|Quoting astuteman (Reply 100):|
And yet those constraints are now gone, and BA, instead of moaning, are defending the open skies policy. Which makes the point somewhat moot, does it not?
Bermuda II constraints might be gone, but now slot constraints and grandfathering do the job.
|Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 89):|
Its true that London do have a plethora of international carriers, but as all know - its hugely more important (with far richer O&D) market then your average large airline hub. It's a veritable dreamland for premium traffic, now isn't it?. Better to have 48 percent of LHR then 75 percent of any/all of ORD, FRA, DFW, PHX, MAD, HEL, etc. And then there's the fact that LHR has been massively slot-constrained for years, making the slots in-and-of themselves very valuable assets. No one is actively worried about getting slots at DFW, now are they?
That 48 percent or so is about as close to a monopoly as presently possible in a market of that size/enormous wealth.
|Quoting speedbored (Reply 90):|
But the fact that London has a high percentage of high worth O&D traffic (and I would argue that it is only one of a number of airports around the world that does), does not alter the fact that BA still has to compete with lots of other airlines for their share of that traffic. In addition, many of those other airlines have the advantage of being able to concentrate their competition on a small number of the most profitable routes, without having to maintain all of the far less profitable short-haul routes that BA has to. BA is successful because it chooses to compete with those other airlines rather than sit back and expect to have that traffic handed to them on a plate.
I totally agree that BA has a good mindset and competes without moaning. And the 5 EK 380s to LHR alone are not insignificant, though I believe they hurt other airlines that offer 1-stops from the UK to Asia more than they hurt BA. Yet, the position BA are in makes it somewhat easier to maintain such an open mind towards Open Skies. The likes of LH or KLM need a lot (!) more of expensive short haul feed to make their respective hubs work at all. What is the percentage of transfer pax on BA long haul flights? I don't have any data for BA/LHR unfortunately. On LH/MUC longhauls to North America it is about 70-75% on the MUC end. We all know these pax produce more costs and pay much less than non-stop pax. Do BA really have to maintain all of those feeder flights or could they not rather fill many of those 10+ daily NYC flights (especially the seats in front that make the profits) with high-yielding Greater London (and tri-state area) O&D? I'm not saying they don't have transfer pax, I guess they have some 30-40% on the long-haul network. But my point is - similar to what other people have said - that LHR is such a dreamland of a catchment area that - with 50% of slots no one can take away from you - you could basically have a very profitable longhaul only network (albeit of course smaller than BA's current network).