BA's Next US Destination

MLIAA · Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:58 pm

Ok, so now that the "When will BA start BNA" thread is taken care of, which market will be the next to see British Airways' arrival? Some that come to mind are CLT, MSP, STL, SAT, PDX, IND and CMH.

Midwestindy · Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:08 pm

I think most people can "guess" where I stand on this :lol:

Btw is BA planning on using any of the A321neos on TATL routes?

ADrum23 · Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 pm

Only other city that deserves BA service to LHR after BNA is IND.

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

SAT is too close to Austin.

CMH is smack in the middle between CLE and CVG and really is not much of a draw.

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start service there.

MSP already has TATL service due to being a DL hub.

PDX has seasonal service to London on DL and will probably eventually be upgraded to year round.

All in all, the two most likely destinations for BA expansion are BNA and IND, and both will get it either this year or next.

globalcabotage · Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:18 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
Only other city that deserves BA service to LHR after BNA is IND.

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

SAT is too close to Austin.

CMH is smack in the middle between CLE and CVG and really is not much of a draw.

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start service there.

MSP already has TATL service due to being a DL hub.

PDX has seasonal service to London on DL and will probably eventually be upgraded to year round.

All in all, the two most likely destinations for BA expansion are BNA and IND, and both will get it either this year or next.

And IND is smack dab in the middle of ORD and CVG. It's just how you look / position the route. Let's get the "official BNA announcement" before speculating an which city is entitled to LHR on BA. Indy makes a great case, so do CMH, STL, etc. it's all down to the numbers and BA is crunching them as we read this.

Midwestindy · Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:35 pm

globalcabotage wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Only other city that deserves BA service to LHR after BNA is IND.

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

SAT is too close to Austin.

CMH is smack in the middle between CLE and CVG and really is not much of a draw.

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start service there.

MSP already has TATL service due to being a DL hub.

PDX has seasonal service to London on DL and will probably eventually be upgraded to year round.

All in all, the two most likely destinations for BA expansion are BNA and IND, and both will get it either this year or next.

And IND is smack dab in the middle of ORD and CVG. It's just how you look / position the route. Let's get the "official BNA announcement" before speculating an which city is entitled to LHR on BA. Indy makes a great case, so do CMH, STL, etc. it's all down to the numbers and BA is crunching them as we read this.

Probably not "as we read this" considering it is 12:33 am on a Sunday morning

TWA583 · Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:43 pm

How do you figure that STL is better off with DL to AMS? AA has the largest market share in STL, and there are a lot of loyal AA fliers from the TWA acquisition. More importantly, the business community in STL, such as it is, has far closer ties to the UK than it does to the Benelux countries (InBev not withstanding, but notoriously, InBev employees fly economy). STL is the largest MSA in the U.S. without non-stop service to Europe at present.

ADrum23 wrote:
Only other city that deserves BA service to LHR after BNA is IND.

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

SAT is too close to Austin.

CMH is smack in the middle between CLE and CVG and really is not much of a draw.

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start service there.

MSP already has TATL service due to being a DL hub.

PDX has seasonal service to London on DL and will probably eventually be upgraded to year round.

All in all, the two most likely destinations for BA expansion are BNA and IND, and both will get it either this year or next.

DLPMMM · Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:52 pm

ADrum23 wrote:

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start.

Why would AA dehub CLT???

Lowest cost per enplanement, southeastern connecting hub AA was missing in their network of, and arguably their most profitable hub.

That statement lost you all credibility.

ADrum23 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:07 am

DLPMMM wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start.

Why would AA dehub CLT???

Lowest cost per enplanement, southeastern connecting hub AA was missing in their network of, and arguably their most profitable hub.

That statement lost you all credibility.

Calm down, I know AA is not going to dehub CLT (at least not anytime in the near future). It is their most profitable only because they control 90% of the traffic in the airport and there is a lack of competition. It has the lowest O&D of the hubs and is not extremely convenient to connect in. Plus, Miami isn't in the southeast?

