Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kriegerkaiser
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:40 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:02 am

I was once an AVID flyer of BA as I lived over in the UK and Europe for a long time.
But through the years, the various rules on their tariffs, extra charges and poor customer service drove me away from them ultimately in March of this year. I think it is not wise to do as they are doing.... as I know many Europeans try not to fly them. It is sad - because really, I did love them.
 
AIR MALTA
Posts: 1789
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:45 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:35 am



Quoting JER757 (Reply 48):
Too many petty rules that do nothing but upset the passengers. "Sorry sir, I can't reprint your boarding card, accept your surfboard, accept a bag more than 23kg ... its BA policy." OK we all know its in the terms and conditions but it is embarassing sometimes to say this to passengers travelling on what they perceive as a full class airline.

Well AF, LH, LX and KL do not accept more than 20Kg in Economy and now you have to pay even if you have 1 Kg more. So this does not apply to BA but to all airlines.
Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
 
APYu
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:23 pm

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:36 am



Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 51):
do not accept more than 20Kg in Economy and now you have to pay even if you have 1 Kg more. So this does not apply to BA but to all airlines

Do they not accept the bag, or do they accept it and charge for accepting it?

The BA policy when initially published was that that BA wont accept a 23kg+ bag regardless of giving you the option of paying for it due to Health and Safety reasons.

This seems to have been relaxed slightly with the latest policy being as follows

Quote from BA.com
We understand that there are times when you will need to exceed this limit. Therefore, from November 2008, a flat fee of £25 GBP will be applied to bags weighing more than 23kg (51lbs). This charge is to cover the additional handling that bags weighing over 23kg (51lbs) can attract.

Until this charge is implemented, we will continue to accept a single piece of baggage weighing up to 32kg (70lbs) without charge.
We'd like to welcome in particular our Executive Club members and those joining us from our Oneworld alliance partners.
 
Analog
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:24 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:38 pm



Quoting Antonovman (Reply 47):
I suppose Analog thinks all the slots that BA have held for years should be taken away from them and given to the tinpot rubbish US carriers who are clammering to get in to LHR

Why the hostility? I think they should be sold/rented on a competitive basis. It is a bit unfair that some airlines have to buy a small number of slots for 10's of millions of dollars, while others got them for free (as I understand it the majority of BA's slots were allocated to them without any real cost to them).
 
BCAL
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:04 pm



Quoting Analog (Reply 53):
It is a bit unfair that some airlines have to buy a small number of slots for 10's of millions of dollars, while others got them for free (as I understand it the majority of BA's slots were allocated to them without any real cost to them).

So you think it is wrong that an airline that was instrumental in developing an airport should not have initially been given the "free" slots? In the 1950s BOAC and later BEA moved into Heathrow when it was a new and an underused airport and they spent millions over the years establishing their bases at the site, which in turn attracted more passengers and then in turn other airlines were attracted that led to LHR becoming the major global airport that it is today. I think it can be said that the original US carriers at LHR - i.e. PanAm and TWA - were also given the slots in the same way that they were given to the UK's state airlines.

So after 50 years of BA's (and its predecessors) constant investment, when LHR is now bursting at the seams, you are saying that BA should surrender many of their inherited slots and bid for them in the same way as other airlines, many of which were not even around in the 1950s to 1970s? It is just like saying that people who brought their homes many years ago should give them back to the state to auction and then enter the bidding so they pay current market prices like first-time buyers.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
 
theginge
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:53 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:30 pm



Quoting Analog (Reply 53):
Why the hostility? I think they should be sold/rented on a competitive basis. It is a bit unfair that some airlines have to buy a small number of slots for 10's of millions of dollars, while others got them for free (as I understand it the majority of BA's slots were allocated to them without any real cost to them).

How are airlines supposed to build up networks if they can't hang on to slots at busy airports. If they changed hands every few years no one would want to fly from the airport, thus making the slots worthless.
 
luv2fly
Posts: 11056
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:57 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:47 pm

It is funny that people are upset over these "ghost flights", yet no one says a word about all the empty planes that were flown to Dubai for the air show! Hello pot, kettle here, your black.
You can cut the irony with a knife
 
jfk777
Posts: 7358
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:17 pm

BA has two daily fights from LHR to NRT within 90 minutes of each other, I have talked to BA staff telling me that they sometimes place all passengers on one flight and fly the other full of cargo. If these "empty" passenger flights do happen world wide they may have a belly full of frieght. With multiple daily flight to LAX and JFK, BA may be moving high priced cargo, just a thought which may explain the logic of BA's decision.
 
bmiexpat
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:11 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:22 pm

Charter airlines do this at the start of every season, when they have to fly out the first lot of holiday makers but have no one to pick up on the return leg so fly empty and vice versa at the end of the season. This has been happening every year for god knows how long! Quick someone call the Daily Mail, this is a scandal!!!!
 
antonovman
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 12:45 pm

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:01 pm



Quoting Theginge (Reply 55):
Quoting Analog (Reply 53):
Why the hostility? I think they should be sold/rented on a competitive basis. It is a bit unfair that some airlines have to buy a small number of slots for 10's of millions of dollars, while others got them for free (as I understand it the majority of BA's slots were allocated to them without any real cost to them).

Slots are still given to airlines, and new entrants in to LHR are given priority its just that they are so few and far between and the timings are not when the likes of DL want them. ir arrivel 3 pm departre 10;30 pm
Saying what you did is like saying JFK will become totally slot controlled and all DL slots will be taken away from them and sold to the highest bidder. Its nonsense
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:16 pm



Quoting Sandyb123 (Thread starter):
commenting on the "environmental impact" of this.

Very funny to see the tree-huggers jumping onto the band wagon right away. They probably miss the fact those flights would have taken place anyway and that emissions don't change with the amount of passengers on board. It's pathetic to see them risking their last bit of credibility ...
 
ritgrad83
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 9:49 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:48 pm

One thing that is missing in these reports is what happens to the passengers who have already paid for their tickets when BA cancels flights to US. With US airlines cutting back on capacity by flying with 90% seats filled or more, it becomes very difficult to reroute passengers when other flights are already nearly full. Not to mention that unlike the UK where most people have no connections when the arrive in London - US bound passengers are more likely to have connections to get to their destination. So when they miss a connection, there is a good chance that they coud find themselves stranded for not just hours - but even days trying to get to their final destination.

I find it very far fetched that crew shortage is the problem. Sounds to me like British Ariways like many other airlines are trying to stay lean and profitable at the expense of passenger convenience and comfort.

One other thing - did anyone read about the part where BA is adding additional fuel surcharges to cope with rising fuel costs? How stupid do they thing we are? If they are flying empty planes and expect passengers to foot the bill to cover the additional fuel costs - it doesn't take an Oxford or Harvard economist to figure that one out.... jeez!!!
 
LHR777
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:14 pm

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:03 pm

Just to clarify a few points - ALL the so-called 'ghost flights' were operated as freighters. All flight numbers were operated as 'F' flights. For example, BA293F, BA176F, etc. The 'F' designates the flight as a commercial freighter service.

Freight companies pay fuel surcharges per kilo. There is no comparison between the 'huge waste of fuel' and the recently increased passenger fuel surcharge. Freight companies do NOT avoid fuel surcharges.

Here's the LINK to BA World Cargo fuel surcharges.
 
Analog
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:24 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:38 pm



Quoting BCAL (Reply 54):
So after 50 years of BA's (and its predecessors) constant investment, when LHR is now bursting at the seams, you are saying that BA should surrender many of their inherited slots and bid for them in the same way as other airlines, many of which were not even around in the 1950s to 1970s? It is just like saying that people who brought their homes many years ago should give them back to the state to auction and then enter the bidding so they pay current market prices like first-time buyers.

BA was state owned until the late 80s and was usually loss-making until then. Of course if the right to keep the slots forever was an explicit part of the IPO (or whatever the privatization was called), then taking them away would be wrong.

A better analogy would be if some people had been given free use of homes and when the government decided to auction them off, allowed to keep them for free.

Quoting Theginge (Reply 55):
How are airlines supposed to build up networks if they can't hang on to slots at busy airports. If they changed hands every few years no one would want to fly from the airport, thus making the slots worthless.

If it's not worth keeping the slots to hold on to the route network, then perhaps the route network should be changed. If the slots became "worthless", then they wouldn't cost very much, and it'd be easy to hold on to the route network.

Quoting Antonovman (Reply 59):
Slots are still given to airlines, and new entrants in to LHR are given priority its just that they are so few and far between and the timings are not when the likes of DL want them.

So they're "giving away" useless slot combinations. That's tantamount to not giving any away.
 
BCALBOY
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:25 am

RE: British Airways Flying Global 'Ghost Flights'

Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:28 pm

Quoting Analog (Reply 53):
I think they should be sold/rented on a competitive basis. It is a bit unfair that some airlines have to buy a small number of slots for 10's of millions of dollars, while others got them for free (as I understand it the majority of BA's slots were allocated to them without any real cost to them).

This is down to the principles of supply and demand in basic economics.

When the Pioneers settled out West in the U.s. they simply found a piece of land and staked their claim.
They didn't have to buy it. The land had no value as you could just stake your claim on the land that hadn-t already been claimed.
As time went by there was insufficient good unclaimed land for those wanting to
settle. Therefore to acquire the land , it was necessary to persuade those who had already staked their
claims , to give up some of their land by selling it. The land then acquired a value.

Same thing at LHR. At one time if you wanted to operate a service to LHR , you just bought the aircraft and
started the service . Nowadays the Airport is full . So if you want to start a service you have to persuade
someone else to give you their rights (slots) . The better the slot ( the better the land) the higher the price.

Would you expect BA to hand over their landing rights to someone else any more than you would expect
one of the Pioneers to give you some of his land because when you arrived years later just because all the good land had gone ?
I don-t think so !

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 57):
BA has two daily fights from LHR to NRT within 90 minutes of each other, I have talked to BA staff telling me that they sometimes place all passengers on one flight and fly the other full of cargo

This hasn-t happened on NRT recently and has only ever happened a couple of times and is not a regular
occurence as yr post tends to suggest. When it has happened ,it has been because of crewing problems .
There is no advantage in consolidating all the psgrs on one flight and dedicating the other to Freight.
The aircraft are passenger a/c not freighters .The maindeck has seats so when an aircraft flys freight only
the volume is dictated by the capacity of the belly hold ...its doesn-t suddenly deliver main deck cargo capacity like an all freighter service. Sure the flight can carry more freight as their is no passenger baggage but the flight
carrying the consolidated psgr loads has more baggage and less freight capacity so overall no significant gain.
Plus the psgrs moved from the now all freight flight are well dis-pleased.
[

Quoting Ritgrad83 (Reply 61):
find it very far fetched that crew shortage is the problem. Sounds to me like British Ariways like many other airlines are trying to stay lean and profitable at the expense of passenger convenience and comfort.

How exactly does flying an aircraft without psgrs make BA more lean and profitable ?
The whole reason it is done is to continue to operate the sectors which are fully crewed to minimise the number of psgrs that are inconvenienced .

The issue is definitely a shortage of Cabin Crew .
The problem is that the aircraft roster is not the same as the crew roster .
Typically the aircraft flys UK to US and returns US to UK the same evening .
The crew fly UK to US and return 24 or 48hrs later depending on whether its East or West Coast.
If you cancel the aircraft roundtrip , the crew already in the USA are delayed 24/48 hrs and when they eventuallyarrive back in the UK this could well have disrupted their forward roster . If they are on a Back to Back trip
this may knock them off the second half which creates further disruption a few days later .
This can have a domino affect and result in further cancellations.
The simplest way to confine/minimise the problem is to continue to operate th aircraft rotations , fly the aircraft but don-t carry psgrs on the sectors were crew are not available and allow the crew who are working to fly their rosters as originally planned .


Flying the flights to retain the slots is a red herring.
As has already been mentioned any any particular departure on a given day of the week can be cancelled 4-5 times
before the slot is endangered . BA has sufficient flights to choose from to spread the pain so that the service is not being flown just for the slot sake. Commercially BA wouldn-t want to hit the same flight/destination continuosly
because of the customer impact.

Quoting Bmiexpat (Reply 45):
But Wales on Sunday can reveal that the flights were scrapped a fortnight ago as part of changes made following the takeover of BMed by bmi baby.

Is it just co-incidence that BMI have introduced a 2155 dep on EMB LHR/LBA , not exactly a commercially
attractive time for a UK domestic route that is predominantly business ??

[Edited 2007-11-14 11:35:56]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos