BA in Europe…

Im sure BA could operate a fleet of 3 to 4 long haul jets out of Manchester to popular long haul destinations but then they are taking pax away from there precious slots at Heathrow by not interlining them through the shuttle service.

Heahtrow slots are BAs primary concern. If the volume of pax drops and this has a knock-on effect of services cancelling then they will loose the slots, simple.

To encourage this can I give an example. When BA flew a regional serivce from MAN I checked out tickets from MAN to Vienna. Direct from MAN was £80 more exensive than going via Heathrow, nomatter what combination of flights I chose.

From a profit point BA can make more money flying a 767 from LHR to JFK than they could for example by putting on an afternoon MAN to JFK service.

As an enthusiast to visits MAN 5 or 6 times per year one of its more refreshing points is that no one airline dominates. Plenty of variety in colours and aircraft. i also have had the displeasure of flying Ba a dozen or so times so im pleased to have a variety or airlines to choose from ex MAN as I never had a good flight with BA. On one flight I took from LHR-GLA-BEB my 757 was still on the ground at LHR when I was suppoed to be arriving in GLA. Once airborne I asked a member of the cabin crew about the connecting flight. Despite booking the official BA timetabled connecting flight the Stewardess snapped back at me ‘Everyone knows this flight runs late, you should of caught an earlier shuttle’!

Lets not forget the dirty tricks BA used to pull at MAN. I remember when the Iron curtain fell, CSA and LOT were the first Eastern Bock airlines to announce regular scheduled flights to MAN. They announced with some fanfare after market research their respective twice weekly schedules. One month later BA had slots booked on the same days at the same frequency but departing and arriving back 5 mins earlier.

Im not sad at the demise of BA from the regions. Hell if a former BAophile like Jeremy Clarkson can drop them for ‘Beard-Wierd Airways’ (despite hating Branson) then im sure everyone can find a better product from the regions than that that BA provided. Cant wait for my LH MAN-MUC later in the year.

Steve

Yeah i totally agree with you there BRITISH airways arent worthy of their name i dont think anymore since the plans like this make it more european and not one of our breeds anymore, they do all this for money money money because people are so greedy and don’t give a hint of the name of the product and what it represents, the name should be given to an airline that actually does uphold its name

By who? British Airways is a brand name, it isn’t a product description.

Hmmm Call me mental, but, maybe BRITISH Airways should run some international services from …oh.. i dunno… BRITAIN!!!, for a “national” airline that has international services from what,3 airports in the UK, ZERO from Scotland, i suspect the same dizzying amount from Wales and N.I. This mob can barely sink to any lower depths, but, surprise surprise… they find a way.
Only problem now being they may not be worthy of the name “London Airways” anymore!:mad: 😡

Yeah i totally agree with you there BRITISH airways arent worthy of their name i dont think anymore since the plans like this make it more european and not one of our breeds anymore, they do all this for money money money because people are so greedy and don’t give a hint of the name of the product and what it represents, the name should be given to an airline that actually does uphold its name

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen photos of IB and AF A320-series aircraft that side of the pond (though AF may be more likely doing Caribbean “local” services rather than venturing to the States)

Iberia used to have a mini-hub at Miami International operating flights to South America. I believe they had 4 x A319 aircraft based there until they closed the Miami base in 2004.

Open skies or not I dont think American law will allow foreign owned companies to operate on their turf. Note the trouble Virgin-USA has had with the federales.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen photos of IB and AF A320-series aircraft that side of the pond (though AF may be more likely doing Caribbean “local” services rather than venturing to the States)

I don’t think the FAA will allow G- reg aircraft based and crewed in New York. Remember all the fuss about N registering the Concords ( spelling intentional) for the US domestic sector for Branniff? Open skies or not I dont think American law will allow foreign owned companies to operate on their turf. Note the trouble Virgin-USA has had with the federales.
Be lucky
David

Besides, why is nobody slating Virgin or BMI for ignoring the regions? Virgin don’t bother apart from touristy stuff and BMI started, and stuffed it up totally (and we all know they only started because LHR was not on the table for them at that time).

I’m just wondering what Branson is doing in China. The hot potato rumour is for a MAN-Shanghai service to be announced – quite why, only he will know. If the aircraft is going to be MAN based, it’s going to have to be a 744 in thier more “leisure” focused config, and that’s going to be too big an aircraft. If it’s an A340, are they really going to do a W pattern for 2 or 3 flights a week as I’m sure it would make better sense for an A340 to be based at MAN with another route (or two) to commence – BOM for example? It would be a strange base though: 1.5 747s and 1 A340.

BD have, at least, not screwed up recently on their long-haul ex-MAN. The pleasing aspect is that the new A330 config is due to passenger demand. So their current 5 routes here should be safe for a while. But we can forget about LHR not on the table for them…..it was only the USA that was off limits – if they wanted long-haul at LHR badly enough, they could and should have started with other routes.

But if you base aircaft at New York, then the regional airports only get one service: New York. To serve 4,5,6 destinations from MAN you need to base a fleet there.

