British Airways has an impressive transatlantic route network, in particular the extent to which it serves smaller long haul markets that don’t see much transatlantic service. Along those lines, the airline has just revealed its latest transatlantic flight, which is another fun one… though the airline isn’t the only party footing the bill.
Continue reading: British Airways Launching St. Louis Flights, With Millions In Incentives
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
The City of Saint Louis signed a revenue guarantee agreement with BA to enable this service. STL taxpayers will be footing the bill is the route does not bring in the revenue BA is expecting.
Because it is guaranteed profits for BA, compliments of the residents of St Louis.
I get that this announcement was induced by subsidies, but they picked the wrong side of the state. St. Louis is in decline; Kansas City is growing.
They have the same agreement with LH to operate twice weekly flights from FRA. The city administrators believe it is worth it. I think it is just to justify the “International” in “Saint Louis International Airport”
While this is true, Kansas City lacks a major business presence comparatively with only 6 HQs while St Louis actually bats way higher than a city of its size and specs with Centene, various electric and industrial companies, and Stifel Financial for 17 HQs as a legacy of when it was a major economic hub.
There are many other business offices still in St Louis that should do well for an LHR route - apparently there is some subsidies from the business community for this route as well. While Kansas City has growth on its side, it lacks the corporate presence for now.
I mean I guess they're running out of secondary markets to expand to in the US. MSP and SLC are busier but those are Delta strongholds so I'm sure they would rather enter a market without direct competition.
Lol, you mean the 3x weekly flights that recently got upgraded to 5x weekly June-October next year? Give me a break. By the way, those incentives for the LH flight ended almost a year and a half ago - it's doing just fine on it's own.
KC may "growing" at a slighter higher rate than STL but it is still much smaller... STL MSA is ~ 3M compared to KC's which is barely over 2M. Population aside, the STL economy dwarfs KC's in terms of F500 hq's and GDP.
St Louis metro area is over 2x bigger populations than Salt Lake City catchment. SLC is just busy because it’s a DL hub. BA will leave DTW, MSP and SLC to the VS/DL alliance give the DL connectivity. And those cities are unlikely to provide financial incentives to BA!
$4.5 million in incentives for a 4x weekly flight to LHR on BA is a pretty solid deal for STL considering Indianapolis offered Aer Lingus $17 million for their 4x weekly flight...
I mean sure - but it is also an area with a GDP similar to Amsterdam.
Granted, I know GDP is not really the be-all and end-all - but at least indicates it is an area with a population that may enjoy a European vacation or two.
This is almost certainly around US point-of-sale traffic, with an added subsidy.
Ironic question given the bickering between the MCI and STL folks above but yes. After MCI built a hub for TWA and TWA then left for STL
Curious how you could justify the subsidy.
Thinking about types of traffic on a summer seasonal route:
- STL-area vacationers going to Europe [biggest type of traffic in summer!]: You are just saving them a connection in Chicago. Worth it?
- European vacationers to St. Louis area: Realistically, how many will this generate?
- Business travelers going either direction: I doubt they are sensitive to the connection in Chicago
MCI getting some kind of TATL service is overdue. STL is the smarter add, but if it wasn’t for a smattering of seasonal routes to the Caribbean MCI wouldn’t even have international service these days. It doesn’t count as part of the Metro area, but adding Lawrence and Topeka into MCI’s catchment area is about the size of STL. Maybe next year…..
St Louis is the largest unserved market from London in the United States. There's demand there.
Lufthansa's route has been successful and the airline no longer uses its subsidy. It went off the subsidy last year. It's now expanding service from 3 to 5 flights a week, and dot data shows that the St. Louis route has consistently been one of Lufthansa's highest load factor routes- percentage of seats occupied- of all of its North American routes.
St. Louis has headquarters of many Fortune 500 companies and others that generate travel to Europe. The overall area generates over 700 passengers a day to Europe in the summer time.
The fact that Lufthansa is expanding service without a revenue guarantee and that the flights are so full should show you there's demand. And the guarantee, while it sounds pricey, is not a straight up subsidy- it's just a backstop. So don't be so judgy.
STL-London is not exactly new. British Caledonian used to fly to Gatwick from STL til 1984 while AA (via former TWA hub) flew to Gatwick til 2003. After losing the hub status, STL lost a number of connections. So congrats to STL!
Apparently Baghdad is the boomtown of the Middle East at the moment - perhaps check it out.
Until Carl Icahn came along, TWA had daily nonstops from St. Louis to both London and Paris. He screwed the airline, its workers, and the city.
It’s puzzling that BA would overlap on all 4 days with LH instead of having at least a Thursday flight. Flight times are better for AA flights than LH for leisure travelers. Some on the local news say that AA is going to add flights back to STL, but i doubt that.
BUT, BUT, BUT, Its a flyover state! No One works there or has any income!!!!!!
Jason, all fair, but trying to think of this from the taxpayer of STL's perspective.
I believe that there is plenty of traffic to London from STL. Perhaps even enough to fill a plane. But what justifies the backstop?
If it's corporate travel that's going to go to London anyway, why the backstop?
If it's US PoS leisure travel that's going to go to London anyway, why the backstop?
If the demand is there without the backstop, why have a backstop?
I would think that the best justification for a backstop is increasing *inbound* travel that would not otherwise be there, and it's not clear to me that this will achieve this?
Spending taxpayer money to make vacations to Europe more convenient (avoiding connecting in Chicago) / promoting share for AA-BA JV doesn't seem like a great use of taxpayer money to me? That is not an anti-St. Louis take.
Y'all think I don't care about the difference between a non-stop and a connection?
Well, yes, I do. And I'd pay for it, too.
Revenue guarantees are a common tool that communities all over the country use to attract new air service both domestically and internationally. Although it seems like a lot of money most probably will never go to British airways- it's not a subsidy. I've worked to develop these instruments with communities across the country and the amount of money pledged is more than repaying the business development that occurs because if it. There is a multiplier effect from new air service that it has in the local economy. More often than not the investment the community makes is more than paid back. You should look into it. Not just make knee jerk, unfounded reactions . Anybody and anything that wants to invest in their future and in new business takes a measured chance to do so. It worked with St Louis's Lufthansa flight, which has demonstrated to the people there that it's worth it to take a chance on a London flight.
im surprised none of the european airlines took advantage of the swifty mania. if it wasnt last year or this it'll be never since i expect kelce to retire after this season.
@Ben
a typo
"The 4,200-mile flight is blocked at 9hr5min eastbound and 8hr5min eastbound."
It should be 9hr5min westbound... not eastbound
I see that St Louis has a metro population of 3 million people, which is hardly insignificant.
Good news. Hope this and the LH route beginning a few years back is the start of the revival of STL as an aviation hub, after a couple decades hiatus.
I predict BA might start at either Indianapolis, Kansas City, or Cleveland next.
Fantastic news !
So far, it was such a pain to fly to Atlanta or another airport then have a short connecting flight !
Agreed. The people there are pretty insignificant, and most are just inbred rednecks that probably vote Republican. The few people who do live in the backwoods aren't sophisticated enough and would never fly to Europe anyways. European or international airlines should only fly to either of the two coasts only.
Please read this with the heavy sarcasm I intended
STL is the Gateway to the West. The arch was built for a reason. It's also the hub of commerce for central Illinois (which has a sizeable population) and for half of Missouri. If you are in STL, you can drive to Indy for a flight to London or you can go to Chicago which is a longer drive. It's not like this area of the U.S. is desolate with nothing. From Peoria, to Decatur, and Springfield, these are all smaller cities that have folks that will use STL to go on a vacation or business trip.
Sarcasm noted. St Louis city is one of the bluest counties in the country, and St Louis county is quite purple. Outside of that, yeah things change fast.
The City of St. Louis owns and operates St. Louis Lambert International Airport.
It's not population, it's passenger demand. BA used to fly non-stop to Charleston.