Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:30 pm

Interesting, but not surprising, that LAS is the only new USA destination thusfar mentioned.

Quoting BY738 (Reply 6):
Could BA do Hawaii direct but via somewhere in the US ( if you know what I mean)

Yes, but why would they want to?

Quoting B742 (Reply 9):
a return to LAS

return??

Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 22):
The airport is the biggest and busiest two operational runway airport in europe and LGW is the busiest one operational runway airport in europe.

...or the world, for that matter, in both cases.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
B747-4U3
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:08 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:44 pm



Quoting Basrabob (Reply 42):
One country that everybody seems to have overlooked is Vietnam . This could be serviced thru HKG as an extn of the BA services . Or is it too specialised & should be left to CX to be done as a One world service?

Also what about the Phillipines? Again will they risk it , or will they leave to CX to service their flights as transfer traffic ?

My thoughts are that they will leave CX to it , but both LH & AF are making a good fist of it .

AF does well in Vietnam due to the historical links between the two countries, but even so, they only have a daily flight to Vietnam via BKK. If AF can't make a non-stop work I doubt BA will fare any better. The other problem is, if it is routed via another destination, then where? As far as BKK is concerned, it can't support more than the daily 744 service which continues to SYD (BA did try extra frequencies a while ago but failed) and HKG is far too high yielding on its own to warrant a tag-on to Vietnam- especially considering CX offer good connections. The same problem applies for the Philippines, if BA were to operate the route it would have to be non-stop due to a lack of suitable airports to stop at on route (again, fares to HKG alone are probably higher than to MNL, therefore why operate via HKG?), so the question is, is there enough traffic to support a non-stop service...probably not. One must also remember that KLs 777s only have 35 or so premium seats, BAs 777s have 60 or so, and BA might have a hard time filling those seats to Manila.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 49):
BA's "new" service to Osaka and Seoul is actually two cities they flew to until the SARS events of a few years ago, two cities flown to by partically every European airline but BA. KL is more interesting since Malaysia Airlines, the national airline, flies twice daily to LHR and fills the planes with people bound for Australia. Is operating a LHR-SIN-KL really an efficient use of an airplane, even if it sits in SIN for a hours ? BA should fly a 777 to KL and if it can't fill it then the route shouldn't be flown.

Actually Seoul and Osaka were stopped ages ago in 1998 when there was the Asian Economic Crisis which hit Korea pretty badly. Seoul was again recently served during the SARS outbreak as a stopover on the Beijing service. I don't know if BA had traffic rights or not, but the crew stayed in Seoul and just did a shuttle across to Beijing.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:06 pm

BA flies 3, 4 or 5x weekly to MEX according to season and -I guess- demand. I hope they would go up to 1x daily! Any chance of this happening?
Upcoming flights:
April/May: AM MEX-SCL 788 (J), AM EZE-MEX 789 (J).
 
ThomasCook
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:43 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:55 pm

Hey,

Will probably get laughed of the forum for saying this...but any chance BA (aka London Airways) may look towards expansion at Manchester as once easyJet complete their buyout of GB Airways, that leaves BA with a measly 3 routes out of MAN; LHR, LGW and JFK! That is pretty embarrassing for a national carrier to only operate 3 routes from the busiest UK airport outside of the London area!? Looking at it this way, Lufthansa have more routes out of Manchester then BA as do VLM!

Regards
ThomasCook
 
nickrose87
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:15 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:16 pm



Quoting ThomasCook (Reply 53):

i know what you mean. surely if they had some long haul routes from MAN it would remove some of the pressure from LHR and LGW. even if its a flight a week to australia or summat like that.
 
David_itl
Posts: 6418
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:51 pm

We can forget at about BA at MAN. They have pissed on MAN big style after MAN turned it's back on easyJet in order to support them. They seem to be happy to let other airlines cart passengers by the bucketload. It may be that these passengers are routing via foreign hubs, but perhaps I mistook the creation of alliances which I naively took to mean that it would make it easier for airlines to use the secondary airports and codeshare with partner airlines by routing into their partner airline's hub. They couldn't even get MAN-Pakistan to work. Sort of sums up how clueless they are.

So, being MAN specific, let's get more people routing via AMS (some 60% of KL passengers do this) or FRA/MUC (2 or 3 years ago, some 40,000 passengers were flying long-haul business class with LH).
 
MX77W
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:57 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:23 am



Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 11):
LAS/AMD/AHQ/KHI would start on 3 class 777 config 36J/24W/212M

Hopefully they will start LAS, I know it's a low-yield destination, but VS does well enough with a daily 744, so why not a few times a week on BA, I'm sure business travellers and OneWorld members would prefer the BA flight over VS, besides, we're always looking for "diversity" here in LASBig grin

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 52):
BA flies 3, 4 or 5x weekly to MEX according to season and -I guess- demand. I hope they would go up to 1x daily! Any chance of this happening?

Aren't they restricted by an agreement? From what I understood a Mexican carrier must start flying to LON in order for BA to be able to fly daily into MEX. Also, I do believe they do pretty well on this flight (being the ONLY carrier to fly MEX-LON), hopefully the much fabled LHR flight from AM will materialize soon... or may be my dream of MX going to Europe soon will happen too... Big grin

Regards,

MX 77W
Mexicana lives on...
 
behramjee
Posts: 5118
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:56 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:44 am



Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 51):
As far as BKK is concerned, it can't support more than the daily 744 service which continues to SYD (

That maybe true...BA also code shares on QF's daily LHR-BKK flight operated by a B 744.

On the LHR-BKK route, its up against Eva Air who flies 6 weekly B 744s + double daily TG B 744s + the Middle East carriers who take on a lot of LON-BKK traffic via their respective hubs as they undercut BA quite a bit.

As far as Vietnam is concerned, you maybe right that if AF cannot make the route work with a nonstop from CDG, then the chances of BA making it work is slimmer.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 47):
Does anyone know the passenger base from DOH-LHR.

The passenger base from DOH/BAH/KWI are the "BA type"  Wink ...loads of full fare paying J & F class passengers corporate oil/energy traffic.

Quoting Basrabob (Reply 42):
Also what about the Phillipines? Again will they risk it , or will they leave to CX to service their flights as transfer traffic ?

Its a low yielding market hence not in BA's best interest to fly there. They feel comfortable routing MNL bound pax via HKG on CX...same thing applies to TPE I feel.

Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
LHR-ICN Starting with 3-4 x weekly and looking towards daily operation. Due to this becoming an emerging market.

cargo will be high yielding on this route for sure!

Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
LHR/ATQ and AMD in India

AMD-LHR failed with 9W but might fare better with BA as it can extract a sizeable amount of feeder traffic from MAN, USA and Canada + large O&D market between LON & AMD.

I wouldnt advise BA to fly to ATQ as 9W flies 6 times a week nonstop from the city to LHR with A 332s. Air India flies a daily B 773ER via DEL (same plane service) so there is enough capacity serving this market segment. If BA want to expand in India, they should look at launching new flights to HYD with the B 772ER.

Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
LHR/KHI in Pakistan

This is good to hear, but I doubt a terminator flight will be launched due to security fears that BA cabin crew would have over nighting in KHI. If KHI is launched, it will either be via a GCC city or flown as a triangular flight i.e. LHR-KHI-LHE-LHR.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3380
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:20 pm



Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 22):
The UK goverment won't sit back and watch it's strong economy become weaker due to poor transport links.

It already did. One of the main attributes of Heathrow is connectivity. As other airports like CDG, FRA, MUC, MAD expand and attract new service, LHR will be relegated to being just another option with an inconvenient curfew and too few runways. It may even end up like the JFK of Europe, shunned by travelers that will go through hubs in the Continent instead.

Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
Going back next week and they said did I have any ideas can't think of any new routes that BA could make a go of apart from the one above can you??

LHR-LIM-SCL
LHR-SJU
LHR-SJO
LHR-AUS
LHR-PDX
LHR-BDL
LHR-BNA
LHR-MCI
LHR-MSP
LHR-SJC
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
ucunnn2
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:21 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:57 pm



Quoting MX77W (Thread starter):
or may be my dream of MX going to Europe soon will happen too...

do you know by any chance if its true that MX has a slot in LHR ?? One of our friends in this forum told me that? I wonder that if they do why dont fly to there and get another widebody?
 
8herveg
Posts: 1490
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:01 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:57 pm

Can the LAS service not be operated from Heathrow instead of Gatwick? Then all 3 of Londons main airports have non stop service to LAS!
 
B752OS
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:47 am

I am wondering, I know it has been mentioning using 752s across the Atlantic, how feasible would it be for BA to start MAN-BOS on a 752?

Also, what is project Laurel?
 
Sketty222
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:36 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:15 am



Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 22):



Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 22):
ALSO HAVE HAD A FEW PRIVATE MESSAGES SAYING DO I THINK I SHOULD BE PUTTING THIS INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET??

I was thinking that as well  Smile

Quoting APYu (Reply 41):
Im trying to think of other possible leisure destinations they could do from LGW. Seychelles springs to mind, lots of year round holiday makers with spare cash who would happily pay leisure Club fares to avoid going via DXB. If they did that maybe Mauritius may move to LGW too? I never did understand why that had to go from LHR - Surely all those rich people who want to avoid paying tax can afford a limo round to Crawley.

Ive heard from sources within BA that MLE may be a leisure destination that BA are looking at for 2009. The MRU is operated from LHR because it is always full and they can offer more W, J, F seats from there. I think the Seychelles would be good for a BA return, especially from LGW whereas it used to be flown from LHR

Quoting Nickrose87 (Reply 45):
how about BA bringing back flights to MAN to show they do aint just a london airline.

This is a great idea and something that is discussed in detail between in lower echilons of BA. I think that if BA could add another frequency to North America such as YYZ, MIA or ORD it would be fantastic and would definately take the pressure off of LHR and LGW
I think we'll have to wait and see what happens in the next year or so, I keep my fingers crossed but my hopes aren't too high

Lee
There's flying and then there's flying
 
B747-4U3
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:08 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:18 am



Quoting Sketty222 (Reply 62):
I think the Seychelles would be good for a BA return, especially from LGW whereas it used to be flown from LHR

Can't quite remember the whole history of the London-Seychelles route, but I think a large part of the problem was that it was operated by a 744 via NBO (obviously with high overheads) and then later by a 763 via NBO. I think it was then briefly switched to 1 weekly non-stop 763 shortly before being axed altogether.

I doubt we'll see BA back in the Seychelles. Qatar Airways and Emirates now offer pretty competative fares as do Air Seychelles, non-stop from Heathrow. I suspect if BA tried properly and offered a twice weekly non-stop service with a 763 they could turn a small profit on the route, but with limited aircraft and slots I am sure BA have much higher priorities.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26286
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:52 am



Quoting B752OS (Reply 61):
I am wondering, I know it has been mentioning using 752s across the Atlantic, how feasible would it be for BA to start MAN-BOS on a 752?