Only put my reponse in those terms as you said “identical services”. YEs, a base would be needed for multiple destinations, but previoulsy, I qutoed what the thinking was about T1BA and MAN ops. Something happened -they really did not develop MAN into a hub for some reason which would have aided matters no end; it is rather pointless to offer JFK and LAX ex-MAN when there is nothing to feed onto!

You mean 16J/156Y? config. I once had an interesting Because you’d be mistaken if you’re think 188Y. It’s the utter reluctance for BA to attempt anything at the regional airports and tie-in with the oneworld alliance that galls. And when an airline wants to come to the regions, who complains? BA! Sorry, they can’t have it both ways. Either serve Britain or rebrand to London and Europe Airways, and I’m saying that even though MAN-JFK is served by them.

Not sure what the config is, so yes maybe they do have Biz class seats. But that still isn’t BA’s model. Aren’t they going for 3-class 757’s for their new venture? Besides, why is nobody slating Virgin or BMI for ignoring the regions? Virgin don’t bother apart from touristy stuff and BMI started, and stuffed it up totally (and we all know they only started because LHR was not on the table for them at that time).

Why? I thought the European venture was to be based out of New York. Basing a fleet of 6 aircraft there means no need to set up base at the regional. And aren’t we forgetting the MAN-LAX, MAN-JFK, BHX-JFK and GLA-JFK routes in 1993-4, with the MAN-LAX dropped then with the BHX + GLa routes continuing for 3 more years, when they had a sub-fleet of 4 aircaft for 3 airports.

But if you base aircaft at New York, then the regional airports only get one service: New York. To serve 4,5,6 destinations from MAN you need to base a fleet there.

1. A lot of those flights are mostly economy-only aren’t they? That isn’t BA’s target market (see point 3)

You mean 16J/156Y? config. I once had an interesting Because you’d be mistaken if you’re think 188Y. It’s the utter reluctance for BA to attempt anything at the regional airports and tie-in with the oneworld alliance that galls. And when an airline wants to come to the regions, who complains? BA! Sorry, they can’t have it both ways. Either serve Britain or rebrand to London and Europe Airways, and I’m saying that even though MAN-JFK is served by them.

2. If BA were to launch identical services, they would most likely need to establish a base at the regional airport in question. Otherwise they’d have to ferry aircraft around to position them. If you’re going to the expense of opening a new base, you would want more than 1 route to justify the investment.

Why? I thought the European venture was to be based out of New York. Basing a fleet of 6 aircraft there means no need to set up base at the regional. And aren’t we forgetting the MAN-LAX, MAN-JFK, BHX-JFK and GLA-JFK routes in 1993-4, with the MAN-LAX dropped then with the BHX + GLa routes continuing for 3 more years, when they had a sub-fleet of 4 aircaft for 3 airports.

Some carriers don’t subscribe to BAs view of the regions
Continental ( as just one example)
BRS-EWR
BFS-EWR
BHX-EWR
EDI-EWR
GLA-EWR
EDI-MCO
GLA-LAX
For those who need it EWR= New York Newark, MCO=Orlando LAX= Los Angeles.
I don’t think they all run at a loss.
Be lucky
David

Who knows if they’re profitable, but as far as assumptions go, it’s a fair one I suppose.

But that doesn’t mean it would work for BA:

1. A lot of those flights are mostly economy-only aren’t they? That isn’t BA’s target market (see point 3).

2. If BA were to launch identical services, they would most likely need to establish a base at the regional airport in question. Otherwise they’d have to ferry aircraft around to position them. If you’re going to the expense of opening a new base, you would want more than 1 route to justify the investment.

3. Logically, a business assesses new opportunities in some sort of order. New market, same product carries some risk. New market, new product carries much more risk. To launch that service/product, the internal rate of return needs to be significantly higher.

If there is still room to grow your existing market, you would tend to do that before looking at new markets. Businesses that don’t focus on home markets (and London = home) first will struggle to do well in new markets.

4. As a matter of pure fact, London is a world class city and places like Manchester, Glasgow or Birmingham just do not compete. They’re villages. I mean, I live in Australia and have some business contact with the Uk. I sometimes look at UK jobs. And guess what…..everything is in London. I sometimes get the impression there are no jobs outside the M25. Complaining about BA being focused on London is like complaining that “Illinois Air” only bases itself at Chicago. Of course it would!

Non of BA s 13 remaining
757-200s are ER versions.

EC, ED, EE, EI, EJ and EK are all ER’s.

1L.

Have BA ever had ETOPS approval for 757 ops.

I would have thought so, seeing that they did GLA-JFK and BHX-JFK with 757s (G-BPEC and G-BPEE I believe were 2 of the 757s involved)

For the CO routes….

GLA-LAX = GLA-EWR-LAX
EDI-MCO = EDI-EWR-MCO.

i.e. CO shifting through their EWR hub. What BA were doing with their regional transatlantic was predominantely point-to-point; they intended builiding their MAN ops into a hub of sorts but never really got to grips with improving feed and were more focused on getting people through LHR (to this end, BA are still myopic, as they have the ability to codeshare non-LHR/LGW routes to the States but refused to codeshare AA’s MAN-MIA run in case in harmed them. Presumably the passengers routing MAN-LHR-MIA are the ones that make the LHR-MIA sector work.)

