Troubled airport XXX needs to diversify more

[Phileas Fogg]

now most terminals have become little more than glorified bus-stops

Please show me a bus stop with a shopping mall inside it!

Or to take the petrol station example: if you don't want to queue behind the guys and gals buying their milk, paper and a weeks worth of chocolate, use the 24h self-service pump and pay by credit card.

What if one doesn't have a card or doesn't have it with them?

[wiggy]

Once upon a time, people did go to the local airport for its social/amenity/leisure value; now most terminals have become little more than glorified bus-stops,

Different times. I certainly remember the likes of Manchester being used for "social" purposes by my relatives when I was a lad, but that was almost 50 years ago, when the then new terminal opened , in the days when there was no real landside/airside divide, so unofficially at least we had the run of the terminal and it's facilities and AFAIR car parking was free ( we travelled by bus anyway). In most modern major UK airports the plan is to get passengers only through the security "firewall" and into airside ASAP, hence the location of the shops/social facilities - which of course makes them completely inaccessible to casual visitors/family and friends of pax. As for the cost of car parking...

As I suspect you know some of the larger French regional airports still have some very good restaurants landside that do attract local custom, especially for the long lunch - and they also don't charge a fortune for short term parking or refund the fees for those that dine.......

[Barling Magna]

.

Most of these airports had their best years in the loco boom between around 2004 and 2008, when the Blair-Brown debt-fuelled binge was at its height.

I'm no fan of the Labour Party, but let's not perpetuate some Tory myths either. After a short period of budget surplus in Blair's first term (due to spending restraint) in the late 1990s, the UK had a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007, BUT by historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP. Bear in mind that the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. When the credit crunch hit - and that was a global crisis sparked by US action on toxic loans and Lehmann Brothers - tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a rapid deterioration in public finances. The Blair-Brown binge crashed in 2008 and Osborne's policies have exacerbated the situation. Never forget to blame the greed of bankers either...



Surely the lo-co surge is simply explained by the product life cycle? Even if the credit crunch hadn't happened, the lo-co growth would have levelled off and started to rationalise......

[LGS6753]

Barling -

Happy to have an economic debate off-line but this probably isn't the place!

However, I do take issue with your view that the loco boom would have levelled-off in the mid-noughties. Even in recession, the major players have continued to add to their fleets. Without recession, the increase would have been greater. Think too of the depth of the recession in the eurozone and the effect that has had on the propensity to travel, yet still fleets have increased.

[Fairdealfrank]

Being brutally honest with yourself, can you ever see yourself answering the question "So what are you doing this weekend?" with "thought I'd hang out at Heathrow. It's got a superb chilled atmosphere and there's always something interesting to do."

Once upon a time, people did go to the local airport for its social/amenity/leisure value; now most terminals have become little more than glorified bus-stops, expensive to use and maintain. Customers/passengers don't want to spend any longer there than absolutely necessary and airport managers rejoice in statistics that show how many hundreds of thousands of people pass through their facility

Yes, back in the day we did go on to the airport for social reasons (most couldn't afford to fly!), to spend time on the viewing terraces, a bit of people-watching and celebrity spotting, or to see mates who worked in the landside, etc.. After the pubs closed (2230 or 2300 in those days), it was off for a late night cup of coffee, either at Heathrow or Heston services.

Of course it couldn't happen now because of security considerations.

[Fairdealfrank]

troubled airports

These small local airports and their surrounding areas need two things to reinvigorate them:

(1) the ending of (or major reduction in) APD;
(2) a domestic route to/from LHR, say 3-4 flights/day each way.

Regretably, neither is going to happen.

MME is a classic but not the only example, the airport went into terminal decline once BD pulled the MME-LHR route back in 2009. KL's link to AMS clearly isn't enough.

The UK must be the only country that has:
(1) very few UK airports (7) linked to LHR, its national hub airport;
(2) the only country with so many airports (over 20 each) linked to other countries' hubs, AMS and DUB;
(3) the only country to have just TWO of it's many carriers to have a presence at LHR, its national hub airport.

How on earth did we get into such a mess?!

[anothertyke]

mess--what mess?

Probably a rhetorical question Fairdeal but I just can't resist taking the bait.

1. How many airports could generate enough traffic to really merit service to LHR which are not currently served? It's a small country especially weighted by population. Surface access is what really matters.

2. If you go for a strategy of full on commercialisation and privatisation as UK did, don't expect a nice neat planned solution like KLM/AMS. Expect shareholders breathing down the neck of BA questioning every marginal activity like Connect out of MAN and BHX. Expect third level routes to be shed to flybe and Eastern who can't obtain slots at the hub and couldn't afford them even if they could get them. That's the market.

3. Market has produced the locos and point to point to an unimagined degree. Look at the places you can go direct from any of the top ten airports. The need for hubbing is that much less. So the opportunity is reduced, not just at LHR, but at CDG and BRU as well.

