British Airways-2

[vectisman]

Originally Posted by Vokes55

It wouldn’t be beneficial for anybody, because then they’d lose many of the hundreds of new recruits joining this Autumn who signed up to do long haul only out of LGW, many of whom were ex Norwegian long haul and applied for the trips to Antigua, Costa Rica and Orlando, not night Alicante or early Dalaman.

If they’re struggling to retain crew, they need to pay them more, not change the working agreement of another fleet.

I am not disputing what you say at all. I was just saying that previously the mixed fleet idea worked at Gatwick for years. That is why I said it would be difficult with the new set up.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The mixed flying didn't work well according to management who recently claimed it made short haul loss making and only a new even cheaper and poorer contract was essential to drag the loss making operation into profitability......bottom line is BA have decades of losses at short haul LGW and every time all they do is cut and cut and cut.

Financial reporting is an art form but highly political, you can choose to make some parts look bad by adding ridiculous overheads to them, something Waterworld has form for doing when it suits their cost cutting agenda. Who remembers the new fleet renewal that ended up being used end of lease Wizz Air A320s? Maybe the B737-MAX will change all of that.... 🤣

[Vokes55]

Originally Posted by vectisman

I am not disputing what you say at all. I was just saying that previously the mixed fleet idea worked at Gatwick for years. That is why I said it would be difficult with the new set up.

On paper it should be easier. The majority of crew are suited to either long haul or short haul based on their personal circumstances and would choose a fleet accordingly. If BA choose to pay their short haul cabin crew less than the competition in a post-Covid world of staff shortages across the industry, it's no wonder they're struggling to recruit and retain. BA think they can entice anyone with their brand name and staff travel, but the easyJet staff travel system is streets ahead for short haul travel, and the brand name's trashing was complete when they decided to throw the majority of their staff under the bus in one way or another during Covid.

Unfortunately, there's ample supply of Vueling, Iberia Express and Finnair aircraft and crew to plug the gap for the foreseeable future. No doubt they'll jump on the Smartlynx bandwagon if that supply ever runs dry. Anything but paying their own staff a fair wage.

[vectisman]

The mixed flying worked in terms of crew retention. The problem was the seasonality of the Gatwick short haul operation. Correct staffing during the summer season but more than required
during the winter season.
I doubt short haul made losses for decades. There were some good years and some bad years. As we know BA changed the story according to what they wanted to do at Gatwick.
I personally do not think the 737 max is intended for BA Euroflyer. I think we shall see A321 and A320 arrive from Heathrow as more A321 or A320neos are delivered to Heathrow. Always fine about being wrong.
From my contacts the AOC for Euroflyer should be fully in place later this year.
From November the airline will only be using its own metal from then on. To be honest setting up the 'new' base within 6 months was always going to be a tall order.
From the cabin crew of view I agree something needs to be done. The overall package needs to be more attractive.

[nguba]

Some good news as Unite has agreed a new pay deal for staff across a number of workgroups:

https://www.theguardian.com/business...o-get-pay-rise

[Trinity 09L]

Another set of cancellations ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62637616

[ib26uk]

I had 2 of 3 flights cancelled by BA...

In other news, IS BA flying the A380 from London Heathrow to Vancouver in 2023 ? I`m planning a trip and would love to fly on the A380 again ( previously flew to YVR in 2018 on the A380 )

I`m thinking mid to late September - returning 2nd week of October 2023 to coincide with a cruise

Thanks

[Sotonsean]

Originally Posted by ib26uk

I had 2 of 3 flights cancelled by BA...

In other news, IS BA flying the A380 from London Heathrow to Vancouver in 2023 ? I`m planning a trip and would love to fly on the A380 again ( previously flew to YVR in 2018 on the A380 )

I`m thinking mid to late September - returning 2nd week of October 2023 to coincide with a cruise

Thanks

When searching for flights on BA.com you can clearly see what aircraft is being used on any given flight. Just search for the date's that you are planning on flying and the flight information including the aircraft type is available to view.

But in saying that British Airways have been using the A380 from London Heathrow to Vancouver on flight BA84/85 since the 01 June 2022. British Airways are using the A380 from London Heathrow to Vancouver on a seasoned basis with the last flight departing London on the 25 September 2022. Thereafter the BA84/85 will be operated by Boeing 777.

