MAN was asked to bid on the stopover when the service first started and so must have been seen as a credible option in BA 's thinking. Obviously SNN had a big advantage with pre-clearance but if that is going then the playing field levels somewhat.

missing the point
 

The pre clearance was the big selling point of the LCY / USA service, IMHO.

If now the pax have the same inconvenence as LHR/LGW etc, then what is the USAP.....just the reduced time and strees to get to the airport.

BA to cancel IKA
 

Taken from BA.com

The last services to Tehran will depart London Heathrow on Friday 12 October and the last service from Tehran will depart on Saturday 13 October.

British Airways will also not continue this route in Winter 2012 as previously intended. However we will continue to operate London to Tbilisi service but this will reduce to 3 services per week for Summer 13. Tehran will remain under review as a potential British Airways destination.

From Mon 29 Oct BA 1 will depart London City at 9:50am with a 14:20 arrival at JFK.BA 3 will remain as a 16:00 LCY departure.Both still via SNN.

BMI A332 used on LCA route
 

BA are currently using BD's A332 G-WWBM to operate there daily flights from LHR to LCA. The A332 will operate on the route through until at least the 22nd October

The aircraft is being used due to a shortage of available 767 aircraft. BA currently have 5 767's out of operation at the moment. The aircraft out of operation are:

G-BNWA & G-BNWR - Currently undergoing maintanence at LHR

G-BNWD - Which has been grounded in YYC since 25th September. Not sure what the problem is with this aircraft

G-BNWV - Currently at CWL undergoing cabin refurbishment

G-BZHB - Currently at LGW undergoing cabin refurbishment

This might be one for Jetblast, but I take my hat off to WW for his performance on BBCQT last Thursday:

Susan Pompous (Lib Dem) Kramer: "I remember that Christmas when flights were stopped in the bad weather, I don't remember you resigning".

Walsh: "That's because I don't run the airport".:D:D:D

I'd have given her a Red Dwarf response: Susan - reason one why I didn't resign is that I run BA, not BAA. And reason 2 is that I run BA, not BAA. Just such a key point that I felt I should mention it twice.

jaibird Another good example that proves politicians are so out of touch with reality.

I saw that on the television on the BBC as well, and was just longing for Willie Walsh, having received that nastily-spiteful but completely incorrect comment, to continue "..... and I would have thought that having recently been the MP for Richmond, of all places, for five years recently, Mrs Kramer, you might have some understanding of how the aviation, which a significant proportion of your constituents must actually work in, and a handful of self-appointed whingers continually complain about, is organised .....".

It's programmes like this that make you realise how competent those high up in industry can be, and how completely inept those who have pushed themselves into politics are in comparison.

BA fleet
 

Has anyone heard anything about an order for 10-12 A320 family? If so is it for extra capacity, to replace some older Airbus frames or the long awaited phase out of the LGW 737's?

Rumor has it that it's 10 A320s for LHR, this will allow some current LHR frames to be cascaded down to LGW and replace some of the older 734s


cs

Saw that elsewhere, however LGW getting LHR second slops does not tie in with an RFP for LGW fleet replacement that needs to be done soon. Unless they're just going to muddle through as before.....

Wonder where you saw that skippy ;)


cs

I saw it in a place where people have demanding first world type problems and I enjoy reading for the sheer comedy value.

DYKWIA indeed..... :)

And what of my first world problems !!!!!


cs

Skippy - I agree with your comments regarding the LGW RFP. The decision isn't made. The 10 are either replacements for BA A320's with leases coming to an end, replacements for the older UUA series or replacements for some of the ex BMI hulls which are non standard. I understand from an Airbus Capt that some ex BMI hulls can't accept ACARS as the wiring looms weren't included in the build.

BA are very good at understanding their options, so they may do a trade off for LGW looking at the incremental cost of extending Airbus leases vs other new aircraft. I don't think that decision has been made yet.

