BA exit LGW

[Kiteflier]

Just heard BA are going to pull nearly all their LGW services and use T3 instead. Looks like they are happy for it to turn orange.

[PPRuNeUser0171]

T3 at Heathrow? They pulled all their domestic services out of heathrow to move them to LGW a few years back citing costs like landing fees at LHR.

Sounds strange to be but this is BA...

[DaveReidUK]

They pulled all their domestic services out of heathrow to move them to LGW a few years back citing costs like landing fees at LHR.

Not to mention slot (un)availability.

Most of the extra slots that BA inherited from BMI have already been earmarked for more longhaul services. Where are they going to get additional ones from ?

[cwatters]

Funny they recently announced plans for additional services later this year..

British Airways Adds Ski Flights | First Tracks!! Online Ski Magazine (http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2012/05/26/british-airways-adds-ski-flights/)

British Airways Adds Ski Flights


Published on May 26, 2012 @ 1:00 am
By First Tracks!! Online Media

London, UK - British Airways announced on Friday that the airline is increasing flights to two of its popular European ski destinations from Gatwick next winter.

British Airways Introduces Flights from Gatwick to Las Vegas | Travel News (http://www.travel-news.co.uk/3889/2012/05/british-airways-introduces-flights-from-gatwick-to-las-vegas/)

British Airways, a UK-based airline company, has announced a new route from London Gatwick Airport, in the UK, to Las Vegas, USA.

The new, three times weekly service commences from October 29, 2012, and will be operated by a three-class Boeing 777 aircraft, which will feature fully flat beds for Club World cabin passengers.

[wiggy]

I suspect kiteflier is flying a kite :bored:.

There aren't enough ATC slots to allow BA to move the LGW operation "up the road", irrespective of Terminals.

[i_like_tea]

Actually I heard this half a year ago, from someone who has seen the "plans" apparently.
Longhaul will remain at LGW but short haul will pull out, not sure of the date, but they've apparently decided they can't compete with the Orange army.

[PPRuNeUser0171]

BA recently announced more short-haul for the slots acquired from BMI -> BA to use Bmi slots on new short-haul routes | ABTN (http://www.abtn.co.uk/news/1117348-ba-use-bmi-slots-new-short-haul-routes)

'British Airways is planning to start flights from Heathrow to Leeds-Bradford, Rotterdam and Zagreb'

Now, as I mentioned earlier, BA pulled out of the short haul market from LHR due to the profit margins either being very slim or non-existent so if they are going to have short-haul from LHR again and shuffle services around isn't that same risk still there?

I'm confused but I guess BA know what they are doing.... :confused:

[renfrew]

williamsg

Where did you get the idea that BA cut short haul and domestic from LHR?

[CabinCrewe]

poppycock. . . .:rolleyes:

[no sponsor]

There are lots of rumours about LGW.

The ones I've heard in recent weeks:

- BMI Babys 737s to go to LGW and replace our old knackered 737s. (I thought our 737s were newer than BMI babys!)

- Short Haul to cease at LGW

I prefer the expansion of LH at LGW with all 787s coming to LGW to be crewed by LGW pilots!

However, since our new business plan is not going to the board, then I assume LGW will be closed, since no new plan, no LGW.

[OltonPete]

no sponsor

If you take out the two Baby 735's and G-OBMP then most are around the
1997-98 vintage and thus have a few years on the 1991-93 BA 734's.

Some operate 8 sector days from BHX & EMA have thus far have stood up well to the task this summer but there was slack in the schedule until this weekend - although obviously from 10/06/12 things change big time with the closure of the BHD routes and various ones from BHX & EMA.

The Baby 733's to LGW has also been rumoured on a BHX forum.

[Skipness One Echo]

If the rumour is that loss making short haul is axed then I can see it happening. Long haul is a stand alone profitable niche that does not require feed, so they do not need to spend millions replacing the old B737-436s to maintain losing money against easyJet.
I would be a sensible business decision and one a long time coming as I have said before, it's the last painful plaster to be removed after the regions. Just treat staff well in any transition and minimise any redundancies if it comes to it.

