British Airways [Archive]

redout

20th Apr 2006, 16:17

Taken from RTE

April 20, 2006 11:06
British Airways slashed fares by up to 50% to more than 65 European destinations today, stepping up its battle with budget carriers such as Ryanair.

The move comes two days after BA announced higher fuel surcharges on long flights, while keeping its £8 surcharge on shorter routes such as those in Europe.

BA's last full-year results were profitable but showed that it was losing money on short European routes where Ryanair, Europe's largest budget carrier, and others offer stiff competition. Unlike BA, Ryanair does not impose fuel surcharges and is not hedged on its fuel buying, leaving it fully exposed to soaring crude prices that hit fresh record highs today.

A BA spokeswoman said its new pricing would affect about 7 million seats a year. 'This is not a short-term gimmick, but a long-term commitment,' BA Commercial Director Martin George said in a news release.

The airline said its one-way fares within Britain and Europe have fallen by an average of 70% compared with a decade ago.

On Tuesday, BA raised its fuel surcharge on long-haul flights sold in Britain to £35 from £30 per flight, the first time it has increased the levy since September. BA expects high oil prices to boost its fuel bill this year by £600m to £2.2 billion.

warm beer

20th Apr 2006, 16:42

Yesterday they said they were increasing fuel surcharges for the sixth time £35 I think was the amount:confused:

cheers

WB

Dash-7 lover

20th Apr 2006, 16:44

aaaaahh, wondered when the BA Connect model would start to be tested, allbeit in a small way....

Hand Solo

20th Apr 2006, 17:41

A few of the more astute analysts have picked up on the fact that BA does this every summer.

flt_lt_w_mitty

20th Apr 2006, 18:21

A few of the more astute analysts have picked up on the fact that BA does this every summer.- what - like the annual strike, eh, W?

tristar500

20th Apr 2006, 18:47

What next? Staff striking in the summer over pension defecits?

IB4138

20th Apr 2006, 20:11

Just tried some fares for same period, in November, as last year on AGP-MAN return.
Including taxes a rise of 50%!:mad:

PAXboy

20th Apr 2006, 23:51

I checked my regular route LTN~IOM and the figures stay stable through to the end of the year. Although I did admire the cheekiness of the computer saying: Why not increase the flexibility of your ticket from £279 return, per person? On a fare of £69.20 that makes good sense!! :bored:

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

bealine

21st Apr 2006, 08:57

Either there is a conspiracy to drive BA shorthaul head-first into the ground, or this fares war announced yesterday is a very clever subterfuge to force "Open Skies" through! Either way, the Investors should go head to head with the BA Board on this one as our profits, and ultimately our staff salaries and pensions, could be severely dented by our lack of profits!

Even the least business conscious of you up there in the clouds must realise that £29 fares (including all taxes) does not even make a small dent in our operating costs - indeed, with the costs of handling, we are deliberately selling that £29 ticket at a loss!

Now, the feeling in our camp is that this is a deliberate strategy to force the "Open Skies" agreement through - something that would give Willie Walsh enormous kudos, and enormous personal wealth:

A year down the line, as Shorthaul is shown to be making huge losses:

1. It will give WW the excuse to axe LGW Shorthaul altogether - except for one or two strategic routes.

2. It will give WW the ability to rationalise the LHR Shorthaul operation , thus freeing up those valuable LHR slots - the bargaining tool needed to make the US happy to discuss "Open Skies".

Our investors have kept out of the "business strategies" of BA for far too long - it is high time they became involved whilst our company can still be rescued from piece by piece dismantling and whilst some chance of a dividend may still be within reach!

WHBM

21st Apr 2006, 09:52

Bealine :

Panic not. I find I have to go to Glasgow next Monday from Heathrow and have just been pricing up the trip on ba

It's £364, which makes it one of the most expensive for a long time. Easyjet from Stansted, by the way (as convenient for me as LHR) is £264 for comparable times.

I'm sure there's a £29 fare somewhere. I'm equally sure that I will never be offered it.

manintheback

21st Apr 2006, 10:02

There is indeed a £29 fare. Its one way to Bordeaux in June. Costs £50 odd to come back mind.

Starsurfer

21st Apr 2006, 10:07

And just for fun. How much does Ryanair want for a flight to Glascow/Prestwick on the same days. I know this might be inconvenientto fly to prestwick, but just as a comparison...

Carmoisine

21st Apr 2006, 10:30

35 GBP all in.:eek:

WHBM

21st Apr 2006, 10:58

35 GBP all in.

Not at all. Flights that fit our meeting cost £157.64 return on FR. Meeting is in Stepps so for taxi to/from PIK an extra £50 each way over Glasgow, so works out the same as Easy plus the extra driving time.

jettesen

21st Apr 2006, 11:09

Try air Berlin from stansted to glasgow

WHBM

21st Apr 2006, 11:37

Air Berlin £204 return. But with only 2 flights a day no flexibility to change to a later flight if things overrun. Doesn't happen often but it does sometimes. I used Air Berlin last month on this route, a bit of a shambles organisationally, as I described here :

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215796

It's interesting that of the 4 fare examples I now have, they almost exactly reflect the convenience, or lack of, of the different arrangements for me.

CarltonBrowne the FO

21st Apr 2006, 11:41

Don't forget, if it's LHR-GLA you want to fly, BA are not the only airline on the route...

WHBM

21st Apr 2006, 12:04

Right. Well getting back to Bealine's orginal point about low fares not being sustainable, what the above shows, as I usually find, is that for those of us who are the sustaining base load for airlines (50+ sectors a year for me) on business travel, the much-vaunted "peanuts" fares are quite illusory. We are paying significant sums whoever we use and seem destined to continue to do so.

Regarding BA wanting to make short-haul unprofitable to use the slots for more worthwhile intercontinental services, they don't need any excuse or justification, they can just do it if they wish. But they don't. We have all heard the BA "short haul unprofitable" line for a long long time. In fact it all depends how the accountants do the sums. Recently I did an analysis of slot usage by BA at Heathrow over the last 25 years, comparing departures 1980 to 2005.

Domestic/Euro : 163 to 213. + 50.
Intercontinental : 33 to 76. + 43.

So despite all the hype about long haul being where the action is, of the 93 additional departure slots per day that have been made available, the majority have been given to short haul, quite a number of which have doubled in frequency. And short-haul still outnumbers long-haul 3 to 1.

Railgun

21st Apr 2006, 12:55

TartinTon

21st Apr 2006, 13:53

Don't think that applies to the Franchisees as BA cannot manipulate their pricing (officially) as they are independant companies albeit marketing themselves under the BA brand.

Richae

21st Apr 2006, 15:31

WHBM is right as the same thing is happening with BA Connect. The adverts scream low prices. As someone who flies a min of 2 sectors per week, there's no sign of the much vaunted £25 quid flights. In fact fares have gone up despite the service having been reduced.

As for conspiracy theories.... what conspiracy. BA Are obviously turning their entire short haul operation in a 'low cost' model. The only problem is that whilst they seem to be more than capable of delivering low cost levels of service they still insist on charging BA prices. They will only succeed if they retain the base load pax, but as they seem to be going out of their way to deliberately p*ss off regular travellers at the moment by reducing service levels, how long do they expect us to be around for?

tiggerific_69

21st Apr 2006, 15:43

the theory that has being going round the BACON BHX base since BACON was announced,is that LGW SH will soon be joining us as BACON and no longer mainline.well the first announcement made to us in March 2005 was "lower fares".....
i'll go if they pay my rent!

Railgun

21st Apr 2006, 16:06

I dont think it will become a none mainline airport, the rumor has been doing the rounde ever since BACX was formed. Remember BACON is a regional airline that trials things for mainline. They will move to a BACON business model but it will be far harder to move all the crew onto BACON contracts. You only have to look at the BACX, BRAL fiasco that has been ongoing for years at BACX.

cabingal

21st Apr 2006, 16:28

They only sell a small percentage of seats at such a low price. Most of the time these seats have to be booked months in advance! Also, we are selling food + drinks on board now!

George Tower

21st Apr 2006, 17:34

Most of my focus is on South Africa as I live there but the UK is where I grew up and still retain a passing interest.

My first reaction was that in part it was to stick the knife into BMI who it seems aren't doing to well at present. Wipe out that competitor and hey presto more of those highly valued slots at LHR. Possibly they can then move the LGW operation there as well save for the few routes that make money.

BTW I have also wondered what a breakeven load factor would be on an ERJ145 with those £29 fares:ouch:

MarkD

21st Apr 2006, 18:10

George Tower

who says BA would get bmi's slots? They are bmi to dispose unless bmi folds first, in which case I guess they are BAA's.

dustybin

21st Apr 2006, 19:13

i know i'am going off the subject again but if you want to fly stn to preswick you can get the the train to Glasgow central for half price or the bus for 50p, all you need to do is show your booking confirmation.

no sponsor

22nd Apr 2006, 07:59

Not any cheaper as far as I can see. I need to be in Barcelona on Monday for around 4pm and return Fri morning. Easy Jet can get me there from Luton for £150, BA want to charge me £666 - economy, same times. A quick look on Singapore Airlines sees that I can currently get to Sydney for £653 for the same period. Unfortunately, my meeting isn't there.

The other problem with BA is they fly from the worst airport in the world. The amount of times I've had the skipper saying "we're 2 seconds early" only to then discover we are on a remote stand and there aren't any buses. Or worse, they park at the domestic gate for an international flight, and then figure out that they need to bus you around. I frequently sit in aircraft for over 40 mins at LHR waiting for the bus. Meanwhile the crew all look at their feet.

tiggerific_69

22nd Apr 2006, 19:17

cabingal were you referring to mainline or BACON?

Brae_Cwynd

23rd Apr 2006, 20:32

Can I approach this from a different angle? I have just done a trawl round the websites for a medium haul flight from LHR. There were many permutations and combinations of airlines and intermediate stops. Of the direct flights BA were exactly double the price of the alternative carrier who just happens to operate the route from the opposite end if you follow. This by the way is also an ex-state airline !! BA reduce fares by 50%? Bout bloody time, then they might be charging a competitive price with the rest of the world !! :rolleyes:

BC

Just Browsing

24th Apr 2006, 06:42

The press release talked about seven millions seats per year, and the 'convenience' of flying from Heathrow. In fact, the seats were advertised as from Heathrow and Gatwick only.

Heathrow is hardly convenient unless you happen to live close by, or if you are already at Heathrow. I think it is reasonable to say that BA's Heathrow shorthaul operation is aimed at local business travellers and those connecting with longhaul flights. This is perhaps why it is still a full service operation, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. Furthmore, BA is unlikely to poach travellers from the provinces, nor is it unlikely to attract those who find Luton or Stanstead geographically more convenient than Heathrow. Even those closer to Heathrow could easily find the other London airports more convenient for shorthaul flights owing to the vast sprawl or the airport.

Gatwick could be a more effective attack on lo-cost airlines, though. From this airport BA and easyJet compete head on (Ryanair too, though to be fair, they don't fly to the same airports). But the actual number of seats available at low prices is probably few. Seven million seats per year in an attempt to compete head on with the lo-cos is a mere raindrop in the sky: easyJet are now carrying 32million people around Europe, Ryanair slightly more, then add all the other carriers in the UK alone and you have close to 100milliion sears per year on lo-cost airlines - against 7.

This announcement from BA looks clearly to be nothing more than a publicity stunt, and as someone said above, they do something like this every year.

As for a free food, I think I can survive a trip to Europe without in-flight catering, free or not.

ExSimGuy

24th Apr 2006, 17:49

Last (October?) I had to go to a meeting in Scotland, and flew BA LGW-EDI. Booked about a week previously, had a choice of flights (at different prices) and took a "medium-price", "medium-convenience" option. Cost £100.

(yes, the computer did offer me the "extra flexibility" for well over £200!)

On the return day, I finished a bit earlier than I expected and could have just about been in time for the earlier flight back to LGW, but was told that it had finished checking in. No mention of whether I'd have to pay any extra if it had been available, but I suspect it would have (it was a more expensive option when I booked - I think it was the 5pm flight, as opposed to my booked 7pm flight))

(Note - the 6 am flights - leave home at 4, check in at 5 - usually have really cheap rates - understandably!!)

There was also another option - £130 or so,to go by train. But that meant a full day travelling in each direction - by air I got to the meeting around lunchtime, and left mid-afternoon, and took total of 2 days.

stagn8

27th Apr 2006, 05:50

If you look to the US for parallel lessons you see legacy (older) carriers struggling to compete with point to point specialists.

DL will never compete with Air Tran on ATL/BUF for example on a cost per seat mile basis. But they try, so lose dollops of cash. So fares should reflect the value to the customer, hence the outrageous cost of a seat ATL/YUL (more than coach to Japan).

What value is BA versus FR ? Great if you want a multiple leg international flight. Naff if you want Lodon to Prague for a night out. So I submit BA (and all the 'legacy' carriers) needs to get its act together and understand and respect the markets they serve. One size does not fit all these days.

Do what you do well, prospering thereby, and stop doing what you can't ever do well. Pennace maybe for trying to eat Air Europe & Dan Air !!

JC Novelli

27th Apr 2006, 18:32

stagn8

Erm...yaaahh! I'll chose EZY over BA, WHEN I know that EZY will act like BA and in the event of a tech would send another aircraft over to bring me back home and not leave me to hope that some poor bugger turns up late for their next flight, only then allowing me to travel. I'll fly FR (ach..) when I know I can cancel my flight and get a refund on my taxes. I'll fly both when I don't feel like one of the great unwashed. MOST full service carriers provide a fantastic service for which people are happy to pay the money for. WRT to food. I'd rather pay £300 quid to BA then FR (for a last minute shorthaul) knowing that on a potentially busy day when I may have missed Lunch and Dinner, I'll be fed SOMETHING (even during the crisps days at BA!!!!) without having to fish about my wallet for whatever dinaros or shekels that FR only take.

The saving grace of the no-frills carriers is that most sensible carriers have differentiated by increasing their level of service . (I allude here to the First Terminal by LH in FRA and BA's overall output NOT BD). Long live them.

allanmack

27th Apr 2006, 19:58

JC - Having been subjected to the 'crisps' on my last two flights with BA only very recently I was actually crying out to pay for some food!

derekvader

29th Apr 2006, 21:27

allanmack

Yes I wish BA would just ditch the food altogether, on Europe flights at least, and knock a tenner off the fares. I do have had the BA crisp treatment about a month ago, and was appalled. It wasn't even a proper sized bag of crisps, it was some stupid half sized bag of "posh" crisps, and nothing else.

the_fish@blueyonder.