Although your planned flights are not until 02 October 2023 I should imagine that the same schedule for the seasonal A380 flights to Vancouver will remain more or less the same as 2022.

​​​​​​But your best advice is to search under the flight information on BA.com.

​​​​​
​​​​

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The CURRENT plan is to drop capacity on LHR-YVR down to a B777 and offer an additional service from LGW on a B777-200ER, so as of today, no A380 planned to YVR for next summer.

[Buster the Bear]

BA taking over the Aer Lingus operated Belfast City to Heathrow route. https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2022-10...athrow-service

[queenvic]

New route

Just read on another forum apparently will launch another route to the US in the next few weeks.

what about routes that were serve before the pandemic

like Kuala lumpar, Seoul, Osaka, Bangkok, Colombo, Seychelles, Durban, Lusaka,
Abu Dhabi, Oman, Bogotá now visa free travel for Colombian has been announced.

Or try new Jakarta, Manila, Cuba

Just think there’s so much potential for expansion…why always just America 🇺🇸

[stewyb]

Originally Posted by queenvic

Just read on another forum apparently will launch another route to the US in the next few weeks.

what about routes that were serve before the pandemic

like Kuala lumpar, Seoul, Osaka, Bangkok, Colombo, Seychelles, Durban, Lusaka,
Abu Dhabi, Oman, Bogotá now visa free travel for Colombian has been announced.

Or try new Jakarta, Manila, Cuba

Just think there’s so much potential for expansion…why always just America 🇺🇸

Simples, that’s where the money is!

[BA318]

Originally Posted by queenvic

Just read on another forum apparently will launch another route to the US in the next few weeks.

what about routes that were serve before the pandemic

like Kuala lumpar, Seoul, Osaka, Bangkok, Colombo, Seychelles, Durban, Lusaka,
Abu Dhabi, Oman, Bogotá now visa free travel for Colombian has been announced.

Or try new Jakarta, Manila, Cuba

Just think there’s so much potential for expansion…why always just America 🇺🇸

because America is where they make money. Going East they are up against lots of different carriers and they already have a partnership with Qatar so why waste money on low yielding routes to Manila or Jakarta when you can send them with Qatar.

As you mentioned they tried several of the routes before the pandemic so they obviously have some indication of numbers. Kuala Lumpur and Colombo are served by other Oneworld partners so no point splitting the limited demand and wasting slots and resources. Oman Air will also join Oneworld so that will be covered too.

As for Cuba, demand there is falling. VS announced it was relaunching flights and dropped them before starting. The US now makes anyone who has been to Cuba in the past 5 years ineligible for an ESTA which has apparently affected demand a lot.

[CabinCrewe]

Will be one of the old faithfuls often dredged up.. Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Raleigh etc probably something with a strong AA / OW presence. I suspect some underwhelment.
But, better a new route (in US) than a cut service. And no, I do not expect it to be Honolulu (even from LGW).

[Hartington]

I used to see the BA internal newspaper. On several occasions there were letters from staff along the lines of

"why don't we fly to XXX? Their national carrier always seems to fly full".

To which the answer was along the lines of "we've analysed that route and we don't believe we can make money from it".

Essentially, BA don't start new routes without an expectation of profit. Amongst other things that means a good "premium" load. It's been interesting to see how they've used 787s to start new routes. For instance Austin went from a 787 to a 777 to a 747 and now A350. Actually, I say "premium" load. They also take into account freight. I don't know if it's still true but at one time it was said that the Houston route didn't need to carry any economy (World Travller) passengers. They made enogh money from the front and belly of the aircraft to make a profit.

[tubby linton]

It has always been so. Back in the late 1980s on the Tokyo route if F was full then the rest of the aircraft was profit.

[Sotonsean]

I had read a statement on the business travel website a few months ago. It was made by officials from the City of Indianapolis who stated that there were strong intentions that British Airways were looking at serving the City in 2023.

St Louis would be a good addition to British Airways North American portfolio of routes.

St Louis was previously served from London Gatwick by American Airlines and before that Trans World Airlines. (And long before that British Caledonian Airways).

​​​​​​

[Albert Hall]

And St Louis recently secured Lufthansa, which probably means that any funding support in the city's coffers have already been committed.

Indianapolis is the one that keeps rearing its head.

[CabinCrewe]

and an announcement from RDU pending this week…

[SealinkBF]

Kansas City is being mentioned. I'll say that's what the new destination will be.