Future of UK aviation

[MUFC_fan]

The Future of Aviation in the UK (http://www.trifter.com/Europe/United-Kingdom/The-Future-of-Aviation-in-the-UK.804589)

Good article...

[Donkey497]

Nothing could fit more perfectly for BA. They have been setting the standard in the aviation industry for years and have built up on of the most lucrative networks on the planet from the platinum of all airports. ................ and the salary reductions but what will be next? Cuts in service? Surely not. As long as BA keep their roots - their awarding winning service and world class cabins, they will survive and will thrive when we see a turn in the fortunes (http://www.trifter.com/Europe/United-Kingdom/The-Future-of-Aviation-in-the-UK.804589#) of the world economies.

"The Platinum of all airports" - Heathrow???? :ugh::ugh::ugh: Get real!!

"As long as BA keep their roots" - It's way too late to remind BA of this, they stopped serving Britain ten+ years ago :(:(:(

"awarding winning service and world class cabins" I can only comment that their service improves the further away you get from Britain & UK based staff, and the majority of their cabins are only average :confused:

Reads more like a puff-piece for BA / LHR than anything relevant to the future of UK aviation. Mentions nothing about any other airline, the break-up of the virtual Ferrovial monopoly or the potential impact of further open skies and bi-lateral agreements or closer ties between airline alliances. no mention of costs or any great attention to passenger demands

Can I have a pint of whatever the guy who wrote it has been drinking?

[MUFC_fan]

Not a massive fan of BA then!:ok:

I agree with a number of your points. I don't think he means 'good' by platinum, as his does seem to know a tiny bit about aviation - and to know that much you would soon realise LHR is nowhere near the same league as SIN, HKG etc. Maybe he means by demand for the airport, I don't know - quite unclear.

I must say, on the BA service front, the cabin's may not be the same as EK, SQ etc. but their service is second to none, and I mean that. I have never been on a carrier where the staff have treated you so well.

Crew 5*
Cabins 4*

[Andy_S]

I must say, on the BA service front, the cabin's may not be the same as EK, SQ etc. but their service is second to none, and I mean that. I have never been on a carrier where the staff have treated you so well.


So you've never been on Singapore, Thai, Malaysian, Cathay to name but a few?

[MUFC_fan]

I've done EK, SQ and CX.

EK were very rude and uninterested. SQ were superb and CX just below.

I think having spent say 2/3 weeks in one destination like I usually do, it is so comforting to be welcomed by an English attendant - just makes me feel I'm already home.:O

Just me.

[Andy_S]

EK were once a trailblazing airline when it came to setting service standards, but these days they're just a massive pack 'em in outfit. I've never flown QR or Etihad but I've heard good things about them.

My remarks were primarily based on far eastern carriers, who (mostly) knock BA into a cocked hat. Transatlantic is a far more difficult call.

As you say, it's down to what suits you, personally.

[Donkey497]

Just to comment on some of the relative merits of some of the carriers / routes I've used recently.

Transatlantic:
Delta>Continental> >Icelandair>FlyGlobespan>BA>Air Transat

European Legacy Carriers
Lufthansa>BA=KLM

European Low Cost
Norwegian>EasyJet>Ryanair

Far East
Etihad>>Singapore=Emirates (ex-Dubai heading east)>>>Emirates (Ex UK-Dubai)

OK, let's get back on topic now. What is the real future for UK aviation?

[Ernest Lanc's]

OK, let's get back on topic now. What is the real future for UK aviation?

There is no reason to believe that in the long term the future of UK aviation is as good as any other country in Europe (can't count the US because of government intervention there).

As for BA I don't agree with all the negative comments that have followed this airline since it evolved from the merged BOAC/BEA and 2 smaller airlines. - BA a is a worthy flagship for the UK.

BA has a Boeing fleet of 747-400's, the largest operator of this type in the world. So it is well placed when the current recession ends.

Main problem with BA for us Northerners - If we have to catch connecting flights to London. otherwise use alternative carriers. They could, and should change that.

[MUFC_fan]

I think the main problem is us Northerners!

BA won't have long haul services from MAN, GLA, BHX or any other airports than LHR or LGW.

The main problem is that we 'up North' are bargain hunters. We see that EK, KL, LH etc. are cheaper than BA and jump on board. We are not the most loyal of passengers unlike a large number of the French who will fly AF/KL only. When less people travel to LHR from the regions, less flights will fly!

If BA wasn't to pay such high charges to BAA at LHR and the high taxes imposed by the government (this is not a 'kill BAA/CAA to save BA campaign - it is fact) it would be able to compete a hell of a lot more on price.

Lower fares will see more passengers from the North who love a bargain and more passengers will mean more flights (3rd runway?:confused:) and therefore more of BA in the regions.

It is not fair to say 'London Airways' as they are a private company now and have to go where the business is. They are not a public company and so do not receive millions per year to lose on flying uneconomical flights. They have to answer to their shareholders and if I owned any BA shares I would want to know why my money was being spent on flights that were there simply to keep 10 people in Aberdeenshire happy!

I am not massive Pro-BA, crap anyone else but I do think they get their fair share of criticism and sometimes - it simple isn't their fault.

Rant over.:ok:

[jerboy]

Main problem with BA for us Northerners - If we have to catch connecting flights to London. otherwise use alternative carriers. They could, and should change that.

And lose even more money?

The fact is BA's long haul operation and product isn't conducive to operating out of the north of England/Scotland etc. They tried it and lost money. If it made money the routes would still be operational.

The rationalisation of their services to LHR has left them in a (relatively) stronger position to what they would have been if they had a long haul network out of every airstrip in the country.

[Ringwayman]

How hard did BA try to make regional long-haul work though? Now they've made their bed at LHR, they're now suffering the consequences of focusing on premium capacity on their aircraft when many companies are putting a squeeze on their travel budgets and so becoming "Northern-like". It's also noticable that a lot of people who when responding gripes about the centralisation of BA services at LHR tend to make idiotic remarks such as "long haul network out of every airstrip in the country" when we know that it's predominantley MAN, BHX and GLA/EDI that would be the focus of them. All these airports had substantial BA networks that somehow BA failed to convert into offering a seamless travel product routing Europe-"regional UK"-JFK in much the same way that they are obsessed in routing "Europe/Regional UK"-LHR-USA. They have the ability to codeshare the transatlantic flights from Regional UK with AA but how hard did they bother to do that? How will it be ok for AA to operate JFK-MAN stating AA has feed at JFK when BA would have had ample opportunity to do tap into the same feed?

[gate 22]

Looking at the passenger figures for UK airports is not the most encouraging view. Of all the major airports in the UK, only Belfast City and Birmingham fields have passed more people through their doors in May this year as they did last.


BHX down 4.8% on last May
BHD down 4.3% on last May (CAA figures)

unless through doors means actually entering the terminal building and not necessarily flying.

[MUFC_fan]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data_prov/200905/May_2009_Provisional_Airport_Statistics.pdf

Author got that wrong! I think he looked further a long at the annual numbers!:}

[Donkey497]

To concentrate on one particular topic, does anyone think that there will be a development of "special interest" point to point flights. I am thinking in particular here that there is an apparent hole in services for the Oil Industry. I would have thought that direct Aberdeen to Houston, Aberdeen to Almaty, Aberdeen to Calgary & Aberdeen to Dubai would have been likely, but so far only the Aberdeen to Houston flights have come close to happening, but fell through due to insolvency prior to introduction. Everything else is routed through south-east england.

As oil companies are notoriously not soft hearted or overly generous in shelling out for travel for their personnel as well as being largely intolerant of unnecessary delays or time wasting, I am staggered that these companies haven'e pushed for these connections.

I am sure that there are other specialist industries dotted up and down the country with similar links to other nations which could not only benefit from their own point to point links but have enough volum eto support them year round. So why haven't these routes happened?

[Andy_S]

As oil companies are notoriously not soft hearted or overly generous in shelling out for travel for their personnel

I think you've answered your own question.

Are there REALLY several hundred people per day who need to travel between Houston and Aberdeen? I think not. Equally, given your comment about oil companies not being overly generous, are there going to be enough premium passengers to make such a route viable?

[Donkey497]

It may be true that there may not be hundreds of people flying between between Aberdeen and Houston, but it would not surprise in the slightest if there were, judging from my own company's travel needs.

However, had I a mortgage, I'd bet it on there being enough passengers travelling between the two to run at least a weekly service between them.

