While it’s been discussed on the Korean Air-Asians merger thread, I thought this news merited a separate thread.

Virgin Atlantic has confirmed that it will be launching LHR-ICN soon, as a remedy to the lack of competition on the LHR-ICN route. Further details to come.

Sources: https://www.headforpoints.com/2023/03/0 ... o-proceed/


KE will be facilitating the process, but I find it interesting that VS refuses to look at SIN. Yes, it is heavily contested with SQ, BA and QF but so was HKG and yet this was launched by VS. Any reason why they continue to refuse to serve SIN? Their codeshare with SQ may be a potential reason but they are doing the same with KE once they start LHR-ICN and this hasn’t stopped them from launching the route.

Isn’t VS jointing sky team… with KE? Whilst not a JV - surely they will get reciprocal FF recognition and points? Not exactly true competition?

SIN is a tricky one as probs be tough to crack without feed… I am always surprised that VS doesn’t have a bigger foot print in Asia.

chiraagnt wrote:

VS refuses to look at SIN. Yes, it is heavily contested with SQ, BA and QF but so was HKG and yet this was launched by VS.

Sure, but how's that route doing today.....?

Gonna need a more sound rationale than that.

smi0006 wrote:

I am always surprised that VS doesn’t have a bigger foot print in Asia.

They only have 39 total aircraft, and most east/southeast Asian airports would require 2 aircraft for daily service... so that's a big reason why there.

LAX772LR wrote:

chiraagnt wrote:

VS refuses to look at SIN. Yes, it is heavily contested with SQ, BA and QF but so was HKG and yet this was launched by VS.

Sure, but how's that route doing today.....?

Gonna need a more sound rationale than that.

I agree - but similar to how they have a JV with Lufthansa on SIN-Germany, or with NZ on SIN-New Zealand, a JV with VS on SIN-London/USA does sound like a potential revenue generator for markets it doesn’t serve like MIA? I do agree that LHR-SIN is one of their highest revenue generators so they might not be as keen to share a slice of the pie with a JV partner who isn’t currently competing anyways…

The potential to retain the slots long term is a big plus, KE has every incentive to prop up VS to keep real competitors out.

Also there a huge strings attached to this:
https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/r ... 80.article

With the current state of things, we probably won’t see VS at ICN anytime soon…

"Real compettion" would be a non Skyteam member.
Seriously, the PR and Marketing drones really do think we zip up the back.

Interesting comparison with Big Airways who barely even leave the house without Auntie American holding their hand nowadays whereas Beardy Atlantic with a long haul fleet 1/3 the size of BA are trotting off to Korea without their Georgian significant other.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

The potential to retain the slots long term is a big plus, KE has every incentive to prop up VS to keep real competitors out.

Also there a huge strings attached to this:
https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/r ... 80.article

With the current state of things, we probably won’t see VS at ICN anytime soon…

So its contingent on Russian airspace opening? If not (which obviously won't happen anytime soon), what happens to the slot? VS can use as it sees fit?

skipness1E wrote:

"Real compettion" would be a non Skyteam member.
Seriously, the PR and Marketing drones really do think we zip up the back.

Interesting comparison with Big Airways who barely even leave the house without Auntie American holding their hand nowadays whereas Beardy Atlantic with a long haul fleet 1/3 the size of BA are trotting off to Korea without their Georgian significant other.

Should VS launch LHR-ICN, it won't be due to a "lack of competition" in the market, but rather a convenient mechanism for VS to tap into the network of another SkyTeam member, in a region of Asia where VS has a token presence.

As far as Skyteam members not being a true competitor, unless the carriers have a JV in place, then they are competing for passengers and revenue. Even codeshares don't eliminate competition. It all depends on the details of the codeshare agreement.

skipness1E wrote:

"Real compettion" would be a non Skyteam member.
Seriously, the PR and Marketing drones really do think we zip up the back.

If VS and KE can't coordinate capacity or pricing, it's competition, because it's seats in the market not controlled by KE. That's true whether or not VS eventually joins SkyTeam.

