World's "aviation capital" = ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World's "aviation capital" = ?
Could anyone confirm or challenge the notion that LONDON is the World's Aviation Capital, in terms of the number of passengers served per year - in excess of 100m, by the time you add LHR + LGW + STN + LTN + LCY. Afaik, MSE doesn't have an LON designator (yet?).
I don't think anywhere else would come close - only New York and Tokyo have 2 or more airports in WCIs top 30, but LHR beats HND, and LGW beats NRT, whereas LHR beats EWR and JFK combined, with LGW comfortably accounting for LGA, LTN for Westchester etc.
Have I missed anywhere out? I know Atlanta (77.9m) is the busiest single airport, but there are no other passenger facilities there, whereas #2 Chicago (72.6m) is only supplemented by another 20m or so at Midway, with Meigs closed, a handful at Gary, and Peotone just a pipedream.
I know you could use other ways of measuring such a figure (ORD is #1 for pax movements - not sure how it compares with Van Nuys which is #1 for GA), whereas Riyadh will obviously stay the largest in land area for quite some time, with the largest terminal being at HKG until the new Beijing terminal opens.
I know FRA offers more routes than LHR, but would LON as a city overall offer the widest choice, if not perhaps the best connections between such routes. Perhaps that would go to CDG with its "banks" of connecting flight periods? Would LHR still win in terms of numbers of airlines?
I don't think anywhere else would come close - only New York and Tokyo have 2 or more airports in WCIs top 30, but LHR beats HND, and LGW beats NRT, whereas LHR beats EWR and JFK combined, with LGW comfortably accounting for LGA, LTN for Westchester etc.
Have I missed anywhere out? I know Atlanta (77.9m) is the busiest single airport, but there are no other passenger facilities there, whereas #2 Chicago (72.6m) is only supplemented by another 20m or so at Midway, with Meigs closed, a handful at Gary, and Peotone just a pipedream.
I know you could use other ways of measuring such a figure (ORD is #1 for pax movements - not sure how it compares with Van Nuys which is #1 for GA), whereas Riyadh will obviously stay the largest in land area for quite some time, with the largest terminal being at HKG until the new Beijing terminal opens.
I know FRA offers more routes than LHR, but would LON as a city overall offer the widest choice, if not perhaps the best connections between such routes. Perhaps that would go to CDG with its "banks" of connecting flight periods? Would LHR still win in terms of numbers of airlines?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crawley
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
labird, you are right. The figures were published in Airliner World , October 2004. London is by far the biggest market followed by NYC. London before LTN is included had a throughput of 112,210848 in 2003. NYC was 83,646202. Thus London ( before LTN is is included) is 34% larger than NYC. ATL is 3 and ORD 4. Good for London.
In the current debate about runway I cannot recall any public body saying this and pointing out the need for a world dominany inductry to have adequate capacity to maintain that great domination. It would also be worth stressing that this is achieved without a penny of government subsidy and with hundreds of thousands of high quallity jobs in the industry.
In the current debate about runway I cannot recall any public body saying this and pointing out the need for a world dominany inductry to have adequate capacity to maintain that great domination. It would also be worth stressing that this is achieved without a penny of government subsidy and with hundreds of thousands of high quallity jobs in the industry.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fried,
The smallest in terms of passenger numbers would be zero - that's where our local airport was this time last year, but look where they are now. OK, so CVT handled a few thousand before Thomsonfly.
Shortest runway is Saba, but that does have 5 passenger carrying flights each day, and these can run pretty full on driving licence Wednesdays!
The smallest scheduled passenger airports in the UK must be places like Barra - I think LHR handles more in an hour than BRR handles all year!
Thimpu must be well down the World list, but there must be a fair few capital cities which don't have airports (Vatican City, Vaduz for starters). Bern must be one of the most underserved capitals relative to its nation's population, but then again the level of flights through ZRH is grossly disproportionate to the size of the city.
Smallest relative to size might be more interesting - what's the largest city in the world NOT to have an airport? I know Las Vegas has to be one of the largest cities in the Western World not to have an operational passenger railway station, but McCarran does pretty well for flights! Answers on a postcard please?
The smallest in terms of passenger numbers would be zero - that's where our local airport was this time last year, but look where they are now. OK, so CVT handled a few thousand before Thomsonfly.
Shortest runway is Saba, but that does have 5 passenger carrying flights each day, and these can run pretty full on driving licence Wednesdays!
The smallest scheduled passenger airports in the UK must be places like Barra - I think LHR handles more in an hour than BRR handles all year!
Thimpu must be well down the World list, but there must be a fair few capital cities which don't have airports (Vatican City, Vaduz for starters). Bern must be one of the most underserved capitals relative to its nation's population, but then again the level of flights through ZRH is grossly disproportionate to the size of the city.
Smallest relative to size might be more interesting - what's the largest city in the world NOT to have an airport? I know Las Vegas has to be one of the largest cities in the Western World not to have an operational passenger railway station, but McCarran does pretty well for flights! Answers on a postcard please?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, there's been very little Christmas TV worth watching, so:
From Wikipedia's World Capital's List & OAG - I haven't checked everywhere, just the places where I thought there might not be any flights. If I've missed any, please add them in.
These places seem to fit into certain categories:
Administrative capitals with larger city nearby (in brackets) which has international airport:
Den Haag / The Hague - seat of Government (Amsterdam), Porto Novo (Cotonou), Quezon City (but usually listed as Manila), Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte (Colombo), Yamoussoukro (Abidjan)
Capitals more than 50km from any operational commercial airport:
Belmopan (Belize), Dodoma (Tanzania)
Territories too small to have airport:
Andorra La Vella, Mbabane (Swaziland), Monaco / Monte Carlo (no fixed wing), Plymouth (Montserrat - original airport destroyed by volcano; new fixed wing airport due Spring 05), San Marino, Vaduz (Liechtenstein), Vatican City
Capitals with no functional commercial airport due to war or territorial disputes:
Baghdad, Jerusalem, Nicosia
From Wikipedia's World Capital's List & OAG - I haven't checked everywhere, just the places where I thought there might not be any flights. If I've missed any, please add them in.
These places seem to fit into certain categories:
Administrative capitals with larger city nearby (in brackets) which has international airport:
Den Haag / The Hague - seat of Government (Amsterdam), Porto Novo (Cotonou), Quezon City (but usually listed as Manila), Sri Jayawardenepura Kotte (Colombo), Yamoussoukro (Abidjan)
Capitals more than 50km from any operational commercial airport:
Belmopan (Belize), Dodoma (Tanzania)
Territories too small to have airport:
Andorra La Vella, Mbabane (Swaziland), Monaco / Monte Carlo (no fixed wing), Plymouth (Montserrat - original airport destroyed by volcano; new fixed wing airport due Spring 05), San Marino, Vaduz (Liechtenstein), Vatican City
Capitals with no functional commercial airport due to war or territorial disputes:
Baghdad, Jerusalem, Nicosia
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone out there have thee following data:
1. What was BA's share of all London pax nos when it was privatised?
2. What is BA's share of all London pax now?
3. What was BA's share of all UK pax nos when it was privatised?
4. What is BA's share of all UK pax nos now?
I know where I can get this info but I just wondered whether anyone had it readily available.
My intertest is in demonstrating BA's serious market share decline over these last twenty years. From all that I have seen that BA has published in recent years this decline seeems to be getting sharper.
Just take one example. In 1999/2000 BA and its franchisees operated a hub at Gatwick which was bigger than KLM's entire operation at Schipol. This was all done from a single terminal , the only one in BA's entire system which was suitable for a genuine interlining hub. Now gatwick has been cut back to a few long haul routes most of which have to be operated at LGW for regulatory reasons. The short haul has alao been cutback and the aircraft are smaller. (The fleet there included. 6 757's there in 1997/98)
Another example is the decline of market share at MAN. Back in the days of regulation this would never have been permitted by the regulators. But competition there effectively forced BA back to the miserable operation it has now. I suspect that if the full analysis is done the only two British airlines to have triumphed in market share terms over this period are Virgin and easyJet. RYR does not count because it is Irish. But it seems to be on course to carry more UK originating pax than BA.
