Route is to be cut from 28 October. Given that northern winter is high season for travel to the southern hemisphere, it's likely to be a full route suspension.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-oct-2018

A surprise here as they have no competition. This despite the views of many a-netters that the route isn't doing great, especially as it's a convenient option for Australia. Then again maybe BA are about to launch it with a right sized frame like a B788. Possibly.

From the same date, GA plans to operate GCK-AMS-GCK non-stop both ways....eliminating the SIN stop en-route CGK-SIN-AMS.

- CGK 22:45 - AMS 07:20 GA88 B77W non-stop Daily ex.Mon
- AMS 11:05 - CGK 06:45 GA89 B77W non-stop Daily ex.Tue

Where could this extra frame go to?

Cheers,

C.

3x per week was never not optimal for business travelers and tourist don't go to Jakarta ( I wouldn't) and if they do ther are cheap one stop options. Just stuck between rock a and a hard place and if they own the slots in LHR that good money now.

TheLion wrote:

This despite the views of many a-netters that the route isn't doing great, especially as it's a convenient option for Australia. Then again maybe BA are about to launch it with a right sized frame like a B788. Possibly.

I would not see how the schedule makes it a convenient option for Australia. At a frequency of just thrice weekly and with an overnight stay in Jakarta on the return, it would be anything but convenient. The flight has been marred by an inconvenient schedule, with a daylight outbound schedule, and an aircraft that is likely both too large and too premium heavy in its configuration. Furthermore, Jakarta is really only drawing a couple domestic connections so the market for the flights is not all that large. Garuda sends all other European traffic via Amsterdam and hands it over to KLM there. From that perspective, a Paris route would have made much more sense as a second European gateway.

As Garuda kept only 2 of the 77W frames with a 3-class configuration including the 8-suite First Class cabin especially for the LHR route, I would imagine that there is now really no more reason to keep this F product around, as the aircraft otherwise only shuttles between CGK and DPS, where F is not sold, and goes on the daily DPS NRT, where a First Class product is not really necessary. All 8 other 77W frames operate with a premium cabin of just 26 J-seats.

TheLion wrote:

Route is to be cut from 28 October. Given that northern winter is high season for travel to the southern hemisphere, it's likely to be a full route suspension.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-oct-2018

A surprise here as they have no competition. This despite the views of many a-netters that the route isn't doing great, especially as it's a convenient option for Australia. Then again maybe BA are about to launch it with a right sized frame like a B788. Possibly.

With a little bit of re-timing, BA could use the current BA33/34 LHR-KUL B789 rotation to serve Jakarta as a Kuala Lumpur extension.......

The 789 is scheduled to be @ KUL from 16:10 'til 23:25, so the outward flight ex-LHR might need to be moved 2-3 hours earlier to effect a KUL-CGK-KUL extension during the layover......

SelseyBill wrote:

TheLion wrote:

Route is to be cut from 28 October. Given that northern winter is high season for travel to the southern hemisphere, it's likely to be a full route suspension.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-oct-2018

A surprise here as they have no competition. This despite the views of many a-netters that the route isn't doing great, especially as it's a convenient option for Australia. Then again maybe BA are about to launch it with a right sized frame like a B788. Possibly.

With a little bit of re-timing, BA could use the current BA33/34 LHR-KUL B789 rotation to serve Jakarta as a Kuala Lumpur extension.......

The 789 is scheduled to be @ KUL from 16:10 'til 23:25, so the outward flight ex-LHR might need to be moved 2-3 hours earlier to effect a KUL-CGK-KUL extension during the layover......

But this would reduce capacity for BA at KUL and I gather BA33/34 is doing very well on its own

There is a further issue (assuming that an earlier departure slot from LHR could be found). The crew which flies to KUL can fly back the day after they arrive as they have adequate rest. But a CGK tag requires three crews: LHR-KUL, KUL-CGK-KUL and KUL-LHR. Why would BA do this for a destination which is of limited appeal?

