Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
heebeegb wrote:8herveg wrote:On a slightly separate note, has BA ended LGW-EDI altogether? If not, when is it coming back? I thought it would have been more a more lucrative route than LGW-GLA which they still operate...
Yes EDI has been dropped. With VS moving GLA flights to EDI, GLA ma be better for feeder traffic for BA LGW.
heebeegb wrote:8herveg wrote:On a slightly separate note, has BA ended LGW-EDI altogether? If not, when is it coming back? I thought it would have been more a more lucrative route than LGW-GLA which they still operate...
Yes EDI has been dropped. With VS moving GLA flights to EDI, GLA ma be better for feeder traffic for BA LGW.
Breathe wrote:heebeegb wrote:8herveg wrote:On a slightly separate note, has BA ended LGW-EDI altogether? If not, when is it coming back? I thought it would have been more a more lucrative route than LGW-GLA which they still operate...
Yes EDI has been dropped. With VS moving GLA flights to EDI, GLA ma be better for feeder traffic for BA LGW.
Not so great for EDI folk wanting to connect with BA long haul destinations that aren't served at LHR. I'm guessing that there isn't that much feed from EDI to justify BA bringing it back?
BlueTrue wrote:BA777FO. That is an interesting comment you make. Are you suggesting that given a chance, Lgw could compete with Lhr? The reason I ask is this. For a long time now I have had real difficulty understanding why we have always been told that Lhr is a more successful airport for airlines than Lgw, yet many operated from Lgw, either as well as Lhr or for years at Lgw before moving to Lhr. We have had it suggested that routes at Lgw were loss making, yet I couldn't understand why airlines would operate from Lgw for years(think American carriers and i know they were made to use Lgw) if those routes were losing money. And then I began to wonder, was it because if they operated from Lgw, that started to have an effect on routes from Lhr, but as Lhr is made out to be the cash king/queen, then the Lhr position had to be protected. It is interesting that BA are now suggesting that they have lost money at Lgw for 9 of the last 10 years, yet as well over the last few years they have also claimed that Lgw is profitable. So which is it? I am beginning to believe that operating from Lgw has a far bigger detrimental effect on Lhr routes that they care to admit, so this is more about protecting Lhr than turning Lgw from loss to profit. Like you say, why would the few pounds saved from pilots salaries make or break this plan when the overall expenses will be in the hundreds of millions if not more. Current claims from BA make no sense.
skipness1E wrote:When you say BA operating from LGW has a detrimental effect on LHR what do you mean? That was true years ago and was addressed, recently LGW short haul and LHR had very little overlap. GLA/EDI/AMS and a few but there's been little overlap of late.
BA777FO wrote:LGW doesn't work for BA because they refuse to allow it to compete with LHR. Due to that, they end up with huge issues around seasonality. Too many routes are either summer only or heavily dependent on summer for revenues. I appreciate that's largely the European short haul industry in general but it's even more pronounced for BA shorthaul at LGW.
BA are likely to sell on the Monarch slots that they bought as some of them are at fairly unsociable hours. They did state at the onset of Covid that they would be a permanently smaller airline so this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Those LGW A320s could well come in handy to fly slots that were flown by the 31 747s.
LGW longhaul appears to have a bright future for BA though, there'll be some expansion/reintroductions of routes over the next few months. But I think Balpa decided, quite rightly, they couldn't agree to the worst jet-job T&Cs in the UK with quite frankly potentially dangerous scheduling regulations. That the entire operation of Newco apparently hinged on £2m annual savings from pilots alone I think shows BA were at worst being wholly opportunistic and at best looking to blame someone else for its demise rather than its own inept management of the operation.
Gatwick looks set to be making its 2nd/emergency runway fully operational for about 2029 so it's possible BA may just wait until then to see if they want to get back into LGW short haul as new slots will become available then.
BA777FO wrote:skipness1E wrote:
Ultimately, with BA being 31 747s light, I think they knew they would struggle to fly the summer 2022 slots if no alleviation was forthcoming.
On that basis, they attempted to offer the worst jet-job T&Cs in the country, with a productivity clause that would ensure that would forever remain the case, probably knowing it wouldn't be agreed to and the LGW A320s could fly the LHR slots. .
BealineV953 wrote:BA777FO wrote:skipness1E wrote:
Ultimately, with BA being 31 747s light, I think they knew they would struggle to fly the summer 2022 slots if no alleviation was forthcoming.
On that basis, they attempted to offer the worst jet-job T&Cs in the country, with a productivity clause that would ensure that would forever remain the case, probably knowing it wouldn't be agreed to and the LGW A320s could fly the LHR slots. .
