Hi eveyone !!

a friend of mine and myself was just arguing which of the following airline has the right to be called " UK's flag carrier" today. Is it still BA, or VS or even Easyjet or FlyBE... Yes, probably some of our readers out there are getting red right now and huge eyes of anger while reading this... But it is a legitimate question--so fellow users and readers--what do you think who is the legitimate UK flag carrier ?

Just to give some thoughts--BA has of course a bigger fleet than VS or Easyjet or FlyBE. And from the historical point of view and subjective feelings of embodying what is "British"--BA is the choice and answer. But what about VS--it is no doubt a British carrier as BA, an international player as well, good products( Club Lounges for example), --and since recently has the contract to fly the UK gov--meaning especially the UK Prime Minister and the Royal Family. Does this make VS the holder of the title "UK's flag carrier" ? And what about Easyjet and FlyBE--do they count as contenders as well--like that they fly more places in the UK than BA and VS ? And actually serve UK pax direct flights from places between the British Isles and the Continent. Or in the end-- is it EK--as it serves more UK cities as gateways to huge international destinations around the world (just kidding here !--but it is still an argument isn't it ?)

So blokes-it is your call--who is UK's flag carrier and why ?

Continues...

Hello Hess - this is a can of worms you have started to open! If you turn the clock back to say 1978 (I have just picked that year out of the hat) you had British Airways; British Caledonian; British Island Airways and Dan Air, as airlines that were British based. British Airways was seen as the flag carrier as it was still a nationalised company. The likes of BR, UK and DA were just seen as British airlines.

I wonder what the answer to this question would have been if you asked it 40 years ago in 1970. Would the flag carrier have been BEA or BOAC.

Today as in 1978 you have four British based airlines. Personally I still feel that BA is the flag carrier because they are the largest in terms of aircraft and routes serving lots of places around the world. Whereas VS only serves a few places by comparison, EZY is European and BE is mainly regional.

What is an interesting question is who is the USA flag carrier, AA or DL or UA or what. Does India feel that Air India is over Jet. Interesting question Hess, have you been on the red wine!?!

Continues...

Times have changed. The British way of doing business, as well as our leisure, the easy & relative cheap ability to fly to other countries for weekends & short breaks. Its not just for business or work...

Therefore, i suggest it is the travelling public's perception of brands, & the vast choice out there which influences where people would fall on this. Would people state that it was EZY, if this is the carrier that has brought them greater mobility, & the old "Jet Set" image, now within easy reach of many more? In Europe EZY are seen as the British Airline that brings the UK to Europe...

With my new Virgin Atlantic Gold card, it certainly has opened my eyes to the effective & personalised marketing they use. Seeing Virgin Media, Megastores, Finances & cards, Gyms, shopping links..All with the Virgin logo, reminds you of Virgin Atlantic.. They become synonymous. They certainly tailor & personalise their marketing, into buying into all aspects of their Companies. You feel much more a community & club member than a passenger or customer, in all aspects. This represents a British Success to me. hey get my vote. Outside of the UK, who would people identify as "the British Airline?" That would be very interesting...

Other EU countries certainly see their own major carrier as their flagship. Germany - LH, Netherlands - KLM, France - AF? But then perhaps they don't have such competition as we do in the UK.

The sheer volume & presentation of Virgin for me, then when i think of a modern European way of doing business, less stuffy more informal, but more effective, I think Virgin Atlantic represents that better, & with a more up to date attitude. In Australia, Virgin Blue is the EZY of the country, & VAustralia is developing excellent high profile routes, & Virgin health clubs. The Australians would identify The Virgin group, as representing their perception of Britain, & a Company / brand that has brought them greater ability to fly. This in turn, matches or becomes instilled in peoples value systems. The Aussies see this as being much more British, than the BA, that has a stayed, stuffy, old fashioned reputation now, & clearly cant maintain a major flagship route down under anymore! They are referred to as a "Yesterday's Airline".

I live part in each through the year, so it depends on yr angle, exposure, who you associate with getting you in the Air, & value in yr life style of travel. Very interesting thread...

Continues...

Whilst I might agree with some of what you say Mark, the question was not about the opportunity to do some BA bashing, an airline you never use. Times indeed have changed, but out of the four airlines around in 1978 it is only BA that is still there. One could say that for BCal read Virgin, for Dan Air read Easyjet and Flybe is what was BIA.

The question who is the flag carrier still, dispite it being distasteful to you Mark, will be BA just like LH in Germany or AF in France. I bet too that if you did a poll of people in the street in any city in Australia and ask what the national airline is the overwhelming answer will be QF.

I would also suspect that if you asked the flag carrier question in any European country for the UK the answer would still overwhelmingly be BA.

Continues...

Putting the answer into context, is what is needed with this thread.

Curious how some on here get so personally threatened when BA is criticised, they in fact flying few other Airlines themselves, & some clearly not travelling as much these days to see the perspectives in various regions around the world. And back to the issue...

The Australians, (Having lived part in Sydney since 1991), Don't regard Qantas as their national Airline. Most are for domestic flights, using Jetstar or VirginBlue, & VAustralia. Qantas has a tarnished reputation for safety with so many recent events in the last few years. Domestically, people laugh when you say you have taken them, as they are "merely for the oldies" as i was told, when i flew from SYD-MEL late last yr. It was indeed, as was the lounge a 50+ population. When i flew Jetstar or watched the VirginBlue Boardings, they were all families or younger people. My QF flight was an old 737-400, with yellow stripe gaffer tape on the imovable tv screens in the corridor all the way down the Aircraft. U had to bend down if you were over 6ft to avoid them! So they are rather old n tired inside, & this is the image that stays with others. Perhaps the style matches the current values of people, it is not just where an Airline flies too or has the largest planes, it's about how & if you use them.

It therefore is an interesting few questions... Who we see internally as BT's, who leisure travellers see? How others see their own country( Netherlands with a strong patriotism for KLM) carriers? Then who they would identify as their own

Continues...

So putting this thread in context is now bashing me and QF is it Mark? The Netherlands have a strong patriotism for KLM, indeed they don't really have a lot of choice of home grown airlines, unlike the UK or Australia. In fact most European countries don't have a lot of choice.

Strange what you say about QF being for the oldies, when I travelled from SYD on a QF domestic service in June the lounge was full with all types of people including young and those with young families. Certainly I never found talking to Australians in Australia rolling about the floor laughing when QF was mentioned.

Continues...

Hi everyone!

Thanks Nigel and Mark for your opinions. Certainly we regard the airline which has more historical context to the country and its aviation history( longstanding airline representing the country) as the flag carrier -- with BA it is obvious through historical facts and the largest fleet and destinations comparing to VS. But Marks's point of view is not that bad as well regarding VS and Virgin brands&logo. Virgin has been more focused in personalising their products to the consumers and therefore bonding with them easily. It is more update than BA's PR approaches.

But I would leave the old stuffy and yesterday's airline argument aside--BA's and QF's approach is not that sooo bad--there is enough room for improvements. I still see both airlines aspiring for the best of their pax and that is the prime factor in winning pax.

The fact that pax in their home countries have got less choice rather than taking their flag carrier--is obsolete. In Europe-- you are at least one stop away from a major hub where all the great airlines of Asia and Middle East are there to be tried out.

Coming back to the main topic--it is a fact that VS is trying to become a rival on the title of UK's flag carrier. The question is would BA let the title slip without a struggle or just point to the historical fact having been there before VS ? Or is the title flag carrier for countries like USA( with many major carriers like UA, CO, DL, AA) and UK just not appropriate anymore ?

Continues...

Hi Hess. Yes agree with the points made...

The last 5-10 years, all aspects of travel,& Business, have become very globalised. Some of the larger Airlines have sort of grabbed a stronghold, like LH for Eastern Europe, & AF/KLM for central Europe. Both these have bought up smaller Airlines, having great control in a region. AF/KLM group have some 65% of slots at LCY also...!

Perhaps this is one of the aspects where national identity, much as in our own lives has become less defined, & more globally influenced. Synonymous with this has been the great reputation of the Far East carriers over a long period, & in recent years the EY / EK. The image of the European Airlines, when most used to fly down to Australia for eg, have gone from many travellers view. They simply don't see them anymore, but are certainly presented with Etihad & Emirates standards, & innovations, well priced long haul fares. I certainly recall some Qantas flights, Lauda, KLM down to Sydney all the way.

The Virgin branding surprises me in Australia, & it's looping the world now with VAustralia, also about to link up South Africa. they have a 30%+ stake in Air Asia also?!!! The domestic flight market in Australia was awful a few years ago, almost as much to fly domestically as up to Asia. But this has been broken down by JetStar (Qantas low cost), & VirginBlue. Domestic travel in Oz, is at times much longer than an EU destination from the UK, over 4 hrs SYD - PER, so this has opened the gates for many more, & they associate that with the new Companies.They also have brand new aircraft. QF still charge very high rates for country flights in NSW, & run some very old aircraft, but they do have a nationally fond long haul good reputation.

So Domestic /short haul, & International services have different loyalties, along with the geography. Europe is so dense, & the UK such a massive market for every airline now, its hard to see how all the traditional Flag carriers can all survive in the EU, but then we see some are not. BMI may well have been considered some years ago also for the UK, but declining.

Low cost, have almost replaced EU travel, & in a regard of their own. Travel in the EU is not what it was, not as enjoyable in my view.

The identity changes & perceptions, go along with life in general being more globally marketed, & influenced maybe...?

Continues...

Hi everyone !!

Thanks Mark--yes, VS is really good in marketing its brands and actually successful with it as you have commented.

But we will see on BA's side this month--if it can score a PR success with the much awaited F class product to be launched this week--probably ? Perhaps BA could defend its title to be UK's flag carrier--at least with this new product or not ?( probably the PM and Royal Family would consider in trying it out as well )

Continues...

Easyjet or PaddyPrayer

Continues...

I think what should really determine who is the flaf carrier in the UK boils down to name recognition "overseas". Everyone who lives in the UK has heard of Virgin, Easy Jet, and thee others but BA certainly carries the British Flag around the world. They are much more an "ambassador" of the UK to far off places in Africa, Asia, S. America, etc then any other. Being the largest, with the most international routes, nd the name recognition alone really makes BA the national fla carrier. The only place where it would really be impossible to say who the flag carrier is whould be the US. There are 5 major airlines that fly world wide. While Delta is the largest, it really is the airline of "Atlanta" just as United is the Airline of Chicago, Continental is the airline of Newark and American is the airlineof Dallas. The Japanese look at United at the major carrier to the US. The Europeans look at American and Delta, South America looks at Continetal and American, and some far flung places have only heard of one American airline so in there eyes, that would be the flag carrier. (South Africa = Delta, Dubai = United, India = American, etc. Now here is an argument that can go on forever,.........

Continues...

Put it another way. Instead of "the" UK's flag carrier, how about "all" the UK's flag carriers? A flag carrier is any airline that flies to another country carrying the flag. Then any UK airline that flew from a UK airport to an airport overseas would be "one of" the UK's flag carriers.

Continues...

****Well said CONSTANT FLYER.........Whatever flag is on the tail makes that airline "a" flag carrier of the country its from

I guess to mix works you can say whos the "national carrier": and thats easy to figure out.....only an airline owned by the government is a national carrier

Continues...

I think British Airways is still the UK flag carrier. They are older than the others, they carry the flag on their tailfin and the name says it all. They are not perfect but they are still pretty good.

If we are talking about *national* carriers, do we need one for each nation? Air Wales ceased passenger ops in 2006. Flyglobespan went the way of the Scottish banks but Loganair survives. I don't think you can really count airlines from EIRE.

Continues...

Air UK should have been. The name implied it.

Continues...

Pan American World Airways was the de facto "national" carrier of the USA. Although not a government-owned airline, it was the first US-based international airline and it carried the American flag to every corner of the world. We should regard American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Continental Airlines as Texan airlines, United Airlines as a Chicago-based airlines, JetBlue as a NYC airline, Virgin America as a San Francisco airline and USAirways as a Philadelphia airline. As a matter of fact, every airline in the USA is regional considering that a "region" in America is easily the size of Europe...

Continues...

JJ51435 - I think "national" carriers are different from "flag carriers". I'm afraid your geography is a bit skewed, though: Europe - from the Atlantic to the Urals - is larger than the USA in both area and population.

Continues...

JJ - Air UK was British Island Airways renamed but essentially it was a regional airline not a national

Continues...

The answer to this one is simple: The UK has no designated flag carrier. What is a 'flag carrier' anyway? It isn't so much who the people of the UK perceive as their flag carrier. It is more about what airline represents the UK (or australia) around the world.

While Virgin Atlantic has a high profile in several countries (ie the few they serve) if you ask someone in the majority of North America, South America, Asia, the Far East or Africa to name a UK airline (or name the UK flag carrier) the majority will say BA. In fact in many areas VA would never have been heard of. Likewise V Australia or Virgin Blue. I'm sure most people around the globe would be more familiar with the airline 'with the big red kangaroo on the tail'.

Anyway, if you google 'uk flag carrier' most of the sources, such as wiki, will name BA. Although once again, the UK has NO officially designated flag carrier. Same as the US.

BA is by far the largest airline. It has 245 aircraft flying to 150 destinations around the world.

Compare this to Virgin: 37 aircraft flying to 30 destinations.

Of course none of this matters really. Do you fly with an airline just because its the 'flag carrier'? Of course not. Its down to image, preference, price......which I think are more the points that mark raises in his posts.

From my experience BA and VA are two very different beasts. And both are like marmite (or vegemite!!). You either love them, or hate them. Both have their loyal followers that wouldn't dream of 'flirting' with the other.

Virgin represents modern, cheeky. BA representents business-like, heritage. Some love the informal approach of Virgin. Others hate it. A couple I was chatting with on a BA flight recently (a Lord and Lady no less) were appalled they were referred to as 'mate and luv' on a recent Virgin flight and vowed never to return! lol On the flipside, some find BA too 'stuck up'. It's all down to personal perception.

If you do have a look at review sites like skytrax.com though one thing sticks out about Virgin Atlantic.....perhaps they over-hype themselves JUST a bit as most people seem to think the product has deteriorated (if they are returning customers) or, they were expecting more (if they were VA virgins!).

Oh, one more point Hess. The UK government recently gave their business to VA which undercut the BA tender. However this does not apply to the royal family. On multi-national tours the royal family will still tend to fly BA. However, it is custom that the airline of the country the queen is visiting to provide the transport. For example, when Wills recently travelled to OZ it was down to the OZ government to sort out his ride (QF).

Continues...

Thanks Jason...so the Royal Family can actually be sure that they are always flying the flag carrier..right ? NZ for New Zealand, AC for Canada, QF for Australia...

I like the comparison with the marmate/vegemite--you really rather like it or hate it. About the experience of VS crews to be too informal---during my flights I was never been spoken as "mate" or some sort of... It depends on your FA during that flight--but I am sure, if you tell them not to refer to you like that--they will remember it. While on the other hand--I never find BA FAs too stuck up..in contrary some are too informal and cheeky in a way..which I quote with grin or a direct comment--then we had the normal pax-FA attitude again. It is always the matter of how you let the FAs treat you and the way you behave towards the FAs and CSM onboard.

Continues...

To clarify: UK Prime Minister Brown recently chartered a Virgin Atlantic aircraft for a specifc trip. This has occurred once only so-far and was an individual arrangement.

Whether it had anything to do with Sir Richard Branson's reported embarrassment at being photographed boarding a British Airways Boeing 747 in January 2008, en route to Beijing with the PM, is entirely open to conjecture:

http://bit.ly/dt0A8m

Certainly, no ongoing contracts were signed and since HM Government is obliged to seek best value for any charter, subject to availability, security and PR considerations, then it may or may not use Virgin, BA or any other acceptable carrier/provider in future.

The Royal Family is subject to completely separate arrangements and protocols. If they are not otherwise engaged in operational duty, and the limited range is not an issue, then the two BAe 146s, three Agusta A109s or six BAe 125s of the No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron may be used (and paid for) by members of the Royal Family.

When they are unavailable, or their use impractical, the Royal Family will either fly scheduled or will charter based on best value and national interest. In general, British Airways has won this business but, I believe, on a few occasions airline charter companies have been utilised.

The term 'flag carrier' is a media construct and actually has no official or legal meaning whatsoever.

Continues...

Thanks Continentalclub for the brief infos. Actually no one here really will be that angry, if the Royal Family would be flying CathayPacific or Singapore Airlines, if they prove to have the best value for that trip and save taxpayers money and sensible too. Of course--it will stir something up--when we see the Queen sitting in CX or SQ F cabins--but I believe that is it? I personally believe it is the right decision to consider taking other sensible options than sticking to obsolete procedures in order not to break old style of protocols or whatever.

Continues...

For me the UKs flag carrier is the one that represent us a nation and I’ve got to say is not Virgin Atlantic and most definite is not Easyjet. I would say is British Airways.

Continues...

Odd that HM' s Government does not have its own aircraft. No Royal Air Force One?!?

Continues...

BMI's Majority Shareholder are Germany based..so the're OUT

Virgins Majority Shareholders are Singapore and Luxembourg based..so the're OUT

FlyBE's Majority Shareholder is Jersey Based..so the're OUT

EazyJets Majority Shareholder is Greek ..so the're OUT

Monarchs Majority Shareholder is Swiss..so the're OUT

FlyThomson Majority Shareholder is German..so the're OUT

45% of BA will be Spanish..so that will not be a Totally Britsh Airline anymore. So the're OUT

So that leaves us with Thomas Cook Airlines

Continues...

I'm not sure where you're based, Hess, but I can absolutely assure you that there is not a chance in this World that a Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines aircraft would be chartered for a Royal Family flight from the UK. It's also highly unlikely that a senior member of the family would fly scheduled on one from London, as both LHR-direct destinations for CX and SQ are served by UK and even Commonwealth carriers.

It would be a PR disaster for the family (and for the UK) from a pure brand point of view - before the inevitable 'green' issue of an aircraft being positioned from c14 hours away and then back again simply for a Royal charter reared its head. Then there'd be all the new behind-the-scenes security relationships that would have to be set up and goodness-knows what else; all at great cost.

Those who have ever seen pictures of the Royal Apartments, the Royal Train or HMY Britannia, will know that HM Queen is apparently largely unmoved by the overly-luxe. To that end, it is unlikely that she would be swayed by a slightly larger HD TV screen.

With regard to there being a Government-owned longhaul aircraft at the disposal of Ministers of State and the Royal Family, a la Air Force One, this has been discussed on numerous occasions and has been discounted on grounds of cost by Whitehall, and also with an eye to UK public opinion which is reportedly opposed to the idea.

Continues...

Don't worry even I can't imagine that Her Majesty would ever fly a different airlne beside the UK or Commenwealth airlines. It is more likely they chartered a private jet before ever considering such notion. But just to be objective here--what is the problems with CX and SQ?--are not Hongkong and Singapore former colonies and their airlines CX and SQ could be seen as Commonwealth carriers as well ?

I am just curious -- do everyone here beside Continentalclub think it is really a PR disaster to take CX and SQ, if it is primarily because of economical reasons and try not to waste taxpayers money unnecessarily ?

Continues...

I think that you will find UncleDude that Thomas Cook is mainly German. Jersey is also part of the UK and therefore that rules out your theory about Flybe.

Actually Hess I would agree with ContinentalClub, there would be a right splash across the media if HRH travelled with CX or SQ, unpatriotic, should fly with a British airline (be that BA or VS). Neither HKG or SIN are members of the Commonwealth, even if they are former colonies.

Continues...

Jersey is most certainly not part of the UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey

Continues...

Singapore is a member of the commonwealth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

Continues...

I think the term 'flag carrier' is more about an airline being 'sponsored' to fly to destinations by the government, which is an effect, a subsidy.

I also think this has been expanded over the years to include 'vanity routes' - so airlines can keep pins on maps

Of course this has all been blown out the water in recent years. Some airlines still seem to like a bit of vanity flying (e.g. certain airlines flying to African destinations) but the majority are pretty focused on every route paying its way.

Moreover, which government is prepared to pay taxpayer’s money to keep airlines flying to routes (save those counties with long-haul out-islands)?

So I think this is a redundant term - before we even think about applying it to a UK based carrier.

(Even though I was tempted to post based on the implied 'which carrier best exports British values...')

Continues...

I think, in all fairness, the most prevalent understanding of what constitutes a Commonwealth 'member' is actually a so-called Commonwealth Realm, of which neither Singapore nor Hong Kong is.

The point is somewhat moot however, as there is no practical or economic rationale whatsoever for any other carrier to be used other than a UK-based one, with whom the Royal Household, Special Branch and other relevant agencies already have pre-existing relationships.

Continues...

Hess - "So, blokes.."

Who says I'm a bloke?

Continues...

Well Singapore was a colony - but we're talking about the Commonwealth of Nations, a membership which includes those who have never been a British colony. Mozambique for one!

I think what you are getting at is not which countries were colonies - but which have retained The Queen as head of state. This is a smaller group and includes Australia, New Zealand, Canada, The Bahamas, and a number of Caribbean Nations.

You then have a number of nations that became republics that are in the commonwealth which is much larger (India, most of the African members etc.)

And then you have republics that chose not to be part of the commonwealth such as Ireland and...um....the ....USA !! Both are eligible though!

So why shouldn't HM fly an airline of a country in which she is Head of State?

Continues...

NTarrant: Thomas Cooks has not been German owned since July 2009. Its is now virtually 100% British.

Continues...

When travelling, there is nothing like stepping out of the fierce heat in some Third World hellhole into a cool BA plane and being greeted by a British Airways crewmember.

The kettle will be on shortly, and it feels like you are home already.

Continues...

VintageKrug - Not sure that BA flies to many "Third World hell holes" any more - apart from Heathrow, of course!

Continues...

"Third World hellhole"?! Honestly, VK....

Continues...

Typical full of prejudice--VK. Just keep up that habits and alienate the readers here---sensibility is not your virtue, apart from some others .....

Continues...