I too would of put ALC as a LGW route

Maybe once BA has establishes its self on the route and the LGW fleet replacement for shorthaul has been decided we might see a twice daily ALC-LGW sit along side the LHR route

cs

I too thought LGW was more likely - perhaps BA no not want to compete directly with EZY ?

I would have thought that also if they didn't already have 4 flights per day to AGP in competing with EZY, ZB, TOM, TCX and also EI when BA moved the route over from LHR. It is a curios route to say the least :suspect:

LGW ALC
 

BA were flying daily LGW ALC up to about 2 years ago. 734 daily operation mostly mornings. I suspect the EZY high frequency and the arrival of FR on the route made it challenging and unattractive.

Best of luck to BA on LHR ALC. Bmi used to do it daily but it was axed as the airline moved it operation type away from leisure routes at LHR...

They may have access to the route performance data from bmi.... perhaps.

EI-BUD

Yes, G-DBCG has been doing some of the BA shuttles recently. G-DBCJ did some last week. At the moment they're only using 1 ex-bmi aircraft from T5. Not sure if it's a trial run to see how T5 copes with loose loaded luggage rather than the unitised way of loading??

Champ

9 A319's have now transferred to BA. The 10th is currently in EMA being repainted into BA livery & should transfer around the 17th Aug. The last A319 won't transfer until the end of the summer.

LHR - ALC
 

So, reading between the lines, are BA using this route just to utilse ex-BMI 319s?
I find it unusual that with slots at LHR worth £xmil, BA would use up such a valuable resource for a leisure route other than to make use of ex-BMI aircraft.
Given the recent 'news' about lack of connections to China, I cannot believe that choosing Shanghai after Alicante was anything other than a tactical short term use of a slot, rather than a long-term strategic drive into the 'booming' Spanish economy!

The reason why they are announcing short Haul rather than long haul is due to the fact that they at the moment just don't have the long haul aircraft to add extra capacity, hence why the B763's and most of the B744's are no longer being retired when the A380 and B787's arrive, yes we will see some fleet retirement but not like for like which was the original plan. BMI is a short haul aircraft airline apart from the A332's which are not being kept, so obviously they want to keep the bmi aircraft utilised to their potential, I reckon over time when the new long haul aircraft arrive or even before they arrive so as to have advertised a new route we will see some short haul freq/routes cancelled in favour of using the slots for new long haul destinations. Only my opinion but I also reckon we will then see the idle aircraft not used as there isn't enough slots for short haul moved to LGW and this will be the fleet replacement.

Remember BA said they will always have to have 2/3 of their routes short haul in order to generate feeder traffic which they depend upon alot.

BA @ LGW Fleet serviceability problems
 

BA have once again had to call on Titan Airways to operate some of there services ex LGW. BA are using a Titan Airways 737 (G-POWC) and it's 757 (G-ZAPX) to operate flights to a number of different destinations. The aircraft are planned to operate:

737-300

10AUG - LGW-BOD-LGW-EDI-LGW-BOD-LGW
11AUG - LGW-FCO-LGW-MRS-LGW
12AUG - LGW-MAN-LGW-GLA-LGW-JER-LGW-AMS-LGW
13AUG - LGW-BOD-LGW-MAN-LGW-VCE-LGW
14AUG - LGW-EDI-LGW-GLA-JER-LGW-PSA-LGW
15AUG - LGW-EDI-LGW-GLA-JER-LGW-PSA-LGW
16AUG - LGW-NCE-LGW-RAK-LGW
17AUG - LGW-GLA-LGW-PSA-LGW

The 737 appears to be operating in a one class 130Y config

757

10AUG - LGW-NAP-LGW-AGP-LGW
11AUG - No Flights shown
12AUG - LGW-IBZ-LGW
13AUG - LGW-PFO-LGW-IBZ-LGW
14AUG - LGW-AGP-LGW-BOD-LGW
15AUG - No flights shown
16AUG - LGW-NAP-LGW-AGP-LGW
17AUG - LGW-PFO-LGW-VCE-LGW

The 757 has be configured to offer a 2 class (CE/ET) service

There is the possibility that over the next week that the G-ZAPX may be swapped with G-POWH and the 737 G-POWC with one of the other Titan 737's.

BA will also use a BACF E170 on the LGW-MAN route tomorrow in place of the usual LGW based 737. The 76 seater E170 is showing as operating the following flights:

BA2902 LGW 06:40 MAN 07:40
BA2903 MAN 08:20 LGW 09:25
BA2906 LGW 10:25 MAN 11:25
BA2907 MAN 12:00 LGW 13:05
BA2908 LGW 15:50 MAN 16:50
BA2909 MAN 17:25 LGW 18:25

Does anyone know if this is all down to serviceability problems with the 737 fleet or is it operational problems with crew??

Has there been any decision as to when they will retire the 734's ?

I was stuck in Malaga the other week for 5 hours because EUPV (a 319) developed a problem on landing which resulted in 2 computers being changed and I subsequently heard that servicability is becoming an issue with the the Airbus fleet too.

I seem to remember some discussion about the Baby fleet being moved to Gatters to replace/enhance the BA flight or was that just a load of BS

Oiler

BACF operating out of LGW for BA mainline. Is there not a scope agreement issue there?!?

scope agreement has not been breached because all BACF aircraft are under 100 seats the E190 has 98 seats and the E170 has 76 seats but it will give the LGW pax some nice interiors to look at for a change !!

Isn't the ERJ a much better size for some of the routes at LGW? So if they kept the current seating, would they be allowed to operate on behalf of BA as things stand?
Point being that over time it would allow a stronger CFE to move into where BA LGW needs the product / aircraft and allow natural wastage to downsize BA Mainline?

Would there be any issues with Cityflyer operating alongside mainline shorthaul @ LGW, as they could cover some of the shorter thinner routes and increase frequencies also on domestic routes etc.

Adfly dont see how there could be any problems, at the end of the day BACF is BA. I know a lot of people will disagree with that, and there are probably a lot of people in BA who dont know who, or what BACF is, or even where LCY is! but its a fact . The scope agreement hasnt been broken, so really all thats happening is BA using Assets it has to cover a short fall at LGW tomorrow .

I was thinking as a permanent operation where on a route like LGW-MAN you could have mainline operating the busier morning and evening rotations and Cityflyer flying the midday/early afternoon flights. Same route but two different 'teirs' of crew, would that not cause any concern? If not then I may be mixing things up with the '100 seat agreement'.

the E170 has 76 seats and the E190 has 98 seats so the 100 seat bit of the scope agreement is not broken , in fact the E190 is deliberately configured at 98 seats so it doesnt break the scope agreement, read into that what you will ! BACF has lots of experience with the scope agreement after all most of the RJs broke the agreement but with seconded mainline flight deck being the work round on that problem . Or maybe the times they are a changing ?

I do not think Cityflyer has the spare capacity at the moment to do that. Spare aircraft are only available at the weekend when LCY is shut, and during the summer months usually only 170's because the 190's are all out doing charters...

If BA wanted Cityflyer to operate scheduled flights out of LGW in the way you suggest Adfly what is there to stop them ? I fully understand that the LGW crew would probably be not to happy about the situation, but could they in reality stop BA ? who knows ?

timeforparties you are of course correct, BACF doesnt have the spare capacity to do anything like operate scheduled flights out of LGW, infact it sometimes has problems running its own flights at times! but in a hypothetical world If BA wanted to, whats to stop them doing it ?