BA add and take away some routes

[ATW Alex 101]

I have taken note of a few things that BA have done. I am not up to date with aviation as I used to be as that was what I was concentrated on while I was banned from here but once that ban expired I have just come away form aviation a bit.

But anyway first of all, I have noticed that BA are axing their flights from Gatwick to Manchester, and are looking to concentrate the planes on more Heathrow flights. Surely this would have a bad effect on those connecting onto Carribean (feel free to correct spelling) and Maldives? They would have no other alternatives, I feel this was a bad move because of that reason. The other reason is that it was cheaper than flying to Heathrow out of Manchester, I have flown Manchester-Gatwick a few times as it was cheaper than Heathrow.

Secondly, I see BA have started up a new route to Monrovia, the capital of West African county Liberia. But looking at things there doesn't seem to be enough demand for flights from England to Liberia. It surely would work better if it had a stopover in somewhere like Accra,Freetown, Conakry, where there is demand for flight to and from each destination. I mean how many people want to fly from or to Heathrow out of in Liberia. The demand is more for other West African countries I would have thought. Also looking at Monrovia airport itself, there doesn't look to be much facilities, I know they have other big airines like Delta, Air France and Brussels airlines but if they have them big airlines they do need some at least upgraded facilities.

Last but not least and I don't really have much to say on this one but I see that BA are starting a route from Gatwick to Tenerife-South. With BA's high prices and much much more cheaper alternatives, I don't reckon it would do massively great. I mean off the top of my head there are already Monarch, Thomson,Thomas cook,EZY and Norweigan air shuttle. They are much cheaper than BA and come with better packages for holidays and that. I'm not saying it will not go well, as it's a competitive market and route of high demand but with other cheaper alternatives the ones will be preferred over BA.

So what are your views? Fire away!

 

[WestCoast]

But anyway first of all, I have noticed that BA are axing their flights from Gatwick to Manchester, and are looking to concentrate the planes on more Heathrow flights. Surely this would have a bad effect on those connecting onto Carribean (feel free to correct spelling) and Maldives? They would have no other alternatives, I feel this was a bad move because of that reason. The other reason is that it was cheaper than flying to Heathrow out of Manchester, I have flown Manchester-Gatwick a few times as it was cheaper than Heathrow.

I think Manchester - Gatwick just isn't profitable for BA anymore. Sure, there is a transfer market from Manchester to long-haul services from Gatwick, but BA's modest long-haul offering out of Gatwick is heavily leisure biased and these travellers are often lower yielding in terms of revenue and may prefer direct flights with charter airlines. From what I hear, Manchester - Gatwick was actually carrying mainly point-to-point passengers and with high oil prices as well as ever increasing APD levied on short flights, ground transport becomes more appealing. This route would be more suited to the Embraer 170/190 series aircraft, but it wouldn't be worth BA establishing a CityFlyer base at Gatwick for just one route, plus Gatwick Airport actually discriminanes against aircraft under 100 seats for their charges.

Last but not least and I don't really have much to say on this one but I see that BA are starting a route from Gatwick to Tenerife-South. With BA's high prices and much much more cheaper alternatives, I don't reckon it would do massively great. I mean off the top of my head there are already Monarch, Thomson,Thomas cook,EZY and Norweigan air shuttle. They are much cheaper than BA and come with better packages for holidays and that. I'm not saying it will not go well, as it's a competitive market and route of high demand but with other cheaper alternatives the ones will be preferred over BA.

I disagree with this actually, I think BA will achieve a decent return. The UK-Canaries market is huge (I do UK-TFS at least once a year since I have relatives on the island). Don't be fooled into thinking that other airlines will be much cheaper than BA, the reality can be quite different. Thomson, Thomas Cook and to a lesser extent, Monarch, take on a lot of the package holiday traffic and prices can be rather high on airlines in the peak season (£250+ return on easyJet/Monarch is not uncommon). A random search reveals that BA are charging £87 one-way on a random Saturday next May, against £72 for easyJet and £89 for Monarch.

Of course, all airlines except BA charge extra for baggage, refreshments and seating together, all services which are extremely popular on sun routes. BA includes all of this in the price and have been very successful competing on routes like Gatwick - Faro/Palma/Malaga. The UK-Canaries market has lacked a "full service carrier" (i.e. one that includes 'extras' such as hold baggage, refreshments and other fees in the initial price) since GB Airways was bought out by easyJet and Monarch adopted the low-cost model. If anyone is likely to struggle on UK-Spain, it's Norwegian Air Shuttle, who's brand recognition in both countries is not particularly high.

Netherlands/Belgium/Germany/Austria - Canaries, another huge flow, has airlines like Air Berlin and Condor, which are 'full service' to a certain extent. It's quite a long sector for a short-haul flight, it's usually about 4h20m block time from Manchester to TFS and I find that's tipping point when a Ryanair flight starts to become rather unpleasant (they fly from most of their UK hubs to the Canaries).

 

[northwichcat]

What is needed is a fast long distance rail service to Gatwick Airport from the North of England which doesn't require a cross-London transfer.

Norwegian Air Shuttle do at least allow connecting flights to be booked, something EasyJet, Ryanair and Jet2 don't allow.

 

[WestCoast]

What is needed is a fast long distance rail service to Gatwick Airport from the North of England which doesn't require a cross-London transfer.

While I'd support this proposal, Heathrow must be a far greater priority. You can fly to most of Gatwick's destinations directly from Manchester Airport and to a lesser extent, other regional airports in Northern England. This isn't the case for Heathrow, which provides strategic long-haul links to cities across all continents.

Norwegian Air Shuttle do at least allow connecting flights to be booked, something EasyJet, Ryanair and Jet2 don't allow.

While Norwegian Air Shuttle opening a base a Gatwick is great news, I wouldn't like to bet on the success of their UK to non-Scandinavia routes (I realise that it gives the aircraft something to do between Nordic flights, but that doesn't necessarily equal an adequate return). I don't see people from the Nordic countries connecting via Gatwick flying to Spain or Portugal. They do have a great product, similar to Air Berlin, but Norwegian is in better financial shape. Air Berlin's Stansted 'hub' failed and so did Aer Lingus's Gatwick venture.

 

[Deerfold]

With BA's high prices and much much more cheaper alternatives, I don't reckon it would do massively great.

I've found on several occasions over the last few years that short haul flights on BA have been similar to or cheaper than on "low cost" operators - though sometimes only when the cost of coach transfers from an outlying airport are factored in. When I last went to Vienna, Ryanair wanted more off me than BA despite their airport actually being in another country.

 

[starrymarkb]

What is needed is a fast long distance rail service to Gatwick Airport from the North of England which doesn't require a cross-London transfer.

Problem there - Gatwick is mainly focused on holiday and low cost flights which are often available from Regional airports. OK there may be a premium, but factor in the cost of getting to Gatwick and you'll cancel that out.

Heathrow is the UK's 'national airport' for Long Haul. Look at how Amsterdam Schiphol, Frankfurt, Paris CGD are all linked into direct rail services to destinations across their respective countries.

 

[northwichcat]

While I'd support this proposal, Heathrow must be a far greater priority. You can fly to most of Gatwick's destinations directly from Manchester Airport and to a lesser extent, other regional airports in Northern England. This isn't the case for Heathrow, which provides strategic long-haul links to cities across all continents.

Problem there - Gatwick is mainly focused on holiday and low cost flights which are often available from Regional airports. OK there may be a premium, but factor in the cost of getting to Gatwick and you'll cancel that out.

There certainly are destinations available from Gatwick which aren't available from North of England airports.

In some cases e.g. Florence it would be easier to fly to Pisa from a more local airport and travel to Florence from there then to get to Gatwick.

In some cases e.g. Toronto Gatwick offers a much more frequent service than Manchester, so the direct service from Manchester may not be of use if the days of operation are not convenient.

In other cases e.g. St Petersburg there is no direct flight from North of England airports.

While I agree Heathrow would be more of a priority, the difference is BA and Virgin are offering connecting flights (with code sharing agreements in the case of BA) so even if there was a rail link some people would still fly. It looks like the connecting flight option is disappearing for BA.

 

[Deerfold]

In some cases e.g. Toronto Gatwick offers a much more frequent service than Manchester, so the direct service from Manchester may not be of use if the days of operation are not convenient.

Or there's 6 flights a day from Heathrow (2 with BA).

In other cases e.g. St Petersburg there is no direct flight from North of
England airports.

Though there is one from Heathrow (with BA).

While I agree Heathrow would be more of a priority, the difference is BA and Virgin are offering connecting flights (with code sharing agreements in the case of BA) so even if there was a rail link some people would still fly. It looks like the connecting flight option is disappearing for BA.

Or that they will connect in at Heathrow.

 

[starrymarkb]

While I agree Heathrow would be more of a priority, the difference is BA and Virgin are offering connecting flights (with code sharing agreements in the case of BA) so even if there was a rail link some people would still fly. It looks like the connecting flight option is disappearing for BA.

But if there was a direct and reliable train connection you'd find airlines would sell seats on the train as codeshares. TGVs codeshare with several airlines on routes to CDG
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or there's 6 flights a day from Heathrow (2 with BA).

I think they are thinking Air Transat who are an LCC with weekly service from most UK airports during the summer (and daily from LGW)

Apart from wanting to log the A310 (on some of the regional routes) I think I'd rather go BA/AC

 

[Royston Vasey]

But anyway first of all, I have noticed that BA are axing their flights from Gatwick to Manchester, and are looking to concentrate the planes on more Heathrow flights. Surely this would have a bad effect on those connecting onto Carribean (feel free to correct spelling) and Maldives? They would have no other alternatives, I feel this was a bad move because of that reason. The other reason is that it was cheaper than flying to Heathrow out of Manchester, I have flown Manchester-Gatwick a few times as it was cheaper than Heathrow.

Supply and demand as always. BA's internal flights are first and foremost transfers to destinations from Heathrow, particularly a flight as short as this. Manchester to London is a route so well catered for by rail that there is clearly little business case.

Secondly, I see BA have started up a new route to Monrovia, the capital of West African county Liberia. But looking at things there doesn't seem to be enough demand for flights from England to Liberia. It surely would work better if it had a stopover in somewhere like Accra,Freetown, Conakry, where there is demand for flight to and from each destination. I mean how many people want to fly from or to Heathrow out of in Liberia. The demand is more for other West African countries I would have thought. Also looking at Monrovia airport itself, there doesn't look to be much facilities, I know they have other big airines like Delta, Air France and Brussels airlines but if they have them big airlines they do need some at least upgraded facilities.

This is a very insular view. Transportation is an extremely important lever to development, and infrastructure is a chicken and egg problem. Airport "facilities" (what do you mean by that, a Wetherspoons and a Pret?) are secondary to safe basic refuelling and handling capabilities. Moreover, a number of very large companies are invested in Liberia's minerals, metals, diamonds, rubber and oil. The sort of companies who would not think twice about putting an executive on a direct BA flight over a change onto an indigenous African carrier.

Last but not least and I don't really have much to say on this one but I see that BA are starting a route from Gatwick to Tenerife-South. With BA's high prices and much much more cheaper alternatives, I don't reckon it would do massively great. I mean off the top of my head there are already Monarch, Thomson,Thomas cook,EZY and Norweigan air shuttle. They are much cheaper than BA and come with better packages for holidays and that. I'm not saying it will not go well, as it's a competitive market and route of high demand but with other cheaper alternatives the ones will be preferred over BA.

BA's prices tend to be competitive and BA is certainly better value once the extra costs are added (or not added). Budget aviation is a huge deception in my view. Having flown with Monarch (scheduled) on that route, the demand is there, and the prices are not as different as you think. I have found increasingly that BA are very competitive for short haul flights in Europe, and the experience is a different world to Ryanair or to a lesser extent Easyjet. Don't assume every passenger is after the lowest possible price. I would gladly spend an extra £20, £30, £40 on a flight like that.

 

[WestCoast]

There certainly are destinations available from Gatwick which aren't available from North of England airports.

While I agree Heathrow would be more of a priority, the difference is BA and Virgin are offering connecting flights (with code sharing agreements in the case of BA) so even if there was a rail link some people would still fly. It looks like the connecting flight option is disappearing for BA.

It's a case of demand though. Yes, there are probably 20-30 or so destinations that Gatwick has direct flights to which Manchester doesn't, but it's nowhere near as significant as Heathrow.

There is also the very popular option of going via major continental hubs Amsterdam/Frankfurt/Paris CDG/Munich/Zurich for short or long haul flights or if you're going in that direction the Middle Eastern hubs of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha (direct service from Manchester to all three).

 

[starrymarkb]

BA's prices tend to be competitive and BA is certainly better value once the extra costs are added (or not added). Budget aviation is a huge deception in my view. Having flown with Monarch (scheduled) on that route, the demand is there, and the prices are not as different as you think. I have found increasingly that BA are very competitive for short haul flights in Europe, and the experience is a different world to Ryanair or to a lesser extent Easyjet. Don't assume every passenger is after the lowest possible price. I would gladly spend an extra £20, £30, £40 on a flight like that.

Have to agree on the budgets not being that different to the legacy carriers in cost. However the budgets do give service to the regional airports, I'll put up with Easyjet (TBH they are pretty decent) as they fly from Bristol, no need for a 4 hour coach trip.

Flybe meanwhile are far from a budget carrier in terms of Price, though they are in terms of service (if possible book with a AF/BA code share if travelling with them)

 

[northwichcat]

Or there's 6 flights a day from Heathrow (2 with BA).

Toronto flights from Gatwick are available with "low cost" trans-Atlantic airline Air Transat. Going to Heathrow and using BA or Air Canada may cost £200 or more extra per person.

 

[starrymarkb]

I thought you were chasing Air Transat and that is exactly why you won't see a North-Gatwick link built. Leisure travellers are very price sensitive and would probably chose a coach over the the train if it was a few pounds cheaper. For such a link to be viable it would have to attract more premium business traffic then holidaymakers on bargain basement fares

 

[northwichcat]

I thought you were chasing Air Transat and that is exactly why you won't see a North-Gatwick link built. Leisure travellers are very price sensitive and would probably chose a coach over the the train if it was a few pounds cheaper. For such a link to be viable it would have to attract more premium business traffic then holidaymakers on bargain basement fares

On a UK-Canada flight I don't think a few pounds extra for a faster direct service to and from the Airport would be an issue for most people.

In the current economic climate more businesses are using cheaper flights. I know one that opted for Air Transat over BA and Air Canada recently. Economy flights don't usually take longer than more Premium priced flights, so they are more attractive to businesses than cheap tickets on slower trains like what London Midland offer.

 

[Deerfold]

Toronto flights from Gatwick are available with "low cost" trans-Atlantic airline Air Transat. Going to Heathrow and using BA or Air Canada may cost £200 or more extra per person.

But BA have no incentive to connect to non-BA flights when there's a BA alternative. Presumably it makes sense for them to provide the maximum possible number of connections to their flights - and that's usually going to mean Heathrow.

 

[WestCoast]

Toronto flights from Gatwick are available with "low cost" trans-Atlantic airline Air Transat. Going to Heathrow and using BA or Air Canada may cost £200 or more extra per person.

Air Transat is more of a 'leisure airline (i.e. geared towards passengers with smaller budgets)' rather than an LCC, which has a more specific meaning in the aviation business. That said, note that 'Low-Cost-Carrier' does not automatically mean 'Low(er)-Fare-Carrier', it refers to the cost base of the airline. I often find that if you're flexible, airlines such as BA or Air Canada can come close or even undercut what Air Transat offer (especially if you have to factor in other costs). If you're willing to take two flights via Europe to North America, you can cut fares even more.

In any case, Air Transat are rather unique, there isn't really a similar carrier operating UK - US (aside from the charter airlines flying to Orlando). Pretty much every low-cost long-haul airline has failed to offer flights ex-UK (Zoom Airlines, Air Asia X, Oasis Hong Kong e.t.c have all tried, and failed).

 

[atillathehunn]

Not the UK, but Air Berlin have plenty of transatlantic flights with a low cost philosophy in mind.

So there is demands there somewhere.

 

[WestCoast]

Not the UK, but Air Berlin have plenty of transatlantic flights with a low cost philosophy in mind.

So there is demands there somewhere.

Air Berlin is best described as a hybrid carrier (i.e. between low-cost and legacy carrier) and one that isn't exactly performing well financially. They offer all the "frills" on their flights; baggage, refreshments, entertainment. Sometimes they're cheaper than others, sometimes not.

The problem with low-cost long haul is that, actually, it's quite costly for any airline to fly long-haul. It's very tricky to replicate what can be done on short haul routes when you have to consider crew layovers, large aircraft, catering e.t.c e.t.c.

 

[ivanhoe]

What is needed is a fast long distance rail service to Gatwick Airport from the North of England which doesn't require a cross-London transfer.

Norwegian Air Shuttle do at least allow connecting flights to be booked, something EasyJet, Ryanair and Jet2 don't allow.

Id rather see more air routes out of Northern/Birmingham Airports than the need to have what would be a white elephant of a rail route

 

[northwichcat]

Id rather see more air routes out of Northern/Birmingham Airports than the need to have what would be a white elephant of a rail route

Having an proper Intercity service linking Gatwick Airport to the north doesn't mean it can't do any intermediate stops or continue beyond the Airport to cater for other markets.

 

[Deerfold]

Having an proper Intercity service linking Gatwick Airport to the north doesn't mean it can't do any intermediate stops or continue beyond the Airport to cater for other markets.

It's not that tricky at the moment with a direct frequent link from St Pancras - handy for St Pancras & Kings X, fairly handy for Euston - certainly as easy as getting to Heathrow.

 

[northwichcat]

It's not that tricky at the moment with a direct frequent link from St Pancras - handy for St Pancras & Kings X, fairly handy for Euston - certainly as easy as getting to Heathrow.

Under 2 hours for Stockport-London compared to around 3 hr 15 for Stockport-Gatwick Airport (via Victoria) doesn't make the latter that attractive (via St Pancras takes even longer.)

 

[Deerfold]

Under 2 hours for Stockport-London compared to around 3 hr 15 for Stockport-Gatwick Airport (via Victoria) doesn't make the
latter that attractive (via St Pancras takes even longer.)

But not 2 hours to Heathrow. And Gatwick is futher away.

Just looked up times for Stockport - Heathrow. Typically about 3hr 15.

Yes, the connection I mentioned is better for St Pancras and Kings X than Euston - but can be done without using the underground - I hadn't specifically considered Stockport, but you can't have direct links from everywhere in the north.

 

[northwichcat]

Just looked up times for Stockport - Heathrow. Typically about 3hr 15.

3 hr 15 is an approx. average for Stockport-Gatwick. Most Stockport-Heathrow journeys are possible in 3 hr 7 or less, which is very rare for Stockport-Gatwick journeys.

I hadn't specifically considered Stockport but you can't have direct links from everywhere in the north.

Considering all Manchester-London and Manchester-Birmingham services stop there, Stockport could read 'Manchester' with 10 minutes added to the respective journey times. I chose Stockport as it's a station where a lot of connections are made between local and Intercity services.

 

[Deerfold]

3 hr 15 is an approx. average for Stockport-Gatwick. Most Stockport-Heathrow journeys are possible in 3 hr 7 or less, which is very rare for Stockport-Gatwick journeys.



Considering all Manchester-London and Manchester-Birmingham services stop there, Stockport could read 'Manchester' with 10 minutes added to the respective journey times. I chose Stockport as it's a station where a lot of connections are made between local and Intercity services.

Indeed - appreciate services to Euston come from more than just Stockpirt - I've used it myself a few times, but St Pancras (including Kings X) has services to as much of the North and midlands.

Personally I'd rather use a local airport than somewhere than travel 2-3 hours if possible. I have used Gatwick from the North and found it a similar experience to going to Heathrow, but if Leeds or Manchester has a flight, I'll be going from there.

Although I can see the reasoning in linking airports to the national rail system, I don't see the point in linking them to everywhere, when for most people there are other journeys they do far more frequently.

 

[ivanhoe]

Having an proper Intercity service linking Gatwick Airport to the north doesn't mean it can't do any intermediate stops or continue beyond the Airport to cater for other markets.

Northerners and Midlanders are more likely to use hubs than trekking down to Gatwick. The Midlands are well connected to Frankfurt, Paris and Schipol which gives them plenty of travel options. A three hour plus treck by train to Gatwick followed by at least a two hour check in process means a long travel day ahead of you. All important factors to consider which is why BA is not the airline of choice for many people who are lucky enough to live north of Milton Keynes!