BA's Next US Destination

knope2001 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:08 am

Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:
CHI2DFW wrote:
Anyone read this article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... om-europe/

It's looking at total TATL.

MCI, CMH, and JAX top the list.

While not LHR, ULCC to any of these?

It's very odd that MKE was not on that list. I wonder if that's because most from MKE heading to Europe just drive to ORD adding to Chicago's numbers

From downtown MKE to ORD is 1hour-1 hour and 25 minutes, makes sense that there would be a significant amount of TATL bleed from MKE to ORD.

Various sources I've heard over the years (nothing I can find at the moment online) range from finding the "majority" to the "vast majority" of Milwaukee's intercontinental traffic uses O'Hare. Milwaukee is no slouch in business traffic generation and is home to several Fortune 500 companies with widespread international operations. To think that Milwaukee generates fewer transatlantic passengers than Knoxville, Tulsa, Grand Rapids, Syracuse and Des Moines (as the linked data table shows) is just not plausible without an explanation. And that explanation is massive bleed to O'Hare. I was a frequent business traveler for one of those Milwaukee-headquartered worldwide firms (my own position kept me primarily in the northeastern 1/4 of the country) for more than a dozen years. All of my international colleagues used O'Hare exclusively when flying to Europe, india, the MIddle and Far East. Without exception. Of course I'm a sample of one and it's not that zero people start an international journey at MIlwaukee. But I'd wager they're the minority by a large margin.

Although the drive to O'Hare is not always the most pleasant many view it as more than worth the effort and cost when it allows them to avoid a stop. Milwaukee international flights are often not priced to compete with O'Hare either, further amplifying the disadvantage.

Indy wrote:
Is MKE even trying to get TATL service? You don't seem to hear much talk about it.

Indeed they are, and there has been active courting. However:

--Incentive money generally comes from the state level, and the existing administration has shown no interest in this. Milwaukee has the garden-variety incentives available such as waived landing fees, marketing money, etc. But neither the airport nor the county can pony up money for revenue guarantees or the like.
--The local business community has not made getting a transatlantic carrier a priority.
--There's nobody on the message boards especially vocal about the topic -- merits, developments, etc. :-)

Milwaukee has received more than just polite cursory consideration from a few carriers but as of yet nothing has come of it.

knope2001 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:23 am

Cubsrule wrote:
Indy wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
From downtown MKE to ORD is 1hour-1 hour and 25 minutes, makes sense that there would be a significant amount of TATL bleed from MKE to ORD.

I've been to the Milwaukee suburbs many times. If I lived there I'd fly nonstop to Europe if I had the chance. There is nothing fun about driving to Chicago. The traffic is terrible and the international arrivals experience at ORD is about as bad as it gets. I would pay extra to avoid the headaches.

I want to add something to this post (edit): Is MKE even trying to get TATL service? You don't seem to hear much talk about it.

Fifteen years ago, I would have agreed with you, but the Tri-State is now widened and between that and open road tolling MKE-ORD can be done in an hour for most of the day. And like at most large airports, Global Entry, the kisoks and mobile passport have combined to reduce the wait times markedly for US citizens who are even a little bit responsible on the front end.

Definitely -- open-road tolling and adding the 4th lane to the Tri-State have made O'Hare decidedly less painful. You can still get in nasty delays (especially at rush) but it's infinitely better without the toll plazas. I swear I wasted a collective month of my life crawling toward the damn Deerfield Toll Plaza and I didn't even live down there -- just driving to Chicago-area clients in the years before open-road tolling did it. The Tri-State will still bite you in the butt with unexpected delays sometimes, but it's a breeze much of the time compared to traffic on many other Chicago-area expressways.

Getting back to MKE what I think the improvements to Milwaukee air service and to the Tri-State have done is make the have/have not discrepancy more pronounced -- the difference in markets where MKE has a nonstop those where it does not. Milwaukee has much better fares and (at least to many markets over about 500 mile or so) better service than 20-ish years ago. So where we have service we're not bleeding nearly as much to O'Hare as we once did. But where we don't have flights I think our bleed may well be worse than 20 years ago due in great part to the improved access to O'Hare. And I think that makes the MKE market unusually elastic in demand. But it's tough to demonstrate a market for something like TATL when stats count ticket itineraries.

LAX772LR · Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:04 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
while PDX is basically just DL as part of the DL/VS joint venture.

Um, "just" DL?

Getting into a pissing match against the world's richest and 2nd-largest airline isn't exactly something most carriers want to do...

...unless they have a very compelling reason. Tough to argue that PDX qualifies as that.

Especially in the face of other alternatives.

klm617 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:25 pm

knope2001 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:

It's very odd that MKE was not on that list. I wonder if that's because most from MKE heading to Europe just drive to ORD adding to Chicago's numbers

From downtown MKE to ORD is 1hour-1 hour and 25 minutes, makes sense that there would be a significant amount of TATL bleed from MKE to ORD.

Various sources I've heard over the years (nothing I can find at the moment online) range from finding the "majority" to the "vast majority" of Milwaukee's intercontinental traffic uses O'Hare. Milwaukee is no slouch in business traffic generation and is home to several Fortune 500 companies with widespread international operations. To think that Milwaukee generates fewer transatlantic passengers than Knoxville, Tulsa, Grand Rapids, Syracuse and Des Moines (as the linked data table shows) is just not plausible without an explanation. And that explanation is massive bleed to O'Hare. I was a frequent business traveler for one of those Milwaukee-headquartered worldwide firms (my own position kept me primarily in the northeastern 1/4 of the country) for more than a dozen years. All of my international colleagues used O'Hare exclusively when flying to Europe, india, the MIddle and Far East. Without exception. Of course I'm a sample of one and it's not that zero people start an international journey at MIlwaukee. But I'd wager they're the minority by a large margin.

Although the drive to O'Hare is not always the most pleasant many view it as more than worth the effort and cost when it allows them to avoid a stop. Milwaukee international flights are often not priced to compete with O'Hare either, further amplifying the disadvantage.

Indy wrote:
Is MKE even trying to get TATL service? You don't seem to hear much talk about it.

Indeed they are, and there has been active courting. However:

--Incentive money generally comes from the state level, and the existing administration has shown no interest in this. Milwaukee has the garden-variety incentives available such as waived landing fees, marketing money, etc. But neither the airport nor the county can pony up money for revenue guarantees or the like.
--The local business community has not made getting a transatlantic carrier a priority.
--There's nobody on the message boards especially vocal about the topic -- merits, developments, etc.

