B764 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 741 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 745 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.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 697 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.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31726 posts, RR: 72 Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 682 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.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 681 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.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31726 posts, RR: 72 Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 672 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?
DIA77 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 703 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 648 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.
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 640 times:
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!
B764 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 741 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 620 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.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 596 times:
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!
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 584 times:
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.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31726 posts, RR: 72 Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 577 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.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 553 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.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 554 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.
Mah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31726 posts, RR: 72 Reply 18, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 538 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.
747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 536 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.