Singapore is 14h each way, and I bet Changi isn’t cheap, so arguably SIN has literally the highest operational cost of any destination from Heathrow.

MIflyer12 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

"Real compettion" would be a non Skyteam member.
Seriously, the PR and Marketing drones really do think we zip up the back.

If VS and KE can't coordinate capacity or pricing, it's competition, because it's seats in the market not controlled by KE. That's true whether or not VS eventually joins SkyTeam.

Yeah well VS has officially joined SkyTeam today regardless. This is nothing but a plus for both carriers on this route. We don't know enough about how VS will operate ICN in coordination with KE so that "if" 'competition' is just pure speculation at this point.

I would think that DL had a lot to say about why VS are now flying to ICN rather than some other cities in the region
Will be interesting to see if it sticks long term, but it definitely gets KE out of a hole right now

AllNippon767 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

"Real compettion" would be a non Skyteam member.
Seriously, the PR and Marketing drones really do think we zip up the back.

If VS and KE can't coordinate capacity or pricing, it's competition, because it's seats in the market not controlled by KE. That's true whether or not VS eventually joins SkyTeam.

Yeah well VS has officially joined SkyTeam today regardless. This is nothing but a plus for both carriers on this route. We don't know enough about how VS will operate ICN in coordination with KE so that "if" 'competition' is just pure speculation at this point.

Exactly. Even more so, if after 3 years VS drops the route in favor of another US route in JV with DL (which is extremely likely to happen).

I do wonder about how viable all of this is, and whether it is just to make it look like the CMA is doing something.

1. What slots will be available at LHR? If it is the OZ ones it will mean VS will need to overnight an aircraft in ICN which is a hugely inefficient use of an aircraft.

2. I assume if VS got the OZ slots at LHR they would do some shuffling of their own slot portfolio to make the aircraft usage more efficient for the ICN route - but the OZ slots are not a good time for flights to the USA. The arrival and departure time at LHR are too late in the day to offer a reasonable schedule, so how useful would the OZ slots be for VS?

3. This is subject to being able to overfly Russia and can be delayed until 2025 if necessary. Does anyone really think Russian airspace will be open by then? If VS don’t launch the route by 2025 due to Russian airspace still being closed (and assuming the merger has already gone through by then) what happens? Does KE keep the slots?

4. If an airline only has to operate the route for 6 seasons and can then transfer the slots to another route we would potentially be in a situation where there will only be 1 daily flight to Seoul which will be worse for competition. Does the CMA expect this to flop and the slots revert to KE? (In essence they could then say that they gave competitors the opportunity to compete but it didn’t prove commercially viable so it’s justified for the slots to go back to KE).

5. Does KE even want to operate a double daily flight to LHR (at a very similar schedule)?

6. Could the remedy slots instead go to Air Premia (who might find the timings more suitable)?

cedarjet wrote:

Singapore is 14h each way, and I bet Changi isn’t cheap, so arguably SIN has literally the highest operational cost of any destination from Heathrow.

Pedantic I know, but that would probably be Sydney. 3 frames needed to operate it daily, crew away from base for 6 days, and Sydney is one of they most expensive airports in the world.

VS is officially part of SkyTeam today. ICN is a major SkyTeam partner hub. It makes perfect sense to launch this.

MIflyer12 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

"Real compettion" would be a non Skyteam member.
Seriously, the PR and Marketing drones really do think we zip up the back.

If VS and KE can't coordinate capacity or pricing, it's competition, because it's seats in the market not controlled by KE. That's true whether or not VS eventually joins SkyTeam.

That's being naive at best. VS is owned by DL and DL has a JV with KE. If you don't think they are "cooperating" in order to keep competition out of the route I have a bridge I'd like to sell you

airbazar wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

"Real compettion" would be a non Skyteam member.
Seriously, the PR and Marketing drones really do think we zip up the back.