Milwaukee has received more than just polite cursory consideration from a few carriers but as of yet nothing has come of it.

And why do people do that do they not realize that by inflating the numbers of another airport is never going to land them more convenient services if anything that means that carriers are going to routinely add flights to those larger markets because people are willing to drive over an hour rather than taking a flight from their home airport. Surely they are many more options that are more convenient than driving and hour and a half to ORD and deal with that experience. There are one stop options over DTW, BOS, EWR and PHL that would still add the totals to MKE as far as O/D to Europe goes and then eventually MKE might have a chance at getting a direct flight to Europe but with this driving practice that everyone seems to embrace so much there will never be an acurated picture of how many really do travel internationally fro MKE

knope2001 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:05 pm

klm617 wrote:
And why do people do that do they not realize that by inflating the numbers of another airport is never going to land them more convenient services if anything that means that carriers are going to routinely add flights to those larger markets because people are willing to drive over an hour rather than taking a flight from their home airport. Surely they are many more options that are more convenient than driving and hour and a half to ORD and deal with that experience. There are one stop options over DTW, BOS, EWR and PHL that would still add the totals to MKE as far as O/D to Europe goes and then eventually MKE might have a chance at getting a direct flight to Europe but with this driving practice that everyone seems to embrace so much there will never be an acurated picture of how many really do travel internationally fro MKE

Definitely a point of frustration, and one MKE airport people pound home again and again in public presentations and meetings with the business community. If you want more flights to Los Angeles, don't drive down to O'Hare yet expect the Milwaukee situation to improve. The same holds true for international travel.

It's pretty difficult to determine the true size of a market when so much leakage occurs. Consultants do just that (for pay) and airports enlist them to make their case. Airline planning teams make more sophisticated decisions than simply relying on ticket sale sample public data, but it still a challenge. It's a sure bet Volaris didn't choose to start Milwaukee-Guadalajara this year because they O+D data showed lots of MKE-xxx-GDL connecting traffic flow.

atypical · Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:24 pm

knope2001 wrote:
Various sources I've heard over the years (nothing I can find at the moment online) range from finding the "majority" to the "vast majority" of Milwaukee's intercontinental traffic uses O'Hare. Milwaukee is no slouch in business traffic generation and is home to several Fortune 500 companies with widespread international operations. To think that Milwaukee generates fewer transatlantic passengers than Knoxville, Tulsa, Grand Rapids, Syracuse and Des Moines (as the linked data table shows) is just not plausible without an explanation. And that explanation is massive bleed to O'Hare. I was a frequent business traveler for one of those Milwaukee-headquartered worldwide firms (my own position kept me primarily in the northeastern 1/4 of the country) for more than a dozen years. All of my international colleagues used O'Hare exclusively when flying to Europe, india, the MIddle and Far East. Without exception. Of course I'm a sample of one and it's not that zero people start an international journey at MIlwaukee. But I'd wager they're the minority by a large margin.

MKE is whacked twice here. First is that people driving to ORD show up as ORD catchment and there is little to identify them as MKE. This is naturally going to skew the reports. The only thing that can be said is that the reports are obviously skewed but no one know to what extent.

Because ORD has such wide TATL service a MKE flight may still bleed to ORD. For example if MKE lands a flight to LHR the numbers of connections is going to suffer to ORD non-stops. Not all, but a lot of people will chose to go to ORD for a non-stop to CDG rather than take the LHR flight and connecting to CDG. So not only is the information unknown, even if it were known it would be difficult to predict just how much traffic could be captured to any point. I think an LLC is the best chance.

The only city I can somewhat think is in MKE's position is SJC. The biggest difference is that SJC is serving a bigger business market than SFO. Between Apple and Google, the rest of the Fortune 500 based in the Bay area doesn't come close to equaling those two in market cap or number of employees. Add to that business not based in the area but opening major complexes is booming too. For example Samsung opened a 1 mil sf office 2 miles away from SJC. But even with all of that money and business travel SJC only has service to 5 transoceanic cities...

LAX772LR · Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:16 pm

atypical wrote:
The only city I can somewhat think is in MKE's position is SJC. The biggest difference is that SJC is serving a bigger business market than SFO. Between Apple and Google, the rest of the Fortune 500 based in the Bay area doesn't come close to equaling those two in market cap or number of employees. Add to that business not based in the area but opening major complexes is booming too. For example Samsung opened a 1 mil sf office 2 miles away from SJC. But even with all of that money and business travel SJC only has service to 5 transoceanic cities...

You seem to be predicating that on the notion that just because those companies are closer in location to SJC, that they'd select it over SFO.... which probably isn't the case, in many regards.

klm617 · Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:54 pm

knope2001 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
And why do people do that do they not realize that by inflating the numbers of another airport is never going to land them more convenient services if anything that means that carriers are going to routinely add flights to those larger markets because people are willing to drive over an hour rather than taking a flight from their home airport. Surely they are many more options that are more convenient than driving and hour and a half to ORD and deal with that experience. There are one stop options over DTW, BOS, EWR and PHL that would still add the totals to MKE as far as O/D to Europe goes and then eventually MKE might have a chance at getting a direct flight to Europe but with this driving practice that everyone seems to embrace so much there will never be an acurated picture of how many really do travel internationally fro MKE

Definitely a point of frustration, and one MKE airport people pound home again and again in public presentations and meetings with the business community. If you want more flights to Los Angeles, don't drive down to O'Hare yet expect the Milwaukee situation to improve. The same holds true for international travel.

It's pretty difficult to determine the true size of a market when so much leakage occurs. Consultants do just that (for pay) and airports enlist them to make their case. Airline planning teams make more sophisticated decisions than simply relying on ticket sale sample public data, but it still a challenge. It's a sure bet Volaris didn't choose to start Milwaukee-Guadalajara this year because they O+D data showed lots of MKE-xxx-GDL connecting traffic flow.

