Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4813
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: British Airways route updates

Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:28 pm

BA1 was properly niche, stopping off in County Clare on BA’s slowest long haul aircraft wasn’t really tenable once everyone who wanted to try it had done so.
With a whole fleet of mainline just withdrawn, thousands of staff going and Canary Wharf almost empty, it’s a VERY long way back to get to that proposition making sense. I’m not generally a fan boy, no quiet at the back, I’m not BUT I’ve never seen the market in such flux. This isn’t going away, we’re likely going to go backwards as the winters drags on. The US remains closed
 
S0Y
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:25 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:46 am

The only way I could see this return is if there was a LCY-LGA. Otherwise time has marched on;
    - New CW is vastly better
    - Global Entry for Brits lessens the Shannon CBP advantage
    - Crossrail
    - LHR catering has improved
    - At single daily rotation, you are screwed if things go south ex-LCY
    - Covid, Brexit, recession....
 
chonetsao
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:55 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:42 am

BA777FO wrote:
I know there's pre-clearance at DUB, but a non-stop flight will always be more appealing to premium passengers than a stop over. A DUB stop over saves no time versus a non-stop into Heathrow.


Not necessarily.

LCY is attractive is due to its closeness to Canary Wharf. Let us say from LCY - DUB- JFK. A business man considers the flight time between LCY-DUB the same length of the time he/she would have spent on the road from Canary Wharf office to Heathrow Airport. We must remember there are higher management people who have compensation package that include limousine drive to airport or at least taxi rides. A stop over in DUB to go through pre-clearance is actually shorter than the arrival with several LHR flights in the similar time frame. The said executive would go to office or home as soon as he/she arrived in JFK. The LHR flight into JFK is known to have slow immigration on arrival that can last over an hour.

On the way back, there is no immigration in DUB, if there is terminal change there is a scan of passport. The transit time is about 50 minutes, which is equivalent of spending time in Heathrow to go from Terminal B/C to Terminal A and pass through immigration. And then you have another 50 minutes to go to Canary Wharf and you hope you don't have any traffic on the way.

LCY-JFK flights serves a particular clientele, it was rumoured that a global bank purchased capacity on this route. When Shannon reduced the pre-clearance operation time resulted one of the LCY-JFK flight loose the pre-clearance, that flight did not last long. Pre-clearance has its appeal. Anyone used the pre-clearance knows how it saves time and stress to arrive in America. I have used pre-clearance many times and I love it. It was simple and easy. The most important thing is to to arrive stress free and queue free. Although Global Entry is pretty much painless nowadays. I still prefer pre-clearance as a passenger.

In the end, you have to do the journey yourself to see how much time you can save go via Dublin or Shannon. But remember, the BA1/2/3/4 flight passengers were a particular group of passengers. Their needs are different from us and they choose BA1/2/3/4 for the pre-clearance (when it was available for both flights) and the convenience of LCY (not LHR!!).
 
BA777FO
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:24 am

chonetsao wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
I know there's pre-clearance at DUB, but a non-stop flight will always be more appealing to premium passengers than a stop over. A DUB stop over saves no time versus a non-stop into Heathrow.


Not necessarily.

LCY is attractive is due to its closeness to Canary Wharf. Let us say from LCY - DUB- JFK. A business man considers the flight time between LCY-DUB the same length of the time he/she would have spent on the road from Canary Wharf office to Heathrow Airport. We must remember there are higher management people who have compensation package that include limousine drive to airport or at least taxi rides. A stop over in DUB to go through pre-clearance is actually shorter than the arrival with several LHR flights in the similar time frame. The said executive would go to office or home as soon as he/she arrived in JFK. The LHR flight into JFK is known to have slow immigration on arrival that can last over an hour.

On the way back, there is no immigration in DUB, if there is terminal change there is a scan of passport. The transit time is about 50 minutes, which is equivalent of spending time in Heathrow to go from Terminal B/C to Terminal A and pass through immigration. And then you have another 50 minutes to go to Canary Wharf and you hope you don't have any traffic on the way.

LCY-JFK flights serves a particular clientele, it was rumoured that a global bank purchased capacity on this route. When Shannon reduced the pre-clearance operation time resulted one of the LCY-JFK flight loose the pre-clearance, that flight did not last long. Pre-clearance has its appeal. Anyone used the pre-clearance knows how it saves time and stress to arrive in America. I have used pre-clearance many times and I love it. It was simple and easy. The most important thing is to to arrive stress free and queue free. Although Global Entry is pretty much painless nowadays. I still prefer pre-clearance as a passenger.

In the end, you have to do the journey yourself to see how much time you can save go via Dublin or Shannon. But remember, the BA1/2/3/4 flight passengers were a particular group of passengers. Their needs are different from us and they choose BA1/2/3/4 for the pre-clearance (when it was available for both flights) and the convenience of LCY (not LHR!!).


Barclays bankrolled the flight - they committed to purchase a certain number of seats per departure. It lost its viability when the timing of arrival into SNN meant pre-clearance was no longer available. The regulars on the route have global entry and I know T7 was keeping a separate lane for J and F passengers too

Ultimately BA wanted the operation on the cheap. They had LGW cabin crew but scope meant it had to be flown by mainline pilots. Now with the change to scope they'll get Citiflyer to do it on an A220 eventually.
 
Opus99
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:57 am

BA777FO wrote:
chonetsao wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
I know there's pre-clearance at DUB, but a non-stop flight will always be more appealing to premium passengers than a stop over. A DUB stop over saves no time versus a non-stop into Heathrow.


Not necessarily.

LCY is attractive is due to its closeness to Canary Wharf. Let us say from LCY - DUB- JFK. A business man considers the flight time between LCY-DUB the same length of the time he/she would have spent on the road from Canary Wharf office to Heathrow Airport. We must remember there are higher management people who have compensation package that include limousine drive to airport or at least taxi rides. A stop over in DUB to go through pre-clearance is actually shorter than the arrival with several LHR flights in the similar time frame. The said executive would go to office or home as soon as he/she arrived in JFK. The LHR flight into JFK is known to have slow immigration on arrival that can last over an hour.

On the way back, there is no immigration in DUB, if there is terminal change there is a scan of passport. The transit time is about 50 minutes, which is equivalent of spending time in Heathrow to go from Terminal B/C to Terminal A and pass through immigration. And then you have another 50 minutes to go to Canary Wharf and you hope you don't have any traffic on the way.

LCY-JFK flights serves a particular clientele, it was rumoured that a global bank purchased capacity on this route. When Shannon reduced the pre-clearance operation time resulted one of the LCY-JFK flight loose the pre-clearance, that flight did not last long. Pre-clearance has its appeal. Anyone used the pre-clearance knows how it saves time and stress to arrive in America. I have used pre-clearance many times and I love it. It was simple and easy. The most important thing is to to arrive stress free and queue free. Although Global Entry is pretty much painless nowadays. I still prefer pre-clearance as a passenger.

In the end, you have to do the journey yourself to see how much time you can save go via Dublin or Shannon. But remember, the BA1/2/3/4 flight passengers were a particular group of passengers. Their needs are different from us and they choose BA1/2/3/4 for the pre-clearance (when it was available for both flights) and the convenience of LCY (not LHR!!).


Barclays bankrolled the flight - they committed to purchase a certain number of seats per departure. It lost its viability when the timing of arrival into SNN meant pre-clearance was no longer available. The regulars on the route have global entry and I know T7 was keeping a separate lane for J and F passengers too

Ultimately BA wanted the operation on the cheap. They had LGW cabin crew but scope meant it had to be flown by mainline pilots. Now with the change to scope they'll get Citiflyer to do it on an A220 eventually.

Is there any chance we might see the A220 become the main aircraft for the city flyer operation in general?
 
SueD
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:35 am

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:33 am

BA1\2 has been on borrowed time anyway and it was always going away when the Elizabeth line (crossrail) entered full service ; like many things COVIS19 has brought the days of reckoning to the fore a little earlier.

The JFK slot may need to be preserved somehow through.

Many talk of slot sitting at Heathrow however JFK is just as bad and BA have eight historic slots they will need to preserve.

Two of those slots were originally regional at the UK end so what to do with them when City goes away.

Would be nice to see them redeployed back where they came from again wouldn’t it !
 
SueD
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:35 am

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:52 am

Oh and lets be frank about this; G-EUNA has a wrapping 32 seats and rarely ever boards more than twenty or so and loads as low as 12 or 13 weren’t unknown in the best of times !
Yes a certain blue bank paid a nice corporate charge however was it ever in the interests of shareholders personally I doubt it.

They can can get on the train like the rest of us.
Or as many live in Surrey anyway drive to the very convenient T5 with its own ramp off the M25 and up the secretive ramp to the VVIP area on the fifth floor.

Needn’t ever mingle with the smelly masses !
 
Arion640
Posts: 3059
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:38 pm

SueD wrote:
BA1\2 has been on borrowed time anyway and it was always going away when the Elizabeth line (crossrail) entered full service ; like many things COVIS19 has brought the days of reckoning to the fore a little earlier.

The JFK slot may need to be preserved somehow through.

Many talk of slot sitting at Heathrow however JFK is just as bad and BA have eight historic slots they will need to preserve.

Two of those slots were originally regional at the UK end so what to do with them when City goes away.

Would be nice to see them redeployed back where they came from again wouldn’t it !


I would of thought BA could pass those slots off to American, Iberia or Aer Lingus if it needs a sitter at JFK.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:44 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Is there any chance we might see the A220 become the main aircraft for the city flyer operation in general?


Not unless the BA operation at LCY is substantially reduced. At the moment there are only 4 parking positions at LCY that can hold something as big as an A220. Even after current airport expansion, itself delayed by Covid-19, there will only be 11 spaces. In the pre-Covid schedules BA (and Swiss who already fly A220s into LCY) required more than 11 parting spaces simultaneously
BA has replaced most of the E170s with secondhand E190s, during the lockdown period, which might suggest they see larger aircraft as necessary, but why would they even have sourced replacements if they intended to go to A220s for the CityFlyer fleet? (E190s fit most of the non-A220 parking bays at LCY). LCY is fundamental to the CityFlyer operation, on weekdays every actiive plane is in and out of there several times. It is only at weekends that idle time is used for flights where neither end is LCY, to keep the assets working, as LCY has a weekend curfew (Sat lunchtime to Sunday afternoon).
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:10 pm

The whole future of the Cityflier operation is in doubt so any thought of new aircraft is wishful thinking. Many articles like this in the web

ba-to-stay-at-gatwick-but-will-consider-future-at-london-city
https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/news/ba-t ... city-22861
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 5410
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:09 am

Per RoutesOnline, there's a batch of route news. Here's the link:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... ghlight=BA

And here's the nitty-gritty for London-US for this winter (as of Aug 4):
British Airways this week filed changes to its North American operation during winter 2020/21 season, from 25OCT20 to 27MAR21. This week’s update sees the airline file operational aircraft changes for Boeing 747-400 replacement, although the oneWorld carrier continues to display 747-400 operation in its network as of 04AUG20.

As the airline's schedule update is incomplete for the moment, additional changes will be reflected during the course of next few weeks, pending on latest market condition.

London City – New York JFK (westbound via Shannon) 1 daily A318 service cancelled, reservation closed
London Gatwick – New York JFK 1 daily service remains cancelled in winter season
London Gatwick – Orlando 1 of 2 daily service moves to London Heathrow. 777-200ER operating
London Gatwick – Tampa 6 weekly 777-200ER
London Heathrow – Atlanta 1 daily 787-9
London Heathrow – Austin 5 of 7 weekly operated by A350-1000XWB, replacing 777-300ER
London Heathrow – Baltimore/Washington 3 of 7 weekly operated by 787-9, replacing -8
London Heathrow – Boston
BA203/202 777-200ER (4 weekly)
BA213/212 787-9 replaces 747-400
BA215/214 A350-1000XWB replaces 777-200ER
BA239/238 777-200ER

London Heathrow – Chicago O’Hare
BA295/294 787-9 replaces 747-400
BA297/296 3-class 777-200ER replaces 4-class 777-200ER

