British Airways CEO would welcome WestJet alliance

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:59 am

tonysoprano wrote:bmc
How many LCC operate out of LHR? Can you name them?

The first one that comes to mind is Aer Lingus.

I'll have to look. And while I'm looking, define LCC. The original definition included non-interlining. Virgin Express was viewed as a LCC. SN Brussels arguably. I'll have to check if they're at LHR of LGW.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Elaborate.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:58 pm

bmc.
What I'm getting at is LHR is not an LCC hub. WJ would probably not get any slots there unless BA were to intervene. Most of the LCC's operate out of LGW and Stanstead as you know, which are not user-friendly to connecting pax on the legacy carriers. That's a disadvantage. Define LCC? Well it seems they still define themselves as the cheaper alternative. But you're right, it is becoming more difficult to define. Aer Lingus is now a LCC but is still a flag carrier and had their slots given when they were still a legacy operation. Sure there might be a few LCC there but they should consider themselves lucky to be there.

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:39 pm

BA doesn't have any say about slot allocation unless they were letting WJ use them. Also, whether you intend to interline or not is not a condition of using the airport. Your mention of LGW for LCC is interesting in that the airport has exploded with LCC and charter operators. Every time I go there, it seems there are another 20 new operators. Despite that, LGW is a major hub for Europe believe it or not. At one time, about 8 or so years ago, it was the fourth busiest connecting airport in Europe. Quite an accomplishment for a single runway airport. BA still has a sizeable operation out of there.

A key component of the LCC is model is cost. Underutilized airports with low user charges are targets for LCC. One such airport is Isere-Grenoble in France, about an hours drive from Geneva. Out in the middle of nowhere, but there's a whack of LCC's providing lift from the UK.

The Canada UK market is well served with AC and BA. Seasonal peaks are well served with charter lift. Both BA and AC depend heavily on behind and beyond hub flow to fill thoses seats. That, coupled with long established local market presense, make their operations sustainable. I just can't see the business case for WJ to serve the UK.

LHR is undoubtedly a conjested airport. If WJ is intending on LHR, it would be for the flow from BA and other carriers. The more beyond points you add to a journey, the more sectors share in the revenue which often times means a yield hit. Also, to really capitalize on LHR and its benefits, you'd want to interline with as many carriers as possible. That could work with the other Oneworld carriers.

ok...it's Sunday night...this is too much like work...I'm punching out. It's been fun Tony. Later.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:25 pm

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:34 am

If WestJet join oneworld they will leave one low cost model for another. Funny that they will pass Aer Lingus leaving as they enter though.

bmc · Post by **bmc** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:56 pm

Aer Lingus was getting beat up on the yields. DUB-LON is a good strong local market. They were getting pounded by cheap traffic to Sydney, Hong Kong, etc.

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:59 pm

If WestJet join oneworld they will leave one low cost model for another. Funny that they will pass Aer Lingus leaving as they enter though.

What's the low cost model - can you define it? I certainly can't anymore. In all honesty, the term low cost has become so watered down over the years the title just doesn't stick anymore. Low cost = low COSTS, not how you operate; where you operate; who you operate with; how you strategically operate; or anything related to your product offering. There aren't many operators out there that can say, without a doubt, that they are a low cost airline. The definition itself isn't clearly defined anymore!! Hell, Southwest code-shares with ATA - is the godfather of "low-cost" no longer low-cost??

You'd think the sky were falling by some of the comments and worried thoughts out there by some over WJ and any form of discussion of it joining/partnering with an alliance/airline. This industry is constantly changing and just because one airline evolves into something it wasn't 2, 5, 10 years ago doesn't mean jack shit. Almost every airine worldwide has evolved in some form or another to stay relevant. "Legacy" carriers are trimming costs, frills, and inefficiencies while the "low-cost" airlines are adding frills, perks, and - one could argue - "traditional" concepts (see Southwest/ATA codeshares, for example). The lines between the two are becoming more and more blurred everyday. To the consumer, is that a bad thing?