I'd much rather drive 15 minutes or so to MKE take a flight connecting at DEN much rather than fighting the O'Hare mess plus the one and a half hour drive. I think MKE would be a very good add for SLC for Delta because heading westward on DL MSP is a bit out of the way. Hard to believe that at one time MKE was a hub to two airlines and now it's just a shell of what it was.

globalcabotage · Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:25 am

klm617 wrote:
knope2001 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
And why do people do that do they not realize that by inflating the numbers of another airport is never going to land them more convenient services if anything that means that carriers are going to routinely add flights to those larger markets because people are willing to drive over an hour rather than taking a flight from their home airport. Surely they are many more options that are more convenient than driving and hour and a half to ORD and deal with that experience. There are one stop options over DTW, BOS, EWR and PHL that would still add the totals to MKE as far as O/D to Europe goes and then eventually MKE might have a chance at getting a direct flight to Europe but with this driving practice that everyone seems to embrace so much there will never be an acurated picture of how many really do travel internationally fro MKE

Definitely a point of frustration, and one MKE airport people pound home again and again in public presentations and meetings with the business community. If you want more flights to Los Angeles, don't drive down to O'Hare yet expect the Milwaukee situation to improve. The same holds true for international travel.

It's pretty difficult to determine the true size of a market when so much leakage occurs. Consultants do just that (for pay) and airports enlist them to make their case. Airline planning teams make more sophisticated decisions than simply relying on ticket sale sample public data, but it still a challenge. It's a sure bet Volaris didn't choose to start Milwaukee-Guadalajara this year because they O+D data showed lots of MKE-xxx-GDL connecting traffic flow.

I'd much rather drive 15 minutes or so to MKE take a flight connecting at DEN much rather than fighting the O'Hare mess plus the one and a half hour drive. I think MKE would be a very good add for SLC for Delta because heading westward on DL MSP is a bit out of the way. Hard to believe that at one time MKE was a hub to two airlines and now it's just a shell of what it was.

Take the MKE-DTW/DEN flight, get delayed, miss your connection, bags show up 3 days later.

This is why people drive from MKE-ORD (all 67 miles on a 4 lane tollway). You can directly fly from ORD to more cities in Europe and Asia than DTW and DEN combined, not worry about your bags getting lost, and not having to go through TSA upon arrival (if you don't have Pre-Clerance, good luck - especially at DEN and ATL!)

Again, your jealousy of ORD shows no boundaries! Anything but ORD and all DTW all the time!

TheLion · Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:09 pm

You may all be thrilled by this thread, title: "New BA route to be announced tomorrow?"...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1374087

Let the (intelligent) guessing games begin.

My turn first.

As posted on the thread above...

Where they may go:

Osaka: unserved from London, though high airport fees
Bogotá: if not Osaka, this would be my pick, though do they need first here...
Charlotte: my third choice and a logical fit.
Durban: no 4 for me. Still no direct London-Durban flight return. This makes so much sense.
Dammam: good call this, and could be the one.
Islamabad: maybe, given new airport, and thus less problematic security issues, yet unlikely.
Calcutta: definitely time for a return, however maybe not the right market for a with a 789 including first.
Jakarta: after GA's cuts its possible, yet rather adventurous for conservative BA.
Detroit: some good points made earlier in this thread, but I feel other cities are ahead in the pecking order.
Melbourne: a great layover and would help fill the gap left by QF

Where they won't go:

Baghdad: still not the right time; security situation is not within BA's parameters.
Dar es Salaam: the most likely African route to resume first, yet with first class?
Freetown, Monrovia, Lusaka, Entebbe: logical routes, but without first.
Manila: because first class and still too low yield
Taipei: too much competition right now.
Perth: QF already heading there.
Brisbane: they're BA. So no.
Auckland: they haven't got the guts.

Wild card:

Pittsburgh: airlines re-adding service. City on the up. Could be...

Try not to be so US-centric you lot. You've been spoilt the last two years. This one will be elsewhere I feel

klm617 · Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:18 pm

What is the biggest United States market that BA does not currently serve.

chalupas54 · Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:36 am

klm617 wrote:
What is the biggest United States market that BA does not currently serve.

St. Louis.

Charlotte and Portland are still smaller.

ANA787 · Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:41 am

chalupas54 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What is the biggest United States market that BA does not currently serve.

St. Louis.

Charlotte and Portland are still smaller.

CSAs are a better measure of market size.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

PDX comes in with 3.16 million for 2016.
STL is below that at 2.91 million.
CLT comes below that with 2.63 million.

CLEguy · Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:44 am

ANA787 wrote:
chalupas54 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What is the biggest United States market that BA does not currently serve.

St. Louis.

Charlotte and Portland are still smaller.

CSAs are a better measure of market size.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

PDX comes in with 3.16 million for 2016.
STL is below that at 2.91 million.
CLT comes below that with 2.63 million.

And the CLE CSA is bigger than all of those: 3,483,311. Don't Still don't think CLE will get BA any time soon, however.

klm617 · Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:47 am

ANA787 wrote:
chalupas54 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What is the biggest United States market that BA does not currently serve.

St. Louis.

Charlotte and Portland are still smaller.

CSAs are a better measure of market size.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

PDX comes in with 3.16 million for 2016.
STL is below that at 2.91 million.
CLT comes below that with 2.63 million.

According to that table it would be DTW, MSP and CLE are the next three not served by BA

chalupas54 · Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:52 am

ANA787 wrote:
chalupas54 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What is the biggest United States market that BA does not currently serve.

St. Louis.

Charlotte and Portland are still smaller.

CSAs are a better measure of market size.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

PDX comes in with 3.16 million for 2016.
STL is below that at 2.91 million.
CLT comes below that with 2.63 million.

Ah. good point.

jubguy3 · Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:15 am

ANA787 wrote:
chalupas54 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What is the biggest United States market that BA does not currently serve.

St. Louis.

Charlotte and Portland are still smaller.

CSAs are a better measure of market size.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

PDX comes in with 3.16 million for 2016.
STL is below that at 2.91 million.
CLT comes below that with 2.63 million.

Ooo boy, I've gone through and said this before but the best definition especially in determining airline markets is actually Primary Statistical Areas, wherein you keep adding metropolitan areas until it can't be determined that a metropolitan area is adjacent to another MSA. But you are absolutely right that CSA is a much better determinance of market size, though primary statistical area incorporates measurements of both small MSAs and large CSAs. Here is the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tical_area

LAX772LR · Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:17 am

ANA787 wrote:
CSAs are a better measure of market size.

