gilesdavies
Posts: 2267
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:51 pm

BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:07 pm

In an article I read yesterday in the Birmingham Evening Mail - Willie Walsh, British Airways' CEO confirmed it was highly unlikely there would be any new long haul routes operated from Birmingham or any other regional airports for the forseeable future. All new long haul routes are likely to be focused on London with the lead up to Terminal 5 opening.

I know this probably comes as no shock to anyone but is a pitty the UK's national flag carrier is not prepared to offer people away from London further destinations to fly from. And would appear any future long haul routes from regional airports will be relied upon by foreign carriers, as per the case for the last few years.

Willie Walsh also confirmed this would remain the case until such routes could prove profitable. How can other airlines operate routes to the like of BRS, BHX, MAN, GLA and EDI profitably, when it would appear by what Willie Walsh is saying BA cannot?!

I do not know much about the German market or Lufthansa for that point (so please don't shoot me down!), but I know Lufthansa is successfully able to operate a number of longhaul flights from MUC as well as FRA.

Could BA maintain a large Hub outside of London offering connecting traffic and onward long haul flights?

Can't find the exact article, but found a similar article here...

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/...2dreturn%2dfor%2dba-name_page.html

Ohhh I forgot to mention... BA does operate ONE long haul flight away from London! - MAN-JFK.

[Edited 2006-03-05 15:27:01]
 
Sabena 690
Posts: 6065
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 12:48 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:20 pm

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
Willie Walsh also confirmed this would remain the case until such routes could prove profitable. How can other airlines operate routes to the like of BRS, BHX, MAN, GLA and EDI profitably, when it would appear by what Willie Walsh is saying BA cannot?!

Because those routes have to rely on O&D traffic for BA. Airlines like CO can offer their passengers lot's of connections at their respective hubs (for example BRS-EWR-LAX on CO).

I can fully understand that airlines like LH have high C-loads to/from MAN, but that doesn't mean that BA can operate long haul routes from any regional city in the UK profitably.

MAN-JFK is there to stay probably, but it would be a bad decision of BA to open long haul flights to/from airports like BHX/BRS/... in my opinion.

Never considered that, if operating such a long haul flight would be profitable, that BA would be operating such flights already?

Frederic
 
BMED
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:01 pm

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:23 pm

Its a shame we don't see BA having a bigger hub system in that they fly smaller aircraft such as the ERJ's into LHR and LGW from smaller airports and advertising more this option.

I suppose with both the London airports however theres tight slot restrictions?
Living the jetset life! No better way to be
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:30 pm

Some major carriers - either Euro, US, or Asian - are bound to begin longhaul service from cities outside on LON and it will be to BA's detriment.
 
Damian
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:01 pm

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:35 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 3):
Some major carriers - either Euro, US, or Asian - are bound to begin longhaul service from cities outside on LON and it will be to BA's detriment.

It's already happening.

American:
GLA, MAN

Continental:
BFS, BHX, BRS, EDI, GLA, MAN

Delta:
EDI, MAN

Emirates:
BHX, GLA, MAN

Qatar:
MAN

US Airways:
GLA, MAN

... to name just a few ...
 
BestWestern
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:47 pm

How many Long haul services do AF have from outside Paris
How many Long haul services do IB have from outside Madrid
You are 100 times more likely to catch a cold on a flight than an average person!
 
rdwootty
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:28 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:53 pm

The problem for BA is simple...They cannot have connecting services in the US .for example. What should have happened when BA had BHX-JFK was codeshare with AA and this would have meant the service would have been viable. I book BHX-EWR with CO and 90% of passengers travel onwards.I book EK to various destinations ,some with a DXB stop and some not. I book KLM ,AF and LH to lots of places on the basis it is actually quicker to travel this way than go to Heathrow ....? BA are not interested in the "provinces" as shown by there decision to make the flights on BA connect low cost style but cost??
 
monkeyboi
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:12 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:04 am

This sort of thread comes up all the time.

The simple answer is: If BA thought they could make money by operating direct, long-haul services from the likes of BHX, MAN, GLA, EDI etc etc they WOULD.

If BA thought they could continue on operating BA Citiexpress on shorthaul routes from the regions with two classes, free food and drink, and turn a profit.....they WOULD.

If they had a few spare 767's or 777's sitting around, then why not, for sure, instead of having it sat on the ground try out a new long haul route.

But BA don't. Their L/H fleet are stretched to the max as it is and any new route at the moment comes at the cost of axing or reducing frequencies on an exisiting (probably proven profitable) route.

EK have already made clear that around 75% of passengers on their GLA/MAN & BHX - DXB flights have onward connections from DXB. So what would be the point of BA competing on, say, MAN - DXB with EK if only a handful of people are actually flying to DXB?

Fact is, unless you are flying direct to NYC, ORD or DXB, most people travelling out of BHX/GLA etc etc will still have to make a connection anyway! So connect with BA in London, CO in EWR, AA in ORD, EK in DXB....it's all the same.

[Edited 2006-03-05 16:10:17]

[Edited 2006-03-05 16:11:13]
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4763
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:20 am

people always look at Continental and praise them for operating from the regions, but forget one thing, all COs flights are originating from their main hub. CO are doing exactly what BA are doing, operating flights from their primary hub.

Switch things around and look at it from the other side. British Airways operate from london to:
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Los Angeles
Miami
JFK
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Fransisco
Seattle
Washington

How many of the US airlines operate from these cities to london? the reason BA can fly to these destinations is because its from their hub, the US airlines cant make these routes work to London unless they also have a hub there.

Similarly CO can make flights to EDI/GLA/BHX work because its from their hub. BA cant.
 
DavidT
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:37 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:26 am

Wow, I never thought I'd see a post talking about BA longhaul outside of LON that forgot to mention MAN-JFK!  Smile

Thing is, BA fly MAN-JFK. AA also fly MAN-BOS and did fly MAN-MIA last summer too... you've got 3 long hauls on oneworld there from MAN. There's no reason for BA to start up, say a BOS service, because one of their partners already does it and (I'm not sure here) but I think they even codeshare on it.

It would be nice to see more planes in BA livery fly l/h out of MAN but at the moment we'll have to settle for the codeshares with AA.

In the future, if BA goes 787, then perhaps increased o&d traffic caused by manchester's growth as a city and the lower operating costs of the 787 might open up a few routes.

I hear MAN-JFK also makes a shedload for BA... over £1 million profit a year, from 1 daily service. Not bad!
 
BCA2005
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:56 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:28 am

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 8):
Switch things around and look at it from the other side. British Airways operate from london to:
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Los Angeles
Miami
JFK
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Fransisco
Seattle
Washington

...and Newark, Detroit, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and Tampa
 
Concorde001
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:53 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:42 am

There are a couple of things that need to be considered when looking at BA's decision not to offer longhaul services out of the UK regions:

1) BA has a shortage of longhaul aircraft.
The recent decision to suspend services to MEL was perhaps mainly due to aicraft shortages - while MEL may have been profitable for BA, they realised that the many aircraft used to operate this route on a daily basis could be better utilised on other more profitable routes. For example, BA have seen increasing high yielding passengers on its LHR-ISB route and it is now being upgraded to a 744 (previously used on LHR-SIN-MEL), which has a F cabin unlike the route's 772 which only had C/Y+/Y. Also BA need to increase its presence in China and India and for that aircraft are needed. Combine this with the fact that London has a huge O&D market, not to mention high yielding passengers and you can appreciate why BA will not station a longhaul aircraft outside London for many years to come. While I agree Manchester and other UK regions have potential for viable longhaul routes, have you ever noticed that none of the airlines offering longhaul services from those respective airports offer a F cabin on their routes (except MH which incidently is in financial trouble and SQ which only offers F twice weekly via ZRH - the rest of the time its C/Y)? For example if you look at EK or AA, on their services to LHR and LGW (except AA's RDU-LGW) all there aircraft have a F cabin...why? Because they know they can fill those high yielding cabins from London. However, on their services to MAN/BHX/GLA etc, there is no F cabin. In EK's case, high-density aircraft (aimed at Y passengers) are used, for example 42C/304Y is the configuration on their B772 used on BHX/MAN-DXB services. Compare that to the 14F/49C/236Y used on the London routes on the same aircraft type! BA have always chased after the high yielding passenger - that is what they are known for. Back to the aicraft shortage, BA will have to make an order soon for a replacement for its 763s and soon after that will need to think about other widebody replacements - this is for LHR only!

2)Terminal 5, Debt & Pensions
BA has bigger problems to solve at the moment than occupy itself with expanding from the regions. Firstly, Terminal 5 is set to open in 2008. Between now and then (and the years prior to 2011 when the second satellite building is fully operational) BA are concentrating on a smooth transition toward single terminal operations. Firstly they will have to get an agreement with the unions on work practices. At the moment, ground staff in Terminal 1 have different work practices to their counterparts in Terminal 4. BA wants to scrap those and start afresh. Secondly, single terminal operation will mean job losses. BA is looking to cut costs even further, and Terminal 5 is a brilliant opportunity for them. Check-in staff, baggage handlers and other ground positions will all see cuts (watch out for BA's unveiling of its business plan this coming Thursday).
Also, like many other British companies, BA is having huge problems with its pension obligations. BA has a reported deficit of £1.4bn in its pension scheme! Only by cutting debt further, sorting the pension problem and more importantly consolidating its position at LHR can BA even think about expanding from the regions.

It is important to note that at the moment, BA uses the UK regions in the exact same way as AA/CO/EK/SQ/MH/US/QR/EY do. BA allows passengers from the regions to connect onward to any destinations around the world from its LHR and LGW hubs, just as EK allows in DXB, CO in EWR, SQ in SIN, AA in ORD etc. In that same operation, BA also serves any point to point traffic that may exist between LON and the regions, again just as CO, EK etc. What is missing is a BA service similar to that of PK and AI in MAN and BHX, i.e. serving point to point traffic. If BA do decide to expand longhaul from the regions (they probably will after 2010-12), then I only envisage services like MAN-JFK which are primarily aimed at O&D traffic. I may be wrong - BA may want to build up MAN like LH have MUC. However with European airline consolidation nearing and talk of BA and IB getting together , BA could use MAD instead of MAN.