The pre-Covid-19 plan was for all BA 747s to be retired by February 2024, with the following numbers in the fleet at year end:
• 2020: 25
• 2021: 20
• 2022: 12
• 2023: 3
So, through 2022 the 747 fleet would have reduced from 20 to only 12.
Over the past eighteen months new 777-300s, A350s and 787s have been delivered, directly replacing a significant number of the 747s.
BealineV953 wrote:You are wrong to suggest that Gatwick doesn't work for BA because the airline “refuses to allow Gatwick to compete with Heathrow”.
Something like nine or ten years ago BA created a dedicated Gatwick commercial team. This clearly demonstrated commitment to making Gatwick work. The primary objective was to maximise revenue on Gatwick services. Significantly, the Gatwick team included a dedicated Revenue Management team responsible for setting fares and managing seat availability for the Gatwick services. With little duplication between Gatwick and Heathrow services the Gatwick commercial team were free to do what they felt they needed to do.
I also think you are wrong to suggest that Gatwick doesn't work for BA because the airline’s commercial management of the Gatwick services has been “inept”.
Over time, the fundamental revenue challenge for BA at Gatwick has been yield. In the past, for whatever reason, where the airline operated from Gatwick to shorthaul ‘business’ destinations, compared to Heathrow there was far lower demand for Club, and Traveller yields were lower.
Top of my head I can’t recall which ‘business’ destinations were served from Gatwick when, but in the not too distant past IIRC these included Frankfurt, Paris, Zurich and others. My guess is that if BA went back to those less seasonal ‘business’ destinations, it would be a case of déjà vu all over again.
Against that background, BA concentrated on leisure routes from Gatwick, significantly growing the network by serving new destinations not served from Heathrow.
However, the fun didn’t last. BA found itself competing with Norwegian on a growing number of routes as that airline increased its presence at Gatwick. Going head to head with a business that prioritises revenue growth over delivering a return to investors, and is comfortable with selling at below cost is never going to be easy.
BA and IAG press releases are always very carefully worded. “…Will pursue alternative uses for the London Gatwick short-haul slots” does not read to me as disposing of the one time Monarch or any other slots. Rather, I’d say that IAG has something in mind for its Gatwick slot portfolio.
In the Sunday Times on 19th September there was a lengthy interview with IAG’s Chief Executive, Luis Gallego.
Asked about talk in the aviation industry of IAG buying or merging with easyJet, Gallego said that easyJet is one of several businesses “on the radar” at IAG, but this did not mean a bid was imminent. Asked if he had discussed a merger with executives at easyJet, he said, “We talk to all airlines that can be interesting to us”.
Buying or merging with easyJet would be a fast track way of creating an IAG low cost operation at Gatwick. Having said that, it would of course be subject to scrutiny by regulators.
If in the short term nothing happens with easyJet, then my guess is that IAG will create a stand alone low cost operation at Gatwick.
BealineV953 wrote:BA777FO wrote:skipness1E wrote:
Ultimately, with BA being 31 747s light, I think they knew they would struggle to fly the summer 2022 slots if no alleviation was forthcoming.
On that basis, they attempted to offer the worst jet-job T&Cs in the country, with a productivity clause that would ensure that would forever remain the case, probably knowing it wouldn't be agreed to and the LGW A320s could fly the LHR slots. .
Hello.
The pre-Covid-19 plan was for all BA 747s to be retired by February 2024, with the following numbers in the fleet at year end:
• 2020: 25
• 2021: 20
• 2022: 12
• 2023: 3
So, through 2022 the 747 fleet would have reduced from 20 to only 12.
Over the past eighteen months new 777-300s, A350s and 787s have been delivered, directly replacing a significant number of the 747s.
BA777FO wrote:BealineV953 wrote:BA777FO wrote:
Hello.
The pre-Covid-19 plan was for all BA 747s to be retired by February 2024, with the following numbers in the fleet at year end:
• 2020: 25
• 2021: 20
• 2022: 12
• 2023: 3
So, through 2022 the 747 fleet would have reduced from 20 to only 12.
Over the past eighteen months new 777-300s, A350s and 787s have been delivered, directly replacing a significant number of the 747s.
4 77Ws replaced 3 777-200s. Net growth of 1. Delays to the delivery of 787-10s has meant they'll be short of hulls compared to the 2019 plan. They'll need the LGW Airbus fleet if there's no alleviation to the 80/20 rule for summer 2022. They took delivery of 5 A350s and 2 787-10s. Plus the 1 extra 77W that a net loss of 23 long haul airframes and extra A319s also left the fleet.