No. CSAs/PSAs/MSAs/etc are just a measure of population size, nothing more.

Contrary to AvGeek lore, they aren't directly predictive of ability to attract nor sustain any given route.

Take MSY for example, half the CSA of STL, yet it got the flight. For plenty of reasons, not the least of which being that it was a larger market to both LON and Europe despite its smaller size, and a higher-yielding one at that.

Same for AUS. Same for BNA. etc.

CSA et al, as a standalone, mean nothing.

GatorClark · Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:52 am

ADrum23 wrote:
CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start service there.

As far as that thought goes, that is exactly why I personally could see BA starting CLT. CLT was inherited by AA from US which was previously Star Alliance and they had LH service. BA could probably make CLT work with the domestic connection possibilties via AA.

jubguy3 · Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:31 am

I literally love these threads because of the amount of stupid proposals people make. Will your small midwestern city ever get and keep a transatlantic flight for longer than 2 years? No, probably no. Milwaukee, Rochester, Des Moines... I've seen it all.

If anyone wants a reference of terminated BA destinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_A ... stinations , its been indicated that the flight will likely be a destination already served. If its in the US, its going to be Charlotte but like other people have said the next destination for BA is likely going to be Seychelles.

I'm still waiting for San Luis Obispo's flight to Wuhan... come on now, any day now, China Southern...

jubguy3 · Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:48 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ANA787 wrote:
CSAs are a better measure of market size.

No. CSAs/PSAs/MSAs/etc are just a measure of population size, nothing more.

Contrary to AvGeek lore, they aren't directly predictive of ability to attract nor sustain any given route.

Take MSY for example, half the CSA of STL, yet it got the flight. For plenty of reasons, not the least of which being that it was a larger market to both LON and Europe despite its smaller size, and a higher-yielding one at that.

Same for AUS. Same for BNA. etc.

CSA et al, as a standalone, mean nothing.

I think you have to compare a variety of factors, but population is most certainly one of them... That being said, I understand that CSA doesn't provide the clear picture here. Charlotte may have a smaller CSA population, but Charlotte is one of a few small, premium markets in the US that have high income and highly specialized industries + tourism, namely Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, and Portland.

Why am I still arguing with people that CSA is an important metric? Actually I don't really care that much about population but as a Salt Laker it bothers me when people quote metropolitan statistical area population rather than CSA population because Salt Lake City does not include Davis-Weber or Utah/Provo-Orem in its population projections... the MSA is around 1m while the ACTUAL CSA population is closer to 2.5 million. This was bothering me on the Buffalo transatlantic thread because people were comparing Buffalo to SLC... Buffalo is not a geographically isolated metro (loses to toronto and new york), it doesn't drive significant premium demand, has little connecting traffic, and isn't a hub with a high amount of market capitalization.

But you're absolutely right, "CSA" isn't a correct assessment of Who Gets What because population doesn't drive flights. I think a lot of people were bringing up CSAs because they provide a better population assessment than MSAs, not because they were using it as the only metric.

SLC "should" be a candidate for a BA flight... but its clear that it will never end up with one, SLC already has 4 transatlantic flights a day including KLM, and its arguably the safest Delta hub. I laugh when people bring up cities assuming "high population = high demand" when in reality a large amount of other factors come into play like how premium is that market (compare for example, SLC to Nashville), what the connecting potential is, alliances, etc.

Basically my point is that anyone who thinks BA is coming to their $small-midwestern-city is probably wrong. And your people don't matter if they're not paying for flights.

atypical · Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:02 pm

jubguy3 wrote:
I think you have to compare a variety of factors, but population is most certainly one of them... That being said, I understand that CSA doesn't provide the clear picture here. Charlotte may have a smaller CSA population, but Charlotte is one of a few small, premium markets in the US that have high income and highly specialized industries + tourism, namely Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, and Portland.

Why am I still arguing with people that CSA is an important metric? Actually I don't really care that much about population but as a Salt Laker it bothers me when people quote metropolitan statistical area population rather than CSA population because Salt Lake City does not include Davis-Weber or Utah/Provo-Orem in its population projections... the MSA is around 1m while the ACTUAL CSA population is closer to 2.5 million. This was bothering me on the Buffalo transatlantic thread because people were comparing Buffalo to SLC... Buffalo is not a geographically isolated metro (loses to toronto and new york), it doesn't drive significant premium demand, has little connecting traffic, and isn't a hub with a high amount of market capitalization.

But you're absolutely right, "CSA" isn't a correct assessment of Who Gets What because population doesn't drive flights. I think a lot of people were bringing up CSAs because they provide a better population assessment than MSAs, not because they were using it as the only metric.

SLC "should" be a candidate for a BA flight... but its clear that it will never end up with one, SLC already has 4 transatlantic flights a day including KLM, and its arguably the safest Delta hub. I laugh when people bring up cities assuming "high population = high demand" when in reality a large amount of other factors come into play like how premium is that market (compare for example, SLC to Nashville), what the connecting potential is, alliances, etc.

Basically my point is that anyone who thinks BA is coming to their $small-midwestern-city is probably wrong. And your people don't matter if they're not paying for flights.

CSAs are a good measurement of catchment only. A city with a lot of tourism will always punch above it's weight compared to others cities with the same or larger CSAs in general. The business environment and companies present are also important indicators. The CSAs (and PSAs) are only good for looking at the population catchment part of the equation and then they need to be looked at closely because one CSA can abut another with an airport close to the edge drawing a catchment that will be different from any population measurement available. It's important to note that in general MSAs (or just city populations) are poor indicators of catchment.

Buffalomatt1027 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:27 pm

jubguy3 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ANA787 wrote:
CSAs are a better measure of market size.

No. CSAs/PSAs/MSAs/etc are just a measure of population size, nothing more.

Contrary to AvGeek lore, they aren't directly predictive of ability to attract nor sustain any given route.

Take MSY for example, half the CSA of STL, yet it got the flight. For plenty of reasons, not the least of which being that it was a larger market to both LON and Europe despite its smaller size, and a higher-yielding one at that.

Same for AUS. Same for BNA. etc.

CSA et al, as a standalone, mean nothing.

I think you have to compare a variety of factors, but population is most certainly one of them... That being said, I understand that CSA doesn't provide the clear picture here. Charlotte may have a smaller CSA population, but Charlotte is one of a few small, premium markets in the US that have high income and highly specialized industries + tourism, namely Charlotte, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, and Portland.

