TWA85 From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 126 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2396 times:
Hello all,
Recently VY has established bases in ORY, FCO, AMS. These bases primarily have service to Spain and between each other. Does IAG have any plans to develop the bases into trans European hubs using VY? If IAG does develop these bases they could really give AF/KL and AZ a run for their money. Also as IAG is growth constrained at LHR (even with the purchase of BD) they could turn to these new bases for future growth. These bases could also feed their oneworld partners outside of Europe that serve these bases. What are everybody's thoughts?
AIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2365 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2305 times:
Well I think, that would be a good idea... What is missing for OneWorld are good intra european connection. Vueling with Air Berlin/Niki could do that.
Vueling could take care of South Mediterranean (LIS, BCN, AGP, MXP, FCO, ORY) plus Amsterdam and Air Berlin/Niki,
the rest.
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Does IAG actually have outright control of Vueling these days? I remember that they were the largest shareholder, but I thought it was still less than 50%.
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2171 times:
Quoting redhair (Reply 3): Right, IB owns about 46% of Vueling; what about a Vueling UK? Let's dream...
OK, I guess that is pretty effectively a controlling interest, it would be pretty hard I imagine to get the other 54% to all gang up to block them on anything.
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
In the LCC segment, FR and U2 are too firmly established there, and in the legacy segment I don't think BA would want VY to take over their short-haul flights, so I don't see that happening. But there is potential to expand in France, and the Mediterranean. And to feed other OW partners flying to places other than MAD and LHR.
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 4): OK, I guess that is pretty effectively a controlling interest, it would be pretty hard I imagine to get the other 54% to all gang up to block them on anything.
Yes, IB effectively controls VY, all their aircraft come from IB and are ordered from Airbus through IB, and routes and aircraft are routinely shifted between IB and VY depending on the needs.
Talaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 5): In the LCC segment, FR and U2 are too firmly established there, and in the legacy segment I don't think BA would want VY to take over their short-haul flights, so I don't see that happening. But there is potential to expand in France, and the Mediterranean. And to feed other OW partners flying to places other than MAD and LHR.
Yes. VY is meant to prop up BCN as a hub, helping to route pax to other parts of Europe, especially from the US. That said, there is room for expansion in intra-Mediterrenaean routes.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1439 times:
Quoting rutankrd (Reply 9): Could be already in the making - British airways limited with transferred slot holdings at LHR !
This seems to me to be totally improbable.
The chamces of any LCC being able to operate out of LHR profitably is remote. Here remember that the FR strategy over the last twenty years has been to establish new routes from many airports on the back of significant discounts on airport charges over their initial operational period (while establishing the service). With LHR operating at near capacity why would BAA even consider offering such discounts for a product they can currently sell with ease with its restricted availability?
So you buy an airline that is losing £3 million a day - see Lufthana Group's last annual report. You keep its previous operations going for an entire summer season (less the first 20 days - so 190 days) (Work that cost out for yourself.) And all of this for access to BD's remaining 56 daily LHR slot pairs. You agree with the competition authorities to surrender a quarter of these slots (14 slot pairs). This leaves you with just 42 slot pairs. You then transfer 31 of the remaining slot pairs you have gained to British Airways (BA) Ltd not to act as security for a bond issue to finance all of this but to establish a new LCC operation out of expensive-to-use LHR.
So you are left with 11 of the former BD slot pairs. You then announce a new daily service to ICN (one slot pair), a new four-times-daily service to LBA (4 slot pairs), a new daily service to ZAG (one slot pair), two additional daily flights to both ABZ and EDI (4 slot pairs) and a total of seven daily rotations to BHD (7 slot pairs). In order to operate all of these 17 announced new flights you need to shut down all of BD's remaining medium and short haul flights irrespective of their viability and additionally transfer six existing daily BA flights to LGW. Then you can start up your LHR basaed LCC.
rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2001 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 11): So you are left with 11 of the former BD slot pairs. You then announce a new daily service to ICN (one slot pair), a new four-times-daily service to LBA (4 slot pairs), a new daily service to ZAG (one slot pair), two additional daily flights to both ABZ and EDI (4 slot pairs) and a total of seven daily rotations to BHD (7 slot pairs). In order to operate all of these 17 announced new flights you need to shut down all of BD's remaining medium and short haul flights irrespective of their viability and additionally transfer six existing daily BA flights to LGW. Then you can start up your LHR basaed LCC.
No. Personally I do not think so..
That bond issue does intrigue me through and why specifically that number of slots ?
jumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
Quoting clydenairways (Reply 8): My guess is that IAG will set up a UK version of "IB Express" called say "BA Express" to handle the LGW base.
Don't forget IAG/BA already have a shareholding with FlyBe - about 15% I think - so if IAG decided to revamp their LGW ops might it make more sense to strengthen the FlyBe relationship and transfer flights to them rather than start yet another semi-LCC alternative to mainline BA?
APYu From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1312 times:
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 14): Don't forget IAG/BA already have a shareholding with FlyBe - about 15% I think - so if IAG decided to revamp their LGW ops might it make more sense to strengthen the FlyBe relationship and transfer flights to them rather than start yet another semi-LCC alternative to mainline BA?
This has to be on the cards. They trim domestic to within an inch of its life and then announce its all going to FlyBE with lots of increased frequencies so people see it as a real improvement
We'd like to welcome in particular our Executive Club members and those joining us from our Oneworld alliance partners.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
Quoting rutankrd (Reply 12): That bond issue does intrigue me through and why specifically that number of slots ?
I am no financial or tax expert. Nevertheless here is my two-penny-worth:
BA transfers 31 slots to British Airways (BA) Ltd of a specific perceived value and leases them back for a contracted guaranteed fee over a contracted period that may coincide with the life of the bonds. This gives British Airways (BA) Ltd an income for a set period from the slots. This income will be sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds and, perhaps, over the life of the bonds, sufficient income to accumulate and pay-off or partly pay-off the bond holders when the bonds reach maturity. It gives the bond holdeers the surety that the source of the monies to be used to make the interest payments on their bonds is guaranteed.
Depending on the relative profitability of the slot operator and the slot lessor there may (or may not) be some tax advantage to the arrangement. But since British Airways (BA) Ltd has been set up specifically to implement this arrangement I suspect that it is a tax efficient situation.
No. As I made clear I was responding to a reply that raised the issue of British Airways (BA) Ltd's new - and here I quote again - "slot holdings at LHR" which clearly has little to do with operations at LGW.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 126 posts, 
From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2365 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2011, 38 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2252 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 751 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1003 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