If AA ever dehubbed or significantly scaled back CLT, they (CLT) would crash and burn economics wise. I don't think I'd want one airline controlling most of the traffic out of my local airport. I'd rather have competition and a more diverse set of airlines.

B747forever · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:08 am

I think BA should focus on other long haul markets, mainly to Asia. Putting all eggs in one basket comes to mind when I think of BA and the US. Between BA and AA the US market is well covered from LHR.

ADrum23 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:11 am

globalcabotage wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Only other city that deserves BA service to LHR after BNA is IND.

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

SAT is too close to Austin.

CMH is smack in the middle between CLE and CVG and really is not much of a draw.

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start service there.

MSP already has TATL service due to being a DL hub.

PDX has seasonal service to London on DL and will probably eventually be upgraded to year round.

All in all, the two most likely destinations for BA expansion are BNA and IND, and both will get it either this year or next.

And IND is smack dab in the middle of ORD and CVG. It's just how you look / position the route. Let's get the "official BNA announcement" before speculating an which city is entitled to LHR on BA. Indy makes a great case, so do CMH, STL, etc. it's all down to the numbers and BA is crunching them as we read this.

Just curious, why do you think CMH make a great case? What is the draw there?

I also was referring to TATL in general when I wrote the above, not just BA. Which is why I said STL probably would be better with a DL flight to AMS.

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:17 am

B747forever wrote:
I think BA should focus on other long haul markets, mainly to Asia. Putting all eggs in one basket comes to mind when I think of BA and the US. Between BA and AA the US market is well covered from LHR.

Can you provide some sample markets in Asia that you think should have a flight to LON?

klm617 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:32 am

I'll place my bet on it being Detroit. Detroit is following right behind San Jose and Austin as far as high tech markets and it's the largest city in the USA without BA service so it really is the next logical add.

globalcabotage · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:35 am

Midwestindy wrote:
globalcabotage wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Only other city that deserves BA service to LHR after BNA is IND.

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

SAT is too close to Austin.

CMH is smack in the middle between CLE and CVG and really is not much of a draw.

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start service there.

MSP already has TATL service due to being a DL hub.

PDX has seasonal service to London on DL and will probably eventually be upgraded to year round.

All in all, the two most likely destinations for BA expansion are BNA and IND, and both will get it either this year or next.

And IND is smack dab in the middle of ORD and CVG. It's just how you look / position the route. Let's get the "official BNA announcement" before speculating an which city is entitled to LHR on BA. Indy makes a great case, so do CMH, STL, etc. it's all down to the numbers and BA is crunching them as we read this.

Probably not "as we read this" considering it is 12:33 am on a Sunday morning

True, but I work with our friends across the pond, and are planning their next move.

globalcabotage · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:38 am

klm617 wrote:
I'll place my bet on it being Detroit. Detroit is following right behind San Jose and Austin as far as high tech markets and it's the largest city in the USA without BA service so it really is the next logical add.

Of course you are. Along with JL moving 1 of their 2 HND slots to DTW, all ME3 starting DTW, PR starting DTW...

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:39 am

ADrum23 wrote:
Only other city that deserves BA service to LHR after BNA is IND.
STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

Would be interesting to see you (attempt to) substantiate either statement.

B747forever wrote:
I think BA should focus on other long haul markets, mainly to Asia.

...except that both BA and VS have recently dropped Asian destinations in order to focus on N.America.

B747forever wrote:
Putting all eggs in one basket comes to mind when I think of BA and the US.

They prefer to think of it as "going where the money is."

B747forever wrote:
Between BA and AA the US market is well covered from LHR.

Except that other carriers are also adding LHR (and LON in general) left and right:
DY, DL, UA, and VS have all added additional London-USA routes/frequencies just this year alone.

Why would the dominant carriers want sit still and stay stagnant, allowing others to chip away at the market? That makes no sense.

skyghost320 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:47 am

Midwestindy wrote:
Btw is BA planning on using any of the A321neos on TATL routes?

To the best of my knowledge the 10 are replacing the 7 767s that are left.