T3 at Heathrow? They pulled all their domestic services out of heathrow to move them to LGW a few years back citing costs like landing fees at LHR. Who did what now? Certainly not BA.

[racedo]

I'm confused but I guess BA know what they are doing....


Hope springs eternal

[PPRuNeUser0171]

Where did you get the idea that BA cut short haul and domestic from LHR?


I used to travel from LHR to JER quite a bit (and on occasion a few other domestic locations). BA did move a lot of those flights from LHR to LGW. I was told that this was purely due to costs.

[cornishsimon]

This simply isn't going to happen

[Facelookbovvered]

Well according to the baby crews coming through BHD the reason that BHD got the chop ahead of the Midlands was that a number of 733 are going LGW at the end of June with the rest to follow in the Autumn.

[Skipness One Echo]

BA's JER-LHR was moved to Gatwick alongwith INV-LHR and Manx's IOM-LHR so that slots could be redistributed to long haul. Replacing old bespoke BA B737s with old B737s from a myriad of sources seems desperate. Are we not swapping old and paid off with old and leased?

[CabinCrewe]

" Long haul is a stand alone profitable niche that does not require feed"
Conjecture or fact ?
Speaking of fact, here is what Willie had to say recently

"Longhaul operation is very successful, with some feed from shorthaul"
"we've reduced scale over past few years but don't see further reduction"

[LD12986]

LGW short haul has had question marks over it for years (it's being dropped, changed to a single class operation and so on).

I thought the point of the recent restructuring of ground operations was to justify a business case for short haul fleet renewal? Has the BA board approved or rejected this?

I'm not so sure BA is that willing to give Easy free reign at LGW - something I think has been acknowledged as a mistake is handing expansion to Easy on a plate at LGW.

Bmi Baby was shut down because it was loss making and had no fit with BA. I can't see their aircraft staying with BA. Just straight back to lessors I think.

[Sir George Cayley]

FlyBe. That's the solution. Using EMBs to face up to Orange might actually be doable.

Possible 3rd way?

[JSCL]

I like Sir George Cayley's thought process on this one, but I don't think it's a quick solution. The E-Jets just aren't available. The short-haul domestic routes to LGW from my experience have always been more expensive than that of LHR to the customer. Add the fact that they have Easy on their doorstep, the LGW operation for short haul just doesn't make sense. It works well, as VS have proven, as a point to point long-haul airport. But as stated earlier in the thread, BA are now having to look at whether or not it is worth short haul fleet renewal at LGW, I would say it isn't. The money just isn't there for it to happen.

In my eyes the best move for BA is a LHR/LCY operation. Those routes such as JER which don't make too much sense to LHR but do to LGW (because these pax are mostly O/D) - it would be suited well to the BACF ops at LCY. There's clearly some sense in the thought process behind a potential closure of SH at LGW, but whether now is the time, I don't know. But I don't believe that BA have enough of a bit in BE to 'shove' short-haul ops at LGW entirely on to them.

[no sponsor]

The get-out clauses for the Baby 733 are very expensive. As the majority of BA 737-436s are due to go through a very expensive check over the next 18 months, the case is being made that some of the -436's can be retired now, and the Baby 733's take their place. No need for the big expensive fleet renewal program. Besides, most senior BA management will tell your there is no appetite to spend $1bn on a business model which doesn't work. Moreover, the Golden runways will always get the investment before Crawley International.

The 'new' business plan was supposed to have been put to the board last month. However, the Cabin Crew rejected the proposals, and Cruella di Vil and her cronies threw their toys out of their pram and now won't go to the board. As far as I'm aware, IAG have said no new business plan, no LGW.

[onthemagicbeam]

BA have just had a load of Airbuses (bmi ones) dumped in their lap that they won't need once the bmi integration is complete. Therefore they will be a perfect fit down at LGW! They have already stated that most of the bmi slots will go to LH therefore makes perfect sense to put the bmi a/c at LGW.

Gatwick then continues, possibly expands, at very little extra cost. :D

[cornishsimon]

As far as i can see this is just the same old rumour that pops up every so often.

