urbanSTL

Here is a list of the current British Airways 787 routes. Calgary just started scheduled service on Tuesday.

British Airways
London Heathrow – Austin Bergstrom (Commenced)
London Heathrow – Calgary – Starts 19 August 2014
London Heathrow – Chennai – Starts 26 October 2014
London Heathrow – Chengdu (Commenced)
London Heathrow – Hyderabad (Commenced)
London Heathrow – New York Newark (Commenced)
London Heathrow – Philadelphia (Commenced)
London Heathrow – Toronto (Commenced)

gary kreie wrote:Here is a list of the current British Airways 787 routes. Calgary just started scheduled service on Tuesday.

British Airways
London Heathrow – Austin Bergstrom (Commenced)
London Heathrow – Calgary – Starts 19 August 2014
London Heathrow – Chennai – Starts 26 October 2014
London Heathrow – Chengdu (Commenced)
London Heathrow – Hyderabad (Commenced)
London Heathrow – New York Newark (Commenced)
London Heathrow – Philadelphia (Commenced)
London Heathrow – Toronto (Commenced)

If i'm not mistaken, isn't it going to be about a year before they get any more 787s? So likely anything would at the earliest a year from now due to that (and most likely early 2016 due to when routes tend to start, unless one of these get upgauged)

Actually I'm thinking there are a few factors that would favor this happening at some point and more likely than other cities mentioned (with the possible exception of New Orleans, but that market is a different animal due to tourism aspects)

1. The growth in financial services industry could be creating demand to that market, and likely for more premium seats as well.
2. British Airways has a close relationship with American; and even after hub closure, St. Louis has more American Airlines presence than the other airports mentioned both overall and relative to Delta and United. (the merger with US Airways helped out too) So adding this service would help recover lost ground in the business community with American. (the new management there seems to be doing a couple things with that here by adding frequency to LGA and DCA which would show they consider St. Louis as an important non-hub market to them)
3. Other airports mentioned have some noticeable gaps in domestic service that isn't so much the case here at this point. Many do not have much in the way of west coast service while here that has been largely resolved and is growing. (would like to see Southwest make San Diego year round though for one, but i digress)
4. I'm not sure if this is the case with other airports, but there has been supposedly one other airline looking at transatlantic service to St. Louis. If more than one is interested it would increase chances since one would be more willing to start since with current numbers two wouldn't work at the start. (maybe later due to demand stimulation by having one)
5. One other area they are interested in using the 787 is to East Asian destinations. But right now the tensions with Russia might make it hard since Russia has threatened to close off airspace in Siberia for US and European airlines which would make those routes much less favorable due to making them longer as a result. That would tilt economics to adding routes in other directions.

The big question I have is would the current international gates in use now be able to handle a 787? Or would if such service starts moving that to the end of C be needed? If so I would think if the airport announces they are doing that, it would be a sign that something is up. This also makes it easier for Southwest to take gates and start going down D.

Also I saw something the airport director did say that this summer there was a 5% gain in total passengers over the previous summer, so that is a good sign. Especially since the winter numbers were down about that much percentwise but the brutal winter seems to be the factor there due to delays and cancellations.

Keep dreaming but it's unlikely BA will delegate a 787 and LHR slot pair for STL it just won't happen without support from the business community. The problem is filling the premium cabin which ultimately pays for the flight, and 35 J-cabin seats is pretty heavy for the STL market.

British Airways has more than a "close relationship" with American, they are part of transatlantic joint business venture along with Iberia. To suggest it's somehow strategic or AA is interested in regaining share in STL is delusional. Going forward expect to see service maintained to existing hubs and if anything as the S80s come offline more regional capacity to the hubs. Republic is opening an E-175 base at MIA in November wouldn't surprise me to see those show up on the STL route particularly during the summer replacing 737-800.

JAL007 wrote:Republic is opening an E-175 base at MIA in November wouldn't surprise me to see those show up on the STL route particularly during the summer replacing 737-800.

AA is actually replacing the 737s to Miami with Airbus A319s starting in November.

Greg

gregl wrote:

JAL007 wrote:Republic is opening an E-175 base at MIA in November wouldn't surprise me to see those show up on the STL route particularly during the summer replacing 737-800.