If VS and KE can't coordinate capacity or pricing, it's competition, because it's seats in the market not controlled by KE. That's true whether or not VS eventually joins SkyTeam.

That's being naive at best. VS is owned by DL and DL has a JV with KE. If you don't think they are "cooperating" in order to keep competition out of the route I have a bridge I'd like to sell you

VS is owned partially by DL. Either way, what you are suggesting is plainly illegal. There must be a JV to coordinate capacity, pricing, etc. Sure there is some level of cooperation, he didn't say there wasn't, but there are limits without a government authorized JV.

When SIA gave Virgin Atlantic away to Delta away there was probably some sort of uncodified agreement that VS would stay out of SIN, It's unlikely VS could compete effectively on the route up against SIA plus the ME3

Uncodified agreement? Do people just want to pretend that anti-trust law doesn't exist in the UK?

Has anybody worked in the exec ranks of a FTSE 100 or U.S. S&P 500 company and gotten the annual instruction on antitrust law and company compliance?

The grant of slots, connecting flights from ICN, and KE codeshares seem like significant concessions to give VS a shot.

Galwayman wrote:

When SIA gave Virgin Atlantic away to Delta away there was probably some sort of uncodified agreement that VS would stay out of SIN, It's unlikely VS could compete effectively on the route up against SIA plus the ME3

They'd be a poor 3rd at best, no point in trying, easier options to make money elsewhere.

I agree with Skipness1E in that I that there might be some sensitivities around competing with SQ.

I don't think LHR-ICN is a very good route for VS on it's own but think this route throws out some interesting opportunities.

I don't see any necessity to operate it directly as I think it could be operated with a stop through as country with a fairly liberal air services agreement. DXB is possible but I wouldn't want to compete with EK on that one. I see BKK as a good stop as the connections to the US are a bit weak but they could add some connections through the Delta arrangement on BKK / US flights. i think they could make money on that through the JV arrangement they have with Delta.

Given the time the frame would have to sit on the ground at ICN it seems there could be some additional utilisation with a tag. Another option is a triangular route with one stop on one of the legs in either direction but I couldn't say if this would be better from a commercial point of view.

Maybe post Brexit there could be more trade with South Korea which is a cultural superpower in Asia.

This route to Seoul could be the anchor for more Virgin in North Asia, but will it. It just gave up on Hong Kong, where they flew for 20 years. Tokyo would be great to see them fly again, maybe wishful thinking these days with Russian airspace closed. Virgin Atlantic needs a "Pacific" strategy, just flying to Seoul and Shanghai doesn't make a Pacific presence. With an airline with just about 30 long haul planes heavily committed to the USA does it really have the will and resources to fly all the way Korea and Japan ?

[photoid][/photoid]

jfk777 wrote:

This route to Seoul could be the anchor for more Virgin in North Asia, but will it. It just gave up on Hong Kong, where they flew for 20 years. Tokyo would be great to see them fly again, maybe wishful thinking these days with Russian airspace closed. Virgin Atlantic needs a "Pacific" strategy, just flying to Seoul and Shanghai doesn't make a Pacific presence. With an airline with just about 30 long haul planes heavily committed to the USA does it really have the will and resources to fly all the way Korea and Japan ?

Virgin has a strong presence across the North Atlantic and is bulking up its holiday destination portfolio. Beyond that, it can pick off some routes that make sense commercially. I don't see a problem with only flying a small number of routes to Asia and compete in markets where it makes sense. Why do they "need a Pacific strategy"? I don't see a great number of underserved routes in the area from the UK. Sky Team membership might open up a few new opportunities that did not exist in that shape for a stand-alone carrier. They know what they are good at and are going for it.

If VS does launch ICN, then perhaps BA should return too for a third attempt to go head-to-head with VS after discontinuing it in 1998 and 2020, because it's pretty much the last major EU carrier not to fly into ICN, and I think that demand for a BA flight to ICN may hopefully then be on the horizon at some point in the foreseeable future since the competition might not be too bad as the 2012-2020 attempt if this route were ever to return. Because the OZ brand will probably be retired by then.

