BIRMINGHAM - 5
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ryanair and flybe
BHX-DUB has been cut in winter to twice daily on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The afternoon BHX based FR666/7 is the flight removed. The rest of schedule is unchanged at the moment which means a net loss of three flights per week but you never know with FR.
Virtually every other UK destination with three or more daily flights (Manchester, Luton, Bristol, Edinburgh, Liverpool) seem to have lost one frequency per week although some of these might have been known for some time. East Mids is once daily on Wednesday.
flybe
Stuttgart for winter is now showing as the Q400 leaving the 175's as they are now operating DUS & GLA although the GLA aircraft goes to Milan with the 175 operating EDI in the afternoon.
Pete
Virtually every other UK destination with three or more daily flights (Manchester, Luton, Bristol, Edinburgh, Liverpool) seem to have lost one frequency per week although some of these might have been known for some time. East Mids is once daily on Wednesday.
flybe
Stuttgart for winter is now showing as the Q400 leaving the 175's as they are now operating DUS & GLA although the GLA aircraft goes to Milan with the 175 operating EDI in the afternoon.
Pete
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poland
Gdansk
All part of the Polish merry-go-round where virtually all BHX routes have stopped at some point in the past but all have restarted except for SZZ and all with incredibly high load factors (except SZZ) but I think it is generally accepted most are low-yielding services.
BHX-GDN rests and MAN-GDN starts - co-incidence, I doubt (agreed passenger through-put at GDN possibly?)
I am more concerned what they are doing with Malta, which for the second winter running is not on sale a few months before the season starts.
The schedule is starting to look bare with just Dublin cut, two Tenerife's a week and a single LPA & FUE although no doubt FR will blame AENA or the local government for this.
Pete
All part of the Polish merry-go-round where virtually all BHX routes have stopped at some point in the past but all have restarted except for SZZ and all with incredibly high load factors (except SZZ) but I think it is generally accepted most are low-yielding services.
BHX-GDN rests and MAN-GDN starts - co-incidence, I doubt (agreed passenger through-put at GDN possibly?)
I am more concerned what they are doing with Malta, which for the second winter running is not on sale a few months before the season starts.
The schedule is starting to look bare with just Dublin cut, two Tenerife's a week and a single LPA & FUE although no doubt FR will blame AENA or the local government for this.
Pete
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we need to remember its not just BHX which has seen long haul airlines go.
Manchester had 3 BA 747 routes, British Airtours 747s daily. Cathay Pacific, Qantas, South African, Gulf Air, Air India, Air Canada, Nation Air, Quebec Air, Aeroflot, Sure their are a lot more.
One of the things that have changed is airline alliances.Long Haul carriers now far happier to feed passengers using their partners short haul network to connect to their main hubs around Europe.
Wardair were pushed out of BHX by Air Canada, and by expanding too fast.
The price of oil certainly won't encourage a mass return of these airlines.
However their are airlines likely to come to BHX in the next few years .A Chinese airline, Air Blue probably, American to Chicago,to name a few.
We already know Qatar will be coming soon probably with 787s.. thats a massive addition for BHX..no doubt the usual gloomers will find something to moan about their too
Nigel
Nigel
Manchester had 3 BA 747 routes, British Airtours 747s daily. Cathay Pacific, Qantas, South African, Gulf Air, Air India, Air Canada, Nation Air, Quebec Air, Aeroflot, Sure their are a lot more.
One of the things that have changed is airline alliances.Long Haul carriers now far happier to feed passengers using their partners short haul network to connect to their main hubs around Europe.
Wardair were pushed out of BHX by Air Canada, and by expanding too fast.
The price of oil certainly won't encourage a mass return of these airlines.
However their are airlines likely to come to BHX in the next few years .A Chinese airline, Air Blue probably, American to Chicago,to name a few.
We already know Qatar will be coming soon probably with 787s.. thats a massive addition for BHX..no doubt the usual gloomers will find something to moan about their too
Nigel
Nigel
Nigel:
You are so right!
Whilst you can also draw up a similarly long list of "lost" carriers as you have made for Manchester, most of the BHX list consists of iffy carriers from the former Soviet states, such as Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan - there must be some others but I can't remember them!
Manchester has a history of attracting major carriers, but being unable to retain them once the sweeteners had run out. I think it's slightly unfair to include quasi charter carriers such as Quebecair and Nationair, but most of the rest you've listed are absolutely fair game. You could equally have added bmi long haul, El Al, Biman, though they have returned I think.
At BHX, although the list of long haul carriers is considerably more meagre, what it has had, aside Air Canada, American and Air India have had staying power, and as you you say, AA must be a prime candidate to return.
Honestly, for BHX the glass is nearer half full than half empty!
You are so right!
Whilst you can also draw up a similarly long list of "lost" carriers as you have made for Manchester, most of the BHX list consists of iffy carriers from the former Soviet states, such as Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan - there must be some others but I can't remember them!
Manchester has a history of attracting major carriers, but being unable to retain them once the sweeteners had run out. I think it's slightly unfair to include quasi charter carriers such as Quebecair and Nationair, but most of the rest you've listed are absolutely fair game. You could equally have added bmi long haul, El Al, Biman, though they have returned I think.
At BHX, although the list of long haul carriers is considerably more meagre, what it has had, aside Air Canada, American and Air India have had staying power, and as you you say, AA must be a prime candidate to return.
Honestly, for BHX the glass is nearer half full than half empty!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 43
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA must be a prime candidate to return.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stafford
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX-ORD
I don't see AA ever resuming ORD-BHX and if you look to UA any service they might start would surely effect their loads to EWR. A seasonal BHX-SFO might work with the 787 once the runway extension is complete but I think that's more wishful thinking more than anything. Realistically, the only east coast service I could see is a seasonal BHX-YVR with TS.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinapattern,
Yes agree TS to Vancouver and possibly Calgary might be possible, and my money would be on SFO and Orlando with Virgin as our US traffic is leisure related.
Know BHX are still hopeful for a Chicago AA return on a 757 but its really not the right plane.
Nigel
Yes agree TS to Vancouver and possibly Calgary might be possible, and my money would be on SFO and Orlando with Virgin as our US traffic is leisure related.
Know BHX are still hopeful for a Chicago AA return on a 757 but its really not the right plane.
Nigel
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester had 3 BA 747 routes, British Airtours 747s daily. Cathay Pacific, Qantas, South African, Gulf Air, Air India, Air Canada, Nation Air, Quebec Air, Aeroflot,
At one stage BA did have a policy of long haul from the regions. They were planning to open a proper hub operation at LGW and then after that a mini-hub at MAN.They decided to change tack and concentrate Long Haul on LHR and to leave a few leisure routes at LGW.
As has been noted, alliances were set up and CX and QF were persuaded to operate their UK flights to LHR with BA feed as part of One World. What is annoying is that whilst BA are entitled to their strategy, they did their damnedest to stop foreign carriers from operating from UK regional airports through the bilateral process. It delayed foreign carriers from starting routes for a while but eventually lobbying by the bigger airports (MAN, BHX) was mostly successful.
SAA stopped operating from MAN when apartheid was swept away and they suddenly had for more lucrative opportunities around the world rather than the very limited routes they were previously allowed on.
Gulf Air were hampered with the bilateral which only allowed them to serve Oman from MAN, not their main hub at Bahrain, so no surprise that didn't last long.
Aeroflot on the other hand operated to MAN for a while to preserve their bilateral rights, so they could be used as a bargaining tool in negotiations. There is a story incidentally that they may be back at MAN for S2013.
Other things that have changed since those days as well as the strengthening of alliances are the rise of the low cost carrier, the decline of the package tour, the end of Bermuda 2 agreement (UK/US bilateral which was particularly restrictive on access to LHR) and of course the economic situation where airlines are much more likely to align their operations based on viability rather than presteige.
With the ongoing debate about capacity in the SE (which I'm sure will carry on for ever as it has been doing for years and b*gger all will get built) airlines will have to re-assess whether they serve any increased UK regional long haul demand by starting direct operations or whether they are best served by linking the UK regions to their flights from a European hub.
The Gulf carriers have already stitched up the market going east. As their hub airports are still expanding (DXB has a new 28 A380 gate terminal to open in a few months time, Doha and Abu Dhabi will be opening new terminals soon) and they have no bilateral issues on capacity, they will be able to up frequency at UK regional airports to take this traffic, so I'm sure BHX will see increases (QTR are rumoured - or is it confirmed?).
Going west, I think it is now a period of consolidation for MAN and BHX and I think both airports will be grateful if they can hang on to what they've got for the next couple of years.
Suzeman
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: BIRMINGHAM
Age: 61
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I dont understand re BHX is the lack of long haul it flights. I accept that for the likes of AA,DL etc the yield is a problem, yet surely for bucket and spade routes to the US and Carribbean this isnt an issue. So why is BHX not getting far more Florida flights for example, it seems ridiculous that there are so few, when even smaller UK airports (CWL,NCL etc) can attract at least as many and often more.
Mark
Mark
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: herefordshire
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Birmingham Airport argues that a planned runway extension will allow it to serve 27 million passengers a year, up from nine million at the moment, and to provide long-distance flights to locations such as India and China. High speed rail will also make Birmingham as convenient as Heathrow, the airport says'.
and then.....
