Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Not Happy With Swiss/Oneworld Application  
User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

Swiss is currently finding difficulty in reaching an agreement with BA over potential admission into the Oneworld alliance.

BA is reportedly unhappy with the prospect of Swiss joining the OW alliance; the two main reasons given were that the British carrier may lose traffic to Swiss's Zurich hub and the fact that because BA and Swiss currently dominate flights between Britain and Switzerland, both airlines may be required by the appropriate regulatory aurthorities to give up slots at their respective bases---as a condition for Swiss's admission into OW....again, BA would not at all be happy with this (it is presently trying to buy as many slots as possible at LHR).

Yet another problem, is BA's reported concern with Swiss's current longhaul fleet...in BA's opinion, Swiss has too many longhaul aircraft for the size of it's domestic market...this would appear to be an indirect criticism regarding Swiss's funding......it was for this reason, that Lufthansa rejected Swiss's application to join Star.

Talks between Swiss and BA are continuing intensively, in an aim to resolve these problems.

Info taken from: Financial Times

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineARN From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3201 times:

I find it very unlikely that a carrier would have an opinion about how big the longhaul-fleet is at an other carrier.
Why would reductions in flights from Britain to Switzerland for BA (and LX) be such a big problem that it would stop the entrance from a possible new member? If all alliance members would reason that way, then there would be no alliances. Highly unlikely, in my opinion.
Compared to the total BA supply of flights, how much is Zurich as a destination? 0,2% or 0,3% or ..? I think that BA could reduce Zurich by 2 or 3 flights a day and still be in the air.

User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5095 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

I'm sure that all parties will work out their differences soon and we will hopefully see Swiss join OneWorld.

Work Hard But Play Harder
User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3132 times:


This is just the info I read in today's FT; with regards to slots, I think the relevant authorities (whoever they are) would demand both parties give up a number of random slots at the relevant bases of LX and BA....not just the ones used for flights to/from LHR and ZRH, but a number of other slots too....this is probably why BA is worried.

Regarding LX's longhaul fleet....too large a fleet might mean Swiss is able to undercut competitors through capacity dumping....and one might wonder where all the money for all these large aircraft is coming from, and whether it is necessary. Whether BA has any business in deciding how many longhaul a/c LX should have is questionable, but then again, BA has to protect it's own position, and that might mean investigating management practises of competing airlines (just a guess, as I have no idea).

Furthermore, LX has been suffering a number of operational problems recently...whether this has any effect on current negotiations to join OW is debatable, although other OW carriers have seemed quite willing to reach agreement with LX thusfar.

An interesting development, although I'd be surprised if something couldn't be worked out; I am surprised by the apparent rejection of LX into Star (or at least rejection of a 'proposal') by LH....again on the grounds of the ZRH hub, and LX's supposed 'overcapacity'.


User currently offlineAvion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

Capt Picard when did u read that? Apparently BA have now given in and will support LXes application.


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

Hi Avion

You can read the article yourself in today's FT. Just go to FT.com and follow the link to Industries, then transport.

As I said, I'm sure if LX can reach agreement with other members, BA should be able to resolve any problems with LX in due course. If this has already happened, that's good news I guess!


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3048 times:

This is a direct link to today's story


User currently offlineAvion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3041 times:

Well a week a ago swiss papers were saying that BA and LX finally came to an agreement and that they would link their FF programs.


User currently offlineGibberish From Switzerland, joined Sep 2000, 424 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Why would SWISS or BA need to give up slots at ZRH? The airport has so much capacity that the midfield dock has to stay closed! If they really would need to give up any slots it would be the slightest of all problems to get new ones from ZRH. They're probably happy with any airline that wants slots!


User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7809 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 2936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Gibberish, they'd have to probably give up MAN slots as well as LHR ones as there would be no competition on either route to ZRH; indeed they would have 100% of the market between MAN/LHR and Switzerland!


User currently offlineBlink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5499 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (13 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2859 times:

If BA/LX has 100% of LHR/MAN-ZRH service, couldn't BMI very well cut a city or a flight and then add ZRH to the route map? Also, BA and LX are both countries' number 1 airlines. Why should they be punished for smart business tactics?

Also, is ZRH slot restricted? I thought it was not.

If enough people are saying that BA and LX have reached agreements, I am pretty sure that Financial Times might be wrong.


Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
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...
AA/CX Not Happy With OneWorld! posted Tue May 2 2000 14:37:06 by VH-BZF
Qantas Pilots Not Happy With Jetstar posted Tue Jun 20 2006 14:38:25 by VHVXB
NWA Not Happy With DAL New Fare Structure posted Tue Jan 4 2005 23:00:37 by Rumorboy
DL Pilot Group Not Happy With Agreement posted Tue Dec 21 2004 07:48:05 by Lono
Delta Not Happy With Me posted Tue Oct 5 2004 04:48:48 by Sspontak
Frontier Airlines Not Happy With DIA Expansion Bid posted Wed Aug 11 2004 19:17:30 by Yanksn4
DL's New CEO Not Happy With CRJ's? posted Tue Jul 20 2004 19:58:08 by Cumulonimbus
Star Alliance Not Happy On Swiss Joining posted Sun Jul 4 2004 12:40:58 by Soups
Qantas Not Happy With Impulse Livery? posted Wed Feb 21 2001 11:04:08 by Airmale
PIA Not Happy With Livery? posted Thu Jan 11 2001 13:50:41 by Airmale