At the end 2019 BA had 305 total aircraft. At the end of 2020 it 277 - 28 fewer.
skipness1E wrote:The thing is, there's surely a part of BA being a LHR based network long haul carrier that could do without the distraction of a secondary business model at LGW as they plan a recovery for the business. There's no future for LGW long haul bow surely, it's even crewed from LHR!
BealineV953 wrote:BA777FO wrote:BealineV953 wrote:
Hello.
The pre-Covid-19 plan was for all BA 747s to be retired by February 2024, with the following numbers in the fleet at year end:
• 2020: 25
• 2021: 20
• 2022: 12
• 2023: 3
So, through 2022 the 747 fleet would have reduced from 20 to only 12.
Over the past eighteen months new 777-300s, A350s and 787s have been delivered, directly replacing a significant number of the 747s.
4 77Ws replaced 3 777-200s. Net growth of 1. Delays to the delivery of 787-10s has meant they'll be short of hulls compared to the 2019 plan. They'll need the LGW Airbus fleet if there's no alleviation to the 80/20 rule for summer 2022. They took delivery of 5 A350s and 2 787-10s. Plus the 1 extra 77W that a net loss of 23 long haul airframes and extra A319s also left the fleet.
At the end 2019 BA had 305 total aircraft. At the end of 2020 it 277 - 28 fewer.
Hello.
Where you said “…LGW A320s could well come in handy to fly slots that were flown by the 31 747s”, rightly or wrongly I got the impression you are saying that the Heathrow slots used by thirty-one 747s would have to be covered.
Knowing that a number of longhaul aircraft have been delivered to BA since the 747s were grounded, l was curious to know how much smaller the BA longhaul fleet is than it was planned to be at this point in time.
As in my post 162, I took the end of March ’20 as my start point, because that was when regular passenger 747 services ended. I’m treating all retirements and deliveries before March ’20 as ‘business as usual’.
4x 777-300s were delivered after March '20.
2x 787-10s were delivered after March '20.
3x A350s were delivered after March '20 (the first 5 A350s arrived in 2019 and early ’20).
You’re correct, I did forget the three 777 retirements. However, the first of the three left the fleet in January ’20, so I’m not counting that one.
So, the retirements are 31 747s plus 2 777s and the new deliveries total 9. Therefore, at this point in time the BA longhaul fleet is 24 aircraft down on the pre-covid plan.
When A350 and 787-10 deliveries resume, the shortfall will begin to close. An A350 made a customer acceptance flight today, 30SEP, so delivery appears to be imminent.
Where you say “They'll need the LGW Airbus fleet if there's no alleviation to the 80/20 rule for summer 2022” you imply that part of the reason for shutting down the Gatwick shorthaul operation was to cover the Heathrow slots.
I very much doubt that.
BA’s longhaul aircraft typically depart one day, and arrive back the next.
BA’s longhaul departure and arrival slots are spread throughout the day. Typically departures to the Americas run from 0830 to 1700 and later, and to Africa and the East from mid-day to 2000 or so.
I’d guess that it is possible to cover the slots used by 24 longhaul aircraft with something like eight shorthaul aircraft, each flying three round trips a day.
BA could come up with eight shorthaul aircraft at LHR by slowing the rate of LHR-based A319 retirements and / or by reducing the A320 fleet at Gatwick.
To protect the Heathrow slots there is no need for anything as dramatic as closing down the Gatwick shorthaul operation.
BA777FO wrote:
IAG doesn't have a great track record with LCCs. Veuling was the least profitable opco with the lowest ROIC and Level never turned a profit. But yes, IAG won't be letting the slots go for nothing. Good job Balpa said no though, BA pilots (and extended to that cabin crew at Gatwick and GGS staff) had been underpaid on a benchmark against similar European airlines for quite some time.
jomur wrote:
To be blunt if the pilots don't like the pay they could always go and work for some one else.. No one is forcing any one to stay. Maybe one of those higher paid european jobs..
I would love to see BALPA try and run an airline as they always seem to know best...
jomur wrote:BA777FO wrote:
IAG doesn't have a great track record with LCCs. Veuling was the least profitable opco with the lowest ROIC and Level never turned a profit. But yes, IAG won't be letting the slots go for nothing. Good job Balpa said no though, BA pilots (and extended to that cabin crew at Gatwick and GGS staff) had been underpaid on a benchmark against similar European airlines for quite some time.
To be blunt if the pilots don't like the pay they could always go and work for some one else.. No one is forcing any one to stay. Maybe one of those higher paid european jobs..
I would love to see BALPA try and run an airline as they always seem to know best...