4. Suppose R3 does eventually get built, I wonder what proportion of the extra capacity will be taken up by regional spoke to hub on a genuinely commercial basis paying their share of the infrastructure costs. Quite a few backs of quite a few envelopes are going to be filled up doing those sums over the next year or so. But I don't think we will ever see the equivalent of United Express or American Eagle serving Plymouth or Inverness out of Heathrow.

[CelticRambler]

Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank

(2) a domestic route to/from LHR, say 3-4 flights/day each way.

No, not for a typical regional population. Leisure travellers rarely want to pay the fares needed to access a hub just to visit the associated capital city. It's cheaper to take the bus/train and they've got time to spare. There are rarely enough business travellers to justify that level of connection on an aircraft with more than 19 seats which is why so many routes have traditionally been PSO.

For commuter shuttle services and long-haul trips, both types of traveller will make terrestrial arrangements to get themselves to the hub that offers the best combination of departure time and price for their needs and no troubled regional airport will ever be able to compete with that.

Where they can compete, is in providing their local market with (much) less frequent but more direct routes to places that have a particular signficance for that audience, as well as offering a range of unique services that the security concerns of a million passengers per annum just don't allow at a bigger facility; and in between times, recover some of that "retro" attraction and educate people to expect more from their local airport and airline. Steve Jobs did it for electronic gadgets; there's no reason why it can't be done in aviation.

[Fairdealfrank]

mess--what mess?
Probably a rhetorical question Fairdeal but I just can't resist taking the bait.

1. How many airports could generate enough traffic to really merit service to LHR which are not currently served? It's a small country especially weighted by population. Surface access is what really matters.

2. If you go for a strategy of full on commercialisation and privatisation as UK did, don't expect a nice neat planned solution like KLM/AMS. Expect shareholders breathing down the neck of BA questioning every marginal activity like Connect out of MAN and BHX. Expect third level routes to be shed to flybe and Eastern who can't obtain slots at the hub and couldn't afford them even if they could get them. That's the market.

3. Market has produced the locos and point to point to an unimagined degree. Look at the places you can go direct from any of the top ten airports. The need for hubbing is that much less. So the opportunity is reduced, not just at LHR, but at CDG and BRU as well.

4. Suppose R3 does eventually get built, I wonder what proportion of the extra capacity will be taken up by regional spoke to hub on a genuinely commercial basis paying their share of the infrastructure costs. Quite a few backs of quite a few envelopes are going to be filled up doing those sums over the next year or so. But I don't think we will ever see the equivalent of United Express or American Eagle serving Plymouth or Inverness out of Heathrow.

Was rhetorical of course! 20 years ago there were some 20 domestic airports linked to LHR. With adequate LHR expansion this would probably have remained the case as there would not have been the pressure on slots (both availability and price on the secondary market) and many carriers including "no-frills" would probably be present.

1. Surface access matters, so does choice and avilability, especially with road congestion and crowded and often expensive railways.

2. It's a distorted market because the market wants a larger LHR and the govt. says "no".

3. Agreed, but it's not either/or. Hub connections are needed for business, the export drive and inward investment. Otherwise everything is sucked into the capital (to roughly quote Vince cable). That's why other similar-sized countries do it, even those with high speed rail.

4. Who can say, but expansion ends the secondary slot market and creates new slots, all things then become possible. Bear in mind that all the potential new longhaul destinations need feeder flights.

[CelticRambler]

Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank

Bear in mind that all the potential new longhaul destinations need feeder flights.

Not flights necessarily - AirFrance is already feeding its long haul traffic from CdG with TGV code share arrangements. Other SkyTeam partners use Thalys to feed Brussels and AMS.

[PAXboy]

Indeed CelticRambler, now if only the UK govts of the last 50 years had expanded the rail network to dovetail with the roads and ports (air + sea) we might be somewhere.

They didn't and we are not. Forget HS2, it's not going to work and it's not going to happen.

Sorry to be a pessimist but I've lived in the UK for too long.

[onyxcrowle]

What we need is a loco like Ryanair or Norweigian. To buy a fleet each (and easyjet).
With smaller Aircraft rangimg from twotter for little islands etc through Dash 8 , Saab 340 right up to Cseries or E170 175. And then offer REAL loco prices
Not like flybe. Ryr already like secondary airports.
Smaller Ac on a vast intercity inter uk and scottish airports all highland ones.
Building a network to rival for example Intercity rail.
So eg Fly RYR Regional to Edi or Lba-Sumburgh.
Offer tourist season flights from english cities to The hebrides. Not everyday but enough to tempt tourists perhaps from arriving GLA and having to Drive a hire car for hours then take the ferry.
Any such airline could undercut current inter island flights etc.
As cheaper tickets etc and services theyve never had.
It could be the answer.
Routes like Huy/Dsa to Lcy. Using a small Ac at first if nunbers rise increase availability n more timings.
But if done right it should make a killing.
As afaik Flybe arent loco prices.
We may all hate ryr but they if anyone could make it work.
So on my point.
Kind of a straw poll.
Just for arguments sake the above mentioned that they are to start services.
What routes with a no frills outfit. That already goes to secondary airports . But could now go even smaller.
Perhaps offering the odd Sumburgh -Lcy flight or Sumburgh Huy /Dtv.
Sumburgh has little airline choice but is a big airport..And lots of stands.
With oil offices across the uk. Id bet they could fill an E170. RJ100.
So what routes would you select and from where to where....
Can be any operating passanger airports. How about Lydd.
If you had Domestic London bound flights using an E170. How about Lydd etc.
Thoughts guys?

