WHAT’S HAPPENING TO IAG & BA

Back to Forum

This topic contains 38 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by  MarcusUK 27 May 2013
at 12:07
.

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)

  • openfly
    Participant

    Pomerol…..???


    transtraxman
    Participant

    As far as I know the new terminal 2 satellite T2B is now situated on what was runway 3, so LHR is down to 2 runways.


    openfly
    Participant

    LHR has not had the “runway 3” properly known as 23L since the late 1980s. It was not an emergency runway. It was only used when the crosswinds were too high on the main runways. It was extremely short. It only had radar controlled/visual approaches. Also it could not be used in the reverse direction 05R due to buildings on the approach. The outer stands at T4 then took over much of the southerly end. It is still used as a taxiway at the eastern end of Heathrow.


    Bucksnet
    Participant

    Not only did Heathrow have 3 runways, it used to have 6.

    Now it’s got 2 and there is all this fuss about going back to 3 or maybe 4.


    flyingcanadian
    Participant

    Transtraxman.
    Are BA happy to give their pax to those 3 airlines you mentioned? I know they are in ONE WORLD, but surely some revenue must be lost giving a US pax to Etihad,Sri Lankan or Malaysian in LHR when they originated with you in USA? As another thread has said, “where do you start?” BA was once the KING of airlines, and one was proud to fly in the F or J cabin. It was the same as SQ now. Only F or J revenue flew in the cabin, and upgrades in the 60s were unheard of. SQ do not offer reduced F or J fares, although it appears now they are suffering, so “specials” are being offered. Even the CONCORDE was special, and it was great to fly it, even if only for a few years!


    transtraxman
    Participant

    flyingcanadian

    I thought the whole purpose of an alliance, such as oneworld, was to fly your own passengers out to a regional hub from where they would be taken to the final destination.

    Thus if BA receives its passengers at LHR fed from other ports, it then flies them on to Doha, Colombo and Kuala Lumpur. From there they would be transported to Goa, Thiruchirapalli, or Manila whichever the case might be. This would be done by codeshare or some other revenue sharing agreement and thus reduce the loss of clientele BA would otherwise suffer, since it does not serve the said destinations.

    That is why I do not understand why BA does not already codeshare with Dragonair onwards from Hong Kong or with Lan from Lima etc. Or do I completely misunderstand the situation?


    flyingcanadian
    Participant

    Transtraxman.
    No you have read it correctly. Alliances were formed to enable airlines to pass their pax to a partner airline without losing revenue. Instead of 200+ airlines, there were 3-5 alliances covering the world. However, when you say in an earlier thread that BA could pass it pax to Etihad, Malaysian and Sri Lankan at LHR, I am sure that BA would lose a lot of revenue. (I do not know percentage partner airlines pay each other on code-share flts, but I am sure it would be better for BA if they took the pax all the way. They used to fly to all those destinations). Feeder services are the ideal alliance partner, but I do not consider flts LHR-KUL etc as feeder flts.
    IHG/BA seem not to know which direction to take. That was the reason I started this topic. Many comments have said BA concentrates on the USA market, and leaves the rest. But if there was another 9/11, BAs revenue would dry up. Air Canada suffered badly because of 9/11, and yet there has never been a major terrorist attack in Canada.


    transtraxman
    Participant

    flyingcanadian
    Fine.
    However, I did not say, or at least did not mean to be understood as saying, that BA feeds Qatar (not Etihad) SriLankan and Malaysian at LHR.

    What I do mean is that BA flies to as many destinations direct as it considers worthwhile. However, it uses the hubs of the said airlines to reach the parts it cannot/will not serve direct. Thus it has the major portion of the revenue and obtains some revenue where it would not otherwise.

    There is a lot of crticisms of BA for not serving enough destinations in the strong growth BRICS countries. For that reason it logically should codeshare with its oneworld partners, TAM for Brazil, S7 for Russia, Qater/SriLankan for India, Dragonair for China. It already has Comair for South Africa which apparently is going great guns since Joburg is BA´s third biggest base/destination worldwide(according to CAPA) .

    IMHO that is the easy/short way to fill in the gaps and reduce dependence on North America.


    MarcusUK
    Participant

    Etihad are seeking closer ties and linking passengers with Delta, as announced by the CEO last week. So there will be a change in flow through between them very soon, excluding any current Airlines arrangements are made with.

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
BTUK October 2018 issue
BTUK October 2018 issue
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