BA drops another destination

[Keith T 2]

I know this has been known for a while but there hasn't been a thread in MW about it yet. For the benefit of MEL-based MW members, and others who might take a generic interest here goes:

 

News flash: BA is dropping MEL. BA17/18 will now terminate in SIN from March 25 2006. BA's service to Heathrow will be replaced by Qantas who'd now fly QF 29 and 30 from MEL-LHR via HKG and will be codeshared by BA as per the terms of the JSA. BA will resurrect the flight numbers of BA11 and 12 to operate the LHR-SIN turnaround flights.

 

QF29 will depart MEL at 2300, operating a redeye sector to HKG (arriving in HKG at approx 0600) and a daytime flight from HKG to LHR (arriving in LHR at 1320). The turnaround QF30 will depart LHR at 1220, arriving in MEL at 1955. A 3 class 744 will be utilised, meaning that for the first time QF will provide a 3 class service on the MEL-HKG sector (which is currently only serviced by a 2 class 333 with biz and eco). QF 29 and 30 are currently operating SYD-HKG-LHR vv 4 times a week in order to babysit QF's slot at LHR (ala QF's shortlived PER-SIN-LHR). Along with QF9, QF29 will provide those in MEL wishing to fly to LHR on QF 2 dailies to choose from, departing at either 1710 or 2300. Much to the dismay of Sydneysiders QF29 and 30 SYD-HKG-LHR vv was meant to have been increased to a daily this year.

 

BA 12 will depart LHR at 2240, arriving in SIN at 0515. BA 11 will depart SIN at 2125, arriving at LHR at 1715. The departure of BA from MEL also means the loss of a premium economy service from MEL as BA's currently the sole supplier of premium economy seats (World Traveller's Plus). It will also mean oneworld flyers in MEL have less choice now, only QF and CX to choose from.

 

I think this has been in the making for a long time. MEL has been doing rather poorly, BA struggles to even fill the 38 seat J cabins (the bigger config sits 70 in J) on the 744 it deploys to MEL. Loads have been rather healthy at peak times but more often than not at the back of the bus. There have been tell tale signs of BA's woes with the MEL route going by the number of giveaways on that route (eg fly WT+ one way and come back in Club). By reducing the amount of turnaround time BA spends on a trip to MEL it can redeploy its resources to more profitable routes. BA seems to now be concentrating on routes with lots of business traffic.

 

This is an extremely sad development for BA supporters in MEL. BA has left MEL in the past before reinstating it half-heartedly starting with the 3 weeklies, then daily. Alas now the grand old lady has decided that she can no longer supply a metaphoric hold on to the former colonies of her country

 

So the World's Favourite Airline now services a grand total of one city (SYD) in the entire continent of Oceania. Maybe that should be the 'Businessman's Favourite Airline.'

 

Those based in MEL still yet to sample BA's WT+ service or Club World, remember to do it before the 25th of March if you do not wish to experience the grief of doing a terminal transfer at SYD.

 

It also reaffirms my switch to *A as a step in the right direction as MEL now experiences even more of a QF stranglehold (less choice; price monopoly) should I continue on oneworld.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Keith T

[Pieter C. 5]

Keith,

 

Exactly what happened to KLM: not enough people up front and lot's of low-yield in the rear of the planes, forced them to stop operating into Australia (moreover, they only had an allowable payload of 240 passengers per flight ): good for MH, though, as they're now transporting the many Dutch and other Europeans to Australia for New-Zealand for them...MH is benefiting of KL traffic-flows and QF is doing the same of BA traffic

[Sandeep G 1]

BA is being screwed over by QF lah.. its blatant

 

I think BA should give QF a kick, and compete with them on the perth run.

 

LHR-KUL-PER!!! LHR-KUL-MEL!!! NICHE MARKETS!!!!! Malaysians love to fly BA (for some unknown reason) and english and australians love to fly MH! Its a win win situation

 

BA dropping MEL?! Well that is rather sad indeed! BA is in somewhat a similar financial condition as MH, albeit a lot better than MH and not due to corruptive forces.. this is spelling some trouble for them.. god bless the queen and her flying ribbon BA... actually ah. what is their logo about?! Too lazy to check their website, someone here edu-ma-cate me

[Keith T 2]

BA is being screwed over by QF lah.. its blatant

 

I think BA should give QF a kick, and compete with them on the perth run.

