BELFAST CITY AIRPORT (BHD)

[belfastmark]

Originally Posted by West Brit

Seats for sale cap is an excellent mechanism for controlling growth at BHD. IF removed BHD could expand to 4 million pa without going over the cap on flights. This would upset the aviation balance in NI. Noise pollution is a massive issue at BHD and must be controlled. Most professionals who are in the know would realise this so I wouldn't expect it to be removed - however never say never.
If I remember correctly the analogy in defence of the cap removal from management at the city airport went something like 'it's like having a 300 bedroom hotel and only able to fill 250 rooms'. Well why did you build a 300 bedroom hotel when you knew you could only hire out 250 rooms?

I can't quite grasp your thinking. If an airport is attracting new airlines and boosting the local economy with jobs at the airport and inbound pax spending money why the hell shouldn't it be allowed to grow? It shouldn't be restrained it should be encouraged. For th benefit of N.Ireland.

And all this bull about there's another airport up the road, valid point.. But Why didn't BA go back up there, why did IOM flights move to city, why did Veuling, Klm and Brussel Airlines choose City Airport? because they want to fly from there. It suits them better. Simple as that. Easyjet, Jet 2 etc are happy in the other airport with its longer runway and 24 hours ops. So why not let both airports grow if they can?

[West Brit]

The government white paper on the future of aviation stated that the majority of future growth should happen at BFS. The city airport is in a built-up area. The same could be said about LCY. Close LHR and expand LCY because business wants an airport at the centre of London. If the airport passenger cap remains then BHD is running out of room and airlines would be forced to use BFS for additional capacity. Thus residents are protected and additional jobs would be created at BFS. Somehow I don't think airlines will refuse to come to NI because they can't use BHD.

[panpanpanpan]

Using the same logic as seems to be demonstrated by others on this board, I see there are potentially 9000 new jobs to be created in the Titanic quarter. I say this should be stopped now, the extra cars will create traffic problems and pollution, the extra people will cause problems needing to be fed and looked after, it will be busy a lot longer during the day, this is a disaster! There are plenty of areas way outside Belfast that could be used, what's wrong with Ballymena or Omagh?

Sounds a bit ridiculous in this context doesn't it? New jobs and growth should be encouraged and the people that make it happen should be applauded. There are a few who will never be happy about anything, ever! Change is bad!

Westbrit, as far as I know LHR aren't actively seeking LCY to close, correct me if I'm wrong? Looking at LCY flight info, Harbour has a long way to go before catching up!

[West Brit]

I can't understand what the problem is here with people who just don't seem to grasp the issues with relation to planning etc it is common sense.

[True Blue]

And some seem to miss the point that, given an open road, capitalism walks all over us mere human beings. Change is not bad, but not all change is good and in some areas, a degree of control is necessary. At what point do you think BHd will say, we are big enough? And some day, that might be something happening right beside your home and you might be glad of a few rules.

[panpanpanpan]

I can't understand why a commercial business that has still room to expand and grow should be disadvantaged to let a competitor try and achieve their aspirations! It's a free market economy and job creation and competition should be encouraged.

[EI-BUD]

This debate is the same old drill as before... Nothing new really people. Some in favour of one or the other. Just scroll back to a few years ago and the same argument... Sadly the views being posted in the main are short term in nature, failing to consider the strategic perspective of what is right for the long term providing for the adequate level of return to make reinvestment possible to the necessary levels. Before I get a barage of responses, I fly from BHD, it is my local airport, I like it a lot.

[pholling]

can't understand what the problem is here with people who just don't seem to grasp the issues with relation to planning etc it is common sense.

And some seem to miss the point that, given an open road, capitalism walks all over us mere human beings. Change is not bad, but not all change is good and in some areas, a degree of control is necessary. At what point do you think BHd will say, we are big enough? And some day, that might be something happening right beside your home and you might be glad of a few rules.

The saying 'just because you can doesn't mean you should' comes to mind. The issue isn't that there isn't a valid reason for looking at the benefits, externalities and distributional effects of growth at BHD. There is, and people will disagree on what those benefits are and how to compensate people for the externalities and distributional effects. The problem is that a seat cap, is not a particularly good way to limit the effects. It does not directly effect noise, there are lots of other variables that effect community noise. Far more effective would be to have a Quota limit for noise. A lot of current aircraft flying out of BHD, i.e. A320s, have a higher noise exposure per passenger then larger aircraft. This is because of the physics of gas turbine design. Yes a 777 is louder than and A320, but it takes more A320 flights to lift the same payload and the reduction in noise exposure is not commensurate with the increase in operations. Further, while passenger numbers do effect traffic, the mix of traffic is often more important for congestion. If people are being dropped off by personal automobiles or private hire cars that has a far higher impact than those travellers who take public transport, hackney carriages and park at the airport.

A seat for sale limit is crude but easy. There are a lot of deadweight losses, i.e. it is not efficient. A more nuanced policy could produce overall be better, have less externalities and better distributional effects. However, politicians and voters don't like well thought-out policies, because they are 'hard'.

