Knowing how people dig at British Airways for cutting back on regional services, i found this information and found it rather interesting.
BA is still a significant player in the UK domestic scheduled airline market.Easyjet is bigger, carrying 6,053,172 passengers in 2006. BA (excluding BA Connect and Loganair BA franchise flights) carried the second largest number of domestic passengers at 4,844,808, ahead of Bmi at 4,463,429. Flybe were the fourth largest domestic carrier at 3,275,654 passengers.
BA Connect carried 1,768,238 domestic passengers in 2006, so if you add these to the Flybe figure you come to a total of 5,043,892 passengers which would push BA back into third place, the likely outcome for 2008 (but not 2007).
BA carried a total of 33.068 million passengers in 2006-07. So domestic passengers account for a not insubstantial total of around 15 per cent of their total.
The above data comes from CAA published data on UK airline activity for the 12 months ending 31 December 2006.
By: Ren Frew - 12th February 2008 at 19:21
LHR is Britains hub to the world like Schipol is to the Dutch
People can use BA in Europe, change at Heathrow for onwards connections.
The Lo-costs are digging into BA and they’re expanding daily! 9/11 hit the flag carriers hard but didn’t really hurt the lo-costs. The US market is no different Southwest is easily the most profitable of the main carriers, where are the flag carriers? most have filed or are on the brink of bankruptcy
Why did BA get rid off Connect? , well apart from the City Airport ops more and more people are using their cars as air fares go up (esp after 9/11). Also the Railways are taking more passengers, Virgin West Coast is rivaling with trains to Manchester, Birmingham and London with a more frequent flexible service and newer faster trains, no hastle for check-in and cheaper advanced ticketing.
Just my bit
H
Yes indeed trains really are becoming a much more viable competitor to the domestic airlines, especially as they go to the heart of the city, are cheaper and pretty fast and reliable too. When the west coast line upgrade is finished, I’ll be able to do Glasgow-London direct in around 4 hours. If you consider airport check in times, security checks and transfers you have to predict a rise in rail use over the next ten 5 years or so…
By: Arabella-Cox - 12th February 2008 at 18:50
LHR is Britains hub to the world like Schipol is to the Dutch
People can use BA in Europe, change at Heathrow for onwards connections.
The Lo-costs are digging into BA and they’re expanding daily! 9/11 hit the flag carriers hard but didn’t really hurt the lo-costs. The US market is no different Southwest is easily the most profitable of the main carriers, where are the flag carriers? most have filed or are on the brink of bankruptcy
Why did BA get rid off Connect? , well apart from the City Airport ops more and more people are using their cars as air fares go up (esp after 9/11). Also the Railways are taking more passengers, Virgin West Coast is rivaling with trains to Manchester, Birmingham and London with a more frequent flexible service and newer faster trains, no hastle for check-in and cheaper advanced ticketing.
Just my bit
H
By: David Kerr - 12th February 2008 at 15:36
I firmly believe that there is a market for British Airways to operate point to point type flights from places like Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham to major cities in Europe, North America and possible the Middle East and Asia.
However, that plan is dependent on BA actually using the oneworld alliance to enhance each routes viability. So far, BA has been particularly clueless in using it, and on those routes where it has the ability to codeshare with partner airlines, it chooses not to on some as it affects their LHR service and may offer up the prospect of them artificially routing the less-than-premium payers on to the regional services which ultimately makes them less viable.
By: Arabella-Cox - 12th February 2008 at 15:24
I think I hold quite a unique view from the south east here, as you probably know, allot of people down here truly believe that London is the be all and end all.
I firmly believe that there is a market for British Airways to operate point to point type flights from places like Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham to major cities in Europe, North America and possible the Middle East and Asia.
By: Grey Area - 12th February 2008 at 15:05
…Can anyone confirm if BMI are giving up the LHR-INV route for sure ? …..
According to the Inverness Airport website, the service only runs up to 29 March.
By: carl727uk - 12th February 2008 at 14:33
I agree with what you have just wrote “Renfrew”. My other thought is that all these UK passengers flying via European points on other national carriers, may not be benefitting the British economy as much as if a British carrier was used via LHR. Having said all that LHR is not a pleasant airport to use, although maybe terminal 5 may help matters.
Can anyone confirm if BMI are giving up the LHR-INV route for sure ? If so maybe KLM will jump in there with an Amsterdam link ? !
By: Ren Frew - 12th February 2008 at 13:15
The subject of regional connections to LHR is a contentious one. My opinion is the reduction of regional connections over the years to LHR is detrimental to the regions and BA as a “National” carrier and LHR as the national hub of air travel. KLM have huge network of regional connections to many airports that once were connected to LHR e.g Humberside, Birmingham and Norwich. There are many other regional airports that have lost their LHR links over the years and there would seem to be more on the way, possibly Inverness, Tees Side, Leeds Bradford.
Heathrow is now on the national rail network, but the only link is to Paddington, so again no help for regional cities. With this in mind many passengers, me included will look to other European cities to make their connections which are very often more convenient.
I agree, it’s far easier and less hassle for me to connect via AMS or DUB if I intend to go long haul via GLA these days. Aer Lingus offer a comprehensive US service, KLM do the same and just about everywhere else. Whilst I’d like to use BA more often, the congestion and other problems associated with LHR make it somewhere I’d avoid completely were it not for my enjoyment of commercial aviation.
Of course loyalty works both ways and whilst BA may claim their London-centricity is purely down to business, I suspect their former customers out in ‘the regions’ may feel the same when they chose other carriers.
By: carl727uk - 12th February 2008 at 12:00
The subject of regional connections to LHR is a contentious one. My opinion is the reduction of regional connections over the years to LHR is detrimental to the regions and BA as a “National” carrier and LHR as the national hub of air travel. KLM have huge network of regional connections to many airports that once were connected to LHR e.g Humberside, Birmingham and Norwich. There are many other regional airports that have lost their LHR links over the years and there would seem to be more on the way, possibly Inverness, Tees Side, Leeds Bradford.
Heathrow is now on the national rail network, but the only link is to Paddington, so again no help for regional cities. With this in mind many passengers, me included will look to other European cities to make their connections which are very often more convenient.
By: David Kerr - 8th February 2008 at 23:35
I’d like to see the looks on BA’s faces should a recession start with companies cutting back on air travel, specifically premium air travel. Now let’s think of the reason why they’ve raised the white flags in the regions: lack of premium travel. So any recession has the potential to be disastrous for them given their stupid, myopic decision to give up on anything non-London.
By: black kettle - 8th February 2008 at 07:44
I’m sorry but I don’t see the point being made.The reality is that BA do not operate ANY flights (domestic or otherwise apart from MAN-JFK) that do not originate at,and return to,one of the London Airports,which is a far cry from the days when they had a virtual monopoly also at places like MAN/BHX/GLA/EDI.
I suspect they also only like LCY because nearly all seats are at premium fares and because it is not a “runner” for low cost competitors.
I’m not criticising what is probably a good commercial decision but where would they be if they hadn’t had a monopoly at LHR/LGW inherited from pre-privatisation days?
In my book they’ve already accepted defeat from the lo-costs (including abandoning their own!) to concentrate on their unassailable bases.Fine,but what are other airports going to do if those others fail,which some on this forum seem to be dying for to happen?
Barry
Sign In
February 8, 2008 at 4:52 am