the Times has an article today on bmi seeking approval for codeshare agreement with UA. Author seems to think a move for bmi operated LHR-JFK is on the cards on the back of this... probably just speculation, but its not the first time it has been suggested... clickety click

is there any more news (either confirmed or rumoured) on the US destinations bmi will be rolling out?

When I saw how the headline started, my heart skipped a beat. Not the VS/BD story again? Then I saw that it read 'Virgin and bmi to join forces with US airlines'.

If BD LHR-JFK does materialise, frequency will be important, in view of the strength of the competition.

From the article:
'Bmi has plans to purchase four new jets to service the Heathrow-JFK route ...'
Is a daytime BD JFK-LHR a possibility? I hope so.

Of course BD and UA already codeshare across the atlantic on BD's service from MAN to ORD and many UA services out of ORD. BD will need a UA code on their LHR flights I feel in order to pick up any decent amount of US-originating traffic. However I don't see how this leads one to the conclusion that LHR-JFK is on the cards ...

The Times article says: "Bmi has plans to purchase four new jets to service the Heathrow-JFK route, but it is unlikely that they will be available before open skies begins in March."

It's a particularly bad piece of writing:

The airlines are positioning themselves to take advantage of “open skies”, which will liberalise transatlantic travel from next March. The change in rules will allow any airline to operate from Heathrow, the main transatlantic hub, to the US.

Bmi is not allowed to fly this route at present but plans to launch a US service. It is seeking a code-share so it can put bmi passengers on to United flights leaving London for New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Ange-les and San Francisco.

This will allow the airline to use its existing Heathrow slots for US flights without buying numerous new aircraft. Bmi has plans to purchase four new jets to service the Heathrow-JFK route, but it is unlikely that they will be available before open skies begins in March.

"Bmi is not allowed to fly this route at present but plans to launch a US service." What does "this route" mean? I suppose the writer means routes(plural) from Heathrow. There is, however, no United flight to New York for bmi to put passengers on.

And how does bmi code-sharing with existing operators' flights mean that they are "using (their) existing slots for US flights"? If they are simply code-sharing UA flights, then they won't need to use any of their slots. Surely, it is UA that will code-share with bmi (or so bmi hopes) on the routes that it (bmi) hopes to operate?

Then the writer tells us that bmi plans to purchase four new planes to service the LHR-JFK route. I presume he means us to understand that the planes will not have arrived by the time the open skies agreement starts. It really doesn't matter whether or not bmi has them before it begins, as they wouldn't be able to use them for transatlantic services anyway.

Sorry to sound pedantic, but it is just this sort of hotch-potch which ends up telling us nothing, other than that the writer doesn't really know what he is talking about.

But I don't see any evidence / source. This statement means nothing as nobody knows where it came from. Most likey from the journalist listening to wide of the mark rumours rather than any kind of fact.

Quite.

In the (very limited) discussions I have had, it has been made clear that JFK is absolutely not on the agenda. Of course, this is bmi and rational thought doesn't necessarily dictate the choice of new routes...

Is there a significant difference in a 'code-share' flight and a *A flight? I thought the point of the alliance was that it did not matter which airline's "metal" you were sat in. I know in the past I have made trips that use several carriers on one ticket but with different flight number prefix, what difference would it have made if they had all had the same prefix? Does this make sense or am I being dim?

Basically a codeshare allows one carrier to sell seats on the services of another carrier. In the case of BD and UA, you can currently book ORD-MAN-ORD on united.com and you can book MAN-ORD-LAX (UA flight BD number) on flybmi.com. You cannot book MAN-ORD-PHX on flybmi.com using US Airways service from ORD. Most airlines will only sell their own services through their website/call centre. Having a codeshare counts their partner's flights like their own. Whilst I could fly MAN-BD-ORD-US-PHX I would have to book it through a travel agent and even here there would be less exposure than the connections on UA using a BD fligth number.

In the case of BD and UA a codeshare is very important as BD have little market recognition in the US. With the codeshare pax going to United.com will see the BD flights branded as UA flights. They will not see flights operated by other *A carriers (apart from LH whom UA also codeshare with over the pond).

I thought that the pair were interested in blanket anti-trust immunity on their transatlantic routes, for rather more significant cooperation than a codeshare...

You have to walk before you can run ...

So which routes are to be dropped to free up slots ?

Thanks Jetstreamer, that all makes sense now. I have always thought it was odd that BMI did not sell other *A flights on their website, I know Austrian do so it is at least possible. Come on BMI, I want triple CC miles on all my bookings!

In simple terms, none, not for the first transatlantic routings, anyway.

I think the codeshare is important to UA/BD as UA will likely, for want of a better term, 'hand over' one daily rotation ex LHR, to IAD and ORD. Reason being, they have no new aircraft coming, and would like to release the aircraft for more lucrative transpacific routings.

I agree with ajamieson re. BD starting the JFK route. I think it would be financial suicide. Any *A carrier on that route is going need multiple daily rotations to get their foot in the door of the big three, BA,AA and VS.

I know this is the BD forum, but I did draw an interesting nugget from this. AF/KL applied to increase their partnerships and transfer slots at LHR to NW & DL. This left CO the odd man out in the ST world. VS increasing their partnership with CO may be a good thing depending on how crediting the VS flight numbers to BD (op by CO) works out. Usually codeshare flights don't qualify, but you never know what will happen next in this business...