binman

BA is protected at LHR and its dominance is real...no matter what spin anyone puts on this. The same may also be true at other EU main hubs but that is not the point. Where any airline is dominant the passenger is likely to get a poor deal and ex LHR the deal from BA is frankly bloody awful.

in any event, the dominance of LH at FRA, KL at AMS and AF at CDG is not quite the same as there is cheap, highly efficient and very comfortable high speed rail allows for people to move easily around the continent and between hubs, in ways we can only dream of in 19th century Britain!

Its not just about destinations served. You cannot underplay the effect of joint ventures and commercial links with non IAG carriers. More importantly you must take into account the dominance of the frequent flyer scheme and the ability to earn miles other than flying. No one comes close to BA in this regard and the barriers to entry are enormous.

To Paris their are two airlines from LHR and the same is true for most other routes. There are a handful of prime revenue routes with more than one carrier; New York for example, but in the main its BA and one other carrier. If you wish to collect miles or gain status then you don't have a choice but to use BA. TATL at least pretends to give you a choice between BA AA etc but AA/BA are one entity due to the revenue sharing. VS are a lost cause and gave up any pretence at competing many many years ago.

Businesses with high volumes are probably well served by BA where they can drive volume discounts. Premium leisure are not, unless they choose to originate ex EU. Domestically the situation is appalling with BA holding a monopoly on trunk routes, which are always the first to be canned in disruption.

The upshot of the dominance at LHR is also clear in the absence of investment in product. (aside from the building of a new corridor) you still have 8 a breast club world, BOB, Reduced leg room, fifty aircraft, appalling catering and a First product that is not worthy of the name. And of course don't forget and no BA to BA interlining, Avios rip off fees and charging fees where the operating carrier does not...................none of this would happen in a truly competitive environment. BA's antipathy towards a third runway was always very telling and demonstrated that it had nothing to gain from its building.

The CEO promise of "jam tomorrow" has been the mantra from BA for 10 years.
For me its now anyone but BA, albeit with one eye on Avios and Tier points. My experience of QR, AA, CX, QF JL in recent years have all highlighted the chasm in service and product between BA and the rest. A chasm which would simply not exist if BA were not protected at fortress Heathrow.

HIDDY

I've often thought the 'BA LHR monopoly' comment was exaggerated by those who come on here with a hidden agenda.
This has been discussed before and found to be far from unusual at major hubs around Europe and the world. IIRC someone compiled figures showing which showed AF at CDG and LH at FRA had a larger presence at their home hubs than BA has at LHR.

Oaxaca

In slot terms, BA has over 50% LHR slots, improved further by adding the EI/IB slots. That is probably still lower than AF/KL at CDG and LH group at FRA, but the gap is not huge, and LHR is a more slot-constrained airport.

When you add in the JV with AA et al on TATL, that dominance only increases further. I would consider all of AA's slots as de facto BA slots from a competition viewpoint. London has over 25% of all North Atlantic seats, and BA/AA are dominant from London. BA is openly stating that it wishes to exploit this dominance, so it's hardly in dispute.

BA has decided to exploit the westward dominance, and has abandoned eastward expansion beyond what it already has (perhaps some tinkering here and there), clearly demonstrated through the JV with QR and the increased codeshares with China Eastern.

BA is what it is, and should do what it feels is right as a business, though hegemony does have an impact on how customers are treated. For me the attitude to LHR runway expansion is telling. What business would reject capacity expansion in its biggest sphere of operations? One that fears its ability to compete in a more open market.

Sparth3103

You forgot to add jet airways and it's direct flights to Del, ahmdebad (air India have these too) and possible Bombay (not sure if that was cancelled or not)

710 77345

No, the revenue sharing doesn't rely on booking prefixes or codeshares at all - the revenue is just divided based on the number of seats contributed.

