Quoting sandycx (Reply 48): I always wondered if BA could make LHR-SIN-SYD-AKL routing work in the same way EK offers two stop flights from AKL-Europe. The 77W does sit at SYD for 10 hours.

BA makes the Sydney route work so why add an expensive an 6 hour round trip from SYD to AKL ? BA does AKL via Cathay over Hong Kong.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 42): 8500ft runway + very small apron = unlikely.

CTG permanently receives AV's 330s and 787s. This very same airport received the all presidential aircraft (including AForce 1) during the Cumbre de las Americas. You might be forgetting that CTG is at sea level unlike most main Colombian airports. When PTY shuts down its CTG that receives all large diverted aircraft. CTG can indeed receive BA, but they choosing to fly there is the unlikely part

European or domestic services once all the 767s have gone?

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 45): DUR - I know EK is there, but there is no nonstop service to Europe. Once ZA's economy improves a bit.

British Airways (Comair) operating in full BA livery offer good connecting JNB-DUR flights. For example:

LHR-JNB. BA055. d. 19:05. a. 07:05 (+1)
JNB-DUR. BA6203. d. 09:00. a. 10:05

The scheduled elapsed time of 14 hrs 0 mins is significantly below the shortest scheduled EK elapsed time via DXB. This is scheduled at 19 hrs 05 mins. So I am guessing DUR direct is a low priority for BA.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 45): HRE - Could prove to be very lucrative once Zimbabwe's economy stabilizes

Same goes for HRE:


View Large View Medium

Photo © William Whaley


Note that British Airways (Comair) links CPT and / or JNB with DUR, HRE, MRU, PLZ, VFA (Victoria Falls), WDH and imminently HLE (St Helena).

JNB is therefore effectively a BA mini-hub with BA (Comair) having five 738s and ten 734s already based there and another 738 on delivery later this year all connecting with BA's soon to be 10 weekly A 380 and 4 weekly 744 flights to and from JNB.

How about some secondary / interior China ? I know LHR is a poor location for East Asia to Europe connecting traffic, but BA has been European counterparts like KL LH AY to secondary China. There's a lot of potential if sufficient 787s come onsite.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 7): And less routes to somewhere else. Slots are limited at LHR as we all know.

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 43): LHR-PER-AKL with a 789.

Unless BA had 5th freedom rights PER-AKL this would be a big money drain.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 45): We must all keep in mind - BA's biggest constraint is LHR slots! I'm sure there's a good deal of routes they believe they could serve profitably but have to forfeit the opportunity to maintain their current (presumably) profitable routes...

BA /EI presently operate 20x day LHR-DUB, I'm sure they can rationalise a few slots from that schedule.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 55): BA /EI presently operate 20x day LHR-DUB, I'm sure they can rationalise a few slots from that schedule.

I think only the BA slots can be "rationalized". I recall the regulator required as part of the merger agreement, the EI slots used for LHR must be kept for LHR services for a certain period. But this is all semantics since they're all under IAG and can be shuffled around.

But at the same time, I really feel bad for Irish businesses. London is by far the largest business destination from Dublin, but yet this merger has allowed IAG to have a virtual monopoly on this city pair as far as business travel is concerned. And thanks to lack of cheap LHR slots, we can't expect effective competition to emerge either, now that VS has completely surrendered the short haul market.

I think BNA makes the most sense, if the city ponys up incentives.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 55): Unless BA had 5th freedom rights PER-AKL this would be a big money drain.

Think they do, fairly sure they've operated it in the last 25 years

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 55): Unless BA had 5th freedom rights PER-AKL this would be a big money drain.

BA should climb back into bed with QF and operate PER-AKL year-round with a QF codeshare. Right now QF only operate PER-AKL seasonally 1-2 x weekly compared to NZ's 6-10 x weekly services all year.

I just wish an airline would attempt Europe - Australia non-stop already. There are aircraft capable of it these days. It may bleed money to begin with, but this is the time to experiment and open up routes for more prestigious purposes while fuel is cheap. What a claim to be the only airline flying direct! Huge advertising campaign potential.

There have been far crazier routes attempted in the past. I am still a firm believer that a PER-LHR could work with proper marketing, codesharing agreements and the right schedule.

Something like:
LHR 1350 PER 1430+1
PER 2000 LHR 0610+1

This allows connections to/from SYD, MEL, BNE, ADL and regional WA on both ends.

Quoting ben175 (Reply 59): There have been far crazier routes attempted in the past. I am still a firm believer that a PER-LHR could work with proper marketing, codesharing agreements and the right schedule. Something like: LHR 1350 PER 1430+1 PER 2000 LHR 0610+1

They really need 1 major company on board to support this flight - BHP Billiton (plus a handful from Rio Tinto). And looking at commodity prices these days, I don't think either company wants to pony up the cash to get this flight going, even if an airline has the 77L to handle it.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 45): We must all keep in mind - BA's biggest constraint is LHR slots!

   Aircraft, not slots.

Quoting pipeafcr (Reply 51): CTG permanently receives AV's 330s and 787s

Well aware, and that feeds into my point. 777 from BA with widebodies from AV and other traffic, might constrain space unless timed around that.

Quoting pipeafcr (Reply 51): You might be forgetting that CTG is at sea level unlike most main Colombian airports.

Not forgetting, I was just there. Hot temps + 8500ft runway is going to limit performance. The aircraft can do it, but well enough to get BA the payload that they'd want on a 3class aircraft to LGW, is another question.

It's interesting (and very telling) that all of the expansion over the next year is focused on routes that do not require early morning slots at LHR. The de-linking of MCT and DOH services as tags behind AUH and BAH both require evening departures and afternoon arrivals, and the new SCL service needs a lunchtime arrival.

Until the outcome of whether someone is going to take up the bmi remedy slots is known, requiring scarce morning arrivals to be given to another airline, I can't see BA adding any route that would need morning LHR arrivals. Some of those flights like the nightstops in VCE and GOT must already be under threat, launched only this summer using the slots returned from Little Red. Adding other new flights would definitely require another route already holding such slots to be re-timed or withdrawn.

I'd say this pretty much rules out the likes of BDL, BNA, PER & South Africa as options. That's why I think most of their growth capability is going on routes not requiring arrival slots before lunchtime, and it'll stay that way unless there are any existing routes that are withdrawn outright.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 53): Note that British Airways (Comair) links CPT and / or JNB with DUR, HRE, MRU, PLZ, VFA (Victoria Falls), WDH and imminently HLE (St Helena). JNB is therefore effectively a BA mini-hub with BA (Comair) having five 738s and ten 734s already based there and another 738 on delivery later this year all connecting with BA's soon to be 10 weekly A 380 and 4 weekly 744 flights to and from JNB.

True, but if BA believes that sufficient traffic on LHR-DUR is going via CPT and JNB to justify a nonstop it could do it. Plus there may be some traffic BA could capture via feed at LHR where passengers might prefer DUR-LHR-XXX to DUR-DXB-XXX (But don't want to do DUR-JNB/CPT-LHR-XXX).

LHR-AUS was a bit out of the blue when it could be said LHR-DFW-AUS offered multiple flights given the AA/BA JV so that is why I wouldn't rule out LHR-DUR at some point.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 20): Also a return to MSY (which they used to do with Lockheed L1011 with onward service to Panama City).

The onward service from MSY was to MEX not PTY to the best of my memory.

There's enough traffic at BNA. Incentives are not needed.

Shenzhen, daily 789.
Sapporo, daily 788 (seasonal).
Penang, daily 788.
Phuket, daily 772 (seasonal).
Manila, daily 744.
Tucson, daily 788.

Quoting lexy (Reply 65): There's enough traffic at BNA. Incentives are not needed.

Which totally explains the Euro airlines' rush to get into, or even mention, BNA.    

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 68): Quoting lexy (Reply 65): There's enough traffic at BNA. Incentives are not needed. Which totally explains the Euro airlines' rush to get into, or even mention, BNA.

  
BA won't waste a 787 frame(no premium demand) or LHR slot on BNA. BA has bigger fish to fry. Thomas Cook 1-2x/weekly BNA-LGW would be a safer bet. Same goes for MSY.

A BA 787 KIX-LHR seems very likely instead of BNA or MSY. KIX lost UK flights a while ago. KIX also offers a lot of connecting opportunities. But a BA flight would compete with LH,KL,AY and AF at KIX.

PDX-LHR also seems likely due to it being an AS hub with many connection opportunities. Stats also show ~50,000 passengers between PDX and the UK per year. PDX airport passenger numbers are also growing at a rate of 10% per year. But would have to compete with FI to KEF, DL to AMS and DE to FRA. Nike has an office in London that I know employees travel to regularly in business, just like AMS. Probably not enough premium traffic.

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 69): PDX-LHR also seems likely due to it being an AS hub

Where's PDX going to cnnx that SEA will not, with even more options?

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 69): Stats also show ~50,000 passengers between PDX and the UK per year

MSY is actually a larger unserved market to LON than PDX, and doesn't have three other airlines competing for European traffic. I'd call it a stronger bet.

Your assumptions about BNA are based on what? Thomas Cook isn't coming here.

You think it's a waste to fly to RDU and AUS?

Quoting lexy (Reply 71): Your assumptions about BNA are based on what?

The fact that it's not even in the top 3 for O&D, nor for average fare, to LON among the unserved US airports.
Now, share yours.

Quoting lexy (Reply 71): You think it's a waste to fly to RDU and AUS?

No one has said any such thing, but you.

But since you did, let's examine:

one has 20yrs+ of proven success in the market, taking more than a decade of massive subsidy to get there

the other was the largest unserved O&D market to LON in the USA, at the time it got its flight

....neither of which BNA can boast. At all.

[Edited 2016-05-20 22:58:20]

Would BA ever go to YOW? AC does very well with this flight and YOW is the next busiest Canadian airport apart from YEG (which just got a KLM flight that is being up-gauged) that BA doesn't serve.

Maybe 3 weekly 788?

BA are poor in the Baltic states, so what about RIX and/or MSQ for a bit of short haul expansion?

MEL and AKL should make a comeback via some mid point.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 75): MEL and AKL should make a comeback via some mid point.

Wouldn't be an issue if they got along with CX more. A mini-hub for them with connections to the Pacific Commonwealth could be a nice fit for them in Hong Kong. Plus it's within 90 miles or so of the great circle route from London to the Pacific regions.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 77): I think the Baltic states is too dominated by LCC's from the London area. But a possibility nonetheless, if they have spare A319/320 capacity.

However, at least this summer, they are so short of A319/A320 capacity that they are wet-leasing 2 x 73G every day from Danish airline JetTime for routes out of Heathrow.

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 69): BA won't waste a 787 frame(no premium demand) or LHR slot on BNA. BA has bigger fish to fry. Thomas Cook 1-2x/weekly BNA-LGW would be a safer bet.

Seems a lot of people assume the only reason people come to Nashville is for banjo pickin' and moonshine drinkin'. While it is a force in the entertainment business, Nashville has a pretty diverse economy, which brings in a lot of people. Hotel rooms here are more expensive than San Francisco. BNA can support a 788 to LHR.

Does SMF have a large enough catchment to support a flight to LON?

Quoting ben175 (Reply 59): BA should climb back into bed with QF

They're not entirely out of it. Last time i looked, they still had a range of codeshares ex HKG and SIN down to Australia and back. Its more the through traffic that they no longer code together on.

Quoting ben175 (Reply 59): I just wish an airline would attempt Europe - Australia non-stop already.

Its got to come at some stage, and I kind of agree with you to see what happens!

Quoting hz747300 (Reply 76): Wouldn't be an issue if they got along with CX more

CX doesn't seem to want to work with either of QF or BA all that much. And why would they? They're positioned like EK and probably don't need them.

Quoting MaxxFlyer (Reply 79): Seems a lot of people assume the only reason people come to Nashville is for banjo pickin' and moonshine drinkin'. While it is a force in the entertainment business, Nashville has a pretty diverse economy, which brings in a lot of people. Hotel rooms here are more expensive than San Francisco. BNA can support a 788 to LHR.

Correct if I am wrong, but I remember reading that Nashville is one of the fastest growing cities in the US. I visited Nashville earlier this year and flew HEL-LHR-ORD-BNA and that took about 22 hours. I would love to go there again, but would like a direct flight from Europe.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 77): I think the Baltic states is too dominated by LCC's from the London area. But a possibility nonetheless, if they have spare A319/320 capacity.

Indeed. A Wizzair and Ryanair powerhouse (and FR starting a new base in VNO). And AirBaltic as an "hybrid" carrier that will likely take whatever business traffic there is. In any case those three (TLL, RIX, VNO) are very tiny markets mostly catered to VFR and affordable city-break tourism.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 75): MEL and AKL should make a comeback via some mid point.

I'd be less surprised to see BA finally drop SYD than I would be to see them add MEL/AKL.

Quoting MaxxFlyer (Reply 79): Hotel rooms here are more expensive than San Francisco.

That doesn't mean much, other than relative supply being lower than relative demand.

Heck, you can go to remote oil towns in Louisiana and Texas, and find motels that charge more than Hiltons would elsewhere.

Quoting TC957 (Thread starter): The build-up of 787's in the BA fleet has clearly given the thumbs-up in BA management to launch new routes. So where else should BA look to for direct flights ?

Large metro areas NOT served by BA from LHR (no particular order) ......


Guangzhou
Karachi
Osaka
Kinshasa
Dhaka
Kolkata
Dongguan
Manila
Shenzhen
Chongqing
Jakarta
Lima (served from LGW)
Nagoya
Bogota
Nanjing
Shenyang
Taipei
Ho Chi Mihn
Hanoi
Ankara
Izmir

and a whole host of Chinese cities.......


Looking at that list Jakarta, Bogota and Ho Chi Mihn I suppose must be near the top........

We would love to see BA back in SEZ. Its been a long time and now there is NO direct connection to the UK anymore.

How about a return To MEL and AKL?

Or sesonal ANC with a 767 from LGW? I know that probably won't happen, but at least it's out of the box.

With the success of AUS, what about SAT?

Do they fly to SGN or Hanoi?

TWA772LR wrote:

Or sesonal ANC with a 767 from LGW? I know that probably won't happen, but at least it's out of the box.

Very out of the box indeed, since the last 4 long-haul 767s are due to leave the fleet within the next two months, and no crew at LGW are trained on 767s.

Andy33 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Or sesonal ANC with a 767 from LGW? I know that probably won't happen, but at least it's out of the box.

Very out of the box indeed, since the last 4 long-haul 767s are due to leave the fleet within the next two months, and no crew at LGW are trained on 767s.

Or a 787 from LHR, although LGW would be best for ANC. A lot of Europeans actually go to Alaska for leisure, I know this seems more of Icelandairs forte, but I wonder if BA could make it work, or even DY, Condor, Thomson, etc...

Some possible destinations currently not served by BA:

KTM Kathmandu, Nepal
IKT Irkutsk, Russia
ULN Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
DAR Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania
FOR Fortaleza, Brazil
TSE Astana, Kazachstan
TMS Sao Tome, Sao Tome en Principe

FWIW, LHR-NRT-AKL is only 0.4% longer than LHR-AKL n/s. Throw in a IB/JL/JQ/QF codeshare and it could work with the 787.

wpigott wrote:

Would BA ever go to YOW? AC does very well with this flight and YOW is the next busiest Canadian airport apart from YEG (which just got a KLM flight that is being up-gauged) that BA doesn't serve.

Maybe 3 weekly 788?

A 3 x week service in a strong business market like YOW would be totally uncompetitive with AC's daily nonstop service, not to mention AC's massive frequent flyer base in Canada.

[quote="EUflyer"]I would suspect BA will be reactivating more terminated routes.

The 788 is a pretty economical airplane for this purpose. It would give them the best chance of making the routes work.

sunrisevalley wrote:

EUflyer wrote:

I would suspect BA will be reactivating more terminated routes.

The 788 is a pretty economical airplane for this purpose. It would give them the best chance of making the routes work.

Sure, I agree, it is. BA agree too. They've converted 4 789s on order to 788s. But these won't even start arriving until the end of 2017, and the final one is late 2018.
In the meantime there are just 8 788s and they are used heavily. Unless BA can identify a route that is operated by 788s which is ready to move to a larger plane without destroying its economics, or is so bad it should be terminated, there simply aren't any 788s available for the next two years to launch or reactivate routes.

