Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoflyzone
Not necessarily. BA has a hub operation at LGW as well, and the destinations offered from LGW suit WS's needs better, in my opinion. That is, holiday destinations.
BA flies to 60 or so destinations from LGW.
|
BA has a large operation at LGW, but its not a hub from a network connectivity perspective. I would be surprised if more than 10% of BA LGW traffic is connecting.
LGW serves all of BA's holiday destinations for Londoners, its traffic patterns are O&D traffic. This is why only LAS and MCO are served from LGW while all other USA BA traffic is sent through LHR.
LHR is the global hub for connecting traffic on BA. Yes WS would not get T5, they will be offered the Oneworld terminal which is T3 if they were to get an LHR slot pair. AA and the rest of oneworld connect with BA using T3, so a WS LHR T3-T5 connection is potential.
Check out MCO-BCN on BA ticket stock. Cheapest and fastest routings are via AA/US, second is BA through LGW-LHR ground transfer, finally there is LGW connection that is the most expensive. Clearly BA does connections through LHR and not LGW.
Under any scenario of WS getting into LHR, I am assuming they will also join oneworld and get LHR slots leased/purchased from BA. BA is swimming in LHR slots right now. The only reason BA keeps buying slots is to push out other airlines. Without oneworld (or a codeshare tie up with BA) its pointless for WS to consider LHR. This is primary reason why I believe the move by WS to LGW singals they will not join oneworld anytime soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoflyzone
not too sure. AF/KL expanding in western Canada is not good for WS and their 767s, if they decide to join skyteam.
So what, will WS be flying to AMS, CDG or FCO in the near future? Doesn't make much sense in terms of filling their 767s without a JV.
FCO, i could see happening (that is if AZ is still in skyteam by then). AMS or CDG, not so much. The Canada-AMS/CDG market is owned by AF/KL.
|
I could see WS and KL doing a comprehensive codeshare on combined Canada-AMS flights. Additionally I can see WS doing a codeshare with AF on a few select CDG flights. Primary considerations are YVR-AMS, YYC-AMS, YEG-AMS being daily with a mix of WS and KL metal (e.g. 3x KL and 4x WS on YEG-AMS); and as WS grows YVR-CDG in codeshare with AF and YYC-CDG all WS with codeshare connections at CDG, but the flight would be operated less than daily basis.
WS would still do their own widebody flying as well, but the codeshare and Skyteam would give them a huge leg up on providing beyond services through the primary European hubs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoflyzone
Oneworld opens up Europe, Australia and Central/South America with the help of BA, QF and AA.
Skyteam can't match that. At least not in a way that will benefit WS's long haul ops.
|
Membership into Oneworld also requires much higher level of service standards than Skyteam. The service standard integration would be most problematic for WS as they would have to do better at premium end of the market (lounges, priority airport services, true business class). Its the required Oneworld service standards that have limited Oneworld to third place among the major alliances.
Skyteam can easily match Oneworld with European services. Australia and South America are out of reach, however the possibility of WS needing these services is remote. Additionally, the only reason Oneworld is big in these markets is because they have only major airlines for those regions (LATAM group and QANTAS).
Also part of the benefits of joining alliances is they coordinate services rather than full on compete in match to the death. Therefore with Skyteam WS could do UK all to itself while also getting assistance with continental europe flights.
Prev
!
Linear Mode
