Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

London City Airport CEO Robert Sinclair talks to HFP about recovery (and new lounges!)

Links on Head for Points may pay us an affiliate commission. A list of partners is here.

Before my flight to Ibiza last week I had time to chat about how London City Airport is adapting to new circumstances with Robert Sinclair, its CEO.

Robert was candid about the struggles that airports and airlines face globally.  As a business-heavy airport London City is particularly hard hit, operating at just 10% of its usual Summer capacity thanks to the fall in demand from business.

To put this into perspective, I was told on my return that Ibiza airport is operating at around 30% capacity.

Interview Robert Sinclair London City Airport CEO

Leisure traffic is saving London City Airport

Despite this, many of the flights now operating from the airport are doing well.  It currently has flights to Florence, Ibiza, Palma, Dundee, Teesside, Isle of Man, Malaga and Amsterdam.

My own flight was virtually fully booked, with the only empty seats from a handful of no-shows.  I was told that the daily CityFlyer Ibiza flight is consistently at 80% – 90% of capacity, which is a good even at the best of times.  Malaga, Palma and Florence are also doing well.  It is clear that people are eager to travel for leisure.

The same cannot be said for business flying, demand for which has cratered. Whilst essential travel continues, London City doesn’t expect its major corporate clients to start flying in a noticeable way until September, and even then only at 20% to 30% of normal levels. Crucially, business travel will become the choice of individual employees – Sinclair feels that there will no expectation to travel for some time yet.

Interview Robert Sinclair London City Airport CEO

Where does this leave LCY?

London City finds itself in an unusual position. Few airports have as large a business to leisure ratio, and so are finding it easier than City to rebound as leisure travel slowly begins to return.

With significant business demand not predicted until later this Autumn, London City has pivoted to virtually exclusively leisure flying.  Key routes in normal times such as Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Dublin, Edinburgh, Zurich, Luxembourg and Milan will only return slowly.

Luxair relaunched Luxembourg last Friday, whilst we can exclusively reveal that Lufthansa will restart its Frankfurt flights from 6th September with two flights per day.

The good news is that London City has been diversifying its passenger base for some time now and now attracts an even 50-50 split between business and leisure passengers. This is a significant improvement from fifteen years ago, when business accounted for around 90% of all traffic at the airport.

Much of this growth has been achieved by utilising capacity that might otherwise stand idle. Airlines such as BA CityFlyer are effectively mopping up leisure demand at off-peak times during the day and at weekends.  This maximises the use of the aircraft and staff and has also proven surprisingly popular.

This will, clearly, continue. With only a handful of daily flights, London City has transformed into a leisure airport and is finding success in doing so. Whilst its domestic flights are flagging, Malaga, Ibiza, Florence and Palma flights are doing extremely well.

What about London City’s redevelopment plans?

Attracting a greater leisure audience is partly why the airport launched its redevelopment plan. The scheme, which we wrote about in 2018, will see usable floor space quadrupled, which in turn will allow for a greater amount of shopping and dining options for leisure travellers.

In addition, Robert Sinclair confirmed that the airport is planning for at least two premium lounges.  London City does not currently operate any lounges unless you count the Jet Centre in private jet terminal which we reviewed, here.

The lack of lounges has never been a problem in the past, as the airport’s key attraction for business travellers is the speed and ease of passing through.  (Although, at one time, the Rolex concession at London City had the highest turnover per square metre of any outlet in Europe!)

The maths is different for premium leisure travellers, who want to enjoy a drink in the lounge before a business class flight.  As it currently stands, the Club Europe and Euro Traveller experiences are not wildly different on BA CityFlyer, especially as such a high percentage of passengers have Executive Club status.

(If I had to guess, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a British Airways lounge as well as a third-party Priority Pass offering from a company such as Plaza Premium or No 1 Lounges.)

London City’s redevelopment plans are currently in limbo.  Whilst work continues on extending the taxiway parallel to the runway and the addition of several new aircraft stands, it’s not clear if or when the airport will continue with its original masterplan.  We may see delay or even down-sizing.  Much will depend on how aviation recovers in the coming months – even airport management are hesitant to commit one way or another – although the long lead time for the project means that it is unlikely to open before aviation has made a strong recovery.

Conclusion

It’s hard to believe just how devastating Covid-19 has been for airports and airlines. Whilst some flights are doing well, airports have become mausoleums in 2020, mourning the millions of passengers they would otherwise welcome.  Hopefully Robert and his colleagues can still make their plans come to fruition.

