davidjohnson6 wrote:

So perhaps IAG should start making the value of bonuses for senior management more generous but conditional on the stock price averaged over the next 3 years ?

So that it can be gamed by share buybacks as many firms have done over the last few years?

skipness1E wrote:

Just like they outsourced passenger handling at their biggest airports which are useless when the operation falls over. 3rd party handlers are paid the bare minimum and you get what you pay for.

FYI Skip,
Every handler at LHR is paying more than BA are paying their new hires now.
And they were recruiting before BA saw the problem.
Hence they’re not in such a state as BA , bearing in mind that all these handlers , Menzies/Dnata etc get paid for turning their customers aircraft, they made sure they got as many staff as possible.
The morale at BA is rock bottom… even with BA constantly offering double time for O/T. And on some days when the Shit really does hit the fan, they’re enhancing that rate by another £25 /$40 per hour.
What’s needed is for the BA management to start listening to its best assets again…. It’s staff.!!!!

Oh that's interesting, good to know that some of the pain dropped on 3rd party handlers is easing. They always got the brown end of the ****y stick in the past!

davidjohnson6 wrote:

So perhaps IAG should start making the value of bonuses for senior management more generous but conditional on the stock price averaged over the next 3 years ?

That just allows them to game short term benefit and get out before the medium term strategic consequences hit home.

JumboMaiden wrote:

[*]

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Has anyone ever flown 789 last row in economy class? Just wondering what personal experiences may be in those seats being so close to galley / toilets as I'm considering them as option flying Sydney to London and vice versa

Thanks in advance

That's a long way to travel sitting back there, but the last row does have the buffer area of the entryway to the crew bunks (4L) behind it (so not a simple thin bulkhead
to the galley) and an equipment stowage cupboard at 4R. Toilet entry faces the back of the a/c not the the aisle and so is not directly at the aisle of the last row. Only advantage I can
think of is no one behind leaning and pulling seat backs every time they get up.

Tricky choice but thank you for the information, especially the stowage cupboard and crew bunk entey as I wasn't aware of that

A bit more info for you on BA’s 789

https://www.aerolopa.com/ba-type-789

Does anyone know the reason for the large number of flight cancellations to India? 50% of the frequencies to each of the five Indian destinations have been cancelled over the next seven days.

Seeing as SQ has now restored their full schedule LHR-SIN, I wonder why BA resorted to a B789 when pre-Covid they ran an A380 LHR-SIN-LHR and an B777ER LHR-SIN-SYD??

A big drop in capacity, unless they plan to increase frequency later this year?

As to Australia, big difference in their offering, serving only SYD, when multiple Australian cities are available using the ME3, QF, even SQ.

Scotron12 wrote:

Seeing as SQ has now restored their full schedule LHR-SIN, I wonder why BA resorted to a B789 when pre-Covid they ran an A380 LHR-SIN-LHR and an B777ER LHR-SIN-SYD??

A big drop in capacity, unless they plan to increase frequency later this year?

As to Australia, big difference in their offering, serving only SYD, when multiple Australian cities are available using the ME3, QF, even SQ.

I’m guessing the 77W fleet is busy flying to ex A380 and other premium heavy destinations, thats a lot of tied up frames. Singapore’s transit restrictions also probably didn’t help. Bet the 77W will be back next season.

Scotron12 wrote:

Seeing as SQ has now restored their full schedule LHR-SIN, I wonder why BA resorted to a B789 when pre-Covid they ran an A380 LHR-SIN-LHR and an B777ER LHR-SIN-SYD??

A big drop in capacity, unless they plan to increase frequency later this year?

As to Australia, big difference in their offering, serving only SYD, when multiple Australian cities are available using the ME3, QF, even SQ.

BA has been serving only Sydney (SYD) in Australia for a number of years now. The big change is using the 787-9 (789) versus the 777-300ER (77W) pre-COVID, but that makes sense given the ongoing reconfiguration of the 77W as a more premium heavy aircraft as the effective Hi-J 747-436 replacement.

But even before the LHR-SIN-SYD route, for a number of years BA had only been serving SYD anyway with BA009/BA010 routing LHR-BKK-SYD as well. The move to use the 77W on the flight via SIN coincided with the 747-436 being withdrawn from both routes, as well as switching to being crewed by Mixed Fleet cabin crew. The combination of the aircraft switch and the crew change are both said to have moved the flight back into profit.

As of now, how many bases do BA keep out of the UK?

Do LHR crews fly all the way to SYD?

a350lover wrote:

As of now, how many bases do BA keep out of the UK?

Do LHR crews fly all the way to SYD?

Yes they do. The reason SYD went to Mixed Fleet quite early on (2013?) is they only required one overnight in SIN/SYD/SIN whereas Worldwide previously had two nights in SIN on the return leg.

RyanairGuru wrote:

a350lover wrote:

As of now, how many bases do BA keep out of the UK?

Do LHR crews fly all the way to SYD?

Yes they do. The reason SYD went to Mixed Fleet quite early on (2013?) is they only required one overnight in SIN/SYD/SIN whereas Worldwide previously had two nights in SIN on the return leg.

Mixed Fleet did exactly the same 9-day trip as Worldwide Fleet. It’s still a 9-day under Heathrow Cabin Crew.

