BIRMINGHAM - 5

[jabird]

Being totally cynical, I would take a look at MAN's route map, and ask which lh destinations they serve, but BHX doesn't due to its shorter runway, and then ask how many of those would really be likely to start up at BHX. Presumably, the airport pays for the road diversion, but not the extra fuel used due to cars taking a longer route to get past the airport?

Now that might be taking my cynicism a little bit far, but the airport wants to place itself as a reliever airport for London, and it does at least have a much better proposition than MSE (RIP EDI link).

So looking at the current state of the market in Jan 12, come (summer I hope) 2014, how many routes are we going to get?

I can imagine a few extra leisure routes to the Caribbean, mabe Goa, MBA etc - although how good for the beancounters are these compared to scheduled?

ORD has been discussed as a strong prospect for return, was this not the one route that was withdrawn because of capacity issues - AA 767?

ATL came and went very quickly at EDI - now DL are at LHR rather than LGW, would they look at BHX?

PHL came and went - more about demand & marketing than the runway, was it not (B757?).

Why did AI pull out? BOM & DEL are two markets with silly competition into LHR, but no regionals, not even MAN, that makes no apparent sense.

EY must have been discussed, but if EK can offer 3x daily to DXB, how will the runway xn make much difference?

I note the huge expansion of routes from SE Asia into LGW, but nothing for MAN. Even SQs MAN-SIN is via MUC - maybe that is still attractive from MAN, but why would you take such a routing from BHX when you can go nonstop from LHR with SQ or BA / QF?

[roverman]

Runway End Safety Area

I too have not seen recent plans for the proposed extension. However, with regard to Runway End Safety Area (RESA), UK airports will from the end of 2013 come under the new European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification rather than the current CAA Aerodrome Licence (based on CAP 168). EASA places a requirement for 240 metre RESA on such a runway, although there are mechanisms to allow a lesser distance subject to satisfactory safety assessment. Such allowances would normally apply to a legacy scenario, but I think it may be difficult to justify constructing a new extension and not meeting the latest standards. In 2009 MAN met the 240m ICAO 'recommended practice' by reducing the declared distances on 05L-23R, although the pavement length remains the same. It will be interesting to see the detailed plans for BHX, and how the declared distances are made up. A starter extension can be a good way to get additional TORA in the favoured direction, but with a lesser runway strip requirement.

[ATNotts]

Jabird

A very well reasoned posting. The country is littered with airports for which "length is everything". I doubt that either Cardiff or EMA has paid for their respective extensions with the volume of business that is actually needed topay for them, though in fairness EMA has probably got closer than Cardiff. I doubt if Manchester can really have recouped the cost of their second runway yet. of course there will be creative accountants who will claim otherwise.

I think if there is business to be gained at BHX, it may be in the area of IT charters to more distant destinations, and the effective use of payload opportunities on 77Ws and A380 by the likes of Emirates.

The future is the Far East, even though many on these forums have their eyes fixated on the transatlantic market, and perhaps, just perhaps, the current inward investment from China into the midlands may convince once of the Chinese carriers to take a punt on BHX with the longer runway in place. We can but hope.

Regular long haul cargo, I feel is a dead duck from BHX as EMA with their far superior facilities has this market all but sewn up.

[LGS6753]

Surely it would have been less expensive to build a bridge to carry the A45 over the runway?

[nigel osborne]

Runway extension and bridge

Jaibird,

You sort of miss the point, the runway extension is not being built for services in 2014 but from 2014 onwards..in this recession BHX is not going to pick up many more prime routes in the short term.

However in 10, 20, years time it will be their when the market picks up..its a long term project.If they do start work in the summer we are very lucky as it could easily have been shelved..fingers crossed .

As for services, well BHX already has its wish list those being to the number 1 and 2 biggest economies in the World within the next 5 years..China and India.

Then theres Vegas, Calgary, San Francisco, Orlando with a large plane etc.

In relation to the bridge, dont forget it would have had to carry not just the runway but the taxiway and the area between those, so at least 200 metres wide its virtually a tunnel anyway. The cost of that alone was calculated at over £15 million.

So we should now have an affordable extension that can get to 95% of where BHX wants it to get.

Nigel

[crewmeal]

Just because there will be a suitable runway length for long haul in 2014 does not mean airlines will come flocking in. There are many hurdles to cross before it's even built. With the ever increasing cost of fuel, the Iranians sabre rattling, APD, European taxes, means airlines will have to be leaner and trimmer than ever before to suvive let alone open new routes to BHX.

My view is that if there is heavy investment in the region it will attract more people therefore airlines may look favourably at BHX. At the moment all we have (so far) is the Chinese investing in MG at Longbridge. That in itself could attract more direct cargo flights from China. Then again we have the European clean air tax to sort out!!

The runway and airlines coming to BHX are two different things and do not go hand in hand. The best we can hope for is to maintain established routes.

