British Airways - 2
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wildly unrealistic side of me thoguht when reading the last post maybe they would consider MAN-SNN-BOS or MAN-SNN-IAD. To save all the responses I accept it is merely wishful thinking.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree not with a 318, that was seperate speculation from elsewhere.
The comment was BA using SNN more, I merely wondered about flights from MAN via Snn, totally agree AA direct on a 757 would be preferable.
The comment was BA using SNN more, I merely wondered about flights from MAN via Snn, totally agree AA direct on a 757 would be preferable.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 33
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not when one of the primary reasons BA stops at SNN, is because there's no way with LCY's runway, that they could fly to JFK with enough fuel for the journey.
It just so happens that SNN is a very convenient stop with US pre-clearance. Primarily though, don't forget, it's a fuel stop.
It just so happens that SNN is a very convenient stop with US pre-clearance. Primarily though, don't forget, it's a fuel stop.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North West England
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KLM actually flies to many more UK regional airports from Amsterdam than BA does from Heathrow - some British Airways eh?
And before someone mentions that it would be unprofitable for them to serve more, I already know, it is just an observation!!
And before someone mentions that it would be unprofitable for them to serve more, I already know, it is just an observation!!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Airways
But ask yourself the question, why can't they make money flying out of UK regional airports when plenty of others (KL, AF, LH, SK, BE, LS, FR, EZY, ZB, CO, EK, AA, DL, US, QR, EY, AY) so obviously can?
Yes, it is probably cheaper for BA fly everyone down to LHR than to operate direct routes. But how much traffic do BA lose to other airlines by not flying direct from UK airports to main destinations?
In the end, it is all probably all down to BA's significant cost base. Cabin crew on £35 - 40k plus bonuses and perks. They are having a laugh.
Frankly, I'd rather fly FR. At least you know that they are trying to rip you off from the start!
Yes, it is probably cheaper for BA fly everyone down to LHR than to operate direct routes. But how much traffic do BA lose to other airlines by not flying direct from UK airports to main destinations?
In the end, it is all probably all down to BA's significant cost base. Cabin crew on £35 - 40k plus bonuses and perks. They are having a laugh.
Frankly, I'd rather fly FR. At least you know that they are trying to rip you off from the start!
KLM actually flies to many more UK regional airports from Amsterdam than BA does from Heathrow - some British Airways eh?
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm bemused that some people still haven't grasped the concept of hub and spoke. You fly from secondary points (yes - Manchester is a secondary point ...) to your own hub, not to your competitors'.
Except in the case of BA, as davidjohnson6 points out, their hub is so saturated that slots for regional UK services can be far more profitably employed elsewhere.
Except in the case of BA, as davidjohnson6 points out, their hub is so saturated that slots for regional UK services can be far more profitably employed elsewhere.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm bemused that some people still haven't grasped the concept of hub and spoke. You fly from secondary points (yes - Manchester is a secondary point ...) to your own hub, not to your competitors'.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRU moves to Gatwick and business models to suit....
The jungle drums are reporting that LHR-MRU is being trundled round the M25 to be a LGW route from November.
KL, AF, LH, CO, EK,AA, DL,US,QR,EY and even AY feed their hubs from the spoke at the UK regional end into AMS, CDG, FRA/MUC/DUS, DXB, JFK/ORD.ATL/JFK, PHL,DOH, AUH and HEL respectively.
Even BA do exactly the same to LHR from ABZ/EDI/GLA/NCL/MAN feeding long haul and short haul connections.
However exclusive point to point from the UK is something none of the above airlines do, execpet perhaps LH. Point to polint is the market of EZY, LS and FR. For a legacy scheduled carrier to make the numbers add up they need to have interlining traffic and connections over a hub in addition to the point to point traffic.
They are two different business models, one is interconnecting offering connectrions, the othee exclusive point to point. We might one day see UK regional on BA to MAD but only to feed Iberia.
There are a few exceptions with LH but often these are not operated by mainline, but by a franchise or subsidiary.
But ask yourself the question, why can't they make money flying out of UK regional airports when plenty of others (KL, AF, LH, SK, BE, LS, FR, EZY, ZB, CO, EK, AA, DL, US, QR, EY, AY) so obviously can?
Even BA do exactly the same to LHR from ABZ/EDI/GLA/NCL/MAN feeding long haul and short haul connections.
However exclusive point to point from the UK is something none of the above airlines do, execpet perhaps LH. Point to polint is the market of EZY, LS and FR. For a legacy scheduled carrier to make the numbers add up they need to have interlining traffic and connections over a hub in addition to the point to point traffic.
They are two different business models, one is interconnecting offering connectrions, the othee exclusive point to point. We might one day see UK regional on BA to MAD but only to feed Iberia.
There are a few exceptions with LH but often these are not operated by mainline, but by a franchise or subsidiary.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 8th Feb 2011 at 10:20.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If LHR-MRU is to move to LGW, and assuming it remains at the same 3pw frequency, does this mean that we are likely to see another route move to LGW?
