Heathrow and BA a disgrace to the country

[Class15]

I have only flown with BA once because it is London Airways and serves most of the UK badly. The only time I used BA was for work on a corporate booking. My local airport is Manchester and there is no point flying to Heathrow for any destination served by Manchester, which is a large number. Even when a stopover is required BA has never been the cheapest option.

Why shouldn’t it be based in the biggest city in its country?

 

[jfollows]

Why shouldn’t it be based in the biggest city in its country?

There's no reason why not, of course, but the marketing spin they put on it is obnoxious.
BA once sent me something telling me about their wonderful new Gatwick-JFK service. Yes, I knew about it, because BA were canning the direct Manchester-JFK service and using the "slot" at New York for yet another service from London. I don't care about the commercials, but the "spin" was obnoxious. Subsequently the Gatwick-JFK service folded, but they never reintroduced the Manchester-JFK service. Not enough Business Class passengers paying full whack (I got upgraded to Business Class twice before it stopped).
Yes, it's London Airways, not British Airways, and if they didn't pretend otherwise it would be better. I used Heathrow and BA for the first time in many years in July for a Los-Angeles - London - Manchester trip and it was OK. The London-Manchester flight was late of course but I had too many cases to want to offload them in London and travel by train.

 

[telstarbox]

Would BA be likely to serve the rest of the UK better if there was some consolidation - a larger Manchester replacing Liverpool and Leeds, or central Scotland being served entirely by Edinburgh only for example? I assume for much of the Birmingham catchment Heathrow is already easy to access.

 

[Chester1]

Why shouldn’t it be based in the biggest city in its country?

There is a difference between being primarily based in London and almost entirely being based there. There are a range of financially viable long haul routes running from non London Airports but all by other airlines. Its hard to believe that there are no viable short haul routes from Manchester or other non London Airports. Its irritating that a majority foreign owned airline that only really serves London is referred to as the national carrier by the media, because they are overwhelmingly based in London too. BA is a division of IAG and its business model is to milk its Heathrow and Gatwick landing slots and not take any risks to expand into the rest of the country.

Have a try searching destinations from Manchester. BA are competitive on trans atlantic routes without direct flights, and some parts of Africa. Pretty much whole of Europe and Asia, plus East Africa and Australia is better served by other airlines.

 

[Wolfie]

There is a difference between being primarily based in London and almost entirely being based there. There are a range of financially viable long haul routes running from non London Airports but all by other airlines. Its hard to believe that there are no viable short haul routes from Manchester or other non London Airports. Its irritating that a majority foreign owned airline that only really serves London is referred to as the national carrier by the media, because they are overwhelmingly based in London too. BA is a division of IAG and its business model is to milk its Heathrow and Gatwick landing slots and not take any risks to expand into the rest of the country.

Have a try searching long haul destinations from Manchester. BA are competitive on trans atlantic routes without direct flights, and some parts of Africa. Pretty much whole of Asia, East Africa and Australia is better served by other airlines.

It is not that BA isn't prepared to take a risk by expanding into the rest of the country. It is more that it previously withdrew from much of the rest of the country for very sound economic reasons.

How many long haul flights are there from German airports other than Frankfurt, French airports other than the Paris hub, Spanish airports other than Madrid or Dutch airports other than Amsterdam?

 

[Class15]

It is not that BA isn't prepared to take a risk by expanding into the rest of the country. It is more that it previously withdrew from much of the rest of the country for very sound economic reasons.

How many long haul flights are there from German airports other than Frankfurt, French airports other than the Paris hub, Spanish airports other than Madrid or Dutch airports other than Amsterdam?

Exactly. Manchester gets Trans-Atlantic flights with Virgin Atlantic and Emirates flights to Dubai. Even flights to Bangladesh. Iberia operates solely from Madrid. Air France solely from Paris. Lufthansa from two airports both in the west of the country. ITA Airways has two but only two. KLM is just Amsterdam. LOT is just Warsaw.

 

[cactustwirly]

There is a difference between being primarily based in London and almost entirely being based there. There are a range of financially viable long haul routes running from non London Airports but all by other airlines. Its hard to believe that there are no viable short haul routes from Manchester or other non London Airports. Its irritating that a majority foreign owned airline that only really serves London is referred to as the national carrier by the media, because they are overwhelmingly based in London too. BA is a division of IAG and its business model is to milk its Heathrow and Gatwick landing slots and not take any risks to expand into the rest of the country.

