What's BA's problem?

[JKP505]

Is it just me or do they seem intent on operating from London Heathrow alone?

All you hear is BA restructuring, which has so far resulted in CWL and LBA being knocked off their network, swallowing up Manx Airlines, who operated a sizeable programme from IOM, and operating minimal flights from there.

Besides this, they want to replace all propeller aircraft in their Citiexpress fleet, which would see PLY wiped off the network, along with a lingering rumour that BRS is 'too close to London for a substantial base' - meaning that too is on it's way.

BA at LGW and LHR have been exchanging routes for the past four or five years, (although most traffic has gone in LHR's direction), and the new rumour that they will plug MAN and BHX for 'under-performing', having already let all of BHX's Maersk Air routes go.

How come airlines such as Lufthansa have substantial bases at FKT, MUC, HAM, DUS and TGL when it seems BA can only handle one?

I would just like to know if the airline has any intention to live up to it's name and serve it's country

[nighthawk117]

I agree totally! Edinburgh is supposedly "The second most important financial city in the UK" and "second most popular tourist destination after london", yet BA does not operate a single non-stop european flight from EDI. All they offer is a very limited selection of flights "via birmingham"

Pretty pathetic for "British" Airways! Its just a shame Air Scotland cant decide wether they are a lo-co or a flag carrier (or indeed if they are an airline or travel agency!)

[BAe 146-100]

Hi,

I doubt if they will plug MAN because most of the Citiexpress flights are operated from there.

Regards
BAe 146-100

[jmc_757-200]

Hi,
MAN is British Airways Citiexpress' base so theres not much chance of it being dropped.

Thanks

jmc_757-200

[TwinAisle]

Funny, but as I read jmc_757's post, a shiver went down my spine....

They closed CWL when it was in the black, and now the Cardiff 145s are looking for work.

They are closing the maintenance base at GLA, and as Dai Rear said so eloquently in another forum, that is just mad.

They have managed to turn the national carrier into one that has little more than a skeleton service into Northern Ireland and Scotland, and not even that into Wales.

They are run by a team that has the tact of a house brick, the charm of Uday Hussein and would lose money running a bath.

STILL reckon they have the wit NOT to close MAN??

[jmc_757-200]

Hi,
I'm still confident that BAW won't close down MAN ops because there Citiexpress operations spread far beyond the UK as they also fly to destinations like MAD, BRU, SNN etc...

Thanks

jmc_757-200

[richardhall99]

I remember reading a few years ago in one of BA's flight magazine that Belfast Aldegrove was one its main hubs along with Heathrow, Edinburgh etc. As Im sure you know Belfast Ald is no longer a hub to BA or even a destination. If I am not mistaken the last flight out of there was the Birmingham route. I am not sure how long they will last down at the City airport as well. They must only have Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh left.

You could say the same about my local airport Newcastle as well. We used to have a major regional hub up here now we have a little skeleton service and with rumours circulating about the future of the airline at the airport uncertain who knows what will happen. I suppose as long as BA keep the rich people from London and the South East happy then BA are happy.

[Caslance]

I'm still confident that BAW won't close down MAN ops because there Citiexpress operations spread far beyond the UK as they also fly to destinations like MAD, BRU, SNN etc...

I remember a nice shiny fleet of A319s that did much the same thing out of Birmingham, once upon a time.

I wonder where they all are now???

[starone]

Just a few points...only major lh presence is at fra and muc.. allothers such as txl.dus, cgn etc are operated by limited lh mainline and primarily franchises like cirrus/cityline/augsberg etc.
(which work)

AF..only presence is at cdg, marginal elsewhere, considerable presence of codeshare and franchise (britair, flybe etc). which work.

IB only major presence at mad, with touristic value presence in bcn. many t/a services ex bcn are ops via mad with aircarft change involved...a la edi.