[Edited 2006-03-05 17:47:47]
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:56 am

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
I know this probably comes as no shock to anyone but is a pitty the UK's national flag carrier is not prepared to offer people away from London further destinations to fly from

BA is only one of the UK's flag carriers and it hasn't been 'national' since it was privatised in the 1980s.
 
ozvirginuk
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:06 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:12 am

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
I know this probably comes as no shock to anyone but is a pitty the UK's national flag carrier is not prepared to offer people away from London further destinations to fly from.



Quoting HS748 (Reply 12):
BA is only one of the UK's flag carriers and it hasn't been 'national' since it was privatised in the 1980s.

BA is NOT a flag carrier. As far as I am aware VS is the only airline that dispays the Union Flag on every plane..

Oz
 
monkeyboi
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:12 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:13 am

It's strange. You can argue every logical explanation on here as to why it BA does not operate from the regions.

And yet, guaranteed, within a month someone else will post a similar post. Many of them come across as if they feel a personal 'snub' or feling of being 'left out or let down' by their national carrier.

BA aren't around for the sentimental or patriotic in all of us.

Remember, we are not just talking about aircraft and fuel and start up costs for a new regional long haul route. We are also talking the cost of a new base for additional cabin crew and pilots. The cost of more hotel rooms etc etc etc.
 
by738
Posts: 2405
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 7:59 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:16 am

Quoting Ozvirginuk (Reply 13):

Why is almost every BA aircraft now carrying "UnionFlag" clour scheme now then ?
 
Concorde001
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:53 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:19 am

Quoting Monkeyboi (Reply 14):
BA aren't around for the sentimental or patriotic in all of us

Correct.
While BA is a truly British institution and I for one am proud that we have such a classy and innovative 'flag carrier' renowned world over, we must remember that BA is a private company with a responsibility to its shareholders to be as profitable as possible.
 
CrossChecked
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 8:06 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:40 am

Quoting BY738 (Reply 15):
Why is almost every BA aircraft now carrying "UnionFlag" clour scheme now then ?

Because that's our livery. Virgin Atlantic is the UK's official flag carrier - a privilege bestowed upon a carrier by our Queen.

Just as in South Africa. SAA's jets carry the SA flag on the tail but that doesn't mean that the airline is the flag carrier (it is, but this is just an example).
Cabin crew, doors to manual and cross check.
 
ozvirginuk
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:06 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:55 am

Quoting CrossChecked (Reply 17):
Because that's our livery. Virgin Atlantic is the UK's official flag carrier - a privilege bestowed upon a carrier by our Queen.

Thanks Crosschecked.

Incidentally, VS are increasing services out of MAN this summer, with MCO BGI and UVF. If BA aren't looking to start more regional long-haul, then another airline will, proving that there is a demand. At least BA have some idea about running an airline, unlike a certain other British carrier I could mention,........ BD.....

Oz
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:57 am

Look

They operate all but one of their L/H routes from London because it's their main base, and it's where there are the most people wanting to travel to/from, and where they make most of their money.
BA is a business, it's there to make a profit, not to fly the flag for Britain, or spread national pride around the globe.
I mean, supermarket companys don't open new stores where there is no profit.

Yes it would be nice to see BA fly L/H from more non London airports, but they don't have the money or aircrafts to experiement.

In short.

If BA can't see the route making a profit, they don't do it.
If they had any spare L/H aircrafts around, then they could experiemnt with L/H routes outside of London.

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
wdleiser
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:32 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:05 am

BA is able to fly to more US cities from London.
CO is able to fly to more UK cities from Newark.

What BA would be doing theoretically, in regards to Continetal, be flying Longhaul flights to Europe from BOS, IAD, JKF, EWR, BWI, PIT, PHL etc etc. When you have a hub, you can fly to more destinations.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:09 am

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 8):
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Los Angeles
Miami
JFK
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Fransisco
Seattle
Washington

How many of the US airlines operate from these cities to london?

LAX - UA, AA
MIA - AA
JFK - UA, AA
PHL - US
SFO - UA
IAD - UA
BOS - AA
ORD - UA, AA
EWR - CO
IAH - CO
ATL - DL
DFW - AA

Not to mention the the places BA doesn't fly to.

Quoting BCA2005 (Reply 10):
...and Newark, Detroit, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and Tampa
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:10 am

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 5):
How many Long haul services do AF have from outside Paris
How many Long haul services do IB have from outside Madrid

Exactly!!

As has been said time and time again, London is the biggest city in the UK, just like Paris is the biggest in France, Madrid the biggest in Spain, Dublin the biggest in Ireland, and all their flag carriers have very little long haul action away from their biggest cities (usually the capital). So explain why BA should be any different?

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 11):
1) BA has a shortage of longhaul aircraft.

Not really - they operate 122 potential long haul aircraft with just a few (some of the B767's) operating on the short haul routes - but i see where you're coming from.
 
David_itl
Posts: 5946
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:27 am

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 19):
If BA can't see the route making a profit, they don't do it.
If they had any spare L/H aircrafts around, then they could experiemnt with L/H routes outside of London.

Therefore, can one conclude that all those in favour of BA's position would now lobby BA to stop putting up the barriers that they are notorious for doing so as they've always utilised the "not in the national interest" excuse for objections. We in the majority ("not London") of the UK population do not care that other airlines are flying us into their home airports, all we aim to do is cut out the "you must fly south for your journey east/west" - and in the case of travel to Australasia make at least 2 stops whereas BHX, MAN and GLA can offer the much more appealing efforts of EK and the one-stop strategy!

Anyway, any BA route outside LHR/LGW would invariably mean paying MORE for using the "better" option (e.g. the CAA report showing how MAN-JFK is priced higher than MAN-LHR-JFK), which can hardly be considered conducive to increasing the number of seats available for South East England originating passengers as the "price sensitive" traveller who wants to fly on BA will invariably travel down on the shuttle service.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 3):
Some major carriers - either Euro, US, or Asian - are bound to begin longhaul service from cities outside on LON and it will be to BA's detriment.

Perhaps someone should mention that to Willie Walsh and see if that position will be in the shareholder's interest.

David
 
David_itl
Posts: 5946
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:32 am

Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 22):
London is the biggest city in the UK, just like Paris is the biggest in France, Madrid the biggest in Spain, Dublin the biggest in Ireland

I see you missed out Frankfurt. Purely by accident of course.

David
 
wdleiser
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:32 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:49 am

Quoting David_itl (Reply 24):
see you missed out Frankfurt. Purely by accident of course.

Berlin is larger than Frankfurt. Frankfurt is Germany's financial center though.
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:01 am

Quoting David_itl (Reply 23):
and in the case of travel to Australasia make at least 2 stops whereas BHX, MAN and GLA can offer the much more appealing efforts of EK and the one-stop strategy!

Which is perhaps why they don't try to, I mean, if BA can't hold up LHR-MEL, then surely the can't hold up anymore routes to Australia.
EK can do MAN/BHX/GLA-Australia via DXB because DXB is their main base, so they can link the MAN/BHX/GLA route with a DXB-Australia route, as BA could (for instance) link CDG with Australia by connecting a CDG-LHR route with a LHR-SYD route (although it also involve a fuel stop in BKK or SIN en-route to SYD).

BA can't compete with every airline that flys into the UK from abroad.
There will be situations where EK can fly you to SYD quciker than BA, but BA can't compete with EK by flying BHX/MAN/GLA-DXB-SYD/MEL/ADL just to earn some passengers, it's just not possible.
U.S carriers can't compete with BA on transatlantic routes (in terms of destinations and scheduals) there are lots of places where only BA flys to the U.K from in America (BWI, and SEA for example), but you could fly to LHR from SEA on a U.S carrier, but it would take you a stop or 2.
U.S carriers simply can't compete on evey route, it's not possible, and this is the same with BA.
Just remeber, there is always a better or cheaper option, that's life, nobody can compete with everyone.

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:18 am

Isn't it the case that loads and yields to the US are going down? Therefore it wouldn't make sense to operate additional capacity out of regional airports.That was OK in the 80's but not now.

I guess there should be a growing regional market for flights to other destinations like in Asia and Africa.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
Shamrock_747
Posts: 1499
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 3:25 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:29 am

British Airways exits to make a profit and the management of the airline answer to the shareholders, not the people of the United Kingdom.

If having a few 777s based at MAN would be more profitable than having them operate from LHR then BA would do it - increasing profitability whilst expanding the network would be a positive thing. Clearly, however, that is not the case. BA's business model relies on the hub at LHR.

As others have mentioned numerous other airlines operate longhaul services from the regions which is fantastic in terms of offering people living outside of London more choice, but just because certain carriers (including the apparant royal flag carrier VS!) can do it sucessfully doesn't mean it would work for BA
 
David_itl
Posts: 5946
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:07 am

Quoting Shamrock_747 (Reply 28):
If having a few 777s based at MAN would be more profitable than having them operate from LHR then BA would do it

Who said anything about 777s at MAN? Additional 767s at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI (not necessarily at all of these airports) in the old configuration would do very nicely, thank you very much. There was no need for them to rejig "our" 767 into a not-needed config, especially if the reputed profitablity of MAN-JFK is not in doubt. Two-class strategy for the regions would be the way to go.

David
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:30 am

Quoting David_itl (Reply 29):
Who said anything about 777s at MAN? Additional 767s at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI (not necessarily at all of these airports) in the old configuration would do very nicely, thank you very much.

Well i'm sure they would have done it then wouldn't they. BA are obviously the experts, not you, otherwise they wouldn't be here now.

Quoting David_itl (Reply 24):
I see you missed out Frankfurt. Purely by accident of course

Frankfurt is the business centre of Germany - Manchester is not the business centre of the UK - hence why there are more charter flights from the likes of Berlin, Nuremburg etc like there is at Manchester.

Just face it, if it was going to be so profitable then they would already be doing it wouldn't they? They did it in the past and now they don't, doesn't that say something to you?
 
DavidT
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:37 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:04 am

Quoting David_itl (Reply 29):
Additional 767s at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI (not necessarily at all of these airports) in the old configuration would do very nicely, thank you very much. There was no need for them to rejig "our" 767 into a not-needed config, especially if the reputed profitablity of MAN-JFK is not in doubt. Two-class strategy for the regions would be the way to go.

Where do you propose BA fly to from MAN? The only ones I can come up would be MCO, MIA etc... AA did the latter and I think the majority of flights from MAN to MCO are full to the brim with package holidaymakers - perhaps not able to afford BA prices!