BA @ LGW is here to stay, and the recent IAG press release suggests that we could well be seeing more for LGW

[vctenderness]

It would seem to me that keeping Gatwick makes good business sense. There is potential to grow and test new routes before transferring them to LHR.

Also the south east is a pretty wealthy area of the UK and lots of people like to travel, for leisure, from LGW which is easy to access and cheap to park etc.


I use it frequently and love it.

[BALLSOUT]

FlyBe. That's the solution. Using EMBs to face up to Orange might actually be doable.What about a return from EDI to LGW by cityflyer with a shiney new fleet of EMB 195's

[cornishsimon]

What about a return from EDI to LGW by cityflyer with a shiney new fleet of
EMB 195's



When i suggested this previously i was told that its not possible due to some sort of agreement that doesnt allow Cityflyer to operate into LHR or LGW


cs

[Skipness One Echo]

That's right, it's not a straightforward issue of deploying the ERJ into Mainline. What works on BA CityFlyers cost base won't automatically work at LGW. Also it lacks the volume to do well on bulk leisure against EZY.
I assume there would be a not insubstantial refurbishment cost in refleeting all the BMI Baby to BA Interiors. BA prefer their own aircraft, indeed the only second hand machines they have are two A320s that were built to BA spec for GB Airways.

The guy who said that BA won't need the BMI fleet after integration is mistaken. BA *must* fly the slots at LHR and to do that, they need the bulk of the current BMI fleet. It's not a year long process it's going to take three years plus to rebalance to more long haul as B787s and A380s arrive, in the meantime, those slots must be used or lost.

To the question of whether I am sure long haul LGW is profitable as a stand alone business, I believe so. They do currently feed long haul from GLA/EDI/MAN but I don't see this as integral. LGW was de-hubbed remember. INV, IOM, ABZ and NCL went as did the early MAN-LGW, so it does appear they are running long haul on a point to point business model. The dropped domestics were taken up by flybe on a codeshare basis, not something too likely against EZY on GLA or EDI but not impossible!

It is well know that BA are uncompetitive against EZY, though any loss of "market share" is balanced against the fact that short haul LGW is not seen as a core business. We shall see.

BA @ LGW is here to stay, and the recent IAG press release suggests that we could well be seeing more for LGW
BA *long haul* appears to have a future, without a business case approved by the board, there will be no replacement of the B734s and short haul will end. This is the core of what's happening, B735s gone, B733s gone, B734s going. If they really do stop gap with the Baby fleet they are clutching at straws.

[Fairdealfrank]

Only one thing could end the complete BA and VS presence at LGW: a third rwy at LHR.

Without this, it won't happen, with it, maybe, but that raises the question of terminal capacity at LHR.

[Walnut]

The bmi slots at LHR must be flown to keep them, however as they convert over to L/H routes the bmi airbus fleet is surplus, at that point it would seem the best option is to place these a/c at LGW to replace the old 737's, ensuring fleet commonality

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

Or maybe Vueling will fill the void? Spanish market contracting, IAG asset? Helps protect IBE Ex to continue expansion and help cost cutting exercise in Spanish mainland.

Flybe's embs hold 118 seats, so can't be used to fly for BA as it is against the scope clause. The smaller ones could though.

[Surreyman]

Anyone know how long the (14)various leases have to run?
I wonder if we might see a couple of baby planes used short term on BMI LHR domestics to allow BMI 319s to be repainted/reconfigured?

[BALLSOUT]

When i suggested this previously i was told that its not possible due to some sort of agreement that doesnt allow Cityflyer to operate into LHR or LGW
cs - I think the agreement you are reffering to is "scope" This prevents any subsidiary or franchise operation from using the same type of aircraft as mainline, or with more than 100 pax seats, Hence EMB 195's. Remember cityflyer was originally a LGW operation.

[marlowe]

So why doesnt IAG do to BA what it did to Iberia? ie. Iberia run long haul and Iberia express run short haul ? After all it was the BACityflyer business model they used to set up Iberia Express, so whats good for the madrid end of the business will probably work at the London end as well, sure the London end will scream and shout just like the Madrid end is doing, but I am sure IAG will quell the dissenting voices.

