British Airways - 2
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "1: That connecting traffic will remain, because under my plan LGW (which is the reverse of now) will receive the same amount of domestic destinations as LHR, which will also have a similar frequency, however due to the fact LGW will remain a smaller hub then BA’s hub at LHR, the planes used will be on average smaller than the ones used at LHR (maybe even E-Jets and Turboprops), that will sort out connections/transfers"
Not so, domestic feeder flights (and others) to/from LGW are being reduced, there is not enough connectivity.
Quote: "2: Doe’s it really matter if BA only operates flights to LAS from LGW, if there is no alternative from LHR? (LHR is preferred, without a doubt)
BA make good money on LAS flights from LHR as well, why should it stop?
Quote: "3: As I suggested on point 1, transfer connections would be included in this plan, also since this routes are currently only accessible though other airports, it would not matter if it comes from LHR
What!? Explain please.
Quote: "4: The trouble is that there is a lack of space at LHR for all the airlines that want to serve and if there is space, the competition is fierce, remember China Southern (which is larger than VN and a ST member as well) as only got access to LHR and if they find it hard to enter LHR, how are Vietnam Airline’s get into LHR unless they spend a lot of money (do they have that much and can they justify it to their owners) and even then it would be hard to find anyone willing to sell, also if slots do come up for sale, you can be sure BA will bid for those slots"
CZ was never at LGW, VN is at present and like many before it, will transfer to LHR in the fullness of time. Only remedy slots are "bid for". Any carrier can buy, lease or sell slots to another, so BA wouldn't neccessarily know about it. Of course all this nonsense could be reduced or eliminated with 2 more rwys.
Quote: "Look, I feel that LGW is not right for BA and all their operations should be located LHR, but the trouble (as I have stated) is that there is a lack of space at LHR and that’s not going to change for some time"
Am looking! BA are at LGW for just 2 reasons, (1) the base and its infrastructure was inherited from BCAL, and (2) insufficient capacity at the LHR hub (as you state).
Quote: "Even if BA holds 70% of the slots at LHR (which is the unofficial legal limit), it still will not be enough to provide enough routes to compete with LH/LX/OS/SN and AF/KL, because the airports they have their hubs can deal with more take-offs/landings than at LHR
Why is 70% the "unofficial legal limit"? Who says and who set it? Any evidence to back this up?
Quote: "So until R3/R4 is built, BA has to expand elsewhere in London (the regions just don’t cut it) and the second best airport that serves London is Gatwick and BA has to accept this, so a hub for existing (minor) routes and future routes where BA is either the only operator or the competition is at LGW is not a bad idea as a “stopgap” until LHR is expanded, only then will BA can finally leave Gatwick for good and consolidate at LHR and LCY
BA has no choice but to work around the current system if it wants to stay competitive in this aggressive, deregulated and fragmented market, it can demand changes to the system, but it cannot wait for it to happen"
Sorry to be a party-pooper, but it has to be said that BA probably have a good idea about how to organise their operations in an environment of scarce resources at their hub and it looks logical. It has been doing this for long enough, so why do you know better?
Quote: "There are better people for the job of Transport Secretary, but what I am saying is that I (a inexperienced college student) would do a better job than pretty much all the people who have done it in the past and who are doing it right now, unlike those people (who have used the position as a stepping stone for higher office) I want to do the job because I care and have a interest in Transportation in this country
Are you really saying that the "inexperienced college student" would make a better transport secretary?
Quote: "Yes I would face the same pressures and obstacles, but I would work round it and be aggressive enough to challenge those pressures and obstacles, as for my “support” for THA, well I have made it clear I only support the idea if LHR expansion remains politically impossible, the reason is not because I don’t want to “face down” the Anti-LHR Expansion lobby (In face I will challenge them pretty aggressively on all their points), the problem (if I was Transport Secretary) is the fact my bosses (in other worlds No 10) cannot find the will to challenge the lobby and approve it
That is why I have been suggesting THA, as a way to get round the problem, rather than do nothing…"
By even mentioning Silver Island (you call it THA) and having an elaborate (but unfortunately completely hair-brained) scheme to ensure it happens, you are demonstrating that you actually do not have the courage of your convictions (that LHR needs 2 more rwys), and would be too weak to face down the anti-LHR Expansion lobby. In that respect you would be the same as those you criticise.
Quote: "As for what I would do for the railways, I would maintain a high level of investment and bring back the railways under state control"
Well that's original! How would it be funded? higher fares, higher taxes in general, a specific rail passenger duty, more government borrowing?
Not so, domestic feeder flights (and others) to/from LGW are being reduced, there is not enough connectivity.
Quote: "2: Doe’s it really matter if BA only operates flights to LAS from LGW, if there is no alternative from LHR? (LHR is preferred, without a doubt)
BA make good money on LAS flights from LHR as well, why should it stop?
Quote: "3: As I suggested on point 1, transfer connections would be included in this plan, also since this routes are currently only accessible though other airports, it would not matter if it comes from LHR
What!? Explain please.
Quote: "4: The trouble is that there is a lack of space at LHR for all the airlines that want to serve and if there is space, the competition is fierce, remember China Southern (which is larger than VN and a ST member as well) as only got access to LHR and if they find it hard to enter LHR, how are Vietnam Airline’s get into LHR unless they spend a lot of money (do they have that much and can they justify it to their owners) and even then it would be hard to find anyone willing to sell, also if slots do come up for sale, you can be sure BA will bid for those slots"
CZ was never at LGW, VN is at present and like many before it, will transfer to LHR in the fullness of time. Only remedy slots are "bid for". Any carrier can buy, lease or sell slots to another, so BA wouldn't neccessarily know about it. Of course all this nonsense could be reduced or eliminated with 2 more rwys.
Quote: "Look, I feel that LGW is not right for BA and all their operations should be located LHR, but the trouble (as I have stated) is that there is a lack of space at LHR and that’s not going to change for some time"
Am looking! BA are at LGW for just 2 reasons, (1) the base and its infrastructure was inherited from BCAL, and (2) insufficient capacity at the LHR hub (as you state).
Quote: "Even if BA holds 70% of the slots at LHR (which is the unofficial legal limit), it still will not be enough to provide enough routes to compete with LH/LX/OS/SN and AF/KL, because the airports they have their hubs can deal with more take-offs/landings than at LHR
Why is 70% the "unofficial legal limit"? Who says and who set it? Any evidence to back this up?
Quote: "So until R3/R4 is built, BA has to expand elsewhere in London (the regions just don’t cut it) and the second best airport that serves London is Gatwick and BA has to accept this, so a hub for existing (minor) routes and future routes where BA is either the only operator or the competition is at LGW is not a bad idea as a “stopgap” until LHR is expanded, only then will BA can finally leave Gatwick for good and consolidate at LHR and LCY
BA has no choice but to work around the current system if it wants to stay competitive in this aggressive, deregulated and fragmented market, it can demand changes to the system, but it cannot wait for it to happen"
Sorry to be a party-pooper, but it has to be said that BA probably have a good idea about how to organise their operations in an environment of scarce resources at their hub and it looks logical. It has been doing this for long enough, so why do you know better?
Quote: "There are better people for the job of Transport Secretary, but what I am saying is that I (a inexperienced college student) would do a better job than pretty much all the people who have done it in the past and who are doing it right now, unlike those people (who have used the position as a stepping stone for higher office) I want to do the job because I care and have a interest in Transportation in this country
Are you really saying that the "inexperienced college student" would make a better transport secretary?
Quote: "Yes I would face the same pressures and obstacles, but I would work round it and be aggressive enough to challenge those pressures and obstacles, as for my “support” for THA, well I have made it clear I only support the idea if LHR expansion remains politically impossible, the reason is not because I don’t want to “face down” the Anti-LHR Expansion lobby (In face I will challenge them pretty aggressively on all their points), the problem (if I was Transport Secretary) is the fact my bosses (in other worlds No 10) cannot find the will to challenge the lobby and approve it
That is why I have been suggesting THA, as a way to get round the problem, rather than do nothing…"
By even mentioning Silver Island (you call it THA) and having an elaborate (but unfortunately completely hair-brained) scheme to ensure it happens, you are demonstrating that you actually do not have the courage of your convictions (that LHR needs 2 more rwys), and would be too weak to face down the anti-LHR Expansion lobby. In that respect you would be the same as those you criticise.
Quote: "As for what I would do for the railways, I would maintain a high level of investment and bring back the railways under state control"
Well that's original! How would it be funded? higher fares, higher taxes in general, a specific rail passenger duty, more government borrowing?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 21st Dec 2012 at 18:44.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALHR
Whilst I admire your enthusiasm your posts are rather lengthy and at times difficult to follow.
New ideas and approaches are great, but they need underpining with fact and sound economics before being implemented.
I am sure that the experienced and highly qualified professionals at BA examine all possibilities before considering further route developments.
BA is profitable and stable. It is a well respected airline that at the moment is following a clear strategy that involves playing to the relative strengths of its Heathrow, Gatwick and London City bases. These bases allow it to balance different types of traffic across its operations to maximise yield and profit.
It will never be a perfect match but at the moment its doing ok!!
V.
Whilst I admire your enthusiasm your posts are rather lengthy and at times difficult to follow.
New ideas and approaches are great, but they need underpining with fact and sound economics before being implemented.
I am sure that the experienced and highly qualified professionals at BA examine all possibilities before considering further route developments.
BA is profitable and stable. It is a well respected airline that at the moment is following a clear strategy that involves playing to the relative strengths of its Heathrow, Gatwick and London City bases. These bases allow it to balance different types of traffic across its operations to maximise yield and profit.
It will never be a perfect match but at the moment its doing ok!!
V.
Last edited by vectisman; 21st Dec 2012 at 18:55. Reason: Use of English
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is going to ever change BALHR's mind and I honestly think engaging him is a waste of effort as he is one of these guys who just doesn't get it.
He's the one and only person on my ignore list (!) Except people keep quoting back the garbage he is spouting so there's no escape from such drivel!
He does NOT work for BA!!! Just imagine if he did (!)
In other news.....
BA are adding a fourth daily LHR-BOS for the summer which will in part compensate for American dropping the route entirely! Losing three daily B757s and gaining one B744 / B772, so good news on the yield front I imagine.
No it will wither and die over the summer as the schedule is designed to run at a loss and be unattractive to business. Unless they give it a night stopper and an early into LHR, making use of a prime time slot, it's not useful for P2P. Without a good P2P mix to balance out connections, it will bleed red. The summer sees a first Southbound at 1135. Unless that changes, they're not serious about serving LBA.
He's the one and only person on my ignore list (!) Except people keep quoting back the garbage he is spouting so there's no escape from such drivel!
Much better suited to " Waterside " which i think he may be from to start with ,
In other news.....
BA are adding a fourth daily LHR-BOS for the summer which will in part compensate for American dropping the route entirely! Losing three daily B757s and gaining one B744 / B772, so good news on the yield front I imagine.
Leeds route will grow over time.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 21st Dec 2012 at 19:49.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "It is also true that there has been nothing stopping BA launching new routes to Asia if it really wanted to do. What doesn't help BA in Asia is:
a) LHR's position in Western Europe means it is not placed to pick up connecting trafffic from mailand Europe like transatlantic; and
All of Europe's five major hubs are in the west of the continent, in fact four of the five are remarkably close to eachother!
Quote: "b) Lack of local partners to provide onward connections and distribute BA's flights in the local market to private and corporate customers.
BA is evidently making a push into Asia with Seoul and Chengdu but it has always been clear it needs the support of local partners. It claims the codesharing with JAL and Tokyo routes is already helping to drive up traffic."
Yes, this is the main point. JL and CX are BA's only local (Oneworld) partners in Asia, so HKG has the highest frequencies and BA goes to both NRT and HND in Tokyo.
China is mostly Skyteam territory, and south east Asia is mostly Star Alliance, BKK, SIN, etc., so adequate connectivity at the LHR end of BA's Asia routes is critically important.
Quote: "This is true if you are visiting offices in Kings Cross and happen to live next to Leeds train station (poor you). However, there are not many people in that category.
At our offices in the Heathrow/Thames valley area we have a periodic day visitor from Leeds, who was a regular on the old BMI service until it stopped a few years ago. Firstly he now had to drive in from the outer suburbs to central Leeds, passing close to LBA on the way, this is unreliable in journey time in the morning peak and congested, once he missed the train because of this, and he needs to allow well over an hour. Then find a car park, which few central train stations are well endowed with.
Arriving at Kings Cross (the train journey alone having taken twice as long as the flight did, of course, even taking a couple of circuits of Bovingdon into account), it is standing/squashing/watch your pockets on the Underground to Paddington, even on those occasions it is not disorganised, wait for next train from there, jog trot out towards Berkshire, taxi for final stretch. His experience is this is way less reliable that the old flight arrangements.
On returning to Leeds in the evening you are apparently quite lucky to find your car has not been broken into/damaged by the undesirables who haunt the streets between the station and the parking. He says his daughter would not go into central Leeds late in the evening.
The rail fares from Leeds to Kings Cross alone on business hour trains are considerably more expensive than flights used to be (or are going to be with BA).
So that's why people don't "get the bloody train". Rail travel in Britain, 21st century style."
Exactly, nicely put, WHBM, it's the same for those who live near LHR, and it will be the same with "high speed" trains.
Journeys are different and people need choice, it's a case of rail and road and air, it's not "either/or". If it's practical to provide the choice, as in the case of BA LHR-LBA, it should not be criticised.
a) LHR's position in Western Europe means it is not placed to pick up connecting trafffic from mailand Europe like transatlantic; and
All of Europe's five major hubs are in the west of the continent, in fact four of the five are remarkably close to eachother!
Quote: "b) Lack of local partners to provide onward connections and distribute BA's flights in the local market to private and corporate customers.
BA is evidently making a push into Asia with Seoul and Chengdu but it has always been clear it needs the support of local partners. It claims the codesharing with JAL and Tokyo routes is already helping to drive up traffic."
Yes, this is the main point. JL and CX are BA's only local (Oneworld) partners in Asia, so HKG has the highest frequencies and BA goes to both NRT and HND in Tokyo.
China is mostly Skyteam territory, and south east Asia is mostly Star Alliance, BKK, SIN, etc., so adequate connectivity at the LHR end of BA's Asia routes is critically important.
Quote: "This is true if you are visiting offices in Kings Cross and happen to live next to Leeds train station (poor you). However, there are not many people in that category.
At our offices in the Heathrow/Thames valley area we have a periodic day visitor from Leeds, who was a regular on the old BMI service until it stopped a few years ago. Firstly he now had to drive in from the outer suburbs to central Leeds, passing close to LBA on the way, this is unreliable in journey time in the morning peak and congested, once he missed the train because of this, and he needs to allow well over an hour. Then find a car park, which few central train stations are well endowed with.
Arriving at Kings Cross (the train journey alone having taken twice as long as the flight did, of course, even taking a couple of circuits of Bovingdon into account), it is standing/squashing/watch your pockets on the Underground to Paddington, even on those occasions it is not disorganised, wait for next train from there, jog trot out towards Berkshire, taxi for final stretch. His experience is this is way less reliable that the old flight arrangements.
On returning to Leeds in the evening you are apparently quite lucky to find your car has not been broken into/damaged by the undesirables who haunt the streets between the station and the parking. He says his daughter would not go into central Leeds late in the evening.
The rail fares from Leeds to Kings Cross alone on business hour trains are considerably more expensive than flights used to be (or are going to be with BA).
So that's why people don't "get the bloody train". Rail travel in Britain, 21st century style."
Exactly, nicely put, WHBM, it's the same for those who live near LHR, and it will be the same with "high speed" trains.
Journeys are different and people need choice, it's a case of rail and road and air, it's not "either/or". If it's practical to provide the choice, as in the case of BA LHR-LBA, it should not be criticised.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree , his posts are extreme and random to the point of boring
Much better suited to " Waterside " which i think he may be from to start with , new graduate way of thinking springs to mind !
Much better suited to " Waterside " which i think he may be from to start with , new graduate way of thinking springs to mind !
Last edited by MARKEYD; 21st Dec 2012 at 19:47.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LBA-LHR schedule from May
So WHBM the question is, with the schedule as it is from May will a four hour site visit be enough for your colleague and how large is the area around Heathrow for which even four hours on site will be feasible? Admittedly the schedule is better for the other direction.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serving the hub
Can posters please stop focusing on the routes I highlighted as possible slot sitters. 32 people from Leeds is nothing, how many would they get serving Lima in Peru for example, more than 32! Of course these slot sitters make money, the question relates more importantly to feeding our NATIONAL ECONOMY though. So does anyone have knowledge on the success of these routes at CDG, AMS etc?
the question relates more importantly to feeding our NATIONAL ECONOMY though
In general terms they will have an interest in the health of the national economy, on the basis that the richer the country is the more profitable they are likely to be, but feeding our National Economy is probably not top of the priority list.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787/A380 line training
Do you think when these planes come online they might be used on shorter hops around the UK for training sectors, such as AF did with their A380 flying CDG-LHR? Holding on to a pipedream to fly one or both of them GLA-LHR.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think when these planes come online they might be used on shorter hops around the UK for training sectors, such as AF did with their A380 flying CDG-LHR? Holding on to a pipedream to fly one or both of them GLA-LHR.
Personally I think the A380 will be used for training sectors to CDG, FRA or FCO. With the 787 likely to operate on the domestic 767 sectors of EDi and GLA.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
see above. could land but couldnt cut tight taxiway corners to turn off to apron. runway length in itself not an issue. not going to happen without significant and currently frankly unnecessary structural investment
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glasgow Airport: Facts and figures
According to GLA's website the largest aircraft they handle appears to be a 777
I believe the airport doesn't have any stands big enough yet for a A380 also a full A380 requires a runway length of 2800m for take off were GLA's is 2658m
According to GLA's website the largest aircraft they handle appears to be a 777
I believe the airport doesn't have any stands big enough yet for a A380 also a full A380 requires a runway length of 2800m for take off were GLA's is 2658m
Last edited by BAladdy; 1st Jan 2013 at 23:50.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would any of thesedomestic destinations (which they currently not serve) work for BA (in terms of medium/long haul connections), even with RJs or Turboprops?
Alderney
Blackpool
Doncaster-Sheffield
Durham Tees Valley
East Midlands
Exeter
Guernsey
Humberside
Inverness
Isle of Man
Jersey
Liverpool
Newquay
Alderney
Blackpool
Doncaster-Sheffield
Durham Tees Valley
East Midlands
Exeter
Guernsey
Humberside
Inverness
Isle of Man
Jersey
Liverpool
Newquay
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: London
Age: 33
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA’s biggest problem isthat its parent company IAG is being dragged down by IB, an airline which is losing its market share in Europe-Latin America (luckily for OW, mostly to LATAM), it is facing serious financial losses, still hasn’t improved their onboard service (I have never been on IB, but there aren’t too many praises)and worst of all its in a country that is facing a terrible economic recession,high unemployment, harsh austerity and lastly increasing political issues
In other words BA’s merger with IB has been a mistake, it might have given BA a much bigger Central and South American presence, but it has come at a high price (vast job cuts, labour relations worsening, reductions in fleet numbers and routes etc), so what I am suggesting is that BA and IB separate, by:
1: BA introduces new routes to South America, more specifically LATAM’s hubs (or at least some ofthem, 3 are not good enough)
2: BA becomes fully responsible for all UK-Spain routes within IAG
3: A separation process begins between BA and IB
4: Lastly International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. (known as International Airlines Group or IAGfor short) formally spins off British Airways plc and its becomes listed on the LSE (IAG will then cancel its LSE listing)
British Airways plc willconsist of the following subsidiaries:
BA CityFlyer Limited
British Airways Limited (operates LCY-JFK flights)
British Airways World Cargo Limited
Flybe plc (15% stake)
Comair Limited (18% stake)
OpenSkies S.A.
International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. will then rename itself Iberia Aviation Group S.A (keeping the IAG installs and will consist of the following subsidiaries:
Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A
IberiaCargo S.A.
Iberia Express S.A
Vueling Airlines S.A.
Ultimately this will mean IB will have enough cash (from the spinoff of BA) to finance the restructuring of the airline to make the airline survive the economic mess weare all in and BA can focus on better competing with its rivals in Europe, the Middle East and North America
Do youthink a BA-IB separation will work?
In other words BA’s merger with IB has been a mistake, it might have given BA a much bigger Central and South American presence, but it has come at a high price (vast job cuts, labour relations worsening, reductions in fleet numbers and routes etc), so what I am suggesting is that BA and IB separate, by:
1: BA introduces new routes to South America, more specifically LATAM’s hubs (or at least some ofthem, 3 are not good enough)
2: BA becomes fully responsible for all UK-Spain routes within IAG
3: A separation process begins between BA and IB
4: Lastly International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. (known as International Airlines Group or IAGfor short) formally spins off British Airways plc and its becomes listed on the LSE (IAG will then cancel its LSE listing)
British Airways plc willconsist of the following subsidiaries:
BA CityFlyer Limited
British Airways Limited (operates LCY-JFK flights)
British Airways World Cargo Limited
Flybe plc (15% stake)
Comair Limited (18% stake)
OpenSkies S.A.
International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. will then rename itself Iberia Aviation Group S.A (keeping the IAG installs and will consist of the following subsidiaries:
Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A
IberiaCargo S.A.
Iberia Express S.A
Vueling Airlines S.A.
Ultimately this will mean IB will have enough cash (from the spinoff of BA) to finance the restructuring of the airline to make the airline survive the economic mess weare all in and BA can focus on better competing with its rivals in Europe, the Middle East and North America
Do youthink a BA-IB separation will work?