OS.. no presence in the regions.. all done by franchise and codeshare with alliance franchise to boot. which work

SK allegedly major presence in osl/arn and cph... but in effect major resources focused at cph.. hence why thay have/are gobbling the majority of small competitor airlines.

Interesting to note that all of the above still have to see real competition from locos in their own territory, although this is changing with fr in stockholm and ezy/virgin xpress in ory.

Why should ba operate routes that are not profitable from these regional airports? Just so that you can wipe a nationalistic tear at the sight of that wavy British flagfrom your eye as you clamber onboard cheap 'n' greasy air service to nowhereville (airport 70kms from city centre), which is owned by alexis or paddy your local marketcaller?

If you all loved BA that much why didn't you fly with them before now?

it appears BA does not have a problem..just business sense.. and you??

[Unwell_Raptor]

Some confusion here, I feel.

BA is a Public Limited Company. It is responsible to its shareholders. It is not a social service, an arm of Government or a regional development agency. It operates in one of the toughest market sectors in the world, where politically-led disaster is always just around the corner.

BA is pulling in its horns in Europe because a combination of low-cost competition and hidden subsidies to major rivals (compris?) means that there is little realistic chance of making any money there in the forseeable future.

Plenty of people can criticise BA for its performance, but it is just plain silly to criticise it for not trying to be all things to all men. If BA sees a market in which it can operate profitably, I am sure that it will be in there. There is absolutely no room for soggy sentimentality and nostalgia.

[starone]

Well said Unwell- It would be lovely if BA could be 'funded' by the govornment to provide a 'public' service to the Departments Outre-Mer, for example, or if it bought and operated all BAe aircraft (ahh the days....) and thus be able to assure itself of friendly slot allocation in airports.

Do you really think that if BA bought BMI and or Virgin and EZY and Ryanscare that the competition authorities would turn a blinder??? Of course not, this is a competative market.. but the above scenario has happened in austria, scandinavia and germany, It is possible to fly Fra-Cph on 2 airlines, both of which share the same alliance. Where is the customer choice in that?

UK-CDG, why we have ba, ezy, fr, af, be, bmi to name the biggies.

BA have faced up (perhaps succesfully) to the massive competition that exists here and which other countries still have to experience.

As regards to NCL, yes it is very sad, but it was the franchise operators choice, mainline have maintained their presence.

[PAXboy]

With regards to Manx and IOM base. I continue to say (and sit to be corrected) that this was purchased as they wanted the six slots at LHR.

They promptly moved the primary and 'flagship' route to LGW, as they did with Brymon years ago. When main line are reducing their interest in regional fields, I cannot see what in heck they saw in a tiny dedicated location carrier. Except six slots for long haul. :rolleyes:

[Joe Curry]

>I agree totally! Edinburgh is supposedly "The second most important financial city in the UK" and "second most popular tourist destination after london", yet BA does not operate a single non-stop european flight from EDI. <

They operate EDI-CDG..The one-stop flights via BHX etc are
encouraging predators at EDI..CSA. Germanwings..Air France..
Lufthansa etc are laughing all the way to the bank..

BA should instigate a direct EDI-USA flight before they get 'pipped at the post.:* :*

Assuming of course BAA allow them....:ugh:

[MerchantVenturer]

JKP505

I note that you mention the ‘lingering rumour’ that BA will pull their BRS base because it is too close to London.

Another forum member hinted strongly recently in another thread that the writing was on the wall for the BRS BA Citiexpress base. I asked whether he had any more information to add other than rumour, but he did not reply. Have BA suddenly become aware that BRS is ‘close’ to London? Have they only gained knowledge of this little known fact since they pulled their CWL, LBA and ABZ flights? If not, why did they not pull the BRS base at the same time?

Rumours can become self-fulfilling. Say something loudly and often enough and people will believe it and, in the case of airlines, will become reluctant to travel with the airline in question in case the rumours are true. BA’s 'trunk' routes out of BRS (to EDI, GLA, DUB and CDG) have direct competitors in the form of easyJet, Ryanair and Air France Regional. Only on the routes to Munich, Frankfurt, Jersey, Plymouth and Newcastle do they have a monopoly, and the NCL route is due to be duplicated by easyJet from August.

