British Airways - 2

[BALHR]

BA has tried operating a dual hub at LGW before ("the hub without the
hubbub"). It didn't work and BA won't be trying it again.

It is true there is a fair amount of slot-sitting at LHR but BA has said
that only about a third of the slots gained from bmi will be converted to
long-haul ops as there is an optimal overall balance of 1/3rd long-haul and
2/3rds short-haul.

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

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.

The problem was that under their “dual hub” strategy, a lot of routes that faced completion out of LHR (they did not also make the most of LHR, at the time they only owned 30-40% ofthe slots at that airport), not only that but it was based on the fact they would get ATI over the Atlantic with AA, what I am suggesting is an “overflow hub” consisting of a strict criteria of routes (once they have reached the 70% limit at LHR), routes that really would not suffer if they were based at LGW (instead of LHR)

I am only suggesting this due to the face there is a lack of space at LHR for BA to compete with its rivals in Europe, North America and the Middle East

It’s this same problem that limits what they can do in relation to Asia, it forces them to choose between very profitable Europe-North America and still profitable Europe-Asia/South America/Africa, its rivals can (and do) serve both markets

As for your points on “What doesn't help BA in Asia”

A: LH/LX at FRA/MUC/ZRH and AF/KL at CDG/AMS have this problem of location, it still does not stop them from serving more of Asia than BA at LHR, only in routes to India and Hong Kong do they have an advantage

B: However you make a very good point in this case; trouble is that they have a lack of partners in Asia compared to its rival alliances, so if BA really wants to service Asia as well as its rivals, its need to think outside the box and do deals with non-OW airlines (Qantas has already done this…)

It should also really make the most of OW position in Latin America (via LATAM) by launching more routes to South America with the help of codeshare agreements with LATAM

[adfly]

Alderney is currently hanging on to around 3 daily flights to Southampton and a few more to Guernsey, which give travellers links to a reasonable selection of UK and European destinations, and if they want to go furhter getting from Southampton Airport to Heathrow or Gatwick is a fairly easy process, so I don't really see how there is any demand for an LHR link to this tiny island. Not forgetting that a 16 seat Trislander (Largest aircraft viably operated from ACI) would be a huge waste of LHR slots, regardless of whether it gets 2 more runways or not.

Could see Liverpool, Isle of Man, Inverness, Jersey, Newquay working although only with the mentioned extra runways combined with significantly reduced or ideally scrapped APD.

[BALHR]

I must admit I was a bit surprised to see routes like LHR - Alicante on BA
being launched, but I wouldn't be surprised if BA can make these routes work, especially at certain times where demand for 'business routes' is weaker.

Germanwings (part of the Lufthansa Group) and Vueling (46% owned by
IAG) are both at LHR for similar reasons. LH uses Germanwings as a lower-cost operator on certain LHR-Germany routes and expect to see a lot more of them as Germanwings will be taking over ALL of LH's non-hub routes (LHR-HAM/DUS/STR e.t.c) out of LHR. I suspect that IAG (well, IB) is looking at similar strategy with Vueling (although IB already has Iberia Express).

Why can’t they rebrand Germanwings flights (while retaina separate AOC/operations) as “Lufthansa” flights, I means the difference between them and LH Short-Haul is falling as part of their transfer of P2P European routes to that airline (the only difference by the end of 2013 is that Germanwings offers a LCC Economy fare as well as full-service Economy and now Business fares)

In fact Lufthansa really need to get their branding (and products) together (I know they need to retain OS, LX and SN as subsidiaries for bilateral reasons, but not enough to brand them separately asif they have nothing to do with LH), and rebrand the operations of Swiss International Airlines, Austrian Airlines and Brussels Airlines as “Lufthansa”(along with Austrian Arrows and Swiss European Airlines as “Lufthansa Regional”

In other words Lufthansa needs to chance their organisational structure from this:

Mainline:

Austrian Airlines

Brussels Airlines

Lufthansa

Germanwings

Swiss International Airlines

Regional:

Air Dolomiti*

Austrian Arrows (Tyrolean Airways)

