Future of UK aviation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing could fit more perfectly for BA. They have been setting the standard in the aviation industry for years and have built up on of the most lucrative networks on the planet from the platinum of all airports. ................ and the salary reductions but what will be next? Cuts in service? Surely not. As long as BA keep their roots - their awarding winning service and world class cabins, they will survive and will thrive when we see a turn in the fortunes of the world economies.
"As long as BA keep their roots" - It's way too late to remind BA of this, they stopped serving Britain ten+ years ago
"awarding winning service and world class cabins" I can only comment that their service improves the further away you get from Britain & UK based staff, and the majority of their cabins are only average
Reads more like a puff-piece for BA / LHR than anything relevant to the future of UK aviation. Mentions nothing about any other airline, the break-up of the virtual Ferrovial monopoly or the potential impact of further open skies and bi-lateral agreements or closer ties between airline alliances. no mention of costs or any great attention to passenger demands
Can I have a pint of whatever the guy who wrote it has been drinking?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a massive fan of BA then!
I agree with a number of your points. I don't think he means 'good' by platinum, as his does seem to know a tiny bit about aviation - and to know that much you would soon realise LHR is nowhere near the same league as SIN, HKG etc. Maybe he means by demand for the airport, I don't know - quite unclear.
I must say, on the BA service front, the cabin's may not be the same as EK, SQ etc. but their service is second to none, and I mean that. I have never been on a carrier where the staff have treated you so well.
Crew 5*
Cabins 4*
I agree with a number of your points. I don't think he means 'good' by platinum, as his does seem to know a tiny bit about aviation - and to know that much you would soon realise LHR is nowhere near the same league as SIN, HKG etc. Maybe he means by demand for the airport, I don't know - quite unclear.
I must say, on the BA service front, the cabin's may not be the same as EK, SQ etc. but their service is second to none, and I mean that. I have never been on a carrier where the staff have treated you so well.
Crew 5*
Cabins 4*
I must say, on the BA service front, the cabin's may not be the same as EK, SQ etc. but their service is second to none, and I mean that. I have never been on a carrier where the staff have treated you so well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done EK, SQ and CX.
EK were very rude and uninterested. SQ were superb and CX just below.
I think having spent say 2/3 weeks in one destination like I usually do, it is so comforting to be welcomed by an English attendant - just makes me feel I'm already home.
Just me.
EK were very rude and uninterested. SQ were superb and CX just below.
I think having spent say 2/3 weeks in one destination like I usually do, it is so comforting to be welcomed by an English attendant - just makes me feel I'm already home.
Just me.
EK were once a trailblazing airline when it came to setting service standards, but these days they're just a massive pack 'em in outfit. I've never flown QR or Etihad but I've heard good things about them.
My remarks were primarily based on far eastern carriers, who (mostly) knock BA into a cocked hat. Transatlantic is a far more difficult call.
As you say, it's down to what suits you, personally.
My remarks were primarily based on far eastern carriers, who (mostly) knock BA into a cocked hat. Transatlantic is a far more difficult call.
As you say, it's down to what suits you, personally.
Just to comment on some of the relative merits of some of the carriers / routes I've used recently.
Transatlantic:
Delta>Continental> >Icelandair>FlyGlobespan>BA>Air Transat
European Legacy Carriers
Lufthansa>BA=KLM
European Low Cost
Norwegian>EasyJet>Ryanair
Far East
Etihad>>Singapore=Emirates (ex-Dubai heading east)>>>Emirates (Ex UK-Dubai)
OK, let's get back on topic now. What is the real future for UK aviation?
Transatlantic:
Delta>Continental> >Icelandair>FlyGlobespan>BA>Air Transat
European Legacy Carriers
Lufthansa>BA=KLM
European Low Cost
Norwegian>EasyJet>Ryanair
Far East
Etihad>>Singapore=Emirates (ex-Dubai heading east)>>>Emirates (Ex UK-Dubai)
OK, let's get back on topic now. What is the real future for UK aviation?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Donkey497
OK, let's get back on topic now. What is the real future for UK aviation?
As for BA I don't agree with all the negative comments that have followed this airline since it evolved from the merged BOAC/BEA and 2 smaller airlines. - BA a is a worthy flagship for the UK.
BA has a Boeing fleet of 747-400's, the largest operator of this type in the world. So it is well placed when the current recession ends.
Main problem with BA for us Northerners - If we have to catch connecting flights to London. otherwise use alternative carriers. They could, and should change that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main problem is us Northerners!
BA won't have long haul services from MAN, GLA, BHX or any other airports than LHR or LGW.
The main problem is that we 'up North' are bargain hunters. We see that EK, KL, LH etc. are cheaper than BA and jump on board. We are not the most loyal of passengers unlike a large number of the French who will fly AF/KL only. When less people travel to LHR from the regions, less flights will fly!
If BA wasn't to pay such high charges to BAA at LHR and the high taxes imposed by the government (this is not a 'kill BAA/CAA to save BA campaign - it is fact) it would be able to compete a hell of a lot more on price.
Lower fares will see more passengers from the North who love a bargain and more passengers will mean more flights (3rd runway?) and therefore more of BA in the regions.
It is not fair to say 'London Airways' as they are a private company now and have to go where the business is. They are not a public company and so do not receive millions per year to lose on flying uneconomical flights. They have to answer to their shareholders and if I owned any BA shares I would want to know why my money was being spent on flights that were there simply to keep 10 people in Aberdeenshire happy!
I am not massive Pro-BA, crap anyone else but I do think they get their fair share of criticism and sometimes - it simple isn't their fault.
Rant over.
BA won't have long haul services from MAN, GLA, BHX or any other airports than LHR or LGW.
The main problem is that we 'up North' are bargain hunters. We see that EK, KL, LH etc. are cheaper than BA and jump on board. We are not the most loyal of passengers unlike a large number of the French who will fly AF/KL only. When less people travel to LHR from the regions, less flights will fly!
If BA wasn't to pay such high charges to BAA at LHR and the high taxes imposed by the government (this is not a 'kill BAA/CAA to save BA campaign - it is fact) it would be able to compete a hell of a lot more on price.
Lower fares will see more passengers from the North who love a bargain and more passengers will mean more flights (3rd runway?) and therefore more of BA in the regions.
It is not fair to say 'London Airways' as they are a private company now and have to go where the business is. They are not a public company and so do not receive millions per year to lose on flying uneconomical flights. They have to answer to their shareholders and if I owned any BA shares I would want to know why my money was being spent on flights that were there simply to keep 10 people in Aberdeenshire happy!
I am not massive Pro-BA, crap anyone else but I do think they get their fair share of criticism and sometimes - it simple isn't their fault.
Rant over.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North East
Age: 37
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Main problem with BA for us Northerners - If we have to catch connecting flights to London. otherwise use alternative carriers. They could, and should change that.
The fact is BA's long haul operation and product isn't conducive to operating out of the north of England/Scotland etc. They tried it and lost money. If it made money the routes would still be operational.
The rationalisation of their services to LHR has left them in a (relatively) stronger position to what they would have been if they had a long haul network out of every airstrip in the country.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How hard did BA try to make regional long-haul work though? Now they've made their bed at LHR, they're now suffering the consequences of focusing on premium capacity on their aircraft when many companies are putting a squeeze on their travel budgets and so becoming "Northern-like". It's also noticable that a lot of people who when responding gripes about the centralisation of BA services at LHR tend to make idiotic remarks such as "long haul network out of every airstrip in the country" when we know that it's predominantley MAN, BHX and GLA/EDI that would be the focus of them. All these airports had substantial BA networks that somehow BA failed to convert into offering a seamless travel product routing Europe-"regional UK"-JFK in much the same way that they are obsessed in routing "Europe/Regional UK"-LHR-USA. They have the ability to codeshare the transatlantic flights from Regional UK with AA but how hard did they bother to do that? How will it be ok for AA to operate JFK-MAN stating AA has feed at JFK when BA would have had ample opportunity to do tap into the same feed?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Co. Antrim UK
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the passenger figures for UK airports is not the most encouraging view. Of all the major airports in the UK, only Belfast City and Birmingham fields have passed more people through their doors in May this year as they did last.
BHD down 4.3% on last May (CAA figures)
unless through doors means actually entering the terminal building and not necessarily flying.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport...Statistics.pdf
Author got that wrong! I think he looked further a long at the annual numbers!
Author got that wrong! I think he looked further a long at the annual numbers!
To concentrate on one particular topic, does anyone think that there will be a development of "special interest" point to point flights. I am thinking in particular here that there is an apparent hole in services for the Oil Industry. I would have thought that direct Aberdeen to Houston, Aberdeen to Almaty, Aberdeen to Calgary & Aberdeen to Dubai would have been likely, but so far only the Aberdeen to Houston flights have come close to happening, but fell through due to insolvency prior to introduction. Everything else is routed through south-east england.
As oil companies are notoriously not soft hearted or overly generous in shelling out for travel for their personnel as well as being largely intolerant of unnecessary delays or time wasting, I am staggered that these companies haven'e pushed for these connections.
I am sure that there are other specialist industries dotted up and down the country with similar links to other nations which could not only benefit from their own point to point links but have enough volum eto support them year round. So why haven't these routes happened?
As oil companies are notoriously not soft hearted or overly generous in shelling out for travel for their personnel as well as being largely intolerant of unnecessary delays or time wasting, I am staggered that these companies haven'e pushed for these connections.
I am sure that there are other specialist industries dotted up and down the country with similar links to other nations which could not only benefit from their own point to point links but have enough volum eto support them year round. So why haven't these routes happened?
As oil companies are notoriously not soft hearted or overly generous in shelling out for travel for their personnel
Are there REALLY several hundred people per day who need to travel between Houston and Aberdeen? I think not. Equally, given your comment about oil companies not being overly generous, are there going to be enough premium passengers to make such a route viable?
It may be true that there may not be hundreds of people flying between between Aberdeen and Houston, but it would not surprise in the slightest if there were, judging from my own company's travel needs.
However, had I a mortgage, I'd bet it on there being enough passengers travelling between the two to run at least a weekly service between them.
My question was more directed at why such targeted, point to point services have not been developed as it must surely be more economic to transfer personnel in this manner, rather than have to route them through either Heathrow, Schipol or Frankfurt with the inherent extra time and costs that these diversions incur.
I know from my own travel, it's easier to do EDI/ATL/IAH than it is to do EDI/EWR/IAH, but these are far more direct routes than EDI/LHR/IAH, or EDI/LGW/IAH, as was. Routes via AMS or FRA have even less to recommend them as you fly for 60 - 90 minutes east to spend 60 - 90 miutes on the ground, before flying back west over your departure point. Carbon footprint comments anyone?
The only thing that recommends AMS FRA or LHR is that occasionally these are marginally cheaper routes. However, they all have the drawback that if there's bad weather, it's the feeder services that get delayed and cancelled so end up stranded while your long haul flight flies overhead at 35,000 feet........
Maybe of course if they finally get the 787 into service and replacing the 757 & 767s on narrow routes, direct costs will also fall.
However, had I a mortgage, I'd bet it on there being enough passengers travelling between the two to run at least a weekly service between them.
My question was more directed at why such targeted, point to point services have not been developed as it must surely be more economic to transfer personnel in this manner, rather than have to route them through either Heathrow, Schipol or Frankfurt with the inherent extra time and costs that these diversions incur.
I know from my own travel, it's easier to do EDI/ATL/IAH than it is to do EDI/EWR/IAH, but these are far more direct routes than EDI/LHR/IAH, or EDI/LGW/IAH, as was. Routes via AMS or FRA have even less to recommend them as you fly for 60 - 90 minutes east to spend 60 - 90 miutes on the ground, before flying back west over your departure point. Carbon footprint comments anyone?
The only thing that recommends AMS FRA or LHR is that occasionally these are marginally cheaper routes. However, they all have the drawback that if there's bad weather, it's the feeder services that get delayed and cancelled so end up stranded while your long haul flight flies overhead at 35,000 feet........
Maybe of course if they finally get the 787 into service and replacing the 757 & 767s on narrow routes, direct costs will also fall.
However, had I a mortgage, I'd bet it on there being enough passengers travelling between the two to run at least a weekly service between them.
as well as being largely intolerant of unnecessary delays or time wasting
The trouble with, say, Aberdeen and Houston - as you yourself have revealed - is that there are all sorts of ways to get between the two. I used to work in the hydrocarbon processing industry, and what I really valued was the ability to be flexible in my travel plans. I was never too bothered about the flight routing as long as I could travel on a day or time to suit myself, rather than being tied to a particular flight. And I doubt oilmen lose any sleep over their carbon footprints!
I hear what you're saying, but I think the sort of routes you envisage would be more viable where there wouldn't otherwise be a market. The Teesside-Aberdeen route, which I sometimes used, is a case in point. It wouldn't be viable if it weren't for the oil and gas industry, and companies who used it had little choice but to pay premium fares because it was the only realistic travel choice available.
Sitting around for a week waiting for a return flight is hardly good time management!
Looking at my colleagues travel and that of friends who work in other similar companies they all do the same and plan for a week's work each time. Likewise when we go to Singapore & other plants we all tend to book trips in multiples of whole weeks.
OK, that fits in with my experience and travel plans & I appreciate that I am not the whole world, but it still surprises me that the hub and spoke model for airline services is so prevalent and that there are so very few specialist point to point services.
And as far as a carbon footprint is concerned, as an engineer, the [thermodynamic] term "closed system" seems to apply to the planet we all live on. Hence all the carbon that's underground now must have been overground before, including the lot that I am made of, so all in all, I'm not convinced that anything we as the human race do has any particular effect either way on the the planet.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How hard did BA try to make regional long-haul work though?
The reason? The business traffic without which they couldn't turn a profit, kept going via Heathrow. Go figure.
All these airports had substantial BA networks that somehow BA failed to convert into offering a seamless travel product routing Europe