London Heathrow – Dallas/Ft. Worth 787-9 replaces 747-400 (This adjustment was filed prior to COVID19 impact)
London Heathrow – Denver 787-9 replaces 747-400
London Heathrow – Houston 1 of 2 daily operated by 777-200ER, replacing 787-9
London Heathrow – Las Vegas No schedule update, service continues to display 1 daily 747-400 (A380 02JAN21 – 10JAN21)
London Heathrow – Los Angeles Except BA281/280 4 of 7 weekly operated by new 4-class 777-300ER instead of 787-9, BA continues to display BA269/268 with A380, BA283/282 with 747-400
London Heathrow – Miami
BA207/206 A380 replaces 747-400
BA211/210 continues to display 747-400
BA209/208 777-200ER replaces 747-400

London Heathrow – Montreal 1 daily 787-8
London Heathrow – Nashville 5 weekly 787-8
London Heathrow – Newark 2 daily 787-9
London Heathrow – New Orleans 5 weekly 787-8
London Heathrow – New York JFK Except BA183/178 continues to display 747-400, the other 7 daily flights operated by 777-200ER (mostly operated by new 4-class aircraft)
London Heathrow – Orlando 1 daily 3-class 777-200ER, new nonstop route (Previously reported on Airlineroute, BA operated 1-stop London Heathrow – Orlando service in mid-80s)
London Heathrow – Philadelphia No schedule update, service continues to display 1 daily 747-400 and 5 weekly 787-9
London Heathrow – Phoenix 1 daily 787-9
London Heathrow – Pittsburgh 4 weekly 787-8
London Heathrow – San Diego 5 of 7 weekly displays 787-9, while 747-400 continues to operate 2 weekly
London Heathrow – San Francisco
BA285/284 777-300ER replaces 747-400
BA287/286 continues to display A380/777-200ER

London Heathrow – San Jose CA 1 daily 787-9
London Heathrow – Seattle BA049/048 787-10 replaces 777-200ER, 1 daily (BA053/052 3 weekly 777-200ER)
London Heathrow – Toronto
BA093/092 787-8 replaced by 5 weekly 787-10 and 2 weekly 787-9
BA099/098 787-9 replaces -8

London Heathrow – Vancouver 777-200ER replaces 747-400, 1 daily
London Heathrow – Washington Dulles No schedule update, service continues to display 1 daily each 747-400/787-9


Thanks to RoutesOnline for this info. (I did spend some time with the BA skeds and the info for SAN is accurate.)

What does everyone think the chances of this all holding together are? I'm hopeful but leary...

bb
 
chonetsao
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:55 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:55 am

SANFan wrote:

What does everyone think the chances of this all holding together are? I'm hopeful but leary...

bb


Hi my personal opinion/guess is that all routes displayed B744 will be the prime suspect of cancellation if the Covid-19 continues or no significant improvement. For example, if US rescind the travel ban, BA would fly to many of the US cities, but those currently displayed as B744 operated would be first to be cancelled if the demand is not there. Using example of SAN, 5 weekly of B789 would be kept but 2 weekly B744 is likely to can cancelled.

So that tells this winter both LAX and MIA could be maximum 2 daily instead of displayed 3 daily. And LAS may not come back until 2021.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2716
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:00 am

SANFan wrote:

What does everyone think the chances of this all holding together are? I'm hopeful but leary...


It looks reasonable for Winter 21/22, for winter 20/21 I don't see very much travel between Europe and the Americas. It is interesting that there has been very few replacements of the 747 with the 77Ws, it seems to be 787 and 777s in the main. I know these wont be in their new Hi-J configuration by the winter, perhaps that is why, or they will be used to South Africa, Asia and Oceana, in the main. I guess the cargo ability of the 77W will also be a factor.
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:00 am

Why does a route previously being flown by a B744 indicate it would not be flown in the future ? Presumably BA would be much more interested in how profitable a route was. If a flight was previously operated by a B744, that tells me lots of people wanted to be on a particular flight and demand was strong
 
Opus99
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:21 am

BrianDromey wrote:
SANFan wrote:

What does everyone think the chances of this all holding together are? I'm hopeful but leary...


It looks reasonable for Winter 21/22, for winter 20/21 I don't see very much travel between Europe and the Americas. It is interesting that there has been very few replacements of the 747 with the 77Ws, it seems to be 787 and 777s in the main. I know these wont be in their new Hi-J configuration by the winter, perhaps that is why, or they will be used to South Africa, Asia and Oceana, in the main. I guess the cargo ability of the 77W will also be a factor.

I believe the above is still subject to change. By the end of the year they SHOULD have 4 new 77Ws w super high j configs. And 3 refurbished ones making 7. I can see it’s already on LA. But as there are still 747s in the schedule I believe a lot still has to change. Expect 77W on jo burg and Cape Town though
 
Opus99
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:21 am

BrianDromey wrote:
SANFan wrote:

What does everyone think the chances of this all holding together are? I'm hopeful but leary...


It looks reasonable for Winter 21/22, for winter 20/21 I don't see very much travel between Europe and the Americas. It is interesting that there has been very few replacements of the 747 with the 77Ws, it seems to be 787 and 777s in the main. I know these wont be in their new Hi-J configuration by the winter, perhaps that is why, or they will be used to South Africa, Asia and Oceana, in the main. I guess the cargo ability of the 77W will also be a factor.

I believe the above is still subject to change. By the end of the year they SHOULD have 4 new 77Ws w super high j configs. And 3 refurbished ones making 7. I can see it’s already on LA. But as there are still 747s in the schedule I believe a lot still has to change. Expect 77W on jo burg and Cape Town though
 
BA174
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:54 am

S0Y wrote:
The only way I could see this return is if there was a LCY-LGA. Otherwise time has marched on;
    - New CW is vastly better
    - Global Entry for Brits lessens the Shannon CBP advantage
    - Crossrail
    - LHR catering has improved
    - At single daily rotation, you are screwed if things go south ex-LCY
    - Covid, Brexit, recession....


LCY-LGA would be a non starter. The BA lounges etc at JFK are far superior plus has many BA flights and ground staff etc situated there. They’d probably be less demand for the LGA service than there is/was for the LCY-JFK-LCY one.
 
JumboMaiden
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:28 am

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:08 pm

Opus99 wrote:
BrianDromey wrote:
SANFan wrote:

What does everyone think the chances of this all holding together are? I'm hopeful but leary...


It looks reasonable for Winter 21/22, for winter 20/21 I don't see very much travel between Europe and the Americas. It is interesting that there has been very few replacements of the 747 with the 77Ws, it seems to be 787 and 777s in the main. I know these wont be in their new Hi-J configuration by the winter, perhaps that is why, or they will be used to South Africa, Asia and Oceana, in the main. I guess the cargo ability of the 77W will also be a factor.

I believe the above is still subject to change. By the end of the year they SHOULD have 4 new 77Ws w super high j configs. And 3 refurbished ones making 7. I can see it’s already on LA. But as there are still 747s in the schedule I believe a lot still has to change. Expect 77W on jo burg and Cape Town though


That will be 19 77Ws in all? Is it known where the refurbished ones will be coming from?
 
Opus99
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:32 pm

JumboMaiden wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
BrianDromey wrote:

It looks reasonable for Winter 21/22, for winter 20/21 I don't see very much travel between Europe and the Americas. It is interesting that there has been very few replacements of the 747 with the 77Ws, it seems to be 787 and 777s in the main. I know these wont be in their new Hi-J configuration by the winter, perhaps that is why, or they will be used to South Africa, Asia and Oceana, in the main. I guess the cargo ability of the 77W will also be a factor.

I believe the above is still subject to change. By the end of the year they SHOULD have 4 new 77Ws w super high j configs. And 3 refurbished ones making 7. I can see it’s already on LA. But as there are still 747s in the schedule I believe a lot still has to change. Expect 77W on jo burg and Cape Town though


That will be 19 77Ws in all? Is it known where the refurbished ones will be coming from?

No it will be 16 77Ws in all. The refurbished 77Ws are the ones that are already in the fleet. They will be refurbished with the club suite in a 76J configuration
 
PoleHillSid
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:10 pm

Re: British Airways route updates

Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:47 am

Well I’ve today had my 747 flight in mid-Nov and A380 return flight early December cancelled by BA. So despite the published schedule, looks like they aren’t planning on taking passengers to or from the USA for the next 4 months.
 
