Originally Posted by
inOban
You would have thought that it was more expensive/less efficient to operate from multiple bases, and yet it is the LCCs which can make that work while the full service airlines can't.
Operating multiple bases is more expensive, but easyJet and other LCCs make it work by cutting costs. Salaries are lower, airport fees are lower, turnaround times are shorter, and only one aircraft type is operated. easyJet also has the capacity to add and scrap new routes at its pleasure. BA on the other hand are constrained, and aren't going to scrap key short haul routes that are used as feeder services to their long haul network.
The hub-and-spoke model means that BA need to have an extensive, high frequency route network in order to make a profit. Flights need to depart in waves to allow for simpler connections. On the other hand, easyJet can fly any route with any plane at any time, and it doesn't make a difference.
Because easyJet operates point-to-point services, if they were to commence BFS-PRG and NCL-PRG, this would have absolutely no effect on existing services to PRG. On the other hand, if BA were to commence NCL-PRG, EDI-PRG and BHD-PRG, ultimately they'd lose passengers on LHR-PRG, LHR-NCL, LHR-EDI, LHR-BHD. This could ultimately mean scrapping one of their x4 daily flights from LHR, giving connecting passengers a lot less choice, and making the operation a lot more inefficient.
The main point is that easyJet want to fill as many planes as possible. BA on the other hand want to fill as many long haul aircraft as possible, and operating an extensive short haul network is a means to achieving this. Operating from multiple bases dilutes the number of connecting passengers, meaning their long haul aircraft would be flying half empty, thus reducing profits.