29th Apr 2006, 23:13

In January flying from EDI-LHR-EDI I was also subjected to the Crisps. I was very disappointed as it was my first time flying with BA (and indeed to LHR) and their website stated "Complimentary Catering to suit the time of day". Well my flight from EDI was at 9am and the free TINY bag of bread sticks WAS NOT what I'd call Catering, and indeed I was waiting for a roll or All-Day-Deli to be delivered. I could smell food being cooked (I was close to the rear of the cabin) and I thought it would be for us!

The free bar though, can't complain, definitely something Easyjet could introduce, I mean Southwest Airlines in the U.S. offer free soft drinks and tea/coffee and only charge for alcohol and food, surely EJ are making more than enough money to offer a similar service, same with FR, although I wont hold my breath...

On the return leg, we flew home at Dinner time (5pm departure) and again I was expecting at least a roll, but no, we got handed out a small bag of plain crisps...and they only came round once with drinks. The B757 was practically empty as well, so its not as if the crew had a big load to deal with.

My sister flew with BA on a school trip from GLA-LHR-PHX/LAX-LHR-GLA last June, and on her GLA-LHR-GLA flights she got a Full breakfast on her way down (okay, very early morning flight, so expected there) and on the way home (a 5pm departure, like my one in Jan) she got smoked salmon AND a desert too.

I am hoping to get proper catering this summer when I fly from LGW-PRG (12pm departure) and then again from BUD-LHR (7pm departure). Even if we don't the free bar will be there and the flights were still cheaper than doing the same thing with EJ anyway!

JC Novelli

30th Apr 2006, 10:28

Yes I wish BA would just ditch the food altogether, on Europe flights at least, and knock a tenner off the fares. I do have had the BA crisp treatment about a month ago, and was appalled. It wasn't even a proper sized bag of crisps, it was some stupid half sized bag of "posh" crisps, and nothing else.

I'm not sure about the knocking the tenner off the fare, if it meant that they would still retrieve me in times of need (tech etc.). The crisps days were over I thought (at peak times). As far as I was told, the crisps came about due to the strike last August and the effects were felt until Jan/Feb this year. What I've noticed is prior to 9am departure you get 'a breakfast' and a deli bag after 5/6 but not on the last flights of the day (8/9pm). LGW seems to love the hot paninnis, they seem to dole them out willy-nilly!!

Jordan D

19th May 2006, 06:39

No doubt of some importance to some in the industry:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4996458.stm

Jordan

Golden Ticket

19th May 2006, 18:36

Apparently not a lot of interest Jordan D. Maybe we need to wait for somebody who wants to bitch about this.

LGS6753

19th May 2006, 18:43

No bitching.

Pleased to see a British company prosper.
Especially as a shareholder:ok:

easyprison

19th May 2006, 18:56

Good news for BA.

"BA said on Friday it would pay staff a £48m bonus after they achieved an 8.3% operating margin."

easyJet managers would just stick it in their own pockets :ugh:

Lucifer

3rd Jun 2006, 23:22

Link to story unavailable - interesting reading. Source: ft.com

BA finds the right size and shape
By Kevin Done, Aerospace Correspondent
Published: May 19 2006 18:30 | Last updated: May 19 2006 18:30

After racking up operating losses of £1.2bn on its European short-haul operations during eight successive years, British Airways has finally stopped the rot.

Willie Walsh, BA chief executive, said on Friday that the airline’s UK and European short-haul activites achieved a £7m operating profit in the year to March 31, back from the depths of an operating loss of £310m in the year to March 2000.

In the tough review of the group’s operations, known as Future Size and Shape, that was conducted in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, BA contemplated pulling out of short-haul operations in order to concentrate on its lucrative long-haul network out of Heathrow airport, for long the powerhouse of the group.

It pulled back from such drastic action, not least because of all the valuable feed traffic that the short-haul network delivers to Heathrow, but both Sir Rod Eddington, chief executive until last October, and subsequently his successor, Willie Walsh, have insisted that short-haul must be profitable in its own right, if it is to survive.

The business has been drastically restructured. Foreign loss-making subsidiaries in France and Germany were disposed of, the fleet was rationalised and simplified and aircraft utilisation has been improved by 15 per cent, as BA has tried to sweat the assets in imitation of its ruthless and fast-growing low-cost rivals.

BA’s own low cost subsidiary, Go, was sold. That move is still debated, but Sir Rod believed it was a distraction to the overwhelmingly important core task for BA management of tackling the inefficiencies and shortcomings of the existing short-haul operations.

Sir Rod and Mr Walsh have successively adopted many of the practices of the low cost carriers. It has increasingly exploited the ba.com website for cheaper sales and distribution, and most recently has implemented a radical shake-up of its short-haul air fares with one-way all-inclusive tickets starting at £29 in an effort to drive up traffic at off-peak hours wiith low entry fares to increase load factors.

By now BA is left with three short-haul activities, the separate Heathrow and Gatwick networks and finally the UK domestic regional operation, which still seems most under threat.

The operation out of the UK regions had already been rationalised into one subsidiary BA CitiExpress, but when this continued to make losses its offering was restructured and rebranded early this year into BA Connect.

In a last throw of the dice it has become a single-class operation with buy-on-board food, and operating chiefly out of Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Bristol and Southampton in an effort to compete with the mushrooming number of low cost carriers.

Where a decade ago BA had little competition in the regions, it now faces fierce pressure from the still rapid growth of the low-cost airlines led by Ryanair and EasyJet, and including Jet2 in Northern England, Flyglobespan in Scotland, BMIbaby and Flybe.

Mr Walsh, who brought with him to BA his reputation as a tough and relentless cost-cutter at Ireland’s Aer Lingus, made clear yesterday that the days of the BA Connect regional operation are numbered, unless it can be rapidly turned around in little more than 12 months.

Mr Walsh said it still lost £20m last year and it must be profitable next year or face closure. Its financial performance had been “poor and unacceptable...We do not see it as having strategic value to the group. It provides no strategic feed (to Heathrow). It must be profitable,” he said.

The fortunes of the Heathrow short-haul network are strengthening. It is profitable, it has a modern fleet of Airbus A320 family aircraft, and to many observers’ surprise it is again finding increasing demand for its premium business class cabin, which is driving up earnings. It has 87 aircraft on 43 routes with the emphasis on high daily frequencies to serve the needs of business travellers and provide feed to the long-haul network.

BA’s much smaller operation at Gatwick remains loss-making, but a two-year programme to improve earnings by £40m is under way. Mr Walsh seemed confident yesterday, it would return to profit, although it must fairly soon replace its ageing fleet of Boeing 737s.

The operations at Gatwick are still being shrunk, and in a further move, the Amicus trade union said yesterday that 120 engineering jobs were being cut at Gatwick. Surplus properties are being disposed of, as BA discards the legacy of its earlier abortive effort to turn the airport into a complementary transfer hub to Heathrow.

Like Heathrow, BA Gatwick operates 43 short-haul routes, but only with 33 aircraft. It is now being designed by BA for point-to-point travel with a much bigger share of leisure traffic, fewer daily frequencies and a wide spread of destinations. It has recently opened several new routes including Tirana, Reykjavik, Varna and Izmir.

cirrus01

6th Jun 2006, 07:59

if your name is Rod Eddington that is.............. £108 K pension for life , in return for his 5 year stint at BA. :mad: :mad:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1791037,00.html

maxy101

6th Jun 2006, 08:59

Well, having met the guy and being very impressed that BA survived the last 5 years, I don't begrudge him the dosh. Mike Street however.........

BikerMark

6th Jun 2006, 10:41

You have to bear in mind that Rod Eddington did take a quite substantial salary cut post Sept. 2001. I think he did a damn good job in steering BA through a difficult few years. Personally, I begrudge what we pay Ayling.

