British Airways [Archive]

RevMan2

15th Feb 2006, 08:06

Speed5
"We all work to the same cargo tariff rule book."

It's a commodity market, mate. If there IS a tariff rule book, no-one's used it since the early 70's (in the UK, at least).

What the major European carriers are probably doing (either independently or in cooperation) is defining a floor price - if the US belly mob and other intellectually-challenged carriers (AZ and their ilk) want to flog their limited capacity at below cost, then let them get on with it.
It's pretty much like comparing stuff that's fallen off a lorry with a RRP. What's the true market price? As long as the bloke in the pub car park has got stuff to sell, that's the market price. As soon as he's sold out, it's the cheapest regular retailer. Unless you place value on service, reliability and guarantee, of course, in which case you stay in the High St in the first place....

Price-dumping might be a more fruitful area of investigation for the EU and their US mates....

angels

15th Feb 2006, 08:27

Can't say I'm au fait with what's going on here, but FYI the beancounters hit Asian offices during the European night. This was on Reuters about an hour ago.

Global air cargo probe widens to Asia
By Sachi Izumi
TOKYO, Feb 15 (Reuters) - A global probe into possible price-fixing in the air cargo industry widened to Asia on Wednesday as authorities searched for information at offices of Japanese, South Korean and Hong Kong airlines.
The investigation started on Tuesday when the European Union's executive arm and the U.S. Justice Department raided a number of air cargo carriers on both sides of the Atlantic, while other airlines were asked for information related to the probe.
The case could threaten to put a brake on recent growth in the global air cargo market, which U.S. aircraft maker Boeing Co. <BA.N> has estimated will expand at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent in the next two decades, exceeding the expected growth rates of passenger traffic and the world economy.
Scandinavian airline SAS <SAS.ST> said it had been raided and authorities were investigating whether airlines had illegally cooperated to limit competition in European and other routes.
The alleged activity, mainly involving various surcharges such as for fuel and for security measures imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States using hijacked airliners, has supposedly been carried out since 2000, SAS said.
War-risk surcharges that were applied after the U.S-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 were also involved, it said.
The European Commission said in a statement, "The Commission has reason to believe that the companies concerned may have violated (a European Union) treaty, which prohibits practices such as price fixing." It declined to name the targets.
Asia's biggest airline, Japan Airlines Corp. <9205.T>, said European authorities had searched its Frankfurt offices, while two South Korean airlines, Korean Air Co. <003490.KS> and Asiana Airlines Inc. <020560.KQ>, said they were raided by the local antitrust watchdog.
Boeing said in September that brisk traffic in the Asian markets would lead the expansion of the global air cargo market, adding that the freighter fleet would nearly double over the next 20 years to 3,530 airplanes.

JAL RAIDED
A JAL spokesman declined to comment on alleged cartel activity but said, "We are fully cooperating with the probe."
The cargo business, supported by strong exports from Japanese companies, has been a bright and growing segment for struggling JAL, which expects a net loss this business year due to high fuel prices and a series of safety problems.
Korean Air spokesman Lee Hyoung-woo said South Korea's Fair Trade Commission officials interviewed the company's executives in charge of cargo businesses and removed documents. He added its offices in Europe and the United States were not raided.
Among airlines, Korean Air is the world's top cargo carrier, based on 2004 data, although it ranks behind specialist carrier FedEx Corp. <FDX.N> in total volume flown.
South Korea's FTC declined to comment, citing standard policy on investigations.
An Asiana official who declined to be named said cartel team officials from the FTC came to the airline's office and conducted an investigation, initiated by a request from abroad, in relation to fuel surcharges and price-fixing practices.
Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific Airways <0293.HK> said EC and U.S. Justice Department officials had visited the company's offices in Frankfurt, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The world's leading carriers also acknowledged they had been contacted by authorities.
British Airways Plc <BAY.L>, Air France KLM <AIRF.PA> and freight airline Cargolux [CLUX.UL] had said they were asked for information related to alleged cartel activity, and American Airlines <AMR.N> and United Airlines <UAUA.O> both said they had received inquiries as part of the probe.
All Nippon Airways Co. <9202.T>, Japan's No. 2 airline, said it outsources cargo operations in Frankfurt to unlisted Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., which said it had not been raided.
A spokeswoman said ANA's offices, including ones in Paris and London, had not been searched.
Although shares in JAL closed down 0.6 percent, other Asian airlines rose, including Cathay Pacific, Korean Air and Asiana, as oil prices slipped below $60 to their lowest level this year after heavy losses a day earlier as dealers anticipated a big jump in already healthy U.S. oil inventories.
(Additional reporting by Cheon Jong-woo in Seoul, Alison Leung and Donny Kwok in Hong Kong)

egld0624

15th Feb 2006, 08:36

"Price-dumping might be a more fruitful area of investigation for the EU and their US mates...."

IMHO, the EU is certainly guilty of that outside its self-inflated trade bubble. The EU is going to be a very interesting place to watch just how permeable that bubble is when China really starts to bite. A lot of politicians & bureaucrats have their heads firmly in the ground. Good for them. :hmm:

EG:ok:

Ex Cargo Clown

15th Feb 2006, 19:52

I work in Cargo so there is far more to this than the rags are reporting.

We all work to the same cargo tariff rule book.

The whole thing needs explaining properly, but that is above the media tossers in this country.

There`s the ground, then the service pipes, then below that the sewers, then below all of that the UK media

I'm sorry mate, but no carrier in the world sticks to TACT rates.

RevMan2

16th Feb 2006, 06:42

Appears that the investigation is focussing on fuel surcharges. LH Cargo won't have a problem - they've indexed (http://lhcargo.com/GB/content.jsp?path=0,19130,45022,45024,48016) their fuel surcharge to an average of 5 key spot markets, factor in some volatility damping and adjust the surcharge - either up or down - accordingly. Absolutely transparent.
If other carriers decide to tag along? Well, there's no law against applying Best Practice....

Edited to include hyperlink

Freehills

16th Feb 2006, 07:44

My understanding is though that that isn't the LH fuel surcharge index, it is the IATA fuel surcharge index, agreed by airlines & forwarders together.

Yes, it is sensible, transparent & fair. Obviously the EU and US must get rid of it at once!

Sean Dell

16th Feb 2006, 09:02

Can you imagine the UK/EU regulators raiding the offices of any of the Chapter 11 US ailing airlines and claiming that it was unfair that they were still in business and able to flood the market with cheap transatlantic seats ! There seems to be a rule for one and a different one for another. Just depends what side of the Atlantic you are on!

Level playing field - pull the other one!

Dark Jedi

22nd Feb 2006, 06:53

CV now indicted in the US will post more as soon as i have details

MarkD

24th Feb 2006, 14:39

the Jethros website reports some order conversions and add ons to replace the BCal 320s (5 -100, 5 -200) with 7x320, 3x321. A google search only turned up an airliners.net post.

Can anyone confirm this?

Globaliser

24th Feb 2006, 17:53

Can anyone confirm this?Not in any official or definitive sense, but I have seen this discussed elsewhere in an uncontroversial way. There are a few options from the big order that are being exercised to allow the B.Cal aircraft to retire gracefully.

MarkD

26th Feb 2006, 04:45

globaliser

the orders yahoogroup mention a "UFO" order which fits the bill and is thought to be a Big order :D

thanks for the reply.

apaddyinuk

26th Feb 2006, 08:45

Doh!!!! I guess this means BA will be converting more of the 777's into those awful 3class version!!!! :\

Dark Jedi

28th Feb 2006, 08:24

believe it or not : for having deleted e-mails .

people in charge of the inquiries made very clear that every bit of info should be kept, stored, backed-up for their use
well here we go , but then again , IMHO if you left any traces of "illegal" activities , hmmmm you were to be caught someday

Re-Heat

28th Feb 2006, 08:31

Very easy to believe in current business environment post-Enron and Andersen.

moo

10th Mar 2006, 09:28

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=4308

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9077-2078786,00.html

Re-Heat

10th Mar 2006, 10:06

Cannot seem to post link - FT

BA unveils £450m cost-cutting plan
By Kevin Done in London
Published: March 9 2006 13:19 | Last updated: March 9 2006 13:19

British Airways is planning to cut costs by £450m during the next two years with hundreds of job cuts expected, as it rationalises operations at Heathrow airport, its global hub.

The cost reductions will support the drive to improve profitability, despite higher fuel prices. BA forecast that it would achieve a 10 per cent operating margin for the first time in its history in the year to March 2008 helped by rising revenues and further cost savings, provided there were no more external shocks such as further oil price increases or events such as terrorism or pandemic scares.

Willie Walsh, BA chief executive, also told a meeting of analysts and investors, that the airline was preparing for future capacity growth around the end of the decade and had secured with Boeing options on delivery slots for 10 777 long-haul aircraft in 2009 and 2010.

BA said that it expected its fuel costs to rise by £400m in the next financial year to the end of March 2007 to about £2bn, following an increase of £505m-£515m in the current year to March 2006 to £1.6bn.

The fuel bill, which now accounts for about 21 per cent of total costs will have more than doubled in three years.

It forecast that revenue would rise by 4-5 per cent in the next financial year supported by increased capacity and passenger loads following a rise of 8 per cent this year.

Given the smooth handover of power from Rod Eddington to Willie Walsh, a radical change in strategy at British Airways was hardly on the cards.

A large part of the planned cost savings is related to reducing employee costs, and includes some of the £300m already due to be eliminated over the three years to March 2007.

Key to the savings is a planned reform of the airline’s pension scheme, which has one of the biggest deficits among leading UK companies. Proposed changes in pension fund terms and conditions are due to be presented to staff at the end of the month.

BA is also planning to make significant savings from the transfer of the bulk of its operations at Heathrow to the new Terminal 5, the £4.2bn project under development by BAA, the airport operator.

Martin Broughton, BA chairman told a meeting of analysts and investors, that the airline had “a once-in-a-generation opportunity” to increase efficiency, transform conditions for passengers and reduce costs with the move to T5 at the end of March 2008.

Many of the job cuts are likely to come from ground services staff with changes in working practices and the introduction of new technology. BA said it expected that 80 per cent of passengers would be checking in online or at self-service kiosks by the opening of T5.

The airline said that it would transfer about 90 per cent of its Heathrow operations to Terminal 5, with the remainder moved to Terminal 3, where it would co-locate its Australian and Spanish routes beside its Oneworld alliance partners Qantas and Iberia.

The £450m cost savings will be spread equally across the next two financial years. Total costs, excluding fuel, are forecast to be flat in the year to March 2007 with increases offset by cost efficiencies.

BA is driving an increasing share of its bookings on to the internet with the share planned to rise from nearly a third this year to 50 per cent by March 2008.

The group said that its net debt would be below £2bn by the end of March, down from the crisis level of £6.6bn at the end of 2001 in the recession following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

Shares in BA were up 2½ per cent at 324 ¾ p in early afternoon trade.

newscaster

17th Mar 2006, 11:56

They had one in Kenya which went bust and then theres one in South Africa, both did and do regional as well as domestic services, I can understand UK airlines being appointed by BA to represent them elsewhere but why foreign carriers and that too doing domestic routes, do they plan ro set up more overseas ventures, can other airlines do this too, maybe Aer Lingus should look into this.

Globaliser

17th Mar 2006, 18:20

It's to try and make the brand as ubiquitous as, say, Coca-Cola. They don't have problems selling Coca-Cola as such in South Africa or Kenya. But the nationality-based airline system, and the system of bilateral air services agreements, means that British Airways can't operate domestic routes within South Africa or regional routes from South Africa to nearby countries without using the medium of a South African (or other regional) company.

Franchising is really the only way of making sure that there is a "British Airways" branded flight between Joburg and, say, Durban. If they didn't franchise, then the passenger's "British Airways" experience would have to stop when they walk off the mainline aircraft in Joburg and walk on to some other carrier's aircraft. This way, they can continue to fly "British Airways", and get what they expect from that brand, all the way to Durban. (In fact, they usually get a bit more on that flight than they'd get from a comparable short-haul on BA mainline within Europe, but that's another issue altogether.)

5711N0205W

17th Mar 2006, 21:12

Hmm Kulula.....

newscaster

18th Mar 2006, 12:07

Sounds pretentious that people want to fly BA on a domestic route, Im sure people would also want to take Emirates from Addis Ababa to Debra Marcos in Ethiopia but EK are not franchising there are they.

EI-CFC

18th Mar 2006, 15:54

maybe Aer Lingus should look into this.

Apart from the obvious "political" sensitivities that would be encountered, Aer Lingus new business model as a "low-fares" carrier seems to be working out for them now, and turning them a reasonable profit. I'm not sure they want to change tack quite so soon!

Sounds pretentious that people want to fly BA on a domestic route, Im sure people would also want to take Emirates from Addis Ababa to Debra Marcos in Ethiopia but EK are not franchising there are they.

It's not only about people wanting to fly BA on a domestic route having come off a BA flight, but the company enjoying the global brand recognition that BA brings with it, which attracts non-BA connecting passengers.

Globaliser

18th Mar 2006, 17:28

Sounds pretentious that people want to fly BA on a domestic routeIt's no more pretentious than people who have drunk Coca-Cola on the LHR-JNB flight also wanting to drink Coca-Cola on the JNB-DUR flight instead of a local brand that is unknown to them. You might criticise them for being unadventurous, but not pretentious; this is simply the way of the modern world.

PAXboy

18th Mar 2006, 22:47

Probably the most important reasons for franchise partners - is to get the long haul traffic.

You live in Durban - on the coast 450 miles from Johannesburg - there are no direct flights to London. You can use one carrier to JNB and then collect your bags and recheck for the international sector. But South African Airways will offer you a through ticket. To complete like-for-like, BA need a partner.
Within South Africa PAX do not call it 'British Airways' they call it 'Comair'. That is the name of the company that has existed for many years and became a franchise partner. The planes have the BA logo in large letters but they are almost universally known as Comair because that is the actual name of the ZA registered company.

In America, they do not allow franchise, so airlines build up partnerships and codeshares. They do whatever it takes to secure the long haul seat. "You want to go to Europe? Why not use BA as your single carrier? From your local/regional field to London and then onward to wherever you want to go. Blah Blah."

RevMan2

10th Apr 2006, 18:33

Now it gets interesting...

Major shake-up at LH Cargo - CEO resigns for "reasons of health", Senior VPs for Sales and Handling disappear from the organisational chart, ex- CEO and current LH Group HR Executive Board member moves back to take over the shop, CEO of LH CityLine (ex-MD of German Cargo moves back at Board level...

The word's out that the CEO was the sacrificial lamb in a deal with the US Justice Dept and LH cooperates fully in a plea bargain

redout

18th Apr 2006, 16:50

Taken from BBC

BA raises fuel surcharge further

British Airways says fuel costs remain "a real burden"
British Airways has announced a further round of increases in fuel surcharges for its long-haul flights.
From 21 April, customers buying tickets in the UK will pay a £35 ($62) charge for a one-way ticket, and £70 for a return trip.

BA last raised its fuel surcharge for long-haul flights to £30 for a one-way trip in September last year.

The airline said the increase was "regrettable" but necessary because of the high price of oil.

BA's announcement came as US light crude reached a fresh record of $70.88 a barrel, hit by growing fears over Iran's nuclear standoff with the international community.

"Our fuel costs remain a real burden," said BA's commercial director Martin George.

"The price of oil has risen above $70 a barrel and experts anticipate it staying at these levels for some time."

BA said the fuel surcharge for its short-haul flights would remain at £8 for a one-way ticket, and £16 for a return trip.

MarkD

18th Apr 2006, 17:47

I still don't get how BA can get away with calling it a surcharge. Not including it in the fare price misleads the public IMHO.

notdavegorman

18th Apr 2006, 18:56

MarkD, I agree, however one must also make that argument for all other fees, 'taxes' and wheel chair levies that charged on top of airline fares.

Golden Ticket

18th Apr 2006, 19:06

Not a lot of comments in the last 3 weeks when Virgin put their fuel surcharge up. Which occured on the 22nd March with effect from 24th March. BA has just brought their surcharge up to the same level.

MarkD

19th Apr 2006, 17:34

GT - this is not BA bashing, BA is my preferred LH airline given the options from where I am. VS, QF whoever - it's not "fair" fare practice.

notdavegorman - the difference is that fuel is usually in the fare to being with. It can't be verified directly if it's a surcharge or a revenue item. Air Passenger Levies on the other hand are published information and are independent of individual carriers. My point is this: if you book two tickets on the same route on different carriers *the same taxes and charges should apply*. If not, trading standards should get physical. If carriers insist on offering fares ex tax/charge then comparison between them should be valid.

moku

19th Apr 2006, 20:13

Well from another paper that states.. "BA are also looking at lifting charges on tickets sold overseas"

Now is that meant to say increasing, or getting rid of the charges to tickets sold overseas?

If it's the later, then not good news for UK passengers on BA, who yet again get shafted!

M.

MarkD

19th Apr 2006, 20:42

moku

why should overseas pax pay more than uk pax?

Incidentally, the last time I checked, the BA fare YYZ-ORK-YYZ was always substantially higher than ORK-YYZ-ORK... before charges! Riddle me that one.

Taildragger

19th Apr 2006, 21:47

Mark D Your premise assumes that BA (And any other airline) knows in advance what the Oil Prices are to be. if they could do that, they could (And should) get right out of the Airline business and make their fortune speculating on the stock exchange and guarantee a profit.!!

If one carrier puts their surcharge up more or sooner than another, it ignores the fact that thier cost base is hugely different.
Example.... BA and QF on their common rute stations (eg: Singapore, Sydney, London, Frankfurt etc etc etc) pool their fuel buying power so that their fuel costs are lower than the carrier who operates once, twice three times etc per week. Simple premise....the customer with the highest volume purchases gets the lowest price. It's the Law of supply and demand. :confused:

sailing

19th Apr 2006, 22:28

I still don't get how BA can get away with calling it a surcharge. Not including it in the fare price misleads the public IMHO.

Put this question to a Qantas manager recently, and the reason is that if its in the fare the travel agent gets a percentage, if its a levy they don't, so overall there is less of a fare increase. I agree with you that its misleading, especially as the levy only covers part of the fuel used. IMH(and cynical)O, there will be a move to gradually increase the fuel levies and reduce the base ticket price.

DTVAirport

3rd Aug 2006, 12:13

Since there doesn't seem to be an active BA thread at the moment I thought I'd take the opportunity to start one and let you know what I believe Willie Walsh should do with his fleet:

Order the Boeing 747-800 to replace the Boeing 747-400's.

Order the Boeing 787-800 to replace the Boeing 767-300ER's.

Order 10x Boeing 777-300ER's to compliment the 748's and assist with the replacement of the 744's.

Dispose of all Boeing 737's and 757's.

Make BA Connect an all-jet airline, therefore dispose of the Dash8's.

The above orders would be expensive but the long term benefits would make it worthwhile. I think this may already be underway, but remove the United Kingdom and Royal Mail stickers from all aircraft. Also, get rid of all the logojets including the Official Airline of the England Football Team logojets unless they decide to do a real logojet like Qantas' Wuanala Dreaming.

egnxema

3rd Aug 2006, 12:38

Order the Boeing 747-800 to replace the Boeing 747-400's.

Order the Boeing 787-800 to replace the Boeing 767-300ER's.

Order 10x Boeing 777-300ER's to compliment the 748's and assist with the replacement of the 744's.

Dispose of all Boeing 737's and 757's.

Make BA Connect an all-jet airline, therefore dispose of the Dash8's.

The above orders would be expensive but the long term benefits would make it worthwhile.
What do you believe the long term benefits would be? and why?

I think this may already be underway, but remove the United Kingdom Why would you remove the United Kingdom logos?

and Royal Mail stickers from all aircraft. Why would you do this?

Also, get rid of all the logojets including the Official Airline of the England Football Team logojets again why would you do this?unless they decide to do a real logojet like Qantas' Wuanala Dreaming.

It is very easy to come in with bold statements as you have - but it would add to the presentation of your point of view if you gave some explanations.:ok:

HZ123

3rd Aug 2006, 13:38

As a BA employee; as you state we do not have the finance to replace anything at the moment. The idea of replacing union colour scheme seems good to me as BA is international and its income and equipment is something like 75% sourced from outside the uk.

Carnage Matey!

3rd Aug 2006, 13:51

I think you'll find the vast majority of our profits come from UK based customers and companies. Why do you think the Utopia livery was so unpopular?

BA have plenty of cash at the moment, including over £2BN in cash and another £2BN odd in 'undefined' liquid assets. They are paying off debt at a rate of over £1BN per year, they have been able to make provision for a potential £850M fine by the OFT and procure 10 delivery slots from Boeing for777s. The only reason BA won't invest is to perpertuate the lie that they cannot afford to invest until they've robbed the staff of their pensions.

Skipness One Echo

3rd Aug 2006, 13:56

Are you nuts? That's what Robert Ayling said with his "Project Utopia" and world tails!!! The whole point was that the Union Flag was an unbeatable brand known throughout the world.
British people, and I am one, have no idea how lucky they are.
Does the goldfish know you have it's memory btw?

ETOPS

3rd Aug 2006, 14:03

Firstly it's the 747-8 there is no need for the extra zeros :ok:

10 x 777 already ordered, first delivery April 2008.

Agreed the 787 is the logical choice for 767 replacement but getting advantageous line numbers will be the problem.

Last point - DTVAirport wasn't suggesting removing the Chatham Flag design but the words "United Kingdom" from the side of most of the fleet.

spanishflea

3rd Aug 2006, 16:06

Make BA Connect an all-jet airline, therefore dispose of the Dash8's.

Seeing as the Dash 8 fleet has been the only section of BACON other than LCY to have ever made any money this is unlikely to happen. Its the poor jet equipment that is the main problem.

Lite

3rd Aug 2006, 16:31

Seeing as the Dash 8 fleet has been the only section of BACON other than LCY to have ever made any money this is unlikely to happen. Its the poor jet equipment that is the main problem.

Also consider the success of flybe with their fleet of Dash-8 aircraft. Unsure whether they still operate the Dash 8-300, but the Q400 has completely revitalised the company, and allowed them to comfortably compete in numerous markets alongside low-cost airlines flying bigger Airbus & Boeing jets. Surely BA Connect would want to phase out the ERJ-145 with more Dash 8s, rather than do the opposite, given today's price of oil.

MancRy

3rd Aug 2006, 16:42

The Q400 is a very different aircraft to the Q300 in terms of perfomance and economics though.

tallaonehotel

3rd Aug 2006, 16:50

BA Connect will not be getting any new aircraft whatsoever in the near future, so you can forget an all jet fleet.
BACON are disposing of another Dash 8 at the end of September (BRYX), which has come from a bean counter's abacus not working correctly!.
What next for us Mr Walsh?

MarkD

3rd Aug 2006, 17:06

The Union schemes reinstatement was actually driven by foreign pax feedback IIRC (the Bearded One's "we're the flag carrier" probably helped too).

Funnily enough some people still like British stuff despite the best efforts of President Tone :D :D :D

HZ123

4th Aug 2006, 07:59

Quarter one headlines 2006-2007:

Pre-tax profit up to £195 million
Operating profit up to £211 million
Operating margin of 9.1 per cent
Revenue up to £2.3 billion
Total costs up 11.8 per cent

HZ123

4th Aug 2006, 08:00

Quarter one headlines 2006-2007:

Pre-tax profit up to £195 million
Operating profit up to £211 million
Operating margin of 9.1 per cent
Revenue up to £2.3 billion
Total costs up 11.8 per cent

Groundloop

4th Aug 2006, 08:22

Re, the World Tails/Utopia scheme, remember taxiing in at LGW one day and there was a line up of various BA tails at the North Terminal. Conversation between 2 American PAX in the row behind:-

"That's a colourful tail. Wonder what airline?"

"Must be Caribbean!"

What a corporate identity!

Final 3 Greens

4th Aug 2006, 08:51

Globaliser

4th Aug 2006, 09:34

Any company can achieve a short term rise in profits by the simple expedient of reducing costs. (Yes, I know they are up 11.8%, but I am speaking in relative terms and not scoping in fuel into my thinking.)

The question is whether this performance will be sustained in the longer term and time will be arbiter of that.I find it hard to characterise BA's cost reductions as a "simple expedient", as if it were some slash-and-burn operation. A lot of what's been done has been structural, and good for the long term. Think, for example, about the work on distribution channels and costs.

My personal worry is that some of what BA is doing now has moved into the realm of the silly, causing problems which may have disproportionately adverse operational effects that ultimately really irritate pax and drive them elsewhere. An airline operation has to have some fat, some margin, to deal with irregularities and randomness, and BA is showing many signs of now having insufficient.

Jordan D

4th Aug 2006, 09:50

When did BA stop being proud to be British (again)? Keep the UK and keep the Royal Mail.

Jordan

Captain Airclues

4th Aug 2006, 20:22

Jordan D

BA havn't suggested removing either of those. It was suggested by DTVAirport earlier in the thread.

Airclues

DTVAirport

4th Aug 2006, 20:24

I think you'll find they have - take a look at BA photos on Airliners.net

yachtno1

4th Aug 2006, 21:24

Don't forget net debt down by over £1 Billion ...:)

RNGrommits

18th Aug 2006, 22:31

Having just nearly f***ed up my wedding anniversary by getting my departure time at Gatwick for Prague wrong by 3 hours, I would just like to offer a big THANK YOU to BA, who, despite me having non-refundable tickets, offered me same day secured tickets from Heathrow, and saved my bacon!!
Well done, and EZ jet - look and learn about customer service.
Cheers BA!!!
(Oh & another point, you can make it from Gatwick to Heathrow in under 2 hours, but 4 days in the short stay car park at T1 will leave you crying at the cost (have a clean credit card!)).

Ametyst

19th Aug 2006, 09:11

Actually easyJet have done the same for me - twice!!!!

daz211

19th Aug 2006, 09:14

and ryanair for me

xxx5572

19th Aug 2006, 17:08

So who exactly did you book the tickets with? a ticket discounter or ez jet because not sure why blaming ezy if you booked your tickets with a third party, surely it would be down to those who you booked with and not who is providing that service. :uhoh: Just curious

And also who do you think has been saving all the passengers from canceled ba flights..............hmmm i wonder, could it be ezy. think it goes round in circles!!

STANDTO

20th Aug 2006, 18:03

What follows is an email I sent to BA customer services and never got a reply. Having flown EZY and EuroManx this week, I was amazed at their service compared to BA. Literally streets ahead.

this concerns an appalling lack of customer service on the flight noted. I arrived at 1830 at MAN for my 1940 flight. At 1845 I noticed that they had just started to board the 1710 flight. Realising there was a delay and knowing there was only one aircraft on that route I went to the enquiry desk. I had no luggage. I asked that, as there was a clear likelihood that there was going to be a considerable delay, whether I could be placed on that flight. I was told because I had a non flexible ticket, this couldn't be done. I asked about capacity, and was told there was capacity on the delayed 1710, but there was nothing that could be done. Clearly there was something that could be done, but it was chosen not to.

Had I turned up, and everything was on time, and there was no likelihood of my own flight being delayed, then I would have found it perfectly reasonable that my request was declined. However, when there is a forseeable delay, and there is an opportunity to transit a passenger early, then I consider there is a duty to take that action. This was a weather delay, so it wan't the companies fault, and not the pax' fault either. Some middle ground has to be arrived at.

The attitude of the staff on duty on the help desk was appalling. The BMI/AA staff on the next desk were aghast,watching the 'customer service performance of your staff. To tell a customer 'we're in the business of making money. Go and fly with Manx Airlines (sic) and see what happens to them' is beyond belief. This was a gentleman around 60 years old, wearing a jacket. His younger male colleague told me ' we've been on a training course, and people want consistency' Well, no they don't - when there is a way of helping, they want to get home.

Due to the Dash 8 we were meant to be going on going tech, we eventually departed at 2200. this was down to the hard work and 'can-do attitude of the engineers and aircrew. They were appalled at what was related to them and clearly embarrassed.

A number of years ago, Mercedes Benz started to do 'just enough' to put cars on the road. If you read the reliability problems, and destruction of customer loyalty, you will realise why they have started engineering cars properly again. BA can only dine out on its badge for so long.

I did not want any special treatment, and if I had gone to the desk to be told that they had already done this for a number of others, on a first come first served basis, just to get them home then I would have been happy.

The Isle of Man is a bit different, in that the passengers can't get a train or hire a car to get home.

Finally, I tried to ring 0870 850 9 850 twice. I gave up after six and five minutes respectively. This is atrocious.

I have effectively lost a day's work through this

Ametyst

20th Aug 2006, 19:20

Typical response that you get from BA at Manchester. Most there, I am sad to say, have been in the job too long and they seem to be jealous of other people travelling.

I flew BA last week on a European flight to Heathrow. I got to the airport with a non-flexible ticket and asked if it was possible to get on the earlier flight which was an hour late and was still in. The BA staff said certainly and couldn't have been more helpful.

Where possible I always try and avoid Manchester. Much prefer Liverpool.

apaddyinuk

21st Aug 2006, 11:49

Ametyst
I would not get use to this. They are indeed accomodating at LHR at the moment with all the hoo haa as there have been cancelled flights so they will try and get as many out on flights as they can. But to be honest, if you have chosen to buy an unflexible ticket they are well within their right to refuse you an earlier flight and you should not feel you have the right to complain! Just my opinion!

Lucifer

21st Aug 2006, 12:00

I had no luggage. I asked that, as there was a clear likelihood that there was going to be a considerable delay, whether I could be placed on that flight. I was told because I had a non flexible ticket, this couldn't be done. I asked about capacity, and was told there was capacity on the delayed 1710, but there was nothing that could be done. Clearly there was something that could be done, but it was chosen not to.
You may well have received customer service that was not up to quality, however enforcement of ticketing rules is absolutely correct, even if so abysmally explained to you on the day. If however your arrival had been earlier, so that you were not checking in 25 minutes prior to the delayed departure time of that flight, something might have been achievable.

Furthermore, with security delays as they are, to expect to check in at 1845 for a delayed departure at 1910, while the remaining passengers on that flight are already screened and at the gate ready to go, while you are pre-screening and possibly a distance from the gate (especially if remote stand) is somewhat unrealistic.

Haven't a clue

21st Aug 2006, 12:14

Travelling from the Isle of Man to outside the UK always involves two flights each way. People travelling for liesure with inflexible tickets usually allow several hours for connections in case of delay. They often arrive in time to be checked in for an earlier flight. Manx Airlines recognised its responsibility to the Isle of Man community and pax would be allowed to travel earlier if capacity permitted. In the case of BA total inflexibility prevails. I have even had staff laugh at me when I have asked. The problem is BA's completely inflexible rule book administered with no latitude or discretion. I would have some sympathy were pax trying to abuse the privilages of their ticket. When they make a reasonable request to travel earlier, freeing up a seat or two on the next rotation, it seems petty to refuse.

Incidently if you have to to pay the extra for two return tickets per pax it is no wonder inflexible ticketting is chosen.

I appreciate there must be added complications to changing flights under the present security arrangements. My comments are directed at the attitude which prevailed before, and no doubt will return when and if the some of the current tensions are relaxed.

PAXboy

21st Aug 2006, 13:08

As an observation about IOM + BA, don't forget that they did not want the IOM and all of MANX - they wanted the four pairs of landing slots per day at EGLL. Nothing else was wanted and all of the subsequent bad service is just to run down the MANX routes until they can justify off loading them without it being too obvious as to why they bought the old airline.

Now, picking up a point that was discussed in this thread in April (yes, I am on the ball): MarkD... why should overseas pax pay more than uk pax? The last time I checked, the BA fare YYZ-ORK-YYZ was always substantially higher than ORK-YYZ-ORK.
Yes and the LHR~JNB~LHR is more expensive than JNB~LHR~JNB. The short fact is that the carrier will charge whatever the market will bear. As I have understood this on a route that I and my family travel quite often ... the airlines know that the exchange rate for South Africans to European currencies are very high and, when they get over here, their costs will be high.

They also know that for the Europeans, when they get to South Africa, their costs will be low. So - they balance the flight costs accordingly and the Europeans are subsidising the South Africans but if this were not done, then the folks down South could not afford the seats and so the flights would not be viable. Whether this also applies to Canada, I do not know!

Between the UK and South Africa, all three main carriers do this, BA, SA, VS and I have yet to hear my theory challenged and proved wrong. I sit to be corrected.

__________________
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different."
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Jordan D

22nd Aug 2006, 09:26

This ticketing is nothing new. A close family member flies regularly LHR-SFO-LHR, but her company's travel agency book her "Europe Destination (eg Berlin/CDG/etc)"-LHR-SFO-LHR-"Europe Destination", with breaks in LHR on both ways. Saves them at least £2k on a ticket at the sharp end, including a one way ticket from LHR-"Europe Destination".

Still, there are always going to be ways to cheapen a cost of a ticket.

Jordan

Aerofoil

24th Aug 2006, 15:10

Hi all

Just wondered if anyone knows how much British Airways charge when you want to change the dates which you have already booked?
I am looking at booking a flight(s) from london to Brisbane in Australia and the dates when i can travel both to and from Aus may be vulnerable to change.

I have had a look on the website but cant seem to find the info anywhere.

Many thanks

Foil

BOAC

24th Aug 2006, 16:48

It will depend on what sort of 'ticket' you have purchased. I believe a 'full fare' ticket can be changed at no cost, whereas a real 'cheapo' may not be changeable at all. I'm sure someone will be along shortly with the correct info, but best tell us the type of ticket?

PAXboy

24th Aug 2006, 16:50

Just to let you know - there is an established British Airways thread in this forum currently on the next page so no need to start another.

The answer to your question is: How long is a piece of string? The price will depend upon (amongst other reasons):-

The booking class of the ticket defines whether it can be changed at all.
The booking class defines how much a change will cost.
The difference between what you booked and what you want.
How many seats are available on the flight/s that you now want.

The only way to find out is to visit the place where your ticket was issued. If you bought on-line direct from BA, then you will have to phone the BA customer service desk to find out.

Taff_flyer

24th Aug 2006, 20:54

Foil

All BA public economy fares to Oz have the same penalty clause which says, basically, that it costs £50 for each transaction of change. Don't forget that it's the outbound part of your journey that governs which season the fare is in so if you change that outbound date and it falls into a different season you might have to pay more. Also assumption is that the same 'booking class' is available.
These days airlines try and make the rules 'simple' and as easy to follow as possible!

Taff

PAXboy

25th Aug 2006, 02:14

By James Daley Published: 25 August 2006

British Airways joined the campaign to split up BAA's monopoly of Britain's largest airports yesterday, calling on the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to refer its inquiry into the UK airports sector to the Competition Commission.

Responding to the OFT's consultation, which was launched in June, the airline hit out at BAA, warning that air passengers would continue to get a sub-standard service until London Heathrow and London Stansted were under separate ownership.

BA's chief executive, Willie Walsh, said that both airports were in need of additional runway capacity, but claimed expansion had been held back "to suit the commercial needs of a monopoly owner. If we had separate owners, you'd have additional capacity coming into the market much quicker," he said.

UNQUOTE
The article continues.

spork

25th Aug 2006, 09:04

Interesting story PAXboy - do you think the timing (with regard to the change of ownership) is relevant?

PAXboy

25th Aug 2006, 09:56

It could be that they think that they'll have a go whilst it's new. Afterall, they will not have established any biz relationship with new owners yet. However, all the operational people will still be the same.

My guess is that this has been building for some time and the recent govt inspired 'flap' has brought it to a head. Secondly, by trying to push this now, it will send messages to the BA shareholders that they (BA) are trying to fix things that are beyond their control. So, as always, there are multiple reasons for it.

Personally, I could not agree more. The problem is that, in any sell off, it is EGLL that will be retained by the present incumbent as being the Jewel in the crown. This will leave all the same planning and operational staff in place and trying to get them to change will not be easy.

BWBriscoe

27th Aug 2006, 17:15

What is the longest sector for the 757 on BA? I know they operate Rome, but I wondered if there was anything longer.

Cheers,

BWB

5 MILES OUT 24R

27th Aug 2006, 20:30

BWBriscoe,

A few years ago (2002 if memory serves) BA were using B757's to Athens, as I flew there and back on one. Also I'm sure that in the 90's they used them across the pond (although they don't anymore) out of Glasgow and Birmingham. Of course now these pax are expected (by BA) to travel via LHR or MAN. := :=

Haven't a clue

27th Aug 2006, 20:43

I flew BHX to JFK on B757 in 1999 - BA then operating seriously in the regions!

the_fish@blueyonder.

27th Aug 2006, 21:56

What is the longest sector for the 757 on BA? I know they operate Rome, but I wondered if there was anything longer.

Cheers,

BWB

I was on a 757 Back from Budapest last week, the flight time was about 2 hours 10 minutes (2:45 was timetabled). Is Rome about the same time as this?

On the subject of BA 757's, why is the rear section not fitted out with leather seats? This has been the case on both 757's I've been on, one on a domestic from LHR-EDI and the other from BUD-LHR. Also, I noticed on my BUD flight that there were no personal air vents in our section of the plane (mid section), is this standard on BA 757's as I seem to remember all of my other trips on this aircraft type (First Choice, JMC, Air 2000, Britannia) having these installed. :confused:

Currock Base

28th Aug 2006, 07:29

Blue Yonder

BA757s don't have leather seats in the rearmost cabin as it will never be used for Club Europe. On all BA shorthaul aircraft the curtain partition between Club Europe and Euro Traveller can be moved backwards and forwards. The 757 is unique in the BA shorthaul fleet as it has 3 fixed cabins with a movable curtain in the 2nd cabin. This gives BA the ability to have minimum club (1st cabin only), maximum club (1st and 2nd cabin) or in between using the curtain in the 2nd cabin.

The back cabin will never be used for Club so has cloth seats rather than the leather club ones seen on the rest of the shorthaul fleet. Remember all of their Airbuses and 737s only have 1 cabin.

CB

Swedish Steve

28th Aug 2006, 17:21

BA 757
BA decided not to fit personal air vents when the aircraft were ordered.
The minimum Club load is 15 pax, 3 rows.

MarkD

28th Aug 2006, 18:56

I recall reading (on this forum?) that 757 BHX-JFK was what killed the route, as a 75 couldn't haul the profitable cargo the 767 had been hauling before it.

Flightrider

28th Aug 2006, 19:04

There is one odd-ball to the above explanation, which is G-CPEL. That aircraft only has Club converter seats fitted in the 1st cabin and not in the 2nd cabin, which is why you tend to see that aircraft more on domestic flights than elsewhere.

As a matter of record, the Air Europe 757s (which were 757-236s, same build spec as BA) also had no personal air vents and Air Europe for some reason saw fit to exclude them from all other aircraft (737-*S3s) that it had ordered. If my memory serves me right, the early aircraft ordered for Air 2000 also had a similar quirk, and so I guess it's an Errol Cossey thing to try to save money with Boeing.

the_fish@blueyonder.

28th Aug 2006, 22:30

There is one odd-ball to the above explanation, which is G-CPEL. That aircraft only has Club converter seats fitted in the 1st cabin and not in the 2nd cabin, which is why you tend to see that aircraft more on domestic flights than elsewhere.

I was actually on G-CPEL on a LHR-EDI journey back in January. I was at in the rear section, so I didn't pay much attention to the seating in the first 2 sections. The flight was basicly empty, and I doubt even an A319 would have been full. I felt a bit left out tucked away at the back of the plane, I hardly saw the crew!

My mate was sat in the middle seat on our BUD-LHR flight, it didn't have a proper headrest or seat back pocket, so I did think it was one of the foldable seats that could be used for Club. Oddly on this flight, there were not a lot of club passengers, only about 5/6 rows, but the curtain was pulled right back and all rows of the fron section had thier middle seast "squashed". I guess it was a full club flight on the way out and due to the 1 hour delay they didn't waste time re-confguring the cabin.

I noticed on G-CPEL we had use of the audio entertainment, but the TV screens on the cabin ceiling were switched off for the duration. Are these only used on some BA flights, and once again, is the radio only available in the rear section? We didn't have it coming back from BUD (G-BPEI), nor did we have any TV screens, let alone entertainment (not complaining though, but I suppose a map would have been nice).

Itswindyout

7th Sep 2006, 13:15

On a recent flight from ZRH to LHR, I actually bothered to watch the moving map display.

BA AIRBUS, not certain which type.

I was very surprised to see that a place called STANSTED was co located with Biggin Hill.

Perhaps the BAA have relocated STN.

Any one else noticed. ??????

Windy

Globaliser

7th Sep 2006, 18:16

I was very surprised to see that a place called STANSTED was co located with Biggin Hill.

Perhaps the BAA have relocated STN.

Any one else noticed. ??????There is a place called Stansted, right there (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=561039&Y=162137&A=Y&Z=5). It's just not the one that BA was thinking about when they asked the map makers to identify Stansted. :E

It's not the only thing like that. I noticed recently that there were some other low-fare carrier airports also identified on the BA moving maps, presumably to show how far they are away from the cities they purport to serve. "East Midlands" was one of them, although that ought to be a region, not a specific place.

akerosid

17th Sep 2006, 10:43

I was just reading a flight review of a BA trip to Buenos Aires (very good one too, from BA's perspective) and the reviewer said there were plans to fly nonstop to Buenos Aires in '07; is this correct. Presumably a 777 trip?

Also, is there any more news on when BA might be opening its chequebook again, for new aircraft purchases? Has the whole pensions issue been sorted out yet?

With Boeing now having made the 747-8I the same length as the freight model (and closing the capacity gap on the 380, I'm wondering if it would be of interest to BA. I can't see BA ordering new 747s/380s on a one for one basis to replace 744s, but rather a combined 773ER/748I deal, but of course it remains to be seen when that might happen ...

atcomarkingtime

17th Sep 2006, 13:13

Hi all, sorry if this is int he wrong place! I'm an Air Traffic Controller and only used to the lions den area!!

My wife was supposed to fly on Friday to Heathrow to connect to a Virgin flight to Sydney. She'd booked Premium Economy.
Her flight from Aberdeen was late arriving at Aberdeen and then went tech. BA decided that they were not flying anybody with a connection at Heathrow....I tried phoning Virgin but the call centre in India didn't know where Aberdeen was (Near Heathrow???) and then told me she'd have to wait till Monday to speak to her travel agent as the virgin flights were booked differently than the BA tickets....

I eventually got through to the ticket desk for Virgin at Heathrow and they booked her onto the Saturday nights flight but only in Economy as the flight was busy.....what can we do about this?? She was prevented from flying by BA as the Aircraft went tech...and Virgin could only give her an economy seat even though she'd paid for Premium...

(I'm not moaning coz BA did put her on the next day's flight and Virgin's ticket desk was really helpful......unlike the Indian call centre!!)

Globaliser

17th Sep 2006, 13:14

With Boeing now having made the 747-8I the same length as the freight model ...Has this been confirmed now?

Globaliser

17th Sep 2006, 13:20

I eventually got through to the ticket desk for Virgin at Heathrow and they booked her onto the Saturday nights flight but only in Economy as the flight was busy.....what can we do about this?? She was prevented from flying by BA as the Aircraft went tech...and Virgin could only give her an economy seat even though she'd paid for Premium...As she was flying on two separate tickets (as I understand your post), the technical answer is that nobody's liable to do anything for you; the airlines have separately done their best to do what each had promised to do. It would have been different if the trip was booked as one through ticket, which comes with some additional benefits (often at an additional price).

However, it would be worth writing politely to BA and seeing if you can extract something by way of an ex gratia apology - maybe a voucher for a future booking or some BA Miles (if they're worth anything to you).

atcomarkingtime

17th Sep 2006, 13:31

Hi Globaliser....I did email BA lat night whilst at work - a nice email did go to them as the staf at EGPD were absolutely fantastic....nothing was too much for them!

Its just the reaction from Virgin that really got me....the Indian call centre is a big no-no!! They didn't know where Aberdeen was to start with and constantly told me that as they couldn't make it to Heathrow, then their booking was cancelled and they'd have to sort it next week!! Luckily I talked my way through to the Virgin ticket desk at Heathrow and the staff there were great too......just they couldn't put them into the Premium seats they'd paid for.:ok:

akerosid

17th Sep 2006, 15:00

I believe it has been confirmed - at the behest of some Asian carriers, among them Cathay.

Tonic Please

17th Sep 2006, 16:29

It appears I am allowed to post this here. It is a rumour so perhaps it should go in RN, but it's also refering to BA and a new route, so this appears equally acceptable.

Family memeber heard from Heathrow BA ground staff that a new route to Ercan direct, which is NORTHERN Cyprus, will be starting at some point. This would be therefore, the first and only direct route to Ercan, without chaning planes en-route.

If so, could anyone give some more info perhaps as to when, and from which airport?

Regards, Dan.

TopBunk

17th Sep 2006, 17:12

I doubt it....

Northern (Turkish) Cyprus is not recognised, hence all flights have to transit other soil before landfall in Europe [ie no direct flights]

If it ends up being a BA flight, it will probably be a BMed flight, ie a franchise.

viciousviking

19th Sep 2006, 18:55

Hi,

I am not sure in which forum to adress this, but about a week or two ago there was a BA flight that went off the runway in Brussels. I am therefore just wondering if anyone can tell me what happend?

Thanks a lot! :ok:

apaddyinuk

20th Sep 2006, 02:19

It didnt go off the runway Vicious boy. There were indications of a fire in the hold as the aircraft was inflight so it made an emergency landing into BRU. It came to a halt on the runway and after a discussion between the fire chief by the aircraft and the captain an evacuation was initiated!!! No injuries and very well handled by the crew although there is some discussion as to why it took the fire chief so long to advice the captain that he should evacuate. There was no smoke visible and a controlled evac with steps could have taken place in the time the crew waited for the fire chief!

MarkD

22nd Sep 2006, 16:43

According to the Jethros list G-BUSD has been withdrawn from use - anyone know if that is for sure and if so why? Presume it's mechanical as the info was 07/08 for the -111/211s to go. Or is it being given a rest for the winter flying programme?

Off Stand

23rd Sep 2006, 12:48

I heard that it was being retired from the fleet in Dec 06.

flyer55

29th Sep 2006, 20:35

Any news on BA's planned plane order and if so what its going to be announced end of 2006? Hot on cards is 777-300's and 319/320 for LGW and possibility of futrue order 787 Dreamliner to replace 767 and Low Density 777 operations!

BIGBAD

29th Sep 2006, 20:49

All sounds about right according to the grapevine, plus A318's for BACON. :D

TURIN

29th Sep 2006, 22:15

A318s for BACON? Oh very good, best laugh i've had all day.:D :D :rolleyes:

Anti-ice

30th Sep 2006, 00:02

In the BA investors website , it states that the remaining 10 Ex B-CAL A320's will start to disperse nov 07 - dec 08.

To be replaced by 7 x A321 and 3 x A320
Everybody's guess on the 757/767's but they do tend to fill good gaps for larger loads.