Some carriers don’t subscribe to BAs view of the regions
Continental ( as just one example)

GLA-LAX

For those who need it EWR= New York Newark, MCO=Orlando LAX= Los Angeles.
I don’t think they all run at a loss.

GLA-LAX doesn’t run at all, so no losses there, you may be thinking of the EWR flight number that continues to LAX…?

Some carriers don’t subscribe to BAs view of the regions
Continental ( as just one example)
BRS-EWR
BFS-EWR
BHX-EWR
EDI-EWR
GLA-EWR
EDI-MCO
GLA-LAX
For those who need it EWR= New York Newark, MCO=Orlando LAX= Los Angeles.
I don’t think they all run at a loss.
Be lucky
David

Can’t see it really, BA have never done small well.
Long drag BRU-JFK and CDG-JFK on a non ER 757-236, must be in a low
density high revenue configuration ala MaxJet, SilverJet, EOS style.
Have BA ever had ETOPS approval for 757 ops. Non of BA s 13 remaining
757-200s are ER versions. As it appears SilverJet are struggling even
with their route monopoly and dedicated luxury terminal at Luton. I
dread to think how much it will cost to bring two airframes up to
spec.
May be with cascaded 767ERs when the 787s come on line. Who is going
to pay premium rate fares for a 13 year old 757 ??
Be lucky
David

Bottom line is that other parts of the UK do not have the demand (read: wealth) that London does.

That is arguably a governmental and societal failure, not something you could or should pin on BA.

Is that still currently the case though, have recent market trends been actively analysed ?

The last time BA operated to New York from Glasgow, they had trouble filling a 767 or Tristar as I remember it. Back then I believe the leisure market on this route was miniscule and BA’s hopes of taking more of the business market failed to provide sufficient yield as well.

That was back in the early 90’s, concepts and cultures, particularly in the leisure markets have changed a lot since then. Now having read an interesting newspaper recently about the booming GLA-EWR leisure and specifically “shopping” market, thanks to the current the dollar/pound situation, would there now be a market for a 757 sized aircraft, given the recent successes on trans-atlantic regional routes from the likes of Continental, American and US Airways using this particular type…?

Given that people expect to fly more often nowadays and thanks to the lo-co revolution, I wonder why the “well we tried it before and it failed” attitude still prevails…

Well airlines chase the yields. It may be worth sending a few flights a day to MAN etc from your home base, but that’s very different to establishing a base there. In addition, the opportunity cost of operating from MAN etc as opposed to other tried and tested airports is a deterrent.

Bottom line is that other parts of the UK do not have the demand (read: wealth) that London does.

That is arguably a governmental and societal failure, not something you could or should pin on BA.

Nice to see you back mongu!

Well airlines chase the yields. It may be worth sending a few flights a day to MAN etc from your home base, but that’s very different to establishing a base there. In addition, the opportunity cost of operating from MAN etc as opposed to other tried and tested airports is a deterrent.

Bottom line is that other parts of the UK do not have the demand (read: wealth) that London does.

That is arguably a governmental and societal failure, not something you could or should pin on BA.

Yes B(ritish..not London)A should operate from regional airports, they CLAIM to be the national carrier for Britain.. NOT just London… You serve to highlight how much an embarrasment they really are, if you have to go back 20-30 years in timetables to see when they were a national airline.
Not suggesting they serve places like Dingwall,Cambridge,Blackpool etc.. to Europe or god forbid further, but, they pulled many many lucrative routes from major cities simply because they wanted to streamline everything thru London,for example, at my local Glasgow,the 4th biggest city in the UK, has ZERO flights that use the callsign Speedbird, not one BA flight leaves the UK,in fact only 3 routes leave Scotland… all to… wait for it….. LONDON! the end result of pulling out of the regions, foreign airlines grabbed the market with inflated prices.
BA are NOT and apparently never will be again, a national airline for the UK!
(at least not the small bit that is outwith the M25)

B.A. did not pull out of regional cities to streamline everything through Heathrow, they did it to stop constant losses, perhaps if you go back to before B.A. were privatised, you would find that the airline was making huge losses and by the early 80s and 90s were forced to pull out of loss making routes.
B.A. are and always will be identified as the national carrier of the UK.

If you had your way, B.A. would be flying unprofitable routes from Glasgow and other regional cities at a loss…..after a while and after much debt…the airline simply wont exist. this is the 21st century, B.A. like many other big airlines have had to make hard decisions…..why do you think they stopped flying Concorde ??? same reasons ……losses.

Fly the Flag

…like PanAm, VARIG, Swissair, SABENA, Air Afrique (was it 6 flags?), Gulf Air (under 4 flags), Nigeria A/W…Who here is old enough to recall the campaign “I’m Backing Britain”. That had to do with cars and spawned All-Agro and Marina, which destroyed the rump of the UK industry. Air Transport ceased to be special around 1962 and became a commodity. The punter buys as best for his net after-tax income. We UK taxpayers stopped subsidising BA in John King’s day…when they consolidated on Fortress Heathrow. No co-incidence.