BA exit LGW
Just heard BA are going to pull nearly all their LGW services and use T3 instead. Looks like they are happy for it to turn orange.
|
T3 at Heathrow? They pulled all their domestic services out of heathrow to move them to LGW a few years back citing costs like landing fees at LHR.
Sounds strange to be but this is BA... |
They pulled all their domestic services out of heathrow to move them to LGW a few years back citing costs like landing fees at LHR. Most of the extra slots that BA inherited from BMI have already been earmarked for more longhaul services. Where are they going to get additional ones from ? |
Funny they recently announced plans for additional services later this year..
British Airways Adds Ski Flights | First Tracks!! Online Ski Magazine British Airways Adds Ski Flights Published on May 26, 2012 @ 1:00 am By First Tracks!! Online Media London, UK - British Airways announced on Friday that the airline is increasing flights to two of its popular European ski destinations from Gatwick next winter. British Airways Introduces Flights from Gatwick to Las Vegas | Travel News British Airways, a UK-based airline company, has announced a new route from London Gatwick Airport, in the UK, to Las Vegas, USA. The new, three times weekly service commences from October 29, 2012, and will be operated by a three-class Boeing 777 aircraft, which will feature fully flat beds for Club World cabin passengers. |
I suspect kiteflier is flying a kite :bored:.
There aren't enough ATC slots to allow BA to move the LGW operation "up the road", irrespective of Terminals. |
Actually I heard this half a year ago, from someone who has seen the "plans" apparently.
Longhaul will remain at LGW but short haul will pull out, not sure of the date, but they've apparently decided they can't compete with the Orange army. |
BA recently announced more short-haul for the slots acquired from BMI -> BA to use Bmi slots on new short-haul routes | ABTN
'British Airways is planning to start flights from Heathrow to Leeds-Bradford, Rotterdam and Zagreb' Now, as I mentioned earlier, BA pulled out of the short haul market from LHR due to the profit margins either being very slim or non-existent so if they are going to have short-haul from LHR again and shuffle services around isn't that same risk still there? I'm confused but I guess BA know what they are doing.... :confused: |
williamsg
Where did you get the idea that BA cut short haul and domestic from LHR? |
poppycock. . . .:rolleyes:
|
There are lots of rumours about LGW.
The ones I've heard in recent weeks: - BMI Babys 737s to go to LGW and replace our old knackered 737s. (I thought our 737s were newer than BMI babys!) - Short Haul to cease at LGW I prefer the expansion of LH at LGW with all 787s coming to LGW to be crewed by LGW pilots! However, since our new business plan is not going to the board, then I assume LGW will be closed, since no new plan, no LGW. |
Baby 733's
no sponsor
If you take out the two Baby 735's and G-OBMP then most are around the 1997-98 vintage and thus have a few years on the 1991-93 BA 734's. Some operate 8 sector days from BHX & EMA have thus far have stood up well to the task this summer but there was slack in the schedule until this weekend - although obviously from 10/06/12 things change big time with the closure of the BHD routes and various ones from BHX & EMA. The Baby 733's to LGW has also been rumoured on a BHX forum. |
If the rumour is that loss making short haul is axed then I can see it happening. Long haul is a stand alone profitable niche that does not require feed, so they do not need to spend millions replacing the old B737-436s to maintain losing money against easyJet.
I would be a sensible business decision and one a long time coming as I have said before, it's the last painful plaster to be removed after the regions. Just treat staff well in any transition and minimise any redundancies if it comes to it. T3 at Heathrow? They pulled all their domestic services out of heathrow to move them to LGW a few years back citing costs like landing fees at LHR. |
I'm confused but I guess BA know what they are doing.... Hope springs eternal |
Where did you get the idea that BA cut short haul and domestic from LHR? |
This simply isn't going to happen
|
Well according to the baby crews coming through BHD the reason that BHD got the chop ahead of the Midlands was that a number of 733 are going LGW at the end of June with the rest to follow in the Autumn.
|
BA's JER-LHR was moved to Gatwick alongwith INV-LHR and Manx's IOM-LHR so that slots could be redistributed to long haul. Replacing old bespoke BA B737s with old B737s from a myriad of sources seems desperate. Are we not swapping old and paid off with old and leased?
|
" Long haul is a stand alone profitable niche that does not require feed"
Conjecture or fact ? Speaking of fact, here is what Willie had to say recently "Longhaul operation is very successful, with some feed from shorthaul" "we've reduced scale over past few years but don't see further reduction" |
LGW short haul has had question marks over it for years (it's being dropped, changed to a single class operation and so on).
