Originally Posted by
makin'miles
It’s also possible that TLV is indeed higher yield than other longhaul routes and yet BA - facing a longhaul aircraft shortage - have decided that they don’t want to shrink their network elsewhere when TLV can be served by shorthaul - even if they leave some profit on the table. Most longhaul routes cannot be similarly served.
The last two years have also been extremely unpredictable and despite the Americans Bibisitting, regional conflict may not all be in the rearview mirror. I assume BA takes on significantly less financial risk assigning a A321 to the route. We’ll see what happens to the route as time goes on and the fleet stabilizes.
But the terrible outbound flight time should be addressed.
Fully agree with most of this. However, I suspect the terrible flight time is also part of BA's risk minimisation strategy. Given the unpredictable nature of this route, BA certainly doesn't want to waste a long-haul airframe serving a route that could be suspended at any time. I think this also applies even to an A321. These are mostly utilised during European day/evenings. Rarely used overnight. So by scheduling this as an overnight A321 service, there is minimal risk (since BA is only missing out on a few hours of potential airframe usage in the mornings).
Maybe if the situation remains stable for 9-12 months and the commercials justify it, BA might reconsider, but I doubt there is a huge incentive for BA to dedicate any airframe to this route right now.