BA & YYC

c172akula · Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:56 pm

This question seems to come up every now and then, but how is BA faring with their LHR-YYC operation?

When the route was first re-introduced it was served with the 772, then downgraded to the 763. That has been the norm for years now and of course we always heard YYC was in line to get the 788 service sooner rather than later.

Well that day came last Tuesday (September 16), with the inaugural flight of the 788 on the route. However it now appears that BA will be subbing in the 763 again from October 26 to November 18.

What could be a reason for this temporary switch out? Is it indicative of troubles BA is having with the YYC route against competition from the likes of AC (LHR and FRA) and KL (AMS)?

MonsieurX · Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:12 pm

I flew the route eastbound with BA at the end of August this year. When booked, the flight was on the 787, although a couple of months before the actual date they announced the sub back to 767. Whilst my flight was very full (and it was a weekday from memory), I find it hard to believe that BA don't experience some difficulty on the route simply on the basis of the hard product being offered. For a passenger without any particular alliance loyalty, and simply looking at a cash ticket in whatever class, a very dated 767 with old products (they're still flying with last generation CW for example) is pretty much no conflict for a relatively new and enhanced 777 product like AC's across all cabins.

Eirules · Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:21 pm

Quoting MonsieurX (Reply 1):

I was pretty sure AC flew the 763 to LHR from YYC, not the 777. But you're right, their hard product on either aircraft is superior to BA's old 763s

longhauler · Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:25 pm

Quoting EIRules (Reply 2):

I was pretty sure AC flew the 763 to LHR from YYC, not the 777.

During low season YYC-LHR is flown with a B767/A330 mix. During high season it is a B777/A330 mix.

c172akula · Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:27 pm

This last summer we saw AC operate both FRA and LHR with the 77W daily. LHR has now switched back to the 763 but FRA is still 77W and will then drop down to the 77L.

sk736 · Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:21 pm

I flew the route both ways in March 14 and it was completely full both ways.

threepoint · Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:40 pm

Quoting SK736 (Reply 5):
I flew the route both ways in March 14 and it was completely full both ways.

That may be true, but that gives little indication of the yield the flight received. The numbers of bums in seats does not necessarily indicate whether operating costs of that flight are recovered, to say nothing of the revenue generated by any cargo down below.

Tristarsteve · Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:53 pm

Quoting c172akula (Thread starter):
What could be a reason for this temporary switch out?

All the BA B787s are going in for a mod program by Boeing. I think it is at VCV. They have to take one aircraft out of service at a time for a while.

Quoting MonsieurX (Reply 1):
I flew the route eastbound with BA at the end of August this year. When booked, the flight was on the 787, although a couple of months before the actual date they announced the sub back to 767.

The delivery of the last BA B788 was a moving feast. It drifted later and later and the start of B788 to YYC suffered.

MonsieurX · Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:08 pm

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 7):
The delivery of the last BA B788 was a moving feast. It drifted later and later and the start of B788 to YYC suffered.

Yeah, having followed some of the threads on this forum I was aware that BA were having issues with bringing the final Dreamliner online, but it was still a bit of a shame nonetheless. I was very surprised, however, at how vocal and apologetic BA's agents in Calgary were about the whole thing, which was a nice touch. It is a massive upgrade for the route, however, now that it has happened. Going from one of the oldest cabins and products in the fleet to one of the most modern/newest is going to be a great experience for YYC.

X

tonystan · Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:11 pm

All is well with the YYC Route. It is a high yield, high % capacity and high profit earring route for the airline simply because it has had the right product on the route. The 777 proved just a little too big with over capacity in its holds and Y. The downsize in the aircraft gauge with he increase from 5 weekly to daily which the 767 allowed gave ba far more capacity flexibility aswell as the ability to enhance connections from Europe and the Indian subcontinent which in my experience seems to pretty much fill the Y cabin!!!

The current delays in the switch over to the 787 has far more to do with the issues surrounding the B787 which BA is quietly but vey much still dealing with. Hopefully the electronic suite update due in the winter months will help reduce this as with so few 767s remaining within the longhaul fleet we will need all the 787s we can use!!!

Joost · Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:11 pm

Quoting MonsieurX (Reply 1):
a very dated 767 with old products

I flew YYC-LHR last June on one of BA's refurbished B767 (G-BNWY) and the interior was in excellent condition. And in Y, the 767 2-3-2 set-up is defenitely roomier than AC's 3-4-3 in the 77W.

sk736 · Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:14 pm

Thanks threepoint for the somewhat patronising response. I was merely observing that two flights I had flown on had been completely full. Neither I, nor you, could have any idea of the yield on these flights so your comments, as well as being patronising, add nothing to the discussion - other than making you sound somewhat pompous.

FlyCaledonian · Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:25 pm

If BA was struggling with LHR-YYC I think it would have been an early route to switch to the 787-8, rather than the last to switch once aircraft No. 8 arrived.

threepoint · Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:44 pm

Quoting SK736 (Reply 11):
Thanks threepoint for the somewhat patronising response. I was merely observing that two flights I had flown on had been completely full. Neither I, nor you, could have any idea of the yield on these flights so your comments, as well as being patronising, add nothing to the discussion - other than making you sound somewhat pompous.

Wow. You're welcome for that. Many people on this site and in the wider population have little idea about the difference between load factors and yields. Far from being, er, pompous, I was attempting to offer some helpful insight, as your post indicated that you may have been unaware of the distinction.

You're absolutely right: seeing as your two flights were full, BA must be doing exceedingly well on the YYC-LHR route.

Bongodog1964 · Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:50 pm

Quoting threepoint (Reply 6):

Quoting SK736 (Reply 5):
I flew the route both ways in March 14 and it was completely full both ways.

That may be true, but that gives little indication of the yield the flight received. The numbers of bums in seats does not necessarily indicate whether operating costs of that flight are recovered, to say nothing of the revenue generated by any cargo down below.

A full aircraft is far more likely to have a good yield than a half full one, most airlines these days operate a reactive pricing system where the price fluctuates according to sales, a good number of seats sold early results in prices rising, poor forward sales results in the price falling.

If you look at BA.COM you will see that the price varies day by day and flight by flight over the course of the day.

I would say that with BA a full flight is a sure sign of a good yield.

Bongodog1964 · Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:57 pm

Quoting threepoint (Reply 6):

Quoting SK736 (Reply 5):
I flew the route both ways in March 14 and it was completely full both ways.

That may be true, but that gives little indication of the yield the flight received. The numbers of bums in seats does not necessarily indicate whether operating costs of that flight are recovered, to say nothing of the revenue generated by any cargo down below.

A full aircraft is far more likely to have a good yield than a half full one, most airlines these days operate a reactive pricing system where the price fluctuates according to sales, a good number of seats sold early results in prices rising, poor forward sales results in the price falling.

If you look at BA.COM you will see that the price varies day by day and flight by flight over the course of the day.

I would say that with BA a full flight is a sure sign of a good yield.

threepoint · Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:27 pm

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 15):
I would say that with BA a full flight is a sure sign of a good yield.

We're getting off-track, but I disagree. It may be a great yield, it may not. It is most certainly NOT a sure sign of anything. How many passengers have paid full fares vs discounted ones? How many people up front are flying on reward travel or have been upgraded? Is YYC-LHR a primarily O&D market, or do a significant percentage of passengers connect beyond Heathrow? Who on board is flying on a code-share arrangement?

That info is not public and indeed, history is replete with routes being cancelled and entire airlines going bankrupt, despite having plenty of people on board. Conversely, there are routes with very low passenger loads that remain profitable thanks to the revenue generated by the cargo carried below. Let's just agree that looking around the cabin or counting the number of people coming off the jetway is not an accurate indication of how sustainable a particular flight is. This applies no matter which airline we discuss, but is especially valid in this case, given BA's on again - off again history in Calgary.

Thenoflyzone · Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:23 pm

Quoting tonystan (Reply 9):
All is well with the YYC Route. It is a high yield, high % capacity and high profit earring route for the airline simply because it has had the right product on the route. The 777 proved just a little too big with over capacity in its holds and Y. The downsize in the aircraft gauge with he increase from 5 weekly to daily which the 767 allowed gave ba far more capacity flexibility aswell as the ability to enhance connections from Europe and the Indian subcontinent which in my experience seems to pretty much fill the Y cabin!!!

Is that a gut feeling or you have access to some hard data?

My opinion is that if LHR-YYC was such a high yield route, why not bring in the 787 as early as possible, or even a 4 class 772, which incidentally has less Y seats than the 767.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 12):
If BA was struggling with LHR-YYC I think it would have been an early route to switch to the 787-8, rather than the last to switch once aircraft No. 8 arrived.

Based on what logic, fuel efficiency? Sure, but the 787 has more premium seats and more seats in Y. Again, one could argue that if BA had high yields in YYC, the switch would have been made earlier.

[Edited 2014-09-25 05:25:33]

c172akula · Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:33 pm

I'd be very surprised to see a 4 class bird in YYC again. Our market just can't support the true first class product. I do believe LH tried it at first when they started YYC with the A333. I was sitting in business and I think I saw all of one person up front on the flight to FRA (I know I know, just one flight and a personal observation). The A333 didn't last long and was subsequently replaced by the 2 class A343.

tonystan: I really hope your info is spot on. It does fly in the face of all the scuttlebutt we hear about this route not performing as well as BA would like. From a purely spotting perspective it would be nice if BA could stick around.

Thenoflyzone · Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:23 pm

Quoting c172akula (Reply 18):
I'd be very surprised to see a 4 class bird in YYC again. Our market just can't support the true first class product.

Which is why i find it hard to believe that BA has high yields to YYC.

Thenoflyzone

vv701 · Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:26 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 17):
My opinion is that if LHR-YYC was such a high yield route, why not bring in the 787 as early as possible, or even a 4 class 772, which incidentally has less Y seats than the 767.

Across its long-haul operations the yield per square meter of floor space is higher from BA's Y Class cabins than from its F Class cabins. Indeed it was stated by Lynne Embleton at the IAG Markets Day Meeting on 15 November last that across the BA long-haul fleet the yield per square meter from the F cabins was lower than that from their J , their W or their Y cabins. This was the reason she gave as to why BA will configure its 787-9s with only eight F Class seats when all their existing four-class aircraft have between 12 and 17 F Class seats.

So using a four class 772 on the YYC route would likely reduced the yield to below that currently obtained because of the increase in F Class seats at the expense of the size of the Y Class cabin.

1400mph · Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:33 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 20):

I really struggle with this. I'm not questioning you VV701 I know you're just quoting BA so apologies in advance.

This First Class floor space yield thing.....is it just bean counting in the shape of black and white figures on paper or does it take into consideration indirect revenue created from just 'having' a First Class cabin i.e Club World sales incentives and promo's etc ?

If someone takes up the purchase Club sit in First thing do the figures show in the First accounts or Clubs ?

[Edited 2014-09-25 09:48:19]

tonystan · Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:31 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 17):

I get this information from the route specific brief supplied to the crews who operate the route.

As for the 4 class, we would never fill a first cabin and I do feel 48 J is just too much. The only other option is the 3 class which as per my previous post is juse too much plane in Y!!!

I know many see a 767 through poo tinted spectacles as a down grade rubbish piece of plane but it is still a very economic machine and much loved by those who depend on its economics, a switch to the B787 is more a result of the 767 retirement and necessity than an "upgrade" for service and product.

rtfm · Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:40 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 17):
My opinion is that if LHR-YYC was such a high yield route, why not bring in the 787 as early as possible,

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 17):
Again, one could argue that if BA had high yields in YYC, the switch would have been made earlier.

But there may have been other factors involved, such as what other routes the existing 787s were deployed on, how the YYC deployment fit into the rotataional schedule of the hulls and the respective yields on those other routes. All a bit of a complex puzzle so a trade-off has to be made somewhere. And bear in mind that the deliveries for BA's 788s has slipped somewhat, even over the course of this year.

1400mph · Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:21 pm

I'm pretty sure that after everything that's happened over the past few years and considering the current climate BA don't mess about deploying scarce aircraft on economically disappointing routes using even scarcer LHR slots for too long.

vv701 · Thu Sep 25, 2014 11:03 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 21):
This First Class floor space yield thing.....is it just bean counting in the shape of black and white figures on paper or does it take into consideration indirect revenue created from just 'having' a First Class cabin i.e Club World sales incentives and promo's etc ?

Recognising that BA have directly associated the low F Class yield per square metre with a significantly smaller F Class cabin in their 787-9s I think we can be sure that what they said at an analysts' meeting was not some form of spin.

Why would BA reduce the floor space for F Class passengers with a resulting increase in one or more of the other cabins if the F Class yield per square metre was not lower than in the other cabins? After all BA's strategy is to obtain a twelve per cent return. And reducing the availability of a high yield product to increase the availability of a lower yield product is not the way to achieve that return. But if you care to call this a form of bean counting. fair enough.

Viscount724 · Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:23 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 25):
. And reducing the availability of a high yield product to increase the availability of a lower yield product is not the way to achieve that return.

Reducing the availability of a high yield product to increase the availability of a lower yield product makes perfect sense if the demand for the lower yield product is significantly higher. If you're only selling a couple of F class seats (or sometimes none) and flying with a dozen or so empty on many routes, you're much better off to use the floor space to add more J class seats where load factors are normally much higher than F.

Most carriers are either eliminating F or significantly reducing the size of F class cabins where F is being retained for exactly that reason.

Viscount724 · Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:28 am

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 19):
Quoting c172akula (Reply 18):
I'd be very surprised to see a 4 class bird in YYC again. Our market just can't support the true first class product.

Which is why i find it hard to believe that BA has high yields to YYC.

YYC is a strong J class market which is very high yield compared to the average Y class fare.

vv701 · Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:27 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):
Reducing the availability of a high yield product to increase the availability of a lower yield product makes perfect sense if the demand for the lower yield product is significantly higher. If you're only selling a couple of F class seats (or sometimes none) and flying with a dozen or so empty on many routes, you're much better off to use the floor space to add more J class seats where load factors are normally much higher than F.

True but not relevant here.

BA, as I clearly said, are talking about the overall yield they obtain PER SQUARE METRE of cabin floor space being overall lower in their F Class cabin than that they are obtaining in their J, W and Y Class cabins.

Reducing the availability of a product that is giving a high yield PER SQUARE METRE to increase the availability of a product that is giving a low yield PER SQUARE METRE makes no financial sense at all. The result would be a reduction in total yield.

Note here that the fleet wide average load factor in each class of cabin will likely be a significant contributor to the fleet wide yield PER SQUARE METRE of floor space from each class of cabin.

Thenoflyzone · Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:50 am

Quoting tonystan (Reply 22):
I get this information from the route specific brief supplied to the crews who operate the route.

Why would the flight crew be provided with a brief that tells the yields of the flight they are operating ?

tonystan · Fri Sep 26, 2014 5:45 am

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 29):

All part and parcel of making the employee aware of the competition and importance of the market I suppose!!!!!!

1400mph · Fri Sep 26, 2014 6:38 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 25):

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 26):

Quoting VV701 (Reply 28):

How is reducing capacity actually able to physically happen on the aircraft ?

On 777's and 744's the First cabin is at the front in a space not able to be reduced in size. It ends at doors 2 where the Club World galleys are located between them ? Will the cabin just be more spacious ? Seems like a false economy if Club World is oversold and you've lost 6 seats in First in which to upgrade people.

BA has high premium demand due to the nature of LHR. Does the booking system automatically oversell Club World on flights where First is undersold if it is outstripping capacity on any given day ?

Who cares if half of First is occupied by Club World passengers. They're not exactly paying peanuts on BA.

These things considered it just seems like over zealous specifically aimed accounting.

vv701 · Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:26 am

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 31):
How is reducing capacity actually able to physically happen on the aircraft ?

As I indicated before BA are addressing the lower yield per square meter obtained in their F Class cabins by having a significantly smaller F Class cabin in their yet-to-be-delivered B 787 9s than is true of any other of their four-class aircraft:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 20):
This was the reason {Lynne Embleton] gave as to why BA will configure its 787-9s with only eight F Class seats when all their existing four-class aircraft have between 12 and 17 F Class seats.

It would also be possible to address this issue by refurbishing existing aircraft with a smaller F Class cabin. But the high costs of doing this could well be counter productive in the short and even medium term.

What we might see in the longer term is a refurbishment programme that does just that. However reducing the F Class cabin size in, say, the BA 77W fleet would be a complex and expensive operation. It would likely have to include the relocation of support facilities such as galleys and toilets. This would add to the already high refurbishment costs. In turn this would probably not help BA achieve the 12 per cent return on investment that is their strategic objective. So do not hold your breath.

BA & YYC

BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

RE: BA & YYC

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net