Marginal Airports (UK)

[LGS6753]

On a number of AA&R threads, there is concern over the viability of smaller regional airports. Some have introduced local passenger charges (DTV, Norwich, Newquay etc), presumably because they are not making enough from airlines and other revenue sources.

Last year saw Coventry close for a few months, but although now re-opened, it looks unlikely that it will offer much in the way of passenger services in the near future.

We've also seen investment in some of the smaller airports; Doncaster/Sheffield is a totally new development based on the old RAF Finningley, Bournemouth has a new terminal just as most passenger services have stopped for the winter, and Southend is currently undergoing development.

So what does the future hold for these marginal airports, in the light of continuing economic difficulties? For the purposes of this debate I am looking at airline operations only, and not business aviation, training, general aviation, aircraft servicing, etc.

The airports I personally consider 'marginal' in this way include Southend, Durham Tees Valley, Plymouth, Oxford, Blackpool, Carlisle, Coventry, Bournemouth, Gloucester, Norwich, Manston, Lydd, Humberside and Doncaster/Sheffield. This list is not exhaustive.

Discuss...

[davidjohnson6]

LGS - depends partly on how long the economic difficulties you mention continue. Recessions do not last forever

[LGS6753]

DJ6,

You are quite right of course, but I feel it will be 3-4 years before we return to the levels of business seen in 2007-8. In that time, these businesses have to survive, keep people employed, maintain equipment, etc.

[ConstantFlyer]

Unfortunately, runways are not portable. It would be nice to have ones you could just roll up and take to where they were needed. The problem, however, with many of the airports that LGS6753 has named is that they are in the wrong place. Many years ago they may have been in the appropriate place for their then use, but times have changed, aviation has changed, people's needs and expectations have changed, and society has had to build its services around the infrastructure it inherited from yesteryear.

If we were building a new society on a blank canvas, we could make sure that airports were co-located with train stations, tram and bus termini, and had ample parking. People would be able to get to where they needed to quickly and easily, using a range of different transport means. What's that game called where you build stuff on squares? Sim-city? Like that.

Unfortunately, because we have runways that are no longer so advantageously situated as their purposes and society have changed, airport operators have needed to try all sorts of plans and schemes to find uses for them. Sadly, this is not always viable, and relying on historical reasons to keep an airport open is not a sufficient one.

Therefore, some will close, and, with planning rules as they are, will never reopen. I'm very much a fan of small airports, and the comfortable travel experience they offer; but they will find it hard to operate alongside the big hubs with their numerous destinations and frequent services.

[Ironside0]

You only have to read the Blackpool forum on here to read the sorry tale of a marginal airport,first fall out with your largest operator (Ryanair) then introduce a fee for using the virually non existant facilities,Hmm we are still open ,i know lets fall out with our remaining large operator (Jet2) by withdrawing ATC and fire cover after 9pm even though we were quite happy to let them timetable flights at those times,resulting in Jet2 getting a court judgement in their favour,Hmm what can we do now say the management ,Eureka ! lets downgrade fire cover so Jet2 cant operate a 733 size a/c that should do it!:ugh:
They are obviously hoping to annoy airlines & passengers (like me a once regular flyer) enough to create uncertanty about booking from there again....
I love to use smaller airports when i can ,for all the obvious reasons of speed through the terminal etc,no one expects loads of facilities but the way some are being run makes you think they really dont want your buisness and like Balfour Beatty at Blackpool must be looking at the land for other uses

[Phileas Fogg]

Southend: In the mass turbo-prop days SEN was very successful, it hasn't had a runway suitable for the B737/A320 jet age but, now, it has every chance of being a reasonable success.

Oxford: A flying club trying to make it as an airport but without a decent length of runway to do so.

Carlisle: This is an airport? The last airline scheduled service I recall to/from it was back in the 80's and Euroair's LHR-Carlisle-Dundee service ..... and that wasn't a roaring success!

Coventry: 15 minutes down a dual carriageway from BHX, what chance does it really have for an airline operation?

Bournemouth: Hurn has been around a lot longer than you have back beyond the days when BOAC operated their worldwide services from Hurn!

Norwich: How can this be marginal, it is the only operating airport in Norfolk and Suffolk, OK the A11 down to STN has improved over the years but who want to fly with a LCC out of STN!

Lydd: Besides 'puddle jumpers' across the channel this is not, I believe, an 'airline operations' airport.

Manston: Great for crew training, maintenance and some holiday charters or similar but too convenient to LGW to really make it and for many a year.

Gloucester: This is an 'airline operations' airport? Perhaps but only with a stretch of the imagination!

DTV/BLK/DSA: No comment.

Plymouth: A landing strip on top of a hill, next!

[niknak]

I think Phileas has got it just about right.

My recent personal experience is of Norwich (because I work there).
It has suffered tremendously firstly because, after the owners investing £ms in various facilities and perhaps being "rather optomistic" about potential routes and pitching into markets we couldn't possibly compete with, along came the recession, then when things looked as though they were getting back on track, along came the ash clouds which hit them for more money than you could ever imagine.
The former, to a certain extent, could have been predicted but never the effect of the latter.
However, despite the fact that sheduled and charter traffic is nothing like it used to be, things are slowly getting better and helicopter traffic (North Sea) is doing very well and will get even better when a new operator moves in in May 2011.
New airport management has lead to a more pragmatic approach and there is significant private investment in new hangarage and FBO facilities leading to new customers.


I've worked in aviation for over 30 years and I've always found that usually the first thing to suffer in a recession is aviation, it's also the first to emerge from it, but failure to learn is the one thing that really will screw you.