 

LHR-KUL-PER!!! LHR-KUL-MEL!!! NICHE MARKETS!!!!!  Malaysians love to fly BA (for some unknown reason) and english and australians love to fly MH! Its a win win situation

 

BA dropping MEL?! Well that is rather sad indeed! BA is in somewhat a similar financial condition as MH, albeit a lot better than MH and not due to corruptive forces.. this is spelling some trouble for them.. god bless the queen and her flying ribbon BA... actually ah. what is their logo about?! Too lazy to check their website, someone here edu-ma-cate me

21785[/snapback]

 

I don't think BA is being screwed over by anyone except the fact that there aren't enough full fare paying pax to MEL. The QF PER-SIN-LHR run is going to be withdrawn soon as its operated solely to secure QF's slot at LHR, same with the SYD-HKG-LHR effort. This would explain the unnaturally long time QF15 PER-SIN-LHR transits at SIN. The slots are now going to be used for QF's new route MEL-HKG-LHR.

 

Unfortunately as long as BA has made SIN its base it will never fly to KUL. The KUL route itself was cannibalizing the SIN route. BA faced the same problem at KUL as it does at MEL - lack of full fare paying pax. The reason KUL had lots of pax was because people flew to KUL on cheaper fares, then hop onto one of the shuttles to SIN. KUL lacked the business traffic unlike SIN. Sad but true.

 

In all seriousness QF's and BA's current operations complement each other. Virtually every QF flight headed to SIN and LHR are codeshared by BA (including the new route to LHR via HKG). This would mean BA earning revenue from all AU flights despite only having a presence in SYD. QF would also deliver lots of pax to BA metal flights all over Europe (and to a smaller extent, transatlantic if the pax from AU are so desperate to avoid a domestic flight on AA or a LAX transit).

 

These arrangements might not be good for pax due to lack of choices and price monopolies, but hey - economic pragmatism for the airlines.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Keith T

[Sandeep G 1]

I don't think BA is being screwed over by anyone except the fact that there aren't enough full fare paying pax to MEL. The QF PER-SIN-LHR run is going to be withdrawn soon as its operated solely to secure QF's slot at LHR, same with the SYD-HKG-LHR effort. This would explain the unnaturally long time QF15 PER-SIN-LHR transits at SIN. The slots are now going to be used for QF's new route MEL-HKG-LHR.

 

Unfortunately as long as BA has made SIN its base it will never fly to KUL. The KUL route itself was cannibalizing the SIN route. BA faced the same problem at KUL as it does at MEL - lack of full fare paying pax. The reason KUL had lots of pax was because people flew to KUL on  cheaper fares, then hop onto one of the shuttles to SIN. KUL lacked the business traffic unlike SIN. Sad but true.

 

In all seriousness QF's and BA's current operations complement each other. Virtually every QF flight headed to SIN and LHR are codeshared by BA (including the new route to LHR via HKG). This would mean BA earning revenue from all AU flights despite only having a presence in SYD. QF would also deliver lots of pax to BA metal flights all over Europe (and to a smaller extent, transatlantic if the pax from AU are so desperate to avoid a domestic flight on AA or a LAX transit).

 

These arrangements might not be good for pax due to lack of choices and price monopolies, but hey - economic pragmatism for the airlines.

21827[/snapback]

 

BA is being screwed by QF... its blatantly obvious... BA can make money but due to the agreement between BA and QF during the mid-nineties and during the formation of one-world, BA thought that it was safe due to its equity investment of 19% in QF... as you would now know, BA has divested this stake in QF and the only thing holding BA and QF together is oneworld.. which Qantas has made quite apparent that they are not interested if given the chance to merge with SQ or Air NZ... so QF are basically very smart corporate fellows, who depend on a handful of international routes to sustain them... As an international airline, QF is rather pathetic serving mainly LHR, SIN, FRA, HKG, BKK.... BA is a far more reputable international airline...

