BA Connect goes long-haul

BA adverts for MAN-JFK, I have NEVER seen the phrase “operated by BACitiExpress” in the small print

Really….? 😉
Have a look near the bottom
http://www.britishairways.com/travel/ukpremoffer1/public/en_gb

A lease (dry, damp or wet) doesn’t have to be a specific aircraft if the terms of the lease don’t specify it to be. It can just be for ‘an’ aircraft. In this case presumably it just specifies ‘a 767’.

1L.

Ah ok

A lease (dry, damp or wet) doesn’t have to be a specific aircraft if the terms of the lease don’t specify it to be. It can just be for ‘an’ aircraft. In this case presumably it just specifies ‘a 767’.

1L.

Just to ignite the disscussion, with BA now rotating 767’s on the 1503/02, would this mean that it is NOT operated by BA Connect, as there is no specific aircraft on a damp lease to them at now. Or have i just got the wrong end of the stick?

(does this include the pre 767 days?)

I can’t remember exactly when the 767 was introduced to MAN for the JFK, but the ‘regional’ operation as a subsidiary doesn’t go that far back in the grand scheme of things.

BA Connect, BA CitiExpress and BA Regional (Manchester) I would guess take you back to the early 90’s. Prior to that the whole operation at MAN belonged to BA PLC.

When I said “and always was” what I really meant was ‘since a regional operation has existed’.

1L.

Now if it’s always been the property of the “regional” arm (does this include the pre 767 days?), why didn’t they include that phrase?

When a BA flight is operated by an independant airline under the BA name, there are certain places that the law requires the operators name to be pointed out. For example advertising.

If that independant airline is wholly owned by BA, as in CitiExpress or the old EuroGatwick, then that requirement does not exist.

I can only assume that in the interest of promoting the BA Connect brand in the regions, BA have decided to include that phrase in advertising the New York service even though they aren’t obliged to.

1L.

I’m having déjà-vu now with this thread…

You may well be…but in the last year of seeing BA adverts for MAN-JFK, I have NEVER seen the phrase “operated by BACitiExpress” in the small print. Now if it’s always been the property of the “regional” arm (does this include the pre 767 days?), why didn’t they include that phrase?

I’m having déjà-vu now with this thread… http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34963&page=3&pp=30

Wasnt it always a BA regional / CitiExpress route (now BACon) ? I dont really see what the problem is.

Absolutely correct by738. The route is (and always was) operated by the regional company of the day using a 767 damp leased from BA, ie: aircraft with flight crew but no cabin crew.

It’s always been a source of conjecture as to where the bottom line goes

As BA Connect is 100% owned by BA then ultimately the profit (or loss) belongs to BA as well.

Last I heard the only connection with BA Connect is/was that the cabin staff involved in this operation is/were seconded to BA Connect. Everything else is/was mainline

The simple way to explain it is the route is operated on behalf of BA by BA Connect. (Hence the expression used in the advert in the same way as when GB Airways operate a route for them) However BA Connect leases the things they need to operate it, ie: aircraft and flight crew, from BA.

1L.

Last I heard was that the only connection with BA Connect is/was that the cabin staff involved in this operation is/were seconded to BA Connect. Everything else is/was mainline.

[QUOTE=allmcc]

I wonder if they’ll serve BACon sandwiches for breakfast]

Is it just me or is it every time a thread about BA Connect starts this “tired” joke gets resurrected!

Yes it’s getting a bit ‘hammy’ isn’t it ? 😉

It’s always been a source of conjecture as to where the bottom line goes – yes it has been a BACX service but it also reverted back to BA mainline and now it’s seemingy back on a “regional” footing. Seeing that it is reputedly a million pound plus profit per year route, it could do wonders to enhance the prospect of BA Connect existing for more than 2 years. Although it could be a “tactical” change given the number of sub-contracted services that have taken place over the past 2 weeks that would have seen money flow out of the company!

OMG a BA trans-atlantic service with a branding issue ???

I suppose the obvious answer is to rebrand MAN as LHR…. 😀

Wasnt it always a BA regional / CitiExpress route (now BACon) ? I dont really see what the problem is.

It’s always been a source of conjecture as to where the bottom line goes – yes it has been a BACX service but it also reverted back to BA mainline and now it’s seemingy back on a “regional” footing. Seeing that it is reputedly a million pound plus profit per year route, it could do wonders to enhance the prospect of BA Connect existing for more than 2 years. Although it could be a “tactical” change given the number of sub-contracted services that have taken place over the past 2 weeks that would have seen money flow out of the company!

I wonder if they’ll serve BACon sandwiches for breakfast 😉

the coat’s comin on!

Wasnt it always a BA regional / CitiExpress route (now BACon) ? I dont really see what the problem is.