Why am I still arguing with people that CSA is an important metric? Actually I don't really care that much about population but as a Salt Laker it bothers me when people quote metropolitan statistical area population rather than CSA population because Salt Lake City does not include Davis-Weber or Utah/Provo-Orem in its population projections... the MSA is around 1m while the ACTUAL CSA population is closer to 2.5 million. This was bothering me on the Buffalo transatlantic thread because people were comparing Buffalo to SLC... Buffalo is not a geographically isolated metro (loses to toronto and new york), it doesn't drive significant premium demand, has little connecting traffic, and isn't a hub with a high amount of market capitalization.

But you're absolutely right, "CSA" isn't a correct assessment of Who Gets What because population doesn't drive flights. I think a lot of people were bringing up CSAs because they provide a better population assessment than MSAs, not because they were using it as the only metric.

SLC "should" be a candidate for a BA flight... but its clear that it will never end up with one, SLC already has 4 transatlantic flights a day including KLM, and its arguably the safest Delta hub. I laugh when people bring up cities assuming "high population = high demand" when in reality a large amount of other factors come into play like how premium is that market (compare for example, SLC to Nashville), what the connecting potential is, alliances, etc.

Basically my point is that anyone who thinks BA is coming to their $small-midwestern-city is probably wrong. And your people don't matter if they're not paying for flights.

Buffalo (BNIA) for Transatlantic service has a lot going for it ...... (not saying BA will come)

- 80 miles to Toronto (already has bus service to and from Toronto to BNIA) - Other boarder airports / airlines do this already and BNIA has the service already in place.
- The Buffalo / Niagara / Parts of Southern Ontario population totals about 9.7 million ( about 35-40% of passengers that fly out of BNIA are Canadian. At one point Canadians were 47% of all passengers flying out of BNIA)
- 20 minute drive to Niagara Falls, which averages in both the US / Canada about 22 million visitors a year.

Also, BNIA and your connecting flight issue. Buffalo would be more like an end destination and not really a hub / connecting flights to other US cities.

Do I think BA comes to BNIA? Probly not. But its not insane or crazy to think about. With the MAX / 787- i think its doable. The other small midwestern cities dont have the advantages that Buffalo / BNIA have due to location.

ncflyer · Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:54 pm

Buffalo Matt so this is a good argument. but what does buffalo bring that is not well served from yyz already? If BUF had such a tremendous location advantage as you highlight then it would have more domestic pax???

Also Niagara Falls must be overwhelming majority of driving vacations, as it is an easy drive from so much population in both countries.

ncflyer · Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:56 pm

ncflyer wrote:
Buffalo Matt so this is a good argument. but what does buffalo bring that is not well served from yyz already? If BUF had such a tremendous location advantage as you highlight then it would have more domestic pax???

Also Niagara Falls must be overwhelming majority of driving vacations, as it is an easy drive from so much population in both countries.

Buffalomatt1027 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:42 pm

ncflyer wrote:
Buffalo Matt so this is a good argument. but what does buffalo bring that is not well served from yyz already? If BUF had such a tremendous location advantage as you highlight then it would have more domestic pax???

Also Niagara Falls must be overwhelming majority of driving vacations, as it is an easy drive from so much population in both countries.

Airline wise: Flying into BNIA vs a crammed YYZ could be more cost efficient for landing Fees and all the other services / charges.

I can see a discount airline like Norwegian, WOW, or some airline along those lines trying to break into that market. Larger airlines like BA could probly care less.

BNIA would bring more convenience to the average passenger. Example: Canadians already fly out of BNIA because they dont want to deal with traffic / parking, waiting in long security lines, and waiting for long customers lines. I have heard / read many stories about how much of a nightmare flying out of YYZ is. Canadians also fly out of BNIA because its also cheaper for families or larger groups.

As for Domestic PAX - Before the airline merges, BNIA was increasing PAX on a yearly basis, and got up to about 5.6 million. Then the mergers happened and that has dropped. But recently, Jet Blue added LA - Buffalo direct flight from a non Jet Blue hub, Frontier is coming in adding Denver, Miami route, also a Florida destinations that are already served by Jet Blue and Southwest, Weekly seasonal flights to Punta Cana and Cancun.

The Domestic PAX numbers should be recovering and on the rise.

As for Niagara Falls, have you ever been? Its insanely packed with foreign people! I would definitely say that it is NOT mainly people driving for the weekend.

flymco753 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:51 pm

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
ncflyer wrote:
Buffalo Matt so this is a good argument. but what does buffalo bring that is not well served from yyz already? If BUF had such a tremendous location advantage as you highlight then it would have more domestic pax???

Also Niagara Falls must be overwhelming majority of driving vacations, as it is an easy drive from so much population in both countries.

Airline wise: Flying into BNIA vs a crammed YYZ could be more cost efficient for landing Fees and all the other services / charges.

I can see a discount airline like Norwegian, WOW, or some airline along those lines trying to break into that market. Larger airlines like BA could probly care less.

BNIA would bring more convenience to the average passenger. Example: Canadians already fly out of BNIA because they dont want to deal with traffic / parking, waiting in long security lines, and waiting for long customers lines. I have heard / read many stories about how much of a nightmare flying out of YYZ is. Canadians also fly out of BNIA because its also cheaper for families or larger groups.

As for Domestic PAX - Before the airline merges, BNIA was increasing PAX on a yearly basis, and got up to about 5.6 million. Then the mergers happened and that has dropped. But recently, Jet Blue added LA - Buffalo direct flight from a non Jet Blue hub, Frontier is coming in adding Denver, Miami route, also a Florida destinations that are already served by Jet Blue and Southwest, Weekly seasonal flights to Punta Cana and Cancun.

The Domestic PAX numbers should be recovering and on the rise.

As for Niagara Falls, have you ever been? Its insanely packed with foreign people! I would definitely say that it is NOT mainly people driving for the weekend.

I'd say BUF is perfect for a Euro ULCC, I don't see BA or EI at the least being interested, but WW or DY, yes because they can do BUF-DUB on a 73MA and non daily.

