Southampton-3
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the doghouse (usually)
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not "only 147 passengers" though, is it? It's almost 300 per day if you count the return legs too.
9000 a month, 108000 a year. That's a lot less people paying for car parking, food & drinks, magazines, lounges etc. That'll hit the airport's bottom line.
There's also the loss of landing fees, fuel uplift and passenger fees. Losing an established operator on a trunk route is never a good thing.
Airports exist as an economic driver for the wider region, and the Southampton region has had business and commuter friendly flights to Scotland's largest and most industrial city for decades. After the 10th of May it won't have anymore, and that's an economic loss to the area.
9000 a month, 108000 a year. That's a lot less people paying for car parking, food & drinks, magazines, lounges etc. That'll hit the airport's bottom line.
There's also the loss of landing fees, fuel uplift and passenger fees. Losing an established operator on a trunk route is never a good thing.
Airports exist as an economic driver for the wider region, and the Southampton region has had business and commuter friendly flights to Scotland's largest and most industrial city for decades. After the 10th of May it won't have anymore, and that's an economic loss to the area.
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not "only 147 passengers" though, is it? It's almost 300 per day if you count the return legs too.
9000 a month, 108000 a year. That's a lot less people paying for car parking, food & drinks, magazines, lounges etc. That'll hit the airport's bottom line.
There's also the loss of landing fees, fuel uplift and passenger fees. Losing an established operator on a trunk route is never a good thing.
Airports exist as an economic driver for the wider region, and the Southampton region has had business and commuter friendly flights to Scotland's largest and most industrial city for decades. After the 10th of May it won't have anymore, and that's an economic loss to the area.
9000 a month, 108000 a year. That's a lot less people paying for car parking, food & drinks, magazines, lounges etc. That'll hit the airport's bottom line.
There's also the loss of landing fees, fuel uplift and passenger fees. Losing an established operator on a trunk route is never a good thing.
Airports exist as an economic driver for the wider region, and the Southampton region has had business and commuter friendly flights to Scotland's largest and most industrial city for decades. After the 10th of May it won't have anymore, and that's an economic loss to the area.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the doghouse (usually)
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a loss compared to LM remaining on the route and coexisting with easyJet which they had been until now.
And regardless of the passenger numbers, going from 3/4 flights per day to one is a net negative for the region's travellers, particularly business travellers, many of whom will use Heathrow instead.
And regardless of the passenger numbers, going from 3/4 flights per day to one is a net negative for the region's travellers, particularly business travellers, many of whom will use Heathrow instead.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lower Upham
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capacity may not be lost, but for those like me who need to be able to travel there and back in the day, it will entail an earlier start and an hour or more on the M3 to Heathrow.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If nothing else it will make the departure board look even more sparse and will remove a whole category of passenger that seeks flight times that easyjet will not be offering, while attracting a new category of passenger that is happy with the easyjet offering, if the price is right, despite the inflexibility of the random flight programme.
There is also the question of incentives, if any, that SOU had to offer easyjet vs the charges LM were paying as the established airline. Did SOU management approach LM with a better deal to try and keep them or has LM got itself into a huff at being forced off the route so jeopardising its other routes? The danger for the airport is that if easyjet pull the route it is unlikely LM will return.
There is also the question of incentives, if any, that SOU had to offer easyjet vs the charges LM were paying as the established airline. Did SOU management approach LM with a better deal to try and keep them or has LM got itself into a huff at being forced off the route so jeopardising its other routes? The danger for the airport is that if easyjet pull the route it is unlikely LM will return.
Last edited by LTNman; 27th Apr 2024 at 06:14.
"The danger for the airport is that if easyjet pull the route it is unlikely LM will return"
Not so sure - if they were making money before EJ came then they KNOW they can make money if EJ leave - it might not be instant but LM have survived by being very focused on what works FOR THEM.
Not so sure - if they were making money before EJ came then they KNOW they can make money if EJ leave - it might not be instant but LM have survived by being very focused on what works FOR THEM.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good interview shown with AGS at Routes Europe recently. Mentioned that SOU was the most exciting project of all 3 of their airports, has huge potential and are looking to increase pax numbers with much more leisure. EasyJet was discussed as expanding at the airport and general growth would ‘snowball’ over the next few years, promising!
If nothing else it will make the departure board look even more sparse and will remove a whole category of passenger that seeks flight times that easyjet will not be offering, while attracting a new category of passenger that is happy with the easyjet offering, if the price is right, despite the inflexibility of the random flight programme.
There is also the question of incentives, if any, that SOU had to offer easyjet vs the charges LM were paying as the established airline. Did SOU management approach LM with a better deal to try and keep them or has LM got itself into a huff at being forced off the route so jeopardising its other routes? The danger for the airport is that if easyjet pull the route it is unlikely LM will return.
There is also the question of incentives, if any, that SOU had to offer easyjet vs the charges LM were paying as the established airline. Did SOU management approach LM with a better deal to try and keep them or has LM got itself into a huff at being forced off the route so jeopardising its other routes? The danger for the airport is that if easyjet pull the route it is unlikely LM will return.