Eurowings*

Lufthansa CityLine*

Swiss European Airlines

*Trading as “Lufthansa Regional”

To this:

Mainline

Lufthansa

Lufthansa Austria (Trading as “Lufthansa”)*

Lufthansa Belgium (Trading as “Lufthansa”)*

Lufthansa Switzerland (Trading as “Lufthansa”)*

Germanwings (Trading as “Lufthansa”)

Regional:

Lufthansa CityLine (Trading as “Lufthansa Regional”)


*Once the bilateral issues are sorted, they can be folded into Lufthansa itself

What this means is that apart from in legal form, the entire group has the same image, service, standards, T&C (and pretty much everything else) so that it’s all appears as one airline

Also Iberia Express was nothing more than a waste of time (and led to strikes), when all they had to do was buy the shares it does not own in Vueling (which they at last doing) and quietly move unprofitableservices to Vueling

Now that Vueling is 100% owned by IAG, Iberia Express’s days are numberd, most of all since the relevant courst has forced the end of transferring staff and routes from Iberia to that airline

[BALHR]

LHR-LBA 1350 dep on weds 32 pax

LBA-LHR 1555 dep on weds 37 pax

For midweek, middle of the day, on a brand new route, it could be worse. Jst hoping morning/evening times are better, that the locals in Yorkshire 'use it or loose it', and that BA put a nightstopper in from the start of the summer skeds.

Kind regards

Mike

Remember, this is a route that has not been running for some time (LHR or LGW), BA want to launch more domestic connections (one the reasons they want LHR expansion), but they are forced to choose between connecting short-haul (which is not profitable in its own right) and medium/long-haul (which is profitable in its own right), its rivals do not have this problem as all…

[BALHR]

Well I did hope and even went as far to request that my post was answered as a whole rather than taken point by point. It was a collection of musings that contribute to the ultimate question, if these emerging economies are such hot potatoes (and a 3rd runway has no green light as yet) then why don't BA make room in their existing schedule.

Thank you to those who stopped and put their brain in gear before jumping the gun (aeulad ). Saying that a route such as Leeds, Nice etc served by the nation's long standing, well respected, definitive airline at the country's main hub where they hold a monopoly of slots is served because it makes money is quite ridiculous isn't it? It goes without saying that such a position as BA are in means that they are always going to have customers and little competition. Back to the original argument and the crux of the issue (as stated in my original post is that if these new economies are so important to our NATIONAL ECONOMY then why aren’t BA serving them instead of saving 32 people from Leeds a bus ride from the station
.

I think the general consensus is that there is a lot of slot sitting happening and perhaps after there has been more time for the dust to settle some of the likely suspects will disappear and these emerging economies will be exploited.

The problem is that BA barely has enough slots; it only holds 52% at LHR (which can handle fewer flights than AMS, CDG, FRA and MUC) for example, hence why it’s forced to choose where it served, which is not the case with its rivals in Europe and elsewhere, that is why they have bought BMI and circling round EI’s LHR slots

If LHR was much bigger (2-4 more runways), then BA would not have this problem, it would them be able to serve not just New York, Leeds, Delhi and Lagos, but Jakarta, Lima and Guangzhou as well

Lastly, I doubt if there would be any further scrapping of destinations, they have already cut the number of Ex-BMI destinations it does not want to serve (Khartoum for example), to exploit the emerging markets it needs further LHR/LGW slots

[BALHR]

BA needs to feed its hub. Quite sensibly they have used some of the BMI slots to help them do that more effectively. Leeds route will grow over time. BA must also be of the view that they need to encourage more to use their hub at Heathrow from Leeds than the KLM one at Amsterdam. Nice is a strong route, remember they also serve it up to 3 times a day from Gatwick too.
BA seems to be following the sensible approach of keeping higher yield traffic routing via the main hub. Gatwick is being developed to cover those routes that can fill Club and economy cabins with mainly leisure traffic that prefers to travel BA. Of course business traffic is also carried on some Gatwick routes. Much of this traffic is point to point with some limited feed via BA Domestic flights and Flybe. Destinations that can support services from both airports such as Las Vegas, Barcelona and Nice allow BA to carry more business/transfer traffic on LHR services and keep/improve their share of the leisure market without diluting yield at Heathrow.
Thankfully they now realise that the economy cabin can be
useful to the bottom line especially in these difficult times.

V.

The lack of BA domestic connections flights when compared its European rivals (most of all KLM, thanks to their takeover of Air UK) just shows why we need to expand LHR, why should it chose between:

1: Extensive short-haul connection networks (UK and Europe)

2: Extensive medium/long-hau lnetworks to North America

3: Extensive medium/long-haul networks to Asia/Africa/South America

Lufthansa does not need to make this choice and the same goes to Air France-KLM, until BA fixes this it will fall behind those rivals and that is not good for the UK at all

You also make a good point that you cannot rely on just Premium Class passengers to make your flights sustainable, you need a good mix (but not too much) of Economy (not just O&D, but transfers as well, that’s why KLM is doing rather well, they have got the UK regions covered), hence the reason why airlines such as EOS and Silverjet are not still around

[CabinCrewe]

"BA want to launch more domestic connections"
Do they ?

[BALHR]

Not so, domestic feeder flights (and others) to/from LGW are being reduced, there is not enough connectivity

That is the case with BA and Flybe, its works since BA’s long-haul flights are pretty much O&D leisure based, what I am suggesting however is that routes to destinations not currently served by BA (that have the potential to be profitable) and either not served at all or by a competing airline at LGW or cannot find room at LHR should be added to that list and to make it work they would need to reverse that policy and run a similar service (to LHR) out of LGW, but with smaller aircraft

BA make good money on LAS flights from LHR as well, why should it stop?

I am not saying it should be stopped, I was asking is it a good idea to run services to Vegas from both airports…

[BALHR]

What!? Explain please.

I am talking about possible routes like London-Lima, London-Santiago and London-Jakarta, routes that no airlines operates on and London-Saigon, routes that only operate out ofLGW and hence will not suffer from LHR based competition, so it does not really matter if they come from LGW, although they should move to LHR once spaces become available.

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

China Southern stated that the reason its had taken so long to launch a London-Guangzhou service was that they found it difficult to find slots in LHR, they did in the end but its just shows how hard it is for new entrants to access LHR

Even if the slots are merely up for sale, VN will still have to compete with BA when it comes to buying those slots, along with other major airlines, so unless they are prepared to pay though the nose for them, they will find it hard to get any

Also what do you mean “so BA wouldn't necessarily know about it” I thought it was a open market?

If you mean within ST, which one would be willing to do a deal with VN? (Maybe they could get some if AF-KL-DL decides to fully buy out VS and transfer the assets to those airlines and their partners, like VN)

In fact which airline would be prepared to sell to VN (outside of VN) without demanding them to pay a lot of money in return, unless the airline is in serious financial trouble

[Surreyman]

BA LHR slots

Going slightly off at a tangent, I note that BA 'lease' some slots to Aegean & Brussels Airlines.
Can anyone confirm; when the leases expire (I assume they are time limited?)
Can BA simply say; -
"Thanks very much for your last payment but we will not be renewing the lease as we wish to use the slots"

[Hangar6]

BA LHR

I thonk BA have lost a good bit of ground to EK EY among others as the product now offerred to UK regional passengers via the ME is excellent and compares very well with a transit in LHR between term 1 and 5

If I chose to go Business class from UK regional say EDI GLA MAN BHX to say HKG SYD among others I am going to opt for the airline with fewest stops, easy transfers and best producxt, eg new planes non stop longhaul

EK wins hands down for me, and they are cheaper as well a s less hassle.

BA have loads slots currently, they are squatting on some eg DUB , where they returned after a 20 year sbscence, advertised 8 roundtrips a day , actually never got near 8 on a daily basis and are now reducing to 4 or 5 a day after only 4 months of their return, these slots will be better used for other higher yiled and presumably longhaul routes as new aircraft arrive.