I can see demand for services to pakistan / india, and perhaps BOS if AA want to pull out and let BA do it?
 
monkeyboi
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:12 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:10 am

Quoting Babybus (Reply 27):
guess there should be a growing regional market for flights to other destinations like in Asia and Africa.

Too right. The mantra within BA at the moment is 'india india india'. Have we got a spare aircraft? Send it to india. Any spare slots available? use them for india. What should our customer service focus be on right now? indian routes and what their passengers require. (a 'roadshow' is set up @ the crew report centre focusing on 'the indian customer' and the weekly 'cabin crew news' heavily focuses on india flights).

BA's route network is one of it's most important assets and is closely monitored. Any new route has to meet the criteria of 1) a year-round demand from customers (ie not interested in seasonal routes). 2) a healthy demand of premium class passengers (ie business markets or high end leisure destinations). 3) routes that 'add value' to the rest of the network (transfer pax).

so you can sort of see why the regional long haul routes aren't being started.
 
wrighbrothers
Posts: 1807
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:15 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:33 am

Quoting David_itl (Reply 29):
Additional 767s at MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI (not necessarily at all of these airports) in the old configuration would do very nicely, thank you very much

Well, they tried:
(All of these routes were served by BA Regional)
MAN-LAX (767)+
MAN-GLA-JFK (757)
BHX-JFK (Sometimes via GLA) (757)
BHX-JFK-YYZ (757)
GLA-JFK-YYZ-BOS (757)
+ = This was droped due to very low fare yeilds

Now that was only in 1997, and now there is only the MAN-JFK route. The others were droped due to low profits.
Although the MAN-LAX route had high passenger numbers, there weren't enough premium passengers.
And premium passengers is what BA want.

Quoting David_itl (Reply 29):
in the old configuration would do very nicely, thank you very much. There was no need for them to rejig "our" 767 into a not-needed config, especially if the reputed profitablity of MAN-JFK is not in doubt. Two-class strategy for the regions would be the way to go.

Well, the old product was outdated and shaby on the MAN 767 and passengers wanted the new 3 class interior, it was a nightmare for scheduling because if it went tech, they had to fly another L/H 767 from LHR (which wasn't always possible), meaning huge delays and even cancelations.
Now that the have fleet similarity (interiors), they can gingerly change the MAN aircraft, and they no longer need to base 'NWH' at MAN.
Passengers didn't want the old product, or else they wouldn't have changed it.

Just face it, MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI aren't proffitable enough for BA, if you don't like it,well, complain to Wille Walsh.
The last thing BA need is to experiement in un-proffitable routes, which have been tried and tested in the past.

Wrighbrothers
Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
 
Concorde001
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:53 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:39 am

Quoting DavidT (Reply 31):
can see demand for services to pakistan / india, and perhaps BOS if AA want to pull out and let BA do it?

If BA had the aircraft and resolved its problems, then I think a BA service to SIN or BKK from MAN may do well as it would allow passengers to connect onward to Australia with QF and itself as well as catering for any O&D traffic, A service to Hong Kong may also do well - it could cater for point to point traffic between MAN and Hong Kong (Manchester has one of the largest Chinese populations in Britain of Hong Kong origin) and connecting traffic. Hong Kong is a oneworld hub - MAN passengers could connect onward on BA codeshared CX flights to MNL / AKL / DPS / ICN / KUL and many more. MAN-Hong Kong could do well in my view - I know full flights don't mean £££, but SQ does incredibly well on its MAN-SIN flights - they are near full, especially in C - many, if not all are connecting onward to Oz/Asia.

DavidT is certainly right about India and Pakistan, especially Pakistan! I really do think a service to ISB is at least warranted. MAN and surrounding Yorkshire have a huge Pakistani community and at the moment PK is filling its many daily 743s/772s flights to Pakistan.From what I have heard, many still have to go via DXB / DOH as seats are hard to come by on PK's flights. I know PK is a state owned carrier, so I don't know how profitable the flights are, but Pakistani private airline Air Blue is set to launch flights to Pakistani after it was granted rights, so there is money to be made from MAN to Pakistan. If I'm not mistaken BA used to operate LGW-MAN-ISB flights using a B744 before9/11 (BA2129), but were suspended later.


BA's daily MAN-JFK continues to do well (it would have been axed years ago if it was losing money or if the aircraft could be deployed elsewhere for better profit. BA recently refurbished its MAN aircraft with the new Club World AND WTP).

BA already codeshares on AA's daily MAN-ORD and MAN-BOS, both reported by AA to be doing well (especially the latter). I'm not sure BA could do anything else with the US market from MAN - a service to LAX / SFO may hurt yields on AA's MAN-ORD which probably has alot of connecting traffic, similar to BD's MAN-ORD service. As for Canada AC are reintroducing their seasonal MAN-YYZ route. With Z4 and TS also offering MAN-Canada flights and their lower cost base, it may be difficult for BA.

What do you think?

[Edited 2006-03-05 22:44:13]

[Edited 2006-03-05 22:47:12]
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:47 am

Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 22):

No,BA do have a tight schedule on their long haul routes in terms of available aircraft.
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:59 am

Quoting Donder10 (Reply 35):
No,BA do have a tight schedule on their long haul routes in terms of available aircraft.