MAS777 wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

TheLion wrote:

Route is to be cut from 28 October. Given that northern winter is high season for travel to the southern hemisphere, it's likely to be a full route suspension.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-oct-2018

A surprise here as they have no competition. This despite the views of many a-netters that the route isn't doing great, especially as it's a convenient option for Australia. Then again maybe BA are about to launch it with a right sized frame like a B788. Possibly.

With a little bit of re-timing, BA could use the current BA33/34 LHR-KUL B789 rotation to serve Jakarta as a Kuala Lumpur extension.......

The 789 is scheduled to be @ KUL from 16:10 'til 23:25, so the outward flight ex-LHR might need to be moved 2-3 hours earlier to effect a KUL-CGK-KUL extension during the layover......

But this would reduce capacity for BA at KUL and I gather BA33/34 is doing very well on its own

This is my view too; the KL flight timings do have sufficient slack in order to launch a CGK tag. BA could upgauge to a B77W at the same time to provide adequate capacity to serve both destinations. Another option is increasing the frequency of the KL service with an additional 4-weekly B789 that then continues on to CGK.

ScottB wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

I had to come into this thread in order to understand the title "Garuda shutter LHR". Makes no sense in English actually. Maybe replace "shutter" with "terminate" - or even better, "terminates" - Garuda is a singular entity!

Er, in British English, a collective noun referring to an organization (organisation if you prefer) or team (like Garuda in this case) often does take a plural verb form. And "shutter" is frequently used to mean "close" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shutter

Sorry I didn't use simpler language. I try to use different phrases to avoid repetition.

HB-IWC wrote:

TheLion wrote:

This despite the views of many a-netters that the route isn't doing great, especially as it's a convenient option for Australia. Then again maybe BA are about to launch it with a right sized frame like a B788. Possibly.

I would not see how the schedule makes it a convenient option for Australia. At a frequency of just thrice weekly and with an overnight stay in Jakarta on the return, it would be anything but convenient. The flight has been marred by an inconvenient schedule, with a daylight outbound schedule, and an aircraft that is likely both too large and too premium heavy in its configuration. Furthermore, Jakarta is really only drawing a couple domestic connections so the market for the flights is not all that large. Garuda sends all other European traffic via Amsterdam and hands it over to KLM there. From that perspective, a Paris route would have made much more sense as a second European gateway.

As Garuda kept only 2 of the 77W frames with a 3-class configuration including the 8-suite First Class cabin especially for the LHR route, I would imagine that there is now really no more reason to keep this F product around, as the aircraft otherwise only shuttles between CGK and DPS, where F is not sold, and goes on the daily DPS NRT, where a First Class product is not really necessary. All 8 other 77W frames operate with a premium cabin of just 26 J-seats.

I'm aware it's not optimal however it does provide a choice and an opportunity to have a stopover. And at just 3-weekly this should help fill up the plane.

There is no lack of options for Australia, EK alone has 91 weekly flights with several operated by A380s. GA would have to offer something different, e.g. really cheap fares, to tempt people to fly with them.

gunnerman wrote:

There is a further issue (assuming that an earlier departure slot from LHR could be found). The crew which flies to KUL can fly back the day after they arrive as they have adequate rest. But a CGK tag requires three crews: LHR-KUL, KUL-CGK-KUL and KUL-LHR. Why would BA do this for a destination which is of limited appeal?

Actually the crew spend 2 nights in KUL. It's a long flight so they get a longer rest. Having said that, your point is valid. They'd need one additional night away.

GA had no business in LHR, literally and figuratively.

Their move from Lgw to Lhr didn't help them much. Maybe Lhr isn't a pot of gold for all.

TheLion wrote:

This is my view too; the KL flight timings do have sufficient slack in order to launch a CGK tag. BA could upgauge to a B77W at the same time to provide adequate capacity to serve both destinations. Another option is increasing the frequency of the KL service with an additional 4-weekly B789 that then continues on to CGK.

And potentially increase their unit costs substantially to a destination(s) that probably isn't (aren't) the highest yielding. BA have nearly eliminated tag-on flights for this reason (maybe eliminated all with the exception of LHR-SIN-SYD which is an entirely different model).