Andy33 wrote:

In the meantime there are just 8 788s and they are used heavily. Unless BA can identify a route that is operated by 788s which is ready to move to a larger plane without destroying its economics, or is so bad it should be terminated, there simply aren't any 788s available for the next two years to launch or reactivate routes.

There's another option too:
they could always have AA op/turn a 787 via LHR and operate an extant route/frequency on their behalf.

Rumours have come and gone on Caribbean routes. The new airport at St. Vincent was rumoured to be getting either a BA or VS service, but with the troubles at Buccament Bay, that now looks unlikely. Also an add on to St Maarten, although that is now off the radar.

BA is not only competing with VS from LGW, but DY and TOM, so there could be some more unusual options, especially if we are talking leisure routes. Mexico is very popular at the moment, so there could be two options there - either Puerto Vallarta or Cabo San Lucas, Montego Bay - especially as VS are reducing capacity and Havana. You could also possibly throw Aruba into that mix. Elsewhere from LGW - Seychelles would be an obvious option, and I wouldn't be surprised if Muscat migrated from Heathrow.

If anyone has a go at HNL I think it will be DY.

Not sure about AKL, but BA has seriously looked at returning to MEL in the past couple of years, one of the route under consideration was LHR-KUL-MEL, with EK now off the route and a OW partner at KUL, maybe it might be worth a try now with 787's? Then again it would be easier to just to connect pax via existing partner hub's in Asia.

If BA adds another city in Australia, and thats a big IF, I think it would be MEL. Before BA pulled out about 10 years ago now in 2006, the route didn't loose money, it just didn't make enough!

LAX772LR wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

In the meantime there are just 8 788s and they are used heavily. Unless BA can identify a route that is operated by 788s which is ready to move to a larger plane without destroying its economics, or is so bad it should be terminated, there simply aren't any 788s available for the next two years to launch or reactivate routes.

There's another option too:
they could always have AA op/turn a 787 via LHR and operate an extant route/frequency on their behalf.

Yes, they certainly could, but obviously only on a route to/from the USA, as AA don't have rights to operate from the UK to anywhere else.
At the moment that is just the BA188/189 rotation on EWR-LHR-EWR, as all other BA 788 routes go outside the USA. Shortly this rotation is moving to BA 789 aircraft, so no 788 would then be released if AA operated it.
As part of the reshuffle as the last of the long haul 763s leave the main BA fleet over the next 8 weeks, the BWI flight will instead become a BA 788. However there's some doubt as to whether this could be operated by AA without invalidating the revenue guarantee agreement between the State of Maryland and BA.
So we're left with an AA 788 operating any new/restarted route between the USA and the UK. Really, why wouldn't they just fly that as AA rather than BA? Under the JV, it makes no difference at all in revenue terms and might save money in administration costs - AA almost certainly already have ground handling in place at any US airport that might be worth considering.

Now of course if there is a route BA could open/reopen that would support a 789/772/77W from day 1 then using an AA plane on a current BA rotation for a similar aircraft would work, as long as care is taken to choose a route that has no BA First now, or has alternative flights that do have First, or AA can spare a 77W for.

kriskim wrote:

Not sure about AKL, but BA has seriously looked at returning to MEL in the past couple of years, one of the route under consideration was LHR-KUL-MEL, with EK now off the route and a OW partner at KUL, maybe it might be worth a try now with 787's? Then again it would be easier to just to connect pax via existing partner hub's in Asia.

If BA adds another city in Australia, and thats a big IF, I think it would be MEL. Before BA pulled out about 10 years ago now in 2006, the route didn't loose money, it just didn't make enough!

If I recall it was dropped at the time the UK-India bilateral was amended and BA wanted to go double daily to DEL and BOM. Dropping MEL gave them the longhaul aircraft to add the frequencies because LHR-SIN-MEL effectively tied up three 747-436 aircraft. This was at the time BA wasn't adding longhaul aircraft, so profitable routes like MEL were dropped because, as you say, it wasn't profitable enough.