Why there are so few routes from UK to Central America & South America? Only routes that come into my mind are London-Buenos Aires, London-Sao Paulo and a few routes to Mexico. But there are more routes from Amsterdam and Frankfurt to Central America and South America than from London. Is this because of the famous lack of slots at LHR and LGW isn't considered because the smaller number of connections?

We all know that South America is growing fast, especially Brazil. I think there would be many possibilities for new routes. Also I read somewhere that Panama is important for UK companies and also many UK tourists visit there annually. There are routes from Panama to Europe, but not to London.

Is this all because British Airways just don't know what to do and don't want to take risks? They are already behind major competitors in Asia which is the most important continent to invest in. I think BA relies too much on North America, where competition is already tough. I think they should consider new routes all over the world and stop going with strategies from decades ago. Well BA is not the only airline in the world that comes behind in lack of innovation.

You are right - it is a conundrum as to why neither UK nor South American airlines are flying into LON. I guess IAG may filter passengers on IB via MAD to save LHR slots.

To your short list can be added GIG and BOG [re-starting very soon] but I think that's about it.

BAs services have slowly increased over the last few years - EZE is a non-stop flight and no longer a tag on to a GIG or GRU flight and the number of terminator flights to Brazil has also increased.

TAM has recently dropped its GIG-LHR service leaving [I assume] LATAM with 3 slots to use for other routes - maybe for a LAN flight from SCL or LIM [he says optimistically!]

However all that said LHR is poorly served from South America.

BA's partner, IB, has an extensive network in Latin America (like BA in North America). I assume many pax to/from the UK connect through MAD and BCN. A few may even go through MIA, a hub for BA's other partner, AA, which also has a large Latin American/Caribbean network. So in terms of coverage, BA has a presence in South America, but not necessarily on their own metal.
The UK's other longhaul airline, VS, doesn't even fly to South America.
Carriers on the South American side tend to focus more on other European hubs because of travel demand and alliance interlining (think AM at the Skyteam hubs).
Many London-South America citypairs woud be well served on 787s, but BA will have a finite number of them, and of course slots remain an issue.

South America's traditional links have been to Spain and Portugal, its the only continent that never had any major British colonies, there's no more to it than that. Its not just BA, the latin American airlines operate few flights themselves into London. Of course LHR capacity (or lack of it) also has an impact, BA have to use their slots on the most profitable routes, and historically North America has been a far better proposition than South America. Someone also mentioned BA's poor network to China, when you compare the relative performance of the recently launched routes to Chengdu and Austin, what do the shareholders expect management to do ?

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 3): Someone also mentioned BA's poor network to China, when you compare the relative performance of the recently launched routes to Chengdu and Austin, what do the shareholders expect management to do ?

I didn't say those routes are bad decisions, but Chengdu should have been introduced years ago. Air France and Finnair have 4 routes to China, Lufthansa has 5 and KLM has 6. British Airways recently introduced their third route to China. Is there somebody that can say that BA is not behind its competitors when we are talking about China.

While BA tries to get passengers from American "secondary cities" that has metropolitan population of 1-2 million, its competitors get passengers from "secondary cities" in China, that has metropolitan population of 10-30 million. Don't get me wrong. I love America and hope that more smaller cities get direct flights to Europe, but when you have market that has most people in the world, why don't you even try?

According to Slide 52 in the IAG Markets Day presentation made in November 2011, the breakdown in IAG's business to end October in that year was as follows:


North America: 31 per cent

South and Central America: 22 per cent

Europe (excluding Domestic): 18 per cent

Africa, Middle East and South Asia: 16 per cent

Asia Pacific: 9 per cent

Domestic (UK Spain) 4 per cent


The metric used for the above data was Available Seat Kilometres.

So the area of weakness was then arguably Asia Pacific and not Central and South America.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 5): the breakdown in IAG's business

I was talking about British Airways not IAG. I bet you that 22 per cent in South and Central America is Iberia's handwriting. Yes, I know it may be cheaper and wiser for BA to route their passengers via Spain, but how does that help the British economy? I think not as much as direct routes from UK to South America would.

Quoting finnishway (Thread starter): Why there are so few routes from UK to Central America & South America?

That's like asking why so few routes from MAD to North America? Isn't it obvious?  

Quoting finnishway (Reply 6): I was talking about British Airways not IAG.

Indeed, IAG is not just BA, and not just London.

BA used to serve CCS and BOG as part of one route, but that clearly was not profitable or not profitable enough. That was expensive operationally due to 2 sets of crews having to be used. BOG could not be served directly (aircraft performance issues due to BOG's high altitude), and CCS on its own was presumably not woth operating -It certainly would not be a route to start now given the probs airlines are having there.
However, the circumstance have now changed. The 788 is definitively a game changer as far as Europe-Bogota is concerned (and might make it more viable for other south/central american routes), plus the economies in LatAm are growing and have potential for much more.

I do think that we will see LHR-LIM and LHR-SCL at some point, served by BA and or LAN. Avianca starts BOG in 10 days time. Will BA also jusmp in at some point? Maybe much later. For them Asia and particularly China are priority.
I also see service to PTY, maybe by VS from LGW.

Quoting finnishway (Thread starter): Is this all because British Airways just don't know what to do and don't want to take risks?

Iberia is the primary reason, why fly extensively to Latin America when your sister airline is the biggest to that region. the precious LHR slots has something to do with it. BA has nonstops to the3 biggest martkets: EZE, GRU and MEX. Is there much of a market to Caracas, Bogota and Lima ?

BA also flies to many of the former colonies in the Caribean like Barbados, Jamaica and Antigua.

Quoting finnishway (Reply 6): I was talking about British Airways not IAG

OK. BA operates direct to the following fifteen airports in South and Central America:

ANU (BA2157)
BGI (BA2155)
EZE (BA245)
GCM (BA253)
GIG (BA249)
GND (BA2159)
GRU (BA247)
KIN (BA2263)
MEX (BA243)
POS (BA2159)
PUJ (BA2157)
UVF (BA2159)
SKB (BA2157)
TAB (BA2157)
UVF (BA2169)

Which European airlines operate to significantly more South and Central American destinations? For example I believe that LH only fly to six, namely BOG, CCS, EZE, GIG, GRU and MEX.
.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): OK. BA operates direct to the following fifteen airports in South and Central America:

I think you need a little geography lesson. Caribbean and Mexico are in North America  

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): OK. BA operates direct to the following fifteen airports in South and Central America:

Of these routes, only 4 are "market-to-market" routes, GRU, EZE, GIG and MEX. The vast majority are holiday routes to the Caribbean and/or former/existing British colonies in the Caribbean/Central America.

BA is missing several large markets in Latin America, including BOG [which AV is starting next week as Summa767 has pointed out], LIM, SCL, and CCS [although that one can wait until things in Venezuela sort themselves out].

London's ties to Latin America grow everyday. Brazil and Mexico are, by far, the largest markets, and the entire IAG organization clearly has a strategy for taking advantage of Latin American economic growth. One cannot evaluate BA or IB or VY outside of the IAG context, as all firms share the same ultimate stockholders and must work together to maximize the value of their investors' holdings.

MAD does have greater regional traffic to Latin America and is the strategic European entry-point for those markets. However, CDG, FRA, AMS and even LHR all maintain decent links to region, even FCO is connected to Brazil and EZE.

The BA route network will only expand over time to Latin America, as the carrier takes advantage of the region's growth.

Historical and economic links between the UK and LATAM are in general weaker than in Germany or France (and obviously than in Spain, Italy or Portugal).

For instance, as for LH, there are large (and wealthy) populations of Latin Americans with German/Swiss background, and some major industrial German corporations have interests in the region.

When you consider that six years ago, BA's presence in South America amounted to BA247, daily to GRU with a 4x weekly tag on to EZE and 3x weekly tag on to GIG (on a B744 - between 2001 and 2004 it was on a 777), and compare that to what it will be as of September with 10 x weekly GRU (on 2x B744 in the northern summer), daily GIG on a 77W and daily EZE on a 3 class 777, I suggest that's quite a fair bit of growth. If we expand to "Latin" rather than just "South" America, then MEX has gone from 3 times a week in the winter to 6x a week currently and CUN has been restarted, so even more growth.

I'm unconvinced - although I have done it about 8 times - LIM would make sense; I just can't believe the market is big enough or would yield enough. It makes more sense for BA to route pax through MIA or MAD - there are quite a few options to do that (even if I personally prefer through JFK) - and I think the same applies for BOG. SCL direct I think will come back when TAM give up their GIG slots, but on LAN on the B788 - even now there are pretty good connections in GRU, MAD and EZE on LAN/TAM/IB, so I can't see BA doing it itself.

That doesnt' leave too many countries to serve - with no offence, but Venezuela is a basket case, Guyana, French Guyana and Suriname are tiny/minimal UK links, Paraguay, Ecuador and Uruguay as markets from the UK will be tiny.

And BTW, Brazil hasn't grown very much in about 3 years.

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 14): Venezuela is a basket case, Guyana, French Guyana and Suriname are tiny/minimal UK links, Paraguay, Ecuador and Uruguay as markets from the UK will be tiny.

and after the dismal performance in the world cup is likely to shrink further as no self respecting Englishman would risk a trip to Montivedeo - though there is nothing to stop the Scots,Welsh and Northern Irish from going.

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 14): I'm unconvinced - although I have done it about 8 times - LIM would make sense; I just can't believe the market is big enough or would yield enough. It makes more sense for BA to route pax through MIA or MAD - there are quite a few options to do that (even if I personally prefer through JFK) - and I think the same applies for BOG. SCL direct I think will come back when TAM give up their GIG slots, but on LAN on the B788 - even now there are pretty good connections in GRU, MAD and EZE on LAN/TAM/IB, so I can't see BA doing it itself. That doesnt' leave too many countries to serve - with no offence, but Venezuela is a basket case, Guyana, French Guyana and Suriname are tiny/minimal UK links, Paraguay, Ecuador and Uruguay as markets from the UK will be tiny.

These are all very objective and realistic points. However, BOG could be the one market that may make sense for BA, although AV has beaten them to the punch with their new LHR route, launching next week. Colombia is growing at higher rates than any of its neighbors, has just solidified its political stability for the coming years following the successful Santos campaign, and provides a dramatic contrast to the chaos next-door in CCS. Also, AV is introducing a new J class cabin, with full-flat all-aisle access seats, presumably on both the A330-200 and the soon-to-be-introduced B787-859 fleet.

Brazil is, indeed, experiencing a very unfavorable economic environment and faces a crucial presidential election in October. However, the market is massive and still growing and should serve BA very well in the long-run.

What are the EU-Central/So. America bilaterals like?

Quoting finnishway (Thread starter): Is this all because British Airways just don't know what to do and don't want to take risks? They are already behind major competitors in Asia which is the most important continent to invest in. I think BA relies too much on North America, where competition is already tough. I think they should consider new routes all over the world and stop going with strategies from decades ago. Well BA is not the only airline in the world that comes behind in lack of innovation.

London - North America is a big market for lots of reasons. Look at the fact that BA has a homegrown competitor in VS, plus the size of the DL, UA and AA/US operations into LHR. Competition might be tough, but it's a market BA can hold its own in. And saying they rely too much on North America is like saying IB relies too much on South America or even AY relies too much on Asia.

BA would probably quite happily consider new routes all over the world if it didn't operate from a slot constrained airport. Heck, even the acquisition of BD isn't leading to a huge increase in longhaul flying, as a lot of the slots aren't suitable for that. What the BD acquisition gave BA was a number of slots that it can use for longhaul growth, but also shorthaul slots that have allowed some destinations to be restarted that over the years were dropped as BA had to focus LHR shorthaul on the routes with the greatest demand.

As for outdated strategies, well BA tried running a dual LHR/LGW hub to leverage a better position at LHR by operating most African and South American flights from LGW. This was when BA hit its last peak in South America with a daily 744 LGW-EZE-SCL, daily 744 LHR-GRU-GIG and at one point a 744 operating three weekly LHR-CCS-BOG. In the late 1990s BA was also serving NGO, KIX, KUL, CCS, ICN (since resumed), DAC, CCU, ISB and several African destinations it no longer serves. That could have been said to be an outdated strategy with a lot of flights still in place to the Commonwealth. Asia got cutback in the face of the Asia financial crisis, and since then the ME three have grown to take a lot of traffic (look how many flights are operating from across the UK to DOH, DXB and AUH!). Also, the continental carriers are in a better position for that Asian traffic as to fly BA to Asia involves backtracking - who would fly WAW-LHR-HND for example (unless they were possibly an aviation nut, needed the Avios points, got a steal on the price and/or had no worries about the longer flight times).

Put the infrastructure of FRA, CDG or AMS on the ground at LHR and I think you'd see a BA with a much bigger (and diverse) network - both shorthaul and longhaul.

Quoting directorguy (Reply 2): A few may even go through MIA, a hub for BA's other partner, AA,

How smooth is the international transit in MIA? Do passengers have to do immigration/customs; and re-checkin their baggage? Do they have to get a boarding pass for their onward international connection at MIA? Or, can they remain airside and have a smooth international connection experience like LHR/FRA/AMS and other airports?

No, it's not like transferring in Europe or anywhere else. Arriving passengers complete CBP formalities in nearly all cases.

Problem with BA, and the wider IAG, from the UK regions to S.America via MAD, is they want customers to fly xxx-LHR-MAD-xxx. Why not introduce UK regional services on IB to MAD to capture S.America traffic? Given the choice of connecting at both LHR and MAD I guess most would look at connecting just once via other european hubs eg AMS.

Quoting finnishway (Thread starter): Is this all because British Airways just don't know what to do and don't want to take risks?

No, it's because IB decides if BA is going to start (or re-start) a destination in South America.
For example PTY (and indirectly CM) has been after BA for years no matter if it's LGW-PTY instead of LHR-PTY but every time the answer from BA people is: "it's up to IB".
Rumour is that now that IB goes MAD-PTY daily, BA might consider LGW-PTY with CM code-share, as AF did with CDG-PTY after KL went daily AMS-PTY.
BA did fly LHR-PTY via KIN/NAS but stopped flights sometime in the 80's.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11): I think you need a little geography lesson. Caribbean and Mexico are in North America

I completely agree with you.

g77

OP needs a primer on the value of strategic alliances. To Caribbean and Latin America, BA's list is relatively unimpressive, but still significant. AA, IB, LATAM via MAD offer great connections so it's not altogether necessary. The British don't need to build mega aviation empire by covering every city in the world. This is no longer the age of empires but of global interdependence where needing strategic partners is in.

Personally, I for one am surprised BA is still flying to EZE. If I am not mistaken, this is the longest scheduled route that BA currently operates (certainly one of the longest), which requires a gas-guzzling 747. Argentina and the UK do not exactly have the friendliest relations, and those London financiers are not lining up to invest in the Argentine economy.

I think boosting IB connections to South America is the right strategy, providing plenty of one-stop connections to travelers in London and across Europe to major destinations in the region without back-tracking while saving precious LHR slots for other routes.

IB also enjoys a strong reputation in South America - whether deservingly or not - and caters to the Spanish-speaking travelers in the region.

Consult website for accurate info. They use a 777.

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 25):

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 19): How smooth is the international transit in MIA? Do passengers have to do immigration/customs; and re-checkin their baggage? Do they have to get a boarding pass for their onward international connection at MIA? Or, can they remain airside and have a smooth international connection experience like LHR/FRA/AMS and other airports?

MIA is anything but a smooth transit airport. With very unfriendly Immigration and Customs staff, huge immigration lines and huge security TCA controls., it is not exactly where anybody in an international connection will want to go through.

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 25): IB also enjoys a strong reputation in South America - whether deservingly or not - and caters to the Spanish-speaking travelers in the region.

Iberia only holds a reputation as a Spanish Airline, not exactly for quality service. If you are heading outside Spain or are not forced to use a One World airline Iberia is not a first choice. So trying to think that BA is represented in IB is really wishful thinking.

If anybody is still wondering why AF and LH have grown in the LATAM región as they have, they should look at IAG and all the wrong moves they have made. In the case for BA, it is not exactly wise for the UK to have such poor connections to one of the fastest growing regions of the world. If 600 million customers are not interesting for BA, especially with a partner like LAN in the región it is not very wise.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): Quoting finnishway (Reply 6): I was talking about British Airways not IAG OK. BA operates direct to the following fifteen airports in South and Central America: ANU (BA2157) BGI (BA2155) EZE (BA245) GCM (BA253) GIG (BA249) GND (BA2159) GRU (BA247) KIN (BA2263) MEX (BA243) POS (BA2159) PUJ (BA2157) UVF (BA2159) SKB (BA2157) TAB (BA2157) UVF (BA2169) Which European airlines operate to significantly more South and Central American

MEX is in North America, and the Caribbean points certainly don't qualify as "South and Central America". If not mistaken, BA also incorrectly includes MEX in Central and South America in their website list of destinations. So their Central and South America traffic is probably overstated above. And if not mistaken, BA doesn't even serve any points in Central America which comprises Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Belize and Panama.

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 16): These are all very objective and realistic points. However, BOG could be the one market that may make sense for BA, although AV has beaten them to the punch with their new LHR route, launching next week. Colombia is growing at higher rates than any of its neighbors, has just solidified its political stability for the coming years following the successful Santos campaign, and provides a dramatic contrast to the chaos next-door in CCS. Also, AV is introducing a new J class cabin, with full-flat all-aisle access seats, presumably on both the A330-200 and the soon-to-be-introduced B787-859 fleet.

Yeah, I think that is a fair comment too, particularly as BOG is I think in the final stages of redevelopment. I wonder whether Avianca needs a LHR connection more than BA needs a destination in Colombia. I guess from BA's perspective the connections feeding the route would be rather limited - Scandinavia and Germany I would suspect, as any origins south of London, you would go through Madrid if you were going to fly OneWorld. I guess it's too easy for BA to send pax on connections through Madrid - 10x weekly I think - or MIA.

Quoting bogota (Reply 27): If anybody is still wondering why AF and LH have grown in the LATAM región as they have, they should look at IAG and all the wrong moves they have made. In the case for BA, it is not exactly wise for the UK to have such poor connections to one of the fastest growing regions of the world. If 600 million customers are not interesting for BA, especially with a partner like LAN in the región it is not very wise.

I take your point, but if I were Keith Williams, I would point at my financial results, and those of LH and AF/KLM - and ask which position you prefer. With no offence, I love the region, but there are only a handful of countries with GDP per capita that allows people to travel extensively at reasonable yields for the airline. I'd also refer you back to my earlier post, BA has substantially grown its presence in region in the last six years, slowly but carefully increasing frequencies, splitting GRU/GIG/EZE and ungauging. Regardless, with a core North American LH business (focusing on a mature, high income market) that is vastly more extensive than anything AF and LH can offer, BA is naturally going to focus on that. You can wonder why BA does not partner much more extensively with LAN (as do I, and I hope that now LATAM is all in OneWorld, that we will see a much closer relationship between them all) - but equally, you can ask why LAN has appeared historically reluctant to do the same with BA in Europe.

25 June 2014: IBERIA announces 5x/week ADDITIONAL flights to BOG

Iberia is adding five additional weekly Madrid-Bogota flights, doubling its existing services.
Flights to the Colombian capital will increase by two from August 9 and by another three from the beginning of September.

Quoting factsonly (Reply 30): 25 June 2014: IBERIA announces 5x/week ADDITIONAL flights to BOG Iberia is adding five additional weekly Madrid-Bogota flights, doubling its existing services. Flights to the Colombian capital will increase by two from August 9 and by another three from the beginning of September.

Knowing BA-IB relation re: Latin America, this would mean the chances to see BA in BOG are getting minimal.

I have stated this before, but when one breaks down the Latin America + Caribbean / Europe market, it is one where Skyteam leads the pack.
AF alone offers almost 30% more destinations in the region than does BA, to respond to VV701's query. KL offers the same amount of destinations as does BA and UX has a respectable network to the region.

AF:
CCS
PTY
BOG
LIM
SCL
MVD
EZE
GRU
GIG
BSB
MEX
SXM
CAY
FDF
PTP
PAP
SDQ
PUJ
HAV

KL:
MEX
HAV
PTY
AUA
BON
CUR
SXM
PBO
GYE
QUI
LIM
SCL
GRU
GIG

UX:
SJU
SDQ
PUJ
HAV
CUN
CCS
LIM
VVI
SSA
SCL
GRU
MVD
EZE

The LH Group looks comparatively week in the region with only MEX, BOG, CCS, EZE, GRU and GIG being served.

Does anyone know whether AF has permanently dropped CUN or is it merely seasonal?

Quoting factsonly (Reply 30): 25 June 2014: IBERIA announces 5x/week ADDITIONAL flights to BOG Iberia is adding five additional weekly Madrid-Bogota flights, doubling its existing services. Flights to the Colombian capital will increase by two from August 9 and by another three from the beginning of September.

IB operates BOG-MAD daily and will add two additional frequencies during August and will operate the route 10x weekly during September. Also, IB just entered into a code-share agreement with LAN Colombia.

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 32): UX: SSA SCL

Unfortunately UX will decrease frequency on the MAD-SSA-SCL route from 3x weekly to a weekly service in a couple of weeks since pax traveling between SCL and MAD/EU prefer the additional non-stop flights that were recently added on the SCL-MAD route...

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 25): Argentina and the UK do not exactly have the friendliest relations, and those London financiers are not lining up to invest in the Argentine economy.

There is quite substantial business flowing between EZE and London, actually, besides the actual VFR traffic.

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 25): IB also enjoys a strong reputation in South America - whether deservingly or not - and caters to the Spanish-speaking travelers in the region.

The reputation they enjoy is that of being the carrier to avoid, unless there is nothing else available.

Quoting bogota (Reply 27): Iberia only holds a reputation as a Spanish Airline, not exactly for quality service. If you are heading outside Spain or are not forced to use a One World airline Iberia is not a first choice.

Quite true. And even if you are heading to Spain, they are not a first choice for the high yield traffic.

Quoting steve6666 (Reply 29): I take your point, but if I were Keith Williams, I would point at my financial results, and those of LH and AF/KLM - and ask which position you prefer. With no offence, I love the region, but there are only a handful of countries with GDP per capita that allows people to travel extensively at reasonable yields for the airline. I'd also refer you back to my earlier post, BA has substantially grown its presence in region in the last six years, slowly but carefully increasing frequencies, splitting GRU/GIG/EZE and ungauging. Regardless, with a core North American LH business (focusing on a mature, high income market) that is vastly more extensive than anything AF and LH can offer, BA is naturally going to focus on that. You can wonder why BA does not partner much more extensively with LAN (as do I, and I hope that now LATAM is all in OneWorld, that we will see a much closer relationship between them all) - but equally, you can ask why LAN has appeared historically reluctant to do the same with BA in Europe.

Also with no offence but it is no wonder why when the USA sneezes, BA catches neumonia. Such an exposure to one market is absolutely ridiculous from any financial or strategic stand point. Same goes for IB and Latin America, plus having such a low quality service can only help things go worse. No wonder that during the Spanish Economica disaster in the last few years IB lost most of its high yield customer base, as the Spanish travellers dissappeared from those planes, as they were mostly Spanish One World frecuent travellers. The Latin American high yielding pax moved or stayed in the competition for the most part. So sad to see that while our airports in Latin America grew at doublé digits, not IB nor BA grew at the same rithm of the market.

I would say the limitation is due to the lack of VFR and Historical ties, together with limited tourism opportunities.

Brazil is not a leading touristic destination, Argentina face some concerns due to political disputes with UK, among other situations.

UK-Brazil grow as investment made by UK corporation grow a lot in Brazil - Recently we saw Land Rover and Rolls Royce announcing facilities near Rio de Janeiro, as well as Insurance businesses, Oil & Gas and Financial Services.
This explains the recent up's to Brazil.

But Brazil need to further enhance it's touristic capabilities so then we can have more flights to either Rio or the Northeast of Brazil.

In a way the thread title would have been more appropriate a few years ago. As pointed out, there has been a nice increase in flights. With BA and LA both getting 787s, there could be a few more additions from LHR, to LIM and SCL in particular.

No doubt Air France+KLM have expanded far more aggressively than their main European counterparts.

One nice feature of Europe-South America flights--unlike Europe-Asia or even Europe-Africa--is that there are no ME3 to contend with.

Quoting bogota (Reply 35): Also with no offence but it is no wonder why when the USA sneezes, BA catches neumonia. Such an exposure to one market is absolutely ridiculous from any financial or strategic stand point

Quite the reverse, it would be absolutely ridiculous to withdraw planes and slots from highly profitable USA routes in order to serve South American destinations with neither the demand nor the yield. IF these routes are as financially and strategically important as you claim why aren't the South American airlines launching lots of new services onto them ?

Quoting finnishway (Reply 4): While BA tries to get passengers from American "secondary cities" that has metropolitan population of 1-2 million, its competitors get passengers from "secondary cities" in China, that has metropolitan population of 10-30 million. Don't get me wrong. I love America and hope that more smaller cities get direct flights to Europe, but when you have market that has most people in the world, why don't you even try?

Take a look at China and Chengdu's GDP per capita, and you'll have the answer to why premium-heavy BA doesn't try Chengdu for the time being.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): ANU (BA2157)

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): POS (BA2159) PUJ (BA2157) UVF (BA2159) SKB (BA2157) TAB (BA2157) UVF (BA2169)

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): KIN (BA2263)

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): GCM (BA253)

In addition to the above statements about those NOT being South or Central America, all of those were former British colonies, which may help answer the question as to why there isn't much flying to South or Central America. Minimal historical presence.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 34): There is quite substantial business flowing between EZE and London, actually, besides the actual VFR traffic.

How much of that is like Miami: wealthy Argentinians fleeing with their money to safe banks so the government can't steal it?

Are there any British colonial territories in Central/South America?....Falklands is all I know.

Quoting finnishway (Thread starter): Why there are so few routes from UK to Central America & South America? Only routes that come into my mind are London-Buenos Aires, London-Sao Paulo and a few routes to Mexico.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 9): BA has nonstops to the3 biggest martkets: EZE, GRU and MEX.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): OK. BA operates direct to the following fifteen airports in South and Central America:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10): MEX (BA243)

Do people know that Mexico is not in Central or South America?????

Former British colonies in South and Central America are Guyana (South America) and Belize, neither of which are served by BA (although they were in the past).
One shouldn't forget the very strong historical economic ties the UK has had with places like Argentina, and parts of Brazil and Chile. Today alot of Argentinian culture draws heavy influence from the Brits (polo, tea-time, football, rugby, etc....). The whole railway system was put in place by the Brits and there is even a Harrods department store on Calle Florida (although that has been closed for almost 20 years now - but the building is still there and hasn't been occupied by anything else).

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 38): Quite the reverse, it would be absolutely ridiculous to withdraw planes and slots from highly profitable USA routes in order to serve South American destinations with neither the demand nor the yield. IF these routes are as financially and strategically important as you claim why aren't the South American airlines launching lots of new services onto them ?

Maybe you should revise your numbers as BA is one of the last airlines to recover from the 2001 crisis, and on the other hand we have seen our airlines and our airports in this side of the world growing at double digits for the last 5-10 years. I understand that maybe for you places like Austin are the new economic center of the world, but I see BA sadly far behind in the fast growing rest of the world. It is not only a problem with BA and Latin America, it is problem of the UK way of thinking regarding anything non Anglosaxon or ex-colonial.

You are right, it might be a mistake right now to change what is working to try something new, the problem will be when the USA sneezes again and we will se BA go down for another lost decade.

If an airport like BOG can support 18+ direct flights a day to the US how can it not support maybe a daily to the UK? Same goes for places like LIM, SCL and even PTY? It took over 5 years for AV to get a hold of a slot at LHR, yes the problem is a slot problem which is definitely hurting the UK economy as a whole, but it might be time to think strategicly into the new world order before it is too late.

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 32): I have stated this before, but when one breaks down the Latin America + Caribbean / Europe market, it is one where Skyteam leads the pack. AF alone offers almost 30% more destinations in the region than does BA, to respond to VV701's query. KL offers the same amount of destinations as does BA and UX has a respectable network to the region.

Here is some more stats on airline/alliance market share between Europe (excluding Turkish Airlines) and select Latin American countries:

Argentina

SkyTeam: 57.21%
Oneworld: 30.28%
Star: 12.29%

Brasil

SkyTeam: 28.08%
OneWorld: 30.36
Star: 39.67
Other: 1.06%

Chile

SkyTeam*: 31.01%
OneWorld: 68.99%
Star: [none]

*excludes KL route operating SCL-EZE-AMS

Colombia

SkyTeam: 15.64%
OneWorld: 19.48%
Star: 64.88%

Ecuador

SkyTeam: 36.39%
OneWorld: 63.61%
Star: [none]

Mexico

SkyTeam: 37.42%
OneWorld: 21.87%
Star: 12.11%
Other: 28.62

Panama

SkyTeam: 64.58%
OneWorld: 35.42%
Star: None

Peru

SkyTeam: 61.83%
OneWorld: 38.17%
Star: None

Venezuela

SkyTeam*: 38.71%
OneWorld: 22.31%
Star: 32.43%
Other: 6.55%

*Includes withdrawal of AZ from Venezuela.

Judging by the information above, I think it is clear that in all cases with the exception of Colombia, Star Alliance is by far the weakest in between Europe and the most important/largest Latin American nations. An especially large gaping hole is the lack of Star Alliance connectivity between Panama (a Star-dominated market) and Europe where presently 2 SkyTeam and 1 OneWorld carrier compete.

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 32): KL: MEX HAV PTY AUA BON CUR SXM PBO GYE QUI LIM SCL GRU GIG

FYI, IATA code for Paramaribo is PBM, and Quito is UIO

KL also serves SCL via EZE on a 3x weekly basis

Quoting TYCOON (Reply 32): Does anyone know whether AF has permanently dropped CUN or is it merely seasonal?

It still runs on a seasonal basis between October and April.

Quoting Summa767 (Reply 8): I do think that we will see LHR-LIM and LHR-SCL at some point, served by BA and or LAN.

I agree, LHR-SCL seems to be a missing link in the OW network.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 13): Historical and economic links between the UK and LATAM are in general weaker than in Germany or France (and obviously than in Spain, Italy or Portugal).

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 40): Are there any British colonial territories in Central/South America?....Falklands is all I know.

True, there are very few countries like Australia, USA and Canada in S America, but their historic connection exists. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chilean and the various links to other British presences in S America that that document provides. Argentina was at one stage considered informally to be a part of the empire given the significant influence it had over the country through the expat populations. Chile was the same. These historic links, whilst waning with time and generations and being diluted by more widespread (dominant) cultures, are some of the threads on which the current connections with the UK are maintained. (Off topic but I do wonder what Argentina and Chile would have been like with more British influence and the implementation of some of the foundations of British society that have played a part in making Australia, Canada, NZ and the US like they are)

Quoting irishayes (Reply 43): Panama SkyTeam: 64.58% OneWorld: 35.42% Star: None

PTY is getting Star Alliance TP, so those figures will somewhat change.

Quoting bogota (Reply 42): It took over 5 years for AV to get a hold of a slot at LHR, yes the problem is a slot problem which is definitely hurting the UK economy as a whole,

That's probably because LHR premium-passenger draw and all possible connections @ LHR.
If AV had gone after the traffic between LON (UK) and BOG + BOG hub,operating in LGW could have worked quite well.

Quoting qf2220 (Reply 44): True, there are very few countries like Australia, USA and Canada in S America, but their historic connection exists. Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Chilean and the various links to other British presences in S America that that document provides. Argentina was at one stage considered informally to be a part of the empire given the significant influence it had over the country through the expat populations. Chile was the same. These historic links, whilst waning with time and generations and being diluted by more widespread (dominant) cultures, are some of the threads on which the current connections with the UK are maintained. (Off topic but I do wonder what Argentina and Chile would have been like with more British influence and the implementation of some of the foundations of British society that have played a part in making Australia, Canada, NZ and the US like they are)

Do not forget Uruguay was created by Britain in the early 19th Century, specifically Lord Ponsonby, as a buffer state between Argentina and Brazil was under even greater British influence than its neighbors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ponsonby,_1st_Viscount_Ponsonby

Britain's ties to South America are very strong and are growing! Unclear what you mean by "would have been like with more British influence".

BA has a very bright future in the region.

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 46): Do not forget Uruguay was created by Britain in the early 19th Century,

Thanks! Ive been trying to work out why Uruguay exists!

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 46): Unclear what you mean by "would have been like with more British influence"

Well, I'm thinking along the lines of the legal system, based on precedent instead of contracts and statutes, labour rights, stronger local government, provision of basic services like water and electricity, a broader tax base etc. Living in Chile, it has a number of those features now, but I cant help to imagine what it would be like if it had them earlier and how Chile would be different. And Argetina for that matter.

Quoting bogota (Reply 42): Maybe you should revise your numbers as BA is one of the last airlines to recover from the 2001 crisis,

BA fully recovered from 2001 by 2007 when they made their largest ever profits. Perhaps you should revise your history.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 48): BA fully recovered from 2001 by 2007 when they made their largest ever profits. Perhaps you should revise your history.

Great, so maybe they should have bought more planes, trained more crew like all others airlines did. Something simply does not add up.