All of the remaining 763ERs are Short Haul config, so it's unlikely unless another order is placed.

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:49 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

Would be interesting to see you (attempt to) substantiate either statement.

IND's traffic is geared towards LON/England, STL has more traffic to places outside of England. Pretty straight forward...

ADrum23 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:58 am

Midwestindy wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

Would be interesting to see you (attempt to) substantiate either statement.

IND's traffic is geared towards LON/England, STL has more traffic to places outside of England. Pretty straight forward...

That, and Panera Bread (one of the largest employers in the area) was acquired by a Luxembourg-based company recently. Either DL to CDG or AMS would make more sense for STL. London is the top European destination for both BNA and IND European traffic.

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:05 am

klm617 wrote:
I'll place my bet on it being Detroit. Detroit is following right behind San Jose and Austin as far as high tech markets and it's the largest city in the USA without BA service so it really is the next logical add.

Well.... if you want to bring up tech markets IND is a much better choice than DTW
ex: Forbes Cities Creating the Most Tech Jobs 2017
1.San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California
2.Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, North Carolina
3.Austin-Round Rock, Texas
4.San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California
5.Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, Indiana

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/58ca977 ... 6c30cc27b0
http://www.thenextsiliconvalley.com/201 ... tech-hubs/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... -stronger/

DTW already has service to LHR/AMS/CDG/FRA/MUC/FCO how much more can you ask for...

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:20 am

Midwestindy wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

Would be interesting to see you (attempt to) substantiate either statement.

IND's traffic is geared towards LON/England, STL has more traffic to places outside of England. Pretty straight forward...

Except that that's way too simplistic of an approach, especially when STL (despite its diverse traffic) is still a larger unserved LON market than essentially anywhere else in the country; with an average fare higher than AUS' was when it gained LHR service.

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:35 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Would be interesting to see you (attempt to) substantiate either statement.

IND's traffic is geared towards LON/England, STL has more traffic to places outside of England. Pretty straight forward...

Except that that's way too simplistic of an approach, especially when STL (despite its diverse traffic) is still a larger unserved LON market than essentially anywhere else in the country; with an average fare higher than AUS' was when it gained LHR service.

IND was not included in the Sabre MI 2013 stats. So we have to use the 2011 Brookings data and IND had 30,732 and STL had 28,417 passengers total to London. Therefore, based on the only info available IND is a larger unserved LON market, (larger than BNA/STL/CLE/HNL/MCI/and even MSY was) of course this is older data but there is nothing else to prove that it has changed and that is the only data that you can use to compare passenger numbers between the two cities.

If you have other data that compares STL and IND please step forward.

klm617 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:56 am

Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I'll place my bet on it being Detroit. Detroit is following right behind San Jose and Austin as far as high tech markets and it's the largest city in the USA without BA service so it really is the next logical add.

Well.... if you want to bring up tech markets IND is a much better choice than DTW
ex: Forbes Cities Creating the Most Tech Jobs 2017
1.San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California
2.Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, North Carolina
3.Austin-Round Rock, Texas
4.San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California
5.Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, Indiana

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/58ca977 ... 6c30cc27b0
http://www.thenextsiliconvalley.com/201 ... tech-hubs/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... -stronger/

DTW already has service to LHR/AMS/CDG/FRA/MUC/FCO how much more can you ask for...

BA to LHR and FI to KEF

Michigan was number 2 in terms of tech job growth last year.

http://insights.dice.com/2016/08/30/8-f ... tech-jobs/

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:03 am

klm617 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I'll place my bet on it being Detroit. Detroit is following right behind San Jose and Austin as far as high tech markets and it's the largest city in the USA without BA service so it really is the next logical add.

Well.... if you want to bring up tech markets IND is a much better choice than DTW
ex: Forbes Cities Creating the Most Tech Jobs 2017
1.San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California
2.Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, North Carolina
3.Austin-Round Rock, Texas
4.San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California
5.Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, Indiana

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/58ca977 ... 6c30cc27b0
http://www.thenextsiliconvalley.com/201 ... tech-hubs/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... -stronger/

DTW already has service to LHR/AMS/CDG/FRA/MUC/FCO how much more can you ask for...

