APUBleed

I flew BA1 a few weeks ago and it was a remarkable experience. The service was excellent, the seat was comfortable (bed a little too short for sleeping), the food was great (better than my experience with BA First from JFK), the premium/exclusive nature of the service was very novel and was very quick to board/deboard. However, the flight had only single digit pax numbers. It would be sad to see this service cut. To maintain a flagship product that is financially viable and tap into its heritage, what if BA were to relaunch this service with a direct flight from LHR-JFK with the following changes:

* Rebrand as "Club Concorde" to tap into heritage and differentiate experience from other BA services
* Go back to First tier points and introduce Concorde Room access
* For marketing purposes, repaint A318 in retro BA livery
* Increase pricing slightly to cover expenses of First tier points and Concorde Room
* If load factors good, increase frequency over time

Perhaps a pipe dream.

Oaxaca

Couldn't see BA burning a slot pair at LHR on a 32J aircraft, regardless of load factor. It's a great service, but is there to serve the Canary Wharf market. Seems the corporate demand has dropped, and GE has made the preclearance less relevant for many frequent travellers.

orbitmic

Frankly,I don’t se the point of the suggestion. People fly cwlcy first and foremost because it is to/from LCY meaning notably you are fine arriving at the airport 20 minutes before departure date. Service elements are important but secondary, TPS are effectively irrelevant. Pre clearance is crucial to make up for long travel time. But from lhr?? Who on earth would pay more to take a 9.45 fligh which will arrive later than the cheaper 11.20 especially with conformance, long taxi times, airport congestion etc.

i think the only routing change that will make sense for cwlcy will be nyc switch to LGa if this becomes an option given parameter regulations or nonstop outbound with aircraft progress.

KARFA

orbitmic

Nicoolio

LGA is possible from a logistics standpoint. It is 15-20 minutes from the UES/UWS Manhattan (20-25 minutes closer than JFK) and shorter to N New Jersey, Westchester and Fairfield suburbs than JFK - It would also quite a few good regional connections on AA as well as the shuttle to DCA. I believe they actually considered LGA when launching but didn't want to open a new station. They would have also had to use AA slots, and I think at the time AA didn't have slots or gate space.

NWIFlyer

Well, technically it’s the quickest taxi journey into Manhattan, with a marginal gain over EWR, but that’s about the extent of it - there’s no sense in setting up afresh there when operations already exist at JFK and EWR.

Aside from anything else, it’s somewhat unlikely BA would persuade the Port Authority to lift the 1,500 mile perimeter rule, making direct return flights impossible.

Definitely a non-starter.

orbitmic

I actually think that's "the" issue, but US-Regulations-Unlikely is always a very relative combination. Many people were saying the same about the perimeter rule at DCA which is even more restrictive (1250 miles), and there are now a lot of exceptions that have been agreed, and who knows if this will ultimately be granted on a transatlantic route one day. With regards to LGA, it is an extremely busy airport for a reason and I wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later, some lobbyist manages to convince regulators that a nonstop LGA-LAX is a crucial route to allow and exception by exception, this opens the way for a transatlantic route too. After all, there have been plenty of similar lifts/changes worldwide not least HND.

Slots would be an issue too, but not insurmountable, and cost of operating from a new airport? Honestly minimal in an age of sub-contracting.

I'm certainly not saying that this will happen next year, but I disagree with 'non-starter', in my view there is a distinct possibility it might happen within a decade -- and is in my view far less unlikely than the 'club concorde' in 318 from LHR IMHO

Calum

BA aren't concerned about the load of BA1... they know they could fix it quickly if they put the TP's back up. Hell, I'll use it again if it goes back to 210.

simons1

I would say a more likely outcome is the whole LCY-JFK operation will be wrapped up and the aircraft fitted in normal configuration to operate from Gatwick.

Ldnn1

xenole

Well, I haven't used it since the TP dropped, but that's more of a case of the lack of cheap TP runs from DUB-LCY-JFK-LAX-HNL etc. than those. That coupled with having GE, means the Shannon stop isn't an attractive option now.
Not living in London or working in Canary Wharf, it's more of a gimmick for me seeing how I can get to LCY or LHR easily from Kings Cross, and more options out of LHR and less weather issues.

Not to say I wouldn't use it again, for old times sake, especially if it were given a definite cancellation date.

NWIFlyer

Your crystal ball is more advanced than mine .

More exceptions are possible, of course they are - slow creep is always the way (I think LGA’s sole exception currently is Denver), and DCA has certainly seen it with the perimeter distance increased several times.

However, in over 30 years it hasn’t changed, so it seems highly unlikely to me that the model that’s designed to protect the larger international airports such as IAD & JFK is going to change so markedly that TATL flights become a possibility in the next decade.

I’d also think any extension would favour a US airline ahead of a foreign one.

The Babybus service is likely to cease long before TATL rights become a reality - I doubt we’ll see it in my flying lifetime.

makin'miles

If its not gone by the time Crossrail comes online, won't that kill it?

There was a good discussion on the route when the second service was dropped, including alternative destinations from either LHR or LCY. If BA could regularly sell 80% of the seats as paid long-haul business fares on short-ish routes, I could see them deploying it from LHR. The calculation would come down to whether it would be more profitable than the service it would replace.

corporate-wage-slave

Welcome to Flyertalk and welcome to the BA Board APUBleed, it's great to see you here and what a good topic for your initial posting on this board. I do hope we will see further contributions from you. I have also had many good experiences on it. In fact I cannot remember a bad one apart from some minor delays.

I think your suggestions are very good (I highlight the fact it's not your suggestion to go via LGA) for two particular reasons, namely for a relatively low cost it would allow BA to highlight the service's existence: even I sometimes forget about its existence - the distinctiveness of the service will be a highlight rather than something forgotten. The other reason is that when it's a 50/50 call the extra service, Avios and TPs may swing a bit of trade its way, and it only needs a handful to be so persuaded. I think the heritage painting stuff won't do that much, but if BA1 users get the First amenity bag, First level food and drink then that will encourage the affluent couples. They could also tidy up the SNN ground operation a bit, e.g. by having agents feed passengers through Immigration on both sides and looking after them at the gate a bit more.