 

The reason BA stopped flying to KUL and CGK was not because pax were transferring to SIN, but because they couldn't fill up their premium cabins... then they went through the first of a few financial difficulties resulting in lots of routes being dropped all over the world...

 

As a business centre, KUL is not as important as SIN.. As an economic industrial centre, KUL is far more important than SIN... trade between UK and Malaysia will show that!!!

 

BA is in the pipelines of returning to KUL as has been rumour for some time now.. the rumour is still strong and even though its only a rumour, given the time the word has been going around, there must be some sustinence for it..

 

QF is living up to its reputation as being just a flying rodent... I think in time, Virgin Blue, and if ever Ansett (3) will be more successful and will receive my vote of confidence for travel in Australia... Don't get me wrong, I think they are brilliant in operating their business model, but I just hate them for it because there are too many losers, and at the end of the day - its the aussie flying public that will truly suffer.. If that's the spirit of Australia, then I'll be dammed!

[Keith T 2]

BA is being screwed by QF... its blatantly obvious... BA can make money but due to the agreement between BA and QF during the mid-nineties and during the formation of one-world, BA thought that it was safe due to its equity investment of 19% in QF... as you would now know, BA has divested this stake in QF and the only thing holding BA and QF together is oneworld.. which Qantas has made quite apparent that they are not interested if given the chance to merge with SQ or Air NZ... so QF are basically very smart corporate fellows, who depend on a handful of international routes to sustain them... As an international airline, QF is rather pathetic serving mainly LHR, SIN, FRA, HKG, BKK.... BA is a far more reputable international airline...

 

The reason BA stopped flying to KUL and CGK was not because pax were transferring to SIN, but because they couldn't fill up their premium cabins... then they went through the first of a few financial difficulties resulting in lots of routes being dropped all over the world...

 

As a business centre, KUL is not as important as SIN.. As an economic industrial centre, KUL is far more important than SIN... trade between UK and Malaysia will show that!!!

 

BA is in the pipelines of returning to KUL as has been rumour for some time now.. the rumour is still strong and even though its only a rumour, given the time the word has been going around, there must be some sustinence for it..

 

QF is living up to its reputation as being just a flying rodent...  I think in time, Virgin Blue, and if ever Ansett (3) will be more successful and will receive my vote of confidence for travel in Australia...  Don't get me wrong, I think they are brilliant in operating their business model, but I just hate them for it because there are too many losers, and at the end of the day - its the aussie flying public that will truly suffer..  If that's the spirit of Australia, then I'll be dammed!

21840[/snapback]

 

 

All my sources come directly from senior management within BA.

 

I find it surprising that you hate QF for being successful. The airline industry is a business - even a cut throat business I might add. There are winners and there are losers. In the end pragamtism rules. Just like politics. You make friends with some, and pretend to like others, and even backstab some. We don't live in a communist hippy love society, contrary to what they teach you in a three year arts degree at uni (or in the case of Melbourne Uni - every degree). This might sound odd coming from a Labor Party member but I'm also a realist. Yes I resent QF for its anti-worker policies and the shifting of Australian jobs overseas, and yes I am politically frustrated that Australia's national carrier would support the Howard government's anti-worker legislations, but again this is a business and QF is a private company - the most important obligation of QF's executives is to keep their shareholders happy.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Keith T

[Sandeep G 1]

Sure its a cut-throat business and all that.. If they survived by their own merit, then I have no objections lah, bro..

 

My objection is that they are a monopoly and manipulate politicians and the aussie govt. into creating a overly regulated industry which benefits only Qantas.. this is why they can squeeze BA out of the OZ market.. this is why they can celebrate when Ansett crashed, and this is why they are now trying to squash SIA and Emirates.. if they were so fare and what not, and open to the competition, then they shouldn't worry if SQ or Emirates wants to start trans-pacific routes from the east-coast (i.e. Sydney and Melbourne..)

