Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will British Airways Expand At Other UK Airports?  
User currently offlineBAfan From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 189 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12867 times:

Now that the British Government has scrapped all plans for airport development in the South, is there any chance we might see British Airways starting services from other London Airports.

I am aware that BA currently operate from LHR/LGW/LCY and Cargo from STN, but is there any chance we might see an increase in flights from these and other airports around London due to the restrictions in place at Heathrow.

I know BA have stated that they will look to Madrid to expand in the future, but surely there are some routes that could be operated from LGW or STN.

What are the chances of seeing expansion at MAN or EDI?

126 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecharliecossie From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 479 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12857 times:

I've got more chance of playing for Everton than etc.....
I'm 53, smoke too much, etc.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12777 times:

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
What are the chances of seeing expansion at MAN or EDI?

With anti-trust FINALLY being approved ( I know Sky and Star needed a head start but 10 years is ridiculous) who knows !

With all it implies for AA and BA i'm sure something will be on the cards.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2087 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12699 times:

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
What are the chances of seeing expansion at MAN or EDI?

I think both MAN and EDI will expand, but I do not think BA will have anything to do with it. BA can only feed from these points to their hub as others do. LH did a good job with MUC and some of their regional airports, but BA and BMI make all their profit (Negative that is) in London. They had their opportunities and blew it. It is better for MAN and EDI to keep the established carriers they have and grow that way, rather than the likes of BA/BMI who may again dable and screw them up.


User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12697 times:

Well FlyBE has taken over BACON, so I don't see BA competing with them out of EDI or MAN. What routes could be serve?


Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineEMAman From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 12561 times:

I really dont see BA ever going back to the regional airports.

They lost money for years, and now more competition still from low cost carriers.

EZY, FR and BE have most of the routes ex-uk regional airports pretty sewn up now. BA could never compete.

They will continue to serve MAN, GLA and EDI purely to feed LHR long haul. Forget anything more. They didnt sell those regional routes on a whim; they hadnt worked for years.

It is sad however, I was born in birmingham, and remember the early 90's when they built and opened the euro hub terminal for their own exclusive use; a regional T5. They did the same with the old Terminal A at manchester, calling it T3 and making it their own. The "Eurohub" is now swamped with BE and FR flights only, and I just dont see that changing.


User currently offlinemerlot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 12265 times:

By my rough estimate northern England and Scotland have a catchment area roughly equivalent to or better than the likes of BRU. If any TATL airlines are in happy financial shape, I'd say open up a BRU-style hub that catches a decent amount of Transatlantic connecting traffic and also allows area residents a more comprehensive non-stop European network. Basically a kinder, gentler alternative to LHR for the 80% of us who don't require it's entire-UN-member-nation buffet of destination offerings and appreciate smaller airports and non-congestion.

Just an idea...

Merlot


User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 11953 times:

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
What are the chances of seeing expansion at MAN or EDI?

They might be lucky to keep their LHR connections. Two things (at least) against expansion at MAN & EDI 1) they are not in London and 2) The MAD facility offers much better opportunity for growth than either MAN or EDI through untapped market potential and the physical availability of space etc.


User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2453 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 11933 times:

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
Now that the British Government has scrapped all plans for airport development in the South

   They have only suspended development to make themselves appear to be fulfilling an election promise. Nothing has been scrapped as far as I know. Everything will be back on track a couple years down the line when a suitable time is found to perform a political U turn as they always do.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently onlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7329 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 11873 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BD338 (Reply 7):
2) The MAD facility offers much better opportunity for growth than either MAN or EDI through untapped market potential and the physical availability of space etc.

Untapped market potential? Sorry, the market is there but Blinked Airways only wants to funnel traffic through LHR. It might not be there in the numbers that BA needs to fit their LHR configurations but using appropriate configs and bringing BE's schedule into play with the BA codeshare would help them as they never attempted to make a go of hubbing at MAN post 2001. As for the physical availablity, if MAN said it could cope NOW with a large increase in traffic if the BAA airports went on strike, imagine how it would do once all terminals are expanded.

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 4):
Well FlyBE has taken over BACON, so I don't see BA competing with them out of EDI or MAN. What routes could be serve?

Have we forgotten the BA codeshares? Plus at MAN we have the strange situation that U2 has come along with A319s and A320s and started to operate on some of the former BA routes and attracting large passenger numbers going off the growth rates of the routes, these routes that BA found hard to fill

Quoting EMAman (Reply 5):
They didnt sell those regional routes on a whim; they hadnt worked for years.

But it seems other airlines can do so on a point to point basis. Some perhaps it's not the fault of the regions but the fault of the airline?


User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 11673 times:

Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
Untapped market potential? Sorry, the market is there but Blinked Airways only wants to funnel traffic through LHR. It might not be there in the numbers that BA needs to fit their LHR configurations but using appropriate configs and bringing BE's schedule into play with the BA codeshare would help them as they never attempted to make a go of hubbing at MAN post 2001. As for the physical availablity, if MAN said it could cope NOW with a large increase in traffic if the BAA airports went on strike, imagine how it would do once all terminals are expanded.

