At LHR I can just about buy it because in a slot constrained airport it allows you to drive incremental traffic to long haul, which is your cash cow. So SH is the loss leader (or in a good year, 'washes its face' product) that you tolerate in order to get the network effects and feed LH. I mean I would argue that on the margin the issue is still the same; most of the time you are filling those incremental seats with the lowest price pax, who are not adding anything to the bottom line. Unlike the LCCs BA are obviously far inferior at milking ancillary revenues. As an example, the half-hearted approach to BoB speaks volumes. But at peak times it does give you more flexibility to squeeze some last minute higher fares / roll CE. And BA are lucky because all the legacy carriers in Europe are playing the same game. Although at the risk of straying completely off topic it's a dangerous one. As LH Group has found to its cost, whereas once a premium pax in, say, ARN would have flown ARN-FRA-BOM, they can now choose the ME carriers and avoid Euro Business Class. BA is only saved by transatlantic (and lack of killer competition), the wealth / size of London, etc.

But it's a completely different situation at CF where you have minimal connecting traffic. You are selling a discrete, simple city pair product. Here I'm not sure what densification brings accept the ability to further compete on price at the risk of diluting the proposition which made the service unique for more frequent travellers. And I would argue that premium leisure pax are arguably more demanding. They want that lounge on that annual trip to Mykonos, etc. Again, I'm sure BA are aware of all this. And they will test and learn, and tweak as necessary. I just think it's the wrong strategy