It's behind the Times' paywall.
But it basically contains the same as the above-linked Guardian article, quoting WW's speech to the AOA where he calls Heathrow "fat, dumb and happy" and says there is zero chance of BA adding any new domestic routes from an expanded Heathrow.
That may, of course, just turn out to be more bluster (see above) from WW, who appears to have been studying the MO'L Manual of
PR.
BA won't be adding any routes (domestic or otherwise) that are not "thick" enough for at least the A319, it does not have any smaller aircraft. That much is obvious.
Quote:
where he calls Heathrow "fat, dumb and happy" and says there is zero chance of BA adding any new domestic routes from an expanded Heathrow.
He cites LHR-NQY ( awaits cornishsimon to rebut the CEO of IAG
)
Quote:
But Walsh stated that his airlines would not operate routes to airports such as Newquay in Cornwall, “even if [Heathrow chief executive] John Holland-Kaye got down and begged me”.
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2...ll-raze-his-hq
No rebuttal necessary, thinner routes would be operated by carriers with suitably sized aircraft. LHR-NQY looks like a potential BE route.
If BA won't provide the domestic connectivity who will ?
U2 on the thicker routes (like BA, it also doesn't have small enough aircraft for the thinner routes); BE, BD regional, T3, LM, etc., on the thinner routes? Who knows?
Would also expect widespread code-sharing for longhaul connectivity.
Little Red only duplicated BA's existing routes anyway. I'd have thought that the reason for their "massive losses" could well be to do with: 1) They were immediately setting themselves up in competition with a big, well known carrier; and 2) Nothing like the same comprehensive route network at the London end to connect into. Neither of these would be an issue with any new domestics BA (or a codeshare partner) might try.
True, but VS set itself up for failure by calling itself "Little Red", completely pointless, meaningless nonsense!