'I don't see AA ever resuming ORD-BHX and if you look to UA any service they might start would surely effect their loads to EWR. A seasonal BHX-SFO might work with the 787 once the runway extension is complete but I think that's more wishful thinking more than anything. Realistically, the only east coast service I could see is a seasonal BHX-YVR with TS'.
There is a dichotomy here that seems to be growing ever apart on the future prospects of Bhx. It would appear to me that on the one hand you have political 'aspiration' which is not unusual when politicians are ever keen to be seen to express popularist opinion and, those that have a hand within the industry, clearly express a hard but heart-felt judgement.
No doubt the extended runway is going to have an impact but I am beginning to think that it is going to be far less than the airport management team hope for and envisage.
It is going to be very interesting how these 'polarist' expections pan out.
and then.....
'I don't see AA ever resuming ORD-BHX and if you look to UA any service they might start would surely effect their loads to EWR. A seasonal BHX-SFO might work with the 787 once the runway extension is complete but I think that's more wishful thinking more than anything. Realistically, the only east coast service I could see is a seasonal BHX-YVR with TS'.
There is a dichotomy here that seems to be growing ever apart on the future prospects of Bhx. It would appear to me that on the one hand you have political 'aspiration' which is not unusual when politicians are ever keen to be seen to express popularist opinion and, those that have a hand within the industry, clearly express a hard but heart-felt judgement.
No doubt the extended runway is going to have an impact but I am beginning to think that it is going to be far less than the airport management team hope for and envisage.
It is going to be very interesting how these 'polarist' expections pan out.
Monty Gordo:
I doubt whether any of the more recent runway extensions (Cardiff, East Midlands - or the 2nd runway at Manchester) have either yet provided a financial return for their airport operators, or attracted anything like the new business that the airport operators were hoping for. sadly I believe that BHX will join that rather disappointing list.
For as long as the UK continues to be so London-centric I see no possibility that any significant long haul business will find it's way to BHX. The "national" airline has zero interest in serving the nation, being satisfied feeding it's long haul network from airports, which in fairness, are more in need of an air connection to London than BHX. The business market is such that we're just not going to see multi daily services from BHX to cities like New York or Chicago - the front end traffic just wouldn't support them, and business passengers demand the flexibility of a 2 or 3 x daily service - it's unfortunately a chicken and egg situation.
Long haul is largely going to be IT traffic, that may well grow with the operational possibilities that the extension provides; this along with further long haul services possibly to the Indian subcontinent, serving the the ex-pat community from that region, and just possibly, a Chinese carrier.
Cargo probably isn't a starter, an airport 40 miles northeast of BHX is much better set up to serve that market.
Taking off Paul Kehoe's rose tinted specs for a moment, just how many additional passengers might be attributed to the 3000m runway? My guess is between 250,000 - 500,000 per annum. If my lower estimate is achieved then I think the airport should be well satisfied, but probably still out of pocket.
I doubt whether any of the more recent runway extensions (Cardiff, East Midlands - or the 2nd runway at Manchester) have either yet provided a financial return for their airport operators, or attracted anything like the new business that the airport operators were hoping for. sadly I believe that BHX will join that rather disappointing list.
For as long as the UK continues to be so London-centric I see no possibility that any significant long haul business will find it's way to BHX. The "national" airline has zero interest in serving the nation, being satisfied feeding it's long haul network from airports, which in fairness, are more in need of an air connection to London than BHX. The business market is such that we're just not going to see multi daily services from BHX to cities like New York or Chicago - the front end traffic just wouldn't support them, and business passengers demand the flexibility of a 2 or 3 x daily service - it's unfortunately a chicken and egg situation.
Long haul is largely going to be IT traffic, that may well grow with the operational possibilities that the extension provides; this along with further long haul services possibly to the Indian subcontinent, serving the the ex-pat community from that region, and just possibly, a Chinese carrier.
Cargo probably isn't a starter, an airport 40 miles northeast of BHX is much better set up to serve that market.
Taking off Paul Kehoe's rose tinted specs for a moment, just how many additional passengers might be attributed to the 3000m runway? My guess is between 250,000 - 500,000 per annum. If my lower estimate is achieved then I think the airport should be well satisfied, but probably still out of pocket.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: herefordshire
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without being either unfair or unkind to you ATNotts, you are just trolling out hyperbole.
The point I was making is that there is a clear dichotomy here without either side having any clear and precise knowledge as to what is going to occur - and this on the basis of a multi-million investment in infrastructure at Bhx.
One final point and, perhaps I am a pedant here. What is London-centric? I would prefer to use the John Betjeman assessment of the same problem - metropolitan. London finished at the end of the Metropolitan Line!!