Yes, that's what i meant by:

Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 22):
but i see where you're coming from.

They have plenty of long haul aircraft, but their schedule leaves very little room for additional flights  Smile
 
fbgdavidson
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:25 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
Willie Walsh also confirmed this would remain the case until such routes could prove profitable. How can other airlines operate routes to the like of BRS, BHX, MAN, GLA and EDI profitably, when it would appear by what Willie Walsh is saying BA cannot?!

I wouldn't say it means couldn't run it at a profit, just if you can utilise aircraft elsewhere for higher profit then do that. As has been mentioned on this thread BA seem to be rejigging the US East Coast fleet a bit. Seems a lot of 747 flights have been swapped for 777s and 767s.

Quoting BMED (Reply 2):
Its a shame we don't see BA having a bigger hub system in that they fly smaller aircraft such as the ERJ's into LHR and LGW

I don't think the ERJ is certified to land at LHR or LGW. That might sound odd but I was scheduled to fly into SOU last year but weather caused us to divert. We were told the ERJ didn't have the right CAT rating (I'm no pilot so don't shoot me down if that is the wrong term Big grin) to land at either LHR or LGW so ended up going to BHX.

Quoting DavidT (Reply 9):
I hear MAN-JFK also makes a shedload for BA... over £1 million profit a year, from 1 daily service. Not bad!

But then yields up front must be quite low. MAN-JFK is an easy Club World redemption. High profits suggest high yields in premium cabins and large amounts of award availability suggest to the contrary!

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 11):
For example if you look at EK or AA, on their services to LHR and LGW (except AA's RDU-LGW) all there aircraft have a F cabin...why? Because they know they can fill those...

...with AA EXPs upgrading using stickers and eVIPs  Wink

Quoting Ozvirginuk (Reply 13):
BA is NOT a flag carrier. As far as I am aware VS is the only airline that displays the Union Flag on every plane..

Hmmm.

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 19):
BA is a business, it's there to make a profit, not to fly the flag for Britain, or spread national pride around the globe.

 thumbsup 

Quoting Babybus (Reply 27):
Isn't it the case that loads and yields to the US are going down?

Apparently the numbers of tourists going to the US is down 30% (or something daft like that) to the US over the last 5yrs.
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
 
mainMAN
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:55 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:10 am

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 34):
What do you think?

Agreed.

To people like Monkeyboi and Planesarecool....this topic does come up very regularly, but the basis of it isn't people whingeing about not having a UK based carrier offering services. We know about London, Paris and Madrid being capital cities and thus attracting the bulk of long-haul travel in their markets. It's not about this.

Services from cities like London, Paris, Frankfurt, Singapore and New York fill up nicely at the front end. Ones from Manchester, Philadelphia, Berlin and Kuala Lumpur don't, which is why so many fewer services are available from them.

The argument really (if you think out of the box) is about the over-centralisation of the British economy, perhaps only equalled in its scale by France. This is changing, albeit slowly.

Manchester and Birmingham are not small places, their airports serve regional economies larger than many European countries, but without that all-important business that capital city status ascribes.

It will be far better for Britain to have several booming regions and attached hub airports, rather than just the one.

I still think that MAN especially is superbly catered for in terms of long-haul provision, BA or no-BA. It's right up there at the top of trans-atlantic traffic, beaten perhaps only by London, Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam. Not bad for a non-capital airport.
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:18 am

Quoting Ozvirginuk (Reply 13):
BA is NOT a flag carrier. As far as I am aware VS is the only airline that dispays the Union Flag on every plane..

Clearly you don't understand the definition of flag carrier. A flag carrier is an airline designated by its home country to have traffic rights in a bilateral agreement. Painting a flag on an aircraft doesn't make the airline a flag carrier!

Quoting CrossChecked (Reply 17):
Because that's our livery. Virgin Atlantic is the UK's official flag carrier - a privilege bestowed upon a carrier by our Queen.

No it isn't. It is one of several UK airlines that have traffic rights under bilateral agreements and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Queen. But I'll give you top marks for writing fairly convincing fiction.
 
monkeyboi
Posts: 447
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:12 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:38 am

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 38):
Manchester and Birmingham are not small places, their airports serve regional economies larger than many European countries, but without that all-important business that capital city status ascribes

I agree MainMAN, especially with the MAN case.

But you have to take the distances involved with many geographically larger european countries.

To be honest, I think in the BHX case it's proximity to Heathrow and the connections available with motorways just doesn't make direct long-haul services viable.

Manchester to London on the train is about 2.5 hours now.

You can do Heathrow to Birmingham City in 2 hours by road.

About the same amount of time it takes to get from some parts of outer-east London or Essex to Heathrow! Lol Maybe an extension/branch of the existing train line from B'Ham to London could go via heathrow?
 
David_itl
Posts: 5946
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:40 am

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 33):
Well, they tried:
(All of these routes were served by BA Regional)
MAN-LAX (767)+
MAN-GLA-JFK (757)
BHX-JFK (Sometimes via GLA) (757)
BHX-JFK-YYZ (757)
GLA-JFK-YYZ-BOS (757)
+ = This was droped due to very low fare yeilds

Now that was only in 1997, and now there is only the MAN-JFK route. The others were droped due to low profits.
Although the MAN-LAX route had high passenger numbers, there weren't enough premium passengers.
And premium passengers is what BA want.

