BA says 'no way FA' [to flying the England team to the World Cup]
Dec 17, 2013, 10:31 am
#31
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YYZ
Posts: 2,636
Id be amazed if any SH aircraft crossed the Atlantic direct unless it had been specially fitted with the correct avionics and comms gear. The usual route for them to cross the Atlantic is the northerly "Blue Spruce" route via Iceland, Greenland and Labrador. There is also the ETOPS issue - a diversion within 60 minutes flying time at the single engine speed, which for most twins is C400 nm. Far wider than even the "narrow' Atlantic
Airlines in the US and Canada fly short-haul jets right across the country and to Hawaii which is a shorter distance than across the Atlantic between certain airports.
e.g.
YYT-DUB: 2049mi.
YVR-YYZ: 2085mi.
YVR-HNL: 2705mi.
Granted Transcons don't usually put up with ETOPS, but HNL does.
Dec 17, 2013, 10:43 am
#32
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
As I said they will have special avionics and comms gear as well as ETOPS ratings to do this TransAtlantic stuff direct. It is possible to find a way round most things but always at a cost. The BA 737s in the desert have neither the avionics nor the comms gear nor the ETOPS ratings. Furthermore they are knackered and have been robbed for spares, that's without looking at the internal fit. Altogether totally unsuitable.
Dec 17, 2013, 10:48 am
#33
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 858
Beardie mentions the two big aviation stories of the day.....
The day being the 110th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight!
(just as well they didn't need planning consent for the airfield at Kill Devil Hills or they'd still be on the ground!)
The day being the 110th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight!
(just as well they didn't need planning consent for the airfield at Kill Devil Hills or they'd still be on the ground!)
Dec 17, 2013, 10:54 am
#34
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,379
There can easily be more than enough people to fill a whole plane traveling with a team. It's way more than just the players and the manager. There may even be a second press plane following each team as well. Add to the fact that only the first 3 game schedules are even known during a period of maximum demand and chartering seems like the only option.
The unknown schedule was something I hadn't considered though. Regardless, if they did insist on being on a specially chartered plane, would it not make more sense to charter it in Brazil instead of expecting an airline thousands of miles away to give them a widebody to use a handful of times on a couple of domestic flights over the course of a month?
Dec 17, 2013, 12:09 pm
#35
Join Date: Jan 2008
Programs: AB Platinum (AB4EVA), IHG Diamond, Dominos Gold
Posts: 956
At least to ZA, they were flown in a dedicated A346:
http://www.travelio.net/spains-natio...-a340-600.html
Also setfutbol.com names "Iberia as the official carrier of the Royal Federation" (and mentions for example, their arrival to Paris on Iberia)
Last edited by raph; Dec 17, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Dec 17, 2013, 1:14 pm
#36
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,940
This is what Sir Richard has to say in response.
================================================== =========
There are two big stories in UK aviation today: The Airport Commission has come out in favour of additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick airports and BA have refused to fly the England team to the World Cup in Brazil. These stories might not immediately appear linked - here’s why they are.
I am glad the Airport Commission has recommended additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick - these options are the ones that make the most economic sense for the UK.
Heathrow is the UK's only hub airport which can compete with the major international airports.
But it has been full for many years and the lack of available slots is constricting the UK’s growth and preventing airlines such as Virgin Atlantic from competing on many routes. For instance, we have been trying to fly to South America for many years, but are blocked from getting the commercially viable slots at Heathrow to make this work. BA has a monopoly on many of these lucrative routes.
As a result, we are unable to offer an easy alternative to the FA, which has been turned down by BA in their request to fly the England football team to Brazil for the World Cup. We will talk to the FA on a commercial basis and see if we can help.
As for the extra runways, we have deliberated for far too long and not built a new runway for almost 70 years. Now is the time to speed up this important decision and not to get stuck in debate again. England last won the World Cup in 1966. Heathrow last got a new runway 66 year ago. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait so long again for either of them.
================================================== =========
There are two big stories in UK aviation today: The Airport Commission has come out in favour of additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick airports and BA have refused to fly the England team to the World Cup in Brazil. These stories might not immediately appear linked - here’s why they are.
I am glad the Airport Commission has recommended additional runways at Heathrow and Gatwick - these options are the ones that make the most economic sense for the UK.
Heathrow is the UK's only hub airport which can compete with the major international airports.
