Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

EXCLUSIVE: British Airways to quit Gatwick short haul – but a new airline will take over

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

British Airways has emailed all staff to propose a new operating subsidiary to run short haul flights at London Gatwick.

For the past 18 months British Airways has been operating a skeleton service from Gatwick Airport. For much of that time no flights departed; recently a number of long-haul routes have returned, all operating from the North Terminal where BA has no lounges or dedicated check in area.

According to Cirium data just eight long haul routes are scheduled to operate next month: Antigua, Kingston Jamaica, Las Vegas, Montego Bay, Orlando, Mauritius, Tampa and St Lucia. There is also a Glasgow service, timed to feed the long haul flights.

British Airways Gatwick Airport

In 2019 it operated 47 short haul routes with four unserved by any other airline: Algiers, Cologne/Bonn, Genoa and Manchester.

BA’s operation Gatwick was leisure-heavy and point-to-point even prior to covid, ferrying holidaymakers rather than lucrative business travellers. This is why the Boeing 777 fleet at Gatwick was the first to be densified to 10 across in economy and will be the last to receive Club Suite.

British Airways also faced mounting pressure from low cost carriers such as easyJet and Norwegian, which back then also competed on long haul flights to the United States.

Covid-19 could have been the final nail in the coffin for BA’s operation at Gatwick. That would have been unwise however: ceding Gatwick to its low cost rivals would have allowed them to get even stronger. By keeping a foot in the door British Airways is able to keep them in check and restrict access to slots.

British Airways is considering a new Gatwick subsidiary

British Airways management now favours the launch of a new, lower-cost subsidary that can operate short haul flights at Gatwick. This is what their letter to staff today had to say:

“As you know, we haven’t been operating short haul flights at Gatwick during the pandemic. This was previously a highly competitive market, but for us to run a sustainable airline in the current environment, we need a competitive operating model. Because of that, we are proposing a new operating subsidiary to run alongside our existing long-haul Gatwick operation, to serve short haul routes to/from Gatwick from summer 2022. This will help us to be both agile and competitive, allowing us to build a sustainable short haul presence at Gatwick over time.

As of today, we don’t have the answers, but we want to be upfront about the complexity we’re dealing with, and working through with your trade union guides. We will keep you posted as things develop.”

The letter was signed off by “Sean, Andrew, Anthony, Ben, Colm, Jason, Lisa, Neil, Stuart, Tom and Becca. Your Management Comittee” ie. Sean Doyle, the CEO, and his leadership team.

British Airways confirmed the news with the following statement:

“We are working with our unions on proposals for a short-haul operation at Gatwick. We are not prepared to comment further while this process continues.”

What could a new British Airways subsidiary look like?

Previous rumours suggested that British Airways would depart Gatwick entirely in favour of preserving its lucrative landing slots at Heathrow. The assumption was that BA’s slots at Gatwick would be used by other IAG airlines such as Vueling or LEVEL, or potentially even forfeited.

This was always unlikely. Vueling is not a particularly well-known brand outside of its Iberian footprint – there would have been little benefit in introducing the brand to UK travellers versus creating a fresh new one. It also suffered serious customer service issues when it was run by Alex Cruz which tarnished the brand.

(To English eyes and ears, Vueling also reads very close to ‘fueling’ despite being pronounced more like ‘bwelin’.)

Level IAG

A LEVEL short haul or long haul operation was also far fetched. IAG has used LEVEL to exert pressure against its major European competitiors such as Lufthansa/Austrian and Air France by launching flights from their dominant hubs in Paris and Vienna, but these routes are now closed.

IAG has been extremely reluctant to introduce the airline at its own fortress-hubs of Heathrow and Madrid. Even in Spain, where LEVEL first launched, it only operates from Barcelona where Iberia has a much smaller presence.

There are two alternatives. The most likely, I think, is that British Airways launches a new subsidiary with a new brand to operate Gatwick flights, along the lines of its CityFlyer operation at London City.

This would be operationally distinct under a different brand (perhaps ‘BA Express’?) with separate pilot and crew agreements. This would allow the Gatwick operation to pursue lower costs without affecting the existing fleet of pilots and crew, who have just signed a new agreement with British Airways.

IAG sister airlines Iberia and Iberia Express already operate under such a model. Iberia Express operates less profitable short-haul feeder flights for Iberia’s long haul flights under a lower cost model. Crucially, Iberia Express also operates A320-sized aircraft.

The other less likely option is that British Airways remains at Gatwick but a subfleet of crew is developed to lower costs. This has been done previously – when British Airways launched the lower paid ‘Mixed Fleet’ in the noughties – but is messy and may face strong resistance from the unions.

Even a ‘BA Express’ style stand-alone subsidiary at Gatwick may be hard to deliver. The unions are likely to be strict with the conditions it imposes on any subfleet, especially as every new hire means one less job for a furloughed cabin crew member.

How can you really drive down costs?

It is also worth pondering what costs can actually be cut. BA has stated numerous times that it now believes it has a cost base at Gatwick which is competitive. Incoming pilots and cabin crew are rumoured to earn less than their colleagues at easyJet. What is left to give, unless staff are stripped of staff travel etc?

The bottom line is that the really big costs – fleet, fuel and landing costs – can’t be flexed easily. Would BA really try to save money by, say, not protecting connections or checking through luggage to mainline BA long haul flights? Where is the benefit in not allowing lounge access to Executive Club elite members when the Gatwick lounges are built and virtually brand new?

You also need to question the market segmentation at work here. The phrase ‘bucket and spade’ airport or airline is, outside of the charter carriers, nonsense. A large percentage of easyJet passengers from Gatwick were, pre covid, travelling on business. The percentage share for BA will have been even higher. Many of the leisure routes were to more upmarket holiday destinations which attract an older, wealthier customer base.

Will these passengers switch to ‘BA Light’? In truth, easyJet will be more attractive to many people than a Vueling / LEVEL clone. With a cost base like IAG has, it can never win a race to the bottom.

Passengers arrive at Gatwick by every mode of transport from bus to chauffeur driven car. When they arrive at their destination, they will head to hostels, to five star resorts and everything inbetween. Why does the airline industry believe that none of these people are interested in anything except a zero frills, zero comfort airline experience?

Conclusion

Going by their statement, British Airways management doesn’t quite know what it wants yet. Or, perhaps, it does know and is preparing for extremely tough negotiations with the unions.

Whatever the resulting model, it appears that British Airways is keen to retain its footprint at Gatwick, which is good news for the airport and anyone in its catchment area.

The letter to staff today suggests that BA hopes to launch this new operation for the Summer 2022 season, which in airline-speak means that it will need to be ready by the end of March. This is not much time to get all of the necessary agreements in place, particularly given how contentious these changes are likely to be. We may even see a return to strike action over the winter.

Comments (163)

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

  • John says:

    “Vueling is not a particularly well-known brand outside of its Iberian footprint”

    Vueling, Volotea, Level, Transavia… These are all airlines to avoid for me personally. Easyjet is about the only European low-coster for which I have some sympathies.

    If you fly alot, including to some smaller airports, you cannot avoid Ryanair, Wizz, or Eurowings entirely. But I sure try. It’s mostly due to their sheer size and broad network that I use them on occasion. But I’m not sure I need yet another LCC, backed by IAG or otherwise.

  • Will says:

    Today I had 3 flights from LGW to AGP cancelled. One in November and 3 early next year. Flights have moved to Heathrow. No thanks. I will stick to easyJet.

  • Richie says:

    First decision is perhaps will it be a Oneworld airline or not, or OW affiliate ?

  • TimM says:

    I see this as recognition by IAG that the relentless cuts to BA short-haul economy of recent years are not enough to compete with easyJet. They must ditch all the legacy elements and start afresh with a lean, no-frills operation using densely packed, new fuel-efficient aircraft crewed at the lowest cost, taking advantage of the pandemic-downturn in aircrew employment.

    IAG have learned much from others’ and their own mistakes and are extremely well-placed to compete, e.g. slots and crew can be transferred onto new cheaper contracts without going via the market.

    I am sure they will exploit the name ‘British Airways’, it is one of IAG’s biggest marketing assets. ‘Express’ would be predictable but boring. A team of over-paid marketeers will no doubt work on the name and branding. In the meantime how about…

    British Airways (yes, too obvious)
    British European Airways (too nostalgic)
    BA [some random youth-speak word, like ‘Yolo’]

    Suggestions for the team?

    • Simon says:

      British Caledonian?

    • Rhys says:

      ‘Speedbird by British Airways’ would make a cool name, but unlikely to happen.

    • Dubious says:

      “BA Serco”
      (assuming they will have to outsource everything to lower the costs…)

      Maybe they will try to tap into the climate agenda with some greenwash?:
      BA Sustain
      BAECO

    • John says:

      “BA Go”? (Wasn’t Go owned by BA in a similar model years ago? Time to resurrect the brand?)

      • Richie says:

        Go-fly was bought by easyJet, I think the brand is used by an airline in India.

        • Rob says:

          Go was sold to 3i who flipped it to easy.

          I looked at the deal as part of my PE job. BA didn’t want to sell to an airline so they took low ball offers from PE firms. 3i made the least low ball offer, bought it and quickly resold it to easy for a huge profit.

    • Tariq says:

      Ba.eu

    • EdMo says:

      BA Holidays

    • Michael C says:

      If it’s aimed at the hen/stag party sector, then British Scareways.

