NEWCASTLE - 8
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Gateshead, UK
Age: 25
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that's the point... Build it and they will come! It would create demand, and based on the fact that Emirates probably already has a ton of passenger and cargo contracts in the region going East, chances are some of them might go, or want to go west, and could pick Emirates
Emirates is a big name in the region, United not so much. I'm not denying that it would be hard for the first few years to get the ball rolling but if anyone knows what they're doing, it's Emirates
Emirates is a big name in the region, United not so much. I'm not denying that it would be hard for the first few years to get the ball rolling but if anyone knows what they're doing, it's Emirates
But that's the point... Build it and they will come! It would create demand, and based on the fact that Emirates probably already has a ton of passenger and cargo contracts in the region going East, chances are some of them might go, or want to go west, and could pick Emirates
Emirates is a big name in the region, United not so much. I'm not denying that it would be hard for the first few years to get the ball rolling but if anyone knows what they're doing, it's Emirates
Emirates is a big name in the region, United not so much. I'm not denying that it would be hard for the first few years to get the ball rolling but if anyone knows what they're doing, it's Emirates
I wonder if UA would have stuck with NCL for another season, had the events of 23 June not unfolded in the way they did, with the exchange rate consequences that followed. We shall never know.
As for business traffic, a daily service is the minimum requirement, multi daily preferably, so again regional airports, aside MAN are always going to struggle.
Another reason is because Emirates went in at the deep end
However, IF they got the rights and IF they made a go of it, would kind of prove the point for UA/AA/DL.
Last edited by SWBKCB; 12th Aug 2016 at 18:42.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates will go 2x Daily in the near future because they grow routes. EK35/6 would of been history long time ago had they been as impatient as UA and we should be greatful of it, It will always be the jewel in Newcastle's crown. The fact is a 757 going west from here will not work with higher fares because people will just not use it and it can carry next to no exports compared to the huge 77W going east. The only carrier that would make money out of a 757 westbound service would be Jet2 but its not their market other than the christmas spin offs.
Uneven playing surface
Apples and oranges - BFS was competing against DUB, just down the road in a different country with different taxes. If/when Scotland reduces APD, you'll have a point.
Think I have a point anyway..Belfast is in the UK. Newcastle is in the UK ,BFS are able to offer incentives..NCL not..is that fair? Both areas are in need of support are they not?
You say they were competing? Against DUB.
So is Newcastle not competing as you call it against GLA,EDI ,MAN and BHX?
It's not competing, its economic benefit support for areas that actually need help.
You say they were competing? Against DUB.
So is Newcastle not competing as you call it against GLA,EDI ,MAN and BHX?
It's not competing, its economic benefit support for areas that actually need help.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be no centralised incentive. Only the airport can incentivise the route, and they're not going to give away freebies for ever.
The BFS route benefits from Barnett's billions to the tune of £3m a year in addition to the APD concession. This will never happen in an English airport. Regardless of need. Other countries have subsidies airports and routes. I think England has one route if you ignore the route development fund routes.
The BFS route benefits from Barnett's billions to the tune of £3m a year in addition to the APD concession. This will never happen in an English airport. Regardless of need. Other countries have subsidies airports and routes. I think England has one route if you ignore the route development fund routes.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Gateshead, UK
Age: 25
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the government need to screw their head on to be honest. Brexit was enough of a disappointment, enough said on that. But I think UA might have tried an extended season in 2017, if the pound hadn't dropped the way it did.
I am forever grateful for Emirates at NCL, couldn't imagine the airport without them, they've done a lot of good for us, even if they were branded as a white elephant for pretty much the first 5 years - proved people wrong.
Newcastle is now one of the slowest growing airports in the UK... I don't think we've really been in that position much, I remember many articles from before the recession that said we were the fastest growing. We've been completely overshadowed by long haul and low cost growth at Manchester and Edinburgh... Both of which have benefitted from the lack of a 3rd runway at Heathrow (I almost hope they don't get it). Other similarly sized airports to us are growing, albeit as I mentioned before mainly low cost.
The regional route development fund was, in my opinion ridiculous. That money that was wasted on oddball and marginal routes (most of which never materialised, or went up against existing operators) could have been much better spent on propping up routes like NCL-EWR, BFS-EWR, MAN-PEK, MAN-HKG... Among many others, EDI is after a China route, Fund it! Until it pays for itself, if it doesn't can it!
I just think if they were gonna give money for something, give it for something worthwhile
In my personal opinion, there should be fairer, differentiated bands of APD...
