aircraft onto T5 and then having to move out other BA mainline flights that don't fit with another partner like IB, AY or QF to T3.

You could break it down by destination. So, for example, all AA-BA flights to DFW, MIA and BOS, plus any AA 757s, go to T3, and all other AA-BA flights to North America go to T5.

Quoting Talaier (Reply 12):
That would imply having some random flights, say a bunch of African flights operating out of T3 to make space for the AA planes.

Yes, it would.

Quoting Talaier (Reply 12):
It sounds good if you have a 3x frequency, but it's in those low-freq destinations where money is made and in fact you are penalizing those high yield connecting pax and I'm not sure that is what BA has in mind.

Fine - then pick the most O&D-intensive markets and move those to T3 - I believe that was a large part of the logic for how BA split up the terminals between T1 and T4 years ago.

Quoting Talaier (Reply 12):
It's much easier, both from the logistics as well as from pax's comfort to divide terminals in terms of airlines rather than destinations.

Not when you have an antitrust immunized jointed venture where passengers frequently intermingle between two different brands' flights to and from the same markets.

That is precisely the reason why BA doesn't do what you are proposing when it comes to their jointly coordinated schedules already in place with Finnair, Iberia and QANTAS.

Quoting Talaier (Reply 12):
A passenger that flies AA and then BA, who knows perfectly which metal he/she is on, won't mind changing terminals if that's how airlines operate

They might if you have AA and BA combined operating 12 or 13 flights per day to JFK, and a passenger misses the BA flight at 0855 and needs to quickly move over to the AA flight at 1020 and has to now trek to another, inferior, terminal.

Quoting Talaier (Reply 12):
but it will certainly question what's going on if he's dumped into a different terminal because his flight is from X rather than Y even though all other BA flights go onto T5.

And yet, somehow, that is exactly how BA operated at Heathrow for probably a decade - with certain markets, for whatever reason - segmented intentionally to another terminal.

And, ironically, it's exactly how things work right now for BA flights to certain destinations, and it doesn't seem to be too much of an issue.

Quoting Talaier (Reply 12):
BA codeshared flights on T3 have a longstanding logic because of the IB/QF codeshares, and I think that's about as much hassle as premium pax can bear.

Right, and that same "logic" will now apply to jointly operated flights with AA - except even moreso. The amount of people that will be carried between the U.S. and LHR over the AA-BA JBA will dwarf the deals with Finnair or QANTAS, and probably Iberia as well. Thus, that "logic" provides just as "logical" a basis for considering consolidating certain joint AA-BA flights to a select group of markets into a single terminal.


User currently offlineGSTBA From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 465 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3604 times:

Quoting Talaier (Reply 10):
T3 was just undergone major refurbishment and it has a flashy lounge aimed at premium pax on the Kangaroo route os it's not exactly sub-par. As to AA and IB moving into T3 it's close to impossible since there's no space.
Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
Quoting Talaier (Reply 10):
T3 was just undergone major refurbishment and it has a flashy lounge aimed at premium pax on the Kangaroo route os it's not exactly sub-par.

Compared to T5, it is sub-par.

I have used T3 countless times - both pre- and post-refurbishment, and it's definitely still not up to the level of T5

Yes T3 looks impressive when you see VS's check in area and yes the BA Galleries lounge is flashy. I have to agree T5 is much better than T3. I have flown out of there to SIN and BKK on about 4 occasions in the last 6 months and I have to say the old T4 was better much better than T3. T3 must be at capacity (or over capacity) especially between 20:00 and 22:30, the departure lounge is always packed and finding a seat in the departure lounge is near impossible.

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
Quoting Talaier (Reply 10):
As to AA and IB moving into T3 it's close to impossible since there's no space.

I didn't say that AA would be moving to T5 - only select AA flights to select markets where it operates jointly with BA. For example - markets like ORD and JFK. Since both markets are served with relatively high-frequency, shuttle-like schedules between AA and BA (especially JFK), it only makes sense to consolidate those flights in one place - just as BA has done with other jointly coordinated routes in the past (BKK, SIN, SYD, HEL, MAD, BCN, etc.).

I agree it makes sense and it will be interesting to see how they work it. I guess that will not be decided until they sit down and put together the new merged timetable.

Quoting commavia (Reply 14):
but it will certainly question what's going on if he's dumped into a different terminal because his flight is from X rather than Y even though all other BA flights go onto T5.

