COVENTRY
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 2 miles from threshold 23R
Age: 74
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My I just thank ATC at Coventry for the hard work they do. Crossing clearance from Daventry to Nuneaton VRP yesterday handled in the usual way with a smile in the voice. Yes it was very busy with a TOM coming in and us puddle jumpers everywhere.
Statsman
Statsman
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomsonfly.com; the problem for Thomsonfly was that since Day 1 when public thought of the Thomson "brand" then all they ever thought were bucket and spade routes.
It just seems ironic in a way that just when the loads were picking up for ORY and AMS (ORY was up 20% year on year in July I think according to CAA stats, and AMS was up 6% compared to the same period last year) teh routes were pulled. It seems to be that TOM is hell bent on creating markets for others to exploit: CVT(BHX)-BCN, DSA-JER, LTN-PRG, LTN-RAK, could possibly go so far as to say look at DSA-ALC (FR) and look how TOM has brought BOH to the fore with FR taking a keen interest (considering where BOH was 2 1/2 years ago), and the airline does not seem to be up for some competition...which is all what the low cost market is.
As TUI-UK is now effectively a PLC, the only way the company were going to go was looking at what makes the most money purely to appease the shareholders: bucket and spade routes and the charter/package holiday....I think this is very very short sighted of the powers that be, bearing in mind the rapidly shrinking short haul charter market, and it will be very interesting to see where the company is in 3 years from now bearing in mind the rise of Ryanair, EasyJet, BMIBaby, Jet2 etc...unfortunately though this decision came at the expense of the city routes and the low cost/scheduled arm.
I hope Thomsonfly are trying to get a new carrier in to cover up the mess that they are creating at Coventry, at the end of the day although Coventry is associated with being a small airport terminal with limited facilities, it is more often than not the service (and price) that the airline provides that gets customers coming back...this is something that Thomsonfly are not doing (from DSA and LTN as well following recent cancellations).
One man said it all in the Evening Telegraph a few weeks back (the article about the end of the CVT-BCN route): "Coventry deserves better"
It just seems ironic in a way that just when the loads were picking up for ORY and AMS (ORY was up 20% year on year in July I think according to CAA stats, and AMS was up 6% compared to the same period last year) teh routes were pulled. It seems to be that TOM is hell bent on creating markets for others to exploit: CVT(BHX)-BCN, DSA-JER, LTN-PRG, LTN-RAK, could possibly go so far as to say look at DSA-ALC (FR) and look how TOM has brought BOH to the fore with FR taking a keen interest (considering where BOH was 2 1/2 years ago), and the airline does not seem to be up for some competition...which is all what the low cost market is.
As TUI-UK is now effectively a PLC, the only way the company were going to go was looking at what makes the most money purely to appease the shareholders: bucket and spade routes and the charter/package holiday....I think this is very very short sighted of the powers that be, bearing in mind the rapidly shrinking short haul charter market, and it will be very interesting to see where the company is in 3 years from now bearing in mind the rise of Ryanair, EasyJet, BMIBaby, Jet2 etc...unfortunately though this decision came at the expense of the city routes and the low cost/scheduled arm.
I hope Thomsonfly are trying to get a new carrier in to cover up the mess that they are creating at Coventry, at the end of the day although Coventry is associated with being a small airport terminal with limited facilities, it is more often than not the service (and price) that the airline provides that gets customers coming back...this is something that Thomsonfly are not doing (from DSA and LTN as well following recent cancellations).
One man said it all in the Evening Telegraph a few weeks back (the article about the end of the CVT-BCN route): "Coventry deserves better"
Last edited by SeamusCVT; 26th Nov 2007 at 21:50.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Coventry
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree Seamus, and this is something TOM crews have been saying all along, there have been some very exciting routes from CVT, which if the airline was anyone else but Tfly would have been continued if not expanded by now. Although I've heard TOM have been approaching other carriers to take over regarding a pull out, it stumps me to think of an airline that has 4 aircraft sitting about to come in - especially who would want to go up against WW/BE/ZB at BHX and FR/U2 at EMA.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This won't be the first or last time a German company does the dirty on the Midlands.