I thought the point of the recent restructuring of ground operations was to justify a business case for short haul fleet renewal? Has the BA board approved or rejected this? I'm not so sure BA is that willing to give Easy free reign at LGW - something I think has been acknowledged as a mistake is handing expansion to Easy on a plate at LGW. Bmi Baby was shut down because it was loss making and had no fit with BA. I can't see their aircraft staying with BA. Just straight back to lessors I think. |
FlyBe. That's the solution. Using EMBs to face up to Orange might actually be doable.
Possible 3rd way? |
I like Sir George Cayley's thought process on this one, but I don't think it's a quick solution. The E-Jets just aren't available. The short-haul domestic routes to LGW from my experience have always been more expensive than that of LHR to the customer. Add the fact that they have Easy on their doorstep, the LGW operation for short haul just doesn't make sense. It works well, as VS have proven, as a point to point long-haul airport. But as stated earlier in the thread, BA are now having to look at whether or not it is worth short haul fleet renewal at LGW, I would say it isn't. The money just isn't there for it to happen.
In my eyes the best move for BA is a LHR/LCY operation. Those routes such as JER which don't make too much sense to LHR but do to LGW (because these pax are mostly O/D) - it would be suited well to the BACF ops at LCY. There's clearly some sense in the thought process behind a potential closure of SH at LGW, but whether now is the time, I don't know. But I don't believe that BA have enough of a bit in BE to 'shove' short-haul ops at LGW entirely on to them. |
The get-out clauses for the Baby 733 are very expensive. As the majority of BA 737-436s are due to go through a very expensive check over the next 18 months, the case is being made that some of the -436's can be retired now, and the Baby 733's take their place. No need for the big expensive fleet renewal program. Besides, most senior BA management will tell your there is no appetite to spend $1bn on a business model which doesn't work. Moreover, the Golden runways will always get the investment before Crawley International.
The 'new' business plan was supposed to have been put to the board last month. However, the Cabin Crew rejected the proposals, and Cruella di Vil and her cronies threw their toys out of their pram and now won't go to the board. As far as I'm aware, IAG have said no new business plan, no LGW. |
BA have just had a load of Airbuses (bmi ones) dumped in their lap that they won't need once the bmi integration is complete. Therefore they will be a perfect fit down at LGW! They have already stated that most of the bmi slots will go to LH therefore makes perfect sense to put the bmi a/c at LGW.
Gatwick then continues, possibly expands, at very little extra cost. :D |
As far as i can see this is just the same old rumour that pops up every so often.
BA @ LGW is here to stay, and the recent IAG press release suggests that we could well be seeing more for LGW |
It would seem to me that keeping Gatwick makes good business sense. There is potential to grow and test new routes before transferring them to LHR.
Also the south east is a pretty wealthy area of the UK and lots of people like to travel, for leisure, from LGW which is easy to access and cheap to park etc. I use it frequently and love it. |
FlyBe. That's the solution. Using EMBs to face up to Orange might actually be doable. |
What about a return from EDI to LGW by cityflyer with a shiney new fleet of EMB 195's When i suggested this previously i was told that its not possible due to some sort of agreement that doesnt allow Cityflyer to operate into LHR or LGW cs |
That's right, it's not a straightforward issue of deploying the ERJ into Mainline. What works on BA CityFlyers cost base won't automatically work at LGW. Also it lacks the volume to do well on bulk leisure against EZY.
I assume there would be a not insubstantial refurbishment cost in refleeting all the BMI Baby to BA Interiors. BA prefer their own aircraft, indeed the only second hand machines they have are two A320s that were built to BA spec for GB Airways. The guy who said that BA won't need the BMI fleet after integration is mistaken. BA *must* fly the slots at LHR and to do that, they need the bulk of the current BMI fleet. It's not a year long process it's going to take three years plus to rebalance to more long haul as B787s and A380s arrive, in the meantime, those slots must be used or lost. To the question of whether I am sure long haul LGW is profitable as a stand alone business, I believe so. They do currently feed long haul from GLA/EDI/MAN but I don't see this as integral. LGW was de-hubbed remember. INV, IOM, ABZ and NCL went as did the early MAN-LGW, so it does appear they are running long haul on a point to point business model. The dropped domestics were taken up by flybe on a codeshare basis, not something too likely against EZY on GLA or EDI but not impossible! It is well know that BA are uncompetitive against EZY, though any loss of "market share" is balanced against the fact that short haul LGW is not seen as a core business. We shall see. BA @ LGW is here to stay, and the recent IAG press release suggests that we could well be seeing more for LGW |
Only one thing could end the complete BA and VS presence at LGW: a third rwy at LHR.
Without this, it won't happen, with it, maybe, but that raises the question of terminal capacity at LHR. |
The bmi slots at LHR must be flown to keep them, however as they convert over to L/H routes the bmi airbus fleet is surplus, at that point it would seem the best option is to place these a/c at LGW to replace the old 737's, ensuring fleet commonality
|
Or maybe Vueling will fill the void? Spanish market contracting, IAG asset? Helps protect IBE Ex to continue expansion and help cost cutting exercise in Spanish mainland.
Flybe's embs hold 118 seats, so can't be used to fly for BA as it is against the scope clause. The smaller ones could though. |
ex BMI-baby 737s
Anyone know how long the (14)various leases have to run?
I wonder if we might see a couple of baby planes used short term on BMI LHR domestics to allow BMI 319s to be repainted/reconfigured? |
When i suggested this previously i was told that its not possible due to some sort of agreement that doesnt allow Cityflyer to operate into LHR or LGW |
So why doesnt IAG do to BA what it did to Iberia? ie. Iberia run long haul and Iberia express run short haul ? After all it was the BACityflyer business model they used to set up Iberia Express, so whats good for the madrid end of the business will probably work at the London end as well, sure the London end will scream and shout just like the Madrid end is doing, but I am sure IAG will quell the dissenting voices.
|
LGW short haul won't move into profit just by flying Airbuses. As to cost cutting, LGW has been pared down for years. Any who cheers in Vueling needs to undrstand how very, very little they pay people. Cheering on the continued erosion of safety and training is not wise in this particular case.
|
Cheering on the continued erosion of safety and training is not wise in this particular case. |
Has been rumoured many times before, but will only believe it when it hapens.
On another issue - didn't BA spend £millions recently revamping North terminal. Bit shortsighted if they really are to pull out. |
"Gatwick is closing" rumours are cleverly started whilst BA is outsourcing a load of jobs and more than likely looking for cuts across remaining staff. Bit of a coincidence?
The fact is, that BA doesn't have, and won't ever have the slots at LHR to move its routes from LGW over. The BD slots are needed for new routes and increases frequencies on important routes. LGW serves its purpose as a primarily leisure based operation |
The fact is, that BA doesn't have, and won't ever have the slots at LHR to move its routes from LGW over |
BA does not want to convert all the bmi slots into Longhaul - around 70% of bmi slots will stay as shorthaul over the next few years, so the guys who think that there will be a glut of 319's available to LGW are not necessarily correct.
Who knows what BA will do with LGW, certainly no-one outside BA management know, but I would not be surprised if LGW came to LHR, its all about which airport the most profit can be made. With so many variables, who knows! All i know, is when BA does makes a decision, it seems a very obvious thing to have done |
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:00. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.