Aviation White Paper 2011
What airlines would want to operate into BHX anyway? Air Malta and Cyprus Airways are pulling out so BHX soon so they will loose 2 national carriers.
You can't force airlines to operate into an airport especially if the route isn't going to be viable. Brum has tried and tested many short haul routes over the years, and there have been some dummy airlines wanting to start up from Brum along with a few paper airlines. They're still waiting to see if Armenia will eventually start a route after all the fanfare last year. Air India were petitioned with God knows how many signatures for a restart. They were also wined and dined with promises made. It seem to me that too much money is being spent on 'tea and biscuits' trying to entice airlines into BHX
You can't force airlines to operate into an airport especially if the route isn't going to be viable. Brum has tried and tested many short haul routes over the years, and there have been some dummy airlines wanting to start up from Brum along with a few paper airlines. They're still waiting to see if Armenia will eventually start a route after all the fanfare last year. Air India were petitioned with God knows how many signatures for a restart. They were also wined and dined with promises made. It seem to me that too much money is being spent on 'tea and biscuits' trying to entice airlines into BHX
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point about Birmingham not being Central to Great Britain.
However the point I was trying to make is that Birmingham in central England is closer to the largest populated areas of Great Britain.
There are far more people living within 100/150 miles of Birmingham in every direction than there are from the same distance from Manchester or Newcastle.
As others have said whether Londoners want to travel from Birmingham longhaul rather than Heathrow, is a good question, when they don't even want to travel to London Stansted for long haul by major carriers .
However the point I was trying to make is that Birmingham in central England is closer to the largest populated areas of Great Britain.
There are far more people living within 100/150 miles of Birmingham in every direction than there are from the same distance from Manchester or Newcastle.
As others have said whether Londoners want to travel from Birmingham longhaul rather than Heathrow, is a good question, when they don't even want to travel to London Stansted for long haul by major carriers .
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering Manchester has three terminals two runways and is central for 75% of the country surely that that s/b the airport that s/b expanded ?
Solution - grow the nearest (large international) airport nearer to London.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso,
There are far more people living within 100 to 150 miles of Birmingham than the same distance from Manchester, that takes it right past Leeds and as far south as the Southern Coast of England.THATS FACT !
There are far more people living within 100 to 150 miles of Birmingham than the same distance from Manchester, that takes it right past Leeds and as far south as the Southern Coast of England.THATS FACT !
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and perhaps we can say THAT'S FACT that despite that amount of potential passengers, so many airlines seem reluctant to start BHX but opt for MAN where they can get their fingers burnt? There's got to be a reason for that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigel osborne
You are splitting hairs !
The point I am making is that Manchester Airport is more convenient not just for Mancunians, but for people from the "major concentrations of economic activity" Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Stoke etc. all of whom do use Manchester !
These cities are amongst the largest in the UK and are less than 1 hour away
by car or indeed train, a comfortable commute !
....by comparison there is very little feed of traffic from within Birmingham, let alone the surrounding cities of Leicester, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley.
If you factor in the volume of domestic flight connections from Scotland, NI, IOM then Manchester is by far a more realistic prospect for development than Birmingham will ever be !
You are splitting hairs !
The point I am making is that Manchester Airport is more convenient not just for Mancunians, but for people from the "major concentrations of economic activity" Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Stoke etc. all of whom do use Manchester !
These cities are amongst the largest in the UK and are less than 1 hour away
by car or indeed train, a comfortable commute !
....by comparison there is very little feed of traffic from within Birmingham, let alone the surrounding cities of Leicester, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley.
If you factor in the volume of domestic flight connections from Scotland, NI, IOM then Manchester is by far a more realistic prospect for development than Birmingham will ever be !
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: BOH - UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso - but despite all of this advantage, MAN is handling fewer passengers than it did before the 2nd runway opened, so what is you would like to Government to help with?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by comparison there is very little feed of traffic from within Birmingham, let alone the surrounding cities of Leicester, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Dudley.
The main crux of the routes the white paper aims to move to BHX, is high frequency Euro routes. When the route is still on their doorstep, why on earth is anyone going to venture outside London?
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the plans are ludicrous and will never work, and just like the previous white papers will never be implimented!
but despite all of this advantage, MAN is handling fewer passengers than it did before the 2nd runway opened, so what is you would like to Government to help with?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: BOH - UK
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK air traffic has grown by 29% in the last 10 years despite the recession you refer to, so what on earth are you talking about. Stop being so defensive for goodness sakes
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole white paper debate is comical. It just goes to reinforce my conviction that most politicians know nothing much about very little. And few of them have ever successfully held down a real job. Keep their noses occupied in their expenses trough and away from interference in the real economy ... please.
