[batterytraveller]

My mistake on charlotte. Maybe it works with a hub at both ends?

[IanFromHKG]

Interesting discussion. Thanks sparkyflyer.

Here are some responses/thoughts from me.

Sparkyflyer suggested some tag routes, including Phuket. Possible, but BKK-HKT is fairly well served already, and BA entered into a codeshare arrangement with PG on that route only last year. Oh, and it IS possible to fly nonstop from Europe to Phuket, as 7griffinjack notes – a couple of weeks ago I saw two Transaero 747s parked there! Many other European routes too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phuket_International_Airport

KarlMarx mentions a new J to regain parity with other OW members. I’m not sure if that’s a prediction or a suggestion, but I think it is unlikely in the short to medium term. While it is possible that an airline would retrofit planes shortly after launch (as LH is now doing) it just doesn’t seem like BA’s style. Rferguson implies the same, although he suggests retrofitting might take a couple of years, and I disagree with that too! (BTW are there still aircraft with Old First??)

Panda1000 suggests B787s to Australia. I have to disagree again. It just isn’t big enough. The B777 or A350, maybe, but the B787 is really a B767 replacement, and who would fly one of those from Europe to Australasia? Sorry, Panda1000, I just don’t see it

MarkivJ says BA have an upper hand (indeed, “will always have an upper hand”) on US routes. Not with AA’s new business class, they don’t (although I concede they share revenue, and of course also acknowledge connections to the regions through T5)

Batterytraveller and SimonS1 – yes, US Airways stopped flying CLT-LGW, but only because they started flying CLT-LHR. Of course, since they are fellow OW members, one could argue that there is therefore no need for BA to fly the route. However, that doesn’t stop BA flying to every other major financial centre served by other alliance members. And before anyone starts saying that CLT isn’t a financial centre, let me stop you and point out that Charlotte is the second largest financial centre in the US (yes, it surprised me too, when I first found out). It is also an energy centre. With it being a major US Airways hub, there is lots of potential for onward transfers.

Having disagreed with loads of people (sorry!), here is an opportunity for them to get their own back, with my own thoughts about what BA should do:

I think they should brand short-haul separately. It is pretty poor, frankly, and damages their image. Do as Cathay do, and let a different entity run short-haul, allowing product differentiation without brand dilution.

Abandon plans to downgrade CE further. Especially don’t reduce legroom. If you want to retain the flexibility to “move the curtain”, market as three-class – CE (middle seat blocked, extra legroom), something like AA’s Main Cabin Extra (3×3, extra legroom) and economy. That way they can eke extra cash out of economy passengers for the rows with extra legroom, but retain that quality for premium pax (because frankly, an extra seat beside you is nice, but when the seat in front of you in your face/lap, it isn’t much of an advantage)

Better food in CE. They really need better differentiators!

More to follow but I have to run now…

[SimonS1]

I do agree Ian, CE needs a clear proposition. I think what is happening at the moment is just fudging around.

With the new higher density seating, what am I paying for? Essentially an economy seat with the seat next to me empty. Some rudimentary catering (afternoon tea?). Priority boarding (half the world has that these days) and lounge access (which most business travellers have anyway).

A tough one as well due to the need to retain operating flexibility. I’m not sure the 3 classes idea really works, seems like overkill for short journeys, and how could you be guaranteed to get the cabin sizes right?

A few options though. Eliminate it altogether on short haul routes (which seems to be what is happening by stealth) whilst retaining for mid haul upwards. Maybe greater use of Vueling. I wonder where things would be now if they had retained Go.

Either way it does make sense to have a short haul business unit that at least breaks even which seems to be what WW is trying to get to. To be fair to BA it isn’t the only airline with this dilemma.

[IanFromHKG]

Thanks, SimonS1. To elaborate on my Main Cabin Extra idea. This wasn’t to create a true three-class service, rather it is to enable BA to retain a combination of flexibility, enhanced premium product, and revenue. They would retain something like the existing configuration, whereby X number of rows have extra legroom. CE would be guaranteed extra legroom. The curtain could be moved back and forth as it is now. However, pax wanting to reserve an economy seat with extra legroom would be charged a premium, while still getting economy service and 3×3 seating.

In this way, BA lose some of the incentive to reduce legroom across the board, and those wanting extra legroom in economy will (unless the flight is full with pax not wanting to pay the premium) have to pay for it. This helps to retain some of the advantages of CE and the likelihood that people will pay extra for it, and could also make BA more attractive for transfer passengers who wlil otherwise – under current plans – move from lie-flat long-haul to what is, in essence, not much different from an underfilled economy flight (as I said, without extra legroom, an empty seat next to you isn’t much of a bonus)

[Bath_VIP]

BatteryTraveller,

“Somewhere in the South? Can’t see somewhere big enough.”

Two obvious places are New Orleans & Mobile. New Orleans has great tourist potential and it is a significant centre for the Louisiana economy. Mobile is an up and coming and quite modern city which is not that far away from New Orleans. I was quite surprised by it when I drove through it last year. It is also the location of Airbus’ new final assembly plant which implies it will become a major aviation centre.

I would have thought BA could run a 787 to New Orleans.

[canucklad]

Morning SimonS1 & Ian

If you don’t mind gentleman, I’m going to chuck in my 2 bits here.
Can’t disagree with all the above points, I totally agree with your word “ Fudging” , now in BA’s managements case, I cant make up my mind on whether it’s a verb, an adverb or worse still an adjective !

Sadly its seems to me that its hard to figure out who is driving the BA operation, as an outsider it looks like a John Majorish management style. Trying to do the right thing but not sure what the right thing actually is.

I’m with Ian on differentiating between long-haul and short haul operations; I’d make a decision to re-brand along the lines of BOAC & BEA. And simplify the various offering. One of the consistent moans about BA is inconsistency.

My first edict in charge would be to put a stop to this bizarre MF-legacy-LGW Bassa and whatever else is lurking about the contractual dungeons of their HR department. It’s just so 70’s and needs sorted !

I also don’t agree with this niche market label, BA should be a world class carrier, leading rather than following. After all it starts with a huge cultural and geographical advantage over all the other airlines in the world —-Its home base is LONDON .

An airline that offers 4 classes( and their 4th class is truly that, 4th class) is bad enough, to start muddying the offering even more just confuses perception of the brand must be an administrative nightmare.

The answer is SIMPLICITY and concentrate on doing the simple things brilliantly!!
Long haul have 3 classes—A rolls Royce 1st class, A Jaguar business class and a Nissan economy class

Short haul have 2 classes –A proper CE offering that people will pay for and an economy class that shouts out that we are proud to be a quality airline, not a LCC .

Trouble is BA’s marketing team seem to struggle with demographic segmentation and have no idea what market share to target!

[rferguson]

IanfromHK – The 787 wasn’t only purchased as a 767 replacement. The 767 is not a long range aircraft, the 787 is. The numbers ordered also reflect this – BA has 14 longhaul 767’s and 42 787’s on order. Yes it’s true, the initial 787-800 aircraft have been more or less taking over some 767 routes however the 787-900’s are more or less 777-200 sized and BA used to roster the 777-200 on the LHR-SYD route. So it’s not inconceivable at all for BA to launch further oz routes on the 787-900 which will be a four class aircraft.

And yes, there are currently seven 747-400 (mid J) aircraft with the ‘old’ F product. Passengers flying in F on this aircraft are proactively given out cards by the CSD which allows them to choose from some compensation options.

In regards to asian ‘tags’ SGN as a tag from BKK has been doing the rumour mill. However, these are the kind of routes that the 787 were specifically designed for – long thin routes.

It will also be interesting to see whether they can do a ‘huge and small’ combination on certain routes, predominantly those currently served twice daily on a 747. SFO as an example. It currently has two 747’s that depart within a few hours of each other. The flights are consistently busy so consolidating both flights into a single A380 might not pick up all the slack. So perhaps a solution for routes like this (or CPT once the runway has been prepared for the A380) is to have a double daily A380/787 service?

[Bath_VIP]

Canucklad,

I think your idea of a BOAC/BEA split has merit and should be considered. But I have to disagree with your 3 class solution for Long Haul. it has to be a Business/Premium Economy/Economy split. Anything else just leaves a very large gap between Economy & Business that will fail to cater to the Premium Leisure/Small Business segment i.e. those who don’t want economy but don’t want to pay for full business.

I come back to a suggestion I made before. BA can have a 4-class offering but it should rebrand First as Club World Plus. That way their offering is WT, WT+, CW & CW+. Effectively it is a 2-class service with a premium offering within each class. It also leaves open the option to replicate WT & WT+ on their short haul services.

[IanFromHKG]

rferguson, my point about B767 vs B787 was really looking only at seating capacity (not range), and although I think your idea of “big and small” has merit I can’t see that it woudl be financially sensible to roster a relatively small plane such as the B787 onto such a long-haul route. Remember the biggest B787 is only about the same size as the smallest A350

[rferguson]

But that’s the point of the 787 Ian. It’s meant to serve long routes where BA would otherwise struggle to fill a 777 (profitably). LHR-SYD would not be a 787 fit. Nor would say LHR-GRU. But LHR-CGK-PER or LHR-SCL could be perfect fits for the 787-900. Similar to Air New Zealand using PER as a launch route for it’s 787-900. Not quite worthy a 777 but could take a few more bums than the 767 – not too mention with far superior economics.

[TominScotland]

Ian

KLM do have a 3 class European product with Economy Comfort located behind business, offering between 2 and 4 rows of increased legroom on their 737 aircraft. The challenge here is that this creates inflexibility in their short-haul fleet – KLM cannot easily increase Business Class seats if the demand is there. They also give away EC for nothing to Platinum Card holders (which I certainly appreciate) and the premium charged to others is not massive. Despite this, in my (admittedly) limited experience, EC is rarely full so they may not be meeting what the market wants.

[canucklad]

Hi Bath_ VIP ,
I do like your idea of a 2 class product, however I’m sure that BA can somehow or another figure out how to master how to deliver a true 1st class product.

I’m also not a fan of +’ing things unless it’s on my Sky box, it just screams of acceptance of a cheap and nasty original product! And don’t get me started about charging for extra inches, airlines that use this as a revenue stream really are in reality suffering from little willy syndrome.

Back to BA,I sometimes wonder if the BA family psyche has ever recovered from the loss of its beloved beautiful Concorde……. So to speak!
As I’ve said before, an airline, especially a national carrier should reflect the traits of its home.

To put it into retail terms , BA should be able to target Harrods/Jenner’s shoppers as easily as it goes after the Tesco crowd, unfortunately their now chasing the Aldi & Lidl discounters with the consequence of offering cheap deals to rich people and expensive products to poor people.

[SimonS1]

Ian – I still don’t follow how the ‘main cabin extra’ would work. I thought the issue was there were times when the curtain had to be moved right back?

So if I had booked an ‘extra’ seat and then they needed to expand CE, what would happen? Turn away a CE booking, or bump me? In fact isn’t this the gripe you hear quite often from people who have booked the first row after CE for the 2+3 seating and then found themselves relocated to 25E at the last minute.

[dutchyankee]

Great thread SparkyFlyer, and really some great reading. From my perspective, BA already do cover the major US destinations very well, but I could see a few additions. As some have already mentioned, St. Louis is missing, but population wise is very small compared to most US `major` cities at under 300K population. San Antonio is much larger than Austin with nearly 500K more in population, but I suppose as they are only one and a half hours apart by car, and Austin being the Capital of Texas, etc., Austin made more sense. I would love to see New Orleans back on BA`s map (they did fly there before with their L1011-500`s), it could be a tag onto a flight to Jacksonville (same population as Austin, and a major Tourist and University city with quite some industry, and close to my summer home to boot). Some others have mentioned Honolulu might be a consideration, which would be great, but with AA having so many connecting opportunities to Hawaii, and not just HNL but to other cities as well, would it be necessary for BA to operate such a long route; is there a demand for that. Truth be told last time I was in Hawaii the number of europeans i saw or heard was minimal compared of course to the number of American, Japanese, and other Asian nationalities.

As you and I have discussed often, more direct services to the African continent would suit me, and for South America a return to Santiago, and Bogota would seem possible. What is the latest on Djakarta or Kuala Lumpur, surely these are likely as well.

All very interesting, and reading everyone`s thoughts has been eye opening!

[rferguson]

Canuck/Ian/Simon – thought it might be interesting to share that the entire Shorthaul operation from LHR is currently undergoing a ‘full review’. Basically, BA want it to be a profitable operation in it’s own right. They claim it currently loses £4 per passenger carried although of course the numbers would need more explaining. For example, when a passenger flies CDG-LHR-JFK how much of the revenue (if any) is put in the shorthaul coffers. Anyway, everything regarding the operation (including travelling classes) is currently being reviewed.

In terms of direct US destinations, I guess it is a tricky one for BA. For each new direct destination launched the loads may drop off of others (for example AUS direct flights has seen a drop in numbers on LHR-DFW as there used to be a sizeable number of passengers transferring to AUS).

I think SCL is a certainty eventually. It is a OneWorld hub with LANTAM operating throughout south america from there as well as QF and AA.

[Author]

Posts