Britannia to close down Leeds/Bradford base???
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britannia to close down Leeds/Bradford base???
Heard a rumour from a Britannia pilot that they are very likely to close down its LBA base in summer 2003. then that aircraft will go to EMA for expansion there. Is there any truth in this?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard much the same about Britannia pulling out of Leeds, but that the decsion as to where to go would not be made until the final planning approval or refusal for Finningly had been made.
Peel Airports have been canvasing Britannia (amongst many other operators), and offering incentives that many other UK airport operators cannot afford to offer.
Peel Airports have been canvasing Britannia (amongst many other operators), and offering incentives that many other UK airport operators cannot afford to offer.
PPRuNe Secret Agent!
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big big shame for LBA if this happends.....
BY have had a base at LBA for nearly 25 years....I think David Hood needs to start an Leeds based airline.....
Is that right? Stephen Byers making the final decision about Finningley ?!!! Bloody hell, doesn't really give you that warm confident feeling inside does it !!!!
BY have had a base at LBA for nearly 25 years....I think David Hood needs to start an Leeds based airline.....
Is that right? Stephen Byers making the final decision about Finningley ?!!! Bloody hell, doesn't really give you that warm confident feeling inside does it !!!!
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously it will be a blow for any of the ground staff at LBA who lose out in the event of this move occuring, but frankly, the airport management have had it coming for a long time.
For a number of years they've known that there has been little risk of Britannia and others going elsewhere, knowing full well that there's a sufficiant customer base on the doorstep who wiould pay extra to fly from Leeds rather than go to MAN.
The astonishing arrogance of the LBA management at the start of the Finnningly enquiry was almost beyond belief, I wonder if they'll adopt the same ostrich act if Stephen Byers approves the Finningly development?
For a number of years they've known that there has been little risk of Britannia and others going elsewhere, knowing full well that there's a sufficiant customer base on the doorstep who wiould pay extra to fly from Leeds rather than go to MAN.
The astonishing arrogance of the LBA management at the start of the Finnningly enquiry was almost beyond belief, I wonder if they'll adopt the same ostrich act if Stephen Byers approves the Finningly development?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ummm...I'm not actually sure that BY have a base at LBA to close down in the first place. Sure, during the summer a single a/c is technically based here, but it is operated by MAN based flight deck and ground handling and engineering is performed by the generic Servisair, FLS et al. What might be happening is that Thomson are going to service their LBA programme with sub-contracted overseas operators and 'W' leg BY flights from MAN based machines. As Thomson's summer flying programme is barely 10 flights per week ex-LBA, then perhaps a based a/c cannot be justified. Whatever, their povisional 2003 programme is based around a based BY aircraft so it looks like their staying for another year.
The biggest mystery is why the situation has gotton to this stage. The My Travel group seems to find no trouble in flling seats ex-LBA, as you would expect given it serves a fairly sizeable urban conurbation. Indeed, MYT are now close to 30 weekly services, in comparison to Thomson's 10. Either Thomson have an inferior distribution network and cannot leverage the demand out of the region, or (more likely) demand is just as high but they find it more profitable to push the majority of it through MAN. The exception being the 10 or so flights to the most popular destinations which are marked up with huge supplements.
Of course if it *is* a matter of economics and not demand that explains Thomson's low presence, then the assertion must be that the management at LBA do have options to try and restore the balance. For example, the only logical explanation for Thomson's decision to stick a BY B757 into LPL this summer is that Peel offered them discounted rates that meant it was cheaper to fly a chunk of their Merseyside market out of LPL as opposed to MAN. One wonders why the management at LBA are unwilling / unable to offer something similar?
re: Finningley, I believe the decision rests with the Department of the Environment and the Regions (or something similar) as opposed to the transport secretary. Even with a favourable outcome in the next few months, it is unlikely flying will commence until at least Summer 2004. Of particular relevance to the Finningley debate is the possible merger of Easy and Go. Peel have made no secret of the fact that they will utilise their existing relationships at LPL to try and replicate the business model at Finningley. However with Go established at EMA, would a combined Easy/Go operation really want to plough money into developing a new base just a few miles up the road?
682
The biggest mystery is why the situation has gotton to this stage. The My Travel group seems to find no trouble in flling seats ex-LBA, as you would expect given it serves a fairly sizeable urban conurbation. Indeed, MYT are now close to 30 weekly services, in comparison to Thomson's 10. Either Thomson have an inferior distribution network and cannot leverage the demand out of the region, or (more likely) demand is just as high but they find it more profitable to push the majority of it through MAN. The exception being the 10 or so flights to the most popular destinations which are marked up with huge supplements.
Of course if it *is* a matter of economics and not demand that explains Thomson's low presence, then the assertion must be that the management at LBA do have options to try and restore the balance. For example, the only logical explanation for Thomson's decision to stick a BY B757 into LPL this summer is that Peel offered them discounted rates that meant it was cheaper to fly a chunk of their Merseyside market out of LPL as opposed to MAN. One wonders why the management at LBA are unwilling / unable to offer something similar?
re: Finningley, I believe the decision rests with the Department of the Environment and the Regions (or something similar) as opposed to the transport secretary. Even with a favourable outcome in the next few months, it is unlikely flying will commence until at least Summer 2004. Of particular relevance to the Finningley debate is the possible merger of Easy and Go. Peel have made no secret of the fact that they will utilise their existing relationships at LPL to try and replicate the business model at Finningley. However with Go established at EMA, would a combined Easy/Go operation really want to plough money into developing a new base just a few miles up the road?
682