BA have publically stated they are looking at expanding the MAD operations once the IB deal is complete. The blinkered "LHR only" policy may finally be coming to an end.

MAN said they could cope with an increase in traffic for the possibility of a strike but doing it for a few days in a temporary configuration and doing it consistently as a permanent operation are very different animals. MAD has existing spare capacity now, MAN will have to build it to cope with a BA scale. Not saying they can't or won't just that they don't have the same availabilty as MAD. Personally, I would really like BA to offer something other than London as a UK option but I think any thoughts of another UK based hub are now, sadly a missed opportunity from years past. The ability to place a new hub in a good weather location with instant spare capacity is going to be too tempting.


User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7258 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 11621 times:

Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
But it seems other airlines can do so on a point to point basis. Some perhaps it's not the fault of the regions but the fault of the airline?


If you are a full service airline then operating a route that links two airports neither of which is a hub or at least a 'focus' airport for that airline is unlikely to be economically viable.

Here are a couple of examples:

AF operates between many UK provincial airports and its main hub, CDG. BA only operates from its LON hubs to France. On the other hand BA operates from its main hub, LHR, to many French provincial airports but AF only operates LHR-CDG. Of course there are many other examples of this including TATL flights from their US hubs to British provincial airports by American legacy carriers that are not matched by BA. On the other hand BA flies from LHR to American airports like PHX on routes not operated by any American airline.

It is sometimes suggested that one of the world's most lucrative routes with around 2.5 million passengers a year and a high proportion of premium class seats is JFK-LHR. Nevertheless UA could not make it pay. Just as BA discontinued their MAN-JFK service, UA closed down their JFK-LHR operationsa few years back.

So to make a statement that implies that airlines other than BA can make operating between airports when neither is a hub is simply not true for the vast majority of full service airlines. It is only true of those operating a low cost , no frills service. However it is palpably untrue for many full service airlines (although there are always exceptions to any 'rule' particularly where a route is directly or indirectly subsidised for social or for other reasons). And it is a pity that what is a UNIVERSAL fact of airline operations is apparently neither understood or recognised by so many.


User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 11589 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 10):
Personally, I would really like BA to offer something other than London as a UK option but I think any thoughts of another UK based hub are now, sadly a missed opportunity from years past


Not sure if you are referring to the same thing, but I thought BA's biggest mistakes in the last decade or so were the selling of Go and not purchasing GB Airways. GB was a well run operation and did have flights out of MAN. If Go was still around FR and EZY expansion at STN would have been severely curtailed or at least delayed. It was almost as though someone thought the internet and cheap airlines wouldn't really catch on.

Excluding LON airports, if CO can successfully serve BHX MAN EDI GLA BRS, EK can serve BHX MAN NCL EDI GLA, EY and SQ can serve MAN etc, I do not know why BA doesn't run a system similar to LH vis a vis FRA / MUC.

But to answer the original posters question, no, I do not think BA will expand at other UK airports.



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlinegkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24816 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11402 times:

Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
Untapped market potential? Sorry, the market is there but Blinked Airways only wants to funnel traffic through LHR.

Tio be fair, AF do it at CDG, KL do it at AMS, EK do it at DXB, SQ at SIN...



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlinesxb From France, joined Sep 2008, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11364 times:

Quoting offloaded (Reply 12):
Excluding LON airports, if CO can successfully serve BHX MAN EDI GLA BRS, EK can serve BHX MAN NCL EDI GLA, EY and SQ can serve MAN etc, I do not know why BA doesn't run a system similar to LH vis a vis FRA / MUC.

For the same reason that BA and several foreign airlines serves Las Vegas (for example) in the US when no US airline is flying overseas from Vegas.

MAN is served by other airlines from their hubs. If BA wanted to start serious operations from MAN, they would have to put an infrastructure in place which could be too expensive.

Now saying that, I agree that LH manages to have limited operations from DUS and that BA could do the same (in a way they do it with openskies in Paris).



SXB
User currently onlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7329 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vv701 (Reply 11):
AF operates between many UK provincial airports and its main hub, CDG. BA only operates from its LON hubs to France. On the other hand BA operates from its main hub, LHR, to many French provincial airports but AF only operates LHR-CDG. Of course there are many other examples of this including TATL flights from their US hubs to British provincial airports by American legacy carriers that are not matched by BA. On the other hand BA flies from LHR to American airports like PHX on routes not operated by any American

The last time I looked, AF had a sizeable operation out of LYS. Prey tell what BA has outside London? Thats the difference. They've not stuck 2 fingers up to those airports outside thier home airport. It matters not that they've got subsidiary and franchise operators doing it as that is exactly what BA had,.

For JFK BA were operating into an airport with whom they were seeking closer co-operation BUT choose not to exploit the advantages that were bestowed upon them because thery are anally retentive toward getting premium passengers to not route on anything other than through LHR. Remind us which airline couldn't operate MCO, BGI or ISB out of MAN. Remind us which airline's idea of "national interest" was to lodge objections to airlines expanding away from the London area. Remind us which airlines idea of competition for long-haul ouside LHR was to alter days and times of operations out of MAN to within 5 minutes of the competition on the samedays. Remind us which airline encouraged partner airlines to give up regional flying in favour of codesharing LHR shuttle. I really doubt any other country has been shafted so much by one airline.

Quoting vv701 (Reply 11):
Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
But it seems other airlines can do so on a point to point basis. Some perhaps it's not the fault of the regions but the fault of the airline?


If you are a full service airline then operating a route that links two airports neither of which is a hub or at least a 'focus' airport for that airline is unlikely to be economically viable.

And I repeat from the other thread. BA turned BACon into a point to point airline. But they never equipped them with the types so that they could compete. Now we have flybe operating the majoirty of the ex-BACon routes out of MAN but have yet to drop any of them as far as I can tell and U2 operating on others. The chronic underinvestment served its purpose and so BA became utterly irrelevant to the majority of the population.


User currently offlineLH121GLA From Germany, joined May 2004, 454 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11224 times:

Quoting offloaded (Reply 12):
EK can serve BHX MAN NCL EDI GLA

EK do NOT serve EDI.


User currently offlineLHRFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 800 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11207 times:

I think we may see more Oneworld metal at other UK airports, ie possibly more AA operated flights to JFK, and possibly other gateways, and IB operated flights to MAD, but not BA operated international flights - unless there is a radical rebalancing of the UK private sector economy away from London and The South East. Yes, there is demand for international traffic out of other airports, but the premium market, which is BA relies on for profitability, is heavily concentrated in London.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 12):
Not sure if you are referring to the same thing, but I thought BA's biggest mistakes in the last decade or so were the selling of Go and not purchasing GB Airways.

Agreed. The "twin brand" strategy has worked well for Qantas, and I think BA should have kept Go.


User currently offlineBA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11189 times:

Quoting EMAman (Reply 5):
They will continue to serve MAN, GLA and EDI purely to feed LHR long haul. Forget anything more. They didnt sell those regional routes on a whim; they hadnt worked for years.

Add NCL and ABZ to that. I think BA are quite happy with the small London feeding flights they have from the regions. All of BAs handling in the regions has gone now anyways with Aviance or Swissport handling them outside of LHR/LGW.


User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7258 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11080 times:

Quoting david_itl (Reply 15):
The last time I looked, AF had a sizable operation out of LYS. Prey tell what BA has outside London? Thats the difference. They've not stuck 2 fingers up to those airports outside thier home airport. It matters not that they've got subsidiary and franchise operators doing it as that is exactly what BA had,.


Perhaps you need to update yourself. The only direct flight operated on behalf of Air France between what you seem to think is a major AF operational airport, LYS, and anywhere in the UK was that operated by Brit Air to BHX.

However the AF BHX-LYS service has been discontinued. To travel from BHX to LYS today you now need to fly from BHX to the AF CDG hub by CityJet. So now the only direct flights between that sizable AF operation at LYS and the UK are the 21 weekly flights operated by BA to its LHR hub.

As I said before it is clear that full service airlines like AA, AF, BA, EK or UA can only operate economically between two points where at least one is a hub of that airline. This is why BA operates a total of over 100 weekly flights from either its LHR or LGW hub to the French destinations of BOD, LYS, MLH, MRS, NCE and TLS but why there are no AF flights operated by either AF or any of its minions on any of these routes.

It is interesting that you place such store on how an aircraft is painted. In addition to the 5 UK destinations served by BA painted aircraft from LON there are around a dozen other UK airports that are served by BA code share flights by aircraft not painted in BA livery. They range from BFS to WIC.

Many of the BA domestic code share flights, but not all, are operated by BE. Of course, BA has a 15 per cent equity stake in that airline, which claims to be the UK's largest domestic airline. And only two of the BA code share domestic routes, those to BFS and INV start in LON.

Apart from the AF livery painted on the aircraft and the fact that AF insists that airlines like Airlinair and Brit Air that it uses on 'minor' routes do not use there own flight codes on those routes, I fail to see how these flights differ from the UK domestic BA code share flights. Is the difference so significant that they make AF great and, as you imply, BA awful? Indeed you might like to reflect on why AF operates in this way.

Could it be that AF wants to control the fares as well as take a cut from the price of every ticket sold on those flights? Is not competition a good thing? Would you really advocate BA dominating British scheduled civil aviation in the way that AF tends to dominate French scheduled civil aviation? And is their any evidence with routes like the BHX-LYS service now being routed BHX-CDG-LYS that AF is any less Paris centric than BA is London centric? And it is worth remembering that France is more than twice the size of the UK. And in other geographically large countries like Germany and the USA you often see full service airlines economically successfully adopting a multi-centre, multi-hub approach.


User currently offlineSR4ever From Luxembourg, joined Mar 2010, 799 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10898 times:

Quoting david_itl (Reply 15):
The last time I looked, AF had a sizeable operation out of LYS.

Yes and no.

AF indeed operates a regional hub in LYS, but primarily for the very premium traffic, charging high fares on relatively small aircrafts.

Fares are really high in leisure traffic, even with non-flexible fares.

However, there are now more alternatives, as U2 has expanded at LYS in the past 2 yrs: BRU, NTE, BDX, TLS, BCN, NCE and MXP are welcome developments.

On the rails, HSR is alreay the best alternative to LIL, MRS and MPL for both business and leisure markets, and MLH will join that list within 1 yr. As far s leisure traffic oncly is concercned, NCE, TLS and NTE have decent HSR services with Lyons, and BCN and SXB will also join that list soon.

Quoting vv701 (Reply 19):
As I said before it is clear that full service airlines like AA, AF, BA, EK or UA can only operate economically between two points where at least one is a hub of that airline. This is why BA operates a total of over 100 weekly flights from either its LHR or LGW hub to the French destinations of BOD, LYS, MLH, MRS, NCE and TLS but why there are no AF flights operated by either AF or any of its minions on any of these routes.

Indeed...

AF used to operate flights on London-NCE/MRS/MPL/TLS/BDX/NTE/LIL, and also on NCE-MAN.

BA used to operate CDG-GLA/EDI/LBA/MAN/BHX/BRS/BFS.

But these times are over, and forever I believe...


User currently offlinemutu From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10779 times:

The answer has been well made by others.

Operating sensible frequency on routes that neither start nor end in a Hub are economically disadvantaged from the start.
There would be a significant investment in infrastructure and disrurption to fleet utilisation maximisation.

This is a very common behaviour globally not just linked to BA

Ask why no single USA carrier flies from BOS, JFK, EWR, BWI, PHL and IAD to London.

Now LH does do a bit of a better job but look at a map and consider the geographic spreads. Really, suggesting that a bit of flying from DUS and MUC suggests they seriously serve the german regions is a nonesense. They are primarily a FRA focussed airline.

Regional airports will always lend themselves to non domestic carriers, either direct to longhaul, or via someone elsea hub.

The example of the french market has been made. The italian market is also worthy of note for LGW (O&D) and onward to the carribean and for LHR from Naples Pisa Venice Genoa Rome Milan L Milan M Turin Bologna. (and if LHR had been big enough most of these routes would be at LHR offering massive hub connectivity to the regional italians, but we all know that has never been the case nor will be!)

So whilst its a reasobale criticism as a passenger, its a sound business practice

where they are clever is constructing flights in "CIRCULAR" schedules, eg LHR/FRA/DUS/LHR which provides some domestic connectivity but uses LHR as the "Focus" city where signifiant investment is made in engineering, parts, ground services etc (especially when LX OS BD etc are added to the pot)


User currently offlineSAM1987 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 946 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10773 times:

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
is there any chance we might see an increase in flights from these and other airports around London due to the restrictions in place at Heathrow.

LGW and LCY will see BA expansion. The regions won't see BA expansion, but we could see IB services from MAD to the regions.

Quoting BAfan (Thread starter):
I know BA have stated that they will look to Madrid to expand in the future

IB will expand in MAD. Offering BA flights from MAD causes various complications such as crew issues etc.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
Sorry, the market is there but Blinked Airways only wants to funnel traffic through LHR

Are you saying these airlines are blinked too? EK to DXB, AF to CDG, KL to AMS.... the list goes on. Few full service hub and spoke carriers outside the US have more than one large hub.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
But it seems other airlines can do so on a point to point basis. Some perhaps it's not the fault of the regions but the fault of the airline?

BA is not a point to point airline. BA makes money through connectivity. On point to point short haul routes, passengers are concerned with price and not onboard product as much.

MAN passengers voted with their feet and flew low cost airlines because they were cheaper, then wondered why BA left MAN.

Quoting BD338 (Reply 10):
BA have publically stated they are looking at expanding the MAD operations once the IB deal is complete

Have they?

Quoting BD338 (Reply 10):
The blinkered "LHR only" policy may finally be coming to an end

It isn't blinkered. See my comment above.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 12):
BA's biggest mistakes in the last decade or so were the selling of Go and not purchasing GB Airways

GB Airways wasn't making money. Go was a mistake - they could've expanded at LGW then U2 wouldn't be nearly so big.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 12):
Excluding LON airports, if CO can successfully serve BHX MAN EDI GLA BRS, EK can serve BHX MAN NCL EDI GLA, EY and SQ can serve MAN etc, I do not know why BA doesn't run a system similar to LH vis a vis FRA / MUC

FRA and MUC are bigger and further apart than LON and MAN.



Next flights: LGW-LBA-LGW, LHR-SIN-SYD, SYD-BKK-LHR, LGW-GRO, GRO-CIA, CIA-MAD, MAD-LGW
User currently offlinevv701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7258 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 10713 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 10):
BA have publically stated they are looking at expanding the MAD operations once the IB deal is complete
Quoting SAM1987 (Reply 22):
Have they?

Yes. What is not clear is whether this was a political reposte to the government for abandoning the third LHR runway or a real alternative that will drive jobs and wealth from London to Madrid. Here a couple of links reporting what he said:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/64432,...xpand-in-madrid-after-heathrow-ban

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-will-favour-madrid-over-london.do

Nevertheless the government has been true to a form that now stretches back over 60 years. Since Queen Elizabeth opened THE runway at LGW in July 1958, successive governments have abandoned plans on environmental grounds to build runways in southeast England at Cublington/Wing, Foulness, Cliffe, Stansted, Luton and Heathrow. In that period of almost exponential air travel growth we have managed somehow to open one new runway at LCY. But that leaves us with no more runways than we had back then. In 1958 LHR was a three-runway airport.

The reason for abandoning so many plans has always been lack of land and the environmental disturbance to existing residents be they humans or wildlife. Of course this is an equally good excuse for not building anything new at all. Afterall a construction site has to either disturb the lives of local residents both during and after construction or, if it is away from a built up area, disturb the wildlife or desecrate valuable agricultural land or both.

These are not excuses used in other countries. For example look what the Dutch have achieved. They certainly do not have excessive hectares of free and useless polders. Look at Schipol. Just 20 minutes outside Amsterdam, AMS has five main runways as well as a small general aviation runway. And we hope to compete with them using a two-runway or perhaps a one-runway airport at either Heathrow or at Stansted or Gatwick or Luton or wherever the latest proposal suggests (at least until it is rejected).

So here are some predictions:

Is there an alternative of building a multi-hundreds of billions airport somewhere out at sea, miles from where anybody lives. But do not worry. By then the government will have fathomed out where the 100,000 employees that such a development will require will live. (More hundreds of billions!) But by the time they are ready to plan the second or the third runway at our New London Airport there will be a loud outcry from the half a million people that have moved into the area, all of whom are directly or indirectly dependent on the airport for their livelihood. Of course their concern is predictable. It is the environmental impact of that extra runway. So that will take us all back to 1958 except then we did not all expect to be able to go on our foreign holidays.

But competing for a place on an aircraft to take a holiday in the sun could prove difficult. Many aircraft using the single opened runway at the New London Airport (only an hour and three quarters outside central London) will be full of aviation enthusiasts off for a day's outing to places like AMS, CDG or FRA. And by then the numbers of such enthusiasts will be much larger than today. Many will have been enticed into the hobby by exotic photos of exotically painted aircraft rarely seen in southeast England but very plentiful on web sites like a-net. And many of those enthusiasts will save hard so they can venture further afield. Their objective will be MAD. There they will find the treat of all treats. There will be a whole day's spotting or photography of that rarest of rare beasts in southeast England or any other part of the UK, a British registered long haul aircraft!

By then BA will have returned to all the provincial airports in the UK that it formerly served plus quite a number that it had never flown to before. The vast majority of their flights will be to their new hub which had been transferred from LHR to MAD when LHR's two runways were replaced by the single runway at NLA (New London Airport). But following the 21 month industrial dispute with its FA's in 2010-11, a large proportion of the BA cabin crew on its short haul flights will be based in Spain. The rest will probably be based in the UK provinces.


User currently offlineEMAman From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 10660 times:

Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
But it seems other airlines can do so on a point to point basis. Some perhaps it's not the fault of the regions but the fault of the airline?

Agre, but those airlines have a low cost structure.

BA would love to reduce the cost of their structure, and well know it is why they struggle to compete, but the days of cabin crew strikes show how easy that is