MAS777 wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

TheLion wrote:

Route is to be cut from 28 October. Given that northern winter is high season for travel to the southern hemisphere, it's likely to be a full route suspension.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-oct-2018

A surprise here as they have no competition. This despite the views of many a-netters that the route isn't doing great, especially as it's a convenient option for Australia. Then again maybe BA are about to launch it with a right sized frame like a B788. Possibly.

With a little bit of re-timing, BA could use the current BA33/34 LHR-KUL B789 rotation to serve Jakarta as a Kuala Lumpur extension.......

The 789 is scheduled to be @ KUL from 16:10 'til 23:25, so the outward flight ex-LHR might need to be moved 2-3 hours earlier to effect a KUL-CGK-KUL extension during the layover......

But this would reduce capacity for BA at KUL and I gather BA33/34 is doing very well on its own

Agreed; then I'd upguage to a bigger 772.

It seems carriers have trouble sustaining Indonesia-Lon service, adding it onto KUL saves slot use at LHR and adds a world 'mega-city' like Jakarta to its network year round. Then if business grows BA are well placed to add direct non-stop service.

Out of interest, have we any idea @ KUL how many pax are transferring off Malaysia/OW connections onto BA33/34?

I remember flying this route a couple of months after they launched LHR. There were 40 passengers on the outbound and 32 on the inbound. It's a shame it didn't work out for them.

Let's remember GA continues to experience ongoing financial losses, and the most recent CEO said one of his early tasks was to halve the number of loss-making routes. No doubt LHR fell into this category.

planemanofnz wrote:

Where could this extra frame go to?

Cheers,

C.

Launch another quixotic destination of course and burn another pile of money. Didn't Garuda say it wants to fly to LAX again?

Those 3 a week evening slots at LHR will be snapped up by another new China flight I suspect.

There are no obvious links between the UK and Indonesia. And with Brexit there is even less of a need to serve the UK. They tried and it didn’t work out.

GA is (are) a 5-Star airline, correct?

SelseyBill wrote:

Agreed; then I'd upguage to a bigger 772.

BA shifting from a B789 to B772 wouldn't be much of an up-gauge, but a change of the product mix. The BA B739 has a 8/42/39/127 configuration (total 216 pax). BA's B772's with the first class cabin are 14/48/40/124 (total 226) or 12/48/32/127 (total 219), so very similar sizes just more in first and business, but less in premium economy.

But a more important question is why up-gauge just because a route is doing well? It may be doing well because it is "right sized". If the market isn't big enough to support the capacity increase it may just destroy yields in order to support the bigger capacity.

BlueTrue wrote:

Their move from Lgw to Lhr didn't help them much. Maybe Lhr isn't a pot of gold for all.

Well some carriers are more suited to LGW and you are spot on Garuda is one of them. Shame to see them go all the same. I remember some of their LGW-Indonesia 2-3 stop routes in the 90s and crazy cheap fares to OZ.

[/quote]
Launch another quixotic destination of course and burn another pile of money. Didn't Garuda say it wants to fly to LAX again?[/quote]
LAX and Moscow are off the radar. GA is bleeding cash and they are now in financial responsibility mode. It will be interesting to see what else gets cut.
As for LON- it was a mismanaged route from the start and the losses were significant- AMS isn't profitable either.

This is barely a B788 route if operated daily or maybe 5 x weekly. Some airlines fly the flag better than others, sadly CGK was not to be. Actually operating via SIN on the inbound for so long didn’t help. Were they leasing slots from KLM?

This is pretty sad honestly. Garuda's First Class was apparently fantastic.

I hope for the best for Garuda.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

This is pretty sad honestly. Garuda's First Class was apparently fantastic.

I hope for the best for Garuda.

Their First Class is too luxury (i.e. costly to Grauda) to the Indonesian market.
Their economy level is not wealth enough to support it.

evanb wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

Agreed; then I'd upguage to a bigger 772.