AA did poorly with a BA codeshare, and there is no reason to think BA will do better. It's just a bunch of low-yielding tourist traffic.

Quoting B752OS (Reply 61):

Also, what is project Laurel?

BA's plan to offer 757 service from JFK to various airports in mainland Europe.
a.
 
baguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:04 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:28 am



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 49):
A's "new" service to Osaka and Seoul is actually two cities they flew to until the SARS events of a few years ago, two cities flown to by partically every European airline but BA

KIX should be good for BA. JL LHR-KIX is VERY expensive.

BAguy
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:00 am



Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 38):
Fares from LHR to ICN are not very cheap compared to routes of a similar length (perfect market for BA) and Korea is an emerging market for both business and leisure (both UK to Korea and Korea to UK). I would also imagine that the route would do well in cargo.

BA World Cargo already effectively code share with Korean Air Cargo on their service into LHR. However this means that if they were to introduce a passenger flight to ICN they could discontinue this arrangement and fill the hold from Day 1.

Quoting Theginge (Reply 40):
As BA have 57 744's in their fleet there will always be 1 or 2 constantly at Cardiff for maintenance and this will continue right through until the fleet reduces in size after 2012.

But be assured while BA have had two 744s being converted to New Club World and AVOD at CWL on virtually every day since early January they have not suspended routine maintenance on the rest of their 744 fleet.

Quoting ThomasCook (Reply 53):
That is pretty embarrassing for a national carrier to only operate 3 routes from the busiest UK airport outside of the London area!? Looking at it this way, Lufthansa have more routes out of Manchester then BA as do VLM!

When you say "Lufthansa" do you mean "Frankfurt-Munich Airlines"? Of course Brussels Airlines only flies into LHR with its single over-nighting Saturday flight. But LH is the only European National Flag Carrier operating into LHR that has absolutely no flights between its capital city, Berlin, and LHR. And this despite LH's possession of more slots at LHR than VS or any other airline except BA and BD.

But I guess that the fact that LH does not operate Berlin-LHR while, for example, CO operates to 8 UK cities from the USA but BA and VS only operate from 2 UK cities to the USA, shows how it is almost impossible for a full-service carrier like BA, VS, LH, CO or any of the others to operate competitively between two non-hub airports. This can be confirmed by looking at any country with multi-destinations out of LHR. Consider, for example, France. AF only operates LHR-CDG. But while BA and, indeed, BD serves other French airports like NCE from LHR, they are hardly in the same league as AF when measured in terms of services between the French capital and British airports outside of London.

Those who keep harping on about BA and "London Airways" are making a valid point - the paucity of flights by ALL full service airlines operating between non-hub airports. However it is fair to point out that BA is far from being the only "sinner" in this respect.

If BA get their current plans for JFK - the only airport in the world where they have their own terminal - and Project Lauren off the ground I am looking forward to certain British a-netters referring to BA as "New York Airways". And remember that you read this first here!
 
AIR MALTA
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:45 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:04 am



Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
Going back next week and they said did I have any ideas can't think of any new routes that BA could make a go of apart from the one above can you??

Well, why doesn't BA extend its CAI route to places like SAH or ADD. I am sure they could make some money instead of leaving the aircraft on the ground in CAI (like LH does).


Does anyone have any news about the new schedules of ex GBairways routes starting Apr 2008?
Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
 
David_itl
Posts: 6418
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:12 am



Quoting VV701 (Reply 66):
When you say "Lufthansa" do you mean "Frankfurt-Munich Airlines"?

Forgot abot DUS services?


Isn't BA's motto "to fly to serve"? Well they're not serving most of the population of the United Kingdom and prefer, if one looked at it though tree-huggers eyes, to contribute to climate change to route people through LHR or LGW. Perhaps yo could raise the question with BA's hierarchy if they're either (1) willing to sacrifice the premium payers who don't give a stuff about which airport sends them to their eventual destination if they can do it just as quick or quicker flying via either European city or connecting 7 to 10 hours down the line or (2) need the shuttle servives to fill BA's long-haul routes in all cabins as LHR itself is unable to by it's own. If the latter, then it doesn't matter which UK airport gets the feed as they could add routes from round the country to that point.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3673
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:23 pm



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 64):
Quoting B752OS (Reply 61):

Also, what is project Laurel?


BA's plan to offer 757 service from JFK to various airports in mainland Europe.



Quoting VV701 (Reply 66):
If BA get their current plans for JFK - the only airport in the world where they have their own terminal - and Project Lauren off the ground I am looking forward to certain British a-netters referring to BA as "New York Airways". And remember that you read this first here!

Project Lauren is still progressing, but at the moment, unless the FAA changes it's mind, the NYC terminus will be EWR and not JFK.
When the project was started there were no slots at JFK, you just turned up so BA planned on JFK. Then the FAA effectively closed the airport to new flights and BA has now got slots at EWR for the B757s.
 
BCA2005
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:56 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:34 pm



Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 67):
Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
Going back next week and they said did I have any ideas can't think of any new routes that BA could make a go of apart from the one above can you??

Well, why doesn't BA extend its CAI route to places like SAH or ADD. I am sure they could make some money instead of leaving the aircraft on the ground in CAI (like LH does).

or even LHR-CAI-BEY-CAI-LHR, which would allow them to once again serve BEY without the need of extra A/C or slots. Another question, slightly off topic, does anyone know why BA codeshare LHR-AMM with BD and not RJ?
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:44 pm



Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 69):
Project Lauren is still progressing, but at the moment, unless the FAA changes it's mind, the NYC terminus will be EWR and not JFK.
When the project was started there were no slots at JFK, you just turned up so BA planned on JFK. Then the FAA effectively closed the airport to new flights and BA has now got slots at EWR for the B757s.

So that's even better. BA will become "New Jersey Airways" and not "New York Airways".  Wink Sounds even more parochial.
 
AIR MALTA
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:45 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:45 pm



Quoting BCA2005 (Reply 70):
Another question, slightly off topic, does anyone know why BA codeshare LHR-AMM with BD and not RJ?

That's a good question. I have the feeling that BA is not exploiting all the code share possibilities it has with its OneWorld alliance partners. BA could share codes with CX to HKG, JL to TYO and KIX and RJ to AMM and beyond. Why is that when the other allicance members cooperate more?
Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:41 pm



Quoting David_itl (Reply 55):
They seem to be happy to let other airlines cart passengers by the bucketload. It may be that these passengers are routing via foreign hubs, but perhaps I mistook the creation of alliances which I naively took to mean that it would make it easier for airlines to use the secondary airports and codeshare with partner airlines by routing into their partner airline's hub. They couldn't even get MAN-Pakistan to work. Sort of sums up how clueless they are.

..EK is certainly "taking over" the United Kingdom. Ostensibly it seems as if every United Kingdom route EK launches is a success...How many of those pax are connecting to DXB just to fly to other locations such as SYD and AKL which would be "out of reach" for BA via MAN/BHX/etc, I don't know (actually I can't remember). However, SIN does have a daily B772 to MAN and MAN-Pakistan, especially MAN-ISB/LHE are some of PK's most profitable routes in their system. Hence, it does seem as if BA leaves something "on the table" regarding MAN at least.

That being said, it might simply be more efficient for BA to not have two majour hubs and to focus all of their attention at LHR. Regardless, its still appalling to see how little long-haul attention they pay to the rest of the United Kingdom, something which other carriers have taken advantage of.

Quoting Behramjee (Reply 57):
This is good to hear, but I doubt a terminator flight will be launched due to security fears that BA cabin crew would have over nighting in KHI.

While I agree with you that I wouldn't be surprised if BA did a triangle flight, I see no reason why they can't have a terminating flight in KHI.

1-there are a number of Europeans in Karachi at any given day-one never hears of attacks or kidnappings of Europeans in Karachi.
2-BA already has a terminator flight in ISB already, so they do what to expect to a certain extent.
"Up the Irons!"
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:59 pm



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 73):
That being said, it might simply be more efficient for BA to not have two majour hubs and to focus all of their attention at LHR. Regardless, its still appalling to see how little long-haul attention they pay to the rest of the United Kingdom, something which other carriers have taken advantage of.

Hmmm. The likes of AA, CO, DL, NW and US have only ever operated from their US hub airports into the UK. The one exception was UA. They, of course, used to operate the Blue Ribbon and allegedly highest yielding and largest route in terms of passengers flown out of LHR, namely LHR-JFK. But with neither JFK nor LHR being a UA hub, even then they could not make a go of it and sold the rights to DL.

It certainly makes you wonder how BA manages to keep its head above water on the MAN-JFK routes when these American carriers, most of whom have significantly reduced their cost base in recent times by going through Chapter 11 protection, simply cannot operate a similar non-hub to non-hub trans-Atlantic service.
 
donder10
Posts: 6945
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:53 pm



Quoting Nickrose87 (Reply 54):
i know what you mean. surely if they had some long haul routes from MAN it would remove some of the pressure from LHR and LGW. even if its a flight a week to australia or summat like that.

How would a flight a week a)take any of the pressure off the London airports and b) make any money?

Quoting David_itl (Reply 55):
ome 40,000 passengers were flying long-haul business class with LH).

Which is just over 100 a day. Even if we assume that AF and KLM are carrying around the same number that is still not particularly high and will be spread over a number of different routes making it even harder for BA to make money on long haul from MAN.

Quoting Sketty222 (Reply 62):
This is a great idea and something that is discussed in detail between in lower echilons of BA. I think that if BA could add another frequency to North America such as YYZ, MIA or ORD it would be fantastic and would definately take the pressure off of LHR and LGW
I think we'll have to wait and see what happens in the next year or so, I keep my fingers crossed but my hopes aren't too high

AA already operates MIA-MAN (is it year round?), why would BA need to operate the route as well? YYZ is quite low yielding and without many connections would not work and BD have been flying in to ORD for a long time and, again, AA operate the route so why would BA need to? BA can make MAN-JFK work because of the O&D traffic which other routes just don't have and without the connection possibilities this other destinations have no chance.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 73):
especially MAN-ISB/LHE are some of PK's most profitable routes i

They may be some of the most profitable routes relative to others in their system but that doesn't mean a lot. PK is a financial basketcase and MAN-Pakistan is largely low-yielding VFR traffic so I fail to see how BA would do well on the route. LHR-ISB clearly does well for BA due to the amount of government traffic on the route, I don't see how they could make the route work from MAN (or LHR-KHI/LHE).
 
eyflyer88
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:48 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:43 pm



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 73):
While I agree with you that I wouldn't be surprised if BA did a triangle flight, I see no reason why they can't have a terminating flight in KHI.

1-there are a number of Europeans in Karachi at any given day-one never hears of attacks or kidnappings of Europeans in Karachi.
2-BA already has a terminator flight in ISB already, so they do what to expect to a certain extent.

BA should try this (if possible):

7x/WK to ISB

4x/WK via ISB to LHE

3x/WK via ISB to KHI

or..

3x/WK to KHI via GCC

Just a thought...

KHI is an up and coming city.. I dont see why they cant have terminator flights when BA operates terminating flights to other destinations with much higher security risks.
There is no sport equal to that which aviators enjoy while being carried through the air on great white wings. - Wilbur
 
B747-4U3
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:08 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:57 pm



Quoting VV701 (Reply 66):
BA World Cargo already effectively code share with Korean Air Cargo on their service into LHR. However this means that if they were to introduce a passenger flight to ICN they could discontinue this arrangement and fill the hold from Day 1.

That is very interesting!. It will be interesting to see what happens when (if) BA start flights to Seoul. Will they use a 744 for the extra cargo capacity? Will they cancel the agreement with KE? or will they fill a 777 with cargo and send any excess to KE? I really do think this route is a winner for BA. It is definately a high yielding route (fares not being very cheap) and cargo demand is certainly there, I guess it all depends on if they can fill the Y cabin.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 66):
When you say "Lufthansa" do you mean "Frankfurt-Munich Airlines"? Of course Brussels Airlines only flies into LHR with its single over-nighting Saturday flight. But LH is the only European National Flag Carrier operating into LHR that has absolutely no flights between its capital city, Berlin, and LHR. And this despite LH's possession of more slots at LHR than VS or any other airline except BA and BD.

With the exception of SAS and Lufthansa, which European airlines do have more than one major base? OS have Vienna, LX have Zurich, AZ is scaling back to be primarily based at FCO, AF has Paris and IB has Madrid (much of the Barcelona network being transfered to Clickair. BA is certainly not the only one.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:04 pm



Quoting Donder10 (Reply 75):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 73):
especially MAN-ISB/LHE are some of PK's most profitable routes i

They may be some of the most profitable routes relative to others in their system but that doesn't mean a lot. PK is a financial basketcase and MAN-Pakistan is largely low-yielding VFR traffic so I fail to see how BA would do well on the route. LHR-ISB clearly does well for BA due to the amount of government traffic on the route, I don't see how they could make the route work from MAN (or LHR-KHI/LHE).

...that's incorrect...MAN-Pakistan isn't low-yielding VFR traffic...I should know, my family and I fly the route quite often... Wink Not only that, IIRC, there was a report a while ago stating MAN does quite well for PK, even on a yield basis.

.....maybe you have newer information which shows otherwise, I'm certainly open to it... Smile

MAN-Pakistan doesn't have really anything to do as to why PK is a financial basket-case..

Maybe BA can't make it work..my main point was however other carriers have made MAN successful. With BA being the dominant carrier in the region, they might have been able to make MAN work.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 74):
It certainly makes you wonder how BA manages to keep its head above water on the MAN-JFK routes when these American carriers, most of whom have significantly reduced their cost base in recent times by going through Chapter 11 protection, simply cannot operate a similar non-hub to non-hub trans-Atlantic service.

Besides DL, there are basically no other North American carriers on that route... Smile
"Up the Irons!"
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:39 pm



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 78):
Besides DL, there are basically no other North American carriers on that route...

Except, of course AA. But as DL effectively have a JFK hub they will no doubt make their new service successful.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 78):
there was a report a while ago stating MAN does quite well for PK, even on a yield basis.

And there have been many reports that the JFK-LHR route that UA withdrew from is the feather in BA's crown. But BA has a hub at one end of this route and UA did not, just as PK has a hub at one end of their route to MAN and BA does not.

No doubt if Project Lauren gets off the ground and , whether it operates out of JFK or as now seems probable EWR, the chorus of "London Airways" will be resumed although Lauren will in principle be little different to the stand alone BA LCY operations under the supplementary CityFlyer brand.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:57 pm



Quoting EYFlyer88 (Reply 76):

BA should try this (if possible):

7x/WK to ISB

4x/WK via ISB to LHE

3x/WK via ISB to KHI

or..

3x/WK to KHI via GCC

Just a thought...

....Given ISB is served 6x/week, I don't think BA needs to send anymore flights to ISB....SQ does SIN-KHI-LHE-SIN...I could BA maybe doing LHR-KHI-LHE-LHR....however as I mentioned above, I think BA could do well with a terminator flight to KHI...

Quoting EYFlyer88 (Reply 76):
KHI is an up and coming city.. I dont see why they cant have terminator flights when BA operates terminating flights to other destinations with much higher security risks.

 checkmark 

Quoting VV701 (Reply 79):

Except, of course AA. But as DL effectively have a JFK hub they will no doubt make their new service successful.

...AA doesn't serve JFK-MAN... Wink

Quoting VV701 (Reply 79):
And there have been many reports that the JFK-LHR route that UA withdrew from is the feather in BA's crown. But BA has a hub at one end of this route and UA did not, just as PK has a hub at one end of their route to MAN and BA does not.

...true, but my point was there are more than enough international service out of MAN that I believe BA could have made it work if they were more aggressive with MAN....
"Up the Irons!"
 
hardiwv
Posts: 4341
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:30 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:24 pm



Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
If both routes where to start BA would still operate 7 x weekly to GRU which is a very high yielding route. Also the current LHR/GRU/EZE route operates nearly always full on all sectors and with traffic rights from GRU to EZE BA makes alot of money on this sector so BA may operate the LHR/EZE direct 4 x weekly and on the other 3 days still operate the LHR/GRU/EZE route.

Normally GRU-EZE legs operate with less than 50% load, already boosted by traffic rights for this leg. F and C operate very light on this segment, less than 10%. Most of F and C traffic stays in GRU. In May I had the chance to fly BA EZE-GRU-LHR in C and the flight only got full in GRU, while C and F departed EZE almost empty (less than 10% load,). I had a conversation with the flight agent in EZE and she confirmed that GRU-EZE segment dont sell much. GIG apparently operates much healthier loads than the leg to EZE, even with the traffic rights BA has on GRU-EZE while GRU-GIG BA has no rights.

GRU-EZE is under a lot of competition with a multitude of fights operated by TAM, GOL, AR and LAN. This is Latin America's busiest intra-regional route. I dont see a market for BA to compete in market. BA would be wised to operate GRU, GIG and EZE dedicated indeed. The legs to GIG and EZE make the flight very expensive, but at least allow BA to keep its presence in GIG and EZE.

Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 11):
GIG/EZE more than likely on 777 config 13F/48J/32W/127M
GRU would revert to the same 777 however they would look at loads as J is very popular product to South America
EZE will be very popular so could see it being upgraded to daily quickly and then probably to a high J 747 14F/70J/30W/177Y as is currently used on the GRU route

BA replaced the B777 with the B747 on the LHR-GRU route because GRU is one of BA's most lucrative F and C destinations worldwide. I think GRU will remain with a B747 dedicated in case EZE or/and GIG are split from the route.

I also think GIG has better chances to get more frequencies than EZE. GIG provides better loads and yields than EZE in BA current operations. I think GIG would quickly get daily flights in case BA decided to operate LHR-GIG nonstop. There is a lot of business and leisure traffic in this route. I have my serious doubts whether EZE would ever manage to get BA nonstop flights.

One smart move would be BA to operate LHR-GIG-EZE, as GIG-EZE is an interesting market which BA could explore more. LHR-GRU B747 dedicated and LHR-GIG-EZE B777 seem the best ingredient.

Some time ago Virgin announced it was looking to operate LHR-GIG nonstop, but apparently the plan faded.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15):
Yes, indeed. After TAM announced LHR-GRU, they moved the extra MIA-LHR capacity to make GRU-LHR 10x weekly.

BA did not decide to increase LHR-GRU to 10 weekly because of TAM. Last year BA also operated additional 3 weekly LHR-GRU dedicated B747. The operations showed very high loads and high yields therefore BA decided to operate 10 weekly this season again. Interesting bu tha 10 weekly LHR-GRU will operate over 5 months, until March 2008, so almost half-year, showing the high demand of this route.

Varig now also started to operate GRU-LHR B767 daily.
 
User avatar
FlyCaledonian
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:18 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:39 pm

For crying out loud. Why do people keep flogging the "BA = London Airways" crap? Yes, other carreirs can serve MAN or other UK destinations with apparent success. But why does evryone ignore the fact that it isn't all made up of O&D traffic on those flights? Everyone on CO does not exit EWR - many connect to elsewhere. The same with SQ at SIN, with EK at DXB, AA at ORD.

Where are VS and BD with all these services from MAN if it is such a goldmine? Their routes are largely O&D leisure routes, except for ORD which feeds in to UA's hub. They couldn't make IAD work which was another UA hub could they?

Then people say BA could have feed from EDI, GLA, ABZ, etc. Maybe they could, but at LHR/LGW those domestic flights feed into lots of other flights - at MAN it would be a handful. It's already been mentioned that BA operates LHR/LGW as dual hubs only out of necessity. Why add another hub at MAN? They tried to use LGW to take the pressure off LHR (Remember the transfer of virtually all African flights plus South America to LGW) and that didn't work - it created complex operations as many shorthaul routes were being duplicated - multiple frequencies but to two airports (even if only 40 miles apart).

If successive UK governments had actually planned longterm for aviation we might have had a major London airport capable of providing BA with a single hub. Being at a slot constrained aiport there are probably many routes BA could operate that it won't because others are more profitable and take priority. If you had the LHR/LGW operations combined, with no slot restrictions, imagine the combined European feed that would be available to a combined longhaul operation (Look at the Mediterranean destinations that BA operate from LGW that don't feed the longhaul network from LHR). BA relies therefore on the strength of O&D traffic plus feed from Northern and Central European destinations.

As to longhaul expansion from LHR, it's interesting to see BA is looking East again. KUL, KIX and ICN would get very little feed at LHR from Europe (You're going backwards to then fly East) so would be more reliant on O&D traffic. The expansion of JNB, CPT, HKG, etc, show why BA needs the A380 - these aren't routes that need frequency (due to flight length) but rather straight capacity increases. So id BA increases frequency on these first the arrival of the A380 could then alloew slots in the next few years to be freed up for other destinations.

I wonder if BA would look at more Caribbean flights from LGW? Port of Spain returned to the BA network after an absence of many years. I'm surprised BA hasn't considered A332s or A333s for LGW longhaul. With the Airbus shorhaul fleet starting to be introduced there and the fact BA uses its LGW crews on both long and shorthaul flights, BA could gain from the commonality of the fleet in crew trems (above a 737/777 or A319/777 fleet).
Let's Go British Caledonian!
 
Humberside
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:44 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:32 pm



Quoting VV701 (Reply 66):
Those who keep harping on about BA and "London Airways" are making a valid point - the paucity of flights by ALL full service airlines operating between non-hub airports. However it is fair to point out that BA is far from being the only "sinner" in this respect.

Many other European airlines maintain more extensive regional operations than BA - which with effect from next winter the only BA routes from the UK regions not to a London airport will be MAN-JFK and MAN-Billund

AF - extensive operations at many regional airports in France, most noticably Lyon
LH - Hubs at FRA/MUC, developing mini hub at DUS. A number of point to point routes from HAM, and to a lesser extent from other airports
LX - expanding at GVA and BSL
LO - Operations from Polish regions, including long haul flights

While some European airlines have become hub focused (IB, AZ noticably) others have proved regional flights can work

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 82):
For crying out loud. Why do people keep flogging the "BA = London Airways" crap?

Because BA is irrelevant to many people in the regions. Why drive to LHR (or MAN/NCL/EDI/GLA/ABZ) when you can go to local regional airport and connect via AMS or another European hub? Maybe to people in the North West/North East/Scotland BA is off more relevance but from were I am KL would be the first choice, and probably is for most others

However in BA's defence here I will make a coupe of points

LHR slots, and the lack for them restrict BA's ability to develop regional feeder flights
The more exptensive LoCo development in the UK compared to other countries, noticably France, has made it harder for BA to make regional routes work
Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26286
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:39 pm



Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 81):
BA did not decide to increase LHR-GRU to 10 weekly because of TAM.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The increase was announce about two weeks after TAM announce LHR-GRU.
a.
 
sbworcs
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:19 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:40 pm



Quoting Humberside (Reply 83):
Many other European airlines maintain more extensive regional operations than BA - which with effect from next winter the only BA routes from the UK regions not to a London airport will be MAN-JFK and MAN-Billund

I think there is the problem with many people and BA. Whilst other European airlines seem to be able to manage to connect the regions of their country with their main hubs BA seems to keep reducing the number of airports it serves domesitcally to connect with LHR / LGW.

I personally think that BA have possible been very short sighted with regards MAN as I am sure that the feed from Scotland / Northern england coupled with O&D traffic would have made at least SOME flights feasable without affecting fortress LHR too much?
The best way forwards is upwards!
 
hardiwv
Posts: 4341
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:30 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:05 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 84):
Sorry, but I don't buy it. The increase was announce about two weeks after TAM announce LHR-GRU.

TAM announced and started LHR service this year, while BA operated 10 weekly LHR-GRU already in 2006. Both are not related. Actually BA increased frequencies to GRU are more related to RG demise rather to TAM new service to LHR. When BA first started 10 weekly GRU flights RG had cancelled the flights.

BA 10 weekly GRU flights are nothing new, but a repetition of last year popular service.

Rgs,

[Edited 2007-11-18 17:06:21]
 
LH423
Posts: 5924
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:27 am



Quoting Donder10 (Reply 75):
AA already operates MIA-MAN

Not any more. Route got canned. AA's MAN experiment didn't work out for them.

LH423
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
 
BAKJet
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:58 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:37 am



Quoting Incitatus (Reply 58):
LHR-LIM-SCL
LHR-SJU
LHR-SJO
LHR-AUS
LHR-PDX
LHR-BDL
LHR-BNA
LHR-MCI
LHR-MSP
LHR-SJC

Apart from a few most of these are pretty outrageous. BDL,AUS,BNA,MCI,SJC. How are these even possible. I would say that IND-AMS on NW happening is much more likely than BA comeing to BDL,AUS,BNA,MCI,SJC
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26286
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:39 am



Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 86):
TAM announced and started LHR service this year, while BA operated 10 weekly LHR-GRU already in 2006. Both are not related.

TAM announced LHR service first, and BA announced additional LHR frequencies roughly two weeks later. TAM's LHR-GRU service launched on 28Oct06. British Airways' additional LHR-GRU service launched 01Nov06. They are definitely related, although BA would never admit it.
a.
 
B747-4U3
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:08 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:02 am



Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 82):
As to longhaul expansion from LHR, it's interesting to see BA is looking East again. KUL, KIX and ICN would get very little feed at LHR from Europe (You're going backwards to then fly East) so would be more reliant on O&D traffic

True, but AF has the same problem and still manage to do well on their Eastern routes. I suspect the most important factors in choosing and airline are prices or milage programmes, therefore a oneworld member might put up with an extra 1hr travelling to gain the frequent flyer points they want. I travel to HK alot, and it is surprising how many people on both Cathay and BA are connecting to far off points in continental Europe such as Zurich and Vienna. Although, you are probably right, so as with the rest of the BA network, these flights will probably be relying more on O&D than equivalent flights by AF for example.

Quoting Humberside (Reply 83):
Why drive to LHR (or MAN/NCL/EDI/GLA/ABZ) when you can go to local regional airport and connect via AMS or another European hub?

That is the point, KL connect regional UK airports to their hub in Amterdam. BA can't connect many regional UK airports to LHR because the precious slots they have at LHR can quite easily be used for a more profitable longhaul route, and it is difficult for BA to operate from say a regional UK airport to Amsterdam due to competition from LCC and the fact that neither regional UK airports nor Amsterdam are hubs for BA.



Quoting Humberside (Reply 83):
AF - extensive operations at many regional airports in France, most noticably Lyon
LH - Hubs at FRA/MUC, developing mini hub at DUS. A number of point to point routes from HAM, and to a lesser extent from other airports

AF don't have anywhere near as much LCC competition as BA.
As for LH, Germany is a much larger country than the UK both geographically and in terms of population, it is therefore hardly surprising that it can have larger bases at more destinations.
 
edina
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 3:51 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:57 am



Quoting BY738 (Reply 6):
Could BA do Hawaii direct but via somewhere in the US ( if you know what I mean)

Little demand ex UK and what demand there is would be predominantly low yield leisure traffic.

Quoting Behramjee (Reply 57):
This is good to hear, but I doubt a terminator flight will be launched due to security fears that BA cabin crew would have over nighting in KHI. If KHI is launched, it will either be via a GCC city or flown as a triangular flight i.e. LHR-KHI-LHE-LHR.

Crew already layover in ISB and have done for years. The only routes where crew security have been an issue recently are the suspended Saudi routes & TLV.
Worked on - Caravelle Mercure A300 A320 F27 SD3-60 BAe146 747-100/200/400 DC10-30 767 777 737-400 757 A319 A321
 
aarbee
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:20 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:20 pm



Quoting BAOPS777 (Thread starter):
LHR/ATQ and AMD in India

Are they seriously thinking, cause the rumors have been there since eons for the LHR-AMD route.

Quoting BAOPS777 (Reply 11):
LAS/AMD/AHQ/KHI would start on 3 class 777 config 36J/24W/212M

A T7 on LHR-AMD, would'nt it be too big?

Quoting Behramjee (Reply 57):
AMD-LHR failed with 9W but might fare better with BA as it can extract a sizeable amount of feeder traffic from MAN, USA and Canada + large O&D market between LON & AMD.

I'm surprised, how 9W is failing whereas, AI seems to be OK in this market (any numbers on the AI flight?)

I surely think, 9W would have done a lot better is there were onward connections to US.
Love the AIXes
 
David_itl
Posts: 6418
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:57 pm



Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 82):
Why do people keep flogging the "BA = London Airways" crap?

Well it's hasn't exactly gone unnoticed by some newspapers! The Times' London Airways or Lufthansa article acutally mentions London Airways...something I don't think has happened in mass media before?

And before calling BD, please remember they have serviced MAN-BGI longer than BA did. Why did BA withdraw that service....lack of premium demand? What's causing the refitting of the A330s.....demand from the premium payers, the very people some myopic don't exist from the regions! BA can't be arsed about the regions.....so why should the regions be arsed about BA?
 
WA727
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:56 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:59 pm

What about adding the Wednesday flight to PHX?
 
ProPHX
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:34 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:10 am



Quoting WA727 (Reply 94):
What about adding the Wednesday flight to phx?

In 2006 BA said that they anticipated PHX going to seven or more flights per week to LHR. I can't believe that Wednesday hasn't been added yet!
 
TBCITDG
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:17 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:57 am

Hi all!

What about Australia? I feel that there is enough demand irrespective of the QF code share. Any thoughts?
 
Farnborough24
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:26 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:35 am

I don't really get how there seems to be so much debate over the London airways thing here-BA has no social responsibility to serve the MAN region, or any other come to that. They are a business looking to make as much money as they possibly can, and if that involved expansion in MAN I'm sure they would have done that by now, or it would be in the pipeline. The other important thing to remember, in the case of LH having a hub operation at FRA/MUC, is that LH don't have to split operations at FRA. If they had half their operation at FRA, and the rest at Hahn, do you really see them also hubbing as much at MUC? No, because it would be costing them so much to serve Frankfurt. This is BA's problem imo-they are already spending so much splitting their operation between LHR/LGW that they cannot afford to expand elsewhere in the UK. Anyway as I say it's all a moot point because they can operate wherever they so choose. Perhaps I'm just biased, seeing as I can get to both LHR and LGW in 45 minutes  Wink.

With regard to TBCITDG and services to Australia, I would love nothing more than to see direct daily BA services to SYD, MEL, PER and AUK, and I seriously think it would be workable, but as with all things BA, routes have to be hugely profitable to justify a Heathrow slot. In an ideal world, with one airport serving London with 4 runways and double the current LHR capacity, I think these are the sort of routes we could see, but at the moment everything I read seems to be about them barely managing to justify continued service to SYD-I have a hunch they are only still there to maintain their image as a 'truly' worldwide airline. It's a shame, but I think in business terms it would be better for them to expand in Asia, where they are lagging well behind LH and AF in terms of route network size.
My Saab 9000-the chav eater!
 
Farnborough24
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:26 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:50 am

Hi all sorry my bad above-by AUC I mean AKL-blonde moment there. Cheers
My Saab 9000-the chav eater!
 
hotelmode
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:31 am

RE: BA Looking At 2009 Longhaul Expansion

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:13 pm

BA have to maintain 2 daily services to Australia due competition rules about the joint services agreement with Qantas. The extra sector to OZ is massively expensive in terms of crew and aircraft utilisation. If you have a look on BA.com you'll see that premium fares from LHR to SYD are not substantially higher than those to SIN and BKK. Certainbly not different enough to justify the loss of an aircraft for 24 hrs and a crew for 48. Thats the basic problem. I'm afraid EK etc have done for expansion to australasia.

It works for QF because the high yield bit of the route is the Asia-Europe sector so it is worth the use of an aircraft and crew.

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