I haven't looked at the transitional figures myself, the ones I saw were reported by someone else in another thread (and somehow they mentioned much worse figures: about -9% I think).

Since all of those threads are discussing whether service changes impact yields, the group figures tell you absolutely nothing: indeed, if the evolution of the low cost market pricing with VY, HV, and 4U negates the evolution for BA, AF, or LH, that might tell you that it is a good strategy not to have all your eggs in the same basket, but not whether the service changes by BA, AF, or LH have any impact on yield. For those, you need the airline-specific figures and those, to my knowledge, are only provided in March for the year before.

On that front, I can only repeat what I said before (linking to the relevant stats in other threads): in 2015, BA plc RASK was down 4.7% in 2015 and their RRPK (which some specialised analysts prefer to use) by 5.2%. That was BA as an airline. During the same year, the RASK and RRPK for both AF and LH was up about 5% and not down.

Maybe in March, we'll find out that BA have turned the tide but I frankly doubt it. Maybe we'll find that the yield recovery for AF and/or LH has been halted (that in a way is more of a possibility), but if someone is able to guess that from group figures in October, they are far more clever than me.

Incidentally, even if, for whatever reason (that would have nothing to do with service impact), one wanted to compare the performances of the IAG, AFKL, and LH groups, and even if one takes littletiger's comment that -5.9% was 'much better than expected' (I haven't got BA shares so I'm happy to take his/her word for it, although I'll admit I'm not that certain I'd be happy with -5.9% as an investor myself), I would argue that calling -5.9% 'much better' than -6.5% and -6.7% is a rather 'enthusiastic' take on statistics. By contrast, I would expect that for most people, the difference between -5% and +5% is intuitively rather clear.