What's BA's problem?
Paxing All Over The World
Sorry if this is labouring a point but I see it appear in forum after forum, hardly a week goes by without someone saying.
"I think BA as the national flag-carrier ..."
They are a publicly owned company, listed on the stock exchange. They are not owned by the UK government, so they are not the national flag carrier. Whether they have little flags painted on the side of the aircraft is inconsequential and only a matter of P.R. and dewey eyed folk on airline boards.
BA are the largest UK airline but nothing more or less than that.
OK, as you were.
"I think BA as the national flag-carrier ..."
They are a publicly owned company, listed on the stock exchange. They are not owned by the UK government, so they are not the national flag carrier. Whether they have little flags painted on the side of the aircraft is inconsequential and only a matter of P.R. and dewey eyed folk on airline boards.
BA are the largest UK airline but nothing more or less than that.
OK, as you were.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starone - we're drifting away from the original topic here, but considering ex-Air Lib slot allocation at ORY, even easyjet said that COHOR did a good job; didn't the guys from LTN get 7,300 slots (enough for 10 rtn. flts./day)?
The DOM-TOM routes were not LARGELY unprofitable, the problem was mismanagement on the part of Air Liberte and AOM. Indeed:
- Air Austral is now flying from RUN to CDG with two 777-200
- Air Bourbon has just been launched with an A340-200
- Air Tahiti Nui has extended its LAX route to CDG
- Air Calin has just replaced its A310-300 with an A330-200
I don't think this level of competition would be seen on largely unprofitable routes...
The DOM-TOM routes were not LARGELY unprofitable, the problem was mismanagement on the part of Air Liberte and AOM. Indeed:
- Air Austral is now flying from RUN to CDG with two 777-200
- Air Bourbon has just been launched with an A340-200
- Air Tahiti Nui has extended its LAX route to CDG
- Air Calin has just replaced its A310-300 with an A330-200
I don't think this level of competition would be seen on largely unprofitable routes...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: EU
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fouga- I'm not straying from the point at all, i was using these examples in regard to the apparent ba problem..which is rapidly turning into a problem for people with no business acumen.
You say competition on the routes exampled.. they are not competing with each other. I don't believe that Air Tahiti get any subsidy form the french govornment for that route btw.
Please also look at paxboy's comments. Ba is a business after all
RE: easyjet- i was under the impression (misled, maybe) that ezy were considering legal action as a result of the allocation,I don't call that happy!
Please explain why ba should operate at a loss edi-fra or edi-dub or gla-jfk or bhx-prg? Others may operate them but for BA it is too expensive.
I'll repeat again....why do you owe ba anything and why do they owe you anything?
They are not a charity.
btw- i don't work for nor consider myself an apologist for ba.....the clue is in my name.
I find myself chuckling ironically at the stance i've taken.
You say competition on the routes exampled.. they are not competing with each other. I don't believe that Air Tahiti get any subsidy form the french govornment for that route btw.
Please also look at paxboy's comments. Ba is a business after all
RE: easyjet- i was under the impression (misled, maybe) that ezy were considering legal action as a result of the allocation,I don't call that happy!
Please explain why ba should operate at a loss edi-fra or edi-dub or gla-jfk or bhx-prg? Others may operate them but for BA it is too expensive.
I'll repeat again....why do you owe ba anything and why do they owe you anything?
They are not a charity.
btw- i don't work for nor consider myself an apologist for ba.....the clue is in my name.
I find myself chuckling ironically at the stance i've taken.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starone - I think you've nailed the problem on the head; BA's cost structure is such that they cannot profitably fly most long-haul routes from "regional" airports. Of course they're a business meant to make money, but I find it hard to believe that there isn't enough business to fly some long-haul routes from either BHX, EDI, or more from MAN, considering the catchment area of these airports. Apart from the already-mentioned fixed costs problem, BA seems to consider that if a route doesn't justify a daily rotation, then it's not worth doing...
Most of us will agree that the problem with BA is that nobody can make any sense of their current (or previous) corporate strategy.
Cheers
P.S.: Air Tahiti Nui's capital actually includes the local French Polynesian government, so I'd be surprised if they didn't get some financial incentive to fly to CDG (but they seem to be getting very good loads on the route anyway).
EZY-wise, my source was their website!
Most of us will agree that the problem with BA is that nobody can make any sense of their current (or previous) corporate strategy.
Cheers
P.S.: Air Tahiti Nui's capital actually includes the local French Polynesian government, so I'd be surprised if they didn't get some financial incentive to fly to CDG (but they seem to be getting very good loads on the route anyway).
EZY-wise, my source was their website!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: England
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA at Heathrow
I have just returned from Munich and noted how many direct flights Lufthansa operate from there to foreign cities(long haul as well as short haul..eg JFK/SFO/NRT/HKG) and this got me thinking what is BA's policy at Manchester..a feeder for Heathrow? Surely there must be demand for more long-haul flights from there...Heathrow seems to be strangled by a lack of slots and ramp space at peak times. I suspect that a large number of shuttle passengers from Manchester are simply using Heathrow to connect to another flight. Why not offer more direct flights from Man?..this could reduce the number of slots required at LHR and cut the number of a/c circling in the stack at peak times.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Routes
I am pleased that someone has mentioned the fact that many of the UK - Europe feeder routes provide onward travel to many other destinations including Long haul.
It poses the question in providing these services how much might you be losing on transfer travel from these many European airports. Many of us are aware that Mainland Europe travel to Asia near & far, Australasia and the Americas is considerable cheaper, that is fact.
Easy has just posted a loss today and Ryan cannot give its seats away so there may be a lot more sound business decisions made at Waterworld than people give them credit for.
Besides this is the age of technology and all these regional stations can be managed from one place, they do not have to be staffed by BA or covered by BA engineering.
It poses the question in providing these services how much might you be losing on transfer travel from these many European airports. Many of us are aware that Mainland Europe travel to Asia near & far, Australasia and the Americas is considerable cheaper, that is fact.
Easy has just posted a loss today and Ryan cannot give its seats away so there may be a lot more sound business decisions made at Waterworld than people give them credit for.
Besides this is the age of technology and all these regional stations can be managed from one place, they do not have to be staffed by BA or covered by BA engineering.
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overseas arlines seem quite happy to operate long-haul flights from Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, etc.
BA have tried long-haul flights from regional airports in the past, and only the daily MAN-JFK service remains.
What do the overseas carriers know or do that BA do not?
BA have tried long-haul flights from regional airports in the past, and only the daily MAN-JFK service remains.
What do the overseas carriers know or do that BA do not?
BA's main problem is the reluctance of "mismanagement" to slash costs - that's the difference betweeen the overseas operators and BA. All down to costs as many posters on this thread point out.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay cuts never
Now you are being silly if you thing we are going to take a cut in allowances to operate e.g. from BHX.
To do a JFK from BHX you have to have the a/c there you have to have a back-up somewhere else. BA tried this some years ago with a 757 which was full but did not make a great deal of profit on top of this there were. hotel accomodation the night before the flt as we could not afford the cost of employing crew locally for this service, resident engineering costs, equipment and training of ground staff, storage of spares and equipment to cover world traveller and club. So the costs ran on.
On top of that the 757 from the passenger perspective was only a limited sucess as it only provided two bogs for about 120 plus econ travellers. Single isle long haul is not a choice. Many readers will remember the JFK's on 707/VC10.
Those overseas carriers that you quote are I believe to be chapter 11 or in serious debts even with UK airport charges as minimal to encourage them.
Services are limited and are often under threat. So for once BA is displaying creditable management that is not swept along by local emotions.
To do a JFK from BHX you have to have the a/c there you have to have a back-up somewhere else. BA tried this some years ago with a 757 which was full but did not make a great deal of profit on top of this there were. hotel accomodation the night before the flt as we could not afford the cost of employing crew locally for this service, resident engineering costs, equipment and training of ground staff, storage of spares and equipment to cover world traveller and club. So the costs ran on.
On top of that the 757 from the passenger perspective was only a limited sucess as it only provided two bogs for about 120 plus econ travellers. Single isle long haul is not a choice. Many readers will remember the JFK's on 707/VC10.
Those overseas carriers that you quote are I believe to be chapter 11 or in serious debts even with UK airport charges as minimal to encourage them.
Services are limited and are often under threat. So for once BA is displaying creditable management that is not swept along by local emotions.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What overseas carriers do which BA cannot do is transfer passengers from regional airports on to other destinations through their hub. I'd be interested to see just what proportion of Emirates passengers from BHX actually end their journeys in Dubai and how many transfer onwards. Ditto for Continental from BHX and Singapore Airlines from MAN, etc etc.
HZ123 - the BHX- JFK route made a very healthy profit when it was on a 767 because of some lucrative cargo contracts. The freight more than paid for the flight, any passengers on board were a bonus. It was only when the 767 was swapped for a 757 and we couldn't carry cargo that the route went down the tubes. Also, the flights were crewed locally, with BHX cabin crew and pilots from the dedicated group of regional 757/767 pilots based at MAN.
HZ123 - the BHX- JFK route made a very healthy profit when it was on a 767 because of some lucrative cargo contracts. The freight more than paid for the flight, any passengers on board were a bonus. It was only when the 767 was swapped for a 757 and we couldn't carry cargo that the route went down the tubes. Also, the flights were crewed locally, with BHX cabin crew and pilots from the dedicated group of regional 757/767 pilots based at MAN.
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HZ123:
Chapter 11 provision covers US airlines only, although similar provisions exist in Canada.
Almost every US transatlantic carrier is in the brown and pungent for a number of reasons that are well covered elsewhere,so let's leave them to one side (even though they have continued to operate their existing MAN schedules and the Asian carriers continue to suffer the impact of SARS, unlike the US carriers).
This still leaves Pakistan International, Singapore Airlines, Malaysian Airlines, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Air Jamaica and BWIA (if only in name) all willing and able to do what BA are apparently unwilling and/or unable to do - ie, operate long-haul flights from UK regional airports.
There has to be a reason for this, whatever the reason actually is.
Those overseas carriers that you quote are I believe to be chapter 11 or in serious debts even with UK airport charges as minimal to encourage them.
Almost every US transatlantic carrier is in the brown and pungent for a number of reasons that are well covered elsewhere,so let's leave them to one side (even though they have continued to operate their existing MAN schedules and the Asian carriers continue to suffer the impact of SARS, unlike the US carriers).
This still leaves Pakistan International, Singapore Airlines, Malaysian Airlines, Emirates, Qatar Airways, Air Jamaica and BWIA (if only in name) all willing and able to do what BA are apparently unwilling and/or unable to do - ie, operate long-haul flights from UK regional airports.
There has to be a reason for this, whatever the reason actually is.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the point is equally valid.
Emirates - primarily used as a gateway to the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and South East Asia.
Qatar - ditto
Singapore - primarily used as a gateway to South East Asia and Australasia
Malaysian - ditto
So these carriers, along with their US counterparts, are essentially doing what KLM does with its services between MAN and AMS - people just think its more glamarous because the aircraft are bigger and the first leg of the journey is longer. The hub-spoke principle is exactly the same however.
BA (and Virgin) are interested in point to point traffic between destinations where there is a reasonable proportion of high yielding club / first class passengers. Hence they operate to/from LHR which remember is exactly where Sir Michael has lobbyed to be since political circumstances forced his hand to start his long-haul business out of MAN. One would assume that were the MAN market as equally profitable as the LHR market, then bmi would be keeping quiet and banking the cash. They aren't, which tells you perhaps more than anything why BA and Virgin won't be interested.
Its not a conspiracy, its just business I'm afraid.
682
Emirates - primarily used as a gateway to the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and South East Asia.
Qatar - ditto
Singapore - primarily used as a gateway to South East Asia and Australasia
Malaysian - ditto
So these carriers, along with their US counterparts, are essentially doing what KLM does with its services between MAN and AMS - people just think its more glamarous because the aircraft are bigger and the first leg of the journey is longer. The hub-spoke principle is exactly the same however.
BA (and Virgin) are interested in point to point traffic between destinations where there is a reasonable proportion of high yielding club / first class passengers. Hence they operate to/from LHR which remember is exactly where Sir Michael has lobbyed to be since political circumstances forced his hand to start his long-haul business out of MAN. One would assume that were the MAN market as equally profitable as the LHR market, then bmi would be keeping quiet and banking the cash. They aren't, which tells you perhaps more than anything why BA and Virgin won't be interested.
Its not a conspiracy, its just business I'm afraid.
682
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hence they operate to/from LHR which remember is exactly where Sir Michael has lobbyed to be since political circumstances forced his hand to start his long-haul business out of MAN.
In time, BA will decide to enhance long-haul services (though it may be 777s in use by then on the MAN-JFK run?), but it will mean that for the next few years, we'll find ERJ145s used to inaugurate services and increase frequencies, with RJ100s then taking up the reigns when a consistent level of patronage occurs. The immediate concern of the airport should be to try to get more passengers to transit through MAN instead of AMS/CDG/LHR.
Oh, please explain why Virgin operate MAN-MCO if they are
interested in point to point traffic between destinations where there is a reasonable proportion of high yielding club / first class passengers
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why did bmi start here?
Largely I believe because it strengthened their case for open skies ex-LHR if they could demonstrate they were actively operating transatlantic services. What political clout does a campaign for more liberated LHR-US services carry if it comes from a short-haul only airline?
you appear to be suffering the delusions that airlines will tap into "instant profits" with long-haul
Don't think so. What I implied was that LHR was an inherently more profitable base for long-haul ops than MAN and that the actions of bmi since the start of their long-haul services ex-MAN were entirely consistent with this assumption. A release from the press office saying that bookings for MAN-IAD were strong and that MAN-ORD had dipped doesn't tell us anything that contradicts this assumption, it just tells about the number of seats that have been sold - no more, no less.
Sorry, didn't understand your point with Virgin;s MCO route. As I understand it, the route is operated by a TF reg, 747 classic, with seats sold directly and through Virgin Holiday's tour operator. This is not their core business, which is, flying higher yield routes out of London I think you'll find.
Don't get so defensive. MAN's a great airport with a great network of routes serving its local catchment area, but all the evidence suggests that its market does not appear to suit the sorts of services that BA & Vrigin serve out of London (and that bmi would like to serve out of London).
682
Largely I believe because it strengthened their case for open skies ex-LHR if they could demonstrate they were actively operating transatlantic services. What political clout does a campaign for more liberated LHR-US services carry if it comes from a short-haul only airline?
you appear to be suffering the delusions that airlines will tap into "instant profits" with long-haul
Don't think so. What I implied was that LHR was an inherently more profitable base for long-haul ops than MAN and that the actions of bmi since the start of their long-haul services ex-MAN were entirely consistent with this assumption. A release from the press office saying that bookings for MAN-IAD were strong and that MAN-ORD had dipped doesn't tell us anything that contradicts this assumption, it just tells about the number of seats that have been sold - no more, no less.
Sorry, didn't understand your point with Virgin;s MCO route. As I understand it, the route is operated by a TF reg, 747 classic, with seats sold directly and through Virgin Holiday's tour operator. This is not their core business, which is, flying higher yield routes out of London I think you'll find.
Don't get so defensive. MAN's a great airport with a great network of routes serving its local catchment area, but all the evidence suggests that its market does not appear to suit the sorts of services that BA & Vrigin serve out of London (and that bmi would like to serve out of London).
682
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the comments, I stand corrected with regard to non-USA / Canada Ch11. However, many of the other carriers mentioned are not exactly flushed with funds or enovation.
Without going into detail several of them have state support and would operate at a loss. Others are responding to the large numbers of immigrants within the relevant connibation.
I am in no way trying to put the likes of MAN / BHX down but I still see BA's decision as sound not to expand from the regions. As previouely stated BA will have to reduce its pay / allowances / ground costs before it can seriously expand the regional routes.
This is reflected in the present choice of a/c which cannot hope to compete with Airbus / B737 competition to and from Europe so long term you might question BAs' commitment to these stations.
Without going into detail several of them have state support and would operate at a loss. Others are responding to the large numbers of immigrants within the relevant connibation.
I am in no way trying to put the likes of MAN / BHX down but I still see BA's decision as sound not to expand from the regions. As previouely stated BA will have to reduce its pay / allowances / ground costs before it can seriously expand the regional routes.
This is reflected in the present choice of a/c which cannot hope to compete with Airbus / B737 competition to and from Europe so long term you might question BAs' commitment to these stations.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: EU
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remember this thread?
Hz-do you still think that ba's decision not to expand from regions is unsound?
Lets just recap ( i'd hate to prove a point!!)
Ba in black------------eazysleazy in the......red!!
regions lose money--dump the regions
regions make money-fly the regions.( business competancy..no)
perhaps above ethic should also be spread to sars areas and we might have had a slightly better q4.
nuff said really.
Hz-do you still think that ba's decision not to expand from regions is unsound?
Lets just recap ( i'd hate to prove a point!!)
Ba in black------------eazysleazy in the......red!!
regions lose money--dump the regions
regions make money-fly the regions.( business competancy..no)
perhaps above ethic should also be spread to sars areas and we might have had a slightly better q4.
nuff said really.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think BAs management logic is quite as transparent as that starone. Using the 12 months from Sept 11th 2001 as an example:
Only fleet to make money in BA?
BA Regional
BA management response?
Close down BA Regional
Obviously we don't have the big picture though!
Only fleet to make money in BA?
BA Regional
BA management response?
Close down BA Regional
Obviously we don't have the big picture though!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regionals
I do see BA's influence deminishing even further as the the profit margins are just not there for a larger airline/s. To some extent the crews must foot some of the blame as once they have come under the BA banner they naturally want to enjoy all the perks that go with BA. This immediatly increases operating costs, one example of this is BACX?Brymon who used to do cabin dividers and seat conversions, at some stations I was told they even effectively cleaned the a/c or at least assisted, CC did the cabin security check.
These latter functions were not done by BA and therefore are not done by BACX now. Costs have increased and revenues deminish and these are the results. I would concede that some of this is down to ineffective management and staff being their own worst enemies.
These latter functions were not done by BA and therefore are not done by BACX now. Costs have increased and revenues deminish and these are the results. I would concede that some of this is down to ineffective management and staff being their own worst enemies.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HZ123 - you really seem to have a chip on your shoulder about crew costs, you've posted a number of times that 'expensive crew' are the downfall of the BAs regional operations. Do you actually have any first hand experience of BAs regional operations?
Can you give me any real examples of crew coming under the BA banner and so increasing costs? I don't recall the Brymon or BRAL crews getting a whopping pay rise when they were bought out by BA, or suddenly downing tools and refusing to do cabin dividers or seat conversions (by the way, which of these regional aircraft actually had converting seats?). In fact quite the reverse has happened. With the hand over of BAs regional operation crew costs have gone down, with flight crew wages dropping even further below most low costs operators and BAR cabin crew working with fewer crew per aircraft and converting the seats and cabin divider themselves.
If you had any knowledge of regional ops you'd find that crew costs are a tiny part of the equation, almost insignificant in comparison tp the £10000 per month taxi bills for ferrying aircraft parts, or the £32000 per week being paid to wet-lease operators to cover the schedule when mis-management mess things up again.
Can you give me any real examples of crew coming under the BA banner and so increasing costs? I don't recall the Brymon or BRAL crews getting a whopping pay rise when they were bought out by BA, or suddenly downing tools and refusing to do cabin dividers or seat conversions (by the way, which of these regional aircraft actually had converting seats?). In fact quite the reverse has happened. With the hand over of BAs regional operation crew costs have gone down, with flight crew wages dropping even further below most low costs operators and BAR cabin crew working with fewer crew per aircraft and converting the seats and cabin divider themselves.
If you had any knowledge of regional ops you'd find that crew costs are a tiny part of the equation, almost insignificant in comparison tp the £10000 per month taxi bills for ferrying aircraft parts, or the £32000 per week being paid to wet-lease operators to cover the schedule when mis-management mess things up again.