> there have been some reasonably significant (for BA) changes to the Caribbean network recently ex-LGW, so lets assume they've done all they are going to do with that for the time being
> due to schedules patterns, it normally makes more sense to put eastbound long haul flights onto same aircraft and likewise with westbound
> general logic would say that given current circumstances etc, BA would ditch the LGW-SSH and put the LGW-MLE and prospective LGW-MRU onto the same aircraft, but problem is that the MRU total rotation time is approx 26 hours, so won't really fit together with the MLE anyway without significant surgery
My guesses:
1. MRU doesn't move at all
2. MRU does move, SSH is dumped and frequencies on both MRU and MLE are doctored to somehow fit on one aircraft
3. SSH/MLE doesn't change at all; MRU moves and there is one additional (new?) LGW long haul route to come to "fit" with the MRU (most likely an eastbound route)
> there have been some reasonably significant (for BA) changes to the Caribbean network recently ex-LGW, so lets assume they've done all they are going to do with that for the time being
> due to schedules patterns, it normally makes more sense to put eastbound long haul flights onto same aircraft and likewise with westbound
> general logic would say that given current circumstances etc, BA would ditch the LGW-SSH and put the LGW-MLE and prospective LGW-MRU onto the same aircraft, but problem is that the MRU total rotation time is approx 26 hours, so won't really fit together with the MLE anyway without significant surgery
My guesses:
1. MRU doesn't move at all
2. MRU does move, SSH is dumped and frequencies on both MRU and MLE are doctored to somehow fit on one aircraft
3. SSH/MLE doesn't change at all; MRU moves and there is one additional (new?) LGW long haul route to come to "fit" with the MRU (most likely an eastbound route)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt LGW-SSH will survive into the summer to be honest, it was always the weakest of the B777 routes and Sharm el-Shark coupled with revolutionaries in Tahir Sq won't be improving yield or bookings.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt LGW-SSH will survive into the summer to be honest, it was always the weakest of the B777 routes and Sharm el-Shark coupled with revolutionaries in Tahir Sq won't be improving yield or bookings.
Plus the problems with Egypt won't help...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see from elsewhere that 14 of the 21 of the 767s are to get a "refresh" starting later this year, with the remaining 7 being retired.
Does anyone have any further information. Is it only the long-haul 767s that are being refreshed?
Does anyone have any further information. Is it only the long-haul 767s that are being refreshed?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockport
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ba Hostess
I think you will find that BA do not operate directly to FLL or PLS and NAS and GCM are operated out of LHR.
The information I have from my partner who is EF crew is that the 767's are being refurbished in order to provide better competition to the other carriers who operate on the same routes on which the BA 767 is currently used.
I think you will find that BA do not operate directly to FLL or PLS and NAS and GCM are operated out of LHR.
The information I have from my partner who is EF crew is that the 767's are being refurbished in order to provide better competition to the other carriers who operate on the same routes on which the BA 767 is currently used.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that BA do not operate directly to FLL or PLS and NAS and GCM are operated out of LHR
BA253 LHR-NAS-PLS once weekly
BA253 LHR-NAS-GCM four weekly
So no FLL currently but PLS is still operated.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding 767s making their way to LGW, the plan was that 14 would be refurbished (I understand its 7 of long-haul and 7 short-haul) with 7 being retired eventually.
BA still needs 767s for East Coast and Africa routes at LHR, and the cargo-heavy/busy LHR short-hauls.
Is BA really going to send 767s to LGW? What about crew training, ground support etc? Is the cost worth it?
BA still needs 767s for East Coast and Africa routes at LHR, and the cargo-heavy/busy LHR short-hauls.
Is BA really going to send 767s to LGW? What about crew training, ground support etc? Is the cost worth it?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I know BA does not operate direct flights to FLL, hence the introduction of this new route sooner or later. As for 767 coming to LGW, it was mentioned by a manager.
The runway in FLL is not long enough to accomodate the 777 so will be operated initially on the 767 until the runway is extended over a 5 year period currently in process with the FAA.
LGW being the new premium leisure hub, NAS, PLS and GCM will eventually move to LGW and will be operated on the 767.
As for crew training, it has been mentioned that crew operating the LCY-JFK on the airbus will not be trained on it, leaving the crew with 777 and 737 licences to be trained on the 767.
Watch this space, like Silla said, big changes coming to LGW.
The runway in FLL is not long enough to accomodate the 777 so will be operated initially on the 767 until the runway is extended over a 5 year period currently in process with the FAA.
LGW being the new premium leisure hub, NAS, PLS and GCM will eventually move to LGW and will be operated on the 767.
As for crew training, it has been mentioned that crew operating the LCY-JFK on the airbus will not be trained on it, leaving the crew with 777 and 737 licences to be trained on the 767.
Watch this space, like Silla said, big changes coming to LGW.