[Skipness One Echo]

LGW short haul won't move into profit just by flying Airbuses. As to cost cutting, LGW has been pared down for years. Any who cheers in Vueling needs to undrstand how very, very little they pay people. Cheering on the continued erosion of safety and training is not wise in this particular case.

[The96er]

Cheering on the continued erosion of safety and training is not wise in this particular case.

Do Vueling or any other so called low cost carrier not conform to rigorous safety standards then ? - another misconception !!. Being paid less than more established 'flag' carries does not equate to a lack of safety or training.

[arfortune]

Has been rumoured many times before, but will only believe it when it hapens.
On another issue - didn't BA spend £millions recently revamping North terminal. Bit shortsighted if they really are to pull out.

[johnrizzo2000]

"Gatwick is closing" rumours are cleverly started whilst BA is outsourcing a load of jobs and more than likely looking for cuts across remaining staff. Bit of a coincidence?

The fact is, that BA doesn't have, and won't ever have the slots at LHR to move its routes from LGW over. The BD slots are needed for new routes and increases frequencies on important routes. LGW serves its purpose as a primarily leisure based operation

[Skipness One Echo]

The fact is, that BA doesn't have, and won't ever have the slots at LHR to move its routes from LGW over

True, which is why they should be exiting markets in which they cannot compete, i.e. those against easyJet. They can keep the 7-8 B777s for point to point leisure without bleeding the cash from mucking about to sun destinations in Europe.

[License to Fly]

BA does not want to convert all the bmi slots into Longhaul - around 70% of bmi slots will stay as shorthaul over the next few years, so the guys who think that there will be a glut of 319's available to LGW are not necessarily correct.

Who knows what BA will do with LGW, certainly no-one outside BA management know, but I would not be surprised if LGW came to LHR, its all about which airport the most profit can be made.

With so many variables, who knows! All i know, is when BA does makes a decision, it seems a very obvious thing to have done

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "So why doesnt IAG do to BA what it did to Iberia? ie. Iberia run long haul and Iberia express run short haul ? After all it was the BACityflyer business model they used to set up Iberia Express, so whats good for the madrid end of the business will probably work at the London end as well, sure the London end will scream and shout just like the Madrid end is doing, but I am sure IAG will quell the dissenting voices."

They had the opportunity to do just that, marlowe, it was called BD ("British Midland"). Returning BD to its original short haul role and running BA and BD as two stand alone airlines was a possibility but they went down the road of integration.

Quote: "The fact is, that BA doesn't have, and won't ever have the slots at LHR to move its routes from LGW over. The BD slots are needed for new routes and increases frequencies on important routes. LGW serves its purpose as a primarily leisure based operation".

Certainly without LHR expansion, BA (and VS) will be at LGW forever, johnrizzo2000, there's also a question of adequate terminal capacity. Despite LHR-5, BA have still been in 2 terminals at LHR and are now in 3!

[Cyrano]

So why doesnt IAG do to BA what it did to Iberia? ie. Iberia run long haul and Iberia express run short haul ? After all it was the BACityflyer business model they used to set up Iberia Express

Err...

BA Cityflyer: essentally the BA shorthaul product
Iberia Express: essentially the Iberia shorthaul product

BA Cityflyer: smaller aircraft than mainline
Iberia Express: same size aircraft as mainline

BA Cityflyer: different airport to mainline hub
Iberia Express: same airport as mainline hub

BA Cityflyer: essentially all point-to-point
Iberia Express: feeding the mainline hub

BA Cityflyer: formed to defend high-yield market
Iberia Express: formed to reduce feeder costs because there is a negotiated limit on how much capacity Vueling can operate with an IB code share


Not having a go, but IB Express doesn't look much like BA Cityflyer to me - are there other aspects of the business model that are closer, that I'm missing?

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

I've heard on the grapevine that BA have told the TRMs and loaders at LGW that it's curtains for them, all being outsourced! Hope it's not true. If circus air around the regions are anything to go by, standby for total and utter chaos!

[The96er]

I've heard on the grapevine that BA have told the TRMs and loaders at LGW that it's curtains for them, all being outsourced! Hope it's not true. If circus air around the regions are anything to go by, standby for total and utter chaos!


All true, however, how do you surmise that the performance by Servisair (soon to be Menzies) and Aviance before them are somehow inferior to BA ? Weather you like it or not, the turn around performance of handling agents on the BA product is far superior to that of BA's own staff.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

Very sad news, professionals that knew how to talk to passengers like human beings are canned for the likes of those at one north western, and one Scottish airport in particular that talk to pax like they are scum, dredged from the bottom of a pond. I have never waited at LHR or LGW for FEGP to be fitted. At both of the others I regularly travel to, I have experienced a 20 min delay! With engines still running.

Circusair/Menzies with a superior product?? On yer bike chap! the central load control at Manchester can't even sort themselves out. No hope at all. No doubt some qudos for those staff who get to wear a BA name badge and pretend they are the real deal, but if you pay peanuts, you hardly get monkeys these days.
And that is my experience as pax and being sat in the front office. Some staff are great and know their jobs inside out. But they tend to have been in the industry a long time. These companies just don't train their staff to an acceptable enougth level. They always need an adult to sort out their problems. I don't really blame them, I blame the management and training regime for failing them.

Anyways back to the original thread points. Perhaps this finally goes to show the curtains are being drawn for the SH@G fleet.

[The96er]

I have never waited at LHR or LGW for FEGP to be fitted. At both of the others I regularly travel to, I have experienced a 20 min delay! With engines still running.


So no issues at LHR/LGW then, not what the BA own crews say, most say it's more efficient outside of London.

the central load control at Manchester can't even sort themselves out.

That's a contract between BA Cityflyer and Servisair. Mainline do their own Central load control.

Some staff are great and know their jobs inside out. But they tend to have been in the industry a long time. These companies just don't train their staff to an acceptable enougth level. They always need an adult to sort out their problems. I don't really blame them, I blame the management and training regime for failing them.



Now that I'll agree with :ok:

[BOBBLEHAT]

Wasn't it part of the BMI takeover conditions that a proportion of the LHR BMI slots had to be used for domestic purposes? That would explain a move from LGW for some services......

[Omnipresent]

Wasn't it part of the BMI takeover conditions that a proportion of the LHR BMI slots had to be used for domestic purposes? That would explain a move from LGW for some services......


No. IAG has to make available slots to entrants who want to operate certain domestic (and other) routes where competition has been reduced (ABZ, EDI etc) but in terms of the slots BA gets it is free to do what it wants with them. However, Keith Williams has said the optimum use of slots is 1/3 long-haul and 2/3 short-haul so there is a lot of extra short-haul capacity to fill at LHR.

[marlowe]

Cyrano all i can say is that was what the BAcityflyer CC were told .

[Skipness One Echo]

All true, however, how do you surmise that the performance by Servisair (soon to be Menzies) and Aviance before them are somehow inferior to BA ?
Corporate memory. When I flew GLA-LHR with BA in the 90s, BA handled their own flights at Glasgow with staff who had been there for years, had some discretion, were allowed to exercise judgement in certains matters and were somewhat older than today.
Nowadays we get minimum wage from Servisair and Menzies who joined the race to the bottom of ts and cs for aviation ground staff. I wouldn't get out of bed for what they pay their people, indeed some pay about the same as Tesco. Hence turnover is brutally high and there is little customer care. Meet turnaround targets and bid a lower price in the next tender is all that matters. BA were far from perfect but at least the staff appeared to care about their company, not quite something to be found at Servisair and Menzies.

I wonder whether this is UK specific as handlers in Europe seem to be a little more, switched on shall we say?

[Cyrano]

Cyrano all i can say is that was what the BAcityflyer CC were told .

That's fair enough - many thanks for clarifying. I'm still a bit perplexed all the same.

[johnrizzo2000]

From my own experience, outsourced ground handling is never as good as I house. There is no loyalty to the airline and often very little knowledge of policy etc. It can be a case of "I work for circus air, not BA!". Now this isn't always the case, but unfortunately it happens a lot.

As mentioned already, BAs operation in LHR is already split across LHR with the BD acquisition. Moving a significant amount of LGWs flight to LHR would be a logistical mess.

As it has been said, that LGW is loss making, over and over again, they obviously need to do something. Outsourcing a lot of the ground will cut costs, but I think they also need to focus on their strong points; long haul leisure

[frontcheck]

Nice attitude Skipness, it is just as well some people get out of bed for the wage offered by handling agents or the flights would not go anywhere!
And lets be honest about it ,BA are more than happy to save costs and therefore assume also happy with the service being offered.

[davidjohnson6]

This is probably a naive question but the last time I looked, BA shorthaul from Gatwick seemed to be more expensive than Easyjet for comparable flights. If revenue is higher but profit tudns into loss, the obvious conclusion is that BA has higher costs at LGW than Easyjet.

Granted Easy has more aircraft at Gatwick than BA so benefits from scale but what are the big extra costs that causes BA shorthaul to lose money.
Wages ? Old aircraft burning more fuel ? Longer turnaround ? Not imposing baggage charges ? Something else ? I'm sure everything contributes but am interested to know which are the major factors and not just minor

Are there any things that BA can do to make themselves nearly on a par in terms of costs ?

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

This is probably a naive question but the last time I looked, BA shorthaul from Gatwick seemed to be more expensive than Easyjet for comparable flights. If revenue is higher but profit tudns into loss, the obvious conclusion is that BA has higher costs at LGW than Easyjet.

Granted Easy has more aircraft at Gatwick than BA so benefits from scale but what are the big extra costs that causes BA shorthaul to lose money.
Wages ? Old aircraft burning more fuel ? Longer turnaround ? Not imposing baggage charges ? Something else ? I'm sure everything contributes but am interested to know which are the major factors and not just minor

Are there any things that BA can do to make themselves nearly on a par in terms of costs ?

Yes......become EZY or FR and all that goes with it. It appears that most punters these days don't care how they are treated or travel. It is there right to have a cheap flight, and the government should ensure it. Who gives a toss about service these days. MOL is very rich as a result.

[The96er]

Skipness, there may be some merit to what you say, particularly regards using judgement, however, in today's game, I'm afraid it's all about 'On Time Performance' with regards handling agents (which is superior to that of BA's btw) and very little else as every 1min delay is followed by finger pointing/apportioning blame/penalty clauses/writing reports etc, so unfortunately customer service usually takes second place either intentionally or not.

[Skipness One Echo]

This is probably a naive question but the last time I looked, BA shorthaul from Gatwick seemed to be more expensive than Easyjet for comparable flights.

Oddly enough I find the opposite, you can get some silly cheap fares on BA. I rather think BA just use easyJet as they're assumed to be cheaper. This allows EZY to earn a good margin at Gatwick.

[johnnychips]

Pardon my ignorance, but which domestic or Irish airports does BA LGW 'hub' with, either directly or by codeshares? Last Oct I went MAN-LGW-NAP and it was excellent. But I believe the MAN-LGW flights have now been reduced.

[JSCL]

Pardon my ignorance, but which domestic or Irish airports does BA LGW 'hub' with, either directly or by codeshares? Last Oct I went MAN-LGW-NAP and it was excellent. But I believe the MAN-LGW flights have now been reduced.

Oh, definitely no doubt over the LGW ops, I think for a domestic transfer it's easier than going to LHR from experience. I tend to use LGW when going to PRN which is a MAN>LGW>PRN leg and the timings are well matched.

Routes wise from LGW, using the untrusted source of Wiki:

Edinburgh, Glasgow Intl, Jersey, and Manchester. That lack of domestic routes makes it rather apparent that LGW isn't designed as a hub airport for BA.

[Omnipresent]

easyJet is often more expensive than BA at LGW, and easyJet has the benefit of marginal in-flight revenues from catering that BA doesn't.

BA's problem at LGW is largely one of revenue not cost. And competing against easyJet isn't simply an issue of price. easyJet pax I talk to, on the whole, like the easyJet service and experience. And easyJet's marketing and branding has really sharpened up over the past year. The "Where are you going?" campaign was much more inviting and aspirational than easyJet's historical marketing.

[WHBM]

what are the big extra costs that causes BA shorthaul to lose money.
Wages ? Old aircraft burning more fuel ? Longer turnaround ? Not imposing baggage charges ? Something else ? I'm sure everything contributes but am interested to know which are the major factors and not just minor
The biggest issue for established carriers is on the revenue side, not the cost side, and it is transfer passengers. Say tickets from Gatwick to Barbados are being sold for £600. You will find that Manchester to Barbados is being sold for maybe £650, or even £600, or once in a while for £550. This is because revenue is determined by what you can get for it, governed by demand and competition, and only obliquely related to cost.

So if it's £650 from Manchester, how is that attributed between the two flights. There are an infinite number of ways of doing it, but almost all result in the domestic/short-haul connection getting only a fraction of the revenue that the same flight would receive from an O&D ticket on the route. A fair few such passengers on the flight means a loss.

Through tickets are almost always less than the sum of the two O&D sectors added together, yet there are acually additional costs compared to two equivalent single-sector passengers, in terms of handling misconnected passengers (Manchester inbound is late, Barbados operates only once a day, and the hotac eats up any profit) along with increased transfer baggage mishandles etc.

Easyjet do not do connecting tickets and thus are not in for any of this.

[CabinCrewe]

....yet we are told that there few connecting pax using LGW...?

[Skipness One Echo]

No, it has been explained on countless occasions why this connectivity struggles to grow to a mass critical to sustaining a hub and spoke operation, with all the costs that come with it, profitably on a legacy cost base.

[easyflyer83]

BA's problem at LGW is largely one of revenue not cost. And competing against easyJet isn't simply an issue of price. easyJet pax I talk to, on the whole, like the easyJet service and experience. And easyJet's marketing and branding has really sharpened up over the past year. The "Where are you going?" campaign was much more inviting and aspirational than easyJet's historical marketing.

Can I just say how nice it is to hear someone on forums such as this to acknowledge that Easyjet pax aren't necassarilly trading down or "slumming up" by flying Easyjet.

Now, I've worn both the BA and EZY uniform and things at Easyjet aren't always spot on but many of the latters passengers really do champion the easyjet brand. I must admit that one of the main reasons seems to be the crew. As a cabin manager the amount of comments I am always astounded by the amount of postive comments I receive specifically about my colleagues. Easyjet might not be the least stressful carrier to fly with and it's still low cost however much it moves towards being hybrid, but there appears to be something about the crew and general product that people seem to like.

The new marketing campaign does look very smart in my opinion and along with very good on time performance and some other improvements hopefully Easyjet can build on the momentum. Incidentally, the allocated seating trial appears to be going very well and it is looking increasingly likely that it will be rolled out across the network............not that there was any doubt in my mind anyway.

[chipsbrand]

I have flown several times with EZY usually because there is no alternative. I have never had a good flight yet. Poor timekeeping, pathetic speedy boarding procedures ( sometimes no facilities for it at airports), high on-board prices, have all contributed. I have never had any problems with RYR.

[easyflyer83]

You're own experience is exactly that. What I will say though Is that Easyjet's on time performance is now amongst the best out there. It is something like 84% for departures and higher for arrivals.

Although most stations handle speedy boarding well, certain destinations always can't seem to handle it. HAM yesterday for instance.... Usually an air bridge but couldn't handle it with bussing. Allocated seating is now looking very likely as I said.... Something Ryanair isn't offering.

Onboard prices.... Easyjet is expensive but on a par with other carriers pretty much. Ryanair on the over hand are definitely more expensive. A simple comparison of the sales brochure would show that.

