Welcome to the British Airways News and Discussion thread - 2023 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the locked 2022 edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468663

Happy New Year to all.

Has G-EUPJ been retired now? It was last seen positioning down to Madrid on 22NOV22 and hasn't moved since.

Madrid is unusual for a WFU aircraft. They appear to have quite a few Airbus aircraft laid up due to a backlog of heavy maintenance checks and are using non-standard facilities for them to try to clear this, and it's quite possible that EUPJ has been sent to Madrid ahead of a drop-dead date for a major check but can't be accommodated as yet.

Just noticed BA123 (LHR-DOH) is now operated with an A380. The timings of the flight are a bit odd. Why does it sit at DOH for over 8-hours before its return back to LHR? Arriving at 7:05am and departing back to LHR at 3:20pm seems like a very inefficient use of the plane.

Instead, why not have it depart back to LHR at 9:05am and arriving into LHR around 12:30pm where it could turn and be used on the mid-afternoon west coast US flights like BA287 (LHR-SFO) that departs LHR @ 3:30pm?

Personally , I think the new Club Suite is a great seat, but a poor bed. Old Club seats preferable for sleeping.

Hate the old club seats! Your only storage is that ridiculous drawer that you can’t reach from your seat. Won’t book it.

hiflyeras wrote:

Hate the old club seats! Your only storage is that ridiculous drawer that you can’t reach from your seat. Won’t book it.

After a couple of gins when you needed the toilet and you just about stepped over your neighbour when your right foot caught their footstool and game over!! Tug master is right, new suite is great but a little squashed when fully reclined into bed…
Shouldn’t complain though!!

TUGMASTER wrote:

Personally , I think the new Club Suite is a great seat, but a poor bed. Old Club seats preferable for sleeping.

Couldn’t agree with you more. The old seat was a far better sleep.

Magnum9 wrote:

Just noticed BA123 (LHR-DOH) is now operated with an A380. The timings of the flight are a bit odd. Why does it sit at DOH for over 8-hours before its return back to LHR? Arriving at 7:05am and departing back to LHR at 3:20pm seems like a very inefficient use of the plane.

Instead, why not have it depart back to LHR at 9:05am and arriving into LHR around 12:30pm where it could turn and be used on the mid-afternoon west coast US flights like BA287 (LHR-SFO) that departs LHR @ 3:30pm?

Because feeding the Doha hub is more important these days

tonystan wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Personally , I think the new Club Suite is a great seat, but a poor bed. Old Club seats preferable for sleeping.

Couldn’t agree with you more. The old seat was a far better sleep.

Genuinely, what makes it better? More padding/comfortable? Wider? Better lighting? More space?

hiflyeras wrote:

Hate the old club seats! Your only storage is that ridiculous drawer that you can’t reach from your seat. Won’t book it.

Always found there was so much available space in the overhead lockers than it didn't ever matter to me.

Galwayman wrote:

Magnum9 wrote:

Just noticed BA123 (LHR-DOH) is now operated with an A380. The timings of the flight are a bit odd. Why does it sit at DOH for over 8-hours before its return back to LHR? Arriving at 7:05am and departing back to LHR at 3:20pm seems like a very inefficient use of the plane.

Instead, why not have it depart back to LHR at 9:05am and arriving into LHR around 12:30pm where it could turn and be used on the mid-afternoon west coast US flights like BA287 (LHR-SFO) that departs LHR @ 3:30pm?

Because feeding the Doha hub is more important these days

That’s fine but how does the plane feed the DOH hub by sitting on the ground for 8-hours instead of turning back around with a plane full of passengers to London to take advantage the afternoon LHR bank of connections?

Magnum9 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Magnum9 wrote:

Just noticed BA123 (LHR-DOH) is now operated with an A380. The timings of the flight are a bit odd. Why does it sit at DOH for over 8-hours before its return back to LHR? Arriving at 7:05am and departing back to LHR at 3:20pm seems like a very inefficient use of the plane.

