Too many airports in UK?

[shamrock7seal]

Due to the poor road and rail infrastructure in the past - airports in almost every town and city are trying to secure airlines to serve their very local and very small catchments.

as road and rail connections improve the need and desire to fly from ones own regional airport may reduce; as choice is greater at bigger hubs.

isnt is better to have less airports and more quality links and schedules? Coventry, Kent, Southend and Carlisle all battling for airlines, but how likely is it they will ever see anything of significance.

Questions also hang over the futures of Durham, Humberside, and Swansea airports.

[N707ZS]

Due to the poor road and rail infrastructure in the past.

That's a none starter as the roads are still poor.

Teesside to Teesside airport 10 to 15 minutes anywhere else is more than an hour unless you travel at silly o clock.

[pug]

I dont know if you can assume that, just because an airport is small it will be pushed into closing and further uses of the site.

Surely its about being a known profit maker. HUY for example has the niche traffic which also warrents a service to AMS and ABZ due to the offshore petro chemicals and shipping links in the Humber area. I think MAG have reluctantly accepted that HUY has a track record of returning a profit, albeit a negligable one. Until recently Durham Tees could be the same but i feel they have been putting all their eggs in one low cost basket.

Swansea has no airservices and Carlisle and Southend have struggled to attract passenger traffic in recent years.

I would have thought that an airport with stable services could see through this trough in traffic and can better place itself in a position of growth when things pick up.

I think also its all down to who ownes the airports aswell as to which direction they should go in if a profit cannot be forseen.

[Report@Boddam]

Nearly choked on my coffee readin that. Excellent road and rail services eh. Benbecula, Stornoway, Kirkwall and Sumburgh are all small airports.Try taking the road or rail to Inverness or Aberdeen from one of these exotic locations.:ok:

Mind you the MOD did try to to give me a rail warrant from Sumburgh to Kent :eek: went down really well when i told them nearest rail station was probably in Bergen.:ugh:

[airhumberside]

Questions also hang over the futures of Durham, Humberside
Questions from who?

I know there has been a lot of doom and gloom up at MME recently, but how much of that is the press stirring things? As for HUY, I would read pugs post. There is more to an airport than the number of passenger flights

[steve wilson]

Reminds me of the infamous Saxa Vord Train Spotting club that was formed. It nearly worked too until the CO realised the nearest station was in Norway.

[Guest 112233]

The reasons for this go back to the 1930's - When every "air minded" not "air headed" County Council wanted an aerodrome. - I cite the example of Wolverhampton, Walsall, Coventry (a slightly different - case, having been a site of aeroplane and engine manufacture) and Birmingham all having their own airports. The legacy remains to this day. e.g. Blackpool, Liverpool and Manchester all within a 30/35 Mile chain - Brum, East Mids and Coventy - even worse a classic waste of space. At least Wolverhampton Airport featured in a 1950's Film featuring Jack Hawkins and a Bristol Freighter. For the (brum) locals take a look at the compass triangulation point on the top of Barr Beacon. The air fields directions are shown on the brass plate under the Concrete Dome.
Good interlinked train services between hubs is the way forward - Geography is against us in the UK
( PS I seen to think that the Bar Beacon Dome may be fenced off - correct me if I'm wrong)

CAT III

[roverman]

This is an interesting post. Perhaps the situation is rather one of 'too many airports trying to do the same thing' i.e. compete with each other to attract broadly the same business in overlapping catchment areas. This is a result of opening up the industry to relatively unconstrained market forces and the 'muddying' of Government policy towards the provision of air services in the UK. Hence we see LPL/MAN/LBA offering similar short-haul lo-co services; ditto BHX/EMA, MME/DCS. Whilst the result appears superficially to be good consumer choice, in the medium-to-long term the profitably of any of these operations is marginal for the airports concerned and the fragmentation of traffic weakens opportunities for massing traffic at regional hubs. This damages the prospects for supporting long-haul routes at locations such as MAN and BHX, who have been the main losers.

A clearer strategy is needed, more akin to that offered under the 1978 White Paper rather than the muddled 'everyone grows' assumptions of the 2003 version. This will mean limiting the operation of certain types of air service to specific airports, something which doesn't sit comfortably with the current free market thinking. Open Skies sounds good but has some unpleasant side effects, particularly in the longer-term. Problems arise when the smaller regional airports strive to rival the larger regionals. The cut-price deals they offer to locos draws traffic away from the legacy regionals until they need to put prices up to realistic, sustainable levels to fund infrastructure. Meantime the damage has been done to the larger regionals who have lost services, including long-haul, and so ultimately the whole region is disadvantaged.

Good surface access to airports is important too, and it is generally the larger regionals which offer this - MAN has excellent road and rail, also BHX. Few others can offer such good, sustainable access from around the country. The airports which have good access and are close to major centres of population make the greatest sense as the key regional hubs. The smaller airports such as HUY, Carlisle, BLK, SEN etc can service niche markets profitably. That is their contribution to UK air services.

[pug]

Roverman, i agree with your post. Surely the smaller regionals which are trying to aim at the long-haul sector should look at the threat of thinning out routes all together and in the long term saturating the market?

Clearly places such as MAN and BHX will be more sustainable in the future because of the large and diverse population centres they serve. The lack of any 'real' hub airport means that places like AMS can continue to offer an alternative to the land access journeys to MAN or LHR. My example of HUY is that many of the pax will be on time sensitive journeys due to the offshore business and shipping, meaning a high frequency to AMS is viable, same with NWI and to an extent DTV. Any other travellers not prepared to pay a premium or not constrained by time, are open to choice and would likely be prepared for the 1-2 hour journey to a UK major such as MAN or BHX (most people in the North and Midlands are never further than 2 hours from one of these) NCL being further may benefit and that could become a 'major' for the North East in the future.