I can't believe they are looking for someone else to fill the spaces. Why on earth should they bother? They have already demonstrated their capacity for loyalty.
Coventry would be better off finding it's own replacements. It needs routes not served from Birmingham. Half of the population of Coventry can get to BHX quicker than CVT. They need a good reason to go to CVT.
It would also help if the airport decided what it was going to do for the future.
I really can't see them growing any bigger than they are now. The competition up the road is probably too much. Maybe they should be happy to serve a niche market pax wise and concentrate on building the freight side of the business....
I can't believe they are looking for someone else to fill the spaces. Why on earth should they bother? They have already demonstrated their capacity for loyalty.
Coventry would be better off finding it's own replacements. It needs routes not served from Birmingham. Half of the population of Coventry can get to BHX quicker than CVT. They need a good reason to go to CVT.
It would also help if the airport decided what it was going to do for the future.
I really can't see them growing any bigger than they are now. The competition up the road is probably too much. Maybe they should be happy to serve a niche market pax wise and concentrate on building the freight side of the business....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: La Napoule
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem for TOM was that from day one they attempted to take on the LoCos to stop the drift of custom away by TOM's traditional package holiday makers. No legacy airline has really succeeded at this.
O'Leary once said, when asked if he was worried about TOMs' LoCo startup, "why should I be worried, they have Carmen Rostering". He didn't even refer to their business model.
Some TOM boys/girls are saying that the Germans have already advised the german stock exchange that they intend to withdraw from scheduled work in N.Europe. I am not sure what this means for CVT and the LoCo side.
Great little airport and great crews but I wouldn't be surprised if Gordon Brown's planners were already sizing up the area for one of his 'Eco Towns'.
Now that would be v sad and somewhat ironic.
Hope it never happens.
Binder
O'Leary once said, when asked if he was worried about TOMs' LoCo startup, "why should I be worried, they have Carmen Rostering". He didn't even refer to their business model.
Some TOM boys/girls are saying that the Germans have already advised the german stock exchange that they intend to withdraw from scheduled work in N.Europe. I am not sure what this means for CVT and the LoCo side.
Great little airport and great crews but I wouldn't be surprised if Gordon Brown's planners were already sizing up the area for one of his 'Eco Towns'.
Now that would be v sad and somewhat ironic.
Hope it never happens.
Binder
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UAE
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys, I read and laugh at your posts about tfly abandoning the midlands but come on Tfly along with any other airline is not a charity (Lets face it Ryanair will drop a route at the drop of a hat if it doesn't make money of if the airport raises its charges!!!). They need to make money. They need to make that money for the shareholders but also for the employees because otherwise they eventually will fold. Coventry would appear to be making no money. In fact it is losing alot of money and therefore its days are numbered. I agree that tfly perhaps could have done some of the routes better like twice daily to AMS, ORY to attract business pax but at the end of the day there is so much competition for those routes in the midlands that more than likely would have led to larger losses.
Now we can go on and knock Tfly for reducing and probably eventually pulling out of CVT or maybe we should congratulate the new management team for finally giving the airline some sort of clear direction to what the airline actually is and what it has to offer. That being primarily Package holiday charters. Who knows there may still be a few of those out of CVT.
Now we can go on and knock Tfly for reducing and probably eventually pulling out of CVT or maybe we should congratulate the new management team for finally giving the airline some sort of clear direction to what the airline actually is and what it has to offer. That being primarily Package holiday charters. Who knows there may still be a few of those out of CVT.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax are beginning to come back to charter ops. Package holidays are beginning to compete with Loco and its more convenient than messing about with flight then hotel then...etc...
Problem is that there has to be a casualty somewhere and in this instance it looks like its CVT. If we get away from the we hate Birmingham stance and look at the bigger picture. Does Coventry need to be wasting money on an airport when it can and is served very well from up the road? Or, should it play to its strengths and push the freight side?? Or, should it shut down and make way for something more useful?
Personally I would like to see it survive, but, give up it's delusions of grandeur and serve a niche market.
baps. Good post.
Problem is that there has to be a casualty somewhere and in this instance it looks like its CVT. If we get away from the we hate Birmingham stance and look at the bigger picture. Does Coventry need to be wasting money on an airport when it can and is served very well from up the road? Or, should it play to its strengths and push the freight side?? Or, should it shut down and make way for something more useful?
Personally I would like to see it survive, but, give up it's delusions of grandeur and serve a niche market.
baps. Good post.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the figures that we as TOM employees were given CVT is making a big loss for the company.
As aircraft maintenance and extra crewing costs (ie flexible working) are shared accross the whole fleet, the higher costs due to tech aircraft, sub-charters and carmen won't show as a direct cost to CVT.
As such the only attributable costs are airport fees, aircraft lease and direct crew salaries. CVT is the cheapest base to run; the a/c were on relatively good value leases; the cabin crew were on lower salaries and were more productive than other bases; the flight crew were on lower salaries (either as the initial separate contract, or subsequent shorter length of service).
The tickets were a comparable price to other operators, and the loads were improving, yet TOM still managed to make a loss! How the hell did that happen?
As aircraft maintenance and extra crewing costs (ie flexible working) are shared accross the whole fleet, the higher costs due to tech aircraft, sub-charters and carmen won't show as a direct cost to CVT.
As such the only attributable costs are airport fees, aircraft lease and direct crew salaries. CVT is the cheapest base to run; the a/c were on relatively good value leases; the cabin crew were on lower salaries and were more productive than other bases; the flight crew were on lower salaries (either as the initial separate contract, or subsequent shorter length of service).
The tickets were a comparable price to other operators, and the loads were improving, yet TOM still managed to make a loss! How the hell did that happen?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The companies are consolidating but they are working the aircraft harder. The mergers will only strengthen the package industry. The cost savings will allow even cheaper packages.
Coventry have to forget Thomson now and have a rethink. Where would they have been now if Thomson had not given them false hope? It may be in a position to compete with EMA in the freight markets. BHX has already stated that it has no intentions of expanding any freight ops other than normal belly freight.
Hopefully they will come up with the right blend or I think the value of the land will overtake the value of the airport to such a level that the council will reconsider the options.
I still think Coventry council are in a weird position. Shareholders with a large interest in Birmingham and an airport that is there because they have a clause in the lease forbidding any other use.
Coventry have to forget Thomson now and have a rethink. Where would they have been now if Thomson had not given them false hope? It may be in a position to compete with EMA in the freight markets. BHX has already stated that it has no intentions of expanding any freight ops other than normal belly freight.
Hopefully they will come up with the right blend or I think the value of the land will overtake the value of the airport to such a level that the council will reconsider the options.
I still think Coventry council are in a weird position. Shareholders with a large interest in Birmingham and an airport that is there because they have a clause in the lease forbidding any other use.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we were told that the Thomsonfly routes out of Coventry were the highest yield routes in the network. Does not mean that they were making money of course but if true meant that elsewhere it was worse!!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
package holidays
I thought Thomson had managed to grow a good following at CVT, the trouble is that the merged TOM/FCA doesn't need the aggravation of "non core business" at small "non mainstream" airports.
I'm not entirely convinced that the public are turning to package holidays again, they wouldn't have bothered investing in foreign property if that was the case.
The main growth seems to be where EZY and RYR and others are operating, with the huge increase in traffic from within the EU, and Thomson can't (and won't) compete in this market as they rely on IT, and have been chased out of the sub 2 hour sector by their more efficient competitors.
Over 2 hours, people want feeding and IFE which is not yet in the LCC remit but who knows how that will develop?
I just wonder why they got into shedule ops at all? Maybe it needed to be done just to prove it was not viable to the shareholders and thus deflect criticism as to how they were dealing with the competition.
Hopefully, another operator will see that there is business to be done at CVT and will start another operation using a similar business model but with more focus than Thomson were able to apply.
I'm not entirely convinced that the public are turning to package holidays again, they wouldn't have bothered investing in foreign property if that was the case.