Westjet's network within Canada has so much potential for feed to/from other airlines it's no wonder airlines are so interested in partnering with us. A British Airways/Westjet partnership to Europe; a Cathay Pacific/Westjet partnership to Asia; an American/Westjet partnership to the US; and a Qantas/Westjet partnership to Australia. I'm not going to pretend I know how much of an impact that'll be to Air Canada but with Open Skies on the horizon foreign airlines can/will increase capacity to Canada and if the partnerships I speak of above actually happen, Oneworld will grow significantly within Canada at the expense of Air Canada. Not because I think Westjet has a better product, but because Oneworld has no presense within Canada at all right now.

So, I'll finish with this: You say Westjet's leaving one low-cost model for another. What model are they leaving to? You say that Aer Lingus is leaving. Fair eough, they were a full-service carrier trying to become a "low-cost" carrier - weren't they? How many successful transitions have you seen happen when a carrier tries to do that?

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:55 am

Eh.
I'd have to agree with much of what you say when it comes to WJ. I think the true Low costs are in Europe where you can go anywhere for about 39 Euros (approx $60). The States also have some true Low costs. WJ's prices are now matched and are not what I would consider low cost. The model at WJ is constantly evolving while still maintaining high yields. WJ reflects effeciency as it should be with a one-type equipment model of business. The price for this from a pilot's point of view is the limitations in terms of destinations and equipment. Personally, I couldn't accept a one equipment-job but it seems times have changed and many of you are quite happy with it. I think that perhaps it's not just a new model but also a new breed of pilots. As for your comments on the partnerships, you may have a point. It might affect AC. But don't forget, in addition to the AC-Jazz network that egsists domestically and transborder, the Star Alliance is the largest of its kind and already has a solid customer base in Canada and worldwide. Therefore I would have to suggest the impact would be minimal at best. Sorry but you're starting to sound a bit too much like your boss.

Realitychex · Post by **Realitychex** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:39 pm

tonysoprano wrote:Eh.
But don't forget, in addition to the AC-Jazz network that egsists domestically and transborder, the Star Alliance is the largest of its kind and already has a solid customer base in Canada and worldwide. Therefore I would have to suggest the impact would be minimal at best. Sorry but you're starting to sound a bit too much like your boss.

You know, that's exactly what the CEO's of AC and Canadian said when WJA first launched.

The impact would be minimal......

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:08 pm

ooooooh!

Realitychex · Post by **Realitychex** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:05 pm

tonysoprano wrote:ooooooh!

What you need to think about is the impact of low fares on any given route. All it takes is one flight a day on one route to completely change the fare regime on that route.

Most airlines are lucky to make 5% pts on any given route. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens when overall yields drop 10% on a route with a low cost carrier on it.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:27 pm

You've just described Canadian aviation for the past 10 years ace. I think the low fares you refer to have been around a while. The "impact" as you folks like to refer to has come more from people not flying during that period post 9/11, Sars etc. Airlines will adjust to whatever price is out there. If they can't, I guess they sink, ie Jetsgo. As for the rest of us, game on. Speaking of which, Leafs are playing. Later!

2low · Post by **2low** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:03 pm

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:39 am

Hey, how did that interview go?

2low · Post by **2low** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:32 pm

Hey Tony, I think the interview went well. All seemed fine till one of the guys asking me if I am a frequent poster on Avcanada and If I have ever said anything negative about Air Canada on it

.

Im not sure if they got my IP address and know who I am or what. It sure got me thinking though. Why would they ask such questions. It's like they knew and were just putting me on the spot.

It's now been about 5 weeks since the interview and haven't heard a thing. But after those questins im not holding my breath. So much for being anonymous

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:26 am

You're kidding me right?

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:48 am

I knew a guy years ago got busted at his interview because he got caught posting interview questions on the internet. Actually, it could have been on Avcanada. He didn't get the job to say the least... and yes, they knew who he was.

abc xyz · Post by **abc xyz** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:21 am

[quote="2low"]Hey Tony, I think the interview went well. All seemed fine till one of the guys asking me if I am a frequent poster on Avcanada and If I have ever said anything negative about Air Canada on it

.

i dont know about you folks but i think that is pretty pathetic. these boards are more about amusement then anything else. i think AC should look at refocusing their hiring practices to more relevant things like sim evaluations and legit interviews questions. psycho bulllshit like cog tests mean sweet @#$! all. i much rather have somebody say it like it is versus giving you a scripted response. maybe that interviewer should take his Six Sigma blackbelt and shove it up his ass.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:00 am

Anymore news on this?