Signora_Matta

6th Jun 2006, 10:56

I smell a bit of hypocracy going on in one of the above postings...;)

bealine

6th Jun 2006, 11:12

Can anyone tell me one good thing Rod Eddington did for BA?

The business plan, which got us over 09/11 (Focus on Premium Cabin, New Club World and World Traveller Plus) was already under way under Ayling.

Rod Eddington sold "Go" (at a fraction of its costs to BA despite all the hype at the time) which caused an absolute nightmare for BA's short-haul operation when EasyJet acquired a 50% increase in its capacity. He also was responsible for the chronic staff shortages that led to delays and cancellations galore! He also stated on many occasions that Gatwick was a major headache for BA - so much of a headache, he could only be bothered to visit on a handful of occasions during his five years!

.......Nope! He doesn't deserve his fat pension! Neither does Ayling, but that's another story!

Airbubba

6th Jun 2006, 11:46

That type of CEO pension is small compared to those at bankrupt U.S. airlines. For example, at Delta:

"...Former Chief Executive Ron Allen was forced out in 1997 but was given an eight-year consulting contract for $500,000 annually, a lifetime pension of $765,600 per year and other benefits."

http://www.ajc.com/thursday/content/epaper/editions/thursday/opinion_3492918de47c326b0080.html

Of course, Delta is a bigger operation and loses a lot more money than BA makes <g>...

M.Mouse

6th Jun 2006, 12:18

Last paragraph from the article states:A BA spokeswoman said Sir Rod's pension arrangements were contractually agreed when he joined the airline....

That is strange so was mine but they tell me I have to accept less. How confusing.

BikerMark

6th Jun 2006, 18:40

M. Mouse

Hammer, nail, direct hit!

:ok:

Doors to Automatic

6th Jun 2006, 22:21

Can anyone tell me one good thing Rod Eddington did for BA?

He put the union flag back in its rightful place after that abomination of a man before him replaced it with African wood carvings and goodness knows what else!!!! :mad:

Speedpig

7th Jun 2006, 21:37

I liked Rod!
He came to Gatwick a little more often than bealine suggests and took the trouble to call me by name on several occasions and replied to my emails. Damn good eyesight to read my name badge quickly or damn good memory.
Ayling on the other hand.......

Lucifer

7th Jun 2006, 22:50

A pensions of £108k is consumate with the salary-earning level of senior executives. Although a socialist mindset might suggest that is particularly unfair to the employee group, the millions in value maintained for the shareholders for whom he ultimately worked pale in comparison.

Why shareholders should gain so much at the pilot's expense is the question that should be posed, not over what is a matter of pennies to the plc as a whole on one person's salary.

PAXboy

13th Jun 2006, 09:59

This notice is dated 7th June in the on-line IT journal silicon.com (http://management.silicon.com/itdirector/0,39024673,39159363,00.htm)
BA launches IT recruitment drive
Project managers, business analysts and web experts wanted in Newcastle.
By Andy McCue
Published: Wednesday 7 June 2006

British Airways is looking to boost the IT headcount at its Newcastle information management operations in the resurgent airline's first major recruitment drive since the post 9/11 collapse in the travel industry.

Despite a company-wide senior management cull at BA, the airline will be increasing the 280 headcount in Newcastle by recruiting 30 staff in a variety of high-level roles ranging from project managers and business analysts to web design architects.

BA CIO Paul Coby said the airline is looking for IT excellence and business understanding and can offer recruits the opportunity to build their career there backed by further training and "up-skilling".

I have not quoted the full article.

Globaliser

13th Jun 2006, 11:22

After months of speculation, rumour and argument (on Internet BBs, at least :)), and the obligatory missed deadlines, the new baggage policies have finally been announced (http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bagpolicy/public/en_gb):-New simpler baggage policies - Major changes announced
British Airways is introducing changes to baggage policies to make them easier for passengers, reduce queues at the airport and to bring them in line with UK Department for Transport recommendations and requirements of the UK’s main airport operator, BAA.
The new policies will bring changes to hand, checked and excess baggage allowances and will be phased in from early July 2006 across the airline’s global network.

Hand baggage allowances … changing from 5 July 2006
The hand baggage policy will be the first to change from 5 July 2006.
All passengers will be able to carry one standard-sized bag and one briefcase, laptop computer bag or equivalent on all flights.
The maximum size of the bag, 56cm x 45cm x 25cm (22in x 18in x 10in) has been set in line with the UK Department for Transport recommendations. Passengers must be able to lift their bag unaided into the aircraft overhead locker.
The briefcase, laptop computer bag or equivalent must fit under the seat in front.

Free checked baggage allowances
A single allowance system based on the number of bags that can be checked in will be introduced from 11 October 2006. FIRST, Club World, Club Europe and World Traveller Plus
Passengers will be able to check two bags into the aircraft hold free of charge.

World Traveller*, Euro Traveller and UK Domestic
Passengers will be able to check one bag into the aircraft hold free of charge. > Infants will be allowed to check one bag, plus a collapsible baby buggy, into the aircraft hold free of charge in all classes on all routes.

> For any connecting journey, the most generous allowance will apply.

> Passengers will be able to carry one piece of sporting equipment free of charge in addition to their checked baggage allowance.

> A maximum bag weight of 23kgs (50lbs) will apply to all bags.

*World Traveller passengers travelling to or from the US, Canada, Caribbean, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico will continue to be allowed two checked bags in line with the local government regulations.

Excess baggage charges
Excess baggage charges will be standardised across the network from 11 October 2006.
All baggage in excess of free checked baggage allowances will be charged at a fixed fee depending on the length of the journey.
From 12 July 2006, passengers who pre-pay online for their excess baggage will receive a 20% discount on airport charges.
Where passengers are transferring flights, a single charge based on the longest flight will apply.

Maximum weight and size
British Airways will not accept any item of baggage that weighs more than 23kgs (50lbs) or oversized items exceeding 2.4m x 0.75m x 0.75m (94in x 29in x 29in).
Advance notification is required 24 hours before departure for exceptional items that weigh between 23kgs - 45Kgs * (50 - 90lbs) and which cannot be repacked e.g. musical instruments, electrical wheelchairs, some sporting items, TV news cameras, commercial spares.

Pets
British Airways will no longer be able to carry pets as baggage. In future, these will only be carried as cargo.

MarkD

13th Jun 2006, 19:44

and the race to the bottom continues. I'm not sure how that's "simpler" so much as smaller. At least 2PC remains on Canada-UK...

Railgun

13th Jun 2006, 20:03

The hand baggage changes are good as some peoples carry on is excessive to say the least. Lampards fiancee and her 6 pieces last week for instance.

Jordan D

13th Jun 2006, 22:32

Bloody ridiculous changes. 23kg limit per bag? Where's the flexibility gone these days? What was wrong with 32kg?

Utter disgrace (and this comes from a BA supporter)

Jordan

Railgun

13th Jun 2006, 22:44

Where's the flexibility gone these days?

Out the window and H&S has replaced it.:D

Speedpig

14th Jun 2006, 05:55

Bloody ridiculous changes. 23kg limit per bag? Where's the flexibility gone these days? What was wrong with 32kg?
Utter disgrace (and this comes from a BA supporter)
Jordan
There will be no flexibility, no concession, no discount at the airport. You will pay for every kilo of excess. Do not argue at check-in, :ugh: you and your bags will be offloaded:=
If you can cram all your belongings into "The maximum size of the bag, 56cm x 45cm x 25cm (22in x 18in x 10in) has been set in line with the UK Department for Transport recommendations. Passengers must be able to lift their bag unaided into the aircraft overhead locker". Doesn't matter how heavy it is:\
One of the discussion points about carry-on weight has always been the ability of the overhead to sustain that weight in turbulence and the danger of 20Kg+ missiles in the cabin (searching for the video of UA a/c in turbulence to support). There have been no modifications made to strengthen said overheads.... unless I blinked.
Don't forget, when you ask for the manager, he/she now has no discretion to allow heavier bags (H&S) or waive excess:(

Jordan D

14th Jun 2006, 07:24

But why a 23kg H&S limit, when that is reducing the H&S limit by over 25% from the current limit?

How are families travelling together going to effectively pack their stuff? Each time you add a bag, it weighs empty between 3 and 6kg, which eats into your allowance. Lowering the limit, means more bags, which means less actual stuff transported ... and no doubt more bags going missing.

Jordan

Globaliser

14th Jun 2006, 11:03

You will pay for every kilo of excess.Actually, it's worse. You pay for every bag, flat rate. See this leaflet (http://members.aol.com/globaliser/SummaryBaggageSimplification.pdf), which was being distributed by corporate sales reps yesterday.

So:-23 kg = OK 24 kg = £120, thank you very much - oh, and plus the cost of the extra bag that you're going to have to buy to put the extra kg of baggage into.For me, it's not the total checked allowance that's the problem for me. It's the lack of flexibility. I can no longer take 2 bags each weighing 8 kg, for example, even though the total weight is well under 23 kg. If two of us are travelling, we can't take one suitcase between us if it weighs 25 kg. We'll have to take two, with a total weight of about 32 kg (because of the extra empty weight of the second suitcase alone).

And the extra cabin baggage allowance will just turn BA into a clone of the US carriers, where everyone fights for overhead space because there isn't enough for everyone. At the moment, it's so nice to be able to board last, secure in the knowledge that there will be space.

traveller5

22nd Jun 2006, 07:56

This announced to the stock exchange:

Britain's Office of Fair Trading and the U.S. Department of Justice are investigating alleged cartel activity involving British Airways Plc and other airlines. BA said in a statement the investigation related "to pricing of passenger air transportation, including fuel surcharges". BA also said its commercial director, Martin George, and head of communications, Iain Burns, had been given leave of absence during the investigation.

Fargoo

22nd Jun 2006, 08:13

The BBC also have the story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5104946.stm

and from the BA Website

"Date
22/06/2006

Back

OFT/DOJ Investigations

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) are investigating alleged cartel activity involving British Airways and other airlines in relation to pricing of passenger air transportation, including fuel surcharges.

British Airways' policy is to conduct its business in full compliance with all applicable competition laws. British Airways is assisting the OFT and DOJ with their investigations. Martin George, Commercial Director, and Iain Burns, Head of Communications, have been given leave of absence during the investigation.

Certain information included in this statement may be forward-looking and involves risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward looking statements.

Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, projections relating to results of operations and financial conditions and the Company's plans and objectives for future operations, including, without limitation, expected future revenues, financing plans and expected expenditures and divestments. Any forward-looking statements in this announcement are based upon information known to the Company on the date of this announcement. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

It is not reasonably possible to itemise all of the many factors and specific events that could cause the Company's forward looking statements to be incorrect or that could otherwise have a material adverse effect on the future operations or results of an airline operating in the global economy. Information on some factors which could result in material difference to the results is available in the Company's SEC filings, including, without limitation the Company's Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March, 2006"

From what I can gather , price fixing needs to involve more than one party. Who are the others??

Fargoo :ok:

manintheback

22nd Jun 2006, 08:37

Virgin Atlantic are also 'assisting with enquiries' as they say. If proven BA face a fine of upto 10% of annual turnover - £850 million

Farrell

22nd Jun 2006, 09:14

If proven BA face a fine of upto 10% of annual turnover - £850 million

Which should then be used to train student pilots.

Golden Ticket

22nd Jun 2006, 09:24

If proven all airlines that are found guilty should be fined 10% of turnover, should make for some interesting reading.

thunderbird7

22nd Jun 2006, 09:57

Maybe the uk airlines being investigated could, if found guilty, borrow some of the billions 'gifted' to US airlines to keep them afloat, to pay the fines? :rolleyes:

Hot Wings

22nd Jun 2006, 10:28

I agree - definitely time to investigate US airline's pricing!

Golden Ticket

22nd Jun 2006, 13:16

this is all a bit fishy, all other airlines have stated that they are cooperating but are not under investigation or that this doesn't affect them. How can you operate a price cartel on your own?

PAXboy

22nd Jun 2006, 13:37

Somebody trying to move a grudge forwards?
Too many pax not understand how the system works and just what a large percentage of cost fuel is, so they have all been complaining?
Perhaps a good old fashioned Jobsworth?
???
Given how low prices are, I am bemused at this.

Kalium Chloride

22nd Jun 2006, 13:57

this is all a bit fishy, all other airlines have stated that they are cooperating but are not under investigation or that this doesn't affect them. How can you operate a price cartel on your own?

Actually Virgin hasn't said it's not under investigation. In fact, it seem it's noticeably not taken a golden PR opportunity to wash its hands at BA's expense. What do you make of that?

jerrystinger

22nd Jun 2006, 14:29

I bet the managers on "leave of absence" were up for a bonus if they could get profits up to a high.....and did so at whatever cost.

Very fishy.

RevMan2

22nd Jun 2006, 14:50

Same pattern as at LH Cargo earlier this year - CEO "retires for reasons of health" i.e. sacrificial lamb and everything goes to periscope depth

Desert Diner

22nd Jun 2006, 15:15

I may have it arseways, but I think its only the alliances that don't have anti-trust imunity that are being investigated. Hence AA/BA.

I think the UA and DL managed to get such imunity before signing up their partners.

BMI701EGCC

22nd Jun 2006, 18:09

Could this work in BMI's favour? i know this would be a dream situation for BMI, but isnt this what BMI hoped for? everyone knows there are ties with BA and the Goverment.....finally the suites have been shaken?

antonovman

22nd Jun 2006, 18:42

Its not up to BA to open up heatrhrow too additional trans-atlantic carriers, its up to the authorities when they come to an agreement with the US authorities and agree to some kind of open skies agreement

411A

22nd Jun 2006, 18:49

BA raided? Price fixing probe?

The revenge of Sir Freddie Laker (RIP), part two....:D :D :D :ok:

manintheback

22nd Jun 2006, 20:37

Well more news is now surfacing -its alleged fixing of fuel price surcharges. Appears a number of airlines have put the surcharges up at a rate in excess of 3.5 times as much as the oil price increase.

Hotel Mode

22nd Jun 2006, 21:26

Thats someone doing a some very dodgy calculations then, at 35 quid per sector it nothing like covers the increased cost of fuel on long haul.

Exasperated

22nd Jun 2006, 23:50

The problem is not the actual cost but more to do with collusion with competitors in order that prices can be driven up. That is what is at issue here.

Strictly verboten and deemed anticompetitive.

What the OFT are looking for us evidence that separate companies dicussed price changes prior to implementation which breeches free market rules.

Ex

Basil

23rd Jun 2006, 09:13

CaptJ

23rd Jun 2006, 09:15

As a previous post mentioned, there is definitely something fishy going on here.

The investigation is supposed to be about fuel surcharges, yet the 2 of transatlantic carriers not being investigated have the highest surcharges.

Just look at fares, there is not £5 between any of them for much of the summer. So why is BA being singled out? It seems likely that Virgin is under investigation too, but it is still far short of anything that could be termed a Cartel.

The involvement of the DOJ is perhaps a clue. It would not be the first time that our American friends supported their airlines at the expense of ours.

Speedpig

23rd Jun 2006, 10:07

Going back to the 23kg baggage limit - H & S ? What a bunch of pussies!
Our coalman carried 1 cwt sacks; that's 50kg and they didn't have a handle on them! I used to load sugar bags weighing almost a cwt onto a flatbed.
So pack it in, BA and the rest! Let's get back to the 32kg limit! May improve the share price :ok:

At the age of 16, I worked on a farm. I was carrying 1cwt bags of animal food or fertilizer and 2 cwt bags of Sugar beet pulp. 22 years ago I was a baggage handler for BA lifting bags of any weight without complaint. Nowadays I have a relatively cushy, non manual job.
But, I am now knackered with permanent back and knee problems. Maybe I should sue?
:ugh: :{

bealine

23rd Jun 2006, 11:13

Like you, my Fast Porcine, I used to carry slates and hods of bricks or cement up ladders from the age of 14 - don't suppose I could do it now, though!

You also have to bear in mind that in the days we'm talking about, heavy lifting was "man's work", in this day and age we have equal opportunities so if the maids wants to hump baggage (or their handlers!) they are more than welcome! Now, the odd 32kg bag would cause much of a problem to the hairy-ar5ed community below the Terminal, "Black Pudding Bertha", "Sweaty Betty" and their chums would face a considerable challenge!

There is also a considerable difference between lifting the odd heavy bag (into and out of the car for your twice a year holiday) and lifting, raising, twisting and stacking bags for the whole duration of a shift - and as Speedpig knows, many of our loaders do 16 hour "double shifts" regularly to earn sufficient cash to keep up their mortgages, CSA payments etc. (Please also remember that when talking about 737's, Barbie Jets etc, these bags are stacked in the hold by some poor sap on his knees in the aluminium under-belly. I suggest that manoevering 32kg bags whilst in a stooping, crouching or kneeling position can cause loads of things in your body to "pop" or "twang" besides just the back or knees!)

Going back on-topic, please don't make our two senior managers (the ones on special "holiday" during the investigations) be tried, sentenced and condemned before the OFT has concluded its investigations. Much as I am not a "toadie" of our managers, I consider Martin George and our Communications Director to be men of integrity and, whatever else they may be, I am certain they are not dishonest!

Jet2

23rd Jun 2006, 13:53

BBC reporting that it was Virgin that sparked the investigation :ouch:

Full story here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5109014.stm

HZ123

23rd Jun 2006, 18:26

Perhaps when the good burgers of consumer law are doing their rounds they can also have a look at the vast sums of EU tax payers monies that have and are being pumped into Alitalia and Air France, futhermore the vast fuel subsidies enjoyed by our American Cousins in busines, social and domestic?

aidey_f

24th Jun 2006, 07:07

Forginve my cynicism, but aren't we about to hit another squall in the on-going spat about LHR access? Not to mention the good old Airbus/Boeing subsidy WTO dispute? I can't help wondering if they might be realted to this investigation. But perhaps I do our friends in the DoJ an injustice....

sikeano

24th Jun 2006, 13:03

ba has been in the news in the recent weeks some dodgy shiek buying it and now the price fixing scandal with a cartel but in the times today page 7 an article by angela jameson an industrial correspondent, she says quote " a tip off from british airways's arch rival virgin atlantic prompted competetion authorities on both sides of the atlantic to investigate price fixing and collusion at the uk's biggest passenger airline ":ugh:
the background to the investigation is believed to be a number of conversations last year between, yes get this right a ba executive and a virgin executive regarding the timing and impact of raising fuel surcharges .
virgin executives realising that the conversations contravened competition law,are understood to have approached the oft with evidence
ba and virgin refused to comment on the latter's role
Intresting this is if the oft finds ba guilty thanks to virgin ;)
means ba will lose its dominant position at heathrow to america routes to other airlines and bringing down ticket prices
well good news to slf i suppose
but my question is this (deal or no deal )
did virgin try to do a dirty on ba
it is time to vote off the weakest link
(sorry about the puns i watch too much telly nowadays since i retired from raf):ok:

p.s an online link if you wish from times just to let you know what i am about at http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,10295-2237801,00.html

ExSimGuy

24th Jun 2006, 13:15

Surely if BA did approach Virgin, with a suggestion that they should mutually indulge in practices which are against UK law, then Virgin did the correct thing in bringing it to the attention of the relevant authorities?

Had they "colluded", then someone may have approached, say, BMI, and BMI blown the whistle on both.

Admittedly the charges could have very serious implications on BA staff, but, again if, true - you should be blaming BA management, not Richard Branson.

Even if VS were "being a bit sneaky", I seem to recall BA were a bit sneaky too, back in the days before Sir Fred was forced out of the market.

Skipness One Echo

24th Jun 2006, 13:22

A330ismylittlebaby

24th Jun 2006, 18:45

I can't find the thread which the mods moved so i had to create this,

I know the price fixing is wrong, what i don't get is how can BA still be cheaper than virgin to fly on, surely virgin are basically just charging passengers more anyways.

I love virgin and BA by the way. I just couldn't understand how BA can still be cheaper and ripping the passengers off.

Mod comment: Looking for a BA item? Look in the BA thread. Have something BA related to post? Post it in the BA thread. :ugh:

FullWings

24th Jun 2006, 20:19

It's rather odd the way things pan out with the 'competition' rules. If all the airlines charge £30 extra a sector for fuel and say that they are simply matching their rivals, then that is deemed a competitive marketplace. If some agreed in advance that £30 was reasonable then that is anti-competitive. I suppose it makes some sort of sense from a philosophical point of view but in the end there is precious little difference to the consumer.

If some airlines get fined for things like this who pays in the end? The passengers because the carriers will get the money back somehow...

bealine

24th Jun 2006, 21:01

If some airlines get fined for things like this who pays in the end?

......and this raises another interesting point (Off Topic of course!)

Here in the UK we are taxed to death, what little we are left with after Income Tax and National Insurance gets taxed with "VAT" on nearly everything we buy and there are special duties on fuel, alcohol and pressies for the wife (jewellery).

If the Treasury also receives the proceeds of these sort of fines, where the hell does the money go because they sure as hell don't spend it on the citizens of this green and pleasant land!

Now, getting back On Topic, Speedpig informs me that it isn't unusual for the two senior managers to be sent home on leave and there is no assertion that BA is either admitting their guilt or throwing them to the wolves. It is purely so that BA can't be accused of allowing the two managers involved to shred documents, format hard drives or do anything to corrupt the course of the investigation. .........Nothing sinister at all!

FullWings

24th Jun 2006, 21:10

Here in the UK we are taxed to death
Doesn't stop there mate!

Again, back on topic: Maybe BA should add a 10% 'anti-anti-competitive' surcharge to their tickets, just in case...

FlapsOne

25th Jun 2006, 07:24

Surely not ?? :D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5109014.stm

Joe le Taxi

25th Jun 2006, 08:24

Unless the Virgin exec stuck his fingers in his ears shouting 'tra-la-la; I can't hear you', he/she had no choice but to report the exchange; otherwise it could be alleged that they were complicit in the price fixing too, once the matter became public.