BA shifting from a B789 to B772 wouldn't be much of an up-gauge, but a change of the product mix. The BA B739 has a 8/42/39/127 configuration (total 216 pax). BA's B772's with the first class cabin are 14/48/40/124 (total 226) or 12/48/32/127 (total 219), so very similar sizes just more in first and business, but less in premium economy.

But a more important question is why up-gauge just because a route is doing well? It may be doing well because it is "right sized". If the market isn't big enough to support the capacity increase it may just destroy yields in order to support the bigger capacity.

In fact, BA resumed the LHR-KUL route in 2015 with a B772 but quickly changed to B789 in less than a year when there were enough frames delivered - KUL was one of the first B789 long-haul destinations, if I recall correctly. So reverting to a B772 would seem rather strange.

A tag-on to CGK from KUL wouldn't be new - that was the routing for BA33/34 nearly two decades ago. At that time, BA flew a five times weekly B744 service, with 5th freedom traffic on KUL-CGK-KUL. But obviously, the world has moved on and I can't imagine the tag being a great success for BA as it would have to rely on really low yield traffic to fill the KUL-CGK-KUL sector - there are currently more than 26 flights/day each way on this highly competitive route, and more than half of these are operated by LCCs. KLM which operates this exact route daily (AMS-KUL-CGK v.v with a mix of B77W/B772) and often matches LCC fares on the tag-on, seems to be doing fine largely due to its historical links and traditionally strong grip of the Netherlands-Indonesia market. BA does not have these advantages.

hongkongflyer wrote:

StudiodeKadent wrote:

This is pretty sad honestly. Garuda's First Class was apparently fantastic.

I hope for the best for Garuda.

Their First Class is too luxury (i.e. costly to Grauda) to the Indonesian market.
Their economy level is not wealth enough to support it.

Probably true. Maybe they'd have a better shot if they used Thompson's Vantage First suites with a Vantage XL business class product. But that's speculation.

What are the costs of LHR as compared to another London area airport like say LGW? Ofcourse slots are more expensive, but what about trip costs?

KUL-CGK-KUL will be suicidal for BA to get their feet into as the route is now entrenched with too many LCC. LH and AF couldn't make it work, I don't think any else could except for KLM which has historical link to Indonesia. LHR-KUL-CGK-KUL-LHR would require three set of crew at minimal to make it work. Quite a cost to consider.

Btw, may I know where did they attained their LHR previously and now with the suspension, is the slot up for sell?

juliuswong wrote:

Btw, may I know where did they attained their LHR previously and now with the suspension, is the slot up for sell?

Someone i know tells me this slot pair was ultimately offered by LHR because it was not being taken up with the departure being so close to curfew, it was cheap compared to more premium times but not GA's first choice. It will likely disappear back into the pool.

BawliBooch wrote:

What are the costs of LHR as compared to another London area airport like say LGW? Ofcourse slots are more expensive, but what about trip costs?

If you are talking about from someone who lives in London then 9 times out of 10 Heathrow will be cheaper to get to. It's located within the M25 boundary and is served well by the Underground, TfL Rail, Heathrow Express and local bus services. Gatwick is quite out of the way and is more expensive to get to from most of London, and currently the rail service there is nothing short of a shambles. By no means is Gatwick irrelevant to Londoners, but I imagine if many had the choice between the two airports they'd pick LHR over LGW.

I know when I went to MAA earlier this month using EK it was cheaper to fly out of LGW as opposed to LHR, but the difference was going to be offset by the cost of actually getting to the airport and it ended up making LGW more expensive.

9MMPQ wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Btw, may I know where did they attained their LHR previously and now with the suspension, is the slot up for sell?

Someone i know tells me this slot pair was ultimately offered by LHR because it was not being taken up with the departure being so close to curfew, it was cheap compared to more premium times but not GA's first choice. It will likely disappear back into the pool.

Oh ok, thanks for the information. Arriving into LHR at 8pm into LHR and departing at 9:30pm, seems pretty decent TBH, if without any traffic delay. What was their initial choice? Maybe AirAsia X can finally initiate their flight.

