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

Back to Forum

This topic contains 123 replies, has 33 voices, and was last updated by  canucklad 29 Nov 2017
at 10:51
.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 124 total)

  • JCoathup
    Participant

    what does BA lose by offering a premium product (like 789 service) from Manchester to say…. JFK or an ORD or LAX, etc.

    The only thing I can think of is that BA feel that a particular aircraft would get a better return operating a route from LHR than from MAN – not necessarily the same route though.

    As for BA providing routes to new markets to help the UK post Brexit, may I remind you all that Brexit hasn’t actually happened yet. We are still none the wiser as to what the UK will look like post Brexit than we were before the referendum. Certain people in positions of power across Europe have even predicted that Brexit won’t actually happen.

    If the current Conservative government lasts till the end of negotiations then you can likely expect a ‘hard Brexit’. However, it is highly likely that a controversial vote (LHR expansion among others) may split the Tories enough for the other parties to make a power grab. The current government is a fragile one and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was replaced with a Labour government (either alone or as a coalition with other parties) sometime before the Brexit negotiations conclude – in which case you can expect a ‘soft Brexit’.

    It seems likely that we will have a certain ‘transition’ period between March 2019 and actually leaving the EU. By then, BA should have a clearer picture of what Brexit will mean for them and the UK, and should then be able to plan and open new routes accordingly.


    TheLion
    Participant

    “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

    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.

    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.

    Totally agree with all these views.

    BA are weak and deeply conservative when it comes to long haul route planning, USA notwithstanding, yet they are also letting our country, their customers and staff down by not providing the best route network for business, travel and leisure that they possibly can to meet need and demand. Further, with Brexit looming, this is a huge concern…

    Contrast BA with other European airlines; Forget the likes of KL, LH, AF & SN who serve emerging markets in depth, especially their diaspora; and even Swiss, TAP & Iberia offer services to African countries where they have few if any historical, cultural or ethnic ties.

    Now after some decent expansion, Iberia seem to be the latest IAG airline with emerging market route cuts: Cali, Guayaquil I’m looking at you. Meanwhile IB’s competitors are launching exciting new routes on their own turf; KLM to Cartagena, Air Europa to Córdoba, Asunción, San Pedro Sula, and now Recife. Many of these are ex-IB routes. IB even have a better route network with which to feed their long haul Lat Am ops than Air Europa.

    So maybe it’s an IAG thing. In my view, it really is time for a change of leadership and a new direction. Both Walsh and Cruz have to go before they rip the soul out of their airlines, especially BA.


    TheLion
    Participant

    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.

    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.

    The only thing I can think of is that BA feel that a particular aircraft would get a better return operating a route from LHR than from MAN – not necessarily the same route though.

    As for BA providing routes to new markets to help the UK post Brexit, may I remind you all that Brexit hasn’t actually happened yet. We are still none the wiser as to what the UK will look like post Brexit than we were before the referendum. Certain people in positions of power across Europe have even predicted that Brexit won’t actually happen.

    If the current Conservative government lasts till the end of negotiations then you can likely expect a ‘hard Brexit’. However, it is highly likely that a controversial vote (LHR expansion among others) may split the Tories enough for the other parties to make a power grab. The current government is a fragile one and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was replaced with a Labour government (either alone or as a coalition with other parties) sometime before the Brexit negotiations conclude – in which case you can expect a ‘soft Brexit’.

    It seems likely that we will have a certain ‘transition’ period between March 2019 and actually leaving the EU. By then, BA should have a clearer picture of what Brexit will mean for them and the UK, and should then be able to plan and open new routes accordingly.

    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.

    I do think it’s time to look at operations from the regions. Indeed the A321LR may be the right aircraft for this. If they can’t find a way to make this aircraft work from the likes of MAN, and perhaps EDI or GLA (EDI especially if Scotland secede after Brexit), with perhaps a few A332s or B788s too, then I’ll be very surprised. But again, they may need a change of management for this little dream of ours to come alive. And I’m sorry to say a dream is what it is at present.

    I’ll say this. It’s bullish btw…

    If I was BA CEO routes from the regions would already be a reality and they would serve key business and O&D routes, major leisure routes, plus feed partner hubs. But I’m not, so this sorry state of affairs continues until they finally have a decent set of leaders who balance risk with reward and put customers and staff before shareholders.


    greyhawkgeoff
    Participant

    and on Anna Aero today is an interesting analysis of the US airports that have either gained transatlantic service or are poised to……..featuring and speculating BA to Kansas City. But more to the point are the stats of the 24 major market second tier airports behind Kansas City in the pecking order from Columbus to Tulsa. See http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas-city-becomes-the-largest-unserved-market-in-the-us-from-europe/

    Fellow BT readers choose your favorites! The underlying logic for several of these seems strong. In 2018 BA seem poised to loose 1x 747, and gain 3x 788 and 5×789. I acknowledge that at any moment a couple of the LGW 772’s will be out of use for densification (ghastly word but beloved By Alex Crus and his predecessor). So where will they go? Place your bets. I suspect BA’s love affair with Florida will include Jacksonville 3 times a week. I will find out next month how Fort Lauderdale is performing when I try that route to LGW, after all there were some sharp prices in Club, and if it meets expectation it will encourage yet more capacity to the sunshine state, hurricanes not withstanding.


    rferguson
    Participant

    Has anyone wondered why UA doesn’t fly Austin – LHR? Why AA doesn’t fly New Orleans to LHR? Why DL doesn’t fly Nashville – London? Because the O&D system does not make it worth their while. They want to fly from hub – city. And that’s why BA flies from all the aforementioned to LHR – maybe only 20% of passengers are setting food landside at LHR with the majority in transit to other BA flights.