Seeing as it's the longest rota on BAs route system, does cabin crew prefer or would rather LON-USA or LON-Africa??

Desperate BA are now offering a £1000 golden Hello if you join before July.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61104230

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Scotron12 wrote:

Seeing as SQ has now restored their full schedule LHR-SIN, I wonder why BA resorted to a B789 when pre-Covid they ran an A380 LHR-SIN-LHR and an B777ER LHR-SIN-SYD??

A big drop in capacity, unless they plan to increase frequency later this year?

As to Australia, big difference in their offering, serving only SYD, when multiple Australian cities are available using the ME3, QF, even SQ.

I’m guessing the 77W fleet is busy flying to ex A380 and other premium heavy destinations, thats a lot of tied up frames.

Hello. You probably know this, but just in case:
Six BA A380s are back in service. Of the others, LEH positioned MAD-LHR a couple of days ago and LEE positioned MNL-MAD today. LEB, LEC, LEG and LEJ have not flown in the last seven days. Without ba.source I've lost track of where those four are. If I remember correctly LEB and LEC were stored at DOH.

it was noted on the nashville thread that BA was putting the 787-9 on LHR-BNA. will that be right from the get go of the restart of the route? or when does this go into effect? I know it maybe surprising but if the F is priced relatively reasonably on the route I bet BA would do great with Nashville customers in F

BA started operating two wet leased Iberia Express A320s out of Gatwick today, April 14th, with rumours of one or two more to come.

Also rumours of Finnair wet leases to operate out of Heathrow from the start of May.

Clearly there is still a shortage of cabin crew, as well as the other known baggage and loading shortages.

What are this board's thoughts on British Airways to IND and MCI in 2023?

strangeplanes wrote:

What are this board's thoughts on British Airways to IND and MCI in 2023?

Well of course IND is/was in the works due to the intel slip last year but MCI could be a good fit since it has higher PDEW/revenue potential than IND and it’s one of LHR’s largest unserved US routes. Would be a nice touch to inaugurate the new terminal. Is this hypothetical or insider info?

Prior to the Pandemic, MCI was the largest transatlantic market without a direct flight to Europe (EXCLUDING KEF). anna.aero did a great write up on why it should be the next market BA look to enter. With STL having now secured service to mainland Europe, MCI becomes an even more obvious choice for BA. It would make more sense than IND.

I believe that BA has pushed back the LHR-BKK route again even while the plane is flying on most days but only with cargo.
Does anybody knows why this is done and when or if the BKK route will be reinstated ?
As Thailand (and the rest of Asia) is opening up more and more i would expect that BA would reinstate the route sooner then later.
Specially as Qatar and Thai among others are flying with full planes and there is for sure demand (same as before the pandemic).

inaforeignsky wrote:

Prior to the Pandemic, MCI was the largest transatlantic market without a direct flight to Europe (EXCLUDING KEF). anna.aero did a great write up on why it should be the next market BA look to enter. With STL having now secured service to mainland Europe, MCI becomes an even more obvious choice for BA. It would make more sense than IND.

IND is only considered because of their near bottomless subsidy pot. Who’s gonna turn down $10 million? MCI has been able to work miracles on a shoestring budget. We landed FI with only $450k.

trexel94 wrote:

inaforeignsky wrote:

Prior to the Pandemic, MCI was the largest transatlantic market without a direct flight to Europe (EXCLUDING KEF). anna.aero did a great write up on why it should be the next market BA look to enter. With STL having now secured service to mainland Europe, MCI becomes an even more obvious choice for BA. It would make more sense than IND.

IND is only considered because of their near bottomless subsidy pot. Who’s gonna turn down $10 million? MCI has been able to work miracles on a shoestring budget. We landed FI with only $450k.

As trex says, it doesn't always go by who makes the most sense. It goes by who pays the most money at this point. When it comes to mid sized markets, if you can pay the price you jump the line. Up until now STL kept getting jumped because they didn't have the money. They got the money together and now they have a flight.

trexel94 wrote:

inaforeignsky wrote:

Prior to the Pandemic, MCI was the largest transatlantic market without a direct flight to Europe (EXCLUDING KEF). anna.aero did a great write up on why it should be the next market BA look to enter. With STL having now secured service to mainland Europe, MCI becomes an even more obvious choice for BA. It would make more sense than IND.

IND is only considered because of their near bottomless subsidy pot. Who’s gonna turn down $10 million? MCI has been able to work miracles on a shoestring budget. We landed FI with only $450k.

1) CLE is larger.

2) The anna.aero article referenced only measured US-Europe, TATL is more than that, especially for IND with India being one of its largest markets. The article was not on why it should be the next market, it didn't actually even mention MCI outside of the chart.

3) IND hasn't offered any airline $10M. Every mid-sized airport has offered millions for legacy service.

4) 450k is comparable to what other airports have given FI

5) IND-Europe is a proven legacy market because of DL's IND-CDG flight. MCI-Europe was recently been tried with FI, which is an LCC, and that was pulled before COVID.

6) AA is way larger in IND than MCI, over 50% more daily flights larger this summer, for context
https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/17/britis ... -st-louis/

concordeforever wrote:

BA started operating two wet leased Iberia Express A320s out of Gatwick today, April 14th, with rumours of one or two more to come.

Also rumours of Finnair wet leases to operate out of Heathrow from the start of May.

Clearly there is still a shortage of cabin crew, as well as the other known baggage and loading shortages.

Right now 2 A320s (EC-LLE & EC-LUS) from I2 are operating from LGW. The contract sets that two extra aircrafts will be added.

eurotrader85 wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

BA CityFlyer has just announced new/resumed routes for this summer:

London City to:
-Barcelona - 6x weekly - begins 20th June
-Guernsey - 2x weekly - resumes 20th June
-Luxembourg - 23x weekly - begins 27th March (replacing LHR-LUX)
-Jersey - 2x weekly - resumes 20th June
-Milan Malpensa - 1x daily - begins 2nd April (reportedly replacing LCY-LIN)
-Thessaloniki - 1x weekly - begins 18th June

LCY-MUC has also been axed

Really do not understand the logic of those bolded ones. Just going head to head with LG on the city shuttle route rather than offering the differential of onward connections, and no one wants to fly to far out MXP compared to LIN, especially if you specifically flew from LCY on a little Embraer to nip between the two smaller local airports.

The UK has lost automatic and beneficial EU carrier access to Linate for new services

rutankrd wrote:

The UK has lost automatic and beneficial EU carrier access to Linate

Please kindly provide official source on your claim.

If I understand correctly, BA still runs LHR-LIN flights. That is contrary to your claim.

The reason BA does not fly LCY-LIN is simple. The LCY-LIN passenger number is just over 1/4 of the LHR-LIN. And the passenger number will only shrink in near term. If you have not noticed, Italian banks had some issue before 2019 which still had not been addressed. The weakness among Italian bank sector is well documented but became more intense in recent years before Covid hit.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

FR24 thinks that:
G-XLEB - flew MNL-MAD on 08-Feb-2022
G-XLEC - flew MNL-MAD on 08-Mar-2022
G-XLEG - flew LHR-MNL on 01-Apr-2022
G-XLEJ - flew DOH-MNL on 01-Feb-2022

I saw x 3 British Airways A380’s stored at Madrid last week.
Didn't see any stored at Tureul.

BA’s meltdown at LHR continues.. flight was late plus we spent 40 minutes waiting for the airbridge to be connected… well as least you get a free packet of crisps and a bottle of water now.

chonetsao wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

The UK has lost automatic and beneficial EU carrier access to Linate

Please kindly provide official source on your claim.

If I understand correctly, BA still runs LHR-LIN flights. That is contrary to your claim.

The reason BA does not fly LCY-LIN is simple. The LCY-LIN passenger number is just over 1/4 of the LHR-LIN. And the passenger number will only shrink in near term. If you have not noticed, Italian banks had some issue before 2019 which still had not been addressed. The weakness among Italian bank sector is well documented but became more intense in recent years before Covid hit.

Said Automatic as in NEW Services !!!! And was going caveat may have transferred some of slots to Heathrow !

There is an EU article that codifies Italian rules on access limitations and what traffic can and can’t operate via Linate that has existed since 2016 and modified in 2019 largely at the request of Aer Lingus if memory serves correctly

Document and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of modified traffic distribution rules for the airports Milan Malpensa, Milan Linate and Orio al Serio (Bergamo)

The relevant decrees Bersani, Bersani 2 and Lupi decree Italian rules determines access to Linate and is only for certain EU carriers on point to point with narrow body aircraft . Heathrow services retain that access however no other routes now meet the criteria from the UK so it Malpensa or Bergamo only for us .

Your economic statements succinctly addressed the regulations in the case of this transfer to Malpensa do they not ?

chonetsao wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

The UK has lost automatic and beneficial EU carrier access to Linate

Please kindly provide official source on your claim.

If I understand correctly, BA still runs LHR-LIN flights. That is contrary to your claim.

RUTANKRD is correct.

UK airlines can no longer obtain 'NEW' LIN slots, while there is a debate on-going whether UK airlines can maintain their existing LIN slots.

After a long standing dispute (1995-2001) between Italy and the European Commission over airline access to Milan's airport system (LIN, MXP, BGY), it was agreed that:

- Malpensa is the Milan airport for 'non-EU' carriers.
- Linate continues to offer limited access to EU carriers.
- Bergamo slots can be requested by EU carriers.

Presently BA still operates LHR-LIN based on 'grandfather' rights from UK-EU membership days, however as a "non-EU" carrier BA is not able to obtain new LIN slots.

Whether the Italian Government decides to take the existing LIN slots away from BA, remains to be seen.
I would assume repercussions would occur, as the UK Government could take the LCY/LHR-LIN route authority away from ITA Airways.
This may explain the current status quo.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 32008R1008

rutankrd wrote:

Said Automatic as in NEW Services !!!! And was going caveat may have transferred some of slots to Heathrow !

There is an EU article that codifies Italian rules on access limitations and what traffic can and can’t operate via Linate that has existed since 2016 and modified in 2019 largely at the request of Aer Lingus if memory serves correctly

Document and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of modified traffic distribution rules for the airports Milan Malpensa, Milan Linate and Orio al Serio (Bergamo)

The Lupi decree the Italian rule determines access to Linate and is only for certain EU carriers on point to point with narrow body aircraft . Heathrow services retain that access however no other routes now meet the criteria from the UK so it Malpensa or Bergamo only for us .

