COVENTRY
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PF,
Playing with your maths - 10% less pax is probably 10% less yield, but FR occupancy is usually in the 70s, not the 90s. There will also be a slight reduction in fuel costs - but that won't be 10%. On a 189 seat 738, that's 19 seats off the market - at £30 average, or £570 per sector.
What if CVT offered a £5 per head discount over BHX? On 170 pax, that would be £870 + a small saving in fuel. So using a quick back-of-envelope calculation, it may be possible - no doubt MOL has his beancounters who would have complex spreadsheets to work it out. Add to that the possibility that CVT has some very cheap car parks to fill, compared to BHX's gleaming white multi-storey structures. That's where the key differential is between the two - and that is more important to the punter than public transport.
But to answer your question - from the very heart of Coventry, the bus would be direct to CVT - about 20 minutes. Walk to COV station is about 10 minutes, train another 10, then that people mover swings it against BHX
But seriously - we're talking about a (very) hypothetical leisure passenger - I don't think anyone is expecting business routes - so they would travel from across the Midlands.
Playing with your maths - 10% less pax is probably 10% less yield, but FR occupancy is usually in the 70s, not the 90s. There will also be a slight reduction in fuel costs - but that won't be 10%. On a 189 seat 738, that's 19 seats off the market - at £30 average, or £570 per sector.
What if CVT offered a £5 per head discount over BHX? On 170 pax, that would be £870 + a small saving in fuel. So using a quick back-of-envelope calculation, it may be possible - no doubt MOL has his beancounters who would have complex spreadsheets to work it out. Add to that the possibility that CVT has some very cheap car parks to fill, compared to BHX's gleaming white multi-storey structures. That's where the key differential is between the two - and that is more important to the punter than public transport.
But to answer your question - from the very heart of Coventry, the bus would be direct to CVT - about 20 minutes. Walk to COV station is about 10 minutes, train another 10, then that people mover swings it against BHX
But seriously - we're talking about a (very) hypothetical leisure passenger - I don't think anyone is expecting business routes - so they would travel from across the Midlands.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I predict that, by 2020 most if not all of the current regional airports will have gone. They have all been losing passengers since 2008 and philanthropic owners are hard to come by.
The usual economy of scale logic doesn't always work with airports - bigger means much more complex structures, smaller means easier to use. By 2020, I'd expect MME to be gone for certain, and wouldn't have high hopes for NQY, BOH, HUY, DSA, LDY, NWI, and PIK. CWL and the other Scottish airports will be propped up by subsidies.
Anyway, maybe that's for another thread - I am not a betting man, so I have nothing to lose by speculating on CVT having some form of pax flights in the future.
Last edited by jabird; 10th Aug 2011 at 16:35. Reason: I called Skypartners Skytowers!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird,
As I said I don't know B737-800 performance but, off a restricted runway, the longer the route then the fewer passengers can be carried ... then this will be impeded further by such things as unexpected headwinds, bad weather at destination etc. ... By far easier to operate from a runway that has room to spare, keep things simple!
As for fuel burn it's circa 4% of the passenger/baggage weight that is burnt or not burnt per flight hour and as for MOL and his beancounters ... empty seats don't buy curled up sandwiches, lukewarm beer and/or coffee nor do empty seats pay £1 for the privilege of disposing of the consumed sandwiches, lukewarm beer and/or coffee, nor do empty seats pay rip off credit/debit card charges etc. etc. etc.
As I said I don't know B737-800 performance but, off a restricted runway, the longer the route then the fewer passengers can be carried ... then this will be impeded further by such things as unexpected headwinds, bad weather at destination etc. ... By far easier to operate from a runway that has room to spare, keep things simple!
As for fuel burn it's circa 4% of the passenger/baggage weight that is burnt or not burnt per flight hour and as for MOL and his beancounters ... empty seats don't buy curled up sandwiches, lukewarm beer and/or coffee nor do empty seats pay £1 for the privilege of disposing of the consumed sandwiches, lukewarm beer and/or coffee, nor do empty seats pay rip off credit/debit card charges etc. etc. etc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phileas,
Yes - very good points, but MOL also really loves a bargain - and has said before that airport fees will drive route selection more than anything else.
However, I will accept FRs recent trending has been towards larger airports - as also happened with WN when they reached a certain saturation level with the cheaper fields.
So you could factor in an average £30 yield at CVT might be £35 at BHX. But one thing we do know is that if you piss MOL off, he will go elsewhere.
Hence I still ask the question about what is and isn't technically possible. Even TOM didn't do Greece, and iirc no Canaries either. My concern would be that even if, say BVA and CRL were technically possible with a full load, Coventry is close enough to London for Eurostar to be a better option.
If South France or GRO / REU are reachable with a full or near-full load, maybe its an option.
Yes - very good points, but MOL also really loves a bargain - and has said before that airport fees will drive route selection more than anything else.
However, I will accept FRs recent trending has been towards larger airports - as also happened with WN when they reached a certain saturation level with the cheaper fields.
So you could factor in an average £30 yield at CVT might be £35 at BHX. But one thing we do know is that if you piss MOL off, he will go elsewhere.
Hence I still ask the question about what is and isn't technically possible. Even TOM didn't do Greece, and iirc no Canaries either. My concern would be that even if, say BVA and CRL were technically possible with a full load, Coventry is close enough to London for Eurostar to be a better option.
If South France or GRO / REU are reachable with a full or near-full load, maybe its an option.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there's as much chance of a B737-800 operation from Coventry as there is for the one-off charters Oxford to New York 
Flights from Oxford to Palma | Oxford Airport Travel
"We are currently in discussions to add a number of new flights. These will include a range of scheduled services to a range of UK and European cities, along with some one-off charters, for example, Christmas Shopping in New York"
Flights from Oxford to Palma | Oxford Airport Travel
"We are currently in discussions to add a number of new flights. These will include a range of scheduled services to a range of UK and European cities, along with some one-off charters, for example, Christmas Shopping in New York"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But OXF's runway is only 1592m. That's going to need at least one tech stop - Oxford might be ivory tower central, but LCY it ain't.
Phileas, my question was a technical one - can a 738 get in and out of Coventry? Yes. Which destinations can be served with a full load? Unanswered.
Technical data can provide the gateway to speculation - if it isn't technically possible, there isn't much to speculate. I know there's absolute zero chance of seeing 738s at BRR for example.
I've already said I think a 738 at CVT is unlikely - so I am only speculating on a particular scenario developing. If BHX slots were full, I'd be much more optimistic - but they aren't, and prognosis is that they won't be any time soon. But not too long ago, projections were for a 3-fold growth in the industry by 2030. I didn't buy that, but I also know recessions don't last forever.
Phileas, my question was a technical one - can a 738 get in and out of Coventry? Yes. Which destinations can be served with a full load? Unanswered.
Technical data can provide the gateway to speculation - if it isn't technically possible, there isn't much to speculate. I know there's absolute zero chance of seeing 738s at BRR for example.
I've already said I think a 738 at CVT is unlikely - so I am only speculating on a particular scenario developing. If BHX slots were full, I'd be much more optimistic - but they aren't, and prognosis is that they won't be any time soon. But not too long ago, projections were for a 3-fold growth in the industry by 2030. I didn't buy that, but I also know recessions don't last forever.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird,
I've worked in airline operations/navigation depts where, on occasions, there have been operations in/out of less than optimum airfields and there are two ways that things may be planned:
1. Worst case scenario: All passengers are male, the heavier of the species, all have their maximum baggage allowance of perhaps 15KG or 20KG, the runway will be wet with still air conditions and the flight will have en-route still air or headwind conditions.
2. Best case scenario to attain improved seat sales and/or route development: 50% of the passengers will be female, the lighter of the species, also throw a percentage of ankle biters in to the seat sales, whilst allowed perhaps 15KG of baggage they'll only be carrying 12.5KG, there will be a definite headwind down a dry runway and the flight will have en-route still air or tailwind conditions.
As you may imagine if one cuts corners one comes unstuck from time to time, of course there is another option:
3. Forget all of the above and operate from the airport just up the road.
I've worked in airline operations/navigation depts where, on occasions, there have been operations in/out of less than optimum airfields and there are two ways that things may be planned:
1. Worst case scenario: All passengers are male, the heavier of the species, all have their maximum baggage allowance of perhaps 15KG or 20KG, the runway will be wet with still air conditions and the flight will have en-route still air or headwind conditions.
2. Best case scenario to attain improved seat sales and/or route development: 50% of the passengers will be female, the lighter of the species, also throw a percentage of ankle biters in to the seat sales, whilst allowed perhaps 15KG of baggage they'll only be carrying 12.5KG, there will be a definite headwind down a dry runway and the flight will have en-route still air or tailwind conditions.
As you may imagine if one cuts corners one comes unstuck from time to time, of course there is another option:
3. Forget all of the above and operate from the airport just up the road.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would (and did) prefer flying from CVT in preference to BHX. Several times coming in on one of TOM's 737's (I don't know what variant) we would land on 05 and exit at the turn off for the terminal without back track, runway length did not appear to be an issue then.
The major thing that will hold CVT back is local politics. The airport is on land which comes under the durisdiction of Warwick District Council who have been at war with Coventry City Council on the subject for decades. I suspect that WDC is jealous of CCC having such a facility on hand. They ignore the fact that many of their residents could and would use the airport given the chance.
If the land could be transferred to the CCC I think the future of the airport would be transformed.
