BA cancellations of many flights

[WHBM]

OK, is this all down to EWS or something else ? Is it going to get worse ? Who is for the chop as a result ?

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/flightops5/public/en_gb?source=fltops

Cancelled flights on 9 September

From To Flight nbr
London Heathrow Edinburgh BA 1432
Edinburgh London Heathrow BA 1439
London Heathrow Manchester BA 1392
Manchester London Heathrow BA 1395
London Heathrow Glasgow BA 1488
Glasgow London Heathrow BA 1495
London Heathrow Stockholm BA 784
London Heathrow Frankfurt BA 908
Frankfurt London Heathrow BA 909
London Heathrow Munich BA 954
Munich London Heathrow BA 955
London Heathrow New York - JFK BA 113
New York - JFK London Heathrow BA 116
London Heathrow Hong Kong BA 31


Cancelled flights on 10 September

From To Flight nbr
London Heathrow Edinburgh BA 1432
Edinburgh London Heathrow BA 1439
London Heathrow Manchester BA 1392
Manchester London Heathrow BA 1395
London Heathrow Glasgow BA 1488
Glasgow London Heathrow BA 1495
Stockholm London Heathrow BA 773
London Heathrow Frankfurt BA 908
Frankfurt London Heathrow BA 909
London Heathrow Munich BA 954
Munich London Heathrow BA 955
London Heathrow Stockholm BA 784
London Heathrow New York - JFK BA 113
New York - JFK London Heathrow BA 116


Cancelled flights on 11 September

From To Flight nbr
Stockholm London Heathrow BA 775
London Heathrow Stockholm BA 780
Stockholm London Heathrow BA 781
Hong Kong London Heathrow BA 32
London - Heathrow New York - JFK BA 113
New York - JFK London Heathrow BA 116


Cancelled flights on 12 September

From To Flight nbr
London Heathrow Glasgow BA 1476
Glasgow London Heathrow BA 1483
London Heathrow Munich BA 954
Munich London Heathrow BA 955
London Heathrow Los Angeles BA 279
Los Angeles London Heathrow BA 278
London Heathrow New York - JFK BA 113
New York - JFK London Heathrow BA 116

[Mark Lewis]

And this is not taking into account the semi-permenant cancellations lasting all the way up to December:

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/flightops6/public/en_gb?source=fltops

[Young Paul]

If flights are cancelled too often, I've heard that the airline runs the risk of losing the slots. Does this apply in these cases? ITWSBT

[Max Tow]

Has BA made any announcement to explain the cancellations as I can't see anything (let alone an apology to those booked) on the website? After the recent performance this won't do much for confidence and surely the lack of any explanation simply gives the impression that the management has screwed up again as well as needing a few lessons in PR.

[opsgeezer]

young paul - its called the 80/20 rule. Basically you must operate 80% of the services on each flight number you hold slots for during the season. So by cancelling different JFK services in Sept & Oct they should be OK.

However, before each season commences, you can "hand back" slots by a set cut off date & then the airline in question will not be penalised. For example, many scheduled airlines will have planned cancellations on services around christmas, so they will hand these unwanted slots back. (There have been occaisions when airlines have overlooked this and ended up with egg on their faces!!)

If memory serves, the winter handback date is sometime about now, so BA may avoid a problem with its cancellations in November if they handed these slots back before the deadline.

Hope this all makes sense!

[Basil]

Comment from Lord Marshall when asked "What will you miss about BA?"

LM: The people. Their loyalty and support for the airline impressed me from my first day. I don't think anyone comes to work to do a bad job - they come to work wanting to do a good job and hoping they'll have the right tools and the direction and leadership to do it.


the RIGHT tools and the DIRECTION and LEADERSHIP to do it.

[Young Paul]

On a (somewhat) related line, isn't it somewhat anticompetitive to be operating smaller aircraft with a higher frequency on a route, because of a dominant slot position? eg Should it be acceptable for BA to operate A319's on a route with a higher frequency than (say) bmi operate 320's and 321's? If an airline is prepared to operate a larger aircraft on the route, shouldn't it then be rewarded with more slots? Sorry, that's badly worded, but can you follow the competition implication?

