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.
In this post:
British Airways adds London to St. Louis flights in April 2026
As of April 19, 2026, British Airways will launch 4x weekly summer seasonal flights between London Heathrow (LHR) and St. Louis (STL). The flight will operate with the following schedule:
BA221 London to St. Louis departing 4:25PM arriving 7:30PM
BA220 St. Louis to London departing 10:00PM arriving 12:05PM (+1 day)
The 4,200-mile flight is blocked at 9hr5min eastbound and 8hr5min eastbound. It’ll operate on Sundays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, in both directions.
British Airways will use a Boeing 787-8 for this route, which is its smallest long haul aircraft. This plane is equipped with 204 seats, including 31 business class seats, 37 premium economy seats, and 136 economy seats. Hopefully by the time the service launches, all 787-8s will feature the carrier’s Club Suites business class.
Here’s how Neil Chernoff, British Airways’ Chief Planning and Strategy Officer, describes this new service:
“St. Louis is a fantastic addition to our US network – it’s a destination in itself as a city with a rich history and a vibrant cultural scene, as well as a gateway to exciting destinations beyond this. As the only direct route from the UK, this service will open up exciting new opportunities for our customers and further strengthen ties between the UK and the US Midwest.”
This new service isn’t coming cheap for St. Louis
It’s always awesome to see secondary airports get more long haul routes, as that’s a huge value-add for passengers. This will be St. Louis’ second transatlantic route, as Lufthansa also operates service to there from Frankfurt (FRA). At the end of the day these routes make sense on a couple of levels:
- American Airlines and British Airways have a transatlantic joint venture, so between the two airlines, they should have no problem filling these planes with passengers connecting from the area to London and beyond
- This appears to be a summer seasonal route, so it’s hard to go wrong with that, given the level of demand across the Atlantic, especially in a market with limited direct options
Oh, and then there’s the last reason, which is probably the biggest of all. St. Louis has committed at least $4.5 million in funding toward this flight, assuming the service operates for three years. So the local community is very much helping to make this flight viable, as I can’t imagine this service would’ve otherwise been launched.
I appreciate how British Airways has increasingly experimented in secondary markets. Most of the routes have worked out pretty well, while some have been pulled after a couple of years. I guess we’ll see if this service continues once the subsidies run out.
Bottom line
As of April 2026, British Airways will launch service to St. Louis, Missouri. The airline will offer 4x weekly summer seasonal flights with a Boeing 787-8. So this is about as low risk as British Airways long haul flights can get, in terms of service being summer seasonal, less than daily, and with the carrier’s smallest airplane, all while it’s being subsidized by the local community. But it’s cool nonetheless.
What do you make of British Airways launching St. Louis flights?
Fantastic news !
So far, it was such a pain to fly to Atlanta or another airport then have a short connecting flight !
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.
@Ben
a typo
"The 4,200-mile flight is blocked at 9hr5min eastbound and 8hr5min eastbound."
It should be 9hr5min westbound... not eastbound
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.
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!
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
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...
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
I see that St Louis has a metro population of 3 million people, which is hardly insignificant.
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.
Appears on google flights starting May 19th? is it APril or may?
I'd rather visit Baghdad over St. Louis.
Apparently Baghdad is the boomtown of the Middle East at the moment - perhaps check it out.
$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 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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
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.
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…..
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.
Wasn't St Louis the historical hub of TWA?
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
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.
And Honolulu! I flew it!
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.
Vanity projet from City Hall or smart move?... I wonder if there's any similar cases that would provide insight on this decision.
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”
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.
It is NOT the city. The airport isn't even in the City of STL.
The City of St. Louis owns and operates St. Louis Lambert International Airport.
Missouri. Why?
Because it is guaranteed profits for BA, compliments of the residents of St Louis.
I was asking in the more global sense. It's still flyover country.
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.
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,...
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.
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
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.