Other than someone in another thread telling me that the NCL route is holding up well, I have no idea of BA loadings and profitability out of BRS. If they are poor, with no forecast of realistic improvement, then no commercial undertaking can be expected to sustain losses indefinitely.

However, if the routes are doing well, and the only grounds for the closure rumours are that after CWL etc BRS must be next, then I think that, to put it mildly they are unhelpful, and they fall into the same category of those than foretell the imminent demise of some airlines.

In three years BRS has grown from 2 million annual pax to 3.5 million with a forecast of 4 million during the next year. So there must be some potential passengers there. If so, why cannot BA have their share?

Perhaps someone with ‘chapter and verse’ might like to enlighten me as to BA’s current situation at BRS.

[bounty]

If anyone mentions EDI, the JoeCurryBot comes out with pearls like this:

BA should instigate a direct EDI-USA flight before they get 'pipped at the post

Assuming of course BAA allow them....

now, I'm all for direct flights to the US from EDI, although I can't see BA starting one; but why oh why, would the BAA block such a route?

A reasonable argument this time Joe, not more ravings.

[FougaMagister]

Just to put things right: there may be subsidies in France to operate flights to Overseas Departments, Overseas Territories and to Corsica, but these subsidies are in exchange for a minimum number of rotations per day/week - basically Public Service Obligations.

If I'm not mistaken, the same happens with Loganair to the Orkney and Shetlands...

Also, these French subsidies ARE official, not hidden (not something one might understand from some of the previous posts) and they are paid to a number of airlines - NOT only Air France and its franchises/subsidiaries. Their aim is to ensure that some far-flung parts of French territory are not left without air links just because the route is (slightly) unprofitable.

At least the French do have something akin to a public transport policy - which is more than Britain can say...

As for BA, give them the Sahara, and within two years, they'll have to import sand...

[JKP505]

MerchantVenturer, as far as I know the BRS-NCL route is doing very well. But even that is no indication on whether British Airways will stop flying the route.

British Airways within the last three or four years (at different times) has served Newcastle to Aberdeen; Belfast; Birmingham; Cardiff; Copenhagen; Cork; Dublin; Edinburgh; Isle of Man; Oslo; Paris CDG and Southampton. Of these, only CWL and EDI were plugged due to bad loads, the other 10 routes apparently had good loads, so much so frequency was increased on ABZ, BHX, DUB and SOU.

So why have BA ditched ALL of these routes, considering Braathens managed to fill a 737-500, as opposed to BA's Emb145; Air France operate three or four Bae146-2/300 flights daily, soon to be joined by easyJet; Cimber Air managed three flights daily to CPH in contrast to BA's one; and Ryanair had to increase to double-daily to keep up with demand after one month.

In response to starone, if it was down to the subsidary carriers, who owned all shares in Brymon Airways and Cityflyer Express? British Airways.

So you see, BA are earning a well-deserved reputation for kicking the regions of the UK, so I wouldn't regard any well-performing routes as safe where the 'World's favourite airline' are concerned.

I think BA as the national flag-carrier has a responsibility to make sure that it's own country is well connected, and connect the regions to Europe were suitable. It is rediculous to travel down from somewhere like Newcastle to London to fly to Oslo, when there is quite sufficient demand for a service direct...

[starone]

FougaMagister- sorry to point out but do you remember AOM? Air OUTRE MER? These routes were not slightly unprofitable, but very much. I have often picked up a bargain to Reunion, with up front being empty..that is where the money is after all. I don't know whether Noumea (new caledonia) is still considered a DOM, but again i was quite surprised when i did fly with UTA at the price i paid, considering where I was going. You havn't answered my question about the aircraft orders/slots?