And aren't they missing something here? If the Meddling Psychos (MP's) attempt to mandate private airline companies to operate to any destination not of their choosing, retaliation will occur. Perhaps BA will be invited to fly to Lille (for Paris), Hahn (for Frankfurt), and Thessaloniki (for Athens). Hey, they could be the new Ryanair! And of course, in the real world airlines will terminate services rather than be forced into a politically-mandated fudge. Perhaps withdrawal of air services is the true hidden agenda of these crazed MP's. Their unwholesome devotion to the whacky religion of "climate change" (sssshhhhh ... don't say "global warming") and all its associated anti-science logically implies a desire to see commercial aviation decimated.
UK politicians have a track record of negative interference concerning travel from the regions. Don't get me started on aviation bilaterals and regarding the desires of one Big Airline as being the sole definition of the national interest. Who could forget the magnificent government reassurances in the run-up to the Channel Tunnel project? Of course it is not just a humungous investment for the benefit of the South-East alone! No, we politicians will ensure that trains will run through the tunnel from all the major cities of the UK. This will benefit the whole country. But then, as soon as the Chunnel actually opened, those Westminster degenerates excused Euroscar from launching any regional rail services at all. No fare-paying service ever ran from regional cities, but of course politicians "knew" it was case proven that such services could never be viable. Thick, pigeon-fancying northerners traveling to Paris ... surely not, haw haw!!! And when Virgin applied to operate regional trains through the Chunnel after Euroscar declined the opportunity to do so? Well, that couldn't be allowed, could it?
No, if you operate an airport or airline and wish to have a Meddling Psycho (MP) or Complete Maniac (Cabinet Minister) make a decision helpful to your company, there is a time-tested procedure to be followed. Firstly, make a large donation. Secondly, pay for said MP's and afew of their mistresses / toyboys to make an 'educational' visit to a five-star spa hotel in a top resort. Throw in afew goodies. Kinky underwear, anybody? And offer them directorships in your company effective after the unwashed electorate have kicked them out. £100K per annum for attending a couple of two hour meetings per month should work well (but don't skimp on the expenses package!). Do all this and you will stand a chance of receiving a favourable decision from Westminster's finest. But don't waste your time and resources commenting on a white paper (yawn). That process is purely for the naive and deluded.
Now of course, I should point out to the good readers of PPRuNe that the above comments are purely tongue-in-cheek. In reality, all British MP's are the most honourable and intelligent representatives of our fine race. Their wisdom is boundless, their integrity is beyond reproach, and their judgment is finer than that of any unelected citizen. Their expenses claims are minimal, their public service ethos exemplary, and they would never consider the prospects of their re-election above the interests of their constituents. Westminster MP's set the standard which all good citizens should endeavour to emulate. I just want to be completely clear on that. In case there's any doubt.
Happy New Year, all!
SHED.
And aren't they missing something here? If the Meddling Psychos (MP's) attempt to mandate private airline companies to operate to any destination not of their choosing, retaliation will occur. Perhaps BA will be invited to fly to Lille (for Paris), Hahn (for Frankfurt), and Thessaloniki (for Athens). Hey, they could be the new Ryanair! And of course, in the real world airlines will terminate services rather than be forced into a politically-mandated fudge. Perhaps withdrawal of air services is the true hidden agenda of these crazed MP's. Their unwholesome devotion to the whacky religion of "climate change" (sssshhhhh ... don't say "global warming") and all its associated anti-science logically implies a desire to see commercial aviation decimated.
UK politicians have a track record of negative interference concerning travel from the regions. Don't get me started on aviation bilaterals and regarding the desires of one Big Airline as being the sole definition of the national interest. Who could forget the magnificent government reassurances in the run-up to the Channel Tunnel project? Of course it is not just a humungous investment for the benefit of the South-East alone! No, we politicians will ensure that trains will run through the tunnel from all the major cities of the UK. This will benefit the whole country. But then, as soon as the Chunnel actually opened, those Westminster degenerates excused Euroscar from launching any regional rail services at all. No fare-paying service ever ran from regional cities, but of course politicians "knew" it was case proven that such services could never be viable. Thick, pigeon-fancying northerners traveling to Paris ... surely not, haw haw!!! And when Virgin applied to operate regional trains through the Chunnel after Euroscar declined the opportunity to do so? Well, that couldn't be allowed, could it?
No, if you operate an airport or airline and wish to have a Meddling Psycho (MP) or Complete Maniac (Cabinet Minister) make a decision helpful to your company, there is a time-tested procedure to be followed. Firstly, make a large donation. Secondly, pay for said MP's and afew of their mistresses / toyboys to make an 'educational' visit to a five-star spa hotel in a top resort. Throw in afew goodies. Kinky underwear, anybody? And offer them directorships in your company effective after the unwashed electorate have kicked them out. £100K per annum for attending a couple of two hour meetings per month should work well (but don't skimp on the expenses package!). Do all this and you will stand a chance of receiving a favourable decision from Westminster's finest. But don't waste your time and resources commenting on a white paper (yawn). That process is purely for the naive and deluded.
Now of course, I should point out to the good readers of PPRuNe that the above comments are purely tongue-in-cheek. In reality, all British MP's are the most honourable and intelligent representatives of our fine race. Their wisdom is boundless, their integrity is beyond reproach, and their judgment is finer than that of any unelected citizen. Their expenses claims are minimal, their public service ethos exemplary, and they would never consider the prospects of their re-election above the interests of their constituents. Westminster MP's set the standard which all good citizens should endeavour to emulate. I just want to be completely clear on that. In case there's any doubt.
Happy New Year, all!
SHED.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Speed Rail Link
May I suggest the high speed rail link will NOT be built - too many Conservative MPs along the route with a lot of influence - and if it was it will not be ready for another 10 years! Spain has just opened another high-speed route from Madrid to Valencia so you can travel all the way from Seville to Barcelona, Malaga to Madrid onto Barcelona etc. All the UK has and will have is St Pancras to the Kent Coast! Call me an old cynic if you like but I have seen too many of these grandiose plans come to nothing over the last 50 years.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A couple of points.
Within the Single Market there are no political restrictions on market access, any Community airline can fly any Community route. On routes outside the Single Market, market access is governed by bilateral treaty, airlines which have Heathrow rights may not arbitrarily be switched to Gatwick or Stansted, let alone Birmingham.
Operational constraints (e.g. slot restrictions) must be managed in a non-discriminatory way.
It is legally possible for governments to allocate routes within an ‘airport system’, providing this is done in a completely transparent and non-discriminatory way. This is done, for example, in New York and Washington (no longhaul from La Guardia and National). Historically there used to be artificial separation in London (the US carriers which were stuck at LGW until Open Skies). Going further back there was a time when Iberia, TAP and I think Alitalia were forced to move from LHR to LGW, that simply couldn’t happen today.
It ‘might’ be theoretically possible for BHX to be incorporated into the London airport system and, for proposes of traffic separation, be allocated, for example, all Scottish and Northern Ireland routes to ‘London’, but it would have to be all routes for all airlines. This clearly is a fantasy situation.
In aviation at least, this UK government seems to have a policy of announcing grand ideas and then learning the hard way they are either impractical or illegal. The sooner they start taking advice from aviation experts, rather than hardline environmentalists, the sooner they will start to avoid embarrassing climbdowns and u-turns.
Within the Single Market there are no political restrictions on market access, any Community airline can fly any Community route. On routes outside the Single Market, market access is governed by bilateral treaty, airlines which have Heathrow rights may not arbitrarily be switched to Gatwick or Stansted, let alone Birmingham.
Operational constraints (e.g. slot restrictions) must be managed in a non-discriminatory way.
It is legally possible for governments to allocate routes within an ‘airport system’, providing this is done in a completely transparent and non-discriminatory way. This is done, for example, in New York and Washington (no longhaul from La Guardia and National). Historically there used to be artificial separation in London (the US carriers which were stuck at LGW until Open Skies). Going further back there was a time when Iberia, TAP and I think Alitalia were forced to move from LHR to LGW, that simply couldn’t happen today.
It ‘might’ be theoretically possible for BHX to be incorporated into the London airport system and, for proposes of traffic separation, be allocated, for example, all Scottish and Northern Ireland routes to ‘London’, but it would have to be all routes for all airlines. This clearly is a fantasy situation.
In aviation at least, this UK government seems to have a policy of announcing grand ideas and then learning the hard way they are either impractical or illegal. The sooner they start taking advice from aviation experts, rather than hardline environmentalists, the sooner they will start to avoid embarrassing climbdowns and u-turns.
