Too many airports in UK?

[TSR2]

Posted by anotherthing :
MAN is now showing one of the biggest reductions in traffic month by month...

Not according to CAA Statistics.

February 09 v February 08
Manchester -16.8%
Liverpool -21.5%
Leeds/Bradford -25.2%
Blackpool -69.7%

[ryanair1]

normally budget airlines do well in times of recession

what these stats are showing is evidence that we (budget carriers) are not doing well

this recession is hitting middle class with resulting fall in travel that is not essential

travel that is not essential has become the backbone of some of the largest european LCC's (low cost carriers)

difference between US LCC's and European LCC's - US LCC's are not relying completely on leisure travel but Europe is

[philbky]

Thanks for the figures TSR2. Proves my point.

[AndyH52]

Nonsense. All it proves is how misleading statistics can be without any context.

Anyway, the main thrust of the thread is 'are there too many airports in the UK'. My point is 'too many for what?' For them all to have longhaul services? Absolutely. For them all to have scheduled services by legacy operators? Most certainly. For them all to have based aircraft from a LO-CO? Probably. For them all to have a few flights a week by a LO-CO or charter operator? Possibly not - but the market will decide.

If the market does dictate that some of the smaller airports can't sustain such services then they will end. People will then have a choice to either fly from somewhere else or not at all. As I said previously much of the current market has been created by LO-CO's and will disappear along with cancelled services. Philbky - you may be a case in point. If Ryanair didn't exisit and you had to rely on the pevious exorbitant fares offered by Aer Lingus from Ireland to the UK, would your visits be quite as frequent?

As for Burtonwood, even if a new airport had been built there and had been managed by the City of Manchester it would have been no more 'Manchester' Airport than East Midlands or Bournemouth are today. And I suggest you 'check you facts' with regards the history of Liverpool - London services.

[philbky]

Nonsense. All it proves is how misleading statistics can be without any context.

In terms of bald passenger numbers and reduced revenue, the context doesn't matter and my point that Blackpool especially is in trouble is amply demonstrated.

Philbky - you may be a case in point. If Ryanair didn't exisit and you had to rely on the pevious exorbitant fares offered by Aer Lingus from Ireland to the UK, would your visits be quite as frequent?

They would be reduced but the whole point is that too many airports in a small area damage the viability of all of them and, by removing focus, impinge on the growth of services from the most viable.

As for Burtonwood, even if a new airport had been built there and had been managed by the City of Manchester it would have been no more 'Manchester' Airport

It would have been called Manchester Burtonwood under the proposals - a bit like London Heathrow and at a similar distance from the city centre.

And I suggest you 'check you facts' with regards the history of Liverpool - London services. Today 07:43

Please give me factual details of a sustained London service since the demise of British Eagle.

"Sustained" Enduring; Keep going continuously; Unfailing (my reference is the OED)

Manchester has had a sustained London service since 1946 through BEA and BA with other carriers having been on the route for both long and short periods. Liverpool has not had a sustained London service since 1968.

[philbky]

More on the Burtonwood proposals. Manchester City Council was the sole owner of Manchester Airport until 1974. As almost all of the Ringway site was in Cheshire it paid rates to the relevant rating authority but consistently made a profit which was used to reduce rates in the City of Manchester.

Prior to the Burtonwood proposal Manchester had fought long and hard to keep control of its airport which the government wanted to take over. If Burtonwood was to go ahead it would mean the closure of Ringway, thus Manchester's determination to maintain its control whilst at the same time it found ways to fight the proposal..

Rates would have had to be paid to both Warrington County Borough and Lancashire County Council but the City Council still thought it would make a profit.

There were audible sighs of relief in Albert Sq when the subsidence was found to be both widespread and progressive.

As to the name, in those day, as today, airlines like to identify with a city (thus Ryanair call Hahn Frankfurt and Charleroi Brussels). As Manchester had more services than Liverpool and as the City Council would have owned the airport it would have been called Manchester Airport. Indeed when BOAC could not use the runway at Ringway in certain conditions for its Stratocruiser flights to New York, the flights routed through "Manchester Burtonwood" according to the airline.