BoeingGuy · Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:26 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
atypical wrote:
The only city I can somewhat think is in MKE's position is SJC. The biggest difference is that SJC is serving a bigger business market than SFO. Between Apple and Google, the rest of the Fortune 500 based in the Bay area doesn't come close to equaling those two in market cap or number of employees. Add to that business not based in the area but opening major complexes is booming too. For example Samsung opened a 1 mil sf office 2 miles away from SJC. But even with all of that money and business travel SJC only has service to 5 transoceanic cities...

You seem to be predicating that on the notion that just because those companies are closer in location to SJC, that they'd select it over SFO.... which probably isn't the case, in many regards.

Yeah it might be. I knew a friend who was a Tech CFO who lived close to SFO. He'd still drive to SJC because it was a much easier airport to get in and out of with, and with fewer delays.

My suspicious as to why some of the new international flights at SJC are only doing so-so is not lack of demand. It's that people don't yet realize they can get flights out of SJC to those destinations.

Buffalomatt1027 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:28 pm

flymco753 wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
ncflyer wrote:
Buffalo Matt so this is a good argument. but what does buffalo bring that is not well served from yyz already? If BUF had such a tremendous location advantage as you highlight then it would have more domestic pax???

Also Niagara Falls must be overwhelming majority of driving vacations, as it is an easy drive from so much population in both countries.

Airline wise: Flying into BNIA vs a crammed YYZ could be more cost efficient for landing Fees and all the other services / charges.

I can see a discount airline like Norwegian, WOW, or some airline along those lines trying to break into that market. Larger airlines like BA could probly care less.

BNIA would bring more convenience to the average passenger. Example: Canadians already fly out of BNIA because they dont want to deal with traffic / parking, waiting in long security lines, and waiting for long customers lines. I have heard / read many stories about how much of a nightmare flying out of YYZ is. Canadians also fly out of BNIA because its also cheaper for families or larger groups.

As for Domestic PAX - Before the airline merges, BNIA was increasing PAX on a yearly basis, and got up to about 5.6 million. Then the mergers happened and that has dropped. But recently, Jet Blue added LA - Buffalo direct flight from a non Jet Blue hub, Frontier is coming in adding Denver, Miami route, also a Florida destinations that are already served by Jet Blue and Southwest, Weekly seasonal flights to Punta Cana and Cancun.

The Domestic PAX numbers should be recovering and on the rise.

As for Niagara Falls, have you ever been? Its insanely packed with foreign people! I would definitely say that it is NOT mainly people driving for the weekend.
I'd say BUF is perfect for a Euro ULCC, I don't see BA or EI at the least being interested, but WW or DY, yes because they can do BUF-DUB on a 73MA and non daily.

I agree. ... i mentioned Norwegian ( the max can make it), WOW, Ryanair (if they ever come to America), and ULCC would be perfect if they want to try and break into the market. With the ULCC, it will take some time and convincing orrrrrrrr incentives. Indy, Pitt, and Cleveland just forked over some decent incentives to bring Transatlantic flights to the respective airports.

flymco753 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:02 pm

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
flymco753 wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

Airline wise: Flying into BNIA vs a crammed YYZ could be more cost efficient for landing Fees and all the other services / charges.

I can see a discount airline like Norwegian, WOW, or some airline along those lines trying to break into that market. Larger airlines like BA could probly care less.

BNIA would bring more convenience to the average passenger. Example: Canadians already fly out of BNIA because they dont want to deal with traffic / parking, waiting in long security lines, and waiting for long customers lines. I have heard / read many stories about how much of a nightmare flying out of YYZ is. Canadians also fly out of BNIA because its also cheaper for families or larger groups.

As for Domestic PAX - Before the airline merges, BNIA was increasing PAX on a yearly basis, and got up to about 5.6 million. Then the mergers happened and that has dropped. But recently, Jet Blue added LA - Buffalo direct flight from a non Jet Blue hub, Frontier is coming in adding Denver, Miami route, also a Florida destinations that are already served by Jet Blue and Southwest, Weekly seasonal flights to Punta Cana and Cancun.

The Domestic PAX numbers should be recovering and on the rise.

As for Niagara Falls, have you ever been? Its insanely packed with foreign people! I would definitely say that it is NOT mainly people driving for the weekend.
I'd say BUF is perfect for a Euro ULCC, I don't see BA or EI at the least being interested, but WW or DY, yes because they can do BUF-DUB on a 73MA and non daily.

I agree. ... i mentioned Norwegian ( the max can make it), WOW, Ryanair (if they ever come to America), and ULCC would be perfect if they want to try and break into the market. With the ULCC, it will take some time and convincing orrrrrrrr incentives. Indy, Pitt, and Cleveland just forked over some decent incentives to bring Transatlantic flights to the respective airports.

If the market is right for a flight, an airline will do it, the only pressure I see coming from BUF is YYZ which could make it easier and an airline can know they don't have as big of a risk, whereas CMH is a piece of cheese layered between 1lb patties when it comes to service offered around CMH.

kaitak744 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:50 pm

Really wish Burbank (BUR) could see service to LHR. A 787-8 can technically operate from the airport. There is no FIS, but they could do a Shannon stop on the way over to do customs and immigration there. Burbank is so conveniently located to the majority of the film industry studios and offices. I bet a good amount of people would pay the premium vs. drive to LAX and deal with crowds there.

B747forever · Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:34 pm

kaitak744 wrote:
Really wish Burbank (BUR) could see service to LHR. A 787-8 can technically operate from the airport. There is no FIS, but they could do a Shannon stop on the way over to do customs and immigration there. Burbank is so conveniently located to the majority of the film industry studios and offices. I bet a good amount of people would pay the premium vs. drive to LAX and deal with crowds there.

When will this madness of "BA's next US destination" end? Seriously, BUR?

Arion640 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:00 pm

B747forever wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
Really wish Burbank (BUR) could see service to LHR. A 787-8 can technically operate from the airport. There is no FIS, but they could do a Shannon stop on the way over to do customs and immigration there. Burbank is so conveniently located to the majority of the film industry studios and offices. I bet a good amount of people would pay the premium vs. drive to LAX and deal with crowds there.

When will this madness of "BA's next US destination" end? Seriously, BUR?

I appreciate people can be enthusiastic about their local airports, but I think BA would probably focus on pushing traffic through LAX, so BUR may not be a fantastic choice, then again stranger things have happened.