    I don’t know how many times it can be said or in which different way but the reason BA does not launch longhaul routes from cities outside its hub is purely commercial. Its business model, whether its the way forward or not, is the same as most other legacy carriers. Feed its hub. MAN, EDI, GLA, etc are not BA hubs. Hence why BA tends to only fly to/from its hub from these cities.

    BA is no Emirates – it can’t order a load of new jets and then find places to fly them too. It’s fleet purchase and deployment is based on replacing exisiting aircraft and expanding where it can make its biggest return – and no surprise these tend to be transatlantic routes from LHR. If BA was like EK and had a load of spare longhaul jets coming every month or like Virgin Atlantic and slot restricted at its own base i’m without a doubt they would look for alternative places to fly them. But until then, or until they become slot restricted at LHR that won’t happen.


    SimonS1
    Participant

    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.

    Money.

    It doesn’t work as a point to point model, there isn’t enough traffic as other airlines have found.

    And I doubt it would work as a hub either. One flight a day to US isn’t sufficient to make the majority of connection times viable. No contingency in the event of IRROPS, and who wants to sit for hours in Manchester airport awaiting a connecting flight?

    If BA thought they could do this in a sustainable and profitable way it would have happened by now.


    SimonS1
    Participant

    .

    I’ll say this. It’s bullish btw…

    If I was BA CEO routes from the regions would already be a reality and they would serve key business and O&D routes, major leisure routes, plus feed partner hubs. But I’m not, so this sorry state of affairs continues until they finally have a decent set of leaders who balance risk with reward and put customers and staff before shareholders.

    Sorry to say it sounds like bullshit to me as well. The primary goal of BA will always be to maximise profits for shareholders. If WW thought he could improve the profitability of the airline by investing in a hub in Manchester or Glasgow or Mars or wherever then he would do.

    But it’s a pipedream, the reality is right now the opportunity doesn’t exist.


    Flightlevel
    Participant

    Yes very unlikely to be profitable ex MAN,requiring crews to be based there,etc.
    In addition reducing the load and profitability on MAN-LHR flights and not supporting the LHR hub.
    Later Level or A321LR may make it possible?


    MarkivJ
    Participant

    So has BA used up most of the LHR spots it gained through te BMI purchase? Can we hope for a Portland service soon?


    SimonS1
    Participant

    Possibly. There is always some churn of slots. I think I read somewhere that one of the LBA rotations is to be dropped to free up a slot, and it seems BA is trying to shift some rotations to LGW (like Las Vegas and JFK).

    That might free up some capacity at LHR.


    MarkivJ
    Participant

    Austin gets a 747 next April onwards. Wow, this route really does seem to be a success for them! Commendable they they’re growing without fear of cannabalising their dallas and Houston operations


    Marlow1971
    Participant

    Well said. Too many amateur CEOs here who know too little about running an airline and even less about fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders!

    Most of the American Airlines have struggled to get flights from U.K. Regional airports to pay their way and the flights that survive out of Manchester are dominated by leisure destinations not business – Vegas and Orlando. There just isn’t the high yield business travel in sufficient quantity or the supporting connection network. End of!


    mkcol74
    Participant

    Had anyone predicted Seychelles in this discussion?


    canucklad
    Participant

    Agree with everyone regarding the next few years. It’s definitely going to be interesting, with many surprises ahead, as next few years unscramble.

    And although I stand by my position regarding BA, inherited position of dominance that they shamelessly exploit , I do get that IAG have no moral or ethical commitment to assisting UK PLC as we move into a new Brexit world. And be rest assured I’m not an armchair quarterback when it comes to running an airline, don’t pretend to be.

    Yet, I wonder if BA and others have considered contingency plans for when, not if, the following known “unknowns” are going land squarely in the middle of their industry.. In no particular order these are predictable…… .

    APD being removed in Scotland
    Re-instatement of tobacco /drink restrictions from Europe
    Predicted downturn in EU industrial growth
    Predicted limited access to the ECAA (EU dummy spitting)
    ETC.- ETC

    And then the things we haven’t a clue about…..but have experienced in the past, and will occur again at some point in the future……the unpredictable’s…..

    Our American cousins, traumatised by fear refusing to travel.
    A diseased chicken causing havoc across the globe
    Despots causing oil prices to Sky Rocket.

    Entering the regional debate, and linking it to flying to routes other than the good Ol’ US of A , my thoughts are simply this. If you just dip your toe in the market, don’t be surprised if nobody takes you seriously. If you abandon an established market don’t be surprised if the incumbent population perceives your withdrawal as disloyalty and takes their business elsewhere.

    And remember the simple business rule, it’s much cheaper long term , to manage Churn then it is to get new business. On board.

    Finally a big thumbs up to BA, investing in the Seychelles


    TheLion
    Participant

    Well well…

    Today could well be a good day for the Zimbabwe and her people, with some dramatic news from Harare. That cruel dictator Robert Mugabe is under house arrest, with the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) taking control, meaning it is likely the evil old man will be forced out at long last.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-41997982

    Leaving aside the political ramifications, which is not this thread’s remit, it would be good to – in the light of this potentially optimistic development for this beautiful country and her people who I hold dear to my heart – gauge your views on what will be the impact on a change of leadership on new services; could we see BA among others finally return, among others?

    Best wishes
    The Lion

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 124 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Business Traveller September 2019 edition
Business Traveller September 2019 edition
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls