I'm sure BA's intentions are entirely honourable (), and that all the beancounters at Waterworld simply had their spreadsheets upside down during the last three attempts and missed a profitable opportunity.
Analysts don't count beans anymore than doctor study chicken entrails. The key issue is that BA have x number of B777s to operate in y markets. Adding an additional LGW-JFK rotation may not be the best use of that most mobile of assets as BA saturate LON-NYC out of LHR and even LCY. So what's changed? I would venture that a strategic decision has been taken to over-ride BAU decision making and put some pressure on Norwegian. BA allowed easyJet to take over LGW short haul, the
strategic risk is that with two B788s based, they pose a risk to profit levels on exisiting BA long haul.
Or maybe is didn't lose as much money as we were told, they just preferred to force us through higher fares Lhr where they could make more money than at Lgw.
Y fares on LHR-JFK are not
that pricey given the sily amount of seats they have to fill each day. I believe LGW-JFK did make money, did well for BCAL on the DC10 and later BA as well.