BIRMINGHAM - 6

[nigel osborne]

Crewmeal,

Asked Canadian Affair about any extra flts or routes to BHX.

Got a reply say they have none.

Didn't they forms after Globespan and they were not particulary keen on BHX either.

The 3330s last year on our weekly YYZ were also full.crazy

Nigel

[bhx bod]

Orenair.

Nigel.
If you read the post your question would be answered.
The reason why many airlines over the years have tried BHX is to tap into the Indian market in particular Amritsar.
However as I have already said that market is already well served so a service may never happen.
You know yourself many airlines have tried the same basic routing with varying degrees of success.Only TUA and AI have really gained from it so I would agree why else would they open a service? I am merely passing on information from what I believe to be a trust-worthy source.After all this is a rumours and news site is it not?Discuss!!!

[ATNotts]

Nigel

The 3330s last year on our weekly YYZ were also full.crazy

Crazy? No, brilliant! Full aircraft should ensure high yield and excellent profit.

Put a second weekly service on, perhaps the LF drops to 75% and result could be 2 3/4 full aircraft, plenty of empty seats, lower yield - less profit!

Airlines are not in the business of saturating a market, but in making a profit - unless of course you're Alitalia!!

[crewmeal]

ATNotts Why restrict to a charter company? Why not a carrier direct? If Wardair could fill a 742 3-4 times a week back in the late 80's why cant BHX do it now? What has changed so much since then?

[LAX_LHR]

What has changed so much since then?

A lot of British families moved out to Canada back then, which supported the various flights. The market now, however, is quite literally dying out.

The majority of traffic is now tourist traffic rather than VFR. Even LBA used to get Wardair B747's, unlikely to get such capacity now though.

[LAX_LHR]

The Qatar A300 went to EMA.

[bhx bod]

Yes,QTR3251 landed just after 1330 @EMA.Slightly disappointing!

[nigel osborne]

AT Notts,

Andrew ,

So at what point do you try an extra frequency when this 1 flight has been stuffed for the last 3 years at least.

Surely at MAN the 1st service got to 98% so they put another on etc.

Yield yes thats a factor , but with no 1st or business class and only a small premium economy, where does the extra yield come from when C A are charging virtually the same fares out of both airports.

They told me if I want to use the BHX service I will need to book ASAP as it will sell out very quickly again.Course it will I said as you only put on 1 flippin flt !!!

They have been bussing passengers to MAN after it sold out..

So yes the word crazy under these circs seems to fit.

Nigel

[nigel osborne]

Re Qatar A300

It used a BHX flight tag as we were the nearest airport yet diverts to EMA..thats simply not cricket

We are only Cat 1 at present though and it was a bit drizzly here.

Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

It used a BHX flight tag as we were the nearest airport yet diverts to
EMA

Did it actually divert? Flight path seems to indicate it was always EMA bound?

[groundhogbhx]

Destination was Bruntingthorpe, which was below limits, so yes it did divert.

[LAX_LHR]

Destination was Bruntingthorpe, which was below limits, so yes it did
divert

No problem. I wasn't sure if the EMA visit could have been planned in a similar way to Cathay Pacific, when they sent the 3 B747's to Kemble for scrap all 3 called at MAN first.

[ATNotts]

Nigel,

I really feel we go around this topic every couple of months on this thread - it sometimes feels like Groundhog Day!

The demographics are such that, as LAX_LHR said, the VFR traffic that underpinned the Toronto service through the 1970s, 80s and 90s has literally died out, leaving purely tourists - in both directions of course.

I think you will find that Air Transat has a their own station at MAN, so the cost of adding a service to the BHX roster is more expensive than doing the same at MAN.

Best hope of an additional service to Toronto is a based unit from the likes of TCX or TOM - and I reckon the odds on that are some where between no chance, and slightly less than that.

Interestingly, in 30 or so years, the "Toronto" problem may well become evident on routes to Amritsar and Islamabad - for the same demographic reasons.

[nigel osborne]

AT Notts,

yes a pity for BHX. You seem to be saying it doesn't matter how many years BHX has a full plane nothings going to change.

MAN and GLA have a base station ,but at one time both did not, so an airport has to start somewhere.

BHX problem was that it didn't have a long enough runway to support Vancouver and Calgary, hence why we could only get Toronto.

However at least that part has changed now, so in theory technically BHX could support a base as well.

Quite clear by Canadian Affairs reply to me that they have simply very little interest in BHX irrespective of loads or yield and theres very little you can do about that.

Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

MAN and GLA have a base station ,but at one time both did not, so an airport has to start somewhere.