Westerwaelder wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

jfk777 wrote:

This route to Seoul could be the anchor for more Virgin in North Asia, but will it. It just gave up on Hong Kong, where they flew for 20 years. Tokyo would be great to see them fly again, maybe wishful thinking these days with Russian airspace closed. Virgin Atlantic needs a "Pacific" strategy, just flying to Seoul and Shanghai doesn't make a Pacific presence. With an airline with just about 30 long haul planes heavily committed to the USA does it really have the will and resources to fly all the way Korea and Japan ?

Virgin has a strong presence across the North Atlantic and is bulking up its holiday destination portfolio. Beyond that, it can pick off some routes that make sense commercially. I don't see a problem with only flying a small number of routes to Asia and compete in markets where it makes sense. Why do they "need a Pacific strategy"? I don't see a great number of underserved routes in the area from the UK. Sky Team membership might open up a few new opportunities that did not exist in that shape for a stand-alone carrier. They know what they are good at and are going for it.

IF Virgin is flying to Seoul why not fly to Taipei also since that is the home of Skyteam member China Airlines. I have never heard Virgin doing anything with China Eastern another Skyteam airline.

jfk777 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

jfk777 wrote:

This route to Seoul could be the anchor for more Virgin in North Asia, but will it. It just gave up on Hong Kong, where they flew for 20 years. Tokyo would be great to see them fly again, maybe wishful thinking these days with Russian airspace closed. Virgin Atlantic needs a "Pacific" strategy, just flying to Seoul and Shanghai doesn't make a Pacific presence. With an airline with just about 30 long haul planes heavily committed to the USA does it really have the will and resources to fly all the way Korea and Japan ?

Virgin has a strong presence across the North Atlantic and is bulking up its holiday destination portfolio. Beyond that, it can pick off some routes that make sense commercially. I don't see a problem with only flying a small number of routes to Asia and compete in markets where it makes sense. Why do they "need a Pacific strategy"? I don't see a great number of underserved routes in the area from the UK. Sky Team membership might open up a few new opportunities that did not exist in that shape for a stand-alone carrier. They know what they are good at and are going for it.

IF Virgin is flying to Seoul why not fly to Taipei also since that is the home of Skyteam member China Airlines. I have never heard Virgin doing anything with China Eastern another Skyteam airline.

This route is being given a slot from a competitor which means it merely has to pencil on the pnl any other route would have to be better then whatever it replaces out of Heathrow

dstblj52 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

Virgin has a strong presence across the North Atlantic and is bulking up its holiday destination portfolio. Beyond that, it can pick off some routes that make sense commercially. I don't see a problem with only flying a small number of routes to Asia and compete in markets where it makes sense. Why do they "need a Pacific strategy"? I don't see a great number of underserved routes in the area from the UK. Sky Team membership might open up a few new opportunities that did not exist in that shape for a stand-alone carrier. They know what they are good at and are going for it.

IF Virgin is flying to Seoul why not fly to Taipei also since that is the home of Skyteam member China Airlines. I have never heard Virgin doing anything with China Eastern another Skyteam airline.

This route is being given a slot from a competitor which means it merely has to pencil on the pnl any other route would have to be better then whatever it replaces out of Heathrow

This. In reality ICN doesn’t give much to VS except secondary destinations in Japan (would have to backtrack from HND if using NH codeshare), Taiwan, Philippines, Guam, Sydney, Brisbane, Auckland. Anything else would be way too much of a detour. Many other destinations are easily served already with their other partnerships such as AF and KL. Arguably most of them could already be served via SQ but I digress.

This route mostly helps KE, they can funnel passengers onto VS and effectively have additional capacity into LHR (depending on the nature of the codeshare agreement) and keep competitors out. Think of the arrangement Finnair has with QR for Scandinavian routes, QR blocks and sells most of the seats on those flights.

As long as the route is not a loss maker there VS should be happy operating the route with the potential to keep permanent slots in the future. Aircraft utilisation is the sole sticking point, but with A330neo deliveries I’m sure they can spare some flight hours for a bird to be sent to ICN. Otherwise, maybe they can do like KE did with CZ and wetlease a plane for the route.

Now that VS is a skyteam member they’ll probably work closer with MU for intra chinese cooperation like DL. Fly to PVG and codeshare on the domestic network from there ontop of codesharing on MU services to LHR and MAN(if any?)

Philippine333 wrote:

If VS does launch ICN, then perhaps BA should return too for a third attempt to go head-to-head with VS after discontinuing it in 1998 and 2020, because it's pretty much the last major EU carrier not to fly into ICN, and I think that demand for a BA flight to ICN may hopefully then be on the horizon at some point in the foreseeable future since the competition might not be too bad as the 2012-2020 attempt if this route were ever to return. Because the OZ brand will probably be retired by then.

I’m actually convinced BA only axed the route because they knew they could make more money elsewhere. It was a 787-8 mainstay so the smallest they had in the fleet, and they had a partnership with Korail for domestic rail feed (although that might have stopped when HSR service to ICN ended). But due to the limited number of 787-8 in their fleet if they could make more money flying elsewhere then it would make sense they would drop ICN which is a pretty marginal route for BA. They probably send the few remaining passengers via HKG, DOH, or HND.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

If VS does launch ICN, then perhaps BA should return too for a third attempt to go head-to-head with VS after discontinuing it in 1998 and 2020, because it's pretty much the last major EU carrier not to fly into ICN, and I think that demand for a BA flight to ICN may hopefully then be on the horizon at some point in the foreseeable future since the competition might not be too bad as the 2012-2020 attempt if this route were ever to return. Because the OZ brand will probably be retired by then.

I’m actually convinced BA only axed the route because they knew they could make more money elsewhere. It was a 787-8 mainstay so the smallest they had in the fleet, and they had a partnership with Korail for domestic rail feed (although that might have stopped when HSR service to ICN ended). But due to the limited number of 787-8 in their fleet if they could make more money flying elsewhere then it would make sense they would drop ICN which is a pretty marginal route for BA. They probably send the few remaining passengers via HKG, DOH, or HND.

But will BA revive ICN if at all, and what do you mean by ICN being marginal for BA? Also, do any of you have an idea how ICN fared for BA compared to KE and OZ services?

3AWM wrote:

I agree with Skipness1E in that I that there might be some sensitivities around competing with SQ.

I don't think LHR-ICN is a very good route for VS on it's own but think this route throws out some interesting opportunities.

I don't see any necessity to operate it directly as I think it could be operated with a stop through as country with a fairly liberal air services agreement. DXB is possible but I wouldn't want to compete with EK on that one. I see BKK as a good stop as the connections to the US are a bit weak but they could add some connections through the Delta arrangement on BKK / US flights. i think they could make money on that through the JV arrangement they have with Delta.

Given the time the frame would have to sit on the ground at ICN it seems there could be some additional utilisation with a tag. Another option is a triangular route with one stop on one of the legs in either direction but I couldn't say if this would be better from a commercial point of view.

Maybe post Brexit there could be more trade with South Korea which is a cultural superpower in Asia.

Like I said here I think ICN is too thin on it's own to work but the extra slot allocation is valuable from LHR, there are also lots of Delta connections from ICN that VS could earn money on if they coudl connect between BKK as connections to there from the US are really not as good as they might be.

I think Hanoi is also a potentially interesting one as it is similar 1 competitor market to the one described at ICN, it also has plenty of South East Asia connections with Skyteam. Virgin as a brand with a big holiday and leisure market wing should be able to sell these destinations to Londoners all day long...

Not sure if the air services agreement allows for onward ticket sales to somewhere like HKG where Virgin will obviously still have customers I'm not sure. But air services agreements with the UK are up for re-negotiation right now following Brexit.

