Hi all,
Recently, during a conversation with a friend of mine working at BA, it was brought up that BA was considering Launching HNL from LGW on their holiday 777 fleet.
I took this with more than a few grains of salt, considering it was discussed in a pub, however, is this even possible?
I can understand why this would be a Gatwick-based route, mainly Holiday travel with a UK pos, however, I'm not sure the Gatwick 777 fleet could be able to fly non-stop HNL, and bassing a 787 (which would have the range) at Gatwick for this is absurd, considering both the probable low frequency of such a route and the 787s high J/F config. Could the route possibly work from LHR?

Thanks for any insight from people with more technical minds.

777-200ERs have flown longer polar routes (United flew EWR-HKG/DEL/BOM) than LHR-HNL (6300nm). It’s possible if the revenue was there. Those legacy continental routes from EWR had plenty of business class demand for those 50 business class seats. The question is whether HNL has enough premium and/or high yielding demand from London to justify such a long route over connection with codeshares on AA. Getting feed into London from the rest of Europe won’t help since that is lower yielding that has to compete with connecting itineraries via LAX.

The 777-200ER could make this journey without issue…Would BA start this route? I think that’s less likely but never say never! BA will be able to see how many people travel with them from the UK to HNL via the various US OW hubs so perhaps they see something there. As someone who works for BA I can tel, you that 95% of rumours heard from staff turn out to be absolute nonsense.

BA's 77Es had no problem making LHE-EZE (13 hours and 6,000nm). LHR-HNL is about 300nm further, so I suspect the plane is certainly capable, but I honestly don't know how big a deal that extra 300nm is. It would be nearly a polar route so that might have some impact in the winter.

Don’t know all of the details at all. However, post pandemic, there has been an uptick in visitors from the UK to HNL according to some hotel managers and others in the hospitality industry that actually see figures.
There has also been some talk of this possible flight in HNL.
However, it seems to be more of a wish list than anything else. Now if the uptick in UK pax increases, who knows.
In the meantime, my guess is that BA, and others, will just keep a watchful eye on future numbers.

Could someone list the comparable alternatives that are closer to LGW than HNL? There must be some appealing tropical themed islands or beaches for Londoners to go to. Barbados?

I personally don't see enough demand. There are many far more beautiful places much closer to London than Hawaii. I think those who do go to Hawaii make it a longer holiday and take in places like NY, SF, and LA. If they did ever start it my bet would be seasonal and perhaps 3x a week.

Of course destination alternatives matter. Lose the people who declare XXX is six hours travel time shorter each way, and lose the passengers who won't pay a non-stop premium, and quickly enough the carrier doesn't have a viable route.

I would say that although this route is possible, I would doubt highly that it is probable.

#1: Lack of business/premium traffic driving the route.
#2: This would probably be a double-crew route, increasing costs.
#3: Any fuel price fluctuation would not only eat into the profit; it might do so entirely, leaving this route to hemorrhage cash.
#4: Tenerife is closer and cheaper.

And in my opinion, the number one reason:

#5: The incredibly numerous one-stop options via a multitude of U.S. airports to connect Britain to Hawai'i.

The only way to make this route work, in my humble opinion, is to fly 3 weekly LGW-HNL-BNE and 4 weekly LGW-HNL-AKL. Otherwise, an 1 weekly or 2 weekly frequency with sales agreement with TUI by preallocate 50%-60% of capacity to the tour consolidator may work on a seasonal basis. Otherwise I agree with posters above on the questions demand to support the route on all account.

Another factor, connections at LAX or SFO allow for non-stop to Maui or Kauai, both more tourist attractive locales. Yes, Waikiki is traditional but it’s not the reason to visit the Hawaiian islands, maybe I’m jaded.