    • Gavin says:

      FlyBA

    • exEDI says:

      BA Connect?

      • Paul Pogba says:

        From a cost point of view what is the difference between full alliance membership and affiliate? What typically does it add to the cost of a ticket, is it a fixed cost or a percentage?

    • Peter K says:

      I’m surprised no one has come up with BA Baracus yet 😂

      • patrick C says:

        BA drunk, or BA 2 to make the link with jet2. I guess they hope that they attract a similarly stupod crowd willing to spend 40 quid each on average on in flight entertainment

    • HAM76 says:

      They‘ll sell the naming rights to sponsors just like stadions do, so we‘ll end up with British Coca Cola Express for a few years with all aircrafts painted in Coca Cola livery. If low cost, do it all the way.

    • Dubious says:

      BA Union Loathing Killjoys – BAULK ?

  • Tim says:

    Lots of comments about movement of flights in early 2022 to LHR and I think people are missing that it’s unlikely an established new BA brand will be flying at LGW until April. This is still a proposal and the movement of flights are likely to have nothing to do with anything learned today.

    Will be interesting to see if the doomsayers are right about it being a Low cost carrier. But personally I don’t see how that’d make any sense as it would legitimise the always-cheaper competition. Their USP is their premium services and loyalty products. Can’t imagine disappearing their own market, which has been proven to be very successful, would be viewed as sensible for long term BA strategy.

  • BTW says:

    Isn’t this how BA’s Gatwick services were previously run, via GB Airways?

    Back to the Future!

    • Richie says:

      GB Airways wasn’t owned by BA, it was just a franchise and also operated charter flights using it’s own GT flight numbers. It seems IAG is looking for something different.

      • David says:

        The real parallel is to look at the GB Airways plan “Project Bold”.

        When GB management realised they either needed to be bigger or exit the airline business (eventually selling to easyJet) they first approached BA with a proposal – GB take over all BA short haul at LGW, differentiate the brand slightly to allow them to reduce the cost base and make it all add up.

        BA said no.
        The GB offered to sell to BA.
        BA said no. So sold to EasyJet.

        This is almost back into Project Bold territory.

  • Rob B says:

    If the holiday long hauls stay at LGW, surely BA needs MAN/GLA/EDI feeder flights – otherwise they’re handing a huge market share to the new Virgin direct routes… I used to commute EDI/LGW – it was always full…

  • Dubious says:

    “BA has stated numerous times that it now believes it has a cost base at Gatwick which is competitive. What is left to give”.

    I might be over cynical in writing this, and it’s just a guess (I have no evidence to support) but I got the impression BA cut a lot of operational costs when they retired their rather old 737-400s and replaced them with the newer Airbus aircraft they essentially got from nought when they took over bmi.

    This would have reduced their fuel costs through fuel efficiency gains as well as any finance costs on the aircraft (before they further densified the aircraft), but would been very much a one-off gain and somewhat the result of lucky timing.

    As per the article, I am not sure where further meaningful cost reductions could come from unless you started ‘renting’ aircraft, equipment and staff from other parts of the organisation at a favourable rate.

    • Matt says:

      This is all about the labour model and flexibility: both crew and pilots. Different AOC means they can operate to different standards than unions require. Different aircraft, different minimum manning, no premium class, etc. Allows them to really get to EasyJet labour costs.

      As mentioned it is what Iberia and Iberia Express did.

      • J says:

        As far as crew go, I believe anyone employed in the last 10+ years is on similar, if not worse, pay and conditions vs. easyJet.

        • Rob says:

          One of these airlines operates out of a B&Q-style shed at Luton, the other has a head office which would make an investment bank blush. IAG can’t do low cost because it isn’t in their nature.

          In all seriousness …. if they bought HfP, they would spend more than our entire company expenses this year to date on legal fees just to rewrite our privacy policy to corporate standards. You can’t escape it, it’s in the DNA.

          • John says:

            This is a really insightful point – I’ve not heard the culture of BA expressed quite so starkly before. I feel like I have a clearer understanding now of why BA has struggled against low-cost carriers, even with an apparent willingness to copy the pricing model.

          • Bagoly says:

            That observation alone justifies my annual subscription! 🙂

            If Sean Doyle (or more likely, a value-adding independent director) was really on the ball, that would be an agenda item at the next board meeting.
            Again and again, I see the problem with corporate strategy is not that something is difficult to do, but that they are trying to do internally inconsistent things.
            BA should craft a strategy appropriate to their DNA, not deny it.

          • Paul Pogba says:

            Doesn’t that call in to question whether they’ll ever be able to run a low cost airline without the sort of leadership that can change that culture?

          • Rob says:

            Indeed

          • kitten says:

            Is it even possible to make an investment banker blush?

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.