BA to LHR and FI to KEF

Why would BA fight DL at one of their largest hubs, when they could have a market to themselves

klm617 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:10 am

Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:

Well.... if you want to bring up tech markets IND is a much better choice than DTW
ex: Forbes Cities Creating the Most Tech Jobs 2017
1.San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California
2.Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, North Carolina
3.Austin-Round Rock, Texas
4.San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California
5.Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, Indiana

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/58ca977 ... 6c30cc27b0
http://www.thenextsiliconvalley.com/201 ... tech-hubs/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... -stronger/

DTW already has service to LHR/AMS/CDG/FRA/MUC/FCO how much more can you ask for...

BA to LHR and FI to KEF

Why would BA fight DL at one of their largest hubs, when they could have a market to themselves

We could use that same argument why are the likes of WW, DY, and FI entering all the major markets fighting against each other when they can add cities like CLE, IND, CMH, STL and the like and have those markets to themselves,.

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:21 am

klm617 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:

BA to LHR and FI to KEF

Why would BA fight DL at one of their largest hubs, when they could have a market to themselves

We could use that same argument why are the likes of WW, DY, and FI entering all the major markets fighting against each other when they can add cities like CLE, IND, CMH, STL and the like and have those markets to themselves,.

Don't try to flip the argument

No those are not similar cases. Because WW, DY, and FI occupy different sectors of the market then BA/DL, meaning they can co-exist with BA/DL and not have to fight(for the most part). DL and BA occupy the same portion of the market so that sort of relationship is not conducive for BA. DL owns the DTW market, BA would struggle to gain any ground.

DY/D8 would make way more sense than BA if we are talking LON-DTW

IND/STL/CMH aren't trying to court ULCCs, CLE and PIT are

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:24 am

Midwestindy wrote:
IND was not included in the Sabre MI 2013 stats. So we have to use the 2011 Brookings data and IND had 30,732 and STL had 28,417 passengers total to London. Therefore, based on the only info available IND is a larger unserved LON market, (larger than BNA/STL/CLE/even barely larger than MSY were) of course this is older data but there is nothing else to prove that has changed and that is the only data that you can use that compares the different cities.

That ignores the Saint Louis Today article that placed it ahead of the others, using 2015 numbers, back right before MSY got the service.

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:26 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
IND was not included in the Sabre MI 2013 stats. So we have to use the 2011 Brookings data and IND had 30,732 and STL had 28,417 passengers total to London. Therefore, based on the only info available IND is a larger unserved LON market, (larger than BNA/STL/CLE/even barely larger than MSY were) of course this is older data but there is nothing else to prove that has changed and that is the only data that you can use that compares the different cities.

That ignores the Saint Louis Today article that placed it ahead of the others, using 2015 numbers, back right before MSY got the service.

Can you DM those numbers, because I have never seen them before?

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:29 am

klm617 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
Why would BA fight DL at one of their largest hubs, when they could have a market to themselves

We could use that same argument why are the likes of WW, DY, and FI entering all the major markets fighting against each other when they can add cities like CLE, IND, CMH, STL and the like and have those markets to themselves,.

Except that you weren't asked about WW/DY/FI, you were asked about BA... who over the last 5yrs, have shown that they'd rather enter the likes of AUS/MSY/etc than compete with DL by going back into DTW.

So again, here's the question:
Why would BA want to fight DL over DTW, when it could have a smaller market all to itself... which it's shown a clear and consistent preference for.

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:38 am

Midwestindy wrote:
Can you DM those numbers, because I have never seen them before?

I don't have it saved. It's in one of the MSY-LHR threads.

It was called "Lambert pushes for London" or something like that. I don't recall specific numbers being there, just a comparison as largest unserved market to AUS based on the previous year's figures.

My browser history did bring up the Tweet sent by Mayor Slay on the same date that the article went out, so if you just google it, that may help to find it:
https://twitter.com/MayorSlay/status/785527869392818176

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:50 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
Can you DM those numbers, because I have never seen them before?