CHI2DFW · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:38 pm

B747forever wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
Really wish Burbank (BUR) could see service to LHR. A 787-8 can technically operate from the airport. There is no FIS, but they could do a Shannon stop on the way over to do customs and immigration there. Burbank is so conveniently located to the majority of the film industry studios and offices. I bet a good amount of people would pay the premium vs. drive to LAX and deal with crowds there.

When will this madness of "BA's next US destination" end? Seriously, BUR?

Rumor is that Rham is going to bring back Miegs with a longer runway just to get BA service to compliment ORD.

Yes, these BAs next US destination threads are out of control.

No offense, but BUR, PWM, RIC? Heck, BA will have more flights to the US than AC the way this is going.

Midwestindy · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:47 pm

BUF will get TATL service, just not on BA, DL, AA, or UA.

In terms of BA MCI, STL, and CMH have a stronger case, and there will be hardly any business traffic on a TATL BUF, PVM, RIC, e.t.c flight so the Business class will likely be empty, which is extremely important to Legacy carriers.

At this point BA will probably slow down its US growth, simply because there aren't very many viable markets left for them....

Therefore, as I have said before any TATL service will more than likely be on a 737max or A321LR, and/or on a leisure carrier like WW, D8, or FI.

ADrum23 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:50 pm

CHI2DFW wrote:
B747forever wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
Really wish Burbank (BUR) could see service to LHR. A 787-8 can technically operate from the airport. There is no FIS, but they could do a Shannon stop on the way over to do customs and immigration there. Burbank is so conveniently located to the majority of the film industry studios and offices. I bet a good amount of people would pay the premium vs. drive to LAX and deal with crowds there.

When will this madness of "BA's next US destination" end? Seriously, BUR?

Rumor is that Rham is going to bring back Miegs with a longer runway just to get BA service to compliment ORD.

Yes, these BAs next US destination threads are out of control.

No offense, but BUR, PWM, RIC? Heck, BA will have more flights to the US than AC the way this is going.

Exactly. BA is only going to expand so much before their schedule starts becoming redundant. Frankly, there is only one other mid-sized city that makes sense for BA service right now and that is STL. Other than that, the other cities mentioned already have TATL service, are in close proximity to cities that do have it or are not ready for it right now.

I agree, this thread needs to end. Can someone lock it please?

Jshank83 · Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:57 pm

ADrum23 wrote:

I agree, this thread needs to end. Can someone lock it please?

I would agree but once it locks another is just going to pop up, so we might as well just keep this one.

CHI2DFW · Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:57 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

I agree, this thread needs to end. Can someone lock it please?

I would agree but once it locks another is just going to pop up, so we might as well just keep this one.

Moderators, can we have a block on BA / My Airport will get LHR service threads (at least for a few weeks, say Halloween?)

DeltaRules · Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:42 am

If the DL focus city TATL thread can be overrun with "Is ATL a good hub?" chat, this thread can go on.

Back on track, I still think any BA-related LHR service to CMH will be operated by AA on a 757. If it works, maybe BA comes to town with a 787-8.

Jshank83 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:08 am

CHI2DFW wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

I agree, this thread needs to end. Can someone lock it please?

I would agree but once it locks another is just going to pop up, so we might as well just keep this one.

Moderators, can we have a block on BA / My Airport will get LHR service threads (at least for a few weeks, say Halloween?)

This thread hopefully should at least keep from other spin off threads of my airport BA. Although an MCI one came up recently. I am fine with this one since it should keep most of it in one place. If you aren't interested just go on by and don't read it (like I do for 70% of threads).

BoeingGuy · Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:25 am

CHI2DFW wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

I agree, this thread needs to end. Can someone lock it please?

I would agree but once it locks another is just going to pop up, so we might as well just keep this one.

Moderators, can we have a block on BA / My Airport will get LHR service threads (at least for a few weeks, say Halloween?)

Every airport I've ever lived near has BA service so I'm happy - SFO, SJC, OAK, SEA.

Seriously though, it will happen when it happens. Not sure what's left that BA could viably serve and isn't a fortress hub for someone else. STL seems most likely.

LAX772LR · Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:04 am

ADrum23 wrote:
Frankly, there is only one other mid-sized city that makes sense for BA service right now and that is STL.

You don't know that. At all.

You have no idea whatsoever as to what financial incentives/strategies they potentially have, or could gain, to serve any number of places.

LAX772LR · Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:07 am

CHI2DFW wrote:
Moderators, can we have a block on BA / My Airport

ADrum23 wrote:
I agree, this thread needs to end. Can someone lock it please?

That's a lot of nerve, to actually believe that your petty little preferences should determine what others can/cannot talk about in a public forum... particularly seeing as there's obvious interest in that particular topic.

Or to be utterly frank: the intelligent thing to do... would be to click that giant "X" in the upper-right of a given thread, if you have a problem with it.

Andy33 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:51 am

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
Airline wise: Flying into BNIA vs a crammed YYZ could be more cost efficient for landing Fees and all the other services / charges.

I can see a discount airline like Norwegian, WOW, or some airline along those lines trying to break into that market. Larger airlines like BA could probly care less.

BNIA would bring more convenience to the average passenger. Example: Canadians already fly out of BNIA because they dont want to deal with traffic / parking, waiting in long security lines, and waiting for long customers lines. I have heard / read many stories about how much of a nightmare flying out of YYZ is. Canadians also fly out of BNIA because its also cheaper for families or larger groups.

I'm sure your point about Canadians using Buffalo as an alternative to Toronto is valid based on your local knowledge. But you haven't explained why anyone other than a Canadian would consider flying into Buffalo in order to reach Toronto, and this is a thread about flights to/from Europe . The US/Canada border is easy to cross for citizens of either country. But as a UK citizen, I would have to obtain both a Canadian visa waiver (eTA) and the US equivalent (ESTA) just for a short visit to use Buffalo as first stop on the way to Canada. These aren't free, require at least some effort to obtain, and the US has rather more restrictions about who can apply than Canada does. That's before you consider people who want something other than a tourist or family visit and would actually need a full US visa just to cross those few miles of US soil. or people who are citizens of countries that Canada will happily admit but the US regards as plague carriers.

klm617 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:40 am

B747forever wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
Really wish Burbank (BUR) could see service to LHR. A 787-8 can technically operate from the airport. There is no FIS, but they could do a Shannon stop on the way over to do customs and immigration there. Burbank is so conveniently located to the majority of the film industry studios and offices. I bet a good amount of people would pay the premium vs. drive to LAX and deal with crowds there.