25 Humberside : The amount of service, or otherwise, to the UK does not determine the size of a hub. I know you probably know that, but it is what your post implied
26 davehammer : Very much so, LH can operate a hub there as it has a distinctly different catchment area to FRA and it is one of the richest areas in Europe commandi
27 trintocan : Very true and in fact the low-cost carriers are actually also very much hub focused. How many flights do U2 and FR actually serve which are "isolated
28 AIR MALTA : But selling GO helped easyJet become this monster airline we know today that is cannibalizing its market... The other "stupid" move which they might
29 col : Looking at MAN, why would you want BA back? What could they offer additionally over what is available now, and what will be available in the future. T
30 LHR380 : AA fly there as well. If pretty sure BA just ADDED another flight on the LHR MAN route?
31 SAM1987 : They will do for winter 2010. One of the daily LGW flights is being replaced by a LHR flight, so I think (if my memory serves me correctly) MAN will
32 col : Of course, have had the joy of their service BOS-MAN, sucked big style, only once then learnt my mistake. The numbers pax LHR-MAN is down 12% from la
33 PanHAM : FRA is indeed the largest hub but by no means does LH primarily focus on FRA. MUC has more departures, DUS has way over 100 departures a day, HAM and
34 mikey72 : This is all such a load of rubbish. They are totally different markets. To keep banging on about how BA did 'this wrong' and how BA 'made mistakes' t
35 PanHAM : How could I forget that Britain is best. I convey my sincere apologies to the centre of the universe. ...and I thought that I had made it clear that t
36 mikey72 : Apology accepted. Oh I see. Sorry, it's just that you were inferring that BA had made mistakes. Also you seemed to be isolating BA in the UK and tota
37 skipness1E : This has been done to the death. BA couldn't make money in the regions with a monopoly, throw cut throat loco competition in there and there's not a h
38 SKAirbus : I think BA could catch some premium traffic outside London by possibly having a few E170-190s (i.e. expand CityFlyer)based a Birmingham, Manchester or
39 babybus : Where there's a will there's a way, as they say. With the small, fuel efficient 787 available (within the next decade) it must be possible to operate
40 PanHAM : The topic is BA and "other" British airports, isn't it? Not about Virgin or BMI or whatever. I was a frequent guest at the BHX Eurohub and I used the
41 SAM1987 : Long haul flights from the UK regions only work if they fit two categories: 1. Feeding a hub (eg: CO to EWR, DL to ATL, EK to DXB etc) 2. Leisure poi
42 skipness1E : "BHX used to be a Eurohub and Manchester certainly has a catchment area comparable to London. Passengers should have the option of transferring either
43 GT4EZY : GB was planning a MAN pull out in 2008 and probably wouldn't have survived any BA buy out.
44 mikey72 : You're comparing again. It doesn't work. Because of the size of the market in the UK every Tom, Dick and Harry understandably wants a piece of the ac
45 col : Correct. They had the opportunity and did not do very well. If they had created a better hub at MAN, then maybe it could have worked better, as LH ha
46 vv701 : With respect, never. There are only a small handful of places in the world that have a catchment area in any way comparable to that of London. Perhap
47 david_itl : And I repeat yet again BA HAD A ****ING HUB at MAN. That they couldn't be bothered is something that shames them and all the idiots who choose to ign
48 eljonno : The Square Mile....population less than 8,000. Think you mean Greater London, perhaps.[Edited 2010-08-20 17:27:55][Edited 2010-08-20 17:29:46]
49 vv701 : No. I mean what I said. I was not thinking of the Square Mile's 8,000 residents. However I was thinking of its 320,000 workers whose average renumera
50 col : Are you sure? MAN-DXB was 50,500 pax in July. MAN-LHR was 70,269. To LHR you have BMI also, myself and my family were four that flew MAN-LHR in July
51 mikey72 : Mmm, 2 CO 757's to Newark and and a DL 767 to JFK. The AA 767 will soon fall under the anti-trust agreement. (The lack of anti-trust by the way being
52 AirNZ : There we have what exactly? British Midland have the UK for many decades; Ryanair and Easyjet obtained their substantial market share because BA with
53 Post contains images vv701 : You mean like 'Absolute nonsense'? Can one have a more definitive opinion than that? The three words that sprung to mind were 'cat', 'kettle' and 'bl
54 BA174 : I think having to use mainline Worldwide cabin crew scuppered MAN-JFK more as the costs shot up compared to when BA connect crew worked it e.g, the cr
55 GT4EZY : Not really. Why does everyone think that nightstopping crew sends costs sky high? Airlines have hotel contracts at very preferential rates. BA were a
56 mikey72 : Is it so hard to believe that it simply isn't worth it ? Don't you think Virgin Atlantic would provide a service to JFK like they do to MCO from MAN
57 david_itl : IF VS had a spare aircraft then I'd anticipate them doing so; perhaps within the next 3 years whilst they sort themselves out at LHR. Remember BA cou
58 rutankrd : David I have remained out of this debate because I had hoped it really had finally gone away once and for all. Young BAFan really should have done so
59 vv701 : VS are significantly dependent on Virgin Holidays to provide passengers to make their MAN-MCO route viable. Do you think that Virgin Holidays will be
60 david_itl : No , but I daresay they will find the premuim pax that BA is unable/unwilling to find.