What a mess for BA, what a lost opportunity. But I suppose it is caused by the BA planners who seem to believe that the only UK airport of any value is LHR.
Any views on this would be welcome.
1. What was BA's share of all London pax nos when it was privatised?
2. What is BA's share of all London pax now?
3. What was BA's share of all UK pax nos when it was privatised?
4. What is BA's share of all UK pax nos now?
I know where I can get this info but I just wondered whether anyone had it readily available.
My intertest is in demonstrating BA's serious market share decline over these last twenty years. From all that I have seen that BA has published in recent years this decline seeems to be getting sharper.
Just take one example. In 1999/2000 BA and its franchisees operated a hub at Gatwick which was bigger than KLM's entire operation at Schipol. This was all done from a single terminal , the only one in BA's entire system which was suitable for a genuine interlining hub. Now gatwick has been cut back to a few long haul routes most of which have to be operated at LGW for regulatory reasons. The short haul has alao been cutback and the aircraft are smaller. (The fleet there included. 6 757's there in 1997/98)
Another example is the decline of market share at MAN. Back in the days of regulation this would never have been permitted by the regulators. But competition there effectively forced BA back to the miserable operation it has now. I suspect that if the full analysis is done the only two British airlines to have triumphed in market share terms over this period are Virgin and easyJet. RYR does not count because it is Irish. But it seems to be on course to carry more UK originating pax than BA.
What a mess for BA, what a lost opportunity. But I suppose it is caused by the BA planners who seem to believe that the only UK airport of any value is LHR.
Any views on this would be welcome.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Definitive airport stats are published by ACI - Airports Council International. Website is www.airports.org
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
averytdeaconharry
I'm not sure quite where you're coming from with this one, but you're asking for views, so...
I can only talk really on what I've seen in the past 15 years from an airfield perspective. In the early 90's, BA put effort into growth at LGW, partly because of congestion at LHR. We helped with the construction of a number of transfer baggage and other facilities. BA operated a number of older aircraft (747-236 & 737-236) at critical times of the day/night and we did a lot to ensure these operated. Thank goodness these have gone now.
However, we've always known that aircraft fill up from the front at LHR, but from the back at LGW. The front is where the money comes from, long-haul scheduled. I know that's overly simplistic and there's a complex marketing mix in large aircraft economics, but it's not far off. LGW's done a lot of marketing work to try and turn this perception around but I still have the feeling that if magically LHR could offer unlimited slots we'd not have a single long-haul scheduled carrier left, UK or foreign.
This all comes down to making money, or at least, not making a loss! If you're arguing that BA would have been better to have remained in the arms of the Government, just look at Alitalia. I've far more respect for BA as a customer under the present arrangements than if they were doing things at the whim of some Mandarin in Whitehall. I don't want to feel that my wages are being subsidised by the UK taxpayer, in an industry that ought to pay its way.
Last Summer, we had a visit from a BA 747, as a part of our celebrations for opening the taxiway under the Pier 6 bridge. I enquired as to why they didn't operate the odd 747 on popular routes, such as Orlando, which max out during the school holidays. The response was that in order to be viable, they'd have to base 6 or 7 aircraft at LGW and they don't see the market to make these a/c pay their way. Presumably the 777 fleet does achieve this. Look at Virgin at Gatwick. I haven't a clue about the figures, but on that basis, they must just have a critical mass to make it worthwhile.
BA are sometimes a frustrating customer, a little arrogant at times and of course they make lots of mistakes, but then so do we! I do feel within them now at LGW a purpose and direction which I hope they will build on as sustainable and profitable growth, not a big bubble that's going to burst at the next setback.
Cheers,
The Odd One
I'm not sure quite where you're coming from with this one, but you're asking for views, so...
I can only talk really on what I've seen in the past 15 years from an airfield perspective. In the early 90's, BA put effort into growth at LGW, partly because of congestion at LHR. We helped with the construction of a number of transfer baggage and other facilities. BA operated a number of older aircraft (747-236 & 737-236) at critical times of the day/night and we did a lot to ensure these operated. Thank goodness these have gone now.
However, we've always known that aircraft fill up from the front at LHR, but from the back at LGW. The front is where the money comes from, long-haul scheduled. I know that's overly simplistic and there's a complex marketing mix in large aircraft economics, but it's not far off. LGW's done a lot of marketing work to try and turn this perception around but I still have the feeling that if magically LHR could offer unlimited slots we'd not have a single long-haul scheduled carrier left, UK or foreign.
This all comes down to making money, or at least, not making a loss! If you're arguing that BA would have been better to have remained in the arms of the Government, just look at Alitalia. I've far more respect for BA as a customer under the present arrangements than if they were doing things at the whim of some Mandarin in Whitehall. I don't want to feel that my wages are being subsidised by the UK taxpayer, in an industry that ought to pay its way.
Last Summer, we had a visit from a BA 747, as a part of our celebrations for opening the taxiway under the Pier 6 bridge. I enquired as to why they didn't operate the odd 747 on popular routes, such as Orlando, which max out during the school holidays. The response was that in order to be viable, they'd have to base 6 or 7 aircraft at LGW and they don't see the market to make these a/c pay their way. Presumably the 777 fleet does achieve this. Look at Virgin at Gatwick. I haven't a clue about the figures, but on that basis, they must just have a critical mass to make it worthwhile.
BA are sometimes a frustrating customer, a little arrogant at times and of course they make lots of mistakes, but then so do we! I do feel within them now at LGW a purpose and direction which I hope they will build on as sustainable and profitable growth, not a big bubble that's going to burst at the next setback.
Cheers,
The Odd One
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zed 3,
Thanks for the correction. I think I had a look under Matsapha, and didn't find anything. Manzini is listed in OAG as the city (MTS), not Mbabane, so it would still make the list in the other category.
Averyt,
If you move from any situtation with a monopoly being opened up to competition, it is going to be impossible for that said monopoly company to maintain its same market share. Faced with deregulation, companies have to open up into new markets, or offer other products to expand. The only other way they will expand is if the market overall grows. So perhaps if you asked how BA's turnover has grown since privatisation, I would guess it has gone up a fair amount, despite increased competition. In markets where demand is finite, such as utilities, companies like British Gas and Powergen have expanded abroad. BA tried to expand into the loco sector, but sold Go to Easyjet. If everyone else is biting at your heels to drive prices down, can you blame BA for trying to concentrate on areas where there is still a demand for a value added product? There's lots of things I don't like about BA, but as European flag carriers go, they have to be one of the better shaped ones, at least financially speaking?
Thanks for the correction. I think I had a look under Matsapha, and didn't find anything. Manzini is listed in OAG as the city (MTS), not Mbabane, so it would still make the list in the other category.
Averyt,
If you move from any situtation with a monopoly being opened up to competition, it is going to be impossible for that said monopoly company to maintain its same market share. Faced with deregulation, companies have to open up into new markets, or offer other products to expand. The only other way they will expand is if the market overall grows. So perhaps if you asked how BA's turnover has grown since privatisation, I would guess it has gone up a fair amount, despite increased competition. In markets where demand is finite, such as utilities, companies like British Gas and Powergen have expanded abroad. BA tried to expand into the loco sector, but sold Go to Easyjet. If everyone else is biting at your heels to drive prices down, can you blame BA for trying to concentrate on areas where there is still a demand for a value added product? There's lots of things I don't like about BA, but as European flag carriers go, they have to be one of the better shaped ones, at least financially speaking?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA tried to expand into the loco sector, but sold Go to Easyjet.
Fried Chicken
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FC,
Yes, you are right about Go:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/05/16/easyjet.go/
Another way of looking at your smallest airport question might be to consider the airport with the least traffic relative to capacity (except for exceptional circumstances such as war or weather incidents).
I would imagine that somewhere like Mid America Airport outside St Louis must be a good contender here, or perhaps in terms of passengers served per square mile of airport site, Riyadh would have to be a front runner!
Yes, you are right about Go:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/05/16/easyjet.go/
Another way of looking at your smallest airport question might be to consider the airport with the least traffic relative to capacity (except for exceptional circumstances such as war or weather incidents).
