Having posted their first ever half-year loss (292m)there is only
one redeeming fact.......they are not called Ryanair.

MM

MUFC - Quote "BA ain't going anywhere soon!" - well certainly not in the regions! seriously though the fortunes or lack of them at BA relly don't have an impact on most folks in the UK. Unless you live in the South East or London the possible demise of BA is of no importance.

BA is a business, they have to maximise their most profitable routes and it is not their fault that LHR is so popular.

If a third runway was to be built then I would guess that the regions would benefit. The first reaction would no doubt be for airlines flying to LHR to fill the slots with large planes to far flung destinations on ridiculous frequencies but over time slots will become available more easily.

All that is needed is either a third runway or a new London airport, but I cannot see any of that happening in the future, unless the Toff's policy on Heathrow turns out to be as lacklustre as his policy on the EU Treaty!:ok:

MUFC - Agree with you 100% but that still does not detract from the point I was making and that is most folks in the UK do not care about the fortunes of BA. They no longer have an impact on the majority of the UKs air travellers, if it was 20 or thirty years ago things would have been very different.

Please note:

• BA own a % of FlyBE who are the region's biggest carrier
• BA has engineering bases at LHR, LGW, GLA, MAN and BRS
• Citiflyer are based in Manchester
• I'm sure there are more influences around the country

And don't forget they still provide millions of seats to London and onwards from the regions!

In the UK, no other airline has a similar influence - I guarantee it.

MUFC_fan

BA has engineering bases at LHR, LGW, GLA, MAN and BRS
Citiflyer are based in Manchester


er.....the 'engineering base' is now an AirLivery operation
Citiflyer might just about have their head office (still?)in a
suburb of Stockport?

Interesting that even after 'funneling' passengers though
LHR (from the regions) they find that they have lost 292M
in the half year - the first time ever!

MM

A 3rd runway would be a disaster as BA couldn't grab all the slots which opens it up to everybody else.

In the event of a 3rd runway and increase in flights to US by 50% how would BA benefit when lots of carriers could offers similar services ?

In the regions it would kill any hope of direct services.

Value of slots would of course collapse.

Protectionism has gone out of the window in recent years, but do you really think ACL is going to be giving all the slots to foreign carriers?!:eek:

I would guess Virgin would be the biggest benefactors followed by BA and then BD THEN the 'foreigners.' If I am being honest, I would go as far to say that, if all the slots are not used, it COULD become U2 territory a la CDG, AMS and soon to be FRA. Now that really WOULD cause BA problems.

I never said BA would BENEFIT from more slots at LHR - the main reason it has been so successful is because it has nearly half of all flights out of the airport.

We also need to remember that there would be a time lag. For example:

BAA announce that 2015, R3 opens for business.
BA order X aircraft for delivery from 2015.
VS order similar.

Now the airlines won't all of a sudden receive their X aircraft, it will be over a period of time. However, as we saw with the open skies, airports at a disadvantage are STN and LGW primarily and I would guess that airlines would automatically switch capacity instantly to LHR to maximise slots. This would then leave STN and LGW with more free space, step in the LCCs.

You are right, BA probably won't benefit from R3, but it will sure as hell help us, the consumer! Greater competition means better fares (if that is at all possible at the moment!)

I think the best part of R3 would be that BA would be thrown even further out of it's comfort zone than it is now (I know that is only barely manageable!) And there is only one thing that they could do - take their service to a new level.

They set the standard in the past and Qatar, Emirates, Singapore Airlines and Etihad have well and truly surpassed them now but I would think, if BA could raise the bar on service, both the consumer and BA would be able to benefit.

Anyway, R3 is going to happen so writing this is wasting time!:ok:

From a purely Nostalgic point of view I would be saddened if BA were to dissappear. I have only used them a few times, and to be honest on short haul I usually use the Orange chaps due to cost. Although the gap has been reduced.
The service I have received on BA was always excellent, and I have always felt secure under the brand.
I am not fortunate to fly above cattle class, and therefore only really act as ballast when I have used them.
If the business can't survive on its own then maybe BA's time has come. But knowing several people that work for them I hope it doesn't come to that.
:ok:

A fairly pointless and irrelevant post, but just felt like saying it.

BA holds thousands of jobs and I'm sure the government wouldn't allow it to go into ruins.