I don't have it saved. It's in one of the MSY-LHR threads.

It was called "Lambert pushes for London" or something like that. I don't recall specific numbers being there, just a comparison as largest unserved market to AUS based on the previous year's figures.

My browser history did bring up the Tweet sent by Mayor Slay on the same date that the article went out, so if you just google it, that may help to find it:
https://twitter.com/MayorSlay/status/785527869392818176

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 1e405.html

Thanks but the article doesn't mention really anything about pax numbers, so therefore 2011 is still the most accurate

LAX772LR · Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:34 am

Midwestindy wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
Can you DM those numbers, because I have never seen them before?

I don't have it saved. It's in one of the MSY-LHR threads.

It was called "Lambert pushes for London" or something like that. I don't recall specific numbers being there, just a comparison as largest unserved market to AUS based on the previous year's figures.

My browser history did bring up the Tweet sent by Mayor Slay on the same date that the article went out, so if you just google it, that may help to find it:
https://twitter.com/MayorSlay/status/785527869392818176

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 1e405.html

Thanks but the article doesn't mention really anything about pax numbers, so therefore 2011 is still the most accurate

This is actually the one I was thinking of.
Though I was off on the year: it was 2014, not 2015.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 9331e.html

Andy33 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:08 am

Midwestindy wrote:
I think most people can "guess" where I stand on this

Btw is BA planning on using any of the A321neos on TATL routes?

BA's order for A321neos is not for the LR version, and they're intended for the shorthaul fleet. Now if you want an IAG airline that will be taking A321neoLR planes and using them on TATL routes, try Aer Lingus instead.

TWA772LR · Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:05 am

Andy33 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
I think most people can "guess" where I stand on this

Btw is BA planning on using any of the A321neos on TATL routes?

BA's order for A321neos is not for the LR version, and they're intended for the shorthaul fleet. Now if you want an IAG airline that will be taking A321neoLR planes and using them on TATL routes, try Aer Lingus instead.

BAs LHR slots are too valuable. The A321neoLR flown buy Aer Linus would be the best tool to crack these secondary American markets, and move them to LHR if/when fit. IAG has found their hedge with EI and their 757 experiment is just the beginning.

And since I'm on my crappy cell phone and don't want to use the quote function, LAX772LR points out BA has focused from Asia to the US is the sign of the strong US dollar, which would mean IAG is raking it in from Americans at the moment.

I don't want to mention politics, but with the recent changes made by the Trump administration on numerous things, no one knows for sure how the US economy will be impacted until the middle of next year at the earliest. BAs expansion in the US could fizzle like UAs China expansion, or go gangbusters. It's gonna be an interesting 18 months.

dfwjim1 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:34 am

I believe that St.Louis will be the next choice for BA as it has a strong One World base and business community.

SCQ83 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:27 am

My bet is Columbus, OH.

It looks like the typical new BA destination; a bit millennial, college-city with a bit of everything.

Ohio is also the most populated US state without any TATL route (CVG is located in Kentucky).

klm617 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:35 am

I think St. Louis is long over due for a London connection.

klm617 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:37 am

SCQ83 wrote:
My bet is Columbus, OH.

It looks like the typical new BA destination; a bit millennial, college-city with a bit of everything.

Ohio is also the most populated US state without any TATL route (CVG is located in Kentucky).

WOW that is an interesting fact would think CLE would come before CMH

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:57 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
My bet is Columbus, OH.

It looks like the typical new BA destination; a bit millennial, college-city with a bit of everything.

Ohio is also the most populated US state without any TATL route (CVG is located in Kentucky).

We aren't comparing states we are comparing cities... If we were comparing state size for TATL flights, PVD (RI) and BDL (CT) would never have gotten TATL flights.

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:08 pm

klm617 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I'll place my bet on it being Detroit. Detroit is following right behind San Jose and Austin as far as high tech markets and it's the largest city in the USA without BA service so it really is the next logical add.

Well.... if you want to bring up tech markets IND is a much better choice than DTW
ex: Forbes Cities Creating the Most Tech Jobs 2017
1.San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California
2.Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, North Carolina
3.Austin-Round Rock, Texas
4.San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California
5.Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, Indiana

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/58ca977 ... 6c30cc27b0
http://www.thenextsiliconvalley.com/201 ... tech-hubs/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... -stronger/

DTW already has service to LHR/AMS/CDG/FRA/MUC/FCO how much more can you ask for...

BA to LHR and FI to KEF

Michigan was number 2 in terms of tech job growth last year.

http://insights.dice.com/2016/08/30/8-f ... tech-jobs/

Since my first comment was deleted I will reiterate what I said, you can't use state numbers to justify a cities growth, that makes no sense. For example, if Wisconsin is adding jobs that doesn't mean Green Bay is adding jobs, or vice versa. That logic makes zero sense considering, Indianapolis in every one of those lists had more tech job growth, throwing in numbers from the entire state of Michigan is just a shot in the dark.

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:19 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
My bet is Columbus, OH.

It looks like the typical new BA destination; a bit millennial, college-city with a bit of everything.

Hmmm, who knew ATL, BWI, FLL, MSY, OAK, LAS, LAX, IAH, PHL, ORD, DFW, SAN, SJC, PDX, and almost all the rest of their destinations in the US were college towns? Sure, they have colleges within them if that's what you mean, but really only AUS fits into that description you just made. AUS has business travel, that CMH simply does not which is a big factor for BA.

nadavatar64 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:39 pm

Is BA starting LHR-BNA? Because if not I think BNA could be a good addition to BA.

by738 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:54 pm

nadavatar64 wrote:
Is BA starting LHR-BNA? Because if not I think BNA could be a good addition to BA.

You mean youve not seen all the speculation?!

Jetty · Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:58 pm

TWA583 wrote:
How do you figure that STL is better off with DL to AMS? AA has the largest market share in STL, and there are a lot of loyal AA fliers from the TWA acquisition. More importantly, the business community in STL, such as it is, has far closer ties to the UK than it does to the Benelux countries (InBev not withstanding, but notoriously, InBev employees fly economy).

Any US city has closer ties to the UK than any other country in Europe. An advantage for AMS is that it offers far superior 1-stop connections to anywhere in Europe (even the UK). Thus it's about the value of non-stop LON vs the value of better 1-stop connections to anywhere in Europe. That might indeed differ between cities in the US (no idea if that applies in this case).

Midwestindy · Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:28 pm

Jetty wrote:
TWA583 wrote:
How do you figure that STL is better off with DL to AMS? AA has the largest market share in STL, and there are a lot of loyal AA fliers from the TWA acquisition. More importantly, the business community in STL, such as it is, has far closer ties to the UK than it does to the Benelux countries (InBev not withstanding, but notoriously, InBev employees fly economy).

Any US city has closer ties to the UK than any other country in Europe. An advantage for AMS is that it offers far superior 1-stop connections to anywhere in Europe (even the UK). Thus it's about the value of non-stop LON vs the value of better 1-stop connections to anywhere in Europe. That might indeed differ between cities in the US (no idea if that applies in this case).

The point is IND has stronger ties to the UK than STL does.

CIDFlyer · Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:04 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
Calm down, I know AA is not going to dehub CLT (at least not anytime in the near future). It is their most profitable only because they control 90% of the traffic in the airport and there is a lack of competition. It has the lowest O&D of the hubs and is not extremely convenient to connect in. Plus, Miami isn't in the southeast?

ADrum23 wrote:
f AA ever dehubbed or significantly scaled back CLT, they (CLT) would crash and burn economics wise. I don't think I'd want one airline controlling most of the traffic out of my local airport. I'd rather have competition and a more diverse set of airlines.

ADrum23 wrote:
Only other city that deserves BA service to LHR after BNA is IND.

STL would be better off with DL to AMS IMO.

SAT is too close to Austin.

CMH is smack in the middle between CLE and CVG and really is not much of a draw.

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start service there.

why do you feel AA should dehub CLT? So DL could control the entire southeast? Ive personally found CLT to be easy to connect through, in fact I know people who will fly thru there to avoid ATL. Miami might be physically in the southeast but geographically its poor to be the connecting hub CLT functions as. CLT has been a hub for over 35 years its not going anywhere. Not to mention its one of the fastest growing metros in the US and on track to become the next ATL. As population grows so will O & D. If AA ever would de-hub they would be very foolish to do so.

klm617 · Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:22 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
Why would BA fight DL at one of their largest hubs, when they could have a market to themselves

We could use that same argument why are the likes of WW, DY, and FI entering all the major markets fighting against each other when they can add cities like CLE, IND, CMH, STL and the like and have those markets to themselves,.

Except that you weren't asked about WW/DY/FI, you were asked about BA... who over the last 5yrs, have shown that they'd rather enter the likes of AUS/MSY/etc than compete with DL by going back into DTW.

So again, here's the question:
Why would BA want to fight DL over DTW, when it could have a smaller market all to itself... which it's shown a clear and consistent preference for.

Because this market is undeserved and the higher than average fares compared to ORD and YYZ in the DTW-LON market are evidence of that not to mention the BA customer service experience is way better than Delta and in time would win customers over from Delta which right now have no choice as far as Nonstop options in this market. I guarantee you that if BA entered this market that Delta deems that 10 weekly is enough that this market would go to 21 weekly over night.

phluser · Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:46 pm

How come AA flies RDU-LHR and not BA? With GlaxoSmithKline , a British company being the top supporter, wouldn't it make sense that BA cover the route? AA and BA coordinate schedules to LHR and share revenue, so RDU might be viewed as covered, but I think the operating carrier makes a difference for pax. AA runs BWI-LHR and CLT-LHR while BA does not. Could there be likelihood of BA ceasing LHR-PHL and LHR-PHX and letting AA picking up those flights? How do AA and BA decide on such coverage to these secondary cities?

jbpdx · Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:15 am

Why all the desire to get British Airways to start service to various U.S. cities? Remember the recent London Times article "'Anyone but British Airways’: turbulent times at the nation’s flag carrier"?

James Anderson used to look forward to jetting off every July or August on British Airways. Like many of us, he felt BA was a cut above the competition. Boarding and enjoying a cheeky G&T before lunch, even in the cheap seats, it felt as though our holiday had already begun. Now, like many of us, he flies ABBA — “anyone but BA”, he frowns.

AAvgeek744 · Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:32 am

DLPMMM wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start.

Why would AA dehub CLT???

Lowest cost per enplanement, southeastern connecting hub AA was missing in their network of, and arguably their most profitable hub.

That statement lost you all credibility.

^^^^ This. CLT is the huge hub in the southeast that AA has lacked. MIA can't really be considered in that because few people will fly say from IAH-MIA-ORF. On the other hand, I don't know why DL even calls it a hub anymore. What connecting options there are are difficult. DTW covers that part of the country well.

LAX772LR · Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:35 am

klm617 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
So again, here's the question:
Why would BA want to fight DL over DTW, when it could have a smaller market all to itself... which it's shown a clear and consistent preference for.

Because this market is undeserved

Unsubstantiated assumption #1

klm617 wrote:
and the higher than average fares compared to ORD and YYZ

And your corroboration for that is ___________?

klm617 wrote:
not to mention the BA customer service experience is way better than Delta

opinion masquerading as fact... penalty 10yards.

klm617 wrote:
and in time would win customers over from Delta

So now you're a fortune teller? Awesome :roll:

I've gotta hand it to you, I truly don't know if you're just trolling, or if you're really as dense/tunnel-visioned as you portray... but in either case, do recognize that even if all of the above were accurate (which it isn't), then it still wouldn't explain why BA has spent the last decade going into smaller markets when there's nothing stopping it from returning to DTW other than lack of desire.

There's really no way around that.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net