I also operate an anyone but BA rule and use them as the airline of last resort. There are plenty of other options out of the north and I will use them. I also know of many friends and colleagues who think the same.

BA's treatment of the regions is abismal.

On a previous point I can recall direct flights from manchester to Toronto, Montreal, Barbados, Los Angeles, Orlando and Hong Kong with BA at one time and all long gone.

I also remember the time they taled of a tie up with SN and operating a 2 hub system with flights over the atlantic operating Brussels - Manchester and onwards and flights to the Middle / far east operating Manchester - Brusssels and onwards so obviously at one time someone in BA felt their were markets for flights from the North.

Finally didnt they also promise things like Florida and Singapore from manchester when they opened T3.

Whatever they promised was then... They can argue [they not me!] that if they are making a profit and NOT serving the regions s/h and not serving from the regions to l/h - why should they try and do it?

Look at just two of the other major corporations of long standing, Ford and Daimler Chrysler - they have grown and grown and are having problems. Look at the airlines that have grown by acquisition and do local, regional, medium and long - are they comfortable? I don't think so.

BA looked at the big tie-ups with AA, Sabena, KLM and others but none worked out. Not just because airlines remain in the politicians minds as 'ours' but all the international regs on routes are formed on the basis of countries. My guess is that they decided that getting bigger was problematical and they would head, quietly, in the opposite direction. They can sell off whole chunks and, when some a/c are reaching a typical replacement point - just withdraw from a route instead.

For the shareholders it makes sense and that is the responsibility of the board. I expect that they will pull this off and I give them credit for it because everyone else is still trying to grow - look at poor old Mike at BD, still desperate after all these years. BA are the only ones trying to shrink and I am waiting to see how long it takes AA and the others to follow. (No, I am not a shareholder or employee - past or present - of any airline).

jongeman,ba do not fly to Ekaterinburg or Almaty,these routes are operated by Bmed!

Anyone else hearing rumours about some more long-haul shifts between LHR and LGW?

Latest one is that the daily LGW-Barbados will move to LHR (leaving LGW with the limited services Barbados-Port of Spain introduced after the deal with BWIA/Caribbean) and that a daily LHR-JFK will move to LGW.

Semantics!

As a franchisee of BA. Flights carry BA numbers and are booked through BA

Just got an email from the BA Executive Club which began:

"Our vision for London Heathrow Terminal 5 is to create the best possible airport experience before you fly. With this in mind we have announced a new simpler checked and excess baggage policy, which will come into effect on 13 February 2007"

and then went on to explain the new baggage policy (max weight per bag = 23kg, fees for excess baggage, 20% discount for online pre-pay)

What I'm wondering is... what does the new baggage policy have to do with T5...?

and what's the vision for London Gatwick....? or does that vision involve a trip up the A23 and round the M25 ? :rolleyes:

13Alpha

That last one is probably to make way for the thru-route via MAN when the FlyBe/BACON fiasco is sorted. :mad:

LGW - BGI is not moving to LHR !

Regarding the MAN - JFK , the only way it will come to LGW Crew is if it changes to a 777 !

But you never know!!

13Alpha

Because the biggest screwup in a new terminal is usually baggage so the fewer they have by discouraging pax from bringing them, the fewer they can lose. Trebles all round!

Just another day in Willie Walsh's epic, "Ryanairise a full service airline - the sequel"

BA Aircraft
 

It's common knowledge that we have 10 777-300's on order and that this will be officially announced when the pension deal is complete.

Sources in Washington State tell us that the first airframe is complete and awaiting it's paint job in BA colours.

Would some kind soul please look out of the window at Paine Field or King Co and see if the rumour is true?

Thanks:D

All the 777 frames up to a first flight in April 2007 at least are fully accounted for (the later ones here will not have begun final assembly yet) and no there's not one for BA.

It's not like Hollywood movies portray it. BA is a public company and the introduction of a new type involves a tremendous amount of preparation which will be well known. If announced today you might get something delivered in 2008 .....

If it's "awaiting" a paint job in BA colours, how will anyone who's looking out of their window be able to tell?! :hmm:

SIA is stealing all the 773s, 3 in the last month have left PAE for SIN direct, rather them than me!

Isn't it the case that BA have only secured options for 10 Boeing 777's which can be converted to B787's, for delivery 2009 / 10, providing that the B777 is included in the selected types for fleet renewal?.

jethro
UK and Ireland Airline Fleet Listings
http://www.jethros.i12.com

To quote BA commercial director in Flight this week...

'We have already reserved 10 777-200ER production slots from 2009, but these bridging deliveries will only be confirmed if the 777-300ER/787 package is confirmed. If we go with Airbus then the A330 will be the bridge to the A350...'

Because the rumour said it was the only one parked outside in primer.

Now comprehensively quashed by those "in the know" :)

Thanks guys.

Unless Boeing has broken with tradition, the Rudder is painted first (something to do with balance), then installed whilst still on the production line, then wheeled in for the paint job.

Perhaps i'm mistaken???:sad:

They still do that, but if the aircraft doesn't have a buyer (or they wanted to keep it quiet:E ) they could easily produce a "white tail" aircraft then paint it later.

A south Asian carrier will be getting quite a few 300ERs in the near future

I think that the T&C forum (or indeed this one!) would have been abuzz if BA had somehow sneaked a few quid out of the biscuit tin and been down the Seattle toy shop. :}

The 777-300ER would mean some activity on the payscales front after all, as it would be effectively a new fleet type capacity-wise.

Naturally other places have taken BA booking those options to be a sign that WW is about to lash out on a hundred GE powered 777 and 787 frames, with a side of 748. Sheesh...it is what it is, a placeholder as there is a decent backlog on the 777 line and BA want their delivery options at their timescale and not have to sit in the queue. :suspect: