British Airways - 2

[WHBM]

I would have thought most long-haul new opportunities would sensibly wait until the 787 arrives, this being a more practical-sized aircraft for new startups; the 777 seems too big.

However, for all the hype about new opportunities being lost for additional routes to China etc, a further key bottleneck would seem to be the Foreign Office attitude to granting visas, which are apparently much more difficult to get fo the UK than for Schengen. For other European countries, the ability to move around them freely is a great bonus for those coming from visa countries; the UK is of course outside this.

[ETOPS]

the 777 seems too big.

Not in terms of the expected Premium loads and cargo volumes.....

[compton3bravo]

Visas for the Chinese

As I understand it (please someone correct me if I am wrong) the Chinese have to apply for two Visas - one for the UK or Eire and one for the countries in the Schengen agreement which allows uninterrupted passage across borders. Applying for different visas is stopping - according to some reports - a large number of Chinese visiting the UK citing cost and paperwork. Over to you Foreign Office and UK Border Agency.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by compton3bravo

As I understand it (please someone correct me if I am wrong) the Chinese have to apply for two Visas - one for the UK or Eire and one for the countries in the Schengen agreement which allows uninterrupted passage across borders.

Actually, if you are visiting Ireland as well you need three visas, there are separate ones, separately applied for, for the UK and for Ireland. The Common Travel Area for movement between the two countries does not extend to those who need visas. Actually trying to get Irish visas is a significant issue due to few consulates outside Western Europe, very lengthy processing times (I understand every application has to be faxed to Dublin for approval, though why this adds weeks to the process I am not sure) and regular refusals. And I speak from personal involvement.

[edi_local]

Originally Posted by WHBM

Actually, if you are visiting Ireland as well you need three visas, there are separate ones, separately applied for, for the UK and for Ireland. The Common Travel Area for movement between the two countries does not extend to those who need visas. Actually trying to get Irish visas is a significant issue due to few consulates outside Western Europe, very lengthy processing times (I understand every application has to be faxed to Dublin for approval, though why this adds weeks to the process I am not sure) and regular refusals. And I speak from personal involvement.

It is pretty much impossible to enforce though. Unless travelling by air then no one checks a passport going between the UK and Ireland. Even then when you land in DUB, it's just a man behind a glass screen who glances as you walk past with your ID on display, not proper immigration. Coming back in to the UK you don't even do that!

If someone wanted to get to the ROI without a visa, they can just apply for a UK one and then hop on a flight to Belfast or Derry and then take a train or bus to Dublin without ever going through Irish immigration! I once took a bus from Belfast to Dublin and we got pulled over as we entered ROI. The police came on and asked for ID, but half the people didn't have anything official (no one was told to have it for the journey) so they were just let off. None of the cars or trucks were being stopped so this leads me to think they were looking for a specific person. No stops or checks at all coming back in to NI the next day.

Same for the reverse. Get an Irish visa and then just cross the NI border and fly to mainland UK!

[rutankrd]

Actually all passenger lists for ferries and flights between all Ireland Ports and UK Mainland are submitted to the UK security forces and have been so for many many years.

Any one of interest can be intercepted at the UK port of entry for further investigations as applicable.

[Rivet Joint]

Question on BA's strategy

Here is a question for those in the know. I want to make it clear that I am for a third runway at LHR but I couldn't help noticing what to me at least appears to be some discrepancies with BA's operations.

It is quite apparent that due to LHR's runways being maxed out that London is losing out to its counterparts (Paris, Amsterdam etc) on serving the emerging markets like China, South America etc.

Therefore my question is why do they not make room for these flights within their existing operation?

The facts as I see it: -

Since the Iberia merger the IAG operate 13 flights to Madrid daily. Is that needed? Some BA and Iberia flights leave within 5 mins of each other with Iberia even operating an A360 at times!

Since the BMI merger most of their old routes have been maintained even ones that are already served by BA like Moscow (yes I know they have to keep certain routes etc). Countless routes to the middle east surely at the expense of these so called emerging economies that neighbouring Europe is tapping.

Is Leeds one of the routes that they have to serve? I noticed that BA announced this route recently and if not mandatory why serve it? Surely most people just get the bloody train. I was always under the impression Mr Walsh only concentrated on LHR and abandoned the regions with the Bacon sale. Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen sure, but Leeds?! Also BA increasing Boston to 4 daily makes no sense. Especially as the only other competitor on that route is AA who they co-operate with.

Such routes as Nice and Marseille, are they needed? Surely these are just leasure routes and anyone connecting will just go through Cdg? You have low cost carriers like Germanwings and Vueling, why? Surely if your flying from Bilbao, A Coruna IAG would rather you go through their Madrid hub?

I realise this seems like a rant but rather than pick small parts of my argument can anyone answer why if serving these emerging economies is vital (and I believe it is) BA persist with duplicate routes, domestic routes, letting Vueling use slots to serve marginal airports etc.

[DaveReidUK]

I realise this seems like a rant but rather than pick small parts of my argument can anyone answer why if serving these emerging economies is vital (and I believe it is) BA persist with duplicate routes, domestic routes, letting Vueling use slots to serve marginal airports etc.

It's not rocket science. BA flies those routes on which it can make most profit. That includes domestic services which may not be profitable in their own right, but which enhance the profitability of longhaul routes by providing valuable transfer traffic.

The concept of "serving vital emerging economies" is irrelevant from BA's point of view - its priority is to maximise shareholder value.

[Aero Mad]

Rivet Joint, I understand exactly what you're asking in that it seems ludicrous that they would run a Heathrow - Malaga service when there are cities all over the developing world which aren't served and (pre-BMI) they were clamouring for more slots.

