BA has tried operating a dual hub at LGW before ("the hub without the
hubbub"). It didn't work and BA won't be trying it again.
It is true there is a fair amount of slot-sitting at LHR but BA has said
that only about a third of the slots gained from bmi will be converted to
long-haul ops as there is an optimal overall balance of 1/3rd long-haul and
2/3rds short-haul.
It is also true that there has been nothing stopping BA launching new routes
to Asia if it really wanted to do. What doesn't help BA in Asia is:
a) LHR's position in Western Europe means it is not placed to pick up
connecting trafffic from mailand Europe like transatlantic; and
b) Lack of local partners to provide onward connections and distribute BA's
flights in the local market to private and corporate customers.
BA is evidently making a push into Asia with Seoul and Chengdu but it has
always been clear it needs the support of local partners. It claims the
codesharing with JAL and Tokyo routes is already helping to drive up
traffic.
The problem was that under their “dual hub” strategy, a lot of routes that faced completion out of LHR (they did not also make the most of LHR, at the time they only owned 30-40% ofthe slots at that airport), not only that but it was based on the fact they would get ATI over the Atlantic with AA, what I am suggesting is an “overflow hub” consisting of a strict criteria of routes (once they have reached the 70% limit at LHR), routes that really would not suffer if they were based at LGW (instead of LHR)
I am only suggesting this due to the face there is a lack of space at LHR for BA to compete with its rivals in Europe, North America and the Middle East
It’s this same problem that limits what they can do in relation to Asia, it forces them to choose between very profitable Europe-North America and still profitable Europe-Asia/South America/Africa, its rivals can (and do) serve both markets
As for your points on “What doesn't help BA in Asia”
A: LH/LX at FRA/MUC/ZRH and AF/KL at CDG/AMS have this problem of location, it still does not stop them from serving more of Asia than BA at LHR, only in routes to India and Hong Kong do they have an advantage
B: However you make a very good point in this case; trouble is that they have a lack of partners in Asia compared to its rival alliances, so if BA really wants to service Asia as well as its rivals, its need to think outside the box and do deals with non-OW airlines (Qantas has already done this…)
It should also really make the most of OW position in Latin America (via LATAM) by launching more routes to South America with the help of codeshare agreements with LATAM