British Airways - 2
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys I am purely creating a scenario here but..
If BA fell as well, say in the next week......would and could (legally) the government offer any help to save them (Northern Rock style), whilst days earlier watch XL fall down the pan??
I am not trying to cause arguments, and work for neither company's. I am just interested, because in my opinion its help all the best they can, or none at all!
If BA fell as well, say in the next week......would and could (legally) the government offer any help to save them (Northern Rock style), whilst days earlier watch XL fall down the pan??
I am not trying to cause arguments, and work for neither company's. I am just interested, because in my opinion its help all the best they can, or none at all!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex Cargo Clown, what on earth are you talking about my friend?!
Disgrace to the UK? Sure, the airline has its problems but at the end of the day, it's a business with shareholders to keep happy. If BA is "London Airways", it's because that's where the money is. They'd be foolish to stay in the regions if they could make more money elsewhere.
I'd love to see a greater BA presence around the country but at the end of the day, if it's not going to ensure me a nice dividend (which we got for the first time in many years this year) and help secure the company's future, well, it'd be foolish to be there.
Disgrace to the UK? Sure, the airline has its problems but at the end of the day, it's a business with shareholders to keep happy. If BA is "London Airways", it's because that's where the money is. They'd be foolish to stay in the regions if they could make more money elsewhere.
I'd love to see a greater BA presence around the country but at the end of the day, if it's not going to ensure me a nice dividend (which we got for the first time in many years this year) and help secure the company's future, well, it'd be foolish to be there.
The tricks they played to make the regions look bad were astounding. The 1502/3 for instance, that is/was a very profitable route, so BA "massaged" the profit it made on the route to make it run at a loss.
BA were also instrumental in making Iberia drop the MAN-MAD/BCN, again to try and put PAX through LHR.
I believe LH have very successful operations out of MUC and DUS as well as FRA, it's a shame our alleged flag carrier is only interested in London.
I shouldn't be surprised though, the average BA manager's IQ is in single digits.
Controversial, moi?
Well what a lot of ill - informed and illogical nonsense being written mixed in with a liberal sprinkling of personal grudges.
Gems such as
when the pension deficit is almost totally irrelevant given that the funding arrangements to cover the government caused deficit are in place and a known quantity i.e. The deficit is not required to be paid off right now.
Skylion makes a very accurate assessment of BA in his post above.
The references to BA staff in the regions and the presence in the regions ignores one important fact. Despite it looking very impressive to have such a large airline serving every nook and corner of the UK it is an exceedingly expensive thing to do. A fact. What is the point in spending vast sums of money for marginal return when expensive equipment can be utilised far more profitably elsewhere? Despite popular opinion there are many clever people analysing stuff like that and BA has historically been very good at identifying profitable routes. Dreams of operating out of every UK airport are sheer romanticism devoid of commercial reality.
Ex Cargo Clown care to explain and substantiate your easily voiced allegations of rigging the numbers?
Gems such as
As for the so called £1.9b in the bank - even if it exists as net cash, which I doubt, you are forgetting the 1b pension deficit.
Skylion makes a very accurate assessment of BA in his post above.
The references to BA staff in the regions and the presence in the regions ignores one important fact. Despite it looking very impressive to have such a large airline serving every nook and corner of the UK it is an exceedingly expensive thing to do. A fact. What is the point in spending vast sums of money for marginal return when expensive equipment can be utilised far more profitably elsewhere? Despite popular opinion there are many clever people analysing stuff like that and BA has historically been very good at identifying profitable routes. Dreams of operating out of every UK airport are sheer romanticism devoid of commercial reality.
Ex Cargo Clown care to explain and substantiate your easily voiced allegations of rigging the numbers?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Windsheer - The EU would have the Government over the hot coals if they nationalised or otherwise subsidised BA under state aid rules. There is absolutely no chance in the world whatsoever of the UK Government propping up BA or any UK airline. National Rock was supported becuase of the same reason the US government are risking up to a trillion dollars propping up their mortgage market - because it would pose a substantial risk to the financial system and the whole economy not to. Losing BA would be neither here nor there - and I'd assume they'd be a move for them because of the strength of the brand if they did head for the graveyard.