Your economic statements succinctly addressed the regulations in the case of this transfer to Malpensa do they not ?

Thank you for taking your time. I looked at the Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008.

[QUOTE=EC 1008/2008]Article 19
Traffic distribution between airports and exercise of traffic rights
1.
The exercise of traffic rights shall be subject to published Community, national, regional and local operational rules relating to safety, security, the protection of the environment and the allocation of slots.
2.
A Member State, after consultation with interested parties including the air carriers and airports concerned, may regulate, without discrimination among destinations inside the Community or on grounds of nationality or identity of air carriers, the distribution of air traffic between airports satisfying the following conditions:
(a)the airports serve the same city or conurbation;
(b)the airports are served by adequate transport infrastructure providing, to the extent possible, a direct connection making it possible to arrive at the airport within 90 minutes including, where necessary, on a cross-border basis;
(c)the airports are linked to one another and to the city or conurbation they serve by frequent, reliable and efficient public transport services; and
(d)the airports offer necessary services to air carriers, and do not unduly prejudice their commercial opportunities.
Any decision to regulate the distribution of air traffic between the airports concerned shall respect the principles of proportionality and transparency, and shall be based on objective criteria.

3.
A Member State concerned shall inform the Commission of its intention to regulate the distribution of air traffic or to change an existing traffic distribution rule.
The Commission shall examine the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article and, within six months of receipt of the information from the Member State, and in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 25(2), shall decide whether the Member State may apply the measures.

The Commission shall publish its decision in the Official Journal of the European Union and the measures shall not be applied before the publication of the Commission's approval.

4.
With respect to traffic distribution rules existing at the time of the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall at the request of a Member State and may on its own initiative examine the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 and, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 25(2), shall decide whether the Member State may continue to apply the measure.
5.
The Commission shall publish its decisions made under this Article in the Official Journal of the European Union.[/QUOTE]

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2008/1008/article/19

And I also find UK parliament response to The Lupi Decree for those interested.

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/2015/2415/data.pdf

It has a lot of information.

Thank you for pointing out at the sources. Very helpful.

Still there are questions to be answered though.

chonetsao wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

Said Automatic as in NEW Services !!!! And was going caveat may have transferred some of slots to Heathrow !

There is an EU article that codifies Italian rules on access limitations and what traffic can and can’t operate via Linate that has existed since 2016 and modified in 2019 largely at the request of Aer Lingus if memory serves correctly

Document and Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of modified traffic distribution rules for the airports Milan Malpensa, Milan Linate and Orio al Serio (Bergamo)

The Lupi decree the Italian rule determines access to Linate and is only for certain EU carriers on point to point with narrow body aircraft . Heathrow services retain that access however no other routes now meet the criteria from the UK so it Malpensa or Bergamo only for us .

Your economic statements succinctly addressed the regulations in the case of this transfer to Malpensa do they not ?

Thank you for taking your time. I looked at the Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008.

[QUOTE=EC 1008/2008]Article 19
Traffic distribution between airports and exercise of traffic rights
1.
The exercise of traffic rights shall be subject to published Community, national, regional and local operational rules relating to safety, security, the protection of the environment and the allocation of slots.
2.
A Member State, after consultation with interested parties including the air carriers and airports concerned, may regulate, without discrimination among destinations inside the Community or on grounds of nationality or identity of air carriers, the distribution of air traffic between airports satisfying the following conditions:
(a)the airports serve the same city or conurbation;
(b)the airports are served by adequate transport infrastructure providing, to the extent possible, a direct connection making it possible to arrive at the airport within 90 minutes including, where necessary, on a cross-border basis;
(c)the airports are linked to one another and to the city or conurbation they serve by frequent, reliable and efficient public transport services; and
(d)the airports offer necessary services to air carriers, and do not unduly prejudice their commercial opportunities.
Any decision to regulate the distribution of air traffic between the airports concerned shall respect the principles of proportionality and transparency, and shall be based on objective criteria.

3.
A Member State concerned shall inform the Commission of its intention to regulate the distribution of air traffic or to change an existing traffic distribution rule.
The Commission shall examine the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article and, within six months of receipt of the information from the Member State, and in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 25(2), shall decide whether the Member State may apply the measures.

The Commission shall publish its decision in the Official Journal of the European Union and the measures shall not be applied before the publication of the Commission's approval.

4.
With respect to traffic distribution rules existing at the time of the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall at the request of a Member State and may on its own initiative examine the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 and, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 25(2), shall decide whether the Member State may continue to apply the measure.
5.
The Commission shall publish its decisions made under this Article in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2008/1008/article/19

And I also find UK parliament response to The Lupi Decree for those interested.

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/2015/2415/data.pdf

It has a lot of information.

Thank you for pointing out at the sources. Very helpful.

Still there are questions to be answered though.[/quote]

The key is Milan declares their airports as a single system and goes on to record their fingers in just such a way . The principle point remains the UK carriers have disqualified themselves from automatic access for new routes into/out of Linate under the traffic number caps and by no longer being an EU/EEA member state carriers.
Some might ask why the UK couldn’t have done something similar in London well its fundamentally the UK government doesn’t consider it a system ( largely political).
Paris however operates with the system approach particularly for much none EU traffic across Orly and Roissy.
Yes plenty reading to be done .Never a simple view point or throw away statement !

