‘Nearly 1000 flights between Scotland and London’s hub airports are to be scrapped this winter by British Airways, with passengers also facing higher ticket prices.
Business leaders and politicians yesterday said the move by the flag-carrier airline meant the needs of customers were being ignored, and predicted the cuts would affect the Scottish economy and tourism market.
Colin Borland, from the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland, said: “I appreciate that we’re looking at a tough trading year ahead, but is making it more difficult to do business south of the border or making Scotland a less attractive, less convenient destination for UK tourists going to make conditions better or worse? Reducing the frequency of flights is bound to have a knock-on effect on the price we’ll pay for those flights which do remain available. It’s a lose-lose situation: fewer flights at higher cost.”
BA blamed its decision on an 88% drop in pre-tax profits for the first quarter of the 2008 financial year, down to £37m from £298m in 2007. It said the rising cost of fuel made for “the worst trading environment the industry has ever faced”.
It will cut 990 scheduled flights, around 6% of the total number, between Scottish airports and London between October and April next year.
That includes 420 fewer journeys between Glasgow and Gatwick, and 154 fewer between Glasgow and Heathrow. For Edinburgh-Gatwick, there will be a reduction of 196 flights, and 88 fewer between Edinburgh and Heathrow. Aberdeen-Heathrow will lose 132 flights.
Passengers face confusion in making advanced bookings as the services cuts will vary daily, and from one week to the next.
But BA wants to protect its landing and take-off slots by ensuring they are used at least 80% of the time. Failure to do so would mean they are removed by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Richard Cairns, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce chief executive, said: “We expect BA’s schedules to be influenced by commercial considerations, but it is important that it takes a longer-term view of the need for flexibility and frequency of travel for those involved in business in Scotland.”
Des McNulty, Labour’s Scottish transport spokesman, said: “My concern is whether the flight pattern is meeting the needs of customers.”
A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: “Today’s announcement makes it even more pressing that the UK Government acknowledges the problem caused by the rising cost of fuel, and take action to deal with it. We will continue to make the case to the UK Government for measures such as a fuel duty regulator to be introduced.”
BA services from London to other European destinations will also suffer cuts.
Chief executive Willie Walsh said: “The main driver behind fare increases will be the high oil price. We are in the worst trading environment the industry has ever faced. Unprecedented oil prices, economic slowdown and weaker consumer confidence has led to substantially lower first-quarter profits.”‘
Source: http://www.theherald.co.uk/
By: MINIDOH - 9th August 2008 at 01:01
I never stated that all BA flights arrive on time. I simply stated that the majority of the bags which do not arrive at their overall destinations are not arriving because OTHER airlines are not arriving on time at LHR. If you think you know how BA could improve the situation why not tell us. I would be interested to know, besides, if you think that BA can influence another company in the respective manner then I think even BA management would like to know. Spill the beans then…
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th August 2008 at 15:02
I was not referring to the BA T7 incident. I was just making a comment that the way BA are behaving, anything could happen to them and they will blame everyone and anyone before they admit to doing anything wrong themselves.
Its just laughable “bags are not put onto connecting flights as they arrive late from other airlines”. So BA flights never arrive late and as a result these bags are always where they are meant to be?
By: Grey Area - 8th August 2008 at 06:02
Moderator Message
Gentlemen…
This is starting to get a bit personal.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and – so long as they keep within the site rules – is perfectly entitled to express that opinion, whether or not other members approve of what they have to say.
Calm down, chaps. It’s only the Internet! 🙂
Regards
GA
By: MINIDOH - 8th August 2008 at 04:44
So now you are saying that the 777 accident at LHR is BA’s fault too? Even though all the evidence so far indicates that it is most likely a technical problem rather than the fault of BA? Why not just blame the pilots?! Ah yes, their quick thinking quite possibly saved a huge amount of lives. Not many would have changed the flap setting as the Captain did… But let me guess, you know more about the crash than the AAIB and BA and the CAA and the pilots all put together right?
By: Arabella-Cox - 8th August 2008 at 03:51
Of course Virgin management get off without any trouble. I see, so, if I go and shoot someone but then say “ah yes, that was wrong, my bad” all is well? Nice to know.
Read what actually happens with the bags that aren’t arriving at their destinations. If you had any knowledge of the situation you would realise that BA are not at fault… Your attitude shows you are either misinformed or plain stupid.
Yea, BA are never to blame for anything as they are out “national” carrier :rolleyes:
BA flight crashes, blame everyone and anyone but BA :rolleyes:
By: MINIDOH - 8th August 2008 at 01:34
Of course Virgin management get off without any trouble. I see, so, if I go and shoot someone but then say “ah yes, that was wrong, my bad” all is well? Nice to know.