JKP505- BA is not THE national flag carrier, look at BMI and Virgin, both proudly have the british flag on their aircraft and BA have long accepted this. They did after all dig their own grave for the prices they DID charge for example EDINCLCDG, they learnt their lesson, have a business model that makes more sense, although there still remains a lot of work to do. That business model focus is on the SE, although with a presence inthe regions. The SE have a higher, although not all, A grade earners it is also the business and political capital of the UK. They owe no duty to anybody just like nobody owed them a duty when they were not privatised and had the lions share without competition. well done to them for adapting to severe competition(that hurt!!), it took them long enough mind

If Cimber et al were so good, where are they now, they may have filled their aircraft....
BTW the best way of getting from ncl to osl is via ams or bru and quite competative too.

[Charlie32]

They owe a duty to their frequent flyers like me to provide a service which is value for money.
They are failing in that duty, and many of their business customers from around the regions will be forced to find alternative travel arrangements.
Doesn't sound like a good business case to me.

[starone]

Charlie 32- Are you an actual Gold/prem card holder with Ba or are you using that moniker. If you're the former they really will listen to you.

However, I must go back again to the point that they owe NO duty to anybody, irrespective.
Did Sabena owe a duty to anybody that stopped it from collapsing? Did BMI owe a duty when all its ops at EMA became loco.
If you're not happy then you're the king, take your business elsewhere, brits have never had it so good with regard to choice in the wider passenger aviation market, one of those choices happens to be BA, where often the price is right, or often they seem mad to be charging what they do!

Where all this duty is coming from, i don't know, but it doesn't belong in the aviation business, they only owe you a duty once you have decided that they are worth spending your cash on, a duty to get you from a to b (or in the regions a to b via c!)

[PAXboy]

Sorry if this is labouring a point but I see it appear in forum after forum, hardly a week goes by without someone saying.

"I think BA as the national flag-carrier ..."

They are a publicly owned company, listed on the stock exchange. They are not owned by the UK government, so they are not the national flag carrier. Whether they have little flags painted on the side of the aircraft is inconsequential and only a matter of P.R. and dewey eyed folk on airline boards.

BA are the largest UK airline but nothing more or less than that.

OK, as you were. :}

[FougaMagister]

Starone - we're drifting away from the original topic here, but considering ex-Air Lib slot allocation at ORY, even easyjet said that COHOR did a good job; didn't the guys from LTN get 7,300 slots (enough for 10 rtn. flts./day)?

The DOM-TOM routes were not LARGELY unprofitable, the problem was mismanagement on the part of Air Liberte and AOM. Indeed:

- Air Austral is now flying from RUN to CDG with two 777-200
- Air Bourbon has just been launched with an A340-200
- Air Tahiti Nui has extended its LAX route to CDG
- Air Calin has just replaced its A310-300 with an A330-200

I don't think this level of competition would be seen on largely unprofitable routes...

[starone]

Fouga- I'm not straying from the point at all, i was using these examples in regard to the apparent ba problem..which is rapidly turning into a problem for people with no business acumen.

You say competition on the routes exampled.. they are not competing with each other. I don't believe that Air Tahiti get any subsidy form the french govornment for that route btw.

Please also look at paxboy's comments. Ba is a business after all

RE: easyjet- i was under the impression (misled, maybe) that ezy were considering legal action as a result of the allocation,I don't call that happy!

Please explain why ba should operate at a loss edi-fra or edi-dub or gla-jfk or bhx-prg? Others may operate them but for BA it is too expensive.

I'll repeat again....why do you owe ba anything and why do they owe you anything?

They are not a charity.

btw- i don't work for nor consider myself an apologist for ba.....the clue is in my name.
I find myself chuckling ironically at the stance i've taken.

[FougaMagister]

Starone - I think you've nailed the problem on the head; BA's cost structure is such that they cannot profitably fly most long-haul routes from "regional" airports. Of course they're a business meant to make money, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't enough business to fly some long-haul routes from either BHX, EDI, or more from MAN, considering the catchment area of these airports. Apart from the already-mentioned fixed costs problem, BA seems to consider that if a route doesn't justify a daily rotation, then it's not worth doing...
Most of us will agree that the problem with BA is that nobody can make any sense of their current (or previous) corporate strategy.

Cheers

P.S.: Air Tahiti Nui's capital actually includes the local French Polynesian government, so I'd be surprised if they didn't get some financial incentive to fly to CDG (but they seem to be getting very good loads on the route anyway).

EZY-wise, my source was their website!

[MD11FAN]

I have just returned from Munich and noted how many direct flights Lufthansa operate from there to foreign cities(long haul as well as short haul..eg JFK/SFO/NRT/HKG) and this got me thinking what is BA's policy at Manchester..a feeder for Heathrow? Surely there must be demand for more long-haul flights from there...Heathrow seems to be strangled by a lack of slots and ramp space at peak times. I suspect that a large number of shuttle passengers from Manchester are simply using Heathrow to connect to another flight. Why not offer more direct flights from Man?..this could reduce the number of slots required at LHR and cut the number of a/c circling in the stack at peak times.

[HZ123]

I am pleased that someone has mentioned the fact that many of the UK - Europe feeder routes provide onward travel to many other destinations including Long haul.

It poses the question in providing these services how much might you be losing on transfer travel from these many European airports. Many of us are aware that Mainland Europe travel to Asia near & far, Australasia and the Americas is considerable cheaper, that is fact.

Easy has just posted a loss today and Ryan cannot give its seats away so there may be a lot more sound business decisions made at Waterworld than people give them credit for.

Besides this is the age of technology and all these regional stations can be managed from one place, they do not have to be staffed by BA or covered by BA engineering.

[Caslance]

Overseas arlines seem quite happy to operate long-haul flights from Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, etc.

BA have tried long-haul flights from regional airports in the past, and only the daily MAN-JFK service remains.

What do the overseas carriers know or do that BA do not?

[White Knight]

BA's main problem is the reluctance of "mismanagement" to slash costs - that's the difference betweeen the overseas operators and BA. All down to costs as many posters on this thread point out.

[surely not]

Are you suggesting that some of the overpaid flight deck take a pay cut?

[HZ123]

Now you are being silly if you thing we are going to take a cut in allowances to operate e.g. from BHX.

To do a JFK from BHX you have to have the a/c there you have to have a back-up somewhere else. BA tried this some years ago with a 757 which was full but did not make a great deal of profit on top of this there were. hotel accomodation the night before the flt as we could not afford the cost of employing crew locally for this service, resident engineering costs, equipment and training of ground staff, storage of spares and equipment to cover world traveller and club. So the costs ran on.

On top of that the 757 from the passenger perspective was only a limited sucess as it only provided two bogs for about 120 plus econ travellers. Single isle long haul is not a choice. Many readers will remember the JFK's on 707/VC10.

Those overseas carriers that you quote are I believe to be chapter 11 or in serious debts even with UK airport charges as minimal to encourage them.

Services are limited and are often under threat. So for once BA is displaying creditable management that is not swept along by local emotions.

[Hand Solo]

What overseas carriers do which BA cannot do is transfer passengers from regional airports on to other destinations through their hub. I'd be interested to see just what proportion of Emirates passengers from BHX actually end their journeys in Dubai and how many transfer onwards. Ditto for Continental from BHX and Singapore Airlines from MAN, etc etc.

HZ123 - the BHX- JFK route made a very healthy profit when it was on a 767 because of some lucrative cargo contracts. The freight more than paid for the flight, any passengers on board were a bonus. It was only when the 767 was swapped for a 757 and we couldn't carry cargo that the route went down the tubes. Also, the flights were crewed locally, with BHX cabin crew and pilots from the dedicated group of regional 757/767 pilots based at MAN.