Midwestindy wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

inaforeignsky wrote:

Prior to the Pandemic, MCI was the largest transatlantic market without a direct flight to Europe (EXCLUDING KEF). anna.aero did a great write up on why it should be the next market BA look to enter. With STL having now secured service to mainland Europe, MCI becomes an even more obvious choice for BA. It would make more sense than IND.

IND is only considered because of their near bottomless subsidy pot. Who’s gonna turn down $10 million? MCI has been able to work miracles on a shoestring budget. We landed FI with only $450k.

1) CLE is larger.

2) The anna.aero article referenced only measured US-Europe, TATL is more than that, especially for IND with India being one of its largest markets. The article was not on why it should be the next market, it didn't actually even mention MCI outside of the chart.

3) IND hasn't offered any airline $10M. Every mid-sized airport has offered millions for legacy service.

4) 450k is comparable to what other airports have given FI

5) IND-Europe is a proven legacy market because of DL's IND-CDG flight. MCI-Europe was recently been tried with FI, which is an LCC, and that was pulled before COVID.

6) AA is way larger in IND than MCI, over 50% more daily flights larger this summer, for context
https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/17/britis ... -st-louis/

Ok let’s get real here.

Actually it’s $20 million offered by the state to lure international flights which by default would go to IND. Must be nice. DL was paid off 5.5 million to operate CDG.

https://www.ibj.com/articles/70657-20m- ... al-flights

Surely you realize FI and BA cater to vastly different demographics? Wasn’t able to find an airport (of similar size to MCI) that offered anything near 450k. STL shelled out around 2 million for Wow Air (that also pulled out), CLE a similar case. Which cities are you referring too? 450K is a bargain. Small EAS towns have shelled out more for basic CRJ service to DEN.

The data is all that matters. I have no comment to IND-Asia traffic but the chart displayed is quite clear. IND has lower revenue potential and PDEW to Europe than MCI let alone CLE.

That’s what makes BA unique amongst other airlines. You can’t go wrong with LHR. But as far as AA/OW goes, the service/destination levels are roughly the same with only the only difference is JFK. AA is actually the biggest legacy carrier at MCI and MCI as a whole is much busier than IND so I would imagine we’re not far behind IND if not on par. Overall, IND is no unicorn among other peer Midwest cities and If you have numbers to compare that would be great.

Any market differences are marginal at best and once again MCI and CLE outrank IND in TATL. My point still remains. Incentives is really the only differentiator at this stage. BA could throw a dart at any Midwest city and do fine. Again who’s going to turn down 10/20 million?

trexel94 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

IND is only considered because of their near bottomless subsidy pot. Who’s gonna turn down $10 million? MCI has been able to work miracles on a shoestring budget. We landed FI with only $450k.

1) CLE is larger.

2) The anna.aero article referenced only measured US-Europe, TATL is more than that, especially for IND with India being one of its largest markets. The article was not on why it should be the next market, it didn't actually even mention MCI outside of the chart.

3) IND hasn't offered any airline $10M. Every mid-sized airport has offered millions for legacy service.

4) 450k is comparable to what other airports have given FI

5) IND-Europe is a proven legacy market because of DL's IND-CDG flight. MCI-Europe was recently been tried with FI, which is an LCC, and that was pulled before COVID.

6) AA is way larger in IND than MCI, over 50% more daily flights larger this summer, for context
https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/17/britis ... -st-louis/

Ok let’s get real here.

Actually it’s $20 million offered by the state to lure international flights which by default would go to IND. Must be nice. DL was paid off 5.5 million to operate CDG.

https://www.ibj.com/articles/70657-20m- ... al-flights

Surely you realize FI and BA cater to vastly different demographics? Wasn’t able to find an airport (of similar size to MCI) that offered anything near 450k. STL shelled out around 2 million for Wow Air (that also pulled out), CLE a similar case. Which cities are you referring too? 450K is a bargain. Small EAS towns have shelled out more for basic CRJ service to DEN.

The data is all that matters. I have no comment to IND-Asia traffic but the chart displayed is quite clear. IND has lower revenue potential and PDEW to Europe than MCI let alone CLE.

That’s what makes BA unique amongst other airlines. You can’t go wrong with LHR. But as far as AA/OW goes, the service/destination levels are roughly the same with only the only difference is JFK. AA is actually the biggest legacy carrier at MCI and MCI as a whole is much busier than IND so I would imagine we’re not far behind IND if not on par. Overall, IND is no unicorn among other peer Midwest cities and If you have numbers to compare that would be great.

Any market differences are marginal at best and once again MCI and CLE outrank IND in TATL. My point still remains. Incentives is really the only differentiator at this stage. BA could throw a dart at any Midwest city and do fine. Again who’s going to turn down 10/20 million?

1) RDU offered 275,000. MCI-KEF was summer only, compared to CLE-KEF which was supposed to be year-round. So on a per flight basis, the incentives are very comparable, with CLE actually being lower.
https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/ne ... eland.html
https://www.cleveland.com/business/2019 ... ntary.html

2) Your article is out of date, as of last year this is the funding available, of which millions are allocated to non-international flights: "The creation of the Direct Flight Fund will allocate $10 million to support direct, regional and international flights to and from Indiana"

Honestly, not sure why you are pointing out Indiana specifically, these air service incentives programs exist in STL, PIT, Ohio, and other states. You can thank PIT for it btw, they offered 9M for DL's PIT-CDG service
https://mailchi.mp/iedc/news-indiana-ma ... sg5bet6jn7

3). The chart is the revenue potential for only IND/CVG/CMH/e.t.c-LON, which would make up only 20-25% of the revenue on a B787..... the rest of the seats need to be filled.

