BA Seating

Back to Forum
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 183 total)

  • Bucksnet
    Participant

    Wrong?


    AllOverTheGaff
    Participant

    GoonerLondon – 14/06/2013 16:21 GMT
    What this has to do with quality of seating im not sure though.

    Aye, that’s a fair cop.

    Seem to have drifted from seating to ‘all things BA’…

    Rgds.
    AOTG.


    AllOverTheGaff
    Participant

    craigwatson – 13/06/2013 17:59 GMT
    There were some actual numbers out there when they were applying for anti trust immunity with the joint venture. I will try and post a link tomorrow….

    Hi Craig

    Did you manage to find anything more about the AA/BA revenue share deal?

    Genuinely curious to know what the split would be, if as you said earlier there is a fairly even split then it would indeed explain why BA are in no rush to compete with AA’s new 777 seating, if it isn’t, it might be time for a furrowed brow at BA HQ.

    Rgds.
    AOTG.


    IanFromHKG
    Participant

    I was just planning a RTW trip in September – and I am going to do my damnedest to get the transatlantic bit on one of the new AA 77Ws. Partly because I want to see how the seat differs from CX’s (pure curiosity, in other words), but mostly because even if they haven’t made as many tweaks as CX, I bet it is still going to be miles more pleasurable than CW.


    IanFromHKG
    Participant

    AllOverTheGaff – 17/06/2013 10:05 GMT : Genuinely curious to know what the split would be, if as you said earlier there is a fairly even split then it would indeed explain why BA are in no rush to compete with AA’s new 777 seating, if it isn’t, it might be time for a furrowed brow at BA HQ.

    And I am curious to know how it is calculated. An earlier post suggested it is by number of flights, but that seems odd as it would be an incentive to use smaller planes. It would seem more logical to have it determined by the number of seats (either total seats, or seats actually occupied)? But then if so, won’t the new AA seat cause their revenue to fall?? All most curious!


    TimFitzgeraldTC
    Participant

    Hi AOTG / IFH

    My guess on revenue split (and this is only a guess) is that the airlines keep most of the revenue sold under the flight codes sold. So if you buy a BA flight operated by BA, they keep most of this, whereas if you buy a BA flight number operated by AA, then BA keep some of it – and AA get some as the operating carrier. As they are supposedly sharing base costs of operations across the atlantic there will be some formula worked out which involves capacity by flight numbers operated, along with the mix of booking classes and seats available. I can’t see American getting any revenue on Premium Economy sales when they have no premium for example. Likewise there must be an incentive for AA to significantly improve there Business Class offering, so if they sell more of this under the AA flight numbers then they should get more revenue.

    Availability does vary by which code you look under. For example if you look on BA, it may say AA operated flights are sold out when if you check AA then it still has a few economy seats left and vice versa. Also (more so in Business Class) if you look on BA it may show a higher business class fare on the AA operated flight than if you go onto the AA site and check the same plane. In the case of the new 77W’s with AA, the BA flight numbers only seem to sell these on the much higher booking classes whereas from experience the codeshare flight often had the cheapest Business Class booking codes available (I can see this on the GDS). Throw in the fact that you also have IB flights numbers on these (in the past I have got some cracking fares using these flight numbers in economy and business) and it gets very complex indeed.

    I guess there must be some incentive to sell more of there own flights than the other carriers in the partnership, but I guess any formula is a private affair.

    Before anyone shoots me down – this is an educated guess and in no way 100% accurate or correct!


    AllOverTheGaff
    Participant

    Hi Tim

    Thanks for your answer.

    I had *assumed* much the same, that if you book on AA.com to go LHR – JFK then most of that revenue would go to AA with a percentage to BA, and the same with BA.com on the same route.

    In the example I chose earlier of EDI – LHR – JFK it would be expected that AA pays BA for the EDI – LHR route and perhaps a higher percentage of the transatlantic fare as BA might argue that I’d not have used AA had I not been able to book a through fare.

    I’m struggling to accept that 50% of the revenue from each airline on these routes is divvied up, it would have to be based on margin and not revenue IMO to make it even viable. If AA are flying a half-empty plane to JFK and they lose money on the flight, I can’t imagine they’d pony up a bundle of Ben Franklins to BA.

    I guess we’ll never know the definitive answer as I should imagine this agreement would be strictly private and confidential, and back to my original point, clearly AA are investing a lot of cash in both new planes and whilst they’ve ‘copied’ the seat design in both business and first, they are both desirable products. I wonder for how much longer they’re willing to invest to see their market share improve only to have to split that revenue with a non-investing partner.

    Rgds.
    AOTG.


    IanFromHKG
    Participant

    It’s more complicated than we thought! It isn’t just BA and AA in the JV – IB, RJ and AY are in it too! From a news report in 2010 on businesstravelnews.com:

    “The U.S. Department of Transportation on Tuesday granted American Airlines, British Airways and Iberia, along with Finnair and Royal Jordanian, antitrust immunity to jointly set fares, align capacity, plan service and share revenues across the Atlantic, finalizing a tentative approval from February and enabling those Oneworld carriers to compete with SkyTeam and Star Alliance competitors in the new realm of joint venture corporate contracting. “


    TimFitzgeraldTC
    Participant

    Hi AOTG

    I guess that AA will keep investing so that routes that aren’t in the agreement such as US Asia or LATAM will see much better products in future that will also command higher fares. Yes, AY and RJ are now in the agreement as well.

    One must remember that one of the benefits to consumers of this is more choice of schedules, especially where connections are required (also applies to the UA/AC/LH/SK tie up or the KL/AF/AZ/DL). As soon as a connection is required – or a multi stop itinerary, it now gives a vast array of out and return options, so you can be booked out on BA and AA back for example which you couldn’t do before so easily. Having looked at flights to Cincinnati recently (BA would clean up if they offered this direct) clients decided on UA as much cheaper in Business Class than BA. Also had other itineraries which were LHR-NYC-YYZ-SFO-LHR and the same missing out NYC and could all be done on UA/AC. 4/5 years ago it would have meant much higher fares to fly direct to YYZ and back from SFO – but now AC and UA are partners it makes it much cheaper as it can be done on 1 ticket.


    Cloud-9
    Participant

    I have been advised by a friend who travels to see family in Melbourne two or three times a year that is cheaper book an economy QF flight via the BA website than via the QF one!
    And BA flights are even cheaper than QF…


    TimFitzgeraldTC
    Participant

    Cloud 9

    Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen now that the BA/QANTAS tie up has finished. But BA are partnering with CX between HK and MEL so this could apply in this instance. But as a consumer it is always worth checking if there are codeshares with the other operating carrier as you do get quite large disparities in price from time to time – and it will all depend on how the codeshare agreement is worked out revenue wise (e.g. – do the codeshare airline get an allocation of seats that is up to them to then sell at whatever fare they determine?)

    Anyway we have gone way off the original theme of the post – is this allowed?!


    IanFromHKG
    Participant

    TimFitzgeraldTC – 17/06/2013 12:53 GMT : Anyway we have gone way off the original theme of the post – is this allowed?!

    Allowed?! It’s practically compulsory!!


    Cloud-9
    Participant

    Sure is – as the disclaimer at the start of this thread implies…..


    Hermes1964
    Participant

    I think it all comes down to market segmentation and economics. The truth is surely that BA isn’t genuinely competing with Asian and Middle Eastern carriers. It’s cost structure and the market from which it recruits is fundamentally different and always will be, so it just can’t.

    On its main TA market it can still fill its CW and F offering and make money, and still has some years in which to milk the last out of the current CW set up. It needs to jam pack CW with seats and is able to fill them, so the economics of upgrading them at the current time just doesn’t stack up, (regardless of 787 and A380 coming on line, and that feeling like a very big missed opportunity.) It’s a bit like monopoly – it’s generally better to build up houses on, say, the orange properties rather than Mayfair and Park Lane as on balance the yield and return on investment are better, even though intuitively we always want Dark Blue in our portfolio.

    Having observed the forum keenly for a year or so before plucking up the courage to dive in, it seems to me that much of the heat is generated by the fact that many posters want BA to be something different to what it is (and I know I have my own wish list of improvements). At some stage it will need to be different, but it may be that the given wisdom of always innovating to stay in the game can’t always apply in the airline industry for all markets. I guess it’s also to do with national pride. We always want it to be just that bit better. I know I still compare it to B.CAL and the chirpy crews that made flying such fun, but when I do so I know I will also feel a sense of nostalgic disappointment.

    Of course in the meantime many of us will exercise our choice and fly on alternative airlines, but the sheer choice of non-stop destinations ex-UK will keep many of us (ok not necessarily those who contribute to this forum) returning for more and against that background the pressure to enhance seating doesn’t yet exist.


    Ah,Mr.Bond
    Participant

    Unfortunately you will find that it is because they genuinely do believe CW& F is the best in the business… which is even a more sorry state of affairs to be in. They cannot accept the truth which is the fact they were ground breakers in the whole flat bed idea, everyone else jumped on the bandwagon and over the course of 12 years the majority have well overtaken BA’s now stale idea who still use the same seat footprint. 1-2-1 on new AA or 2-4-2 on BA? Come on, are they really that commercially blind? Once the new AA product takes over all the US routings they will have no choice but to change and adapt, but now at what cost having just fitted brand new aircraft with the same old same old? I have been in the industry long enough and have flown on alot of offerings, I know exactly what passengers want and what’s out there, Let me in the boardroom and I will sort this mess out – but unfortunately any new position will more than likely be a ‘job for the boys’ who will only tow the company line…. and so it continues.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 183 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Business Traveller March 2024 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