BIRMINGHAM - 4
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Papers
I have also posted this on the Manchester thread. It is relevant to both.
I've not heard anything of this 2011 White Paper except on this thread, but certainly the 2003 version needs updating, as its mantra of growth for everyone and new runways all over the place has patently floundered. Which is why we should not pay too much heed to the contents of such documents. If we go back to 1978 the White Paper declared MAN as a Category A International Gateway, along with just Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick(!). Unfortunately, BA weren't interested in anywhere but London, and a host of cosy bilateral agreements effectively barred airlines from serving MAN on long-haul routes. Years of campaigning by MAN and northern MPs eventually succeeded in removing some of these constraints to allow SQ, AA etc into MAN. BA played games with various long-hauls as spoilers before dumping them. As government regulation and ownership waned the markets took over. Everyone wanted a piece of the action at the newly open-skies Heathrow. Manchester lost many of its hard-won long-hauls in the scramble for Heathrow slots. And so the content of a White Paper is pointless unless it becomes policy backed by government action to bring about the stated aims. Manchester has never had any 'government assistance' as somebody claimed on this thread. MAN's development has always been on the back of operating profits and borrowing, although I will concede that being public-sector gave it access to some preferable financing arrangements.
The 2003 White Paper was a nonsense, representative of the whole flawed economic thinking of the Noughties. It was visibly toilet paper by 2007.
And so to 2011, if it is for real. Why are we so hung up about where London passengers should fly from? They have several big arports to choose from, and if they can't go direct they have a bewildering choice of connections. No-one is asking London/SE passengers to fly from Birmingham or Manchester. What we need is a national policy for air transport which provides the right range of services where they are required. We must stop comparing how far BHX or MAN is from London, it is not just about London, it is about the air transport needs of United Kingdom. If the London Airports are not to be expanded, which is current policy, then how do we accommodate growth for the UK's air travel requirements? A sensible answer is to stop people from outside the South East having to use the London airports, thereby freeing existing capacity at the London airports for use by 'local' passengers. Instead of saying 'we've only got 26 flights a day from London to New York, we need more because all those nasty northerners keep taking the seats', we can offer those people heading south on the M6 the chance to fly from Manchester and Birmingham, and perhaps Glasgow. This is not a new argument, it was around in the 1970s but keeps coming back because of the crazy 'winner takes all' market forces which have been allowed to run riot in this country and have brought it close to economic catastrophe. We must keep feeding the monster, we are told, 'so that we can remain competitive', and stop looking for another solution 'because the markets demand it'.
Any new White Paper on Airports must translate into positive action/intervention to support its central aims, otherwise it's just toilet paper again. A new paper will hopefully endorse current policy to cap the growth of the London airports, and provide active support to facilitate the use of spare/new capacity at the principal non-London airports to provide a range of services to serve the non-London market, with the secondary effect of freeing some capacity in the SE. The active support could take various forms, but include differential taxation (being considered), and conditions placed upon access to Heathrow such that beyond a certain frequency of service on any particular route there will be a requirement to serve another UK city. We already know that duplicating services from every small regional is not going to work, so I can't see the likes of Bristol and Newcastle getting many more routes than they have now. Manchester and Birmingham are the main players, with investment in ground transport infrastructure to make them easily accessible from around the country. GLA/EDI will service Scotland on a more limited range of routes. If all this makes our country 'uncompetitive' then so be it. and conditions placed upon access to Heathrow such that beyond a certain frequency of service on any particular route, there will be a requirement to serve another non-London UK city.
We already know that duplicating services from every small regional is not going to work, so I can't see the likes of Bristol and Newcastle getting many more routes than they have now. Manchester and Birmingham are the main players, with investment in ground transport infrastructure to make them easily accessible from around the country. GLA/EDI will service Scotland on a more limited range of routes. If all this makes our country 'uncompetitive' then so be it. A few big-wigs will have to relocate off-shore but at least our children will have some quality of life.
I've not heard anything of this 2011 White Paper except on this thread, but certainly the 2003 version needs updating, as its mantra of growth for everyone and new runways all over the place has patently floundered. Which is why we should not pay too much heed to the contents of such documents. If we go back to 1978 the White Paper declared MAN as a Category A International Gateway, along with just Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick(!). Unfortunately, BA weren't interested in anywhere but London, and a host of cosy bilateral agreements effectively barred airlines from serving MAN on long-haul routes. Years of campaigning by MAN and northern MPs eventually succeeded in removing some of these constraints to allow SQ, AA etc into MAN. BA played games with various long-hauls as spoilers before dumping them. As government regulation and ownership waned the markets took over. Everyone wanted a piece of the action at the newly open-skies Heathrow. Manchester lost many of its hard-won long-hauls in the scramble for Heathrow slots. And so the content of a White Paper is pointless unless it becomes policy backed by government action to bring about the stated aims. Manchester has never had any 'government assistance' as somebody claimed on this thread. MAN's development has always been on the back of operating profits and borrowing, although I will concede that being public-sector gave it access to some preferable financing arrangements.
The 2003 White Paper was a nonsense, representative of the whole flawed economic thinking of the Noughties. It was visibly toilet paper by 2007.
And so to 2011, if it is for real. Why are we so hung up about where London passengers should fly from? They have several big arports to choose from, and if they can't go direct they have a bewildering choice of connections. No-one is asking London/SE passengers to fly from Birmingham or Manchester. What we need is a national policy for air transport which provides the right range of services where they are required. We must stop comparing how far BHX or MAN is from London, it is not just about London, it is about the air transport needs of United Kingdom. If the London Airports are not to be expanded, which is current policy, then how do we accommodate growth for the UK's air travel requirements? A sensible answer is to stop people from outside the South East having to use the London airports, thereby freeing existing capacity at the London airports for use by 'local' passengers. Instead of saying 'we've only got 26 flights a day from London to New York, we need more because all those nasty northerners keep taking the seats', we can offer those people heading south on the M6 the chance to fly from Manchester and Birmingham, and perhaps Glasgow. This is not a new argument, it was around in the 1970s but keeps coming back because of the crazy 'winner takes all' market forces which have been allowed to run riot in this country and have brought it close to economic catastrophe. We must keep feeding the monster, we are told, 'so that we can remain competitive', and stop looking for another solution 'because the markets demand it'.
Any new White Paper on Airports must translate into positive action/intervention to support its central aims, otherwise it's just toilet paper again. A new paper will hopefully endorse current policy to cap the growth of the London airports, and provide active support to facilitate the use of spare/new capacity at the principal non-London airports to provide a range of services to serve the non-London market, with the secondary effect of freeing some capacity in the SE. The active support could take various forms, but include differential taxation (being considered), and conditions placed upon access to Heathrow such that beyond a certain frequency of service on any particular route there will be a requirement to serve another UK city. We already know that duplicating services from every small regional is not going to work, so I can't see the likes of Bristol and Newcastle getting many more routes than they have now. Manchester and Birmingham are the main players, with investment in ground transport infrastructure to make them easily accessible from around the country. GLA/EDI will service Scotland on a more limited range of routes. If all this makes our country 'uncompetitive' then so be it. and conditions placed upon access to Heathrow such that beyond a certain frequency of service on any particular route, there will be a requirement to serve another non-London UK city.
We already know that duplicating services from every small regional is not going to work, so I can't see the likes of Bristol and Newcastle getting many more routes than they have now. Manchester and Birmingham are the main players, with investment in ground transport infrastructure to make them easily accessible from around the country. GLA/EDI will service Scotland on a more limited range of routes. If all this makes our country 'uncompetitive' then so be it. A few big-wigs will have to relocate off-shore but at least our children will have some quality of life.
Last edited by roverman; 4th Jan 2011 at 10:09.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Middle england
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White paper
It is all toilet paper just like the ones before and future ones.
London will always be the prefered option for airlines end of story and capacity increases will always be found.