Probably not:O Just a thought

[opsgeezer]

BA would argue that they are offering what the public (especially the regular business travellers) want. The business man will choose to travel on a (potentially) more expensive flexible ticket so that he can change at the last minute. If the meeting in Paris finishes early, he gets the earlier plane, it over-runs he goes later.

Reduce the frequency and the businessman loses that flexibility. Lose the flexibility and the benefits of an expensive ticket decrease. Somewhat over simplified I admit but hopefully you get the idea!

However, it is also worth noting that many business travellers choose to travel through LHR not because it is a highly convenient airport with lots of modern facilities :eek: (me, take the mick?!?!?) but because it gives them more flexibility. That is, if they miss the BA flight to CDG, they can always go with BMI or Air France.

As for dominant, again BA will argue that comparitively speaking they aren't! They will compare the percentage of slots they hold at LHR with the percentage AF have in CDG or KLM have in AMS or LH have in FRA. I can't remember the figures but it works out that BA has less than most of their european competitors at their major hubs. (well they wouldn't mention it otherwise!)
Of course LHR being THE place that every airline wants to go (for the reasons I outlined above) it does receive more than its fair share of press and BA more than a little heat!!

[Flightmapping]

Not forgetting the fact that LHR has 3 major UK scheduled airlines operating out of LHR. Which other European cities have that level of competition out of their main hub - maybe AMS, but CDG, FRA & MXP - I don't think so?

[HZ123]

We will solve much of these issues when we take over BMI. This will enable BA to use BMI operating the majority of mainland Europe and BA consentrating on longhaul and the new markets of the former USSR. I believe BMI operate on costs that are 40% less than ours, so even with the possible industrial issues it would make good sense. Even if under BA management cost reduction is only between 20-30% that has to be a vast inprovement on our current costs in Europe.

BMI staff may not be so pleased but it seems inevitable that they will be taken over if not by BA than someone else within the EU.

[Runway 31]

Rather than worry about loosing slots I think they had better worry about the passengers that will go else where. By forcing would be passengers to get to their destination on another carrier, the passengers may find the competitors are not so bad and stay with them in future.

[Young Paul]

HZ - I think your knowledge of airlines, specifically bmi, and grasp of economics is rather limited. BA take over bmi? And end up with control of 50% of the slots at LHR? I think that the monopolies commission would take a dim view of that.

Incidentally, I have no doubt that bmi will be sold at some stage - but since, unlike BA, FR, EZ it is a private company, there is no possibility of a hostile takeover - unless it is no longer able to pay its bills. In other words, the main shareholder sets the terms.

You also have the issue that every airline that BA takes over ends up costing as much to run as BA mainline does. So by taking over bmi, you would probably be killing the golden-egg-laying (Canada?) goose.

For what it's worth, I suspect that a good few bmi employees aren't particularly bothered by the thought of being taken over by BA or Virgin ... or Lufthansa, or SAS, or almost anybody!

Unfortunately, HZ, your attitude does seem to be a fair reflection of "the BA way" - expecting the whole airport to be organised around you and your convenience!!!:p

[mattredd]

Young Paul it was reported in The Times yesterday that BA might use the proceeds of the Qantas stake sale to buy BMI. It did say about the competition concerns but implied that it could happen. Also having over 50% of the slots at a major hub is pretty common, I think NWA has about 60% at DTW.

[Young Paul]

1) I'm not saying it's impossible - just that the ball will not be in BA's court, since the shares aren't publically available. BA have been interested in bmi for years. Also, you ought to be aware that even the Times isn't averse to publishing speculative stories, if they think they will attract interest.

2) There's an immense difference between having 50% of the slots at A.N.Other US international airport and having 50% of the slots at the single airport in the UK where everybody is trying to get slots. You might ask yourself how many carriers are actually interested in slots at DTW.

[mattredd]

Both Air France and Lufthansa I am pretty sure both have 50%+ at both their hubs, CDG and FRA respectively. At both these hubs, slots are pretty sought after, maybe not as much as LHR but there are lots of carriers that would like greater access at both these airports.

[HZ123]

As for appearing to grasp little or nothing about the airline industry then I suppose that would leave me in fairly good company as after 34 years of that way of life, I would be hard pressed to name any outfit that has a clear plan and consistant profit. The airline industry is game.

[Young Paul]

Well, yes, there is that! ;)