[FaroFlyer]

canucklad wrote

“As our legacy national carrier I’d like to think they would support our exporters/importers by having more faith in inaugurating/re-starting direct flights to countries other than the US. In particular, investing in African economies that seem to be on the rise.”

IAG / BA is a quoted company, in business to generate profit, and dividends, for the benefit of shareholders. It is not a DTI export initiative. It seems that many posters on BT are totally against BA whatever it does. Too expensive, shoddy service, outdated seats, poor food, race to the bottom……….

Why do posters think that BA / IAG would listen to opinions on this forum? The airline is profitable and, in my view, very competitive. Looking at HKG next month in Club and the fare is ~ €1750, which is frankly cheap. When it had bucket seats 15 years ago, I was paying 50% more every month. Not the best, nor World’s Favourite, but decent product and value

[Flightlevel]

IAG may not listen ‘though they do read them! After the holiday IT failure they advertised here to thank staff for their efforts.
Its a good (or bad) feedback for them and BT magazine is in every longhaul J class cabin.

[AlanOrton1]

FaroFlyer – I pretty much agree with every word you’ve written.

BA is far from perfect, but with a market cap of £12.3 billion and a share price that has nearly tripled since it floated, and back to it’s pre-brexit price (unlike EZY who are still substantially below), they must have some people who know what they are doing when it comes to route selection.

[FaroFlyer]

[quote quote=825861]IAG may not listen ‘though they do read them! After the holiday IT failure they advertised here to thank staff for their efforts.
Its a good (or bad) feedback for them and BT magazine is in every longhaul J class cabin.

[/quote]

Flightlevel, I was referring to the BT Forum, not the magazine, which is always enjoyable.

[AMcWhirter]

Delta (in conjunction with JV partners AF/KL) has just announced a new route from Paris CDG to Indianapolis. Flights with B767-300 launch in May 2018.

I believe it’s the first time that Indianapolis has gained scheduled transatlantic service.

It’s being said that BA has been caught napping. The Rust Belt is a huge area with a number of cities but BA doesn’t serve any of them.

[TominScotland]

Canucklad, alas Faroflyer and others are right. I love your sentiment but you do appear to be advocating that BA go back to its Imperial days or maybe replicate Aeroflot’s flight schedule of the early 1980s which included every African and Latin American capital, generally on a once a week basis (Cuba was much more frequent). On flights to the Americas they refuelled in Shannon and bartered shiploads of aviation fuel for landing rights etc. I lived in the Emerald Isle in those days and it was common to see 5 or 6 Ilyushins (probably 62s) on the ground there. At the time, Shannon Duty Free had a wonderful Lada Accessories shop…..

[FDOS_UK]

It’s easy to knock Canucklad, but I think he has a point.

Airlines are regulated businesses and as such BA has the privilege of being *allowed* to be the main player out of Heathrow.

There should be a strategic alignment with the UK’s policy, which at the moment is Brexit. Having a million flights a day to the US is not going to help nurture trade with the countries around the world that offer an offset against the potential lost opportunities in Europe.

If IAG/BA won’t support this, then let the government do some regulating and put arrangements into place that deliver what UK industry needs to move forward – moving BA’s operating base to Stansted would be a good start.

[FaroFlyer]

[quote quote=825935]It’s easy to knock Canucklad, but I think he has a point.

Airlines are regulated businesses and as such BA has the privilege of being *allowed* to be the main player out of Heathrow.

There should be a strategic alignment with the UK’s policy, which at the moment is Brexit. Having a million flights a day to the US is not going to help nurture trade with the countries around the world that offer an offset against the potential lost opportunities in Europe.

If IAG/BA won’t support this, then let the government do some regulating and put arrangements into place that deliver what UK industry needs to move forward – moving BA’s operating base to Stansted would be a good start.

[/quote]

If the objective is to fly from industrial heartland to industrial heartland then flights should depart from BHX or MAN. LHR is close to the financial heartland, but not an industrial one.

There is no significant restriction on flights from BHX or MAN and this would be a wonderful opportunity for any airline to capture the market, if it exists.

[canucklad]

For those of you, who believe I’m knocking BA, I’m not.
As previously mentioned BA is part of a Spanish company whose primary responsibility is to its shareholders. What they do with their business is their business. LHR is also owned by a Spanish company and how they manage their business is also their business.

But here’s the rub, both have a British façade, but both are ultimately answerable elsewhere.
The two companies’ combined, become critical players in the UK aviation industry, if not the bigger transportation infrastructure of the UK.

Both companies need each other , but here’s the question I’ll ask, post Brexit , and thinking long term here, not Tory short term ,next election result thinking do they give a damn about the rest of us in the UK ?

As FDOS alluded to, It’s not IAG or HAHL I blame, it’s the government who haven’t bothered to regulate a near cartel situation arising at the UK’s premium airport!

[FDOS_UK]

If the objective is to fly from industrial heartland to industrial heartland then flights should depart from BHX or MAN. LHR is close to the financial heartland, but not an industrial one.

There is no significant restriction on flights from BHX or MAN and this would be a wonderful opportunity for any airline to capture the market, if it exists.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

UK manufacturing employment (source ONS, 14 June 2017), expressed as ‘000 of jobs)

Total – 2,627

London – 127
SE England – 279
SW England – 236
E England – 217

Total – 732

E Mids – 293
W Mids – 323

Total – 616

North East – 115
North West – 318
Yorks/Humber – 293

Total – 726

Now you could discount some of the E England population, then again the NE, NW and Yorks is also probably not really one contiguous area, so I’ll leave the numbers as they are.

These official statistics show the incorrect nature of your proposition.

[Flightlevel]

Canucklad you are correct and the UK government continues to enrich LHR and its Spanish owners with subsidies and policies to make it close to a monopoly, certainly in pax numbers despite the worst pollution of any airport in the EU.
Inevitably the alliances will divide airports, UA has at NYC, and STN and LGW will have new RWYs and if wisdom prevailed (in UK politics?) Star should be given carte blanche to design their own terminal at STN and AF at LGW, and continue at LHR if they wish (i.e. DL/VS will stay at LHR awhile!).
Oneworld and new entries will have more capacity at LHR. It may take the next Labour government to do it.

[FaroFlyer]

[quote quote=825971]

If the objective is to fly from industrial heartland to industrial heartland then flights should depart from BHX or MAN. LHR is close to the financial heartland, but not an industrial one.

There is no significant restriction on flights from BHX or MAN and this would be a wonderful opportunity for any airline to capture the market, if it exists.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

UK manufacturing employment (source ONS, 14 June 2017), expressed as ‘000 of jobs)

Total – 2,627

London – 127
SE England – 279
SW England – 236
E England – 217

Total – 732

E Mids – 293
W Mids – 323

Total – 616

North East – 115
North West – 318
Yorks/Humber – 293

Total – 726

Now you could discount some of the E England population, then again the NE, NW and Yorks is also probably not really one contiguous area, so I’ll leave the numbers as they are.

These official statistics show the incorrect nature of your proposition.

[/quote]

According to your figures, 50% of those in manufacturing employment are in North or Midlands therefore MAN has to be more logical than LHR.

It is unreasonable to blame IAG / BA for not supporting manufacturing by having flights to destinations that do not have a big demand. Nor is it reasonable to say that BA / IAG have some duty from the dim and distant past as slots were somehow gifted to them.

It would be reasonable to build a 3rd runway at LHR next week and say to airlines that they must buy slots. The Government could also make it a condition that each airline successfully buying slots must use 1 slot, or 10% of slots, whichever is higher for remote destinations. If BA buy 30 then 3 must be “charity” slots, or if IB or AZ or AF or VS…buy 2, 3, 5 slots then 1 per airline must be a “charity” slot) Then it would be fair to criticise BA / IAG.

IAG / BA are Spanish listed, but not necessarily Spanish owned, and it is with the full approval of UK and EU. It is not some sleight of hand designed to penalise British business. Buying BMI, and the slots, was available to any airline with deep pockets. Only BA dug deep.

Flightlevel talks of a monopoly and, as it is Friday, we have to ask why there is only one monopolies commission.

[FDOS_UK]

FaroFlyer

You wrote

LHR is close to the financial heartland, but not an industrial one.

I showed that your assertion was untrue, endex.

[MarkivJ]

Nowhere the travel guru that some of you are…but having flown on both United and AA to non-London destinations, I was absolutely shocked at the awful aircraft they send over there. To a point where, I saw a pretty good business class deal once but thought “no way I’m paying business class money for an economy-plus offering”. Perhaps if those carriers plied comparable aircraft to these regions, they might’ve made it work.

I do have 1 question though – yes, I get that BA would likes to use its lucrative LHR slots, etc. etc. but what does BA lose by offering a premium product (like 789 service) from Manchester to say…. JFK or an ORD or LAX, etc. Are they scared it will cannabalise their LHR offerings to their US oneworld hubs? I can imagine they can use a MAN as a hub for connecting EU passengers too. For example, someone from Helsinki could fly to MAN and onwards to this destination versus flying to LHR and back up to the US.

[Flightlevel]

Yes they are, its not in the BA business plan and with limited aircraft to expand at LHR need to use resources in the most efficient way ex LON.
A321LR may change that in the long run’though only EI have them on order.

[Author]

Posts