[mart901]

It would possibility be easier for everyone if BHD didn't get any more new routes because reading this same old drivel every time it happens is becoming painful. Nowhere else in the world could aviation enthusiasts develop a passion for noise pollution and regard airport growth capitalism. Just look for instance at the SEN forum and the attitude of posters towards what they regard as nimbys. Best of it is there's people posting on here that don't live anywhere near East Belfast. Thankfully plane spotters don't make airport planning decisions. Now can everybody catch themselves on and leave this nonsense behind them.

[madgav]

As a long time reader of, and occasional poster on, both the BFS and BHD threads, I find myself very much in agreement with the idea that from the point of view of growth, route development/sustainability, and simply mounting a stronger challenge to DUB, we would be far better off with one airport rather than two - or at least one major international airport and one smaller regional one, something akin to what BFS/BHD used to be perhaps.

But the reality is that that is not what we have, and it's difficult to imagine a realistic scenario where that could happen in the foreseeable future. I have no axe to grind about either airport, I live 20 mins from both BFS and BHD and am happy to use either (although I would probably have a slight preference for BFS due to more/better parking options, 24 hour and all-weather ops, etc).

Last year BFS got a bunch of new routes, this year they seem to be going to BHD. But as someone has pointed out, both airports are now in significant growth and hopefully there will be more routes to come for both. It's difficult to see yesterday's announcement as anything other than great news for Belfast

We still need APD dealt with though. I do have an axe to grind about that.

[mart901]

Its interesting to see the difference in child fares now since the removal of APD, its like half on some of U2's fares

[stab3.5up]

So back in the real world of nuts and bolts of airfield operations. Are BHD going to spend some infrastructure money on international flights parking stands etc. We currently have the walk across the walk way with the doors closed to block it off for the KLM punters or bussing them. EI international flights bussed and no doubt BRU flights bussed to international arrivals. Surely they need to start spending money and serious amounts on the airport. Ok rant over thank you and good bye

[mart901]

Also in addition to your post madgav its worth having a look at the regional airports in the south and how they, ORK especially have suffered at the hands of DUB's expansion and motorway links. I can see the argument but I would say its quite likely a benefit having 2 airports fighting for routes, at its most simple level, if an airline doesn't get what it wants at one airport, it can go to the other. Yes that can have its disadvantages but airlines, in particular the low cost ones keep saying its all down to landing fees as to where they fly. We should celebrate the growth in both our Belfast airports, I live closer to BHD but often use BFS as its cheaper with EZY much of the time, I'm happy to use either and I believe the competition keeps fares down. I was talking to someone recently who said it was great news EI were starting ALC because the fares have crept up such a lot and great to have a quality airline on the route and being able to fly from his doorstep.....would save the trek to DUB. We criticize the bucket and spade market but if that's what the punter wants then lets have it. So glad to have BRU though, really good on so many levels.

[madgav]

Hi mart,

Yes I agree it's probable that without the competition between the two airports, fares would be higher. The counter-argument to that was that higher fares could make routes more sustainable and we wouldn't have so many routes being chopped & changed or moved around. Airport would be more profitable and pax numbers would exceed the critical mass necessary to make terminal improvements and better road/rail links viable etc etc. And in turn this would encourage more pax to use the airport. All theoretical of course.
Fair point about LCC though (potential for higher airport fees actually restricting LCC presence and/or the number of routes flown).
Old discussion that has been done to death of course and doesn't change what is happening in the real world

It's interesting reading the ORK and SNN threads, both smaller than either Belfast airport (pax wise) and apparently having some issues obtaining and sustaining new routes. Great to see some real successes recently at ORK, let's hope we can continue to have similar success up here

I had another look at the government white paper mentioned in an earlier post. Hard to believe when it was written in 2003 we only had one scheduled international route (AMS with EZY). Shame that the rapid growth experienced very shortly after that was damaged by the recession. But it's easy to forget how far we have come and it's great to see both Belfast airports reporting very substantial passenger growth in recent months as well as continuing route development

[mart901]

And have a week read of this;

Hopes high Germany route will follow Brussels flights from Belfast City Airport - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

[madgav]

It's one of those ones that has to happen sooner or later isn't it. The lack of any German routes at all is a particularly big hole in Belfast's route network. FRA or MUC perhaps? Would be nice to eventually have both. I know, I'm greedy.

Lowish loads for Vueling mentioned in that report (60%) but IIRC they have achieved this in their first season despite EZY loads on BCN having been pretty much unaffected.

Seems like BHD really are proactively trying to develop their route network though

[mart901]

Bit of an unknown quantity as of yet but 2016 schedule in place. There is demand, in the holiday period anyway.

[BFS101]

Report in the Belfast Telegraph today debating NI Airport consolidation...


Why a merger of Belfast's airports remains unlikely - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

[SecondDog]

Originally Posted by BFS101

Report in the Belfast Telegraph today debating NI Airport consolidation...


Why a merger of Belfast's airports remains unlikely - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Terrible article with references to reports that were contradicted by industry experts. Still, BT hardly a world beater nowadays, so not unexpected.

[madgav]

Terrible article with references to reports that were contradicted by industry experts. Still, BT hardly a world beater nowadays, so not unexpected.

I was about to post something but to be honest I couldn't be bothered ranting about all the bits I disagreed with. Best ignored.