BIRMINGHAM - 5

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Yes , there was a full season, and it did well , but US airways joined the star alliance and were ordered to join the cartel operating out of London.

What a load of old tosh ! Exactly who "ordered" them to join this mysterious cartel operating out of Heathrow ?

Had BHX been profitable for them, they would have happily operated from BHX, LHR and MAN.

There was nothing more sinister to their decision to pull BHX, other than the fact BHX was so low yielding that even their smallest transatlantic equipment, the B757, couldn't generate sufficient revenue for it to be profitable.

It is a classic example of how BHX gets continually squeezed these days by LHR to the south, and by MAN to the north.

[crewmeal]

It is a classic example of how BHX gets continually squeezed these days by LHR to the south, and by MAN to the north.

This is very true not just with US Airways but 'Any' Airways. Apart from feeder services, if a route makes money the carrier will stay the course. If it doesn't then it will stop flying regardless which political party is in power. BHX has always been squeezed between MAN & LON. Nothing much will change even with the extended runway. Even if Management offered discounts and enticements to carriers this IMHO wouldn't even work.

Willy Walsh wants a 3rd runway at LHR and not a 3rd London airport. BA made the decision to pull out of the regions 10 years ago and they're hardly going to reverse that decision.

[GayFriendly]

BHX has always been squeezed between MAN & LON. Nothing much will change even with the extended runway. Even if Management offered discounts and enticements to carriers this IMHO wouldn't even work

.

Sadly, I couldn't agree more. LHR will always remain the holy grail for airlines and if they can't get in or expand there, they will do at LGW instead - as Air China and Korean have just done. If BHX had already finished the runway extension, would they have considered coming to BHX instead? I doubt it. It is going to take a HUGE change in both industry and public perceptions to encourage serious viable long haul ops at BHX and for it to be seen by airlines as an alternative to the golden runways of LHR. Whilst this is not impossible, rightly or wrongly, LON is seen as THE entry point to the WHOLE of the UK by most of the rest of the world. When I used to live abroad, Travel Agents would automatically check LHR first when I was looking for quotes for my annual flight back to the UK. When in Dubai, they often weren't aware of BHX's existence let alone that EK flew there! It is going to take more than a few adverts on the tube to change this.

I do admire what PK and his team are trying to do and they have made some very good points. Yes, BHX now has great facilities, much improved over the years and I have always supported the runway extension. I am not saying that BHX will not see some growth in long haul ops in the future but I worry that BHX is relying on a massive growth in long haul ops for future growth and development seduced by the glamour of making political headlines rather than based on commercial realities.

[getonittt]

What a load of old tosh ! Exactly who "ordered" them to join this mysterious cartel operating out of Heathrow ?

Yes o.k. don't take my words literally , but you cannot deny it was of no coincidence that the joining of the star alliance meant the end for this service with the inevitable standard excuse of '' not enough yield '' used for a service that had a PLF of over 75% and was mooted that it was more than likely to go to a year round service. I have nothing against alliances, BHX does very well with the 2 that operate out of there, but going back to my ORIGINAL point , i think the reduction of APD on long haul routes outside london will benefit regional airports. Not just LH point to point , but leisure long haul and also those airlines hubbing through a european airport.

[nigel osborne]

getonit

US Airways and BHX both said separately the US Air service was axed dueto much lower yields than expected..so it was nothing to do with LHR alliances .

Nigel

[Norsemanuk]

Air Finland ceases operations

Just to confirm OltonPete's comments


Air Finland ceases operations

[Norsemanuk]

SUN AIR

Noticed from the following link that Sun Air starting GOT-MAN.
If I remember correctly,didn't City Airline(Skyways) now bankrupt, operate this route via BHX on the return leg ie.GOT-MAN-BHX-GOT?
Probably they have BHX in mind!

Boarding.no : SUN-AIR takes over Manchester - Gothenburg route

In 1990 BEA(Birmingham Executive Airways/Birmingham European Airways) flew a similar route using BAC 1-11 BHX-GOT-OSL-BHX.

[Ringwayman]

BHX had their own 2 daily flights but come holiday time it was combined with MAN. Latterly, it seemed to have only been a daily service that was operated into BHX whilst MAN remained 2 daily. Perhaps they only had a single aircraft operating all those sectors.

[crewmeal]

In 1990 BEA(Birmingham Executive Airways/Birmingham European Airways) flew a similar route using BAC 1-11 BHX-GOT-OSL-BHX.