It amuses that many people who post on this board are incredibly agressive to anyone who makes a technical mistakes about flying matters, but there is such complete ignorance about business. I'm not in the flight trade but I can tell you that people are talking about Virgin not BA being in a whole world of crap - take that for what you want (and I personally have no idea) but the merry go round of money through different company structures could come to a grinding halt anytime soon.
Anyhow back to lurking.
It amuses that many people who post on this board are incredibly agressive to anyone who makes a technical mistakes about flying matters, but there is such complete ignorance about business. I'm not in the flight trade but I can tell you that people are talking about Virgin not BA being in a whole world of crap - take that for what you want (and I personally have no idea) but the merry go round of money through different company structures could come to a grinding halt anytime soon.
Anyhow back to lurking.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex Cargo Clown care to explain and substantiate your easily voiced allegations of rigging the numbers?
The aircraft was "leased" to BAR, at what was a completely ridiculous rate, the freight capacity for instance was factored in by mainline to be earning the TACT rate rather than the much lower commercial rates. Why, to make it look like it was running at a loss.
If you tried to book a NYC - MAN ticket through BA.com, guess what. It's preferred routing was always JFK - LHR - MAN. Ask yourself why..,. Again with the JFK, it arrived at 0620 and had fantastic European connections, AMS, BRU, DUS etc this is what T3BA was designed for, did London Airways ever market these routes ? No.
Going back a little further, the ISB flight. It used to come up from LHR with 80 pax sometimes, and then mysteriously leave MAN with a full load. Where did these Pax come from ?
London Airways have never been interested in the regions, isn't it strange how EK, QR, SQ and the rest can make a good go of it.....
As for the comment about MAN staff working 5 hours. Best joke I've heard all day. 90% of LHR staff are undoubtedly the laziest, useless entities in the entire universe.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back a little further, the ISB flight. It used to come up from LHR with 80 pax sometimes, and then mysteriously leave MAN with a full load. Where did these Pax come from ?
London Airways have never been interested in the regions, isn't it strange how EK, QR, SQ and the rest can make a good go of it.....
As for the comment about MAN staff working 5 hours. Best joke I've heard all day.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the comment about MAN staff working 5 hours. Best joke I've heard all day. 90% of LHR staff are undoubtedly the laziest, useless entities in the entire universe.
.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE England
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what exactly do these Mangers do in British Airways?"
The same as they have done for years...
F**k all!
The same as they have done for years...
F**k all!
(Expletive Deleted)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on chaps this is all getting a bit heated and a lot of anger is being expressed of the past. I do not recall too many of us bothering when we saw the back of 'Go' and our/their staff that were outed. It seems that it is in the main ex MAN staff that seem to be unable to move on.
Let us @ LHR at least move on, the regions are no more and I fear that LGW will have even more to fear during the next year as once this issue is sorted LGW will be next for outsourcing ?
Let us @ LHR at least move on, the regions are no more and I fear that LGW will have even more to fear during the next year as once this issue is sorted LGW will be next for outsourcing ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times do we need to explain why BA does not fly more to/from the regions ?
BA flies from it's hub LHR (2 runways) to many destinations.
KLM flies from it's hub AMS (6 runways) to many destinations.
Delta flies from it's hub ATL (5 runways) to many destinations.
Lufthansa flies from it's hub FRA (3 runways) to many destinations.
Air France flies from it's hub CDG (4 runways) to many destinations.
American flies from it's hub DFW (7 runways) to many destinations.
United flies from it's hub ORD (6 runways) to many destinations.
Hubs allow airlines to operate to more destination profitably by adding transfer pax to direct pax.
BA also has a much lower slot share at it's hub than any of these others.
BA flies from it's hub LHR (2 runways) to many destinations.
KLM flies from it's hub AMS (6 runways) to many destinations.
Delta flies from it's hub ATL (5 runways) to many destinations.
Lufthansa flies from it's hub FRA (3 runways) to many destinations.
Air France flies from it's hub CDG (4 runways) to many destinations.
American flies from it's hub DFW (7 runways) to many destinations.
United flies from it's hub ORD (6 runways) to many destinations.
Hubs allow airlines to operate to more destination profitably by adding transfer pax to direct pax.
BA also has a much lower slot share at it's hub than any of these others.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somebody explain to me why the 757 is not used at the new T5 at Heathrow?
All the destinations served from T3 by BA will be 757 flights and non of them will be operating from T5.