AA is actually replacing the 737s to Miami with Airbus A319s starting in November.

Greg

Isn't AA likely to shift quite a bit of their fleet mix in the next year due to both the merger and changing the flows from their hubs? I'm curious if some of their flows to their hubs change here with more seats a day to one and less in another. I could see O'Hare having less AA seats a day and move it to Philadelphia, in part due to local traffic between here and Chicago is long-term decreasing due to not being much if any advantage vs driving due to TSA and higher speed limits along with faster rail service.

JAL007 wrote:Keep dreaming but it's unlikely BA will delegate a 787 and LHR slot pair for STL it just won't happen without support from the business community. The problem is filling the premium cabin which ultimately pays for the flight, and 35 J-cabin seats is pretty heavy for the STL market.

The ultimate win would be Southwest to pair up with British Airlines. Then you have all the "hub" traffic from SW into Lambert to feed the BA London route.

dweebe wrote:

imperialmog wrote:in part due to local traffic between here and Chicago is long-term decreasing due to not being much if any advantage vs driving due to TSA and higher speed limits along with faster rail service.

I remember the pre 9/11 days when it would take around 2 hours to get from my house, to Lambert, fly to Chicago and get to my then-girlfriend's place just north of Wrigleyville. Now, even with the constant I-DOT work along I-55, there's little advantage in flying to Chicago time-wise.

Both cost and time differences make it that flights of that length aren't practical compared to driving and in the future train travel. I am thinking the airport is in much better shape in terms of starting and ending traffic (non-connecting) than in the past if you filter out the numbers from places within 300 miles of here that is really not much faster to fly than drive now The way geography is here there are so many metro areas that are around that distance and also some a little further out that wouldn't make sense to fly if it wasn't non-stop since driving would be faster especially depending on where hub is.

I did see an interesting comment someone said somewhere, basically that of any airport that lost a hub in the last 20 or so years, St. Louis seems to be better off in terms of service and destinations served than most of the others. If I'm not mistaken if you look at places that have at least one daily year round service outside of 300 miles away, at least one airline serves most of the places that had such service in the TWA days. The main exceptions are outside the continental US and some west coast areas (though some of those are at least seasonal). The only gaps outside of those would be places like Austin and Hartford which I could see Southwest add in time, (especially Austin which is my bet for next new daily regular nonstop from Southwest here due to strength of them in both locations and would free up connecting flow and flights from Love Field as that goes through changes; though if/when United ends service to Cleveland and US/AA ends it to Pittsburgh, Southwest almost certainly will start service at that time and likely hasn't because they haven't)

Also, how much could and will Southwest grow from here in the coming years? The big issue right now seems they are doing things elsewhere and running short on planes to do it with. The big factor is how much can they grow at Midway? since if they are about capped out without running into issues, it might make sense to try to shift connecting traffic there somewhere else.

zink wrote:

JAL007 wrote:Keep dreaming but it's unlikely BA will delegate a 787 and LHR slot pair for STL it just won't happen without support from the business community. The problem is filling the premium cabin which ultimately pays for the flight, and 35 J-cabin seats is pretty heavy for the STL market.

The ultimate win would be Southwest to pair up with British Airlines. Then you have all the "hub" traffic from SW into Lambert to feed the BA London route.

Southwest will *never* pair up with BA. Also I do think that STL will get a flight sooner rather than later.

Chalupas54 wrote:Also as mentioned earlier, most Cortex tenants are really pushing for an LHR flight. Also, Tampa has a flight to Gatwick in case any one is wondering, but a route there is almost like not having one at all. Gatwick is a good 1 hour from Central London, even on the Gatwick Express.

I'm wondering if there it will be easier to get the corporate support for this now? That is really all that has been missing and the airport director called out the business community for it. (and the amount that was mentioned some time ago was actually not much compared to other cities starting up service) I get the feeling the business community due to Cortex and outside blood is starting to change in the area to being more proactive and visionary which has been a big problem in the region. I just see the business and political community starting to change to being a more proactive and forward thinking with a new generation and that the status quo has been discredited.

Its just one thing for Cortex (and others) to push for it, its another to get the revenue guarantees to get it off the ground. The second has always been the sticking point, but it is quite likely that it would not be too great and possibly only to get it off the ground. Actually i'm wondering why the airport hasn't done it itself, since other places that has been the case (or the state). Though that might be due to financing obligations for the runway eating up budget.