[davidjohnson6]

roverman - excellent post

One thing puzzles me - namely why the likes of HUY, BLK, MME, etc are insistent on aiming doggedly for LCC traffic, when economics suggest that they are frequently being used as pawns by the LCCs and that these airports will struggle to make LCC traffic profitable.

Carlisle is a long way from population centres - Glasgow, Newcastle and Manchester are just too far away and too well served with their own airports. Cumbria is a large country with a low population density. Carlisle does however have the advantage on being on a major north-south road and rail route and being a good potential cargo site. Therefore why all the spin and fluff about flights from Carlisle to Spain (even if it sounds good in the local newspaper) ? Why not instead a 'We want to focus purely on freight' ?

[pug]

davidjohnson6, may i correct you slightly, HUY has never realy brushed on the LCC market. I have heard many reasons for this, one is that they realised that LCC was always going to be unsustainable. If you see the masterplan released a couple of years ago you will see that they would welcome a LCC providing it was relative to sustainability and wouldnt flood seats on the current market.

MME is one airport which you can see now has made the wrong decision to replace its charter flights with lo-co equivelants. The loss of these this year has resulted in a loss of around 60% of flights. Not sure of the situation at BLK, LS seem to have stayed for some time there now.

As for Carlisle, arent Stobarts only alowed to use the airport as a freight hub? I thought the new passenger terminal plans had been scrubbed due to a dispute with the local authorities?

[davidjohnson6]

pug - you're right on HUY and LCCs.

While LS are sticking with BLK, I'm yet to be convinced that the economics of LCC operations can be more than marginal - but this is probably best reserved for the Blackpool thread.

Regarding Carlisle, there's been quite a bit in the press about Ryanair being interested in doing some flying, as well as discussion as to whether the runway can or will be able to handle a B737 (or similiar sized airframe for LCCs for that matter). I don't however know how much of these column inches have ultimately originated from Dublin seeking free publicity (or lazy journalism), or whether someone in Carlisle is trying to promote the idea.

[roverman]

Thanks for your comments, pug and others. Just to emphasise my point with some examples - BLK has a good niche market in GA services to support the Irish Sea gas rigs, fish from Fleetwood, the nuclear industry at Heysham, and flying training in a good coastal location. Locos at BLK just draw traffic away from MAN and fragment the North-West hub mass. The Fylde and north Lancashire have frequent trains to MAN with a journey time of about an hour, as well as the M6, giving this area very good access to comprehensive air services.

HUY is doing well with the fishing flights, North Sea rig helicopters, and niche domestic services.

SEN has aircraft maintenance, freight and club flying. CVT can still offer niche services as a base for specialist freight and government contract flying which would just get in the way at BHX.

MAN, and to a smaller extent BHX, are best placed to offer hubs with a range of mainstream scheduled and charter services. But they will struggle as long as their markets and mass are eroded by duplication of services at nearby small regionals.

Complementary, not Competing, airports - this is the sustainable way to offer good all round air services for the UK.

[davidjohnson6]

Playing devil's advocate....

Who would decide what flying should be done by each airport ? If there is no credible threat to an airport from a competitor with lower prices, there is no incentive to improve efficiency, target a product offering and keep prices low - more profitable instead to act as a local monopoly

Purely as an example, the existence of Doncaster airport being able to credibly attract LCCs gives an added incentive to Leeds airport to keep itself on its toes.. Were it not for this, I doubt that Jet2 would have been quite so succesful at LBA.

[roverman]

David,

Fundamentally it comes down to a different way of thinking about the role of airports in the wider UK economy. We have moved from a centrally controlled environment where air services to/from particular airports were limited by bilateral agreements between countries, a system which generally favoured national flag carriers, to a more or less free for all. Some of this is EU driven, but not all.

This has not been altogether beneficial, despite the apparent increase in 'consumer choice'. As I said- Complementary, not Competing, is the way to avoid duplication and fragmentation of mass at regional hubs. I take the point about efficiency. There are mechanisms which the UK Government can apply through the CAA Economic Regulation Group. Caps on airport charges are applied at the London airports and have only just been removed from Manchester after 15 years, now that it is recognised that MAN has serious competition in the North. MAN has also lost many of its legacy and long-haul services, largely as a result of relaxed access to anywhere (including LHR). Such losses are to the detriment of the northern economy

[pug]

I believe that long-haul flights from MAN will recover along with an economic recovery, i agree that MAN is losing its critical mass to airports like LPL and LBA but these airports have little chance of expanding into long-haul, at least not to the extent that MAN can.

Usind Doncaster airport as an example, i dont believe management have been able to find a niche upon which to build a stable sustainable pax business there, Peel seem intent on driving large amounts of people through the terminal for revenue, same at MME and LPL. Only LPL seems to be having the desired effect.

Perhaps Peel should have stuck with SZD and found some niche business routes which would have helped the South Yorkshire economy rather than building DSA which only appeals to the leisure pax therefore saturating that market for most of Yorkshire...

[roverman]

I think the opening of DCS has taken airport capacity in the north beyond what is realistically required, even without a recession. A properly co-ordinated approach to airport capacity would have identified this oversupply, and would have either ruled out the development of DCS, or, recognising its advantages in terms of location and site potential, would have used it to replace HUY/EMA. Such a policy has been made almost impossible now though, because individual airports are seen as assets 'belonging' to particular cities, and are very often owned by different companies. Strategic planning is difficult in a privatised and de-regulated transport system, as witnessed by the chaotic state of UK bus and rail services.

[Going loco]

Roverman - forgive me, but it all does rather sound like "poster from Manchester advocates that airports that compete with MAN be capped / restricted to allow MAN to prosper"

[aeulad]

DSA has saturated an already busy market. It has never been, never was, and never will be neccessary.

Regards

Mike

[davidjohnson6]

DSA has saturated an already busy market. It has never been, never was, and never will be neccessary.

When LCY opened it was regarded as a white elephant - now at certain times of the day all slots are taken.
When the main terminal at STN was opened in 1991, it was regarded as a white elephant. Now there is serious talk about building an additional runway

DSA is probably 10 or more years before its time..... but eventually an extra runway somewhere near Doncaster will be needed.

[Skipness One Echo]

I disagree. Stansted was and remains something of a white elephant. It is only able to attract a small number of second rank operators and is dominated by a single carrier which is unwilling to pay market rates for the use of the facilities.
Even easyJet is struggling to grow the business at STN..

Without the cross subsidy from LHR and LGW I doubt very much they will get a Runway 2 at STN, especially as traffic is falling.

[pug]

DSA is reliant on seasonal leisure travellers, there is only one route which may appeal to business pax but that is only 6x weekly after failing to bring in results on a 2xdaily service. Suggests to me that business potential is negligable.

STN is reliant one or two based airlines like skipness says, DSA relys one one comparitively small based operation from TOM. Taking both into account i know which one will have a better future, better an airport near London than one near Doncaster dont you think?

[roverman]

Going Loco - I understand how my point can give the impression that I am just trying to defend Manchester. I am arguing that free market access to serve any route from any airport is damaging the development of regional hub traffic. The north of England doesn't generate enough of this to be able to spread it thinly across multiple airports. Up until the Millenium, Manchester provided some degree of international hubbing and offered a good range of international and intercontinental direct services to the north of England. Much of that has been eroded since the lo-co boom, as legacy airlines have lost the benefits of massing at MAN and been forced to look for lower costs or to drop marginal routes. There is only room for one hub in the North, logic says that is Manchester. If the North is to enjoy world trade links (direct services to as many destinations as possible at a good freqeuncy) only MAN can achieve this. The present situation is more concerned with having flights to the Costa Brava and new EU watering holes from every 'local airport' in the region. Whereas MAN is the local airport - that is the point about good surface transport access. MAN is within reach of nearly everyone in the North by car or train within a couple of hours, much less for many people. The other northern airports are not nearly as accessible. Until we move away from the need for every town and city to have its own airport, competing with its neighbours, we won't get a regional hub. As an analogy, would you want to get Sainsbury's closed down in your local town so that you can go to every little shop on the high street to do your weekly shopping? Manchester Airport benefits the cities of Liverpool and Leeds in a way that Liverpool Airport and Leeds/Bradford Airport can not match in return. They can complement by providing niche air services, but should not duplicate routes.

[warringtonian]

There was no benefit to Leeds and Liverpool from the time when Manchester had a de facto monopoly on civil air transportation in the north. Older people will remember that it was favoured with a second runway in preference to Liverpool's aspirations, on the grounds that it had the potential to provide a gateway role. But it has entirely failed in providing that role, not because of the "nibble" or "tertiary" airports but because there was no need for such an airport in the North of England. The model was flawed.

What Leeds and Liverpool needed were good quality airports that were able to grow - and once the market was allowed to operate we saw in Liverpool's case just how much "captive" traffic and growth Manchester had. It leaked away because people didn't want the hassle of going to Manchester. Liverpool's catchment is, according to some fascinating CAA maps, very very similar - so once it is able to establish long-haul routes the market will be pretty much the same.

The particular need Liverpool has is direct connections to Heathrow, although the new KLM Amsterdam service will do for now. That was an important priority for Greater Liverpool's economy.
I'm afraid the fact is that a lot of Greater Liverpool people just don't like going through Manchester, they prefer their own regional airport, and good access to the national hub in Heathrow. I know people who live in parts of what is "officially" Greater Manchester, for example a mate in Wigan, who finds Liverpool more convenient and prefers to use it.

Manchester's economic development industry have claimed for years that they have a unique competitive advantage in the north because of their airport - so how come that Manchester airport can in one sense favour Manchester (eg in attracting inward investment) and at the same time favour the very cities it is competing with (eg Leeds and Liverpool)? It's nonsense to argue it both ways.

Manchester has failed to establish itself as a hub and failed as a "gateway". The industry changed around it. It isn't a hub, it isn't a gateway, and it can't become one. It's time to move on from that. The priority now is good links, preferably rail, to Heathrow, and building up good quality regional business services out of Liverpool, Leeds and other airports.

I would like to see Manchester de-designated as a "gateway" in the strategic plans of the North West and the Northern Way. It is an entirely unhelpful designation that may flatter a few provincial egoes in that town, but does nothing to build the connectivity of the north to vital business centres. I want to see Liverpool Airport achieve its full potential, competing head to head with Manchester on long haul in the future, and linked into high speed rail that will provide Greater Liverpool businesses with quick journey times to Heathrow.

[philbky]

It leaked away because people didn't want the hassle of going to ManchesterNonsense. It "leaked away" because the management at MAN were not bright enough to see that LO CO s would be able to both generate new traffic and leach business travellers. Had MAN offered easyJet and Ryanair deals at the turn of the century and a little before, Liverpool would now be struggling.

but because there was no need for such an airport in the North of England. The model was flawed. Again nonsense. Have a look at the routes ex MAN in the period 1988 - 2001. A variety of factors - all well rehearsed here and elsewhere - have changed the picture regarding long haul and legacy carriers since then.