My question was more directed at why such targeted, point to point services have not been developed as it must surely be more economic to transfer personnel in this manner, rather than have to route them through either Heathrow, Schipol or Frankfurt with the inherent extra time and costs that these diversions incur.

I know from my own travel, it's easier to do EDI/ATL/IAH than it is to do EDI/EWR/IAH, but these are far more direct routes than EDI/LHR/IAH, or EDI/LGW/IAH, as was. Routes via AMS or FRA have even less to recommend them as you fly for 60 - 90 minutes east to spend 60 - 90 miutes on the ground, before flying back west over your departure point. Carbon footprint comments anyone?

The only thing that recommends AMS FRA or LHR is that occasionally these are marginally cheaper routes. However, they all have the drawback that if there's bad weather, it's the feeder services that get delayed and cancelled so end up stranded while your long haul flight flies overhead at 35,000 feet........

Maybe of course if they finally get the 787 into service and replacing the 757 & 767s on narrow routes, direct costs will also fall.

[HZ123]

It will not happen for many years. Sample the gripes about the LCY-JFK flighton the airports/airlines thread, whatever is undertaken it is never enough?

[Andy_S]

However, had I a mortgage, I'd bet it on there being enough passengers travelling between the two to run at least a weekly service between them.

I agree. But then that goes against the grain of your earlier comment:
as well as being largely intolerant of unnecessary delays or time wasting
Sitting around for a week waiting for a return flight is hardly good time management!

The trouble with, say, Aberdeen and Houston - as you yourself have revealed - is that there are all sorts of ways to get between the two. I used to work in the hydrocarbon processing industry, and what I really valued was the ability to be flexible in my travel plans. I was never too bothered about the flight routing as long as I could travel on a day or time to suit myself, rather than being tied to a particular flight. And I doubt oilmen lose any sleep over their carbon footprints!

I hear what you're saying, but I think the sort of routes you envisage would be more viable where there wouldn't otherwise be a market. The Teesside-Aberdeen route, which I sometimes used, is a case in point. It wouldn't be viable if it weren't for the oil and gas industry, and companies who used it had little choice but to pay premium fares because it was the only realistic travel choice available.

[Donkey497]

Sitting around for a week waiting for a return flight is hardly good time management!

Very true, but having commuted back and forth to Houston on average every six weeks for the best part of four years now I have only done one trip which was less than a week.

Looking at my colleagues travel and that of friends who work in other similar companies they all do the same and plan for a week's work each time. Likewise when we go to Singapore & other plants we all tend to book trips in multiples of whole weeks.

OK, that fits in with my experience and travel plans & I appreciate that I am not the whole world, but it still surprises me that the hub and spoke model for airline services is so prevalent and that there are so very few specialist point to point services.

And as far as a carbon footprint is concerned, as an engineer, the [thermodynamic] term "closed system" seems to apply to the planet we all live on. Hence all the carbon that's underground now must have been overground before, including the lot that I am made of, so all in all, I'm not convinced that anything we as the human race do has any particular effect either way on the the planet.

[Skipness One Echo]

How hard did BA try to make regional long-haul work though?

Well Glasgow got the TriStar to JFK just as Gulf War 1 kicked off in 1990, and then went down to twice weekly in a fares war with NWA / American / Air Canada and United all saturating the long haul market out of Scotland. Then the B767-300 came, still operated by mainline, which then operated for a year to Newark as GLA-JFK was still losing money. That didn't work either so the mainline crews were replace by BA Regional crews operating again to JFK but now split with Birmingham. This still didn't work and so they tried the B757 as a more appropriate aircraft, routing GLA-JFK-BOS ( flying over Boston both ways oddly enough ) and BHX-JFK-YYZ, again a long way for a short cut. This still didn't work so BHX was axed and GLA got a summer JFK service for a year before they gave up in 1998 after eight years of losses.

The reason? The business traffic without which they couldn't turn a profit, kept going via Heathrow. Go figure.

All these airports had substantial BA networks that somehow BA failed to convert into offering a seamless travel product routing Europe

Any direct passenger from the regions was one less through LHR, so the policy was taken to hub the entire operation there. The regional ops had been losing money since Pontius was a cadet, well paid staff, BA handling, BA Engineering cover and pension contributions all blown away by Ryanair and easyJet with a blank piece of paper, no pension costs, outourced handling and new aircraft. BA could never do that and it's pointless going over that territory again.