[AMcWhirter]

The news is confirmed by BA. There will also be LGW-Las Vegas flights.

[AMcWhirter]

Not sure yet about LGW-Las Vegas. But I’m told that LGW-Toronto should be operated by one of the reconfigured B777-200s which are 3-4-3 in Y.

[canucklad]

I wonder if the new LGW – YYZ service is designed to put pressure on the numerous charter and low cost operators flying this route, possibly chipping away at their LHR numbers.

And I wonder how much cheaper, on average/mean this route will be compared to it’s LHR counterpart.

Still, it’s BA, being so London centric, that it really doesn’t impact me, when looking at long haul –Sadly

[ConcordeFlyer]

I continue to experience the Toronto flights being relatively full from LHR so its not a surprise.
Westjet, Air Transat at Air Canada Rouge all fly directly from Gatwick to Toronto so there is certainly demand.
It seems that BA regularly use Toronto as a transit point into the US with numerous daily feeder flights into the USA with American.
Interestingly, BA have yet to upload the 3/4/3 seat plans – still showing 3/3/3.

[MarkivJ]

I was expecting increased frequency to the New York airports. Vegas came as a surprise to me!!

[mkcol74]

Has BA actually densified any of the 777s at LGW yet? As @ConcordeFlyer says above they’ve not updated their seat maps & I was looking as mum is on one soon to/from MCO/FLL & I wanted to check for her.

[tjl11]

There are a plethora of potential new routes BA could open up but it depends on how they are willing to use their slots effectively at Heathrow; currently running at 99% capacity.
They could also establish more long-haul routes from London-Gatwick or even potentially open a base in Manchester (routes such as Bangkok and Mumbai are unserved and have huge indirect pax yields). Manchester is also crying out for a full service carrier based there such as BA (they had a short-haul base in the past but have since closed down all routes except Heathrow, although they have added a few leisure destinations recently).

Also, given Norwegian Airlines’ recent intercontinental expansion from LGW to SIN, ORD and AUS to name a few, existing profitable routes from Heathrow could be joined by an addition service from LGW; for example, New York City (JFK) is served both from LHR and LGW all year round. This means BA could also add services from cities such as ORD, MIA, BKK, JNB and LAX.

From Gatwick:
*Los Angeles
*Bangkok
*Durban
*Havana
*Nairobi
*Colombo
*Miami
*Denpasar
*Belize City

Heathrow:
*Osaka
*Manila
*Ho Chi Minh City via Hanoi?
*Jakarta via Denpasar?
*Dar Es Salaam via Entebbe
*Harare via Lusaka
*Dakar
*Cincinnati
*Freetown via Monrovia
*Dammam
*Port Harcourt (routed as a tag-on from existing Abuja service)
*Abidjan
*Quito via Bogota
*Panama City
*San Antonio
*Kolkata
*Islamabad
*Lima (moved from LGW)
*Pittsburgh
*Edmonton

Manchester:
*Bangkok
*Shanghai
*Delhi
*Mumbai
*Johannesburg
*New York City
*Los Angeles
*Chicago
*Boston
*Tokyo
*Seoul
*Beijing
*Kuala Lumpur
*Hong Kong
*Singapore
*Lagos
*Nairobi
*Cape Town
*Miami
*Detroit

Ultimately, BA need to renew their ageing aircraft to be able to keep up with MEB3 and European rivals; with modern aircraft paving the way for efficient routes, it’s time BA replaced its 747, 767 and early 777 aircraft with a variety of new aircraft ranging from the Airbus A321LR, more orders for Boeing 787s and Airbus A350s as well as Airbus A330neo variants. This can ensure BA can modernise its fleet whilst also keeping its global presence and boost its image, that quite frankly, has been tainted by recent scandals, risky cabin renewals and ageing aircraft.

[mkcol74]

[quote quote=825004]There are a plethora of potential new routes BA could open up but it depends on how they are willing to use their slots effectively at Heathrow; currently running at 99% capacity.
They could also establish more long-haul routes from London-Gatwick or even potentially open a base in Manchester (routes such as Bangkok and Mumbai are unserved and have huge indirect pax yields). Manchester is also crying out for a full service carrier based there such as BA (they had a short-haul base in the past but have since closed down all routes except Heathrow, although they have added a few leisure destinations recently).

Also, given Norwegian Airlines’ recent intercontinental expansion from LGW to SIN, ORD and AUS to name a few, existing profitable routes from Heathrow could be joined by an addition service from LGW; for example, New York City (JFK) is served both from LHR and LGW all year round. This means BA could also add services from cities such as ORD, MIA, BKK, JNB and LAX.

From Gatwick:
*Los Angeles
*Bangkok
*Durban
*Havana
*Nairobi
*Colombo
*Miami
*Denpasar
*Belize City

Heathrow:
*Osaka
*Manila
*Ho Chi Minh City via Hanoi?
*Jakarta via Denpasar?
*Dar Es Salaam via Entebbe
*Harare via Lusaka
*Dakar
*Cincinnati
*Freetown via Monrovia
*Dammam
*Port Harcourt (routed as a tag-on from existing Abuja service)
*Abidjan
*Quito via Bogota
*Panama City
*San Antonio
*Kolkata
*Islamabad
*Lima (moved from LGW)
*Pittsburgh
*Edmonton

Manchester:
*Bangkok
*Shanghai
*Delhi
*Mumbai
*Johannesburg
*New York City
*Los Angeles
*Chicago
*Boston
*Tokyo
*Seoul
*Beijing
*Kuala Lumpur
*Hong Kong
*Singapore
*Lagos
*Nairobi
*Cape Town
*Miami
*Detroit

Ultimately, BA need to renew their ageing aircraft to be able to keep up with MEB3 and European rivals; with modern aircraft paving the way for efficient routes, it’s time BA replaced its 747, 767 and early 777 aircraft with a variety of new aircraft ranging from the Airbus A321LR, more orders for Boeing 787s and Airbus A350s as well as Airbus A330neo variants. This can ensure BA can modernise its fleet whilst also keeping its global presence and boost its image, that quite frankly, has been tainted by recent scandals, risky cabin renewals and ageing aircraft.

[/quote]

There are many things here I’d like to pick up on but can’t decide where to start so will sit back and watch.

What I would like clarification on though is your statement about “risky cabin renewals” – I’m not understanding what you’re getting at there, can you expand please?

[tjl11]

British Airways have created 10-abreast seating on their 777s to maximise the amount of passengers they can cram in as well as decreasing the amount of leg room offered.

[rferguson]

tjl11 in fairness 10 abreast in a 777 is now the norm. Most airlines offer this configuration. I think those maintaining nine abreast would now be in the great minority. It’s one of those questions that airlines ask themselves when coming to a decision to make changes like this…’will the average economy passenger not fly us because we are changing to ten abreast seating’? Well when most of the competition offers the same ten abreast product, odds are the increased revenue gained will far outweigh that lost.

BA is not unique in this and nor is the 777. The 787 ‘dreamliner’ (fondly known as the ‘binliner’ amongst my circle) was launched to much fanfare offering a ‘spacious’ eight abreast cabin. It was to be a real treat for economy passengers on ultra long haul point to point flights. Now every airline with the exception of one or two configure it in a cramped nine abreast configuration. Even the ‘queen of the skies’ the 747 was launched with a nine abreast configuration in economy and later offered a ten abreast option which every airline eventually snapped up.

[rferguson]

[quote quote=825004]Ultimately, BA need to renew their ageing aircraft to be able to keep up with MEB3 and European rivals; with modern aircraft paving the way for efficient routes, it’s time BA replaced its 747, 767 and early 777 aircraft with a variety of new aircraft ranging from the Airbus A321LR, more orders for Boeing 787s and Airbus A350s as well as Airbus A330neo variants. This can ensure BA can modernise its fleet whilst also keeping its global presence and boost its image, that quite frankly, has been tainted by recent scandals, risky cabin renewals and ageing aircraft.[/quote]

This is true to a degree regarding the 747 and the 767. On the longhaul front the 767 has gone. There are only two remaining operating short haul flights and they will leave soon.

The 747 phase out is more complicated. Five or six years ago with oil prices sky high it made sense to get rid of these gas guzzlers ASAP. But with low oil prices its a different story. Of course a 747 is less economical than a new 787. But what has to be factored in, is that the majority of the 747’s are owned by BA. So that has to be weighed up against either the cost of buying or leasing replacement aircraft. The ‘re-freshed’ 747’s actually have the highest ‘customer voice’ score within BA amongst all long haul aircraft for Club World (BA’s main revenue earner) and World Traveller. Higher than the A380/787. What they needto sort out is what they will do with the non refurbished ones which are an embarrassment frankly.

The 777’s will stay MUCH longer.

And on the new front – 12 A380s and 20-odd 787’s have already been delivered (with another 22 787’s to come). The A350 will enter service with BA late next year.

Unfortunately, BA is not in the same position as the ME3, nor are most of the legacy carriers. They don’t have a blank cheque to go and buy brand new planes from Airbus or Boeing as they wish. And if BA or legacy carriers did try and do the same it would definitely be the beginning of the end for them as they need to utilise their resources as best they can.

[Speedbird1994]

I really can’t see BA launching long-haul out of Manchester. Why would they tie-up a 777 in an area with a population of 2.8 million, when they could keep it in London with a population of 8.5 million.

If you have a 777 in Manchester you will only attract the North-West. If you have a plane in London you will attract nearly 3 times the population, PLUS people who are willing to connect from the regions. BA are in a very different position to Norwegian/Virgin Atlantic who are targeting O&D traffic and, in VS’s case are heavily slot constrained at their home base of LHR.

[bluemooner]

Speedbird1994, if you take the population North of Birmingham ie North West, North East, West Midlands East Midlands North Wales and Scotland (who would all find travel via Manchester far simpler and cheaper than having to go to and navigate London) then according to the most recent census, this is greater than the population of those South of Birmingham (ie London, South East, East England, South West & South Wales.
Population size is not the reason for BA minimal activity at Manchester.

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=825147]I really can’t see BA launching long-haul out of Manchester. Why would they tie-up a 777 in an area with a population of 2.8 million, when they could keep it in London with a population of 8.5 million.

If you have a 777 in Manchester you will only attract the North-West. If you have a plane in London you will attract nearly 3 times the population, PLUS people who are willing to connect from the regions. BA are in a very different position to Norwegian/Virgin Atlantic who are targeting O&D traffic and, in VS’s case are heavily slot constrained at their home base of LHR.

[/quote]

Written like a true Southern Jessie.

The actual realistic catchment (i.e. within 2 hours drive) is 20 million+. Don’t forget, the motorway network in the Midlands, North and North West is far more developed than the London area. There is even a motorway directly into MAN, the M56.

[Speedbird1994]

You are missing my point. If you fly from Manchester-New York, you are attracting people in Manchester’s catchment who want to fly to New York, and people in NY’s catchment who want to fly to Manchester.

IF you fly a plane from Heathrow to New York, you are attracting people who want to fly from New York – London, but also people who want to fly from Paris, Brussels, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Vienna, Basel, in addition to Manchester, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Belfast customers who are happy to make the connection.

Emirates couldn’t fill three planes a day from Dubai to Manchester as you well know, they fill them with connections. These is exactly what BA are doing too, only via London. It simply does not make sense for BA to send its planes to regional airports where they are not going to get the volume of connecting traffic that make it viable.

[Author]

Posts