Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
WorldspotterPL
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 2:40 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 8:10 am

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).
 
BA0197
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:09 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 11:24 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 98):
The IAG is NOT the USA. Frankly? Their opinion really means NOTHING. the USA3 have presented this paper to Congress and the Courts.
The IAG doesn't have a Dog in this Fight. and Frankly? We don't NEED their OPINION...This is brought up in the USA,
We can settle our OWN Business. And they can Keep their opinions to themselves. We're big Boys.
We can talk about this without comments from the "Peanut Gallery".

A protectionist and isolated view if ever I have come across one on a.net.

You do realise that the airline business has global implications. If this Openskies agreement is scrapped, what is to say that the EU-USA Openskies agreement should stand?

Now I am not saying it is BA's place to influence the American courts for something they are not personally involved in, but this does not hurt the American public by BA coming out in the open and saying- Look Americans, we know you like competition so let's set the facts straight as we see it.
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 11:32 am

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 101):
What is the percentage of transfer pax on BA long haul flights? I

I believe the only time BA have commented on this was way back in 1997 (at the launch of their ill-fated World Images livery). They said back then that 'around 40 per cent' of the passengers they carried to LHR departed from the airport on another flight.

Of course a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. However this:

'Percentage of transfer passengers in 2014: 36% (26.3 million)'

is a quote from the Heathrow Airport Ltd web site at:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/about...pany-information/facts-and-figures

That tends to suggest that 'around 40 per cent' might still be true. Even with the concentration of members of Star and Sky Team in a single LHR terminal would result in those airlines handling a higher proportion of transfer passengers than BA at its home hub.

As an aside for those interested the 'facts and figures' at the above link are pretty comprehensive. They include:


'Percentage of business travellers in 2014: 30% (22.2 million)'

'Terminal 3 – 98,962 square metres'

'Number of destinations served: 185 (in 84 countries)'

'Number of remote stands: 40'

'Cargo volume in 2014: 1.50 million metric tonnes'
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15944
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 12:06 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 98):
IAG doesn't have a Dog in this Fight.

Incorrect, from the OP, they are a stakeholder, which is why they can submit a response to the US3 submission. Any protectionist move by the US3 will hurt ANY airline serving the US. It is also in my view, be an unlawful backdoor modification to the TATL JVs agreements that are there to protect consumers.

"The International Airline Group (IAG) responded today to the US Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce and Department of State Stakeholder Engagement on Gulf carrier subsidy claims."

The focus of the cost benefit here should be the consumer, not corporations, not shareholders. First US airlines wanted consolidation, both domestically (mergers) and internationally through joint ventures. This reduces choice to the consumer, and means consumers have less choice "take it or leave it", "pay the additional fees" etc, and ending up having less value for money (even if the face value ticket price decreased), airlines are making a killing on ancillary fees.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
ytz
Posts: 3529
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:31 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 1:48 pm

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 26):
which means this is extremely unlikely to affect BA/IB in any meaningful way.

Precedents have a way of having unintended consequences. You really think the US setting a precedence with the ME3 won't impact of the policymaking of other governments elsewhere?

And why would governments stop with just the ME3? Sooner or later, they'll start to question why the EU3 also deserve marketshare in shuttling passengers between markets, when their own airlines suffer.

It does not benefit IAG for example if the Government of India decided (following US action against the ME3) to cut quota for the EU3 as well.....

The EU3 are engaging in the exact same trade that the ME3 are. Just not to the same degree. But, that isn't likely to pass notice of foreign governments who may be bent on following established US precedence against foreign carriers.....
 
rta
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 1:59 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 97):

The IAG is NOT the USA. Frankly? Their opinion really means NOTHING. the USA3 have presented this paper to Congress and the Courts.
The IAG doesn't have a Dog in this Fight. and Frankly? We don't NEED their OPINION...This is brought up in the USA,
We can settle our OWN Business. And they can Keep their opinions to themselves. We're big Boys.
We can talk about this without comments from the "Peanut Gallery".

This made me chuckle. And some might even consider it the typical American knee jerk.

You do realize that whatever traffic goes through ME3 does not go through US3 or their JV partners? (yes, IAG is one of them) Also, other EU airlines are also advocating for limits to be placed on ME3 but IAG is making the stance that they are against that. They'll lose out on traffic originating and ending in their hubs as well.