What is the point of a BHX/MAN debate.Its all been done before, Manchester airport is bigger/bussier than Birmingham and always will be period. All down to location and the earlier time that it was developed.
They attract what traffic they do and a competion serves no point what so ever.
Centre cities
London will always be the prefered option for airlines end of story and capacity increases will always be found.
What is the point of a BHX/MAN debate.Its all been done before, Manchester airport is bigger/bussier than Birmingham and always will be period. All down to location and the earlier time that it was developed.
They attract what traffic they do and a competion serves no point what so ever.
Centre cities
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malta
Jamie2k9
For some it will be too late as they will have booked with another airline and another airport by now as they will want their first choice accommodation.
Nobody expects Ryanair to operate unprofitable routes but are you saying that the route only operated as a gap-filler until something better came long?
An expensive gap-filler for BHX if that is the case, by helping to get rid of the long-established operator and only for the new operator to abandon the route in little over three months. Okay it might well be that Air Malta were going to pull-off anyway but still something doesn't add-up here.
If Ryanair think that they can't make money in summer on a route with such a mature established market, I think BHX's problems are bigger than what I first thought.
In my opinion the route should have been EMA-MLA in the first place (before BMI Baby stepped in) but hey what do I know?
Pete
For some it will be too late as they will have booked with another airline and another airport by now as they will want their first choice accommodation.
Nobody expects Ryanair to operate unprofitable routes but are you saying that the route only operated as a gap-filler until something better came long?
An expensive gap-filler for BHX if that is the case, by helping to get rid of the long-established operator and only for the new operator to abandon the route in little over three months. Okay it might well be that Air Malta were going to pull-off anyway but still something doesn't add-up here.
If Ryanair think that they can't make money in summer on a route with such a mature established market, I think BHX's problems are bigger than what I first thought.
In my opinion the route should have been EMA-MLA in the first place (before BMI Baby stepped in) but hey what do I know?
Pete
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the route only operated as a gap-filler until something better came long?
When the route was first announced both flights between BHX - Malta were operated by the Malta based aircraft but when Ryanair announced the closure of their Marseille base the Malta flight times had to be changed to accommodate Marseille twice weekly. Thats why one of the flights is operated by a BHX aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at the Ryanair booking system and it appears that Krakow and Porto are dropped for summer 2011.
Don't understand why they would drop Krakow and keep Katowice. I would of thaugh it would be the other way round.
Don't understand why they would drop Krakow and keep Katowice. I would of thaugh it would be the other way round.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porto&krakow
Jamie2k9
I have to agree with you as this is a major change from how they were shown this morning.
I also agree re your comment about Krakow compared to Katowice.
Lets hope that this is just a booking engine blip but I fear you know
that it is more than this.
Pete
I have to agree with you as this is a major change from how they were shown this morning.
I also agree re your comment about Krakow compared to Katowice.
Lets hope that this is just a booking engine blip but I fear you know
that it is more than this.
Pete
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If both dropped it will probally mean one less aircraft based. If flight days/time get changed I can't see work for 4 based.
Does anyone know when Ryanair contract with BHX is up??
Does anyone know when Ryanair contract with BHX is up??
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't understand why they would drop Krakow and keep Katowice. I would of thaugh it would be the other way round.
.....The two airports are only about 50 miles apart and FR could then make more money out of running a connecting bus service to Krakow where all the hotels and tourist attractions are located. Could also be something to do with capacity at KRK. KTW is a much bigger airport than KRK and may have spare capacity where KRK haven't?
And KTW is a big Wizz base - maybe FR are trying to wind them up?
Suzeman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Middle england
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX
Wow things just get better and better.
Carn't help thinking that BHX dont care a dot if RYR are there or not to be honnest ala MAN. The main difference is however MAN ability to attract replacement traffic and BHX complete inability to do the same.
It is going to be a very Q summer.
Centre cities
Carn't help thinking that BHX dont care a dot if RYR are there or not to be honnest ala MAN. The main difference is however MAN ability to attract replacement traffic and BHX complete inability to do the same.
It is going to be a very Q summer.
Centre cities
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could also be something to do with capacity at KRK. KTW is a much bigger airport than KRK and may have spare capacity where KRK haven't?
And KTW is a big Wizz base - maybe FR are trying to wind them up?
And KTW is a big Wizz base - maybe FR are trying to wind them up?
Wizz Air have stopped expansion at KTW because of high airport charges. (I herd that a while ago) It was only a few months ago Ryanair were pulling all routes from Katowice (except Dublin) because of airport charges.
Can't see that capacity for 3 weekly flights or so would be a problem. If capacity wasn't a problem for summer 2010 why would it be in 2011 when Krakow have lost a number of routes and Ryanair are dropping Weeze and adding Cagliari.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch Papfos
As expected Monarch have announced a twice weekly schedule between
BHX & PFO from May 2011 on a Wednesday and Sunday.
As a co-incidence BHX has two IT flights to PFO - on a Wednesday & Sunday.
The Wednesday times match although the Sunday IT is three hours later.
However the IT had no choice to depart late due to the inbound Rhodes the night before. This of course is no longer a problem, as this has changed to
a Palma schedule flight due to the spat with Olympic Holidays.
All in all it seems like just some route shuffles and no extra capacity at present.
Jamie2k9
Re the Ryanair - BHX agreement it depends on who you believe, some say
that there was no deal other than the usual sliding scale on landing fees for new routes. Who knows?
Pete
BHX & PFO from May 2011 on a Wednesday and Sunday.
As a co-incidence BHX has two IT flights to PFO - on a Wednesday & Sunday.
The Wednesday times match although the Sunday IT is three hours later.
However the IT had no choice to depart late due to the inbound Rhodes the night before. This of course is no longer a problem, as this has changed to
a Palma schedule flight due to the spat with Olympic Holidays.
All in all it seems like just some route shuffles and no extra capacity at present.
Jamie2k9
Re the Ryanair - BHX agreement it depends on who you believe, some say
that there was no deal other than the usual sliding scale on landing fees for new routes. Who knows?
Pete
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham
Age: 26
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air India
What's going on with Air India? I've heard that new routes are being introduced to BHX but i'd much rather the Delhi-Amritsar-(UK destination)-Toronto flight to be moved to Birmingham and permanently.
There was that 'Fly-India' campaign earlier this year, did that work? I think we all need an update.
Also, us Midlanders have started a petition here for American Airlines to re-instate their BHX-ORD flight with 777-200's: American Airlines to relaunch direct flights to Birmingham (BHX) Petition
I got a mail from the airport after I contacted them. Air China route to BHX is something the airport fully agrees with, they just need a runway extension. An A330's take off run would most likely be around 1500 metres, 1000 metres left of the runway. Mahan Air haven't got an update on the A340.
An Emirates third daily service isn't possible for another year unless there is high demand. PIA should add LHE & KHE flights due to the large PK population.
They are only suggestions, highly unlikely they won't happen.
There was that 'Fly-India' campaign earlier this year, did that work? I think we all need an update.
Also, us Midlanders have started a petition here for American Airlines to re-instate their BHX-ORD flight with 777-200's: American Airlines to relaunch direct flights to Birmingham (BHX) Petition
I got a mail from the airport after I contacted them. Air China route to BHX is something the airport fully agrees with, they just need a runway extension. An A330's take off run would most likely be around 1500 metres, 1000 metres left of the runway. Mahan Air haven't got an update on the A340.
An Emirates third daily service isn't possible for another year unless there is high demand. PIA should add LHE & KHE flights due to the large PK population.
They are only suggestions, highly unlikely they won't happen.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air India
Hassaan13
Quote "i'd much rather the Delhi-Amritsar-(UK destination)-Toronto flight to be moved to Birmingham and permanently"
The problem is that the flight no longer exists in that format since the change to the winter schedules. Air India has invested in the Delhi hub and the flight is split as follows - Direct Delhi to Toronto and ATQ-DEL on an A320/1 then a plane change to the 77W/77L to DEL-YYZ or DEL-LHR, if you are coming to the UK.
Over on the Dublin thread somebody has suggested that Air India are still talking to the DAA, as the Delhi hub is allegedly not working. However it would have to be really bad to dismantle it after only a few months.
PIA
I would prefer LHE & KHI to be dealt with by the new joint venture with Turkish Airlines, let PIA feed the BHX pax through Istanbul and onward on the TK service. There is plenty of capacity on ISB at the moment.
EK
They haven't been filling the two flights (October/November) although things do change quickly with EK due to various reasons, although I am amazed
GLA has remained one flight with constantly high load factors.
Quote "i'd much rather the Delhi-Amritsar-(UK destination)-Toronto flight to be moved to Birmingham and permanently"
The problem is that the flight no longer exists in that format since the change to the winter schedules. Air India has invested in the Delhi hub and the flight is split as follows - Direct Delhi to Toronto and ATQ-DEL on an A320/1 then a plane change to the 77W/77L to DEL-YYZ or DEL-LHR, if you are coming to the UK.
Over on the Dublin thread somebody has suggested that Air India are still talking to the DAA, as the Delhi hub is allegedly not working. However it would have to be really bad to dismantle it after only a few months.
PIA
I would prefer LHE & KHI to be dealt with by the new joint venture with Turkish Airlines, let PIA feed the BHX pax through Istanbul and onward on the TK service. There is plenty of capacity on ISB at the moment.
EK
They haven't been filling the two flights (October/November) although things do change quickly with EK due to various reasons, although I am amazed
GLA has remained one flight with constantly high load factors.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll also not get AA sending 777s to ORD. The MAN route is 25 years old this year and is now daily 757s from being operated with 767s on a daily, a brief flirtation with double daily operations to the consternation of BA at the time and the introduction of MD11s (the 1st European airprot they sent the MD11 to on a schedule basis).
I would hope some people will excuse me when I say AA returing to BHX is pretty much given now that AA and BA have got ther ATI in place. The question is which destination - my gut feeling is that they'll be linking JFK to BHX with a 757.
I would hope some people will excuse me when I say AA returing to BHX is pretty much given now that AA and BA have got ther ATI in place. The question is which destination - my gut feeling is that they'll be linking JFK to BHX with a 757.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, us Midlanders have started a petition here for American Airlines to re-instate their BHX-ORD flight with 777-200's
Quite frankly, youd be lucky to get AA on ORD full stop, they have really consolidated Europe from ORD, to just 4 destinations this winter!
i'd much rather the Delhi-Amritsar-(UK destination)-Toronto flight to be moved to Birmingham and permanently"
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about Europe?
Wouldn't it be great to actually have a real new route announcement from BHX to talk about instead of wishes and guesses, when was the last one, was it TK two years-ish ago?
Oh well, keep dreaming, back in the real world I personally would just be happy to have direct flights to a few more European cities (is it too much to ask?)........as for long haul, AI I don't think will come back to BHX for the foreseeable future and AA, well it would be great to see them back but I agree with ringwayman, JFK not ORD. Having siad that i'm ceratinly not holding my breath!
Oh well, keep dreaming, back in the real world I personally would just be happy to have direct flights to a few more European cities (is it too much to ask?)........as for long haul, AI I don't think will come back to BHX for the foreseeable future and AA, well it would be great to see them back but I agree with ringwayman, JFK not ORD. Having siad that i'm ceratinly not holding my breath!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When are you guys going to get it?
As soon as LH announce a new route out of DUS/FRA/MUC then BHX has a new route, as soon as KL announce a new route out of AMS then BHX has a new route, SK out of CPH, SR out of ZRH, SN out of BRU, AF out of CDG etc.
As an example one can fly BHX/HKG/BHX with an hour (ish) in ZRH in each direction and for, often, a darn good price, one doesn't need, and one isn't going to get, direct flights to all points on the globe.