Dunhovrin

25th Jun 2006, 19:05

personal attack

Low Flier

26th Jun 2006, 09:05

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/06/25/matt.gif

exfiller

26th Jun 2006, 15:46

Heard a rumour that the Airbus fleet is thinking of ditching monitored approaches - anything in this - or just BS?

overstress

26th Jun 2006, 18:50

exfiller:

10/10 for thread creep! :ok:

Analcyst

26th Jun 2006, 19:12

Maybe Virgin is trying to stitch up its minority shareholder by triggering the probe. For example - SQ in its 22 April 2005 press release - "The revised surcharge is in line with the latest increases of other international airlines and is subject to official approval in some markets."
Meanwhile, BA scored own goals - in its 8 September 2005 press release -"We believe that it is better to be transparent with our customers about the
price of fuel by showing the level of fuel surcharge they are paying rather than hide the costs by raising fares behind the scenes like some other airlines
choose to."
I notice that on the BA website the fuel surcharge is no longer separately shown - if only BA had done that from the start.

Globaliser

27th Jun 2006, 11:02

I notice that on the BA website the fuel surcharge is no longer separately shown - if only BA had done that from the start.When booking on BA, the fuel surcharge wasn't ever broken out separately. Depending on your country of origin, you now either get the traditional fare display where the base fare is shown, with an indication (later translated into a firm quote) of the total for taxes, fees and charges; or else you get an estimated total price payable, which is later broken down into base fare plus TFC.

Finding out the current level of the fuel surcharge itself has always required a bit of digging.

WHBM

27th Jun 2006, 11:34

On a sombre note, does anyone know if the troubles at Varig are an opportunity for BA to get back their former 777s G-ZZZD / E which are on lease to the Brazilians. They are still desperate for long haul capacity at EGLL.
1. They belong to Boeing now, who have leased them to Varig (and leased them to Khalifa of Algeria before they went bust too). BA have no financial interest in them any more.

2. Ex-Varig aircraft have a reputation for having unexpected engineering "surprises" for new operators. Ask Finnair, who took an MD-11 from Varig a short while ago.

ASW20Driver

28th Jun 2006, 07:57

I see the US lawyers have started a Trust Action against BA. If BA loses Hundreds of millions in legal fees and maybe fines as a result of the actions of senior managers presumably that would constitute Gross Misconduct and require the return of their recent huge bonuses and the loss of their pension rights. Now wouldnt that be ironic.

Golden Ticket

28th Jun 2006, 08:45

This was in the Independent Online today,
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/comment/article1116883.ece
Urgent need for action at BA
British Airways has thus far handled its spot of bother with the competition authorities over alleged price fixing in lamentably poor fashion. Initial reaction was like that of a rabbit paralysed in the headlights of an oncoming car. It didn't seem to know quite how to respond, beyond naming two of its most senior executives as having been put on leave of absence for the duration of the inquiry. In so doing, BA has already, in effect, tried and convicted them.
Price fixing is these days no laughing matter. It is a criminal offence carrying the harshest
possible of penalties. For an organisation as reliant on public trust and goodwill as British Airways, it is essential that the matter is cleared up at the earliest possible opportunity.
A damage limitation exercise is already under way, to the effect that no other executive knew anything about the price fixing alleged. Yet this kind of off-the- record spin really doesn't suffice in circumstances like these.
It may well be true, but there's no independent evidence to support it. What the City needs to know is whether this was just an isolated incident, perpetrated more in naivety than deliberate chicanery, or whether it is endemic, running right through the culture of the organisation and its chain of command like a stick of Brighton rock. As ever in circumstances like these, the fear has to be that it is the latter.
There's no point in waiting for the judgement of the Office of Fair Trading. That's going to take for ever, and in the meantime everyone will continue to speculate. BA needs to order its own independent investigation as a matter of urgency, both to establish the facts, and, if they are bad, to recommend appropriate action. Only then will the boil be properly lanced.

bealine

1st Jul 2006, 11:09

Is it any coincidence that the OFT are now muscling into BAA's operations? Apparently 72% of airline passengers in Britain start or end their journey at a BAA controlled airport and there is allegedly a lack of choice! (Wow! It takes a whole Government department to work that one out?)

http://www.atomic-album.com/showPic.php/23180/The Whole Kit except Tug.jpg

bmibaby.com

1st Jul 2006, 13:16

With at least two British airlines who are going to be releasing shares, are British Airways in any financial shape to invest in these airlines?

Lucifer

2nd Jul 2006, 19:12

Is it any coincidence that the OFT are now muscling into BAA's operations? Apparently 72% of airline passengers in Britain start or end their journey at a BAA controlled airport and there is allegedly a lack of choice!
No - that was always expected to take place if anyone took over BAA plc, which has this week been completed by Ferrovial, gaining over 80% of the shares outstanding.

Would probably be good for everyone involved to pay a commercial rate than whatever is set by the CAA as a price cap. I digress from the thread however...

crash gang

3rd Jul 2006, 15:36

http://money.aol.co.uk/article.adp?id=20060702124609990015

Sorry forgot to mention at BA in the title

rotornut

3rd Jul 2006, 16:11

Walsh also said British Airways may purchase some of EADS's Airbus A380 aircraft to replace its Boeing 747s in the future

A significant boost for Airbus.

PAXboy

3rd Jul 2006, 17:42

It is, of course, one of the tasks of a CEO to keep the company's options open at all times. Saying that the company 'may purchase' is very easy to say and, indeed necessary for him to say, whether he means it or not. Given the current circumstances, he cannot say anything else but the nature of the game is that he still has to say it. :hmm:

Taildragger67

3rd Jul 2006, 17:48

Not saying anything new. This is from July 2005:

British Airways to consider acquisition of new aircraft
Airline Industry Information, July 20, 2005

AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION-(C)1997-2005 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD

British Airways said on Tuesday (19 July) that its board would review plans to acquire new long-haul aircraft within nine months.

Possible new aircraft include the 555-seat Airbus A380 double-decker and Boeing Co's 777 and mid-sized 787, British Airways' chairman told the airline's annual shareholders meeting, adding that the carrier does not need to take a decision on fleet upgrade yet.

Also at the meeting, the airline's new CEO Willie Walsh said that he expected to adhere to plans for cutting costs.

It would also be interesting to know what the actual question that was put to him was and his full answer. Welt am Sonntag is a German paper so of course it's going to be of greater interest to a German readership that BA may consider European-built aircraft than non-European.

And, agreeing with PAXboy, he's not about to give Boeing a let-out re price in any negotiations over new equipment.

ExSimGuy

3rd Jul 2006, 19:06

Many moons ago (when I was but a whipper-snapper just out of apprenticeship!) BA was slated for ordering 737, rather than the "European" Airbus. At that time, BA (only just "ex-BEA and ex-BOAC") was pretty much Government owned, but going private. The original Airbus was designed with a range aimed at the "mid-European airline" market, and just couldn't hack the range required by an airline whose base was right at one edge of the region. The 757 was the right aircraft for the job.

Nowadays, BA can chose the right aircraft for their requirements without criticism. Whether they go for the "mass transit" market with the 380. or the "distributed market" for the DreamLiner, is a matter for the BA board to judge.

And certainly a good time to "dip their toes in the water" and get the best deal that they can!

MarkD

4th Jul 2006, 02:00

That BA are now considering 380 at all must be an indicator of the level of discounting EADS are offering and the possibility of slots opening up but my money would still be on 748. Probably doing a "reverse Iberia" - putting pressure on Boeing for negotiating purposes.