What made you think that IAG's statement was only for the US3?
 
AAIL86
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:00 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 4:40 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 97):
We can settle our OWN Business. And they can Keep their opinions to themselves. We're big Boys.
We can talk about this without comments from the "Peanut Gallery".

Don't agree at all. This approach is what gets us as Americans in trouble and makes people dislike us.
While this is indeed an american matter, we don't want to unnecessarily punish the ME3 unless its perfectly clear that the subsidy allegations are true.

Quoting YTZ (Reply 104):
Precedents have a way of having unintended consequences. You really think the US setting a precedence with the ME3 won't impact of the policymaking of other governments elsewhere?

You are right, precedents can be very tricky down the road. However, I'm sure you'd agree it would be a huge turnaround in general for the US to suddenly stop supporting the brand of unfettered capitalism we've grown to love so much over last couple centuries. While not completely unprecedented historically, it's probably not that likely. Like I said before, it seems to me that even if the US government decides to restrict the ME3 somehow (remember, they also have to keep Boeing and others here happy that support the ME3), its unlikely that they will reconsider open skies policy in general.
" Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness ... Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. ” - Mark Twain, 1869
 
astuteman
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 7:37 pm

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 100):
Bermuda II constraints might be gone, but now slot constraints and grandfathering do the job.

For my education, could you tell me how this differs from, say, ATL?

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

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 8:22 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 107):
For my education, could you tell me how this differs from, say, ATL?

In 2014 ATL handled 96.2 million passengers of which 71.3 million (74.2 per cent) flew with DL.

There were 868,359 Air Traffic Movements in 2014. Of these 659,841 were made by US airlines and 74,791 by international airlines. The total number of ATMs fell by 4.7 per cent entirely because of a decline of 29.6 per cent in Air Taxi ATMs. The number of US airline ATMs was up slightly by 0.4 per cent while international carrier ATMs increased by 10.1 per cent.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 8:39 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 107):
For my education, could you tell me how this differs from, say, ATL?

Oh there's a huge difference between ATL and LHR.

Delta only have a tiny ~80% of slots at ATL compared to the massive ~50% that BA have at LHR.

  
 
AAIL86
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:00 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 9:08 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 109):

Quoting astuteman (Reply 107):
For my education, could you tell me how this differs from, say, ATL?

Oh there's a huge difference between ATL and LHR.

Delta only have a tiny ~80% of slots at ATL compared to the massive ~50% that BA have at LHR.

Its a true statistic, but we keep falling into the trap where we don't compare apples to apples. I'd rather have 50% of Boeing or Airbus then 80% of Embraer. Which would you rather have?
" Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness ... Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. ” - Mark Twain, 1869
 
User avatar
VCEflyboy
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:23 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Tue May 19, 2015 11:05 pm

In all fairness, EK is in no way a "threat"/ competitor to BA the way it is to AF/KL/LH.

LHR is one of the most premium destinations in the world. EK only directly competes with BA on London-Dubai and maybe Australia/NZ where the detour is not significant and BA can't offer nonstop flights anyways.
Other than that, EK is taking low-yielding traffic that would not fly BA anyways.

AF/KL/LH are suffering most because they offer one-stop flights via their hub, which is essentially what the ME3 and TK are doing - only their hubs are in the ME.

EK model is essentially the KL growth model from last century, although KL has also a strong focus on cargo, but then again cargo was a good business back then.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 2:52 am

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 110):
Its a true statistic, but we keep falling into the trap where we don't compare apples to apples. I'd rather have 50% of Boeing or Airbus then 80% of Embraer. Which would you rather have?

Again, I feel I need educating as to the relevance of this analogy.

In 2014 LHR handled 73.4M passengers.
ATL handled 96.2M, of which 71.3M flew with DL
So DL handled nearly as many pax in ATL as all the airlines flying to LHR handled.
(BA handled 39.6M passengers across their whole network)

In the analogy, then, is LHR the "Embraer" and ATL the "Boeing"?   

