Route Development & Rumours

[LBAYORKIE]

And with 2 more ATR72 due to arrive at Emerald, it makes you think that they must be earmarked for something.

Probably replacing the chartered DAT aircraft.

 

[Finger66]

Dats quite possible.

Could be one for the EI register to replace DAT and one for the G register to operate our LHR service.

I think we have all got a bit focused on LM doing it but Emerald is a good shout with their close links to BA

 

[oldendays]

I decided many years ago that Aer Lingus would have been in with a shout for operating LBA-LHR, given their large presence at Heathrow and their shared ownership in ÌAG. So to see their regional partner stepping in would be no stretch really.

 

[Jerry]

And with 2 more ATR72 due to arrive at Emerald, it makes you think that they must be earmarked for something.

Depends where they place them but they could use them to increase frequency on their current routes in the network.

 

[Starflyer]

The two more ATR72s going into Emerald are both heading for frequency expansion at Dublin. The slot cap at Dublin was suspended and more slots became available. Planned Emerald growth into UK bases using its UK-based AOC was fairly swiftly binned and the two extra aircraft diverted to Dublin to secure grandfather rights to slots. They have no further aircraft in the wings after those, and with the ATR market still proving very difficult, are unlikely to rush out to secure more.

There is a problem with all of this Heathrow talk. IAG last week announced a combined order for British Airways as ageing 777 replacements and future fleet growth at LHR. Doing the sums, it looks like around 12 additional daily slots will be needed at LHR to fund the long-haul growth.

There are some services you could presume are slot-holders at BA today (eg it flies 6 x MAN-LHR on Mondays and Thursdays but 9 x on Tuesdays). Unless it is going to obtain loads more slots from somewhere between now and the new long-haul aircraft arriving, you keep those "slot holders" on existing routes. You can quietly pull those one by one as you need them.

If you launch a new route like LBA-LHR, you have a big fanfare - but in three or four years' time, you'll need those LHR slots for your new long-haul aircraft and end up stopping the new short-haul route. All of your positive publicity from the launch is now negative. Why bother, if you know now that this is what you're letting yourself in for?

To me, the long-haul growth within the BA fleet order says that LBA-LHR (or anything else like it) has just become a whole lot less likely. I may be wrong, but I can't see why BA would go to all of the hassle of launching a new short-haul route taking up LHR slots which already they know they'll need elsewhere in a year or two.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

The two more ATR72s going into Emerald are both heading for frequency expansion at Dublin. The slot cap at Dublin was suspended and more slots became available. Planned Emerald growth into UK bases using its UK-based AOC was fairly swiftly binned and the two extra aircraft diverted to Dublin to secure grandfather rights to slots. They have no further aircraft in the wings after those, and with the ATR market still proving very difficult, are unlikely to rush out to secure more.

There is a problem with all of this Heathrow talk. IAG last week announced a combined order for British Airways as ageing 777 replacements and future fleet growth at LHR. Doing the sums, it looks like around 12 additional daily slots will be needed at LHR to fund the long-haul growth.

There are some services you could presume are slot-holders at BA today (eg it flies 6 x MAN-LHR on Mondays and Thursdays but 9 x on Tuesdays). Unless it is going to obtain loads more slots from somewhere between now and the new long-haul aircraft arriving, you keep those "slot holders" on existing routes. You can quietly pull those one by one as you need them.

If you launch a new route like LBA-LHR, you have a big fanfare - but in three or four years' time, you'll need those LHR slots for your new long-haul aircraft and end up stopping the new short-haul route. All of your positive publicity from the launch is now negative. Why bother, if you know now that this is what you're letting yourself in for?

To me, the long-haul growth within the BA fleet order says that LBA-LHR (or anything else like it) has just become a whole lot less likely. I may be wrong, but I can't see why BA would go to all of the hassle of launching a new short-haul route taking up LHR slots which already they know they'll need elsewhere in a year or two.

Theres a balance to be had. They need domestics to feed into the long haul flights.

 

[KARFA]

There is a problem with all of this Heathrow talk. IAG last week announced a combined order for British Airways as ageing 777 replacements and future fleet growth at LHR. Doing the sums, it looks like around 12 additional daily slots will be needed at LHR to fund the long-haul growth.

how do you come to that conclusion that the BA long haul fleet is expanding? The combined order was for all of IAG btw, not just BA. Also did you consider the 777s based at LGW?

i think the long haul fleet is down from pre covid, perhaps retiring all the 747s early was a mistake. however, since covid ba also leases slots at LHR to other airlines which it could take back if they needed.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Perhaps some of the ageing BA B777s could be used on eg MAN-LHR and other high density routes, so 1 b777 replaces 2 A320s to reduce the frequency and free up more slots, just a thought!

 

[Jerry]

Perhaps some of the ageing BA B777s could be used on eg MAN-LHR and other high density routes, so 1 b777 replaces 2 A320s to reduce the frequency and free up more slots, just a thought!

The days of widebodies on a domestic route like that is long gone. They'd just use more A321s on the route.

 

[KARFA]

The days of widebodies on a domestic route like that is long gone. They'd just use more A321s on the route.

Oddly there was a 787 on the EDI route yesterday

But yes you are right, other than very rare one-offs, ba are never going to regularly use widebodies on domestic flights.

 

[pug]

The two more ATR72s going into Emerald are both heading for frequency expansion at Dublin. The slot cap at Dublin was suspended and more slots became available. Planned Emerald growth into UK bases using its UK-based AOC was fairly swiftly binned and the two extra aircraft diverted to Dublin to secure grandfather rights to slots. They have no further aircraft in the wings after those, and with the ATR market still proving very difficult, are unlikely to rush out to secure more.