Have a try searching destinations from Manchester. BA are competitive on trans atlantic routes without direct flights, and some parts of Africa. Pretty much whole of Europe and Asia, plus East Africa and Australia is better served by other airlines.

I wouldn't say they are milking their Gatwick slots.
They're not back to their pre-covid flight numbers, and some are leased to easyJet I believe?

 

[Chester1]

I wouldn't say they are milking their Gatwick slots.

Perhaps blocking may be a better phrase for Gatwick, at least for their short haul slots. Better for BA run a short haul flight at peak times than another airline runs a long haul flight.... I find it hard to believe the sums add up for short haul flights from Gatwick but not from any regional airport. Its a very conservative business model based on hogging landing slots.

 

[cactustwirly]

Perhaps blocking may be a better phrase for Gatwick, at least for their short haul slots. Better for BA run a short haul flight at peak times than another airline runs a long haul flight.... I find it hard to believe the sums add up for short haul flights from Gatwick but not from any regional airport. Its a very conservative business model based on hogging landing slots.

They are a business at the end of the day, they have to make money.
With Gatwick they have overhauled their business strategy, setting up a low cost subsidiary and taking on the A321s formerly based at Heathrow. This is because the short haul operation was actually losing money for a long time.

If they can't make Gatwick work there is no chance at Manchester, which is very competitive, with Ryanair, easyJet and Jet2 having a presence. There also has to be enough business demand to make it viable.
BA also have a very stretched fleet, with wet leases covering the shortfall at both Gatwick and Heathrow this year.

I do suspect there is an element of slot blocking at Gatwick, it is in their interest to stop Wizz from expanding at Gatwick, but the flights have to cover their costs

 

[Chester1]

They are a business at the end of the day, they have to make money.

I don't object to their business strategy, I object to them being referred to as our national carrier when they really only serve about a quarter of the population. Unfortunately its the quarter of the population the media cares about.

At least they are not as bad as Air France, desperately lobbying for "environmental policies" that are actually about forcing French people to travel to Paris to use their services...

 

[1D54]

BER T1 is fine T2 on the other hand is a shocker with limited seating but mainly used by budget airlines apart from EZY who use T1. In fact it is that bad one can only hope for the reopening of Schönefelde which is now officially T5 and has been mothballed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Have a try searching destinations from Manchester. BA are competitive on trans atlantic routes without direct flights, and some parts of Africa. Pretty much whole of Europe and Asia, plus East Africa and Australia is better served by other airlines

In terms of price they’re competitive on short haul from Manchester and Newcastle. I went to Hamburg in the summer and Newcastle-Heathrow-Hamburg was cheaper than Manchester or Edinburgh to Hamburg, even before paying the train fare from Newcastle (no direct flights Newcastle-Hamburg).

In terms of destinations they’re very competitive too, the breadth of short haul destinations far exceed Ryanair or EasyJet. it’s just that you have to connect through Heathrow.

But then most of the European airlines in Manchester are the same- Lufthansa connects through Frankfurt or occasionally Munich, KLM through Schiphol, Air France through CDG. And the ME3 are just doing the hub-and-spoke too, it’s just a longer spoke.

Point to point long haul from Manchester is a couple of Virgin flights and a couple of Aer Lingus flights- and Aer Lingus seem to use an A321 for some of those.

“National carrier” is just journalistic shorthand.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, I knew about it, because BA were canning the direct Manchester-JFK service and using the "slot" at New York for yet another service from London. I don't care about the commercials, but the "spin" was obnoxious.

Well there‘s an obvious solution to that: be sensible, avoid BA, and use VS127 / 128 instead.

How many long haul flights are there from German airports other than Frankfurt

Munich has a decent number. All the big US cities, China, India, Singapore, the ME, etc.

 

[cactustwirly]

I flew with BA at the weekend from Gatwick, and everything was ok, I still think the overall experience is better than easyJet.
There were delays but, so was the easyJet flight an hour earlier.

The Gatwick experience is very efficient, no complaints there still much better than Luton or Stansted in my opinion, but the South Terminal is looking very tired now and could really do with tlc especially around the gates and arrivals

 

[Chester1]

In terms of price they’re competitive on short haul from Manchester and Newcastle. I went to Hamburg in the summer and Newcastle-Heathrow-Hamburg was cheaper than Manchester or Edinburgh to Hamburg, even before paying the train fare from Newcastle (no direct flights Newcastle-Hamburg).

In terms of destinations they’re very competitive too, the breadth of short haul destinations far exceed Ryanair or EasyJet. it’s just that you have to connect through Heathrow.

But then most of the European airlines in Manchester are the same- Lufthansa connects through Frankfurt or occasionally Munich, KLM through Schiphol, Air France through CDG. And the ME3 are just doing the hub-and-spoke too, it’s just a longer spoke.

Point to point long haul from Manchester is a couple of Virgin flights and a couple of Aer Lingus flights- and Aer Lingus seem to use an A321 for some of those.

“National carrier” is just journalistic shorthand.

People in UK rarely connect for short haul journeys because the stopover time makes it too time consuming. Those that do live a long way from an airport of any significance. Very few residents of places within a couple of hours ground transport of an airport with half decent destinations will unless the price difference is massive. Id be interested to know if any members living in North West England do that frequently. Its different for you on the Isle of Man or say someone who lives near Humberside or Teeside Airport.

Manchester's long haul connections are much more than a couple of Virgin and Aer Lingus flights. It has flights to Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sylhet (Bangladesh), Houston and Addis Ababa. The Middle Eastern airlines provide a tremendous range of options with one connection, ussually at a cheaper price than BA. The reason BA doesn't serve Manchester or any other non London Airport with long haul flights is its business is to be London Airways sweeting its landing slots at a congested airport.

 

[jfollows]

Well there‘s an obvious solution to that: be sensible, avoid BA, and use VS127 / 128 instead.

I’m ahead of you and I agree, I avoid BA if possible and certainly don’t miss them Manchester - New York. The flight from Los Angeles in July was my first with them for years, and nothing special. Virgin to Las Vegas in 2024 I think (my next long-haul plan, that is).

 

[Wolfie]

I don't object to their business strategy, I object to them being referred to as our national carrier when they really only serve about a quarter of the population. Unfortunately its the quarter of the population the media cares about.

At least they are not as bad as Air France, desperately lobbying for "environmental policies" that are actually about forcing French people to travel to Paris to use their services...

I suspect that London and the South East represents more than 25% of the UK population. It is also undoubtedly the most prosperous area.

Well there‘s an obvious solution to that: be sensible, avoid BA, and use VS127 / 128 instead.




Munich has a decent number. All the big US cities, China, India, Singapore, the ME, etc.

Very valid points.

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect that London and the South East represents more than 25% of the UK population. It is also undoubtedly the most prosperous area.

Between London, the South East and East of Englan (roughly east of Solent to Wash) , there are 24m people, out of a UK total of 67m. (36%)

 

[Chester1]

I suspect that London and the South East represents more than 25% of the UK population. It is also undoubtedly the most prosperous area.


Very valid points.

Between London, the South East and East of Englan (roughly east of Solent to Wash) , there are 24m people, out of a UK total of 67m. (36%)

Using @Bald Rick measurement 36% in the South East and the approximate catchment of Heathrow and Gatwick hardly makes them a meaningful "national carrier" or would justify the thread title. Its an airline that most UK residents almost never, or have actually never used. Heathrow is probably used more often by the 64% than BA but thankfully the third runway is unlikely to be built, forcing carriers to use other airports.

 

[Bald Rick]

Using @Bald Rick measurement 36% in the South East and the approximate catchment of Heathrow and Gatwick hardly makes them a meaningful "national carrier" or would justify the thread title. Its an airline that most UK residents almost never, or have actually never used. Heathrow is probably used more often by the 64% than BA but thankfully the third runway is unlikely to be built, forcing carriers to use other airports.

Don‘t forget that air traffic is two way, and that non uk passengers to the uk are overwhelmingly attracted to London.

 

[306024]

Well there‘s an obvious solution to that: be sensible, avoid BA, and use VS127 / 128 instead.

Using Virgin is being sensible, well it amused me Each to their own I guess.

I’ve given Virgin three strikes and they’re out too. One shabby plane where the in flight entertainment was a blank screen, the return hopelessly late, and the most uncomfortable internal flight across America with the most miserable crew ever experienced.

Having boycotted Ryanair and EasyJet for witnessing unprofessional crew behaviour, and Wizz for missing the runway at Luton, I’m running out of choices. Well with Wizz we did land, but it seemed too far down the runway so took off again, the second attempt was in the right spot, but with a crunch to make sure.