I'm trying to understand how "slot constraints and grandfathering" protect BA from EK at LHR in a way that they don't protect DL from EK in ATL

Rgds
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8369
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 4:39 am

This thread reminds me of the 'if you aren't with us you are against us' rhetoric of the last gulf war.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 6:17 am

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 110):
but we keep falling into the trap where we don't compare apples to apples

I think you meant "I", not "we". Please don't attempt to lump everyone together in the same boat as yourself.

Some people (unfortunately far too few) around here actually try to do some research, and at least attempt to verify "facts" that they post on here, to avoid falling into just such a trap. We don't always get it right but at least we try. I often wish that more people would.

[Edited 2015-05-19 23:17:41]
 
WorldspotterPL
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 2:40 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 8:11 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 112):
I'm trying to understand how "slot constraints and grandfathering" protect BA from EK at LHR in a way that they don't protect DL from EK in ATL
Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 100):
Bermuda II constraints might be gone, but now slot constraints and grandfathering do the job.

Bermuda II was about the American and British airlines, nothing to do with EK and I never said anything of that sort. What I meant is that slot constraints and grandfathering protect BA from ANY real threatening competition at LHR. They make LHR - even if they "only" have 50% of the market - a money printer. On a side note, I don't think BA is all too sad about the whole 3rd runway at LHR not being built.

Yes, EK took some low yielding (and maybe even some higher yielding) PAX from BA, but I am still of the opinion that EK - much like FR - with unseen low prices create markets rather than "steal" passengers (even though the "owning passengers" concept, that the US3 also advertise, is totally out of place).

Quoting astuteman (Reply 107):
For my education, could you tell me how this differs from, say, ATL?

Yes. LHR is a one-of-a-kind gold mine. BA is sitting on half of it and no-one can take it way from them, even though everyone would love to. ATL is not a gold mine. Delta make it a good and efficient hub and they are making money at ATL because of it. Yet, no-one wants to take it away from them (maybe WN to some extent). Other airlines have similar hubs in similarly good locations (geography-wise, O&D-wise etc.) in the US (such as UA at IAH, AA at DFW etc.). Maybe slot constraints and grandfathering help keeping ATL a very dominant fortress hub for DL, but what does that even mean compared to BA at LHR? That 5.6 million people in the Atlanta metro area have to pay higher yields on O&D because of Delta's dominance? Apart from AT&T, Coca Cola, UPS etc., who will generate high-yielding business O&D traffic that is anywhere - anywhere - near that of the banks, insurances, consultancies etc. etc. of Greater London?

[Edited 2015-05-20 01:40:40]
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 9:00 am

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
and no-one can take it way from them

Please do explain how, with ~50% of the slots at LHR between them, all those other airlines are not able to compete with BA? They do, after all, have the advantage of being able to cherry-pick the most profitable long-haul routes to compete on, rather than having to maintain comprehensive short-haul service coverage in the way BA does.

To suggest that it is not possible for there to be competition with only ~50% of the slots, even if those slots are shared among many airlines, is, frankly, laughable.

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
On a side note, I don't think BA is all too sad about the whole 3rd runway at LHR not being built.

Yes, of course, that would explain why they have campaigned so hard for expansion at LHR.   

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
Yes, EK took some low yielding (and maybe even some higher yielding) PAX from BA, but I am still of the opinion that EK - much like FR - with unseen low prices create markets rather than "steal" passengers (even though the "owning passengers" concept, that the US3 also advertise, is totally out of place).

Have you even bothered to research how well EK have said they are doing with premium traffic on the LHR route?

EK is able to provide one-stop connectivity to a whole load of destinations that BA would love to be able to serve but does not have the slots for - they are most definitely competing with BA on all of those routes where BA is only able to provide 1-stop service via their alliance or code-share partners.

The difference between BA and the US3 is that, despite operating in a far more competitive environment at its base than any of the US3 do, BA has chosen to invest in providing good, competitive, services, rather than resorting to whinging and trying to get competitors shut out of their markets.
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 3:11 pm

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
LHR is a one-of-a-kind gold mine.

What is your evidence for this assertion?

The majority of flights out of LHR are short-haul. All of these flights whether operated by BA or other airlines are in some form of competitive position with FR flights out of STN, U2 flights out of LGW and LTN or the flights of other LCCs like W6 operating out of one or more of the London airports. This competition is almost solely based on ticket price. So few if any of these large numbers of short-haul flights out of LHR that are all operated by legacy carriers are significantly profitable while it is likely that many make a loss.

So where is the gold mine? In particular, where is the evidence for it?

Sure, many long-haul premium rich flights out of LHR are profitable. The BA annual results prove that. But . . .

This lack of adequate BA short-haul profitability is well illustrated by the official statement made when IAG firmed up an order for 20 A 320neos at the Farnborough Air Show on 13 July last year. It stated that the ordered aircraft:


'. . . are currently intended to replace 21 (sic) short-haul British Airways aircraft but will be reallocated if the airline cannot make a profitable return from its short haul business.'


Of course corporate law requires any such statements to be factually correct so they do not mislead investors or potential investors. While this statement does not actual say that these short haul routes are making a loss it certainly strongly suggests that this is the case. So goldmine? No.

BA appear to have responded to this very public threat from IAG management in several ways:

BA have significantly expanded their programmes of weekend Winter Ski and Summer Beach Charter flights flown by their LHR based short-haul fleet. This helps increase fleet utilisation thus improving the return on the capital employed.

BA also launched scheduled flights to new leisure destinations such as Bodrum, Cagliari, Dalaman, Heraklion, and Rhodes. These changes also help to improve fleet utilisation and the return on investment.

BA also implemented a cabin conversion programme for their short-haul fleet early last autumn. They increased the number of seats on their LHR based 319s from 132 to 144, on their LHR based 320s from 162 to 168 seats and on their short-haul configured 321s from 188 to 205. These changes, now all implemented, boosted BA's short-haul LHR based capacity by 6 per cent. This should increase revenue flow, profitabilit, and, even after the further investment, return on the capital employed.

BA have fitted Sharklets to their ten most recently delivered 320s to improve fuel efficiency.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 8:13 pm

Just to give a bit of perspective of just how shielded BA are from competition in their so-called monopoly at LHR, if you include QF and LGW EK has as many daily flights to London as BA does to JFK.

And let's not ignore the fact that Emirates is a beheamouth in the UK as a whole, British Airways' home market and 'their' passengers by US3 logic. By my count there are more flights from MAN, BHX, NCL, EDI and GLA to DXB, AUH and DOH combined than to EWR, JFK, ORD and PHL combined. Not to mention that gauge is much larger.

Yep, you're right. What the UK is desperately calling out for is more competiton.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
astuteman
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 9:06 pm

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
Yes. LHR is a one-of-a-kind gold mine.

No it isn't

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
BA is sitting on half of it

Not even close IMO. BA's ENTIRE passenger count for 2014 across their whole network doesn't equal 50% of LHR's passenger count.
The vast majority of BA's movements at LHR are short-haul with little or no premium market.
If BA have 25% of passenger traffic at LHR I'll be impressed
If you look at the big long-haul planes, you know, the ones with the plush premium cabins, the vast majority of those visiting LHR do not belong to BA, and are in fact in competition with them
If BA have 25% of the premium traffic, I'll be even more impressed

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
Delta make it a good and efficient hub and they are making money at ATL because of it. Yet, no-one wants to take it away from them

Let me get this straight.
In the gold mine that is LHR that EVERYONE wants a slice of, BA face no competiton at all....
And yet in "dreary old ATL that no-one wants to fly to", DL are in danger of being run out of business by EK's competiton?
I hope you'll pardon me if I smell a rat here ...

Quoting VV701 (Reply 117):
The majority of flights out of LHR are short-haul. All of these flights whether operated by BA or other airlines are in some form of competitive position

The most oft quoted argument against the A380 that I've heard on A-net is that 70% of all LHR's movements are narrowbodys   
go figure, eh?  

Rgds
 
AAIL86
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:00 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 9:25 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 117):
The majority of flights out of LHR are short-haul.

That's true of most airports on earth. LHR has higher percentage of long hauls (with massive premium availability) then a great many large airports. London premium O&D is sick. While not completely analogous, think New York, if JFK and EWR were combined into one airport....

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
Bermuda II was about the American and British airlines, nothing to do with EK and I never said anything of that sort. What I meant is that slot constraints and grandfathering protect BA from ANY real threatening competition at LHR.

One thing no one here said is that BA is immune from competition, that is just a strawman argument at its finest. We're talking about their incumbency in a slot restricted airport were the landing slots themselves can cost as much as the airplanes using them to land. That incumbency gives BA an enviable position, and they have fully exploited it over the years. Nothing wrong with that.

Don't confuse my argument here with knocking BA, because I'm not. I fly them a few times a year myself. Upstairs on the 744 is my favorite cabin in the sky.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 112):
In 2014 LHR handled 73.4M passengers.
ATL handled 96.2M, of which 71.3M flew with DL
So DL handled nearly as many pax in ATL as all the airlines flying to LHR handled.
(BA handled 39.6M passengers across their whole network)

LHRATL. Take away LHR's transfer passengers, and there would still be scores of premium-heavy intercontinental flights. Heck, London is so premium happy BA can afford to fly that 318 in a 2 aircraft subfleet. How many premium heavy long haul flights could ATL support without DL's insane transfer (read - much lower yielding) volume there? My guess is LHR alone...

Quoting speedbored (Reply 114):
I think you meant "I", not "we". Please don't attempt to lump everyone together in the same boat as yourself.

I used "we" to keep the tone polite. Maybe you can suggest another way to say it then?  
" Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness ... Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime. ” - Mark Twain, 1869
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 11:05 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 117):
The majority of flights out of LHR are short-haul.
Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 120):
That's true of most airports on earth.

In Reply 117 I was answering the unsupported assertion that

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):
LHR is a one-of-a-kind gold mine.

Are you suggesting that's true of most airports on earth or just quoting my response out of context?

To be clear I think that neither LHR nor any other airport is the alleged gold mine. Commercial aviation today is highly competitive. Yet what we are discussing is the possibility, however likely or unlikely, of going back to national protectionism in what is an increasingly globalised marketplace.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Wed May 20, 2015 11:06 pm

If IAG so disagrees with what American is doing? or what the USA-3 are doing? Then they can put their money where their Mouth is and NOT FLY to the USA Because this is NOW getting too big to stop. Some USA airports are selling bonds to finance runway , Taxiway and terminal construction for flights that aren't even planned yet just to have the A380 land at their terminal. Now all of that might be fine. But the American Carriers whom they depend on for Bread and Butter aren't using the airplane and the competing Boeing airplane (B747-8i) doesn't need the improvements.
I just watched a Lufthansa B747-8i cross a taxiway at ORD over the main entry road Friday when I picked up my Daughter for a visit.
If a B747-8i can do it and the A380 Can't??
Why is that our problems to pay for it Especially now that I've read here that Emirates isn't even coming or GOING from ORD with full loads? They have 777's,, So what are the A380's here For?
Sometimes you have to ask yourself. Did the Airline come here because they had so many people flying they Needed the A380? Or Were they hoping no American would notice they' don't have many passengers of their OWN??
It appears they're flying the airplane as a "Loss Leader" and trying to "Back-door" the USA carriers by taking a stake in IAG as if that might force American to "Slow their Roll" on them. So what are they going to do Next? Buy into Lufthansa, and Air France to try and pressure United, and Delta into making nice?? Just keep THIS in mind.
When We were in the "hurt locker" back in the oil Boom days of the middle east they Tried to Squeeze us (USA) like grapes. And we said nothing. Now that there's Oil for the USA to be self sufficient? And? They've either run out of oil or are in Danger of running out?
Now they want to come in and Demand a seat at the table that we might open our Aviation markets "willy- nilly" to them.
I don't know about you guys. But I DO remember the Arab oil Embargoes of the 1970's I remember Gas going from $.55 to a $1.10 almost overnight. I remember lines at Gas stations 6 blocks long, and Odd- Even fill-up days with Embargoes. Well Guess WHAT?? What Goes around?? Comes Around !!
Now, Many of you might have forgotten that or you weren't Here when it was happening.
We do have friends in the region. But I remember OPEC making demands and doing irrational stuff. Just to poke a stick in our eyes here in the USA. So now I have to ask?? How does it FEEL?!? Not so good Huh?
Now ya know how We as American's felt. Yeah, we're better for having lived through it Even our Hot Cars are getting 18-20 MPG. And Were back in High horsepower on Unleaded Gasoline. Our cars are more efficient. So there was a benefit. So for that ? Thanks!! But NOW? What Went Around? Is coming Back around? Let's see how You like it!
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8369
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Thu May 21, 2015 12:14 am

now that we have the rest of the world is wrong and America is best rants out of our system, can we get back to the subject in hand?
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Thu May 21, 2015 5:18 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 122):
Some USA airports are selling bonds to finance runway , Taxiway and terminal construction for flights that aren't even planned yet just to have the A380 land at their terminal. Now all of that might be fine. But the American Carriers whom they depend on for Bread and Butter aren't using the airplane and the competing Boeing airplane (B747-8i) doesn't need the improvements.

Why don't you take it up with the airports that obviously think the effort is worth it, rather than ranting at us?
Or does it hurt too much that all the predicitions that the A380 would find nowhere to land is steadily being undone by airports actually accommodating it?
I know that must piss some of our posters off..

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 120):
How many premium heavy long haul flights could ATL support without DL's insane transfer (read - much lower yielding) volume there?

Don't DL do pretty much what EK do? Routing most of their pax through ATL for onward connections?
(PIT to MAN via ATL did have me wondering)

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 120):
LHRATL.

Indeed. Not all things are equal. They never are. LHR is not ATL. t's not DXB either.
Keep following that train of thought to its logical conclusion and you should get to the point of realising why the "Partnership for open and fair skies" is such a complete nonsense.

Rgds
 
WorldspotterPL
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 2:40 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Thu May 21, 2015 9:58 am

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 120):
One thing no one here said is that BA is immune from competition, that is just a strawman argument at its finest. We're talking about their incumbency in a slot restricted airport were the landing slots themselves can cost as much as the airplanes using them to land. That incumbency gives BA an enviable position, and they have fully exploited it over the years. Nothing wrong with that.

Thank you, exactly what I wanted to clarify myself.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 119):
in "dreary old ATL that no-one wants to fly to", DL are in danger of being run out of business by EK's competiton?

Never said such a thing, I too think it's appaling what the US3 are claiming.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 119):
Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):Yes. LHR is a one-of-a-kind gold mine.
No it isn't

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):BA is sitting on half of it
Not even close IMO. BA's ENTIRE passenger count for 2014 across their whole network doesn't equal 50% of LHR's passenger count.

Maybe I should have been clearer. Of course no airport is a gold mine in real terms, we are not in the oil or pharmacy industry. But I was asked how LHR is different from ATL. What I mean by gold mine is that LHR most certainly has one of the best combinations of volume of pax combined with very high yields of all airports in the world. I think no one would argue about this fact. No, I don't have numbers to support my claim, but my claim is that in the airport world, LHR is a gold mine. And by sitting on half of it I am referring to the 50% slots they have, which has been discussed above. I am not talking about pax because there are no grandfather rights that bind pax to BA. Good service, good network especially to the west, FFP, many frequencies etc. bind many London based pax to BA, I guess that's a point we agree on.

Speedboard - I guess we agree to disagree - you repeatedly claim BA to be somewhat of a victim that has to "maintain comprehensive short-haul service coverage" while other airlines apparently "have the advantage of being able to cherry-pick the most profitable long-haul routes to compete on". While I disagree with the first statement and don't understand the second, my point is that, while of course I know and said that BA do have competition at LHR, they are in a much better position with their LHR hub than KL at AMS, LH at FRA and MUC etc. The latter airlines, by the way, as a matter of fact need to "maintain comprehensive short-haul service coverage" to fill any long haul flight except mabye one daily NYC flight.

And a few more things:

Quoting speedbored (Reply 116):
Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 115):On a side note, I don't think BA is all too sad about the whole 3rd runway at LHR not being built.
Yes, of course, that would explain why they have campaigned so hard for expansion at LHR.

Of course they campaign it, they need to show that they want to grow, they are a shareholder owned company. And of course they do want to grow, and probably you are right. Nonetheless more capacity will lower yields and there is of course always a risk of losing market share associated with the opening of a market. Are you absolutely sure no one at BA thinks - secretly - that there is more risk than opportunity in a 3rd runway? Never change a winning team etc.? Lufthansa here in Munich publically state that they of course want a 3rd runway. However, I know for a fact many secretly fear that there is more to lose than to gain.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 116):
Have you even bothered to research how well EK have said they are doing with premium traffic on the LHR route?

No, have you? I don't have access to that kind of data. Have you? I would not base any argument on what an airline "says" - and frankly would not call it research - without seeing pax numbers and/or average yields. So they say they are doing well. What does that even mean? How well compared to what? BA? Other EK routes? The past?

Same question once again: are the majory of EK premium pax former BA premium pax that are used to flying non-stop? Or are these much rather lower yielding premium pax (does not conflict with EK claiming they are "doing well" on LHR premium pax) that EK either generate with very good prices or "steal" not from BA but from other one-stoppers ex LHR, namely LH/AF/KL/SQ/MH/CX etc.?

Quoting speedbored (Reply 116):
EK is able to provide one-stop connectivity to a whole load of destinations that BA would love to be able to serve but does not have the slots for - they are most definitely competing with BA on all of those routes where BA is only able to provide 1-stop service via their alliance or code-share partners.

True! No one would or has argued against this.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 116):

The difference between BA and the US3 is that, despite operating in a far more competitive environment at its base than any of the US3 do, BA has chosen to invest in providing good, competitive, services, rather than resorting to whinging and trying to get competitors shut out of their markets.

Absolutely agree! If you add the small - but important - note that while BA's "environment" is far more competitive, it is also far far far richer and larger in volume.
 
brindabella
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Thu May 21, 2015 10:51 am

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 12):
Quoting cougar15 (Reply 12):
.. because they are opend minded, believe in free markets and consumer CHOICE.... maybe/perhaps?

Of all the potential reasons IAG is wading into this debate, I'd be very skeptical that its purely because of deep philosophical commitments.

''
Ach, you sadden me ... just when I was appreciating Mr. Cougar's speculative irony ...

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 12):

In any corporate lobbying transaction, follow the money - that usually tells you a great deal about why.

OTOH, I have just been enjoying some quotes from Shakespeare - this sounds right!

Sadly.


 
Billy
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Thu May 21, 2015 11:14 am

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 120):
One thing no one here said is that BA is immune from competition
Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
you repeatedly claim BA to be somewhat of a victim

No, I have never] painted BA as any sort of victim.

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
they are in a much better position with their LHR hub than KL at AMS, LH at FRA and MUC etc.

No, they are not. All those other airlines have a far larger share of the market at their respective hubs.

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
Are you absolutely sure no one at BA thinks - secretly - that there is more risk than opportunity in a 3rd runway?

Yes, having spoken to many very senior people at BA over the years, I am certain of that. Their public announcements confirm it. Or are you accusing them of lying in their public statements?

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
No, have you?

Yes.

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
I don't have access to that kind of data. Have you?

So you don't know how to use Google? What EK have said about this route is out there in the public domain.

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
I would not base any argument on what an airline "says"

Ah, so EK are lying too. I see.

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
so they say they are doing well. What does that even mean?

If you don't understand the meaning of "doing well" then how on earth can you make statements like "gold mine"?

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
while BA's "environment" is far more competitive
Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 125):
it is also far far far richer and larger in volume.

"far far far"? You make it sound like orders of magnitude difference, which it most definitely is not. There are richer or higher volume environments elsewhere. You only have to look at the relative profits at various other airlines around the world to see that - if LHR was the gold mine for BA that you paint it as, BA would be making a whole load more profit than it currently is.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8369
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Thu May 21, 2015 11:24 am

When did DL stop flying to Chennai?

When was the launch of multi frequency services by EK into JFK?

You will find that that DL / US3 simply can't compete on such long low yield sectors even before the ME3 were in town.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
WorldspotterPL
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 2:40 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Thu May 21, 2015 2:22 pm

No, I don't understand the meaning of "doing well". Please elaborate or at least share your source. I could not find it with a quick google search.

And please stop accusing people of things based on quotes where you quote parts of sentences or statements leaving out the relevant parts.
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: IAG: US3 White Paper "Inaccurate" & "Misleading"

Thu May 21, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting WorldspotterPL (Reply 129):
And please stop accusing people of things based on quotes where you quote parts of sentences or statements leaving out the relevant parts.

I'm pretty sure that none of the quotes that I included in my post left out any relevant or context altering part but please feel free to point out anywhere specific where you think I have altered the context. I quote only the parts that are relevant in order to avoid making huge unreadable posts.

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