[wanna_be_there]

STN has improved over the years but who want to fly with a LCC out of STN!

Maybe the 22.1+ million people who flew from it last year?!?!?!

[Helen49]

To repeat what I have posted elsewhere. Small island. Too many airports. Low cost airlines. Not enough revenue! Agreed; marginal airports aplenty!
Helen49

[pug]

What about those 'marginal' airports you mention whose revenue does not solely rely on filling 737's to Alicante? I think thats easily (sometimes conveniently?) brushed over when talking about small regional airports.

[Buster the Bear]

Air traffic levels around the London area last Sunday plunged massively with the onset of the winter timetables.

Bournemouth had one passenger flight today as an example (not picking on EGHH).

With the recent APD increase and the imminent VAT 2.5% increase, passenger numbers will take until 2014 (NATS figures) to return to 2007/08 levels.

Airlines will fly the routes that make them money.

[Phileas Fogg]

Biggin Hill has been operating as an airport for circa 36 years, has the facilities to cope with B737/A320's etc. but with no regular airline traffic ..... and surviving for 36 years like that!

And it's more of an 'airport' than some of those 'airfields' that LGS6753 lists. :)

[Siggyboy]

BOH has suffered terribly this winter. FR pulling out for 3 months. BMI baby pulling its Jersey route. Flybe pulling its Manchetser route. Palmair handing back their aircraft. Thomson only regular operator through winter.

BOH suffers by being too close to SOU. If one or other did not exist a single very strong regional airport would exist. SOU is hampered by lack of space and short runway. BOH by SOU and poor road/rail links.

BOH will recover when economy picks up. Even in February this year flew to EDI with FR with virtually 100% load factor on a 180- seater aircraft. So demand is there.

[bad bear]

I Guess there are many more airports that could be added to the list. How much money was Dundee loosing? £2m? Now the main LCY route has dropped from 4 rotaitions to 3 and shortly to 2. The problem I see is the deals that are being offered by airports dont cover the future costs of replacing ILS systems etc
bb

[ATP_Al]

Biggin Hill has been operating as an airport for circa 36 years, has the facilities to cope with B737/A320's etc. but with no regular airline traffic ..... and surviving for 36 years like that!

And it's more of an 'airport' than some of those 'airfields' that LGS6753 lists.

Exactly. Isn't the problem that we see airports as failing when they're not attracting airline traffic? If you were to fly around Europe you'd find many municiple airports that don't offer many scheduled services, but they're seen as part of the local infrastructure and as an asset to the local economy. Airlines will, of course, stop and start routes according to demand, but ideally every major city should have an airport, just in case anyone wants or needs to fly there. Imagine if we started closing A and B roads just because they didn't attract the same amount of traffic as motorways!

As for who's going to pay for all these airports, well it's not an ideal world and so it's another subject for discussion!

[Phileas Fogg]

Biggin Hill actually has a court injunction against it whereas it cannot allow tickets to be bought/sold for flights to/from, i.e. no scheduled or charter commercial flights, not sure if that rules out diversions, the likes of Euroair and Brymon used it in the old days, and it continues to survive.

But to suggest that the likes of Carlisle, Staverton and Oxford are airports rather than airfields, well really!

[matspart3]

Phileas
Manx2 has been operating 19-seater schedules to the Isle of Man and Jersey (Summer) quite successfully from Staverton (20 000pa) for the last 3 years. Aer Arann put an ATR72 in there yesterday for racing at Cheltenham, having run a week's scheduled service from DUB during the March festival.

They're also just about to start a runway safety project that removes obstacles at both ends of the runway, increases the RESA provision and declared distances, and installs ILS on 27.

There are about a dozen corporate jets based there, which, combined with the 70 000+ GA movements are the bulk of the business, but the pax do form a small niche.

[Phileas Fogg]

matspart,

I recall, back in the 70's, DC3's operating Stavertom/Channel Island route(s), Lydd has a service, I believe, to Le Touquet, a grass airfield at St. Just has a route to Scilly Isles, Pembrey has/had Channel Island route(s), whilst these may call themselves airports realistically they are airfields

[davidjohnson6]

I agree that there are probably too many airports chasing scheduled passenger traffic in much of the UK. However, it's quite difficult to decide which airports are surplus to requirements, particularly for the future, given the changing nature of both the airline industry and the demographics of the UK.

In 1994, Liverpool had a total of 439,279 passengers, while Durham Tees Valley had 356,380 passengers.
In 2009, Liverpool had a total of 4,879,468 passengers while Durham Tees Valley had 288,298 passengers.

It should be remembered that in the 1980s and early 1990s, that both Liverpool and Teesside had a big population base and considerable economic problems. How would a planner in 1994 known what would happen 15 years later ?

If airport management can keep going financially, who are we to say they should close ?

[Knife-Edge]

BOH has suffered terribly this winter. FR pulling out for 3 months. BMI baby pulling its Jersey route. Flybe pulling its Manchetser route. Palmair handing back their aircraft. Thomson only regular operator through winter.

Not quite true - EasyJet x8 per week to Geneva Dec to Apr. Though it's a poorly advertised service, so no wonder awarness is low!

[Barnaby the Bear]

a grass airfield at St. Just has a route to Scilly Isles

Lands End is an Airfield, but its very much an Airport. It's owned and operated by Isles of Scilly travel that own Skybus and the ferry service from Penzance for the provision of freight and scheduled passenger services to islands. Along with Scenic flights (fare paying pax) again operated by Skybus and a flying school operated by the same company.
They also have a Trinity House Lighthouse helicopter depot and very small terminal at the Airport.
You don't need tarmac and jets to be an Airport. :}

As for the others listed. To focus on the current financial situation is shortsighted. Most will be investing for the long term and I am sure some will struggle in the short term, but the long term future (if the forecasts are correct) is very promising.
The appeal of smaller Airports with quick 'processing' time and good links to city centres etc. is growing... :ok:

[Phileas Fogg]

Barnaby,

VERY MUCH AN AIRPORT, go view LHR, LGW, MAN, CDG, AMS, BRU, MAD, FRA, MUC, JFK, LAX, YYZ etc.etc. etc. and then come back and say that a grass field near Lands End is VERY MUCH an airport!

[pug]

If airport management can keep going financially, who are we to say they should close ?

I think that pretty much answers the thread, in the crudest sense, those that can make will survive, those that dont may go to the wall, depending on the owners wishes of course.

[Expressflight]

I don't actually see what the size of the airfield has to do with it being called an airport or not.
I would say that a reasonable definition of the word 'airport' is that it is an airfield/aerodrome that has dedicated passenger and/or freight handling facilities; i.e. it has a terminal capable of processing pax for either scheduled or charter flights.
I would say that GLO is definitely an airport, as is LYD (albeit greatly underused at present) and OXF has recently changed from being an airfield to an airport. At present CAX probably doesn't quailfy under my definition.
Frankly I think it's ridiculous to suggest that Norwich is surplus to requirements, to take one of the examples suggested. It serves a large, if rather sparsely populated, catchment area and should be able to survive comfortably by meeting the limited needs of its region. It's only when such airport managements become unrealistic in their expectations that they run into trouble - nearly always involving grand plans to fill their ramp with subsidised airliners rather than developing the less glamorous, profitable side of their businesses.

[Barnaby the Bear]

Phileas Fogg. I didnt say it was a 'big' Airport or a 'busy' airport, but it is very definately an Airport. :ok:

[Aero Mad]

In much the same way as Alderney is an airport, with two grass and one tarmac runways (all of which are regularly used by the Trislanders)

[virginblue]

Just to give a comparative view - in Germany, in the past couple of years the following "marginal airports" have lost their scheduled services - some of them airports that in the past even had base carriers with up to half a dozen based aircraft:

- Kiel (KEL)
- Augsburg (AGB)
- Mönchengladbach (MGL)
- Bayreuth (BEY)
- Siegerland (SGE)
- Kassel (KSF)

On the brink of extinction (scheduled service-wise) are:
- Erfurt (ERF)
- Zweibrücken (ZQW)
- Hof (HOQ)
- Mannheim (MHG)

[scr1]

VERY MUCH AN AIRPORT, go view LHR, LGW, MAN, CDG, AMS, BRU, MAD, FRA, MUC, JFK, LAX, YYZ etc.etc. etc. and then come back and say that a grass field near Lands End is VERY MUCH an airport

and bara is an airport and that is the beach!!!

[Siggyboy]

Yes sorry Knife Edge was aware of that and believe it does well for Easy Jet. There are other ski charters ( Inghams to Innsbruck weekly) and Bath Travel has a few Charters to the Caribbean but till FR reappear in February is a very quiet place for Passenger movements!

[matspart3]

Phileas...when I left the 'airfield' tonight, there were 18 pax waiting for the third rotation for the Isle of Man today and this was on Stand 1

Global Express HB-JFY | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/egbj/5179490003/in/set-72157625309443546/)

Plenty of niches for places like GLO to fill...

[pottwiddler]

Over time passenger carrying airports will come and go but there will always be an airfield (aerodrome in CAA-speak). Coventry became an airport but failed due to being reliant on one carrier and a bad relation with it's local council, plus the fact that BHX wasn't far but it did have good road communications in it's favour but that was it.
Unlike Bournemouth which is has it's own unique catchment area in Dorset/New Forest but is hamstrung by the local roads and hopeless marketing.
Southampton has a short uncategorised runway and has strict closing times stole a march on sewing up domestic and business travel.
Exeter is also domestic/business as well bucket and spade holidays and the managers cannot must be happy at their well spread portfolio.
All three will survive and persist in being airports, it's just a question of scale.

[Airlift21]

Shoreham Airport on the south coast is always refered to as an airport despite having no scheduled services whatsoever. Everyone calls it Shoreham Airport. I know its relatively short runway of 3400 ft and its proximity to LGW doesn't help matters, but can anyone shed any light on why airlines wont touch Shoreham Airport with a barge pole and also what type of passenger carrying aircraft could operate safely from there?

[Wycombe]

Blackbushe is also known as an "Airport" and even has an IATA code (BBS), although I suspect this is mainly historical from the period up to the 1960's when there were plenty of scheduled and charter airline Ops. there.

Having said that, the place is looking more like a "Airport" than it has for years at present - there is even a garage to put the Fire vehicles in now and an almost daily smattering of small to medium-size bizjets on the apron :ok:

[Phileas Fogg]

Airlift,

Back in the 80's JEA (now FlyBE) operated a JER route to/from Shoreham (ESH) utilising a Twotter, they took the route over from a local outfit, the identity of which slips my mind.

Brymon operated 2 Twotter routes in/out LGW at the time and ESH would be Brymon's preferred alternate (before Biggin).

The problem(s) with ESH are (1) the length of runway and (2) the fire cover, in the old days I understand their Landrover fire truck was towed around by a tractor, not sure if this is true or not, but, these days, are there any LGW operators that utilise a type of aircraft that can operate in/out of ESH based on the length of runway and with minimal fire cover?

[MichaelOLearyGenius]

I think it it is fair to say that all airports in the UK can be said to be "marginal" on foggy days!

[Flap40]

Back in the 80's JEA (now FlyBE) operated a JER route to/from Shoreham (ESH) utilising a Twotter, they took the route over from a local outfit, the identity of which slips my mind.

I think that they were called South East Airways or something similar. They used to have an Islander with "Fly by SEA!" on the tail.

[GROUNDHOG]

I wanted to start a Cardiff to Shoreham schedule with Air Wales Do228, we even did a trial flight there. It wasn't such a silly idea after market research indicated that Legal and General, American Express and Ford Motor Company would have supported the service regularly. Unfortunately the owner of the airline didn't share my enthusiasm so it never happened but the team at Shoreham Airportfield were great!

There will always be a demand for flights to the Islands - it gets a bit wet on the way for a train or bus!

[Phileas Fogg]

Flaps40,

I recall a South East Air, Biggin based I think, operating one or more HP7 aircraft but they didn't last very long.

The mob that, before JEA, operated ESH/JER was something like 'Hayward Air Services'.

Found it ... Haywards Aviation Ltd, see the link below:

cessna | 1973 | 0524 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1973/1973%20-%200524.html)

http://www.doghousecrafts.co.uk/handdaf/por/sdo01Small.jpg

[The SSK]

Marginal airports throughout Europe have a nasty shock appearing over the horizon, in the shape of aviation’s inclusion in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme from 2012. Essentially it equates to fuel rationing – airlines will receive credits equivalent to 82% of their 2005 fuel burn, anything over that they have to buy, either from governments (‘auctioning’) or from other holders of credits.

Which means that marginal routes are going to be very closely scrutinised by the beancounters (that seems to be a popular term around here – I do not use it pejoratively) because serving them will use up scarce and suddenly valuable credits. Goodness knows what will happen in the LoCo sector but I think that a lot of the smaller spokes in the networks will disappear and some communities will lose connectivity altogether.

Rather like what happened to Leeds and Teesside when suddenly it became interesting for BMI to allocate another scarce commodity (Heathrow slots) to more lucrative destinations. In the case of Leeds, they still have network access to AMS and BRU – but for how much longer? Teesside sorry Durham Tees Valley is a basket case.

[PlymSpotter]

Regarding Plymouth, it is an airport on the top of a hill, but it's certainly better there than sea level. You get dense sea fog rolling in from the Sound and right pea soupers in both the Tamar and Plym valleys much more frequently than the current airport is closed for bad weather. Not ideal, but considering the topography you are literally stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Crusher1]

The latest crazy idea in my neck of the woods comes from an MP who is campaigning for Cottesmore to become a civil airport, now that's what you call very marginal, he's not in the real world.

[compton3bravo]

You say that Crusher 1, sometime in the early 1990s (before the likes of easyJet etc) when I was production manager for a well known aviation magazine we received a report from some doughnut who came out with the idea of all inclusive tour flights should operate from Lyneham (the RAF would vacate of course) which would leave all London airports to operate just scheduled services - I kid you not.

[Phileas Fogg]

Crusher,

What, North Luffenham that's been lying dormant for donkeys years has never sprung to this MP's mind or might he merely be going for a publicity stunt!

[LGS6753]

With bmibaby quitting Cardiff, the number of UK airports with a loco based reduces further. So far Teesside (baby then Globespan), Coventry (Thomson), Doncaster (Thomson), Bournemouth (Buzz), Manston (EU Jet). These smaller airports, often coastal, may offer a better passenger experience, but can't sustain the economic model the locos need.

Watch out Southend, Blackpool, even Newcastle!

[davidjohnson6]

LGS - I agree that some of the UK's smaller airports will struggle to support a meaningful level of LCC operations.
Cardiff and Newcastle are both substantial cities and their airports each serve a considerable population.

bmibaby as an airline is going through troubled times anyway, and needs to retrench to its profitable core - expansion is not the order of the day.

Neither Cardiff, nor the people live there (I'm including everything west as far as Swansea) will go away anytime soon. Unless the economy is deep in recession, we tend to find that when one airline chops a substantial number of routes from a single airport, that another airline will consider stepping in instead.

Yes, Bristol has a substantially bigger airport, but I imagine there is still good money to be made by flying to/from Cardiff. Newcastle is a more extreme case, with the nearest effective competitor being either Leeds or Edinburgh.

Perhaps Flybe now see an opportunity to open a couple more carefully chosen routes at Cardiff ? Alternatively would Thomson or Thomas Cook consider expanding operations ?

[Mr.Bloggs]

The economy IS in deep recession. This is reflected in consumer purchasing power, which is dramatically decreasing. Holiday travel is way down, as reflected by Thomas Cook down-sizing.

[macdo]

CWL is nearly in the critical ward. TCX down to 1 little Bus (will that still be there next year?), WW gone, if TOM start to feel the pinch, there not a lot left.
Much hope will be placed on FLYBE, but, they are a well run, shrewd outfit. If the loads are poor, they'll cut and run before you can say runway closed!
If Flybe go, the Airport as is, will no longer sustain itself. (unless the Welsh Assembly dig deep to pay the Spanish to keep it going.:mad:

[deltahotel9]

I think you are stretching it a little to suggest Newcastle is now marginal, it's fair to say EZY have scaled back but LS have added capacity to take up some of the slack. Charter flights are still strong with TCX adding a 4th 757, when added to the TOM and LS aircraft that gives 8x757 and 4x737 (if my maths are correct) for this summer so hardly marginal. EZY have now put winter 2011/12 on sale and looks like it stays as 3 based A319s so no further loses. Extra loco flights to non bucket and spade destinations would be very welcome though.

[macdo]

+1 for NCL, makes loads of money for the IT airlines. Last time I was there a lot, was top earning base for InFlight sales several years running.

[GROUNDHOG]

Thanks for the pic Phileas I chartered that aircraft to take a bunch of us from Shoreham to Manston for a business meeting! Great memories.

[david.crosby]

DTV - use to have passengers nearing 920,000 pax in 2006 then the demise of Flyglobespan and BMI canceling of the London route has nearly killed the airport. Im an avid surporter of this airport and beleive if the airlines and routes came our airport can become back to the 800,000 or 900,000 pax a year, even more. Ive spoke to many people and I asked if the routes were at DTVA would they be willing to pay an extra £20-£50 quid to fly from DTVA than Newcastle they all said yes. I beleive if the airlines give DTVA the right routes like Thomson with Alicante, Sharm El Sheikh, Tenerife-South. Onur air have Bodrum, Dalaman, these routes have been sucessful. And I do beleive Thomson will start to use our Airport more with more routes as the years go on.
DTVA is a great airport

[Yellow Sun]

Ive spoke to many people and I asked if the routes were at DTVA would they be willing to pay an extra £20-£50 quid to fly from DTVA than Newcastle they all said yes.

Hate to sound cynical about it, but everyone says "yes" until it comes to opening their wallet. It's been proved time and time again. price pulls punters.

[david.crosby]

I do know what you say YS but you think if u live in Darlington, and you have a choice to go from DTVA or Newcastle were you have to pay for a taxi or train anyway, ive just booked a flight from Newcastle to Heathrow, im doing it the cheap way to get to the airport and this is still costing me £15 and im traveling from Middlesbrough and im getting a bus and metro. I wish DTVA had the London route. I would use it. No matter of the price

[deltahotel9]

Sorry but it's time to get real. You are not going to get London flights back at DTV, and if you live in Darlington and want to get to London the easiest and cheapest way is to get the the train. Of course if you are travelling further afield and want to transfer via London then you must go via NCL or go via AMS instead from DTV.

[david.crosby]

Deltahotel9, When I was checking it was £58 to travel to london and to fly from Newcastle it was only £42.50 with British Airways. I know DTVA wont get the London Route back, But as the Tenerife and Sharm El Sheikh routes shows tourism routes work.

[adfly]

I disagree with the statement about people just going from where it is cheapest. There are of course some who do but also many who would happily pay extra to fly from their local airport. This cost is usually made up for as fuel and parking prices are far less, as Taxis and Public transport are normally quite cheap over short distances and many people get lifts from friends and relatives, which usually costs them nothing!! Plus the actual transition through the airport is far quicker and easier at a local airport like SOU or BOH than congested hubs like LHR and LGW.

[TwinAisle]

There is actually hard evidence that a very surprising number of people don't look at total trip cost - instead, they will happily travel forty or fifty miles to an airport to save a fiver on the fare, rather than use the airport on their doorstep. No, I don't understand human nature sometimes either, but it is a fact.

Yellow Sun - not a cynical view, but one that is borne out by experience. "Do you think your local airport needs routes?" - Yes. "Would you use them?" - Yes, of course. "Would you pay a premium for the local experience?" - Yes.

Guess what? They generally then don't.

[apaul]

Yes, what people say and do are two different things. If there were substantial numbers of people willing to pay higher fares to fly from Teesside bmibaby, Globespan and Ryanair would not have withdrawn their flights.

[rodan]

Well, Globespan might have...

[CelticRambler]

There is actually hard evidence that a very surprising number of people don't look at total trip cost - instead, they will happily travel forty or fifty miles to an airport to save a fiver on the fare, rather than use the airport on their doorstep. No, I don't understand human nature sometimes either, but it is a fact.

Yellow Sun - not a cynical view, but one that is borne out by experience. "Do you think your local airport needs routes?" - Yes. "Would you use them?" - Yes, of course. "Would you pay a premium for the local experience?" - Yes.

Guess what? They generally then don't.

The LoCos have distorted the market to such an extent that a great proportion of the "tourist" markety has come to believe that price is the only criterion worth considering. Unfortunately, the legacy airlines rested on their laurels and perpetuated an air of exclusivity around air travel until the LoCos had already done the damage.

Even now, there are really only two big users of air transport - look at your typical survey: what does it ask? "Buisness" or "Leisure". Both of those are very price sensitive - which means the carriers and the airports they fly from are always, always at the mercy of the economic climate and marketing.

What's missing - and the key to the survival of these marginal airports - is an in-depth re-education of the public. Stop trying to play catch-up and create a parallel reality where air transport is just "normal" not something exotic or exclusive.

Scrapping the subidies for rail travel would help equalise the price equation, but more importantly, there needs to be an integrated approach involving the community, the airport and the airline(s) so that everyone feels their getting a fair deal.

It is possible to change the attitude of a whole new generation of travellers and prepare them to look for value rather than price, and the longer this economic downturn continues, the better the chances of "distorting" the market back again!

At least I hope so, otherwise I've wasted the last eighteen months. Anyone with significant connections to any marginal airport with ambition and imagination, feel free to PM me for more information.

[TwinAisle]

What's missing - and the key to the survival of these marginal airports - is an in-depth re-education of the public.

Good luck with that one....