BA have to improve their current product and TERMINAL FIVE has to be ramped up for UK domestic and ROI arrivals asap in order to provide less hassle for connecting high yiled passenfers, I believe it may even be too latenow that TK are tapping into this market as well as the desert carriers.

BA are NOT circling the EI slots at LHR , thats just MOL stirring the pot, BA have loads slots and are thus increasing European feed to LHR , eg NICE a high yield route with good demand for Longhaul not currently targeted by the middle east folks.

BA will grow , but the market has moved futher east for east bound transit passengers

South America on the other hand is there for the taking .....currently

[BALHR]

Why is 70% the "unofficial legal limit"? Who says and who set it? Any
evidence to back this up?

Remember I used the term“unofficial”

This is the figure (that has been used when referring to the BA/BMI merger) used to state what proportion of the slots LH owns at FRA (where can I find exact figures for FRA,MUC, BER, DUS, ZRH, GVA, BRU, VIN?) which is the highest out of any airlines at a major European hub

Remember the EU had not set a fixed maximum limit on how many slots are owned by one airline, so I base it on what has been allowed and they have allowed one airline to hold 70% of the slots at FRA, so I see no reason why they would not allow BA to have the same at LHR/LGW (considering there are 4 other commercial airports in the area)

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?

I am not saying I know better, I am just suggesting what further action they need to do, anyway BA are in the right direction on my main suggestion (buying more slots in their home hubs) by buying BMI, but they need to go further and not just do it at LHR, but LGW and LCY as well

Are you really saying that the "inexperienced college student" would make
a better transport secretary?

Well compared to the lot that have been in the role in the past (without experience in any part of the transport sector, only interested in the job for improving their political ambitions andhave little interest in the subject matter) then it would have to be yes

If you mean compared to other PPRUNE users, then no…

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.

Look, if I was Secretary of State for Transport under the 2010-2015 Conservative-Liberal Democrat government…

Then I would more than willing to face down and scrutinise the Anti-LHR/LGW/STN/LTN campaigners pretty well, the problem is not them however, it’s my superiors, the Liberals don’twant it anyway, the Tories (Dave and his allies anyway) don’t want it do to the fact they cannot make tough decisions and they don’t want to lose seats at the next election

The best I could do is either openly support a bigger LHR and openly criticise my own superiors or try and force Dave and his mates out…

Or I could push for THA (and close all the other airports in London, its metropolitan region and commuter belt) with the backing of Boris, openly support it and place a ultimatum of Dave and his mate:

Either you spend £200Billion on THA or spend £0 on allowing LHR expansion…

If it I was Secretary of State for Transport under the 2015-2020 Labour government…

Since most of their support comes is away from London, its metropolitan region and commuter belt and in areas that would not suffer from airport expansion in theLondon + SE srea, I would basically push pressure on my superiors to allow LHR expansion…

[DaveReidUK]

I am not saying I know better, I am just suggesting what further action they need to do, anyway BA are in the right direction on my main suggestion

Ah, the sweet smell of hubris ...

[Dannyboy39]

2,800m seems fairly short for a fully loaded A380.

And remember if an A380 proving route was GLA-LHR, you wouldn't need a full fuel load.

[Heathrow Harry]

you'd need 2 hours just to get everyone on and off the damn thing tho'..........

[FR-]

eg NICE a high yield route with good demand for Longhaul not currently targeted by the middle east folks.

Have a look at the EK route map.

fr-

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "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

Isle of Man

East Midlands

Exeter

Guernsey

Humberside

Inverness

Jersey

Liverpool

Newquay"

With 3/4 rwys at LHR anything becomes possible.

Not ACI, and if EMA is viable, so may BHX, NWI and CWL be as well. Would expect either DSA or HUY but not both.

All the above, and others, are crying out for an LHR link, but not convinced that BA would neccessarily be on all of these routes. AFAIK, they don't have the aircraft suitable for the thinnest routes.

Could see other carriers on the thinner routes (BM or BE perhaps?), perhaps in collaboration with BA and/or VS, (through ticketing and baggage checked through to final destination, etc.).

Also suspect that commuter flights will come into their own with increasing congestion on the roads and another 10 years of above-inflation rail ticket hikes. Feeding longhaul as well makes more of these viable.

As for BA flights, or VS for that matter, think adfly's list (see below) is about right.

However none of this will happen without the elimination of the delays, congestion and the artificial market in slots at LHR, and that means 1-2 more rwys and new terminal capacity. Under those circumstances could also imagine a U2 presence at LHR for some of their more busines-orientated routes!


Quote: "Could see Liverpool, Isle of Man, Inverness, Jersey, Newquay working although only with the mentioned extra runways combined with significantly reduced or ideally scrapped APD."

Agreed, adfly, something has to be done about APD!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Do youthink a BA-IB separation will work?"

Can't see the point, they've only recently put it together. they have to resolve IB's problems and soon! It's a similar situation at AF-KL.

Of course, BA should have linked up with KL back in the day, but regretably, it was not to be.

Quote: "Remember I used the term“unofficial”"

Yes, you keep banging on about a 70% maximum slot ownership for one carrier at any one airport, but you fail to explain where this figure comes from and why. To say that LH have 70% of slots at FRA is not an explanation. To say it is "unofficial" is not an explanation.

Please don't take us all for idiots, can't put it any more politely.

Quote: "Look, if I was Secretary of State for Transport under the 2010-2015 Conservative-Liberal Democrat government…

Am looking!

Quote: "Then I would more than willing to face down and scrutinise the Anti-LHR/LGW/STN/LTN campaigners pretty well, the problem is not them however, it’s my superiors, the Liberals don’twant it anyway, the Tories (Dave and his allies anyway) don’t want it do to the fact they cannot make tough decisions and they don’t want to lose seats at the next election

The best I could do is either openly support a bigger LHR and openly criticise my own superiors or try and force Dave and his mates out…"


If you were secretary of state for transport (heaven help us), you ought to be pushing those in the government who favour LHR expansion (behind the scenes of course) into growing a pair and a backbone. Indeed, you could it make it a condition of accepting the job.

Quote: "Or I could push for THA (and close all the other airports in London, its metropolitan region and commuter belt) with the backing of Boris, openly support it and place a ultimatum of Dave and his mate:

Either you spend £200Billion on THA or spend £0 on allowing LHR expansion…"

Why would you do this if you support LHR expansion? especially as Boris has back-tracked and now supports STN expansion.

In reality your actions would depend on (1) how safe your seat was, (2) whether you have any skeletons in your cupboard, (3) your ability to resist pressure from the whips' office, and (4) your relationship with your local party (for reselection purposes).

Quote: "If it I was Secretary of State for Transport under the 2015-2020 Labour government…

What Labour government? Jumping the gun a wee bit here aren't we?!

Quote: "Since most of their support comes is away from London, its metropolitan region and commuter belt and in areas that would not suffer from airport expansion in theLondon + SE srea, I would basically push pressure on my superiors to allow LHR expansion…"

You don't know much about the modern Labour party do you? Thanks to Blair, Mandelson and co., it is now just a party of the metropolitan elite and the chattering classes, as very well illustrated by their present leader.

You're clearly not a student of government and politics are you!

[rutankrd]

You can argue all you like , however fact is IAG are not short of slots now or were they before October 2012 compared to competitor Hubs.

And its a myth to say BA can't operate short haul/domestic feeds at a similar rate to others.

They have chosen not too for their own commercial imperative !

No other airline operates anything like multiple daily rotations to NYC/BOS/LAX/IAD/ORD plus daily flights to a further eleven US cities.

PLUS the metal neutrality with AA.

Its an eggs in one basket approach - when times are good and US/UK financial sectors in good fettle profits are high , however soon as the economies take a shower BA does too.

As for Iberia the IAG merger acquired considerable CASH from Iberia, it didn't come with debt !

[Skipness One Echo]

Its an eggs in one basket approach

By necessity, they're not exactly going to win going East.
Someone's back at college with internet access I see