Does it matter? Well, not normally but you can't decide whether a route is a BA monopoly or has competition without seeing which airlines are also flying the route. It would be very easy for BA to alter its frequencies to show more or less dominance without affecting their ability to set prices or take revenue. BA has a solid grip on RDU without flying there!

orbitmic

Id say it does because the whole point of competition economically is not to give people a choice between ice cream sundae or warm pudding for dessert but to have different competitors who can, primarily, compete on price. To me, a 'choice' of BA or AA on LHR-PHL or LHR-DFW is not genuine competition.

i think Oaxaca's summary is excellent: AF at CDG or LH at FRA have proportions of slots that are a little (not massively) higher than BA at LHR, but adding IB, AA, EI, etc vs DL and KL or LX, OS, UA etc reduces the difference a little. London and Paris are also simply much larger cities and much larger markets than FRA so rely a bit less on transfer markets. That said 'organised competition' matters a lot. For BA at LHR this is mostly only VS-DL while others are all small players. By contrast, AF has to deal with (not least) EasyJet.

chazman189

BA's stranglehold on LHR is very clear with ex EU pricing - they have to compete more to persuade people to connect, so it's much cheaper.

truncated

A tiny correction, if I may — Jakarta should be CGK; CKG is Chongqing.

Also some additional info re competitor frequencies: SQ should be 28x weekly LHR-SIN now (still somewhat surprised they can fill 2x 388 and 2x 77W flights daily); UA is usually 35x weekly LHR-EWR but 42x weekly this summer (they were supposed to use a slot to start a second daily LHR-LAX but shifted it to EWR).

Prospero

Thanks. Not forgotten, I just haven't collected the data yet.

Thanks, silly me - i will correct the typo. I used the *A schedules but will run additional checks using other sources.

Kgmm77

Presumably senior executives of foreign airlines posting incognito in order to build a case to gain extra slots....?

Utterly ridiculous.

elitetraveler

BA's dominance at LHR is not just simply its network but the fact that LHR (because of London) is one of the largest O&D markets in the world and one of the highest %s of premium traffic.

While LH may have a higher share at FRA, there is far less O&D traffic, same with KL at AMS.

Put BA's dominant position at LHR and add in the London O&D market and the % of premium traffic and you have a very profitable formula to some degree regardless of the actual product you provide as long as you operate the flights, fill the seats and don't drag people off your planes by their feet.

MeltingAlf

BA's situation on the SIN-LHR route shows how BA conducts itself as a primary EU-NA carrier and how much LHR is a major O&D business in its own right (hence being able to attract that many frequencies from other carriers), and how much bigger the O&D business is compared to places like SIN. SQ's ability to dominate the SIN-LHR route is likely through transfers from regional destinations and farther afield like Australia that makes it sustainable; and unlike BA who can tap into smaller secondary cities to grow and maintain high yields despite the dismal level of service (and level of frequency of flights) offered throughout its classes.

In fact you could see the BA-SQ parallel in SQ and EK on SIN-DXB. DXB being a much smaller O&D destination in its own right attracts far less SQ service (once daily), compared to the four or five daily offered by EK. I do find it quite intriguing, to say the least.

scubaccr

I think you missed one important scenario that favours LHR over other European Airports, giving not just BA but other USA airlines with USA direct flights to USA a massive advantage ?? advantage is the number of direct USA destinations from LHR compared to European airports that I am aware of.
(In effect choice of 90mins no-risk xfer at LHR versus 5hour at risk USA transfer by transfer at LHR versus a USA airlines USA Hub)

Being based in AMS for 9years I was very much aware of minimal AMS-USA direct flights ex Schiphol , having
a)just 1 direct flight to some USA airport per day (if lucky)
b)relying on USA airlines (KLM codeshares on some) flying to limited USA Airlines USA Hubs airports ....

SO indirect flights via a USA airlines USA hub, with the horrendous time-numbing immigration queues, subsequent baggage collection, domestic checkin minimum times etc scenario of immigration/luggage collection at USA Hub....all too often leading to missed domestic connection OR an unecessarily long connection of 5hours required

As such if I am flying to USA from Europe, I typically will rather fly Europe into UK LHR, and transfer taking adantage of a far greater range of direct USA destination non-stop LHR departing flights to my ultimate USA destination.

In such cases BA also gained AMS-LHR rtn connection ticket sales/income plus the LHR-USA (direct) sale.

lavajava

Great information, Prospero!

Isn't LHR-HYD operated by a 788?

Prospero

I had hoped to have completed the data collection by now but unfortunately stuff just got in the way over the past week. I’ll try to update the opening post later this weekend