Stop trying to play catch-up and create a parallel reality where air transport is just "normal" not something exotic or exclusive.

I rather think it should be normal, and should not be the preserve of the wealthy....

Scrapping the subidies for rail travel would help equalise the price equation

There we agree....

but more importantly, there needs to be an integrated approach involving the community, the airport and the airline(s) so that everyone feels their (sic) getting a fair deal.

Sounds suspiciously socialist to me. Let business do business....

the better the chances of "distorting" the market back again!

Why do you think offering a product at a price people want to pay, and at a price where you can make a profit without a public subsidy, is a distortion of the market? :uhoh:

TA

[LGS6753]

Whilst I would agree that rail subsidies are undesirable, the rail lobby would argue that air travel is 'subsidised' by the lack of duty on aviation fuels (due to international agreement).

[CelticRambler]

Why do you think offering a product at a price people want to pay, and at a price where you can make a profit without a public subsidy, is a distortion of the market?

Badly phrased on my part - the LoCos distort the general public's price perception. That, I believe, is beginning to change (thank Fascinating Aida!) but there remains the problem that some "marginal" airports - especially in France - have prostitued themselves to the likes of Ryanair and their 190-seat aircraft (frequently yielding to the pressure to contribute to a dubious "marketing" fund) to the extent that it becomes difficult to convince people that 9€98 is not a realistic price for a 500nm journey.

This creates a problem when a small operator tries to run an alternative service at "normal" rates, often receiving a double-whammy because the airport doesn't think the 30- or 50-seater proposition is worthy of a similar "marketing" incentive. At "normal" rates, business customers make the cost-benefit calculation and it works, but only as long as business justifies it.

However, there is light in the tunnel here in France. The local authorities that run many of the marginal airports have come under increasing pressure to cut their subsidies, with the effect that there is a pattern emerging of primarily RA/EZ/Flybe/bmi airports on the one hand with typically high parking charges, hot, overcrowded terminals (even with on-time flights) and destinations only in the UK or Ireland; and on the other, smaller facilities with no major carrier but a better range of European or French destinations from smaller operators.

[shamrock7seal]

There are 48 active airports (not including the Scottish highlands) of which i would categorise as follows:

10 of them are 'major' - i.e above 5m pax per year (BHX, LHR, LGW, STN, MAN, GLA, EDI, BRS, LTN, LPL)

11 of them are 'major regionals' - i.e above 1m pax per year (CWL#, NCL, EMA, ABZ, LCY, SOU, JER, BFS*, BHD, LBA, PIK)

13 of them are 'regionals' - i.e above 100,000 per year (EXT, DTV, NWI, BOH, HUY, BLK, NQY, DSA, GCI, INV, LDY, DND, IOM)

14 of them are what i would consider 'marginal' - i.e pax levels under 100,000 per annum with no hope of them achieving more than that level, thus they must exist for alternative reasons (MSE*, LYD, SEN*, GLO, ACI, PEN, SWN, CRL, COV, OXF, CBG, PLH, LEQ, VLY)

There are numerous airfields in the non-pax related category such as Biggin Hill, Farnborough, Bristol Filton, Boscombe down etc etc that do not handle scheduled or regular holiday traffic. But even at this level they contribute to the ecomony in some way.

In my opinion, and due to the explosion of LCC's in the early 2000's; 'regionals' have tried to promote themselves to 'major regionals' by attracting LCC's. But it appears not to have been sustainable. To be sustainable, it must work even during an economic downturn. The fuel price also means that only very strong domestics will be viable in the medium term.

*THESE COULD BE PROMOTED UP A LEVEL
# THESE AIRPORTS COULD BE DEMOTED IN THE SHORT TERM

[mybrico]

I think you will find LPL meets your criteria and EMA doesn"t

[Hipennine]

Can anybody post some evidence that the key UK Intercity rail routes that are potential competitors to air, actually receive any subsidy ? As I understand it, the failure of GNER and then their successor on the East coast, was the high levels of fee that they bid to pay to the government, not the other way round.

When flights to LHR from MME were busiest, it took well over three hours to get from Darlington to King's Cross, and there were about 7 trains per day. At its peak, ECML (the then BR subsidiary) was charging over £300 executive day return at current prices, whilst British Midland were offering Diamond Club flights 5 or 6 times per day at lower prices.

Today, it's well under 3 hours by East Coast, every half hour from very early morning, and even 1st class fares can be had on peak trains at £34 single.

I think it's telling that EZY still pursue NCL-BRS whilst NCL-STN has been dropped. Even the BRS route is only 2 rotations/day during the week, whereas the extended rail alternative dawdle around Yorkshire and the Midlands to the SW remains busy.

And the road alternative these days, compared to when UK domestic flying was at its peak, is IMHO better. From the NE, the improvements in the A1/M1, and subsidiary routes have been substantial, and cars have become a lot more comfortable, mechanically reliable, and more fuel efficient. From the NE, the completion of the A1 upgrade currently underway, will further exacerbate that advantage.

About a decade ago, ONE North East's strategy document suggested that MME's future as a passenger airport should come to an end, and resources and investment concentrated at NCL. Of course, the equivalent of WW3 broke out in the N.E., but one can't help but feel that had this strategy been followed, the region would be better served for Pax air transport than it is now, especially given the history of route failure that the region has created in the interim, because of demand split (and therefore weakened) by having two airports.

[answer=42]

@hipennine

Ah, rail 'subsidy'. The air community comfort themselves with the thought that inter-city rail receives massive subsidies - all that needs to be done is to remove them!

The situation is, in fact, rather more complicated.

In the old days, the nationalised British Rail had an 'Inter City' sector that was defined as 'the bit of the railway that is not subsidised'. All very clear.

After privatisation, government financial support for railways increased many-fold. True, more people are travelling by rail but the system as a whole became more inefficient and costly. However, overall government support has been coming down for the last couple of years.

The calculation of total government support to railways is very complicated. If you want to know more, you should read Roger Ford's column in 'Modern Railways'. 'Uncle Roger' is, I believe, a proud holder of a ppl and quite possibly a ppruner, so he might want to correct my mistakes.

In general, there are two main parts of the subsidy: a direct grant to Notwork Rail and a subsidy to the operator (or a premium paid by the operator). So, an operator might pay a premium to the government but this is outweighed by the grant.

The subsidy / premium is contracted between the operator and the government, usually getting more positive (ie less subsidy /more premium) over the life of the contract period.

So when GNER and later National Express East Coast (think London-Edinburgh) both contracted for too big a premium, their payments just got bigger and bigger. The current (state owned) operator, East Coast, pays a much smaller premium. First Great Western (think London-Bristol/Exeter) pays a premium but gets money back(!) Virgin West Coast (think London-Manchester/Glasgow) plays by different rules (I think).

But all in all, there ain't no great subsidy pot for inter-city rail out there just waiting to be taken away to rescue the regional airline industry. Trains are getting faster and more frequent and the railways are getting better at informing the public. Oil prices keep on going up, tilting the market more and more in favour of the train.

You don't have to believe me but I wouldn't bet my career on the regional airline business being the same size as now 20 years hence.

[Guest 112233]

Looking carefully at the posts on this thread, we have come back to the old chessnut of municiple developement of airfields going back 50 Years or so.

The phrase "Chickens home to roost" comes to mind. Pairs of airports 30 miles apart. BHX and COV 12 miles !

A strategic ecomomic view of developement needs to be taken and It never has been.

The price of oil will inevetably shape the pattern of demand for air travel in the next 30 years. OK Hydrogen may be an alternative but where are the working systems ?

With the exeptions of LHR,LGW,MAN and the special cases of EMA (Freight) togather with NCL (Geography) and the some of Scottish Airports (More Geography), most UK airports could be considered marginal.

8 Million pax in 2011 using a facility now, could equal 0 in ten/fifteen years time. A valid but ominous thread for pprune.

CAT III

[N707ZS]

Why should Newcastle be a special case? Surley it could be classed as marginal and the local forced to fly from Edinburgh or Manchester.
Not long ago Manchester airport placed a mobile advertisment at Newcastle.

[pug]

This thread seems to be a bit null and void. State ownership and strategic airport planning was considered in the 1960's, but only those deemed important nationally were retained under state control (BAA), the rest were left to their own devices.

Surely, as more of the regional airports are taken over by the private sector, it is these owners which will decide the direction these airports will go in. Some may grow and prosper while others will go to the wall, but I would bet that the ones that dont last are the ones that can be truly classed as 'marginal'.

[Buster the Bear]

With Jet A1 unhedged costing $1200+ a tonne, more airports will become marginal as the fuel costs make operations unviable profitwise.

[answer=42]

Surely the point of this thread is to analyse the likely future size and shape of regional aviation, hence which airports will survive. Not null at all.

s7s's classification provides an exellent starting point. But commercial logic, not the logic of passenger numbers, will determine the outcome. Thus a megagarch who is willing to pay to keep an airport open for her one flight a year will get her way. I exaggerate but you catch my drift.

So, the regional / 'marginal' airports whose catchment areas include enough business aviation / people willing to pay for premium flights close to their McMansions, will survive, subject to competition. Likewise, the island airports etc. for which there is no economic alternative will stumble on, perhaps with subsidy. The owners will find alternative uses for the other airports.

I reckon most or all of the major regionals will survive 20 years hence in some shape or other, though some might be much smaller than today.

[pug]

answer=42, that kind of proves my point though. This thread seems to directly link passenger numbers with 'marginal' airports, when that simply is not the case.

Surely a better way of looking at it is like you say, the future shape of regional aviation as a whole, rather than looking at an airports passenger statistics in deciding which is 'marginal' or not?

[answer=42]

@pug

Well, I'd use pax numbers as a good first approximation of viability - the data is available, as s7s has kindly shown. If I wanted to get a tad more sophisticated, I would look to look at the total and high income population in the airport's catchment area - I might try to get some data on house prices as a proxy for the latter. I would also look at time/distance to next nearest airport and identify island airports. I would also include freight usage as an additional source of airport revenue. Put all into an econometric model, place in a warm computer and cook the figures until ready. Yum. ;)

On regional planning, let's look at the potential value added of intervention compared with the market solution. How might markets not give a socially optimum solution? If there are two marginal airports and only enough business for one: both will close unless they either come into the same ownership or there is intervention. If the airport land is temporarily more valuable as housing but closure would have a impact on the regional economy that cannot easily be monetised. if our friend the megagarch decides she wants airport A to stay open, even though it is in everyone else's interest to keep airport B. (Of course, in this case, she might flounce off and buy Italy or something).

So, there is a potential case for regional planning, if reasonable decisions can be expected. This may or may not be the case.

[wawkrk]

About a decade ago, ONE North East's strategy document suggested that MME's future as a passenger airport should come to an end, and resources and investment concentrated at NCL. Of course, the equivalent of WW3 broke out in the N.E., but one can't help but feel that had this strategy been followed, the region would be better served for Pax air transport than it is now, especially given the history of route failure that the region has created in the interim, because of demand split (and therefore weakened) by having two airports.