Instead, why not have it depart back to LHR at 9:05am and arriving into LHR around 12:30pm where it could turn and be used on the mid-afternoon west coast US flights like BA287 (LHR-SFO) that departs LHR @ 3:30pm?

Because feeding the Doha hub is more important these days[/quote

That’s fine but how does the plane feed the DOH hub by sitting on the ground for 8-hours instead of turning back around with a plane full of passengers to London to take advantage the afternoon LHR bank of connections?

It may be connected to arrival slots available at Heathrow.

BaronHamstead wrote:

Magnum9 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Because feeding the Doha hub is more important these days[/quote

That’s fine but how does the plane feed the DOH hub by sitting on the ground for 8-hours instead of turning back around with a plane full of passengers to London to take advantage the afternoon LHR bank of connections?

It may be connected to arrival slots available at Heathrow.

May also have been largely due to the World Cup and imho won’t stay beyond seasons end

Yes service from LHR to Doha was snot expected to be permanent but was a response to World cup demand. I believe Qatar Airways fly five daily from LHR, daily from LGW and BA also once daily from LGW.

The club suite has no storage space. I think it's way better than the old business class, but it's crazy to me there is no good place to put your laptop away while in the suite other than holding it. Also, I miss the shoe drawer the old one had.

Last grievance is that it's all very dark... I wish the cabin had a tiny bit more color.

Magnum9 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Magnum9 wrote:

Just noticed BA123 (LHR-DOH) is now operated with an A380. The timings of the flight are a bit odd. Why does it sit at DOH for over 8-hours before its return back to LHR? Arriving at 7:05am and departing back to LHR at 3:20pm seems like a very inefficient use of the plane.

Instead, why not have it depart back to LHR at 9:05am and arriving into LHR around 12:30pm where it could turn and be used on the mid-afternoon west coast US flights like BA287 (LHR-SFO) that departs LHR @ 3:30pm?

Because feeding the Doha hub is more important these days

That’s fine but how does the plane feed the DOH hub by sitting on the ground for 8-hours instead of turning back around with a plane full of passengers to London to take advantage the afternoon LHR bank of connections?

Because maybe it's waiting for connections at DOH to fly back to LHR. The point of BA working with QR is to get its passengers to destinations it doesn't serve directly itself not necessarily connect people to/from DOH via LHR.

Pretty sure BA123 is being run by a 78X at the moment, and the A380 was just for the 2022 World Cup weeks.

Any more expansion in North America region? I wish BA can add more destinations, like DTW, CLT, STL, etc.

LondonXtreme wrote:

Any more expansion in North America region? I wish BA can add more destinations, like DTW, CLT, STL, etc.

MCI or IND strong prospects above some you mentioned

dfdubflyer wrote:

The club suite has no storage space. I think it's way better than the old business class, but it's crazy to me there is no good place to put your laptop away while in the suite other than holding it. Also, I miss the shoe drawer the old one had.

Last grievance is that it's all very dark... I wish the cabin had a tiny bit more color.

There is tonnes of storage space in the suite. To the side of you are 3 storage options with ample space for PEDs, cables, headsets, books, personal items etc. There is a small storage for a bottle of water by your knee and if you have a laptop and a laptop bag you can store it under the foot stool in front of you. Remember Laptops need to be stowed away safely for take off and landing as per safety requirements due to their size so they probably shouldn’t be out anyway at this stage, for the rest of the flight it can sit comfortably to the side of you.

Rajahdhani wrote:

tonystan wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Personally , I think the new Club Suite is a great seat, but a poor bed. Old Club seats preferable for sleeping.

Couldn’t agree with you more. The old seat was a far better sleep.

Genuinely, what makes it better? More padding/comfortable? Wider? Better lighting? More space?

There’s a few reasons. The one most pertinent to me is that I am not wedging my size 12s into a little cubby hole as per the new Suite. It makes lying fully flat (im 6ft) far more comfortable and if I do turn during the night Im less likely to notice it. Also the padding is more supportive on the old seat and seems more consistent in flat mode, the suite has a bit of a gap half way down when flat where the fold in the seat is. Finally there appears to be more shoulder room in the old seat which again makes the old seat appear wider when flat.

Having said that the privacy and storage is far superior in the suite and it’s nice not having to jump out over people. Having said that I have been in a few seats on suite where the air circulation is not great and it got very stuffy, the only way around this was to keep the door open.

Have to agree with tonystan re: the J class seats.
There’s very little room to move about in the new CS, especially when flat, due to the way the table beneath TV is fixed and the table underneath it.
Much more room to sleep in the old beds.
64A was the king of old club bed, alas, no longer available.

strangeplanes wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

Any more expansion in North America region? I wish BA can add more destinations, like DTW, CLT, STL, etc.

MCI or IND strong prospects above some you mentioned

With what aeroplanes? Asia is about to get going properly now.

Rajahdhani wrote:

tonystan wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Personally , I think the new Club Suite is a great seat, but a poor bed. Old Club seats preferable for sleeping.

Couldn’t agree with you more. The old seat was a far better sleep.

Genuinely, what makes it better? More padding/comfortable? Wider? Better lighting? More space?

As someone who has similarly large feet (EU47) foot space is a massive constraint on tons of J seats and having the open area was far superior in that respect and helped for sleeping adjustments.

But for me the biggest thing was being able to be backward facing. Since the plane at cruise has a couple of degrees of pitch up, true lie-flats mean your feet are above your head. It's a small effect but when it can go the other way I definitely sleep better. I think I might be the very odd person who actually prefers an angle flat many times for that very reason.

strangeplanes wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

Any more expansion in North America region? I wish BA can add more destinations, like DTW, CLT, STL, etc.

MCI or IND strong prospects above some you mentioned

I'm honestly surprised IND hasn't been served already, but that said, flights from CVG probably hurt the prospects there's definitely some overlap of the catchment area. On the other hand it could be a way to get more expansion into ORD since even some of the Chicago suburbs in Indiana would be more convenient for IND over ORD in terms of time and hassle by avoiding traffic through the city.

Is this the year BA finally plans the 772 transition? I would think a mix of A359 and 781s would be perfect as they already operate both families..

Expect those 772's to be around till near the end of the decade.

DCA350 wrote:

Is this the year BA finally plans the 772 transition? I would think a mix of A359 and 781s would be perfect as they already operate both families..

Though it's a way in the future, I actually don't see BA going for A359s. The 78X has sufficient range and payload for all of BA's most lucrative widebody routes (North America, India, Middle East), the rest can be picked up by the 789, 779 and A35K (which could be good as an upgauge from 77E routes). To me it doesn't look as good a fit as the A359 at IB, for example.

MrHMSH wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

Is this the year BA finally plans the 772 transition? I would think a mix of A359 and 781s would be perfect as they already operate both families..

Though it's a way in the future, I actually don't see BA going for A359s. The 78X has sufficient range and payload for all of BA's most lucrative widebody routes (North America, India, Middle East), the rest can be picked up by the 789, 779 and A35K (which could be good as an upgauge from 77E routes). To me it doesn't look as good a fit as the A359 at IB, for example.

Agreed. The 78X is all they need given their current route network for the 777-200s is nothing really past 8000KM which is well within the 78X range, it still reasonably bigger than the 777-200s, allows for more cargo too.

I do see iberia getting some A35Ks further down the line though

Rhal97 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

Is this the year BA finally plans the 772 transition? I would think a mix of A359 and 781s would be perfect as they already operate both families..

Though it's a way in the future, I actually don't see BA going for A359s. The 78X has sufficient range and payload for all of BA's most lucrative widebody routes (North America, India, Middle East), the rest can be picked up by the 789, 779 and A35K (which could be good as an upgauge from 77E routes). To me it doesn't look as good a fit as the A359 at IB, for example.