The main growth seems to be where EZY and RYR and others are operating, with the huge increase in traffic from within the EU, and Thomson can't (and won't) compete in this market as they rely on IT, and have been chased out of the sub 2 hour sector by their more efficient competitors.
Over 2 hours, people want feeding and IFE which is not yet in the LCC remit but who knows how that will develop?
I just wonder why they got into shedule ops at all? Maybe it needed to be done just to prove it was not viable to the shareholders and thus deflect criticism as to how they were dealing with the competition.
Hopefully, another operator will see that there is business to be done at CVT and will start another operation using a similar business model but with more focus than Thomson were able to apply.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Coventry
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The long-haul package holiday market will most definitely increase over the next few years as the average wage increases, and people get more adventurous with where they want to go...yet be safe in the knowledge of being covered by ABTA/ATOL if unfortunately things go wrong. Only trouble I can see with this is that there will still only be a minority of the UK with enough money to whom this business model is markettable
However, the short-haul charter holiday market is most definatley receding faster than my hair line. It was mentioned earlier in this thread about who would want to spend time searching for flights, then hotel etc...well, who really needs to? Companies such as expedia, lastminute, and holidaysupermarket use the low cost airlines for holidays...practically a package holiday, but putting seperate components together behind the scenes for the prospective client, furthermore all the low cost airlines have links to hotel providers, and at the end of the day, if the worst comes to the worst on my holiday in Benidorm, I can get on one of about 20 low cost flights per day (during summer) back to the UK and claim additional costs back on travel insurance. Furthermore, with flights and cheap hotels this practice can be modelled to most of the UK population. Even on top of this the Ryanair, Easy and other low cost airlines also have an overseas market (inbound pax to the UK) available...something not offered on the short-haul (or long-haul) charter business model.
At the end of the day, look at Ryanair's and EasyJet's possible passenger numbers for 2008: around 40 million and 30 million...let's say that 1/3 of those are to traditional sunny destinations: still over 20 million for just 2 airlines doing short-haul (occasional 4-5 hour sector), add in Jet2, BMIBaby, Globespan, FlyBe...now look at what the TOM/FCA and TCX/MYT figures will probably be for 2008: around 20 million pax combined on short, mid and long-haul travel for the 4 biggest Tour Ops?
The thing that disappoints me most about the TOM/FCA merger (regardless of the future of CVT) is that when the theory was first mooted it looked a good idea: TOM moving into low-cost on short-haul routes would lead the way of the two companies for the traditional bucket and spade routes, and a fantastic range and product by FCA on the long haul market would satisfy those looking for a bit of adventure, safe in the knowledge they are travelling with a very reputable company....however, it appears that Peter Long wants to dispense with anything scheduled, low cost, resembling any sort of airline, and become a pure Tour Operator
However, the short-haul charter holiday market is most definatley receding faster than my hair line. It was mentioned earlier in this thread about who would want to spend time searching for flights, then hotel etc...well, who really needs to? Companies such as expedia, lastminute, and holidaysupermarket use the low cost airlines for holidays...practically a package holiday, but putting seperate components together behind the scenes for the prospective client, furthermore all the low cost airlines have links to hotel providers, and at the end of the day, if the worst comes to the worst on my holiday in Benidorm, I can get on one of about 20 low cost flights per day (during summer) back to the UK and claim additional costs back on travel insurance. Furthermore, with flights and cheap hotels this practice can be modelled to most of the UK population. Even on top of this the Ryanair, Easy and other low cost airlines also have an overseas market (inbound pax to the UK) available...something not offered on the short-haul (or long-haul) charter business model.
At the end of the day, look at Ryanair's and EasyJet's possible passenger numbers for 2008: around 40 million and 30 million...let's say that 1/3 of those are to traditional sunny destinations: still over 20 million for just 2 airlines doing short-haul (occasional 4-5 hour sector), add in Jet2, BMIBaby, Globespan, FlyBe...now look at what the TOM/FCA and TCX/MYT figures will probably be for 2008: around 20 million pax combined on short, mid and long-haul travel for the 4 biggest Tour Ops?
The thing that disappoints me most about the TOM/FCA merger (regardless of the future of CVT) is that when the theory was first mooted it looked a good idea: TOM moving into low-cost on short-haul routes would lead the way of the two companies for the traditional bucket and spade routes, and a fantastic range and product by FCA on the long haul market would satisfy those looking for a bit of adventure, safe in the knowledge they are travelling with a very reputable company....however, it appears that Peter Long wants to dispense with anything scheduled, low cost, resembling any sort of airline, and become a pure Tour Operator
Slightly off topic but in reply to SeamusCVT, the only major players i can see in the fully low-cost uk market in a few years are EZY and FR. I have read other posts claiming that even Jet2 are going into the charter market. Do you not think TOM, who have many years of experience behind them, forsee problems for the low-cost model due to increased tax and fuel prices? In order to stay in the game they have to be ahead...
HUY for example, has not got a lo-co... It is not realy a low-cost airport due to catchment restrictions. Compare it to NWI who are losing money and it looks like now HUY are better without!
I think the best setup for the smaller low-cost airlines (though i may need someone more clued up to correct me) is to block sell seats for IT charters, covering costs and if the airlines can become a IT operator make revenue elsewhere to sell seat only at very competative prices.
Could be a way for airports like CVT and HUY to expand and do so profitably?
Just a thought
HUY for example, has not got a lo-co... It is not realy a low-cost airport due to catchment restrictions. Compare it to NWI who are losing money and it looks like now HUY are better without!
I think the best setup for the smaller low-cost airlines (though i may need someone more clued up to correct me) is to block sell seats for IT charters, covering costs and if the airlines can become a IT operator make revenue elsewhere to sell seat only at very competative prices.
Could be a way for airports like CVT and HUY to expand and do so profitably?
Just a thought
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The market not to be in at the moment is 'half hearted lo-co'. With oil close to $100 a barrel, the only reason there have not been major airline failures is that £1 buys $2.
BA recently stated that selling a return to the West coast of the USA for £299 plus taxes and fuel surcharge was selling it at a loss, but they still have to do it as an empty seat costs them more.
Britannia/Thomson knew their market and in recent times have expanded their charter product away from the Spain/Portugal battle into areas like Egypt, Turkey and Greece, plus long haul where yields make money and good luck to them for they have an obligation to turn in a profit to their shareholders.
Where does this leave Coventry? I have no idea and I can understand why some many folk associated with the airport are so concerned. If another airline can take on the routes, they will if they too can make a profit.
BA recently stated that selling a return to the West coast of the USA for £299 plus taxes and fuel surcharge was selling it at a loss, but they still have to do it as an empty seat costs them more.
Britannia/Thomson knew their market and in recent times have expanded their charter product away from the Spain/Portugal battle into areas like Egypt, Turkey and Greece, plus long haul where yields make money and good luck to them for they have an obligation to turn in a profit to their shareholders.
Where does this leave Coventry? I have no idea and I can understand why some many folk associated with the airport are so concerned. If another airline can take on the routes, they will if they too can make a profit.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happens I hope CVT survives in some format. Regarding Thomson they have all but gone. A meaningful replacement carrier will have to be sure of there profits before they commit more than ever now. The Polish flights have a built in customer base and should continue to do well.
Regarding charter traffic I was referring to the expansion of long haul packages. They seem to be the way forward and the prices are now well within the reach of the general public.
But, I suppose the bottom line is that we are all speculating. If we could run an airline we would. (Wouldn't we??) Strange things happen in the aviation world.
Regarding charter traffic I was referring to the expansion of long haul packages. They seem to be the way forward and the prices are now well within the reach of the general public.
But, I suppose the bottom line is that we are all speculating. If we could run an airline we would. (Wouldn't we??) Strange things happen in the aviation world.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Coventry
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomsonfly have not "all but gone". In 2008 they will carry around 300,000 passengers in and out of Coventry based on the published programme. Not as many as it was, but still quite a bit of business.