Your whole post smacks of uninformed isolationism. If easyJet and Ryanair were to vanish tomorrow, how long do you think Peel Holdings would carry on before building on the airfield?

Geomorphology and population centres in a small island favour certain metropolitan areas over others. Manchester has had, and continues to have, a greater economic gravitas than either Liverpool or Leeds.

Had Burtonwood not been undermined by the Lancashire coalfield, Manchester Airport would have been established there by around 1969. As it was, and is, the largest airport in the north of England is positioned on a site with excellent surface links, reasonably central to Liverpool, Leeds, Stoke and Preston/Blackburn and with land for further growth when the time comes.

As for condemning people to "gateway" via Heathrow, you obviously either enjoy "hell" or have little experience of connecting there.

[14 loop]

Manchester remains the dominant airport within the north of England...period. MAN will always be the place for longhaul traffic from the north of England, the fact that short haul from other fields has developed should be welcomed.

To lament the fact that other airfields have developed, at the expense of MAN, over the recent past, is a particularly Mancunian outlook. People that reside outside Greater Manchester would argue that more fllights from LPL and LBA, for example, were a long time coming. Yes Manchester has surface transport links that are superior, particularly compared to LBA...however travellers from the Leeds and Bradford conurbations are still likely to find LBA an easier option than MAN. As a former resident of a BD postcode, the thought of trekking the M62 to MAN, especially in winter, is enough to fill one with dread with regard to making one's flight in a timely fashion.

For years MAN benefited from the North of Engalnd public having almost no choice than to fly from Ringway on IT flights (the based units at MAN outnumbered the collective units at LPL, EMA, HUY, LBA, MME and NCL by a significant factor..and it still does today, albeit reduced). However, the market changed and IT opertions fell out of favour against loco scheduled, MAN thought they were above that market and in the end they suffered. The fact that these locos have erroded some routes outside the core bucket and spade routes offered by loco is just one of those things!

To say that LBA and LPL can complement MAN is fine but to duplicate is wrong....I disagree. Yes MAN ought to be serving the Far East and the US West Coast....MAN has the specific infrastrucure to handle such flights, but to say that LPL/LBA etc shouldn't also handle flights to European hubs, or holiday locations would relegate them to a route network that would not be able to support their ongoing operation. This is not a opinion that people to the east of the Pennines, at least, would not support.

[davidjohnson6]

Had it not been for Liverpool offering Easyjet + Ryanair deals with cheap airport fees in the late 1990s along with an airfield big enough to support a B737, I very much doubt Manchester would have seen the need to talk in a significant way to the LCCs at all.

Yes, MAN is where a lot of the people are and the money is, but it needed LPL and LBA to unlock the LCC wave before MAN wanted to get involved. In 1995, LPL was little more than a token airport - it took a risk that MAN did not want and it paid off

For that alone, one should give credit to the management of LPL.

[philbky]

Basically, as I said before, the management at MAN cocked up by not embracing the low cost era at the start.

There's nothing wrong with airports competeing but too many airports in too small an area just dilutes the mix and reduces the viability of the airports and the services they offer.

There was a joke about Ryanair serving the five Manchester airports:

Central (Manchester), West (Liverpool), Northwest (Blackpool), Northeast (Leeds), East (Robin Hood)

That's fine for an LCC developing new custom but for all those airports to aspire to serve a range of short, medium and long haul routes doesn't make sense.

You don't get people in Hampshire expecting a vast range of services from Southampton, or people in kent expecting Manston to be a major hub - they go to Heathrow or, to a lesser extent Gatwick.

Long haul from Luton and Stansted has never consistently worked and for an airport to develop it needs to attract a wide range of carriers and routes and provide the ground based infrastructure to handle volumes of aircraft, passengers, cargo and ancillary services - something only Manchester is physically capable of in the North of England.

Historically, Manchester has had to fight the problems of BEA/BOAC/BA interference in its bid for routes, yet it continued to grow until the current malaise (howsoever caused).

Even with excellent competing rail services it has maintained healthy figures on London services whereas Liverpool, since the demise of British Eagle, has never sustained a London service, even at the level of one return a day. Leeds is now going the same way. Unless I was interlining at Heathrow (God forbid!) there's no way I'd take the plane from anywhere in the Liverpool to Hull corridor to London but I'd be happy to use the excellent train connections to Manchester to fly elsewhere - even using the motorways outside peak periods.

Many years ago I was responsible for marketing what was then the GMC to business tourism. As such I sat on various committees belonging to Tourist Boards, Chambers of Commerce, Local Authorities and Manchester Airport. It was agreed by a wide spectrum of both business leaders and politicians on the west side of the Pennines that a single major airport needed to be backed and developed to attract direct air services to/from the region.

That was back in the early 1980s. From the end of that decade until the late 1990s Manchester achieved the aims set out ten years before.

Since then - and not helped by 9/11 (although Manchester seemed to suffer less in the immediate aftermath) - the story looks to have been one of missed opportunities, mismanagement and a lack of foresight and flexibility.

[davidjohnson6]

Just my opinion...

the management at MAN cocked up by not embracing the low cost era at the startI think you're being a little harsh on the MAN management. When Easyjet started up, LHR and LGW simply didn't want to know - they didn't want some upstart cannibalising existing business and harming long-term customers. LTN didn't have much scheduled business and were happy to take Easyjet.

MAN and BHX in the 1990s both had significant operations from BA, paying high airport fees. Offer an LCC low fees, and BA will demand the same. If a company has a monopoly (as MAN and BHX pretty much did on scheduled flights in the early 1990s in their regions), then you will make bigger profits by charging customers higher prices. When BA had their own terminal at MAN, it would have been absurd for MAN management to cut fees and support an upstart at the expense of their best customer. The management of MAN and BHX were only doing what was economically rational - they wanted to maximise profit for their shareholders.

In the 1990s, LPL and EMA did not have a significant scheduled operation, and could provide cheap fees to LCCs. The real factor that pushed MAN and BHX to talk to LCCs properly was BA significantly cutting, and eventually selling, their regional operations to FlyBE because other airports in the regions now had cheap scheduled flights to Europe.

Yes, the economics is warped, but MAN at the time had a local monopoly and a long established and very good customer in BA. If there had not been regional competition from LPL, the LCC operation in the north would look something like Toulouse does today - a locally dominant airline charging fairly high fares, other network airlines flying from their hubs, and a few LCCs flying in and out, but no LCC planes based locally.

Now that the market disruption event has occurred, it is up to MAN and BHX management to persuade LCCs to shift the emphasis of their operations away from LPL and EMA towards the population centres of MAN and BHX

[Dash-7 lover]

Exeter has been in Bristol's shadow for years.

[Leodis]

warringtonian

I have to agree with just about all of your comments re: Manchester airport.

People in the North of England are frankly fed up with being told that they must fly from Manchester everytime. This is why passengers are choosing to fly from their local airports on mass. No matter what politicians and local government boffins want, people vote with their feet. This is why airports such as LPL and LBA are starting to 'hold their own'. The proactive loco industry has capitalised on this at the regional airports. In the same period the long haul services from Manchester have collapsed and the charter market from Manchester has eroded.

The future of Manchester airport as a major regional hub or gateway will continue to look grim. When the economy picks up, the regional airports will continue to expand further reducing Manchester's airports role. Airports such as LPL and LBA will continue to expand and gain services to places like Dubai and onward from there which will in turn further reduce the need for long haul services from Manchester. On top of all this, improved rail links to London from the Manchester area will give another heavy blow to Manchester airport as London traffic is stripped from the airport over the next couple of years. The airport looks set to see more heavy reductions in passenger numbers.

[Andy_S]

Funniest thread I've read for a while, this one. Nothing like seeing a bunch of fanboys desperately trying to 'big up' their own local airport while sniping at the competition.........

[anotherthing]

MAN is the one airport that regularly showed a monthly drop in traffic when other airports were all growing (this is prior to the current downturn).

MAN is now showing one of the biggest reductions in traffic month by month...

This has not been due to the state of the economy, it has been a long term problem... anyone any ideas why this is if MAN is 'so much better' than other regionals???

Far from being a white elephant, Stansted was showing some of the strongest growth amongst the 'big' london airports (Southampton, Farnborough and LCY by far outstripping it)

[AndyH52]

Warringtonian - a good post :ok:

Philbky - your posts reflect the continued deluded view that Manchester has ever or will ever be a significant hub airport. Yes it has a fair sprinkling of long haul routes. That doesn't make a hub. The trail of tried and failed long haul routes out of MAN grows longer by the year, and will continue to do so regardless of the presence of other airports in the region. Do you honestly believe that if LPL, LBA and BLK had never developed MAN would be a major hub? As I say, deluded.

The likes of EZY, RYR and LS have been great at growing local markets from regional airports. The fact that there are cheap and convenient flights from these airports has created a market that previously didn't exist and would to a great extent disappear should those LO-CO operations disappear. They would not lead to some mythical renaissance at Manchester or Gatwick whereby long haul carriers would establish routes fed by short haul traffic. Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris are all way ahead in the pecking order for that. :ugh:

And any airport built at Burtonwood would not have been 'Manchester' Airport. It would have jointly served the needs of Liverpool and Manchester...

[pug]

Andy-s, cannot understand the reason for your posting other than to antagonsie...

In relevence to what i said, as the thread is titled, i believe that there are too many high aspiring airports in the north. I believe that all long-haul flights should be centred around one hub airport so as to not saturate that particular type of route. In order to be able to do that surely such an airport needs a critical mass as others have posted. I do believe that things will get better and MAN will again find itself in the sole position to claw back these lost long-haul routes, with the others such as LBA LPL and EMA continuing to do what they do best in serving their local cities with good cheap frequency services to European centres?

When i said DSA was not needed, something that many have believed since its conception, surely it is begining to hit home now with the loss of yet another regular service?

[philbky]

Leodis said:

The future of Manchester airport as a major regional hub or gateway will continue to look grim. When the economy picks up, the regional airports will continue to expand further reducing Manchester's airports role. Airports such as LPL and LBA will continue to expand and gain services to places like Dubai and onward from there which will in turn further reduce the need for long haul services from Manchester.Your basis for this in terms of land availability, multi-modal transport links and the continual increase in "extra" charges on LCCs at a time of recession is?

[Philbky - your posts reflect the continued deluded view that Manchester has ever or will ever be a significant hub airport. Yes it has a fair sprinkling of long haul routes. That doesn't make a hub. The trail of tried and failed long haul routes out of MAN grows longer by the year, and will continue to do so regardless of the presence of other airports in the region. Do you honestly believe that if LPL, LBA and BLK had never developed MAN would be a major hub? As I say, deluded.Andy H52, before you even drew breath I had some involvement in the promotion of Manchester and its airport. My delusions are based on knowledge, experience and continued contacts with the industry - yours are based on???

BTW, I didn't use the word "hub" and your interpretation that a succesful airport needs to be a hub isn't borne out by either current realities or history.

And any airport built at Burtonwood would not have been 'Manchester' Airport. It would have jointly served the needs of Liverpool and Manchester...You need to check your facts before posting. The move that was proposed when the USAF gave up Burtonwood was for Manchester Airport to move to Burtonwood and both Ringway and Speke be closed, Speke at the time having minimal service by Starways, Cambrian and Aer Lingus. It was proposed that the operator would be the City of Manchester as Liverpool City council was lukewarm about the idea - indeed was lukewarm at the time about Speke and even threatened to close it in the mid 1960s after ideas about Burtonwood had been abandoned due to subsidence and Manchester had continued to expand.

Nothing like seeing a bunch of fanboys desperately trying to 'big up' their own local airport while sniping at the competition...
Andy_S, for your information Manchester has not been my local airport for 23 years and in the last 10 years when visiting the UK I've used Liverpool 3 times for every time I've used Manchester - and I visit between 3 and 6 times a year.

davuidjohnson6, there is much in what you say but good management is all about looking at trends, foreseeing outcomes and adapting your business model to realities.

After years of a love hate relationship with BA and its predecessors, when the LCCs came along the management at MAN looked at BA and the amount of One World partners then serving the airport and decided they were the future and keeping LCCs out was the way to go. With many Star Alliance partners also serving the airport those in charge saw that LCCs would only dilute income and shunned them. Bad decision.

A better plan would have been to build an LCC terminal on the south side and charge lower fees for the different environment. easyJet would have been in there like a shot and income would have grown and the scenario of BA et al asking for lower fees would not have arisen.

As it was BA shafted the airport, by gradually withdrawing long haul services, playing games with the QANTAS service when BA was involved with that carrier and have pressurised other One World carriers to downgrade or withdraw services. It then withdrew all its own services but those serving its London bases - which it only keeps to feed its long haul from London and these services will go when the Heathrow rail link is made accessible to trains from the provinces.

Manchester's future lies in dealing with Star Alliance (led by LH), developing LCC routes and looking for niche long haul routes serving both business and leisure markets.

As for the other airports in the region, Blackpool hangs by a thread - currently Aer Arran and Jet2, Leeds is Jet2 and some of those flights now route by Manchester to fill seats, Liverpool has been doing well but Ryanair's downgrading will have real consequences for income - if easyJet do the same then trouble will set in.

As for Doncaster it would make an excellent freight port but East Midlands got their first - for once this century MAG got something right.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

<<<
...whereas Liverpool, since the demise of British Eagle, has never sustained a London service, even at the level of one return a day.>>>

I agree that Liverpool-London services have been unreliable and mixed over the years, but this statement is incorrect. After British Eagle collapsed, Cambrian, British Midland, VLM and easyJet all operated from Liverpool to one London field or another.

[philbky]

I agree that Liverpool-London services have been unreliable and mixed over the years, but this statement is incorrect. After British Eagle collapsed, Cambrian, British Midland, VLM and easyJet all operated from Liverpool to one London field or another.

...and not one of them sustained the service. Some lasted a year or three, others months.

[Going loco]

philbky - the Jet2 split load flights operating across MAN/LBA are ski flights to Geneva and Chambery and reflect the weak ski-market from BOTH sides of the pennines on off-peak periods. Most of the split load flights are the Geneva services which originate in MAN and pick up pax in LBA. I appreciate you have a downer on anywhere that isn't MAN, but you'll need to find a better example than that

[philbky]

I appreciate you have a downer on anywhere that isn't MAN, but you'll need to find a better example than that

Yes, I have a real downer on Manchester, regularly using Liverpool to visit relatives in STOCKPORT and using Leeds when my daughter lived there.

Jet2 may well have to use both airports to make the ski flights profitable but, in the context of the thread, that doesn't say much for the market in Leeds which needs the traffic more than Manchester.

[TSR2]

Posted by anotherthing :
MAN is now showing one of the biggest reductions in traffic month by month...

Not according to CAA Statistics.

February 09 v February 08
Manchester -16.8%
Liverpool -21.5%
Leeds/Bradford -25.2%
Blackpool -69.7%

[ryanair1]

normally budget airlines do well in times of recession

what these stats are showing is evidence that we (budget carriers) are not doing well

this recession is hitting middle class with resulting fall in travel that is not essential

travel that is not essential has become the backbone of some of the largest european LCC's (low cost carriers)

difference between US LCC's and European LCC's - US LCC's are not relying completely on leisure travel but Europe is

[philbky]

Thanks for the figures TSR2. Proves my point.

[AndyH52]

Nonsense. All it proves is how misleading statistics can be without any context.

Anyway, the main thrust of the thread is 'are there too many airports in the UK'. My point is 'too many for what?' For them all to have longhaul services? Absolutely. For them all to have scheduled services by legacy operators? Most certainly. For them all to have based aircraft from a LO-CO? Probably. For them all to have a few flights a week by a LO-CO or charter operator? Possibly not - but the market will decide.

If the market does dictate that some of the smaller airports can't sustain such services then they will end. People will then have a choice to either fly from somewhere else or not at all. As I said previously much of the current market has been created by LO-CO's and will disappear along with cancelled services. Philbky - you may be a case in point. If Ryanair didn't exisit and you had to rely on the pevious exorbitant fares offered by Aer Lingus from Ireland to the UK, would your visits be quite as frequent?

As for Burtonwood, even if a new airport had been built there and had been managed by the City of Manchester it would have been no more 'Manchester' Airport than East Midlands or Bournemouth are today. And I suggest you 'check you facts' with regards the history of Liverpool - London services.

[philbky]

Nonsense. All it proves is how misleading statistics can be without any context.
In terms of bald passenger numbers and reduced revenue, the context doesn't matter and my point that Blackpool especially is in trouble is amply demonstrated.

Philbky - you may be a case in point. If Ryanair didn't exisit and you had to rely on the pevious exorbitant fares offered by Aer Lingus from Ireland to the UK, would your visits be quite as frequent?They would be reduced but the whole point is that too many airports in a small area damage the viability of all of them and, by removing focus, impinge on the growth of services from the most viable.

As for Burtonwood, even if a new airport had been built there and had been managed by the City of Manchester it would have been no more 'Manchester' AirportIt would have been called Manchester Burtonwood under the proposals - a bit like London Heathrow and at a similar distance from the city centre.

And I suggest you 'check you facts' with regards the history of Liverpool - London services. Today 07:43Please give me factual details of a sustained London service since the demise of British Eagle.

"Sustained" Enduring; Keep going continuously; Unfailing (my reference is the OED)

Manchester has had a sustained London service since 1946 through BEA and BA with other carriers having been on the route for both long and short periods. Liverpool has not had a sustained London service since 1968.

[philbky]

More on the Burtonwood proposals. Manchester City Council was the sole owner of Manchester Airport until 1974. As almost all of the Ringway site was in Cheshire it paid rates to the relevant rating authority but consistently made a profit which was used to reduce rates in the City of Manchester.

Prior to the Burtonwood proposal Manchester had fought long and hard to keep control of its airport which the government wanted to take over. If Burtonwood was to go ahead it would mean the closure of Ringway, thus Manchester's determination to maintain its control whilst at the same time it found ways to fight the proposal..

Rates would have had to be paid to both Warrington County Borough and Lancashire County Council but the City Council still thought it would make a profit.

There were audible sighs of relief in Albert Sq when the subsidence was found to be both widespread and progressive.

As to the name, in those day, as today, airlines like to identify with a city (thus Ryanair call Hahn Frankfurt and Charleroi Brussels). As Manchester had more services than Liverpool and as the City Council would have owned the airport it would have been called Manchester Airport. Indeed when BOAC could not use the runway at Ringway in certain conditions for its Stratocruiser flights to New York, the flights routed through "Manchester Burtonwood" according to the airline.

[AndyH52]

Let me see now. Cambrian took over the Heathrow service after the demise of British eagle in 1968 and operated it until they were absorbed into BA in 1976. BA then carried the route on until it was transferred to BMA in 1978. British Midland alone operated the service continuously from 1978 to 1992 (apart from a couple of years when the operation transferred to their subsidiary Manx Airlines). That seems fairly enduring and longer than your assertion that such services never lasted more than three years. The lack of a Heathrow service (and to a lesser extent a Gatwick service) is more to do with slot availbilty than demand.

As for the figures of course context matters. Manchester losing over 100,000 pax a month is as significant a blow to its business plan as Blackpool losing 10,000.

[philbky]

Taking the period from 1968 to 2008 (40 years) Cambrian BA managed 10 years until BA were more than happy to route swap with British Misland as they couldn't make the route pay.

BM and its offspring managed 14 years.and gave up due to lack of profit and used the slots which they had for something more profitable. Since then no-one has had a serious go although any operator who had LHR slots would use some of those slots if the routes were worth it.

easyJet, with plenty of slots at Luton couldn't make that route pay.

Recently,of course, VLM had slots at LCY and used them for a LPL service. What happened? - it lost money whilst the MAN service continues and offers 6 round trips a day four days a week, 7 trips one day a week, 1 on a Saturday and 2 on a Sunday IN ADDITION TO the regular BA and bmi services to LHR and LGW

So, the figures you supplied show that in the last 40 years one airline and its successor manged to serve the route for 25% of the time, another for 35% of the time- not exactly a sustained service in the accepted meaning of the term and a total shambles from 1992. Why? Because a solid, regular and sustained demand doesn't exist.

BTW the expression " a year or three" was a throw away line to indicate the relatively shortlived periods of London service at LPL compared to the 62 years of continuous service at MAN.

[As for the figures of course context matters. Manchester losing over 100,000 pax a month is as significant a blow to its business plan as Blackpool losing 10,000.

I know which CEO I'd prefer to be.

In the context of Blackpool the figures are disastrous. In the context of Manchester the trend is unwelcome but the airport and its group, whilst recording reduced turnover and probably profit is in excellent shape to survive. If you think that a reduction of over 16% is as significant as a reduction of over 60% (in any context) you have a strange understanding of figures.

For LBA the figures will get worse when the bmi Heathrow service withdrawal shows up.

[AndyH52]

A former marketing man sugesting someone else has a strange interpretation of figures? There's ironic. And convenient now that your three year comment was just a throw away line when your 'facts' are rebutted.

There's no telling what would have happened on the Liverpool - Heathrow route had cambrian not been absorbed into BA in the mid 70s (you conveniently overlook the fact that Cambrian was an independent operator on the route when it took over from British Eagle). Time will tell as to whether the route ever gets re-established. If the third runway ever gets built at Heathrow then there's a good chance it will. It is in anycase a distraction from the main point of the thread.

So, here's a question. If other routes operated from other airports are a potential threat to sustained operations from the 'larger' airports such as Manchester, how does that logic work through when said larger airports happily encourage two or more operators onto the same route? Surely to ensure sustainability they should dissuade competition so as not to undermine another operator?