A what now? They're both outstations with no based staff (surely?) and third party handling. A commercial decision has been made to focus on these airports and pull back from others, most recently EDI/NCL/EXT.
Consider TS withdrawing from their monopoly on that famous backwater EDI-YYZ, only for Air Canada to forsake their former base at GLA and re-launch Scotland from EDI with Rouge thrice weekly.

BHX problem was that it didn't have a long enough runway to support Vancouver and Calgary, hence why we could only get Toronto.

Not so much, given the amount of MAN/GLA combos we see, if they'd wanted to serve a YVR-BHX-GLA-YVR it's entirely doable, the runway, as ever, is a red herring. I think these are commercial rather than operational decisions.

[OltonPete]

Vancouver/domestic stats October

October domestic stats - Source: CAA for monthly pax figure the rest are estimates based on SBS logs and airline seat-maps

.............................2013....avg pax....load factor.. 2012
ABERDEEN............9510.........45.............63%........8 557
BELFAST CITY.... 24583.........68.............66%......27900
BELFAST INT.... 14248......120..............77%........2916
CITY OF DERRY ....4345.......128.............68%........4751
DUNDEE.....................0 ........................................1475
EDINBURGH........27113........74..............72%......27443
GLASGOW...........19418.......54..............60%......19400
GUERNSEY............3012...................inc in JER .....2359
JERSEY..................3265.......51..............63%...... ..4591
INVERNESS...........3065.......57..............63%........29 61
ISLE OF MAN.........3646.......35..............45%.......3774
NEWCASTLE...........739..........8..............28%.......10 75

Flybe have significantly cut BHD capacity after this month with easyjet not reacting (the increases were planned ages ago) and the net result is easy have raised fares which hopefully won't reduce pax numbers this month and first indications it is not (I monitor fares most days). I am sure they will look at the schedule again with Monday morning BFS-BHX, Wednesday evening BHX-BFS and all Sunday services selling out most weeks. In fact evening loads on Monday and Tuesday are also high. I assume a third Sunday, Monday and Wednesday service has yet to materialise as there is no justification for it on both legs although Sunday might be able to support it in both directions.

Canada

Although it is true the ex-pat British population has dwindled the ex-pat Sikh population in Canada seems to be growing with nearly 500000 (if you believe that well known source) of which of 200000 are in the Vancouver area and I thought this might give a bit of hope for a weekly summer service.

I certainly don't have any substantive figures relating to travel figures between the Midlands and Vancouver Sikh communities but you would hope that this has been taken into consideration by the varies travel companies and not over-looked. I only have anecdotal evidence that there is a reasonable amount of travel between the communities but whether this is enough to sustain a weekly service I don't know.


Pete

[chinapattern]

You would think that YYZ with a 98% load factor that there would be more room
on the route.

The same could be argued for UA on EWR. While I understand that to some extent the Canadian market has "died out" we are actually seeing an increase in flights across the pond. Next summer MAN will have Air Canada Rouge, DUB gains x3 new services to YYZ aswell as the resumption of SFO. This along with new USA flights from MAN and EDI. Even LGW gets a link to BOS next summer.

BHX has been very vocal about gaining a new link to the US and for whatever the reason they've been unsuccessful. If the market isn't there then surely the BHX team would be the first ones to realise?

[GayFriendly]

Well I suppose BHX does have a new link to the U.S with Biman flying to JFK - however at 2 x weekly I hardly think it will appeal to a huge number of BHX originating pax or see a huge increase in pax flying to NYC.

BHX must be feeling somewhat red-faced with their shiny new runway extension but no apparent interest from U.S or Canadian carriers in operating from it. The commercial aspects of flying from BHX across the pond save for the long standing single UA service simply can't add up although as chinapattern points out, one would hope that BHX have realised this. Being sandwiched between the multiple daily flights options available from LHR and MAN as well as competitively priced connections with EI via DUB to the U.S can't help the situation either.

[groundhogbhx]

I think the airports eyes were in the other direction when the decision was made, only time will tell if they were right.

[jabird]

Quite clear by Canadian Affairs reply to me that they have simply very little interest in BHX irrespective of loads or yield and theres very little you can do about that.

So you are basically saying it is a political decision?

I very much doubt that. If any non-state airline is going to play politics these days, we know the kind of games MOL play with smaller airports and regulators, and he's had his spat with Brum in the past - because he can.

For a long haul operator, airport costs are a smaller part of the deal anyway, but the crewing comparisons with MAN might well be a factor.

I would never make any assumptions about yields based on loads - long haul leisure on a low frequency will almost always get good loads, because you can always discount the final few seats.

You want to go on a flight that is popular at a time that is popular? Well, I'm afraid that's their response.

In an industry where margins are wafer thin as they are, there isn't much to gain from taking a risk on another flight, even if that too would be popular.