I see BA's game….

Have to agree, I didn’t think it was that much worse than most you see at LHR/LGW at this time of year

Have to agree, I didn’t think it was that much worse than most you see at LHR/LGW at this time of year

Is it just me, or are the only real marks on that bird the ones from the airbridges?

Mike

Is it just me, or are the only real marks on that bird the ones from the airbridges?

Mike

As usual OneLeft; hit the nail very much so, ont he head. Also, Thanks Keven for your explanations!

What does a “tech” wash onvolve that a normal wash doesn’t?

A Tech wash involves the washing and degreesing the undercarriage, and all flight control sufaces and any part wich is due to be renewed

As usual OneLeft; hit the nail very much so, ont he head. Also, Thanks Keven for your explanations!

What does a “tech” wash onvolve that a normal wash doesn’t?

A Tech wash involves the washing and degreesing the undercarriage, and all flight control sufaces and any part wich is due to be renewed

One other point about BNWH, just to totally clarify the situation…

Normally, when an aircraft is wetleased, it may retain the Lessor’s livery, but will have some kind of sticker pointing to the airline it is operating for… Unless I’m very much mistaken, in G-BNWH’s case, this should read…

“operated for BA by BA on behalf of BACX“

This must surely be a unique situation, where a lessor leases an aircraft to a wholly owned subsiduary so the subsiduary can operate a route on behalf of the Lessor?

Either that, or I’ve been watching too much Yes, Prime Minister… 😉 :diablo:

One other point about BNWH, just to totally clarify the situation…

Normally, when an aircraft is wetleased, it may retain the Lessor’s livery, but will have some kind of sticker pointing to the airline it is operating for… Unless I’m very much mistaken, in G-BNWH’s case, this should read…

“operated for BA by BA on behalf of BACX“

This must surely be a unique situation, where a lessor leases an aircraft to a wholly owned subsiduary so the subsiduary can operate a route on behalf of the Lessor?

Either that, or I’ve been watching too much Yes, Prime Minister… 😉 :diablo:

Making money they are but no I don’t doubt they aren’t making vast fortunes at the moment.

Now where did I read recently that loss making US airlines such as ATA and US Airways see their transatlantic routes as being their best source of income and that they see their “financial salvations” in these routes ?

Continental and American are currently discussing increasing their UK regional services, Continental in a big way as has been reported widely. So my question is why can US carriers identify a market that BA can’t or won’t see?

The demand is clearly there and at GLA in particular, more so than it was in the early 90’s when BA operated it’s JFK service.

Which is exactly why we see US expanding and announcing new transatlantic routes, even with such a dire outlook.
BA, or bmi could quite easily operate from the regions more. EDI, GLA etc.
VS may have more trouble due to the lack of connectign traffic they would generate, having said that they could offer flights through Virgin Holidays, as at MAN, flights to MCO during the summer even.

Making money they are but no I don’t doubt they aren’t making vast fortunes at the moment.

Now where did I read recently that loss making US airlines such as ATA and US Airways see their transatlantic routes as being their best source of income and that they see their “financial salvations” in these routes ?

Continental and American are currently discussing increasing their UK regional services, Continental in a big way as has been reported widely. So my question is why can US carriers identify a market that BA can’t or won’t see?

The demand is clearly there and at GLA in particular, more so than it was in the early 90’s when BA operated it’s JFK service.

Which is exactly why we see US expanding and announcing new transatlantic routes, even with such a dire outlook.
BA, or bmi could quite easily operate from the regions more. EDI, GLA etc.
VS may have more trouble due to the lack of connectign traffic they would generate, having said that they could offer flights through Virgin Holidays, as at MAN, flights to MCO during the summer even.

Making money they are but no I don’t doubt they aren’t making vast fortunes at the moment.

Now where did I read recently that loss making US airlines such as ATA and US Airways see their transatlantic routes as being their best source of income and that they see their “financial salvations” in these routes ?

Continental and American are currently discussing increasing their UK regional services, Continental in a big way as has been reported widely. So my question is why can US carriers identify a market that BA can’t or won’t see?

The demand is clearly there and at GLA in particular, more so than it was in the early 90’s when BA operated it’s JFK service.

Making money they are but no I don’t doubt they aren’t making vast fortunes at the moment.

Now where did I read recently that loss making US airlines such as ATA and US Airways see their transatlantic routes as being their best source of income and that they see their “financial salvations” in these routes ?

Continental and American are currently discussing increasing their UK regional services, Continental in a big way as has been reported widely. So my question is why can US carriers identify a market that BA can’t or won’t see?

The demand is clearly there and at GLA in particular, more so than it was in the early 90’s when BA operated it’s JFK service.

I believe that most if not all US airlines’ international(i.e long haul US-UK) routes are profitable, which are what are in question here.

Yes many of their trans-atlantic routes are profitable, however BA would incur extra costs if they were to compete on services from GLA, EDI, BHX, BFS, or BRS. The costs basically stem from the standalone aircraft required. In the case of BNWH at MAN the costs are covered because BA make significant amounts of money from the JFK route.

If BA could ensure they can make significant amounts of money from other airports then they would fly from there. They have flown from the regions in the past, and when the services stopped generating BA money then they were withdrawn. CO has the advantage over BA in terms of a lower fixed cost base, and as such will derive more revenue from their services than BA can from theirs.

I believe that most if not all US airlines’ international(i.e long haul US-UK) routes are profitable, which are what are in question here.

Yes many of their trans-atlantic routes are profitable, however BA would incur extra costs if they were to compete on services from GLA, EDI, BHX, BFS, or BRS. The costs basically stem from the standalone aircraft required. In the case of BNWH at MAN the costs are covered because BA make significant amounts of money from the JFK route.

If BA could ensure they can make significant amounts of money from other airports then they would fly from there. They have flown from the regions in the past, and when the services stopped generating BA money then they were withdrawn. CO has the advantage over BA in terms of a lower fixed cost base, and as such will derive more revenue from their services than BA can from theirs.

Your last point that US airlines “are regularily making money”, can you name a profitable US carrier? Not many of them that’s for sure. BA and VS are making money, so maybe they are doing it right after all.

As has been said before, if an airline can operate a route profitably then one will surely do so. I’m sure BA and the rest would love LHR size bases at every UK airport, but it’s not going to happen. Shame really.

1L.

I believe that most if not all US airlines’ international(i.e long haul US-UK) routes are profitable, which are what are in question here.

My point about the North-South relationship was that a particular aircraft being based at MAN was not in any way a conscious decision to be detrimental towards the North by an airline based in the South, which was what RIPConcorde had implied in his opening post. Hope I didn’t offend anyone.

Said on a tongue in cheek manner, hence the ‘ 😉 ‘ I would be equally disappointed if they were operating an aircraft in that state from any of the airports down South.

Your last point that US airlines “are regularily making money”, can you name a profitable US carrier? Not many of them that’s for sure. BA and VS are making money, so maybe they are doing it right after all.

As has been said before, if an airline can operate a route profitably then one will surely do so. I’m sure BA and the rest would love LHR size bases at every UK airport, but it’s not going to happen. Shame really.

1L.

I believe that most if not all US airlines’ international(i.e long haul US-UK) routes are profitable, which are what are in question here.

My point about the North-South relationship was that a particular aircraft being based at MAN was not in any way a conscious decision to be detrimental towards the North by an airline based in the South, which was what RIPConcorde had implied in his opening post. Hope I didn’t offend anyone.

Said on a tongue in cheek manner, hence the ‘ 😉 ‘ I would be equally disappointed if they were operating an aircraft in that state from any of the airports down South.

Ren, you answer your own questions surely, when you point out that CO have one hub, EWR, serving the UK from a state about the size of the UK. BA could argue LHR, LGW and MAN as three hubs, and VS the same, in an area the size of the UK. It’s just unfortunate for you that these main hubs aren’t near you, but then neither is most of our population.

CO operate to 7 UK airports from 1 US hub. How many US airports do BA or VS operate to from their hubs here? Marks “hub” argument is way stronger than “an extent”. The only reason there are more hubs in the US serving airports in the UK is that the US has more cities populous enough to support them.

The argument that BA etc don’t operate routes because of support and back up being down South came from this thread, isn’t accurate, and smacks of that chip on the shoulder again. Airlines provide and obtain support in every corner of the world, even Inverness! Even if it was correct, can you imagine what flying empty aircraft around for maintenance would cost?

Your last point that US airlines “are regularily making money”, can you name a profitable US carrier? Not many of them that’s for sure. BA and VS are making money, so maybe they are doing it right after all.

As has been said before, if an airline can operate a route profitably then one will surely do so. I’m sure BA and the rest would love LHR size bases at every UK airport, but it’s not going to happen. Shame really.

1L.

Ren, you answer your own questions surely, when you point out that CO have one hub, EWR, serving the UK from a state about the size of the UK. BA could argue LHR, LGW and MAN as three hubs, and VS the same, in an area the size of the UK. It’s just unfortunate for you that these main hubs aren’t near you, but then neither is most of our population.

CO operate to 7 UK airports from 1 US hub. How many US airports do BA or VS operate to from their hubs here? Marks “hub” argument is way stronger than “an extent”. The only reason there are more hubs in the US serving airports in the UK is that the US has more cities populous enough to support them.

The argument that BA etc don’t operate routes because of support and back up being down South came from this thread, isn’t accurate, and smacks of that chip on the shoulder again. Airlines provide and obtain support in every corner of the world, even Inverness! Even if it was correct, can you imagine what flying empty aircraft around for maintenance would cost?

Your last point that US airlines “are regularily making money”, can you name a profitable US carrier? Not many of them that’s for sure. BA and VS are making money, so maybe they are doing it right after all.

As has been said before, if an airline can operate a route profitably then one will surely do so. I’m sure BA and the rest would love LHR size bases at every UK airport, but it’s not going to happen. Shame really.

1L.

My Scotland (GLA-EDI) argument centres around the fact that US airlines are making good business out of these routes and more are being added (I’m told) in the next year or two. Why UK airlines such as BA, Bmi and even Virgin appear to cling to their traditional hubs whilst US airlines are regularly making money carrying UK citizens across the pond and back bemuses me somewhat to be honest.

It is true, however, that the US Carriers can offer UK Emanating pax more destinations, as virtually all of North/Central America can be reached with a single stopover at their hubs, which, as of themselves are pretty big tourist magnets, anyway (ie Chicago, New York).

The same can’t be said of UK carriers offering the same services to UK Emanating pax, as no UK carriers has a US domestic/Canadian/Central American network.

Nor can the reciprocal be offered, as no UK carrier has particularly big Hubs in the Regions, so they can’t offer one stop routes to elsewhere domestically, or to Europe for US-emanating pax (and quite whether or not eg Bristol/Glasgow would be of significant interest to US based tourists is probably debatable).

Plus, as was rightly pointed out, the MAN-JFK flight is operated by BACX, rather than BA mainline, anyway, which further complicates things as far as the scheduling of G-BNWH.

My Scotland (GLA-EDI) argument centres around the fact that US airlines are making good business out of these routes and more are being added (I’m told) in the next year or two. Why UK airlines such as BA, Bmi and even Virgin appear to cling to their traditional hubs whilst US airlines are regularly making money carrying UK citizens across the pond and back bemuses me somewhat to be honest.

It is true, however, that the US Carriers can offer UK Emanating pax more destinations, as virtually all of North/Central America can be reached with a single stopover at their hubs, which, as of themselves are pretty big tourist magnets, anyway (ie Chicago, New York).

The same can’t be said of UK carriers offering the same services to UK Emanating pax, as no UK carriers has a US domestic/Canadian/Central American network.

Nor can the reciprocal be offered, as no UK carrier has particularly big Hubs in the Regions, so they can’t offer one stop routes to elsewhere domestically, or to Europe for US-emanating pax (and quite whether or not eg Bristol/Glasgow would be of significant interest to US based tourists is probably debatable).

Plus, as was rightly pointed out, the MAN-JFK flight is operated by BACX, rather than BA mainline, anyway, which further complicates things as far as the scheduling of G-BNWH.