TUGMASTER wrote:jomur wrote:
To be blunt if the pilots don't like the pay they could always go and work for some one else.. No one is forcing any one to stay. Maybe one of those higher paid european jobs..
I would love to see BALPA try and run an airline as they always seem to know best...
CLOWN.
BaronHamstead wrote:Just back to ask if anyone knows what is happening to the Canary Islands and Paphos flights next Summer. This morning still no direct flights showing from Heathrow. I can’t believe they will be dropped! I will have to be patient. Maybe not room for them at Heathrow and they will go from Gatwick! One can dream
I also wonder if there is any significance in keeping the old Gatwick flight numbers. Probably not. Unless in the longer term,(2023 onwards) they are still looking for a resolution for Gatwick short haul. Interesting!
Hopefully, long haul will grow as fortress Heathrow becomes more expensive and slot constrained once more.
BaronHamstead wrote:I don’t think slot sitting is an issue!
BA777FO wrote:jomur wrote:BA777FO wrote:
IAG doesn't have a .,,...
Of course. Greedy pilots again. this is where the ignorance shines through. Balpa determined that the scheduling agreement would have been dangerous - easyJet were on the verge of industrial action over scheduling agreements with similar clauses, only Newco's proposal went further.
Secondly there was a provision in the contract that meant Newco pilots would have to maintain industry leading productivity - they were quite literally the worst T&Cs for a commercial air transport jet job in the UK. This was after BA initially refused to honour a clause in the contract that meant Newco pilots would be BA employees and not employees of a third party. How do you negotiate honestly with a company that goes back on its word?
Perhaps one day, after years of airlines successfully lobbying EASA to water down safety rules on FTLs and scheduling agreements you might thank Balpa when it saves your life. Fatigue is a contributory factor in just about every single fatal air accident.
Secondly, with all due respect, if you understood how seniority uniquely affects airline pilots you wouldn't come out with such nonsense.
JumboMaiden wrote:BA777FO wrote:jomur wrote:
Of course. Greedy pilots again. this is where the ignorance shines through. Balpa determined that the scheduling agreement would have been dangerous - easyJet were on the verge of industrial action over scheduling agreements with similar clauses, only Newco's proposal went further.
Secondly there was a provision in the contract that meant Newco pilots would have to maintain industry leading productivity - they were quite literally the worst T&Cs for a commercial air transport jet job in the UK. This was after BA initially refused to honour a clause in the contract that meant Newco pilots would be BA employees and not employees of a third party. How do you negotiate honestly with a company that goes back on its word?
Perhaps one day, after years of airlines successfully lobbying EASA to water down safety rules on FTLs and scheduling agreements you might thank Balpa when it saves your life. Fatigue is a contributory factor in just about every single fatal air accident.
Secondly, with all due respect, if you understood how seniority uniquely affects airline pilots you wouldn't come out with such nonsense.
WHy would they have needed to interfere with the pilots? I was expecting to see BA invent a new cabin crew only seasonal contract that kept them all busy in summer
and extended into winter for the numbers that required. LHR cabin crew will now be doing flights into Gatwick from GLA/others I read which still seemed cockeyed to me.
f4f3a wrote:Why can't ba make money at Gatwick is odd if their costs are below easyjet ? Gatwick was one of easyjet biggest moneymakers . Is the loss making at Gatwick a fiddle for taxes ? It just doesn't make sense . Same a/c cheap crew same routes how can one company make money and the other lose it
BA777FO wrote:JumboMaiden wrote:BA777FO wrote:
Enough Gatwick cabin crew were made redundant that arguably they'd have struggled to crew a summer shorthaul operation anyway.
BA777FO wrote:Interesting BA has reneged on their threats to sell the slots. Details will drop tomorrow but I imagine it will largely be the same deal slightly repackaged. Pay shifted more to basic pay than variable as was proposed before and some of the nastier scheduling points smoothed out.
I imagine this time it'll pass with a yes vote as sounds like Balpa intends to recommend a yes at ballot.
Unrelated to LGW, but BA may also release some interesting schedule updates soon too - a sign that business is definitely looking up.
BA777FO wrote:BealineV953 wrote:BA777FO wrote:
4 77Ws replaced 3 777-200s. Net growth of 1. Delays to the delivery of 787-10s has meant they'll be short of hulls compared to the 2019 plan. They'll need the LGW Airbus fleet if there's no alleviation to the 80/20 rule for summer 2022. They took delivery of 5 A350s and 2 787-10s. Plus the 1 extra 77W that a net loss of 23 long haul airframes and extra A319s also left the fleet.
At the end 2019 BA had 305 total aircraft. At the end of 2020 it 277 - 28 fewer.
Hello.
Where you said “…LGW A320s could well come in handy to fly slots that were flown by the 31 747s”, rightly or wrongly I got the impression you are saying that the Heathrow slots used by thirty-one 747s would have to be covered.
Knowing that a number of longhaul aircraft have been delivered to BA since the 747s were grounded, l was curious to know how much smaller the BA longhaul fleet is than it was planned to be at this point in time.
As in my post 162, I took the end of March ’20 as my start point, because that was when regular passenger 747 services ended. I’m treating all retirements and deliveries before March ’20 as ‘business as usual’.
4x 777-300s were delivered after March '20.
2x 787-10s were delivered after March '20.
3x A350s were delivered after March '20 (the first 5 A350s arrived in 2019 and early ’20).
You’re correct, I did forget the three 777 retirements. However, the first of the three left the fleet in January ’20, so I’m not counting that one.
So, the retirements are 31 747s plus 2 777s and the new deliveries total 9. Therefore, at this point in time the BA longhaul fleet is 24 aircraft down on the pre-covid plan.
When A350 and 787-10 deliveries resume, the shortfall will begin to close. An A350 made a customer acceptance flight today, 30SEP, so delivery appears to be imminent.
Where you say “They'll need the LGW Airbus fleet if there's no alleviation to the 80/20 rule for summer 2022” you imply that part of the reason for shutting down the Gatwick shorthaul operation was to cover the Heathrow slots.
I very much doubt that.
BA’s longhaul aircraft typically depart one day, and arrive back the next.
BA’s longhaul departure and arrival slots are spread throughout the day. Typically departures to the Americas run from 0830 to 1700 and later, and to Africa and the East from mid-day to 2000 or so.
I’d guess that it is possible to cover the slots used by 24 longhaul aircraft with something like eight shorthaul aircraft, each flying three round trips a day.
BA could come up with eight shorthaul aircraft at LHR by slowing the rate of LHR-based A319 retirements and / or by reducing the A320 fleet at Gatwick.
To protect the Heathrow slots there is no need for anything as dramatic as closing down the Gatwick shorthaul operation.
The A319 retirements are often fixed months in advance, there's no scope to delay that now. There has also been a net loss of A319s, it's not just the longhaul airframes. In addition, due to the nature of the slots the 747s would have flown you can't necessarily get 4 sectors out of the A320. You can't get Gatwick levels of efficiency at Heathrow, it's a stick they've used against crew for quite some time! The most efficient Airbus schedule will achieve at most 5 sectors in a day (two out-and-backs followed by a nightstop) but most achieve only 3 or 4 sectors in the day. There's no way you'd cover 30 slot pairs at Heathrow with 8 A320s, many of the departure/arrival times are similar and not overly dispersed throughout the day.
When you lose ~30 long haul airframes with the disparity of slot timings you might get away with flying those with, at best 15 airframes, but more likely closer to 20. BA was already running a lean operation with regards to airframe availability. Without the Gatwick airframes there would have to be ad-hoc cancellations up to but not exceeding 20% of the time.
skipness1E wrote:f4f3a wrote:Why can't ba make money at Gatwick is odd if their costs are below easyjet? Gatwick was one of easyjet biggest moneymakers . Is the loss making at Gatwick a fiddle for taxes ? It just doesn't make sense . Same a/c cheap crew same routes how can one company make money and the other lose it
Internal allocation of costs. Ask the Finance Director. It's opaque at best BUT the CEO relies on Finance he doesn't tend to INSTRUCT.
That's why EZY base their shiniest NEOs at LGW and BA don't.
Everything BA have done at LGW is seem via the question of : "How does this impact LHR?" (Key profit centre)
Everything EZY do at LGW is via the lens of "How does this support our bottom line at Gatwick?"
Two competing models.
BealineV953 wrote:I find it hard to understand how you can claim that “without the Gatwick airframes there would be ad-hoc cancellations up to but not exceeding 20% of the time” without knowing how many ‘longhaul’ slots BA may want to protect, the size of the longhaul fleet (deliveries of new aircraft, the number of stored aircraft returned to service) or the size of the shorthaul fleet (deliveries of new aircraft, the number of stored aircraft returned to service).
skipness1E wrote:Sorry that's wholly wrong. BA LGW is not treated as a business in it's own right, there's some very good posts upthread by staff which explain why. It isn't allowed to fly routes that cannibalise or damage the LHR operation. By way of example it gets LGW-YYZ as a route but only as a seasonal overflow.