[Sparepocket]

Even if, for argument’s sake, BA did manage to get these routes going in the future, would it be able to compete, on ticket price alone, with the other airlines that offer (admittedly indirect) flights to these destinations?I think this merger with Iberia (and the subsequent acquisitive, covetous mindset that followed) may have gone to Walsh’s head.To paraphrase a line from ‘Top Gun’, Walsh’s ego is writing cheques his Accounts people can’t cash.

[NathanFruchter]

bring back KUL & JKT to the BA network. BA used to flly to KUL and the same flight continued to JKT. there’s plenty of SIN-JKT even by foreignh airlines. bring back LHR – SEO !! Bring back TPE as an extension of one of the HKG services and do the same for Manilla, like it used to be.

I cld see a LGW -HNL nonstop with 777-ER.
Loose that 767 on the red eye TLV service “n switch it back to 777 like it once was !!! or put a 747 on that route ! LH can fill up a 747-400 from FRA, surely BA can as well.
Ad a second daily to BKK at mid day and continue that service to MEL. with QF dropping SFO-SYD, i wld introduce SFO-MEL

[Sparepocket]

Nathan, I seriously doubt the UK Government, broke and desperately in need of foreign investment, would risk the ire of the Chinese Government by resuming flights to TPE.
Flights out of HKG into SE Asia and Australasia are well covered by local/regional airlines. Indeed, even on the LON-HKG route CX have more aircraft in service than BA.
For instance, outbound 1st March (and returning on the the 7th), BA have a flight departing at 20.55 (640 Pounds) and 18.40 (679 pounds).
Cathay have flights leaving at 11.25,22.05, 18.05, and 20.05 (551 pounds).
In addition, VS comes in at 549 pounds (one flight a day) and although QF and NZ offer a daily non-stop service to HKG both come in at over 600 pounds.
So, it’s hard enough for BA to compete on the LON-HKG route.
Would anyone in their right mind pay an extra 90 pounds to travel on BA instead of CX?
PS: All these flights were checked on Kayak, apart from NZ, which was available through the airline’s website.

[continentalclub]

With reference to Hong Kong, Air New Zealand offers daily service during the Northern Summer only, reducing to four/five times weekly in the Winter. Their inbound service to London operates in commercially-challenging slots too; departure time from Hong Kong is too early for originating leisure passengers, and wastes a working day for business passengers.

British Airways sees strong loads on its flights, which potentially accounts for the pricing on the standalone London to Hong Kong sector.

However, the commercial appeal of any airline on the route must be judged in the context of the overall competitive marketplace and, in particular, connections.

Hong Kong is a oneworld hub which puts Virgin and Air New Zealand at something of a disadvantage. Connections on Cathay, Dragonair, JAL and even Qantas/Jetstar are very good.

Likewise, Heathrow has hitherto been a oneworld stronghold, and connections are a key factor there too. A passenger originating or terminating anywhere on the BA domestic network, and indeed in many near-Euro stations such as CPH would likely favour BA on the long haul, thanks to the lack of terminal change required at T5.

Indeed, a Glasgow to Auckland passenger might also favour routing with BA to Hong Kong, and then transferring to the CX codeshare down to New Zealand. The terminal transfer at Heathrow to leave/join a Cathay flight at T3 is a disincentive to switch carriers there.

Then there are cabin considerations. NZ and VS do not offer First. Cathay has no Premium Economy and their current Business cabin is not universally favoured, with increasingly few flights offering 744 upper deck options. Qantas Business is not fully-flat on the route.

Frequent Flyer programmes play a part too, with Executive Club members often earning a greater number of miles when travelling on British Airways services than when on other oneworld partners.

So, in the round, a simple snapshot of O&D fares does not present an accurate view of the complete picture or the competitive landscape in which all network carriers operate on this or indeed any route.

Personally, I am great fan of Cathay and have been for many years; nevertheless, being non London-based, it is highly unlikely that I would fly with them exLHR as the connections (and connecting fares, regularly) are unattractive. The same applies to QF, VS and NZ.

Perhaps ironically, I often read of BA being described as ‘London Airways’ and yet it is precisely because of their network connections that they remain competitive – especially in the UK market with the continuous withdrawal of British Midland service from so many airports which used to feed Star long haul.

[transtraxman]

Sparkyflyer:

On the web site I mentioned it gives the traffic London – Durban at 135.000 pax.in 2008. Using a B777-200 that means a 85% load factor with 5% growth potential. On my calculations about 370 pax/day.
However, it should be considered that the airports on this site(anna.aero.com) are selling themselves so the information might be taken with a pinch of salt. Even so it looks a good bet.

[BlackTower]

VK your silence is thunderous….,

[NewBAexec]

Goa, Havana, Fort Lauderdale, Colombo, Bogota, Caracas, Santiago, Harare all direct from LGW on the 777.

[travelworld]

I suspect that whilst the Comair franchise BA operation continues Durban is unlikely, since it would remove a good deal of that carrier’s Jo’burg traffic connecting to BA flights there to LHR. I think at the moment the only international carrier at Durban is EK, who operate daily to Dubai. Whislt that sector is A330 operated with no lie flat seat in business, it seems quite busy.To that end, I’m a bit surprised SAA don’t fly direct to London from there.

[NewBAexec]

New routes from LGW on the 767 should be NAS, PLS, GCM, LCA and maybe FLL.

[Sparepocket]

If you’ve only got two flights a day on a certain route you’re bound to have more passengers than the airline operation four flights a day on the same route.

[Binman62]

The point that is being missed is that BA is now a long haul point to point carrier and has little interest in developing multi stop flights. This is especially true for LHR where slots are valuable. Their only transit point is LHR and that allows them to focus on European originating traffic and USA traffic and combine this with the very expensive ex UK fares for both business and leisure traffic the bulk of which is located in the southeast.

Add ons from SIN HKG etc to CGK or DPS are a non starter. LH have fares of $150 on the route at times as they have excess capacity, a situation that will be made worse by CX entry shortly. KLM and QR both offer Business class for around S$600 against SQ at S$1500 to DPS for a 2hr 30 min flight. This is not the sort of traffic BA is pursuing.

TPE is simply not going to happen for reasons previously mentioned.

For BA now to entry any route will require that it can stand alone and support and a minimum a non stop operation at least 3 times a week. Less than this is not viable as it will not meet business demand.

LGW is clearly being positioned as the leisure departure point.

As for HNL and New Zealand. BA are simply not interested in these markets, The yields are poor and why would you take a 777 or 747 to Auckland to get £5000 from a First passenger when you can get that from the JFK route. I have been amazed that they have retained SYD as quite frankly if the JSA agreement actually meant anything then neither they nor QF would fly aircraft to respective home countries.

They have also now missed the boat for those in economy and who are influenced by time and money rather than by Brand BA, miles or status. Why would anyone in Glasgow now fly to LHR (indeed why would anyone fly domestically to) transit LHR only them to change terminals or transit HKG SIN BKK, when you can fly from your home airport via DXB.

BA fares are now so high in the UK, and the taxes so punitive that it is also possible to go via AMS and a other Euro hubs for a great deal less.

BA will start to expand once new aircraft arrive but it is likely to be India and China from LHR and it will not be pioneering. BA does not do pioneering on routes. They leave that to LH and others and then follow.

[canucklad]

Binman has made totally relevant points—–

Maybe it’s time to for the BA team to realise their limitations in managing the business—-

Focus on long haul & re-brand back to BOAC-start afresh with quality corporate branding-that was ruined when the monster BA emerged from the marriage

I wonder how many of the dissatisfied crew fly shorthaul & domestic
cut the domestic service completely

Next as part of the process “creatively create a BEA ” within the IAG that would interline as normal but doesn’t have all the current problems–new contracts set up-an airline where the management and taff are proud to say thais is my airline & not “Willies play thing”

[Hippocampus]

Are reports of 767s moving to LGW firm rumours or speculation/wishes?

[batraveller2]

BA still needs some domestic service for people to connect to its excellent long haul service at T5, and to date still offers a wide range of flights from the main cities – Abz / Gla / Edi / Newcastle, and Manchester.

[VintageKrug]

Domestic flights couldn’t be further away from where BA is focussing its growth right now.

re: 767, I would say it’s all Rumours, Speculation.

But based on the:

– need to maximise the use of scarce LHR slots for larger aircraft
– pending arrival of new 777-300ERs
– return of 747s from the desert
– three class longhaul layout of the 767 being more compatible with “long thin” leisure routes
– shortage of aircraft to operate additional point to point Premium Leisure routes exLGW
– lower crewing costs as LGW vs. legacy LHR
– recent appointment of a new strategic lead at BA LGW

I don’t think speculation is too far fetched.

On the opposite side, there is a strong case to be made that BA shouldn’t split the 767 fleet (which will number 14) between LHR and LGW; type certification/airframe support issues could block that idea, and an additional 14 aircraft would be a huge increase in the LGW fleet.

It has amazed me there are so many posts in this thread which don’t have cold hard economics at the centre of the justification for any new routes; suggesting BA would would fly to NZ because it is a “Commonwealth Country” is bunkum in this day and age.

If it doesn’t pay, it won’t fly!

[Author]

Posts