DYKWIA

But don't you hate BA these days?

vscxfan

...and SLC (which DL/VS code-share has already started)...

flatlander

I'll have to at least have a nibble at my previous words, if not eat them all; in the other thread about possible service to OAK I declared it to have no merit and said no-one paying BA's prices would want to fly there. At BA's SFO/SJC prices, yes. At these ex-LGW near-Norwegian prices, some people might well suffer OAK.

I know I would be tempted if I could finesse a way to get my company to pay BA CW LGW-OAK at the price of BA WT+ LHR-SFO - last time I tried to fly LHR-SFO direct, WT+ was near £2000.

Interesting move by BA here, trying to cover both ends of the market with the same company and facilities - this can lead to a very dominant position if done successfully.

Skyline

.......as has also happened at PDX (DL to LHR) an SEA (VS to LHR).

Calchas

LGW has a few connecting options these days.

In any event London to Bay Area has a lot of demand.

luxurytravelled

If BA went 10-abreast on the 777 surely it would have to be fleet wide and I can't see them lose Club at Gatwick as long as they have Barbados, St Lucia etc - that would just be a own goal to Virgin.

winchpete

Hmm - remember Laker?

winchpete

I must stop using my phone to post

NYTA

I'm from central California and we often refer to it that way. Sort of like people call it "The Algarve" in Portugal. They should, however, have said "Northern California" and not "North California"

Ldnn1

Huh? When they go 10-abreast it will be for Economy - they won't lose Premium Eco or Club (although numbers could change if they reconfig the layout).

The seat plan referred to above was from a long time ago when BA originally tried 10-abreast and when CW wasn't flat bed, but that's not what a new seat plan would look like now.

Sigwx

If folks flying DY are not fussed about a flat bed, expect the same from BA. I think that old seat map (late 90s was it) would stand as a good base of base of what to expect.

EK have a similar layout to that above on some of their 2 class 777-300s iirc. Albeit it is a J and Y product as I don't believe they have yet seen a need for a premium economy.

The vast majority of the money on these routes comes from Y class as that is what the majority are predominantly looking for we are told, price. So perhaps a couple of J rows, 5 WT+ Rows then all Y. That is IF BA are thinking of this. All wild speculation on my part, but if BA are gunning for a head to head I would imagine they will match product with product and volume against volume, only our food would be 'free' (yes yes I know) along with the standing baggage allowance to create more 'value for money'.

Again all wild personal speculation, but I imagine it will be a war of volumes on these routes to make them work.

Calchas

There's plenty of money on London to the Bay Area, even to the east bay. I can see that the the Y/W/J numbers might be re-balanced, but taking out all the flatbeds would be ridiculous.

Sigwx

Would LHR-SFO and LGW-OAK not attract their own independent markets for that section of Cali? One on convenience and product, the other on price for the sake of being close-ish? As already pointed out, LGW connections are not what they used to be back in the days of 'the hub without the hubbub'.

It really wouldn't surprise me to hear of a tripple reconfig for a few hulls.

Calchas

I don't think the markets will be independent. OAK is not actually that far from SF financial district, maybe a thirty/forty minute drive which compares favourably to SFO, particularly given that OAK is a lot smaller and for some travellers thus "nicer". There's admittedly no BART at OAK (there is a bus to a BART stop) but I don't think that would stop too many people. Plus there is quite a bit of gentrification happening in Oakland itself, along with a boom in tech startups, which will support some J travel. Also it's enormously more convenient for Livermore Labs, so I wish this had existed when I was a regular visitor, although since scientists are cheap that traffic is probably not important to BA.

I am sure the route will be biased towards leisure travellers and it will relieve some pressure on SFO. But I don't imagine it will be a dichotomy of SFO/expensive business and OAK/cheap leisure.

clearedforlanding

Why the negativity about OAK as an airport/destination? If your final destination is SF then it's ideal. It's like 40 mins max to the city. Same (if not better) than SFO using public transport.

There is now - you change at Coliseum and the station is outside T1 I think. It's great!

If the flights are cheap - I'll be on this.