Finnair to Helsinki on a newish A350 wins the award for the best flight this year, as you get to use the Cathay Pacific lounge at Heathrow too if you’re posh enough

 

[Chester1]

Don‘t forget that air traffic is two way, and that non uk passengers to the uk are overwhelmingly attracted to London.

Its not so London focused that other airlines can't make money on long haul flights from provincial airports. BA choses to be London Airways. Its not even English Airways!

My response to OP is simple, don't use Heathrow or BA. Neither is a national disgrace. They are most a London one and London has other airports served by other airlines.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Would BA be likely to serve the rest of the UK better if there was some consolidation - a larger Manchester replacing Liverpool and Leeds, or central Scotland being served entirely by Edinburgh only for example? I assume for much of the Birmingham catchment Heathrow is already easy to access.

Don't you dare suggest that to MAG - Liverpool and Leeds are worlds better than Manchester Tortureport.
A transatlantic flight might make sense from LPL actually, because of the cheaper costs and the nicer security experience. Only thing is whether BA could use the runway there fully loaded.

 

[Bungle158]

Indian airport security is absolutely well below par. Frustrating and inefficient and mostly managed by the CISF. It’s not racist to point that out. Indians will tell you that themselves.

India also has a very high terror threat level towards its airport infrastructure. I’m not surprised that most developed countries don’t “trust” it and insist on rescreening passengers.

Indian airport security has long been a whole different experience. When l flew through BOM last week ALL electrical items, including chargers and leads, had to be carried in hand baggage. New and packaged, non rechargeable batteries were limited to 2 pieces. Power banks viewed with the utmost suspicion, 1 only allowed. No sharps of any description, even below 6cm. Don't even consider taking lighters.

 

[Butts]

Its not so London focused that other airlines can't make money on long haul flights from provincial airports. BA choses to be London Airways. Its not even English Airways!

My response to OP is simple, don't use Heathrow or BA. Neither is a national disgrace. They are most a London one and London has other airports served by other airlines.

You are forgetting Scotland where BA connect you to the World from Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

All three still have proper BA Lounges unlike Manchester and Newcastle which have the crap Aspire ones.

 

[Bald Rick]

Using Virgin is being sensible, well it amused me Each to their own I guess.

More sensible than BA. Certainly from Manchester!

I’ve only had one bad experience with VS, and they sorted it immediately.

Its not so London focused that other airlines can't make money on long haul flights from provincial airports.

Other airlines dont have a base for their long haul craft at those provincial airports either.

 

[Nev20]

Using Virgin is being sensible, well it amused me Each to their own I guess.

I’ve given Virgin three strikes and they’re out too. One shabby plane where the in flight entertainment was a blank screen, the return hopelessly late, and the most uncomfortable internal flight across America with the most miserable crew ever experienced.

Having boycotted Ryanair and EasyJet for witnessing unprofessional crew behaviour, and Wizz for missing the runway at Luton, I’m running out of choices. Well with Wizz we did land, but it seemed too far down the runway so took off again, the second attempt was in the right spot, but with a crunch to make sure.

Finnair to Helsinki on a newish A350 wins the award for the best flight this year, as you get to use the Cathay Pacific lounge at Heathrow too if you’re posh enough

I think this might be a you problem, tbh.

 

[jfollows]

Finnair to Helsinki on a newish A350 wins the award for the best flight this year, as you get to use the Cathay Pacific lounge at Heathrow too if you’re posh enough

I went Finnair Manchester-Helsinki-Hong Kong in June, business class, row 1 on the long flight, it was the best flight of my round-the-world holiday. JAL Tokyo-Los Angeles was second best. The Manchester-Helsinki leg was fine also.
I plan on using Finnair again, it avoids having to go via London from Manchester and it's better than BA by miles anyway. They appear to fly Helsinki-Osaka which will probably be my next target (or Las Vegas direct from Manchester in a year's time but that's with Virgin).

 

[306024]

I think this might be a you problem, tbh.

Yep you’re right To be honest it’s all a bit tongue in cheek to keep the debate going, and having got wedded to BA status points that’s where I find myself. Everyone will have preferences, just personal choice at the end of the day.

 

[jon81uk]

I’ve given Virgin three strikes and they’re out too. One shabby plane where the in flight entertainment was a blank screen, the return hopelessly late, and the most uncomfortable internal flight across America with the most miserable crew ever experienced.

Virgin Atlantic don't operate internal flights across America?