British Airways
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts on having one type of crew is that this is what has been needed for a long time to bring better efficiencies and flexibility to the operation. Having one crew type won’t tick everyone’s boxes but it will align the business with other airlines across different markets.
Regarding the possible closure of LGW this could also be a wise move, leaving LGW to the LCCs and charter operators. As and when demand returns that necessitates more services from LGW and more competition, BA could always do w pattern operations from selective destinations around Europe.
Regarding the possible closure of LGW this could also be a wise move, leaving LGW to the LCCs and charter operators. As and when demand returns that necessitates more services from LGW and more competition, BA could always do w pattern operations from selective destinations around Europe.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be the end of BA at LGW but maybe not IAG, in a scenario where Covid damage and the economy isn’t too bad this could be a good excuse to reduce costs substantially by just transferring the slots across to Vueling/Level on lower costs. The overwhelming bulk of routes are good fits for those two anyway. Remember it’s probably more likely than not Norwegian will be gone (from the UK anyway), TCX have already gone and Virgin are shaky. There is already a gap in leisure-oriented long haul and soon this could be significant.
If Covid is truly devastating it’ll be irrelevant what happens at LGW because it’ll be all about last-gasp survival mode and utilising unwanted LHR slots and capacity for anything worthwhile currently at LGW.
If Covid is truly devastating it’ll be irrelevant what happens at LGW because it’ll be all about last-gasp survival mode and utilising unwanted LHR slots and capacity for anything worthwhile currently at LGW.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: london
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like LCY fleet and CF are going to hopefully remain untouched. I hope for the staff LGW is okay, but in the case of it going, perhaps we might see CF Embraers shuttling in and out of Gatwick on W patterns for the more profitable routes?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: inv
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have people seen this
https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...JNFG8lAroPI0Kc
Might not do much good but we can only try
https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...JNFG8lAroPI0Kc
Might not do much good but we can only try
Gatwick is not “ok” BBC suggest it’s not coming back.
Look with the market collapsed, if BA want to fly LON-xyz, they’ll serve it from LHR only, not LGW, not LCY.
None of these 2nd hand Embraers are even likely to enter service. Any LCY routes that overlap with LHR ought to close as IAG need to make their money and protect their position at LHR. Barclays today is thinking about giving up their Canary Wharf offices, the world is changing very fast here.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTOH if BA abandon LCY, who will take up the slack - maybe less demand, but demand from money-rich time-poor passengers usually on expenses. Will BA gift that to the likes of KLM, DLH, Air France. Luxair? I don't think so.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA
Am sure BA/IAG would want to keep a defensive foothold at LGW as an even more highly frequent easyJet would definitely potentially impact the commercial performance of LHR with a highly overlapping P2P catchment. I understood LGW to be overall profitable and if it wasn’t strategically of importance why buy ZB/MT slots ? Could be some negotiation positioning going on here ? I believe LGW is important to protect LHR for BA. But then maybe the world has changed. Then again in time LHR will be full again, poss very delayed R3 if they give up LGW en masses they may never get back in. Then where (with lack of R3) do you expand ? Unless of course they are precipitating no VS, open up London and consolidate and grow LHR - bit of crystal ball gazing LGW flleet takes up VS
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 74
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am sure BA/IAG would want to keep a defensive foothold at LGW as an even more highly frequent easyJet would definitely potentially impact the commercial performance of LHR with a highly overlapping P2P catchment. I understood LGW to be overall profitable and if it wasn’t strategically of importance why buy ZB/MT slots ? Could be some negotiation positioning going on here ? I believe LGW is important to protect LHR for BA. But then maybe the world has changed. Then again in time LHR will be full again, poss very delayed R3 if they give up LGW en masses they may never get back in. Then where (with lack of R3) do you expand ? Unless of course they are precipitating no VS, open up London and consolidate and grow LHR - bit of crystal ball gazing LGW flleet takes up VS
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: FL370
Age: 37
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In their letter to BALPA British Airways have said they are looking to amend the scope agreements. My immediate thought is that they are looking to replace mainline at Gatwick with Cityflyer and retreat all mainline flying to Heathrow.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1918 flu pandemic was rather more severe than Covid, yet the world carried on. Over 100 years later, medicine has advanced hugely. Ebola is a disease which mainly affects people living in the very poorest of countries - i.e. not places where the stockmarket worries about particularly - yet a vaccine was found. Big pharma and medical researchers at universities all over the world are throwing everything they've got a Covid; vaccines from reputable institutions are already being trialled. While I cannot predict what will or won't happen and the comments from BA about Gatwick are deeply concerning, please take a deep breath and try to get a sense of perspective of the likely long term effect of Covid on BA and LHR/LGW. Once a vaccine is found, we are likely to see a recovery in demand for flying
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 57
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe some kite flying of a few nuclear options going on, so when BA “cave in” and everyone breathes a sigh of relief they will be trying not to look too smug as they will actually have got what they’ve wanted for a long time.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 76
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1918 flu pandemic was rather more severe than Covid, yet the world carried on. Over 100 years later, medicine has advanced hugely. Ebola is a disease which mainly affects people living in the very poorest of countries - i.e. not places where the stockmarket worries about particularly - yet a vaccine was found. Big pharma and medical researchers at universities all over the world are throwing everything they've got a Covid; vaccines from reputable institutions are already being trialled. While I cannot predict what will or won't happen and the comments from BA about Gatwick are deeply concerning, please take a deep breath and try to get a sense of perspective of the likely long term effect of Covid on BA and LHR/LGW. Once a vaccine is found, we are likely to see a recovery in demand for flying
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 74
Posts: 1,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1918 flu pandemic was rather more severe than Covid, yet the world carried on. Over 100 years later, medicine has advanced hugely. Ebola is a disease which mainly affects people living in the very poorest of countries - i.e. not places where the stockmarket worries about particularly - yet a vaccine was found. Big pharma and medical researchers at universities all over the world are throwing everything they've got a Covid; vaccines from reputable institutions are already being trialled. While I cannot predict what will or won't happen and the comments from BA about Gatwick are deeply concerning, please take a deep breath and try to get a sense of perspective of the likely long term effect of Covid on BA and LHR/LGW. Once a vaccine is found, we are likely to see a recovery in demand for flying
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that to often the reference is to BA! The reality is IAG are calling the shots and what counts are their plans. LGW can be operated by Vueling, Level and Iberia Express, particularly as IAG will in the future have a large fleet of surplus aircrafts. Indeed BA CityFlyer may also have a role to play at LHR and LGW, though immediate future of social distancing on an EMB will be a challenge. With the sad likelihood of at least 1 in 5 job losses it will be years before people have the finances to fly as frequently as they used to.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite honestly, if airlines are relying on social distancing as a way to restart then the whole lot are screwed as there will be no money to be made. The ONLY way out of this for the airlines is an effective vaccine. Until that happens everything is on hold.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite apart from the issue of social distancing within airport terminals.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: LUTON
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be interesting if similar criteria is imposed on BA - should they receive a gov dot uk bale out - as been imposed on Air France w.r.t. short domestic flights:
https://www.railjournal.com/passenge...ail-in-france/
That would surely kill LHR to both MAN and LBA, and even NCL GLA and EDI if the French 1 h 15 min flight became a UK 1 h 30 m.
And UK+FR for example and/or other lands acting together could kill off LHR CDG / BRU, and so on. in favour of channel tunnel - in terms of flight time, if 1 h 30 m were set.
--
Nick
https://www.railjournal.com/passenge...ail-in-france/
That would surely kill LHR to both MAN and LBA, and even NCL GLA and EDI if the French 1 h 15 min flight became a UK 1 h 30 m.
And UK+FR for example and/or other lands acting together could kill off LHR CDG / BRU, and so on. in favour of channel tunnel - in terms of flight time, if 1 h 30 m were set.
--
Nick
Last edited by D7666; 2nd May 2020 at 12:05.