And if you look at MCI-Europe yields are wayyyy lower than that. MCI-Europe fares are nearly 25% lower than MCI-LON. Some are even worse if using 2018 dates:

https://twitter.com/JustinMeyerKC/statu ... MdfTu2J5QQ

4) On peak days in July (July 15), AA has 40 departures from IND, AA has only 26 departures from MCI on the same day. Seats are closer but IND is still way larger, ~4000 vs. ~3000. Plus 12 IND destinations vs. 9 MCI destinations. MCI doesn't serve BOS, JFK, or LAX.

In terms of AA, IND has the most destinations, departures, and seats out of any midwest airport outside of ORD. STL is close on seats, but there is a pretty large gap in every other category

5) Again, IND isn't offering any airline 10M let alone 20M. BA was actually even planning on adding IND-LHR on top of IND-CDG, until COVID hit. You need to be able to sustain the services you have, and MCI couldn't do that, even if FI is an LCC and BA is a FSC.
https://www.ibj.com/articles/lagging-bu ... hts-at-ind

davidjohnson6 wrote:

FR24 thinks that:
G-XLEB - flew MNL-MAD on 08-Feb-2022
G-XLEC - flew MNL-MAD on 08-Mar-2022
G-XLEG - flew LHR-MNL on 01-Apr-2022
G-XLEJ - flew DOH-MNL on 01-Feb-2022

G-XLEH flew from MAD to LHR 12 April 2022.

Midwestindy wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

1) CLE is larger.

2) The anna.aero article referenced only measured US-Europe, TATL is more than that, especially for IND with India being one of its largest markets. The article was not on why it should be the next market, it didn't actually even mention MCI outside of the chart.

3) IND hasn't offered any airline $10M. Every mid-sized airport has offered millions for legacy service.

4) 450k is comparable to what other airports have given FI

5) IND-Europe is a proven legacy market because of DL's IND-CDG flight. MCI-Europe was recently been tried with FI, which is an LCC, and that was pulled before COVID.

6) AA is way larger in IND than MCI, over 50% more daily flights larger this summer, for context
https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/17/britis ... -st-louis/

Ok let’s get real here.

Actually it’s $20 million offered by the state to lure international flights which by default would go to IND. Must be nice. DL was paid off 5.5 million to operate CDG.

https://www.ibj.com/articles/70657-20m- ... al-flights

Surely you realize FI and BA cater to vastly different demographics? Wasn’t able to find an airport (of similar size to MCI) that offered anything near 450k. STL shelled out around 2 million for Wow Air (that also pulled out), CLE a similar case. Which cities are you referring too? 450K is a bargain. Small EAS towns have shelled out more for basic CRJ service to DEN.

The data is all that matters. I have no comment to IND-Asia traffic but the chart displayed is quite clear. IND has lower revenue potential and PDEW to Europe than MCI let alone CLE.

That’s what makes BA unique amongst other airlines. You can’t go wrong with LHR. But as far as AA/OW goes, the service/destination levels are roughly the same with only the only difference is JFK. AA is actually the biggest legacy carrier at MCI and MCI as a whole is much busier than IND so I would imagine we’re not far behind IND if not on par. Overall, IND is no unicorn among other peer Midwest cities and If you have numbers to compare that would be great.

Any market differences are marginal at best and once again MCI and CLE outrank IND in TATL. My point still remains. Incentives is really the only differentiator at this stage. BA could throw a dart at any Midwest city and do fine. Again who’s going to turn down 10/20 million?

5) Again, IND isn't offering any airline 10M let alone 20M. BA was actually even planning on adding IND-LHR on top of IND-CDG, until COVID hit. You need to be able to sustain the services you have, and MCI couldn't do that, even if FI is an LCC and BA is a FSC.
https://www.ibj.com/articles/lagging-bu ... hts-at-ind

I should have mentioned I was using pre covid data. No use in using current data since air traffic is still out of order. It wouldn’t paint a fair picture.

Does this mean CLE can’t support TATL service either? Why didn’t they reduce it to summer seasonal first? FI has publicly stated they were satisfied with MCI and only pulled out due to the MAX grounding as they didn’t have the fleet to support the network efficiently. June and July loads were in the low 80s. Loads were meh the other months but improving. You don’t typically give up on a station especially a foreign one after 1 year unless it was an external cause.

CLE lost both Wow Air and FI before KC did and reported similar loads as well. You’re taking isolated cases, making IND to be some underutilized Eldorado, pointing out metrics that frankly don’t matter, ignoring/downplaying black swan events and attempting to make a broad strokes. I guarantee you this, IND CLE and MCI will gain a FSC at some point. None of this negates the fact that MCI pre-covid saw over 300 PDEW which goes up to over 600 during the summer (Justin reported this as well). It may not end up being BA but there is demand and you can BS those numbers away. It will happen.

