Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 98): I know, exactly, which is why I do not understand how the poster could say the numbers would shrink so quickly.

All 3 cities are on fire. Austin in particular has a drinking straw straight to Silicon Valley. Texas's zero income tax rates and cheap housing are a boon for the tech industry. Austin's quality of life compares well to California's. These are very early days, but Austin plex could crest 5 million people easily. I'm looking for that to happen in 10-15 years. At that point, Austin will have more Indians than the other two cities, and higher income, due to its tech focus. This post is based on a bullish forecast for Austin, not today's numbers.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 88):

VV701 I am aware of the arrangements between BD and LH. I'm just relieved that after BD and VS there are no more badly run about to go bust airlines with numerous slots based at LHR being stalked by BA's competitors.

As for IAG being registered in Spain that's hardly the same as British Airways at Britian's main airport having to rely on decisions made by LH as to whether meaningful expansion is possible !!

Don't get me wrong I'm not directing my aim at LH. It's not their fault our governmental transport department is not fit for purpose.

In light of the situation at LHR, LH should never have been permitted to purchase BD without first being obliged to relinquish any slots either VS or BA decided they needed. The regulators are fast enough to force BA to free up slots when the boot is on the other foot so what a shame it doesn't work when BA is disadvantaged.

Quoting ytz (Reply 99): If AUS were to get 10% more Indian residents, that number would scarcely be 2% in DFW or IAH. And DFW has had it's Indian population grow 90% in the last 15 years. AUS doesn't have it's Indian population growing 10% per year. And we can be relatively confident that DFW and IAH are probably seeing their Indian communities growing by at least 1-2% per year. All this is to say, for the topic at hand (demographics driving demand), the Indian population at AUS is not likely to be a driver for any aviation service any time soon. Priority from AUS, for international travel, will be Europe, for the foreseeable future.

I agree with you, not sure why you keep posting this somehow linked to a point I was not making. Read my original and what I was quoting from Flighty....
                     

Quoting ytz (Reply 97): Indeed it isn't. Nobody is really, really going to miss the 10-20 pax from AUS bound for India. Cargo is even less likely to have demand from AUS for South Asia/Middle East. Can you elaborate on what industry there is in AUS that is driving this purported cargo demand to South Asia and the Middle East that EK/EY/QR are missing out on?

I tried to clarify several times this success is not solely on AUS-India, it is one of the several factors I listed.

18,000 is a considerable Indian population for a secondary city. Per 2012 stats, Metro Detroit had 54,000 Indian population with DTW-India PDEW at ~125. So AUS-India will be close to 30-40. Again not the lone contributor to AUS-LHR's success.

Same with cargo I am talking about AUS-LHR cargo and you keep saying AUS-India cargo.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 103): I tried to clarify several times this success is not solely on AUS-India, it is one of the several factors I listed.

Actually, you listed it as a major factor. Now it's just "one of several factors"?

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 103): 18,000 is a considerable Indian population for a secondary city.

Indeed it is. But it's not relative populations that determine demand. It's absolute populations. If a small town of 5000 residents had 1000 Indian American residents, that would be very notable. But not enough for BA to start service on just that demographic.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 103): Metro Detroit had 54,000 Indian population with DTW-India PDEW at ~125. So AUS-India will be close to 30-40.

First you assume that all 125 PDEW from Detroit to India is generated by the Indian community. Next, you assume that this will scale automatically to AUS. And lastly, like I said earlier, if every member of that community flies every year (highly unlikely), that would be 49 PDEWs to India, which is still less than 1/3rd of the 787 Y cabin. One should hope that BA isn't basing business decisions on such a tenuous demand case.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 103): Again not the lone contributor to AUS-LHR's success.

Let's go over this again. You lauded BA's success. You hypothesized that a major part of this success had to do with demand east of Europe. And that this was going to hurt the ME3 at DFW and IAH. Get shown an article that says 240 PDEW to Europe from AUS. Instead of admitting that, "Hey. I was wrong. Guess demand for South Asia from AUS, is not a major driver," you double down and suggest somebody is missing the cargo:

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 94): The flip side somebody is missing those warm bodies and cargo.

Of course, then when you get asked to suggest which industry there is Austin that could be providing this hypothetical cargo demand, you can't provide an answer and then resort to obfuscating further by suggesting that you were talking about LHR cargo all along:

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 103): Same with cargo I am talking about AUS-LHR cargo and you keep saying AUS-India cargo.

Except that your whole hypothesis prior was about how BA's service is going to nibble at ME3 yields. You certainly never mentioned that you were discussing LHR exclusively:

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 89): BA@AUS may not take big bites of ME3 traffic at DFW/IAH, but nibble enough to tank their yields.

You seem to constantly need to have the last word. And you seem to lack the ability to accept that your theories may not pan out. Nobody here has suggested that AUS is not successful for BA. In fact, I hope they expand on that success by opening up cities like BDL. What the rest of us are disputing is your theory that BA at AUS has any material impact on yields at DFW and IAH. I would also dispute that serving a handful of secondary cities (like AUS) is in any way indicative of a specific ME3 containment strategy.

I will ask you directly:

1) Where is the evidence that BA's service to AUS has had real impact on the yields of EK/EY/QR at DFW and IAH?
2) Do you have any factual or statistical evidence to back up your hypothesis? Simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 101): In light of the situation at LHR, LH should never have been permitted to purchase BD without first being obliged to relinquish any slots either VS or BA decided they needed.

The requirement for BA to surrender so-called remedy slots when they bought BD was for competitive reasons. BA and BD were the only or the prime operators on routes like LHR-EDI and LHR-ABZ. So merging BA and BD operations very clearly raised competition issues.

In the case of BD and LH there were no routes that they both operated . So there were no competitive concerns with the sale of BD to LH. Hence there was not a single route that any remedy slot could be used to restore a competitive situation. Therefore there were no remedy slots.

Stop using your standard tactic, Repeatedly post randomly picked text so others loose their cool and you can cry foul and report to mods.

Quoting ytz (Reply 104): Actually, you listed it as a major factor. Now it's just "one of several factors"?

No I didn't. quote the post # where I said. And don't post random text with word major.

Quoting ytz (Reply 104): First you assume that all 125 PDEW from Detroit to India is generated by the Indian community.

That is a general assumption Wayne County Airport Authority and FAA uses.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 103): 18,000 is a considerable Indian population for a secondary city.

If people are doubting about the Austin-India traffic, all the ingredients are there. Tech jobs. Large university. Steep growth. A dramatic backlog of real estate buyers in the Bay Area pushing people to Austin. The money involved gets huge fast. There are many Indian workers and families already there. Just keep an eye on it. 2 million people this year, soon 5 million IMO.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 106): No I didn't. quote the post # where I said. And don't post random text with word major.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 89): There is also considerable amount Indian population in AUS.

Considerable. Major. Close enough. Do you want to break out the Webster's or Oxford and discuss the proximity of the synonyms?

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 106): That is a general assumption Wayne County Airport Authority and FAA uses.

Actually, I'm quite sure they assume that it's 125 PDEWs from DTW to India. It's you that assumed correlation with the size of the Indian community. Not entirely an ureasonable assumption. But it's a stretch to assume that you can scale this to every city with an Indian community.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 106): Stop using your standard tactic,

Yes. My standard tactic of quoting an individual's own posts and demanding proof can be quite annoying to those lacking evidence. I know. What can I say? I like facts. And I don't suffer poorly substantiated conjecture easily.

Once again, I will reiterate:

Quoting ytz (Reply 104): Nobody here has suggested that AUS is not successful for BA. In fact, I hope they expand on that success by opening up cities like BDL. What the rest of us are disputing is your theory that BA at AUS has any material impact on yields at DFW and IAH. I would also dispute that serving a handful of secondary cities (like AUS) is in any way indicative of a specific ME3 containment strategy. I will ask you directly: 1) Where is the evidence that BA's service to AUS has had real impact on the yields of EK/EY/QR at DFW and IAH? 2) Do you have any factual or statistical evidence to back up your hypothesis? Simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.

Quoting ytz (Reply 108): Actually, I'm quite sure they assume that it's 125 PDEWs from DTW to India. It's you that assumed correlation with the size of the Indian community. Not entirely an ureasonable assumption. But it's a stretch to assume that you can scale this to every city with an Indian community.

When Wayne county airport authority makes a statement there are 54,000 Indians and 125 PDEW, I took it at face value. I didn't realize All posts are just opinions.

Quoting ytz (Reply 63): And all that will require more slots at LHR. BA won't be committing much damage against the ME3 till they have resolve the constraints at LHR.

Nonsense.

There are plenty of slots available at Heathrow for BA to use on new Long-haul destinations, released by converting existing short-haul sectors, and BA will do this as more 787's arrive.

BA evidently makes most of its profits thru long-haul, so converting marginal short-haul flying over the coming years will be inevitable

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 110): There are plenty of slots available at Heathrow for BA to use on new Long-haul destinations, released by converting existing short-haul sectors, and BA will do this as more 787's arrive.

Very true. In addition it seems likely that the remedy slots it gave to Little Red will be returned to BA now VS have announced they will cease to operate their six times a day EDI and three times daily ABZ flights. That's a total of 126 weekly LHR slots. To put this number in to some form of context compare it with the 182 weekly slots operated in total by all three of the ME3 at LHR, with both EK and EY operating 70 each and QR 42.

If Little Red return the remedy slots BA will have LHR slots coming out of their ears. These new slots will be enough to launch daily services to nine new long-haul destinations . So BA's biggest problem would not be the availability of LHR slots. Instead iIt would be the availability of aircraft to use them.

When BA purchased the BD slots they also purchased the aircraft that operated them. This will not happen with the Little Red slots.

One possibility would be for BA to come to a deal with EI to continue to fill these slots, at least on a temporary basis, with their spare 320s on slot-sitting short-haul services. Another could be not to retire some of the 734s from their Gatwick fleet. They could then use some of the ten 320s they are leasing to replace them to temporarily fill their expanded number of LHR slots. This would create an opportunity to obtain appropriate equipment to use these slots on a longer term basis.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 110): BA evidently makes most of its profits thru long-haul, so converting marginal short-haul flying over the coming years will be inevitable

Given the mantra that they need the feed from short-haul to maintain/inaugurate long-haul, where's the need for culling the short-haul? If short-haul is marginal, it's because BA want it to be marginal in the same way they wanted regional UK operations to be loss-making.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 112): Given the mantra that they need the feed from short-haul to maintain/inaugurate long-haul, where's the need for culling the short-haul? If short-haul is marginal, it's because BA want it to be marginal in the same way they wanted regional UK operations to be loss-making.

If BA face a problem is that their purchase of BD altered the balance between their short-haul and long-haul services.

This is illustrated by the changes in BA's fleet because of their purchase of BD. Today it includes eleven additional 319s. There are also six additional 320s (as well as 7 additional mid-haul configured 321s). So the short haul capacity has increased significantly not because this was a planned strategic move but in order to gain the LHR slots that these additional aircraft operated. There is no balancing increase in long-haul capacity. So the balance between more profitable long-hgaul operations and less profitable short-haul operations has changed. Further there has not been an increase in long-haul capacity that matches the potential increase in short-haul feed created by this expansion of Heathrow short-haul operations.

When BA purchased BD WW said that around 12 daily slot pairs that were part of the purchase would be used fr new long-haul services. So far we have seen relatively few of these services either launched or announced. So it is reasonable to assume that there is quite a bit of slot sitting going on. This is likely to continue for some time until long-haul fleet expansion allows what appears to be the planned change.

So it seems to me that the BD purchase was a game-changing event. However the game will only change when the components of the BA aircraft fleet are altered to reflect the airline's current strategy.

As to the suggestion that any publicly owned company "wanted" a significant part of their operations to be "marginal" and some even "loss making" . . . Need I say more?

Here it is worth noting what IAG said in its 14 July press release announcing that it was converting options on 20 A320neos into firm orders:



"International Airlines Group (IAG) has converted 20 of the 100 Airbus 320neo options it announced in August 2013 into firm orders.

" . . . These aircraft are currently intended to replace 21 shorthaul British Airways’ aircraft but will be reallocated if the airline cannot make a profitable return from its shorthaul business."



I have little doubt that the current programme to increase the seating capacity of BA's 319s from 132 to 143 passengers, its 320s from 162 to 168 passengers and its 321s from 188 to 205 passengers is to achieve this objective of significant short-haul profitability by allowing more competitive pricing to counter the LCCs pricing. I am certain it does not want to make a loss on its expanding domestic business or to only make a mareginal profit on its other short-haul operations.

Quoting ytz (Reply 93): PDEWs probably in the teens or even single digits.

High tech.

Quoting ytz (Reply 97): Cargo is even less likely to have demand from AUS for South Asia/Middle East

High tech. Dell says hi. I can tell you from first hand experience that a large chunk of the belly freight carried on BA190 is India-bound.

Quoting ytz (Reply 97): Can you elaborate on what industry there is in AUS that is driving this purported cargo demand to South Asia and the Middle East that EK/EY/QR are missing out on?

Stop arguing with one person and open your eyes. You are the one that clearly doesn't have a good grasp on what's happening in Austin. The answer is right before you, and yet you continue to choose to ignore it.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 107): If people are doubting about the Austin-India traffic, all the ingredients are there. Tech jobs. Large university. Steep growth. A dramatic backlog of real estate buyers in the Bay Area pushing people to Austin. The money involved gets huge fast. There are many Indian workers and families already there. Just keep an eye on it. 2 million people this year, soon 5 million IMO.

          

Cheers,
Cameron

The UK CAA data published on their web site for June, July and August shows 11,617, 11,425 and 10,600 passengers respective flying between AUS and LHR.

Assuming all flights operated over this three month period of 92 days - I think just one return flight was delayed overnight - the load factor on a 214 seat BA 787-8 comes out at 85.5 per cent over these three months with an average of 366 passengers a day.

I consider this load factor to be quite high for a service where the inaugural flight was less than three months prior to this June to August review period. It also supports the data and calculations already provided by LomeStarMike in Reply 50. However the load factors of each class of cabin would make interesting reading.

One factor that others have alluded to is whether the switch will be to a four-class 772 and if so whether the switch in equipment is because BA have now identified a significant demand for premium class travel on this route.

A BA four-class 772 has only 226 seats in total. So it is only capable of uplifting 10 per cent more passengers than a BA 787-8. So any switch to a four-class 772 could be driven by freight volume considerations.

However it is more likely to be driven by demand for premium class travel. Note that a four class 772 does not only provide 14 F Class seats. It also has 37 per cent more J Class seats (48 v 35) and 60 per cent more W Class seats (40 v 25) than BA's 787-8s. And with only 124 Y Class seats these 772s actually have almost 20 per cent fewer than the 787-8s 154.

I guess we will have to wait and see which configuration of the 772 BA is planning for their AUS flights.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 112): Given the mantra that they need the feed from short-haul to maintain/inaugurate long-haul, where's the need for culling the short-haul? If short-haul is marginal, it's because BA want it to be marginal in the same way they wanted regional UK operations to be loss-making.

'Culling' short-haul flights is not the same as 'culling' short-haul business. There are numerous ways BA could release slots and not lose much business.

1). BA have recently started flights to Bergen/ Stavanger and Rotterdam from LHR. BA could consider shifting these sectors to LCY, (saving = 42 weekly LHR departure slots)
2) ditto LBA, LBA -LGW potentially, (saving 20 LHR dep fpw)
3) BA serves LHR-CDG & ORY and LHR-LIN & MXP, BA could shift ORY & MXP flights to LCY and/or LCY, (saving 48 LHR dep fpw)
4) Could consider shifting 2 x daily EWR-LHR flights to LGW, (saving 13 LHR dfpw)

That equates to 123 weekly slots, or enough slots for 17 new daily long-haul sectors, if they had the L/H a/c available. This does not take into account the returned 'remedy' slots BA may have available soon either.

Additionally BA departs 445 times a week to 'British' destinations; (ABZ=62 fpw/ BHD=37 fpw/ DUB=47/ MAN=60/ EDI=77/ GLA=60/ NCL=42); that's an average of 63 slots per day. With such a rapidly changing domestic market, there seems there maybe possible opportunities to release domestic slots also.

Increased A380 flying may also release some future slots.........

(Note : I have no 'insider' information here about BA's planning, or whether they are likely to consider any of the above; I'm just conjecturalizing about how easy it may/ may not be for BA to release slots @ LHR for more L/H flying if they wanted to; and to my untrained amateur eye there does seem to be plenty of options available).

suspect it will be the Montreal 3 class 777 AUS will get rather than the Seoul 4 class.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 113): As to the suggestion that any publicly owned company "wanted" a significant part of their operations to be "marginal" and some even "loss making" . . . Need I say more?

Full market rates for a 767 to be operatedby thier own subsidiary? Encouraging premium regional passengers to route over LHR than the non-stop option? Reflecting on feed routes likie AUS need, perhap you can confirm that passengers routing MAN-LHR-elsewhere won't see the BA internal revenue distribution give £1 to the MAN-LHR sector with the LHR-sector being "awarded" the rest of the fare?

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 116): With such a rapidly changing domestic market, there seems there maybe possible opportunities to release domestic slots also.

So the UK's region don't have access to LHR. KL, AF, LH and the MEB3 will be laughing their heads off at that prospect...mind you, they're probably be doing that at the moment given how clueless BA regarding non-LHR ops.

I think all the ingredients were there for AUS to be success to LHR i think too many a.neters were living in the past. This flight probably fills up all the European demand, but what about on the Domestic US and Canadian/Mexican side. Is AUS over/under served In your opinion as a market? Its a very fast growing are with a great economy and booming high tech industry. I always find flights to be very full. Seems like a city that could/should see alot of RJs turn into mainline soon? Could someone form a focus city in AUS?

Quoting david_itl (Reply 118): Full market rates for a 767 to be operatedby thier own subsidiary

Not that old chestnut......

Quoting david_itl (Reply 118): Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 116):With such a rapidly changing domestic market, there seems there maybe possible opportunities to release domestic slots also. So the UK's region don't have access to LHR. KL, AF, LH and the MEB3 will be laughing their heads off at that prospect...mind you, they're probably be doing that at the moment given how clueless BA regarding non-LHR ops

I am not saying BA's British operations are over-served or unprofitable; (I have no idea if they are or not). I was merely suggesting that there is plenty of flexibility in their operations and schedules to release slots for additional L/H services if they wanted to, without unduly abandoning connectivity @ LHR.

BA are far from clueless.

Whether you or I like it or not, BA made an informed commercial decision to concentrate on LHR/ LGW and LCY in a policy that saw them dispose of the likes of 'GO', 'BA-Connect' and 'bmi regional' and attempt to maximize shareholder returns focussing on London.

You can reasonably argue about whether BA's 'londoncentric' business plan is wise or not; but that's probably best for another thread.

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 121): You can reasonably argue about whether BA's 'londoncentric' business plan is wise or not;

BA Connect was of course sold to flybe.

If you look at flybe's recent performance you get a clear view of why BA sold Connect. For example flybe floated on the stock exchange at £2.95 in 2010 after it had assimilated BA Connect. Today their shares are selling at £1.09. So initial investors have lost almost two-thirds of their money.

Flybe does, of course, have a significantly lower cost base than BA. That is probably why they thought they could succeed where BA failed. But it was not to be.

Here is a slightly old (June 2013) report on flybe's difficulties for those who want more detail on their woes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22999015

It includes reference of their sale of their LGW slots to U2 for a reported £20 million, their £40.7 million loss for 2012-13, the reduction of 5 per cent in their pilots' pay and the cancellation of their then outstanding E-jet order. Despite these changes their share price still languishes.

And here is a link to an a-net discussion of their problems from earlier this year:

Flybe Is Ditching All The Embraer 195's (by zipsy Feb 13 2014 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 116): There are numerous ways BA could release slots and not lose much business. 1). BA have recently started flights to Bergen/ Stavanger and Rotterdam from LHR. BA could consider shifting these sectors to LCY, (saving = 42 weekly LHR departure slots) 2) ditto LBA, LBA -LGW potentially, (saving 20 LHR dep fpw) 3) BA serves LHR-CDG & ORY and LHR-LIN & MXP, BA could shift ORY & MXP flights to LCY and/or LCY, (saving 48 LHR dep fpw) 4) Could consider shifting 2 x daily EWR-LHR flights to LGW, (saving 13 LHR dfpw)

The fact those routes are from LHR probably indicates high volumes of connecting traffic which would be lost at LCY or LGW (and BA also do RTM-LCY). The train has killed off most of the LBA-LON and PAR-LON local markets for example. BGO/SVG/RTM may well have a lot of energy industry traffic. IIRC BA are limited in the number of LIN flights they can operate so need MXP for overall LHR-Milan frequency.

Newark/New Jersey is an important destination in it's own right, before considering the New York market (Open Skies, VS, FI, LX, OS, El Al, LH, the AF/KL/DL joint venture, Air India, Jet Airways, Cathay Pacific all have split EWR/JFK operations from their main hub(s)/base(s) - and they aren't all UA partners). EWR is an important spoke for an airline with a strong focus on local and connecting transatlantic traffic to the US but a transfer to LGW would probably kill most of the connecting traffic off and weaken BA's LHR hub

If the routes were slot sitters why go to the expense of adding new stations/maintaining existing stations instead of just increasing frequency on existing routes?

It's entirely possible that the odd route may get dropped/moved to LCY/moved to LGW, but some of those suggestions do seem unlikely IMO. KLM, UA, VS/DL might like them however

Personally I would have thought most LHR long haul growth will be funded by short haul frequency reductions, 8xDaily to 7xDaily, 6xDaily to 5xDaily and similar. If BA are squeezing more seats into their short haul aircraft then the capacity reductions on some routes from doing so might be minimal

[Edited 2014-10-19 06:43:28]