"Vueling is reportedly set to take over many of the European flights operated by British Airways and Iberia.

International Airlines Group (IAG), which was formed through the merger of British Airways and Iberia in 2011, plans to cut costs by using Vueling for short-haul services in Europe, sources told the Financial Times.

IAG owns a 46% stake in Vueling via Iberia and in November (Xetra: A0Z24E - news) made a bid to buy the remaining shares of the company as it grows profitably."

Some more here: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/iag...ce-european-flights-100100841.html

Given BA and IB both typically lose money on their short-haul flights, yet need the feed they provide, utilising a lower-cost platform may - depending upon how it's used - be a good way to remedy the financial ill-performance. But, we must wait to see what materialises, including the degree of use.

[Edited 2013-01-29 11:10:59]

It seems like they're walking in LH and AF's footsteps...

Yahoo's report is a bit short on crucial details.

Basically, Vueling would be to IAG what Germanwings is to Lufthansa, a low-cost carrier operating short-haul point-to-point flights. BA and IB would continue to operate European flights to/from LHR and MAD.

There are no concrete plans at this time, however, so it may also be a ploy to force Spanish unions to grant the concessions IAG has requested by the end of the month.

[Edited 2013-01-29 14:35:35]

I can see Vueling operating all LGW short haul services for BA

They're following the jetstar model.

BA stuffed up with GO by allowing it on key routes where BA was strong. GO ended up eroding BA's own
flights. The key with Jetstar is its presence on key Qantas routes is controlled. On routes where QF's higher cost base
makes life tougher, then jetstar is deployed. For example, flights to hobart or Domestic New Zealand flights.
You could easily see service to some Secondary european cities like say GOT being ideal for this model. As long as business pax could still access a lounge, and it allowed easy connections to the long haul network, a great deal of the short haul passengers would be happy with the LCC product.

Quoting baexecutive (Reply 3): I can see Vueling operating all LGW short haul services for BA

SNAP! That was my first thought too, but LHR stays BA short haul. As for IB I think there will be a drip feeding of routes to Vueling just leaving the profitable one's. However this must be dependant on IAG gaining control of Vueling, but will the regulators allow this and with or without conditions? Afterall this will make IAG quite poweful in the Spanish outbound market.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 5): SNAP! That was my first thought too, but LHR stays BA short haul. As for IB I think there will be a drip feeding of routes to Vueling just leaving the profitable one's. However this must be dependant on IAG gaining control of Vueling, but will the regulators allow this and with or without conditions? Afterall this will make IAG quite poweful in the Spanish outbound market.

Maybe that means Iberia Express and Vueling being merged as previously denied by IAG. There are very few routes still served by Iberia not serving the Madrid hub. Iberia's short-haul fleet now is 19 A319s, 15 A320s, 18 A321s, Iberia Express already has 19 A320s, Vueling 2 A319s and 53 A320s. So the I2/VY short-haul fleet is already larger than Iberia.

Iberia Express currently operates to ALC, AMS, CPH, DUB, DUS, FRA, FUE, XRY, ACE, LPA, AGP, PMI, SPC, SCQ, SVQ, TFN, TFS and VGO.

With the exception of LPA-DKR, LPA-NKC, TFN-ORY and TFS-ORY there are no Iberia flights left that do not operate from/to MAD. Obviously Air Nostrum operates other routes but they are all franchise operations from what I know, so not really Iberia's problem. All they can cut is these four routes or cancel routes from Madrid (altogether other by moving them to I2/VY).

Quoting [email protected] (Thread starter): Given BA and IB both typically lose money on their short-haul flights

Do BA lose money on short-haul these days ?

I think LHR is profitable. Not sure about LGW.

[Edited 2013-01-30 00:33:39]

This story originated in the Financial Times and was accompanied by a story about the negotiations with Iberia's unions in advance of the deadline of this week. I'm pretty confident the story was placed in the Financial Times by IAG which is obviously keeping its options open depending on how negotiations conclude this week. IAG has been pretty bullish that 31 January is a hard deadline.

Vueling is not going to take over BA short-haul at LHR, either under its own brand or the BA brand. And I think by far the preferred option is for LGW short-haul to remain BA operated under the BA brand. The brand profile of BA in the South East is very strong and there is also the profile of the Executive Club. Vueling operating BA flights under the BA brand is likely to be resisted by BA pilots.

It does seem that progress has been made on costs at LGW - IAG claim BA LGW costs are now comparable to LCCs.

[Edited 2013-01-30 01:15:43]

[Edited 2013-01-30 01:24:58]

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 7): I think LHR is profitable. Not sure about LGW.

Both LGW and LHR short-haul lose money on a standalone basis (but there is of course the perennial question of how you allocated revenue for connecting flights between long-haul and short-haul).

Quoting Thomas_Jaeger (Reply 6): There are very few routes still served by Iberia not serving the Madrid hub. Iberia's short-haul fleet now is 19 A319s, 15 A320s, 18 A321s, Iberia Express already has 19 A320s, Vueling 2 A319s and 53 A320s. So the I2/VY short-haul fleet is already larger than Iberia.

Correct. IB is already effectively performing all non-MAD flying through VY (and regional franchise Air Nostrum). It makes sense to apply this model at an IAG level too. BA might discover that it can be profitable to fly short-haul from other UK airports than LHR, under the VY model. VY is successful, profitable and growing, a rare thing these days in EU short-haul.
The remaining question is what happens to IB Express, which was supposed to take over MAD short-haul but is blocked by the courts and ongoing labor conflicts.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 2): it may also be a ploy to force Spanish unions to grant the concessions IAG has requested by the end of the month.

This is definitely being used as a means to exert pressure against the unions, but I think it is more than a ploy as there is a realistic possibility for it to happen.

Quoting Thomas_Jaeger (Reply 6): beria Express currently operates to ALC, AMS, CPH, DUB, DUS, FRA, FUE, XRY, ACE, LPA, AGP, PMI, SPC, SCQ, SVQ, TFN, TFS and VGO.

They dropped AMS a couple of weeks ago.

I suppose BA could set up bases in cities like MAN and GLA using VY performing O&D flights on behalf of BA using a low cost model. It could also allow connections to BA mainline.

Problem is that MAN especially is oversaturated with LCCs at the moment so whether they could make it work.. who knows.

I wonder how they're going to brand this (especially in the UK) as Vueling is a brand that has no penetration whatsoever in the UK and they do have a lot of names and possible names "in the locker" that they could pick from:

IB Express
BA Express
BMI
BA Vueling


or how about some from the ark

BEA
Bcal

:D

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 9): Both LGW and LHR short-haul lose money on a standalone basis (but there is of course the perennial question of how you allocated revenue for connecting flights between long-haul and short-haul).

Yes. If the airline as a whole is operating in the black and when people transfer from a relatively cheap short-haul seat to a £5000 long-haul Club World seat (that would otherwise be empty)........you cannot just write-off the incurred revenue in a standalone format scenario.

If you're losing 500M a year on short-haul and making 400M a year on long-haul obviously that's no good either......

The best way is to look at an airline like EK.....long-haul supports long-haul...the airline is overall profitable but all that transfer traffic has to get to DXB 'to transfer' so there is no difference to short-haul supporting long-haul.

It's all just a means to an end.

So on some European routes I get to fly with Vueling instead of BA or Iberia in the future?

AWESOME!!

(IMO Vueling is so much better than IB and a little better than BA from a passenger's point of view)

Soren   

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 14): Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 9): Both LGW and LHR short-haul lose money on a standalone basis (but there is of course the perennial question of how you allocated revenue for connecting flights between long-haul and short-haul).

It has to be looked at as an overall package, if BA shorthaul was a loss maker it would have been closed down long ago.

Quoting baexecutive (Reply 3): I can see Vueling operating all LGW short haul services for BA

I could see BA doing this, as their 737-400s are reaching the end of their lives (I think the eldest frames are over 20 years old) and will need replacing. BA won't want to buy new aircraft for an unprofitable base.

My opinion is that BA will ditch their Gatwick short-haul endeavour altogether. They have to compete with Easyjet and other airlines which dominate Gatwick. On a couple of flights out of LGW last year I found BA was actually cheaper than EZ, and when you think that BA has much higher costs and have lower density seating (as well as a free checked bag and snack) it shows that BA must have similar yields to low cost airlines.

I don't think then that Vueling would have any chance of standing up to EZ at their Gatwick fortress hub, especially because they both offer very similar products (i.e. at least BA Gatwick was full service). On another thread it says that very few airlines are making money short haul, so why increase capacity?

If they wanted to become big in the UK I think Vueling would need to change their name. No English speaker really knows how to pronounce it, do they?

I recall TUI had to change their name in the UK for the same reason.

What is problematic about using VY all over the place is that they're a pain to fly, literally. I've never felt so cramped in an aisle seat in my life. You Europeans are getting much tougher than we Americans when it comes to flying; the idea of paying for EVERYTHING on board and being uncomfortable for hours on end is too much for me to bear. I would rather pay an extra 50 Euros and fly a carrier like U2 or HV than fly VY. Still, the 45 Euro fares are awfully tempting...I suppose price gets most travelers every time.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 4): BA stuffed up with GO by allowing it on key routes where BA was strong. GO ended up eroding BA's own flights.

Not strictly true because Go operated from STN. The London + SE area is so spread out that STN and LHR both serve different markets. Yes, there would be some dilution of traffic but not enough to worry BA at LHR.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 18): If they wanted to become big in the UK I think Vueling would need to change their name. No English speaker really knows how to pronounce it, do they?

I have to disagree. The brand Vueling is well known in Europe and it is associated with a cool and young airline. Their present operation in the UK is limited to a handful of routes. If they do expand, I think they will be successful there. Their name is catchy and it has a Spanish element (Vuelo) and an English one (ing)... Which represet very well the Spanish English combination of IAG.

I can see BA using Vueling in some of the LGW routes especially the ones to Spain and some other holiday destinations (except may be Tunis, Algiers, Tirana, Jersey, Edinburgh and Glasgow). BA will obviously put their codes on VY flights. They could even expand from GLA and EDI but in a limited scale.

The idea is not bad IMHO.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 19): What is problematic about using VY all over the place is that they're a pain to fly, literally. I've never felt so cramped in an aisle seat in my life.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 19): I would rather pay an extra 50 Euros and fly a carrier like U2 or HV than fly VY.

Actually, I feel the same pain in VY and U2: both are at the very limit of human (or, at least, my) endurance. And they both seat 180 people in their A320s, although in a different configuration. I even find FR's 738s slightly less painful.

Quoting baexecutive (Reply 3): I can see Vueling operating all LGW short haul services for BA

This would prove very costly in terms of crew expenses. Effectively VY flight and cabin crew operating these services would be living semi-permanently away from home staying in hotels and dining on company expences. These additional costs would likely far outweigh any other cost savings.

When IAG was formed the first two changes were:

1. All IB flights between BCN and LHR were transferred to BA because IB did not have a hub at either BCN or LHR. Note here that VY does not have an LGW hub.

2. The BA LHR-MAD-LHR overnight flight was transferred to IB and the IB MAD-LHR-MAD overnight flight was transferred to BA. This was to save the significant hotel / subsistence costs of crew overnighting away from their home hub.

It is certainly possible that BA flights between LGW and AGP would be transferred to VY. However I really cannot see the likes of routes such as LGW to JER or LGW to FCO being operated by VY. What I can see is IAG getting VY to operate new flights to LGW from several Spanish leisure destinations in addition to the flights they currently operate between BCN and LGW. Currently the only BA flights between LGW and Spain are those to AGP and IB does not operate into LGW.

I suppose it is possible in the medium term that a VY hub with locally employed flight and cabin crew could be established at LGW. But have not BA had a "Go" at doing that before at an airport further from LHR than LGW and then suffered the consequences to their Main Line Heathrow business?

Quoting VV701 (Reply 23): This would prove very costly in terms of crew expenses. Effectively VY flight and cabin crew operating these services would be living semi-permanently away from home staying in hotels and dining on company expences. These additional costs would likely far outweigh any other cost savings.

This is highly unlikely.

We are talking IAG here, so these would be G- registered Vueling aircraft with UK based crews.

As I say it's no co-incidence the story appeared this week...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...h-while-offering-trade-off-1-.html

Quote: Iberia pilots appealed to International Consolidated Airlines Group SA (IAG) Chief Executive Officer Willie Walsh, saying they’re willing to cooperate to help prop up the unprofitable Spanish flag carrier. “We are fully conscious of Iberia’s actual situation and we are ready to undertake our share of needed sacrifices,” Justo Peral Cabrera, chairman of the Sepla union that represents the pilots, said in a Jan. 29 letter to Walsh obtained by Bloomberg News. While the union is “really concerned,” it’s willing to “follow any path” to avoid a “conflict situation,” he said. IAG announced plans in November to shrink Iberia’s fleet and scrap 4,500 jobs, more than one-fifth of the total, as Europe’s third-biggest airline seeks to stem losses that have wiped out earnings from its British Airways brand. The Spanish union offered to travel to IAG’s headquarters to meet Walsh in a last-ditch attempt to reach an accord, amid a looming Jan. 31 deadline for Iberia management to reach agreement. Workers unions including UGT walked out of negotiations yesterday when they failed to reach confirmation that IAG would accept a negotiated deal, said Manuel Atienza, a spokesman for the union. The six major Iberia unions will meet the carrier’s management tomorrow at 11 a.m. in Madrid, Atienza said. “We just don’t want to waste our time if IAG will eventually not back our decision” he said. A compromise proposal to reduce total job cuts by 700 positions to 3,800 is “ridiculous,” he said. “Iberia has completely lost control of the company to IAG.”

Quoting UALWN (Reply 22): think they will be successful there. Their name is catchy and it has a Spanish element (Vuelo) and an English one (ing)... Which represet very well the Spanish English combination of IAG.

I don't think it would be regarded as catchy by Brits, just confusing as it means nothing to them. There is no English equivalent to 'Vue' being pronounced 'vway' as in 'Vuelo'. We would pronounce it 'view'-ling' or 'vulling'. The pilots seem to pronounce it 'welling' so what chance have we got!

Quoting factsonly (Reply 24): We are talking IAG here, so these would be G- registered Vueling aircraft with UK based crews.

As I originally said:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 23): I suppose it is possible in the medium term that a VY hub with locally employed flight and cabin crew could be established at LGW.

But I qualified this possibility.

Do you think that having set up Go Fly to operate out of STN and then found how it adversley impacted O&D traffic at BA Main Line at LHR that IAG would repeat the same mistake by setting up a VY hub even closer to LHR at LGW? Does not U2 LGW not already offer enough competition to BA LHR? Simply seeing O&D passengers transfer from BA Main Line at LHR to VY at LGW would adversley impactthe economics of those short-haul flights that are also acting as feeders for BA long haul flights at LHR. So the knock-pn impact would be less feeder flights at LHR and many transfer passengers moving from BA at LHR to more convenient connections at AMS, CDG or FRA.

Well surely, and this is me being logical, if BA get rid of the SH operation at LGW and instead base Vueling there, wouldn't it be easier to transfer to crews over to Vueling?

I imagine if a Europe wide LCC is launched based in the UK and Spain that a new concept/name may appear.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 24): This is highly unlikely. We are talking IAG here, so these would be G- registered Vueling aircraft with UK based crews.

They could still be operated on the Spanish register with UK based crews (easyjet and Ryanair manage to operate all over Europe with G- and EI- registered aircraft)

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 26): Quoting UALWN (Reply 22): think they will be successful there. Their name is catchy and it has a Spanish element (Vuelo) and an English one (ing)... Which represet very well the Spanish English combination of IAG. I don't think it would be regarded as catchy by Brits, just confusing as it means nothing to them. There is no English equivalent to 'Vue' being pronounced 'vway' as in 'Vuelo'. We would pronounce it 'view'-ling' or 'vulling'. The pilots seem to pronounce it 'welling' so what chance have we got!

I didn't write that quote above.

You want a name that is catchy and Europeans find easy to pronounce. To me Vueling makes me think of fuelling (petrol related). Plus another bland brand and livery.

I agree and think this is political move by IAG and get this in newspapers this week.

Long term an IAG LCC could take over some or many of BA/IB Routes especially as IAG consolidate fleets and european operations with NEO/MAX orders in future.

From a business perspective i think BA would make a huge mistake by doing too much with Vueling. I agree with several of the comments from posters that the name alone is enough to make people confused. It is defiantly not catchy to an English speaking general public who would not be associated it in the slightest with BA or anything quality and British, which i do believe, still attracts a large proportion of BA's short-haul customers who let's face it could chose to use Lccs for the majority of BA's short-haul destinations.

Perhaps BA could use Vueling to open more destinations in Spain ex. Gatwick without using BA metal. However i don't really see the point? How much money would they make in all seriousness? Are there any airports in Spain that aren't frequently served either by BA/Easyjet/Monarch from Gatwick?

It does appear that BA's shorthaul network is in trouble but it is required to feed their long-haul product and the would be shooting themselves in the foot to use a LCC to do this as it would cheapen the whole BA brand.

Vueling will remain something to sort out Iberia's problems i believe. The only thing i think Vueling could do is to link the UK regions with Madrid better. Enabling passengers from airports such as Bristol, Birmingham and Edinburgh to link to an IAG longhaul flight to Latin America. However BA it won't be  

[Edited 2013-01-30 14:41:13]

Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 21): The brand Vueling is well known in Europe and it is associated with a cool and young airline.

This gives me the opportunity to ask a question I've been curious about. What is the correct pronunciation of "Vueling"? is it "View-ling" or "Vway-ling"?

All pilots pronounce it ' Welling '

Quoting hotplane (Reply 34): All pilots pronounce it ' Welling '

Which is the correct Spanish pronunciation. "Vueling" may not be a real Spanish word, but the Spanish pronunciation rules dictate that it should be pronounced as "Welling."

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 13): I wonder how they're going to brand this (especially in the UK) as Vueling is a brand that has no penetration whatsoever in the UK and they do have a lot of names and possible names "in the locker" that they could pick from: IB Express BA Express BMI BA Vueling :D

My guess is that the UK based planes would continue to be branded as BA but there would be a little sign near the front door that would say "Operated by Vueling". From a pax perspective, they want to fly BA. The Vueling involvement is a cost management issue and the public probably don't care providing the experience is similar to a standard BA experience. This is how QF operate in Australia where they use businesses such as Jetconnect and Cobham to operate some services. From outside appearances it looks just like QF except for a little sign on the door and some small text on your boarding pass.

If I was Willie Walsh I would definitely see Vueling as the future of the intra-European operations. I would tll BA and IB that they are welcome to operate any sector they want - but if it doesn't turn a profit, Vueling will get the chance to take it over.

And on the subject of whether the British can pronounce the name - we can manage Renault and Angela Merkel well enough. A few TV and radio adverts will do the trick.

Talks between Iberia and the unions have broken down according to Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...fter-airline-s-job-talks-fail.html

Tomorrow could be an interesting day.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 36): My guess is that the UK based planes would continue to be branded as BA but there would be a little sign near the front door that would say "Operated by Vueling".

Quoting adriaticflight (Reply 32): From a business perspective i think BA would make a huge mistake by doing too much with Vueling. I agree with several of the comments from posters that the name alone is enough to make people confused. It is defiantly not catchy to an English speaking general public who would not be associated it in the slightest with BA or anything quality and British, which i do believe, still attracts a large proportion of BA's short-haul customers who let's face it could chose to use Lccs for the majority of BA's short-haul destinations.

I fail to see all this interest in branding? Do customers in the UK care whether the flight is operated by a carrier called 'Vueling' or 'BA' or something else?

I flew Vueling a few months ago and have a favorable opinion of their service.

If Vueling can resolve BA and IB and IAG issues with short/medium routes, then wonderful. What could be missing here?

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 38): Talks between Iberia and the unions have broken down according to Bloomberg:

THIS, of course, is the big issue, hopefully both sides, unions and IB, will agree to something. Time to negotiate and compromise is NOW.

More information on the IB proposal here, in Spanish:

http://grupo.iberia.es/portal/site/g...eb4809c310VgnVCM1000005ffe15acRCRD

Over 3 thousand reductions proposed by IB, compared to their original proposal of 4.5 thousand.

Time to deal with this.

Quoting QANTASvJet (Reply 37): If I was Willie Walsh I would definitely see Vueling as the future of the intra-European operations. I would tll BA and IB that they are welcome to operate any sector they want - but if it doesn't turn a profit, Vueling will get the chance to take it over.

Exactly... I still think that shorthaul at LHR will still be BA. LGW might be another story. VY operated flights with BA code could end up stealing some traffic from U2. VY could be used to fly between LGW and some new destinations as well as flights from the regions to Madrid and other VY bases or focus cities such as BCN, ORY, TLS or FCO. Vueling could even add some other routes not served by IAG in Europe such ORY-FRA, ORY-AMS or BRU-FCO.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 36): The Vueling involvement is a cost management issue and the public probably don't care providing the experience is similar to a standard BA experience.

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 39): I fail to see all this interest in branding? Do customers in the UK care whether the flight is operated by a carrier called 'Vueling' or 'BA' or something else?

I recall the reaction of the British media and public to the re-branding of BA in June 1997 with the launch of what was variously called "BA World Images" and "Utopia". The resulting campaign was successful and after modifying the branding in April 1999, BA abandoned the whole programme in June of the same year. So if history is anything to go by customers in the UK care a lot about "their" airline even if they do not fly with it.

The idea that "Vueling" (incomprehensibly to the British pronounced "Welling") could supplant "British Airways" is really no different to suggesting that "Ford" or "Coca-Cola" could change their name in a similar manner. The public do care whether they drive a Ford. They want to drink Coca-Cola rather than a similar cola with an unknown and foreign sounding, difficult to pronounce name. This is why international corporations so rigorously protect their trade-marked names and logos. They have huge commercial value. It is also one of the reasons why Comair in South Africa and Sun-Air in Denmark brand their fights "British Airways" :

View Large View Medium Photo © Szabo Gabor

View Large View Medium Photo © Stefan Sonnenberg

even though only Sun-Air even operates flights into the UK.

If we are discussing "cost management" how should we view the cost of repainting BA's short haul fleet in Vueling colours, outfitting all BA flight and cabin crews and ground staff in Vueling uniforms and extensively resigning much of LGW's north terminal with "Vueling" instead of "British Airways" signage? Will we make all BA LGW staff redundant paying them the contracted redundancy pay or will we offer them a transfer under their current employment contracts at their current rates of pay? From where would the cost savings to balance against these additional costs come?

However handing over the only BA route between LGW and Spain to VY, the BA service to AGP, does make sense. Starting new VY services between LGW and several Spanish destinations also makes sense. These destinations could include ALC, BCN (a VY hub), MAD (a VY base) and PMI (which are not served by BA but nevertheless are positioned 15th, 9th, 8th and 5th respectively in terms of the number of Summer Season air transport movements at LGW (with AGP being number one with 4,761 scheduled air traffic movements between it and LGW in the Summer 2012 Season). Added to these could be some other Spanish destinations like BIO, SVQ and VLC (all of which are current VY bases) and possibly IBZ and some other popular holiday airports.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 41): From where would the cost savings to balance against these additional costs come?

So how is AY managing cost reductions if they have successfully transferred some of the operations to BE? We are not talking about the whole LGW route portfolio but some of it.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 41): unknown and foreign sounding, difficult to pronounce name

Why not simply say all these VY flights are BA Code shares, and 'brand' them as BA, but operate them with VY crew and assets? The passenger is completely unaware of any difference?

The point is for the lower-cost carrier, in this case VY, to operate the flights. No need to change any other branding. Just put a VY plane with VY crew on all the short haul flights and voila, cost issues resolved!

Quoting VV701 (Reply 41): If we are discussing "cost management" how should we view the cost of repainting BA's short haul fleet in Vueling colours, outfitting all BA flight and cabin crews and ground staff in Vueling uniforms and extensively resigning much of LGW's north terminal with "Vueling" instead of "British Airways" signage? Will we make all BA LGW staff redundant paying them the contracted redundancy pay or will we offer them a transfer under their current employment contracts at their current rates of pay? From where would the cost savings to balance against these additional costs come?

But, of course, we are not talking about doing any of that. We are simply talking about a change in operator. IAG orders all short-haul flights operated by VY, and orders BA to dissolve those operations.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 41): The public do care whether they drive a Ford. They want to drink Coca-Cola rather than a similar cola with an unknown and foreign sounding, difficult to pronounce name. This is why international corporations so rigorously protect their trade-marked names and logos. They have huge commercial value.

There's a big difference beween products, like cars and food/beverages, and services like airlines. Airline service, especially in shorthaul markets such as within Europe, is rapidly becoming a commodity where by the far the major factor is price. That trend will continue. With the hundreds of codeshare and alliance agreements, many passengers have no idea what airline they will actually be flying on. The small print that identifies codeshares in booking systems is often ignored.

Thousands of former LH passengers will soon by flying on their Germanwings subsidiary which can operate at lower cost. Service will be more basic than passengers have been accustomed to but that's the name of the game now. Provide the service at the lowest cost. If Vueling can do something similar for BA/IB, why not?

Don't forget that while VY may be unknown in the UK, it is becoming increasingly well know throughout Europe, not just Spain. They have bases in AMS, FCO and ORY. Next, this summer they will link up BCN to every major German city. It can be more to IAG than just a way to substitute BA LGW flights to Spain, although that would of course be the most natural place to start.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 44): There's a big difference beween products, like cars and food/beverages, and services like airlines.

What is this big difference? Sure "British Airways" is very different to "Ford" but "Ford" is also very different to "Coca-Cola". However any difference in brand usage or the impact of a brand on the consumer escapes me.

Consumers frequently seek out the best price for the product they wish to buy. The impact of the out of town supermarket on the corner or high street grocer and the impact of large on-line suppliers like Amazon on other high street or out-of-town stores is surely totally analogous with the impact of the LCC on the the Legacy airline. Or am I missing something?

The only difference I can see is that the sellers of branded products like Coca-Cola are chasing the tails of the airlines - no pun intended. Initially held back by their existing physical distribution systems, substantial growth in supermarket on-line sales is, for them, a relatively recent phenomena. The likes of Carrefour and Tesco are playing catch-up with the likes of BA and LH as well as FR in this respect.

I see no merit in the suggestion that brands like "Ryanair" are inconsequential and that there is a big difference between them and brands like "Coca-Cola". Admittedly with airlines selling much if not all of their product to the end user and manufacturers selling through distributors, the function of the brand may be slightly different. But it is certainly functional in both cases

I have never ever spoken to anybody who has made a flight who has been unable to identify the brand of the airline they recently flew with. However some are unsure whether the brand of a cola served to them in a restaurant or bar was "Coca-Cola", "Pepsi" or some other brand. Neither have I seen any successful airline operating without a widely promoted brand. I am sure that, be they "Ryanair", "Emirates", "Air France" or "HOP!", airlines do not spend all that money on branding and promoting their brand just so we on a-net can discuss our favourite airline liveries and advertising videos.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 46): Consumers frequently seek out the best price for the product they wish to buy.

Look, no one is arguing "brands do not matter", but the issue here has nothing to do with that, we're not talking rocket science here...

Very simple: IAG orders short haul flights operated by VY and orders all flights code-shared with BA. All the "background operations", the crew, the aircraft are operated by VY. VY simply operates the flights. To the customer, all the flights are BA-listed, they have no clue.

NO NEED to repaint, NO NEED to change branding, just have the VY pull up at the gate, load the pax and leave... Done, very simple.

IAG can then focus on areas where BA-operated and IB-operated routes make good returns, long-haul, etc.

No one is the wiser, no one cares...

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 47): To the customer, all the flights are BA-listed, they have no clue.

No. As I have already stated EU Comsumer Protection Law requires that the operator of any flight is clearly stated during the booking process and on the aircraft. So the flights will have to be prominently identified as "Operated by Vueling" even if the aircraft are painted in BA livery, the cabin crew are dressed in BA uniforms and the flight is a BA code share.

I thought that the same applied in the USA. For example the airlines operating American Eagle / Connection flights are clearly identified in the oneworld on-line timetable which states, for example "Operated by Chautauqua Airlines" much as is required here in Europe. But here I stand to be corrected.

Nevertheless if any passengers here in Europe "have no clue" it will be because they are clueless.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 48): Nevertheless if any passengers here in Europe "have no clue" it will be because they are clueless.

Hate to break it to you, but only ANET members have any clue what "Capacity Purchase Agreements", "Code-shares", and "operators" are. Everyone else is in the dark...

If the crew look "foreign", whatever that means, no one should care...