There is a problem with all of this Heathrow talk. IAG last week announced a combined order for British Airways as ageing 777 replacements and future fleet growth at LHR. Doing the sums, it looks like around 12 additional daily slots will be needed at LHR to fund the long-haul growth.

There are some services you could presume are slot-holders at BA today (eg it flies 6 x MAN-LHR on Mondays and Thursdays but 9 x on Tuesdays). Unless it is going to obtain loads more slots from somewhere between now and the new long-haul aircraft arriving, you keep those "slot holders" on existing routes. You can quietly pull those one by one as you need them.

If you launch a new route like LBA-LHR, you have a big fanfare - but in three or four years' time, you'll need those LHR slots for your new long-haul aircraft and end up stopping the new short-haul route. All of your positive publicity from the launch is now negative. Why bother, if you know now that this is what you're letting yourself in for?

To me, the long-haul growth within the BA fleet order says that LBA-LHR (or anything else like it) has just become a whole lot less likely. I may be wrong, but I can't see why BA would go to all of the hassle of launching a new short-haul route taking up LHR slots which already they know they'll need elsewhere in a year or two.

I think this makes sense, accepting also what @KARFA has said regarding the fleet spread for new aircraft across IAG.

Unfortunately BA don’t seem to see wide spread U.K. feeder services as viable as do KLM with their more comprehensive feeder structure. If it had a third runway things might be different? But the smaller carriers were all but priced out over 30 years ago when it became just as expensive to run a S360 into there as it did a 747, clearly the economics didn’t stack up.

Be interesting to see whether the talks with Loganair come to anything. It would undoubtably be a popular route, but in terms of economies of scale I’m not too sure.

 

[Jerry]

Oddly there was a 787 on the EDI route yesterday

But yes you are right, other than very rare one-offs, ba are never going to regularly use widebodies on domestic flights.

I didn't know that!
It's a shame it's not a more regular thing though.

Unfortunately BA don’t seem to see wide spread U.K. feeder services as viable as do KLM with their more comprehensive feeder structure. If it had a third runway things might be different?

Probably because they don't feel as much need considering Heathrow is more accessible by land options. NCL, EDI, GLA, ABZ and INV aren't as close. MAN is more an anomaly but is a big airport and big market hence their presence. Everything further south Heathrow becomes more accessible by road and train. Even from Yorkshire. My sister used BA recently for a trip to Rome. She and her partner used the train to get to Heathrow and back.

 

[Starflyer]

how do you come to that conclusion that the BA long haul fleet is expanding? The combined order was for all of IAG btw, not just BA. Also did you consider the 777s based at LGW?

BA's own statement last week said:

As part of International Airlines Group (IAG)'s Q1 2025 financial results, exciting new long-haul aircraft orders were announced for airlines across the group.

44 of these aircraft, including Airbus A350s and Boeing 787s and 777s, are due to be delivered to British Airways between 2027 and 2033.

These new aircraft will replace some of our existing fleet and enable us to grow our network further, marking a significant investment to benefit our operation.

In their own announcement, it's a mix of fleet replacement and growth.

They do lease slots to other airlines - the main one being five daily slot pairs with Loganair. The other slots leased out are either remedy slots that they're legally obligated to offer (Saudia and Air France) or within the group (Vueling).

I'd agree that it's highly unlikely there will be any regular return of widebody aircraft on domestics. The per-cycle maintenance costs on the 787 engines and landing gears are very high in comparison to the 767s with which they used to do that type of thing. It's also a lot more efficient for weight-related charges to move 220 passengers on an A321 at 89 tonnes take-off weight versus moving 214 on a 787-8 at 228 tonnes take-off weight.

None of this changes my original contention that I think LBA is, and remains, a long shot for a comeback of LHR services.

 

[BCFC]

Oddly there was a 787 on the EDI route yesterday

But yes you are right, other than very rare one-offs, ba are never going to regularly use widebodies on domestic flights.

I flew from HKG to CAN (30 mins) with Cathay on an A330.

 

[KARFA]

I flew from HKG to CAN (30 mins) with Cathay on an A330.

yes, the market is very different in that part of the world. lots of what we in europe would consider short haul is flown with widebodies.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

yes, the market is very different in that part of the world. lots of what we in europe would consider short haul is flown with widebodies.

Japan is a good example.

 

[Aviador]

But LBA isn't Heathrow or MAN where the airlines are already established. This is a challenge all the small airports face unless they have distance or geography in favour. Its easy to get to bigger airports and airlines like BA, Air France, Lufthansa etc know that.

This discussion seems to be reiterating the same points without resolution. The reality is that Leeds currently manages approximately 4 million passengers per annum (mppa). If the concerns you’ve raised were valid, the airport simply wouldn’t sustain such passenger numbers. While alternatives like Manchester or London exist, not all travelers share your preference for those hubs - a fact underscored by Leeds’ consistent traffic of 4mppa. Its growth was limited primarily by terminal capacity constraints, not lack of demand.

 

[Jerry]

Its growth was limited primarily by terminal capacity constraints, not lack of demand

Well i guess we'll see how much LBA grows by and what airlines it attracts once the terminal redevelopment is done.

 

[Finger66]

Well i guess we'll see how much LBA grows by and what airlines it attracts once the terminal redevelopment is done.

And I have a funny feeling that one or two people may just end up eating humble pie. It may not be instant but it won't take long for new airlines to start appearing

 

[LBA4EVER]

Reverse the journey and you can get to LBA in the same time. It's a pointless argument.

And I have a funny feeling that one or two people may just end up eating humble pie. It may not be instant but it won't take long for new airlines to start appearing

And once those extra aircraft parking stands start to be laid of course! Something tells me the airports at a turning point, the population is there so we shall see!