I don't know if GA ever had any problems with curfew but this apparently was the explanation by the airport why a late slot was more easy to give. I don't know any preference for times but he mentioned an earlier arrival in CGK would make it more attractive for domestic connections. Maybe they wanted something like their AMS flight ?

If GA wants to carry London-departing passengers on its network via CGK, then the late departure from LHR and arrival into CGK at 1815 isn't good. Much better would be what GA has at AMS where flights leave at midday for arrival into CGK at 0650.

evanb wrote:

......And potentially increase their unit costs substantially to a destination(s) that probably isn't (aren't) the highest yielding. BA have nearly eliminated tag-on flights for this reason (maybe eliminated all with the exception of LHR-SIN-SYD which is an entirely different model).

Correct, but that wasn't really the point being made. I was really suggesting a way that BA could re-serve Jakarta without spending slots and aircraft on a new non-stop long-haul. BA have/will have added/reintroduced about 12 new long-haul destinations over the last few years from LON; [AUS/ BNA/ DUR/ ICN/ IKA/ KUL/ LIM/ MCY/ OAK/ PIT/ SCL/ SJC from memory], and CGK was not on that list. A tag section from KUL would probably be the most cost-effective way for BA to re-introduce CGK to their network if they felt the gap left by Garuda was worth filling.

Antarius wrote:

BA is in the business of making money, not flying to mega cities for bragging rights. Jakarta is not going to make them money. Not sure why adding a likely money losing tag on has any bearing on future Nonstop service (if someday it can make money)

Yes; thank you; we know how and why BA makes its network decisions, and you are right, 'bragging rights' is not part of their decision-making. However, Indonesia is certainly one of the major Asian markets British businesses post-Brexit will be trying to re-kindle business with, and several trade delegations have been made to Jakarta in the last 2 years to explore a future bilateral.

I'm not saying LHR-CGK is becoming LHR-JFK anytime soon, but there maybe a little something more for BA to explore than what you seem to suggest.

SelseyBill wrote:

evanb wrote:

......And potentially increase their unit costs substantially to a destination(s) that probably isn't (aren't) the highest yielding. BA have nearly eliminated tag-on flights for this reason (maybe eliminated all with the exception of LHR-SIN-SYD which is an entirely different model).

Correct, but that wasn't really the point being made. I was really suggesting a way that BA could re-serve Jakarta without spending slots and aircraft on a new non-stop long-haul. BA have/will have added/reintroduced about 12 new long-haul destinations over the last few years from LON; [AUS/ BNA/ DUR/ ICN/ IKA/ KUL/ LIM/ MCY/ OAK/ PIT/ SCL/ SJC from memory], and CGK was not on that list. A tag section from KUL would probably be the most cost-effective way for BA to re-introduce CGK to their network if they felt the gap left by Garuda was worth filling.

I disagree that a tag-on would be the most cost-effective way for BA to re-introduce CGK. In fact, it may be the most costly way, which is why BA have nearly entirely eliminated tag-ons. Tag-ons are costly. The most cost-effective way is their existing codeshare to CGK with CX through HKG, or with QR through DOH.

evanb wrote:

I disagree that a tag-on would be the most cost-effective way for BA to re-introduce CGK. In fact, it may be the most costly way, which is why BA have nearly entirely eliminated tag-ons. Tag-ons are costly. The most cost-effective way is their existing codeshare to CGK with CX through HKG, or with QR through DOH.

Does BA not codeshare with MH on the LHR-KUL route? If not, does it codeshare on the pre/post KUL parts of the trip? I mean, I can just as easily book the (and perhaps much better served, and much better costing) alternative of CGK-KUL on MH, and then KUL-LHR on BA, no?

If they do not co-operate, then would not MH have a big advantage in being able to do CGK-KUL with their hub at one end, and then A380 out on the KUL-LHR (soon to be A350)?

Add SIN's famous occupant, and we see further not only the pressures faced by Garuda here, but also why they chose to compete at such a premium level. If they had to compete, they had to go hard at it. Neither fair, nor savvy - yet necessary, if to remain in the market. It did not guarantee performance, so much so as relevance. As Garuda head towards a different metric of performance, I wish them well.

I wonder if the 77Ws would be reconfigured, or - perhaps, if they could be focused to CDG. I mean, adding CDG (even at a 4X weekly capacity) might be able to work with AF, and be a potent point to pick up traffic. Sure, the cultural links are not nearly the same as they would have been to either the Netherlands, or the United Kingdom - but it would be a decent choice to develop if Garuda wanted to maintain a decent presence within Europe, and could partner with/rely on AF, KLM to handle their intra-European connections for them.

hongkongflyer wrote:

Their First Class is too luxury (i.e. costly to Grauda) to the Indonesian market.
Their economy level is not wealth enough to support it.

Indeed, I've read and watched more than one trip report about Garuda where the trip reporter was the ONLY passenger in First.

That being said, from everything I've heard, the customer service levels on Garuda, even in Y class are amazing. A shame if that level of service isn't rewarded with more bodies, not necessarily going to Jakarta but people from LHR using CGK as a connection hub.

Rajahdhani wrote:

Does BA not codeshare with MH on the LHR-KUL route? If not, does it codeshare on the pre/post KUL parts of the trip? I mean, I can just as easily book the (and perhaps much better served, and much better costing) alternative of CGK-KUL on MH, and then KUL-LHR on BA, no?

BA have no codeshares with MH, or vice versa. BA already codeshare on HKG-CGK on CX and DOH-CGK on QR.

alan3 wrote:

A shame if that level of service isn't rewarded with more bodies, not necessarily going to Jakarta but people from LHR using CGK as a connection hub.

Where is CGK good for connections? I can only see it as useful for connections to Bali, Australia and New Zealand. And the Kangaroo Route market is a low-yield high-volume bloodbath due to the presence of Etihad, Emirates, Qatar, Qantas, Singapore, Thai, EVA, China Airlines and Cathay Pacific.

Its a real shame that Garuda isn't being rewarded for having a fantastic product. But I simply don't think they're going to be able to make a large profit by pursuing a superconnector-megahub strategy, unless they get smaller, lighter and more efficient jets than the 777-300ERs. And even then the yields look rather low.

9MMPQ wrote:

juliuswong wrote:

Btw, may I know where did they attained their LHR previously and now with the suspension, is the slot up for sell?

Someone i know tells me this slot pair was ultimately offered by LHR because it was not being taken up with the departure being so close to curfew, it was cheap compared to more premium times but not GA's first choice. It will likely disappear back into the pool.

Hong Kong Airlines has expressed they interest to re-launch their London flight. May be them or other airlines in China will apply for it.

Can we use better English than “shutter”? What’s wrong with “close”? Or “terminate”? Hardly makes any sense at all to readers not familiar with opaque American slang.

Actually I was born/raised in the US and I never once heard the word "shutter" used in the "close" sense. I have been seeing it more of late, but I thought it was some British English concoction. Either way, I hate the word.

As mentioned above - superb F and great J product.

However - no connection from Australia or NZ.

Their main target market (surely!) required a long wait or overnight. Madness, given the competition.

Garuda used to operate CGK-AMS-LGW before operating CGK-LHR. Any chance of them adding the LGW-tag from AMS again?

AMS18C36C wrote:

Garuda used to operate CGK-AMS-LGW before operating CGK-LHR. Any chance of them adding the LGW-tag from AMS again?

No chance- tags are expensive to operate as previously pointed out. Plus CGK-AMS isn't profitable either.

TheLion wrote:

Route is to be cut from 28 October. Given that northern winter is high season for travel to the southern hemisphere, it's likely to be a full route suspension.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-oct-2018

A surprise here as they have no competition. This despite the views of many a-netters that the route isn't doing great, especially as it's a convenient option for Australia. Then again maybe BA are about to launch it with a right sized frame like a B788. Possibly.

For the BA, do you mean that they will launch service to CGK possibly soon on the 788 or what?