hjulicher From Liechtenstein, joined Feb 2005, 935 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 39645 times:
According to a flightglobal interview with Willie Walsh, the IAG CEO states that with the introduction of the 787, BA could add at least 5 new cities in the USA.
The article mentions that BA wanted to add these new routes for a while but was waiting for an efficient long-haul aircraft to do so. The new flights will use existing slots from BA's short-haul European network. The new routes will be on top of the new services to Austin, TX.
These statements were made at the Boyd Group International Aviation Forecast Summit 2013 in Baltimore. Here's the link:http://pro.flightglobal.com/news/articles/BA-could-add-at-least-five-new-US-cities-Walsh-392523/
Since no one else has caught on this, I was wondering which cities would be prime candidates for the new service?
My thoughts are:
CGKings317 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 306 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 39540 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
PDX might be a stretch. However perhaps with using a smaller aircraft than what LH did when that airline was at PDX this route might be marginally viable. It would certainly be nice to see BA at PDX though from a spotters point of view.
I love ✈ & volcanoes but the 2 of them dont get along, just ask KLM867 & PH-BFC
FWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 4261 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 39136 times:
Don't forget IND. The IAA has been pushing for a trans-Atlantic flight to London for eons, but only now with the 787 is it feasible. Not to mention substantial business ties including (BA's engine supplier of choice) Rolls-Royce.
Perhaps BA could do IND-LHR with the 787, powered by Trent 1000s of course?
"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
I doubt FLL, as 1) DY is starting it from LGW, driving down the already low(ish) yields from FLL, and 2) the lower yields. If BA was to start FLL, I could see it with a 777 from LGW after the runway extension is complete.
I definitely see MSY, SJC, BDL, and PIT being feasible.
The views I express are my own and do not reflect the views and opinions of my company.
SJC isn't that long shot. Despite Bay Area being a strong presence of Star, BA has a competitive product that can lure some tech contracts their way (and Silicon Valley is rich as f... so filling front cabin is no issue) Lots of people would appreciate not having to endure 101 highway or San Mateo Bridge to get to SFO.
SLC/MSY are definitely super long shots
FLL but probably out of LGW
I'm really surprised LHR-DTW doesn't exist on BA considering LH does FRA-DTW
MSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 38693 times:
MSY could be viable with the 787. It's the second largest market to W. Europe (behind STL) with no nonstop service based on PDEW. In a news article talking about BA's entry into AUS, it was stated that BA was deciding between MSY and AUS this go around. Don't be surprised to see BA in MSY in the next two years.
I can also see cities like CLT, STL, PIT, and DTW getting a 788 flight to London.
laca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4220 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 38490 times:
Quoting a380787 (Reply 15): SJC isn't that long shot. Despite Bay Area being a strong presence of Star, BA has a competitive product that can lure some tech contracts their way (and Silicon Valley is rich as f... so filling front cabin is no issue) Lots of people would appreciate not having to endure 101 highway or San Mateo Bridge to get to SFO.
. I've been thinking about SJC for a long time.
1. I think SJC would give BA lots of incentives to start service.
2. I do think service to the Silicon Valley is a no brainer contingent on the economy. Those who work there and need to fly to the UK and EU would be very appreciative of not having to drive up to SFO.
3. Next to no weather related delays compared to SFO.
4. Perfect route to start the 787 and if it does well they can eventually upgauge to the 77E or 789.
Quoting boeing773ER (Reply 17): CLT; most likely, especially with the merger and US joining Oneworld
MSP; makes sense
PDX; I don't think so
STL; maybe, but the STL economy isn't doing well.
CLT seems like a given since it will become a OW hub with the AA-US merger.
PDX. Not sure if it can support an additional nonstop to the EU with DL flying AMS.
STL. If the demand is there, and they won't have to rely on transfers.
MSP. I don't think so. This is Sky Team-Delta Land. Doesn't DL have this market well covered from there, local and transfer??
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 3418 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 38129 times:
Quoting a380787 (Reply 15): I'm really surprised LHR-DTW doesn't exist on BA considering LH does FRA-DTW
BA used to fly the route. My very first trip to the US involved a BA Tristar going LHR-DTW with a stop at Mirabel. Concerning FRA-DTW, Germany's car industry might have something to do with this flight.
Correct - IIRC it used to continue to IAH so full routing was LHR-DTW-IAH-DTW-LHR. Wonder why BA stopped it - must have been the usual "tag-ons aren't profitable" line. Surely a dedicated DTW-LHR would work with the 787 - although front cabin demand might be lower from DTW than other outstations (such as AUS/SJC).
DL goes to CDG on a 752. And its doing well. The city of Pittsburgh gave DL $9 Million Dollars in Subsidies. Those expired in 2011 and DL Continues to run the route 6 days a week on a seasonal summer basis.