[GayFriendly]

I have never had any problems with RYR


I have, for all the same reasons you mention for EZY. No airline is perfect but I think that EZY have been a massive shot in the arm for LGW and have to be credited with fuelling the flame of rumours that BA short haul at LGW is to be axed: they serve far more destinations and are successfully morphing into a hybrid carrier that is becoming more attractive to all pax types and profiles. If allocated seating does become a reality that will be another nail in the BA coffin at LGW.

[ManUtd1999]

Realistically the only way BA can continue LGW short-haul in the long term is if the feed from these services to their long-haul flights is good enough. BA currently fly several times a day to the likes of MAN, GLA, EDI, AMS from Heathrow, Gatwick and City airports, surely this isn't economical? If Gatwick long-haul could be profitable without a feed (which it is for Virgin), it would be much better to just run short-haul flights to LCY for business and Heathrow for connecting. Any leisure routes currently run out of LGW that are worth keeping could easily be transferred to LHR or LCY as appropriate.

As for the competition with Easyjet, I wouldn't have thought BA would be too concerned with Easyjet having a monopoly over LGW short-haul would they? After all, Gatwick is primarily a O/D leisure airport, it will not have much impact on their core business at Heathrow.

[Omnipresent]

As for the competition with Easyjet, I wouldn't have thought BA would be too concerned with Easyjet having a monopoly over LGW short-haul would they? After all, Gatwick is primarily a O/D leisure airport, it will not have much impact on their core business at Heathrow.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. easyJet has built up such a presence at LGW (including 45% of slots during the "first wave" of early morning departures for out-and-back-in-a-day business travellers) that it appears to be impacting BA short-haul at LHR.

[Skipness One Echo]

The BA business model for LGW is point to point leisure. Now you can connect, but LGW was de-hubbed under Rod Eddington.

The thing people are missing about feeding long haul, is it needs a critical mass. LGW has <= 9 long haul departures every day, mostly before 1pm.

[cornishsimon]

But as far as I had heard the plan is to slowly increase LGW longhaul flying when aircraft are available to do so


cs

[SWBKCB]

Quote below from British Airways' chief executive Keith Williams, in this interview with Flightglobal's Airline Business magazine.

British Airways may take more 777-300ERs as it ponders (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/british-airways-may-take-more-777-300ers-as-it-ponders-big-twin-order-372729/)


Meanwhile BA is also turning its attention to the replacement of the ageing 737-400 fleet that serve its short-haul network from London Gatwick. But Williams says that he must be sure of a sound business case for Gatwick's short-haul operations. "I need to justify that [fleet replacement] to IAG with a plan that is built around the ability to make a return," he says

[WHBM]

An interesting article, not just for Gatwick but for BA overall.

But I'm conscious of the fact that if you wait for something and it never turns up eventually you don't have any aircraft."
This seems to be a none-too-veiled reference to the 787.

BA has taken six of eight 777-300ERs it has on orderThat's one of the problems for BA long haul. With only two 777s and a handful of A380s due in the next 3-4 years, the 787 still out of sight (because nearly a year after the first delivery, Boeing seems unable to manage more than a couple of deliveries per month, and BA is far the list), with all those new slots at Heathrow to fill, and the 747s and 767s getting ever older and needing more downtime, I just can't see where BA are going to get any significant long-haul capacity from for Gatwick.

Meanwhile BA is also turning its attention to the replacement of the ageing 737-400 fleet The obvious replacement is the 10-15 year old A319 fleet currently at Heathrow, which regularly seem too small and could do with a significant tranche of A320s to replace them there.

[Skipness One Echo]

I just can't see where BA are going to get any significant long-haul capacity from for Gatwick.

Depends on whether the expense of re-activating the four stored B744s is worth it to release more B772s.

[WHBM]

Depends on whether the expense of re-activating the four stored B744s is worth it to release more B772s.
I believe all the 747s that were worthwhile reactivating have been done; they obviously did the best ones first, the remainder now being beyond redemption. Aircraft back from the desert tend to have a poor reliability record.

However oil has fallen in four months from $109 in February to $83 today, which must have some impact - provided the Chancellor doesn't grab the whole lot back by yet another doubling of APD.

[Fairdealfrank]

No mention of B747-8s in the fleet renewal programme, are these not on the agenda?