 

They fly how many flights outta SIN? Does the SIN government complain?! No! Because SIA prides itself on ACTUALLY competing and coming out on top... Don't you think its a little disconcerting that QF complains and gets its way all the time like a spoilt brat when it comes to flying overseas, but when foreign carriers talk about venturing into Australia and beyond they become very stubborn and say "competition will only devastate Australia's national carrier"... i.e. on the USA runs..

 

Your sources if they are management are indeed reliable! Thank you for sharing! I wouldn't write of KUL as a destination though... They have no connection from SIN to here, so it makes absolutely no sense why they don't fly down here.. They can operate into Australia, because there is the flying public to support... QF doesn't have to be the only carrier to fly this route.. PER is an important aussie connection.. LHR ex-PER, if they are being stopped will be a sad loss.. That's another thing that bothers me about QF.. they ignore the western state as if though it ain't there! Australia is not only the eastern states you know... Industry is pretty big out west.. anyway.. enough babbling.. not attacking you, mate.. but yes they are responsible to the shareholders, but play fair.. don't ask the politicians to protect you from foreign carriers because you suffer from higher operating costs and what-not..

 

Sorry if I offend, just expressing my opinions..

[Keith T 2]

Sure its a cut-throat business and all that.. If they survived by their own merit, then I have no objections lah, bro..

 

My objection is that they are a monopoly and manipulate politicians and the aussie govt. into creating a overly regulated industry which benefits only Qantas.. this is why they can squeeze BA out of the OZ market.. this is why they can celebrate when Ansett crashed, and this is why they are now trying to squash SIA and Emirates.. if they were so fare and what not, and open to the competition, then they shouldn't worry if SQ or Emirates wants to start trans-pacific routes from the east-coast (i.e. Sydney and Melbourne..) 

 

They fly how many flights outta SIN? Does the SIN government complain?! No! Because SIA prides itself on ACTUALLY competing and coming out on top... Don't you think its a little disconcerting that QF complains and gets its way all the time like a spoilt brat when it comes to flying overseas, but when foreign carriers talk about venturing into Australia and beyond they become very stubborn and say "competition will only devastate Australia's national carrier"... i.e. on the USA runs..

 

Your sources if they are management are indeed reliable! Thank you for sharing! I wouldn't write of KUL as a destination though...  They have no connection from SIN to here, so it makes absolutely no sense why they don't fly down here..  They can operate into Australia, because there is the flying public to support... QF doesn't have to be the only carrier to fly this route.. PER is an important aussie connection.. LHR ex-PER, if they are being stopped will be a sad loss.. That's another thing that bothers me about QF.. they ignore the western state as if though it ain't there! Australia is not only the eastern states you know...  Industry is pretty big out west..  anyway.. enough babbling.. not attacking you, mate.. but yes they are responsible to the shareholders, but play fair.. don't ask the politicians to protect you from foreign carriers because you suffer from higher operating costs and what-not..

 

Sorry if I offend, just expressing my opinions..

21865[/snapback]

 

 

Hey no I'm not offended at all - all part of a good debate matey.

 

Well I've read lots of comments by various pollies in the media that QF is a very Sydney-centric carrier and that's probably true. But then QF is an end of line carrier operating in a massive country - this is why they have to use SIN as a mini-hub, where they can transfer pax from BNE, ADL, DRW etc to flights that continue to Europe. Internally I dont think the Australian aviation industry is overregulated - new airlines pop up every now and then but whether they survive or not is another story. Australia is tiny compared with say, the USA. So domestic airlines die because it's already a saturated market, or in the case of AN - a combination of appalling management, especially from across the tasman, and the rise of Virgin Blue's discount model. AN and QF enjoyed a duopoly for a while, flight times when it suited the individual carriers and high fares - until DJ came along, and now we have cheap QF fares and the cityflyer service. Canberra's policy when it comes to the international aviation scene might be a little restrictive, but then the international aviation industry is not one that's free of government intervention anyway.

