If you look at page 15 of their submission document there's an "Indicative easyJet network from Heathrow" showing the sort of route network easyJet would be planning if the airport had more capacity.

As well as serving new destinations (such as JER) they'd also be competing on a lot of BA shorthaul routes (although NCL and MAN are missing from their plans).

It looks like a lot of discussions have already been made with HAL.

So, what would this mean for BA? I'm sure it would be a big drop in point to point traffic, would BA compete via further enhancements or would BA work on improving the quality of their offering so people would be happy to pay a little more for BA? It looks like EZY has put a lot of thought into LHR and it could be bad for BA.

I think that is the point. Easyjet want Heathrow to remain high cost, if Gatwick increases capacity then it may have an opportunity to increase the fees that Easyjet currently pays.

I would support significant slots being given to U2 at LHR. We know airlines would like a fairer slot allocation system which better reflects the passenger growth of the various airlines. From 28 April, BA should thus receive 25% of the slots they want, LH 50%, and DL 100% while EK would receive 250% and U2 up to 300% of what they asked.

To better reflect demand and ensure a fairer programme, airport fees levied on each plane at LHR should increase by 25% for off peak slots and 50% for peak slots. Tuesdays and Wednesdays will be off peak throughout the year. Similar fees will be levied at departure/arrival airport for all London routes but always at the peak rate. An additional fee will now be levied to connect passengers to the plane on both arrival and departure.

The bonuses paid to anyone named Walsh or Hillier in the company will now be down to 25% of what they were with a new minimum of �125 per year. However they should not worry as they will now get a minimum bonus of 2p for BA route which will be paid 355 days in advance yay.

We trust that these new enhancements will make for a better and fairer programme for all airlines and strengthen Willie's and Jimmy's love for aviation authorities.

That's what I would assume, but it's a pretty big and well-fabricated lie they've come up with if so!

Also interesting in the context of Mr O'Leary's recent comments about FR and U2 becoming feeder networks for LH legacy carriers over the next 5-10 years.

Perhaps a new orange CCR card, with LPGS "available to purchase"?

As this thread topic relates to Easyjet, it has been moved over to the European Budget forum.

Prospero
Moderator: BA forum

What defines a budget airline in this day and age? Why is easyjet more budget than BA? Is it the connecting flights aspect?

I find that an excellent question.

I think it's mainly the lack of being a 'legacy' carrier or 'flag' carrier. Plus all the overhead and back office from the good old days that comes with it and costs a lot, of course.

If it was about having to pay lots extra for every fart you want to release on board and other 'customizable' services then at least KLM and all the American carriers should be placed here.

Lack of FQTV program is not a good one, even BT, W6 and DY have them these days. FR used to have one, back in the days.

Lack of business product can't be it. Most airlines (even FR) offer some sort of business product these days. With European 'business class' on most short haul aircraft with carriers in Europe (excluding TK, TP and SU), even proper business class seating can't be the divider. On long haul, 'budget' airlines also offer some sort of 'premium' product.

Even long haul operation can't be the decisive factor. Both AK and DY offer them, X9 will start soon and FR has been thinking about such operations for over a decade now.

Lack of lounge access can't be it either, as for example BT, DY, 4U and w& offer such with some tickets.

Also, lack of connections is not a good divider. DY explicitly sells flights with connections. So does BT.

Can it be the part of being member of an airline alliance? No, because ELFAA exists for budget airlines.

Can it be the ticketing structure? Most legacy carriers want you to book return flights, where a return with a budget airline is usually just the sum of two flights. Again, a few exceptions in both camps (notoriously SAS) make this a bad divider.

Brings us to in flight service. This might actually be the big divider. On every single budget airline you have to buy things on board. On all 'full fare' airlines there is actually service with at least a 'free' option. SK entered the twilight zone here, but is still saved by coffee and tea.

So that concludes it for me. Being a legacy flag carrier and having something served for free from the trolley must be the big dividers here.

Anyway, on a serious note, I'm open for further suggestions.

Hmm... I'd argue the thread was specifically about what this would mean to BA.

Agreed, as U2 could potentially be both partner and competitor for BA at LHR in future.

I've long believed that BA should buy easyjet and run it as their LCC operation, using it for point to point flights that don't touch the BA/IB hubs.

Something along the lines of Lufthansa and Germanwings.

So something similar to Vueling.

Yes, so we can earn limited Avios and TP's

They have had their own budget airline. Easyjet bought it out...

Given the relative sizes of those two, it would be more of a merger and less of a buy out

But they are not serious.

This is all about trying to erode the value of BA (3rd runway = more slots, more slots reduces the value obtained/invested by previous slot acquisitions.

Additionally, by keeping a 2nd runway away from Gatwick they protect their own dominant position as the no1 slot holder there.

Even if their spin was successful, if LHR gets run way 3, easyJet are highly unlikely to turn up under their current business model.