[philbky]

A former marketing man sugesting someone else has a strange interpretation of figures? There's ironic.No irony at all. At many levels in my career, including CEO, I've been responsible for budgets, targets and accounts, responsible to shareholders and, at one time, County Councillors.

(you conveniently overlook the fact that Cambrian was an independent operator on the route when it took over from British Eagle).
I didn't conveniently overlook anything. You, on the otherhand continue to write factually inaccurate twaddle.

Cambrian took over the British Eagle service licence in late 1968 - late November if memory serves. One year earlier in November 1967 Cambrian became a wholly owned subsidiary of British Air Services.

British Air Services was formed by BEA in March 1967 to look after its financial interests in BKS and Cambrian. At the time of the formation it owned 33% of Cambrian which it acquired in 1958. 100% of Cambrian was acquired by BAS, a wholly owned financial arm of BEA in November 1967.

There's no telling what would have happened on the Liverpool - Heathrow route had cambrian not been absorbed into BA in the mid 70s
There's no telling what would have happened had Hitler not been born....your point is? BTW, Cambrian was legally absorbed into BA in 1972

If other routes operated from other airports are a potential threat to sustained operations from the 'larger' airports such as Manchester, how does that logic work through when said larger airports happily encourage two or more operators onto the same route? Surely to ensure sustainability they should dissuade competition so as not to undermine another operator?If you can't work that out for yourself, there's no point in my explaining.

And convenient now that your three year comment was just a throw away line when your 'facts' are rebutted.

When you actually get around to rebutting a fact I'll begin to think you might just have a little knowledge

[ryanair1]

hahahaha all very entertaining. Two men trying desperatly to prove their points

Anyway im sure both of you are right/wrong to some extent.

I do believe domestic/feeder UK links will go through a revival once the LHR thrid runway is operational.

[philbky]

Two men trying desperatly to prove their points

Well this one isn't doing anything "desperatly", not even desperately. When people make erroneous statements, ignore the obvious and the evidence of over 60 years of history to support their own misguided pet theories someone needs to use the facts to refute their statements.

[kala87]

Just to stir up the LPL vs. Man thing, in my ancient BOAC 1958 timetable, certain London to New York and Montreal flights by DC7C aircraft route through "Manchester/Liverpool" Airport according to the schedules! I assume this means Ringway, as it was then known.

I disagree with the notion that Lo-Co's only serve the leisure market. EZY's success in particular has been based on the business market as much as the leisure market. Just go to LTN or LGW in the early morning and check out all the suits with laptops flying with them.

No, the UK doesn't have too many airports considering the population density and poor surface transport. The market will decide which of them are viable on a long-term basis. Surely most people would rather fly from a local airport given the choice, if it saves the hassle of a long (meaning time-consuming) drive.

Why shouldn't the northwest have both MAN and LPL airports? The extra runway capacity provided is useful, and allows for long-term growth which will surely return when this present downturn has reversed, as it will.

Any debate about catchment areas has to take into account that different routes have different catchments. For example, here in the southwest, if you want to fly from Cornwall to London, you don't want to drive a great distance, so NQY is the obvious choice, with 3 airlines and 3 London area destination airports to choose from. On the other hand, for a charter to Greece or long-haul to New York, Bristol is perfectly acceptable. Therefore, all four airports in the region (BRS, EXT, PLY, NQY) have their own markets and are all very important to the economic well-being of the region.

[philbky]

ust to stir up the LPL vs. Man thing, in my ancient BOAC 1958 timetable, certain London to New York and Montreal flights by DC7C aircraft route through "Manchester/Liverpool" Airport according to the schedules! I assume this means Ringway, as it was then known.

Was that a winter 1957/58 timetable?

BOAC introduced the DC7C from Manchester in 1957 and operated four flights a week to Montreal (one non stop) and three to New York (one non stop) but the runway length was only 5,900 ft.and, whilst this didn't pose a problem for the 7C (unlike with the Stratocruiser which operated more from Burtonwood than Ringway, normally due to wet weather and stopping distances), the service transferred to Burtonwood in December whilst runway extension work was done. This restricted the runway and overrun area to around 5,000 feet.

Burtonwood was used throught the winter and, with non stop New York and Montreal being available from the North West without weight restriction for the first time, BOAC decided to try to attract the liner traffic that, at that time, was still the first choice for most passengers heading across the Atlantic - Liverpool being a close second to Southampton for departures - thus the Liverpool reference.

On 23 April 1958, the Manchester runway extension to 7,000 feet was opened and on April 28 G-AOIC made the first full weight, non stop, flight across the Atlantic to New York. Montreal followed and the number of non stops with 7Cs and Britannias continued, reverting to stopping services when the 707 was introduced and runway length again became a problem.

It would be interesting to know how long (if at all) the Liverpool reference continued in the timetable.

[ConstantFlyer]

Many interesting posts here. Apart from those pax in transit, all of an airport's passengers arrive for or depart after their flight by road or rail. It makes sense therefore that an airport should be a hub for several forms of transport across its catchment area. Indeed its catchment area can be increased through effective and efficient surface transport.

A couple of examples: Rail services (including long distance) from AMS, CDG and FRA. Central bus and underground station at LHR. Metro at NCL. Train station at MAN. All well linked to serve the surrounding areas of population - and many further afield.

And a salutary example: Arrive at Durham/Tees Valley Airport and find no public transport to Durham, one bus an hour to Middlesbrough, and one train a week. Wait 20 mins for a taxi to show up. Arrive at Darlington station and check the departure screens: One train an hour to Manchester Airport!