Sadly that was another example of bad advertising by BA and indeed the Danes who were running BEA at the time. You were lucky to get 30 economy passengers. Very little business traffic on that route. It was shelved about 12 months after it started. The 1-11 400 was a thirsty beast as well, so the economics just weren't there.

[Flying Wild]

BHX closed due to a bloody great thunderstorm!! We're rocking and rolling on the ramp with a plane full of pax!

[getonittt]

Quite a few years ago, I was in conversation with a BA pilot. Forget where.
He was surprised, when it came up in conversation, that Emirates flew to Birmingham.
His flabber was totally gasted when I said "yes, twice a day on a 777".

Oh... a BA pilot , was he flabbergasted birmingham had an airport?

[crewmeal]

On a different note. PK are you reading this?

Airport parking cheaper for plane than a car - Telegraph

What deos it cost to park for 24 hours at BHX? A lot more than £21 me thinks!!

[TSR2]

What deos it cost to park for 24 hours at BHX?

£19.49 in the short stay car park.

[GayFriendly]

A snippet from a report about the Evening Standard 'debate' into aviation policy and capacity in the South East held recently

But there are other possibilities, including expansion at Stansted or Gatwick. The one option that seems unviable is expansion at Birmingham. As Mr Walsh remarked, demand from airlines to land there has actually gone down in recent years

.
So that will be a no then from BA to coming back to BHX!! As I pointed out in a previous post, it is this kind of thinking that BHX is up against in its quest to become a viable alternative to LHR. The problem is that it is not seen as viable! I seem to remember reading somewhere else that QF have said if LHR runs out of suitable capacity they will simply increase flights from FRA and feed UK pax through there. This despite both MAN and BHX being available!! Good luck PK and team, I think you will need it!

[crewmeal]

Sadly GF you're right. The only time you will see BA colours at BHX is on diversions and odd charters.

[chinapattern]

I seem to remember reading somewhere else that QF have said if LHR runs out of suitable capacity they will simply increase flights from FRA and feed UK pax through there. This despite both MAN and BHX being available!! Good luck PK and team, I think you will need it!

Indeed, if airlines are going to choose another country before trying out LGW or MAN then what chance does BHX have? Interesting though as I thought QF were on the verge of pulling out of FRA not so long back?

[scott737]

IAG

It may be that demand for airlines to land at BHX has decreased in recent years but this may just be because it was one of Mr Walsh's airlines that caused that, by pulling out of regional ops. Would that have anything to do with demand at BHX going down, perhaps?

Scott

[jabird]

Yes o.k. don't take my words literally , but you cannot deny it was of no coincidence that the joining of the star alliance meant the end for this service with the inevitable standard excuse of '' not enough yield '' used for a service that had a PLF of over 75%

Well your words spell out the problem exactly - loads good, yields not enough to justify the route.

I doubt very much that this route was about serving the city of Brotherly love. Let's fact it - just how much ptp business is there that couldn't easily be served by UA to EWR and then picking up a rental car or jumping on Amtrak?

So US were going up against UA and the European majors for the conx traffic. Summer is going to be busy anyway, so 75%, given the opportunity to connect throughout most of the USA, is hardly spectacular in that season.

I'm not surprised the route didn't work, and don't see it as political. A different airline to a different city, which is viable for O&D as well as conx (ORD springs to mind, presumably post 2014 if with a 767) and maybe there'd be a different story.....

I seem to remember reading somewhere else that QF have said if LHR runs out of suitable capacity they will simply increase flights from FRA and feed UK pax through there.

I can't see the logic in adding another needless stop on what is already a very long route. Surely this is just huffing up, maybe to draw attention from the fact QF have actually pulled their LHR-HKG & BKK routes anyway?

Just to clarify - even post 2014, is SIN doable in a 744 or 380?

[jabird]

A study of 10 of Britain’s busiest airports shows that it could be cheaper to leave a light aircraft for a day at an airport than it would be to leave a car for the same amount of time.

What a pointless article!

So it is cheaper to park a 6 seater plane than a 6 seater car? So what, which one can't just nip down to the local supermarket if it needs more fuel?

[crewmeal]

What a pointless article!

I think the point was to demonstrate what a rip off car parking at airports is, especially BHX. I've been on the receiving end of short stay fees and it would be cheaper to park a 747 than stay over in the drop off area.