The referendum on September 18th is starting to look like it's going to be a close run affair.

Recognising that this will be low on the list of priorities should Scotland become independent but how can British Airways be called British Airways if there is no Britain ?

What about the livery ? Will the blue have to be removed from the tail ?

Any suggestions......

London Airways.

IAG

How about a QANTAS type arrangement but what do you do with E-ngland, W-ales and N-orthern I-reland ?

....Wine Airways ?

  

I'm not Scottish so I have no vote but it sure would be simpler if they didn't split from Great Britain!

As for BA, I agree with others...no change needed.
I always thought the ficticious airline used in Die Hard 2, Windsor Airways, would have been good except that it didnt end well in the film, as I recall.

I don't think they'd need to change their name. They can still consider themselves the airline of Britain even if Britain contains several different countries. Like European Airlines or Carribean Airlines.

Would a Scottish secession from the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain precipitate a change to the operating ability of British Airways? I don't think so. There would be no need to reinstate an off-shoot like a British Caledonian Airways, and yes I'm aware that this has existed in the past.

These isles, the British Isles, include that of Mann, Ireland, the Hebrides, the Orkneys, the Shetlands, the Channels, Anglesey, Scilly etc. The political redefinition of status doesn't change the geography of archipelago, but not sure of the legal status of BA to fly in/out of a redefined Scotland, this may need to change.

What may need to change though is the Union Jack, to remove the Cross of St Andrew. Fortunately for BA this doesn't affect their livery.

Well I hope not. The world is a weird place at the moment !

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 13): legal status of BA to fly in/out of a redefined Scotland, this may need to change.

I think this would be up to the new government, no?

What about 'Blighty Airways'

(joking)

On this side of the pond American Airlines is a US carrier, and a major force between the Americas, but there is more to "America" than the USA. Aside from some (MAJOR!) trademark issues, an Ecuadorian carrier could call itself American Airways perhaps and still be geographically correct.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 13): but not sure of the legal status of BA to fly in/out of a redefined Scotland, this may need to change.

If an independent Scotland joins the EU legally nothing changes. After all there is a very large Irish airline called Ryanair whose largest base is at STN in England.

If the EU refuses Scotland entrance then it will need to negotiate an air services agreement with the EU. Here the EU policy is to pursue an open skies type agreement in such negotiations. This would again result in no change to the current situation. So the only scenario under which a change could occur is if Scottish residents vote yes AND the EU refuses to accept Scotland as a member AND Scotland refuses to sign an open skies agreement with the EU. And even then Scotland would need to negotiate with Great Britain to change the current situation in its independence negotiations. This in itself is unlikely as there would be many more more important issues such as the distruibution of the UK's national debt, the continued base of of both HBOS and RBS in Scotland while they would otherwise be required to move to England where the largest number of their retail customers live, Scotland's future use of Sterling and the removal of the NATO nuclear submarine base from Faslane. .

BA might just not change anything and advertise itself as a binational airline.

Given its very London-centered operations, the name British Airways is already questionable anyway.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 29): Given its very London-centered operations, the name British Airways is already questionable anyway.

Nearly every airline is centred at a specific hub. Does that mean Air France should be named Air Paris or South African Airways should be called Johannesburg Airways?

The only place AF flies to from LHR is its main hub at CDG. On the other hand BA flies from LHR to BSL, CDG, ORY and NCE.

The only place SA flies to from LHR is its main base at JNB. On the other hand BA flies from LHR to CPT and JNB.

This pattern is repeated over and over again around the world.

Looking at it the other way BA does operate no less than 55 flights a day to a country with a population of only 5.25 million called Scotland. Should that entitle it to rename itself Scottish Airways?

Or perhaps it should usurp the name American Airlines. After all it flies to LHR from so many more US cities than does any airline domiciled in the USA. Indeed it flies to LHR from more US cities than all the American legacy carriers combined. What is more it flies from the USA to less British cities than do any one of those American international carriers.  

Oh my gosh...should we change the name of American Airlines too, because technically the country of America doesn't exist either? This has to be one of the dumbest threads ever. BA is a private company and can call themselves whatever they like.

I lhave he be respect for BA. And they are right, the island is called Great Britain and the denonym for a person living there is Briton, plural is British. If they do change anything as extreme as a livery, I trust BA will keep it classy and elegant as all their liveries have been. But we all know it won't happen.

Quoting N505fx (Reply 31): Oh my gosh...should we change the name of American Airlines too, because technically the country of America doesn't exist either?

Especially when AA is based in Texas. What will they do when Texas secedes?  

It's a private company...WHO CARES???? If they want to call it Global Airways, or Airline that Serves the Former Empire, or Airline of People With Accents from Small Spongy Island Nation in the North Atlantic or AngloHispano Airways or just leave it British Airways....it just doesn't matter, they can do whatever they want and have their name reflect whatever they want.

