British Airways

[KARFA]

Thanks for the update.

 

[tleeds]

A lot of people use the BA/EI codeshare already but I can only see it being used more and more now.

The added benefit of the earlier departure plus clearing the first part of US immigration in Dublin is a massive plus for passengers!

Am I right I’m thinking that KLM had all the paperwork and contracts l ready to base a B737-700 at LBA only for another UK airport to nip them over the line..?

It’s only going to increase KLM’s appeal so I wouldn’t be surprised if we do see an aircraft upgrade there!

 

[dmrodgers]

A lot of people use the BA/EI codeshare already but I can only see it being used more and more now.

The added benefit of the earlier departure plus clearing the first part of US immigration in Dublin is a massive plus for passengers!

Am I right I’m thinking that KLM had all the paperwork and contracts l ready to base a B737-700 at LBA only for another UK airport to nip them over the line..?

It’s only going to increase KLM’s appeal so I wouldn’t be surprised if we do see an aircraft upgrade there!

Unfortunately KLM are going to have to look at some of their fares as they don't seem competitive on certain routes out of LBA. I go thre to four times out to Dubai per year to visit family and next trip April 2018. BA though not as convenient now with only 2 flight per day in 2018 £352, KLM on a selection of departure times from Leeds £553. I know who will be getting my business, that's providing BA are still showing a commitment to the airport by then.

 

[Britannia94]

BA can also be overpriced on routes too, having learnt this recently when booking a flight for a family member to Helsinki. Going with KLM via Amsterdam return was only £239 compared to BA wanting £780. Quite a bit of difference here. Also, this is personal opinion of mine, I feel that the service you get on KLM tends be much better than the one from BA.

 

[a300boy]

Sadly British Airways commitment to its Leeds operations is there for us all to see now !
Cant see it going past the Summer of 2018 but stranger things have happened.

 

[Aviador]

I think it was @pug that originally called the route a slot sitter and he was right. The route is unsustainable with the new frequency.

 

[David_itl]

Despite the fact the route has increased passengers year on year, the route is a loss maker due to the requirement to deduct Air Passenger Duty and London Heathrow landing fees from each fare - so the decision has been taken to use the valuable slots on routes that will make money despite the loss of interlining passengers.

Therein lies one of the issues for R3 at LHR. Enhanced regional connectivity with a lot of new cities being linked to LHR is not going to happen with the ever present handicap of APD to which you would need to add on the charges which LHR will inevitably put up as a means of getting return on it's investment! I can't quite see how people can square off routes to Teesside or Liverpool being bandied about at 2 or 3 daily unless it forms part of a PSO agreement when you have a commercially operated service having to be reduced in frequency in a vain hope of making it profitable unless they take the viewpoint that only the trunk routes of MAN/GLA/EDI/BHD are to be commercial ops with the rest of the domestic runs to be scheduled as PSO routes.

 

[jason1-11]

Interesting article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...enger-charges-domestic-flights-bid-expansion/

Can we have our 3 x daily back now please.

 

[Britannia94]

If only, clearly having read that comment from Willie Walsh we won’t be seeing an increase to the flights anytime soon.

 

[Aviador]

When we have numpties who live in Leeds who are willing to travel across the Pennines to fly from Manchester to London it's no wonder Leeds flights are being scaled back. Road and rail access to Leeds Bradford Airport will need to be greatly improved before people start to use it more for business flights. I know the journey times to Manchester by road or rail are not exactly great from this side of the Pennines but at the same time if you're stuck in traffic bumper to bumper through Kirkstall, it's not giving people the confidence to use LBA for business travel. #sayitasitis #justsaying

 

[White Heather]

When we have numpties who live in Leeds who are willing to travel across the Pennines to fly from Manchester to London it's no wonder Leeds flights are being scaled back. Road and rail access to Leeds Bradford Airport will need to be greatly improved before people start to use it more for business flights. I know the journey times to Manchester by road or rail are not exactly great from this side of the Pennines but at the same time if you're stuck in traffic bumper to bumper through Kirkstall, it's not giving people the confidence to use LBA for business travel. #sayitasitis #justsaying

Sorry, but I just don't get this argument at all. Sure, the roads up to LBA are less than ideal - but, even in rush hour I can make it from Leeds to the airport in 45 minutes maximum - irrespective of the queues on Kirkstall Road, if I go that way. If you explore alternative routes, rather than coming through the centre of Leeds, then it can be done quicker still. I speak as someone who has, to date, spent the busiest part of 40 years commuting out of Leeds in the direction of the airport. A friend of mine who lives in Selby, drove from there to LBA in just 55 minutes recently by avoiding Leeds altogether and travelling via the A1, Collingham Bridge, Harewood and Pool in Wharfedale. Occasionally, something will happen to cause bigger delays - but anyone who believes that they might not face even more significant delays on the M62 heading over to MAN is deluding themselves and the M60 is also a nightmare on a regular basis. Get stuck on Kirkstall Road and there are numerous alternative route options up to LBA. Get stuck on the M62 beyond Huddersfield and there is a real chance you will not make your flight as there is no alternative route if the accident is in the wrong location.
In my view, the only sane reason for using MAN instead of LBA is where the journey lends itself to rail travel (and even that is not a flawless option) and (in the case of BA) the fact there are twice as many flights to choose from and a far lower risk you won't end up being told to make your own way home. And despite all of this, the passenger numbers on the BA shuttle from LBA have continued to rise year on year.

 

[lbaspotter]

I wouldn't call British Airways Heathrow-Leeds route a "shuttle service" when its currently 2x daily and then its going to be even further reduced come the summer scheduled.
What we have been left with is a total disaster if am be honest with you! Got all me fingers crossed that my flight next month doesn't get cancelled....

 

[Aviador]

Heather, so why do British Airways choose LBA flights to chop over Manchester flights. Like the city of Leeds, Manchester has excellent rail connections to London. Manchester airport also has an abundance of long haul operations reducing the need for London connections for onward destinations. City specific Leeds is no less relevant than the city of Manchester, both have vibrant and expanding centres so I just don't get why Manchester airport is favoured by BA for London ops to such a large extent. The only thing I can come up with is its appalling road links that so many people make reference to when discussing flying from LBA.

 

[White Heather]

Heather, so why do British Airways choose LBA flights to chop over Manchester flights. Like the city of Leeds, Manchester has excellent rail connections to London. Manchester airport also has an abundance of long haul operations reducing the need for London connections for onward destinations. City specific Leeds is no less relevant than the city of Manchester, both have vibrant and expanding centres so I just don't get why Manchester airport is favoured by BA for London ops to such a large extent. The only thing I can come up with is its appalling road links that so many people make reference to when discussing flying from LBA.

I asked the same question of LBA management and the answer is simply that BA have had a presence at MAN for many years - unbroken. It is an important airport for BA. They are always going to favour it over LBA, irrespective of the fact that Leeds is a bigger city than Manchester or that West Yorkshire has similar potential as Greater Manchester. They have built up their customer base there over the past 50 years. At LBA, they are only starting out. Decisions taken to drop LBA rotations isn't anything to do with access to LBA by road or rail. If they were real issues, BA wouldn't have come back to LBA in the first place. Also, if they were real issues, why do other airlines operating out of LBA (eg KLM, Ryanair, Jet2, Aer Lingus) have such excellent loads? The road issues are not exclusive to BA or LHR passengers. They are the same for all routes and airlines. If BA want to free up slots for new routes, their two shortest routes are LBA and MAN, and as they are not going to axe flights out of MAN (for the reasons given above) LBA is always likely to be the sacrificial lamb.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Whilst the BA cutbacks on LBA-LHR have given rise to understandable disappointment, it seems that some here have introduced a narrative that the alternative was to cut MAN flights ... which BA have decided not to do because they love MAN so much. Hmmm ... right. Let's just pause and think about that one for a minute! Where is the evidence that a straight choice was made between MAN and LBA services anyway? First I've heard of it.

If BA want to free up slots for new routes, their two shortest routes are LBA and MAN, and as they are not going to axe flights out of MAN

Now let's push prejudice aside here and examine the facts. Just over a decade ago, MAN-LHR offered twelve daily departures by British Airways (and there was competition on the route then as well - eight daily from BMI, now themselves integrated into BA). Types used by BA were B752 and B763. Additionally, there were upto eight daily BA departures to LGW using B737-family equipment. Today, the MAN-LGW service is no more. Whilst it was viable in its own right, the value of those scarce Gatwick slots meant that the MAN flights were axed in favour of more lucrative redeployment of those slots. Sound familiar? Aviation economics at work. Meanwhile, MAN-LHR now offers a typical eight departures per day using smaller A320-family types with no competition on the route. Based on the former BAW / BMI combined schedules, around 12 slot-pairs per day have been stripped from MAN-LHR in favour of more lucrative redeployment on other routes. To lament the loss of some LBA-LHR schedules is wholly understandable, but to suggest that it has happened because MAN gets the "sacred cow" treatment is really quite embarrassing. Twelve redeployed LHR slot-pairs per day betray the truth. Playing the "martyr card" versus MAN doesn't work here.

Manchester airport also has an abundance of long haul operations reducing the need for London connections for onward destinations.

Unfortunately, one needs to rethink the implications of this from the perspective of a BA management team rather than from that of an enthusiast. Those long-haul connections from MAN are in every case NOT operated by BA ... they are offered by "the competition", eating into what BA like to think of as "their" turf. Passengers using the Shuttle do in many cases transfer on to long-haul sectors which ARE operated by BA. So from a BA perspective, those long-haul operations available direct from MAN are actually a reason to pitch-in and compete by offering spoiler-fares via the Shuttle and LHR. Stepping back and abandoning the North entirely to their competitors is not good business for BA. The availability of competing long-hauls from the North is viewed as a challenge to BA, not a justification for yielding yet more ground to them.

Your suspicions that LBA-LHR is not considered a 'special case' in BA's eyes is correct. But any notion that MAN-LHR is itself a 'special case' in contrast to LBA is equally ludicrous. A cursory examination of the evidence knocks that idea dead. Similarly hilarious is the idea that BA would expect Leeds customers to travel to Manchester to 'protect' loadings on the MAN-LHR Shuttle. They will take the train to Kings Cross, or drive. Afew punters with existing bookings could be rerouted over MAN rather than cancelled, but long-term the MAN-LHR Shuttle is not intended as a service for the Yorkshire market. BA are astute enough to understand that.

So, yes, the BA cutbacks at LBA are disappointing. But in looking for an explanation, examine straight aviation economics ... follow the money. Decisions like this are not made based upon petty local insecurities, or an irrational preference for the airport down the road. They are made based upon the most cost-effective use of those very scarce slots at both LHR and LGW. That is why Manchester, in turn, has seen its own London flights slashed by two-thirds over the last decade or so. Blame economic reality, not pro-MAN prejudice.

 

[Finger66]

Very very well put. It could be interesting to see if, as seems to be continually rumoured elsewhere that BA are going to increase their longer haul presence at MAN, even if this is in the shape of low cost LEVEL, coupled with increased BACF weekend flying, if this starts to have a further effect on MAN - LHR connecting traffic and a further redeployment of lucrative LHR slots to long haul ex LHR and possible further reduction on the MAN - LHR route. Looking for a positive on LBA - LHR, the retiming is supposed to be as a result of market research showing where most LBA pax are connecting to and to improve those connections. So this could just mean we end up with an A320 rather than the A319 - who knows! The above said, the overall LBA and surrounding area infrastructure does need an upgrade which would only enhance the LBA pax appeal further. But as I keeping bleating on about, would any of you swap what we have at LBA now compared to years gone by? I wouldn't. Perhaps those of us in attendance at Multiflight this afternoon would like to discuss the merits still further. Ps Happy New Year all

 

[airforced]

If we think back - not too long in aviation terms - when BA came back to LBA many people suggested quite vehemently that all they were doing was putting the service back purely to protect slots at LHR. Maybe, seeing the way things are going now, they were right after all.

 

[Finger66]

I am sure to a certain degree this is true. However many of those pax BA have from LBA would only migrate to KLM hence the retaining of a token presence. I also wonder where all this leaves LBA's support of runway 3 at LHR. Short memories if we forget the supposed terms of any support for this from UK regional airports!

 

[White Heather]

Whilst the BA cutbacks on LBA-LHR have given rise to understandable disappointment, it seems that some here have introduced a narrative that the alternative was to cut MAN flights ... which BA have decided not to do because they love MAN so much. Hmmm ... right. Let's just pause and think about that one for a minute! Where is the evidence that a straight choice was made between MAN and LBA services anyway? First I've heard of it.



Now let's push prejudice aside here and examine the facts. Just over a decade ago, MAN-LHR offered twelve daily departures by British Airways (and there was competition on the route then as well - eight daily from BMI, now themselves integrated into BA). Types used by BA were B752 and B763. Additionally, there were upto eight daily BA departures to LGW using B737-family equipment. Today, the MAN-LGW service is no more. Whilst it was viable in its own right, the value of those scarce Gatwick slots meant that the MAN flights were axed in favour of more lucrative redeployment of those slots. Sound familiar? Aviation economics at work. Meanwhile, MAN-LHR now offers a typical eight departures per day using smaller A320-family types with no competition on the route. Based on the former BAW / BMI combined schedules, around 12 slot-pairs per day have been stripped from MAN-LHR in favour of more lucrative redeployment on other routes. To lament the loss of some LBA-LHR schedules is wholly understandable, but to suggest that it has happened because MAN gets the "sacred cow" treatment is really quite embarrassing. Twelve redeployed LHR slot-pairs per day betray the truth. Playing the "martyr card" versus MAN doesn't work here.



Unfortunately, one needs to rethink the implications of this from the perspective of a BA management team rather than from that of an enthusiast. Those long-haul connections from MAN are in every case NOT operated by BA ... they are offered by "the competition", eating into what BA like to think of as "their" turf. Passengers using the Shuttle do in many cases transfer on to long-haul sectors which ARE operated by BA. So from a BA perspective, those long-haul operations available direct from MAN are actually a reason to pitch-in and compete by offering spoiler-fares via the Shuttle and LHR. Stepping back and abandoning the North entirely to their competitors is not good business for BA. The availability of competing long-hauls from the North is viewed as a challenge to BA, not a justification for yielding yet more ground to them.

Your suspicions that LBA-LHR is not considered a 'special case' in BA's eyes is correct. But any notion that MAN-LHR is itself a 'special case' in contrast to LBA is equally ludicrous. A cursory examination of the evidence knocks that idea dead. Similarly hilarious is the idea that BA would expect Leeds customers to travel to Manchester to 'protect' loadings on the MAN-LHR Shuttle. They will take the train to Kings Cross, or drive. Afew punters with existing bookings could be rerouted over MAN rather than cancelled, but long-term the MAN-LHR Shuttle is not intended as a service for the Yorkshire market. BA are astute enough to understand that.

So, yes, the BA cutbacks at LBA are disappointing. But in looking for an explanation, examine straight aviation economics ... follow the money. Decisions like this are not made based upon petty local insecurities, or an irrational preference for the airport down the road. They are made based upon the most cost-effective use of those very scarce slots at both LHR and LGW. That is why Manchester, in turn, has seen its own London flights slashed by two-thirds over the last decade or so. Blame economic reality, not pro-MAN prejudice.

You know what? I posted, reporting on what has been stated at an Airport Consultative Committee meeting about a current situation (not what may have happened in the past regarding Manchester losing flights to LHR or LGW, which frankly is irrelevant to the subject at this time) and end up being told that what I have posted is 'embarrassing' or 'ludicrous' or 'hilarious'. My post makes no indication of 'prejudice' or that Manchester is a 'Sacred Cow'. In fact at no point does it venture to explain why LBA are going down to 1 or 2 BA flights per day whilst Manchester has only 8 (which must be so disappointing having had 12 in the past). It is pointing out quite simply that in the current situation, BA were unlikely to cut MAN flights further due to it being an established base for BA, which leaves LBA as the most likely source of valuable slots. Removing flights from NCL, GLA, EDI is even less likely as these are over longer distances and therefore the train option is slightly less attractive that it perhaps is when travelling from Leeds or Manchester.

My post is based on the response of LBA management, in response to a direct question, not my own opinions.
Frankly I am tired of reporting back what is discussed at Consultative Meetings and then being ridiculed. Disagreeing is fine - everyone has their opinion and is entitled to express it, but there are ways of doing so without causing offence. I will therefore think twice before making any further posts or relaying information provided by airport management as I do not take kindly to doing so only to find 'others', putting meanings to my post which were not intended and then making comments which appear intended to ridicule.

 

[a300boy]

It only takes a few to spoil a forum.
Please give some thought to what you post or at least say sorry when you get it wrong.
This lady is an avid Lba supporter and has contributed so much to the discussions we have had.
I would not blame her if she took the action she is considering.