[Caslance]

HZ123:
Those overseas carriers that you quote are I believe to be chapter 11 or in serious debts even with UK airport charges as minimal to encourage them. Chapter 11 provision covers US airlines only, although similar provisions exist in Canada.

Almost every US transatlantic carrier is in the brown and pungent for a number of reasons that are well covered elsewhere,so let's leave them to one side (even though they have continued to operate their existing MAN schedules and the Asian carriers continue to suffer the impact of SARS, unlike the US carriers).

This still leaves Pakistan International, Singapore Airlines, Malaysian Airlines, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Air Jamaica and BWIA (if only in name) all willing and able to do what BA are apparently unwilling and/or unable to do - ie, operate long-haul flights from UK regional airports.

There has to be a reason for this, whatever the reason actually is.

[682ft AMSL]

But the point is equally valid.

Emirates - primarily used as a gateway to the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and South East Asia.

Qatar - ditto

Singapore - primarily used as a gateway to South East Asia and Australasia

Malaysian - ditto

So these carriers, along with their US counterparts, are essentially doing what KLM does with its services between MAN and AMS - people just think its more glamarous because the aircraft are bigger and the first leg of the journey is longer. The hub-spoke principle is exactly the same however.

BA (and Virgin) are interested in point to point traffic between destinations where there is a reasonable proportion of high yielding club / first class passengers. Hence they operate to/from LHR which remember is exactly where Sir Michael has lobbyed to be since political circumstances forced his hand to start his long-haul business out of MAN. One would assume that were the MAN market as equally profitable as the LHR market, then bmi would be keeping quiet and banking the cash. They aren't, which tells you perhaps more than anything why BA and Virgin won't be interested.

Its not a conspiracy, its just business I'm afraid.

682

[Ringwayman]

Hence they operate to/from LHR which remember is exactly where Sir Michael has lobbyed to be since political circumstances forced his hand to start his long-haul business out of MAN.

But why did bmi start here? The only place they couldn't have started LHR long-haul flights to was the USA. But you appear to be suffering the delusions that airlines will tap into "instant profits" with long-haul. I'm sure that they said that they were expecting profitablity on the MAN routes to take 3 years, with last year being counted as year 1. One notes that the "good news" release they issued today talks of strong bookings on the Washington run, with Chicago having dipped.

In time, BA will decide to enhance long-haul services (though it may be 777s in use by then on the MAN-JFK run?), but it will mean that for the next few years, we'll find ERJ145s used to inaugurate services and increase frequencies, with RJ100s then taking up the reigns when a consistent level of patronage occurs. The immediate concern of the airport should be to try to get more passengers to transit through MAN instead of AMS/CDG/LHR.

Oh, please explain why Virgin operate MAN-MCO if they are

interested in point to point traffic between destinations where there is a reasonable proportion of high yielding club / first class passengers

as I note that they consistantly fail to note that service when issuing releases.....it's not per chance a purely tourist route?

[682ft AMSL]

But why did bmi start here?

Largely I believe because it strengthened their case for open skies ex-LHR if they could demonstrate they were actively operating transatlantic services. What political clout does a campaign for more liberated LHR-US services carry if it comes from a short-haul only airline?

you appear to be suffering the delusions that airlines will tap into "instant profits" with long-haul

Don't think so. What I implied was that LHR was an inherently more profitable base for long-haul ops than MAN and that the actions of bmi since the start of their long-haul services ex-MAN were entirely consistent with this assumption. A release from the press office saying that bookings for MAN-IAD were strong and that MAN-ORD had dipped doesn't tell us anything that contradicts this assumption, it just tells about the number of seats that have been sold - no more, no less.

Sorry, didn't understand your point with Virgin;s MCO route. As I understand it, the route is operated by a TF reg, 747 classic, with seats sold directly and through Virgin Holiday's tour operator. This is not their core business, which is, flying higher yield routes out of London I think you'll find.

Don't get so defensive. MAN's a great airport with a great network of routes serving its local catchment area, but all the evidence suggests that its market does not appear to suit the sorts of services that BA & Vrigin serve out of London (and that bmi would like to serve out of London).

682

[HZ123]

Thanks for the comments, I stand corrected with regard to non-USA / Canada Ch11. However, many of the other carriers mentioned are not exactly flushed with funds or enovation.

Without going into detail several of them have state support and would operate at a loss. Others are responding to the large numbers of immigrants within the relevant connibation.

I am in no way trying to put the likes of MAN / BHX down but I still see BA's decision as sound not to expand from the regions. As previouely stated BA will have to reduce its pay / allowances / ground costs before it can seriously expand the regional routes.

This is reflected in the present choice of a/c which cannot hope to compete with Airbus / B737 competition to and from Europe so long term you might question BAs' commitment to these stations.

[starone]

remember this thread?
Hz-do you still think that ba's decision not to expand from regions is unsound?
Lets just recap ( i'd hate to prove a point!!)
Ba in black------------eazysleazy in the......red!!
regions lose money--dump the regions
regions make money-fly the regions.( business competancy..no)
perhaps above ethic should also be spread to sars areas and we might have had a slightly better q4.

nuff said really.

[Hand Solo]

I don't think BAs management logic is quite as transparent as that starone. Using the 12 months from Sept 11th 2001 as an example:

Only fleet to make money in BA?
BA Regional

BA management response?
Close down BA Regional

Obviously we don't have the big picture though!

[HZ123]

I do see BA's influence deminishing even further as the the profit margins are just not there for a larger airline/s. To some extent the crews must foot some of the blame as once they have come under the BA banner they naturally want to enjoy all the perks that go with BA. This immediatly increases operating costs, one example of this is BACX?Brymon who used to do cabin dividers and seat conversions, at some stations I was told they even effectively cleaned the a/c or at least assisted, CC did the cabin security check.

These latter functions were not done by BA and therefore are not done by BACX now. Costs have increased and revenues deminish and these are the results. I would concede that some of this is down to ineffective management and staff being their own worst enemies.

[Hand Solo]

HZ123 - you really seem to have a chip on your shoulder about crew costs, you've posted a number of times that 'expensive crew' are the downfall of the BAs regional operations. Do you actually have any first hand experience of BAs regional operations?

Can you give me any real examples of crew coming under the BA banner and so increasing costs? I don't recall the Brymon or BRAL crews getting a whopping pay rise when they were bought out by BA, or suddenly downing tools and refusing to do cabin dividers or seat conversions (by the way, which of these regional aircraft actually had converting seats?). In fact quite the reverse has happened. With the hand over of BAs regional operation crew costs have gone down, with flight crew wages dropping even further below most low costs operators and BAR cabin crew working with fewer crew per aircraft and converting the seats and cabin divider themselves.

If you had any knowledge of regional ops you'd find that crew costs are a tiny part of the equation, almost insignificant in comparison tp the £10000 per month taxi bills for ferrying aircraft parts, or the £32000 per week being paid to wet-lease operators to cover the schedule when mis-management mess things up again.

[HZ123]

Comment accepted

I am not having a go at crews if that is as it appears. But that quoted for BACX on RJ's is fact within the UK and European destinations. So to is the costly exercise of moving BACX under BA ground services at a number of Uk airports that increases costs significantly. As to does the process of operating at times under the BACX AOC and trying to be compliant to the BA AOC.

I accept that BRAL / Brymon have not gained much from the exercise but surely both have suffered from being brought under BACX. Why does Brymon (BACX) have an HQ at Weston-Super-Mare and why is there still an operations centre at Fragell Rock.

Surely by now all these operations could be done from MAN / BHX with resident operation departments let alone LHR.

I certainly agree with you that it is a tragedy for the staff of all three airlines to find themselves in this present mess through little of their own doing. be assured that is BA ffor you.