I've not flown BA F for a while now but whenever I check prices from OSL (where I now sadly live, not due to TP running), BA F is always 1/2 to 3/4 of LH/LC. If connecting to AA F (thought was being discontinued?), always 1/2.

What I am surprised about is why BA keeps F. Yes, I get the direct premium / LHR home to one of the richest populations but even at this stage I cannot see the "ultra rich" flying BA F. For me, it gives the clear allusion of a premium travel "plus" product. Which leads me to, if BA keeps F, why are they taking care of it so poorly. They clearly value aircraft utilisation over F maintenance (as it should the most pristine cabin) and accept a quick depreciation of the hardware, and recognise that the cost of maintenance + lower aircraft utilisation cannot be clawed back by investing in F. What I phatom isn't how BA cannot run a 6-seat premium F cabin (akin CX etc...) which can be consistently monetized at a significant premium. By looks of it, AF manage, but I would also think BA has access to more direct premium routes than AF. That said, I am not sure if BA really has left anyone who understands premium travel - they understand premium travel in terms of what the market will bear really well for premium - but not, premium, opulent, travel. So quite frankly, I think it comes down to a culture issue.

OT: but FT (the real one) has run an interesting article on wealth and premium travel with focus on F this weekend. I think it might be free if you don't have a subsciption https://www.ft.com/content/fcda8eec-...7-9c79b519aef3.