I would imagine that somewhere like Mid America Airport outside St Louis must be a good contender here, or perhaps in terms of passengers served per square mile of airport site, Riyadh would have to be a front runner!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redfield,
I thought Nicosia was the capital, and Limassol the largest city? I believe Nicosia airport was abandoned following the Turkish occupation, and that the site is under UN control, but I'm sure someone else who knows the island could eloborate more.
As per the list above, neither San Marino nor the Vatican City have airports due to their size, whereas Andorra and Liechtenstein have no airport due to the terrain.
Monaco just has a heliport with links to Nice Cote D'Azur airport. I guess Andorra La Vella would be the furthest capital from any other airport.
Of the "major" European countries (with populations more than 1m people), I think Berne is probably the most underserved capital, with direct flights to just 4 other destinations, although even this seems to have grown from perhaps just one or two a couple of years ago?
There may be small landing strips in any of the above places (well, not the Vatican or Monaco), but no commercial airports with passenger services.
I thought Nicosia was the capital, and Limassol the largest city? I believe Nicosia airport was abandoned following the Turkish occupation, and that the site is under UN control, but I'm sure someone else who knows the island could eloborate more.
As per the list above, neither San Marino nor the Vatican City have airports due to their size, whereas Andorra and Liechtenstein have no airport due to the terrain.
Monaco just has a heliport with links to Nice Cote D'Azur airport. I guess Andorra La Vella would be the furthest capital from any other airport.
Of the "major" European countries (with populations more than 1m people), I think Berne is probably the most underserved capital, with direct flights to just 4 other destinations, although even this seems to have grown from perhaps just one or two a couple of years ago?
There may be small landing strips in any of the above places (well, not the Vatican or Monaco), but no commercial airports with passenger services.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
redfield, just a note - Den Haag is not a "European capital", though it is the political centre of the Netherlands.
Whilst Schipol is 45kms away, Rotterdam airport is only 25kms away from Den Haag.
Whilst Schipol is 45kms away, Rotterdam airport is only 25kms away from Den Haag.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird - I stand corrected: Nicosia is the capital of Cyprus. I'll go take my Geography GCSE again.....shame on me! wrafter: Den Haag is the "administrative capital" of Holland while Amsterdam is the "official capital." Either way, it doesn't have it's own airport. I think Riyadh is the World's largest airport site in terms of square mileage.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrafter,
I think the Netherlands (IIRC, Holland is just one region of the Netherlands?) is one of those places where people could often argue about where the capital is.
Den Haag, or as we would say, The Hague, is the seat of government, which many people would then say means it is the capital. I always seem to remember Geography books listing it as the capital, although now Amsterdam is more often listed as the capital, being the financial centre, largest city, and isn't it also the home of the Royal family? If you look at the Wikipedia listings, quite a few countries have more than one city listed as the capital - I think South Africa has four, so I wouldn't want to be setting that on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
Redfield, yes, Riyadh airport occupies some 81 square miles. When I was there in '91, only 3 of the four terminals were being used. Riyadh is a very fast growing city, so I'm not sure if all four are used now, or if passenger figures are published. http://www.kkiairport.8k.com/ suggests a figure of about 15m per year.
In terms of "airfield efficiency", this would make Heathrow almost 80x as effective a user of land, if the figures below are correct:
Passengers Acres Pax per acre
RUH: 15,000,000 55598 270
LHR: 64,000,000 3000 21,333
79x
Not sure how London City would compare on these figures, or if LGW might be even more "efficient"?
I think the Netherlands (IIRC, Holland is just one region of the Netherlands?) is one of those places where people could often argue about where the capital is.
Den Haag, or as we would say, The Hague, is the seat of government, which many people would then say means it is the capital. I always seem to remember Geography books listing it as the capital, although now Amsterdam is more often listed as the capital, being the financial centre, largest city, and isn't it also the home of the Royal family? If you look at the Wikipedia listings, quite a few countries have more than one city listed as the capital - I think South Africa has four, so I wouldn't want to be setting that on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
Redfield, yes, Riyadh airport occupies some 81 square miles. When I was there in '91, only 3 of the four terminals were being used. Riyadh is a very fast growing city, so I'm not sure if all four are used now, or if passenger figures are published. http://www.kkiairport.8k.com/ suggests a figure of about 15m per year.
In terms of "airfield efficiency", this would make Heathrow almost 80x as effective a user of land, if the figures below are correct:
Passengers Acres Pax per acre
RUH: 15,000,000 55598 270
LHR: 64,000,000 3000 21,333
79x
Not sure how London City would compare on these figures, or if LGW might be even more "efficient"?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Gatwick pax
31,000,000
Gatwick acres
1687
Pax per acre
18,376
So, not as efficient as LHR, by your figures, but when we've grown to our stated capacity with the one runway of 40 million, we'll be 23,710 pax per acre!
The Odd One
31,000,000
Gatwick acres
1687
Pax per acre
18,376
So, not as efficient as LHR, by your figures, but when we've grown to our stated capacity with the one runway of 40 million, we'll be 23,710 pax per acre!
The Odd One
avery etc.......... During the successful City Flyer operations ex LGW, i.e. before mainline/waterside got hold of them, they operated out of the South terminal at LGW so it was a 2 terminal operation, and profitable.
Once Mainline bought them they moved to the North and down sized rapidly to the small operation that is there today which is not nearly as effective as the operation before purchase.
Once Mainline bought them they moved to the North and down sized rapidly to the small operation that is there today which is not nearly as effective as the operation before purchase.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely not, I cannot believe that it was the change of terminals that caused the collpase of the fine business that was City Flyer. It was the Waterside mentality previuosly known as the Speedbird House mentality. BA spent £250 million buying BCAL, £75 million buying CityFlyer, and goodness knows what buying British Regional ( and in doing so giving Michael Bishop a fortune) . I know they recovered all their investment in BCAL through the BCAL pension fund surplus and the undisclosed equity in their long haul fleet, but from a balance sheet value they have had to write off all those investments. It is all completely mad and in my mind it is about time the long suffering shareholders stopped accepting such nonsense.
Waterside people do not even know where Gatwick is and even if they did they could not care less. In their view LHR is the centre of the world. Instead of reorganising BA so that it could cope with the world they have retrenched to LHR and let the world take their markets.
Several years ago now I worked on a project team with someone I thought to be a very capable BA manager. He told me that he regretted the fact then that BA seemed to be turning itself into a long haul airline based solely at LHR. He prophesised that that trend would continue. It is sad that an airline that used to be as big and influential as them has gone down the road of contraction and retrenchment. They used to be the biggest and most profitable airline in Europe and they certainly are not that now. I very much doubt if there is any prospect of their ever being in that position again. It is the Waterside mentality that is doing that for them.
Every time that Michael O'Leary and Stelios look at that building they must surely praise the brainwashing that takes place for all that enter there.
Let us hope that their next Chief Executive comes form an industry where differnt standards apply. Someone like Terry Leahy from Tesco would be a good start. He does not lie back and let his competitors get any advantage. It is the very anthisesis of BA. It would be great if it could happen. But many BA senior people would have to go.
Waterside people do not even know where Gatwick is and even if they did they could not care less. In their view LHR is the centre of the world. Instead of reorganising BA so that it could cope with the world they have retrenched to LHR and let the world take their markets.
Several years ago now I worked on a project team with someone I thought to be a very capable BA manager. He told me that he regretted the fact then that BA seemed to be turning itself into a long haul airline based solely at LHR. He prophesised that that trend would continue. It is sad that an airline that used to be as big and influential as them has gone down the road of contraction and retrenchment. They used to be the biggest and most profitable airline in Europe and they certainly are not that now. I very much doubt if there is any prospect of their ever being in that position again. It is the Waterside mentality that is doing that for them.
Every time that Michael O'Leary and Stelios look at that building they must surely praise the brainwashing that takes place for all that enter there.
Let us hope that their next Chief Executive comes form an industry where differnt standards apply. Someone like Terry Leahy from Tesco would be a good start. He does not lie back and let his competitors get any advantage. It is the very anthisesis of BA. It would be great if it could happen. But many BA senior people would have to go.