British brands

I have started a new thread to avoid drifting the BA New Routes thread any further off track.

MrMichael – 05/07/2015 09:47 BST (on the other thread)

You make an interesting point about Cunard sailing only from Southampton, but the company built it’s own brand and is not getting a boost from the ‘B’ word. That is fair enough, IMHO and flying under the red duster is a pro-British action, rather than using a flag of convenience.

I don’t know if you are aware, but the word ‘British’ cannot be freely registered as a company name and is covered by a statutory instrument (with others), meaning that approval must be sought from the relevant secretary of state, to use it.

British Airways acquired it’s name over 40 years ago, when it was formed from four British airlines and when the name was meaningful, as the new entity had a wide footprint over the UK and flew from all four countries, with regional operations at Birmingham, Manchester and perhaps other airports (it was a bit before my time…)

Nowadays, the airline basically operates a hub and spoke model, with a strong focus on SE England.

Contrary to what some other posters might think, I recognise that this may be a very good business strategy and don’t blame BA for choosing it; nor does it mean that the company is not British (it obviously is, as it is registered in the UK), but it does mean that it is getting a huge boost abroad (in particular from the North American market.)

The company then starts to actively penalise the regions, e.g. withdrawing the Manchester to Gatwick flight, dropping the London to Aberdeen route and charging extra Avios for regional customers who have no option other to connect via London.

IMHO (and I appreciate some others will disagree) there is an element of ‘noblesse oblige’ missing and it is inequitable.

The ‘British’ brand is very valuable and BA should respect that and support the regions or pay a licence fee for using the name, which is no longer appropriate as it was for a newly created flag carrier.

SimonS1 – 05/07/2015 19:59 BST

That is not even a tangential comparison, probably about fourth form debating society level. Is that the best you can do?

But it’s BA penalising the regions or simply forcing them to fly via AMS, PAR or FRA?

I have just checked out the top 100 British brands, only two have the word British in them, British Airways is at no 90, just behind Peacocks! At no 27 is the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) affectionally known by us Brits as Aunty.

Tom

Sorry, i mean Inverness, not Aberdeen.

Aberdeen to Gatwick has also gone?

Mr Michael

Where did you find BA at #90? please reference the link below

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/02/british-airways-named-uks-most-popular-brand

In any event, I would argue that the power of the ‘B’ word is of more importance in North America, than in the UK. This is an observation, not hard data.

I think i’m mad to wade into this but here goes anyway…..

The big question for me is whether the real motivation to remove the british from British Airways’ is more from a desire to punish the airline than it having the ‘right’ to carry the title.

I guess few would argue that BA has the legal right to use the term british as it flies all over britain.

Let’s say for a moment that today there is no airline called British Airways. The established carrier is called Imperial Airways. I decide to launch a new airline called United Kingdom Airlines. I make LGW my hub. I have fifteen longhaul routes from there as well as a few flights to GLA/EDI/MAN. I have a frequent flyer program. People use their miles for the flights they fly. There is no free ride in terms of domestic tag ons to my hub at LGW.

Would many object to me using the ‘United Kingdom Airlines’ branding? Or my frequent flyer program? Probably not.

Which leads me to think that instead of a ‘british brand’ thing it’s more about unhappiness and resentment at the way BA has changed it’s operation within the UK over the years.

Quotes like ‘The company then starts to actively penalise the regions’ and ‘Per the first post, a case of Noblesse Oblige lacking, IMHO’ both convey a strong feeling of emotion as if BA is deliberately putting the regions at an unfair advantage or punishing them. Admittedly I had to google the definition of ‘Noblesse Oblige’ and found the definition ‘privilege entails responsibility’. Applied to BA – which privileges? And what ‘responsibilities’ should it entail?

I can understand how many people from outside the SE can feel after all they have really witnessed is cut cut cut from BA –
– withdrawl of longhaul routes from GLA/BHX
– withdrawls of shorthaul european routes.
– closure of BAR and BACON at BHX and MAN.
– closure of call centre in scotland..
– outsourcing of ground staff in parts of the UK.
– withdrawing the domestic tag on redemption perk.

On the flipside –
– BA continues to fly to all countries within Britain with the exception of Wales.
– it flies GLA – London 16 times per day on average. EDI – London 14 times daily. MAN – London 8 times daily. Belfast – London 6 times daily. LBA – London thrice daily. NCL – London 5 times daily. ABZ – London 6 times daily.
– it’s biggest engineering and maintence base is CWL in Wales where it employs 1,050 people.
– it maintains UK call centres in Newcastle and Manchester.

Did anyone know that British Aerospace has a bigger operation and employs more staff in the U.S than it does in Britain?