Anyway - we shouldn't be discussing things like this! BA is here to stay!

I thought that about Rover but look what happened and that had more jobs across the whole of the West Midlands relying on it some friends badly affected by it.

While the parent may disappear the spin offs without the Liabilities would still employ people ala Alitalia.

Yup its worst case scenario and have lot of friends who work for BA I just don't believe it is unthinkable that in existing form they may cease to exist.

It doesn't look good for BA:

• Extremely high salaries
• High costs across the board
• Losing their core business travellors
• LHR is no longer a competition 'haven'
• New stories don't exactly help!

But as we have seen in the past, what will come out, in the unthinkable case of BA going under, would be a new airline, very similar, called British Airlines or something along those lines.

But I would guess a consortium would come along and scoop the airline up before it got even close to that. Alitalia didn't have LHR - BA does.

Clearly hit a raw spot with MUFC, however this is an open forum which is available for all viewpoints, (except libellous). The trouble with BA is bad management and their current outdated view that their salvation is the premium traffic segment. They still have about 10 widebodies a day to New York or 10% of their L/H capacity. And yet are withdrawing from large chunks of the world eg OZ. The world is moving on, why else would low cost carriers flourish. I believe if they marketed a much improved premium economy segment, deleted First which lives in a bygone era, and sold themselves one notch above LCC's then they could make progress. Merely to wring their hands and blame the loss of premium revenue, which I detected even WW recently hinted at never returning, is not going to solve problems.

The problem with BA doing that is that they will lose even more premium traffic. They currently have an extremely high number of frequent fliers compared to other carriers and if they were to reduce their level of service to lower than that of AF, KL and LH then they will simply lose custom.

It is all well and good saying BA should do this and do that but the matter is that BA are in a rut they cannot get out of. They are very limited to what they can do at LHR due to the slot constraints. They have no way of keeping business travellors. Taxes are rising to ridiculous levels in the UK now, with that stupid distance tax coming in whenever which will basically crush the 12hr+ services from LHR on price compared to a hop over the English channel and much cheaper taxes.

My personal opinion is that for BA, they should adopt a similar style to VS. High quality business, premium economy and a decent economy class. However, I do feel there are a number of routes that BA do benefit massively in the F cabins (LAX/DXB to name a couple) so I would guess that maybe they have a mix.

Something needs to be done but they have very little leway and the future doesn't look bright while taxes continue to rise.

Thats what they do anyway....:confused:

The problem with BA is it's a Dinosaur. Starting from an advantageous position as a former Flag Carrier they failed to keep the brand fresh. In my opinion the multi coloured tail fiasco was the beginning of the rot of recent years.

Successive CEOs have been unable to tackle the big issues and now the company is a basket case.

Unless huge cuts to services are made and only profitable sectors remain, in 2 years it's over. Moving everthing to Madrid or cutting the payroll by half will slow the amount of cash being burnt.

BA's best hope is that they can survive the recession and stay liquid. Currently the UK government could help them by cutting departure taxes and reviewing security arrangements to make LHR more attractive to pax.

I foresee, about half the present operation this time next year and probably another rights issue. Those who think the government will bail BA out are mistaken.

'BA holds thousands of jobs and I'm sure the government wouldn't allow it to go into ruins'

BA is a private company and I am fed up with this governments
'interviening' to safeguard jobs.The market will decide if it sinks
or swims -we do after all live in a capitalist western world.

BA has held a privilaged place in aviation for a long time -
managing such a company did not require too much business
knowledge - hence the current situation caused by brilliant
bosses - not by the poor 'staff'.

The chickens have come home to roost!!

MM

Problem is if it folds, what happens to the pension fund? I hear the government are having problems with their rescue scheme funding?

F14

Why should I/my government bail out any private company (or bank
for that matter).
Accountability should be a legal requirement and bosses should be
held responsible - not let off or excused by their friends in power.

MM

The scent of people getting off on the possibility of BA going down is hardly a surprise on here. Some of the usual suspects who moan that BA no longer serves the regions should remember that BA never made a penny outside London due to the much lower cost base of the competition. Armchair CEOs moan that nothing was done to lower this, sadly with a unionised militant workforce, every time something was done they went on strike.

Hindsight is 20/20 always.