Too many airports? I wonder how LBA has been been affected by DSA which must have also damaged Humberside which in turn damaged LBA also as a relatively new airport.
Together they must have cost LBA quite a few pax. DSA in particular seems to have been allowed to open only because of 2 notoriously voiciferous politicians and not because it was required.
LBA was also damaged because of consecutive anti airport Leeds city councils which has continued until this day.

[pug]

Well, I'd use pax numbers as a good first approximation of viability - the data is available, as s7s has kindly shown. If I wanted to get a tad more sophisticated, I would look to look at the total and high income population in the airport's catchment area - I might try to get some data on house prices as a proxy for the latter. I would also look at time/distance to next nearest airport and identify island airports. I would also include freight usage as an additional source of airport revenue. Put all into an econometric model, place in a warm computer and cook the figures until ready.

That is assuming that airports with perhaps limited passenger numbers (due to a small or less prosperous catchment for example) would not be viable without those passenger flights. I would bet that many of the airports listed as 'regional' and 'marginal' by s7s do not rely too much on revenue from passenger services, particularly those in the 'marginal' catagory. I suspect many are commercially viable even if they dont appear so on the CAA passenger statistics.

On regional planning, let's look at the potential value added of intervention compared with the market solution. How might markets not give a socially optimum solution? If there are two marginal airports and only enough business for one: both will close unless they either come into the same ownership or there is intervention. If the airport land is temporarily more valuable as housing but closure would have a impact on the regional economy that cannot easily be monetised. if our friend the megagarch decides she wants airport A to stay open, even though it is in everyone else's interest to keep airport B. (Of course, in this case, she might flounce off and buy Italy or something).



Would that not then require state or local authority intervention? Is this not also unlikely considering most local authorities have distanced themselves from the running of regional airports rather than trying the opposite?

The Government washed their hands of regional airports years ago and formed BAA (for those deemed to be of national importance). They believed that local pride, and a better knowledge of the local area would be a better driving force behind the regional airports. How likely are they to ever change their attitudes?

[CelticRambler]

Well, I'd use pax numbers as a good first approximation of viability ... Put all into an econometric model, place in a warm computer and cook the figures until ready.
That is assuming that airports with perhaps limited passenger numbers (due to a small or less prosperous catchment for example) would not be viable without those passenger flights. I would bet that many of the airports listed as 'regional' and 'marginal' by s7s do not rely too much on revenue from passenger services, particularly those in the 'marginal' catagory. I suspect many are commercially viable even if they dont appear so on the CAA passenger statistics.

Agreed. Taking the demographic data and plugging it into the standard econometric model will only give you a standard answer, generally "more of the same". Part of the distortion I referred to above is connected to the obsession with "growth" and "passenger numbers". There is more to business (and profitability) than footfall.

Besides, those populations of high-earners may well be prepared to spend more on their flight, but how much of that feeds through to the airport? These are the same folk that are prepared to pay for a taxi to the terminal, fast-track security clearance and priority boarding. Why? So they don't have to hang around spending more money.

The regional airports destined to survive, even flourish, are the ones who stop trying to be like Heathrow, Stansted, Amsterdam, etc and offer a service adapted to their local population. Just because that population doesn't come up as "wealthy" in the stats doesn't mean they can't be more economically viable than a million bargain-hunting sun-seekers.

[pug]

Just because that population doesn't come up as "wealthy" in the stats doesn't mean they can't be more economically viable than a million bargain-hunting sun-seekers.

Pretty much sums up the last decade of rapid airport development in the UK.

Should it not be considered that an airport that relies heavily on revenue from footfall generated by one or two 'low cost' airlines is at significant risk if one of those airlines collapses/pulls out? At the other end of the spectrum there are airports who have diversified their aviation interests and have not put too much emphasis on low-cost airlines, their passenger figures look pretty dire, but are still commercially viable none the less. This is why I believe the thread is null and void.

[pwalhx]

Forgive me for going off track, is that really why the BAA was formed to protect airports of national importance. Does that mean it was really thought that the 3 London airports, Southampton, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen were the only airports considered such?

[pug]

No, I believe it was origionally the London airports plus Prestwick and perhaps a couple of others. Bournemouth was state owned but was relinquished upon the formation of BAA.

In the case of Yorkshire, there was a very good idea of building an airport in the Ferrybridge area, to coincide with the opening of the M62, it would have also been on the A1. Would have been the perfect solution for Yorkshire but such a project could never get off the ground without state intervention.

[pwalhx]

Hindsight is a wonderful science, there was also a plan for Burtonwood to be the airport for Manchester/Liverpool, 5 runways, good position, although they would have had to reroute the M62 when it was built.

[CelticRambler]

Should it not be considered that an airport that relies heavily on revenue from footfall generated by one or two 'low cost' airlines is at significant risk if one of those airlines collapses/pulls out? At the other end of the spectrum there are airports who have diversified their aviation interests and have not put too much emphasis on low-cost airlines, their passenger figures look pretty dire, but are still commercially viable none the less. This is why I believe the thread is null and void.

"Yes" to your question (see Angoulême and St. Etienne in France), but no, the thread is not null and void. Perhaps the thread title is inappropriate in the sense that an airport (the structure, not the commercial entity) may be "marginal" if only referring to passenger numbers, but depending on the management strategy a low footfall airport may be more viable than a high throughput LoCo.

The original question "what does the future hold for these marginal airports?" remains valid - although without the movers and shakers listening in, the discussion will be entirely speculative ...