Airliners.net

BA flew to SAN for 15 years (1987/8-2003), and was SAN's only consistent transatlantic service. Early flights were flown with British Caledonian 747-200s, then BA DC-10s, 747-400s, and finally the nonstop flight from 2001-2003 with a 777.

According to many past posts, BA stopped flying to SAN because of low loads in First and Business classes in the 777. My question is, what were loads like on the 747-400 one-stop that was flown from 1998-2001? And did the 747 loads lead to the nonstop with the smaller 777?

Thank you very much,
san747

Hey SAN747 -

Sure wish I could help you on that one. I know that BA was always bound and determined to get a plane into SAN, but until there were sufficient 777's, it simply wasn't possible. Considering how long they continued the one-stop flights, it would seem that there must have been sufficient business travellers to warrant the flight with a tech-stop in PHX.

As for both SAN-LHR and SAN-YYZ on AC, both of those flights were aimed primarily at the business traveller, and both were terminated soon after 9/11. With airlines in struggling financial situations, it is simply more cost-effective to route passengers to SAN through one of the alliance partners' hubs rather than staff an airport with their people for just one flight.

Not much help - sorry.   

I don't have an answer for your questions but I will correct some factual errors from your post.

The route started as SAN-LAX-LGW operated by BCal with a mixture of 742s and DC-10s in 1988 or 1989. Almost immediately BCal was taken over by BA which continued to operate the route for another couple of years until being terminated around 1991 (time of 1st Gulf War) if I remember correctly. This first service always operated via LAX.

There was then a seven year interruption in service.

When BA resumed service in 1998, they operated DC-10s LGW-PHX-SAN. These were then upgraded to 744s in 1999 or 2000 before being replaced by the nonstop 777 to LHR.

There are some nice photos in the database, do a search for BA and BCal at SAN.

Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 2): When BA resumed service in 1998, they operated DC-10s LGW-PHX-SAN. These were then upgraded to 744s in 1999 or 2000 before being replaced by the nonstop 777 to LHR.

The Non-stop was actually from LGW!

Will BA ever bring back SAN or will VS ever start SAN?

Rob!

Rob,

Good point. The nonstop 777 was initially to LGW but then was transferred to LHR.

BA will back in SAN someday when they have an aircraft (787 perhaps) better sized for the flight. I've heard that the 777 couldn't take off with a full load of cargo from SAN's runways and clear Pt. Loma... I've also heard there weren't enough butts filling the first class seats.

VS should look into serving SAN... when they get some smaller aircraft with a better climb rate.

Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 4): BA will back in SAN someday when they have an aircraft (787 perhaps) better sized for the flight. I've heard that the 777 couldn't take off with a full load of cargo from SAN's runways and clear Pt. Loma... I've also heard there weren't enough butts filling the first class seats. VS should look into serving SAN... when they get some smaller aircraft with a better climb rate.

Would SAN every make the runway longer just for VS?

Couln't a fully loaded 767 make it from LON to SAN non-stop, or is it just that BA don't want to base a single 763 at LGW?

Would BA ever add on SAN from PHX again?

Rob!

[Edited 2005-06-08 19:59:24]

Quoting B742 (Reply 3): The Non-stop was actually from LGW!

Changed to LHR around October 2002 IIRC. Same time as the non stop PHX and DEN were transferred to LHR

Just a minor correction. BA restarted service to SAN in 1996 with DC-10's. It was in 1998 that they started service with 747-400's.

I don't think SAN would build a runway extension just for Virgin even if there was room at the end of the runway for an extension. Unfortunately, there's not any room and there might be some NIMBY opposition to blasting a corridor through the Pt. Loma ridge.

The problem with the 767 idea (I don't think the route would necessarily have to operate from LGW as it previously operated from LHR) is that the 767 can carry a lot less cargo than the 777 or the proposed 787. The 767 isn't wide enough for standard freight containers. I've heard that there's a lot of money to be made in the belly cargo of these flights.

I don't know if BA would add SAN back on to PHX. I may be mistaken but that might necessitate moving the PHX flight back to LGW from LHR, and I doubt BA would want to do that. Furthermore, hasn't there been some talk of BA axing the PHX flight? Or am I just imagining that?

According to many past posts, BA stopped flying to SAN because of low loads in First and Business classes in the 777. My question is, what were loads like on the 747-400 one-stop that was flown from 1998-2001? And did the 747 loads lead to the nonstop with the smaller 777?