Chalupas54 wrote:

zink wrote:

JAL007 wrote:Keep dreaming but it's unlikely BA will delegate a 787 and LHR slot pair for STL it just won't happen without support from the business community. The problem is filling the premium cabin which ultimately pays for the flight, and 35 J-cabin seats is pretty heavy for the STL market.

The ultimate win would be Southwest to pair up with British Airlines. Then you have all the "hub" traffic from SW into Lambert to feed the BA London route.

Southwest will *never* pair up with BA. Also I do think that STL will get a flight sooner rather than later.

Yeah, I believe British Airways is part of the One World network, which includes American Airlines, among others.

You know what really makes me mad...Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale both have direct flights to Scandinavian cities thanks for Norwegian Air and their 787. And it is SSSOO cheap direct. Wish they came here.

I was at the Transportation Engineering Association of Metro STL conference today and Dr.Daniel Rust from UMSL did a great presentation on the history of Lambert and the site where the airport is....shocking to see whats become of a place that has such great and important place in aviation history.

I think it is interesting how Norwegian Air is making a play for the European/US market. They also added a direct flight out to Oakland. Oakland has been marketing it heavily as its traffic, as has San Jose, decreased in the last couple years while SFO continues to grow traffic.

I also understand that Norwegian Air went heavily in debt to secure the planes for its big push. I would seriously take a hard look at acquiring a part of Norwegian Air if I was Southwest considering that some of the airports like Orlando and Oakland have a pretty significant Southwest presence. The routes would probably tie in nicely with Southwest just as Airtrain acquisition gave Southwest in instant market to the immediate south

^^ this would be nice. Since there is a good aviation history there in both commercial and military aviation along with the space program.

That sense of place you mention, how much of that is a function of the fact the airport is controlled by the City of St. Louis and the surrounding areas the county (and in large part the micro-municipalities). Would it make sense to address this in the near future as part of a push towards regional government? Mainly to make it more of a regional asset politically since it is in reality.

The Chicago shut down is just another consequence of airline consolidation and hubs concentration in just a few cities. Yesterday AA wanted to use Lambert. We need a steep unscheduled landing fee.

Dweebe, I think your right on as far as why an airline like Norwegian Air would land in Orlando first or Oakland for that matter.

What I scratch my head is trying to figure Southwest ambitions going forward and if and when they will code share. The US market is mature and Southwest is already the largest domestic carrier. Where as international flights and consolidation has made legacy airlines profitable with a much bigger market to draw from

This is where Lambert with a healthy number of direct flights for a non hub airport as well as a decent Forturne 500 presence might make some sense to an airline like Norwegian to give a direct European a flight a try if they have a means to code share or bring in travelers from other locations. Just as it makes sense for British Airways as they can pick some travelers who might take advantage of AA code share to get on their plane even if it requires a connection through a non-hub airport.

I did just that and for the same reason. The flight from Sydney is long either way so might as well fly to DFW instead of LAX and have a shorter flight to STL.

quincunx wrote:I did just that and for the same reason. The flight from Sydney is long either way so might as well fly to DFW instead of LAX and have a shorter flight to STL.

And also you would better layover length options in DFW than LAX due to more frequency so you won't have the issue of customs taking too long and worrying about missed connections due to tight times that could occur. (that and oftentimes on such flights with timing of meals on flight and arrival times its also good to have the time to go eat something waiting for connecting flight; since short layovers from an international to domestic flight (and vice versa) is just asking for trouble)

This flight makes sense for Qantas due to much more AA feed in DFW than LAX since they don't have as much in the latter particularly east of the Rockies so going to DFW relieves that and where there is more frequencies between DFW and another US city.

Also I was wondering, since its more likely when not if Spirit starts up out of Lambert, where would their gates most likely be?

i think you could make the same case for Lambert's central location if Southwest code shared with a few international airlines. Of course my own opinion based on comments you see here and there so have no way to back up my logic. I think you make that case from marketing perspective on South Chicago/Indiana and Midway itself, a quick flight and easy connection to Europe rather than the mess and price of O'hara or the long drive to Detroit.