Are BA interested?!
 

It seems to me from many comments from other PPRune users, Passengers and collegues that BA seem to think that they are to big for some regional airports.

I Know BA's prioritys recently have been keeping their head above the water but why don't they start looking at what people want and where they want it from instead of assuming that LON airports are the only places people are interested in flying from.

Any views from anyone else who has witnessed this and any one from BA who has heard anything?

At the end of the day almost every country has their national carrier and I would be proud if BA were ours because at the most of the time they offer a truly excellant service; however it is coming to the stage that they may need to hand the crown over to, dare i say it.....


...... Easyjet!!!

There just isnt the money in regional airports for BA, its great to fill a 737 at £29 economy but BA's cost base needs business pax and lots of it. Only MAN/BHX/GLA and EDI really provide, and even then the latter 2 only on the standard CDG/BRU/AMS etc. It is far cheaper for Lufthansa to provide a FRA-MME/LBA service as they dont have to have expense of basing aircraft there.

How do all the other airlines seem to manage then?

I remember not to long ago BA gave away some flights from BRS/EDI/GLA at similar prices to EZY but there loads didnt really improve!

Dear Terrier,
As Hotel Mode just said.....BA have a completely different cost base then most of the smaller or no frills airlines.... BA needs business pax which offer High revenue compared to the leisure traveller or the cost conscious business man which many of the more regional or low frills airlines compete for. BA tried to best suit the regional airlines by establishing the City Flyer franchise yet that too backfired so it obviously just is not somewhere BA can compete effectivly.
Easy jet can fly a less then full load and still make some money as they have a lower cost per mile then ba.
Unfortunatly many national carriers seem more like serving everywhere else other than its own country. I can remember when I could fly from the remotest part of the west of Ireland all the way to LA with Aer Lingus...but look now....no shamrocks anywhere but the main airports!!!

apaddyinuk,

I know this is slightly off the topic but regarding your comment about the lack of shamrocks at the regional airports. These public service routes were and are heavily subsidised by the irish govt. If you were cynical (not me obviously ;) ) EI management could have received political pressure albeit at a time when it suited them to come off the routes and give them to smaller companies from the west of ireland who needed a bit of guaranteed income to get them going. Hence no shamrocks at the regionals.

Caribs

I've got a great idea.

BA could franchise out some of the regional flying. Perhaps a selection of different regional airlines with suitable regional aircraft such as Dash 8's, ATR's, RJ100's or similar, and a management cost base to match.

With such a network the BA name would stay very much alive in the regions, and BA would gain valuable feed into their network, rather than losing regional feed traffic to the likes of Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt.

I wonder if anyone's thought of it.................

Having observed BA at Manchester for many years, I can sympathise with the regional perspective. At one time BA flew to JFK / YYZ / YMX / HKG / BGI / ISB/ MCO / LAX (although not all at the same time!) Now there is just the JFK outside Europe. It would be dearly wonderful to see BA with a long-haul fleet at MAN, as LH does at MUC in addition to FRA. I have come round to believing the reasoned opinions from those London-based contributors in this thread however - the problem for BA is the cost of setting up a regional base and running it on the inevitably lower yields that would generate. The socio-economics of the UK (which is another topic!) mean that the bulk of the high-yield fliers originate in the South-East. Having said that - it is evident that BMi 's fledgling long-haul operation based at MAN is gathering momentum, using the Star Alliance code-shares to stimulate and integrate traffic from a wider catchment. As they add routes and aircraft, the fixed costs get spread across a larger revenue stream - increasing profitablility and acheiving a critical-mass. Hopefully they will prove that a British carrier can run a profitable long-haul hub at MAN. The only other possible contender, Virgin, don't seem to be interested.

Long-haul has a good future at MAN, and maybe to a lesser extent at BHX and GLA. It will be led by overseas carriers, using the UK regions as spokes to their hub(s), and also BMi at MAN. May they live long and prosper. BA will continue to run successfully out of London, but may see it's share of the regional long-haul market diminish as alternatives to connecting at LHR develop. BA's European and UK network at MAN looks fairly healthy to me, although it's a rather fragmented operation made up of various subsidiaries. They have got the cost-base down. I certainly choose BA over the locos if they have a direct from MAN, and Terminal 3 is a much nicer, calmer place to leave from!

Though the comparison of Lufthansa in Munich is that of a company that has also had similar debates and varying amounts of service from Munich, just as has Manchester, even does have quite a few services now.

The fact of BA's operations is that it relies of big business, and there simply are none of the international banks, none of the HQs of large companies that require international travel, and consequently none of the higher margin traffic that London has - that is a sad state of affairs about the UK rather perhaps than BA that simply mirrors such a state.

Additionally it says something about outer-London areas attracting such companies in terms of tax incentives, and the skill base that they offer.

bmi really don't have to support such a large organisation to the same extent - the corporate side of things that BA runs through executive club is far more extensive etc etc, and bmi will therefore continue to be successful at offering a lower-cost alternative to those up North who don't want to transit London.

BA and bmi both appear to have studied what people want and followed a strategy accordingly that matches the cost base that goes with it. Good luck to both.

Remember that with BA you pay for a structure that supports what the passenger pays for, and is wholly customer service driven (usually) - a low cost such as Ryanair often will not bother substituting an aircraft when it goes tech, but refund your ticket and leave you stranded.

I know what people mean about starting up a base etc being very expensive but why don't they use the bases they already have a presence in all be it a subsidery (BACitiExpress) like SOU, LCY, BRS. I am sure all of the staff at these bases would be greatful to recieve a larger variaty of flights, all be it on the same aircraft, but to routes that the airport in question does not all ready serve.

There are hundreds of destinations buisness travellers need to get to and giving them more choice of departure airport would surely be beneficial to BA. Plus the staff in the regions take home around 20% less than LON

As stated the staff would also want fiscal rewards for these extra services. Each time it comes back to cost and BA cannot afford to pay LHR/LGW wages in the regions. At present BA Waterworld has a difficult relationship with it regional operation. Before BA do any expansion they will need to secure far better profit from LGW a station that has cost BA a packet and continues to do so.