It stopped because it was weight limited due to terrain and a short runway. There where plenty of pax but they took a major cargo hit. You can't make money long haul without at least decent cargo numbers.

Would SAN every make the runway longer just for VS?

On what land???? You can only make it "effectively" longer by going East anyway and you need 600' + 1000' overrun because you fall under a new construction criteria. That distance puts you in the center of I-5. You gain nothing in terrain clearance going West. Landing distance isn't a issue.

[Edited 2005-06-08 21:04:09]

Here's some photos of Bcal/Ba at SAN


View Large View Medium

Photo © Mike

View Large View Medium

Photo © Larry Wolff

View Large View Medium

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages

View Large View Medium

Photo © David Alders

View Large View Medium

Photo © Larry Wolff

View Large View Medium

Photo © Denis Roschlau

View Large View Medium

Photo © Larry Wolff
 

SAN-PHX loads on BA were around 35%. At current fuel costs - that is a non-starter.

The issues of BA at SAN also relate to its ability to attract the AAdvantage base here in Southern California. When AA-BA can fully code-share and have full frequent flyer reciprocity - that is when the business travelers (higher yielding and front end) would consider taking BA on SAN-LON. The heavy defense contractor base could also not take BA due to the "Fly America" regulations. Defense contractors could take a AA code share however. So the US-EU bilateral and all the Heathrow issues get sorted out first.

Also, the issue with effective operation of aircraft from SAN to Europe is not the runway length. It is the Pt. Loma obstruction. The following aircraft are capable of reaching central Europe with Pt. Loma obstruction and full pax and respectable cargo load: 777 (preferably with RR engines), A340-600/-500, 747-400ER, & 787. The 767 could probably make it to Reykjavik.

Therefore, VS would have to use the A346 - at over 300 seat capacity this would mean a less than daily flight and the lack of behind LON feed weakens this option vis a vis BA.

[Edited 2005-06-08 21:03:39]

[Edited 2005-06-08 21:05:33]

The following aircraft are capable of reaching central Europe with Pt. Loma obstruction and full pax and respectable cargo load

10,000 feet gets you a fully loaded 787-8 with 40,000 lbs of cargo. That's respectable. Only the 787-8 can do this route out of SAN profitably.

The 787-8 is expected to reach Europe with 40,000 lbs. cargo under the current runway configuration.

So what about an Emirates A380 with a full crew and 25 passengers on a good day? Would that make it from SAN to Dubai?   

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 11): 777 (preferably with RR engines

In BA's case, yes... relative to other carriers, it doesn't matter.

By the way, you have NOT lived until you stood at the corner of Lytton Street and Rosecrans Avenue (barely half a mile west of runway 27) and had a fully loaded 777 screaming over your head as it claws its way up into the sky at a much lower angle than any other plane. I did it several times just for the thrill.   

That is awesome PanAm747 - I wish I had done that.

Just for my own curiosity can you estimate the altitude it was flying at directly over Lytton / Rosecrans?

Quoting BY188B (Reply 10): Here's some photos of Bcal/Ba at SAN

Well done!

Simply put, BA's SAN route was unprofitable. There isn't currently the O/D traffic to support a non-stop. The flight over PHX became a challenge when it became mandatory to clear imms and customs at the first point of arrival in the United States, so a one-stop isn't really viable...especially in the world of codeshare.

BA and SAN airport tried to come to an agreement whereby SAN would subsidize the flight in the form of greatly reduced rents and landing fees but the amount needed by BA to continue the flight could not be met by SAN.

Oh, and "officially" the route is 'suspended'.  

C.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19): Simply put, BA's SAN route was unprofitable.

Not in terms of Passengers, only in terms of cargo. The BA 777 only had 230 seats in it with an 85% load factor. Do that same math on the 787-8.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19): There isn't currently the O/D traffic to support a non-stop.

Load of BS.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19): The flight over PHX became a challenge when it became mandatory to clear imms and customs at the first point of arrival in the United States, so a one-stop isn't really viable...especially in the world of codeshare.

The flight ot PHX was required in the 747-400 due to performance limitations and nothing else.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19): BA and SAN airport tried to come to an agreement whereby SAN would subsidize the flight in the form of greatly reduced rents and landing fees but the amount needed by BA to continue the flight could not be met by SAN.

No... BA said to SAN pay for the Cargo offset ($3 million a year) and we'll play. SAN said.. Quit smoking crack and go away.

Wanna try and pull some more random BS out of your rear?

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 13): The 787-8 is expected to reach Europe with 40,000 lbs. cargo under the current runway configuration.

Not all of Europe. But thanks for playing.

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 11): The following aircraft are capable of reaching central Europe with Pt. Loma obstruction and full pax and respectable cargo load: 777 (preferably with RR engines), A340-600/-500, 747-400ER, & 787. The 767 could probably make it to Reykjavik.

Wait a minute... A345/6, 744? If they could, how come they were never used to SAN before (excepting 744, that flight was one-stop)? Or is that assuming a runway longer than the current one?

On an unrelated note, is SAN not really a big cargo destination? FX flies widebody cargo, as well as ABX. CAT and DHL also fly 727s... Basically, can SAN sustain a widebody international cargo service?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20): Not all of Europe. But thanks for playing.

All markets of significance (eg hub) including LON, CDG, AMS and FRA are within the range contours from SAN.

Quoting San747 (Reply 21): Wait a minute... A345/6, 744? If they could, how come they were never used to SAN before (excepting 744, that flight was one-stop)? Or is that assuming a runway longer than the current one? On an unrelated note, is SAN not really a big cargo destination? FX flies widebody cargo, as well as ABX. CAT and DHL also fly 727s... Basically, can SAN sustain a widebody international cargo service?

The 744ER pax version is only utilized by QANTAS. As for the A340-500 - I don't think any European carrier has ordered and the A340-600 at >300 seats has too much capacity for the SAN-Europe market.

The problem with international cargo is the curfew - most intl cargo carriers want to leave after 23:30.

Quoting San747 (Reply 21): Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19): Simply put, BA's SAN route was unprofitable. Not in terms of Passengers, only in terms of cargo. The BA 777 only had 230 seats in it with an 85% load factor. Do that same math on the 787-8.

Loadfactor doesn't equate to profitability. Flights aren't solely profitable because of passengers. As you've said, cargo was not profitable. The flight was not profitable both above and below the wing. Unprofitable is unprofitable. Period. I don't quite get what you're trying to get at with referring to the 787-8?

Quoting San747 (Reply 21): Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19): The flight over PHX became a challenge when it became mandatory to clear imms and customs at the first point of arrival in the United States, so a one-stop isn't really viable...especially in the world of codeshare. The flight ot PHX was required in the 747-400 due to performance limitations and nothing else.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. A one-stop flight is a challenge, and an expensive one at that. In many areas you have double the costs for half the benefits. (i.e. crews, landing fees). For BA, codeshare is more advantageous than operating the onestop or non-stop to SAN.

C.

Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 8): Furthermore, hasn't there been some talk of BA axing the PHX flight? Or am I just imagining that?

As a recent immigrant to Phoenix from the UK, I hope not! I posted a thread here about 2 months ago about the future of BA LHR-PHX and the verdict was it is safe. Did a search for the thread and it wasn't found (but they never are!).

BF

The BA PHX-LHR 744 flight runs six days a week and BA officials several months ago were talking of adding the missing Wednesday and possibly a second daily flight in the future, so it appears to be doing fine. We actually went from a 777 to a 744 sometime after the hop over to SAN was dropped.

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 11): The following aircraft are capable of reaching central Europe with Pt. Loma obstruction and full pax and respectable cargo load: 777 (preferably with RR engines), A340-600/-500, 747-400ER, & 787. The 767 could probably make it to Reykjavik.

Nope and the fact RR made the engines is irrelivant. Thrust is thrust. The 777-200LR can and the 787-8 can, in fact the 777-200LR perfoms a smidge better than the 787 out of SAN. The 767 cannot make Reykjavik.

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 22): All markets of significance (eg hub) including LON, CDG, AMS and FRA are within the range contours from SAN

Not according to Boeing.

Quoting San747 (Reply 21): On an unrelated note, is SAN not really a big cargo destination? FX flies widebody cargo, as well as ABX. CAT and DHL also fly 727s... Basically, can SAN sustain a widebody international cargo service?

It can for a single flight per day but not to the level of a 777, but the wieght limit killed it anyway. The 787 yes, 40,000 punds worth and full pax to either LHR or LGW

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 23): Loadfactor doesn't equate to profitability.

Really? I must be under a rock or something. That's the Beauty of the 787. It does equate to profitability. The 40,000lbs of cargo is gravey.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 23): I don't quite get what you're trying to get at with referring to the 787-8?

A 787-8 with the loads BA had is profitable without cargo. The cargo is then gravey.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 23): I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. A one-stop flight is a challenge, and an expensive one at that. In many areas you have double the costs for half the benefits. (i.e. crews, landing fees). For BA, codeshare is more advantageous than operating the onestop or non-stop to SAN.

The stop was because of the performance restrictions and nothing else. The 744 simply doesn't have any range from SAN. The PHX stop allowed a fuel pick up and added cargo to make London and the route profitable. Your assumption that a 744 could go non-stop from SAN is where you are thrown off and leaves you off on a tangent in your explaination and as a result understanding of the issue. The 747 flew SAN-PHX one stop.

Thanks for playing Sparky.

[Edited 2005-06-10 02:31:39]

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1): Considering how long they continued the one-stop flights, it would seem that there must have been sufficient business travellers to warrant the flight with a tech-stop in PHX.

It wasn't a tech-stop in PHX. The service was to both cities and PHX has more than enough traffic to warrant the stop

Quoting San747 (Thread starter): what were loads like on the 747-400 one-stop that was flown from 1998-2001?

Excelent, especially ex-PHX

Quoting San747 (Thread starter): And did the 747 loads lead to the nonstop with the smaller 777?

Actually, BA wanted to serve both destinations non-stop to give the PHX market a full airplane to work with and to give SAN a chance to work

Quoting B742 (Reply 3): The Non-stop was actually from LGW!

Both SAN and PHX were transfered to LHR after BA showed enough PAX numbers to fall under B2

Quoting B742 (Reply 5): Would SAN every make the runway longer just for VS?

As said, they couldn't even if they wanted to

Quoting B742 (Reply 5): Couln't a fully loaded 767 make it from LON to SAN non-stop, or is it just that BA don't want to base a single 763 at LGW?

BA would not have to fly from LGW, but would need a 762ER to get out of SAN

Quoting B742 (Reply 5): Would BA ever add on SAN from PHX again?

No, because PHX already justifies a full 744 to itself

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 11): SAN-PHX loads on BA were around 35%. At current fuel costs - that is a non-starter.

Traffic is not why they were limited. They were limited because of limitations placed on the 744 at SAN

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 11): 777 (preferably with RR engines),

At BA, sure, but a GE-90 can do it easily as well

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 19): There isn't currently the O/D traffic to support a non-stop.

There is more than enough O&D to support it

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20): The flight ot PHX was required in the 747-400 due to performance limitations and nothing else.

Actually, the flight to PHX was not simply a performance issue, it was also to pick up passengers and cargo on the very full LON-PHX market

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27): Traffic is not why they were limited. They were limited because of limitations placed on the 744 at SAN

The flight could have been 75% or even 100% PLF and still made it to PHX. The fuel weight would have neglible. Also, the cost to operate a tag between SAN-PHX with only 35% probably expended whatever revenue SAN pax gave for their entire journey (to LHR or beyond).

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 26): Not according to Boeing.

Really? The B787 SAN range contours with "-9 Thrust Rating" indicated the 787 could make Europe with full pax and 40,000 lbs. and 210 lbs./pax.

[Edited 2005-06-10 06:26:00]

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 28): The flight could have been 75% or even 100% PLF and still made it to PHX. The fuel weight would have neglible.

Had nothing to do with whether they could make PHX or not. It had to do with terminal and operational restrictions

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29): Had nothing to do with whether they could make PHX or not. It had to do with terminal and operational restrictions

B744's can operate at SAN - apart from a few strange turns - B744s have no terminal or field (emphasize field) operational restrictions. Range/distance restrictions do exist. The crux of my point was that it was not economical for BA to operate a SAN-PHX tag with a 744 - no matter what the load factor.

Really? The B787 SAN range contours with "-9 Thrust Rating" indicated the 787 could make Europe with full pax and 40,000 lbs. and 210 lbs./pax.

Assuming you buy it that way. The -9 rating impacts fuel burn. Considering every other airfield goes unconstrained, it's a waste to use the -9 rating for one market. Bags for 223 pax is 30,000 pounds of that "40,000 cargo" as well. They count 210 per pax which is standard pax + carry-on.

You really should get over the Rolls-Royce issue. It's factors very little into the 777 performance. Higher thrust = more fuel which negates the benefit. It all balances out. You may get the market issues somewhat, but you got zip on the technical.

Actually, the flight to PHX was not simply a performance issue, it was also to pick up passengers and cargo on the very full LON-PHX market

Try, but no way it goes the distance from SAN and PHX provided the balance needed in the market at the time. Without it, SAN had zip service.

[Edited 2005-06-11 01:36:59]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 31): You really should get over the Rolls-Royce issue. It's factors very little into the 777 performance. Higher thrust = more fuel which negates the benefit. It all balances out. You may get the market issues somewhat, but you got zip on the technical.

Trent powered 772ERs at BA have greater range and takeoff performance than GE-90 powered ones, that was the point. If BA used a GE-90 powered 772IGW, they would have had to leave 50 passengers as well as cargo off the flight

If BA used a GE-90 powered 772IGW, they would have had to leave 50 passengers as well as cargo off the flight

The Trent engine faces the same problem - its a terrain issue not so much an aircraft performance issue. The Terrain leaves effectively a 8,800-9,000 runway when factored in, every little foot counts on SAN's runway. Add in wind and what not and it gets worse. This is why it wasn't profitable. Now the 777-200LR is a whole different story, assuming the same pax config.

Hopefully the EMAS project next year will make more of the runway useful. It should be able to stop aircraft at 70 mph.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27): Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 23): Loadfactor doesn't equate to profitability. Really? I must be under a rock or something. That's the Beauty of the 787. It does equate to profitability. The 40,000lbs of cargo is gravey.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 26): Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 23): I don't quite get what you're trying to get at with referring to the 787-8? A 787-8 with the loads BA had is profitable without cargo. The cargo is then gravey.

A 787 of any variety will not make SAN-LON profitable today. As I'm sure you're aware, the 787 hasn't flown yet. Perhaps it will make for a profitable SAN-LON route, but when BA flew the route it was unprofitable.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27): Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 23): I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. A one-stop flight is a challenge, and an expensive one at that. In many areas you have double the costs for half the benefits. (i.e. crews, landing fees). For BA, codeshare is more advantageous than operating the onestop or non-stop to SAN. The stop was because of the performance restrictions and nothing else. The 744 simply doesn't have any range from SAN. The PHX stop allowed a fuel pick up and added cargo to make London and the route profitable. Your assumption that a 744 could go non-stop from SAN is where you are thrown off and leaves you off on a tangent in your explaination and as a result understanding of the issue. The 747 flew SAN-PHX one stop.

I'd ask you to re-read the entire thread. My comments regarding one-stop services were never tied to the range of the aircraft used. My comments only dealt with why a one-stop isn't always a viable option.

Quoting San747 (Reply 21): No... BA said to SAN pay for the Cargo offset ($3 million a year) and we'll play. SAN said.. Quit smoking crack and go away.

It would be very surprising if an airport were to whip out a check book and write a check to an airline. These 'rebates' come in the form of reduced or cancelled landing fees and rents.

C.

Hopefully the EMAS project next year will make more of the runway useful. It should be able to stop aircraft at 70 mph.

That only removes declared distances vs. a clearway. It helps in terms of accelerate stop distance thus range, but you still have the problem of the Point Loma obstacle on a single engine climb, not to mention RWY 9 ops.

A 787 of any variety will not make SAN-LON profitable today.

Wanna bet????

As I'm sure you're aware, the 787 hasn't flown yet.

So the plane is all hype and won't meet projections. Is that your stance???

Perhaps it will make for a profitable SAN-LON route, but when BA flew the route it was unprofitable.

Yeah. In a 230 seat cargo constrained aircraft.

It would be very surprising if an airport were to whip out a check book and write a check to an airline. These 'rebates' come in the form of reduced or cancelled landing fees and rents.

Which is why BA is no longer at SAN. Other countries do pay to support service.

[Edited 2005-06-12 16:09:40]

[Edited 2005-06-12 16:13:41]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 36): Which is why BA is no longer at SAN. Other countries do pay to support service.

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 36): Perhaps it will make for a profitable SAN-LON route, but when BA flew the route it was unprofitable. Boeign7E7 replies: Yeah. In a 230 seat cargo constrained aircraft.

Good. I'm glad we agree. BA SAN was unprofitable. SAN was unwilling to subsidize the route enough through reduced landing fees and rents. Perhaps the 787 (should BA order it) would make the route a profitable one.

C.

[Edited 2005-06-12 16:43:35]

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 37): Good. I'm glad we agree. BA SAN was unprofitable. SAN was unwilling to subsidize the route enough through reduced landing fees and rents. Perhaps the 787 (should BA order it) would make the route a profitable one. C.

Good to see there's some sort of agreement, but I think you do need to remember that there are always reasons behind simple unprofitability of routes. BA's service to SAN is an excellent example of how many factors beyond "not enough money being made" led to the downfall of a route with much potential.

Aaron G.