61 GT4EZY : I'm not debating whether or not the service was profitable (although I believe it was....it just didn't fit in with BA's current strategy) but instea
62 col : Sorry for delay in replying, was travelling. My argument is that NY-MAN makes money for CO/DL, they are profitable. BA sends all that metal, but is a
63 mikey72 : Firstly BA don't send any metal between MAN and JFK. I think to make judgements about BA profitability based on the last two years is unreasonable gi
64 david_itl : So no focus at any of the AA bases and BA isn't focusing at LCY, LGW & LHR. I look forward to seeing SFO-BHX being launched imminently.
65 mikey72 : Well if BA don't focus on LHR then i'm 'Sheeba Queen Of The Jungle' BA have recently commenced transatlantic service from LCY with other services to
66 col : Your words not mine. Also other people have commented that London is full of so much premium traffic that BA should be making heaps. Yes we all know
67 mikey72 : I think there is a vast difference between saying London is the centre of civil aviation in Europe and saying it's the centre of the universe ? Until
68 mikey72 : I think you'll find that as long as we don't have anymore economic disasters BA with everything they have going for them and with everything they hav
69 AirNZ : You obviously haven't flown EK then. As a matter of interest, EK will get me and millions of others to almost any destination I want to go to as easi
70 mikey72 : Your use of the word 'almost' is very generous as is your use of the word 'easily'. By within the UK I suppose you mean Belfast ? (yawn) Don't BA cod
71 ediCHC : Hardly the same comparison....where else are SQ or EK going to have hubs? Not really another suitable hub site for KLM either (of course with AF-KLM
72 vv701 : Yes. I would dispute that. In continental Europe BA flies to 66 different destinations. Emirates fly to only 18 of those destinations plus Malta (to
73 col : My local airport is KUL. I hub and use the following regularly: SIN, BKK, ICN, HKG etc. Envy LHR, laughing my ass off at this one. You are also start
74 mikey72 : No not really and it certainly isn't hearsay. Just thought it was an interesting topic. It appears i'm not the only one that thinks so either. I just
75 iainbhx : BA Birmingham made money most years until 2003, even with an accounting regime that allocated a percentage to "long haul connections from LHR" despit
76 Post contains images AirNZ : Yes, you do have a valid point, and I note it as such........also with it being deliberately taken out of context (as in I note there was no rebuttal
77 Post contains images edichc : Who needs EK for European destinations? From EDI one can reach far more European destinations with one stop on LH that BA serve, plus there is the bo
78 vv701 : I agree . And that is exactly the reason why in my original post I said: To which you first responded while you now say which, of course, is exactly
79 iainbhx : You'd be surprised at the actual facts given to my committee with regards to BHX. Plenty of pax travel down the M40 to get to LHR to fly BA (and othe
80 gkirk : Do we really need all these threads about UK and the regions? I for one, am happy to see airlines other than BA expand, such as Emirates and Continent
81 cornish : Oh dear here we go again. Another set of bashing from certain people who seem to think being an armchair CEO/spotter and spending time watching planes
82 edichc : This sort of 'drivel' are the opinions of lost customers. This begs the question, is the current BA CEO doing such a splendid job as these 'armchair
83 Post contains images mikey72 : Unfortunately I fear you're wasting your breath. Some people react to positivity with negativity. They can't stand to see a thread about certain subj
84 tim222 : EK crew... good at their job... I have flown EK 3 times in 7 years and I have found their crew to be the rudest, most arrogant crew I have ever met...
85 offloaded : You mean from MAN? BA still flies LGW MCO. The BA fares are the same to fly MAN LGW MCO as LGW MCO. (OK, £20 addition for Y pax, no additional for W
86 mikey72 : To be fair I feel a bit sorry for them. There can't be anything worse than flying as crew for a living and not even be able to go home between trips.
87 2travel2know2 : Given the current scenario, the question is: Would BA expand at other London airports?. If BA is looking to consolidate themselves (and Oneworld mate
88 BY738 : Not a hope...... .. .
89 GlobalCabotage : Now that ATI is about to be in place, BA can add more routes to the States and bring the equipment back to LHR for rotation. If AA doesn't fly it, BA/
90 edichc : CO are already established with EWR-EDI, I can't see there being a market for two services EDI-NYC. I'm not sure how AA fared before when they did OR
91 mikey72 : I see there being a market for GLA/EDI to JFK. The benefits (long awaited I might add) of anti-trust for AA/BA plus the likelihood of a pooling of re
92 iainbhx : I strongly doubt if we will see AA/BA back in BHX in the foreseeable future. My understanding is that ORD and JFK are possible - but with UA and DL r
93 Post contains images col : You seem to be a strange believer in BA, and that now they have ATI with AA suddenly they are going to be able to fly from UK regions, and make the l
94 skipness1E : It's not that complex. Every passenger BA flew Regions-US was one less through London LHR/ LGW. Given that their profits were almost entirely driven f
95 mikey72 : I think it would be wise to remember that BA and AA have been at a disadvantage for the last 10 years. However, they will go from having no immunized
96 edichc : In the context of this thread i.e. services to UK airports outside LON BA/AA have much more that just a little bit of catch up to achieve.
