On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:59:13 -0400, you wrote: >At 08:39 PM 6/4/2003 +0100, Roger Chung-Wee wrote: >>On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:06:00 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >Can anyone explain why British Airways has two "franchises" based in = London >> >that fly full-sized jets? I'm referring to GB Airways and British >> >Mediterranean Airways. Both are described at >> >http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bafran/public/en_us amongst = listings >> >for what in the USA would be regional airlines as well as three = airlines >> >based in Africa that apparently fly under BA colors. >> > >> >GB Airways and British Mediterranean Airways seem to have very = specific >> >mandates, but I can't figure out why those mandates aren't served by = the >> >main line. Is this at all related to airlines that have separately = marked >> >planes for flights to Taiwan? >> > >> >Curious, but not flaming anyone, >> >Nick >> >>The fanchising is done for a simple reason: the franchise carriers are >>cheaper than BA .. >> >>They pretty well lose their identity, have planes and crew in BA >>livery, pay BA for marketing and sales. But they all seem to make >>money. > >Were these established carriers, then, that BA set up arrangements with? >And are these markets these carriers were already active which BA wasn't >itself serving? > Yes, they were established. For instance, British Mediterranean started by flying from LHR to Beirut about nine years ago (not long after the civil war finished) whilst BA was still on the route. Then BA axed its flights - but still offered a service by signing a franchise deal with BMed. Actually, BMed had wanted quite early in its life to get such a deal. AFAIK, it seems a win-win all round. Haven't heard anything about unions objecting. -- Visit Caribbean Aviation: http://www.caribbeanaviation.com/