Read what actually happens with the bags that aren’t arriving at their destinations. If you had any knowledge of the situation you would realise that BA are not at fault… Your attitude shows you are either misinformed or plain stupid.
By: Richard Taylor - 7th August 2008 at 21:23
Minidoh,
Sorry your “bags” balony puts me in mind of the Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch.
“These bags are not lost, they are merely “not where they should be”…:rolleyes:
Of course some would say BA resembles a dead parrot these days anyway…:D
Oh, what about price fixing, in the news today…WHAT? The World’s Favourite Airline? Shurely shome mishtake…:rolleyes:
By: MINIDOH - 7th August 2008 at 16:32
There is a HUGE difference between a bag that is missing and a bag that is not able to make it’s connecting flight. No one knows the whereabouts of a missing bag. If a bag is delayed the airline knows where it is.
He by no means is implying that BA are never at fault. He is saying that the majority of the bags that are not arriving with the passengers are not arriving BECAUSE the bags are coming from other airlines which are arriving late at their destinations. That is NOT the fault of BA, nor can BA do anything whatsoever about it.
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th August 2008 at 16:05
So the bags are not missing, they just aren’t where they are meant to be….. sorry but that’s what I thought missing was…..
As for blaming other airlines for being delayed and that is the reason. What rubbish, by saying that it’s almost like he’s implying a BA flight has never been delayed in there history.
The only people in the north to suffer from BA’s pullout are suitcase salesmen. There sales will plummet now BA are no longer there to lose over 1000 bags every day.
Seen as you work for BA, is there much chance of a complete pullout of Gatwick? Give me Easyjet and Zoom anyday.
By: MINIDOH - 7th August 2008 at 15:37
Like I said, over 30 million fly every year with them, so they must be getting something right.
Ah, those “1000 lost bags” you mention…
British Airways boss Willie Walsh has challenged a report that the carrier is “losing more than 900 bags a day” at Heathrow Terminal 5.
In a letter to The Guardian Walsh insists: “These bags are not lost. They are bags of passengers connecting between flights which become delayed in the transfer process, often for the simple reason that the incoming flight was late.
The large majority of these delayed bags are flown by other carriers into other terminals for transfer to a BA flight and are not the fault of BA or T5.”
OTHER carriers are arriving late at LHR. These bags then don’t make the departing flight from T5 as BA is not going to hold up 400 + pax for a few transferring passengers who arrive late from a DIFFERENT airline.
As I work for BA I can honestly state that the T5 is working very well and whilst the problems at the opening were not acceptable, right now it is one of the best things that has happened to LHR and BA. Most of the people that I have spoken to who has used T5 as a passenger has said they can’t believe how fantastic it is.
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th August 2008 at 14:16
This is to the people saying that flights from London to places like Glasgow and Manchester don’t make money and BA are a business etc.
Are you seriously for a second saying these routes don’t make money? I personally don’t believe that for a second.
IMO BA is playing games here. BA wants a third runway at LHR. They will continue to axe and cut-back domestic routes from LHR in the hope that MP’s in the north start companying for the third runway so they can get there Heathrow links back.
This is nothing to do with business, its all games and blackmail.
If BA wants to make money, they should offer a good and reliable service to the high-fare-paying customers and stop losing over 1000 bags every day.
By: Ren Frew - 7th August 2008 at 10:42
Minidoh, that’s the reality of the situation, well said. The only proof of how good or otherwise an airline BA is will be in its ongoing survival. This will be because people will want to pay to travel BA. It seems to date that that is the case. It has won awards for it’s product and website. Yes there are some mixed views, personally I really like the product and the brand and fly BA a lot. T5 is excellent and a real strategic asset to maintainign market share.
Unfortunately, and I do think the same at times, forumites can mix reality with sentimentality. What we would like and what is a viable business proposition are 2 different things. Only the latter will enable to survive.
I think some of those people “who want to pay to travel fly BA” may just look elsewhere in future, especially if they perceive a notion of being ignored by the “flag carrier” they helped to pay for whilst it was a public entity.
The point being, if an airline withdraws it’s proverbial tentacles back to it’s hub, when the going gets tough, then why should the customers affected by these business decisions show any kind of loyalty to the brand in the future ? This isn’t just happening on the Scottish services either, it’s happening right across the so called ‘regions’ and people DO have the right to be ticked off by that, IMHO.
Yes, it ‘s a tough old business world out there, but I think the message BA is sending to the plucky old jocks, paddies and taffs is one of “we don’t need your business” rightly or wrongly so, that’s how it looks from where I’m standing/sitting/typing…:rolleyes:
By: Agent K - 7th August 2008 at 09:37
Minidoh, that’s the reality of the situation, well said. The only proof of how good or otherwise an airline BA is will be in its ongoing survival. This will be because people will want to pay to travel BA. It seems to date that that is the case. It has won awards for it’s product and website. Yes there are some mixed views, personally I really like the product and the brand and fly BA a lot. T5 is excellent and a real strategic asset to maintainign market share.
Unfortunately, and I do think the same at times, forumites can mix reality with sentimentality. What we would like and what is a viable business proposition are 2 different things. Only the latter will enable to survive.
By: Bmused55 - 7th August 2008 at 07:34
Well said Minidoh
By: Richard Taylor - 7th August 2008 at 07:33
Lord Marshall, Lord King…:rolleyes: Those people whose bags have disappeared at the hands of “The World’s Favourite Airline” (sic) think highly of BA, do they???
Fantastic airline my ****.
By: MINIDOH - 7th August 2008 at 00:37
BA is a business and it’s primary aim is to please the shareholders. Normally that would mean making PROFIT. Scottish routes are becoming less profitable… Cut them. Simple. You always have globespan right?
All the c*** about them not being the flag carrier? Most people if asked would say they ARE the flag carrier, and whether you believe it means anything or not is irrelevant… The vast majority do believe in having a flag carrier. Don’t like it? Don’t fly BA. MANY people do fly BA (33 MILLION last year). MANY people do think it is a fantastic airline (myself included). If they didn’t, BA wouldn’t exist.
To quote Lord Marshall:
“British Airways and its predecessor companies have been at the very forefront of air transport development since the dawn of this industry. We will continue to lead in the future.”
Couldn’t agree more.
By: OneLeft - 4th August 2008 at 14:24
I’m not going to be drawn into the BA hates the regons debate that comes up on here with ever increasing regularity, however I must challenge this one.
plan to fly an A318 from LCY to JFK for businessmen who will enjoy departing LCY to land at GLA an hour later,sit about on the plane wasting time and money while it gets refuelled!!:confused::confused: the plot truly lost.
The current plan is a tech stop, not at Glasgow, but at Shannon where US Immigration and Customs procedures will be completed from your seat while refuelling takes place, leaving you to disembark at JFK far more easily and quickly, effectively as a domestic passenger.
The idea for the route came about after a request from one of BA’s biggest JFK LHR corporate clients whose more senior executives wanted an easier journey to and from their UK office in Canary Wharf. It remains to be seen whether it is successful, but it doesn’t sound like a “plot truly lost” to me.
1L.
By: cloud_9 - 3rd August 2008 at 18:38
Of course it makes perfect business sense to reduce the frequency of services on under-performing routes, especially during this period of unpredictable economic weakness!
It also looks like they [British Airways] will also be upsetting the Cornish/South-West contingent of their customer-base as they have announced that they are to stop their daily Gatwick-Newquay services at the end of October as well!
From TravelMole:
British Airways announced yesterday that it will withdraw scheduled operations from four Gatwick short-haul routes, including its daily flights to Newquay Cornwall Airport, and that plans to start two new services from Gatwick have also been scrapped. The suspended routes, from October 26, are the daily services to Newquay, Dresden in Germany, Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Poznan in Poland.
…but don’t panic, its not as though they are the only airline serving the route as there’s still Air Southwest; or Ryanair from Stansted!:D
More evidence of the ever emerging “London Airways”?
I dont quite understand this Tartan, how is BA’s reduction of services from Scotland evidence of ‘London Airways’…if you were flying from Scotland to any destination outside of Europe with BA you would most likely have to connect via LHR/LGW anyway?
I do wonder how much of an impact the ‘Open Skies’ policy has had on BA’s services, seeing as there are now four more US carriers operating out of Heathrow [Continental, Delta, Northwest, US Airways]. I am aware that services to New York are being reduced for the winter, is this the norm?
By: Ren Frew - 3rd August 2008 at 12:59
In which case the word “British” should disappear soon, shouldn’t it? 😀
Probably… I suggested before the should change the name to “BA”…
With this latest news and the Loganair fleet about to become a ‘Flybe’ fleet, I expect what was once the dominant livery at the likes of GLA, EDI and ABZ to become something of a rarity and indeed one has to wonder when the time will come when there are no BA aircraft or services to be found north of Londonshire…
By: Richard Taylor - 3rd August 2008 at 10:44
In which case the word “British” should disappear soon, shouldn’t it? 😀
Sign In
August 1, 2008 at 10:41 pm