[KarlMarx]

rferguson

I believe that BA has been shrewd in the fleet replacement strategy and the new mix is going to support the cherrypicking of some profitable routes using the 77W, the 788,m the 789 and the A350 to right size the offer.

BA needs to refresh the premium products, but I believe that exercise is in hand and the future looks bright.

[rferguson]

Totally agree. The premium products need a total overhaul. When Cathay launched their fantastic new J seat a few years ago (let’s call it BA F seat ‘mini’) it was something truly ground breaking and unique (although they are perhaps not deserving of the credit as I believe US Airways actually had the original design but didn’t receive any of the glory). Now a few years down the track, many airlines have gone on to take the same design which has become quite prevalent. I believe AF is the most recent to announce the new CX-esque seat as it’s replacement. And Cathay itself have announced they are working on an even newer seat!

I’ve always said BA will view the replacement of their J product like a swinging pendulum. There are a lot worse products out there and the revenue per metre BA get from the configuration are second to none. Although the lack of direct aisle access has become a bigger and bigger issue. It’s always been my thought that BA would wait until there is a tipping point where the revenue lost by passengers flying J on airlines with newer products outweighs the revenue gained by the more dense configuration. And I think BA knows that will happen soon, especially with AF and LH rolling out their fully flat direct aisle access products.

I guess the new J announcement will take place around 6-12 months before the first aircraft receives the new product, And as with ‘New F’ I guess BA will decide not to retrofit all of their aircraft. It will take a good couple years to have it on most of the fleet. So even if BA were to announce a ‘new’ J product today the probability of flying on it would probably be slim for the next two years. My guess is the A350’s will launch the new J product.

[sparkyflier]

SimonS1 – I am sure you are right about there being huge demand for flights from Africa for example to Dubai and Beijing, however I am also sure that of all the cities in Europe, London has the greatest appeal for business, conferences etc.

In recent years I have spoke to many bankers, oil & gas execs, governments, investors etc who dispair at the lack of direct non plane-changes between London and developing nations (and vice versa) from Indonesia, Myanmar westward to central and west Africa such as Cameroon & Cote d’Ivoire.

Stopping via DXB to do some business, but why would I fly from lets say LHR to Lusaka via DXB, which would take around 16 hours, when a direct flight would take about 9 or so. Or Kigali which would be 7or 8 non-stop or 15 hours via Doha.

I can understand your frustrations with the Saturday night rule, however, BA now has daily 747s to Accra, topped up with 3 x 767! And when they tried Freetown and Monrovia, supply was increased after a few months.

Tirana1 I think we share views of where they could be demand, which I think could be tapped into with the current fleets, and certainly future fleets. BA did serve Dar es Salaam for many years, but rivals such as KLM and TK were more flexible, also providing flights to Kilimanjaro for example. But BA could easily serve such cities with triangle routings and to tweak the scheduling, leaving LHR mid morning to collect connections from the Americas.

How about LHR-KIG-DAR-LHR on 772, or LHR JRO-DAR-LHR, similar to a KLM routing.

Although TK flieds to many destinations in East Africa and Central Asia, the schedules are mostly pretty horrendous – who really wants to arrive anywhere, especially African cities, at 3 in the morning- the first day of any business trip or holiday is a right-off.

Re suggestions on Central Asia and Mongolia, these could all be lucrative and front cabin heavy, and suggest that Ulan Bator could be tagged onto Almaty, maybe 2-3 times a week, and perhaps as was said, increasing that as well.

Rferguson I think Tehran could well return, perhaps in conjunction to Baku or Yerevan, depending on demand and local conditions for crew-rest. This will depend on sanctions lifting etc, but this will attract diaspora and very premium traffic.

Seoul I am not too surpised that it will move from 772 to 787. There is serious and very good competition from Korean and Asiana, and the schedule BA have is not that attractive. Chengdu maybe BA were to late there, with KLM having done very well there, has a loyal following, and is a Skyteam carrier along with China Southern. Maybe there is good cargo for BA though?

SM I would not base to much analysis on a Norwegian service to Fort Lauderdale to see if it could be a success as it has very little brand recognition currently in the UK. An LGW 772 would fill up pretty quickly, maybe with a 3 x weekly offering.

The aircraft which I think is most exciting for BA as you have said is the A350. I am not excited by the 787, indeed will avoid it, but the A350 is the one that can really help BA raise its game, and that all passengers from F to Y will benefit from (as long as they do not go 10 across in Y!).

[KarlMarx]

sparkyflyer

Given the decision to go 9 across in the 787, can you think of a reason why they will not go for the ‘high efficiency’ 10 across on the A350? That extra seat will make a big difference to yields.

[sparkyflier]

I think the 10 abrest in Y on the A350 will not be just very tight, but really tight!

BA is not a charter carrier, but to quote Willy “a premium carrier”. I know friends who have been on 787 and hated the seating and as a result are avoiding flying the plane, even when there is no choice.

[7griffinjack]

Sparkyflyer – Thomson fly non-stop from LON to Phuket..

[SimonS1]

Sparkyflyer – of course people talk about demand for London flights, despair at the lack of service etc however that doesn’t always stack up in reality.

In your example – if enough people wanted to go direct to Lusaka why couldn’t BA make it work with a 767 3 days a week? Same with Dar, one of the 10 fastest growing cities globally, BA pulled its 3x a week service as it didn’t pay. Yet EK uses a 777 every day.

Where were all the city types when the service did exist? Or could it just be that more of the conferences in sectors like financial services are held in places like Nairobi, Johannesburg and Dubai? Last month one of our analysts attended an Egypt conference that a few years ago was held in London, now it’s held in the Dubai Atlantis.

Mauritius – BA doing it 3 x a week, EK doing it 2 x a day. Not just tourists either, the financial sector there is growing fast.

Of course there are exceptions (such as Accra), I suppose mainly because on that it really makes no sense to go via the Gulf.

I do agree with you about triangular trips but even then the distances can be a factor, on something like LHR-KIG-DAR you are effectively flying 2 hours in the wrong direction on the second leg and then sitting an hour on the ground if you want to get from Kigali to London. So suddenly the proposition and frequencies offered by EK don’t look so bad after all, especially if you live in the regions as EK can get you from say Dar to Glasgow or Manchester with just the one stop/change whereas on BA it really is “long haul from London”.

[sparkyflier]

Hi 7griffinjack

I did not know that Thomson flew nonstop to Phuket. Is this with 787? But I am wondering if the return flight has a technical stop on the way back. I say this as I remember a discussion on this forum last year where Phuket came up and the issue of its runway length, resulting that flights could just about reach Europe, but not northwest Europe which is obviosly a longer flight. But I stand to be corrected and maybe the 787 can do it as it is much more fuel efficient?

Hi Simons1 thanks for your input. Would be super to hear more of your African adventures. Also do you ever choose Africa based carriers such as ET or KQ?

Re the Africa flights and routings, KLM starting a route to Lusaka and Harare would not have helped demand, using much newer A330 and with a daytime southbound flight, enabling it to recieve connections from North America. And then there was the new flight from EK.

I recall also from this forum, and other discussins, that BA were becoming quite unpopular on both Dar es Salaam and Lusaka routes because the aircraft( 767) often went technical, and the inflight service was “not up to standard”, mainly due to the 767 not being able to store/provide food as would be expected on a 9/10 hour flight.

But back to the traingle routings, this is an area where BA is quite inflexible and whre KLM has beneffited – it can save on petrol and costs this on AMS-JRO-DAR-LON, AMS-KIG-EBB-AMS and of course AMS-HRE-LUN-AMS.

Back onto West Africa, Air France is launching A380 flights to Abidjan such is demand, now that the country is booming.

[SimonS1]

Hi Sparkyflyer

Yes for the internal (to Africa) flights I do use KQ. Sometimes SAA. Have never used ET.

Mainly use EK for the long hauls as it’s a chance to see some clients on the way out. However for West Africa it’s not feasible so I tend to use LH or KLM if going that way.

There is plenty of opportunity in Africa, however I do generally think the European carriers are slow to take advantage.

[MarkivJ]

To start with, they need to start daily A380 services to Delhi and Mumbai and get in the race before EK and EY begin. Once that happens (EY and EK begin), BA will end up reducing capacity overall in the Indian market. And let’s not forget that the Indian market has a lot of premium travel (mostly business and Bollywood).

[MarkivJ]

The one market that BA will always have an upper hand one is the US one. So perhaps swap their jumbo flights to DFW and Houston with A380s? Perhaps an A380 to ORD as well. All 3 are massively selling routes. I don’t think A380 will make sense to Boston.

[SimonS1]

As EK flies 5x a day to Mumbai and 3x to Delhi I doubt they will be panicking too much.

[batterytraveller]

I’m trying to rack my brains for other US cities that are quite as plum for direct service as Austin/San Antonio (close enough to be considered). Austin I think works because its a wealthy, cosmopolitan city which also works as a leisure destination. I can’t really think of US cities that might fit a similar profile; It’s difficult but here are some ideas

Charlotte – US Airways hub, currently has US service to gatwick, good connections over the south east. Economic centre in its own right.

Pittsburgh – manages to support a profitable summer only Delta Paris service on a 757, 787 might be too big and the route might be too shot for the economics to kick in. On the plus side big companies, subsidiaries of european firms, big universities and hospitals, big catchment area especially now Cleveland doesn’t have much service. PIT has a little non-hub US Airways traffic that could provide feed with a better connection that PHL. Probably too small though.

Portland – I see this coming up a lot, I think possible because both it an Austin like to ‘keep it weird’, not sure it would generate the feed.

Something in the south? – Nashville, Mephis, Birmingham? Can’t see anywhere big enough

San Jose – not much better than SFO for silicon valley, but more convenient for some, Maybe works like San Diego/LAX but its much closer to SFO than that

Minneapolis – going up against delta in a strong home market, they presumably make it work to atlanta, half the size though.

The more I look at it the more I think Austin was a pretty unique opportunity. Rich community, no direct service to Europe, a long way to drive for it. No dominant local carrier and plenty of resins for europeans to go to Austin.

BA are free to prove me wrong but I think they pretty much fly direct to everywhere in the US worth flying to.

[SimonS1]

US Airways stopped flying Charlotte to Gatwick in March 2013.

[MarkivJ]

San Jose is a good choice. There are a lot of engineers in the South Bay and BA can do a JAL by flying to both places.

[Author]

Posts