Agreed. The 78X is all they need given their current route network for the 777-200s is nothing really past 8000KM which is well within the 78X range, it still reasonably bigger than the 777-200s, allows for more cargo too.

I do see iberia getting some A35Ks further down the line though

Unless they retro fit the 78X with cabin crew bunks then they are restricted on where they can send it…over the winter a number of -10 rotations to SEA were either downgraded to -9 or cancelled dispute to crew being out of hours…SFO and LAX are currently not possible with the -10

shamrock321 wrote:

Rhal97 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

Though it's a way in the future, I actually don't see BA going for A359s. The 78X has sufficient range and payload for all of BA's most lucrative widebody routes (North America, India, Middle East), the rest can be picked up by the 789, 779 and A35K (which could be good as an upgauge from 77E routes). To me it doesn't look as good a fit as the A359 at IB, for example.

Agreed. The 78X is all they need given their current route network for the 777-200s is nothing really past 8000KM which is well within the 78X range, it still reasonably bigger than the 777-200s, allows for more cargo too.

I do see iberia getting some A35Ks further down the line though

Unless they retro fit the 78X with cabin crew bunks then they are restricted on where they can send it…over the winter a number of -10 rotations to SEA were either downgraded to -9 or cancelled dispute to crew being out of hours…SFO and LAX are currently not possible with the -10

It will be like the current 777-200 fleet. Some have bunks. Some don’t. It’s obvious this set that have come are meant to replicate the GE 777-200s which don’t have bunks. The config is pretty much the same with a larger economy cabin and when you look from the summer it operates 777-200 routes

Newark
Kuwait
Miami
Boston
Seattle
Dubai (twice a week)
Houston

But you’re right. If BA wants to get to some routes done by the current 777-200s they’ll need bunks. But like what they’ve done now. All bunked 772s out of Heathrow don’t have first class, which is what a second batch of 78Xs might be configured towards. Maybe split between the first class and non first class to cover off the 777-200ER replacement

Rhal97 wrote:

shamrock321 wrote:

Rhal97 wrote:

Agreed. The 78X is all they need given their current route network for the 777-200s is nothing really past 8000KM which is well within the 78X range, it still reasonably bigger than the 777-200s, allows for more cargo too.

I do see iberia getting some A35Ks further down the line though

Unless they retro fit the 78X with cabin crew bunks then they are restricted on where they can send it…over the winter a number of -10 rotations to SEA were either downgraded to -9 or cancelled dispute to crew being out of hours…SFO and LAX are currently not possible with the -10

It will be like the current 777-200 fleet. Some have bunks. Some don’t. It’s obvious this set that have come are meant to replicate the GE 777-200s which don’t have bunks. The config is pretty much the same with a larger economy cabin and when you look from the summer it operates 777-200 routes

Newark
Kuwait
Miami
Boston
Seattle
Dubai (twice a week)
Houston

But you’re right. If BA wants to get to some routes done by the current 777-200s they’ll need bunks. But like what they’ve done now. All bunked 772s out of Heathrow don’t have first class, which is what a second batch of 78Xs might be configured towards. Maybe split between the first class and non first class to cover off the 777-200ER replacement

A future 78X order could have aircraft fitted with bunks for long hauls, but if not then they'll still be capable of most of BA's routes. BA clearly have found the 789 to be a very versatile and worthwhile addition, but if they do want more lifting capacity they could go with A35Ks, configured differently so as to be close to the 77E, just with a bit more seating. BA don't have that many flights above 11hrs, some of those are thin and definitely 787 territory, others are large and have A380s/779s to cover them over time, which only leaves a narrow gap above the 789, too far for the 78X and too small for the A35K, for which I don't think there's enough justification.

DCA350 wrote:

Is this the year BA finally plans the 772 transition? I would think a mix of A359 and 781s would be perfect as they already operate both families..