My first take off from CVT was so dramatic that I will never forget it, but as it was in 1959 and in a glider, it would not be relevant to this discussion other than the airport has found a soft spot in my heart ever since. I also had my first flying lesson from there.
In the days (should that be nights?) of the Parcelforce era, the airport showed that it could handle a serious amount of traffic. However the 737 crash brought it's proximity to housing to the notice of the locals, I suspect that until then it had hardly registered with them.
I wish the current lessees of the airport well and suspect that despite the obsession that the local BBC reporter has with passengers services, mentioning it at every opportunity, we will not see that for some time.
The major thing that will hold CVT back is local politics. The airport is on land which comes under the durisdiction of Warwick District Council who have been at war with Coventry City Council on the subject for decades. I suspect that WDC is jealous of CCC having such a facility on hand. They ignore the fact that many of their residents could and would use the airport given the chance.
If the land could be transferred to the CCC I think the future of the airport would be transformed.
My first take off from CVT was so dramatic that I will never forget it, but as it was in 1959 and in a glider, it would not be relevant to this discussion other than the airport has found a soft spot in my heart ever since. I also had my first flying lesson from there.
In the days (should that be nights?) of the Parcelforce era, the airport showed that it could handle a serious amount of traffic. However the 737 crash brought it's proximity to housing to the notice of the locals, I suspect that until then it had hardly registered with them.
I wish the current lessees of the airport well and suspect that despite the obsession that the local BBC reporter has with passengers services, mentioning it at every opportunity, we will not see that for some time.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawdler,
And in the old days, in crosswind conditions, DHC7's would land across the 300ft wide runway at St. Mawgan (NQY).
But that doesn't mean a DHC7 only requires a 300ft runway!!!
And in the old days, in crosswind conditions, DHC7's would land across the 300ft wide runway at St. Mawgan (NQY).
But that doesn't mean a DHC7 only requires a 300ft runway!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawdler,
The legal battle between WDC & CVT was certainly unhelpful, but I don't think moving boundaries would help the current situation much. It is also something that applies to airports up and down the land - most are not in the same district as the city they serve. BHX for example is in Solihull, but they are at least part shareholders, so they have been broadly supportive of the airport.
PF - FR went in briefly to BHD, not BFS, which has a longer runway. They weren't there long, but the beancounters clearly judged it worth a go. That is all I am saying - neither of us have technical data to say which destinations are precluded, but Ryanair will. If they have gone into other airports with shorter runways (LDY too), CVTs situation is a disadvantage, not an impediment.
BHX management have been very dismissive of lo-co in the past, they can get it wrong again. BHX also has issues with its own runway for a few long haul routes, although I don't personally think they will recoup the investment in the extension. And they are well out of touch thinking that bringing HS2 into some far-flung corner of the NEC complex is going to make them attractive as London's 7th, sorry 8th, sorry 9th airport!
The legal battle between WDC & CVT was certainly unhelpful, but I don't think moving boundaries would help the current situation much. It is also something that applies to airports up and down the land - most are not in the same district as the city they serve. BHX for example is in Solihull, but they are at least part shareholders, so they have been broadly supportive of the airport.
PF - FR went in briefly to BHD, not BFS, which has a longer runway. They weren't there long, but the beancounters clearly judged it worth a go. That is all I am saying - neither of us have technical data to say which destinations are precluded, but Ryanair will. If they have gone into other airports with shorter runways (LDY too), CVTs situation is a disadvantage, not an impediment.
BHX management have been very dismissive of lo-co in the past, they can get it wrong again. BHX also has issues with its own runway for a few long haul routes, although I don't personally think they will recoup the investment in the extension. And they are well out of touch thinking that bringing HS2 into some far-flung corner of the NEC complex is going to make them attractive as London's 7th, sorry 8th, sorry 9th airport!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird,
If my memory serves me correct, at the time when FR were re-equipping from B737-200's to B737-800's, did MOL not dictate to Derry Airport that they extend their runway, or similar, or, to the effect, "We're calling it a day".
Obviously Derry is a moneymaker for MOL but he's not prepared to operate his aluminium tubes anywhere that they cannot achieve, on the routes that were proving successful, full (ish) potential.
Has MOL, any time of lately, been dictating to CVT that they extend their runway per chance?
If my memory serves me correct, at the time when FR were re-equipping from B737-200's to B737-800's, did MOL not dictate to Derry Airport that they extend their runway, or similar, or, to the effect, "We're calling it a day".
Obviously Derry is a moneymaker for MOL but he's not prepared to operate his aluminium tubes anywhere that they cannot achieve, on the routes that were proving successful, full (ish) potential.
Has MOL, any time of lately, been dictating to CVT that they extend their runway per chance?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PF,
During the planning battles, I would love to have seen MOL v WDC, but TOM were much more polite!
Every indication for now is that MOL is happy with BHX. That will probably remain the case, but things can change. What if mgt start thinking they can bring in loads of big long haul routes once the runway extension opens, and they don't keep FR's landing fees low enough? What if MOL goes to renegotiate his fees, saying he'll go elsewhere if he doesn't get his way, and BHX call his bluff?
I don't think either of the above is likely, but stranger things have happened.
During the planning battles, I would love to have seen MOL v WDC, but TOM were much more polite!
Every indication for now is that MOL is happy with BHX. That will probably remain the case, but things can change. What if mgt start thinking they can bring in loads of big long haul routes once the runway extension opens, and they don't keep FR's landing fees low enough? What if MOL goes to renegotiate his fees, saying he'll go elsewhere if he doesn't get his way, and BHX call his bluff?
I don't think either of the above is likely, but stranger things have happened.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has MOL, any time of lately, been dictating to CVT that they extend their runway per chance?
I and many other Warwickshire council tax payers objected to the fantastic amounts of money spent on trying to cut CVT off at the knees. But as usual they had their agenda to follow.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawdler,
Impractical is relative - BHX is diverting the A45 into a tunnel for its extension. This is sold on getting loads of routes to China - routes which MAN has courted but still doesn't have. Even MAN-SIN is via MUC. ORD might return, other routes would be more leisure oriented - larger frames to MCO / SFB, BGI & new to ANU perhaps, together with the potential (as yet unproven) for some of the newer carriers to service the Indian subcontinent. In financial terms, it would have been cheaper to have bought CVT, and extended its runway towards Stoneleigh - but as you rightly say, there was no political will for this.
Also, the issue here is with Warwick District Council, who are the planning authority - iirc, Warwickshire County Council supported the airport, but had serious concerns over the lack of surface transport policy, something the airport really shot themselves in the foot over.
Rugby Borough Council did oppose CVTs development, I think because they had put a lot of resources into opposing the hoax Rugby Airport proposal, and there were still some very vocal councillors who felt there was large scale opposition to CVT. They had objections from a few residents in places like Binley Woods, but never bothered to canvass opinion elsewhere.
Impractical is relative - BHX is diverting the A45 into a tunnel for its extension. This is sold on getting loads of routes to China - routes which MAN has courted but still doesn't have. Even MAN-SIN is via MUC. ORD might return, other routes would be more leisure oriented - larger frames to MCO / SFB, BGI & new to ANU perhaps, together with the potential (as yet unproven) for some of the newer carriers to service the Indian subcontinent. In financial terms, it would have been cheaper to have bought CVT, and extended its runway towards Stoneleigh - but as you rightly say, there was no political will for this.
Also, the issue here is with Warwick District Council, who are the planning authority - iirc, Warwickshire County Council supported the airport, but had serious concerns over the lack of surface transport policy, something the airport really shot themselves in the foot over.
Rugby Borough Council did oppose CVTs development, I think because they had put a lot of resources into opposing the hoax Rugby Airport proposal, and there were still some very vocal councillors who felt there was large scale opposition to CVT. They had objections from a few residents in places like Binley Woods, but never bothered to canvass opinion elsewhere.
BHX's Tunnel
Jabird.
BHX are not diverting the A45 through any tunnels, the road is being diverted around the end of the extended runway as this is the cheaper option.
BHX are not diverting the A45 through any tunnels, the road is being diverted around the end of the extended runway as this is the cheaper option.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 'bent' road is the primary reason, probably the only reason, that Scampton remains an RAF airfield.
If the military move out then they have to put things back to how they were in the first instance and, it seems, the MoD would prefer to spend money keeping the base open rather than spend money straightening out the A15.
If the military move out then they have to put things back to how they were in the first instance and, it seems, the MoD would prefer to spend money keeping the base open rather than spend money straightening out the A15.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must also be remembered that Coventry City Council are shareholders in BHX.
None of us can see into the future, but for the present, there just isn't the traffic to go around.
IMO once the extension at BHX is up and running the objections from BHX regarding the conflict of traffic in the flightpath would be reinforced....
I think the Thomson fiasco raised too many hopes within CVT. No one made any money out of the operation. I fail to see what anyone else can do...
Small, niche, cargo....whatever, will probably be the future....with a few adhoc or single routes for leisure.
None of us can see into the future, but for the present, there just isn't the traffic to go around.
IMO once the extension at BHX is up and running the objections from BHX regarding the conflict of traffic in the flightpath would be reinforced....
I think the Thomson fiasco raised too many hopes within CVT. No one made any money out of the operation. I fail to see what anyone else can do...
Small, niche, cargo....whatever, will probably be the future....with a few adhoc or single routes for leisure.
Last edited by call100; 12th Aug 2011 at 13:38.