British airways really so British?

Should British Airways just change their name to London Airways? considering they only really fly from there and force the rest of us to go down to hectic London just to catch a flight to for example- Iceland. easyJet would be a better 'flag carrier' as they are based at many airports allover the UK and not just 2 'hubs'. Years ago they had small bases dotted across the UK now its just 'LONDON LONDON LONDON!'

If you want the 'London Airways' debate then look to the BA board on Flyer Talk. But get your hard hat ready for the 'full and frank' debate that will ensue.

But you could say the same of VS as the vast majority of VS flights are from LHR and LGW with relatively few from MAN and GLA.

The LCCs don't offer connections though.


And the concept of 'flag carrier' has long gone.

The best thing is not to fly British Airways but fly with easyjet

The best thing is not to fly British Airways but fly with easyjet

But darling, the common people fly easyJet...

(Edited to add)... Just for the avoidance of doubt, that wasn't intended as a dig at the OP.

British Airways fly to and from all the airports below in the UK

Aberdeen (ABZ)

Barra (BRR)

Belfast City (BHD)

Belfast International (BFS)

Benbecula (BEB)

Cambridge (to Gothenburg) (CBG)

Campbeltown (CAL)

Edinburgh (EDI)

Glasgow (GLA)

Guernsey (GCI)

Inverness (INV)

Islay (ILY)

Isle of Man (IOM)

Jersey (JER)

Kirkwall (Orkney Is) (KOI)

Leeds Bradford (LBA)

London City (LCY)

London Gatwick (LGW)

London Heathrow (LHR)

Manchester (MAN)

Newcastle (NCL)

Newquay (NQY)

Stornoway (SYY)

Sumburgh (LSI)

Tiree (TRE)

Wick (WIC

Hope this helps

Ken I think the OPs point was that whist BA does fly from all those airports you can only get to London on them (with the exception of the Cambridge to Gothenburg flight which is basically a scheduled charter flight for a big pharmaceutical firm) and not say EDI to NYC or NCL to AMS without changing in London.

My point was you can't claim to be airline of the U.K. when all you really do is fly everyone from the rest of the UK to London. It just means more flights to catch and long waits. British Airways did use to have bases at other airports like MAN but shut. Could these be the case for Cork and Shannon now that Aer Lingus is owned by IAE?

Simply, BA makes more money connecting people through London. Why should they fly direct from elsewhere? But AFAIK they have re-opened a few direct flights from other airports.

Should Virgin Atlantic rename because not all flights cross the Atlantic?

But that's how the hub model works and means cheaper fares for us and lower costs for the airline. What happened in the past had little bearing on what happens now.

Aer Lingus is a separate company owned by IAG and there are agreements in place re their services as part of the sale.

I can see where you are coming from. It's just I personally have never been a fan of the Hub model.

Virgin flys Orlando, Vegas, Barbados and Atlanta from Manchester, and Vegas and Orlando from Glasgow. I think BA only fly one non london flight from a non london airport (I think an indian one from Manchester), so VS has much more of a claim to being a british airline than BA has.

Sure there are london flights from lots of airports, but it is pretty much London airlines. Terminal 5 being built meant BA gave up all the non london traffic to the low service carriers (flybe for instance, typically cost more with hand luggage, than BA did with hold luggage to germany, so not calling that low cost).

Virgin flys Orlando, Vegas, Barbados and Atlanta from Manchester, and Vegas and Orlando from Glasgow. I think BA only fly one non london flight from a non london airport (I think an indian one from Manchester), so VS has much more of a claim to being a british airline than BA has.

Sure there are london flights from lots of airports, but it is pretty much London airlines. Terminal 5 being built meant BA gave up all the non london traffic to the low service carriers (flybe for instance, typically cost more with hand luggage, than BA did with hold luggage to germany, so not calling that low cost).

I totally agree with you! When T5 was built they told there hard working crews (who had been based for decades) from for example Glasgow to go down to London or goodbye same for Man aswell probably.

Simply, BA makes more money connecting people through London. Why should they fly direct from elsewhere? But AFAIK they have re-opened a few direct flights from other airports.

Should Virgin Atlantic rename because not all flights cross the Atlantic?

There were 2 ways that closing comment could have gone ;)

Maybe Virgin should change their name... as I bet that's not a true representation of their passengers... and american airlines.
What's in a name?

Perhaps VS, 51% owned by a tax exile and 49% owned by a US company, should also cease to be a British airline?

what you must remember that British Airways is a private company and must make money for its share holders, so it will only fly the most cost effective routes, like any other Airline

what you must remember that British Airways is a private company and must make money for its share holders, so it will only fly the most cost effective routes, like any other Airline

The way they pulled from the regionals, I very much doubt was with a claim of cost effectiveness, otherwise there would be the well earning routes left.

Some like BHX to France or Belgium, have been knocked out by the eurostar, but the likes of German flights from BHX seemed to do well as well as a number of others, and flybe came and took those, and didn't low cost them.

BA have done a lot in recent years to try and make its Short Haul network "profitable" (and they have apparently done this this year!). BA's Short Haul only crew are VERY well paid (hence the introduction of MF). Consolidating flights to London could be something that has contributed to making shall haul "profitable" for BA.

All the time BA remain in T5 and T5 remains just for BA and they continue to fly to Montreal I shall be totally happy to go from London regardless of what they may or may not call themselves.

Virgin flys Orlando, Vegas, Barbados and Atlanta from Manchester, and Vegas and Orlando from Glasgow. I think BA only fly one non london flight from a non london airport (I think an indian one from Manchester), so VS has much more of a claim to being a british airline than BA has.

The non-London flights from MAN in question are Billund and Gothenburg, but even then they're not BA mainline as they're operated by their Danish franchise carrier Sun-Air.

My point was you can't claim to be airline of the U.K. when all you really do is fly everyone from the rest of the UK to London. It just means more flights to catch and long waits. British Airways did use to have bases at other airports like MAN but shut. Could these be the case for Cork and Shannon now that Aer Lingus is owned by IAE?

In the case of MAN, the only remaining non-London route was MAN-JFK which stuck out like a sore thumb. That was axed a few years ago but replaced with a flight by AA a year or two later. Regardless of what you think of BA and of AA's product, it makes more sense for AA to operate that route as JFK is a long-haul base for them whereas for BA it wasn't, plus it meant using a type of aircraft (767) which IIRC they didn't use on their LHR-JFK flights, so it wasn't as though it could be rotated downroute like VS do at MCO for example with 747s going to LGW/MAN etc.

As for Cork or Shannon, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that IAG had to guarantee a continued Aer Lingus presence on several routes from these 2 airports for x years post-takeover. I'm not sure whether it's bases or certain routes, though I do recall some concerns being voiced about flights to London being culled which led to this guarantee being made as a condition of the takeover.