They stated aim is/was to run the 772s until they’re 30. The oldest ones are 1997 vintage so are expected to start being stood down from 2027. Maybe a little early, but it could be this year that plans are announced for the first wave of 772 replacements.

EZE nonstops are being done with 789. Is it likely that EZE will remain a 777/787 destination rather than see its own 350?
Thanks.

aamd11 wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

Is this the year BA finally plans the 772 transition? I would think a mix of A359 and 781s would be perfect as they already operate both families..

They stated aim is/was to run the 772s until they’re 30. The oldest ones are 1997 vintage so are expected to start being stood down from 2027. Maybe a little early, but it could be this year that plans are announced for the first wave of 772 replacements.

Unless I misread the article, I think Luis Gallego said at the time, that the 777s would fly up to 30 years old. I may have read somewhere else (please correct me if I'm wrong), that they would flyer their 777s between 25-30 years old.

As you say, perhaps we might start to see the announcement of a patrial replacement of the 777-200ER fleet this year (or perhaps next year).

I wouldn't surprise me if the overall replacement ends up being a mixture of A350, 787 and even perhaps some 777X, rather than one fleet type i.e. A350-900 or 787-9 to replace the 777-200ERs

JumboMaiden wrote:

EZE nonstops are being done with 789. Is it likely that EZE will remain a 777/787 destination rather than see its own 350?
Thanks.

Doubt it. Makes a lot more sense for IAG to send people to connect through MAD on IB for most of Europe. Especially coming from Schengen it's a MUCH easier experience

LondonXtreme wrote:

Any more expansion in North America region? I wish BA can add more destinations, like DTW, CLT, STL, etc.

Well CLT isn't gonna happen. Not with the metal neutral JV and the AAnouncement today of a THIRD daily from April 15th to LHR.

LupineChemist wrote:

As someone who has similarly large feet (EU47) foot space is a massive constraint on tons of J seats and having the open area was far superior in that respect and helped for sleeping adjustments.

But for me the biggest thing was being able to be backward facing. Since the plane at cruise has a couple of degrees of pitch up, true lie-flats mean your feet are above your head. It's a small effect but when it can go the other way I definitely sleep better. I think I might be the very odd person who actually prefers an angle flat many times for that very reason.

tonystan wrote:

There’s a few reasons. The one most pertinent to me is that I am not wedging my size 12s into a little cubby hole as per the new Suite. It makes lying fully flat (im 6ft) far more comfortable and if I do turn during the night Im less likely to notice it. Also the padding is more supportive on the old seat and seems more consistent in flat mode, the suite has a bit of a gap half way down when flat where the fold in the seat is. Finally there appears to be more shoulder room in the old seat which again makes the old seat appear wider when flat.

Having said that the privacy and storage is far superior in the suite and it’s nice not having to jump out over people. Having said that I have been in a few seats on suite where the air circulation is not great and it got very stuffy, the only way around this was to keep the door open.

Thank you so much for that comment. I really had not considered that at all, and as a larger bloke myself, I'll admit it would be a bit disconcerting to find that out, after being seated. Can the seat be angled? Also, what's the most comfortable sleeping position for you then (how do you compensate here?), pillows and perhaps more blankets (and/or a 'mattress pad' on the seat's surface) -and/or can they fit in the space which as you both have mentioned is already confined? Once again, thank you for your response and your brilliant perspectives here, and bravo on the post (and/or trip reports coming up?)!

hiflyeras wrote:

Hate the old club seats! Your only storage is that ridiculous drawer that you can’t reach from your seat. Won’t book it.

Flown in that seat 6 times and only ever used that draw for my shoes. Plenty storage in the bin above your head. So, never really had an issue with it.
and when in a window seat with the screen up, it feels very private!

I see G-MEDJ flew to the US for P2F conversion yesterday. Have all the ex BMI A321’s seen the end of their days with BA now? I know they’ve all been stored in MAD since COVID

aamd11 wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

Is this the year BA finally plans the 772 transition? I would think a mix of A359 and 781s would be perfect as they already operate both families..

They stated aim is/was to run the 772s until they’re 30. The oldest ones are 1997 vintage so are expected to start being stood down from 2027. Maybe a little early, but it could be this year that plans are announced for the first wave of 772 replacements.

OMG, I have recently flown on four of them. All were bad, for one reason or another. In the mix there was a pre-revamp bird with 3-3-3 seating (yes, more comfortable) but with a dilapidated interior, miniscule TV-screens, and yellowish lighting. The others had the revamped cabin with 3-4-3 seating, which is pretty miserable frankly, although I admit the cabin generally looks swish and modern with the added mood lighting and new (thin&hard) seats.
The biggest gripe I have about the 777 though, esp the GE-90 birds, is just how FREAKING NOISY they are!!!!! They are UNBEARABLE!!! The constant low thundering drone just gives me a dreadful headache after a while. And the equally noisy aircon packs just add insult to injury.
The 1/3-empty Trent bird with a revamped cabin of the fourth leg was marginally better, although the IFE needed a complete reboot and one of the side panels had a tendency to rattle during cruise..
The 787 and A350 are so so so much better. No game really. They are newer AND feel newer.
I am intending to avoid flying the BA 777 again, even if it means spending more and transiting via another airport.
The mediocre service (and frankly mediocre crews as well!) just adds to it I must say.

azz767 wrote:

I see G-MEDJ flew to the US for P2F conversion yesterday. Have all the ex BMI A321’s seen the end of their days with BA now? I know they’ve all been stored in MAD since COVID

It got as far as Houston, then headed towards Merida.

Half to Merida it turned around and flew back over Houston before heading West and landed at San Antonio.

GuillaumePhilly wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

Any more expansion in North America region? I wish BA can add more destinations, like DTW, CLT, STL, etc.

Well CLT isn't gonna happen. Not with the metal neutral JV and the AAnouncement today of a THIRD daily from April 15th to LHR.

I believe it will eventually, like (almost) all other destinations are spilt. It’s just that BA have a huge deficit in long haul aircraft right now due to their shortsighted and classic-IAG-idiotic decision to retire all B744s, so any new planes for the foreseeable future will either be used to backfill this capacity or to launch unserved routes.

TheLion wrote:

GuillaumePhilly wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

Any more expansion in North America region? I wish BA can add more destinations, like DTW, CLT, STL, etc.

Well CLT isn't gonna happen. Not with the metal neutral JV and the AAnouncement today of a THIRD daily from April 15th to LHR.

I believe it will eventually, like (almost) all other destinations are spilt. It’s just that BA have a huge deficit in long haul aircraft right now due to their shortsighted and classic-IAG-idiotic decision to retire all B744s, so any new planes for the foreseeable future will either be used to backfill this capacity or to launch unserved routes.

Well, BA did fly to CLT around 10 years ago but left. There isn’t really a need for BA to add the route on their metal when it American can do it themselves, and instead offer their own products rather than another airline’s products. BA is also a UK flagship airline, and there isn’t as much demand to go from the UK to CLT as there is CLT to the UK. However, I can see BA establishing LHR-RDU. BA would be able to better offer RDU travelers Asian connections with their slots, and there is a large number of British companies with major offices in Raleigh/Durham.

Bentheswim11 wrote:

TheLion wrote:

GuillaumePhilly wrote:

Well CLT isn't gonna happen. Not with the metal neutral JV and the AAnouncement today of a THIRD daily from April 15th to LHR.

I believe it will eventually, like (almost) all other destinations are spilt. It’s just that BA have a huge deficit in long haul aircraft right now due to their shortsighted and classic-IAG-idiotic decision to retire all B744s, so any new planes for the foreseeable future will either be used to backfill this capacity or to launch unserved routes.

Well, BA did fly to CLT around 10 years ago but left. There isn’t really a need for BA to add the route on their metal when it American can do it themselves, and instead offer their own products rather than another airline’s products. BA is also a UK flagship airline, and there isn’t as much demand to go from the UK to CLT as there is CLT to the UK. However, I can see BA establishing LHR-RDU. BA would be able to better offer RDU travelers Asian connections with their slots, and there is a large number of British companies with major offices in Raleigh/Durham.

BA has not operated CLT in over 20 years and back then it was operated by US Airways, on US Airways metal painted in BA colours.

TheLion wrote:

GuillaumePhilly wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

Any more expansion in North America region? I wish BA can add more destinations, like DTW, CLT, STL, etc.

Well CLT isn't gonna happen. Not with the metal neutral JV and the AAnouncement today of a THIRD daily from April 15th to LHR.

I believe it will eventually, like (almost) all other destinations are spilt. It’s just that BA have a huge deficit in long haul aircraft right now due to their shortsighted and classic-IAG-idiotic decision to retire all B744s, so any new planes for the foreseeable future will either be used to backfill this capacity or to launch unserved routes.

BA flew to CLT in the old days with investment in US Airways. Since BA changed partner to AA, there is no need to fly to CLT any more.

Plus, as a minor correction, not all other destination are split. I think you meant to say all other AA hubs from London are split, which is true for now. Except AA did not fly PHX to LHR for many years until recently before Pandemic, hence it was not a 'tradition' nor 'rule' for AA/BA to split flying from AA hubs.

I would not say BA would never fly to CLT, but as of now, BA is short of long haul aircrafts (cabin modification and B787 delays...to name a few reasons) and the market is not in BA's favour (if it is BA would have started flying few years back when transatlantic is in its fullest growth years when BA added many US secondary markets).

Finally I don't see BA fly to CLT in the coming years unless CLT will be offering incentives like other cities (which is not likely consider London is already well served by AA). BA would be better to position its aircraft to a new city that offers enough financial incentives and support. BA is a business and it does not need to fly to all AA hubs. If it makes sense for both AA and BA to offer a service to an US city, I am sure BA will do.

Maybe next summer when AA and BA reorganise the schedule and BA will take one frequency to CLT if it makes sense. For now, let us settle that BA did not see the need for CLT and nor BA has the aircraft.

tonystan wrote:

Bentheswim11 wrote:

TheLion wrote:

I believe it will eventually, like (almost) all other destinations are spilt. It’s just that BA have a huge deficit in long haul aircraft right now due to their shortsighted and classic-IAG-idiotic decision to retire all B744s, so any new planes for the foreseeable future will either be used to backfill this capacity or to launch unserved routes.

Well, BA did fly to CLT around 10 years ago but left. There isn’t really a need for BA to add the route on their metal when it American can do it themselves, and instead offer their own products rather than another airline’s products. BA is also a UK flagship airline, and there isn’t as much demand to go from the UK to CLT as there is CLT to the UK. However, I can see BA establishing LHR-RDU. BA would be able to better offer RDU travelers Asian connections with their slots, and there is a large number of British companies with major offices in Raleigh/Durham.

BA has not operated CLT in over 20 years and back then it was operated by US Airways, on US Airways metal painted in BA colours.

It was also flown on BA' s own 777s for a few years

Westerwaelder wrote:

tonystan wrote:

Bentheswim11 wrote:

Well, BA did fly to CLT around 10 years ago but left. There isn’t really a need for BA to add the route on their metal when it American can do it themselves, and instead offer their own products rather than another airline’s products. BA is also a UK flagship airline, and there isn’t as much demand to go from the UK to CLT as there is CLT to the UK. However, I can see BA establishing LHR-RDU. BA would be able to better offer RDU travelers Asian connections with their slots, and there is a large number of British companies with major offices in Raleigh/Durham.

BA has not operated CLT in over 20 years and back then it was operated by US Airways, on US Airways metal painted in BA colours.

It was also flown on BA' s own 777s for a few years

It was also flown on BA’s own 767 too. I did many trips there from LGW