Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

EAST MIDLANDS - 6

Old 30th May 2016, 22:23
  #3321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: London
Posts: 172
A shame that Aer Lingus franchise partner Stobart Air appear to have dropped EMA-DUB from 1 November 2016, not least when transatlantic connectivity is growing at DUB.
nguba is offline  
Old 31st May 2016, 00:18
  #3322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2
Schedules are not completed yet, the service never had T/A connections available since it was planned to drop from 2 to 1 daily.
EI-A330-300 is offline  
Old 31st May 2016, 08:44
  #3323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: London
Posts: 172
Well I hope it isn't dropped. The existing flight was indeed not well timed for connections but part of the rationale behind IAG's purchase of Aer Lingus was to recover lost ground at UK regional airports so I hope connectivity would improve, rather than be diminished.
nguba is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2016, 15:00
  #3324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
DSA's EI DUB flights are showing for November yet, so either Stobart is shaking up its regional operations, or the schedule and fares aren't loaded yet.
EastMids is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 20:30
  #3325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: derby
Posts: 245
Jet2 2017

2 more new routes for Jet2 summer 2017 -
Almeria (LEI) 1 weekly - begins Thursday 25th May 2017
Thessaloniki (SKG) 1 weekly - begins Tuesday 2nd May 2017

Takes Jet2 up to 39 destinations & 7 based aircraft for summer 2017
x3 737-300 & x4 737-800
ematom1 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 09:50
  #3326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: London
Posts: 172
It seems that DUB-EMA has indeed been dropped, along with CWL and DSA.

http://www.businesspost.ie/stobart-a...n-and-britain/
nguba is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 11:38
  #3327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,274
Originally Posted by nguba View Post
It seems that DUB-EMA has indeed been dropped, along with CWL and DSA.

Stobart Air axing routes between Dublin and Britain - The Sunday Business Post
Very disappointing; what is it that prevents the East Midlands being able to hold on to services other than those offered by leisure and low cost carriers? I include in the east Midlands DSA, since you would have thought that by consolidating on one or the other airport Aer lingus / Stobart could perhaps have made a success of the route.

I suppose at least Eurowings are still keeping faith with EMA, at least for now, and there's always Flybe, who aren't really low cost - but even they haven't shown any inclination to expand.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 13:32
  #3328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 185
ATNotts,

I agree, it is somewhat questionable for Flybe and Stobart to offer "competing" services from both DSA and EMA when the routes offered already have strong competition from the likes of LBA and BHX.
Unfortunately I think your hope that Eurowings will have continued faith in EMA maybe somewhat premature!

Balair
Balair is online now  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 14:41
  #3329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,274
Originally Posted by Balair View Post
ATNotts,

I agree, it is somewhat questionable for Flybe and Stobart to offer "competing" services from both DSA and EMA when the routes offered already have strong competition from the likes of LBA and BHX.
Unfortunately I think your hope that Eurowings will have continued faith in EMA maybe somewhat premature!

Balair
I hope you don't know something that I don't.

If Lufthansa Group can't make a success of DUS from EMA then I fear that there's little likelihood of any Star Alliance giving the airport a go in the future. And that's if we remain in the EU.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 08:39
  #3330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Leicestershire
Age: 36
Posts: 145
Anyone any idea when the Iron Maiden 747 is due in?
valefan16 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 09:01
  #3331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 66
Posts: 215
Anyone any idea when the Iron Maiden 747 is due in?
Rumour has it about 13:15 Saturday.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of it though.

Anyone planning to use EMA this weekend (including Monday
morning, leave plenty of time as the Download Festival is taking
place at the racetrack next door and the traffic will be horrendous.
handsfree is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 11:02
  #3332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
It was obvious the Dublin service wasn't going to be sustainable with the frequency it ran to. Take a look at Liverpool, to which EI also returned last year. The airport is in a similar position to EMA - fairly close to a larger airport with well established links. However, the EI service from LPL to DUB is now four a day, with connections to ten or more north American destinations. EMA was (is) one a day with no worthwhile connections. To have any chance of making any headway it needed to have been at least twice, ideally three times a day, to provide convenient one-stop service to long haul destinations.