- Central London/Major airports in affluent areas: LCY, LHR and maybe LGW should pay full APD (£13/26 - £76/146)
- Outer london and +20 million ppa airports like LTN, STN, MAN should pay 75% current APD (£9.75/£19.50 - £57/£109.50)
- +10 million ppa airports should have APD devolved 50%: EDI and after this year BHX (£6.50/13 - £38/73)
- +5 million devolved to 25% current rate: GLA, BRS, hopefully soon NCL, LPL, BFS etc. (£3.25/£6.50 - £19/36.50)
- Airports of less than 5 million ppa should have APD fully devolved OR pay a standard flat rate of say... £5 per passenger in all classes of travel over all distances, perhaps 50% delivered back to the airport as a development fee
- Another potential band for consideration could be full devolution for airports with less than 1mppa, and/or full devolution on all non London domestic flights
This presents a lot of potential pros and cons. People who use LHR and LCY are always going to use LHR and LCY, fact... It's a high tax area anyway, why not pay full APD. The regions are much more marginal. Airports like MAN, STN, EDI, LTN, BHX have already paid their worth, so why shouldn't they pay tax? People at EDI and MAN might not be happy at NCL and LBA paying different tax bands, but while it may be a disadvantage (very small one) they already have a lot to offer AND already have a comprehensive network! Very very different to devolved APD to EDI, as they have more to offer to begin with, so would have a double advantage if they devolved their own APD.
The government would still get a good sum of tax from throughout the UK and being honest, the domestic passengers that BA could stand to lose to CDG, AMS, DXB etc. might stand in their favour. Funnel more through DUB and MAD, free LHR slots and it'll all balance out.
You'll probably all think I'm crazy, and the government would laugh me off... But that's what I'd do if I was prime minister
To complicate things more, I'd say airlines should be able to bid for devolution on long haul routes, such as EDI, GLA, MAN, BHX - China, MAN-HKG, NCL-DXB, anything else that may be struggling or need propping up. It could lead to routes like ISB-LBA being restarted... Or dare I say it NCL-NYC?
It's all good for the UK economy, and takes pressure off London airports, while UK passengers still line the government's pockets with the highest APD going (albeit at a lower rate than it used to be)
As I said... Call me crazy but I believe the regions should be given an advantage, not London. That can and do look after themselves
I am forever grateful for Emirates at NCL, couldn't imagine the airport without them, they've done a lot of good for us, even if they were branded as a white elephant for pretty much the first 5 years - proved people wrong.
Newcastle is now one of the slowest growing airports in the UK... I don't think we've really been in that position much, I remember many articles from before the recession that said we were the fastest growing. We've been completely overshadowed by long haul and low cost growth at Manchester and Edinburgh... Both of which have benefitted from the lack of a 3rd runway at Heathrow (I almost hope they don't get it). Other similarly sized airports to us are growing, albeit as I mentioned before mainly low cost.
The regional route development fund was, in my opinion ridiculous. That money that was wasted on oddball and marginal routes (most of which never materialised, or went up against existing operators) could have been much better spent on propping up routes like NCL-EWR, BFS-EWR, MAN-PEK, MAN-HKG... Among many others, EDI is after a China route, Fund it! Until it pays for itself, if it doesn't can it!
I just think if they were gonna give money for something, give it for something worthwhile
In my personal opinion, there should be fairer, differentiated bands of APD...
- Central London/Major airports in affluent areas: LCY, LHR and maybe LGW should pay full APD (£13/26 - £76/146)
- Outer london and +20 million ppa airports like LTN, STN, MAN should pay 75% current APD (£9.75/£19.50 - £57/£109.50)
- +10 million ppa airports should have APD devolved 50%: EDI and after this year BHX (£6.50/13 - £38/73)
- +5 million devolved to 25% current rate: GLA, BRS, hopefully soon NCL, LPL, BFS etc. (£3.25/£6.50 - £19/36.50)
- Airports of less than 5 million ppa should have APD fully devolved OR pay a standard flat rate of say... £5 per passenger in all classes of travel over all distances, perhaps 50% delivered back to the airport as a development fee
- Another potential band for consideration could be full devolution for airports with less than 1mppa, and/or full devolution on all non London domestic flights
This presents a lot of potential pros and cons. People who use LHR and LCY are always going to use LHR and LCY, fact... It's a high tax area anyway, why not pay full APD. The regions are much more marginal. Airports like MAN, STN, EDI, LTN, BHX have already paid their worth, so why shouldn't they pay tax? People at EDI and MAN might not be happy at NCL and LBA paying different tax bands, but while it may be a disadvantage (very small one) they already have a lot to offer AND already have a comprehensive network! Very very different to devolved APD to EDI, as they have more to offer to begin with, so would have a double advantage if they devolved their own APD.
The government would still get a good sum of tax from throughout the UK and being honest, the domestic passengers that BA could stand to lose to CDG, AMS, DXB etc. might stand in their favour. Funnel more through DUB and MAD, free LHR slots and it'll all balance out.
