Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA's Future At CLT  
User currently offlineB764 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 752 posts, RR: 1
Posted (12 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 830 times:

Has anyone heard if and when the service to LGW via BWI is going to be discontinued? Rumor has it this summer sometime. Did the route ever have high load factors at one time? I'd love to see them stay even if it meant twice or three times a week service. Seems to me CLT needs to be looking at future growth without USAirways in the picture. Losing our only trans-atlantic international carrier wouldn't be good for the image of the airport.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 782 times:

With an openskies agreement this flight would have been moved to LHR and again separated from the BWI flight. Now that the proposed alliance and openskies have collapsed yet again, look for a huge drop in BAs presence in the US. The fact in the matter is that BA can not code share in the US and so has to rely on O&D traffic. In addition becasue of many other european airlines abilities to codeshare due to openskies and anti trust immunity, look for a huge drop off in BAs connecting traffic at LHR. A huge drop off indeed. That may be finally what brings BA to their senses. But that will probably not happen before the CLT, ATL, BWI, SAN, TPA, DFW and possibly IAH flights are dropped. It is not going to be a pretty scene. Rumor at BWI and CLT is that those flights might be gone as early as April 1. Others will follow at various intervals into the early summer.

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32214 posts, RR: 72
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 767 times:

747firstclass, I don't think BA's BWI and IAH services will end anytime soon. It is CLT-BWI-LHR, not LGW. Also, BA is huge in IAH, and IAH-IAD-LHR starts this summer. What I do think MAY happen is a mix of combinations and suspensions (I think CLT is the most endangered). For example, DEN-DTW-LHR could be a possibility.


a.
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 766 times:

DEN is too successful for it to be combined with another flight. It could be more successful to LHR, but that is not going to happen. On the other hand if AF starts serrvice to either SLC, SEA, or DEN than look for the flight to be less successful. I would worry most about a DL/AF flight from SLC-CDG.

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32214 posts, RR: 72
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 757 times:

747firstclass, I don't think that means anything. Replace DEN-LGW (772) and DTW-LHR (763) with a 744 on DEN-DTW-LHR and you can do just as well. From an airline's perspective, by putting a tighter limit on the number of seats, BA can actually INCREASE yield, and by offering connections at Heathrow that Gatwick does not answer, bring in more connecting passengers from DEN. I keep hearing DEN is very succsesful, which I do not doubt, but, if so, why is that during the recent fare sales, DEN was the cheapest of them all?


a.
User currently offlineDL Widget Head From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2071 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 747 times:

I don't see BA dropping ATL-LHR as they are the only operator on this route. From what I have seen, their 777 goes out full or nearly full every day.

User currently offlineDIA77 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 733 times:

I have to disagree with you on the idea that DEN-DTW-LHR would be successful. There would be no benefit in flying this route on BA when UA already provides onestop service from DEN-LHR. As we have seen on KAL's old DEN-LAX-SEL route, one stop flights aren't too appealing when they don't provide an advantage over existing service. I fly around 160,000 miles per year on United and I would see no benefit in flying BA's Denver-London route (over United) if it's not nonstop (a Gatwick nonstop is much more appealing than a Heathrow 1-stop). But that's just my 2 cents.

User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 725 times:


Hi!

I had the chance to fly to CLT last summer comming from YYZ, first of all and to be sincere I expected a huge, big, USAirport like the ones I've visited before ( Chicago, Denver, Seattle, LAX etc. ) but infact it was a nice and neat regional airport, I couldn't see many airlines others than USAir but for my visit purposes it fitted nice! I almost booked my way back to Europe flying from St. Louis to CLT and then on BA to LHR but finnally I flew instead to PHL and then to LHR. What I feel is that CLT have been open when BA expected to joint operations with USAir now I'm not so sure if that route is enough profitable for BA, but I do agree that CLT should have at leat one intercontinental flight!
regards


User currently offlineB764 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 752 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 705 times:

Thank you all for your insight. As a huge BA fan it will be a shame to see them leave if and when it happens. CLT really wants to compete on a scale with ATL. That surely isn't going to happen. Would fares ultimately come down if USAirways goes under? I'd like to see us have many airlines that could give us lower fares. Thanks to USAirways we pay the highest fares in the US. Charlotte has a lot to do if they want to consider themselves as a "world-class" city. Losing BA doesn't help that. On a side note, it doesn't seem very fair that DL & AF as well as UA & LH have got anti-trust immunity. All those airlines have major routes into FRA & CDG from their US hubs. I don't hear BA & AA arguing about those alliances. Then if BA & AA start talking about an alliance, all HELL breaks loose. What gives. I must add that I don't know a lot about certain treaties and other things that prevent non-stop flights into and out of certain cities overseas.

User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32214 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 688 times:

DL Widget Head, BA does not fly ATL-LHR. They fly ATL-LGW just like Delta. Unfortunatley, even when planes go out full to LGW, they can still loose money, and Gatwick overall is a money looser for BA.


a.
User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 681 times:

B764,

It would also be a shame (I think) if BA dropped CLT, purely from an enthusiast's point of view. It's nice to have non-stop service to the Carolina's, a region I would love to visit.

Re the Open Skies stuff, all hell brakes loose because share-holders and other financial institutions feel cheated by the airlines raising their hopes of being able to effectively merge across the Atlantic-that would mean big bucks for anyone holding a financial interest in BA or AA (such as myself).

Some people on Airliners.Net accuse the British government & BA of messing it up. They are half-right.

It is due to the protectionist policies of both governments that this deal again failed. The US government was right to push for a high number of slots. But the UK government was also right in refusing to accept the deal. Not only because it likes to protect BA, but also because it would have been too heavily in America's favour-US airlines would have enjoyed privelages which the US is still not willing to reciprocate.

