BELFAST AIRPORT INTERNATIONAL

[SecondDog]

Originally Posted by cuthere

Hi EI-BUD. I'm not remotely surprised.

Everything you say makes perfect sense. Speaking of sense, hopefully this news will focus the minds of those who a) thought that BFS was in for a bonanza of international routes, and b) the minds of those who inexplicably described Brexit as an "opportunity".

It would have been kept quiet if it wasn't too good a back slapper for our politicians to give themselves. (Despite the folks on the London side of things doing a lot of the work)

You say you are waiting for the pro BFS posters to comment on the BFS thread. If you only come to do a bit of negative assessment, perhaps that is just as much of the NI aviation scene's problem as the people you are baiting?

I think it is obvious that United thought they could improve their lot one way or the other and were proved correct. Everything else is just others trying to boost their agenda.

[True Blue]

Cuthere, like there are no risks in remaining? You know the great thing about capitalism, it goes where there is money to be made. And that includes doing business in the UK if there is money to be made there even if we are out of the EU. And it also includes Ryanair, regardless of what they say now.

[cuthere]

True Blue, I won't list the many, many negatives already apparent post the Brexit vote, and the U.K. hasn't even left yet. I'll instead leave you to list all the immediate benefits. I wish you luck, as even the head of the DEFEATED pro-Brexit vote in NI, good old Arlene, has signed a letter begging for the same benefits for NI as were available pre-referendum.

Still. Those who wish to live in denial will live in denial. You thought Easy "restricted" capacity before? Wake up. Smell the future.

[Una Due Tfc]

So United threatened to cut the route a couple of years ago, were given an exemption from APD.

United threatened to cut the route this year, have been given £3 million a year.

I wonder if they'll threaten to cut it again 2 years from now.....

[owenc]

Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc

So United threatened to cut the route a couple of years ago, were given an exemption from APD.

United threatened to cut the route this year, have been given £3 million a year.

I wonder if they'll threaten to cut it again 2 years from now.....

At that point I'd suggest dropping the route.

[SecondDog]

Originally Posted by owenc

At that point I'd suggest dropping the route.

And you would be as wrong then as those whining about spending public money now. People really are clueless as to what goes on in business life here never mind aviation

[mart901]

whatever way you want to look at it aviation is a ruthless business like banking, retail, hospitality etc etc. Brexit may or may not be a partial factor but every airline represented at Bfs has played games before to get their way, FR being the most well known at playing airports one against the other and blagging subsidies. It's fairly common nowadays for airlines to seek funding for routes and government to offer subsidies to gain/keep them. As has been stated DUB is seeing big growth and BFS will probably need every assistance in getting transatlantic flights to come and stay. As is often the case their is a negative response on here but I reckon stormont has done us well, I can't imagine if there was a queue of airlines they would have committed to such a deal, we now have 3 years guaranteed service during which time other routes and carriers can be attracted.

[EGAC is Better]

Having read all the comments about the subsities this route now attracts its fair to say bravo to United Airlines, who played a commercial 'A' game.

It now costs the public purse over £5m per year to sustain this service. Reading the reported 'load factor' numbers mentioned above suggests there is no shortage of takers for seats either. I understand yield and this leads me to these conclusions. Either:

A) United played the game and knew a threat to pull the service would end this way thus increasing even further their profit; or
B) Its an admission by United that operating the B757 transatlantic services just doesn't make enough money to make them worthwhile. NCL has clearly suffered and other UK regional airports have done so in the past.

I'm very much in the A camp on this but if there is a hint of B being true, other airports need to start worrying. United are fast approaching a period whereby it will become upgauge or die. Once the B757 starts to be retired (early 2020's at this stage) they have no suitable aircraft to continue the 'thin' transatlantic routes.

[josechung]

I'll have to admit that I have mixed feeling about the UA story..

Im due to fly with them in November and if they had pulled out I would have been screwed, also as someone with 100k UA miles at least now I know I have 3 years to use them.

However, I do question the £3 million price tag. UA knows they had NI over a barrel and seem to have played their hand well. What's not clear is what they are supposed to spend it on (someone on twitter mentioned advertising for the BFS route).