[jabird]

Nigel,

You sort of miss the point, the runway extension is not being built for services in 2014 but from 2014 onwards

No, I asked a genuine question about just how many new routes this extension is really going to enable. I want to be proved wrong as, following the demise of CVT, BHX is my local airport. However, I remain sceptical.

However in 10, 20, years time it will be their when the market picks up

In which case, apply for planning permission 5 years beforehand (afaik this sailed through without a PI), and sit on outline planning permission until demand justifies it (afaik you get 5 years) - especially if it will only take one year to actually build. Otherwise, that is 10 to 20 years of investment not getting a return, a very odd way of pleasing the bean counters.

Or....

The extension IS justified now, in which case, let's keep looking at the routes.

You said:

'those being to the number 1 and 2 biggest economies in the World within the next 5 years..China and India.'

India, as I mentioned has been done from BHX - in a rare coup where iirc MAN never got a look in. I don't recall the reason for the routes to BOM (then to ATQ?) being axed - was it internal airline wranglings or the runway - I doubt it was load factor?

There are business and leisure reasons for MAN to have links with China too - but CX MAN - HKG via MOW was long promised, never started. Again, why not? Why, apart from motor trade freight which could also be served from EMA, would BHX be different?

Just because these markets are emerging, that alone doesn't guarantee that BHX routes would be viable, or that if they are, they will need the extension (I'm thinking BOM and ATQ in this respect, obviously not HKG / PEK etc without tech stop).

And with all the advantages the Gulf carriers have, just how attractive will these seemingly tempting routes actually be in reality?

Then theres Vegas, Calgary, San Francisco, Orlando with a large plane etc.

Surely LAX would be the most obvious US West Coast city - again, not served from MAN, but 5 airlines from LHR inc NZ.

Yes, YYC and LAS might be nice routes, largely, but not entirely leisure (I say as someone who has been to LAS for a convention), both served from MAN, but they alone don't make the case.

Re: ORL (also NYC, DXB) - Sure, airlines would prefer the option to deploy larger aircraft on a route if it is available, but will they pay a steep rise in PSC for the privilege?

Meanwhile, MAD, BUD (for now), ATH, ARN, OSL etc - well within reach, but unserved.

[OltonPete]

Runway

jabird

The official line from Air India stated that the withdrawal was due to moving the aircraft/route to Heathrow to preserve slots but was this just spin?

Air India has not got an aircraft shortage as several aircraft are currently offered for lease so I assume it is fair to say that the business case does not add-up or internal politics?

The European route offering this year is a great improvement on 2011 and there is still the possibility of one or two of those mentioned still coming on-line this year although things have gone quiet recently due to the holiday period.

Pete

[nigel osborne]

jAIBIRD,


I have followed the planning application from day one. attended 2 hearings at Solihull Council house for it, and attended most of the presentations.

You can't just sit on an outline application your under an obligation to either commit or drop it with the clock ticking.

It takes years..You can't also just wait until you think the market will pick up ,because if you did that by the time you then have to resubmit, do all the enviromental reports etc etc, and then start to build the market could be in decline again?

Its a never ending cycle and you have to have to be brave and commit.

BHX has been very brave in this go ahead and once its built its banked forever.

Be proud of your airport as you seem to be looking for every negative possible.

Nigel

[chinapattern]

With the green light for HS2 expected next week, the runway extension, the new ATC and all the recent renovations that have been done to the terminal building you can clearly see how BHX is being pushed as an attractive alternative to London; yet for me it remains very much a case of they will build it, but will anybody come?

[crewmeal]

I hope it's not a case of 'all fur coat and no knickers!'

[nigel osborne]

Chinapattern,all,

yes thats the big question Will anyone come.

However not sure what more BHX can do,an airport just provides services for airlines to operate into.90% of the rest is in the hands of airlines.

BHX has just been voted best large UK airport in Which magazine 8,000 passengers from all over the country voted.

We now have a new pier capable of handling 6 77Ws at a time and a 380.New ATC tower new ILS,new primary radar to be installed next month and hopefully a runway extension.

Its now up to airlines to choose if they want to come here.Lets hope they do.

Nigel

[GayFriendly]

Nigel/all

I do share some of your optimism but sadly not all. I'm with crewmeal, I think that BHX has put a lot (but by no means all) its eggs in a very risky basket. It is unlikely that BHX will ever will be the high profile longhaul honey pot it hopes to be, even given a shiny longer runway. Its proximity to LON area airports (to be possibly made more attractive now that HS2 looks more likely) means that, given the London centric nature of this country and aviation, pax will happily fly to/from these airports due to the cost and frequency of flights from there, something that BHX will find it hard to compete with. As for getting pax from other countries to fly into BHX as an alternative to LHR, well good luck with that!

