British Airways - 2

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "NQY: served 3x daily by BE
IOM: served 3x daily by BE and 1x daily by EZY
JER: served 6x daily by BE and 4x daily by BA"

That's what I thought, are there any other LGW domestic routes?


Quote: "Most people don't know the difference between the DEFICIT and the National DEBT. Even journalists get them mixed up yet they are clearly two very different things with attributes and issues of their own.
The same error is being made here repeatedly in that two issues are being mixed together. The market already chooses MAN to a greater or lesser extent, once again people are bleating about trying to buck the market.
UK Airport Capacity and Strategic UK Hub Connectivity (LHR and nowhere else) are the two issues in question.
Building runways and terminals anywhere except LHR or closing LHR and bulding on a new site are the only two realistic options for addressing the second. However it is right that Manchester ought to fight it's own corner but I am at a loss as to what they are realistically expecting businesses to do. There is no business in the UK able to offer from MAN what is currently served by offshore ME based carriers, and rather well I might add. This all has squat to do with BA."

Good point, Skipness, everything else is irrelevant. Of the two options, only one addresses the problem now, while they both address it several years down the line. One makes good business sense, the other is a financial basket case and/or a waste of taxpayers' money.

Makes one wonder what the Commision will actually be doing for three years.

[Aero Mad]

Full list:

NQY
GCI
JER
NCL
INV
BHD
BFS
GLA
EDI
MAN (until 2013)

[Skipness One Echo]

Blimey is that all, what happened to NQY, JER and IOM? No more flights from LGW?

I wasn't grouping them under regions as JER and IOM are not in the UK and are both offshore and NQY (with apologies to cornishsimon!) fell off my radar.

BA have now dropped ABZ, NCL, MAN, IOM and INV from LGW in recent years. There's not much domestic flying left and I can see both GLA and EDI being dropped if they continue to focus on sun routes. Indeed as LGW has pulled back, LCY has moved into these very markets as CFE move into ABZ and IOM.

[cornishsimon]

I wasn't grouping them under regions as JER and IOM are not in the UK and are
both offshore and NQY (with apologies to cornishsimon!) fell off my
radar.

Accepted !

I can see CFE perhaps restarting the LCY-NQY at some stage, even if just a seasonal route


cs

[Skipness One Echo]

Well if IOM is worth it on a leased S2000 all bets are off!

[PAXboy]

Here is a most interesting story about JAL. BBC News - Beer with boss Kazuo Inamori helps Japan Airlines revival

So how did he manage to change such a deeply rooted corporate culture?

"My simple philosophy is to make all the staff happy," he says. "It has been my golden rule since I founded Kyocera when I was 27. Not to make shareholders happy but simply to create the company that every employee is proud to work for," he adds.

"Many people were sceptical if such a simple philosophy would work but in the end, it did."

Ah - make the staff happy and they will make the customers happy - who make the shareholders happy? Yes, that's how it used to be in the UK when I wuz a lad!

"What puzzles me is why Japan's economy has been struggling for the last 20 years because we have the technologies, skills and great people. But I guess people got too complacent after the economy grew spectacularly since the end of World War II. Today, we are lacking strong business leaders who can make difficult decisions and be inspirational, people who work hard for the good of the company, not for their personal gains."

Ah - personal gains that were supposed to lift everyone higher - but only lifted the few and (mostly) lowered the company.

He refers to the 20 years of stagnation. Ours only started in 2007/8, so we have some way to go. Reading the article reminded me of some of the actions of Gordon Bethune in turning Continental around.

Any lessons for BA in this?

[Mr Mac]

Hooded
Do not use LBA as in winter in my experiance you often have weather issues due to either fog / snow. Also EK send driver to pick me up and MAN only 45 min drive, LBA about 1 hr deppending on time of day. Regards Saigon - Gatwick / Heathrow I was told by Australasian working out here that they expect to be in LHR maybe next year.

[ORAC]

No 3rd runway, no expansion at Gatwick or elsewhere. The present BA strategy is to concentrate on larger aircraft out of the two existing LHR runways.

Spectator: Airports review is doomed to gather dust, British Airways chief warns MPs

[BALHR]

It is difficult to understand without getting inside the Chinese mentatility. Yes KLM serve there but are the only European carrier to do so and I think I am correct do so as KLM Asia. The Americans have a different relationship with Taiwan to the rest of us, I have often myself referred to Taipei and the U.S. version of Hong Kong.

The fact is that the mainland government views inter straits flights as flights between two parts of China and remember it has taken many years for this situation to occur. Flights HK to Taiwan have always been frequent and whilst pre dates the return to the mainland where an unofficial way of connecting pre mainland flights.

The Beijing government would view the commencement of services by a flag carrier as a political move and that is why many airlines have shied away from offering direct flights.

There is a great demand for flights from China to Taiwan and v.v. maybe the other truth is there is not such a great demand from Europe.

Well even the Americans no longer recognise the ROC, although they do still have good “relations” with that government

What I still don’t get is that why do they still insist that European airlines have to create arms length subsidiaries, yet the flag carriers of Indonesia (state owned), Japan (not exactly a friend of China), Korea, Malaysia, The Philippines, Thailand (state owned) and Vietnam (state owned) are all allowed to operate under their own name without any problems in serving the PRC, not only that but a lot of them are state owned and pretty much all of them put state symbols/colours on the outside of their planes

All of those nations do not recognise the ROC either, Delta and United also have no problems in serving both PRC and ROC

I smell hypocrisy in all of this...

I think the real reason is as you say, OW partner Cathay Pacific serves the region so well, LHR-TPE is not yet needed, but do you think its viable with a 787?

For heavens sake, we get it that they are all international airports - no need to mention it against each airport. If they weren't international they wouldn't be served, would they?

Secondly, nobody (well ok, very few) knows it as "Comodoro Arturo Merino Benítez". I go0gled it and found out you meant Santiago, Chile (SCL) - why don't you just use that name?

I can work out Brasilia and Recife, but as for the rest - haven't a clue and can't be bothered to find out, as I doubt can many others, so it's unlikely to result in many positive responses.

As for the comment about your smoking habits, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you are young and probably mean well, but you just come across as an idiot.

As to how to register as a different user name, well, you seem to have managed to register originally. Just re-register with a different name using the same procedure. In fact, (see Racedo's post below), you maybe would prefer no-one to see your posting history

Fine I accept I was wrong to put out official names for those airports, from now on I would refer to possible destinations by name only

I would not describe myself an idiot, rather a maverick and someone who thinks out of the box, but yes inexperienced

Why? It would be nice to have BA on these routes to/from LHR, as it’s very “light” on South America routes (just three), but why would LA/JJ and IB agree to this?

In particular, why would IB agree? Without South America, there’s not much IB longhaul left! For IB it would probably be the equivelant of BA abandoning North America!

Which is why I have revised the idea, under which BA serves South America from LHR/LGW, IB from MAD and maybe BCN) and LATAM would serve the rest of Europe and maybe BCN

To compensate, LATAM could code-share of this routes, or if ATI was allowed, share revenue on those routes

IIRC, BA’s TPE route was chopped in the downturn that followed the 11th September 2001. Could be wrong, but don’t think there’s anything political or diplomatic in this. Also don’t think the route will will return purely because transferring at HKG onto CX is so easy. As for TPE non-stops, could LHR slots be better deployed elsewhere?

If I was running BA, I would put TPE routes fairly low down the list of future routes, but if it is viable with an aircraft that has enough range to reach TPE, then I would be implanting it in the medium term

As for where LHR slots could be deployed, I suggest that they should launch more routes to South America, North Africa, East Asia/China, South East Asia, South Asia and maybe even Europe (for hub connections), but most of all Domestic (British Isles)

So what ARE the "better elsewhere" routes for BA out of LHR, now they have all the BMI slots to play with ? To me it seems that all the good opportunities have in fact been adequately served for many years, and what is currently unserved is just on the margins. The best that can be said about the BMI purchase is that it has stopped OTHERS from getting slots.

There are far more good opportunities for BA in serving more of South America, North Africa, East Asia/China, South East Asia, South Asia, East Africa, Middle East and Europe (for hub connections)

The problem is that there is a lack of space at both LHR and LGW for BA to launch more routes to those areas (LH/LX/OS/SN and AF/KL don’t have that problem), so they are forced to chose the most profitable routes of them all

That is why BA bought BMI in the first place, to partly fix this problem, but the trouble is that it is still not enough to compete with its rivals in Europe and increasingly the Middle-East

I feel that BA needs to buy a lot more slots at both LHR and LGW, starting with buying the LHR slots of Aer Lingus and Qantas (who have no reason to even bother serving LHR due to their deal with EK)

Remember LH/LX/OS/SN is allowed to hold 70% of the slots at FRA and similar amounts (any idea of getting exact figures?) at MUC and ZRH, BA holds 52.5% at LHR and 15% at LGW, so they could have no problem adding a lot more slots legally

When I was at the Customer Services desk in T5 First, a few days ago, a member of staff mentioned MEL, BNE and PER, not sure how much wishful thinking this was ?

Firstly, how reliable do you think that info is (do they have inside links with the right people etc)?

Also may I say that I am surprised that BA is even bothering to serve Australia (currently only SYD) after Qantas’s divorce with BA and their deal-with-the-devil with Emirates and with their best aircraft (777-300ER)

As for more services to Australia, if they are going to continue serving Sydney, then they might as well go on to serve Melbourne as well (MEL is growing rather fast in terms of an airline destination), I feel that BA should buy Qantas’s slots/route authorities at LHR (because they might as well give up the Kangaroo Route altogether, since they have effectively handed their customer base to Emirates)

This would mean that BA would gain 1 X daily to SYD and MEL (thus releasing 1 daily slot that is used for BA current SYD service), so BA would return to MEL

As for Perth, well it is doing well due to mining, if they launched a non-stop service with a premium heavy 787, then it could work…

As for BNE, I am not too sure….

Given the limited size of demand for UK-Australasia flights, I wouldn't put my money on that unless they want to expand into that market following Qantas' cutting of links with BA - but it seems highly unlikely.

If they are going to continue serving Sydney, then they might as well go on to serve Melbourne as well (MEL is growing rather fast in terms of an airline destination), I feel that BA should buy Qantas’s slots/route authorities at LHR (because they might as well give up the Kangaroo Route altogether, since they have effectively handed their customer base to Emirates)

This would mean that BA would gain 1 X daily to SYD and MEL (thus releasing 1 daily slot that is used for BA current SYD service), so BA would return to MEL

As for Perth, well it is doing well due to mining, if they launched a non-stop service with a premium heavy 787, then it could work…

[BALHR]

Given the amount of traffic EK and others have taken from the regions outside M25 on that route, I would think further Australia flights a dead duck for BA.

Maybe non-stop service with a premium heavy 787 might work in terms of Perth and I suggest they should buy Qantas’s slots/route authorities at LHR (because they might as well give up the Kangaroo Route altogether, since they have effectively handed their customer base to Emirates), which would mean 1 slot would be released and they would return to Melbourne

Maybe they were indulging in a bit of nostalgia, since once upon a time BA served all of those. PER has cropped up recently in rumours surrounding possible 787 destination but IMHO there's not a snowballs chance in hell that you'll see BA back to any of those places anytime in the future. I suspect BA are only continuing to serve SYD because of the termination of the Joint Service Agreement with QF.

Like I said, I am not sure how reliable this info is to be honest, but PER would work if the 787 was premium heave and could do it non-stop, MEL could also work (since it is growing rather fast in terms of an airline destination) if they find SYD viable

To an extent that is possibly true, BA has to "guard the hub" and look to the future. Certainly have no objections to a BA nonstop TPE (or as a HKG add-on as before) in principle, but would not expect it to be at the top of any wish list, precisely because of the easy transfer at HKG with CX.

Looking over the longer term, a better use of the slots could be: SGN, especially if it's up and running before VN move from LGW to LHR-4; JKT; SCL; LIM; increased frequencies to MEX, PVG, PEK, GRU, GIG; other cities in China, Brazil; cities in many other up and coming parts of Asia, South America and Africa; plus more domestic feeder links to help ensure the viability of some of these new routes (the hub principle).

I suggest that they should launch more routes to South America, North Africa, East Asia/China, South East Asia, South Asia, East Africa, Middle East and maybe even Europe (for hub connections), but most of all Domestic (British Isles), but to do that they need to buy a lot more slots at both LHR and LGW

Remember LH/LX/OS/SN is allowed to hold 70% of the slots at FRA and similar amounts (any idea of getting exact figures?) at MUC and ZRH, BA holds 52.5% at LHR and 15% at LGW, so they could have no problem adding a lot more slots legally

Currently in Saigon (HCM) and came in via EK and DXB. Flight was 777 2 class which seemed quite full. Business class 90% with a number of English accents and talking to crew EK appear pleased with this new route. However as you have posted BA are not very go ahead with new routes and days of trailblazing appear to be behind them.