Another rumour that has surfaced is that BACF will add E195's for a new LGW operation

GATWICK ROUNDUP 09-10-12 - UK & N.Ireland - Aircraft Movements and Sightings - Aviation Forums - Flightglobal Airspace

IAG currently hold 15 E-Jet options

I personally think in the next few weeks that IAG will confirm that they have ordered E195's as part of a fleet replacement program for LGW with the rest of the fleet being made up of A320's. The flights are likely to continue to be operated by LGW's Single Fleet operation

Dont forget the 16 C Series ordered at Paris last year by " major European carrier".........operated by Cityflyer at LGW ?.....cuts fuel costs, cuts labour costs....

BACF ordering E195s for the LGW operation is at odds with no business plan for fleet renewal at LGW being approved by either BA or IAG.

Don't forget that due to scope clauses the E195s are currently limited to less than 100 seats which works for LCY but I don't think such a configuration would work for a LGW operation.

E195s?

Surely the training/logistics costs would be too much for LGW. At least with the 320 series all the in house requirements already exist. EG Crewing and Engineering.

Mainline operating ERJ195s would mean no SCOPE clause and seat restriction required. CFE are prevented from operating from LGW and LHR under SCOPE so there would be an industrial dispute, and a serious one at that if BA renege on that. The whole BA pilot community would be seeing their future outsourced.
Would they need to be maintained by BA or could the CFE support and third party operation help? SCOPE only prevents flight and cabin crew I think.

Dont Cityflyer aircraft get maintained by BA at either GLA or EDI ? im thinking GLA ?

If im right surely they could just do line MX at LGW and cycle the aircraft through GLA ?


cs

BA were looking at C Series, and representatives went ot Belfast to look at the assembly of the wings etc, so they certainly were looking, as one would expect, but dont know if they were the mystery order.

Lets not forget, depending on CityJets future BA may be in the fold, they would seem like the logical buyer, if they would be in a position to adsorb it so close to the challenge and cost of bmi integration, thats a different matter!




Cant see 195's being ordered for LGW for 2 reasons
- Increase costs per seat at LGW lends itself to using larger aircraft
- Easyjet continued focus on business and frequency and hence cost per per seat as above

IAG has ruled out making a bid for CityJet.

CFE have their own engineering support at LCY and from memory GLA too, however this is not British Airways Engineering. Heavy maintenance is flybe at Exeter.

BA do B737 and Airbus maintenance at the Glasgow hangar with B744 and B777s at CWL.

BACF don't have E195s, nor is the 195 steep approach approved or equipped. Would seem like an odd aircraft for BACF to order. Mainline at LGW with CS300s is a different matter, though I'd reckon some A319/20 NEOs being the most likely.

He means the ERJ-190 of which they have eight in addition to six ERJ-170s.

Do you have any idea what sort of difference we're talking about? I thought about this coming into DBV with BE, when all the other frames were of the 150 seat variants, but clearly they can still compete in a number of markets where they are using these smaller frames.

I would expect a natural saving through using newer frames, so I was thinking of relative costs versus a newer 320 family.

Well one way to maintain frequency is to operate a smaller fleet on a more intensive basis. However, I can't see that being BA's real priority at LGW, where a lot of routes are more leisure based. Even with the "upgrade to BA" slogan, they still want to keep a tight control on costs, surely?

One other concern would be whether or not GIP would be too happy with one of their biggest clients suddenly operating routes with a c. 120 seat frame when the same markets could be served with 150-189 seaters. Of course, it isn't usually up to the airport to dictate to the airline what sort of fleet to use, but this is Gatwick after all.

Quote: "I saw that on the television on the BBC as well, and was just longing for Willie Walsh, having received that nastily-spiteful but completely incorrect comment, to continue "..... and I would have thought that having recently been the MP for Richmond, of all places, for five years recently, Mrs Kramer, you might have some understanding of how the aviation, which a significant proportion of your constituents must actually work in, and a handful of self-appointed whingers continually complain about, is organised .....".

It's programmes like this that make you realise how competent those high up in industry can be, and how completely inept those who have pushed themselves into politics are in comparison."

Quite. It also has to pointed out that the majority of the organised "handful of self-appointed whingers" who "continually complain" are, for the most part, incomers (some may say "entryists" and "carpetbaggers" pricing out the locals, couldn't possibly comment of course).