Don't get me wrong I would be so happy to see direct flights to India, China etc as proposed by the airport as a result of its extension, but lets face it, if MAN can 'only' manage a six times a week SIN via MUC connection with SQ, what hope for BHX to attract Far Eastern carriers??

The track record of BHX in long haul is good for an airport of its sixw but US and AI, longer ago AA and HY, much longer ago AC (OK, HY were more of a niche carrier relying on connections to ATQ) no longer grace the BHX runway.

We may have a pier that handles 6 x 77W at a time but I for one have never seen the terminals so quiet and the range of direct scheduled destinations so tame (although it does get better as far as Europe goes in 2012). Focus on the immediate backyard (more European routes) before sowing the far and away field that other airports in the UK have already planted and harvested.

[johnnychips]

Focus on the immediate backyard (more European routes) before sowing the far and away field that other airports in the UK have already planted and harvested

You should be the next Poet Laureate, or join an ad agency.

[GayFriendly]

Thanks for your feedback Mr Johnnychips!

[nigel osborne]

Gafriendly your quote.

"Focus on the immediate backyard (more European routes) before sowing the far and away field that other airports in the UK have already planted and harvested".


Thats exactly what they are doing, trying there very hardest.That doesn't mean you give up on long haul.As it is the runway won't be finished till late 2014.Which gives BHX another three years to chase some more Euro routes.


There are probably 10 more cities in Europe that BHX can have a realistic chance of getting scheduled services they could fill. Im told they are visiting,phoning and trying to promote to get to them all.

With new increases in APD and the new Carbon capture tax, and rising fuel prices regional airports are being hit very hard.

Can you please tell me what more BHX can do than this bearing all the above in mind bearing in mind they have to keep their prices the same to stay in profit?

Nigel

[GayFriendly]

Nigel,

I know that BHX (like other regionals) have had it tough in the last few years. All things considered the company has certainly put their money where their mouth is and have made some magnificent steps forward in terms of pax and airfield facilities (in particular IMO the pier, which I think is a superb facility). The runway extension is a logical and necessary conclusion to the work that has been done over the past few years. To 'answer' your question, no I cannot think of much more they can do.

What I am concerned about is the reliance that BHX seems to be putting on the runway extension for rapid future growth based on a substantial increase in long haul flying. BHX should definately NOT give up on long haul but I cannot see this sector being the driver for the growth in routes, airlines and more importantly pax figures to justify and recoup investment in the extension. Runway extension or not, nothing will change the fact that BHX is just close enough to LHR and the huge range and frequencies of non stop long haul options it offers. The relative ease of reaching it makes them very attractive (especially for south Midlanders) to use. BHX has shown that on the right route and with the right equipment, long haul can thrive (EK) but I really can't think of many more routes, apart from the Indian sub continent (which can already be reached on current runway length) and perhaps a SE Asia hub that BHX will be able to profitably support? There may be room for another scheduled transatlantic but I wouldn't hold my breath (although MCO with VS on a 330 could work?). I can also see seasonal long haul charters increasing but these alone will not fuel significant growth in pax volumes and as proved in recent years, the fortunes of these are notoriously affected by world events, Kenya the latest to suffer a huge drop in package tourism

I am pleased to hear that BHX is working hard to get more European routes on board, IB to MAD MUST be one of these I hope? I can also see ZB trying out more new city routes as well, and maybe just maybe BE with the 175 which should be ideally suited for routes like WAW, BUD, VIE? If BHX could see a significant revival in its fortunes in its European network then yes, coupled with the runway extension, the future would look rosier than it has done for a while. As I said in my previous post, I would be delighted to see more long haul routes take off from BHX but I think we really do need to be realistic and not rely on a runway extension and long haul to bring in the much needed boost in pax numbers, airlines and routes.

[CabinCrewe]

IB to MAD MUST be one of these
MAN downgraded to CR2 and GLA only twice a week, cant see a new BHX anytime soon.

[GayFriendly]

True cabincrewe, but twice a week is better than none a week! I have been reading on the MAN thread that IB have done next to no advertising, so an aircraft downgrade from there no surprise, don't FR and ZB also fly to MAD from MAN? BHX has nobody flying to MAD surely IB should be able to make that work?

[Monty Gordo]

Re: IB to Mad

Because IB to Mad and GLA hasn't worked surely that does not mean that IB should not investigate an alternative route structure in the UK. If as has been said on this forum very recently the management team at BHX are working hard to open up new routes from the Midlands then perhaps their overtures to IB may bring some success.

BHX's past and its future will be based on a solid business-based route structure in mainland Europe. It may well be that the business model stacks up for BHX where id didn't for MAN and GLA. There is of course IB's route structure to Central and South America where the economies are currently performing better than most, if not all, of Europe.

Business will drive any future development from BHX, bucket and spade is all well and good but can be hit hard by domestic, but not necessarily business economies.