HNL from Europe is trash yields . It’s often cheaper to fly Dub - HNL , than SFO - HNL and it would fail to compete with the Caribbean , the Maldives , Cape Town , Brazil , Thailand etc all of which are much more interesting and accessible than Hawaii

CriticalPoint wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Could someone list the comparable alternatives that are closer to LGW than HNL? There must be some appealing tropical themed islands or beaches for Londoners to go to. Barbados?

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I don't think LGW-HNL would be profitable at all for BA.

No airline serves Europe-Hawaii, and I doubt any carrier could make it work. But if it does happen, I am interested to see the results.

Galwayman wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Could someone list the comparable alternatives that are closer to LGW than HNL? There must be some appealing tropical themed islands or beaches for Londoners to go to. Barbados?

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I’ve read some ridiculous statements on this site, but comparing Hawaii to Tampa is top 5.

Although nonstops are great, this is one of those routes where BA is better off funneling the traffic over to AA and one of their hubs. More flights, more options, significantly less risk. Use the airframe and crew somewhere they can consistently make money.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I’ve read some ridiculous statements on this site, but comparing Hawaii to Tampa is top 5.

Although nonstops are great, this is one of those routes where BA is better off funneling the traffic over to AA and one of their hubs. More flights, more options, significantly less risk. Use the airframe and crew somewhere they can consistently make money.

Correct, I think they could use PHX or LAX, which each probably have the 4 island destinations. This loses the HNL nonstop, but maintains the same convenience for the other 3.

scbriml wrote:

BA's 77Es had no problem making LHE-EZE (13 hours and 6,000nm). LHR-HNL is about 300nm further, so I suspect the plane is certainly capable, but I honestly don't know how big a deal that extra 300nm is. It would be nearly a polar route so that might have some impact in the winter.

Technically it's certainly possible. Keep in mind KLM flies AMS-EZE with the 777, which is further than LHR-EZE on BA.

But is it economically viable? Keep in mind that demand would be restricted to the London area only, from anywhere else it would require a transfer. And if you're transferring anyway, it doesn't have to be in London. It can be anywhere. For someone from Scotland for example it might make more sense to fly DL EDI-JFK-HNL than BA GLA-LGW-HNL.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Although nonstops are great, this is one of those routes where BA is better off funneling the traffic over to AA and one of their hubs. More flights, more options, significantly less risk. Use the airframe and crew somewhere they can consistently make money.

True, however the thing is AA only serves one airport in the entire UK. That's Heathrow. Great if you live in London but not if you live elsewhere in the UK. Those living elsewhere would probably go out of their way to avoid London. Like I said, Delta flies direct to Edinburgh and is able to capture demand from there. That gives them the advantage.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I’ve read some ridiculous statements on this site, but comparing Hawaii to Tampa is top 5.

.

Ranking statements you don’t agree with is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen here

At the end of the day , Americans go to Hawaii because they have limited options and very little free time and aren’t really into international travel

Europeans have significantly more interesting travel options and tend to travel more globally . Hawaii is only interesting for most Europeans enroute to somewhere

Galwayman wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I’ve read some ridiculous statements on this site, but comparing Hawaii to Tampa is top 5.

.

Ranking statements you don’t agree with is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen here

At the end of the day , Americans go to Hawaii because they have limited options and very little free time and aren’t really into international travel

Europeans have significantly more interesting travel options and tend to travel more globally . Hawaii is only interesting for most Europeans enroute to somewhere

Hawaii is fine. It's interesting. The beaches aren't bad. It's a long way from "just another U.S. destination," and anyone who thinks it is plainly has not visited.

The trouble for European POS is the distance involved. From London, Male is 3,000 kilometers closer than Honolulu and the entire Caribbean--much of which has nonstop service--is only half as far as Hawaii. What's the upside to choosing Hawaii other than for the segment of the market looking to "tick the box?"

Galwayman wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Could someone list the comparable alternatives that are closer to LGW than HNL? There must be some appealing tropical themed islands or beaches for Londoners to go to. Barbados?

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I'll take 'has not been to Hawaii' for $500 Alex....

Cubsrule wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

I’ve read some ridiculous statements on this site, but comparing Hawaii to Tampa is top 5.

.

Ranking statements you don’t agree with is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen here

At the end of the day , Americans go to Hawaii because they have limited options and very little free time and aren’t really into international travel

Europeans have significantly more interesting travel options and tend to travel more globally . Hawaii is only interesting for most Europeans enroute to somewhere

Hawaii is fine. It's interesting. The beaches aren't bad. It's a long way from "just another U.S. destination," and anyone who thinks it is plainly has not visited.

The trouble for European POS is the distance involved. From London, Male is 3,000 kilometers closer than Honolulu and the entire Caribbean--much of which has nonstop service--is only half as far as Hawaii. What's the upside to choosing Hawaii other than for the segment of the market looking to "tick the box?"

Volcanoes, Moai statues, Pearl Harbour for history fans.

Chosing a holiday destination isn't always just about picking the closest place with the climate a person is after.

If that was the case then there would be very little non vfr traffic from the UK to the Carribbean.

Whether there are enough people willing to pay the money and spend the time to make LGW to HNL viable is another question entirely, but there is certainly interest in going there.

Aaron747 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I'll take 'has not been to Hawaii' for $500 Alex....

Lol. I don't think this route could work. But comparing Hawaii to Tampa really is beyond funny.

Hawaii is an amazing place. A perfect battle between modern America and definitely not modern jungle. It is worth the long distance and I’m sure many people fly from Europe/UK to Hawaii every day. But …. I’d be very surprised if a 777-200ER could make it legally nonstop from LGW to HNL.

Yes, it’s just over 6300 nm great circle, but flight plan distance would likely be 6600-6700 nm. The biggest issue would be on the westbound leg. Not winds, but the last 5 hours would be under ETOPS 180 rules. You have to carry fuel for a worst case scenario half way between the coast and the islands.

That is …. an engine failure at the half way point, drift down to FL200 then fly the remainder there. One engine at max continuous, the other seized. Or …. a pressurization problem at the half way point, dive down to 10,000’, then fly three hours there. Or …. as was recently pointed out to me, carry fuel for both contingencies at the same place at the same time. (Don’t scoff, it has happened). This fuel is easily quantifiable and must be carried. It’s a lot more fuel than just great circle between the two points.

Europe/UK to Deep South America is a long way. But the ETOPS portion is in the middle, extra fuel is not necessary, as it already being carried for the last third of the flight.

Why would anyone in London fly ULH to HNL when there’s Tenerife, Mykonos and Ibiza so close? Maybe a westward Kangaroo route?

Adipocere wrote:

Why would anyone in London fly ULH to HNL when there’s Tenerife, Mykonos and Ibiza so close? Maybe a westward Kangaroo route?

To go somewhere different?

There may be a market there, I don’t think people in the UK really tend to visit Hawaii because it’s such a pain to get to.

scbriml wrote:

BA's 77Es had no problem making LHE-EZE (13 hours and 6,000nm). LHR-HNL is about 300nm further, so I suspect the plane is certainly capable, but I honestly don't know how big a deal that extra 300nm is. It would be nearly a polar route so that might have some impact in the winter.

FYI LGW-HNL block time is 14:45 approx and not 13:00

In a high density B77E configuration of BAs which has 336 seats, I doubt that it would have payload issues except during certain winter periods out of LGW only though.

Way back when, AA did DEL-ORD nonstop on the 77E. Flight time on this route is nearly 17 hours per FR24. I believe DL did BOM-ATL nonstop on a 777, but don’t remember if it was a 77E or 77L.

LON-HNL is maybe 14hr flying time; even with potential ETOPS regulation should be easily doable with a 77E.

Arion640 wrote:

Hawaii because it’s such a pain to get to.

What makes it "such a pain" compared to any other number of longhaul tropical destinations they frequent?

There's a zillion 1stop itineraries available, and they'll have to go through USCBP at some point regardless, even if routing via another country.

voxkel wrote:

I believe DL did BOM-ATL nonstop on a 777, but don’t remember if it was a 77E or 77L.

ATL-BOM-ATL was always with the 77Ls. However, JFK-BOM-JFK started with the 77Es, though stops in MAN were frequent during the winter westbound, until the -LRs arrived.

CO routinely did EWR-HKG-EWR with the 77E for years, at approx 15hrs.

Is there any type of performance limitation on this? Once you're feet wet off the coast of British Columbia or Alaska (that is the direct great circle routing), you have 2,700 miles of nothing but ocean and no diverts. I bet fuel planning on this will be interesting.

Some ridiculous comments on here. There’s a multitude of reasons people visit places. Comparing the Maldives to Hawaii is also ridiculous.

This route has been rumoured for a long time but there is an article today that BA are to double their operations at LGW so it could tie in with both long and short haul expansion.

washingtonflyer wrote:

you have 2,700 miles of nothing but ocean and no diverts. I bet fuel planning on this will be interesting.

Nothing atypical. They'd likely just plan for ANC/JNU and redispatch upon approach, assuming proper provisions to do so.

More or less what the east coast to Hawaii flights do, at LAX/SFO.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Alternatives don’t really matter. Its like my wife and I traveling from the states to the Maldives.

Sometimes people just want to go somewhere new.

It doesn’t really feel new to most Europeans . It might be located in the pacific but it’s just another American place really . Europeans can get that American experience in Tampa and most already have

I’ve read some ridiculous statements on this site, but comparing Hawaii to Tampa is top 5.

Although nonstops are great, this is one of those routes where BA is better off funneling the traffic over to AA and one of their hubs. More flights, more options, significantly less risk. Use the airframe and crew somewhere they can consistently make money.

Also, an insult to…………..Tampa!

--- CONS: Honolulu is just as ugly as Benidorm, topless sunbathing is illegal for women and there is a prohibition regime for young people between 16 and 21. It would be hard to impossible fill dedicated Hawaii-bound widebody planes if BA just acted on her own.

+++ PROS: BA could contract with cruise ship companies and with tour operators that serve the above-average segment, for instance Kuoni. Always baer in mind that PMI has tons of dirt-cheap flights for the "unwashed" at the one side and luxurious private jets as well as scheduled C-class flights for the somewhat snobbish clientele at the other side. All at the same time.

Galwayman wrote:

HNL from Europe is trash yields . It’s often cheaper to fly Dub - HNL , than SFO - HNL and it would fail to compete with the Caribbean , the Maldives , Cape Town , Brazil , Thailand etc all of which are much more interesting and accessible than Hawaii

Given what I’ve read here about the high cost of holidays in Hawaii, it doesn’t sound like a destination for the average British “bucket and spade” brigade.

shamrock321 wrote:

The 777-200ER could make this journey without issue…Would BA start this route? I think that’s less likely but never say never! BA will be able to see how many people travel with them from the UK to HNL via the various US OW hubs so perhaps they see something there. As someone who works for BA I can tel, you that 95% of rumours heard from staff turn out to be absolute nonsense.

Too bad most people doing LON-HNL via other OW hubs are probably just doing tier point runs. So a direct flight wouldn't do much for those people. Why fly direct and earn 160 tier points each way (longer J earning category) as opposed to 420 each way (LHR-JFK-LAX-HNL) and basically get half your Gold status that way

scbriml wrote:

BA's 77Es had no problem making LHE-EZE (13 hours and 6,000nm). LHR-HNL is about 300nm further, so I suspect the plane is certainly capable, but I honestly don't know how big a deal that extra 300nm is. It would be nearly a polar route so that might have some impact in the winter.

going LGW to HNL is the biggest hurdle as all the way they'll be against the prevailing westerly winds. However? Coming Back? they might have 70-90 Knots of wind on their tail. the route to HNL might go well above the arctic circle then turn dead south passing anchorage. I once saw a Canadian Vulcan Bomber do the route out of Mildenhall to Hickam. I to this day do not know why they did it as there would never be an operational reason for them to Have done it.

strfyr51 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

BA's 77Es had no problem making LHE-EZE (13 hours and 6,000nm). LHR-HNL is about 300nm further, so I suspect the plane is certainly capable, but I honestly don't know how big a deal that extra 300nm is. It would be nearly a polar route so that might have some impact in the winter.

going LGW to HNL is the biggest hurdle as all the way they'll be against the prevailing westerly winds. However? Coming Back? they might have 70-90 Knots of wind on their tail. the route to HNL might go well above the arctic circle then turn dead south passing anchorage. I once saw a Canadian Vulcan Bomber do the route out of Mildenhall to Hickam. I to this day do not know why they did it as there would never be an operational reason for them to Have done it.

Canadians had Vulcans? Don’t need an operational reason to go EGUN to PHNL, just doing it is enough reason for the RAF.

strfyr51 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

BA's 77Es had no problem making LHE-EZE (13 hours and 6,000nm). LHR-HNL is about 300nm further, so I suspect the plane is certainly capable, but I honestly don't know how big a deal that extra 300nm is. It would be nearly a polar route so that might have some impact in the winter.

going LGW to HNL is the biggest hurdle as all the way they'll be against the prevailing westerly winds. However? Coming Back? they might have 70-90 Knots of wind on their tail. the route to HNL might go well above the arctic circle then turn dead south passing anchorage. I once saw a Canadian Vulcan Bomber do the route out of Mildenhall to Hickam. I to this day do not know why they did it as there would never be an operational reason for them to Have done it.

The GC route is more north-south than east-west.

Kilopond wrote:

:( --- CONS: Honolulu is just as ugly as Benidorm, topless sunbathing is illegal for women and there is a prohibition regime for young people between 16 and 21. It would be hard to impossible fill dedicated Hawaii-bound widebody planes if BA just acted on her own.

+++ PROS: BA could contract with cruise ship companies and with tour operators that serve the above-average segment, for instance Kuoni. Always baer in mind that PMI has tons of dirt-cheap flights for the "unwashed" at the one side and luxurious private jets as well as scheduled C-class flights for the somewhat snobbish clientele at the other side. All at the same time.

It’s referred to as ‘Premium Leisure’.

scbriml wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

HNL from Europe is trash yields . It’s often cheaper to fly Dub - HNL , than SFO - HNL and it would fail to compete with the Caribbean , the Maldives , Cape Town , Brazil , Thailand etc all of which are much more interesting and accessible than Hawaii

Given what I’ve read here about the high cost of holidays in Hawaii, it doesn’t sound like a destination for the average British “bucket and spade” brigade.

I'd say that if it's out of LGW, that it'll likely attract the wealthier jet-set types that live in London and South East England. And by wealthy, I don't mean those that fly business, but who are definitely wealthier than the 'bucket and spade' brigade, and this could include millennials, young professionals and the more adventurous well travelled middle aged/retired middle class who would all normally fly economy long haul.

It could certainly be a 'if you fly it, they will come' situation, where those who might not have necessarily considered Hawaii/HNL as a destination could very well do so if a (relatively well publicised) non-stop is offered.

Another aspect not yet mentioned, is that it could also potentially attract Hawaiians wanting to travel to London.

CrewBunk wrote:

Hawaii is an amazing place. A perfect battle between modern America and definitely not modern jungle. It is worth the long distance and I’m sure many people fly from Europe/UK to Hawaii every day. But …. I’d be very surprised if a 777-200ER could make it legally nonstop from LGW to HNL.

Yes, it’s just over 6300 nm great circle, but flight plan distance would likely be 6600-6700 nm. The biggest issue would be on the westbound leg. Not winds, but the last 5 hours would be under ETOPS 180 rules. You have to carry fuel for a worst case scenario half way between the coast and the islands.

That is …. an engine failure at the half way point, drift down to FL200 then fly the remainder there. One engine at max continuous, the other seized. Or …. a pressurization problem at the half way point, dive down to 10,000’, then fly three hours there. Or …. as was recently pointed out to me, carry fuel for both contingencies at the same place at the same time. (Don’t scoff, it has happened). This fuel is easily quantifiable and must be carried. It’s a lot more fuel than just great circle between the two points.

Europe/UK to Deep South America is a long way. But the ETOPS portion is in the middle, extra fuel is not necessary, as it already being carried for the last third of the flight.

Might Edelweiss have an advantage here with their A340-300? they are IMO the only other carrier to have a voiced an interest in Europe-Hawaii, but again as part of the LH group, why not just fly LX to sfo or lax and transfer onto a United service to any of the islands

The HNL route has been “Crew-moured” for decades…literally decades!!!! Along with the 22 day HNL-AKL trip!

I think the range would be ok for this sector as 77E maximum range is 7000nm. Although the dense configuration of the LGW fleet might be a limitation.

The real issue is the yield which would have to be between 150-200% of yield on an East Coast or Caribbean sector to stack up given that the latter routes can be operated both ways in a day by one aircraft. I’m not convinced HNL would be.

A 14-hour sector in 3-4-3 would not be fun either.

LAX772LR wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Hawaii because it’s such a pain to get to.

What makes it "such a pain" compared to any other number of longhaul tropical destinations they frequent?

There's a zillion 1stop itineraries available, and they'll have to go through USCBP at some point regardless, even if routing via another country.

Not many people fancy a 11 hour flight to Los Angeles, clearing CBP under pressure and collecting bags to make a connection and then another 5 hours in a 737.

I’d be a lot more inclined to go to Hawaii on a non stop.

The chances of it happening anyway, are slim in my opinion.

westgate wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

HNL from Europe is trash yields . It’s often cheaper to fly Dub - HNL , than SFO - HNL and it would fail to compete with the Caribbean , the Maldives , Cape Town , Brazil , Thailand etc all of which are much more interesting and accessible than Hawaii

Given what I’ve read here about the high cost of holidays in Hawaii, it doesn’t sound like a destination for the average British “bucket and spade” brigade.

I'd say that if it's out of LGW, that it'll likely attract the wealthier jet-set types that live in London and South East England. And by wealthy, I don't mean those that fly business, but who are definitely wealthier than the 'bucket and spade' brigade, and this could include millennials, young professionals and the more adventurous well travelled middle aged/retired middle class who would all normally fly economy long haul.

It could certainly be a 'if you fly it, they will come' situation, where those who might not have necessarily considered Hawaii/HNL as a destination could very well do so if a (relatively well publicised) non-stop is offered.

Another aspect not yet mentioned, is that it could also potentially attract Hawaiians wanting to travel to London.

With the arrival of Airbnb and the like in Hawaii, it's a lot more affordable than it used to be. I'd say it's on the whole comparable cost-wise to a lot of mid-tier Caribbean destinations, at least in a more normal exchange rate environment.

Just looking at a random date in February (Monday 13th) there are nine one-stop options from London to Honolulu with BA/AA or BA/AS - all the AA/AS flights carry a BA flight number. The two shortest flights (under 20 hours) are via SEA (onward flight with AS) and are priced at £605 for this leg in economy. The next two shortest flights (19-21 hours) are via LAX (onward flight with AA) and are priced at £555 for this leg. So cheaper via LAX, but a longer layover.

Returning a week later there are ten flight options, the cheapest of which is £455, so it's possible to get a return flight for £1010.

Based on that many codeshare options being available I guess BA/AA would be able to see how much demand there is for a non-stop flight.