ExSimGuy - Your point is very well made. The original 320-100 was so surpassed by the 320-200 that it's not surprising BA passed first time out. Nonetheless it would be good to see BA follow through and rationalise the rest of the fleet - maybe even some 318s to replace the 146...

If BA hadn't got rid of so many 757s they might be able to dusk all the EF 767s rather than some... and even take on the threat from CO/AA/NW and their wingleted 757s into places like MAN, BRS, etc.

Groundloop

4th Jul 2006, 08:45

Just to be pedantic, it is NOT an EADS Airbus A380. It is an Airbus A380!

Although BAE want to sell their stake in Airbus they haven't done it yet.

apaddyinuk

4th Jul 2006, 09:39

Am I the only one who finds this article hopelessly vague???

WHBM

4th Jul 2006, 10:12

apaddyinuk

No, many of us here probably do :)

HOVIS

4th Jul 2006, 13:59

Nonetheless it would be good to see BA follow through and rationalise the rest of the fleet - maybe even some 318s to replace the 146...
If BA hadn't got rid of so many 757s they might be able to dusk all the EF 767s rather than some... and even take on the threat from CO/AA/NW and their wingleted 757s into places like MAN, BRS, etc.

BA do not operate any 146s.:confused:

Also as far as I know all the 767s have now been 'dusked'.:ok:

As for taking on the big yanks in the regions, forget it. London Airways donchaknow.:mad:

Railgun

4th Jul 2006, 15:54

Also as far as I know all the 767s have now been 'dusked'.:ok:

There are still a number of 767's that are not dusked flying short haul routes.

apaddyinuk

4th Jul 2006, 16:34

Railgun

And thats because they are shorthaul 767's which dont need to be dusked!!! :ugh:

MarkD

4th Jul 2006, 16:38

BA do not operate any 146s.:confused:

I beg to differ HOVIS (and don't hedge on BACON - it is wholly owned after all)
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1062967/M/ (taken 2Jun06)
http://www.jethros.i12.com/fleets/fleet_listings/ba_bae_146.htm

Skipness One Echo

4th Jul 2006, 16:54

BACON is BA by any other name. It is rather snobbish in my view to pretend otherwise. All of the 28 B767-336ERs delivered are as the name suggests, ' ER aircraft. Some of which are only used on short haul for capacity rather than range reasons. They are all capable of going long haul if required.
Perhaps even the 7 with QANTAS should they ever return.

Railgun

4th Jul 2006, 19:46

And thats because they are shorthaul 767's which dont need to be dusked!!! :ugh:

Buy the man a medal. :rolleyes:

MarkD

4th Jul 2006, 20:36

apaddy

as has been pointed out, all BA 763s are ERs. Rod E mentioned when the initial EF duskings were done that further duskings could be done depending on how the initial ones went. So the notion of "shorthaul" 763s seems to be not based on the fleet as currently constituted.

apaddyinuk

4th Jul 2006, 21:16

I know that, I work on the damn things for BA. My point is, someone asked if they had all been dusked? Answer was YES, all the worldwide ones have been dusked!!! But then someone said except the ones in the shorthaul config...ooooh never mind...Woosh over all your heads!!!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Railgun

4th Jul 2006, 22:23

apaddyinuk

A couple of shorthaul ones were dusked as well or so we have been led to believe? Bet a few more will end up having the same done as well as its the only option for LH expansion without new aircraft or route cuts.

Globaliser

5th Jul 2006, 07:46

Perhaps even the 7 with QANTAS should they ever return.I'm sure I've read that these aircraft won't ever be back now; QF want them permanently and BA are content that they should stay there.

WHBM

5th Jul 2006, 09:26

Perhaps even the 7 with QANTAS should they ever return.
Anyone have the actual status of these aircraft ? I have read that they are gone from BA, either actually sold or Qantas took over the lease directly with the head leasing company for them.

But then there are repeated accounts over the years about them coming back at the end of their lease. And with BA committed to no capital spending on new long-haul aircraft it would be a way to increase the fleet without the spending.

Would be unusual for Qantas to be so keen to keep them, they are moving across to A330s, and their 767-300 fleet has two different engine types, with the RR ones being the minority, so one would expect those to be the first to be rationalised out.

Preppy

5th Jul 2006, 11:22

British Airways is to launch a new service from London Heathrow to Calgary in Canada on December 1, 2006.

There will be five flights each week on a Boeing 777 to the city in the Canadian province of Alberta.

British Airways’ director of planning, Robert Boyle said: “Calgary is an important business and leisure destination. Alberta has a growing oil and gas industry and Calgary is the gateway to the Canadian Rockies which a large number of holidaymakers visit throughout the year.”

In addition to this new route, the airline is launching an 8th daily service from London Heathrow to New York JFK on December 1, 2006 and increasing flights from London Heathrow to Sao Paulo in Brazil from seven to 10 each week on December 3, 2006.

Robert Boyle said: “We offer a more comprehensive schedule between London and New York than any other airline with three flights each day from Heathrow to Newark in addition to our JFK services.

“Brazil is an increasingly popular destination and we are adding extra capacity after air services talks earlier this year between the British and Brazilian governments approved more flights between the two countries.”

Calgary becomes British Airways’ fourth destination in Canada. This summer, the airline flies 10 times each week to Montreal, three times each day to Toronto and 13 times each week to Vancouver. All flights operate from London Heathrow.

This is the third new longhaul route that British Airways has launched in the last 18 months with flights from London Heathrow to Shanghai starting in June 2005 and to Bangalore in October 2005.

MarkD

5th Jul 2006, 12:50

WHBM

QF have recently put some of them through heavy checks according to D&G sources and with the move of their 330s to Jetstar I doubt they will want to give up the 763s any time soon.

(edited to ask - are any routes being cut back to accommodate the services to Calgary/JFK/Sao Paulo?)

bealine

15th Jul 2006, 11:51

MarkD

One imagines BEY perhaps?

apaddyinuk

15th Jul 2006, 12:08

LOL...BEAline...thats operated by Bmed you silly!

Speedpig

15th Jul 2006, 18:12

Preppy

Having spoken to a shorthaul passenger yesterday who was late to Gatwick following 40 mins waiting for a stand at Heathrow, isn't it time some of these came to Gatwick?

Railgun

15th Jul 2006, 18:38

Speedpig

:eek: Does waterworld know there are airports outside LHR?

The only routes that would ever be moved to gatwick are the leasure ones and ones that turn a small if any profit.

bealine

16th Jul 2006, 07:07

Meanwhile, while Waterworld fiddles like Nero, Emirates has nicely taken a huge slice of the Australasia / Far East traffic and, working with Continental, provided excellent links to and from the USA. Etihad is expanding rapidly and wants Abu Dhabi to be a similar transit hub to Dubai. Astraeus, SN Brussels, and a whole wealth of African carriers are providing the healthy links to the African continent that BA decided Heathrow pax would pay bigger bucks for!

Funny how Gatwick passengers pay big enough dollars to other airlines at Gatwick, but not to BA innit? As I recall, British Caledonian attracted high fares - it was simple mis-management (and possibly a bit of unproven dirty tricks by BA) that put them under

........Just watch what happens when the OFT investigation is complete and BA is forced into giving up slots at LHR to appease the US and force Open Skies through! Where will BA put its displaced flights? The only thing is, by the time Waterworld gets off its over-fed backside, there may be no more slots available at Crawley Regional Airport!