EAST MIDLANDS - 6
East Midlands has carved itself a couple of very nice market niches in high volume/low yield point to point passenger traffic and cargo. Not every airport needs to be a spoke in somebodies global network. It's a thriving place now as opposed to when BMA ruled the roost - then the place was a dead hole most of the time.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: derby
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that DUB-EMA has indeed been dropped, along with CWL and DSA.
http://www.businesspost.ie/stobart-a...n-and-britain/
http://www.businesspost.ie/stobart-a...n-and-britain/
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
Stobart Air axing routes between Dublin and Britain - The Sunday Business Post
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
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 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
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 68
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone any idea when the Iron Maiden 747 is due in?
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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).
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?
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).
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.