Very disappointing; what is it that prevents the East Midlands being able to hold on to services other than those offered by leisure and low cost carriers?
The root of the problem goes back to when EMA welcomed Go and Ryanair with open arms and more or less let them run amok. That put the wind up Sir MDB and forced a reaction - the change from BMI to Baby - which immediately robbed EMA of its global connectivity. Long term, that sort of traffic is the life blood of airports that want to serve sustainable markets. But EMA totally embraced the low-cost carriers (which I acknowledge helped the numbers to an extent, but only in a certain way) while eschewing full-service that would have been a steady performer in the long term. Short-termism versus long term vision on the part of the airport management of the time.

There was nothing wrong with letting FR or Go/U2 in to fly to places in the back end of Poland or similar, but the low-costs should never have been allowed onto the CDGs, AMSs, DUBs, GLAs, EDIs. But they were, and leisure traffic at EMA was largely sucked up by the cheapies, while at the same time BHX more or less ignored to the low cost sector and put its energy into developing a sustainable full-service network. The business passengers went down the road to BHX and that's where they'll continue to travel from on a regular basis unless there is reliable, alliance led (e.g. Star, OneWorld, Skyteam), connectivity from EMA. That won't happen while the low-costs continue to run interference in those markets.

The immediate opportunities for sustainable twice-a-day or better business-led flights should be DUB, AMS and (to an extent) CDG. If you can establish those, with connectivity, then there's a chance the network will grow. But they won't work for the full-service airlines (which tend to be in it more long term than the fickle low-cost carriers) while they have to compete with a low-cost carrier - these airlines still need to sell some cheap tickets to fill up the back of the bus.

Sadly FR, LS etc are too entrenched now, and for the most part they call the shots in where and when. EMA can't even compete particularly well for new low-cost carriers now, for doing so risks upsetting the incumbents on which the airport is extremely [almost totally?] reliant (consider what is happening near Oslo right now, with one airport on the verge of shutting down because Ryanair are leaving - EMA can't let that happen).
EastMids is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 11:39
  #3333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,359
Sorry EastMids but I have to disagree with most of what you say.

EMA, as do most regional airports benefit hugely from LCCs. Both FR and LS have been and continue to be excellent customers for EMA and have probably been the airports only carriers ever to have shown long-term commitment to growth and expansion.

EMA would not be the airport it is today without them; It would be uncompetitive and most likely unprofitable with a small number of full-service regional subsidiaries and a handful of holiday charters. And your suggestion to turn away LCCs from certain routes to encourage full-service carriers is stark raving mad... That would just be shooting yourself in the foot and a completely unsustainable way to do business.

Remember that airports are increasingly looking at ways of maximising non-aeronautical revenues in order to reduce aeronautical fees to win new business. To do that you need passengers and the fact remains that only the LCCs can deliver large increases in passenger numbers quickly. That's why you see airports like BHX, GLA and NCL increasingly turning to LCCs. Look at LGW compared to 20 years ago!

I do think there are some opportunities that could work ie KLM Cityhopper with 2 or 3x daily to AMS but the proximity to BHX, MAN or indeed HUY probably makes it unattractive for the airline. That said it will only ever account for a small part of the airports total traffic.
FRatSTN is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 16:04
  #3334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
FRAatSTN - the question I was answering was "what is it that prevents the East Midlands being able to hold on to services other than those offered by leisure and low cost carriers?"

To that end, I stick by my answer - it was the way they let in those low-fare carriers that destroyed the long term business market. I also admitted that the arrival of those LCCs helped the numbers - which it did at the time - but quite a few of the markets haven't survived or have subsequently declined, primarily because LCCs don't invest or take a long term view, but take the opportunity when its available and then quickly scarper when things don't look quite so rosy. The low-fare market is simply too fickle for an airport to depend on it alone, but that's pretty where EMA is now (I'm taking passengers, not cargo).