Err...there weren't too many BA transatlantic 757 flights ex-MAN! If you want to quote a year , please try to quote the correct one! MAN-LAX operated 1993-1994 and only attrracted about 110,000 over the 18 months or so it operated (yes, low loads not high ones!) but according to your theory, a route that previously operated 12 years ago should never, ever be considered again.

Don't know about the end date for the GLA and BHX services but i believe 1995/6 may have been the last year of operation, and both suffered as conversion from widebody to narrowbody meant that the potential for carrying more cargo to offset any lack of premium payer.

Quoting Fbgdavidson (Reply 37):
Quoting DavidT (Reply 9):
I hear MAN-JFK also makes a shedload for BA... over £1 million profit a year, from 1 daily service. Not bad!

But then yields up front must be quite low. MAN-JFK is an easy Club World redemption. High profits suggest high yields in premium cabins and large amounts of award availability suggest to the contrary!

To generate that profit from an aircraft in a 30/183 cabin config is pretty good going!

Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 33):
because if it went tech, they had to fly another L/H 767 from LHR (which wasn't always possible), meaning huge delays and even cancelations

Well if they had the courage on actually USE the fact that they are in oneworld and can channel passengers away from LHR instead of funnelling more and more passengers through LHR, they could have had some more 767s here to minimise delays/cancellations and initiated a few more services like the dropped ones to LAX & HKG with the added advantage of codesharing with AA in the case of LAX and CX with HKG (and also on connecting services from those hubs). As we now know, BA aren't bothering to codeshare with CX when they return.

David
 
DavidT
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:37 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:51 am

Quoting Fbgdavidson (Reply 37):
But then yields up front must be quite low. MAN-JFK is an easy Club World redemption. High profits suggest high yields in premium cabins and large amounts of award availability suggest to the contrary!

I flew it last Oct (when it was 2 class).

Going out CW was pretty full with businesspeople, going back it was about 50% pleased looking kids (was empty too on OLCI). Although I was sat behind some wealthy businessman who got personal service.
 
Concorde001
Posts: 1186
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:53 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:01 am

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 38):
Manchester and Birmingham are not small places, their airports serve regional economies larger than many European countries, but without that all-important business that capital city status ascribes.

Well the City of Manchester seems to be doing very well economically (though surrounding boroughs have a long way to go). The new Spinningfields construction is beginning to take shape - Manchester will finally have a world class business district. The Royal Bank of Scotland is basing a whole department in Manchester. The Bank of New York recently selected Manchester as its base for UK and Europe growth - they will move into their offices later this year. The BBC are finalising plans for the multi-million pound relocation to Manchester - for example, the whole of BBC Sport will be relocated to Manchester (studios etc). I always thought Manchester was an old industrial run down city - I couldn't have been more wrong when I visited! Though surrounding areas do need sorting. The leader of Manchester City Council has already stated that under the council's time frame the city will never be the next London or Paris, but he aims of making Manchester like Frankfurt in terms of economic importance.

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 38):
It's right up there at the top of trans-atlantic traffic, beaten perhaps only by London, Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam. Not bad for a non-capital airport.

You have a point there. After Frankfurt and Munich, Manchester is perhaps the only non-capital European city with the following services to its airport:

JFK , EWR , ATL , PHL , IAH , ORD , MIA, BOS , YYZ , MCO , SIN , KUL , DOH , DXB , ISB , KHI , LHE , AUH and many more (you get the idea)!

Airline have also expressed interest in the following:

Hong Kong = CX
Moscow = CX
Cape Town = Globespan
Mumbai = 9W
Dhaka = Biman
JFK = Biman
Bangkok = Thai
Tripoli = LN

so it's not all that bad  Wink
 
Avianca
Posts: 5268
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 43):
Dhaka = Biman
JFK = Biman

would Biman change in this case the route from BRU?
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:05 am

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
Willie Walsh also confirmed this would remain the case until such routes could prove profitable. How can other airlines operate routes to the like of BRS, BHX, MAN, GLA and EDI profitably, when it would appear by what Willie Walsh is saying BA cannot?!



Quoting Sabena 690 (Reply 1):
Because those routes have to rely on O&D traffic for BA. Airlines like CO can offer their passengers lot's of connections at their respective hubs (for example BRS-EWR-LAX on CO).

BA could make it work if they had ATI with AA and AA had a better single NYC hub. AA doesn't offer the best connections out of JFK.

Quoting Monkeyboi (Reply 7):
Fact is, unless you are flying direct to NYC, ORD or DXB, most people travelling out of BHX/GLA etc etc will still have to make a connection anyway! So connect with BA in London, CO in EWR, AA in ORD, EK in DXB....it's all the same.

Not quite, BA doesn't offer as many non-hub destinations from their LHR hub, so you might have to take another connecting flight if you travel via LHR.

Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 8):
How many of the US airlines operate from these cities to london? the reason BA can fly to these destinations is because its from their hub, the US airlines cant make these routes work to London unless they also have a hub there.

It should be noted that some of these US cities are hub cities, just not for international carriers or not for international carriers with rights to LHR.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
hammerb32
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:19 am

What routes do people think BA could fly from the regions ?