Comments (105)

  • Crafty says:

    Letting oneself be pictured with a mask half off one’s face, in a corporate capacity, is a bit of a no-no!

    • BS says:

      I bet you campaigned against seatbelts when they came in. Or against the fluoridation of water. Actually asbestos can be useful can’t it?
      Get over yourself.

      • Brighton Belle says:

        A chain smoker in economy on a 10 hour flight I don’t miss much either.

    • Evan says:

      It’s people like you who have required rules to be implemented in the first place. Selfish.

    • Julian says:

      No I think its extremely selfish to suffocate shop workers who work in supermarkets 8 or more hours a day with a device none of them (at least in my two local towns) have seen any need to wear by choice up until now over the last 4 months.

      The evidence that masks are effective in relation to their benefits (especially in a non medical context) is extremely minimal but it seems to be all about reassuring the “worried well” on their large salaries who have been tucked in their home office bunkers for the last few months.

      The benefits of seat belts by comparison are clear and obvious.

      • Paul says:

        Please could you point me towards the evidence that the masks will suffocate people working in shops, sounds like a national scandal about to happen.

        Just been to Portugal where there was 99.9% compliance and they have to wear in even more locations and there were some days travelling where I wore for 8 hours straight which was mildly inconvenient but I did not pass away

        • Colin says:

          No one is going to “suffocate” (unless you have asthma or breathing problems but that doesn’t apply to most of the mask crybabies).

          It’s really not hard to wear a mask unless you’re mentally weak/a snowflake who can’t adapt to new situations.

          • Colin says:

            I some big girl’s blouses on the news crying about how they found it hard to wear a mask. So when I went for a long stroll on Saturday (it was 25 degrees) I decided to try for myself.

            It really wasn’t difficult. I was even able to have a conversation with someone I bumped into.

            I’m not interested in the evidence for and against masks as I’ve got better things to do with my free time but anyone who struggles to wear one without crying like a baby should really grow a pair.

      • TGLoyalty says:

        Shop workers aren’t actually mandated to wear them just customers.

        • Julian says:

          Well that seems to be absurd since they are clearly the people at greatest risk of contracting the virus since its a matter of viral load and how much virus you are exposed to for how long that determines whether you may (not will) contract it or not.

          Although I expect all of the major retailers will mandate that their staff have to wear masks as I can’t otherwise see how they are going to deal with any recalcitrant wearing customers.

          Anyway the rule comes in on Friday so where are all these masks suddenly going to appear from with the 90% of us who have never acquired or worn one so far…….

          • Colin says:

            “ Anyway the rule comes in on Friday so where are all these masks suddenly going to appear from with the 90% of us who have never acquired or worn one so far…….”

            From a physical shop or the internet. Pretty obvious stuff really.

            There’s a big company called Amazon. Have you heard of them?

      • Oh! Matron! says:

        Talks about evidence yet shows none.

        • Julian says:

          See https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87120 for a US medic’s opinion that it is unnecessary for most of us to wear masks in situations where we are only briefly passing by other people are are not in prolonged close contact with them.

          • Fraser says:

            It’s unnecessary for most of us to wear seatbelts too. Only those involved in a crash will gain any benefit.

        • TGLoyalty says:

          Tbh this is true for both sides of this masks vs no mask argument. There is clear evidence that people wearing masks do start to feel more comfortable coming within 2m of people and that clearly people are touching their masks right in the contaminated zone and potentially spreading it around. There’s also evidence that it can stop the spread of aerosols if used correctly so it will have atleast some effect. It’s just if the pros outweigh the cons.

          I’ve seen lots of rubbish around which is purely conjecture on both sides. Real proof will be in the pudding as they say as we will see how behaviours and transmission rates change over the next few weeks.

          • Andrew says:

            No need to wait for the proof surely? If shops are a serious vector for transmission then there should be plenty of evidence of people catching it whilst shopping over the last four months when the large majority of people have not been wearing masks…

            If the aim is to make people feel safer I think it will backfire. Scenes with large numbers of people all wearing masks do not exactly inspire feelings of safety.

          • Nick says:

            I think it’s worse than that. My discretionary spending will fall from ‘low’ to ‘zero’ when the rule comes in. I can wear a mask, absolutely, and I will in circumstances where I absolutely have to. But I hate doing so. Really hate it. I’m permanently uncomfortable, can’t see a thing (glasses steaming) and heartily willing the mandatory period to be over. So personal choice will kick in and I just won’t go to any shop willingly, only if I really do need something (e.g. food). I just don’t want to spend discretionary time or money doing something unpleasant. Time will tell how many people are like me and how many are not. If they are, either the rule will be quietly dropped or the economy will close again. I have things I’d quite like to go and buy, but won’t do so while the rule is in place.

      • Tony says:

        Masks reduce the ability of Covid19 to spread as on its own it does not fly around but is carried in the droplets we all put into the atmosphere everytime we talk, sbeezrle, cough, etc.
        If everybody wears a mask we are helping each other.

      • Crafty says:

        Oh that’s right, silly me, masks are an artificial device to placate rich people. How did I miss that.

        • Chrisasaurus says:

          Oh it’s far deeper than that you know – learned people have discovered through their superior minds that the entire Covid pandemic is a hoax designed by democrats to force rednecks and Daily Mail readers into wearing masks even though it doesn’t directly benefit them (and therefore has no value whatsoever, clearly)

    • RWJ says:

      … and there’s always someone to come in and start screeching about “my liberty”. You’re perfectly free to not use public transport, in-person shops or public spaces if you’d rather not cover your face.

    • WaynedP says:

      Imperare sibi maximum imperium est

    • Rhys says:

      He wore a mask to begin with, but removed it so that we could hear better. At least 2-3m apart and he asked first 🙂

      • Julian says:

        Well of course he removed it to talk to you because they are so absurdly impractical and uncomfortable in the real world and nearly all the F1 drivers interviewed in Hungary kept pushing them back up their faces (so the advice not to touch the mask or your face is clearly written by people who have never worn them).

        However I still don’t think you should have risked the poor man getting in to hot water by putting a photo on here so that all the COVID hysterics could rise up in arms about it……….

        • Colin says:

          They’re really not that uncomfortable.

          They’re mandated in shops in Germany and they’ve had a much faster economic recovery than most in Europe. Clearly masks haven’t had a negative impact. Are you saying that Germans are less weak/pathetic than Brits?

          • Colin MacKinnon says:

            Decades ago, I worked for a paper called Meat Trades Journal. The number of times – despite being fully briefed – an agency photographer would take a photo of a butcher with prize winning sausages and he wasn’t wearing a hat!

            Poor butcher was, of course, doing paperwork when the photographer called. So was just forgetting his hat.

            So, to me, the worrying thing is not the mask. It is that the boss of LCY and his PR gurus didn’t know to either take a photo with a mask on ( a bit pointless) or take a photo without any sign of a mask ( easily done from 2m away)

            Instead, he is now on public record as doing one of the things you should never do with a mask – hang it around your neck!

        • Callum says:

          Yet somehow surgeons manage to wear them for hours on end while managing to communicate intricate details with everyone else…

          Not that I’m remotely surprised to see this posted by you!

          • Blenz101 says:

            42oC here in Dubai today. Masks have been mandatory with zero exceptions for anyone stepping outside of the house since March.

            We have ALL managed to breath perfectly well and kept the deaths across the whole of the UAE to c.330 in total last time I checked.

            The only argument should be why the U.K. didn’t do it sooner – common sense alone would tell you there is a benefit to not breathing in other people’s breath during a global pandemic.

    • Harry T says:

      Wearing masks is a public health measure, backed by the best evidence we have, to protect others, rather than yourself. I guess this is why so many people struggle with the concept, as it clashes with their current world view of self interest.

      Also, wearing the kind of face coverings most people are obliged to in Tesco is at worst a minor inconvenience. Many key workers, including the doctors saving the lives of the public, have to wear more uncomfortable masks for longer. Perhaps the more libertarian members of our society should reflect on that when they next feel affronted by having to wear a mask to buy some milk.

  • Reeferman says:

    My experience at LCY yesterday lunchtime:
    The terminal was quiet – with the first of 3 flights that day departing within a 10 minute window and then nothing for a couple of hours.
    Security was efficient and friendly (which was definitely an improvement!)
    The only shops open were WHSmith, Boots and Cafe Nero
    Boarding was by row number, but strangely about 8 rows were called at the same time – almost one-third of the plane. A queue formed with zero social distancing. Boarding by group number would have been better.
    Onboard there were ±15 vacant seats – despite the boarding announcement that the flight was very busy and asking for 8 to 10 bags to be checked in. So about 85% load factor
    We were upgraded to Club which was good for food (relatively speaking) but bad for legroom as we were originally in the exit row seats in economy.
    The food service was a bag containing a bottle of water, chocolate moose, cheese and onion (mini) roll and pack of apple slices/grapes. Crisps were also offered later. Drinks were offered: a choice of wines and spirits, beers and soft drinks. No ice. No tea/coffee.
    Service was efficient. Toilets were cleaned regularly – although not after each passenger’s use
    The crew reminded us that masks were to be worn throughout – other than eating/drinking! Disembarkation was by row – in groups of 4 rows – which was better than the boarding process.
    Overall it was a good experience and certainly a better one than I expected.

  • Qrfan says:

    Rob – the elephant in the room not referenced in this article is Crossrail. Once the wharf is 48 minutes from T5 without central London connections, all those BAE Gold customers are going to have a compelling reason to choose T5 with first wing over City. The sad fact is, pre-covid, City was not very quick during peak periods with security queues of 20-30 minutes. It also has has thin tolerances for cold-weather operations (i.e. peak ski season) and regularly diverts late evening arrival flights to Southend, as various friends have learned to their discomfort. I don’t fancy City lasting 5 years.

    • RWJ says:

      Will Crossrail ever be completed?! On a more serious note, while I’m sure some people will go to LHR once they can (more easily), there will always be people for whom being able to be at the airport within 20 minutes of leaving their desk is attractive.

      I don’t think LCY’s type of customer cares much about lounges (at least not on business flights!), they just want to get to where they’re going as quickly and easily as possible.

      • Gordon says:

        Putting Crossrail to one side (yes, I believe it will have a significant impact), the other significant factor that wasn’t addressed was the impact of more flexible work patterns. Many firms are unlikely to demand a return to full-time office working. Will LCY be people’s first choice of airport when they are travelling from their home to catch a flight? Also, as businesses realise a lot can be achieved through remote meetings, this will impact future business demand.

      • Qrfan says:

        That’s my point – speed matters and LCY isn’t necessarily quicker. LCY doesn’t have fast track security and the queue is often 30 minutes or more on a Friday evening. If you have first wing access at T5 I genuinely think you’d get to the gate just as quickly via Crossrail (if you timed the trains correctly).

      • Julian says:

        They need to provide a decent convenient car park for London City as its clearly far more convenient and quicker to driver to than Heathrow for people in the right parts of London.

        But of course that won’t be allowed by all the tree hugging and bicycling forces now at work in London.

        • ChrisC says:

          I seem to recall that there is a rather large car park at the front of the airport already.

          Where would you suggest a new and ‘decent’ one be built?

    • Andrew says:

      At the same time, even with Crossrail, there are many people in the East London catchment for LCY who would have to get to a Crossrail station first, before making the 48/50 minute journey, for whom a 15-20 minute Uber or trip on the DLR is preferable to going across the city.

      Colleagues on an arc from Walthamstow through Stratford, Bethnal Green, Poplar, Isle of Dogs and through pretty much all SE postcodes into Woolwich go to LHR begrudgingly and always choose LCY. We’re not bankers, we earn well enough but are probably in Rob’s lowest 10% of working age demographic.

      For my colleague who just bought a flat in Leyton, LCY is 30 minutes by taxi or by Central Line/DLR, the taxi is £14 by Ola or £25 in a black cab and the public transport option is £1.70. LHR is 1h40 in a cab, 68 minutes at its quickest by Central Line, Bakerloo and HEx for less frequency/reliability, for £52 by Ola, £130+ by black cab, or £28.30 by HEx if buying today. Even with Crossrail it will be an hour for something more expensive. For leisure travellers this is a big difference, for our (large tech company) business the cheaper option is expected and unless you want Monday morning to Frankfurt or Thursday evening to Edinburgh prices are pretty consistent between the 2 airports (in my experience, YMMV).

    • ChrisC says:

      Yes it was interesting that this wasn’t in the article.

      The previous LCY chief execs (I don’t think this guy has been in post for very long) would always bang on about a crossrail station at LCY totally ignoring the practicalities of building one there and that their much vaunted £50m contribution won’t get you very much of a station – especially on the LCY site.

      TFL never said no but asked for a formal feasibility study (LCY never produced one) and the government said in around 2015 that they had no objection as long as a station was built without using public funds and journey times weren’t increased (which they would as a stop would be at least a minute and the trains would have to decelerate to stop and time would also be lost on acceleration).

      Yes the line clips under the runway but it’s in the Connaught Tunnel but it’s also on a curve (not good for easy access on and off very long trains). yes there is passive provision at Silvertown but that would mean endless bus shuttles going through a residential area for 16+hours a day which isn’t ideal. There will be shuttles from a custom House but that avoids residential areas.

  • Jon says:

    Not sure ‘mausoleums’ was *quite* the right word there, Rhys? 😂

  • ChrisC says:

    @Rhys

    It’s Teesside not Teeside.

    • Rhys says:

      I get this wrong every time!

      • ChrisC says:

        Yes you do. Very naughty of you.

        But 10/10 for putting it right so quickly.

      • Julian says:

        Its obvious they spelt the name wrong due to poor training in the English language.

        Typical Northerners…………:-)

        • ChrisC says:

          The river is the Tees hence Teesside.

          If it was the Tee then Teeside would be correct. But it’s not the Tee.

  • Colin says:

    “ It is clear that people are eager to travel for leisure.”

    Yes. But only a fraction of the people who usually travel for leisure at this time of year (I work in the travel industry and overall passenger numbers are still dire YOY despite talk of there being a a v shaped recovery which is based on mathematical dunces using “versus April” comparisons).

    • Rhys says:

      I think that much is obvious by the fact that LCY is operating at 10% capacity!

      • Colin says:

        Quite. So in general, people clearly aren’t eager to travel for leisure (they might be eager in theory, but they’re not actually doing it).

        • Rhys says:

          To be fair, we are in the first week or so of travel restarting – I think a lot of people are taking a ‘wait and see’ approach just like they did when restaurants re-opened. I know I waited a week to see how things panned out!

          • Colin says:

            The second and third weeks since restaurants and pubs opened haven’t been much better than the first though. Overall footfall is still down around 45%/50% on both weekends and weekdays.

          • TGLoyalty says:

            I’m sure this is the case across the board as people want to sit outside rather than inside and because seating is Down due to social distancing

            I went out on Tuesday for dinner and it was about 90% full the whole time I was there.

            my Friday afternoon consisted of me visiting 3 local pubs

            1 had no tables for the next hour (in or out)
            1 wasnt serving alcohol without food even though the whole outdoor drinking area was closed off and wasn’t / isn’t used for food. Bizarre policy.
            Finally number 3 had one table but was full of people all the time I was there.

          • Colin says:

            “ because seating is Down due to social distancing”

            I’ve heard a lot of this but this assumes that restaurants were always at close to full capacity last year and always close to full capacity this year. That also assumes that seating capacity is down 50% everywhere, which is obviously isn’t.

            eg a restaurant has 10 tables and 6 were full on average last year. This year it has 5 tables so footfall should only be be down 17% but it’s actually down 50% and there’s capacity available.

            Now it may well be capacity but just as you saw 3 full pubs, I saw many more which had a plenty of room for everyone.

            People are so convinced that there’ll be a v shaped recovery that they’re now trying to come up with reasons to explain why it’s just round the corner. I’d obviously like one too but none of the facts and data suggest it’s going to happen. I heard some clown say there’s going to be an interrupted v shaped recovery. It’s not a v shape then

          • Lady London says:

            i think the recovery will have a sharks tooth shape not a v shape 🙂

            Been out and about travelling on essential errands the past 2 days to and in London.

            The proud ignorance, rudeness and selfishness of three quarters of the people out and about in this part of the UK beggars belief. At one point I was in the London Borough of Brent, top of the league table for covid deaths in England. There, the mask and any idea of the practical application of social distancing are basically disregarded. And yet there was a march claiming BAME people were being unfairly affected and nothing was being done about it.

            It’s been a real eye opener and as it doesnt concern their own little world today these three quarters of the people out and about probably dont care to try to reduce their impact on the environment either. I know this word has been appropriated differently for the past 5 years but I can understand why humanity deserves a holocaust. @Novice has the right idea with the hermit option.

          • Lady London says:

            *5 years = 75 years appropriated.

          • Bagoly says:

            @LL: I had a similar experience in a German city – the only restaurant that was open was the gourmet burger place – they hadn’t even got the message about not handling the customer’s credit card. The staff were not immigrants, so there was no issue about their not understanding the language.
            We are inclined to stay as isolated as we easily can, and let Darwinism take its course.

    • marcw says:

      This. Passenger numbers are still very very low. This during the highest peak season of the year. I don’t want to imagine how the winter will look like, with almost nil leisure passengers, and business travellers non-existent. I wouldn’t be surprised if LCY shuts their doors for the toughest winter months.

      • TGLoyalty says:

        But it’s chicken and egg

        I’d like to travel but so many flights are cancelled and so many good hotels are closed that I’m not. Instead I’ve been spending my discretionary travel “budget” on higher cost home improvements, new technology etc

        • Colin says:

          It doesn’t matter that you’d like to travel. Wanting to travel won’t pay the bills of airlines etc

          The only thing that matters is that you aren’t travelling.

          • TGLoyalty says:

            I’m not sure what your point is.

            My point is unless you put flights on to places and you have hotels open people aren’t going to travel. Those with highest disposable income aren’t looking to spend a week in the HIX in Benidorm (80/20 here please don’t say I’m going there and I’m a millionaire)

        • marcw says:

          That’s because you are an out-layer. Airlines are stopping flights, hotels are shutting down because the demand is not there. Think about places like Mallorca, which is fed 90% by European travellers. At the end on July it is expected the airport will operate at 50% 2019 traffic levels.

          • Colin says:

            “ I’m not sure what your point is.”

            That people aren’t eager enough to travel that they’re actually, you know, travelling.

          • Rob says:

            3 hour queues at Heathrow check in on Saturday morning!

          • Colin says:

            Also, there’s plenty of places people can travel to where enough hotels are open if they were actually that desperate to travel.

  • sayling says:

    I’m starting to loathe the over use of ‘pivot’

  • Aeronaut says:

    “It’s hard to believe just how devastating Covid-19 has been for airports and airlines.”

    Well, I find it quite easy to believe. Pandemics and travel do not make comfortable bedfellows.

    Of course travel will come back to an extent. But, relevant to LCY in particular, is the question of how much business travel will come back. It’s hardly an original point, but I imagine many businesses have realised they can operate fairly well without sending their people all over the place.

    (And yes, I don’t think virtual meetings can replicate the face-to-face experience of being present in one another’s company… but I dare say many businesses may deem that they can operate just as effectively with a reduced number of ‘real-world’ meetings, particularly those involving significant travel.)

    • Colin says:

      I think some people think that when people say business travel will be negatively impacted that you mean that no one will ever travel again for business. That’s clearly not that point. Even a 10% decrease in the long term, for example, would have a big impact on airlines etc.

      • marcw says:

        Agree, any percentage on the long term will be damaging. In this context, look at BAs 747 premium seat capacity: “During 2019, the “Queen of the Skies” accounted for 25% of BA’s wide body fleet, 27% of its long haul capacity and 32% of its premium seats.”

        BA is clearly chopping – with the retirement of the 7474- a bit percentage of their premium seats.

        • TGLoyalty says:

          you have to remember they have taken delivery of

          6 A350 with 3 to come this year
          2 787-10 with 4 due this year
          4 additional 777 due

          They also have around 10 777 refurbished with club suite and 7 or so to go.

          So capacity will perhaps be 15% down on 2019, but bad news overall as only some 747 were planned to retire this year BA were hoping to increase capacity rather than reduce it.

          • marcw says:

            The point is, the 747 had a very high premium seat % vs total seats available (on the high J 747, F, J and premium Y accounted for almost 50% of total seat capacity). All other planes, offer far less premium %.

            Capacity will be far far lower. I predict at least 50% down 2020 vs 2019.

          • TGLoyalty says:

            Agree but the reason why I think there will be a smaller reduction thank you think is because Super Hi was 14F 86J 30W and Mid was 14F 52J 36W

            All the refurbished 777 are about what they were before overall but with the better club suite product.

            A350 is 56J and 56W so rebalance of J vs W but still a similar number of premium

            787-10 8F 48J 35W drops a few vs mid J but again it’s not a massive drop vs 747.

            F was already on the cards for a large capacity reduction.

        • memesweeper says:

          You are right. If business (class) travel to the west coast recovers BA are going to need a premium heavy plane in the mix again. Making that change to some of the A350s or B777s on order would be fairly easy I’d guess, if the demand is there.