 

I'm quite conflicted about the Australia-USA runs. On one hand we're talking about increased competition which can only mean lower fares and better service for the travelling public. But on the other hand we're talking about an industry which is overregulated and corrupted by government intervention. For free trade to work it has to happen on a level playing field. When we talk about carriers like SQ and EK we're talking about carriers which receive substantial economic benefits from their respective governments (or in the case of EK - totally owned by the sheikh who's more than happy to provide EK with a neverending supply of pocket money). Yes QF also has allies in Canberra but it can't take Canberra's support for granted. Canberra is very divided over whether to grant SQ fifth freedom rights to the USA for the same reasons I stated above; but you never know - the number crunching never ends and once the numbers change SQ may well get what it wants. I once floated the idea of limited fifth freedom rights on the pacific route - whereby Canberra assess each carrier on its merit, ie ability to provide genuine competition without government distortions - it seems a perfect compromise. But then it would also mean the QF government lobbying machine would have too much of a say over what competitors it would tolerate in the market - given that both the major parties in Parliament are split evenly over the issue. But I think 1 thing should be made clear - the interests of Australia have nothing to do with the interests of Qantas Airways Ltd, or even the Virgin Group (Virgin Blue has stated its opposition to SQ, we all think its a preempt to its desire to launch flights to the US). But with a new Transport Minister who's actually pro-deregulation, things might just get interesting...

 

Hehe I guess I should stop my rant here. The aviation industry and politics can prove a potent combination for me in terms of rant-inducement.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Keith T

[Keith T 2]

For BA/QF to KUL, they have interline agreements with SQ or MH from SIN. All included in the packaged fare if you tell your travel provider that you wish to go all the way to KUL but on QF or BA. I'm sure no one would kick up a big fuss that the tiny 45 minute sector is operated by something other than QF or BA. Perhaps they might think about KUL again when there is reasonable demand from full fare pax (including full fare Club World and First, as opposed to discount business or F) for direct flights to KUL. BA really tried hard with KUL, including extending the route to CGK and then PER, but it just could not make money due to reasons stated above.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Keith T

[Sandeep G 1]

well stated, bro!

 

BA never flew KUL-PER after KLIA opened.. Last time they did fly, but they stopped due to unfavourable economic conditions... at the present prevailing conditions, more ppl in WA can afford to fly, and enjoy flying overseas.. BA sure can capture some of this market... whatever it is.. KUL needs the additional capacity to the UK.. why not kill two birds with one stone..

 

Anyway! Good debate, you'll do well as a politician!

[Keith T 2]

well stated, bro!

 

BA never flew KUL-PER after KLIA opened..  Last time they did fly, but they stopped due to unfavourable economic conditions... at the present prevailing conditions, more ppl in WA can afford to fly, and enjoy flying overseas.. BA sure can capture some of this market... whatever it is.. KUL needs the additional capacity to the UK.. why not kill two birds with one stone..

 

Anyway! Good debate, you'll do well as a politician!

21897[/snapback]

 

Just a bit OT, but I remember you saying that you're involved with the NLC. Were you at the NUS National Conference? I met quite a few members of your faction since you guys enjoy a good relationship with my faction, but I didn't recall many names. I think I met Jolene, Akshay, Julian, the rest I can't remember except there were lots of NLC members of Indian/Sri Lankan descent (so much so that I mistook some NOLS member for an NLC member ). If you were there I was one of the Student Unity members on Secretariat.

 

Was quite an interesting conference if you were there.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Keith T

[Sandeep G 1]

hehehe I was ISSuwa.. I liased with NLC Pankaj in 2004. I never joined NLC because of Jolene... she is a bit of a strange one! Was to go for NLC national, but came home instead

[kandiah k 0]

Nice to know the chances of BA coming into KUL still stands at a 50-50 chance.

 

 

[Keith T 2]

hehehe I was ISSuwa.. I liased with NLC Pankaj in 2004.  I never joined NLC because of Jolene... she is a bit of a strange one!  Was to go for NLC national, but came home instead

21969[/snapback]

 

You mean NUS National? Im not a member of NLC so I dont know what NLC National is. I might be the only person in Student Unity on an overseas students visa I think.