hydro............yes of course, that is a/the major issue. But where does it stop? What you are saying is essentially what every BA CEO/Chair has said since Rod Eddington. And much has been papered over and obscured through the "growth" or IAG, Transatlantic joint ventures, partnerships, alliances and other rev share deals. HOWEVER there becomes a point where it becomes too much, and there is nothing left. BA has gotten quite adept at getting huge subsidy from terciary US cities/airports, and corporate deals with companies around them, and even dropping them as soon as things go bad. This is all good for the short term bottom line, but do not confuse this for real long term stability or yield. But would you say that in the long term that it is more valuable for BA to serve PDX than SEL or SIN? PDX has a grand total of 2 large corporate clients, and they are happy to play BA off against LH every time their deals are up. You think that Nashville has such good real yields, or is the subsidy per each and every passenger that they fly in that makes the difference? Looking back over the last 20 or so year do you think it was better to have dropped in and out of a half dozen US cities than to have expanded to a half dozen Chinese cities? (before Covid obviously).

It is far more than just these issues highlighted here and just whether they refreshed their J cabin enough. It has to do with having less than 20 employees total based at LHR their main hub who are able to make weight calculations without a computer.Because they eliminated most mid and senior level managers. It has to do with saving 4 million quid a year on IT, and having that blow up on them with a 150 million quid plus cost. It has to do with cheaping out on their short haul product, and having a race to the bottom with LCC carriers and so many things.