British Airways in the race for the route LHR-SYD non stop?

pabloeing · Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:00 am

Days before to know that Virgin Atlantic is ready to operate the route to Australia....Perth.......We will see to BA in the race for open the LHR-SYD non stop with the new planes that is coming?.....A350ULR or B777X?

planemanofnz · Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:03 am

The thing is, the planes for SYD/MEL - LHR also have the benefit of opening up SYD/MEL - JFK and SYD/MEL - GRU too - none of which can currently be done - and combined, which increases the business case for a sub-fleet of the necessary aircraft and economies of scale.

For BA, the only routes that would avail of such an aircraft would be LHR - SYD/MEL - everywhere else in Africa, Asia and the Americas can be reached from LHR already. This significantly reduces economies of scale and therefore the business case for a ULR BA sub-fleet.

Cheers,

C.

lhrsfosyd · Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:16 am

Don't forget that BA doesn't make money just from passengers travelling from London to Sydney and vice versa but also primarily on:

LHR-SIN
Europe-LHR-SIN
LHR-SIN-South East Asia/Australia
SIN-SYD
SIN-SYD-Eastern Aus/NZ

Markets that BA won't be able to compete in if LHR-SYD came to fruition.

planemanofnz · Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:18 am

lhrsfosyd wrote:
Don't forget that BA doesn't make money just from passengers travelling from London to Sydney and vice versa but also primarily on:

LHR-SIN
Europe-LHR-SIN
LHR-SIN-South East Asia/Australia
SIN-SYD
SIN-SYD-Eastern Aus/NZ

Markets that BA won't be able to compete in if LHR-SYD came to fruition.

True, but it's not a zero-sum game - they could always keep the LHR - SIN - SYD service, and add a new LHR - SYD non-stop service.

Cheers,

C.

lhrsfosyd · Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:22 am

planemanofnz wrote:
lhrsfosyd wrote:
Don't forget that BA doesn't make money just from passengers travelling from London to Sydney and vice versa but also primarily on:

LHR-SIN
Europe-LHR-SIN
LHR-SIN-South East Asia/Australia
SIN-SYD
SIN-SYD-Eastern Aus/NZ

Markets that BA won't be able to compete in if LHR-SYD came to fruition.

True, but it's not a zero-sum game - they could always keep the LHR - SIN - SYD service, and add a new LHR - SYD non-stop service.

Cheers,

C.

They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes. Just because Qantas can make AUSTRALIA-UK nonstop work, it doesn't mean BA will be able to as well.

planemanofnz · Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:27 am

lhrsfosyd wrote:
They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes.

Well, yeah - that's the point I made in post #2?

I don't see BA doing SYD/MEL - LHR non-stop.

Cheers,

C.

Prost · Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:00 am

If QF’s service SYD/MEL-LHR is successful and siphons traffic away from BA’s one stop service and depresses yields, will BA have much choice than to compete?

Channex757 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:08 am

Prost wrote:
If QF’s service SYD/MEL-LHR is successful and siphons traffic away from BA’s one stop service and depresses yields, will BA have much choice than to compete?

It depends.I really can't see IAG boss Willie Walsh being comfortable with that. Alex Cruz at BA is also a lowcost veteran and he might also baulk at sending a 787 on what could turn into a money-loser for all concerned.

Just how much traffic is there to tap into over and above those prepared to travel on the QF flight? If it becomes a dogfight for existing traffic then it's a lose-lose situation.

Prost · Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:13 am

Would BA have any freedoms such as NZ where they could serve LHR-SYD-JFK-LHR? It would add another ULR to their schedule and increase utilization for the sub fleet.

cv990Coronado · Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:41 am

I can't see BA doing non-stop, the route was under serious consideration for cancellation before the 77W and mixed fleet saved the day. It's a very different situation for QF where it might well be viable. Posters have raised many reasons all in my opinion valid as to why it won't suit BA. The following question was raised:-

"If QF’s service SYD/MEL-LHR is successful and siphons traffic away from BA’s one stop service and depresses yields, will BA have much choice than to compete?"

My answer would be in that case they might consider dropping the route altogether, especially if this coincided with a high fuel price. But, I think with the 77W and mixed fleet they can probably continue to keep the route viable, hopefully even with a QF non-stop.

by738 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:47 am

how do we know all these direct PER-LHR pax are being syphoned off BA indirect? its more likely others losing eg other QF /EK routes. BA are apparently very happy with their current SYD routing.

Galwayman · Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:00 pm

Prost wrote:
If QF’s service SYD/MEL-LHR is successful and siphons traffic away from BA’s one stop service and depresses yields, will BA have much choice than to compete?

You forgot something ... it has the choice to close the route and end service to SYD ... which is the likely outcome of the argument you present

lydh · Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:20 pm

God I hope not. BA’s J product is awful!

airbazar · Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:21 pm

lhrsfosyd wrote:
[
They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes. Just because Qantas can make AUSTRALIA-UK nonstop work, it doesn't mean BA will be able to as well.

That's not really true. Many airlines including BA have small subfleets for specific purposes. Remind me again how many A318's does BA have?
Having a premium heavy subfleet within a larger fleet of the same aircraft type does not cost any additional operational $$. If the demand exists then the airline will create a subfleet.

lhrsfosyd · Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:27 pm

airbazar wrote:
lhrsfosyd wrote:
[
They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes. Just because Qantas can make AUSTRALIA-UK nonstop work, it doesn't mean BA will be able to as well.

That's not really true. Many airlines including BA have small subfleets for specific purposes. Remind me again how many A318's does BA have?
Having a premium heavy subfleet within a larger fleet of the same aircraft type does not cost any additional operational $$. If the demand exists then the airline will create a subfleet.

London City market is very different (point to point traffic) to that at Heathrow so cannot be compared. LCY lacks aircraft stands so BA cannot expand even if they wanted. Crossrail will very likely be a killer for BA1/2. Remind me what is the lowest number of an aircraft subfleet at LHR?

NZ321 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:58 pm

BA would not survive in this market with their current product offering but let's not underestimate this esteemed carrier to create a new product and compete. Only time will tell.

musman9853 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:23 pm

could they just buy a couple of whatever qantas chooses for project sunrise?

Carlos01 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:57 pm

NZ321 wrote:
BA would not survive in this market with their current product offering but let's not underestimate this esteemed carrier to create a new product and compete. Only time will tell.

True, BA's business class is so sucky, that I will rather select another airline in economy, or premium eco. BA has managed to strip every last bit of glamour from flying - with them it's just pain. Their safety videos are the best I've seen though.

EastLondoner · Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:58 pm

lhrsfosyd wrote:
airbazar wrote:
lhrsfosyd wrote:
[
They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes. Just because Qantas can make AUSTRALIA-UK nonstop work, it doesn't mean BA will be able to as well.

That's not really true. Many airlines including BA have small subfleets for specific purposes. Remind me again how many A318's does BA have?
Having a premium heavy subfleet within a larger fleet of the same aircraft type does not cost any additional operational $$. If the demand exists then the airline will create a subfleet.

That's if Crossrail even opens by this point as they're having a lot of issues running the trains to Heathrow
London City market is very different (point to point traffic) to that at Heathrow so cannot be compared. LCY lacks aircraft stands so BA cannot expand even if they wanted. Crossrail will very likely be a killer for BA1/2. Remind me what is the lowest number of an aircraft subfleet at LHR?

Waterbomber · Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:07 pm

lhrsfosyd wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
lhrsfosyd wrote:
Don't forget that BA doesn't make money just from passengers travelling from London to Sydney and vice versa but also primarily on:

LHR-SIN
Europe-LHR-SIN
LHR-SIN-South East Asia/Australia
SIN-SYD
SIN-SYD-Eastern Aus/NZ

Markets that BA won't be able to compete in if LHR-SYD came to fruition.

True, but it's not a zero-sum game - they could always keep the LHR - SIN - SYD service, and add a new LHR - SYD non-stop service.

Cheers,

C.

They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes. Just because Qantas can make AUSTRALIA-UK nonstop work, it doesn't mean BA will be able to as well.

Why so? BA already has the A35J on the order books, so a ULR version of that would allow economies of scale to be achieved.
In any case, I think that it would make more sense for BA to order 6 copies of the A380plus at 600 tons MTOW and go for it. I doubt that WW and his friends have the b*lls to do it though.

skipness1E · Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:28 pm

lhrsfosyd wrote:
planemanofnz wrote:
lhrsfosyd wrote:
Don't forget that BA doesn't make money just from passengers travelling from London to Sydney and vice versa but also primarily on:

LHR-SIN
Europe-LHR-SIN
LHR-SIN-South East Asia/Australia
SIN-SYD
SIN-SYD-Eastern Aus/NZ

Markets that BA won't be able to compete in if LHR-SYD came to fruition.

True, but it's not a zero-sum game - they could always keep the LHR - SIN - SYD service, and add a new LHR - SYD non-stop service.

Cheers,

C.

They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes. Just because Qantas can make AUSTRALIA-UK nonstop work, it doesn't mean BA will be able to as well.

BA had a premium heavy subfleet of TWO A318s. It is now half the size it once was....

BOSAero · Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:30 pm

I would personally pay a premium to be able to fly LHR-SYD nonstop. It just makes business sense. Connecting two of the worlds top economies nonstop is priceless to me. (Three hours saved is $30,000 made). IMHO.

raylee67 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:32 pm

If QF starts SYD/MEL-LHR, which it will, given the right aircraft, BA will have no choice but to follow. Otherwise, it will lose all the premium paying passengers. It can certainly keep the one-stop flights, but it will need to fly a new non-stop flight too, may be daily LHR-SYD and daily LHR-MEL

usssla · Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:40 pm

raylee67 wrote:
If QF starts SYD/MEL-LHR, which it will, given the right aircraft, BA will have no choice but to follow. Otherwise, it will lose all the premium paying passengers. It can certainly keep the one-stop flights, but it will need to fly a new non-stop flight too, may be daily LHR-SYD and daily LHR-MEL

I think so. I believe, SYD-SIN will finally be dropped by BA.
BA will simply operate direct syd-Lhr or suspense service to Sydney.

CRJ900 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:12 pm

BA already have the B787 and B777 in the fleet, so adding a B787ULR or B778 should be easy. Also, the A350-1000 will join the fleet soon and I personally think the A350-1000 will end up as a super-long-ranger within ten years from now.

How come Airbus is unable to make the A388's range good enough for SYD-LHR? I'm sure BA and QF have asked Airbus to look at a 300-350-seat A388 with enough fuel capacity for SYD-LHR...?

jumpjets · Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:18 pm

I would expect BAs response will be influenced by QFs overall approach to the LHR and SIN markets If QF substitute a SYD-LHR routing for the current SYD-SIN-LHR route and don’t add additional capacity between SyD and SIN then there will be a loss of capacity both between SIN-LHR and potentially SYD-SIN on QF in which case that might encourage BA to maintain the one stop routing, potentially introducing the A380 to pick up some of the traffic no longer handled by QF.

On the other hand if the non stop flight is in addition to the existing service then BA might lose sufficient premium traffic to render the one stop service non-viable.

lightsaber · Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:19 pm

planemanofnz wrote:
The thing is, the planes for SYD/MEL - LHR also have the benefit of opening up SYD/MEL - JFK and SYD/MEL - GRU too - none of which can currently be done - and combined, which increases the business case for a sub-fleet of the necessary aircraft and economies of scale.

For BA, the only routes that would avail of such an aircraft would be LHR - SYD/MEL - everywhere else in Africa, Asia and the Americas can be reached from LHR already. This significantly reduces economies of scale and therefore the business case for a ULR BA sub-fleet.

Cheers,

C.

The case for BA:LHR-SYD, maybe LHR-MEL.
QF:. Perth-LHR, SYD-LHR, SYD/MEL to DFW/JFK and possibly MEL-LHR

QF will easily have economics of scale with project sunrise. BA will have an orphan subfleet.

SQ should also have a substantial subfleet.

Lightsaber

BrianDromey · Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:27 pm

lhrsfosyd wrote:
They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes. Just because Qantas can make AUSTRALIA-UK nonstop work, it doesn't mean BA will be able to as well.

Currently the 77W fleet is in a 14F/56J/44W/183Y layout. How much more premium would you like?

I imagine BA might be interested in a non-stop route to SYD/MEL, maybe continuing one flight into NZ. It would certainly be a competitive advantage over the ME3 from London and improve improve one-stop Europe-Oz/NZ itenaries to better compete.

lhrsfosyd · Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:05 pm

BrianDromey wrote:
lhrsfosyd wrote:
They could but this would require a new subfleet with an extremely premium configuration. Creating subfleets only makes economic sense of you can use the aircraft on several routes. Just because Qantas can make AUSTRALIA-UK nonstop work, it doesn't mean BA will be able to as well.

Currently the 77W fleet is in a 14F/56J/44W/183Y layout. How much more premium would you like?

I imagine BA might be interested in a non-stop route to SYD/MEL, maybe continuing one flight into NZ. It would certainly be a competitive advantage over the ME3 from London and improve improve one-stop Europe-Oz/NZ itenaries to better compete.

You think 77W can do the route non stop in that configuration?

incitatus · Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:21 pm

BrianDromey wrote:

Currently the 77W fleet is in a 14F/56J/44W/183Y layout. How much more premium would you like?
(....)

Do you think that is premium? Try ANA's 77Ws: 8F/68J/24W/112Y. And those F seats from ANA offer 50% more room per passenger than BA's.

Even ANA's configuration would struggle to do LHR-PER. It would be impossible on LHR-SYD.

Airlinerdude · Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:16 pm

It's always funny to see how threads on this forum can be so mutually exclusive sometimes.

A direct LHR-SYD/MEL route operated by BA could be very lucrative. The route obviously has the demand in F/J to command the premium fares on the route to make it economically viable. It would also distance BA from the low fare competition that is offered on the route by the likes of EK/QR/EY/CX/etc. There is still room for these carriers to expand at LGW and even STN (like in the case of EK) to chase the lower yielding traffic, and capture the volume that would be left by BA and/or QF leaving the one-stop market. BA does not have this option given the majority of their long haul operations are at LHR. Quite possibly, BA operating a non-stop flight might be their only way to compete going forward...

Operationally, the simple solution for BA would be to operate a 350-1000ULR derivative (if one ever comes to fruition). Posters above have made arguments that operating a less dense sub-fleet of the aircraft would be costly. However ironically, we seem to be forgetting the utility a premium heavy 350 would bring to BA's overall network. Just a few weeks ago several posters were pointing out that the successor to BA's premium heavy 744s will be premium heavy 35Ks operating LHR-JFK. The obvious solution could be to have BA order a sub-fleet of 350-1000ULR aircraft and operate them between LHR & JFK/SYD and other premium heavy destinations. Sure you're not getting the full range utility of the 350-1000ULR by operating it to JFK, but you are increasing the utilization of the aircraft and providing JFK with the premium capacity it will need going future.

qf002 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:18 pm

lightsaber wrote:
The case for BA:LHR-SYD, maybe LHR-MEL.

It depends a bit on what the Project Sunrise aircraft ends up looking like. If it can operate efficiently on 8-10 hour sectors as well as 20 hour ones then the potential scope becomes rather a lot bigger for BA. It’s too early to rule anything out on the basis of aircraft capabilities/limitations.

That said, I think BA has proven itself rather unable to think outside the box in recent years so the chances of them flying to Australia nonstop (especially the east coast) are fairly remote.

BA777FO · Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:47 pm

lhrsfosyd wrote:
Remind me what is the lowest number of an aircraft subfleet at LHR?

3 - the 777 A market fleet with 17F seats. Although they are apparently due to be phased out in 2020 to replaced with 77Ws.

There'll be 6 (I think?) LGW based 777s in a 32J/52W/251Y (ish) config too.

It works in the markets that they are currently used in. Whether we'd see a subfleet for the specific purposes of serving SYD/MEL, not sure. On such a long route, the RASK would be pretty low. In doing LHR-SYD-LHR once you could pretty much do LHR-JFK-LHR twice. Plus, I'm not entirely sure, but such a long flight might be outside of Bidline Rules, not sure how that'd be handled.

