BA LGW-JFK When Did That Start?

readytotaxi · Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:17 am

Looking on FR24 I see that BA have a B777 landing at LGW from JFK. BA2273/2. Is this a seasonal thing?

ooslc · Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:23 am

Yep started May first. I don't think it's seasonal as it took over the LGW-LAS slot that was dropped last year.

Andy33 · Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:30 am

"New" route, started 1st May. Operates once-daily year round.

rutankrd · Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:36 am

Started some weeks ago - its daily and officially year round.

However in reality its almost certainly warming a JFK slot.

For a couple of seasons back BA were operating an extra LHR-JFK rotation on behalf of JV partner AA.

With recent deliveries AA have recovered that and BA reduced one LHR departure as a result.

So this is the spare JFK slot created .

The cynic in me expects if the opportunity arises BA will simply move it back to an LHR departure in the not to distant future.

shamrock321 · Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:48 am

I think it's less of a slot warmer and more of a move to attempt to counter the rising threat of Norwegian at Gatwick.

rutankrd · Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:07 am

Quoting shamrock321 (Reply 4):

I think it's less of a slot warmer and more of a move to attempt to counter the rising threat of Norwegian at Gatwick.

No definitely a slot warmer - For many years BA have had the same pack of cards at JFK (slots) and from time time they just shuffle the deck

[Edited 2016-06-10 02:08:37]

[Edited 2016-06-10 02:09:32]

by738 · Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:13 am

It will be keeping the slot warm for a long while then.... This particular route is here to stay and watch for more...

APYu · Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:16 am

That afternoon departure slot from LGW is rubbish for aircraft utilisation so I also think it's a JFK slot warmer. The 3 class 777 is too big for that route too.

N1120A · Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:42 am

BA could easily use the slot on another route. This is more of a hit back at DU and also an attempt to capitalize on Gatwick-preference O&D, plus US based connections over their Gatwick network.

LHRFlyer · Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:50 am

I get the impression that BA do see DY as a genuine competitive threat and do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past of underestimating new market entrants.

APYu · Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:50 am

Not many routes they can use JFK slots on.

BA have openly stated LGW connections aren't a market they're chasing.

With Norwegian going double daily to JFK next year, even if it was a competitive move, they don't stand a chance.

I bet it's gone by the winter.

APYu · Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:54 am

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 9):

They need to launch more than a JFK if they are to counteract Norwegian.

BestWestern · Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:03 am

Quoting APYu (Reply 10):
With Norwegian going double daily to JFK next year, even if it was a competitive move, they don't stand a chance

Oh but they do. Do not underestimate the strength of the BA brand in the UK and the strong connections ex JFK.

rutankrd · Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:19 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
BA could easily use the slot on another route.

Yes they could another LHR service or perhaps an Openskys flight to Paris or Amsterdam.

London City not change of getting another 318 is there ?

Now one for left field how about Manchester - JFK (after all thats where this slot pair originated !)

APYu am willing to give it a bit more than a season at the moment.

skipness1E · Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:41 am

Quoting by738 (Reply 6):
It will be keeping the slot warm for a long while then.... This particular route is here to stay and watch for more...

I take the view BA don't want long haul going to Norwegian the same way short haul dominance was lost to easyJet, this is a strategic move, even though it may not be the best use of a JFK slot.

rutankrd · Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:53 am

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 9):
I get the impression that BA do see DY as a genuine competitive threat and do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past of underestimating new market entrants.

Hey lets all go back to the pre eighties. Why don't we let BA dictate who can or can't operate from where and obfuscate the bi-latteral processes.

That would be ideal for the IAG bottom line less so the customer me thinks !

BTW what mistake instances are you referring to ?

They out of commercial policy cut "Y" capacity across the European short haul and saw the drop in carriage result, as they drove to increase/maintain yield up front with smaller craft some times flying more frequently whilst targeting the connecting long haul traffic particularly across the Atlantic and especially the US To Europe and India !

They left the regions because they were the wrong shape again - wrong aircraft chased unnecessary frequencies increases ,and charged too much for the privilege.

The flexible fare carriers now offer unrivalled range services from the regions better than anything BA or its predecessors ever offered.

On the long haul they have quite rightly taken advantage of geopolitical positioning and the very powerful (debatably too powerful) JV venture with AA to dominate the Atlantic on the UK-US market.

They bought bmi for the slots and now have more than half of those available at LHR in any given day .

They have been very careful to consolidate their Far East operations and the 789 is further helping to primary cities and are currently piggy backing Iberia with selected limited growth into Southern America.

They have a small states worth of cash in the bank , recording more than adequate profits and so the tenure of the Irish Gentleman certainly did some solid work to the business.

jfklganyc · Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:06 pm

For the slot warmer people...

Norwegian keeps getting new slots as they add new flights. Meaning, JFK slots are floating out there and are available. Also means this is not likely a slot warmer flight.

I agree that BA sees them as a threat and they will launch a counterattack or preemptive attack.

However, legacies have a terrible record of launching preemptive attacks against LCCs in markets they had no interest in serving in the first place.

Delta United US Airways British...all have fallen into this trap before. Ultimately, they retreat and the sky doesn't fall because there is a new competitor in the market.

BA is best to stick to what it always does...LHR Air. If they never grew in new markets again, that slot restricted airport hub is enough to keep them going til the end of civil aviation time

lesfalls · Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:39 pm

Quoting APYu (Reply 10):

Do you have a source?

LHRFlyer · Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:00 pm

If you look at how easyJet has developed over the past 20 years from a young upstart to a very credible short-haul operator and has added a number of services to attract business travellers (priority ground facilities etc) you can see Norwegian doing the same over time.

As soon as Norwegian has multiple daily frequencies on routes to key gateways they will be able to win corporate accounts. That will inevitably lead to Norwegian developing its offer for business customers.

I think there's also a big difference between the old "cut-and-run" BA approach to competition and the BA of today. The airline seems more willing and able (partly due to different management and it having restructured its cost base) to go out there and compete than just retreat to fortress LHR.

APYu · Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:11 pm

Quoting lesfalls (Reply 17):

It was quoted with the annual results when they did the last big short haul cull at LGW, before they then started on the bucket and spade routes.

I found this reference on Bloomberg October 2012
BA’s Gatwick services offer lower margins than those at Heathrow because of the shorter distances involved and the focus on leisure routes that don’t require the connections available for business travelers at its main base.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 12):

The flight arrives a little too late to make use of the connection opportunities.

Loads aren't great either. It's full down the back today but around 25% full in J and 40% full in W. That's been quite typical as I monitor it as its a good option for J non rev.

[Edited 2016-06-10 06:15:32]

rutankrd · Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:49 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 16):
Norwegian keeps getting new slots as they add new flights. Meaning, JFK slots are floating out there and are available. Also means this is not likely a slot warmer flight.

No it doesn't !

Endeavours of determined carriers to gain slots at constrained airports happen all the time.

For instance even at Heathrow of all places

Somehow (Money !)

Garuda
Vietnam
Oman
Philippines
Emirates
Qatar
Iberia Express

All gained (more) access in very recent times

At JFK again BA has been very steady in its actual slot allocation for many years with out any obvious increases or costs.
Some could well be Terminal usage and associated gate space is well as runway slots.
US gate/terminal ownership is largely something that doesn't exist to such an extent this side of the ocean.

Did not some seasons back BA operate one of their JFK flights into a T8 gate for period due to limited gate space /work on T7 ?

B747forever · Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:02 pm

As already mentioned, I doubt it is a "slot warmer". DU have grown quite a lot out of LGW and BA must do something to counter that. Though I am not sure DU will be too affected by one daily BA rotation to JFK when they fly to many other US cities.

Richard28 · Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:12 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 21):
Though I am not sure DU will be too affected by one daily BA rotation to JFK when they fly to many other US cities.

I doubt BA will duplicate many more Norwegian routes out of LGW.. they are protecting just the JFK route at the moment. I'm sure BA will be protecting other routes to BOS, LAX etc through fare sales and special offers from LHR to undercut Norwegian pricing if they need to.

rutankrd · Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:26 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 21):

As already mentioned, I doubt it is a "slot warmer". DU have grown quite a lot out of LGW and BA must do something to counter that. Though I am not sure DU will be too affected by one daily BA rotation to JFK when they fly to many other US cities.

Still can't agree with the number of flights using 747s and 777 (both own and AA) out of LHR into NYC every day they could easily and indeed do flight the likes of Norwegian on price and frequency right now !

They almost certainly have huge and discountable (sometimes dumped) capacity in the back of the boeing to fill every day.

As APYu points out the loads don't appear that exceptional on the Gatwick flight and yield performance certain under pressure.

Again all signs imo of the slot sitting nature of this service whilst certainly deliberately putting Norwegian under some commercial pressure for sure.

runway23 · Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:31 pm

It's not a slot warmer.

BA have enough slots ex-LHR that they could have simply added this frequency ex-LHR.

ex-JFK, BA and AA trade their JFK slots between them, so the slot could have easily been kept by an AA regional jet.

The fact that it is LGW-JFK is all to do with Norwegian and not underestimating LCCs once again...

Richard28 · Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:36 pm

Quoting APYu (Reply 19):
Loads aren't great either. It's full down the back today but around 25% full in J and 40% full in W. That's been quite typical as I monitor it as its a good option for J non rev.

anyone know what the loads are like for Norwegian?

we of course wont know the yields, but would assume they are lower than BA... is this / will this be profitable for Norwegian?

JFK31R · Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:51 pm

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 25):
anyone know what the loads are like for Norwegian?

They were getting close to 90% a year ago and have only been steadily growing since then.

I took them back in Feb (not exactly high season) from JFK-LGW and the flight was totally full.

Richard28 · Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:57 pm

Sounds like they could have tapped a market... Be interesting to see how this plays out for BA and VS.

G-CIVP · Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:54 pm

BA tried LGW-JFK a few years back and pulled it at the end of the summer season. Presumably low load factors, etc.

rutankrd · Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:01 pm

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 28):

BA tried LGW-JFK a few years back and pulled it at the end of the summer season. Presumably low load factors, etc.

Also was a slot sitter back then.

That time the slot moved to the London City service.

VS4ever · Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:29 pm

The trusty T-100 reports (I know, I know, but they can give us directional data), I call them capacity factors because some folks have issue calling them load factors

For Jan-Nov 15 results are for DY (combined directions)

JFK-ARN 91.73%
JFK-BGO 91.37% (May to Aug only)
JFK-CPH 92.34%
JFK-LGW 93.35% (never lower than 91%)
JFK-OSL 92.16%

Don't have figures for the full year until next week i think when the DOT release them. Not perfect, but in terms of bums on seats, i think they are doing ok...

B747forever · Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:55 pm

Quoting runway23 (Reply 24):
It's not a slot warmer.

BA have enough slots ex-LHR that they could have simply added this frequency ex-LHR.

The only reason they use one of their JFK slots to LGW is because of DU.

Quoting VS4ever (Reply 30):

Are you able to post the numbers for their LAX routes to ARN/CPH/OSL/LGW?

N1120A · Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:33 pm

Quoting APYu (Reply 10):
BA have openly stated LGW connections aren't a market they're chasing.

They don't need to chase. There are some reasonable markets that will organically connect there.

Quoting runway23 (Reply 24):
The fact that it is LGW-JFK is all to do with Norwegian and not underestimating LCCs once again...

No question. People forget about the Gatwick-preference O&D

Viscount724 · Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:23 am

Quoting ooslc (Reply 1):
Yep started May first. I don't think it's seasonal as it took over the LGW-LAS slot that was dropped last year.

This was all discussed at length when the flight was first announced almost 8 months ago.
BA Relaunch LGW-JFK (by seansasLCY Oct 21 2015 in Civil Aviation)

VS4ever · Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:56 am

Quoting B747forever (Reply 31):
Are you able to post the numbers for their LAX routes to ARN/CPH/OSL/LGW?

Yep, here they are for 2015, combined directional total for months reported as noted below)

LAX-ARN (March-Oct) - 90.92%
LAX-CPH (Jan-Nov) - 90.35%
LAX-LGW (Jan-Nov) - 92.12%
LAX-OSL (Mar-Nov) - 92.48%

For Interest, I also picked up their OAK numbers.

OAK-ARN (Jan-Nov) - 89.39%
OAK-OSL (Mar-Oct) - 88.50%

Hope this helps.

vv701 · Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:14 pm

Quoting runway23 (Reply 24):
BA have enough slots ex-LHR that they could have simply added this frequency ex-LHR.

As rutankrd (Reply 3) has already reported, the new BA LGW-JFK rotation (BA2273) replaced an existing LHR-JFK flight (BA179) on 1 May when that service was effectively returned to AA.

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 28):
BA tried LGW-JFK a few years back and pulled it at the end of the summer season

BA suspended their LGW-JFK 763 service in October 2001. This was about five weeks after the 9/11 atrocity. However this flight had operated for many years. Prior to the deployment of a 763 BA had operated it with a DC-10 30.

Here is a photo of a BA DC-10 at JFK in December 1992.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JetPix

Note here that BA based all of their small DC-10 fleet inherited with their purchase of BCal at LGW. Indeed it seems likely that the service suspended in October 2001 was that launched by BCal on the LGW-JFK route back in 1973.

BA re-launched their LGW-JFK service on 30 March 2008. This proved to be very bad timing. It was just five and one-half months before to collapse of Merrill Linnch and its purchase by Bank of America on 15 September. Some regard this purchase as the escalation of an underlying financial crisis into the worldwide credit crunch that is still impacting many.

It is a fair argument that, with hindsight, this was just about the worst time to launch a new service linking the world's top two financial centres. So it was not a great surprise to many when BA suspended this service at the end of October 2010.

Whether or not either slot sitting or competing with DY are factors in another relaunch of this service is open to discussion. But there certainly seem to be other factors in the history of this service that are relevant to its restoration last month.

fcogafa · Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:39 pm

The flight also routed LGW-MAN-JFK at one time, in the 80s I think

rutankrd · Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:42 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 36):
The flight also routed LGW-MAN-JFK at one time, in the 80s I think

Yes and with a BR code a year after being abolished elsewhere !

B747forever · Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:47 pm

Quoting VS4ever (Reply 34):

Thanks for looking up the numbers. Will be interesting to see how SKs ARN-LAX route will affect DU.

kdhurst380 · Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:06 am

Norwegian are a real threat to business for other airlines at Gatwick and I suspect BA aren't wanting to repeat their mistakes of the past. That little orange airline they thought would never come to anything ate them alive.

They want a bite of Norwegians action. The obsession on these forum with connections still amuses me, New York is a huge O&D market from the UK.

TedToToe · Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:21 am

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 39):
The obsession on these forum with connections still amuses me, New York is a huge O&D market from the UK.

Indeed, and for connections to work, BA would need to be operating multiple daily flights from LGW to the onward destination. Once you eliminate the likes of AMS, NCE, BCN and VCE, which BA already offer better connections through LHR, there aren't so many. I looked up JFK-VRN (BA operate a morning and evening flight from LGW to VRN) and the transfer times would be 8 hours outward and 4 hours on the return; not ideal. Notably, even though BA can offer this same airport/terminal transfer, all of the search results on ba.com involved a trip around the M25 to/from LHR. Yes, this flight is aimed at O&D!

rutankrd · Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:29 am

This flight is aimed squarely at protecting a JFK slot and perhaps wounding Norwegian - It will in my opinion and based on previous history go away.

rutankrd · Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:33 am

BTW i'd like to be proved wrong but if they can't get enough PAID for in the front and they probably won't BA will have the reasoning !

APYu · Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:44 pm

BAs long haul operation at LGW is run by BA holidays largely.
BAs short haul operation at LGW is slowly being moved to Vueling.
As soon as the third runway is up the road LGW will become the land of EZY and and Norwegian.
BAs (latest) strategy is to be the best Premium airline. That doesn't align with any competitive move against Norwegian.
BA lost interest in Gatwick soon after Dallas and Atlanta etc moved to their main base and have just continued to play with it as a base since then.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see some sort of strategy at gatwick which lasts more than a season or two. I guess I've just given up hope.

[Edited 2016-06-12 11:47:58]

LHRFlyer · Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:32 pm

Quoting APYu (Reply 43):
BAs (latest) strategy is to be the best Premium airline. That doesn't align with any competitive move against Norwegian.
BA lost interest in Gatwick soon after Dallas and Atlanta etc moved to their main base and have just continued to play with it as a base since then.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see some sort of strategy at gatwick which lasts more than a season or two. I guess I've just given up hope.

BA has been growing again at LGW (I think it now has as many 777s at LGW as it did before DFW, ATL, and IAH were moved to LHR) and BA Holidays is an important part of the BA business. History has shown that holiday traffic can still be quite resilient during a downturn.

I don't see BA pulling out of LGW. It could easily have thrown in the towel a long time ago, but there seems to be a determination to make it work.

And although BA makes most of its profit from long-haul premium traffic, economy trafffic is still important in terms of providing volume to support high frequencies on BOS, JFK etc as well as filling A380s to MIA, SFO, LAX etc. That's partly why Norwegian is such a treat.

runway23 · Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:36 pm

Quoting APYu (Reply 43):
BAs (latest) strategy is to be the best Premium airline. That doesn't align with any competitive move against Norwegian.

This sounds exactly like what we heard in the 90s and early 00s, namely that easyJet would only get price sensitive customers and any high yield or business traffic would remain on BA (or insert any other legacy carrier name).

Fast forward 20 years later and look at what has happened to that same traffic. easyJet moved upscale and ate the market that the legacy carriers owned.

BA have learnt their lesson here - your competitor might not be dangerous short-term wise, but long-term Norwegian is a big danger to BA. Obviously the short-term consideration is not low-yielding Y traffic, it is not making the same strategic errors once again.

What happens when Norwegian ups LGW-JFK to 2, 3, 4 or even 5 daily flights ? What will happen to BA's yields and market if Norwegian installs a real business class ?

Norwegian already have a lower cost base than BA, they don't have the corporate or business contracts yet, but that can come with time.

APYu · Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:45 am

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 44):
I don't see BA pulling out of LGW. It could easily have thrown in the towel a long time ago, but there seems to be a determination to make it work.

They couldn't throw the towel in due to the limited slots at LHR - This could change soon. I can see a BGI moving up the road as soon as slots allow it.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net