97 mikey72 : True but I'm not sure anyone is going to lose any sleep regards the country pair market share of UK-U.S within Oneworld (AA/BA) in the meantime.[Edit
98 AirNZ : Hmm! in relation to what with regard to the thread's title? In post 2 you stated the following: How are you correlating that with..... Thing is, anyo
99 mikey72 : Well I did say 'in the meantime' Chillax man. Just thought I'd big up Oneworld. Not against the law is it ?
100 col : No, but when you look at reality you are way off base. Also you have taken an opportunity to start underhanded topics about EK and EY. To me it is ob
101 vv701 : BA was the leading loss maker in its region in 2009-10 (-£531 million). BA also had a very significant loss in 2008-09 (-£401 million). However in
102 AirNZ : No, not against the law at all (pretty petty comment though) but, as Col correctly points out, why do you feel the need to introduce OneWorld and oth
103 edichc : By the same token BA since it's formation in the 70's has been as big a loss maker as it has been profitable, it's a case of where you place the goal
104 Post contains links mikey72 : Yes you're right. I'm sorry I don't know what I was thinking. I don't know where I got the idea that EK service standards are slipping badly and that
105 edichc : I would be more inclined to do so had BA been operating on a level playing field and within the law in the days following privatisation. What is atyp
106 mikey72 : I know all about the Dirty Tricks but that was 20 years ago. What kind of world do you think we are living in anyway ? Of course the government suppo
107 edichc : And if you were the CEO of B-Cal, Dan-Air, Laker etc what would the meaning of the term 'Conflict of interest' mean to you? It was much more than jus
108 mikey72 : As in..the Government's conflict of interest as the sole owner of British Airways (BA) as well as the regulator for all British airlines. Yes i'm awa
109 col : Selective? You have just confirmed what I said, but giving more hard facts. You have also shown that their loses are increasing. Not my selective sta
110 Post contains links vv701 : Big loss maker? Safe? Lost more than it has earned? I do not think so. What is your source? Here is what the New York Times had to say when BA was on
111 edichc : So inaccurate was this book, and the accompanying TV documentary that BA failed to find any grounds for a legal challenge to the author/publisher/bro
112 mikey72 : All I'm saying is it's the past. BA will soon be absorbed by something completely different to what it has ever been. I'm afraid you're going to have
113 Post contains images edichc : When BA finally succumb and become Iberia UK all will be well.
114 Post contains images mikey72 : Your maths isn't very good is it ? 55/45 split, HQ in London. Anyway ref reply 116, you didn't answered my question. I've noticed though you never do
115 edichc : Considering all the complexities involved it is an almost impossible question to answer. In the immediate aftermath of BA's privatisation there was n
116 Post contains images mikey72 : Yes I agree. But surely EVEN YOU must realise that the current problems are due to a systematic approach to problems that once dealt with will secure
117 edichc : As someone who hailed from north of the border, I really try to forget pretty much anything Maggie T said! No prob there, debate can get pretty dull
118 mikey72 : Well all I can say is that as someone who spent quite alot of time in, loving and getting aquainted with the north due to my time with BA I'd give th
119 Post contains links vv701 : Understood. If one presents substatiable facts with sources about BA but with no comment on those facts then one is a 'BA advocate'.. If one makes cr
120 edichc : Note that I did state from a specified source that the above figure was significantly lowered by huge asset stripping by BA in that financial year, q
121 vv701 : Two points: The loss for 1981-82 reported by BA to the Inland Revenue and signed off by BA's auditors was £544 million. Even if it had been £1.0 bi
122 edichc : This was not my estimate this was the estimate of former BA CEO/MD/Chairman Colin Marshall when interviewed in 1989 for the BBC tv series 'Airline' (
123 vv701 : I am not quite sure what you mean by 'asset stripping' in this particular case. It is a term most normally applied to when a new owner of a company s
124 edichc : In summary BA were formed as an operating company in 1974, and as a 'paper' company in 1972, not 1981-2. We are not talking about sale and lease back
125 Post contains links vv701 : They are not simply 'commonplace'. It is a legal requirement that any loss or profit made by a company at the time of an asset disposal is included i
126 edichc : How many times do I have to repeat myself in this respect. I DO NOT DISPUTE THIS! In fact this is exactly what I was alluding to when I stated that e
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...
British Airways Arrivals At JFK posted Mon Dec 15 2008 18:46:33 by Richiemo
British Airways 777 At Lexington, Kentucky! (PICS) posted Sat May 5 2007 14:27:34 by Gh123
British Airways 777 At YYC - Pics posted Thu Dec 7 2006 08:01:20 by Vio
British Airways 777 At SFO? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 15:31:06 by Xpfg
Will British Airways Buy A380's posted Tue May 16 2006 12:27:52 by Nicolasdec
Will British Airways Keep Flying To Sydney posted Mon Jan 2 2006 07:51:59 by QANTASpower
British Airways Fire At Boston Logan? posted Tue Nov 16 2004 04:11:02 by Ord747cle
British Airways 777 At PMI.Where Did She Go? posted Sun Nov 7 2004 11:54:02 by Mygind66
British Airways 744 At Phx posted Wed Jul 14 2004 05:04:54 by Adam727
Strike Chaos At 17 UK Airports posted Mon Jul 5 2004 15:43:51 by Soups