BA Launch LHR-SCL

vv701 · Thu May 19, 2016 1:08 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 26):
Some are logical, but flying 3600mi longer with GYE-SCL-LHR is simply called too much time on their hands

The longest back-track of which I have had personal experience was flown by my two neighbouring passengers on a Saturday morning BA IST-LHR (1,565 miles) flight. They were booked to fly LHR-CGK (7,284 miles) departing that evening.

Neither had ever been to London before. So where could they leave their luggage at LHR during their first brief visit to the UK capital city? What was the quickest way into central London?

Why not fly direct? No service back in those days.

Why not fly to SIN or some more easterly hub? Been there, seen it, done . And using London was no more costly than using an Asian hub, just longer.

So they back-tracked 2,981 miles.

Unusual? Highly.

Impossible? Obviously not. With more (or worse) to come:

Then there was the example of a father and daughter interviewed on UK TV news in May 2008. They wanted to support their team (Chelsea) in Moscow in a European Champions League football final against another English team (Manchester United). The best routing they could find with the heavy demand for flights between England and Russia created by an the English final was LHR-PEK-MOS. That's a back-track of just over 7,000 miles on a potential 1,586 mile flight!

Too much time on their hands? Certainly. But some sports fans are fanatical. Everything else is totally unimportant. So could it happen to BA's SCL flight? Yes. But will it happen? Very infrequently if at all.

SelseyBill · Thu May 19, 2016 7:54 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 29):
That means that in the past five years, SCL has brought in KL, AZ, UX and now BA.
And QF.

....and QR have recently announced SCL too......

I wonder if BA got 'permission' from Mr.Baker to announce this launch.......

Cipango · Thu May 19, 2016 8:18 pm

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 51):
....and QR have recently announced SCL too......

I wonder if BA got 'permission' from Mr.Baker to announce this launch.......

QR haven't actually announced SCL, only that they plan to fly there.

TedToToe · Thu May 19, 2016 8:32 pm

Quoting Cipango (Reply 52):
QR haven't actually announced SCL, only that they plan to fly there.

DOH-SCL is a shade under 9,000 miles! Are they considering one stop and 5th freedom rights?

LAX772LR · Thu May 19, 2016 8:49 pm

Quoting TedToToe (Reply 53):
DOH-SCL is a shade under 9,000 miles! Are they considering one stop and 5th freedom rights?

DOH-DCL is "only" 7792nm.

That's still nearly 1000nm below the range of even an untanked 77L.
QR can do it nonstop, if they wanted.

Viscount724 · Fri May 20, 2016 12:15 am

Quoting theobcman (Reply 40):
BA have started several routes in last couple of years which are served by the 787, KUL, AUS, SJO, CTU.

Quoting ytraveller (Reply 41):
Quoting theobcman (Reply 40):
SJO

SJO is operated by the 772.

AUS is also 772. Started with 788 but has been 772 for quite a while.

FCAFLYBOY · Fri May 20, 2016 6:58 am

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 51):

Quoting qf002 (Reply 29):
That means that in the past five years, SCL has brought in KL, AZ, UX and now BA.
And QF.

....and QR have recently announced SCL too......

I wonder if BA got 'permission' from Mr.Baker to announce this launch.......

Why would BA need his approval? QR are a shareholder that's all.

94717 · Fri May 20, 2016 7:03 am

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 33):
SCL-MAD is hard to compete. There are 17 weekly flights LATAM and IB combined. Since they depart MAD at midnight, 3 days a week there are 3 flights (2 LATAM + 1 IB) departing to Santiago de Chile within half an hour. Quite impressive for such a long flight to the edge of the world.

A380 fpr LATAM?

Bongodog1964 · Fri May 20, 2016 7:12 am

Quoting FCAFLYBOY (Reply 56):
.and QR have recently announced SCL too......

I wonder if BA got 'permission' from Mr.Baker to announce this launch.......

Why would BA need his approval? QR are a shareholder that's all.

It was announced this week that QR have increased their shareholding in IAG to 15%, having first been disclosed last year when they went over the 10% level where it has to be publicly announced.

The big question is, are they trying to build a stake up to the limit they can go to ?

B-HOP · Sun May 22, 2016 2:22 am

Parking an aircraft down route for 9 hours, no problem, BA parked their A380 10 hours at a time in Hong Kong

FCAFLYBOY · Sun May 22, 2016 8:18 am

MSY makes much more sense to me than BNA. I see MSY and HAV as top contenders.

descl · Mon May 23, 2016 7:32 pm

Quoting qf789 (Reply 9):
LHR2200-940+1SCL Tues, Thur, Fri & Sun duration 14hrs40minsSCL1845-1205+1LHR Mon, Wed, Fri & Sat duration 14hrs20mins

Does anyone know if this schedule is confirmed?
I think the duration of SCL - LHR is wrong and should be 13hrs20mins, because SCL - CDG takes 13.45 and it's a longer distance.

Also, by looking at BA website, I've noticed that arriving at 12.00 is not very good for connections...

eastern023 · Mon May 23, 2016 8:27 pm

The arrival into LHR is late, but remember that LHR is heavily slot restricted. BA does not have spare slots in the early morning. So, it is going to have to work...

FCAFLYBOY · Tue May 24, 2016 6:56 am

Quoting descl (Reply 61):
at 12.00 is not very good for connections...

Connecting to where exactly? There are plentiful European connections all afternoon long after 12:00 midday. That's where the majority of pax will be travelling to, if not London itself. BA know their markets well, they will have done their research on this first.

vv701 · Tue May 24, 2016 11:37 am

Quoting descl (Reply 61):
Also, by looking at BA website, I've noticed that arriving at 12.00 is not very good for connections.

Not so.

I checked flights on the BA web site from SCL to 12 significant but randomly selected European destinations departing SCL on 23 January 2017. These were the connections quoted from LHR by BA with their LHR departure times and the interval between the scheduled arrival of the flight from SCL and departure to final destination:

AMS: BA446 14:20 (+2 hr 16 min)
ARN: BA780 13:20 (+1 hr 15 min)
BRU: BA402 13:30 (+1 hr 25 min)
CDG: BA314 13:05 (+1 hr)
CPH: BA818 13:40 (+1 hr 35 min)
FRA: BA908 14:10 (+2 hr 5 min)
GVA: BA832 13:05 (+1hr)
LIN: BA568 14:55 (+2hr 50 min)
MUC: BA954 14:15 (+2 hr 10 min)
NCE: BA348 16:40 (+4 hr 35 min)
OSL: BA768 16:30 (+4 hr 25 min)
ZRH: BA716 13:10 (I hr 5 min)

Exactly half of the departures are within two hours of the scheduled arrival of the SCL flight. Only two departures are more than three hours after the Chile flight is scheduled to arrive.

On this limited factual evidence it seems to me that the arrival time at LHR of the SCL has been carefully selected for a hub-type operation.

LH526 · Tue May 24, 2016 11:46 am

So with LA, JJ, IB and now BA there's a fourth oneworld carrier in SCL.
AF, KL and Alitalia show good Skyteam presence whereas Star Alliance totally lacks a direct flight from Europe to SCL.

Let's hope and wait for LX or LH to resume FLights to SCL ....

incitatus · Tue May 24, 2016 9:06 pm

Quoting descl (Reply 61):
Does anyone know if this schedule is confirmed?
I think the duration of SCL - LHR is wrong and should be 13hrs20mins, because SCL - CDG takes 13.45 and it's a longer distance.

The difference in distance is 12 miles - I was actually surprised that LHR is the closer one. That is less than 2 minutes of flying at cruising speed. The block time gets calculated differently by each airline and it depends on taxi times and congestion around the airports. So it is entirely possible BA wants to start with 14:20 and see how such a schedule performs for on-time arrivals.

descl · Tue May 24, 2016 10:42 pm

Quoting vv701 (Reply 64):
I checked flights on the BA web site from SCL to 12 significant but randomly selected European destinations departing SCL on 23 January 2017. These were the connections quoted from LHR by BA with their LHR departure times and the interval between the scheduled arrival of the flight from SCL and departure to final destination:

AMS: BA446 14:20 (+2 hr 16 min)
ARN: BA780 13:20 (+1 hr 15 min)
BRU: BA402 13:30 (+1 hr 25 min)
CDG: BA314 13:05 (+1 hr)
CPH: BA818 13:40 (+1 hr 35 min)
FRA: BA908 14:10 (+2 hr 5 min)
GVA: BA832 13:05 (+1hr)
LIN: BA568 14:55 (+2hr 50 min)
MUC: BA954 14:15 (+2 hr 10 min)
NCE: BA348 16:40 (+4 hr 35 min)
OSL: BA768 16:30 (+4 hr 25 min)
ZRH: BA716 13:10 (I hr 5 min)

Thanks. I selected some o these destinations, and I thought 1 hour was not enough for transiting at LHR?
On the other hand, I think ~3 + hours is uncompetitive (MIL, OSL).

Also, look at

TLV (+ 10 hr 25 min)
DEL (+ 8 hr 20 min)
DXB (+ 8 hr 20 min)
HKG (+ 6 hr 25 min)
DME (+ 9 hr 20 min)
BOM (+ 8 hr 55 min)
SIN (+ 7 hr)
KUL (+ 6 hr 50 min)

I thought the main appeal of this flight was to offer convenient connections to airports that are not available through its partner Iberia, but this schedule doesn't allow it.

Quoting incitatus (Reply 66):

The difference in distance is 12 miles - I was actually surprised that LHR is the closer one. That is less than 2 minutes of flying at cruising speed. The block time gets calculated differently by each airline and it depends on taxi times and congestion around the airports. So it is entirely possible BA wants to start with 14:20 and see how such a schedule performs for on-time arrivals.

I see, thanks for your explanation. So it's probably related to the fact that LHR is very congested? The few times I've landed there, I've had to wait quite a bit before landing.

vv701 · Wed May 25, 2016 3:05 pm

Quoting descl (Reply 67):
I selected some o these destinations, and I thought 1 hour was not enough for transiting at LHR?

According to BA it is.

So if you go to their web site and ask to book a flight SCL-LHR-CDG departing on 23 January 2017 BA will offer the quoted BA314 connection scheduled to depart exactly 60 minutes after the scheduled arrival of their new flight from SCL. This looks pretty tight. However the stated elapsed time of 14 hr 20 min for the SCL-LHR flight is probably conservative as is the case with many operator's trans-Atlantic services. This is well illustrated by the temporary arrival 'curfew' at LHR every day between 06:00 and 06:30. No landing slots are allocated during this period. Instead it is used to land aircraft arriving ahead of schedule. These will primarily be trans Atlantic flights aided by the Jetstream.

I am not sure that BA would be looking to Asian destinations for 'beyond LHR' services from SCL. For example I find it difficult to conceive that a passenger alighting from a 14 hr 20 min flight from SCL to LHR would want a short connection time before boarding an 11 hr 50 min flight to HKG. Spending the best part of up to or a little more than 26 out of 28 hours flying in a commercial aircraft is not a choice that I would make. I would prefer a layover in a Heathrow hotel.

UALWN · Wed May 25, 2016 4:20 pm

Quoting vv701 (Reply 68):
According to BA it is.

I recently did SFO-LHR-FRA (yes, I know) with UA/LH, with a 60 min connection. The SFO-LHR flight arrived to the gate 30 min late, and yet I made the connection with 5 min to spare. I was positively surprised. This was in Terminal 2, of course, not 5.

Hagic · Wed May 25, 2016 5:59 pm

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that this might be a response to the recently launched AV BOG-LHR, with the schedule perfectly timed for swift connections from SCL, EZE, GRU, GIG and LIM.

SelseyBill · Wed May 25, 2016 7:49 pm

Quoting descl (Reply 61):
Does anyone know if this schedule is confirmed? I think the duration of SCL - LHR is wrong and should be 13hrs20mins, because SCL - CDG takes 13.45 and it's a longer distance. Also, by looking at BA website, I've noticed that arriving at 12.00 is not very good for connections

GCM shows LHR-SCL @ 7,728 miles and an 'oceanic' route down the English Channel over the Atlantic and entering South America around the mouth of the Amazon.

Would the actual route flown not be a more 'landward' route, over the Morrocco/Canaries region and entering South America over Recife-ish ?

I'm no pilot or navigator, but might this explain the 'longer' flying time ?

Viscount724 · Thu May 26, 2016 1:43 am

Quoting vv701 (Reply 68):
I am not sure that BA would be looking to Asian destinations for 'beyond LHR' services from SCL. For example I find it difficult to conceive that a passenger alighting from a 14 hr 20 min flight from SCL to LHR would want a short connection time before boarding an 11 hr 50 min flight to HKG. Spending the best part of up to or a little more than 26 out of 28 hours flying in a commercial aircraft is not a choice that I would make.