The point I was making is that there is a clear dichotomy here without either side having any clear and precise knowledge as to what is going to occur - and this on the basis of a multi-million investment in infrastructure at Bhx.
One final point and, perhaps I am a pedant here. What is London-centric? I would prefer to use the John Betjeman assessment of the same problem - metropolitan. London finished at the end of the Metropolitan Line!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY
Rumour has it on the EZY thread that on the back of the extra based aircraft one of the new routes from EDI will be BHX......interesting that their press statement about the new based a/c focuses on the strong inbound tourism market at EDI, something that has perhaps put them off a BHX base?
As for the runway extension, I agree with Monty, lofty political ambition and a desire to hit headlines has come over commercial realities. I am not even sure that there will be a significant increase in long haul charter flying once the extension is open with TCX and MON currently reducing their long haul ops it could be down to TOM who can't seem to decide if they prefer doing long haul from BHX or EMA
Do we? There has been no official announcement has there, just comments made by the airline (which have been made before)?
As for the runway extension, I agree with Monty, lofty political ambition and a desire to hit headlines has come over commercial realities. I am not even sure that there will be a significant increase in long haul charter flying once the extension is open with TCX and MON currently reducing their long haul ops it could be down to TOM who can't seem to decide if they prefer doing long haul from BHX or EMA
We already know Qatar will be coming soon probably with 787s
Monty Gordo
Do I detect some pedanticism here? London-centric means that everything revolves around London, which it has done for many years, and always will do. Why I don't know, but there's no point in trying to change that situation as it won't happen!
The point I made was that more often runway extensions don't pay for themselves.
Furthermore, that, in my opinion, the gain in passenger number directly attributable to the BHX runway extension may be as few as 250,000 per year. Perhaps others hold a different view. what are your thought on the likely benefit in terms of PAX numbers?
Where "trolling out hyperbole" comes into that I don't know, and whilst on the subject of definitions, perhaps you could explain the meaning of the word "trolling" in this context.
What is London-centric
The point I made was that more often runway extensions don't pay for themselves.
Furthermore, that, in my opinion, the gain in passenger number directly attributable to the BHX runway extension may be as few as 250,000 per year. Perhaps others hold a different view. what are your thought on the likely benefit in terms of PAX numbers?
Where "trolling out hyperbole" comes into that I don't know, and whilst on the subject of definitions, perhaps you could explain the meaning of the word "trolling" in this context.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lichfield
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX
Im afraid the musings of individuals on here about the benefits or otherwise of the runway extension are irrelevant. The Airport company shareholders and other interested parties have deemed it worthwhile to go ahead and the construction of the runway extension is underway. As I have said before on here the West Midlands and its people have just as much right to secure infrastructure investment as people in London or any of the of the other English regions.
As for PK at least he has succeeded in raising the profile of Birmingham Airport and BHX is included in the whole debate on wider UK Airport capacity. More recently the BHX marketing team have managed to attract new services from both legacy and low fares airlines in quite difficult economic times. The glass is half full!
Daza
As for PK at least he has succeeded in raising the profile of Birmingham Airport and BHX is included in the whole debate on wider UK Airport capacity. More recently the BHX marketing team have managed to attract new services from both legacy and low fares airlines in quite difficult economic times. The glass is half full!
Daza
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: herefordshire
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATNotts
I don't want to be drawn into semantics because I don't think this thread is the place for it. However, as you asked, I will answer your points.
Firstly, I do not think the runway extension will have a significant impact on pax numbers at Bhx. The airport management was drawn into a PR battle where the fact that the runway at Bhx was seen as a bar to its long-term development and standing, always kept it out of the 'premier league' of UK airports. If the extension had been established 20 years ago, well, the story might have been different.
You say 'centric' I say 'metropolitan'. That is purely my choice; to use a word well established in the English language and which clearly refers 'to the chief city of a state or country'. Centric?, look it up...
As for trolling, the word is now being abused. Its origins stem from fishing where lines are drawn in, thus drawing in rhetorical exaggeration.
I hope that helps
I don't want to be drawn into semantics because I don't think this thread is the place for it. However, as you asked, I will answer your points.
Firstly, I do not think the runway extension will have a significant impact on pax numbers at Bhx. The airport management was drawn into a PR battle where the fact that the runway at Bhx was seen as a bar to its long-term development and standing, always kept it out of the 'premier league' of UK airports. If the extension had been established 20 years ago, well, the story might have been different.
You say 'centric' I say 'metropolitan'. That is purely my choice; to use a word well established in the English language and which clearly refers 'to the chief city of a state or country'. Centric?, look it up...
As for trolling, the word is now being abused. Its origins stem from fishing where lines are drawn in, thus drawing in rhetorical exaggeration.
I hope that helps