For details of these, check other posts.

Hopefully the EU will be able to produce a fairer deal with the US. The UK is now most likely looking at a 5 year delay, whilst the EU familiarises itself with the stakes.

Regards, and sorry for digressing, although I'm sure you'll agree it is a very interesting time!

p.s. Charlotte, nice city?



User currently offlineEric505 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 592 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 678 times:

I flew BA CLT-LGW in June 2000 on their 777 and our flight was probably 95% full. LGW-CLT was about 90%


Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 669 times:

Mah4546,

I'm sorry, but BA is not going to combine flights that are already very profitable.

BA knows, that if they make the DEN service a one-stop service, it will suffer. The fact is people DO NOT like one-stop flights, they would rather make a connection.

Also, BA's fares out of DEN are among the highest.

My sister is going to Europe, and she is going to save nearly $500 because she isn't flying on BA OR LH from DEN.

On average, BA's flight to DEN is 95% full. This flight will NOT be combined with another flight unless load factors suffer, which they aren't.

Remember, that before BA announced they would be basing most of there operations in LHR, the DEN flight was operated on a 747-400. Then they decided to move the 747s to LHR, so the flight was forced to be downgraded to a 777-200.

I flew on there flight 6 times, 5 of those times on a 747, and once on a 777. Each time on the 747, the flight was packed. The 777 was even more packed.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32214 posts, RR: 72
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 662 times:

BA, if it comes down to it, they will. Also, a packed plane does not mean high yields. DEN is one of thier better performing LGW routes, without a doubt, but when compared to JFK, SFO, LAX, MIA, BOS, etc., it's not a big money maker. The fact is a combination with DTW/LHR could make it even more profitable for BA. I am sure yields are up on CLT-BWI-LHR since the combination, just check the average fares and how they have skyrocketed. Yes, less people will be willing to travel one-stop, but since your combining two cities, it does not really matter. I stand by what I said. If things continue to suffer for BA, they will combine LHR/LGW routes, and DEN-DTW-LHR was just a random example of many possibilities. And, like I said, while I am sure BA makes money to DEN and fills up the plane, during BA's recent giant fare sale, DEN was the most heavily discounted trans-Atlantic.


a.
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 644 times:

Mah4546,

There is one key that you forgot. United flies one-stop service to LHR.

If BA does make DEN one-stop, the flight will suffer SIGNIFICANTLY from United's one-stop service.

United will be able to offer connections and better fares when connecting then flying on BA, they will also have better fares on the route, thus BA's service will suffer.

British Airways knows that.

I just checked a flight departing DEN in late March and returning in late April. The fare was $710.

I checked BA's MIA-LHR flights on the SAME days, and it was $632.

The fact is two profitable flights are better than one profitable flight.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 638 times:

Unless I am missing something, wouldnt combining 2 flights cut down on the number of seats being sold for a specific city. Say for instance if the LHR-DTW was made LHR-DTW-DEN on a 747, wouldnt over all there be less seats for sale to each city than one flight LHR-DTW and LGW-DEN? Also dont forget that AF/DL is looking cery very closely at SLC/CDG or DEN/CDG.

User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 639 times:

Unless I am missing something, wouldnt combining 2 flights cut down on the number of seats being sold for a specific city. Say for instance if the LHR-DTW was made LHR-DTW-DEN on a 747, wouldnt over all there be less seats for sale to each city than one flight LHR-DTW and LGW-DEN? Also dont forget that AF/DL is looking very very closely at SLC/CDG or DEN/CDG.

User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11151 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 627 times:

747firstclass,

You are correct, it would cut the number of seats available from each city.

AF has been looking at starting CDG-DEN for about 2 years now, they mentioned that they would like to start DEN service in the "near" future, but have no set date yet.

My guess is, it will be 2 to 3 years.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32214 posts, RR: 72
Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 623 times:

BA, we will see what happens. It won't happen soon, but combining flights is something that BA may have to. As for fares, remember, MIA-LON has compietition on three airlines, and because there are more premium seats in three premium cabins on two flights a day, they can sell cheaper economy seats.


a.
User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 621 times:

With this on going debacle with BA/AA and before that BA/US and still before that BA/UA and no end in sight for any of it. I would not be the least bit surprised to possibly see DL/AF and others advance their timetables for new service to the US. It could really get a major, major headstart and advantage on BA. As of this past friday, its now open season and a whole new ball game. Thanks to the inflexability of BA, the UK and the new US/France openskies and the resulting AF/DL antir trust immunity. What a shame.

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...
2 BA 777s At DFW Today 11/14/2006 posted Wed Nov 15 2006 07:34:14 by DFW13L
BA A319 At CWL Today posted Fri Nov 3 2006 14:27:52 by Cardiffairtaxi
BA Emergency At LHR 28th OCT posted Sun Oct 29 2006 17:33:07 by BMED
Gallois: Airbus's Very Future At Stake posted Wed Oct 18 2006 13:59:15 by Leelaw
Antonov At CLT Today! 10/10/06 posted Tue Oct 10 2006 22:35:03 by AT777
Would Have BA Stayed At SAN With A 747SP? posted Mon Aug 21 2006 04:43:18 by Hockey55dude
Ba Incident At IAH posted Wed Aug 16 2006 05:49:22 by MarkTPA
BA 767 In CLT 8/4/06? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 01:50:44 by AT777
UA's/AA's Future At ORD posted Thu Jul 27 2006 02:34:14 by KDCA
BA 777 At MAD? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 04:24:55 by GEEZ