sfozrhfco

Unless of course the new subsidiary hands out bells and whistles in place of food and beverages

This sounds like a delay tactic more than anything else. They obviously can not make LGW work now and there are other carriers that could benefit the airport more--by actually flying passengers into and out of the airport. LGW already lost 245 million pounds in the first half of the year and is dire shape financially. BA delaying and then not using the slots just puts the airport into an even more dire financial situation. If LGW had their way, it would be in their interest to see a hasty exit of BA and reallocate the slots to other airlines that would actually use them.

vectismanpaul

sfozrhfco. I am not sure I agree with your reasoning. I believe the management at Gatwick are keen for BA to stay both in the long haul and short haul markets. BA bring some diversity to the airport.
I do not believe it is a delaying tactic.

If BA really saw no viable future in a short haul operation at Gatwick I believe they would simply leave. I realised they had probably decided to stay when Sean Doyle said at the last results
Q&A ,that they were in talks with Gatwick stakeholders and were keen to stay competitive. In other words they were not going to leave the Gatwick market to easyJet et al.

World Traveller Fuss

I may be misquoting, but wasn’t the LGW station manager saying (pre-Covid) it was very profitable? Leased Airbus, as dense as you can go, premium fares with brand/CE, cheaper crew (:/) etc.

With leisure routes recovering sooner, is the competitive thing to double down with this fleet and model?

Anything that isn’t differentiated from the plethora of no frills airlines at Gatwick feels like a recipe for disaster. Would be sad to see BA service withdrawn from favourite holiday spots too.

GodAtum

That's a shame, so BA will no longer offer any short hauls to Europe?

vectismanpaul

I am thinking aloud here, but could it be argued that, in difficult times, having so many Heathrow slots can be a curse as well as a blessing. BA are having to operate flights at lower fares from LHR which is an expensive airport to operate from.
Selling flights at Gatwick fare levels then moving them to Heathrow (like has taken place over the summer and now for the winter) surely cannot always be cash positive.
Obviously they are keen to protect LHR slots, but if these were not so valuable maybe BA could have continued to operate from LGW offering competitive fares and also benefit from the use of the lower cost airport. Their own staffing costs are also lower at LGW already.
My reasoning may be completely wrong of course. I also apologise for going off topic a little.

GodAtum. Hopefully they will be offering short hauls to Europe. The intention is for short haul to continue, albeit in a different form perhaps.

Biscuittin

How much more LCC can BA go on short haul from the passenger perspective?

This must be about sticking it to BA's staff again.

paulaf

Remember GB Airways?

1Aturnleft

They can put whatever brand they like on the outside Rhys and your average Joe will just take it at face value. It does make sense to keep that as BA wherever possible. It works, has a good reputation and commands a certain price premium above an unknown or inferior brand.
​​​​
I was referring to what the legalities may look like.
A wholly owned subsidiary like Vueling UK or Level UK who would recruit and employ staff on inferior terms and at a fraction of the cost to those with a BA contract in order to rival the likes of EasyJet and Wizz. That's what this is ultimately about. BA has been wanting to do this for years but the Unions would have had a field day with strikes left right and centre. Covid has finally allowed this mission to be accomplished.

sfozrhfco

Exactly. There is no scenario in which they can profitably operate all of their slots at LHR and LGW. LGW is subsidizing BA's slot squatting which serves nobody except BA. Another subsidiary is not going to help. They need to decide to either give up slots at LHR or LGW and deal with the consequences. In the meantime, they will keep delaying the decision long enough so that if the UK travel situation improves at some point in the distant future, they will have salvaged enough valuable slots to keep competitors at bay.

unconfirmedsource

So my opinion…… which is not fact.

whatever the name of the subsidiary it is likely to look and feel exactly like BA mainline at Heathrow. The reason it’s not Vueling or Level is that those Brands would likely of died on their feet when faced with EasyJet.

I think you can expect a Club cabin and lounge access, as those are the things that differentiate the brand. Aircraft wise I would initially expect them to use A320s or A321s (There are 18 321s parked in Madrid) although 321s might be too large for some if the Markets. These aircraft could at some point be replaced with Maxes or NEOs. If I was a betting man I’d suggest NEOs (due to the pandemic there are some political issues around IAG snubbing airbus).

The whole idea behind the subsidiary is to reduce the cost base to remain competitive. I don’t see this being a red, white and blue Wizz air.

Let’s see how this post ages!!

englisha

A link to the go fly ad in case anyone wanted a trip down memory lane : Coming to an airport near Crawley soon :

Prospero

Not necessarily. Iberia Express (I2), Iberia‘s low cost subsidiary, runs alongside Iberia’s mainline operation and delivers an equivalent level of service with the full set of frequent flyer benefits. Most customers would be hard pressed to notice the difference.

jmd

GB airways was a bit different - it wasn’t owned by BA. It was an independent airline (owned by the family behind Blands Travel in Gibraltar) which just had a franchise agreement with BA. Ultimately they terminated the franchise agreement and sold the aircraft and slots to Easyjet.

Speedbirdsouth

good memories thanks for the video

Speedbird28

except the city service is better than LHR