Let's face it, these people have chosen to live here,being fully aware of the conditions.If one has enough to pay £1m+ for a house in Richmond, it's clearly a matter of choice!

Aussie press reporting possible pull out by BA...

British Airways flags end of Australia route

The submission referred to is here...

Qantas Airways Limited & Emirates - Authorisations - A91332 & A91333

Does read as though BA future on SYD route pretty limited post JSA.

Its also mentioned here:

British Airways may pull plug on kangaroo route

Which if true would leave some questions. Would Virgin take up the 'mantle' and operate through SIN? Does the aviation industry recognise that Virgin is the national flag carrier? How would BA"s traffic be affected on SIN, BKK and possibly KUL terminators? Have Emirates got the route well and truly sown up? Their next goal surely would be the Pacific? If so then they have the world sown up.

There was a BA statement a couple of months ago to the effect they would likely pull off LHR-SYD at the end of March.

BA have today confirmed that they have no plans to drop the SYD flight from end of March.

British Airways confirms London-Singapore-Sydney 'Kangaroo Route' - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

The statement was released after the publishing of the Sydney Morning Herald article

As with the ACCC submission, the quotes in this article can be read in various ways.Would be interested to see full statement as "exploring options" doesn't really seem to commit to any particular course of action....

I wonder how much money Virgin make on their LHR-HKG-SYD route?

BA cannot offer SIN-SYD? It seems fifth freedom rights are missing.....

Quote: "Which if true would leave some questions. Would Virgin take up the 'mantle' and operate through SIN? Does the aviation industry recognise that Virgin is the national flag carrier? How would BA"s traffic be affected on SIN, BKK and possibly KUL terminators? Have Emirates got the route well and truly sown up? Their next goal surely would be the Pacific? If so then they have the world sown up."

Unlikely that VS would do LHR-SIN-SYD as already going via HKG. If BA could not sustain a daily flight to SYD, it seems highly unlikely that VS could do 2.

In addition to LHR-SIN-SYD, BA already has 1 terminator each to SIN and BKK, both of which used to continue to Australia, from BKK to SYD and from SIN to MEL, so this would probably continue. BA are no longer on LHR-KUL, but this could change.

It appears that EK gets more out of the JSA than QF. However, EK's strategy only works where governments permit "open skies" type arrangements.

There are 25 daily flights between the UK and the UAE, 21 on UAE carriers and 4 on UK carriers, giving UAE carriers the advantage.

If, for example, the current arrangements between the UK and the UAE were to end, and a more Canadian or French style prevailed, the impact on EK and EY would be far greater than on BA or VS. Not suggesting that this WILL ever happen, of course. If India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand and some other countries followed suit, EK's ability to "have the world sown up" would be severely hampered.



Quote: "BA cannot offer SIN-SYD? It seems fifth freedom rights are missing....."

BA has fifth freedom rights on SIN-SYD and BKK-SYD, and AFAIK, VS has HKG-SYD.

QF has fifth freedom rights on SIN-LHR and BKK-LHR, and AFAIK, HKG-LHR.

At present not all are being used by all carriers.

I assumed they did, however the website won't let me book. I will dig deeper....

...a simple phonecall can solve all sorts of website anomilies.... as its definitely available.

Not sure that is a fair comparison. UAE has two hub airports in DXB and AUH, both connected to UK regional airports as well as to LHR.

A fairer comparison would be between the UK (or essentially London) and the Arabian peninsula as a whole, where the scales start to tip the other way.

I can see a big loss of prestige for BA pulling out of SYD, but as always, this is going to be based on commercial logic, not political aspirations.

Why would VS be able to sustain a kangaroo route if BA couldn't? Lower crewing costs trumping BA's connections advantage? Perhaps that is key on a route with two long sectors?

The day one can accomplish a simple phone call that doesn't leave you wishing carnage upon the call centre will be a day long remembered.

As for the prestige of Sydney, well Auckland, Melbourne, Perth et al went the way of the dodo and I see no reason why SYD should differ. BA are commercially astute enough to focus on strengths and forget the glory days of Empire. Leave Sydney to Emirates, it's a better option for most UK residents.