JQflightie From Australia, joined Mar 2009, 913 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12144 times:
if QF rtn to KUL it will be with JQ metal. JQ did operate SYD-KUL when international ops started but soon cut this route along with SGN direct.
BA wont rtn to MEL because it has a JSA with QF and it suits them well, and its very expensive to have their crew so far from home, so if BA can codeshare on QF flights and keep costs down then all is happy in the world of BA
Next Trip: PER-DPS-LOP-CGK-KUL-PVG-LHR, LCY-MAD-VLC, BCN-LYS-TLS-IST-JED-KUL-SGN-CAN-MEL
ZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5131 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12016 times:
I would never say never for AKL, the current management of AKL Airport AIAL seem to have done quite well in promoting themselves and New Zealand to airlines with several new routes and airlines coming online in the next 12 months. They put proposals to I think close to 50 airlines and I'm sure BA would of been in the mix.
LHR-KUL-AKL has been mentioned even by a few people in the past on this board. 1 problem would be that KUL-AKL doesn't have a huge amount of traffic in itself whereas LHR-AKL and LHR-KUL do. But a flight to AKL via somewhere like SIN where QF hub with connections from FRA and LHR is possible except JQ are starting AKL-SIN non stop in March. Via LAX or SFO could be good with a lot of local LAX/SFO-AKL traffic.
MEL would be the same IMO but via Asia would be faster maybe reintoduce LHR-SIN-MEL? JQ are also starting MEL-SIN though. Maybe MEL-BKK-LHR meaning BA can use that as a way of adding extra BKK flights and giving MEL-BKK another airline, though JQ do fly this already then TG.
tayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1101 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11707 times:
SIN, HKG and KUL are saturated into MEL.
SIN: 5x daily
KUL: 4x daily (or thereabouts).
HKG: 4x daily
BKK has 2x daily from TG and 3x weekly from JQ - just replacing JQ with QF mainline and boosting frequencies and meeting BA and QF flights at BKK might work - but with QF, not BA.
BA to MEL via BOM is another way of QF and BA opening up another scissor hub for themselves (with QF flying SYD-BOM connecting with BA's 2 (?) flights LHR-BOM) in their JSA. Very large O&D between MEL and BOM (India in general), and given that AI are in failtown (they were supposed to start DEL-MEL on Nov 20) - could be a niche that BA could exploit if they have the resources.
LHRFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 774 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11522 times:
Crewing costs aside, routes to Australia and New Zealand are still poor in terms of aircraft utilisation. I can see new routes and historical routes to Asia being reinstated with Mixed Fleet and the 787, but not more routes to Australia and New Zealand which are well served by codeshares.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7829 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10416 times:
Quoting planemanofnz (Reply 7): Possibly QF could exit AKL-LAX and allow BA to extend LHR-LAX to AKL. I don't see BA coming to New Zealand through Asia.
The idea of BA flying to New Zealand is "romantic" its not really worth it. Flying to AKL for BA is not high in its importance list, flying to LHR for Air New Zealand is a vital economic link for the island nation. Since ANZ flies via LAX(another important destination) they probably do make money to LHR. BA would do better flying with QF to AKL.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7055 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9838 times:
Quoting NCLflysBA (Reply 9): Would love BA to fly to Perth i have friends there who i would visit alot more often if they did!
Well there are quite a few current options with an elapsed time of around 19 hours.
For example there's BA011 (LHR-SIN) + BA7376 (SIN-PER) as well as BA7372 (LHR-SIN) + BA7376 (SIN-PER) and BA015 (LHR-SIN) + BA7378 (SIN-PER) plus quite a few otrher alternatives which are all listed in the oneworld on-line timetable.
A320boy From UK - England, joined Jun 2010, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9809 times:
Crew costs are not always the issue here.
Just curious to know.. because crew seem to get the blame for most things wrong with BA (Not the lack of management, the slowly declining on board offerings or the CEO come to that) but why when BA was making £800 million plus profit, why was crew cost never an issue? Anyway, back to subject, I won't make this a crew/union/BA bashing threat as they always turn out to be when BA is involved.
NRT has historically been one of the most well paid trips for crew at BA (anyone who has been will know why!) and that's never stopped BA operating it.
SIN & BKK/SYD are also money earners but only because its a 9 day trip, again never stopped BA operating it.
Don't really see what difference it makes, most of the routes we are talking about can be served by current B777-200/300 and B747 (That's talking range wise anyway). As for Yields maybe the 787 is more cost effective, but I was curious by BA's config of the 787. Only 90 seats in economy?
KUL has been banded around over the past few months, along with a return to SEZ too. So guess we will just have to wait and see.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7055 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 week 6 days ago) and read 9507 times:
Quoting A320boy (Reply 12): Crew costs are not always the issue here.
Just curious to know.. because crew seem to get the blame for most things wrong with BA
Talking of crew costs is not necessarily blaming crew for cost problems.
Whatever the absolute total cost of the crew manning an aircraft on a particular route, the one thing we can be reasonably sure of is that even when pay, allowances, expenses and other controllable variables are exactly equal between different routes there will still be differing crew costs on different routes. These variations will partially reflect several factors. These factors may amongst others include:
Cost of living variations between destinations and therefore a requirement to vary crew allowances between destinations.
Currency exchange rates.
Crew lay-over periods at destination which in turn could be a function of several variables such as the airline's operating timetable and the length of the flight.
Let's take one example, currency exchange rates. Let's look not at two but a single destination over a period of time. Let's assume the improbable that the cost of a hotel room in NYC has remained constant in US$ terms over the last three years. The Dollar/Sterling exchange rate has changed from $2.07030 on 28 Nov 2007 to $1.55930 today. Hence the accommodation element of the cost of crew during a NYC stop over measured in Sterling has increased by 32.8 per cent in this three year period.
Clearly the crew are not benefiting from this change as BA are simply paying their hotel costs. But equally clearly there has been a significant increase over the three year period in the cost of the hotel accommodation for crew during stop overs in NYC. For this significant change we cannot "blame" either BA cabin crew or BA management. But it is still a cost factor in the operation of all BA flights between LON and NYC.
Current crews on long haul are paid an allowance... allowances depends on destination, length of the flight getting there and a few other factors.
Mixed flying is a very basic hourly rate, crew get a yearly salary (Depending on grade) PLUS £2.40 an hour from report time, to 45 mins after landing. Making them someone cheaper to operate, also as they work to the basic hours laid out by the CAA they can have reduced time down route. EG LHR-LAS is a 2 night stop over for BA worldwide, however it COULD be reduced to 1 night for the new fleet. Not sure how many nights they will get one it starts on Dec 1st
AlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8870 times:
Quoting speedmarque (Reply 2): Mixed Fleet LHR crew make several "too expensive" routes viable again. Seoul, KL, Perth, Jakarta and Osaka have all been mooted as possible now.
Looking at the bigger picture here, crew costs are really not that major when considering route expansion. Market demand, yields, political stability are pre-requisites that would come before crew costs are considered. After that, aircraft utilisation and fuel costs would also be higher on the list of criteria the airline will look into before the difference in pay between current and cheapo crew are considered.
LX138 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8516 times:
BA are not going to resume AKL as its even more low yield than MEL! As others have said, the cost of sending a plane to to the other side of the planet is costly to say the least! Using the QF and CX codeshare is far easier.
BA might actually go back to KUL at some point though.
Can't see MEL really happening again. If theres any new routes to Asia Pacific they will probably be into China.
I suggest BA try:
CAN - big student traffic and growing commercial city (can stand on its own without Hong Kong overlap now)
KUL - growing tourism market in both directions. KLIA are offering discounts to new airlines.
HKT - There must be enough demand for this without having to rely on a charter by now?
HGH - big enough student market? Would be good with the 787. I think KL have shown there is a potential market.
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6742 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8031 times:
Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 4): Via LAX or SFO could be good with a lot of local LAX/SFO-AKL traffic.
Only three gates at Auckland and one extra security point for US bound flights.... Another US bound airline would complicate things until they sort out. The airport can barely cope when NZ6/NZ8 are departing together at 1915/1930...
The gates themselves have NZ10/QF25/NZ6/NZ8/NZ2 just about permanently occupying them, and as long as there is a US flight on, the other gates have to be empty so cannot be used for anything else...
BA won't be back this way, it's too much hard work for them.
mutu From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 513 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7986 times:
Quoting A320boy (Reply 12): NRT has historically been one of the most well paid trips for crew at BA (anyone who has been will know why!) and that's never stopped BA operating it.
SIN & BKK/SYD are also money earners but only because its a 9 day trip, again never stopped BA operating it.
Actually the second daily LHR/NRT was one of the first casualties, it stopped making and starting losing big. And I believe the new HND will have mixed fleet to soften the blow
SIN/BKK/SYD dont make but are not losing big, Its a yield issue with just so many options these days to get to Oz so with JSA working for booth carriers this seems manageable but it is unikely BA would commit more frames to increase flying beyond Asia
MAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2926 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7464 times:
Look out for the possibility of Kuala Lumpur returning to the BA map...
Mixed fleet crew would make this quite viable once again and with the Malaysian Ringgit one of the best performing currencies in Asia in 2010 - yields are bound to return to profitability. Cargo would be another important reason for BA to return to KUL - it was a cashcow before the Ringgit plummeted in 1998.
Options for BA include operating a new LHR-KUL-SGN route which was mooted over a year ago after Emirates trumped BA's initial plan of launching LHR-KUL-MEL flights (by launching its own DXB-KUL-MEL).
LHR-BKK-KUL could also be a possibility thus increasing capacity on the busy LHR-BKK route but it looks likely that the KUL route is to be operated by the new Mixed Fleet crew which may cause problems for BA management with crew working to two different salaries/regulations (at BKK).
BA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 739 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7036 times:
Quoting MAS777 (Reply 23): Look out for the possibility of Kuala Lumpur returning to the BA map...
BA fell out with the malaysian government after BA149 I am lead to believe and after that incident the route was closed quickly mainly because of the fact that many KUL residents boycotted the airline. Things would have had to change since then to make it work which they have e.g. new livery, aircraft and generic look so we would have to see.
25 laca773: I believe NZ does very very well on their AKL-LAX-LHR-LAX-AKL flights. On occasion they do downgauge the a/c to a 77E but this is rare. It's flown th
26 United Airline: Wonder if NZ will get the A 380 eventually. How many QF/BA B747-400s in service? What's up with the laid up ones? Will they return to service?
27 OA412: Honestly, a lot of the questions you ask can be answered on your own through simple web searches. http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/FactFiles
28 laca773: Why would they, United Airline? NZ is retiring their 744 fleet and replacing them with 77Ws which shows they are doing their best to "right size" the
29 Kent350787: I realise the QF codeshare makes the situation quite different, but it's still interesting in terms of utilsation that BA has a 747 and a 777 parked a
30 United Airline: A few of NZ's routes require the A 380 I think. AKL-LAX-LHR is one of them. My 2 cents. Didn't say how many B 747-400s laid up. Mind giving me a hand?
31 9MMAR: The BA 149 incident happened on 2 August 1990. BA still serve the then KUL (now SZB) in 1997. I think it was the disagreement regarding the failed co
32 kiwiandrew: You might think that ... but I don't think that NZ's management think that . Once the 744s have gone I doubt that you will ever see another quad in s
33 Flyingsottsman: BA will not come back to any other city in Australia other than Sydney, through out the 70s and 80s BA served MEL,BRIS,PER,SYD, with AKL an extention
34 Flying Belgian: Thx for explaining A320boy. So basically there are two categories of crew on BA right now ? I guess all the new entries get that new contract ?
35 Flyingsottsman: I dont think you will ever see a 380 in NZ colours. Apart from AKL-LAX-LHR-LAX-AKL, an A380 would be to much aircraft for most of their network IE AK
36 aerorobnz: No thats not exactly what I'm saying, AKL has 12 airbridged gates, 10 of which can accept everything up until a 744, 2 of which can accept A380s. Wha
37 LondonCity: I believe that until the late '80s, BA also served ADE and CHC. An advert in a BA timetable dated 1988 proclaimed that "We're on top Downunder etc et
38 speedmarque: That's up to him to do. I'm looking at my roster right now and it's all 30 mins.
39 MAS777: BA continued to serve SZB before moving its operations to KUL in 1998 and actually expanded its services until its departure from Malaysia in March 20
40 VV701: Out of 57 BA 744s, 49 are in actual service. One has returned from being parked in the desert and is being prepared for service re-entry by BAMC (Bri
41 United Airline: Will the rest return to service? Wonder if BA will resume its third daily flight to HKG. They were talking about a 4th daily flight
42 ZKSUJ: I think we'd have more luck seeing the 748I in NZ colours before the whalejet. Unlikely now but who knows, at one tme they did say that NZ will never
43 VV701: At their Investors Day Meeting in the summer BA simply said that their other 6 parked-up 744s gave them future long haul capacity flexibility. In the
44 2travel2know2: BA LON-AKL by way of YVR; SEA, SFO or LAS? Could AKL generate enough O/D traffic for YVR, SEA, SFO or LAS? - Even if not for daily, year-around, fligh
45 BA174: It is more likley now that mixed fleet is born but I think AKL would probably be via SFO or LAX for the better journey times. I doubt however BA are
46 United Airline: I suppose all 57 will still be flying if there was no financial crisis right? I believe BA will eventually get up to 30-40 if not more A 380s. They wi
47 United Airline: And how many B 747-400s have been upgraded with new first class suites? Will all 57 get them?
48 laca773: When its all said and done, I feel BA will eventually order the 748i as LH has. The A380 is too much a/c for certain markets that the 748i, would han