BA's A318's to carry Concorde's flight numbers

The first BA A318 has been caught on camera…

And damned fine she looks, too! Something about the BA scheme seems to emphasise the larger vertical stabiliser on the ’18 somehow.

Paul

The flight numbers always were and always will be concorde’s. Applying them to the flights of A318s is an insult to Concorde. (In my humble opinion)

Here here. Its a disgrace! 😡

Please tell me you’re not both actually getting wound up over a flight number? Don’t you think there are things in this world more worthy of getting wound up over? :confused:

Paul

…..the flight number/callsign BA1/BAW001 has been used several times in the past few years on non-Concorde special VIP flights, so it’s not as if this initiative is new with regard to that

It’s a number, get over it…:rolleyes:

Iam with you on this one , I fail to see what differance a flight number makes.
To joe public I suspect the BA001 flight number will mean sod all to them.

Will BA be using their own A318’s? If so, when are they expecting them to be delivered?

James

In this, the first week of sales, the service is 400% ahead on its predicted budget and some services are already oversold!

Fantastic news for BA.

It,s been a long time in coming and I dont know why WW took so long to start this service up , KLM and Lufthansa both operate A319, B738 business class flights both operated by Privat Air
So what if BA decide to use the old concorde flight numbers , its a tribute to Concorde and will make sure that Concorde,s association with BA will never die

In this, the first week of sales, the service is 400% ahead on its predicted budget and some services are already oversold!

Fantastic news for BA.

The real risk for this project is that it is danger of becoming TOO successful and removing too many high value customers from the LHR-JFK services. We are already seeing a big capacity reduction on the route. A year ago all 8 flights were run with 747s, this winter it becomes almost exclusively run with 777s.

I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said as I think you were just highlighting the same as I was, but would suggest that the above point is perhaps not such a big concern. Accepting a substantial drop off in premium travel, this has probably been countered by the change in operations. Whilst the numbers for 2009 will be lower than 2008, the scale of the 2008 market is a good indicator that the 64 seats available each way each day are not a major concern to damaging the wider market. In 2008, out of the London airports (all airlines and JUST to JFK, i.e. not EWR) there were 746,955 passenger travelling on business. Of these 22% were travelling on fully flexible business fares, and a further 9% were travelling on non-flexible business fares (including a small amount of staff and frequent flier point usgae). A further 7% were flying by flexible first class fare. This is JUST a review of those travelling on business and excludes those travelling by premium classes for leisure reasons.

If we assume a 25% reduction in the above for 2009, then the 38% travelling on business by premium classes in 2009 will be roughly 212,882.

The point is that Barclays, as a part of its business, flies a large amount of people between London and New York every single day. They already have a strong corporate deal with BA which gives them an excellent price on the LHR-JFK service.

Given the massive advantages the LCY-JFK service will give to their employees (as anyone who has ever tried to get between an office in Canary Wharf and Heathrow will testify) and therefore their bottom line, it is in their best interests to ensure the service goes ahead.

By guaranteeing a certain number of seats per flight, Barclays will get a lower cost per seat than they were getting out of LHR, AND will be getting a service that saves them money and gives them productivity.

The real risk for this project is that it is danger of becoming TOO successful and removing too many high value customers from the LHR-JFK services. We are already seeing a big capacity reduction on the route. A year ago all 8 flights were run with 747s, this winter it becomes almost exclusively run with 777s.

The risk for Barclays on the other hand is that they block book the plane and then let the seats go empty.

Overall however I feel that this is probably the most positive, win-win scenario that the industry (if not just BA) has seen during the recession and I’m glad some visonary people have encouraged it along.

When I worked for Barclays, we were told that we might not receive our annual bonuses because of the recession/credit crunch/economic downturn (call it what you will). It’s nice to know that there’s just enough money left in the kitty to send all the big-wigs to New York in style though!

To be fair, fully flexible from LCY is only about £500 more than fully flexible from LHR to JFK, and given the value of time for those travelling by this service that is probably no less than their travelling to/from and transiting LHR is worth.

I’m not sure if you are aware but there is a contract with Barclays that guarantees the purchase of a certain number of seats on every flight. The numbers I have heard have varied between 30-50% of all seats on every flight.

With that initial undertaking agreed, this is most definitly the right time to launch this service. Openskies on the other hand has no such corporate undertakings…

When I worked for Barclays, we were told that we might not receive our annual bonuses because of the recession/credit crunch/economic downturn (call it what you will). It’s nice to know that there’s just enough money left in the kitty to send all the big-wigs to New York in style though!

I don’t know anyone at BA except those directly involved with the launch that would agree.

Aimed primarily at the banking sector, this is the wrong market at the wrong time. It’s bad enough that they are pig-headedly carrying on with Openskies, without sending more empty aircraft across the pond.

1L.

I’m not sure if you are aware but there is a contract with Barclays that guarantees the purchase of a certain number of seats on every flight. The numbers I have heard have varied between 30-50% of all seats on every flight.

With that initial undertaking agreed, this is most definitly the right time to launch this service. Openskies on the other hand has no such corporate undertakings…

The flight numbers always were and always will be concorde’s. Applying them to the flights of A318s is an insult to Concorde. (In my humble opinion)

Here here. Its a disgrace! 😡

I meant using the flight numbers was a good idea.

XX001 for an airline should be main hub -> New York.

Many airlines do that with London, to be fair.

I meant using the flight numbers was a good idea.

XX001 for an airline should be main hub -> New York.

What about airlines that don’t fly to New York? :p

I meant using the flight numbers was a good idea.

XX001 for an airline should be main hub -> New York.

I don’t know anyone at BA except those directly involved with the launch that would agree.

Aimed primarily at the banking sector, this is the wrong market at the wrong time. It’s bad enough that they are pig-headedly carrying on with Openskies, without sending more empty aircraft across the pond.

1L.

It is a difficult call. London – New York is a market unto itself, and a beast very different to those routes being operated by openskies. Even with the current economic position, people I have spoken to in The City cannot wait for its launch.

I agree that it is a difficult time to start such services, but funnily may also be the right time. IF (and it’s a BIG ‘if’) economists are correct and we should be able to see light at the end of the recession tunnel by the year end, then this may play well into BA’s hands. There has been a cutting of transatlantic capacity and this will give them first mover advantage.

Whilst leisure markets take some time to drop in a recession because people have already committed to holidays, the business market drops off very quickly (as we’ve all seen), however, the converse is true, and coming out of a recession, premium business travel typically picks up very quickly, with lag for leisure as people need to feel some confidence before spending their own money on holidays etc. Anyway, the point of this is, that if we will start to see an end to problems by the turn of the year, then an October launch is well timed to capitalise on the relatively rapid uptake in premium travel again. I suspect filling 44 seats each direction each day will be a doddle (70% load factor) once people get used to it.

The flight numbers always were and always will be concorde’s. Applying them to the flights of A318s is an insult to Concorde. (In my humble opinion)

Seems like the right idea to me.

I don’t know anyone at BA except those directly involved with the launch that would agree.

Aimed primarily at the banking sector, this is the wrong market at the wrong time. It’s bad enough that they are pig-headedly carrying on with Openskies, without sending more empty aircraft across the pond.

1L.

Seems like the right idea to me.

I’m sure the decision for this route was made a long time age, but with business traffic down so much this seems odd.

Having said that, I think Gatwick to New York is stopping soon, as a route to Male is starting up.