Quoting N505fx (Reply 34): It's a private company...WHO CARES???? If they want to call it Global Airways, or Airline that Serves the Former Empire, or Airline of People With Accents from Small Spongy Island Nation in the North Atlantic or AngloHispano Airways or just leave it British Airways....it just doesn't matter, they can do whatever they want and have their name reflect whatever they want.

How rude. There are lots of threads on a.net where I think 'who cares' but do not feel compelled to tell everyone posting in that thread that I do not care.

Quoting N505fx (Reply 34):

From Redondo Beach can just about see those two daily A380's roaring out over the Pacific on their way to that small island !

Quoting N505fx (Reply 31):

Isn't the first A in AA more to do with the continents of North and South America ? They do most definitely exist.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 30):

  

Well we will have to wait and see how the Scots votes.

I only asked because the U.K national press are reporting that only now are the authorities taking the threat seriously and implementing contingency plans due to the sudden real prospect of a YES vote.

The country appears to be sleep walking towards a monumental constitutional upheaval.

Who knows what the implications will be.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 30): Looking at it the other way BA does operate no less than 55 flights a day to a country with a population of only 5.25 million called Scotland. Should that entitle it to rename itself Scottish Airways?

Perhaps you can tell us precisely how many of those 55 flights per day do not end up at a London Airport? BA is a clueless, irrelevant airline to the majority outside oikland.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 38):

Being clueless and irrelevant seems to pay dividends in the European airline industry then from what I can see.

Let's hope we see more of what you class as cluelessness and irrelevance.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 46): If it were Britain Airways I would agree.

An airline from Britain would be....? British, yes. No need to be pedantic, just grammatically correct.

Quoting richierich (Reply 54): DO BA have any flights from Scotland that don't go to LHR or LGW? I'm asking because I am not sure. I know they used to, but they used to have quite a lot of operations from MAN as well.

LHR, LGW and LCY. That's the lot.

Quoting ScottishDavie (Reply 60):

Then onwards to the world if your heart desires.

Would people departing Scotland to transfer in London avoid APD if the SNP abolished it ?

Quoting ScottishDavie (Reply 60): LHR, LGW and LCY. That's the lot.

Almost the lot, there's a summer only EDI-IBZ 3 times a week using aircraft that overnight at EDI.

I would like to clarify a few things in this forum.

Britain: England and Wales only (although it is used in commonplace in reference to the UK or Great Britain)
Great Britain: England, Wales and Scotland
United Kingdom: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Secondly, British Airways is the flag-carrier of the United Kingdom. The UK is going no where (Even if the Scottish vote for independence) so BA will continue to be the flag-carrier for the British nation. In actuality the name of the country would technically have to be changed to "The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland" in the event of independence. BA would simply be a foreign airline flying into Scotland in the event of a Yes vote.

I really fail to see the point of this thread. How in the world does Scottish independence effect BA?

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 25):

Differing aviation taxes. (Possibly a positive)

Border controls.....

What happens if Scotland has to reapply and wait to be a member of the E.U ?

What happens if Scotland gains independence manages to stay in the E.U only for the U.K to leave the E.U ?

We live in a dangerous world where border control is vital....especially where the potential to access land borders is concerned.

Actually EDI to LHR for example could switch from being a domestic arrival to an international arrival with no cross border cooperation.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 29): I quick and ready pole of people across the nations tends to suggest people identify themselves as English/Welsh/Scottish primarily and has done for many many years . The only peoples that often promote the Britishness sentiment in volumes are not surprisingly Northern Ireland protestants/methodist unionists !

Don't totally agree this statement, whilst it may be case in Europe, in Asia if I describe myself as English not many
know what I'm talking about, I say 'British', as I did for decades until maybe the last 10 years. Probably due to
the time of the Empire when we were described as 'The British' or 'Brits' usually accompanied with a few local
expletives!

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 29):

I don't think its so much about Britishness as constituent parts.

If you take away one quarter of something it ceases to be that thing and becomes something else with a different name.

Removing the blue colour from the Union Jack would be a complete brand killer for BA … and not only for BA, for every organisation or company associated with (or using) British, Britain or the Union Jack. Let alone the money required to make this change. Bottom line: It will not happen.
Just remeber the World Tails PR dissaster.

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 31): Don't totally agree this statement, whilst it may be case in Europe, in Asia if I describe myself as English not many know what I'm talking about, I say 'British', as I did for decades until maybe the last 10 years. Probably due to the time of the Empire when we were described as 'The British' or 'Brits' usually accompanied with a few local expletives!

That is actually the point Britishness is a marketing/branding thing - Its exactly what the Tories Britishness campaigns were about.

It really doesn't exist domestically.

Again this construct needs to die slowly.

BTW I am far from a nationalist/racist biggot - though the family name might indicate otherwise !

Personally is see my self as
1 Mancunian (in exile !)
2 English (of Irish decent)
3 European

Note whats missing ?

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 34):

What you've just said highlights exactly the attitude that is creating barriers in the U.K.

Being British is a way for the four parts to have a common link.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 34): It really doesn't exist domestically. Again this construct needs to die slowly.

It is dying domestically - I'm talking about how others see us.

We've been described / described ourselves as 'British' for centuries, it won't go away quickly

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 34): Personally is see my self as 1 Mancunian (in exile !) 2 English (of Irish decent) 3 European

Quoting sierra3tango (Reply 31): Don't totally agree this statement, whilst it may be case in Europe, in Asia if I describe myself as English not many know what I'm talking about, I say 'British', as I did for decades until maybe the last 10 years.

Interesting thoughts. A mate of mine had a similar issue. He retired a couple of years ago. So you can judge his age.
He always referred to himself as British, obviously as he was bought up/schooled in the 1950/1960's. However he noticed that the people he worked with, in the last 10 years have slowly changed to referring to themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh primarily.

Years back, when I lived in Britain, both Scotland and Northern Ireland (plus parts of Wales and Northern England) were classified as 'development areas.' Meaning that they had high unemployment and qualified for quite generous government grants to help create more jobs etc.?

I expect that this still happens? If it does, how will Scotland manage if it cuts itself off from the rest of the UK and therefore no longer gets the regional aid much of it has depended on for many years?

[Edited 2014-09-06 05:24:56]

Quoting BA0197 (Reply 25): Secondly, British Airways is the flag-carrier of the United Kingdom.

The term "flag carrier" is now obsolete. And BA is no more the flag carrier of the UK than any other UK carrier that has international routes. For example, to the US, both BA and VS are flag carriers. To Switzerland, BA and EasyJet are flag carriers, etc. etc.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 43): The term "flag carrier" is now obsolete. And BA is no more the flag carrier of the UK than any other UK carrier that has international routes. For example, to the US, both BA and VS are flag carriers. To Switzerland, BA and EasyJet are flag carriers, etc. etc.

That maybe so but apart from a.netters with an allegiance to another carrier, the national press and the vast majority of the population think that BA is the flag carrier.

As it says on Wikipedia....

British Airways (BA) is the flag carrier airline of the United Kingdom and is the largest airline based on fleet size, international flights and international destinations.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 55): Look it up

I have taken your advice and looked at the etymology of "Britain", "Great Britain", "United Kingdom" and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland / Northern Ireland".

First "Britain". It is derived directly from the Roman name, "Britannia". This was the name they used for that part of the British Isles that they occupied. This was today's England and Wales south of the border they constructed, Hadrian's Wall. The Wall is located on today's border between England and Scotland .

Now "Great Britain". It was first used when King James VI of Scotland was crowned King James I of England on 25 July 1603. It was used to signify that a single monarch now ruled two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Britain and the Kingdom of Scotland.

Next "United Kingdom". It was first formally used on 22 July 1706 in the Treaty of Union between the British and Scottish parliaments. The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being when the Act of Union was passed by both the Scottish and British parliaments on 1 May 1707.

Now for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and . . . ". This was first used in the form "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" in the Act of Union of 1801 that bought Ireland into the family of nations. In 1922, when the Republic of Ireland gained its independence it was changed to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.

So if Scotland votes 'Yes' in theory:

Great Britain is redundant

Britain and British Airways remain unaffected

The 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' might be officially renamed the 'United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland'.

None of this stops the likes of Wikipedia from trying to tell us that Scotland is part of Britain or that Britain is an island (when it is joined to Scotland that is not part of Britain) or, indeed anyone who has not reseaced the background from saying something different.

What is of particular interest is that the name "Britain" is older than the name "England". Note that "England" is a corruption of the words "Angle Land". It followed the invasion of eastern Britain by the Anglo Saxons starting around 450AD only some 40 years after the Romans left Britannia.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 45):

Thanks for the breakdown VV701.

To be honest I haven't thought for one second that BA would have to change its name or the colour of the paint on its tail.

I just thought it would be interesting to chew the cud on the subject as the whole thing is a bit of a one off scenario.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 44): As it says on Wikipedia.... British Airways (BA) is the flag carrier airline of the United Kingdom and is the largest airline based on fleet size, international flights and international destinations.

If whoever wrote the Wikipedia item wants to be accurate they should say "BA is one of the flag carrier airlines of the UK...etc." (or "the largest flag carrier").

[Edited 2014-09-06 13:46:16]

Regardless of whether it happens, Great Britain is an island with England, Scotland, and Wales. British Airways is an airline headquartered on Great Britain.

There is no reason why BA would need to change their name if the UK dissolved. They are still British Airways. They are not government-owned and a private company. Their corporate image is not dependent on the political make-up of the UK.

Furthermore, most of the world views "British" and "English" as more or less synonymous, even though they are not.

This thread keeps drifting off topic from BA in case of a Scottish secession, to the politics involved in such a secession. As a result, the thread is now being moved to non-aviation

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38): If whoever wrote the Wikipedia item wants to be accurate they should say "BA is one of the flag carrier airlines of the UK...etc." (or "the largest flag carrier").

Not really. This is just one of those things. BA is the UK's flag carrier, even if it isn't formalized, even if nobody can objectively prove it. It just is.

Quoting 1400mph (Thread starter): Any suggestions...... London Airways.

Yep, because the whole of England is London......

This type of comment annoys me. Some of the best of England is way out of London.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 24): What happens if Scotland has to reapply and wait to be a member of the E.U ?

I think the chances of Scotland getting into the EU without having to go through the membership application process are pretty slim. I even think the chances of Scotland getting into the EU are also slim to none, there is a pretty big incentive for countries like Spain, Belgium, France to veto a Scottish application.

Quoting Nav30 (Reply 33): I expect that this still happens? If it does, how will Scotland manage if it cuts itself off from the rest of the UK and therefore no longer gets the regional aid much of it has depended on for many years?

They are under the (false) belief that the dwindling supplies of North Sea oil & gas will sort them out. What happens if the Shetland and Western Isles vote No, the oil is mostly around Shetland, there is still an issue surrounding these Islands which so far nobody has really wanted to answer.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 43): They are under the (false) belief that the dwindling supplies of North Sea oil & gas will sort them out.

That's your opinion. There are credible reports that the west coast of Scotland may contain up to £1 trillion in oil.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...nce-1-trillion-oil-claim-1-3529183

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 43): What happens if the Shetland and Western Isles vote No, the oil is mostly around Shetland, there is still an issue surrounding these Islands which so far nobody has really wanted to answer.

There is no credible threat of the Shetlands and Western Isles splitting from Scotland. There were a few rumours that they may consider it, but nothing ever came of it, and no-one with any authority came out and proposed such a move.

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 44): That's your opinion. There are credible reports that the west coast of Scotland may contain up to £1 trillion in oil.

It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the industry.

There is a generally accepted belief that there are 12-24 billion barrels of oil left in the UK sector, that's the entire UK sector not just the Scottish part, I went to a conference about this at ONS two weeks ago. That 1 trillion you're talking about is the cost to get the 12-24 billion barrels of oil out of the ground. It's 425% more expensive to extract 1 barrel of oil today from the North Sea than it was in 2002. Scotland is not going to turn into the next Norway, there isn't enough oil for that, there have been no major finds for years, all new fields are small.

Oil is not the answer, it's just being used as a prop for the yes vote. You're also forgetting that there is only 1 Scottish company with a license to extract oil in the North Sea, all the rest are multi nationals, guess where there money goes.

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 44): There is no credible threat of the Shetlands and Western Isles splitting from Scotland. There were a few rumours that they may consider it, but nothing ever came of it, and no-one with any authority came out and proposed such a move.

As I understand the situation, nighthawk, it is just about the opposite. Orkney and Shetland are not part of Scotland, they remain 'English'?

"The 1669 Act specifically removed Orkney and Shetland from the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament and places it firmly in the care of the Crown, restoring the situation as it was 200 years prior at the time of the pawning of the islands by King Christian I of Denmark/Norway to Scotland's James III."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Shetland

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 45): That 1 trillion you're talking about is the cost to get the 12-24 billion barrels of oil out of the ground.

I suggest you read the link I posted. Here, i'll save you the bother:

Geological and oil and gas experts were cited in the report, which said the west coast of Scotland and Outer Hebrides and Shetland, has “remained largely untapped due to deep waters and difficult geological conditions”, with a potential value of more than £1 trillion.

£1 trillion worth of oil. Nothing to do with extraction costs.

Quoting Nav30 (Reply 46): As I understand the situation, nighthawk, it is just about the opposite. Orkney and Shetland are not part of Scotland, they remain 'English'?

Orkney and Shetland are constituencies of the Scottish Parliament. Their residents are included in the referendum for independence, and so will be part of an independent Scotland should the vote pass.

Quoting A320ajm (Reply 42):

If you were a regular here you would understand I was making a joke when I suggested 'London Airways'

It was by no means a serious suggestion.