Again I say there was an opportunity for both LCC and full service, but the way EMA let the LCCs in wrecked the full service offer. The payback is now pretty obvious - one of the worst performing airports over the last year or so in terms of passenger numbers (mostly decline or stagnation at EMA whereas most others have seen pretty sustained growth), and an inability to cut new deals - or at least other airports can offer better deals - because EMA dare not upset its incumbents. Just look at Ryanair at EMA - not exactly scintillating performance but EMA is stuck with it, and is in no position to lure the new breed of LCCs that Birmingham is now managing to do. An airport absolutely can be selective - it can offer incentives or rebates on new routes, but not on existing routes. Being rather choosey about what airlines were they let in and from/to where worked extremely well at Birmingham by protecting the full service market, and has more recently allowed the LCCs to come in on other routes off peak - look at its figures and growth. But the LCCs never encroached on BHX-GLA, or -EDI, or -AMS or -CDG, which EMA let happen and which destroyed the long-term business market on those routes.
EastMids is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 18:04
  #3335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 55
Posts: 865
I'm always intrigued by the concept of airports not letting airlines in. If you mean achieving this by not offering any sort of discount for either promised passenger quantity or new routes then I can understand that. However has an airport (that is not overcrowded and hence slot constrained) ever told an airline they are not welcome as they don't align with the airport's business model? I find that a lot harder to believe.
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 18:46
  #3336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,123
Unless the UK has turned in a banana republic, it must be unlawful under competition law if a publicly licenced airport refuses to contract with an airline that is willing to pay the published fees. At least that is the case in jurisdictions I am more familiar with. My understanding is that in return for being publicly licenced, airports must serve any airline that meets the published criteria and coughs up the required dough.
virginblue is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 18:52
  #3337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 8,529
Luton lets anyone in and then lets them fight it out with Easyjet. El Al, Transavia and Vueling come to mind and even Ryanair are now fighting a same route battle with Easyjet.
LTNman is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 19:07
  #3338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,274
Originally Posted by Curious Pax View Post
I'm always intrigued by the concept of airports not letting airlines in. If you mean achieving this by not offering any sort of discount for either promised passenger quantity or new routes then I can understand that. However has an airport (that is not overcrowded and hence slot constrained) ever told an airline they are not welcome as they don't align with the airport's business model? I find that a lot harder to believe.
Agree, airports can't put barriers up to carriers they don't want serving particular routes, but, and there is a big but, they can be less generous with sweeteners that encourage carriers to build up big bases and become dominant in their market, dissuading new entrants to come in. These same dominant carriers seem to have a belief that somehow it isn't their job to pay for facilities that they use, leaving the airport to annoy passengers with petty extra charges for things like drop off, express security, baggage trolleys. The airport can't recoup all the missing revenue from the passengers, so investment in terminal facilities suffers, and that in turn will put off full service airlines.

For my money, although BHX, and to a lesser extent, MAN got a lot of stick for not piling in with the big "low cost" airlines early enough, they have played a better long game by ensuring their legacy carriers offering connection via European, and Mid. East hubs were looked after before enticing the cheap end of the market. The result is that they have a better mix of business and leisure carriers and routes.

Frightening potential problem could loom, as Ryanair concentrate more on primary airports. What would happen were they to transfer more business away from EMA towards BHX? A prospect, perhaps not so remote, that doesn't really bear thinking about.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 19:26
  #3339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Code:
 Ryanair concentrate more on primary airports. What would happen were they to transfer more business away from EMA towards BHX? A prospect, perhaps not so remote, that doesn't really bear thinking about.
Whilst you have a valid point I think the working relationship between Ryanair and the greater MAG Group probably works to prevent divestment to a competitor.

Add to that Ryanair use EMA for training operations
rutankrd is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2016, 23:01
  #3340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 147
"what is it that prevents the East Midlands being able to hold on to services other than those offered by leisure and low cost carriers?"
Bottom line is that East Midlands has a more rural and leisure oriented catchment than say BHX or MAN.

Both BHX and MAN were late to "wake up and smell the coffee" with regard to the low cost evolution of short-haul and this worked to the benefit of airports like EMA and LPL for a while. This situation has now changed. Had this not been the case at BHX then EMA today would be more like CWL (+ cargo).
Itchin McCrevis is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.