TC957
Posts: 3814
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:34 am

This story has come to light that BA will close LGW short-haul but keep the long-haul leisure routes.
Plus LGW engineering facilities may close. And interesting IAG could form a new airline to take over BA's short-haul ops.
https://www.headforpoints.com/2020/08/0 ... m-gatwick/
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2534
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:45 am

Not a good sign for their still unconfirmed MAX orders which were supposed to be based from LGW. They can’t go to LHR because MAX don’t do containerised freight.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
DAL763ER
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:20 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:54 am

tullamarine wrote:
Not a good sign for their still unconfirmed MAX orders which were supposed to be based from LGW. They can’t go to LHR because MAX don’t do containerised freight.


We’re the MAX ever meant to be allocated to BA? The letter of intent was for IAG, not BA. The MAX also doesn’t make sense for BA at the moment, considering their short haul fleet is all Airbus.
 
TC957
Posts: 3814
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:56 am

I don't see one single reason why BA should ever confirm that MAX LOI. Not only for the reason you stated but for the fall-out from the UK media over BA operating " killer " planes - it will become a PR disaster for BA.
 
LHRFlyer
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:50 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:56 am

DAL763ER wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Not a good sign for their still unconfirmed MAX orders which were supposed to be based from LGW. They can’t go to LHR because MAX don’t do containerised freight.


We’re the MAX ever meant to be allocated to BA? The letter of intent was for IAG, not BA. The MAX also doesn’t make sense for BA at the moment, considering their short haul fleet is all Airbus.


Yes, it was originally intended for BA LGW and VY.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:08 am

TC957 wrote:
I don't see one single reason why BA should ever confirm that MAX LOI.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

Last generation technology (arguably even worse, when you get past the engine)
Aircraft with an absolutely horrid reputation even among the public
Additional capacity during the biggest downturn the industry has ever seen
Additional cap ex


....not really sure what the upside to going forward with that LOI, especially if they can get out of it, is.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Opus99
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:30 am

These were all the same things I said, until last year BA allowed a significant portion of their a320neo family series options expire. from about 33 to 10 and you know they were complaining about the delivery times of the Neo. Now will they want to join the back of that queue? I didn't take them seriously until this happened
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:38 am

Aer Lingus tried a LGW based operation before and it didn’t work. Can’t see them trying again, even with IAG support.
 
Toinou
Posts: 277
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:21 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:42 am

LHRFlyer wrote:
DAL763ER wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Not a good sign for their still unconfirmed MAX orders which were supposed to be based from LGW. They can’t go to LHR because MAX don’t do containerised freight.


We’re the MAX ever meant to be allocated to BA? The letter of intent was for IAG, not BA. The MAX also doesn’t make sense for BA at the moment, considering their short haul fleet is all Airbus.


Yes, it was originally intended for BA LGW and VY.

If I'm remember correctly, no airline in IAG currently has a Boeing narrow-body fleet. So taking MAXs would need a change anyway.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10728
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:28 am

The rumour mills have been speculating BA would pull LGW shorthaul in favour of a Vueling / Level like set-up for several years now.

In the current situation, I think it makes complete sense to roll mainline back and replace with a leisure focused substitute. Something like Vueling UK.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:33 am

Unless LHR/LGW doubled capacity, IAG has no choice to keep triple airport operation
 
davidjohnson6
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:34 am

What costs at LGW could a IAGBudget airline avoid that BA haven't already ? Things like hold baggage, assigned seating and food/drink have already become ancillaries. Are salaries at BA LGW really that much higher than Easyjet ?
Last edited by davidjohnson6 on Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
jghealey
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 5:46 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:38 am

They couldn't do Vueling UK as the brand has such an awful reputation while Level has zero recognition. They'd have a tough time competing directly against easyJet which already flies every route under the sun from LGW and has excellent brand recognition. It would be better to create a subsidiary operating under the BA name but with much lower costs à la LH cityLine or even BA CityFlyer. It seems they're not too bothered about upsetting the unions anymore given the current fiasco!
 
PANAMsterdam
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:45 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:56 am

Well if they want to create a short-haul carrier for flights from Britain to Europe. How about British European Airways :stirthepot:
Every country has an airline. The world has Pan Am.
 
f4f3a
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:07 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:12 am

Was just about to suggest that . Although the old bee line callsign gone .How many old brand names does BA own . Ressurection of Dan air or Caledonian or even BMI ?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8055
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:15 am

davidjohnson6 wrote:
What costs at LGW could a IAGBudget airline avoid that BA haven't already ? Things like hold baggage, assigned seating and food/drink have already become ancillaries. Are salaries at BA LGW really that much higher than Easyjet ?


It's not just wage rates. Look at labor hours (or full time equivalent employees) per 100 million ASKm. Of course, they need to recognize that some of that labor gets them a revenue premium vs. ULCC carriers.
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1647
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:27 am

PANAMsterdam wrote:
Well if they want to create a short-haul carrier for flights from Britain to Europe. How about British European Airways :stirthepot:


Whilst there may be a degree of filppancy in that suggestion, the popularity of the recent BEA and BA retro liveries amongst the general public may suggest it's an idea worth consideration, particularly amongst Brexit "pro Britannia" types.. If not BEA (and here comes some real flippancy) perhaps they could reinvent their Go-Fly brand with those MAX's in a series of various pastel shades as before ?

If they are going to ditch the BA brand then something that stacks up against the highly embedded Easyjet name will be required. So why not ?
 
PANAMsterdam
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:45 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:44 am

JannEejit wrote:
PANAMsterdam wrote:
Well if they want to create a short-haul carrier for flights from Britain to Europe. How about British European Airways :stirthepot:


Whilst there may be a degree of filppancy in that suggestion, the popularity of the recent BEA and BA retro liveries amongst the general public may suggest it's an idea worth consideration, particularly amongst Brexit "pro Britannia" types.. If not BEA (and here comes some real flippancy) perhaps they could reinvent their Go-Fly brand with those MAX's in a series of various pastel shades as before ?

If they are going to ditch the BA brand then something that stacks up against the highly embedded Easyjet name will be required. So why not ?


And since FlyBE is now gone, British European Airways could use its original 'BE' IATA code again. :bouncy: Although to prevent chaos at BRU, i'd advice them NOT to resurrect their old "Bealine" callsign. How about "British"? I mean, BA uses 'Speedbird" so why not 'British' for its shorthaul operations?

Ah well, i am thinking too far ahead now. :smile:
Every country has an airline. The world has Pan Am.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:59 am

Opus99 wrote:
These were all the same things I said, until last year BA allowed a significant portion of their a320neo family series options expire. from about 33 to 10 and you know they were complaining about the delivery times of the Neo. Now will they want to join the back of that queue? I didn't take them seriously until this happened


I dont think there is a back of the queue right now. Aren't there some "NTU"s from almost defunct carriers and probably more to come? I bet IAG could right now order 200 a320neos and they will all be delivered by Q4 2021. There are enough airlines that would love to be brought back in the queue and Airbus would also love to fill them slots again especially for IAG. The only problem here is, that IAG has no money to buy said aircraft...
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4813
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:05 pm

f4f3a wrote:
Was just about to suggest that . Although the old bee line callsign gone .How many old brand names does BA own . Ressurection of Dan air or Caledonian or even BMI ?

“BeaLine” is still in use at LHR for all BA towing, and “BeeLine” for Brussels Airlines!
 
chonetsao
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:55 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:15 pm

All LGW short haul currently operating is from LHR. It was a refreshing experience to see BA2xxx flight numbers in Heathrow departure board.
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:25 pm

As a LHR local I think it is great to have easy access to the ex LGW destinations, just hope they stay and it will be possible to use them soon.
 
Ryga
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 11:26 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:35 pm

Rumours of this have actually been circling at Gatwick for a while - the current situation fuels this. There was talk between BA staff that Vueling are to take over the slots, although more recently flyLevel UK seems to have been dusted off again.

Although some have said Vueling have a “bad reputation”, their foot print in the UK isn’t the biggest and would be easy to fix.
Sure Level is virtually unknown in the UK market, but either airline would need significant Brand awareness to kick them off, other than potentially moving current SH flights over.
AA AM BA BM BY DP DY EK MH PG RJ TK U2 VS Y2 ZB Z2 5J 9W

738 752 762ER/3ER 77W 788/9
A319/20/21 A332/3
E190
ATR 72-600
Jetstream 32
CRJ200ER
 
KliptWings
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 8:00 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:48 pm

The return of GO?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24360
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:27 pm

CarbHeatIn wrote:
Aer Lingus tried a LGW based operation before and it didn’t work. Can’t see them trying again, even with IAG support.

Right, they would want to start with a blank piece of paper anyhow so I doubt IE would have any involvement.

KliptWings wrote:
The return of GO?

Hopefully not, but IMO more likely than a reboot of one of the older legacy brands.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:32 pm

Aer Lingus or Vueling would have to create a British subsidiary to operate from LGW now the EU rules no longer apply
 
Antarius
Posts: 2421
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:41 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
TC957 wrote:
I don't see one single reason why BA should ever confirm that MAX LOI.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

Last generation technology (arguably even worse, when you get past the engine)
Aircraft with an absolutely horrid reputation even among the public
Additional capacity during the biggest downturn the industry has ever seen
Additional cap ex


....not really sure what the upside to going forward with that LOI, especially if they can get out of it, is.


The first is oft repeated a.net "wisdom". Yet somehow the market decided to order 4000 of them. Just like the NG was "too much" according to a.net and somehow (must be luck) sold 7000+. IAG also knew about the reputation when they signed the LOI... so that reason is bogus too.

The only reason IAG should let the LOI expire is that they do not need 200 new aircraft anymore.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
ba319-131
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 1:27 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:54 pm

Traffic numbers are going to be soft for years, Frequencies will be much reduced so lots of spare slots, it makes sense to consolidate short haul traffic @ LHR.

There is little connecting traffic on the BA LGW beach fleet so no real need to maintain LGW short haul to be brutally honest.
111 732 733 734 735 736 73G 738 739,7M8 BBJ 741 742 743 744 752 753 762 763 764 772 77L 773 77W L15 D10 D30 D40 AB3 AB6 312 313 318 319 320 20N 321 21N 332 333 342 343 345 346 359 351 388 CS1 CS3 I86 154 SSJ CRJ CR7 CR9 CRK 145 170 175 220
 
sk736
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:47 am

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:03 pm

jghealey wrote:
They couldn't do Vueling UK as the brand has such an awful reputation while Level has zero recognition. They'd have a tough time competing directly against easyJet which already flies every route under the sun from LGW and has excellent brand recognition. It would be better to create a subsidiary operating under the BA name but with much lower costs à la LH cityLine or even BA CityFlyer. It seems they're not too bothered about upsetting the unions anymore given the current fiasco!

Ryanair used to have zero recognition; easyJet used to have zero recognition; all airlines when first launched had zero recognition. That’s what marketing budgets are for.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20008
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: BA to permanently close LGW short-haul ?

Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:08 pm

Antarius wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
TC957 wrote:
I don't see one single reason why BA should ever confirm that MAX LOI.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

Last generation technology (arguably even worse, when you get past the engine)
Aircraft with an absolutely horrid reputation even among the public
Additional capacity during the biggest downturn the industry has ever seen
Additional cap ex


....not really sure what the upside to going forward with that LOI, especially if they can get out of it, is.


The first is oft repeated a.net "wisdom". Yet somehow the market decided to order 4000 of them. Just like the NG was "too much" according to a.net and somehow (must be luck) sold 7000+. IAG also knew about the reputation when they signed the LOI... so that reason is bogus too.

The only reason IAG should let the LOI expire is that they do not need 200 new aircraft anymore.

Actually, I think IAG could get better terms now.

To others:
We had arguments here on a.net for years on the 738 with winglets vs. wingfence A320CEO. Somehow, both sold.

Only selling 4000? Boeing and Airbus will compete. AIG will need aircraft. In reality, they should compare pricing. I'm not saying the MAX (or whatever it is rebranded) is a sure thing, but I think they will sell.

At LGW, I could see a Vueling operation.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos