Not in any official or definitive sense, but I have seen this discussed elsewhere in an uncontroversial way. There are a few options from the big order that are being exercised to allow the B.Cal aircraft to retire gracefully.

globaliser

the orders yahoogroup mention a "UFO" order which fits the bill and is thought to be a Big order :D

thanks for the reply.

Doh!!!! I guess this means BA will be converting more of the 777's into those awful 3class version!!!! :\

head of Lufthansa Cargo (germany) sacked
 

believe it or not : for having deleted e-mails .

people in charge of the inquiries made very clear that every bit of info should be kept, stored, backed-up for their use
well here we go , but then again , IMHO if you left any traces of "illegal" activities , hmmmm you were to be caught someday

Very easy to believe in current business environment post-Enron and Andersen.

BA options to buy 20 x 777-300ER in 2008
 

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4308

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...078786,00.html

Cannot seem to post link - FT

BA unveils £450m cost-cutting plan
By Kevin Done in London
Published: March 9 2006 13:19 | Last updated: March 9 2006 13:19

British Airways is planning to cut costs by £450m during the next two years with hundreds of job cuts expected, as it rationalises operations at Heathrow airport, its global hub.

The cost reductions will support the drive to improve profitability, despite higher fuel prices. BA forecast that it would achieve a 10 per cent operating margin for the first time in its history in the year to March 2008 helped by rising revenues and further cost savings, provided there were no more external shocks such as further oil price increases or events such as terrorism or pandemic scares.

Willie Walsh, BA chief executive, also told a meeting of analysts and investors, that the airline was preparing for future capacity growth around the end of the decade and had secured with Boeing options on delivery slots for 10 777 long-haul aircraft in 2009 and 2010.

BA said that it expected its fuel costs to rise by £400m in the next financial year to the end of March 2007 to about £2bn, following an increase of £505m-£515m in the current year to March 2006 to £1.6bn.

The fuel bill, which now accounts for about 21 per cent of total costs will have more than doubled in three years.

It forecast that revenue would rise by 4-5 per cent in the next financial year supported by increased capacity and passenger loads following a rise of 8 per cent this year.

Given the smooth handover of power from Rod Eddington to Willie Walsh, a radical change in strategy at British Airways was hardly on the cards.

A large part of the planned cost savings is related to reducing employee costs, and includes some of the £300m already due to be eliminated over the three years to March 2007.

Key to the savings is a planned reform of the airline’s pension scheme, which has one of the biggest deficits among leading UK companies. Proposed changes in pension fund terms and conditions are due to be presented to staff at the end of the month.

BA is also planning to make significant savings from the transfer of the bulk of its operations at Heathrow to the new Terminal 5, the £4.2bn project under development by BAA, the airport operator.

Martin Broughton, BA chairman told a meeting of analysts and investors, that the airline had “a once-in-a-generation opportunity” to increase efficiency, transform conditions for passengers and reduce costs with the move to T5 at the end of March 2008.

Many of the job cuts are likely to come from ground services staff with changes in working practices and the introduction of new technology. BA said it expected that 80 per cent of passengers would be checking in online or at self-service kiosks by the opening of T5.

The airline said that it would transfer about 90 per cent of its Heathrow operations to Terminal 5, with the remainder moved to Terminal 3, where it would co-locate its Australian and Spanish routes beside its Oneworld alliance partners Qantas and Iberia.

The £450m cost savings will be spread equally across the next two financial years. Total costs, excluding fuel, are forecast to be flat in the year to March 2007 with increases offset by cost efficiencies.

BA is driving an increasing share of its bookings on to the internet with the share planned to rise from nearly a third this year to 50 per cent by March 2008.

The group said that its net debt would be below £2bn by the end of March, down from the crisis level of £6.6bn at the end of 2001 in the recession following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

Shares in BA were up 2½ per cent at 324 ¾ p in early afternoon trade.

Why BA foreign franchise partners?
 

They had one in Kenya which went bust and then theres one in South Africa, both did and do regional as well as domestic services, I can understand UK airlines being appointed by BA to represent them elsewhere but why foreign carriers and that too doing domestic routes, do they plan ro set up more overseas ventures, can other airlines do this too, maybe Aer Lingus should look into this.

It's to try and make the brand as ubiquitous as, say, Coca-Cola. They don't have problems selling Coca-Cola as such in South Africa or Kenya. But the nationality-based airline system, and the system of bilateral air services agreements, means that British Airways can't operate domestic routes within South Africa or regional routes from South Africa to nearby countries without using the medium of a South African (or other regional) company.

Franchising is really the only way of making sure that there is a "British Airways" branded flight between Joburg and, say, Durban. If they didn't franchise, then the passenger's "British Airways" experience would have to stop when they walk off the mainline aircraft in Joburg and walk on to some other carrier's aircraft. This way, they can continue to fly "British Airways", and get what they expect from that brand, all the way to Durban. (In fact, they usually get a bit more on that flight than they'd get from a comparable short-haul on BA mainline within Europe, but that's another issue altogether.)

Hmm Kulula.....

Sounds pretentious that people want to fly BA on a domestic route, Im sure people would also want to take Emirates from Addis Ababa to Debra Marcos in Ethiopia but EK are not franchising there are they.

Apart from the obvious "political" sensitivities that would be encountered, Aer Lingus new business model as a "low-fares" carrier seems to be working out for them now, and turning them a reasonable profit. I'm not sure they want to change tack quite so soon!


It's not only about people wanting to fly BA on a domestic route having come off a BA flight, but the company enjoying the global brand recognition that BA brings with it, which attracts non-BA connecting passengers.

It's no more pretentious than people who have drunk Coca-Cola on the LHR-JNB flight also wanting to drink Coca-Cola on the JNB-DUR flight instead of a local brand that is unknown to them. You might criticise them for being unadventurous, but not pretentious; this is simply the way of the modern world.

Probably the most important reasons for franchise partners - is to get the long haul traffic.

You live in Durban - on the coast 450 miles from Johannesburg - there are no direct flights to London. You can use one carrier to JNB and then collect your bags and recheck for the international sector. But South African Airways will offer you a through ticket. To complete like-for-like, BA need a partner.
Within South Africa PAX do not call it 'British Airways' they call it 'Comair'. That is the name of the company that has existed for many years and became a franchise partner. The planes have the BA logo in large letters but they are almost universally known as Comair because that is the actual name of the ZA registered company.

In America, they do not allow franchise, so airlines build up partnerships and codeshares. They do whatever it takes to secure the long haul seat. "You want to go to Europe? Why not use BA as your single carrier? From your local/regional field to London and then onward to wherever you want to go. Blah Blah."

Now it gets interesting...

Major shake-up at LH Cargo - CEO resigns for "reasons of health", Senior VPs for Sales and Handling disappear from the organisational chart, ex- CEO and current LH Group HR Executive Board member moves back to take over the shop, CEO of LH CityLine (ex-MD of German Cargo moves back at Board level...

The word's out that the CEO was the sacrificial lamb in a deal with the US Justice Dept and LH cooperates fully in a plea bargain

BA increase fuel surcharge for sixth time
 

Taken from BBC

BA raises fuel surcharge further

British Airways says fuel costs remain "a real burden"
British Airways has announced a further round of increases in fuel surcharges for its long-haul flights.
From 21 April, customers buying tickets in the UK will pay a £35 ($62) charge for a one-way ticket, and £70 for a return trip.

BA last raised its fuel surcharge for long-haul flights to £30 for a one-way trip in September last year.

The airline said the increase was "regrettable" but necessary because of the high price of oil.

BA's announcement came as US light crude reached a fresh record of $70.88 a barrel, hit by growing fears over Iran's nuclear standoff with the international community.

"Our fuel costs remain a real burden," said BA's commercial director Martin George.

"The price of oil has risen above $70 a barrel and experts anticipate it staying at these levels for some time."

BA said the fuel surcharge for its short-haul flights would remain at £8 for a one-way ticket, and £16 for a return trip.

I still don't get how BA can get away with calling it a surcharge. Not including it in the fare price misleads the public IMHO.

MarkD, I agree, however one must also make that argument for all other fees, 'taxes' and wheel chair levies that charged on top of airline fares.

Not a lot of comments in the last 3 weeks when Virgin put their fuel surcharge up. Which occured on the 22nd March with effect from 24th March. BA has just brought their surcharge up to the same level.

GT - this is not BA bashing, BA is my preferred LH airline given the options from where I am. VS, QF whoever - it's not "fair" fare practice.

notdavegorman - the difference is that fuel is usually in the fare to being with. It can't be verified directly if it's a surcharge or a revenue item. Air Passenger Levies on the other hand are published information and are independent of individual carriers. My point is this: if you book two tickets on the same route on different carriers *the same taxes and charges should apply*. If not, trading standards should get physical. If carriers insist on offering fares ex tax/charge then comparison between them should be valid.