MAN to JFK is proven, Pakistan stands out as the obvious choice but have PIA got this sewn up ?

BHX to India, the Punjab region in particular is a massive market but again is already well catered for with some 25 weekly flights.

I cannot think of any routes that BA could go for ? Other services to the US will only work if flying into AAs hub so maybe services to ORD. The leisure routes to Florida would not provide the premium pax BA requires.

Would be very interested in the views of others.....
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:47 am

Quoting David_itl (Reply 41):
but according to your theory, a route that previously operated 12 years ago should never, ever be considered again.

It's not worth the risk. They already have a solid route network utilising almost all long haul aircraft every day, so they would have to drop routes to try something that has already failed. Its the same reason easyJet haven't brought back the LON-LPL route, for example. It failed in the past so it isn't worth the risk in future.

Its not just a case of starting new routes, because to do so would require cancelling or changing others. Even if it meant taking B767's off the short haul network and converting them for long haul, it would mean that the short haul routes would need to be changed (baring in mind that the 767's operate the most dense of the short haul flights - i don't think simply replacing with an A319 would work).

They can't just magic aircraft out of the air and a business as large as BA can't afford to take risks like that, when their profitability is at stake.
 
User avatar
FlyCaledonian
Posts: 1731
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:18 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:01 am

Quoting CrossChecked (Reply 17):
Virgin Atlantic is the UK's official flag carrier - a privilege bestowed upon a carrier by our Queen.

The only privilege the Queen (Or Duke of Edinburgh or Prince of Wales) could bestow on an airline is to grant it a Royal Warrant, which would mean it was "appointed" to provide a service. VS is not the UK Flag carrier, and BA only is in the cases where it is the sole designated UK carrier to a country under a bilateral agreement.


I have to agree with those that say BA woun't operate from the regions unless a flight could have good O&D traffic. More importantly, and what hasn't been mentioned, is BA's magic 10% figure, i.e. 10% profitability on a route. Only if a route offers something else, i.e. good feed onto longhaul, then that might be waved.

BA's business plan is not to chase everything going out that, and way back under Bob Ayling BA made it clear that masses of transit passengers in economy on low yield tickets were not for it. Hence why BA doesn't operate the mass of 757s and 767s on Euro routes from LHR any more, or the A319 from BHX and MAN as originally planned. Higher passenger numbers doesn't equal high yield and profits.

And where are BD and VS if money is to be made in the regions on longhaul? BD's MAN-IAD didn't last long, MAN-ORD feeds UA's megahub, while the other flights are leisure flights, just like those of VS, linking in with Virgin Holidays (Just like the VS flights out of LGW).

MAN isn't a hub for BA, and even LGW couldn't work as a dual hub for BA with LHR.

Compared to a lot of European countries the UK regions are pretty well served, especially MAN. At the end of the day AF/KL at CDG/AMS and LH at FRA/MUC take a lot of feed from the UK regions. Not for nothing that KL once boasted that AMS was the UK's second airport! Indeed, that was part of the attraction of a BA/KL merger - AMS would be the longhaul hub for the UK regions (Think of those airports that KL serve that don't have a connection to LHR on BA).

All in all, if longhauls from the regions could work, at the profit levels BA demand of its operations, then they'd be there. Just look at the number of longhauls from London by the way that BA has axed over the last few years. It's a hell of a list, simply because they didn't fit into the business plan.

Finally, before I go on too much(!) maybe the fact BA is one of the most profitable airlines in the world shows that the people in Waterside have a pretty shrewd idea of how to run a profitable airline rather than the dreamers on A-net who'd like to see X, Y and Z served by BA from their local airport.
Let's Go British Caledonian!
 
BAxMAN
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 7:51 am

RE: BA - Long Haul Flights Outside Of London Unlikely!

Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:37 am

Quoting Concorde001 (Reply 43):
The leader of Manchester City Council has already stated that under the council's time frame the city will never be the next London or Paris, but he aims of making Manchester like Frankfurt in terms of economic importance.

Crikey! There must be something in the water to cause such delusions. Thank goodness I avoid tap water.

But, come on, the guy is hardly going to say that he wants to make Manchester like Stuttgart or Lyons (and I am aware that Manchester already surpasses those cities in terms of economic importance). He's just being a typical politician using daft rhetoric and making a semi-pledge that he's not going to be held to account for.

These poeple who think that an airline that has had to make a lot of changes over the past decade in order to maintain profitability should now revert back to practices that were in place a decade ago are completely laughable.

And the bizarre claim about VS being the UK's flag carrier!!!! VS is nothing more than a glorified charter out of MAN. At least BA still maintains services to many European destinations from MAN/BHX. BA has refitted its entire longhaul fleet with it's NCW product. With VS, it's still a bit of a lottery as to what UC service you will receive despite their much smaller fleet and you can be guaranteed that it is the old style UC flying out of MAN.

Don't get me wrong, I love Manchester. But I love getting a bonus in the paypacket should BA get a 10% operating margin even more, rather than the 'prestige' of a few extra longhauls from my local airport.
I need to get laid

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 777PHX, B6FA4ever, ek17, F9Animal, Jal1975, josciak, NYCRuss, Tugger, vhabr, Viscount724 and 211 guests