Nairobi might also work as BA is the only competition there. I think that is probably a good destination for one of the older frame they might otherwise have retired. There is an obvious incentive for Air Kenya to put their code on that one as they don't operate London flights themselves.

3AWM wrote:

Nairobi might also work as BA is the only competition there. I think that is probably a good destination for one of the older frame they might otherwise have retired. There is an obvious incentive for Air Kenya to put their code on that one as they don't operate London flights themselves.

That’s wrong. Kenya Airways is operating daily KQ100/101 and several times a week KQ102/103 between NBO and LHR.

Might be an option that VS takes over one daily itself + KQ will reduce to one daily too … for double-daily Skyteam offer.

Perfect route for the B789 for VS however unless they overhaul their J Cabins, they'll be offering a very substandard J seat verses what KE/OZ offer. Unless they're planning to deploy their A35K's on the route or refit the B789s?

I have to say I'm surprised they're entertaining this. LHR-PKX would had made more sense for O&D traffic and for connects with MU, PKX would also compliment their relaunch of PVG. And allow OZ/KE to pick up the the market for traffic to ICN with their A388's.

cityshuttle wrote:

3AWM wrote:

Nairobi might also work as BA is the only competition there. I think that is probably a good destination for one of the older frame they might otherwise have retired. There is an obvious incentive for Air Kenya to put their code on that one as they don't operate London flights themselves.

That’s wrong. Kenya Airways is operating daily KQ100/101 and several times a week KQ102/103 between NBO and LHR.

Might be an option that VS takes over one daily itself + KQ will reduce to one daily too … for double-daily Skyteam offer.

Sorry my bad.. I checked on Wikipedia but I didn't see it. I get some of this information on the internet is not up to date right now anyway so apologies if I'm refering to something not up to date right now.

3AWM wrote:

I think Hanoi is also a potentially interesting one as it is similar 1 competitor market to the one described at ICN, it also has plenty of South East Asia connections with Skyteam. Virgin as a brand with a big holiday and leisure market wing should be able to sell these destinations to Londoners all day long...

Not sure if the air services agreement allows for onward ticket sales to somewhere like HKG where Virgin will obviously still have customers I'm not sure. But air services agreements with the UK are up for re-negotiation right now following Brexit.

So, and asking for the bottom-line. How many LHR slot pairs does Virgin have for which they haven't yet selected a destination? And if so, which are shortlisted destinations for which they could be used? Thanks.

Someone else can probably give a really accurate reply to this but my feeling is as Virgin moved their holiday routes from Gatwick and they have a few other routes they didn't run they have maxed out their slots, I don't think they have unused slots as it would have been very difficult for them to get new slots assigned.

Philippine333 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

If VS does launch ICN, then perhaps BA should return too for a third attempt to go head-to-head with VS after discontinuing it in 1998 and 2020, because it's pretty much the last major EU carrier not to fly into ICN, and I think that demand for a BA flight to ICN may hopefully then be on the horizon at some point in the foreseeable future since the competition might not be too bad as the 2012-2020 attempt if this route were ever to return. Because the OZ brand will probably be retired by then.

I’m actually convinced BA only axed the route because they knew they could make more money elsewhere. It was a 787-8 mainstay so the smallest they had in the fleet, and they had a partnership with Korail for domestic rail feed (although that might have stopped when HSR service to ICN ended). But due to the limited number of 787-8 in their fleet if they could make more money flying elsewhere then it would make sense they would drop ICN which is a pretty marginal route for BA. They probably send the few remaining passengers via HKG, DOH, or HND.

But will BA revive ICN if at all, and what do you mean by ICN being marginal for BA? Also, do any of you have an idea how ICN fared for BA compared to KE and OZ services?

There are a few factors that I surmise didn't contribute to the route's success:

- Lack of adequate feed at the ICN end, not only due to geography (ICN isn't that geographically advantageous for onward connections from Europe, unless if you're going to Japan), but also lack of alliance partners.
- ICN-LHR-Europe requires backtracking in many cases.
- Due to the factors above, O&D traffic plays a bigger role on the London-Seoul v.v. route.
- More South Koreans visit the UK (approx. 300k annually prior to the pandemic) vs. Britons visiting South Korea (approx. 140k annually prior to the pandemic), and the Korean carriers have the O&D advantage.
- Mass retirement of 747s due to COVID resulted in other aircraft types, such as 787s, backfilling routes that used to be operated by larger types.
- As the market started to recover post-COVID, Russian airspace became closed to British carriers, adding an extra 2-3 hours of flying time in each direction which would negatively affect the economics of flying to East Asia.

ICN (alliance or not) is not a VS route with longevity IMO. I’ll watch it with interest to see if remains 1 year after launch. I really don’t get VS even less so now in the Delta-sphere of SkyTeam.

3AWM wrote:

I think Hanoi is also a potentially interesting one as it is similar 1 competitor market to the one described at ICN, it also has plenty of South East Asia connections with Skyteam. Virgin as a brand with a big holiday and leisure market wing should be able to sell these destinations to Londoners all day long...

Not sure if the air services agreement allows for onward ticket sales to somewhere like HKG where Virgin will obviously still have customers I'm not sure. But air services agreements with the UK are up for re-negotiation right now following Brexit.

I'd love a VS service to Vietnam (SGN would be better for me though!), but I think it's unlikely.

hoons90 wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

I’m actually convinced BA only axed the route because they knew they could make more money elsewhere. It was a 787-8 mainstay so the smallest they had in the fleet, and they had a partnership with Korail for domestic rail feed (although that might have stopped when HSR service to ICN ended). But due to the limited number of 787-8 in their fleet if they could make more money flying elsewhere then it would make sense they would drop ICN which is a pretty marginal route for BA. They probably send the few remaining passengers via HKG, DOH, or HND.

But will BA revive ICN if at all, and what do you mean by ICN being marginal for BA? Also, do any of you have an idea how ICN fared for BA compared to KE and OZ services?

There are a few factors that I surmise didn't contribute to the route's success:

- Lack of adequate feed at the ICN end, not only due to geography (ICN isn't that geographically advantageous for onward connections from Europe, unless if you're going to Japan), but also lack of alliance partners.
- ICN-LHR-Europe requires backtracking in many cases.
- Due to the factors above, O&D traffic plays a bigger role on the London-Seoul v.v. route.
- More South Koreans visit the UK (approx. 300k annually prior to the pandemic) vs. Britons visiting South Korea (approx. 140k annually prior to the pandemic), and the Korean carriers have the O&D advantage.
- Mass retirement of 747s due to COVID resulted in other aircraft types, such as 787s, backfilling routes that used to be operated by larger types.
- As the market started to recover post-COVID, Russian airspace became closed to British carriers, adding an extra 2-3 hours of flying time in each direction which would negatively affect the economics of flying to East Asia.

Now that you mentioned how it fared, here are other possible factors as to why BA failed in ICN:

- Schedule-wise, KE and OZ schedules were much more flexible where they had morning/evening departures and arrivals between LHR and ICN, but BA's schedules were I believe, 1x daily. Meaning that BA's schedules to ICN were more rigid and had much less flexibility in terms of schedules than the KE or OZ schedules. Thus, barely any passengers were inclined on going direct on BA to/from ICN.

- Oneworld is relatively weak in Korea, and that's what made things a lot harder for BA to offer onward connections from ICN on any partner airline because none of the airlines are Oneworld in Korea.

- Korea is not even an Asian financial hub unlike Hong Kong for BA, so business travel demand on BA to ICN isn't (or wasn't) even there to begin with.

- Because of LHR's poor geographic location compared to the other EU hubs in the mainland, the connections BA only had an advantage on connecting passengers from ICN on was only to Ireland. Especially because, they don't even have a transparent hub for connecting passengers onwards to UK domestic destinations because of their weak presence in the domestic market.

CI flies TPE-LHR direct on its own metal. VS can take the overflow via ICN/PVG from TPE, especially during Chinese New Year.

Surprised no one mentioned how VS can now codeshare with VN and route people via SGN for Southeast Asia, as well as with GA with their new LGW-CGK flight. UK residents can now fly the Kangaroo Route through VN/GA.

jfk777 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

jfk777 wrote:

This route to Seoul could be the anchor for more Virgin in North Asia, but will it. It just gave up on Hong Kong, where they flew for 20 years. Tokyo would be great to see them fly again, maybe wishful thinking these days with Russian airspace closed. Virgin Atlantic needs a "Pacific" strategy, just flying to Seoul and Shanghai doesn't make a Pacific presence. With an airline with just about 30 long haul planes heavily committed to the USA does it really have the will and resources to fly all the way Korea and Japan ?

Virgin has a strong presence across the North Atlantic and is bulking up its holiday destination portfolio. Beyond that, it can pick off some routes that make sense commercially. I don't see a problem with only flying a small number of routes to Asia and compete in markets where it makes sense. Why do they "need a Pacific strategy"? I don't see a great number of underserved routes in the area from the UK. Sky Team membership might open up a few new opportunities that did not exist in that shape for a stand-alone carrier. They know what they are good at and are going for it.

IF Virgin is flying to Seoul why not fly to Taipei also since that is the home of Skyteam member China Airlines. I have never heard Virgin doing anything with China Eastern another Skyteam airline.

YYZflyboy wrote:

as well as with GA with their new LGW-CGK flight. UK residents can now fly the Kangaroo Route through VN/GA.

Huh? What new GA LGW-CGK flight?? I've not seen anything about this. As far as I was aware Garuda has been long gone from LON for a few years now.

hoons90 wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

I’m actually convinced BA only axed the route because they knew they could make more money elsewhere. It was a 787-8 mainstay so the smallest they had in the fleet, and they had a partnership with Korail for domestic rail feed (although that might have stopped when HSR service to ICN ended). But due to the limited number of 787-8 in their fleet if they could make more money flying elsewhere then it would make sense they would drop ICN which is a pretty marginal route for BA. They probably send the few remaining passengers via HKG, DOH, or HND.

But will BA revive ICN if at all, and what do you mean by ICN being marginal for BA? Also, do any of you have an idea how ICN fared for BA compared to KE and OZ services?

There are a few factors that I surmise didn't contribute to the route's success:

- Lack of adequate feed at the ICN end, not only due to geography (ICN isn't that geographically advantageous for onward connections from Europe, unless if you're going to Japan), but also lack of alliance partners.
- ICN-LHR-Europe requires backtracking in many cases.
- Due to the factors above, O&D traffic plays a bigger role on the London-Seoul v.v. route.
- More South Koreans visit the UK (approx. 300k annually prior to the pandemic) vs. Britons visiting South Korea (approx. 140k annually prior to the pandemic), and the Korean carriers have the O&D advantage.
- Mass retirement of 747s due to COVID resulted in other aircraft types, such as 787s, backfilling routes that used to be operated by larger types.
- As the market started to recover post-COVID, Russian airspace became closed to British carriers, adding an extra 2-3 hours of flying time in each direction which would negatively affect the economics of flying to East Asia.

In 2019, 474,000 pax flew round trip LON-ICN-LON. Yes BA could not compete effectively using a small B788 versus OZ and KE's pricing tactics in all cabins + ICN not being a OW hub didnt contribute much beyond business too.

Yes you are right, for BA the main relevant markets beyond LHR were DUB MAN EDI GLA CDG BRU AMS.

Your last point regarding Russia overflight air space in current political climate is also very true.

Any VS ICN flight will follow the same flight pattern over central Asia & China that their soon to be reinstated PVG flight will use. VS / KE can code-share onward connecting flights to the various cities in Japan KE operate to, subject of course to timings allowing connections. Also ICN should do well for cargo.