OW traffic aside (which doesn’t really matter as even STL gain LH and UA/SA is nowhere near the top FF base for STL or unserved TATL) incentives is really the only differentiation. BA can make any of these cities work.

trexel94 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

Ok let’s get real here.

Actually it’s $20 million offered by the state to lure international flights which by default would go to IND. Must be nice. DL was paid off 5.5 million to operate CDG.

https://www.ibj.com/articles/70657-20m- ... al-flights

Surely you realize FI and BA cater to vastly different demographics? Wasn’t able to find an airport (of similar size to MCI) that offered anything near 450k. STL shelled out around 2 million for Wow Air (that also pulled out), CLE a similar case. Which cities are you referring too? 450K is a bargain. Small EAS towns have shelled out more for basic CRJ service to DEN.

The data is all that matters. I have no comment to IND-Asia traffic but the chart displayed is quite clear. IND has lower revenue potential and PDEW to Europe than MCI let alone CLE.

That’s what makes BA unique amongst other airlines. You can’t go wrong with LHR. But as far as AA/OW goes, the service/destination levels are roughly the same with only the only difference is JFK. AA is actually the biggest legacy carrier at MCI and MCI as a whole is much busier than IND so I would imagine we’re not far behind IND if not on par. Overall, IND is no unicorn among other peer Midwest cities and If you have numbers to compare that would be great.

Any market differences are marginal at best and once again MCI and CLE outrank IND in TATL. My point still remains. Incentives is really the only differentiator at this stage. BA could throw a dart at any Midwest city and do fine. Again who’s going to turn down 10/20 million?

5) Again, IND isn't offering any airline 10M let alone 20M. BA was actually even planning on adding IND-LHR on top of IND-CDG, until COVID hit. You need to be able to sustain the services you have, and MCI couldn't do that, even if FI is an LCC and BA is a FSC.
https://www.ibj.com/articles/lagging-bu ... hts-at-ind

I should have mentioned I was using pre covid data. No use in using current data since air traffic is still out of order. It wouldn’t paint a fair picture.

Does this mean CLE can’t support TATL service either? Why didn’t they reduce it to summer seasonal first? FI has publicly stated they were satisfied with MCI and only pulled out due to the MAX grounding as they didn’t have the fleet to support the network efficiently. June and July loads were in the low 80s. Loads were meh the other months but improving. You don’t typically give up on a station especially a foreign one after 1 year unless it was an external cause.

CLE lost both Wow Air and FI before KC did and reported similar loads as well. You’re taking isolated cases, making IND to be some underutilized Eldorado, pointing out metrics that frankly don’t matter, ignoring/downplaying black swan events and attempting to make a broad strokes. I guarantee you this, IND CLE and MCI will gain a FSC at some point. None of this negates the fact that MCI pre-covid saw over 300 PDEW which goes up to over 600 during the summer (Justin reported this as well). It may not end up being BA but there is demand and you can BS those numbers away. It will happen.

OW traffic aside (which doesn’t really matter as even STL gain LH and UA/SA is nowhere near the top FF base for STL or unserved TATL) incentives is really the only differentiation. BA can make any of these cities work.

1) You are incorrect these are the June/July loads, definitely not "low 80s." This isn't even mentioning the August/September LFs which were hovering around 50%.
June 2019 MCI-KEF-77.9%, KEF-MCI-75.5%
July 2019 MCI-KEF-54.9%, KEF-MCI-72.8%

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_Select ... 20Pn44vr45

2) "Director of Marketing for the KCMO Aviation Department Justin Meyer weighed in with his thoughts, saying that it wasn’t as though there was no interest in the Kansas City to Reykjavik flights. There just wasn’t enough profit in it to make Icelandair want to stay."
https://simpleflying.com/icelandair-cut ... roundings/

3) I think MCI will receive service eventually, the thing I disagree with is this:

trexel94 wrote:

IND is only considered because of their near bottomless subsidy pot. Who’s gonna turn down $10 million? MCI has been able to work miracles on a shoestring budget. We landed FI with only $450k.

Which I proved false.

I couldn't care less whether or not MCI receives TATL service

dcajet wrote:

jetskipper wrote:

Lemieux wrote:

In the words of Lee Corso, not so fast my friend! Looks like the 380 is scheduled to come to DFW from 7/1 onward, could be a placeholder however

Off topic, but where will they use their 380s until July?

IIRC, the A380 that was earmarked for DFW service got moved to Boston.


Boston: from May 15th
Chicago ORD: from June 1st
Dubai: already operating
Johannesburg: from February 1st
Los Angeles: already operating
Miami: already operating
San Francisco: from March 27th
Singapore: from March 27th
Washington IAD: from June 1st

The question I have is what will happen to A380 DFW service, announced and then backpedaled.

BA LAX route in now 2x B777-300ER

BA to SLC and ONT make sense as the next logical moves.

sea13 wrote:

BA to SLC and ONT make sense as the next logical moves.

I doubt ONT has demand for a nonstop service to LHR that isn't already covered by LAX. The reason China Airlines has made it work somewhat on their services to China/Taiwan out of ONT is a huge Asian population in Eastern LA Co and parts of Orange Co. for which ONT is closer than LAX. Not sure such demand exists to London or Europe.

Midwestindy wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

1) CLE is larger.