And yet, somehow, that is exactly how BA operated at Heathrow for probably a decade - with certain markets, for whatever reason - segmented intentionally to another terminal.

I think will the exception of JFK we may see one airline operating on each route. AA could operate DFW, ORD, MIA With BA operating BOS and LAX.

[Edited 2010-05-21 19:16:40]

User currently offlineGSTBA From UK - England, joined Apr 2010, 465 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
But when the first joint schedule is rolled out for summer 2011 (pending July 2010 ATI/JV regulatory go-ahead), there has been talk in the past about new markets being flown. Most - myself included - have tended to guess that means more AA 757s in and out of JFK. I have long contended that a daily AA 757 from JFK to Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Stockholm, at a minimum, would be a huge boost.

How many 757's do AA have in there fleet that could operate transatlantic services and do AA's 757's have the same range as the 757's CO operate to Europe??.

You only have to look at the number of routes CO has opened over the years to Europe to see the potential of operating the 757 across the atlantic.

AA could use the 757 to serve CPH, FAO, LIS, OSL, HAM, DUS, STR, NCE, WAW and GVA to name a few. They could also use the 757 to increase frequencies from JFK to BCN, CDG, BRU and ZRH.

[Edited 2010-05-21 20:36:49]

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11409 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

Quoting GSTBA (Reply 15):
Yes T3 looks impressive when you see VS's check in area and yes the BA Galleries lounge is flashy. I have to agree T5 is much better than T3. I have flown out of there to SIN and BKK on about 4 occasions in the last 6 months and I have to say the old T4 was better much better than T3. T3 must be at capacity (or over capacity) especially between 20:00 and 22:30, the departure lounge is always packed and finding a seat in the departure lounge is near impossible.

  

T3, even at its best, is not as nice as T5.

And I absolutely hate that it's one big shopping mall (although, this is London, so that's just about any airport terminal).

Quoting GSTBA (Reply 15):
I think will the exception of JFK we may see one airline operating on each route. AA could operate DFW, ORD, MIA With BA operating BOS and LAX.

I don't know if it will be quite that dramatic. AA, for example, may well want to keep at least one flight to LAX, and BA will probably want to keep at least some branded presence in ORD. DFW I could see going all AA, and BOS all BA, but besides that, all the other overlapping markets I could see being a mix of both going forward.

Quoting GSTBA (Reply 16):
How many 757's do AA have in there fleet that could operate transatlantic services

The JY subfleet is 18 aircraft. Most of those are now being "wasted" flying domestic runs and (relatively) short flights to South America instead of the flights to Europe they were designed for. AA put too big a capital investment into those jets to fly them to SJO. No offense to Costa Rica - but those planes are not designed for that market profile. They should be flying to ARN, AMS, FRA, MAN, BDL-LHR, etc.

Quoting GSTBA (Reply 16):
AA could use the 757 to serve CPH, FAO, LIS, OSL, HAM, DUS, STR, NCE, WAW and GVA to name a few. They could also use the 757 to increase frequencies from JFK to BCN, CDG, BRU and ZRH.

I don't realistically see AA being able to support all of that.

As I've long contended, I think the three most obvious gaping, glaring holes in AA's JFK-Europe network that an ATI/JBA will definitely help are AMS, ARN and FRA. Beyond that, CPH, LIS, OSL, DUS, NCE I could all maybe see. The rest you've listed seem outside of what AA would be able to profitably support, in my view (they are fairly late to the party, after all). As for increasing frequency - I think BCN is probably best served post-ATI with a daily 763, ZRH is too far for a 757 (or so I've heard), BRU is going to be a challenge just to keep the flight it has now that AA has lost SN, and the only additional capacity I could see CDG taking is maybe a daylight eastbound (I know it sounds far-fetched, but I think the market is now sufficiently there that a 757 could do it).


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3450 times:

I can see the new Y and new C offerings being standardised with both fleets.

Does anyone know what the new airline is going to be called? Any livery changes?



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 14):
And yet, somehow, that is exactly how BA operated at Heathrow for probably a decade - with certain markets, for whatever reason - segmented intentionally to another terminal.

And, ironically, it's exactly how things work right now for BA flights to certain destinations, and it doesn't seem to be too much of an issue.

And they did it because they had no option but to do so, which is the case right now. We'll see how it works out, but I just don't see BA moving another 3-4 short haul destinations to T3 (unless there are more codeshares) and less so with long-haul. But everything is possible.

Quoting commavia (Reply 14):
Right, and that same "logic" will now apply to jointly operated flights with AA - except even moreso. The amount of people that will be carried between the U.S. and LHR over the AA-BA JBA will dwarf the deals with Finnair or QANTAS, and probably Iberia as well. Thus, that "logic" provides just as "logical" a basis for considering consolidating certain joint AA-BA flights to a select group of markets into a single terminal.

I acknowledge that, and as I said above, it really can work out in a lot of different ways.

Quoting GSTBA (Reply 13):
I agree I can't see IB introducing a First class product. However I can see them going to a three class configuration (business/premium economy/economy) on there longhaul aircraft.

I don't think IB's network, overall, can support a premium Y. We could maybe see certain aircraft (I'm thinking future 787s or refitted A436s) carrying a three class configuration but I would only expect that in really long routes, such as those flying deep into South America, Africa and then premium destinations such as JFK, MIA or MEX. Outside that I don't see enough premium Y pax to justify such a route (bear in mind there's a lot of VFR traffic from Spain to LatAm). If IB does decide to serve a couple of Asian desitnations in the likes of HKG, PVG/PEK and NRT then it might make sense overall, but I can't see IB flying to Asia in the short term (unless Asian carriers start disembarking in Spain in herds which is unlikely given the current economic climate).

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 18):
I can see the new Y and new C offerings being standardised with both fleets.

Does anyone know what the new airline is going to be called? Any livery changes?

Both keep their brands and livery. The holding company is to be called IAG (Int'l Airlines Group).


User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
Regarding airports, the presentation - slide 117 - talks of "building on success" on T3-T5 at Heathrow. That is rather nebulous about what might happen regarding coordination of flight operations between the two terminals. With coordinated schedules in key business markets like JFK, ORD, etc., could we see AA flights to these cities moving over to T5?

The spoken words accompanying this slide did not suggest in any way that there might be transfers of flights between T5 and T3. What those words were mainly focussed on were connectivity. Specifically a baggage tunnel was alluded to as one possibility. Otherwise there were general comments on improving connectivity.

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
Beyond that, when it comes to JFK, this presentation seems to treat BA's co-location into T8 as almost a foregone conclusion.

Again the words spoken around this chart were interesting. First there was a qualification that there had (for legal reasons) been no detailed discussions on the possibilty of BA moving to T8. Then - recognising that the speaker was AA Senior Vice President International, Craig Kreeger - there was what sounded to me as a sales pitch listing all the advantages offered by T8. What was not clear to me, however, was whether that sales pitch - if that was what it was - was directed at BA management or at the audience of mainly financial and market analysts. However as it appeared that BA had prepared all the slides - when talking about frequent flier programmes Mr Kreeger's slide used the English spelling "programme" and not the American "program" - and as it was their Investors' Meeting, I think he was pitching to the audience of analysts.

My own thoughts here are that it cannot be as simple as it is made to look on the slide. As BA are the owners of T7 such a move would surely be very much dependent on BA's coinversations with the NYPA which cannot formally start until ATI is actually granted.

Quoting commavia (Reply 8):
On frequent flyer integration, slide 121 talks about "better earn and burn opportunities," which I'm sure means earn and burn between LHR and the U.S., plus "alignment to enhance the proposition," which leaves lots of question marks about who will be aligning to who's frequent flyer program.

Nothing was totally clear here. But I gained the impression - and it was only an impression so do not rely too heavily on this - that the individual would choose which frequent flier programme he or she wanted to belong to and would collect miles or points or whatever for that programme whether they were flying AA, AY, BA, IB or RJ. But in reaching this possible conclusion I am relying on the phrase that all three presenters in this section of the meeting used in connection with ATI implementation, namely "metal neutrality".

I cannot recall the phrase "metal neutrality" being used while Frequent Flier programmes were being discussed. Nevertheless I cannot see how this phrase can be meaningful to a customer who flew JFK-LHR-JFK travelling out on AA and back on BA and got a different award for the two flights. My qualification - and hence my caution - is that they may be looking at "metal neutrality" as an internal concept to be taken on-board by staff and not necessarily as a customer concept. After all there has been much discusion in this thread about varying experiences in, for example, flying BA or flying IB. And no where in the presentation was there a direct assertion that the quality of the experience across all 5 airlines would become similar. And if it does not then there will be "metal differentiation" in the mind of the customer that was not just dependent on the livery painted on the metal, the FAs' uniforms and the in-flight magazine and branding.

The spoken words also strongly suggested that you would be able to earn AA Advantage points on, for example, BA "Behind and beyond" flights to and from other EU countries as well as to and from Norway and Switzerland. Similarly there was a less strong suggestion that, for example, a BA Executive Card holder could earn points on AA "Behind and beyond" flights to and from Canada and Mexico as well as within the USA. But again my interpretation could be wrong.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

Quoting Talaier (Reply 19):
Both keep their brands and livery

To my knowledge that is not permanent at all, and only interim. Please feel free though to correct me if I am mistaken.


User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 21):
To my knowledge that is not permanent at all, and only interim. Please feel free though to correct me if I am mistaken

Until bilateral agreements change, most of IB and BA's route (in fact all but those within Europe and to the US) require a carrier based in either Spain or the UK flying them. That's the reason why AF/KL went for a similar sort of agreement.


User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7380 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2923 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 21):
To my knowledge that is not permanent at all, and only interim.

The major theme running through the Willie Walsh part of the presentation linked in Reply 4 was very much that the existing brands will be maintained. This was mirrored in Robert Boyle's subsequent presentation.

On Slide 51 you will see the statement "Existing brands and operations maintained". This could not be more explicit.

On Slide 52 you will see under "Strong strategic rationale" and in the list below this heading "4. Leading brands" - note the pleural.

Mr Walsh's talk around Slide 57 that siumply depicts the tails of BA anf IB aircraft was all about the key role the two brands will play in the future success of IAG.

Slide 63 shows the organisation of IAG that is structured to directly support the retention of the two brands. And I think that this slide is really the key to the future. Note that the Class B voting rights of BA as a subdsidiary of IAG include 50.1 per cent ownership by a UK company . Similarly a Spanish company owns 50.1 per cent of the B shares of IB. (B shares are voting shares but do not qualify the owners to partricipate in any financial distribution by IAG.) This structure ensures that the BA brand and operations remain legally British so that BA can continuer to operate as a British airline within bilateral agreement signed by the British government as well as by the EU. To merge the brands would cause many operational problems. I believe it would likely see the end of the BA/QF Joint Serrvices Agreement. It would certainly stop IAG operating any flights authorised by bilateral agreements beween both the British and Spanish governments. (This, of course, is why AF, KL, LH, BD (owned by Lufthansa UK Ltd), LX and SN amongst others all retain their identity.)

The final slide that I will mention is Slide 66. Under "Assurances" the first statement is "Retention of brands". So Mr Walsh assured his audience that the two brands would be maintained.


User currently offlineBAfan From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

I might be reading too much into things, but doesn't the name 'International Airlines Group sounds like they are planning on adding further airlines to group in the future?

It sounds like a name for an airline group encompassing more than just two airlines...

What are peoples thoughts?


25 Summa767 : Are you sure about ptvs? In a previous version of the current "plan director" IB had said it wanted to improve tourist class product. Indeed, now pas
26 Talaier : The current refitting of Y is just the normal procedure given that the grey upholstery was quite old in many of them, renovation which was done on pu
27 timboflier215 : I seriously hope they bring AY, at least, on board. Maybe even Malev too. However, trying to integrate more than 2 airlines would be a challenge, esp
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA / IB Merger To Be Signed Today posted Thu Mar 25 2010 07:38:39 by OP3000
BA - IB Merger; More 2nd/3rd/4th City Flights... posted Wed Nov 18 2009 13:10:12 by Richardw
BA-IB Merger Fleet Consequences posted Wed Nov 18 2009 05:00:19 by NA
BA - IB Merger: What's In Store For LGW? posted Tue Nov 17 2009 20:32:51 by Aircellist
BA On Verge Of Announcing IB Merger This Friday posted Wed Nov 11 2009 15:17:33 by OA260
IB And BA Merger At Risk? posted Wed Aug 12 2009 05:28:07 by JPRM1
BA/IB Merger Delay posted Wed May 13 2009 10:25:18 by BeyondBristol
Real Progress In BA/IB Merger Talks posted Thu Mar 5 2009 16:59:53 by VV701
BA/IB Merger, More Clickvue At LGW? posted Sun Aug 3 2008 04:07:15 by Richardw
BA - IB Merger, True? posted Thu Dec 11 2003 02:32:45 by Bongo