Is there a reason for this? Can the 757 not be accomodated at the new terminal - sure not the case?
All the destinations served from T3 by BA will be 757 flights and non of them will be operating from T5.
Is there a reason for this? Can the 757 not be accomodated at the new terminal - sure not the case?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MUFC Fan, nothin sinister there. Problem is that T5 was immediately seen as too small for te BA operation. It's easier - much easier - to keep as many of the airline's smaller operational groupings - that is 757s, Australasias - together.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lichfield
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Floored regional flying argument
Beancounter1 said;
Delta also fly international and domestic service from Minneapolis,Salt Lake City and New York JFK
Lufthansa also has a major hub at Munich as well as international services from Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Hanover and Berlin.
Air France operates international and domestic services from Nice, Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux and Toulouse
American flies from Chicago, JFK and Miami to domestic and international destinations
United manages to support several international hubs across the US e.g. San Francisco and Washington
BA can't take on its low fares competition in the regions as it is so top heavy with managers. It is tied into it's out of date massively overpriced contracts for CC etc. To say that BA is following the rule of most airlines is wrong. BA are the exception when it comes to regional flying.
Oh and the distances involved argument is also floored ie; short journey from Birmingham to London can be dismissed when airlines like Austrian manage to operate service from airports so close to Vienna as Linz and Salzburg. Why do Swiss manage to fly from Zurich Geneva and Basle?
Daza
How many times do we need to explain why BA does not fly more to/from the regions ?
BA flies from it's hub LHR (2 runways) to many destinations.
KLM flies from it's hub AMS (6 runways) to many destinations.
Delta flies from it's hub ATL (5 runways) to many destinations.
Lufthansa flies from it's hub FRA (3 runways) to many destinations.
Air France flies from it's hub CDG (4 runways) to many destinations.
American flies from it's hub DFW (7 runways) to many destinations.
United flies from it's hub ORD (6 runways) to many destinations.
Hubs allow airlines to operate to more destination profitably by adding transfer pax to direct pax.
BA also has a much lower slot share at it's hub than any of these others.
BA flies from it's hub LHR (2 runways) to many destinations.
KLM flies from it's hub AMS (6 runways) to many destinations.
Delta flies from it's hub ATL (5 runways) to many destinations.
Lufthansa flies from it's hub FRA (3 runways) to many destinations.
Air France flies from it's hub CDG (4 runways) to many destinations.
American flies from it's hub DFW (7 runways) to many destinations.
United flies from it's hub ORD (6 runways) to many destinations.
Hubs allow airlines to operate to more destination profitably by adding transfer pax to direct pax.
BA also has a much lower slot share at it's hub than any of these others.
Lufthansa also has a major hub at Munich as well as international services from Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Hanover and Berlin.
Air France operates international and domestic services from Nice, Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux and Toulouse
American flies from Chicago, JFK and Miami to domestic and international destinations
United manages to support several international hubs across the US e.g. San Francisco and Washington
BA can't take on its low fares competition in the regions as it is so top heavy with managers. It is tied into it's out of date massively overpriced contracts for CC etc. To say that BA is following the rule of most airlines is wrong. BA are the exception when it comes to regional flying.
Oh and the distances involved argument is also floored ie; short journey from Birmingham to London can be dismissed when airlines like Austrian manage to operate service from airports so close to Vienna as Linz and Salzburg. Why do Swiss manage to fly from Zurich Geneva and Basle?
Daza
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mucfan,
757 not used from T5 as only aircraft (747/777/767 a319/a320/a321) that take the baggage containers (LD3?) are based at T5. IIRC apparently to streamline the baggage transfer process.
757 not used from T5 as only aircraft (747/777/767 a319/a320/a321) that take the baggage containers (LD3?) are based at T5. IIRC apparently to streamline the baggage transfer process.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: XUMAT
Age: 61
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T5 is designed around containerised baggage so whichever size the aircraft uses can be accomodated. It's planes such as the 737 and 757 which are unsuitable as they need yer traditional old bag-smasher to load them up.
Interesting that those little A318s being bought for LCY-JFK won't be able to use LHR T5 on diversion either as they are a bit too dainty to have the required cargo door for containers.
Interesting that those little A318s being bought for LCY-JFK won't be able to use LHR T5 on diversion either as they are a bit too dainty to have the required cargo door for containers.