2) The anna.aero article referenced only measured US-Europe, TATL is more than that, especially for IND with India being one of its largest markets. The article was not on why it should be the next market, it didn't actually even mention MCI outside of the chart.

3) IND hasn't offered any airline $10M. Every mid-sized airport has offered millions for legacy service.

4) 450k is comparable to what other airports have given FI

5) IND-Europe is a proven legacy market because of DL's IND-CDG flight. MCI-Europe was recently been tried with FI, which is an LCC, and that was pulled before COVID.

6) AA is way larger in IND than MCI, over 50% more daily flights larger this summer, for context
https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/17/britis ... -st-louis/

Ok let’s get real here.

Actually it’s $20 million offered by the state to lure international flights which by default would go to IND. Must be nice. DL was paid off 5.5 million to operate CDG.

https://www.ibj.com/articles/70657-20m- ... al-flights

Surely you realize FI and BA cater to vastly different demographics? Wasn’t able to find an airport (of similar size to MCI) that offered anything near 450k. STL shelled out around 2 million for Wow Air (that also pulled out), CLE a similar case. Which cities are you referring too? 450K is a bargain. Small EAS towns have shelled out more for basic CRJ service to DEN.

The data is all that matters. I have no comment to IND-Asia traffic but the chart displayed is quite clear. IND has lower revenue potential and PDEW to Europe than MCI let alone CLE.

That’s what makes BA unique amongst other airlines. You can’t go wrong with LHR. But as far as AA/OW goes, the service/destination levels are roughly the same with only the only difference is JFK. AA is actually the biggest legacy carrier at MCI and MCI as a whole is much busier than IND so I would imagine we’re not far behind IND if not on par. Overall, IND is no unicorn among other peer Midwest cities and If you have numbers to compare that would be great.

Any market differences are marginal at best and once again MCI and CLE outrank IND in TATL. My point still remains. Incentives is really the only differentiator at this stage. BA could throw a dart at any Midwest city and do fine. Again who’s going to turn down 10/20 million?

Honestly, not sure why you are pointing out Indiana specifically, these air service incentives programs exist in STL, PIT, Ohio, and other states. You can thank PIT for it btw, they offered 9M for DL's PIT-CDG service
https://mailchi.mp/iedc/news-indiana-ma ... sg5bet6jn7

The difference is the Ohio fund didn't exist pre-COVID, so we haven't seen a) what it might be able to do and b) where it will be used for TATL (obviously, CLE/CMH/maybe CVG, but who goes first?). The PIT, IND, STL, etc. honeypots have already been put to use.

CMH had been confirmed to be in discussions with BA and DL, but neither happened in the before times. IIRC, CLE's WW and FI services were locally-funded.

817Dreamliiner wrote:

817Dreamliiner wrote:

Total completed: 38 aircraft:

23 Boeing 777-200ER (15 are GE powered and configured 8F 49J 40W 138Y and 8 are RR powered and configured 48J 40W 184Y).

5 Boeing 777-300ER configured 8F 76J 40W 130Y

2 Boeing 787-10 configured 8F 48J 35W 165Y

8 Airbus A350-1000 configured 56J 56W 219Y

One 777 completed refit (G-YMMK) and 2 new A350s delivered:

Total completed: 41 aircraft:

24 Boeing 777-200ER (15 are GE powered and configured 8F 49J 40W 138Y and 9 are RR powered and configured 48J 40W 184Y).

5 Boeing 777-300ER configured 8F 76J 40W 130Y

2 Boeing 787-10 configured 8F 48J 35W 165Y

10 Airbus A350-1000 configured 56J 56W 219Y

777-236 G-VIIW positioned AUH-LHR on 12APR, and re-entered service today, 18APR, operating LHR-EWR.
IIW had been stored at Tureul for some time.

I am noticing a fair number of BOS flights recently are using the 77W. Despite being a ‘bigger’ plane, does it have a smaller capacity than some of the 777s normally used?

chrisnh wrote:

I am noticing a fair number of BOS flights recently are using the 77W. Despite being a ‘bigger’ plane, does it have a smaller capacity than some of the 777s normally used?

Premium heavy config. F14 C56 Y+44 Y185....total 299. But is also big cargo hauler

BA must be so desperate trying to get crews for their LHR short-haul operation that they will actually temporary “open up a crew base” in Madrid. Those interested can express their intentions for joining the recruitment process through this link:

https://t.co/GUDLtLEW29

They plan to start operating with crews from there as soon as end of May.
5-6 day out-of-base patterns laying over in LHR & Europe.
Flying only the short haul fleet, Airbus family.
Temporary contracts for a maximum of 6 months
They’ll employ crews through temporary work agency Randstad.

BA is cancelling an average of 20-30 flights per day over the last weeks amid crew shortage.

What’s going on that they can’t hire enough in the UK?

Prost wrote:

What’s going on that they can’t hire enough in the UK?

Airlines from/in the UK used to have easy access to the global labour market of all Europe when the UK was part of the EU. Now Spanish people for instance cannot go and work for a British airline unless they are legally established and have the right to work in the UK. That makes things even more complicated.

On top of that BA axed hundreds of jobs during the pandemic and ended “good contracts” for putting the role of CC on the average of the market. People at Easyjet make the same new entrants make at BA, or similar. Thus, not a lot of local British people care to join the industry.