British Airailways ????

[HST Power]

..and one of the sectors either rail or air would suffer profits from the promotion of the other.

Not necessarily. They could interlink the Express to the air travel, so if you take the express trains, you get a discount on a flight. This would also enable them to open up a new spiel on how BA are going 'eco-friendly' with their rail methods.

 

[Butts]

Not necessarily. They could interlink the Express to the air travel, so if you take the express trains, you get a discount on a flight. This would also enable them to open up a new spiel on how BA are going 'eco-friendly' with their rail methods.

Railair......

 

[HST Power]

Railair......

This thread is getting more and more like the RyanRail thread we had a few months ago....

 

[Schnellzug]

Well the two big LCCs have infiltrated France and Germany too and Germany, unlike France, has its own low-cost airlines, the difference being that one is owned by the national carrier!

That's a cunning little trick that SNCF are fond of using as well; set up an "independent" freight company (that just happens to be owned by SNCF ) in order to compete with other independent operators* and so get round the famously inflexible Unions.

(*such as those which, perhaps, just happen to be owned by DB )

 

[tbtc]

As I've said before, we need more companies competing for rail franchises, to bring more ideas and to bring competitive bids.

If we only have First/ Stagecoach/ Go Ahead/ DB running the majority of franchises then there'll be little innovation or incentive.

 

[WestCoast]

As I've said before, we need more companies competing for rail franchises, to bring more ideas and to bring competitive bids.

If we only have First/ Stagecoach/ Go Ahead/ DB running the majority of franchises then there'll be little innovation or incentive.

I have to agree with you and I would try and attract more continental European operators to the bidding process if at all possible. Anything to avoid FirstGroup effectively becoming British Rail!

However, I just couldn't see BA being interested.

That's a cunning little trick that SNCF are fond of using as well; set up an "independent" freight company (that just happens to be owned by SNCF ) in order to compete with other independent operators* and so get round the famously inflexible Unions.

(*such as those which, perhaps, just happen to be owned by DB )

These countries are not daft, it is done in the national interest, however in a less obvious manner.

 

[jon0844]

An airline must know its days are numbered as costs increase, so why not look into rail and other forms of transport? Then they'll make money instead of someone else.

Oil companies are certainly looking at other forms of energy, as it makes little sense to just fight the green energy companies if you could in fact BECOME those companies.

 

[Matt Taylor]

I cannot see BA ever being interested in running a franchise, just look at the damage the two Virgin franchises have done to the Virgin brand in the last fifteen years (in addition to their other under performing brands). BA has a reputation to uphold, and in any case it has never been a fan of transporting common people and concentrates on the business end of the market.

 

[jon0844]

Besides BA having an interest in Eurostar at one point, has Virgin Trains really affected the reputation of Virgin as a whole - or, most importantly, the airline?

I can't think of one single person I know who wouldn't choose Virgin if they flew to where they wanted to go. I've paid extra to fly Virgin to Las Vegas this November and never feel like another airline offers the same level of service - even in economy. That's going back over 15 years!

Also, the general public love to moan about slow, dirty and unreliable trains - even though most trains aren't slow, or dirty, or unreliable. Many problems are down to the infrastructure rather than the trains, or 'passenger actions'. I'm sure most people like their rolling stock too, even if they don't get a window.

Bear in mind, I'm talking about Joe Public - not people on here or other transport forums. But, we're even more likely to know the reasonings for problems on the trains and know it doesn't have anything to do with the airline operation. The only thing in common is the logo!

Virgin do of course have a mix of things they own and other things they effectively license their logo to - and there have been quite a few disasters over the years. However, I still think of Virgin as a strong and trustworthy brand.

 

[WestCoast]

Besides BA having an interest in Eurostar at one point, has Virgin Trains really affected the reputation of Virgin as a whole - or, most importantly, the airline?

I can't think of one single person I know who wouldn't choose Virgin if they flew to where they wanted to go. I've paid extra to fly Virgin to Las Vegas this November and never feel like another airline offers the same level of service - even in economy. That's going back over 15 years!

Virgin Atlantic have a decent reputation but I perhaps wouldn't go as far as that. I wouldn't pay extra to fly them over their part-owners Singapore Airlines (best economy service I have ever had), Cathay Pacific or perhaps Emirates. Not that they compete with Virgin on most routes.

Virgin Trains hasn't done much damage to the overall brand though. Virgin is a strong brand associated with innvoation and "the small guy against the big bad firms" ! BA isn't like Virgin either.

 

[jon0844]

I used to hate BA but their cabin crew seem to be a lot more friendly now - at least on the short haul flights where I use them quite a bit.

I remember when they really did look down on everyone. Perhaps someone new came in to give customer service training, or they woke up and realised they HAD to give a good service as they weren't invincible.

 

[WestCoast]

I remember when they really did look down on everyone. Perhaps someone new came in to give customer service training, or they woke up and realised they HAD to give a good service as they weren't invincible.

Perhaps they realised they have nothing to be snobby about anymore?

I do also get the feeling that Virgin Trains believe they are a cut above other franchises in the rail industry, although I could be wrong.

 

[MCR247]

In what way out of curiosity?

 

[Morgsie]

BA, 10% in Eurostar and 15% in FlyBe

 

[tbtc]

I cannot see BA ever being interested in running a franchise, just look at the damage the two Virgin franchises have done to the Virgin brand in the last fifteen years (in addition to their other under performing brands). BA has a reputation to uphold, and in any case it has never been a fan of transporting common people and concentrates on the business end of the market.

They wouldn't need to brand it as BA - there are a number of franchises where the operator isn't immediately obvious (Sea Containers didn't have their name on GNER, Go-Ahead and Serco don't "shout" about their brand, how many passengers realise Arriva ran XC or National Express ran MML...).

BA are a transport company with experience of managing people/ logistics/ encouraging passenger demand - they are the perfect "new entrant" into the rail industry. That doesn't mean painting everything in their corporate colours and putting their branding everywhere - not everyone is like First/Stagecoach.

 

[jon0844]

If a company that ran buses can run trains, and get pretty good at it (such that they may well run trains better than buses) then I am sure an airline could do it.

They'd certainly understand ticketing, but may find the cheap advance tickets a little harder to enforce than they do on a plane where you have to check in and clear security!

 

[Sun!]

The wage bill is only one part of the savings - aircraft utilisation is as (if not more) important. LCC aircraft typically have 20 minute turnarounds, operating from secondary airports. It increases the risk of delays, and means cabin crew have to do a perfunctory clean before landing, and means there's very little contingency when things go wrong.

Flybe are best described as a hybrid airline... Their costs are not going to be that low, nowhere near easyJet or Ryanair I would say.

The difference is that in the UK there are far more low cost carriers than in France or Germany. Some Governments have protected their legacy carrier more than others. The UK gets the cheapest fares in Europe as a result but often the 2nd class service on the LCC. (compared to BA/AF/KLM) etc.

flybe actually has substantially lower operating costs than BA, as well as operating far more economic turboprop aircraft which they ordered to replace the older BA aircraft. flybe is as mentioned also a hybrid carrier, is that their part LCC and part mainline airline. They for example charge for checked bags and food/drink onboard, however they have connections/ codeshares and they have a premium economy section with lounge access and free food onboard. These types of airlines are quite common in Europe and similar ones include- air berlin, Aer Lingus, Vueling etc etc. While yes their cost are higher than Ryanair, because of their smaller aircraft they can run low demand routes at a profit which Ryanair would run at a loss.


A difference as also noted between the UK and most European countries with LCC (Note Low Cost (as in their costs), not Low Fare) is that as stated their LCCs tend to be major airline owned.

-The biggest LCC in France and the Netherlands is Transavia, owned by the Air France- KLM Group.
-The biggest LCC in Germany is Germanwings, owned by the Lufthansa Group.
-The biggest LCC operator between Germany and Turkey is SunExpress, owned 50/50 by Lufthansa and Turkish Airlines.
-In Spain the biggest LCC is Vueling, 50% owned by Iberia. (In Spains case however, Ryanair now carry more passengers than Vueling and Iberia combined)

In the UK originally the major airlines setup LCCs.
BA setup GO which was sold the easyjet in 2003 and BMI setup bmibaby which still operates but is small fry compared the Ryanair and easyjet.


This is a trend in Europe where air carriers ownership converges, in reality there are very few airlines in Europe.
For example:
Lufthansa Group owns- Lufthansa, Swiss Airlines, Swiss European Airlines, bmi- British Midland, bmi regional, bmibaby, Air Dolomiti, Germanwings, Austrian Airlines, 45% of Brussels Airlines, 22.5% of Ukranian Airlines, 19% of American airline Jetblue, 13% of Luxair, LSG SkyChefs (A catering company), plus more including their regional carriers.

Air France- KLM Group- Air France, KLM, Transavia.com, Cityjet, 26% of Kenya Airlines, 25% of Alitalia, 19.5% of Airlinair, 7% Air Taihiti, plus more including their regional carriers.

IAG (International Airlines Group)- British Airways, Iberia, Air Nostrum, 50% Vueling, SunAir, Openskies, 18% Comair, 15% flybe, 10% of Eurostar, plus more including their regional carriers.

So when you add these together the number of airlines in Europe in reality is greatly diminished.

 

[Masbroughlad]

I am sure that BA expressed an interest in bidding for some of the original franchises in the initial privatisation. Working for XC at the time, I remember talk of BA reps coming to size us up. Similarly, I believe airport operator BAA were interested too. If I remember correctly, BAA wanted to bid around building a network connecting all major cities with Heathrow.

Personally, I quite like the thought of BA running an Intercity franchise-won't be West Coast now, but would be good to see them get East Coast, GW or XC even.