What you describe on your first paragraph is pretty well what is happening at all UK airports excepting LHR and to a lesser extent LGW. Leisure is now dominant even at major regionals such as EDI, MAN, BHX and BRS, with business travel in steady decline, Covid and corporate "green" policies being largely to blame.
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid that the runway extension has been a damp squib, we are back to relying on one airline ,that is EASY,just like FLYbe pre covid.
There is no airlines coming through with new route,bar a 2x Caen service,the domestic routes are contracting at a alarming rate,we can't complete with BOH rapid expansion,how can the airport reach break even figures of 1.2 mill?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a fixation with a certain passenger volume to break even. If the airport has 750,000 pax from eight airlines then it might be profitable depending on what those airlines are paying and the average spend of those passengers on car parking and other income streams. If the airport has 2 million pax from one airline, it might still be loss-making if the airline has a deal to pay very little and the average spend per passenger is low.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, and you can be sure easyJet won’t be paying fully published fees.
Another supposed ‘strength’ of SOU is actually its biggest weakness. SOU is double the size of the BOH catchment area, but that population includes a big swathe along the M3 corridor which includes greater south west London. Residents with the equidistant geography between SOU or LHR would naturally flow to LHR. It would be a very costly exercise to try to stop that flow which is facilitated by significant transport and infrastructure capacity. Therefore the ‘true’ catchment of SOU needs to be better understood by its owners. A similar issue can be seen when analysing GLA v EDI or CWL v BRS. CWL and GLA could be seen as ‘in decline’ versus their closest counterparts.
SOU has two options: focus on low cost airlines to try and disrupt that natural flow in its catchment area, or, to downsize so it focuses on higher frequency, regional flying which potentially could be more cash lucrative for existing infrastructure without the need to invest in larger facilities. The latter is possibly not sustainable however, so the answer is obvious.
Another supposed ‘strength’ of SOU is actually its biggest weakness. SOU is double the size of the BOH catchment area, but that population includes a big swathe along the M3 corridor which includes greater south west London. Residents with the equidistant geography between SOU or LHR would naturally flow to LHR. It would be a very costly exercise to try to stop that flow which is facilitated by significant transport and infrastructure capacity. Therefore the ‘true’ catchment of SOU needs to be better understood by its owners. A similar issue can be seen when analysing GLA v EDI or CWL v BRS. CWL and GLA could be seen as ‘in decline’ versus their closest counterparts.
SOU has two options: focus on low cost airlines to try and disrupt that natural flow in its catchment area, or, to downsize so it focuses on higher frequency, regional flying which potentially could be more cash lucrative for existing infrastructure without the need to invest in larger facilities. The latter is possibly not sustainable however, so the answer is obvious.
Exactly, and you can be sure easyJet won’t be paying fully published fees.
Another supposed ‘strength’ of SOU is actually its biggest weakness. SOU is double the size of the BOH catchment area, but that population includes a big swathe along the M3 corridor which includes greater south west London. Residents with the equidistant geography between SOU or LHR would naturally flow to LHR. It would be a very costly exercise to try to stop that flow which is facilitated by significant transport and infrastructure capacity. Therefore the ‘true’ catchment of SOU needs to be better understood by its owners. A similar issue can be seen when analysing GLA v EDI or CWL v BRS. CWL and GLA could be seen as ‘in decline’ versus their closest counterparts.
SOU has two options: focus on low cost airlines to try and disrupt that natural flow in its catchment area, or, to downsize so it focuses on higher frequency, regional flying which potentially could be more cash lucrative for existing infrastructure without the need to invest in larger facilities. The latter is possibly not sustainable however, so the answer is obvious.
Another supposed ‘strength’ of SOU is actually its biggest weakness. SOU is double the size of the BOH catchment area, but that population includes a big swathe along the M3 corridor which includes greater south west London. Residents with the equidistant geography between SOU or LHR would naturally flow to LHR. It would be a very costly exercise to try to stop that flow which is facilitated by significant transport and infrastructure capacity. Therefore the ‘true’ catchment of SOU needs to be better understood by its owners. A similar issue can be seen when analysing GLA v EDI or CWL v BRS. CWL and GLA could be seen as ‘in decline’ versus their closest counterparts.
SOU has two options: focus on low cost airlines to try and disrupt that natural flow in its catchment area, or, to downsize so it focuses on higher frequency, regional flying which potentially could be more cash lucrative for existing infrastructure without the need to invest in larger facilities. The latter is possibly not sustainable however, so the answer is obvious.
"Residents with the equidistant geography between SOU or LHR would naturally flow to LHR."
Not totally sure about that - SOU has advantages IF they make the best of them - ease of transiting the airport is one, getting to the actual terminal is another. Not everyone likes a drive up the M3 and the trains don't go right to LHR
Not totally sure about that - SOU has advantages IF they make the best of them - ease of transiting the airport is one, getting to the actual terminal is another. Not everyone likes a drive up the M3 and the trains don't go right to LHR