Originally Posted by
layz
I was going to say that now Teesside has better connections to London than NCL but it seems that their LCY flights were rather short lived. But it's not good that NCL doesn't even have flights 7 days a week to LHR while KLM are flying to AMS 3 times a day.
If you're choosing an airline to connect to another flight then KLM looks more attractive than BA right now as they have the better frequency. Pre-covid BA had a better frequency and had the advantage of their own lounge, now they have neither.
For point to point their competition is LNER (or driving), will people who normally fly switch to the train? It's frequent, convenient, only issue is they've not restarted the full catering offering. The first class catering is currently on a par with what BA are giving to economy passengers.
I personally much prefer flying from MAN to London than the train. For domestic and transit purpose.
As long as the lounge has good Wifi my productivity is only impacted on the short flight (35min) whereas on the train its 2hrs + with Wifi so bad its not even worth it. The only pain is Heathrow not being on Crossrail - but it will get better.
BA is in a great position to double down and challenge AF/KLM and the trains from regional airports.
Higher frequency, better service, own lounge. it has plenty of small planes (A319/320) going spare - or even A220 in the future. It's a bit of a joke that KLM has better regional presence that BA.
Yet it's happy taking the lower (but easier) natural margin from this and other routes.
Maybe BA doesn't calculate the forward benefit of that route.
For instance is someone routes via LHR to say SFO from NCL/MAN etc, does the domestic route get credited or acknowledged for the follow on traffic.
Also - what happens if they buy separate tickets, does it still track?