They are planning to launch new routes (Seoul and Leeds for example), but the problem is that even buying BMI (which adding a lot more routes to their network) they need more slots at both LHR and LGW

Maybe those English accents had taken advantage of EK's excellent flights from the regions and chose a stop half way rather than have to trek down to LGW. One stop via Dubai to me was fine when I went to Ho Chi Minh rather than 1 stop in London or a train/car ride down

In the fear of starting the usual discussion I would remind you not everyone wants to fly from the South East.

Remember fair number of those “English” people would come from the South East as well…

As a Londoner, I would say a lot of people in the area don’t want to fly from LHR/LGW either!

But it is of benefit to Britain if we have more of those passengers of flights of British Airlines, because remember, all that money going to EK is going towards Dubai

I live in Yorkshire in UK, and BA jst cut Gatwick shuttle from MAN so VN not option. Have used them here on this trip, and in the past and have had no problems with them. However still prefer EK and change in DXB rather than Gatwick, and probably not even when they move to LHR T4 where VN are moving to I am told out here. Service ok but not yet comparable with Gulf or SQ for me.

I though BA’s scrapping of Aberdeen and Manchester was a mistake considering that it could become a hub for new routes (that face no competition from LHR) such as Saigon until LHR is expanded

You still can fly from some of the regions to LGW and connect to VN, it keeps the money and jobs in the UK.

Do Vietnam have LHR slots then for T4? Do tell...

That number has declined over recent times, just recently Aberdeen and Manchester went, I feel that BA should set a base for routes to new and current destinations (that either face no competition or no competition at LHR) at LGW until LHR is expanded and to make it work, it would be a lot more flights to regional destinations

Vietnam Airlines currently has no slots at LHR and if it wants to, it would have to pay a fortune for that to happen…

Not yet, but it is the likely outcome, they're sitting in the LGW waiting room at present. Let's hope they don't have to wait as long as CZ.

Maybe if DL buy into VS and slots have to be divested....

The trouble is that those slots don’t come cheap for a start, also I doubt if AF/KL/DL would have to divest slots if they buy VS, maybe from slots they don’t need once they take apart the airline

Willie Walsh reportedly told a recent conference that
“my personal belief that a third runway will never be built” and that “we are planning for life without it.
What are the options? Stagnation, buying rivals for their slots, expanding services from other UK airports, starting longhaul services from hubs outside the UK?

Stagnation seems unlikely; buying rivals could soon run into regulatory problems; the Openskies experience suggests that the last of my options is unlikely to be an immediate success.

That leaves expansion elswhere in the UK, but where? Withdrawal from the MAN-LGW route suggests that LGW can be ruled out. So is BA going to challenge the growing presence of foreign carriers on long-haul routes from the UK regions?

I think he made that remark on Question Time…

The only way they are going to compete with its rivals is buying buying a lot more slots at both LHR and LGW, at LHR, they should look at Aer Lingus, TAM, Qantas, Finnair and Cathay Pacific (maybe Royal Jordan, Qatar Airways and Japan Airlines) as well for a start (along with buying Virgin Atlantic), as for LGW, they need look at Easyjet, Aer Lingus and Flybe

For LHR what BA need to do is launch more flights to the regions and Europe to allow better connections for its medium and long haul flights, they should also launch new routes (ones that either face competition from LHR or are the most profitable) towards South America, North Africa, East Asia/China, South East Asia, South Asia, East Africa, Middle East and Europe

At LGW, that is where the real change is, not only (via Easyjet, Flybe etc) would they gain routes Domestic and Europe wise, but they should launch most of the new routes (that face no competition at LHR) to the areas stated above, now remember this is only for the short and will move to LHR once it is expanded enough to fit those flights

Remember LH/LX/OS/SN is allowed to hold 70% of the slots at FRA and similar amounts (any idea of getting exact figures?) at MUC and ZRH, BA holds 52.5% at LHR and 15% at LGW, so they could have no problem adding a lot more slots legally

As for the UK regions, I don’t see it happening as long as a big chuck of the wealth and population of the UK is in the South East, remember LCCs have reduced yield to a extent that is its financially impossible for BA to offer anything more than to London and Medium-Long Haul is Hub-Spoke (hence done by overseas airlines), which make then viable

BA had a change to create and fortify a “Northern” Hub/Focus city of some sort at Manchester, but blew it and doing it now would not be worth it financially, Manchester is best served OW wise by overseas members

Pretty soon I wont be able to fly there from my local airport, and a short hop to LGW to conenct with a foreign carrier is hardly going to contribute massively to the UK economy. And to counter the argument foreign carriers flying to airports outside the South East are bringing money into those economies that would otherwise be funnelled to the one region that needs it the least. The economic benefit argument works both ways

If you fly with a UK airline to a hub from the regions, it provide a small (but not unimportant) economic benefit to the UK, since the money you pay for those flights (the flight itself and the connecting flight) will go towards an airline that pays taxes (which we all benefit from) in the UK, if you use it towards a overseas airline, the most they are going to pay is the airport fees, the rest goes towards their home country

BBC News - British Airways to cut 400 cabin crew jobs

It a shame it has happened…

It is said that frequency is everything. (Continental, now United, certainly seems to think so on the Newark route, those liking twin aisle aircraft might think otherwise.) BA's offer to certain middle east destinations such as Doha and Muscat does not appear attractive. Qatar operates four daily non-stops flights to Doha, BA a single one stop flight which cannot be attractive to the business traveller. Now that Qatar has joined OneWorld do you see this continuing? One problem with a codeshare is that T5 is full and a transfer to T4 is not ideal, but its probbaly liveable with.

Now that Oman operates a daily non stop from LHR might it be worth BA operating non stop with a 321? Some of the slots could come from reducing TLV to double daily.

I suggest Qatar should sell their slots at LHR to BA, who can then release some slots that can be used for new routes (although BA’s LHR-DOH service would still have a codeshare from Qatar)

As for LHR-Muscat, currently (looking at BA’s fleet), it can be done by A319, A320 (just) and 767-300ER

In the future (based on what BA is ordering or could order), it can be done by A319neo, A320neo, A321neo, Boeing 787-8 and Boeing 787-9

Do you think there is enough demand for a 767/787 or would an A319 do?

It was interesting that when BHX threw its hat in the ring BA and VIRGIN told them where to go...

Funnily enough when this article appeared in The Independent, no such rebuttal.

Choose Manchester to improve UK's airport capacity - Comment - Voices - The Independent

BA is steadily building up codeshares with MAN airlines eg AA and is rumoured to be adding Boston and Miami.

This "may" be way fwd.

Manchester is not the way forward to fix the problem of the UK’s Airport capacity because a big chuck of the wealth and population of the UK is in the South East, remember LCCs have reduced yield to a extent that is its financially impossible for BA to offer anything more than to London and Medium-Long Haul is Hub-Spoke (hence done by overseas airlines), which make then viable

BA should expand at LHR and LGW by buying additional slots at both airports until LHR is expanded

[BALHR]

If there is to be a secondary hub in the UK, it would almost certainly be at MAN. Would be brilliant to see BA or any UK carrier operating a longhaul hub, but BA have ruled it out. Why? Because they reckon they can't make money. No other UK airline has filled the gap. Why? Probably the same reason. BD attempted trans-Atlantic from MAN but abandoned it fairly quickly.

What can the Commission recommend? The conditions at MAN are already favourable for longhaul, and there's plenty of capacity. How's the government going to square the circle? Axeing APD would be a start!

Maybe it could subsidise longhaul MAN operations on some PSO arrangement? That is highly unlikely given (1) the economic situation and (2) it goes against their belief in free markets.

Additionally, there would be doubtless be some unwarranted interference from Brussels.

Axing APD would not fix the problem MAN faces is that a large share of the wealth is in London and the South East, which is why BA and overseas carriers prefer to serve London over Manchester, plus having fragmented hubs would make some routes (which relay on connections) unviable from the UK

Remember LCCs have reduced yield to a extent that is its financially impossible for BA to offer anything more than to London and Medium-Long Haul is Hub-Spoke (hence done by overseas airlines), which make then viable

Most people don't know the difference between the DEFICIT and the National DEBT. Even journalists get them mixed up yet they are clearly two very different things with attributes and issues of their own.
The same error is being made here repeatedly in that two issues are being mixed together. The market already chooses MAN to a greater or lesser extent, once again people are bleating about trying to buck the market.
UK Airport Capacity and Strategic UK Hub Connectivity (LHR and nowhere else) are the two issues in question.
Building runways and terminals anywhere except LHR or closing LHR and bulding on a new site are the only two realistic options for addressing the second. However it is right that Manchester ought to fight it's own corner but I am at a loss as to what they are realistically expecting businesses to do. There is no business in the UK able to offer from MAN what is currently served by offshore ME based carriers, and rather well I might add. This all has squat to do with BA.

Great Post, bang on the point!

Good point, Skipness, everything else is irrelevant. Of the two options, only one addresses the problem now, while they both address it several years down the line. One makes good business sense, the other is a financial basket case and/or a waste of taxpayers' money.

Makes one wonder what the Commision will actually be doing for three years.

We have been debating this for at least a decade (and suggesting this for far longer), we know the pros and cons, now it is time for a decision now
I suggest Labour and Rebel Tories (with covert support from some high ranking Tories) should create a bill that would force though permission to allow a 3rd and 4th runway at LHR, they would have enough votes and the government can excuse this as a “rebellion”

I cannot see how the Anti-Expansion alliance is going to legally stop something that was done an elected parliament

I wasn't grouping them under regions as JER and IOM are not in the UK and are both offshore and NQY (with apologies to cornishsimon!) fell off my radar.

BA have now dropped ABZ, NCL, MAN, IOM and INV from LGW in recent years. There's not much domestic flying left and I can see both GLA and EDI being dropped if they continue to focus on sun routes. Indeed as LGW has pulled back, LCY has moved into these very markets as CFE move into ABZ and IOM.

I feel that BA should set a base for routes to new and current destinations (that either face no competition or no competition at LHR) at LGW until LHR is expanded and to make it work, it would be a lot more flights to regional destinations, such as Manchester and Aberdeen (the same goes for LHR)

Jersey and the Isle of Man might not be directly part of the UK, but due to the fact they are ultimately part of the UK, their proximately to the Great Britain and the face you don’t need a passport means they should be count as “Domestic”

The same goes for Ireland, although they are not if any way part of the UK, but have close historical links

No 3rd runway, no expansion at Gatwick or elsewhere. The present BA strategy is to concentrate on larger aircraft out of the two existing LHR runways.

Spectator: Airports review is doomed to gather dust, British Airways chief warns MPs

What BA should also do is buying a lot more slots at both LHR and LGW, at LHR, they should look at Aer Lingus, TAM, Qantas, Finnair and Cathay Pacific (maybe Royal Jordan, Qatar Airways and Japan Airlines) as well for a start (along with buying Virgin Atlantic), as for LGW, they need look at Easyjet, Aer Lingus and Flybe

For LHR what BA need to do is launch more flights to the regions and Europe to allow better connections for its medium and long haul flights, they should also launch new routes (ones that either face competition from LHR or are the most profitable) towards South America, North Africa, East Asia/China, South East Asia, South Asia, East Africa, Middle East and Europe

At LGW, that is where the real change is, not only (via Easyjet, Flybe etc) would they gain routes Domestic and Europe wise, but they should launch most of the new routes (that face no competition at LHR) to the areas stated above, now remember this is only for the short and will move to LHR once it is expanded enough to fit those flights

[Omnipresent]

IAG/BA will never buy Virgin Atlantic. Sir Richard Branson would never sell to BA and Willie Walsh wouldn't want to give him the money.

BA buying Virgin would be a futile endeavour because the European Commission assesses the impact of consolidation on a route by route basis, and not by reference to slots held at airports. So, for nearly every overlapping route (which is almost every Virgin route) BA would have to divest of a slot pair to a willing entrant, essentially rendering a merger pointless.

[Skipness One Echo]

BA should expand at LHR and LGW by buying additional slots at both airports until LHR is expanded

We have been debating this for at least a decade

Since you were ten? Really?

I cannot see how the Anti-Expansion alliance is going to legally stop something that was done an elected parliament

FFS, it can clog things up in the courts for years and take it to Europe if necessary. The air quality in that part of London is already borderline illegal due to the LHR / M24 / M4 convergence.

I feel that BA should set a base for routes to new and current destinations (that either face no competition or no competition at LHR) at LGW until LHR is expanded and to make it work, it would be a lot more flights to regional destinations, such as Manchester and Aberdeen (the same goes for LHR)

Do you have any relation to BA? What does this mean? Bases where? Fantasy routes with no competition? Seriously? To where? Commercially viable and with no competition? How?
BA have a profit making hub and spoke business model after having dropped a loss making regional point to point one. Yet you, in your wisdom are advising BA, (seriously, I hope they're taking notes) to get right back in there and hope it will be magically profitable now the competition has had time to steal all the ex BA passengers.
Mate, I cannot wait to see your business plan!

What BA should also do is buying a lot more slots at both LHR and LGW, at LHR, they should look at Aer Lingus, TAM, Qantas, Finnair and Cathay Pacific (maybe Royal Jordan, Qatar Airways and Japan Airlines) as well for a start (along with buying Virgin Atlantic), as for LGW, they need look at Easyjet, Aer Lingus and Flybe

Slots cost MONEY! What on Earth do you mean "look at" EI, J, JL. How do you avoid looking at EZY at LGW, they're everywhere! They're even in BA's home at Gatwick North now. Have a word with yourself mate.

BALHR, you have written several thousand words today on pprune alone. However you are making a fool of yourself. I am being blunt. You are monopolising several threads with page after page of your ideas, of which most are commercially non starters. You need to read what people are saying to you and understand, rather than just arguing. This isn't a debating society. It's about news of routes and happenings.

In other news :
The rebranding of the BMI hangar (TBD) is now complete as it now has BA titles and logos.

[Haven't a clue]

Skipness hear hear.

(He's probably just gained his MBA....)

[Aero Mad]

You Haven't a clue about MBAs in that case - they tend to produce people of significantly higher calibre than anything he has demonstrated of late. Please don't tar what can be a decent course with such a brush.

[racedo]

Anybody who has an MBA under the age of 25 is best avoiding..........................

Not enough experience to know what work is..........
Not enough maturity to know when to shut up...........

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Ah - make the staff happy and they will make the customers happy - who make the shareholders happy? Yes, that's how it used to be in the UK when I wuz a lad!”

Yes, me too, and it worked! Too much greed now, regrettably.


Quote: “BALHR, you have written several thousand words today on pprune alone. However you are making a fool of yourself. I am being blunt. You are monopolising several threads with page after page of your ideas, of which most are commercially non starters. You need to read what people are saying to you and understand, rather than just arguing. This isn't a debating society. It's about news of routes and happenings."

Quote: "Skipness hear hear.

(He's probably just gained his MBA....)"

Quote: "Anybody who has an MBA under the age of 25 is best avoiding..........................

Not enough experience to know what work is..........
Not enough maturity to know when to shut up..........."

Two other possibilities (preferably starting with A-level British Constitution followed by a degree in political science):

(1) a job with a "think tank", then doing research for a political party, then working for an MP of that party, then get elected to Parliament, then up the ministerial greasy pole to aviation minister.

(2) join the civil service from university up the greasy pole in the aviation ministry and making key decisions having no hands-on experience of the industry.

[Skipness One Echo]

“Ah - make the staff happy and they will make the customers happy - who make the shareholders happy? Yes, that's how it used to be in the UK when I wuz a lad!”

It wasn't really, the staff in the 50s, 60s, 70s were heavily unionised and in a perpetual state of conflict. Do you not remember the days of the closed shop?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "It wasn't really, the staff in the 50s, 60s, 70s were heavily unionised and in a perpetual state of conflict. Do you not remember the days of the closed shop?"

Remember the closed shop very well! In many cases it was a cosy stitch-up between management and the unions, often set up at the management's suggestion (meant they only had to deal with one union and have just one set of arrangements for all staff).

BTW it wasn't always "a perpetual state of conflict", and many industries were not unionised at all, although aviation was: transport and general (TGWU) for the most part.

[PAXboy]

It wasn't really, the staff in the 50s, 60s, 70s were heavily unionised and in a perpetual state of conflict. Do you not remember the days of the closed shop?

True Skipness, in truth I was thinking more of general commerce. I have never worked in the airline biz, just a user of it across 47 years. I did see closed shop at [not] work but overall, I have been fortunate to see good managers getting good things from the staff. I noticed the change following the 1989/1992 recession. Although, one of the earliest signals was the disposing of Personnel and the arrival of H.R.

For what it's worth, I started work in the autumn of 1977 and, when working as a temp office worker in London in 78/81, I was turfed out of the contract by both mgmt and unions at different companies and for different reasons! [details on request] So I have an even handed approach to these things.