BA axes Saudi flights

[The SSK]

SAUDI ARABIA FLIGHTS SUSPENDED

British Airways will suspend its flights between London Heathrow and Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia from March 27, 2005.

The airline said the decision was a commercial one due to reduced passenger demand for the flights.

Robert Boyle, British Airways’ director of commercial planning, said: “The decision to suspend flights between the UK and Saudi Arabia is a difficult one to make as we have enjoyed a long history of flying between the two countries. However, the routes don’t currently make a profitable contribution to our business and we are unable to sustain them while this remains the case.

“As part of our commitment to Saudi Arabia we will, of course, keep this important market under constant review.”

Customers booked to travel with British Airways to Saudi Arabia after March 27, 2005 will be contacted by the airline so that alternative arrangements can be made.

[DCS99]

I no longer work for BA, so I don't know the loads or yields, but it's a surprising annoncement.

It also follows the decision to pull out of Caracas and Bogota - flights which were certainly full when I flew them.

Yeah, yeah, I know it's all about yield...

[AndyPandy]

DCS99, you answer your own question.

Yied is relative. The slots and aircraft can be used much more profitably on other routes.

[jabird]

Eh?

I would have thought the yield would be substantial, as there simply isn't a tourist industry to drive prices down, yet occupancy would be low because of the current problems.

I'm surprised its the other way round.

[Flightrider]

Yes, but it could also be that BA are concerned about future needs to pull out of Saudi Arabia on security grounds again; and it's just too risky to allocate aircraft and crew resource to these routes unless you have certain knowledge that you will be able to fly them.

[Mactor]

I wonder if BMED will pick these up?

[Hotel Mode]

I think given that all flights are operating through KWI for crew changes and the loads over the next week arent great that the costs have increased and loads are dropping, as flights are no longer direct. I expect BA feel they can take pax who wish to fly on a european carrier thru BAH or KWI and have them connect there onto GF of Saudia? Also we have new routes ands increased frequencies on the way for the summer and no extra aircraft so somethings got to give. BOG CCS has also suffered heavily from political turmoil in both countries dropping yields.

[nicecsd]

May be the slots can be better utilised on the new Indian Routes??

[San Expiry]

'The slots and aircraft can be used much more profitably on other routes.'

.....mmmm.

[Human Factor]

Funny how most other companies seem to be increasing frequencies to CCS. What's the word I'm looking for?

Ah yes, Iberia.

[apaddyinuk]

As well as yield you must also remember that because of the security implications, BA has to fly all Saudi flights via Kuwait so the crew may slip there. This obviously increases the costs of flying to saudi and therefore if the yield is not at its highest then its an obvious choice for the cutting!

[flyblue]

I was surprised by the news too, since AF is increasing the frequencies to RUH, and direct this time, no more via CAI. Only difference AF will operate the routes with A319LR when BA was operating 772ER and 744.

[BigGrecian]

Surprising there was never really a problem filling seats when I used to travel back to RUH reguarly.

Seems to me it's a security issue and I doubt it's the most popular bid for route.

[MarkD]

Well, there's a 777 off to Shanghai (from June) and Peking frequencies are being increased... all you need now is for BA to withdraw from IAD and that's all the flights likely to be cancelled for security reasons sorted and even more BA capacity for points Far East!

[mutt]

BA was operating 772ER and 744

Strange aircraft choice for a route without traffic!!

Anymore know the logic behind staging through Kuwait rather than Larnaca or even Cairo?

Mutt.

[Globaliser]

mutt: Anymore know the logic behind staging through Kuwait rather than Larnaca or even Cairo?

As the crew would be staying on board to operate RUH-KWI after doing the LHR-RUH sector, I'd have thought it made sense to make sure the crew change point was close by.

[mutt]

Globaliser,

When BA initially introduced the tech stop/crew change, it was in Larnaca. The 2nd crew would operate LCA/JED/LCA or LCA/RUH/LCA.

The additional flight time involved in this was minimal. The LCA ground time was approx 1 hour.

I cant get the BA.com site to work at the moment, but i would hazard a guess that they have turned a 5.30 hr trip into a 9.30 hr trip. With at least 3 hrs of that as additional flight time. This certainly isnt family friendly and has lost them a large number of passengers.

So once again I ask, why didnt they pick a more direct point for the crew change?

Mutt.

[Globaliser]

mutt: When BA initially introduced the tech stop/crew change, it was in Larnaca. The 2nd crew would operate LCA/JED/LCA or LCA/RUH/LCA.
...
So once again I ask, why didnt they pick a more direct point for the crew change?

But I think that what now happens is that crew 1 operates LHR-JED-KWI and then slips. Crew 2 operates KWI-LHR.

Isn't that a more efficient use of crew than using crew 1 to operate LHR-LCA, crew 2 to operate LCA-JED-LCA and then crew 3 to operate LCA-LHR?

[mutt]

The crewing part makes sense, but why not Cairo? Same flight time from Jeddah and in the right direction!

Mutt.

[HZ123]

In addition to all the problems it was also costing a packet for crew costs and the extra numbers required. Cairo is congested and room costs are high.