[sparkyflier]

With respect, and while there are many posts with merit,when I started this discussion, I asked that if you had strong feelings about flights from the regions,for example Manchester, to do this is a separate discussion.

This discussion, as titled, is about longhaul flights from Heathrow and Gatwick. Please feel welcome to start a separate thread on that subject.

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=825311]With respect, and while there are many posts with merit,when I started this discussion, I asked that if you had strong feelings about flights from the regions,for example Manchester, to do this is a separate discussion.

This discussion, as titled, is about longhaul flights from Heathrow and Gatwick. Please feel welcome to start a separate thread on that subject.

[/quote]

Not quite, Sparky.

Your thread title was LHR & LGW + Brexit planning, which is ambiguous enought to scope in other airports, especially as you specified BA.

But I’ll not post on here, if you don’t want anything else – maybe you could re-title your thread ‘London Airways’ and then it would be clear this thread is only for people in the SE?

[AMcWhirter]

In case you wonder when the LGW B777s will be retrofitted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/british-airways-densification-gatwick-long-haul-boeing-777-economy-class-orlando-new-york-caribbean-a7927586.html

[sparkyflier]

Erm FDOS, I am not sure what screen you see, but the thread was titled BA Longhaul new routes 2017/18 ex LHR & LGW + Brexit planning.

I am not sure what is ambiguous about ex LHR and LGW, and in paragraph 3 of my opening post I requested that if anyone had strong feelings about flights from the regions to start their own discussion.

[sparkyflier]

tjl 11

I loved your very bold list of destinations! Impressive! I can only wish but sadly do not raise my hopes 😉

[tjl11]

Thanks, I too can only hope of BA doing even one from that list.
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

[MarkivJ]

tjl11, I doubt BA will ever return to Pakistan. No EU carrier will.

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=825334]Erm FDOS, I am not sure what screen you see, but the thread was titled BA Longhaul new routes 2017/18 ex LHR & LGW + Brexit planning.

I am not sure what is ambiguous about ex LHR and LGW, and in paragraph 3 of my opening post I requested that if anyone had strong feelings about flights from the regions to start their own discussion.

[/quote]

BA Longhaul new routes 2017/18 ex LHR & LGW + Brexit planning.

Thew first two airports are clear. The ‘+ Brexit planning’ is not restricted to LGW/LHR, if you had wanted to do that, the phrase would have been ‘BA Longhaul new routes 2017/18 ex LHR & LGW; Brexit planning.

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=825379]

sparkyflyer wrote:

Erm FDOS, I am not sure what screen you see, but the thread was titled BA Longhaul new routes 2017/18 ex LHR & LGW + Brexit planning.

I am not sure what is ambiguous about ex LHR and LGW, and in paragraph 3 of my opening post I requested that if anyone had strong feelings about flights from the regions to start their own discussion.

BA Longhaul new routes 2017/18 ex LHR & LGW + Brexit planning.

Thew first two airports are clear. The ‘+ Brexit planning’ is not restricted to LGW/LHR, if you had wanted to do that, the syntax would have been ‘BA Longhaul new routes 2017/18 ex LHR & LGW; Brexit planning.’

[/quote]

[IanFromHKG]

[quote quote=825264]I don’t know if you are being deliberately obstinate, or just missing the point, but I increasingly suspect the former. There are dozens of successful long-haul flights out of MAN, but they are all to hubs[/quote]

With respect, I think there is a point that you are missing here as well. Airlines OPERATE from hubs, especially long-haul. That doesn’t preclude those hubs also being O&D ports. Places like Singapore, Hong Kong, and various American destinations spring to mind as obvious examples.

To look at the list that FDOS provided, there are clearly a number of airlines whose business is based on a hub-and-spoke model, notably the ME airlines. However, I suspect that for Saudia, Air Canada, American, Cathay, Delta, Hainan and United a lot of their traffic is O&D – I admit this is pure conjecture on my part, and would welcome any views or evidence to the contrary. However, I can’t help but feel that with the advantage of a “domestic” FFP scheme making it potentially more attractive to local customers, BA should be able to compete very strongly IF it were to make MAN a hub.

I realise that this argument does not work so well in a scenario where it is competing with OW alliance partners, but then…. It has become increasingly clear to me that many passengers do not understand the concept of cross-partner alliance benefits. The significant number of otherwise sophisticated travellers I have encountered who have no idea that an AA premium class customer travelling through LHR is able to use the vastly superior CX lounges are just one example of this. While I do not condone exploitation, generally speaking, this is fairly obviously something that BA could exploit if only it had the will to do so. Furthermore, BA has a revenue-sharing TATL JV with AA (and others), but presumably still sees some advantage to providing its own metal across the pond. With codeshares available in the AA network, why not establish its own H&S model operating from MAN to a different AA base rather than making passengers either (a) transfer through LHR or (b) travel only on AA? Or, worse (from BA’s perspective), travel on AC, DL, UA or VS? It would have the advantage of easily being able to build bulk on its own network, fight back against European competitors taking advantage of its weakness in the regions and avoid the increasing nightmare of Heathrow transfers. Only this morning the Memsahib and I were discussing this as on our next trip to the UK she will arrive the day before me, and I have to transfer from CX to BA – and as I pointed out, although I thought CX would probably check luggage through to our onward destination of Newcastle, it would probably be just as easy for me to collect the luggage in LHR T3 and transfer landside and check in at T5 (admittedly at the F section as a OWE) as it would be for me to check luggage through and transfer airside, with the concomitant (seeming) miles through airless corridors to wait for a bus to transfer me to the end of a huge security line with no Fast Track at T5. In fact, I could just collect my luggage, go to the (very pleasant) AA arrivals lounge in T3 for a shower (without queueing and without the appallingly low pressure and the ghastly sump pump sucking and gurgling that the T5 lounges suffer from), have some clothes pressed (just for fun – they really are incredibly efficient) and have breakfast at my own table (rather than the refectory tables which dominate the T5 F lounge) before moving over to T5 and taking advantage of the shiny new F corridor.

It is obvious to everyone that the last few years have seen significant market disruption from H&S operators. However, I am not yet convinced that legacy carriers need to retreat to a H&S model of their own. BA used to be “The World’s Favourite Airline”. Those days are probably long since gone and never to be recovered. However, I still struggle to understand why BA have ceded huge chunks of the non-London-centric market just by default. Sadly, the answer for BA seems to be, as Junior Offspring would say, “Ceebs” (short for CBA, short for “Can’t Be Arsed”) – I would tell her off, but (a) I think it’s quite funny (I am very puerile!) and (b) given her recent GCSE results she is currently (albeit temporarily) immune from criticism 🙂

[SimonS1]

I doubt it is in the CBA category – if BA (or any other airline) saw a profitable market then they would probably target it. More likely there just isn’t demand for long haul point to point from Manchester.

tjl11’s list is interesting and I suspect a little fanciful. There is no chance of filling a plane to places like Harare and Lusaka (which is why BA pulled off the routes) but a few others that sound semi-interesting like Manila, Durban and Pittsburgh.

[Olneyflyer]

I agree Pittsburgh could be a good candidate. If Condor can make it work on a seasonal basis then BA should easily make it work with all the feeder business they could generate from Europe.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/274597/condor-expands-pittsburgh-service-in-s18/

I would be amazed that they could not fill a daily 787-8. Also my choice for the next new destination and is regularly suggested is Minneapolis. This may be a Delta hub. However so is Seattle and BA can make this route work twice daily. I appreciate Delta already fly it out of LHR but on old 767 metal. Therefore a fresh 787 might allow BA to build up good feeder traffic in from North and South Dakota as well as other neighbouring US States.

[greyhawkgeoff]

Olneyflyer – the problem with Minneapolis for BA and AA is that it is an absolute fortress of a hub for Delta(ex Northwest) and the loyalty that having well over 70% of passengers using DL is that the remaining crumbs are hard to share. American’s market is less than 10% of the total and they are #2 in the rankings!

As remarked here, more than once, BA have been successful in San Diego, Austin, and New Orleans at least in part because of the AA customer base. Minneapolis is in many ways a perfect hub airport for the upper mid west, but AA have no feed from the smaller markets, just connections into their 8 major hubs, so no feed from elsewhere in the remote and sparsely populated states. What we cannot know is how many of AA’s pax then transfer on through those hubs to Europe, but there is always a risk of abstracting enough to affect the viability of other hub based routes. And like many other major hubs everybody is under pressure from the low cost airlines that are driving the growth in domestic travel.

Thus BA or indeed AA would find it hard to garner a year round profitable trade when up against the traditionally aggressively protectionist DL. And for the suggestion that Seattle is a parallel, that is a different market where over the past 5 years or so DL has expanded substantially developing it into their trans Pacific gateway while United use San Francisco and AA Los Angeles. Delta’s expansion there has been aimed domestically at Alaska Airways who had dominated that market for years, and Alaska post the Virgin America ‘takeover’ are rapidly consolidating as the West Coast airline of choice. Incidentally Alaska has had to drop many code shares with AA as a result of the merger.

So to conclude Minneapolis is not realistically on the BA radar, there are other 2nd tier cities that have greater potential without much service if any to Europe and without having to slug it out with an entrenched operator who is quite happy to cut margins to the bone to keep it that way on one route.

[TheLion]

Well hello everyone!

Hope everything is good with you.

I missed the start of this thread a few months back, noticing it only in July, but finally only getting round to posting now. I do have many points to add, many in agreement, with your earlier route suggestions, however to avoid derailing the current direction of discussion, I’ll hop right into the middle of the latest posts and post my thoughts on earlier points later.

[quote quote=825316]

sparkyflyer wrote:

With respect, and while there are many posts with merit,when I started this discussion, I asked that if you had strong feelings about flights from the regions,for example Manchester, to do this is a separate discussion.

This discussion, as titled, is about longhaul flights from Heathrow and Gatwick. Please feel welcome to start a separate thread on that subject.

Not quite, Sparky.

Your thread title was LHR & LGW + Brexit planning, which is ambiguous enought to scope in other airports, especially as you specified BA.

But I’ll not post on here, if you don’t want anything else – maybe you could re-title your thread ‘London Airways’ and then it would be clear this thread is only for people in the SE?

[/quote]

Guys may I add a few thoughts on the above London vs Manchester thread debate. Personally I think one thread on BA routes both long and short haul is sufficient. It means we can keep the discussion in one place, don’t have notifications pinging about left right and centre and also means that more members are likely to join in, with more ideas being discussed. The result being the thread continues for longer without petering out as they so often do; the wider the scope, the more likely it keeps going and the more interesting the discussion. And ultimately, it is the same subject; BA routes and strategy.

Further, with Brexit on the horizon, you have multiple possible aviation scenarios which may play out; including the need to diversify and capture different traffic flows, potential new hub or bases according to demand and geopolitics, plus the great unknown of the aviation common area, which as yet no replacement agreement has been devised by the UK. We also have to examine the impact if Scotland secedes post-Brexit; in such case a northern BA hub or hubs in Edinburgh would seem logical and would affect Manchester too.

[quote quote=825181]

Speedbird1994 wrote:

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.

Do you really have so little idea about the range of connections at MAN?

It is BA who choose to operate as London Airways and I don’t believe thay have ability to compete at a hub like MAN, where it is a level playing field.
[/quote]

Both, if it’s acceptable to continue, I’d add that MAN should be a northern hub for BA. It has significant traffic flows to all major European cities, multiple global cities and a wide and varied network which is only increasing. Its catchment area is potentially larger than London, with several growing large city economies around it. BA are leaving a key market on the table here in my view.

[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.

[/quote]

@tjl11
Love your list. A big thumbs up for smart thinking and outside the box ideas alike! I will do a detailed reply later, once the current discussion has moved on.

Anyhow, it’s great to be back!

Best
The Lion

[canucklad]

“BA Longhaul new routes 2017/18+ ex LHR & LGW + Brexit planning..2

It seems to me that sparkflyer should have added in the following words between routes and 2017/18……. “That have a Zip Code”

Brexit, like it or not is a reality, and our national carrier doesn’t seem to have embraced the challenge/grasp the opportunities that is coming post-split.

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.
As an aside, I went to the BA website, and was at first taken aback at how many destinations BA actually claim to fly to.

Alas, on closer inspection, the words operated by QR dominate !! …. Poor Show

[Author]

Posts