[esselle]

Perhaps we are over complicating things a bit.

It is no more than a long standing name belonging to a legal entity.

The real issue was when Ayling dropped the word “Airways” and painted “world art” on the tail fins all those years ago, arguing that whilst British, BA had become a “global” carrier.

I am not sure the use of the word British in the name has been intended to have much of a connotation for many a year.

[Edski777]

KLM UK came into being after KLM decided that AMS Schiphol would be a viable hub for the UK market. Traffic rights were in those days bilateral agreements between governments and it was unlikely that KLM would get an open skies agreement. The best option was to acquire a small British airline, Air UK, therefor a British company under British commercial law, rename it and thus create a feeder operation.

KLM was extremely clever in using all possible loopholes and opportunities. Later on they they were one of the first to exploit an Open Skies treaty between the Netherlands and the US in a deal with North West Airlines.

Later on KLM started KLM Asia in order to get traffic rights into Mainland China without severing ties and traffic with Taiwan.

It’s called pragmatism, I believe.

[KarlMarx]

RF

I’m not sure if for example Air France allows Flying Blue holders to fly say NCE/LYS/MRS to Paris gratis.

+++++++++++

IIRC, they ran a campaign making the above point in a dig at BA.

[KarlMarx]

Perhaps we are over complicating things a bit.

++++++++

Perhaps we are not, either?

This is a brand of very considerable value.

Maybe the rights to operate out of Heathrow should be franchised in the future, like the railways. That would be a pretty earner for the government.

[KarlMarx]

The real issue was when Ayling dropped the word “Airways” and painted “world art” on the tail fins all those years ago, arguing that whilst British, BA had become a “global” carrier.

I think you will find there was a long gap between the two actions, the first of which happened pre-nationalisation and the latter in the 1990s.

FWIW, I think the World Art campaign was innovative and the action of a confident organization coming to terms with it’s place in the world, for let us not forget BA had recently introduced the flat bed seat and placed a huge order for 777 (as a joint launch customer), as well as having an impressively well connected route network.

[MrMichael]

@KarlMarx. I thought the world art campaign an absolute disaster. A strong brand needs a strong consistent brand image. The only lasting image of it was Maggie Thatcher covering it with her hanky.

The BA swoosh has been updated/modernised since Landor, and I rather like the stylised Union flag on the tail as is current but was just on Concorde, I could not stand that mish mash of tails, it just did not say “British”. Interestingly BA ran a competition I believe in conjunction with the arts council during the World art campaign. They promised the tail would be used on a 757. The winning design much to the dismay of BA was “fish and chips”. They did not use it.

[SimonS1]

Why is BAT allowed to call itself British American tobacco when the majority of its business in in neither Britain nor America?

Shocking.

[AnthonyDunn]

I seem to recall that British Caledonian was LGW based but claimed Scotch antecedents. I can just imagine how upset the Jocks would be, under current circumstances, for that stll to be the case. Just as well that they went under so that there couldn’t be any argument about the point.

[KarlMarx]

SimonS1 – 06/07/2015 21:50 BST

You have now slipped back to the third form. The question is not where BA operates the majority of its business, but whether it serves the whole of its branded country, therefore your comparison is invalid.

[Edski777]

Simon, in line with this thread: if “British” is a brand name worth protecting why in this world would a company that is responsible for so many deaths and incredible suffering be allowed to use the brand name?

The watchdog for the brand name must be temporarily off duty when it comes to BAT.

And would, in this sense, companies with higher ethical standards still be proud to use the brand name and be associated with BAT or arms dealers like BAe?
What are those standards or what should they be?

[KarlMarx]

AnthonyDunn – 06/07/2015 22:48 BST

I’ll leave it to Tom in Scotland and others to respond to your use of the word ‘Scotch’, but will give you a little more information about BCal.

The title came from the merger of two airlines, British United of England and Caledonian from Scotland, in response to the UK government wishing to create a new privately owned airline to offer alternatives to BEA and BOAC.

Caledonian was the dominant partner and using Gatwick as the HQ was central to offering choice, such as being awarded the London-Paris route in direct competition with BEA.

However, BCal did also fly internationally and domestically from Scotland, including from Edinburgh and Prestwick

You should also bear in mind that BCal was formed in the days when the airlines were heavily regulated.

[dutchyankee]

KarlMarx, I so often agree with you wholeheartedly on so many posts and enjoy them, but at the risk of likewise being told I am back in Third Form (not sure what that means, I guess it is a school term) here goes.

On the basis of your comment that ‘The question is not where BA operates the majority of its business, but whether it serves the whole of its branded country,’ would it therefore be fair to say that:

American Airlines is abusing the brand American as they do not serve all 50 states and American Territories?

Emirates is criminal as the only actual Emirate they fly in and out of is Dubai; I would be furious if I resided in the other Emirates, how dare they call them the airline of the Emirates!

Air Asia must be in trouble too as they don’t serve all of Asia (although they almost do, so they should be given some leniency).

Prior to the Merger with AA, US Airways for sure didn’t serve all of the US, so how did they get away with using that name? And don’t get me started on Virgin America!

One airline that really gets it right according to your view I imagine would then be Brussels Airlines as they only serve Brussels in their home country. But what about Swiss, they have decided to pull out of Basel completely, should they be allowed to do so, and if so, should they change their name to ‘not entirely Swiss?’

I think BA is a great brand, and there is something about boarding a BA aircraft, whether their hard product is leading edge or not or any previous bad experience one might of had, there is still something reassuring when I, as a foreigner, board a BA plane. And to me, BA is very definitely a great Ambassador of Britain. Whether they fly to every city in the UK or not, BA is British and the question about them living up to this brand is absurd.

[KarlMarx]

dutchyankee – 07/07/2015 09:22 BST

You are not using 3rd form debating (and your interpretation is correct.) I respect your opinion.

I have commented only on BA – you may well have a good point about the other airlines you mention, but as I am UK based and a Brit, I won’t comment on those through ignorance of the whole picture and I don’t see how other airlines in other countries are at the axiom of this debate, although there could be a wider debate.

BA is a great brand, no doubt. The question is, are BA doing enough for all Brits to use it? Should they have to pay some type of fee if they are a totally commercial organization getting the benefit of a ‘flag’ brand and cherry picking routes, etc?

Living up to the brand is a different question and a little off scope for here – the thread about a disappointing first First experience might be appropriate for that.

Overall, I think BA does a decent job, but that is not the point of this thread.

[KarlMarx]

Edski777 – 07/07/2015 06:41 BST

You make a very good point about BAT and one that has crossed my mind in the past.

Now remind me, how much tax does BAT pay?

BAE SYSTEMS is no longer branded ‘British’, so that does not raise the same level of concern, IMHO, although I understand your point about arms sales and it is well made.

[dutchyankee]

KarlMarx, I see your point, and being a non-Brit, all I can say from my perspective is that when I am in a remote location, or like today, when I am in St Petersburg and I see British Airways on the tarmac, it gives me a great feeling, a feeling of comfort and security. When I was younger and living in Africa with my family, and I saw the Big Blue Ball on the tail of Pan Am landing, it just gave me that feeling of America, and home. I guess that is what a great brand does, it creates emotion.

[Author]

Posts