To answer an individual point in your posting regarding BOS-LHR services, the reason BA is increasing its services between the two cities is probably because American Airlines is pulling off the route as of next year entirely.

[Surreyman]

BA Slots

Hate to be cynical but ref Slots/Routes post BMI,
Can't help thinking that some of these are short term 'Slot Parkers', while BA wait for deliveries of new 787/380.

[BALHR]

This not such a good idea:

1. routes like EZE may need connecting traffic. It's recently gone from 4 to 7/week and from one stop to nonstop. This suggests that it is doing OK as it is;
2. LAS on BA is ex-LHR and ex-LGW and competes with VS ex-LGW and doing well;
3. routes like LIM would almost certainly need transfer traffic to be viable and would therefore need to be at LHR;
4. as above, but the competition (VN) will more than likely be at LHR-4 with the rest of Skyteam in the near future.

It is likely that BA and VS will stick to their tried and tested policy of having a hub at LHR for the majority of routes with the overflow at LGW being mainly point to point leisure routes.

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Would you really make a better job of being Transport Secretary? Would your "strong political views" not get in the way? Sounds a bit arrogant and pompous. Would you not face the same pressures and obstacles?

By your enthusiastic advocacy of Silver Island (you called it THA) on another thread, you have already made it crystal clear that you would not face down the anti-Heathrow expansion lobby!


Are you going to enlighten the rest of us on your ideas for the railways?

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

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…


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

Why do you write so much tosh that is not based on any form of reality? I'm sure it's well intentioned, but there's so much of it!

The reason why I write so much is because I have strong views, I have a lot to say and I don’t have much time during the week, so when I get a chance, I make the most of it...

BA are launching Heathrow-Chengdu thrice weekly effective 22nd Sept 2013 with a 777-200.

Don't you mean a Boeing 777-200ER?

Would the route be better served by a Boeing 767 (or there is a shortage of them, a leased A330)?

Also are we any close to seeing BA launch services to Guangzhou (and maybe Wuhan) as well?

[BALHR]

Here is a question for those in the know. I want to make it clear that I am for a third runway at LHR but I couldn't help noticing what to me at least appears to be some discrepancies with BA's operations.

It is quite apparent that due to LHR's runways being maxed out that London is losing out to its counterparts (Paris, Amsterdam etc) on serving the emerging markets like China, South America etc.

Therefore my question is why do they not make room for these flights within their existing operation?

Well its not a simple as that, the routes BA operate are profitable or contribute to profitable routes, they have cut on routes outside those catagories for some time, I cannot what else cannot go

What BA should be doing is buying more slots at both LHR, LCY and LGW, at least until R3 and R4 opens at LHR

Since the BMI merger most of their old routes have been maintained even ones that are already served by BA like Moscow (yes I know they have to keep certain routes etc). Countless routes to the middle east surely at the expense of these so called emerging economies that neighbouring Europe is tapping.

When BMED (which operated BA's services to the Middle East, Central Asia and the Caucus) was sold to BMI, BA retained codeshare on those routes and when they bought BMI, the pretty much retained those routers after intergrating BMI, all this means that BA finds those routes profitable and thus worth keeping

Is Leeds one of the routes that they have to serve? I noticed that BA announced this route recently and if not mandatory why serve it? Surely most people just get the bloody train. I was always under the impression Mr Walsh only concentrated on LHR and abandoned the regions with the Bacon sale. Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen sure, but Leeds?! Also BA increasing Boston to 4 daily makes no sense. Especially as the only other competitor on that route is AA who they co-operate with.

The answer is simple, connections to Medium/Long-Haul, they help fill up the those route (a fair number of those flights are not viable on London + SE O&D alone), BA wants R3 to relaunch flights from LHR to the reigions for the same reasons (beforehand and even now they are forced to choose), these routes are different to the P2P regional routes that where sold to Flybe

Such routes as Nice and Marseille, are they needed? Surely these are just leasure routes and anyone connecting will just go through Cdg? You have low cost carriers like Germanwings and Vueling, why? Surely if your flying from Bilbao, A Coruna IAG would rather you go through their Madrid hub?

Most people prefer direct flights, if BA an operate LHR-Nice/Marseille, then why not, its not up to BA if Germanwings and Vueling (remember, compared to some European hubs, there are not too many LCCs at LHR) choose to serve LHR (the latter is replacing IB on those routes)

[Omnipresent]

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.

[WHBM]

Is Leeds one of the routes that they have to serve? I noticed that BA announced this route recently and if not mandatory why serve it? Surely most people just get the bloody train.

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.

[EuroWings]

Such routes as Nice and Marseille, are they needed? Surely these are just leasure routes and anyone connecting will just go through Cdg? You have low cost carriers like Germanwings and Vueling, why? Surely if your flying from Bilbao, A Coruna IAG would rather you go through their Madrid hub?

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).

[aeulad]

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

[BasilBush]

Nice isn't just a leisure route. There are a lot of trade fairs in the area, and a good smattering of high tech firms. Also the leisure traffic is definitely of a premium nature, with lots of Club passengers - my record is 15 rows on a 767, that's 90 Club seats, all of them occupied.

And don't forget the connecting market - I remember a BA manager telling me years ago that Nice had the biggest feed onto Concorde of any European route. I often see pax on NCE-LHR flights clutching onward boarding passes in First to the US, Asia etc.

[aeulad]

Why fly to Nice?

Why fly to Nice???

6 flights a day, excellent yield and in the top ten euro routes for Premier/Gold cars holders.

That's why!

You have to question a person's basic understanding of air travel

Kind regards

Mike

[Rivet Joint]

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.

[vectisman]

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.