Cheer up, you've got Loganair, "Scotland's Airline" ;)

Btw, you also have access to BA's network. You just decided to live near a spoke and not a hub.

Fortunately for most of the UK, not just Scotland, an increasing number of continent-based airlines find it worthwhile to provide the direct services that BA choose not to provide.

But direct services from regional airports is not BA's business model. No-one would find it surprising that BA don't operate an extensive route network outside the capital. KLM, LH, AF etc treat UK regional airports exactly the same as BA - they're just feeder services to their long haul networks.

It's also not as if other national airlines aren't doing the same thing as BA - Iberia only operate from Madrid, Finnair from Helsinki, KLM from Amsterdam, LOT from Warsaw. Also, the reason why BA scaled back their operations from the likes of Manchester during the late '90s and early '00s is because of point-to-point competition from easyJet and other low cost carriers. Airlines that do operate extensive networks from multiple bases either face a lot less LCC competition such as Lufthansa, or are on the verge of bankruptcy such as Alitalia.

I understand what you mean but you can't say 'to have access' when in fact you do have 'access' albeit via a domestic flight to either LGW or LHR it's still 'access' but non the less I understand your point.

The same can be said to a certain extent regarding Air France and being Paris-centric all except for a few regional departure points it's mostly Paris so Paris Airways, I'm afraid that's how it is we're not like Germany where Lufthansa can maintain hubs at two airports as in Frankfurt and Munich.

You would have thought that it was more expensive/less efficient to operate from multiple bases, and yet it is the LCCs which can make that work while the full service airlines can't.

Not that it is suitable for everyone but my easyJet Plus card costs £200 per year. For that I am guaranteed; two bags onboard, any seat on the aircraft, fast track security, speedy boarding and free change to earlier flights when on business all at no extra cost. I have never had to book a hold bag. BA Exec club won’t offer anything like that until you reach Silver/Gold status which can run to £1000’s

I have a BA Exec card that was once Silver. Never once have I been assigned my preferred window seat, even when window seats are still available for purchase. I have always had to change 24hrs in advance which invariably means moving backwards if I want a window.

Yes and the non-basic fare is £20 more expensive per flight so you are simply paying £20 extra for a hold bag.

I am an Exec Club Member but still had to fork out a lot of money, especially on the long haul flights for the seats of my choice even though I was travelling in Premium Economy as I didn't want to be stuck in the middle.

I don't live in the South East yet I don't childishly refer to BA as London Airways. So there we go, you're wrong. Not everyone outside the South East calls our national carrier by such a childish name.

Do you refer to Delta as Atlanta Airways? What about Emirates? Dubai Airways? Icelandair becomes Air Keflavik? Should Czech Airlines be Prague Airways?

Ridiculous.

I was merely quoting what some other posters from the Manchester area have said.

Operating multiple bases is more expensive, but easyJet and other LCCs make it work by cutting costs. Salaries are lower, airport fees are lower, turnaround times are shorter, and only one aircraft type is operated. easyJet also has the capacity to add and scrap new routes at its pleasure. BA on the other hand are constrained, and aren't going to scrap key short haul routes that are used as feeder services to their long haul network.

The hub-and-spoke model means that BA need to have an extensive, high frequency route network in order to make a profit. Flights need to depart in waves to allow for simpler connections. On the other hand, easyJet can fly any route with any plane at any time, and it doesn't make a difference.

Because easyJet operates point-to-point services, if they were to commence BFS-PRG and NCL-PRG, this would have absolutely no effect on existing services to PRG. On the other hand, if BA were to commence NCL-PRG, EDI-PRG and BHD-PRG, ultimately they'd lose passengers on LHR-PRG, LHR-NCL, LHR-EDI, LHR-BHD. This could ultimately mean scrapping one of their x4 daily flights from LHR, giving connecting passengers a lot less choice, and making the operation a lot more inefficient.

The main point is that easyJet want to fill as many planes as possible. BA on the other hand want to fill as many long haul aircraft as possible, and operating an extensive short haul network is a means to achieving this. Operating from multiple bases dilutes the number of connecting passengers, meaning their long haul aircraft would be flying half empty, thus reducing profits.

Thanks for that. However it seems to me that within Europe hub and spoke is already dead; any city of a reasonable size would have, or would aspire to have, direct flights to every other city. The question which must be asked is whether this point to point model will extend; when 321LR and similar a/c arrive in numbers will second tier airports expect to have direct flights to a wide range of cities in the US. It will be interesting to see.

14 million people in London and 9000 in Oban might have something to do with it.............

Not having my own international airport gives me a more impartial view of things, I hope. I know others disagree, but I can live with that.

Normally that would be true, but with BA being so capacity constrained at their hub it wouldn't be such a bad thing to divert some passengers around it. I'm surprised we haven't seen them make a meaningful effort to get people in the UK regions to use Dublin and Madrid as hubs.

The other risk, of course, would be that they started regions to PRG and started inadvertently feeding into Czech's network...

Surely easyJet themselves have a Hub and Spoke type offering with Worldwide by easyJet?

Hub and spoke type operations offer far greater frequencies between city pairs, meaning they will be around in some shape or form for a long time yet in my opinion.

" I'm surprised we haven't seen them make a meaningful effort to get people in the UK regions to use Dublin and Madrid as hubs"

An airline who have spent 60 years trying to avoid using Gatwick? They want to own every slot at LHR so they can extort the absolute maximum from the flying public - they have ZERO interest in any other hub

That also surprises me, especially where it leads to easyJet getting an increased foothold in Gatwick instead of a franchise operating a network feeding into BA's longhaul.

Where to start? You’re fundamentally misunderstanding the marketplace here.
If hub and spoke is dead, why are KLM, sorry “Amsterdam Airways” in your parlance, able to offer such a comprehensive offering to the world via AMS to the UK market? By your rationale, hardly anyone would need to connect anymore? How come Lufthansa, Air France, Finnair, SAS and Swiss are still operating the hub and spoke model?
So, if you’re right, there’s zero market between GLA-DUS? Not a single person flies GLA-ZRH? Of course that’s unreal, as p2p loco needs volume that many business markets can’t provide. It’s a balance. I love easyJet, flown four sectors with them last week, all on time, but they’re often not business friendly. See the IOM thread to see how they might not even be the best fit.

BA DID try this, could not make it work. Two London hubs was not a smart move, added a load of costs, duplication and diluted yields. Now remove the hub and look at BA LGW today, they’re in a realy good place and profitable. *short haul BA at LGW in the black* Something many never believed possible, me included! BA let EZY dominate LGW as they couldn’t make it work for themselves, but later fought back, and BA now serve sun routes more in the spirit of British Airtours than a mini-me LHR. Ironically EZY have been good for BA at LGW in the longer term.

BA used to have a sizeable regional short-haul base at Manchester. That was downsized/removed years ago, even before the rise of the LoCo's. However, what about having more long-haul routes from the power house of the north? If their idea is to try and feed pax into LHR from the region they are competing with AMS, FRA, MUC, CDG etc. A short flight to LHR or AMS/FRA is similar and prices can often be better via the continent. Plus their airports are often more convivial than LHR. If MAN offered attractive options would it not off-load LHR somewhat and provide a more attractive option for 100'000's in the north? I know there are various long-haul flights from mAN by the foreign competitors, why does not BA defend its turf?

It’s worth noting BA is going ‘back’ to MAN, with 32 weekly one way flights via Cityflyer to about 12 European airports and 3 ‘based’ aircraft over the weekend. Then it uses Sun Air to tap into GOT and BLL with up to 21 weekly flights and finally the Shuttles to LHR.

Yes, small fry compared to a large base, but from acorns and all that.