When will this madness of "BA's next US destination" end? Seriously, BUR?

You can blame BA for that for adding places like AUS, BNA, SJC and OAK over other major markets that lack BA flights to LHR kind of puts the seed in people's minds that anything is possable. Makes everyone think anything is possible. The madness will stop when BA readds DTW flights

symphonicpoet · Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:46 pm

I don't know. If they've got the tubes to do it and they can stuff enough people on board why is it madness? Maybe it's nuts for cities to offer revenue guarantees to shave one connection off the flights of a handful of their wealthier citizens. That's quite possible. But I can't really fault BA for asking. And once those guarantees end the flights will too . . . unless people use them. I don't really see the silly. I can be bitter that my town didn't get the direct flight (yet), I suppose. but I was never going to take it anyway, like as not. Even if we had it. I'm strictly a leisure flyer these days.

That said, it's interesting to see the arguments and the hints at the process behind them. It's really only silly when people start calling each other names or impolitely dismissing the wilder theories of the less experienced. As long as we can all discuss this like grown ups (I must be crazy) then it's all fun and games. And yes, some of us say crazy things out of inexperience. It's perfectly all right to teach us the true way. Let's just try to play nice about it.

Anyway . . . back to your regularly scheduled BA fanboi squee. (We're next here in Centrestan, right? I mean. Clearly. We have seventy percent more brodly brods and trans-matching potential than Mezopolis over that a way.)

Buffalomatt1027 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:24 pm

Andy33 wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
Airline wise: Flying into BNIA vs a crammed YYZ could be more cost efficient for landing Fees and all the other services / charges.

I can see a discount airline like Norwegian, WOW, or some airline along those lines trying to break into that market. Larger airlines like BA could probly care less.

BNIA would bring more convenience to the average passenger. Example: Canadians already fly out of BNIA because they dont want to deal with traffic / parking, waiting in long security lines, and waiting for long customers lines. I have heard / read many stories about how much of a nightmare flying out of YYZ is. Canadians also fly out of BNIA because its also cheaper for families or larger groups.

I'm sure your point about Canadians using Buffalo as an alternative to Toronto is valid based on your local knowledge. But you haven't explained why anyone other than a Canadian would consider flying into Buffalo in order to reach Toronto, and this is a thread about flights to/from Europe . The US/Canada border is easy to cross for citizens of either country. But as a UK citizen, I would have to obtain both a Canadian visa waiver (eTA) and the US equivalent (ESTA) just for a short visit to use Buffalo as first stop on the way to Canada. These aren't free, require at least some effort to obtain, and the US has rather more restrictions about who can apply than Canada does. That's before you consider people who want something other than a tourist or family visit and would actually need a full US visa just to cross those few miles of US soil. or people who are citizens of countries that Canada will happily admit but the US regards as plague carriers.

That is an interesting point about Vistas for a UK citizen. Currently, Emirates flies to Seattle and has a bus that drive 4 to 5 hours to Vancouver. That bus ride also goes over the US / Canada boarder. So that is where i got my point about International passengers busing from Buffalo to Toronto from.

So I honestly dont know what would happen visa wise, I just know that its being done right now in a similar situation. What ever Seattle to Vancouver bus ride to and from the airport is doing. Most likely doesnt require visas from both countries.

metroline2006 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:10 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
CHI2DFW wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:

I would agree but once it locks another is just going to pop up, so we might as well just keep this one.

Moderators, can we have a block on BA / My Airport will get LHR service threads (at least for a few weeks, say Halloween?)

Every airport I've ever lived near has BA service so I'm happy - SFO, SJC, OAK, SEA.

Seriously though, it will happen when it happens. Not sure what's left that BA could viably serve and isn't a fortress hub for someone else. STL seems most likely.

Midwestindy · Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:19 pm

klm617 wrote:
B747forever wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
Really wish Burbank (BUR) could see service to LHR. A 787-8 can technically operate from the airport. There is no FIS, but they could do a Shannon stop on the way over to do customs and immigration there. Burbank is so conveniently located to the majority of the film industry studios and offices. I bet a good amount of people would pay the premium vs. drive to LAX and deal with crowds there.

When will this madness of "BA's next US destination" end? Seriously, BUR?

You can blame BA for that for adding places like AUS, BNA, SJC and OAK over other major markets that lack BA flights to LHR kind of puts the seed in people's minds that anything is possable. Makes everyone think anything is possible. The madness will stop when BA readds DTW flights

This is a joke right? You can't be serious....

Clearly a market like AUS was a wise choice for BA, considering they upguaged it from a 787 to a 747 in just a few years!

BA has had every opportunity to add back DTW, but they clearly see that markets like AUS, SJC, e.t.c are much better fits...

ADrum23 · Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:25 pm

klm617 wrote:
B747forever wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
Really wish Burbank (BUR) could see service to LHR. A 787-8 can technically operate from the airport. There is no FIS, but they could do a Shannon stop on the way over to do customs and immigration there. Burbank is so conveniently located to the majority of the film industry studios and offices. I bet a good amount of people would pay the premium vs. drive to LAX and deal with crowds there.

When will this madness of "BA's next US destination" end? Seriously, BUR?

You can blame BA for that for adding places like AUS, BNA, SJC and OAK over other major markets that lack BA flights to LHR kind of puts the seed in people's minds that anything is possible. Makes everyone think anything is possible. The madness will stop when BA readds DTW flights

And why would BA add flights to markets that are already saturated with TATL flights? The point of all of BA's recent adds (AUS, SJC, OAK, MSY, BNA) was those airports didn't previously have TATL service and they saw an opportunity to go in and become the "trailblazers" (so to speak) there, thus, building up a market share that would make it hard for others to come in and compete. If BA went into DTW, they'd be stepping on the toes of DL and the Skyteam alliance and they'd have a hard time competing. They don't see it being profitable because DL can outdo them. That's what happens when you have one airline controlling 80-90% of the airport traffic. You want to see more foreign airlines coming into DTW, MSP? Tell DL to cut their hub operations at both.

People need to stop talking about BA to DTW, MSP and even CLT, it is not going to happen.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net