Many LHR-SYD connections take that long and quite a few longer. Even the fastest one-stop service is in the 23 hour range. Once it gets that long another 2 or 3 hours doesn't make much difference.

NZ's one-stop LHR-LAX-AKL flight takes 26 hours and most connections are in the 28-30 hour range.

mozart · Fri May 27, 2016 12:03 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 6):
True but from London, where on Earth (literally) are you going to fly on to? Easter Island is the only one I can think of. After that it's just penguins.

You can do a UK domestic connection: British Airways London-Santiago, LAN Santiago-Mount Pleasant/Falkland

You fought for the Union Jack to fly over the sheeps' heads, so how can you say there is only penguins beyond SCL?

)

incitatus · Fri May 27, 2016 1:33 pm

Quoting Hagic (Reply 70):
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that this might be a response to the recently launched AV BOG-LHR, with the schedule perfectly timed for swift connections from SCL, EZE, GRU, GIG and LIM.

I am surprised someone would think that!

Quoting SelseyBill (Reply 71):
Would the actual route flown not be a more 'landward' route, over the Morrocco/Canaries region and entering South America over Recife-ish ?

My experience has been that most airlines avoid flying over Morocco between Brazil and Europe. It might be that the overflying charges are too high.

Quoting descl (Reply 67):
So it's probably related to the fact that LHR is very congested? The few times I've landed there, I've had to wait quite a bit before landing.

Yes, that is possible. Or that the process to figure out the block time is different between the two airlines.

peterinlisbon · Fri May 27, 2016 4:43 pm

Quoting descl (Reply 67):
Thanks. I selected some o these destinations, and I thought 1 hour was not enough for transiting at LHR?
On the other hand, I think ~3 + hours is uncompetitive (MIL, OSL).

I think that 1 hour is enough if the connection is within the same Terminal, and BA now have most of their flights within Terminal 5. They have probably padded the arrival time by about half an hour to take account of potential delays and really, LHR is pretty efficient these days. Aircraft don't have to taxi far when they come off the runway to get to T5. It's not like the old days when you had to connect between T4 for longhaul and T1 for shorthaul, which made anything less than 1h30m a bit of a rush.

Heathrow also provides a lot of connections to places that aren't available from other European hubs, plus there are all of the low cost airlines from different airports in London that fly to some really obscure places.

upwardfacing · Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:57 pm

Quoting descl (Reply 67):
Thanks. I selected some o these destinations, and I thought 1 hour was not enough for transiting at LHR?
On the other hand, I think ~3 + hours is uncompetitive (MIL, OSL).

Also, look at

TLV (+ 10 hr 25 min)
DEL (+ 8 hr 20 min)
DXB (+ 8 hr 20 min)
HKG (+ 6 hr 25 min)
DME (+ 9 hr 20 min)
BOM (+ 8 hr 55 min)
SIN (+ 7 hr)
KUL (+ 6 hr 50 min)

One thing one worth mentioning is that beyond India it's actually quicker to transfer via SYD, assuming connections are reasonable. (Flying time is definitely shorter connecting over the South Pacific, both ways, all the way to BKK from SCL.) That doesn't mean BA will not get such connections. Some travellers will want a stopover in London or prefer to fly BA for other reasons.

For the Eastern Mediterranean (TLV, CAI, BEY), I believe that AF/AZ offer shorter connections than BA will.

We are then left with the Gulf and Subcontinent. In this case, BA really does not need to try too hard to accommodate these connections. These are likely small markets to/from Chile, though they would have a strong business focus.

Moreover, the simple fact that BA can offer a same-day, one-stop connection both ways, along with the natural strength of BA in those regions, will mean that they can capture these flows without really trying.

DEL will actually be a somewhat shorter connection most of the year from/to SCL, since BA changes the DEL schedule for the peak winter fog period.

C010T3 · Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:15 am

Quoting incitatus (Reply 74):
My experience has been that most airlines avoid flying over Morocco between Brazil and Europe. It might be that the overflying charges are too high.

Surprisingly, not LH.

BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

RE: BA Launch LHR-SCL

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net