hugolover

I agree with both of you.

There is a heavy LON bias on FT because that's where the money is and BA know that. I'd say BA's focus is LON and only LON a big FU to anyone in Scotland and the North of England. It puts them in a weak position when the inevitable happens. BA have essentially given up on shorthaul and especially connecting short-haul. CE is a joke and only for what's left of connecting traffic and companies with more cash than sense to pay for CE on sectors like LCY-RTM. BA are not even trying to compete with FR/EZY they accept the business is dead. The marketing messages may differ but the reality is there. BA is not far off totally giving up on UK connecting traffic going East.

I think its also quite foolish to think that SH will ever be profitable in itself, if you chip away at the product you just make it even more difficult to make a profit with a crap product. They have to bite the bullet for what it provides overall to the bottom line.

BTW 50 sectors for Silver is a reasonable reward in terms of curry's for the poor souls who put up with constant delayed flights. But while FB & M&M is total tosh at least its only 30 sectors and you can avoid LHR. No more than a third of my BA flights are ever on time!

Calchas

Which is what precisely?

Really? Have you noticed how many shorthaul flights there are? I live in LBA and still get a regular feed. You can't really expect much more than that.

30% of BA's traffic is connecting, much of it to shorthaul. They cannot "give up" on it without jeopardising the profitability of the entire longhaul operation.

You've lost me.

techie

AA arguably has a better hard product on their 77Ws.

hugolover

When the next banking or financial crisis comes along. Which is guaranteed! You can bet on it as much as you will die one day. We are on number 80 something.

It's not a matter of hhow many short-haul. I am referring that BA have given up on SH connecting to SH i.e. UK domestic to Europe. They have clearly given up attracting business on that as they consider it costs them more that point to point SH traffic to/from LON.

That's exactly the point. They need SH, they have to accept it may never be profitable in itself as it feeds LH.

As far as giving up to the East. BA don't compete for fares competitively with the likes of the ME3 + TK who all offer better products and services and importantly FARES for pax going to the East. Again, as far as connecting traffic goes from Domestic they are clearly not fussed about that traffic focussing again on LON.

It all comes down to London, London & London.

How long do you think LBA will last for before they find better use for that slot? It will go the way of RTM.

orbitmic

+1. The London traffic is partly captive because BA vastly dominates in terms of network and frequencies, but connections is the part of the market where there is genuine competition. If BA loses it, profitability will be extremely fragile.

strichener

Which is why it is a fallacy that we need additional capacity in London.

TPJ

A friendly reminder that regardless if you choose BA or AA this is a JV and some part of your air fare will go to the other carrier, too

Calchas

Yes, but that affects everyone not just London. Air traffic is extremely cyclical.

I would agree with this. Shorthaul to shorthaul is a difficult proposition for customers to accept. Living in LBA the shorthaul-shorthaul scheduling is a real mess. I only endure it because I have lounge access and there isn't really an alternative to most places I go, except taking the train to LON or MAN which starts to look comparative time-wise. But not many folks want to be taking connections even at cheap prices. It doesn't really make much sense for BA to focus on selling SH->SH as a principle part of their operation.

Yes that's true and is well understood by BA. There are attempts to "tune it" to be more profitable in places but it is not the function of SH.

On the other hand a diversion through the Middle East often adds considerable time and inconvenience to the journey. For example I go to KIX/ITM about once a year and have tried going through DXB/DWC, but it adds about eight hours to the total travel time (excluding the extra time it takes me to get to MAN). This year BA happened to sell me WT+ via LON and TYO for the same price as EK Y. It was a no brainer.

What I wonder is, if that's true, why they haven't already. What are they waiting for?

Someone told me it was something about insufficient aircraft.

We will see how it evolves.

mkjr

yes...that's right redemption levels are back to what they were before....

retroboyjinny

Sorry if this has already been covered but can someone explain how this would work:

Avios required for upgrade now based on the formula: Avios redemption price for the cabin you want to upgrade to, minus the Avios redemption price for the cabin you have paid for with cash. This means that certain off peak WTP to CW upgrades are more expensive than peak WTP to CW upgrades.

So currently if I book LHR to LAX lowest WTP upgrade to CW Im quoted £1400 + 25000 miles. How will this example journey be effected. I understand that I should add on up to 50% more miles for a peak ticket and less for an off peak.

If anyone can provide more info on how many miles could get used it would be really helpful.

kitbag1984

Whilst I don't take any joy in this. I remember well the scoffing when airmiles was scrapped and comments along the lines of "well BA doesn't want your custom so stop complaining". And "the world has changed so get over it".

Along with this was the snobiness demonstrated against tesco flyers and how they didn't deserve any loyalty. Well it now seems like BA don't actually care for a lot of their customers.

To now hear the outrage and calls for petitions from these same people is slightly ironic.

vibguy

It would be good if you could elaborate this statement. When before was it exactly what it will be from April 1st on? Personally I think that BAEC perks are becoming less and less interesting and that this evolution to always new lows goes at a very fast paste. The only exceptions might have been the introduction of life time gold and the possibility to call the EC 24/7. I do not remember any other real enhancement in the last 15 years. I might forget other improvements though.

MeltingAlf

LHR-LAX is 5456mi, which falls in Zone 6 IIRC.

So you pay the original WTP price (which I presume is £1400) and 30k Avios off peak, and 25k Avios during peak periods.

This is because CW off peak is 62.5k Avios, and peak is 75k Avios, vs WTP offpeak at 32.5k Avios, and peak at 50k Avios.

MPH1980 has a nice table that tells you the changes to UuA WTP-CW, which I've linked below, too.

MPC1980's UuA Changes Table

trvllvr123

I'm trying to work out what to do with my 320,000ish balance. Based in the north east RFS have obviously lost their value, but there is now the bonus of 4 seats per flight. I think I'm going to generate my last 241, downgrade the card and the go for a few summer breaks to Europe, combining with visiting the south. I think the long hauls are done after this summer, at least for a few years, and who knows what will be going on then.

Now I just need to work out what to do with my 25,000 amex MR points, I don't think I need any more avios!

Tobias-UK

Where is this formula published? Is this announcement hidden away somewhere? This is a major change, if it is indeed changing, which should be prominently announced.