CarlosSi · Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:54 pm

Airlinerdude wrote:
The obvious solution could be to have BA order a sub-fleet of 350-1000ULR aircraft and operate them between LHR & JFK/SYD and other premium heavy destinations. Sure you're not getting the full range utility of the 350-1000ULR by operating it to JFK, but you are increasing the utilization of the aircraft and providing JFK with the premium capacity it will need going future.

Was gonna say that. Alternatively (but unlikely) BA could fly some sort of LHR-SYD-JFK-LHR routing, or LHR-SYD-JFK-SYD and back to justify its range, although that would require 5th freedom rights, but a one-off LHR-JFK routing should be fine too.

Orrrr it could fly them all the way to Auckland from LHR if BA really needs another “excuse” to have a mega longhaul subfleet :scratchchin:

.

Arion640 · Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:12 pm

What only about 1 person on this thread realises so far is the LHR-SIN-SYD flight is also a LHR-SIN flight in it’s own right, as is SIN-SYD also a stand alone thing. There’s also always going to be people who want to get off and have a strech in the middle, without having to navigate the bowls of Dubai or Doha airport.

At the same time, what other use would BA have for a minimum of 3 ULR aircraft. Meanwhile the 77W (or potentially A350-1000 eventually) currently on the SYD route can go off to the US, Hong Kong and South America amongst other places.

rnav2dlrey · Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:34 pm

i hadn’t thought of it before, but the high-J LHR-SYD-JFK-LHR RTW route that others have suggested intrigues me.

fifth freedoms are an endangered species, but the HVF nature of the routes involved, combined with a low density aircraft necessitated by the routes makes sense inside my head.

Max Q · Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:30 am

Passengers will pay a significant premium to fly non stop from
Syd to Lhr

But not all will want to pay that much extra when you can just make
a stop and save a lot of money

Just because SQ flies non stop between Sin and Lax / Ewr doesnt
mean most pax won’t still connect once
or twice on the same itinerary and
will continue to do so

seabosdca · Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:58 am

CarlosSi wrote:
Was gonna say that. Alternatively (but unlikely) BA could fly some sort of LHR-SYD-JFK-LHR routing, or LHR-SYD-JFK-SYD and back to justify its range, although that would require 5th freedom rights, but a one-off LHR-JFK routing should be fine too.

BA will already have a fleet of premium 787-10s that will carry the same load of high-value passengers between LHR and JFK for 2/3 the trip cost. The 787-10 might as well have been custom designed for that mission.

RJMAZ · Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:13 am

planemanofnz wrote:
The thing is, the planes for SYD/MEL - LHR also have the benefit of opening up SYD/MEL - JFK and SYD/MEL - GRU too - none of which can currently be done - and combined, which increases the business case for a sub-fleet of the necessary aircraft and economies of scale.

For BA, the only routes that would avail of such an aircraft would be LHR - SYD/MEL - everywhere else in Africa, Asia and the Americas can be reached from LHR already. This significantly reduces economies of scale and therefore the business case for a ULR BA sub-fleet.

This sums up the argument perfectly.

Qantas could do London, New York, Paris, Berlin, Miami, Sao Paulo and Chicago all flying from both Melbourne and Sydney. Another definite one will be Perth to Los Angeles. That is 16 routes allowing a large fleet of ultra long haul aircraft which provides excellent economies of scale.

Any US airline looking at doing non stop flights from New York to Australia would only have two routes, one to Melbourne and one to Sydney. Any European airline looking at flying non stop to Australia would only have two routes as well. They would be crazy to order a small subfleet of aircraft.

Qantas will be famous for ultra long haul in 10 years time. I am absolutely certain Australians will pay a premium for a non stop. Qantas will be back to the glory days.

The only European airline that will do non stop to Australia would be Turkish airlines. A fairly stock A350 can fly non stop from Istanbul to Melbourne or Sydney. So they wouldn't need a sub fleet of aircraft.

LHRFlyer · Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:03 am

Willie Walsh has said that he’s not interested in Ultra Long-Haul as he doesn’t think passengers have the appetite for it.

That said, he said that he admit to changing his mind about whether an unbundled long-haul economy product would work after seeing passenger responses to Norwegian. If Qantas proves there is a profitable market for it, BA might follow suit.

keesje · Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:21 am

I think for BA they can wait & see and order / convert when the market is there. They will have the A350 infrastructure anyway.

For Qantas it is more strategic, overflying the middle east & fly into some key markets. There is a risk BA will open up SYD / MEL with new A380s later on, that would essentially lock them out.

For Airbus Qantas is a prime target and a A350-1000ULR development would be a price to pay to get Qantas into the A350 family, and not for 10 airframes...

ltbewr · Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:10 am

While many of us here would love to see a ULH route of SYD-LHR just for the sheer audacity of it, it has to make money for their airlines. There may not be enough demand to command it high fares it needs to profitable, especially if multiple airlines offer it. Throw in potential economic recessions, increasing costs of fuel, tighter corporate budgets and that some just don't want to be on a plane for 19 hours straight further limits the potential of multiple airlines offering such ULH routes.

flipdewaf · Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:50 am

Max Q wrote:
Passengers will pay a significant premium to fly non stop from
Syd to Lhr

But not all will want to pay that much extra when you can just make
a stop and save a lot of money

Just because SQ flies non stop between Sin and Lax / Ewr doesnt
mean most pax won’t still connect once
or twice on the same itinerary and
will continue to do so

The fact that premium fliers will prefer a non stop and therefore can be charged more does not mean that the route is in fact more costly to operate, the opposite could quite likely be true and as a result the cost to the regular VFR flier could be the same.

Fred

Gemuser · Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:16 am

ltbewr wrote:
While many of us here would love to see a ULH route of SYD-LHR just for the sheer audacity of it, it has to make money for their airlines. There may not be enough demand to command it high fares it needs to profitable, especially if multiple airlines offer it. Throw in potential economic recessions, increasing costs of fuel, tighter corporate budgets and that some just don't want to be on a plane for 19 hours straight further limits the potential of multiple airlines offering such ULH routes.

I think you miss the point! The whole point of these ULH routes are to avoid competition. There cannot be "multiple" airlines except maybe BA. If BA really want to play, IMHO it will be in some sort of association with QF, some sort of arrangement that will satisfy the competition people on both ends can be worked out, after all in 90 years of cooperation between QF & BA there are many models to choose from, let alone something new & different.

The reason I say no other competition is that QF & BA are the only airlines currently with traffic rights non stop between Australia & UK. The Virgin Group could presumably acquire them, but I really doubt they will. To have more competitors both the Australian and [post Brexit] UK government would have to grant traffic rights to airlines from other countries, I really, really cannot see that happening!

Gemuser

george77300 · Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:22 am

BA777FO wrote:
lhrsfosyd wrote:
Remind me what is the lowest number of an aircraft subfleet at LHR?

3 - the 777 A market fleet with 17F seats. Although they are apparently due to be phased out in 2020 to replaced with 77Ws.

There'll be 6 (I think?) LGW based 777s in a 32J/52W/251Y (ish) config too.

It works in the markets that they are currently used in. Whether we'd see a subfleet for the specific purposes of serving SYD/MEL, not sure. On such a long route, the RASK would be pretty low. In doing LHR-SYD-LHR once you could pretty much do LHR-JFK-LHR twice. Plus, I'm not entirely sure, but such a long flight might be outside of Bidline Rules, not sure how that'd be handled.

Also a subfleet of 1 A318 (G-EUNA) with 32J doing a once daily LCY-JFK-LCY.

usssla · Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:02 am

lhrsfosyd wrote:
Don't forget that BA doesn't make money just from passengers travelling from London to Sydney and vice versa but also primarily on:

LHR-SIN
Europe-LHR-SIN
LHR-SIN-South East Asia/Australia
SIN-SYD
SIN-SYD-Eastern Aus/NZ

Markets that BA won't be able to compete in if LHR-SYD came to fruition.

BA can still continue to operate LHR-SIN and have a new route for LHR-SYD. (SIN-SYD route supense)

Therefore, the first three will well covered.

As BA is not hub at SIN, the later 2 traffic is not the main target of BA and suffer competitive disadvantage over SQ and other Aus/NZ based airlines.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net