They have option slots on 777's from 2010 , but no variant is stated.

I would guess more 777's (maybe some -300's) and possibly 747-800

I think A380 is out of the question, and the still developmental 787 / A350 perhaps a long shot - - BA certainly learn't some lessons with the teething probs of the 777 GE90's and the 767 engine pylons.............

HZ123

30th Sep 2006, 14:41

More likely Ankara, this has been mentioned a number of times within BA circles particularly as the EU negotiations increase nearer the joining time. BA did serve this station many years ago.

spanishflea

30th Sep 2006, 14:57

HZ123

BMed have been flying there for some time now...

flyer55

30th Sep 2006, 19:02

Very interesting i wonder if it will be placed at the end of 2006 !

atcomarkingtime

3rd Oct 2006, 21:53

Thanks BA!!! Further to previous replies here regarding my wife's trip to Australia being delayed by the BA departure from EGPD going tech....BA have offered 10000 BA miles......thanks BA.....and my message to VIRGIN...the call centre in India couldn't give a :mad:

sidtheesexist

5th Oct 2006, 10:03

When I looked a moment ago, valued at c451p. There have been rumours of a buy out by Emirates but bearing in mind the recent increase in the NAPs deficit, would anyone care to speculate (after all, this is a RUMOUR network) as to the reason(s) behind the continued upward trend in the share value???? Am not an avid follower of the financial sections of various papers so apologies if I have missed something obvious!

Stockpicker

5th Oct 2006, 10:09

Falling oil price prolly the main reason. It's misguided these days, as BA hedges so far forward, but there has tended to be a reasonable inverse correlation between BAY and jet kerosene prices.

There was also bid speculation in the market, but as a learned observer has noted, the pension fund issue looks a convincing poison pill.

hetfield

5th Oct 2006, 10:10

Funny, just heared about a buy out of LUFTHANSA by Emirates.

They must have some money left, o.k. the A380s have to be paid much later:D

sidtheesexist

5th Oct 2006, 10:11

Stockpicker - I know little of shares and markets - what does 'bid speculation' mean?

Scooter Rassmussin

5th Oct 2006, 10:13

Emirates will also buy 50% of Qantas, wait and see.

ETOPS

5th Oct 2006, 10:18

Look for BA shares to peak around £6 - certainly headed over £5 in the near future. Costs (other than pensions) under control. Load factors holding up with growth in premium cabins. Shorthaul ( but not LGW) in profit and loss making regional operations to end soon. T5 opening in 2008 with massive cost savings to come from simplification of terminal usage and imminent buyout of a major Middle East carrier ;)

PS One of the bits of info above is a straight lie.............

Strepsils

5th Oct 2006, 10:36

I've read two threads today and so far Emirates are buying BA, Lufthansa, Qantas and Aer Lingus, assuming they beat ryanair to it.

I think some people somewhere are getting a little bit carried away!:p

Stockpicker

5th Oct 2006, 10:46

Sorry, sid - bid speculation or "bid spec" is when the stockmarket believes a company will be bid for, and sends the share price up. Under the stockmarket rules, if there is a significant move of this nature, the company is generally then required to make an announcement either saying they are in talks, or saying they no of no reason for the move.

Doesn't always happen, though - Hanson shares have shot up in the last couple of weeks, but the company has said nowt.

Memo to self, stop using jargon when attempting to communicate! :ugh:

BOAC

5th Oct 2006, 10:52

PS One of the bits of info above is a straight lie.............

So, LGW IS making a profit?:)

sidtheesexist

5th Oct 2006, 11:04

Stockpicker - thanks for that - as I said, I'm rather ignorant of such matters.

I noted that BA's sept traffic stats are just out - wonder whether they are contributing to the higher price - unfortunately whilst I have a basic understanding (numerically) of said stats, I don't know how significant they are in an 'airline business' context. Perhaps you can share your learned opinion on that one stockpicker?!!! :ok:

PS Would a moderator please post on here the reason(s) why this thread has been moved here from rumours and news - I am confused and peeved........

BOAC

5th Oct 2006, 11:15

You'll have to ask Danny wot moved it:)

Stockpicker

5th Oct 2006, 12:48

Not as "learned" these days, sid, it's a few years since I specialised in airlines! But the traffic stats were a bit lacklustre - BA said they would see sales growth in the year of 5-6%, whereas we had previously been looking for 6-7% (may not sound like much, but of course the cost of flying a plane from A to B being mostly fixed, getting a little bit extra from the SLF drops straight to the profit line). On the other hand, they cut their estimate as to how much extra they would be paying for fuel this year from £550-£600m to £450m - lower fuel costs, but this impact was again muted because they had "hedged" their costs (you don't honestly want me to explain the swaps market as well, do you? :\ ). So, all in all, fairly dull, and the shares have drifted from their 450p peak - currently 444.75p.

Railgun

17th Oct 2006, 20:13

"British Airways has launched a competition for new longhaul aircraft by issuing tender documents to aircraft and engine manufacturers.

The competition, called a request for proposal (RFP), is the first step in a lengthy process before the airline makes a decision on fleet growth and replacement for the next decade.

Airbus and Boeing, and engine manufacturers, Engine Alliance, General Electric and Rolls Royce plus other key component suppliers, have been invited to bid."

More info available on the BA website

LonBA

22nd Oct 2006, 15:46

On Friday there was a rumor going around that BA is planning on acquiring Iberia (which led to an increase in Iberia share price). Any substantiation to this rumor? I know BA has long coveted American Airlines. Seeing as how AA is not likely to be an elgible candidate, does anyone think BA will make acquire Iberia in the immediate future?

It seems like an odd time to make an acquisition, given the pension issues and the recent announcement of planned a/c acquisition. If not true, does BA miss out on the European airline consolidation play by sitting on the sidelines (cutting costs)?

LonBA

23rd Oct 2006, 13:29

No one has heard about this?

HZ123

24th Oct 2006, 14:54

There is surely no way that BA will buy IB we have enough trouble with pension funds & unions without taking on more trouble.

LonBA

31st Oct 2006, 13:03

BA will release earnings on Friday. They will be asked on the progress of the pension deficit and Iberia. It should be interesting.

PAXboy

3rd Nov 2006, 22:10

Perhaps we now we know why the stock priced move as it did? With the announcement of the deal with FlyBe, then Mainline may expect to benefit and so it would be good to buy early.

That fact that the sell off will return BA to the BOAC / BEA set up is very amusing to those of us that have been predicting this. And it would be interesting to hear the reasons why the board changed their mind after saying many times that there would be no LH/SH split.

tallaonehotel

4th Nov 2006, 01:03

I hope the BA management drown in their own urine after what they done yesterday. A disgrace to call themselves 'British Airways'.

Watch out all at LGW, where will Willy's chopper fall next?

Skipness One Echo

6th Nov 2006, 08:28

Sorry if I am behind the times a bit here, but once this BA Connect wind up, er sale goes through, am I correct in thinking that the only bases that BA have flight deck crews at are Heathrow and Gatwick?

False Capture

6th Nov 2006, 11:01

Skipness One Echo,

There are about 25 BA pilots (mostly captains) on secondment to BA Connect. They are currently flying the RJ100 out of EDI and BHX. The new subsidiary which BA is setting up will be a LCY operation with all the RJ100 flight-deck crews based in EDI.

Over the coming weeks, BA and BALPA will be discussing the options available for these BA mainline secondees.

The answer to your question could be: LHR, LGW and EDI.

Globaliser

6th Nov 2006, 18:23

That fact that the sell off will return BA to the BOAC / BEA set up is very amusing to those of us that have been predicting this. And it would be interesting to hear the reasons why the board changed their mind after saying many times that there would be no LH/SH split.Is this perhaps taking it a little bit too far? BA will still have all their short-haul operations from London, won't they? (Or am I just too young to have a clear memory of the BOAC/BEA split?)

Charlie Roy

11th Nov 2006, 19:58

The BA website has gotten a mini makeover.Looks nice and fresh, I like it :ok:

BHDflyer

11th Nov 2006, 22:21

The BA website has gotten a mini makeover.Looks nice and fresh, I like it :ok:

Same here, brighter I think:)

StbdD

15th Nov 2006, 13:25

LONDON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - British Airways said on Wednesday it had purchased American Airlines' stake in Spanish carrier Iberia for 19 million euros ($24.29 million).

BA, Europe's third-largest airline, said in a statement it now owned about 10 percent of Iberia, up from 9 percent previously.

"The transaction is intended to preserve British Airways' two seats on the Iberia board," BA said in a statement. BA has played down the prospects of merging with Iberia or extending its joint venture with the Spanish carrier.

flyer55

15th Nov 2006, 16:52

BA have resolved the pension deficit so wonder what is the next big Announcement - Aircraft orders or whats happening with the franchises !

Globaliser

15th Nov 2006, 20:26

BA have resolved the pension deficit ...Not quite (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=206096), I think! Meeting with unions tomorrow (Thursday), if I have got my dates right.

Robertkc

16th Nov 2006, 16:37

BA have resolved the pension deficit so wonder what is the next big Announcement - Aircraft orders or whats happening with the franchises !
New aircraft orders are next me thinks! Anyone care to guess what they'll order? WW has all but ruled out the A380 after his comments that it would actually worsen congestion at LHR due to the wake vortex ruling recently out. So that leaves: B777, B787, B747-8i or A350.

The Little Prince

30th Nov 2006, 17:35

A question:

Does anyone believe that Willlie has got it right in retreating from the regions and starting the reformation of a BOAC oriented airline? Having got rid of BAR via BACX and BACON, LGW is clearly next, because it can no more compete with the LoCos than could BACON. The question is whether this is a viable policy.

Me - personally, and being purely objective I think he probably has, because the BA business model can never make a profit shorthaul, and the margins from Longhaul won't support S/H as a feeder. Interested in your opinions.
All those in favour of the motion please?:}

Re-Heat

30th Nov 2006, 18:22

Point to Point is the future - with the cost base in place, BA can only afford it in London. Feeder/hub model is dead.

Only problem is if BAA is broken up, price controls will cease. BA won't make a 10% margin on the higher feeds as demand shoots up - and the price controls and monopoly position are the only reason for its profits.

Right move in my opinion...future still uncertain.

biddedout

30th Nov 2006, 19:19

And does anyone think that WW is covering his arse slightly by keeping just a teeny weeny bit of control of the new larger Flybe or will he dump the shares later to give the impression of recovering some cash out of the wreckage of BRAL/ Brymon BAR and even Highlands. He must be slightly nervous about giving away all those peak time slots at MAN, BHX etc.

wobble2plank

1st Dec 2006, 08:40

Just a couple of ideas to kick off the rumours....
Seems Big Airlines has profited from the Polonium case with good PR, to be honest deservedly so as they were quick off the mark with the hearts and minds stuff.
The pensions debarcle seems to be approaching a tentative conclusion, watch this space.
Boeing and Airbus are begging to line up long haul aircraft in the chatham flag (A330's outta LGW????)
And finally the stock market seem to be riding the wave with the share prices peaking over £5 today.
So where now for Big Airlines???
Answers on a postcard please :ouch:

Chrimesy

1st Dec 2006, 10:02

My wife's nephew & a mate of his are starting, hopefully on December 10th, an unaided/unsupported row across the Atlantic from La Gomera to Antigua - same route as Matthew Pinsent & Ben Fogle did with TV crew last year. They are intending to break the world record for the crossing which is 40 days. They have a target to raise £200,000 in aid of Cancer Research UK. On their BA flight out to the Canary Islands they were carrying essential personal items for the voyage and also a substantial medical kit which one would understand is likely to be vital on such a hazardous venture. Despite making the check in staff aware of the reasons for the extra weight BA still charged them £252 in excess baggage charges which effectively reduces what is raised for the charity by the same amount.

What a rotten lot they are!!

Rainboe

1st Dec 2006, 11:14

Chrimesy, what a load of tosh you wrote! Good luck to them in their endeavour, but you imply that in support of their task, everyone should bend over backwards giving them freebies. Did they pay for their ride to the airport? If driven, did they try and get the petrol free from a garage? BA supports many charities, but it is also a commercial business, and these people bought commercial tickets and knew the rules. It's a bit unfair to apply moral blackmail to every business that they come into contact with. Each capplication does get looked at for its merits- it's not really fair to try and blag an overload citing 'but we're carrying this for charity!' at the check-in desk! Whilst one applauds people who do this, usually the book coming out about such endeavours, the newspaper articles and the TV documentary produced about it, often causes suspicion that personal profit motives enter the equation as well as charitable aims. Should a private business be expected to support every charitable enterprise because of the threat of bad publicity? Is this a form of blackmail?

marlowe

1st Dec 2006, 13:09

Well its not going to the regions thats for sure!!!!

egnxema

1st Dec 2006, 14:06

I have to agree with Rainboe. BA along with most major airlines, sell a selection of special fares, only available through specialist Business Travel Agents that deal with the voluntary sector. These Charity Fares normally offer an increased baggage allowance. Some airlines will consider "any reasonable amount" of excess baggage in connection with the fare - but it has to be requested in advance. No-one should expect to turn up at the check-in counter and say "This is for Charity mate!" and have any amount of excess baggage just waived through.

BTW - maybe the most generous for this was SN, will be interesting to see if it continues in the guise of the SN Brussels/Virgin Express merger.

MarkD

1st Dec 2006, 17:37

I'm not sure how you profit from the grounding of 3 x 763s, never mind the implication to pax that while they'll take care of you afterwards, BA does also fly people who have radioactive substances on them. The cost in staff time in locating 33,000 passengers and an unknown number of crew is also likely to be substantial.

Anyway it's all a big hoax say the Russians:
http://www.russia-ic.com/rus_international/in_depth/312/

GOAROUNDMAN

1st Dec 2006, 22:17

They say that all publicity is good publicity and no matter what happens just keep your name in the news and that’s all you need to know if you really wan’t to be king . The odd walkout by the wage slaves, The mad tail planes, changing of the guard (oz Rod to Irish Willie ) etc. It keeps you in the news it keeps the news out of the news and the end product –everybody knows your name and that’s what count’s if you want to sell volume and keep the city boys, the government, the shareholders and the good old British public happy. But (And never start a sentence with But) Radiation on plane’s is a bit a step too far, I mean let’s ask the golden question “ Would you fly on a plane that was radioactive’ I don’t think I would. But then again on maintenance checks aircraft go through Non Destructive Test’s especially on ‘C’ Checks that use X-rays to look for cracks that human eye cannot see, so maybe this has something to do with it. But do I get the feeling this is not the case.
But keep this quiet, that Russian Guy was a CSKA Moscow fan went to the Emirates Stadium a few weeks ago to watch his team to play the mighty Arsenal and apparently this stadium is one of the so called 12 new government radioactive new sites.

Just to slightly change the subject, Iberia want’s to opt out BA and obviously Oneworld and join either STAR or AF/KLM. Where does this leave Oneworld and BA and AA. Let’s not forget Aer Lingus and Swiss have both left Oneworld. Is Oneworld finished? There is also talk of BA being sold to a middle eastern party. Is BA finished? or is it all a publicity stunt!

Bacon Slicer

1st Dec 2006, 23:49

I forcasted all that has happened. Jim French and his mates in the channel Islands are dining on local lobster and Bollinger as we speak- they deserve to!

Why so few of you did not see this coming alarms me- you guy's fly aeroplanes so well. You also need to read the tea leaves just as well.

Bacon Slicer.

Skipness One Echo

2nd Dec 2006, 09:59

[QUOTE=GOAROUNDMAN;2997630]But keep this quiet, that Russian Guy was a CSKA Moscow fan went to the Emirates Stadium a few weeks ago to watch his team to play the mighty Arsenal and apparently this stadium is one of the so called 12 new government radioactive new sites. QUOTE]

Glad you never told anyone that then....phew:ugh:

Uncle Silas

2nd Dec 2006, 11:45

Today BACON, tomorrow Gatwick......ask not for whom the knife slices - it slices for YOU!

GOAROUNDMAN

2nd Dec 2006, 18:41

Actually Echo it was in yesterday's Guardian
http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1961601,00.html

:ugh:

jabird

2nd Dec 2006, 21:50

Once T5 opens, how much will BA really need LGW anyway?

"Fed up with making too many payments on expensive and unprofitable regional airports? Do those bills mount up each month quicker than they can be paid? WW of London just made one call to Ocean Flynance, and consolidated all of his lets under one roof."

PAXboy

9th Dec 2006, 18:13

I am another who has been predicting a retreat to BOAC for some time. When the 'Future Size & Shape' project stated that they would retain regions, I suggested that it was a deliberate half way step, so as to only retreat in measured steps.

Large corporations that have been getting bigger and bigger over the years reach a point at which they must either make a staged retreat - or will collapse in one big bang, and then be bought up by a competitor.

The BA high table are making a steady retreat and appear to have (if you pardon the pun) saved the shareholders bacon. :ooh:

I notice the steady push to T5 and so I see the strongest possibility that they will be BOAC out of T5 and nowhere else. The only caution that I would give is that, currently, they are promoting T5 as the be-all and end-all. They are saying (to us the pax) that it will solve all our problems. No company should ever start to build customer anticipation this far in advance of a launch. They should always under promote the new product and then let customer perception and public reporting take it much higher.

Apart from that, they are doing what the big carriers of Europe have so far failed to do. They have seen some of them go bang and are trying to scale back without provoking too many strikes. And - NO - I am not a shareholder.

Oh yes, and they got Eddington to do the business on LHR 3rd slab of black-stuff AND the 2nd at STN is out of the picture for the time being and LGW won't get their 2nd for ages. yep, it all looks good for BOAC Mk2.

edinv

9th Dec 2006, 21:24

Just for the record at the time of BOAC/BEA merger BOAC did in fact serve other pats of the UK. - MAN & PIK with B707s & VC10s to YYZ, YUL & JFK not forgetting BFS, EDI & ABZ with Viscount 700s as feeders into PIK. That said, its sad that loyal BA PAX from the 'other parts' are being treated as second class citizens by the once national airline and that their custom appears not to be worth anything. I also feel very sorry for all the staff out there likely to be axed. - I shall now look to *alliance carriers for my own travel until there is sea-change by WW etc. :mad:

MAN777

9th Dec 2006, 21:46

I would be really interested to know how loyal non London residents are towards BA these days, I personally dont know anyone who uses LHR and BA, All my colleagues use the likes of EK making there connections well away from London.

Anybody from the industry with any figures ?

jongeman

9th Dec 2006, 23:25

Large corporations that have been getting bigger and bigger over the years reach a point at which they must either make a staged retreat - or will collapse in one big bang, and then be bought up by a competitor.

Good points there PAXboy. The way I see it, some big corporations work, like BSBC, Barclays, Coca Cola and Microsoft! BA are in the process of making the most of their biggest asset (only asset?) and that is owning the bulk of the slots at the primary airport serving what is arguably one the the 2 premier cities of the world. As a flag-waving MAN supporter, I haven't got an issue with this........however...

The fact that it's profitable for them to fly to places like Ekaterinburg, Entebbe and Almaty from London, and yet haven't got a clue how to make Birmingham - New York or Manchester - Hong Kong work for them too, is rather bloody unfortunate IMO. It's sad.

MAN777 - I've been avoiding BA and LHR for more than 20 years, using any other carrier and any other transit point as a better alternative. The only time I've ever used LHR to connect was in 1990 when my MAN-HAJ-TXL flight was over-booked.

pwalhx

10th Dec 2006, 11:51

I also operate an anyone but BA rule and use them as the airline of last resort. There are plenty of other options out of the north and I will use them. I also know of many friends and colleagues who think the same.

BA's treatment of the regions is abismal.

On a previous point I can recall direct flights from manchester to Toronto, Montreal, Barbados, Los Angeles, Orlando and Hong Kong with BA at one time and all long gone.

I also remember the time they taled of a tie up with SN and operating a 2 hub system with flights over the atlantic operating Brussels - Manchester and onwards and flights to the Middle / far east operating Manchester - Brusssels and onwards so obviously at one time someone in BA felt their were markets for flights from the North.

Finally didnt they also promise things like Florida and Singapore from manchester when they opened T3.

PAXboy

10th Dec 2006, 21:55

Whatever they promised was then... They can argue [they not me!] that if they are making a profit and NOT serving the regions s/h and not serving from the regions to l/h - why should they try and do it?

Look at just two of the other major corporations of long standing, Ford and Daimler Chrysler - they have grown and grown and are having problems. Look at the airlines that have grown by acquisition and do local, regional, medium and long - are they comfortable? I don't think so.

BA looked at the big tie-ups with AA, Sabena, KLM and others but none worked out. Not just because airlines remain in the politicians minds as 'ours' but all the international regs on routes are formed on the basis of countries. My guess is that they decided that getting bigger was problematical and they would head, quietly, in the opposite direction. They can sell off whole chunks and, when some a/c are reaching a typical replacement point - just withdraw from a route instead.

For the shareholders it makes sense and that is the responsibility of the board. I expect that they will pull this off and I give them credit for it because everyone else is still trying to grow - look at poor old Mike at BD, still desperate after all these years. BA are the only ones trying to shrink and I am waiting to see how long it takes AA and the others to follow. (No, I am not a shareholder or employee - past or present - of any airline).

airbus777

11th Dec 2006, 08:35

jongeman,ba do not fly to Ekaterinburg or Almaty,these routes are operated by Bmed!

Flightrider

11th Dec 2006, 08:52

Anyone else hearing rumours about some more long-haul shifts between LHR and LGW?

Latest one is that the daily LGW-Barbados will move to LHR (leaving LGW with the limited services Barbados-Port of Spain introduced after the deal with BWIA/Caribbean) and that a daily LHR-JFK will move to LGW.

ETOPS

11th Dec 2006, 20:07

Semantics!

these routes are operated by Bmed!

As a franchisee of BA. Flights carry BA numbers and are booked through BA

13Alpha

13th Dec 2006, 15:32

Just got an email from the BA Executive Club which began:

"Our vision for London Heathrow Terminal 5 is to create the best possible airport experience before you fly. With this in mind we have announced a new simpler checked and excess baggage policy, which will come into effect on 13 February 2007"

and then went on to explain the new baggage policy (max weight per bag = 23kg, fees for excess baggage, 20% discount for online pre-pay)

What I'm wondering is... what does the new baggage policy have to do with T5...?

and what's the vision for London Gatwick....? or does that vision involve a trip up the A23 and round the M25 ? :rolleyes:

13Alpha

TURIN

13th Dec 2006, 23:53

Anyone else hearing rumours about some more long-haul shifts between LHR and LGW?
Latest one is that the daily LGW-Barbados will move to LHR (leaving LGW with the limited services Barbados-Port of Spain introduced after the deal with BWIA/Caribbean) and that a daily LHR-JFK will move to LGW.

That last one is probably to make way for the thru-route via MAN when the FlyBe/BACON fiasco is sorted. :mad:

flyer55

14th Dec 2006, 18:34

LGW - BGI is not moving to LHR !

Regarding the MAN - JFK , the only way it will come to LGW Crew is if it changes to a 777 !

But you never know!!

MarkD

19th Dec 2006, 17:20

13Alpha

Because the biggest screwup in a new terminal is usually baggage so the fewer they have by discouraging pax from bringing them, the fewer they can lose. Trebles all round!

Just another day in Willie Walsh's epic, "Ryanairise a full service airline - the sequel"

ETOPS

3rd Jan 2007, 14:28

It's common knowledge that we have 10 777-300's on order and that this will be officially announced when the pension deal is complete.

Sources in Washington State tell us that the first airframe is complete and awaiting it's paint job in BA colours.

Would some kind soul please look out of the window at Paine Field or King Co and see if the rumour is true?

Thanks:D

WHBM

3rd Jan 2007, 14:37

All the 777 frames up to a first flight in April 2007 at least are fully accounted for (the later ones here will not have begun final assembly yet) and no there's not one for BA.

It's not like Hollywood movies portray it. BA is a public company and the introduction of a new type involves a tremendous amount of preparation which will be well known. If announced today you might get something delivered in 2008 .....

Kalium Chloride

3rd Jan 2007, 14:53

If it's "awaiting" a paint job in BA colours, how will anyone who's looking out of their window be able to tell?! :hmm:

Kestrel_909

3rd Jan 2007, 14:55

SIA is stealing all the 773s, 3 in the last month have left PAE for SIN direct, rather them than me!

jethro15

3rd Jan 2007, 14:59

Isn't it the case that BA have only secured options for 10 Boeing 777's which can be converted to B787's, for delivery 2009 / 10, providing that the B777 is included in the selected types for fleet renewal?.

jethro
UK and Ireland Airline Fleet Listings
http://www.jethros.i12.com

25check

3rd Jan 2007, 15:24

To quote BA commercial director in Flight this week...

'We have already reserved 10 777-200ER production slots from 2009, but these bridging deliveries will only be confirmed if the 777-300ER/787 package is confirmed. If we go with Airbus then the A330 will be the bridge to the A350...'

ETOPS

3rd Jan 2007, 15:46

If it's "awaiting" a paint job in BA colours, how will anyone who's looking out of their window be able to tell?!

Because the rumour said it was the only one parked outside in primer.

Now comprehensively quashed by those "in the know" :)

Thanks guys.

MarlboroLite

3rd Jan 2007, 16:09

Unless Boeing has broken with tradition, the Rudder is painted first (something to do with balance), then installed whilst still on the production line, then wheeled in for the paint job.

Perhaps i'm mistaken???:sad:

Carnage Matey!

3rd Jan 2007, 16:14

They still do that, but if the aircraft doesn't have a buyer (or they wanted to keep it quiet:E ) they could easily produce a "white tail" aircraft then paint it later.

ManfredvonRichthofen

3rd Jan 2007, 17:28

A south Asian carrier will be getting quite a few 300ERs in the near future

Whitehatter

3rd Jan 2007, 17:33

I think that the T&C forum (or indeed this one!) would have been abuzz if BA had somehow sneaked a few quid out of the biscuit tin and been down the Seattle toy shop. :}

The 777-300ER would mean some activity on the payscales front after all, as it would be effectively a new fleet type capacity-wise.

Naturally other places have taken BA booking those options to be a sign that WW is about to lash out on a hundred GE powered 777 and 787 frames, with a side of 748. Sheesh...it is what it is, a placeholder as there is a decent backlog on the 777 line and BA want their delivery options at their timescale and not have to sit in the queue. :suspect:

WHBM

3rd Jan 2007, 17:34

All production for the first 6 months of 2007 at least is completely detailed and known.

Boeing just delivered 777 number 600 a couple of weeks ago, and are turning out around 5 a month. There are no other undelivered aircraft at Boeing. Here's what is coming, and the sequence, in the first half of 2007 then.

(Line number, order number, reg, airline)

600 34569 9V-SWD Singapore AL
601 33778 AP-BHV PIA
602 34570 9V-SWE Singapore AL
603 34571 9V-SWF Singapore AL
604 34572 9V-SWG Singapore AL
605 34379 ZK-OKH Air New Zealand
606 32651 JA778A All Nippon
607 35960 OE-LPD Austrian
608 32962 F-GSQS Air France
609 35295 PH-BQO KLM
610 36300 VT-ALA Air India
611 33779 AP-BHW PIA
612 33750 B-16706 Eva
613 35296 AP-BHX PIA
614 36124 5Y-KYZ Kenya AW
615 34573 9V-SWH Singapore AL
616 32846 F-GSQT Air France
617 35547 N77019 Continental
618 34574 9V-SWI Singapore AL
619 32729 A6-EBX Emirates
620 35256 C-FITL Air Canada
621 36301 VT-ALB Air India
622 33864 A6-EBY Emirates
623 34575 9V-SWJ Singapore AL
624 32847 F-GSQU Air France
625 31687 N69020 Continental
626 35254 C-FITU Air Canada
627 35157 VT-JEA Jet AW
628 32713 A6-EBZ Emirates
629 36302 VT-ALC Air India
630 32721 PH-BQP KLM
631 34894 JA779A All Nippon
632 32794 A6-ECA Emirates

Tandemrotor

3rd Jan 2007, 18:57

Whitehatter.

What do you mean by your comment:
The 777-300ER would mean some activity on the payscales front after all, as it would be effectively a new fleet type capacity-wise.

?

Dan Air 87

3rd Jan 2007, 19:18

Get real for heavens sake. BA taking on new aircraft? Dream on. BA must sort out the quality of their service (both in the air and on the ground) before they start even thinking about new aircraft. WW should look at how they are running in T1 and T4 which are disaster areas before looking at new planes cos if the service keeps on goinfg down who will they get to fill the new planes???

Fargoo

3rd Jan 2007, 19:26

L337

3rd Jan 2007, 19:27

Get real for heavens sake. BA taking on new aircraft? Dream on.

Get ready to eat your words.

Gonzo

3rd Jan 2007, 19:31

Fargoo, while BAA are responsible for some problems at Heathrow, BA aren't absolved of all blame either.
Availability of tug crews before 0700 local in T4, availability of dispatchers (or whatever they're called now - I believe the name has changed) to turn on stand guidance etc etc. Even if it's a PAN medical emergency and there's been an hour's notice! :ugh:

Suggs

3rd Jan 2007, 21:01

Heard an interesting rumour that some of the problems with the bags were caused by the loaders Sabotaging the baggage belts!

Something about not being happy with the new working practises.

I would be very interested to see the next summer and winter timetables to see if they say 773! Especially with the 777 getting Bangkok and Hong Kong.

But I'm more interested in where the bunks are going when they do come!

scudpilot

3rd Jan 2007, 21:05

Hi All,

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but...
Terminal 5 is ( I believe) the only Terminal at Heathrow with the required infrastructure to handle the A380.
I beleive that BA will have the entire terminal, and this has always been the case, bearing in mind, how long ago the Terminal and aircraft were designed, does this mean that BA had ALWAYS intended to buy the 380?

Golf Charlie Charlie

3rd Jan 2007, 21:10

T3 also has several new A380 capable stands - several T3 airlines will use A380s, eg. SQ, EK, VS.

lukeylad

3rd Jan 2007, 21:17

I belive the last word from BA was that they would wait and see how it performs with other airlines. Personally i see BA getting more Boeing 777s .

Regards

LL

londonmet

3rd Jan 2007, 23:47

T1 and T4 is mostly of BAA's doing with a little T5 "adjustments" causing some grief at the moment.
No problem though with the amount of pax and money flooding in at the moment. More than enough demand to fill some new aircraft.

Mate,

I work for BAA and I would agree with some of your anti BAA posts but this one............is so incorrect it makes me chuckle.

:ugh::ugh:

L337

"Get ready to eat your words"

I agree!

L Met

EI-BUD

4th Jan 2007, 03:40

Willie Walsh has said that he is very certainly interested in A380. He says the project is excellent, from an economic and opertaional point of view he is very keen.

No doubt he has a long relationship with Airbus from Aer Lingus, and BA are a serious Airbus customer. Nonetheless, Willie Walsh will not give either Boeing or Airbus any comfort publicly until he secures the deal he and BA want!

Personally as a Beoing follower I would love to see BA keep the long haul fleet Boeing. Most of the short haul fleet is now airbus! I wonder will BA look at the 318 for the London City operation instead of the Avrojets?? I can see Airbus pushing the issue to drive 318 sales???

akerosid

4th Jan 2007, 04:57

TopBunk

4th Jan 2007, 07:54

Some seasonal fun then:

1. BA Pension scheme changes agreed by end January with staff groups being balloted for acceptance in early February

2. Cabin Crew will vote about 80:20 in support of strike action, when the day comes they will go sick rather than strike as in 1997. BASSA will end up making major compromises and be on the defensive for years.

3. BA will announce an order for LH replacement aircraft featuring Boeing taking back about 25 of the oldest 747-400's and the 767 fleet in exchange for about 35 777-300's and 20 787's (in addition to firming up the 10 777 options), resulting in about a 15-20% growth in the longhaul fleet timed to coincide with the T5 move. This will result in a LH fleet of about 32x747, 85x777 and 20x787. The LH expansion will be generated by reducing SH frequencies and an element of slot acquisition and mixed mode efficiencies.

4. The tower move will be completed without hitch in February.

5. BA/BAA will continue to deliver poor terminal services resulting in disruption to pax over Easter weekend when a snowflake falls in Berkshire.

chrism20

4th Jan 2007, 09:37

Some seasonal fun then:

5. BA/BAA will continue to deliver poor terminal services resulting in disruption to pax over Easter weekend when a snowflake falls in Berkshire.

Resulting in the entire internal/domestic BA service suffering it's 'twice annual' suspension stranding thousands of passengers days before a national holiday - and that's without even looking in my crystal ball! BA will make a press release saying that 'it will all be good when we move to T5'

Rainboe

4th Jan 2007, 10:51

The lost baggage mountain will create a new topographicological feature on all London charts when it is covered with a layer of polythene and 20' of earth and turned into a new parkland area with a Union flag fluttering on top. Once it is realised it is a good terrorist aiming point, it will be closed to the public. Anybody digging to try and locate their bag will be arrested for vandalism.

mary_hinge

4th Jan 2007, 12:47

British Airways (BA) has begun evaluating responses from suppliers to its request for proposals (RFP) for upward of 50 widebody aircraft to replace its Boeing 767s and older 747-400s.

The airline issued the RFP to Airbus and Boeing and the engine manufacturers in October, and the responses were all due back by the end of December, says BA commercial director Robert Boyle. "We're analysing the responses and preparing to begin the first round of negotiations," he says.

A final decision on the order is expected in 2007 to enable the first deliveries of "bridging aircraft" in early 2009, adds Boyle.

Speaking to ATI sister publication Flight International during the launch of BA's London-Calgary service last month, Boyle said the airline's core requirement totals 40-50 aircraft plus options. The requirement includes 34 aircraft to replace its 20 oldest Boeing 747-400s and its 14 767-300ERs as well as 10 bridging aircraft and units to cover the airline's growth requirements.

The Airbus A330 and Boeing 777-200ER are in contention for the short-term bridging requirement for delivery from 2009, ahead of the main fleet expansion package, which will comprise either the A350 or the 777-300ER and 787-9/10 for the twinjet requirement and the A380 or 747-8 for the large-aircraft requirement. Boyle says the A340-600 was excluded because BA is looking to the A350-1000 for its requirements in this size category from Airbus.

"We have already reserved 10 777-200ER production slots from 2009," says Boyle, but these bridging deliveries will be confirmed only if the Boeing 777-300ER/787 package is selected. "If we go with Airbus, then the A330 will be the bridge to the A350."

For the 747 replacement, Boyle says deliveries would be in the 2011 to 2013/14 timeframe and it is "extremely unlikely" BA will split the initial 747-400 replacement deal between the A380 and 747-8. "But it might be different for the next batch," he adds, implying the airline could ultimately acquire a mix of both ultra-large types to replace its entire 747-400 fleet.

Boyle acknowledges that the recent Lufthansa 747-8 order improves the prospects for Boeing because "BA doesn't usually like to be the first customer". He says the recent delays that have blighted the A380 programme do not concern him, but they "make it likely that we'll get a better deal out of Airbus

AlphaWhiskyRomeo

4th Jan 2007, 14:46

If it's "awaiting" a paint job in BA colours, how will anyone who's looking out of their window be able to tell?! :hmm:

When i have been at Paine Field, the frames tend to have a sign or banner on them saying which model and airline it will be for once finished, plus you can sometimes tell by the registrations on the fuselage or gear door.

MarkD

4th Jan 2007, 17:53

A318 probably won't do at BA because:
1. With the BACon sale the number of Avros to replace is very small and a larger requirement down the road is unlikely.
2. Even if they did want to go Airbus, an IAE engine is not offered on the 318. CFM56 is, but with the BCal A320s and the remaining 737s likely to leave the fleet in due course it's unlikely BA will want to get new frames with CFMs and certainly not PWs.

hotstart54

4th Jan 2007, 18:05

A clue might rest with Boeing's orders and deliveries pages. (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm)

MarkD

4th Jan 2007, 18:05

Would it not be difficult for BA to do a deal like that when they report their fleet and committed orders/options to shareholders every quarter?

hotstart54

4th Jan 2007, 18:23

Mark,

Isn't it tough to know what is agreed in paneled rooms between the barons of aviation and aircraft manufacturers? No that I would follow the conspiracy theorists too closely mind you....

I think if BA wanted to secure an order or options around a theme, there is enough (anecdotal) evidence out there to make it a reasonably safe bet for us to assume that to be the case.

just an opinion...

Dan Air 87

4th Jan 2007, 18:52

Heard a rumour that BA are indeed buying 777-300F's to help them cope with the delayed baggage at LHR. I shouldn't joke really as I am flying to ABZ with them tomorrow for a weekend!

EI-BUD

5th Jan 2007, 04:08

I think this order is only going to be for widebodies and it will be a case of A380s/A350s -v- 748s/773ERs/787s. As you point out, BA is going to drive an extremely hard bargain.

Whether or not there will be any replacements for the RJ100s (which were not included in the Flybe contract), depends on how routes out of LCY do. Even then, the A318 might not be the ideal choice.

Personally, I see BA retreating to be a Heathrow based airline over the next few years, even leaving LGW - with limited service being operated by GB Airways.

Aeroskid , I think you are spot on about LGW, I cant see BA in there for the long haul, excuse the pun! However, although LHR is a lucrative base, one would ask is it a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket? what do you think?

Personally, I can see BA sticking it out at LCY as it has a limiting factor re size and scope for operations( hence can be sheltered from competition, hence high fares).. interestingly did anyone read the article LCY plan for growth?
http://www.uk-airport-news.info/london-city-airport-news-030107.htm

Globaliser

15th Jan 2007, 14:11

2. Cabin Crew will vote about 80:20 in support of strike action, when the day comes they will go sick rather than strike as in 1997. BASSA will end up making major compromises and be on the defensive for years.The first half of this prediction I like very much.

Do you have this week's lottery numbers, by any chance? :)

scruggs

18th Jan 2007, 10:06

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2553123,00.html

Sorry if it's been posted elsewhere.

eP.

Pax Vobiscum

19th Jan 2007, 13:07

According to The Times (January 18) (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2020-5-2553123-9082,00.html)
"The massive order for up to 135 long-haul aircraft, which BA hopes to announce in about three months, has triggered an aggressive bidding war between Boeing, of the US, and Airbus, its European rival. The Franco-German aircraft manufacturer is understood to be offering substantial discounts on the list prices of its airliners to cover the cost of retraining BA pilots and engineers."

Golf Charlie Charlie

19th Jan 2007, 13:25

Does The Times think the cost of 135 aircraft is a mere one billion quid ?

Edit : OK, I see the article itself says 15 billion.

wobble2plank

19th Jan 2007, 13:30

Damn..... GCC got there before I could post a witty, intelligent put down :oh:

NWSRG

19th Jan 2007, 17:53

135 aircraft?

57 744s, 45 772s, and 21 767s I think...that gives a current WB fleet of 122 aircraft...

...so BA are looking to replace them all and add a little growth?

I suppose in 15 years time, the last 772s and 744s will be getting near retirement time.

My own guess is that we'll see 748s, 773s and 789/10s in the mix, although I can't help thinking that Airbus will break the bank to get this one...maybe A330s, A350s and a few A380s will be the order of the day. The only problem for Airbus is that they can't offer anything competitive in the 747 sector...the 346 is a dead duck and the 380 too big to replace all the 744s...

flyer55

20th Jan 2007, 14:48

And the replacement for 737 at LGW which should hopefully be announced in the next 3 months . Re GB Airways we will all have to wait and see what happens their !

Andy_S

30th Jan 2007, 16:41

Here we go again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/companies/6312915.stm

Fargoo

30th Jan 2007, 20:43

The ballot over whether to accept the companies pension off hasn't even taken place yet.
I think the title of this thread is very misleading - does the BBC have nothing better to report?

Railgun

30th Jan 2007, 21:37

The ballot over whether to accept the companies pension off hasn't even taken place yet.
I think the title of this thread is very misleading - does the BBC have nothing better to report?

Yes it has. I have had mine and returned it.

plodding along

30th Jan 2007, 22:10

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the pensions, exactly what are ground staff unhappy about?
It is all fair and the reason aircrew have a higher pensionable salary is all to do with the fact that retirment has gone from 55 to 65, a 10 year increase as opposed to just 5 for ground staff. Please can someone clarify what the issue is here.

C152_driver

30th Jan 2007, 22:44

Here we go again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/companies/6312915.stm

Yep, spotted that. Fortunately, just before booking Dubai flights in a couple of weeks. That's EK getting my money then.

M.Mouse

30th Jan 2007, 22:50

The ground staff will not be led into strike action by the GMB. It is posturing and they have reasons for their posturing.

The vote is on acceptance or otherwise of the pension proposals not whether or not to strike.

Curious Pax

31st Jan 2007, 07:41

Are BA LGW turning into a Ryanair wannabe? I notice that their LGW-AMS flights have started using the locost H gates at Schiphol, rather than the regular D gates (the LHR flights remain on 'D').

AirLCY

31st Jan 2007, 08:13

Flights dont look like they're set up properly yet, you cant buy below M class fare on any date, the normal lead in fare is N class for all BA Domestic routes which is 3 below M.

norodnik

31st Jan 2007, 08:28

I am going to start a new thread:

BA Staff in "Go to work" threat

sure to be a nasty one this!!!!

slingsby

31st Jan 2007, 09:41

More strikes, more money for other airlines, yum yum

I am not against BA in any shape, way or form but isn't it time someone stopped them all from throwing their toys and handbags out of their prams, it's their reputation thats being damaged. No longer can I look at the uniform and smile.

HZ123

31st Jan 2007, 11:33

In a pole of 20-30 ground staff today. Not one staff member new anything about any strike vote or any threat from any unit within BA?

Carnage Matey!

31st Jan 2007, 17:22

The GMB are organising the strike ballot. Just like the previous check-in staff walk out, Ed Blissett and his communist cronies are posturing to win members by staging a "who's toughest on BA management" contest. TGWU and Amicus are merging. Once that goes ahead GMB will be a small union in BA with little influence. Blissett knows this and so is talking tough now in an effort to attract disillusioned TGWU and Amicus members to his union before it is sidelined in BA.

Railgun

31st Jan 2007, 17:48

I have had my ballot form from the GMB. Are the ground staff at LHR not mostly T&G?

MarkD

2nd Feb 2007, 14:57

So it looks like BMed are talking to BMI. Do any of the BMed routes make enough money that BA will bring them in house and if so with what aircraft? They don't seem to be ordering any more than required to cover attrition at the moment, let alone cutting loose a franchise partner.

MaxRange120

2nd Feb 2007, 17:32

Sorry but as you can see its gone a little bit further than that, this was posted on the bmi website this afternoon.
MR120

From an internal communication issued to bmi staff.....

Dear Colleague

We have today announced that the bmi group holding company British Midland plc has acquired control of the Heathrow-based airline British Mediterranean (BMED). Our holding company has subscribed to new shares in BMED which will effectively give bmi a 99 percent controlling stake in the airline. In due course we plan to buy out the remaining minority shareholders.

All existing non-executive directors of BMED have today resigned their positions and I have joined their board along with Sir Michael and Tim Bye. David Richardson, chief executive of BMED will retain his position and report directly to me.

We are extremely pleased with the arrangements we have been able to agree with the current board of BMED and the majority shareholders. We have been aware for some time of the opportunity that existed at BMED but have only recently been in a position to enter into a meaningful dialogue with them.

MarkD

2nd Feb 2007, 18:52

BA's response? http://www.speednews.com/news.htmFebruary 2: British Airways posted an operating profit of GBP129m for third quarter ended December 31 vs GBP176m a year ago... It converted options to orders for four A320s for delivery from 2008, and now has 10 A320s and four A321s on order.

jamaze

21st Feb 2007, 09:57

British Airways has ordered four Boeing 777-200 planes in the first step towards the expansion of its long-haul fleet.
The new aircraft will be delivered during early 2009. BA, which is headed by former Aer Lingus chief Willie Walsh, also has options on four more planes for 2010.
BA plans another major planes order later this year. The planes it has ordered usually cost around $200m each.

HZ123

21st Feb 2007, 10:34

The majority of Ground staff are T and G, there is still no mention of a ballot within that group. Ground staff would be ill advised to take industrial action as it ios planned to see a loss of jobs with the opening of T5.

fj1

21st Feb 2007, 20:49

Does this mean BA have gone the 777/787 rather than the A330/A50 route now.

yachtno1

21st Feb 2007, 21:08

hmmm isn't the A50 somewhere in Wales ? :) I expect they will replace the ageing 737s with Airbus...

MarkD

22nd Feb 2007, 15:54

I don't think this is much of a pointer actually - the 4 x 772ER might be to facilitate disposal of the "odd" G-ZZZ* frames or as a stopgap while BA negotiates with Boeing over 747-8s and keeps Airbus hoping by having a few A380 meetings - like Iberia's 346s in reverse.

flyer55

22nd Feb 2007, 18:23

Not necessiarily with Airbus as the presentation hasnt been made to the Board yet its due in a few months time !

NWSRG

22nd Feb 2007, 21:39

Not sure that the 777 order means anything other than BA adding some handy capacity...

I suspect though that Boeing are still in the driving seat for the main order...they would love to have another big blue-chip 747-8 customer, and will probably offer a fine deal. And in that sector, Airbus have nothing to offer; the A380 is too big to be a widespread 744 replacement...

On the negative side, if Airbus go for broke, and offer BA a fantastic deal on A350s, will Boeing cut their margins on the 787 to win the business? I suspect that if BA want the 787, they may have to pay going rate...with the US majors expected to order soon, Boeing may prefer to sell to customers willing to pay a bigger margin...

Finally, will the 787-10 come into play?

Exciting times...

MarkD

24th Feb 2007, 03:10

To me as an existing 777/747/767 operator Boeing are in the driving seat for the LH order. However, the Airbus A32x orders are ticking up and the B737 fleet is yet to go - and I bet it will given Willie's history at EI. Airbus LH sales should concern themselves with keeping existing A300/10/30/40 customers. The sale they really need to make is to the RAF for both their sake and the RAF's.

PAXboy

5th Mar 2007, 01:51

The Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article2328831.ece
By Simon Calder, Travel Editor Published: 05 March 2007

British Airways is to cancel more than 1,000 loss-making flights over the next three weeks, leaving tens of thousands of travellers stranded.

Each of the targeted routes is believed to be losing at least £1m a year, and the airline has concluded it will cost less to compensate passengers who have already booked, and to pay crew to stay at home, than it will to operate the aircraft.

An estimated 30,000 passengers who have already booked will be affected by the cuts, which start today. The abrupt cuts to flights from Birmingham, Manchester and Scottish airports are necessary "to protect the ongoing viability of the business," BA said in a terse statement.

the article continues at greater length but contains this ...

The move comes three weeks before the summer schedules begin on 25 March. None of the axed routes is expected to be resurrected for the summer. Flybe said it would retain only 35 routes, and none of the aircraft, from BA Connect.