As soon as LH announce a new route out of DUS/FRA/MUC then BHX has a new route, as soon as KL announce a new route out of AMS then BHX has a new route, SK out of CPH, SR out of ZRH, SN out of BRU, AF out of CDG etc.
As an example one can fly BHX/HKG/BHX with an hour (ish) in ZRH in each direction and for, often, a darn good price, one doesn't need, and one isn't going to get, direct flights to all points on the globe.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: birmingham
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phileas,
A nice philosophy but if I live in the 2nd largest city in the UK and want to fly to Madrid, Barcelona, Rome or Vienna I really don't want to fly via anywhere and add another 2-3 hours on a journey that should only take 2-3 hours.
Agree fully with you from a long haul perspective but the Euro route offering from BHX is at the moment incredibly poor and needs addressing before we start thinking about more trans-atlantic services in my opinion.
A nice philosophy but if I live in the 2nd largest city in the UK and want to fly to Madrid, Barcelona, Rome or Vienna I really don't want to fly via anywhere and add another 2-3 hours on a journey that should only take 2-3 hours.
Agree fully with you from a long haul perspective but the Euro route offering from BHX is at the moment incredibly poor and needs addressing before we start thinking about more trans-atlantic services in my opinion.
Whats the main driver to get AA 777s on ORD-BHX? New reggies to see!!!
As others have said, the area that BHX needs to concentrate on is Europe. It is certainly true that without an air connection to LHR, BHX's LHR is essentially a choice of AMS, FRA, CDG or ZRH - and further affield DXB.
It is very noticeable that through the recent recession BHX services to all these cities, especially those services operated by the principal hub operators (KL, LH, AF, LX and EK) have all held up extremely well. The problem for BHX has been the leisure markets (weekend breaks) where the recent poor value of sterling has and poor employment prospects has killed off much of the demand. Moreover, there just isn't an inbound tourist / leisure market, the inbound market is largely business related and carried on the major alliance carriers, where often business houses have special deals.
There certainly are gaps in the BHX portfolio, most notably the Spanish and Scandinavian capital cities which hopefully as europe comes out of recession, will be filled, but this is best achieved not by Ryanair or Baby who don't offer interline connections, but more by the likes of SAS and Iberia or their associate companies operating CRJ / Embraer size equipment. Not exciting, but potentially profitable.
I just can't see the potential for many of the routes on people's wish lists - it just ain't feasible at present - longer runway or no longer runway.
As for Air India, their routes appear to be more driver by political, than economic goals. If the expat Indian communities in the midlands had votes in the Indian general election, then hey presto we might wind up with a ATQ / DEL connection again!!
As others have said, the area that BHX needs to concentrate on is Europe. It is certainly true that without an air connection to LHR, BHX's LHR is essentially a choice of AMS, FRA, CDG or ZRH - and further affield DXB.
It is very noticeable that through the recent recession BHX services to all these cities, especially those services operated by the principal hub operators (KL, LH, AF, LX and EK) have all held up extremely well. The problem for BHX has been the leisure markets (weekend breaks) where the recent poor value of sterling has and poor employment prospects has killed off much of the demand. Moreover, there just isn't an inbound tourist / leisure market, the inbound market is largely business related and carried on the major alliance carriers, where often business houses have special deals.
There certainly are gaps in the BHX portfolio, most notably the Spanish and Scandinavian capital cities which hopefully as europe comes out of recession, will be filled, but this is best achieved not by Ryanair or Baby who don't offer interline connections, but more by the likes of SAS and Iberia or their associate companies operating CRJ / Embraer size equipment. Not exciting, but potentially profitable.
I just can't see the potential for many of the routes on people's wish lists - it just ain't feasible at present - longer runway or no longer runway.
As for Air India, their routes appear to be more driver by political, than economic goals. If the expat Indian communities in the midlands had votes in the Indian general election, then hey presto we might wind up with a ATQ / DEL connection again!!