Would AA not also share half the profit or loss on the route if it came under the AA/BA transatlantic tie up ?
They would under the JV I believe. However I see no reason to think BA would stay if DY gave up. LGW-JFK has a troubled history, Laker were killed by BA's predatory pricing, BCAL lacked enough business travellers, Virgin moved all New York to Heathrow once they saw the comparable numbers for each. BA went from a BCAL B747, down to a DC10, futher down to a B767 then canned it as it was the worst performing (allegedly) London-New York rotation. It did not impress when they brought it back on the B777. Delta tried it for a time as well but in the end all commercial pressures moved everything to LHR.
If BA play a spoiler to DY, there's no business case for staying if Norwegian give up. The yield is undoubtedly much higher flying the same people and aeroplane out of Terminal 5. Commercially that's what's always made sense.
Of course Norwegian haven't even announced it yet. Isn't it wierd how an airport is seen as somehow failing if it lacks a New York route?
but to be honest I find you arrogant thats why, not just on here but on other aviation forums, when ever I see your name I think what the hell is he going to preach now!
I'm sorry you feel that way, I had the greatest of respect at school for no nonsense teachers who spelled it out as it was, no sugar coating and didn't suffer fools. It rubbed off. If you raise an opinion I disagree with I will try and shoot you down but I always try and show past analogies, parallels or similarities, never
racial stereotyping and seldom playing the man and not the ball.