[AndyH52]

Let me see now. Cambrian took over the Heathrow service after the demise of British eagle in 1968 and operated it until they were absorbed into BA in 1976. BA then carried the route on until it was transferred to BMA in 1978. British Midland alone operated the service continuously from 1978 to 1992 (apart from a couple of years when the operation transferred to their subsidiary Manx Airlines). That seems fairly enduring and longer than your assertion that such services never lasted more than three years. The lack of a Heathrow service (and to a lesser extent a Gatwick service) is more to do with slot availbilty than demand.

As for the figures of course context matters. Manchester losing over 100,000 pax a month is as significant a blow to its business plan as Blackpool losing 10,000.

[philbky]

Taking the period from 1968 to 2008 (40 years) Cambrian BA managed 10 years until BA were more than happy to route swap with British Misland as they couldn't make the route pay.

BM and its offspring managed 14 years.and gave up due to lack of profit and used the slots which they had for something more profitable. Since then no-one has had a serious go although any operator who had LHR slots would use some of those slots if the routes were worth it.

easyJet, with plenty of slots at Luton couldn't make that route pay.

Recently,of course, VLM had slots at LCY and used them for a LPL service. What happened? - it lost money whilst the MAN service continues and offers 6 round trips a day four days a week, 7 trips one day a week, 1 on a Saturday and 2 on a Sunday IN ADDITION TO the regular BA and bmi services to LHR and LGW

So, the figures you supplied show that in the last 40 years one airline and its successor manged to serve the route for 25% of the time, another for 35% of the time- not exactly a sustained service in the accepted meaning of the term and a total shambles from 1992. Why? Because a solid, regular and sustained demand doesn't exist.

BTW the expression " a year or three" was a throw away line to indicate the relatively shortlived periods of London service at LPL compared to the 62 years of continuous service at MAN.

[As for the figures of course context matters. Manchester losing over 100,000 pax a month is as significant a blow to its business plan as Blackpool losing 10,000.

I know which CEO I'd prefer to be.

In the context of Blackpool the figures are disastrous. In the context of Manchester the trend is unwelcome but the airport and its group, whilst recording reduced turnover and probably profit is in excellent shape to survive. If you think that a reduction of over 16% is as significant as a reduction of over 60% (in any context) you have a strange understanding of figures.

For LBA the figures will get worse when the bmi Heathrow service withdrawal shows up.

[AndyH52]

A former marketing man sugesting someone else has a strange interpretation of figures? There's ironic. And convenient now that your three year comment was just a throw away line when your 'facts' are rebutted.

There's no telling what would have happened on the Liverpool - Heathrow route had cambrian not been absorbed into BA in the mid 70s (you conveniently overlook the fact that Cambrian was an independent operator on the route when it took over from British Eagle). Time will tell as to whether the route ever gets re-established. If the third runway ever gets built at Heathrow then there's a good chance it will. It is in anycase a distraction from the main point of the thread.

So, here's a question. If other routes operated from other airports are a potential threat to sustained operations from the 'larger' airports such as Manchester, how does that logic work through when said larger airports happily encourage two or more operators onto the same route? Surely to ensure sustainability they should dissuade competition so as not to undermine another operator?

[philbky]

A former marketing man sugesting someone else has a strange interpretation of figures? There's ironic.

No irony at all. At many levels in my career, including CEO, I've been responsible for budgets, targets and accounts, responsible to shareholders and, at one time, County Councillors.

(you conveniently overlook the fact that Cambrian was an independent operator on the route when it took over from British Eagle).

I didn't conveniently overlook anything. You, on the otherhand continue to write factually inaccurate twaddle.

Cambrian took over the British Eagle service licence in late 1968 - late November if memory serves. One year earlier in November 1967 Cambrian became a wholly owned subsidiary of British Air Services.

British Air Services was formed by BEA in March 1967 to look after its financial interests in BKS and Cambrian. At the time of the formation it owned 33% of Cambrian which it acquired in 1958. 100% of Cambrian was acquired by BAS, a wholly owned financial arm of BEA in November 1967.

There's no telling what would have happened on the Liverpool - Heathrow route had cambrian not been absorbed into BA in the mid 70s

There's no telling what would have happened had Hitler not been born....your point is? BTW, Cambrian was legally absorbed into BA in 1972

If other routes operated from other airports are a potential threat to sustained operations from the 'larger' airports such as Manchester, how does that logic work through when said larger airports happily encourage two or more operators onto the same route? Surely to ensure sustainability they should dissuade competition so as not to undermine another operator?

If you can't work that out for yourself, there's no point in my explaining.

And convenient now that your three year comment was just a throw away line when your 'facts' are rebutted.

When you actually get around to rebutting a fact I'll begin to think you might just have a little knowledge

[ryanair1]

hahahaha all very entertaining. Two men trying desperatly to prove their points

Anyway im sure both of you are right/wrong to some extent.

I do believe domestic/feeder UK links will go through a revival once the LHR thrid runway is operational.

[philbky]

Two men trying desperatly to prove their points

Well this one isn't doing anything "desperatly", not even desperately. When people make erroneous statements, ignore the obvious and the evidence of over 60 years of history to support their own misguided pet theories someone needs to use the facts to refute their statements.

[kala87]

Just to stir up the LPL vs. Man thing, in my ancient BOAC 1958 timetable, certain London to New York and Montreal flights by DC7C aircraft route through "Manchester/Liverpool" Airport according to the schedules! I assume this means Ringway, as it was then known.

I disagree with the notion that Lo-Co's only serve the leisure market. EZY's success in particular has been based on the business market as much as the leisure market. Just go to LTN or LGW in the early morning and check out all the suits with laptops flying with them.

No, the UK doesn't have too many airports considering the population density and poor surface transport. The market will decide which of them are viable on a long-term basis. Surely most people would rather fly from a local airport given the choice, if it saves the hassle of a long (meaning time-consuming) drive.

Why shouldn't the northwest have both MAN and LPL airports? The extra runway capacity provided is useful, and allows for long-term growth which will surely return when this present downturn has reversed, as it will.

Any debate about catchment areas has to take into account that different routes have different catchments. For example, here in the southwest, if you want to fly from Cornwall to London, you don't want to drive a great distance, so NQY is the obvious choice, with 3 airlines and 3 London area destination airports to choose from. On the other hand, for a charter to Greece or long-haul to New York, Bristol is perfectly acceptable. Therefore, all four airports in the region (BRS, EXT, PLY, NQY) have their own markets and are all very important to the economic well-being of the region.

[philbky]

ust to stir up the LPL vs. Man thing, in my ancient BOAC 1958 timetable, certain London to New York and Montreal flights by DC7C aircraft route through "Manchester/Liverpool" Airport according to the schedules! I assume this means Ringway, as it was then known.

Was that a winter 1957/58 timetable?

BOAC introduced the DC7C from Manchester in 1957 and operated four flights a week to Montreal (one non stop) and three to New York (one non stop) but the runway length was only 5,900 ft.and, whilst this didn't pose a problem for the 7C (unlike with the Stratocruiser which operated more from Burtonwood than Ringway, normally due to wet weather and stopping distances), the service transferred to Burtonwood in December whilst runway extension work was done. This restricted the runway and overrun area to around 5,000 feet.

Burtonwood was used throught the winter and, with non stop New York and Montreal being available from the North West without weight restriction for the first time, BOAC decided to try to attract the liner traffic that, at that time, was still the first choice for most passengers heading across the Atlantic - Liverpool being a close second to Southampton for departures - thus the Liverpool reference.

On 23 April 1958, the Manchester runway extension to 7,000 feet was opened and on April 28 G-AOIC made the first full weight, non stop, flight across the Atlantic to New York. Montreal followed and the number of non stops with 7Cs and Britannias continued, reverting to stopping services when the 707 was introduced and runway length again became a problem.

It would be interesting to know how long (if at all) the Liverpool reference continued in the timetable.

[ConstantFlyer]

Transport needs to be integrated

Many interesting posts here. Apart from those pax in transit, all of an airport's passengers arrive for or depart after their flight by road or rail. It makes sense therefore that an airport should be a hub for several forms of transport across its catchment area. Indeed its catchment area can be increased through effective and efficient surface transport.

A couple of examples: Rail services (including long distance) from AMS, CDG and FRA. Central bus and underground station at LHR. Metro at NCL. Train station at MAN. All well linked to serve the surrounding areas of population - and many further afield.

And a salutary example: Arrive at Durham/Tees Valley Airport and find no public transport to Durham, one bus an hour to Middlesbrough, and one train a week. Wait 20 mins for a taxi to show up. Arrive at Darlington station and check the departure screens: One train an hour to Manchester Airport!