I have been thinking about the route changes/reductions announced by BA a few days ago. I work in giving investment advice and the key rule there is diversification, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Put it another way, don't put all your bets on one horse in a race.
They seem to be slowly killing Gatwick, putting all bets on Lhr. Lhr is supposed to be the cash cow, yet it isn't at the minute. If it was so good, why are Ba in such a bad way? Not only have they bet on one airport, but they also heavily bet on first and business class. Both these sectors are in a bad way at the minute and Ba must suffer with them. There will be other times in the future when the same thing will happen, for different reasons. BA should be going after all three classes, as there will be times that the three classes will behave differently. Say first/business is down but economy stays strong.
The strategy that Ba are following defies logic, from the point of view of putting all bets on Lhr. I struggle to think of another major carrier with such reliance on just one airport. I find it difficult to believe the reasons as to why Ba could not make Lgw work. A lot of the failure was there own fault. For example, when I used to look at the paper timetables that were published, they would show say Gla to Jfk via Lgw/Lhr. But Lhr was always pushed first, it was as if Lgw was to be used only as a last resort. Lgw still has a hugh and well off catchment area as well as very good access to London. If part of the problem was high costs, then they should have sorted that out. If Ba had kept Go and made a major move on Lgw with Go, where would that be now? They might now be in a very commanding position there, like Easy now.
Over the past few years, Ba has done nothing but retrench. That can only go on for so long. Some day, they will discover, too late, that they have cut back too much and are left with very few options. I have to say, I fear for their long-term future.
True Blue