You'll probably all think I'm crazy, and the government would laugh me off... But that's what I'd do if I was prime minister
To complicate things more, I'd say airlines should be able to bid for devolution on long haul routes, such as EDI, GLA, MAN, BHX - China, MAN-HKG, NCL-DXB, anything else that may be struggling or need propping up. It could lead to routes like ISB-LBA being restarted... Or dare I say it NCL-NYC?
It's all good for the UK economy, and takes pressure off London airports, while UK passengers still line the government's pockets with the highest APD going (albeit at a lower rate than it used to be)
As I said... Call me crazy but I believe the regions should be given an advantage, not London. That can and do look after themselves
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
APD this and APD that. Stop moaning NCL fans! I told you that route would be touch and go!
Catchment area population and propensity to fly is the key! It's very much a 2 edged sword being an isolated catchment population.
You should thank your lucky stars Leeds and Yorkshire's main airport is located where it is (for now) or you would be looking at 1 or 2 million less passengers right now.
Catchment area population and propensity to fly is the key! It's very much a 2 edged sword being an isolated catchment population.
You should thank your lucky stars Leeds and Yorkshire's main airport is located where it is (for now) or you would be looking at 1 or 2 million less passengers right now.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does Leeds offer that Newcastle doesnt ? Sorry but Leeds would never be a option for me no matter where it was located it will never be 2 mile away like NCL and for that reason i wouldnt fly from anywhere else no matter what the price.
Don't encourage him - the King of Yorkshire's just looking for a new base for his royal flight.
He should have a word with EK once he's President Corbyn's Transport Minister.
He should have a word with EK once he's President Corbyn's Transport Minister.
A more prosperous region - many jobs in banking and financial services, and some wealthier areas such as Harrogate, York and the like in easy reach (if, given LBA's abysmal road infrastructure) anywhere is in "easy" reach of LBA - apart from Yeadon!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Durham
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK77WNCL wrote: In my personal opinion, there should be fairer, differentiated bands of APD...
- Central London/Major airports in affluent areas: LCY, LHR and maybe LGW should pay full APD (£13/26 - £76/146)
- Outer london and +20 million ppa airports like LTN, STN, MAN should pay 75% current APD (£9.75/£19.50 - £57/£109.50)
- +10 million ppa airports should have APD devolved 50%: EDI and after this year BHX (£6.50/13 - £38/73)
- +5 million devolved to 25% current rate: GLA, BRS, hopefully soon NCL, LPL, BFS etc. (£3.25/£6.50 - £19/36.50)
- Airports of less than 5 million ppa should have APD fully devolved OR pay a standard flat rate of say... £5 per passenger in all classes of travel over all distances, perhaps 50% delivered back to the airport as a development fee
- Another potential band for consideration could be full devolution for airports with less than 1mppa, and/or full devolution on all non London domestic flights
- Central London/Major airports in affluent areas: LCY, LHR and maybe LGW should pay full APD (£13/26 - £76/146)
- Outer london and +20 million ppa airports like LTN, STN, MAN should pay 75% current APD (£9.75/£19.50 - £57/£109.50)
- +10 million ppa airports should have APD devolved 50%: EDI and after this year BHX (£6.50/13 - £38/73)
- +5 million devolved to 25% current rate: GLA, BRS, hopefully soon NCL, LPL, BFS etc. (£3.25/£6.50 - £19/36.50)
- Airports of less than 5 million ppa should have APD fully devolved OR pay a standard flat rate of say... £5 per passenger in all classes of travel over all distances, perhaps 50% delivered back to the airport as a development fee
- Another potential band for consideration could be full devolution for airports with less than 1mppa, and/or full devolution on all non London domestic flights
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regions are much more marginal. Airports like MAN, STN, EDI, LTN, BHX have already paid their worth, so why shouldn't they pay tax? People at EDI and MAN might not be happy at NCL and LBA paying different tax bands, but while it may be a disadvantage (very small one) they already have a lot to offer AND already have a comprehensive network!
For example, how would you prevent say, Ryanair moving a shed load of routes from Manchester to Leeds to make use of lower APD bands? That's not stimulating growth, it's moving it around.
How would you address a new route choosing NCL over EDI purely due to APD, it's not exactly fair? An airport should be able to attract a route in its own merit, not because of an artificial advantage.
Just because an airport is successful doesn't mean it should be put at a delibirate disadvantage just to appease the other.
For what it's worth, I also believe it's pointless charging LHR higher APD. The numbers of transferring passengers means many would be exempt from APD anyway!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United nearly went at BFS too have a look guys link below
United Airlines: Rescue deal agreed to save Belfast to New York service - BBC News
United Airlines: Rescue deal agreed to save Belfast to New York service - BBC News
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 79
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United nearly went at BFS too have a look guys link below
United Airlines: Rescue deal agreed to save Belfast to New York service - BBC News
United Airlines: Rescue deal agreed to save Belfast to New York service - BBC News
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Gateshead, UK
Age: 25
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX_LHR, I understand your point there, although that already happens to an extent... Liverpool (as far as I understand it) did and still sometimes does act as a low cost alternative to Manchester, for example. And I'm sure the same could be said for Leeds.
I don't think it would be feasible, even for an airline like Ryanair to up sticks and move across the hill, they have a huge operation at MAN anyway, and if you think about it, everyone stands to benefit because there is still a devolution to those markets, just less. - I suppose if it was obvious, like Ryanair ditched EDI for GLA and MAN for LBA... Then it should be deemed lawful for the government and airport authorities to block that from happening. Talking about major routes though, if a Chinese carrier was looking at EDI, I doubt they'd then change their mind and go for NCL instead because of lower APD
Regards to Heathrow, how is it that APD works, I thought that, for example, if you flew NCL-LHR-NYC you would pay full rate? A lot of LHR's pax are not transfer though, so to me it still stands to reason that full APD should be payable from there. I honestly think an ideal situation for the government and airport authorities would be to charge full APD and artificially depress the market for UK transfers to Heathrow through higher fares on long haul connections and replace UK domestic flights. From Newcastle for example I think BA would be quite happy if they could drop x2 LHR flights and replace them with another DUB flight, and perhaps a daily flight to Madrid. And this isn't just me wanting to see more tails on the ground I genuinely think it would be an option, in fact I'd go as far as to reducing LHR to x2/3 daily for connections and some O&D, introducing x2/3 daily LCY for majority O&D traffic, bolstering EI to DUB while they build the DUB hub and then 1 daily/10 weekly flights to Madrid, most likely with Iberia express, to cater for connections.
In a market as price sensitive as NCL what does it really matter if people are flying NCL-LHR-LAX, NCL-DUB-LAX, NCL-LHR-HKG or NCL-MAD-HKG... I'd say not much. With every new set of declining figures to LHR I begin to see less and less cause for so many flights, that's one case in which I agree that the LHR slots could be much better used elsewhere. I doubt what I propose would change... But I'd like to think that they would use IAG for it's intended purpose...
VentureGo, seriously? I mean I would, I just don't want to have missed any sarcasm in there if there was any haha :P if not though, thank you very much... How do I go about escalating it as high as downing street?
LEEDS APPROACH -
did you forget to take your meds this morning?
I don't think it would be feasible, even for an airline like Ryanair to up sticks and move across the hill, they have a huge operation at MAN anyway, and if you think about it, everyone stands to benefit because there is still a devolution to those markets, just less. - I suppose if it was obvious, like Ryanair ditched EDI for GLA and MAN for LBA... Then it should be deemed lawful for the government and airport authorities to block that from happening. Talking about major routes though, if a Chinese carrier was looking at EDI, I doubt they'd then change their mind and go for NCL instead because of lower APD
Regards to Heathrow, how is it that APD works, I thought that, for example, if you flew NCL-LHR-NYC you would pay full rate? A lot of LHR's pax are not transfer though, so to me it still stands to reason that full APD should be payable from there. I honestly think an ideal situation for the government and airport authorities would be to charge full APD and artificially depress the market for UK transfers to Heathrow through higher fares on long haul connections and replace UK domestic flights. From Newcastle for example I think BA would be quite happy if they could drop x2 LHR flights and replace them with another DUB flight, and perhaps a daily flight to Madrid. And this isn't just me wanting to see more tails on the ground I genuinely think it would be an option, in fact I'd go as far as to reducing LHR to x2/3 daily for connections and some O&D, introducing x2/3 daily LCY for majority O&D traffic, bolstering EI to DUB while they build the DUB hub and then 1 daily/10 weekly flights to Madrid, most likely with Iberia express, to cater for connections.
In a market as price sensitive as NCL what does it really matter if people are flying NCL-LHR-LAX, NCL-DUB-LAX, NCL-LHR-HKG or NCL-MAD-HKG... I'd say not much. With every new set of declining figures to LHR I begin to see less and less cause for so many flights, that's one case in which I agree that the LHR slots could be much better used elsewhere. I doubt what I propose would change... But I'd like to think that they would use IAG for it's intended purpose...
VentureGo, seriously? I mean I would, I just don't want to have missed any sarcasm in there if there was any haha :P if not though, thank you very much... How do I go about escalating it as high as downing street?
LEEDS APPROACH -
did you forget to take your meds this morning?