[gopaisleygo]

Don't expect too much more advertising, they (UA) have generic programmes albeit tailored to a specific market.
Along with the Newcastle story, this Belfast "marketing support" lol, proves these thin routes are not necessary. Money goes straight to HQ and they'll ditch it when they want to. It simply proves that BFS is unprofitable - maybe give pensioners free flight passes, NI gov paying for it anyways!!
Oh, and btw, have to ask what their UK sales guys are up to? First ncl, now this ? Laurels, rest, arse and fat spring to mind haa haa

[stab3.5up]

What a disgusting waste of money. This madness must be stopped. If it's not working it's not working. Will this end with the airport paying passengers to use the New York service. It's different giving a deal to get a route off the ground so to speak but when you are flogging a dead donkey stop with the hand outs.

[owenc]

I'm still not sure if I agree with the idea that the route was unprofitable.

They knew Stormont would cave in if they suggested terminating the route.

[panpanpanpan]

On face value this seems a strange arrangement, surely this opens up the whole problem of "what about me" from other airlines and indeed other airports!

The bribe has been paid to keep the UA going, in the meantime what happens the cash that Aldergrove will make on the back of it? If these flights are running with high load factors then that is a lot of people parking cars, buying items within the airport etc. Will there be some sort of clawback in order to try and mitigate some of the cash?

As has been mentioned, well done to the United commercial dept!

[mart901]

The route is profitable according to the BBC, and it's been in growth all year. UA can make more money using the aircraft on US domestic where they can turn it round more times and no doubt attract more business pax, the harsh realities of business. There is now a 3 year window of opportunity to build the route and/or attract other routes/carriers.

[owenc]

So the route IS profitable.

[EI-BUD]

EGAC,
Interesting read your two scenarios. I'd add a third scenario.
C) the route under indexes in terms of business class passengers compared to their other routes on the Atlantic. Add no onward connectivity at BFS to UK and Europe. There are opportunities redeploy the unit to another route, while probably collecting many of the regular high value customers ex Dublin, like the poster who is a frequent flier with a large account of miles.

The 757 is a superb aircraft and very cost effective as has been well demonstrated to date. Its very discovery as suitable for TA ops has opened opportunities for UA, not just in on thin routes but on multi frequency routes. The airbus 321 neo will emerge as the replacement with a number of airlines. Then consolidation will play is part too.

The US is down to a few major carriers now after decades of losses and often a real lack of commercial reality. Now they are away from chapter 11 and must operate on a commercial basis. This will see them seek value for money and return on investment, so other airports may just feel the effects of this.

Less airlines means the airports are generally in a weaker position as airports don't have a lot of plan B options should airlines decide to pull out...

[EGAC is Better]

Very interesting point on the business class uptake EI-BUD. I did wonder how many of those seats leave empty.

In total agreement on the capability of the 757. The admission I talk about is exactly what you said, that it can be used more profitably elsewhere. Eg 3 or 4 hub to hub sectors per day internally within the USA. Couple this with the shift of a large amount of Atlantic flying transitioning to B767-300 out of EWR, its certainly seems United would prefer to use the 75's elsewhere.

An interesting point on the 321neo is that United have shown no interest whatsoever. Infact probably the opposite having ordered 100 737MAX9's which by all accounts so far don't have the capability to replace 757's across the Atlantic.

I suppose in the longer term the writing is on the wall for this service if it stays as is. In reality this £9m is just a stop gap while BFS and Stormont try to beg someone else to take on the route when United scarper.

[DC9_10]

Cannot understand why Brussels Airlines chose BHD when UA already fly to BFS and are the same alliance. Subsidy via tax payers funds maybe or fortunately for Mr Ambrose guaranteed by aunty Arlene. On the subject of subsidy, how much taxpayers money was given to KLM for the new AMS route. A route already served from Belfast. How much taxpayers money in total so far has been spent keeping LDY open. Glass Houses springs to mind.

[El Bunto]

A risky precedent set by the Executive to support a thin route that perhaps shuoldn't exist, in contrast to reaching elsewhere in North America or perhaps Mid-Eastwards. And if BA started 'pondering' again about more profitable use of their Heathrow slots or aircraft, would the Executive be able to find another £9 million to help them think it over...?

Re: KLM and Brussels, agreed that money was rather shiftily moved to them via public agencies but those are route-development funds just like UAL had many years ago. If they come back looking for more money after that then I think we can draw a parallel, but not before.

[DC9_10]

The AMS route was already developed. So why did KLM get route development funding. Why has LDY had tens of millions over the years of tax payers money on a vanity project that will never make a profit as a stand alone business. United,as a few suggested, had Stormont over a hoop and they caved in. It's probably the most profitable transatlantic 757 route now.