But it has been full for many years and the lack of available slots is constricting the UK’s growth and preventing airlines such as Virgin Atlantic from competing on many routes. For instance, we have been trying to fly to South America for many years, but are blocked from getting the commercially viable slots at Heathrow to make this work. BA has a monopoly on many of these lucrative routes.
As a result, we are unable to offer an easy alternative to the FA, which has been turned down by BA in their request to fly the England football team to Brazil for the World Cup. We will talk to the FA on a commercial basis and see if we can help.
As for the extra runways, we have deliberated for far too long and not built a new runway for almost 70 years. Now is the time to speed up this important decision and not to get stuck in debate again. England last won the World Cup in 1966. Heathrow last got a new runway 66 year ago. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait so long again for either of them.
Dec 17, 2013, 1:19 pm
#37
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 4,940
They will not need the plane for a month. 3 matches, tops.
Seem to remember that BA flew the rugby team back from Sydney in 2003, complete with a seat dedicated to the trophy. I'm sure if BA thought there was a remote possibility that the footballists would progress, they might entertain the idea. But they won't, so BA won't.
Seem to remember that BA flew the rugby team back from Sydney in 2003, complete with a seat dedicated to the trophy. I'm sure if BA thought there was a remote possibility that the footballists would progress, they might entertain the idea. But they won't, so BA won't.
Dec 17, 2013, 2:03 pm
#39
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: UK
Programs: BA GGL, BA Amex Prem, Amex Plat, Hilton Diamond, Sir Crazy8534 de l'ordres des aides de Pucci
Posts: 4,464
I guess so (Daily Mail Warning)
At least to ZA, they were flown in a dedicated A346:
http://www.travelio.net/spains-natio...-a340-600.html
Also setfutbol.com names "Iberia as the official carrier of the Royal Federation" (and mentions for example, their arrival to Paris on Iberia)
At least to ZA, they were flown in a dedicated A346:
http://www.travelio.net/spains-natio...-a340-600.html
Also setfutbol.com names "Iberia as the official carrier of the Royal Federation" (and mentions for example, their arrival to Paris on Iberia)
Dec 17, 2013, 2:33 pm
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Kudos to BA for not using customer money for junkets. They're a global airline, not a tool of the state. ^
Maybe Thomas Cook Airlines, which is definitely a British Airline, will do the stunt of subsidizing British football?
Maybe Thomas Cook Airlines, which is definitely a British Airline, will do the stunt of subsidizing British football?
Dec 17, 2013, 10:42 pm
#41
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: IAH
Programs: MP Silver, HH
Posts: 43
:t
Hating much?!
Indeed whatever you do, don't press on it. It might open a daily mail website.
Regarding BA snubbing FA, those overpaid people who run to get a ball and when they have the ball the kick it away, can take a boat!!! As long it does not cost BA money which needs to be recouped on regular flying people like us.
Regarding BA snubbing FA, those overpaid people who run to get a ball and when they have the ball the kick it away, can take a boat!!! As long it does not cost BA money which needs to be recouped on regular flying people like us.
Dec 17, 2013, 10:49 pm
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,197
It was something like £40 Million they paid to LOCOG. Plus whatever they spent on advertising.
All of that came from fare paying passengers.
Ditto any sponsorship deal that comes as cash or kind - it is the customer who eventually pays for it.
Dec 17, 2013, 11:34 pm
#43
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Seal Beach, CA, USA
Programs: UA GM
Posts: 472
Did you object to the BA sponsorship of the 2012 Olympics?
It was something like £40 Million they paid to LOCOG. Plus whatever they spent on advertising.
All of that came from fare paying passengers.
Ditto any sponsorship deal that comes as cash or kind - it is the customer who eventually pays for it.
It was something like £40 Million they paid to LOCOG. Plus whatever they spent on advertising.
All of that came from fare paying passengers.
Ditto any sponsorship deal that comes as cash or kind - it is the customer who eventually pays for it.
Dec 17, 2013, 11:48 pm
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atherton, CA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP; Owner, Green Bay Packers
Posts: 21,690
Dec 18, 2013, 1:12 am
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,197
Yet somehow buying a season ticket for a football club somehow gives fans the right to demand that 'we' get a new manager or a new striker etc etc
BTW I am not in that 'we' as am not a footy fan but am amused that lots of people somehow think that they have a say in how a cub is run.