[CelticRambler]

Onyx, it is impossible to offer "REAL loco prices" with that kind of operation. As it is, LoCos such as Ryanair already depend on subsidies of dubious legality to make even a seasonal service to many a "Troubled airport XXX" pay its way.

Some elements of the LoCo model could be adopted to keep costs under control, but if Joe Public doesn't pay realistic (i.e. high) fares, then airport XXX will remain as troubled as ever. The challenge for airlines and airports is to provide the kind of service for which Joe Public enthusiastically wants to pay a realistic fare.

[Mickey Kaye]

The first thing this airports should look at is why they have so few GA movements.

[Flitefone]

Aci Europe the airports body has a policy paper that discusses that for airports in Europe with fewer than 5m pax pa, it is extremely difficult to make money...

https://www.aci-europe.org/policy/position-papers.html

This is not just a UK problem, although certainly APD has an impact. But so does security, privatization of airports and so on, all of which are Europe wide.

Smaller airports need multiple revenue sources, passengers are at best a small piece of the pie

FF

[elle may clampit]

Interesting topic

Just musing your point fairdealfrank, about the UK having so many connections to other countries' hubs - AMS, DuB especially. Amazing that the Government in the UK appears happy to strangle their own businesses with air tax while wilfully handing over good business to other grateful recipients outside the country.

Surely it would make some sense for treasury to super-tax passengers transferring outside the UK economy to foreign hubs and perhaps even use such increased revenues to offset the burden on air routes within the country?

Or is that barking logical?

[SWBKCB]

Or is that barking logical?

Probably, but almost certainly illegal within the EU!

[PAXboy]

elle may clampit (Yes, I remember watching the series when it was first broadcast!)

Or is that barking logical?

Whatever it may be, it is not practical! UK govts decided to take a laissez faire approach (and were not stopped by anyone) for the last 30 years - the cost of changing to a 'managed' approach would now be astronomical.

Having encouraged regional airports, they now find that some have been very successful at the cost of the main hub. Some folks may have predicted it and others might say 'unintended consequences' but it is now an established process. It could be changed but only by a very considerable amount of our British Pounds and a political will that does not exist.

[Fairdealfrank]

Interesting topic

Just musing your point fairdealfrank, about the UK having so many connections to other countries' hubs - AMS, DuB especially. Amazing that the Government in the UK appears happy to strangle their own businesses with air tax while wilfully handing over good business to other grateful recipients outside the country.

Agreed, and it's not just the recent nonsense with APD, it has much to do with failure to expand LHR when it was needed and the consequential secondary slot market that prices small regional aircraft and all but 2 UK carriers out of LHR

Surely it would make some sense for treasury to super-tax passengers transferring outside the UK economy to foreign hubs and perhaps even use such increased revenues to offset the burden on air routes within the country?

Or is that barking logical?

Probably, but almost certainly illegal within the EU!

Logic doesn't come into it with the EU!

Whatever it may be, it is not practical! UK govts decided to take a laissez faire approach (and were not stopped by anyone) for the last 30 years - the cost of chaning to a 'managed' spproach would now be astronomical.

Difficult to know who could have stopped it. Of course the laissez faire approach is not quite universal: the market wants LHR expansion yesterday, the govt says "no".

Having encouraged regional airports, they now find that some have been very successful at the cost of the main hub. Some folks may have predicted it and others might say 'unintended consequences' but it is now an established process. It could be changed but only by a very considerable amount of our British Pounds and a political will that does not exist.

Regional airports have been successful with increasing shorthaul point-to-point, thanks to the no frills carriers to a large extent, but point-to-point can't go everywhere.

Much of this has created new opportunities and encouraged new business. Not all of this has been traffic diverted away from the hub airport.

The hub airport is still required, and longhaul connectivity needs adequate capacity there, and adequate numbers of feeder flights.

Yes, train services between major centres is much imoroved, both in frequency and travel times. However a journey to the nation's hub, LHR, is not always an easy one.

Most train journeys involve changes at stations, most of which do not have lifts, most involve crossing London zone 1 and a couple of tube journeys. that's what lengthend the actual journey over the "headline" journey times.

The govt's rail policy does not involve the provision of a Schiphol-type station at LHR, and maybe one day it will be accessible directly from the west only. Even the airport bus to Watford has stopped, probably because no long distance trains stop there anymore.

So the ability to check baggage at a local airport and transfer to the world via LHR could be more appealing than some are willing to accept. People in other parts of the UK doing business in the Thames Valley may also be attracted by not having to spend a couple of awkward hours faffing around on onward travel down from London.

However without LHR rwy expansion in our lifetimes, it is pure speculation, irrespective of any point of view.

[PAXboy]

FDF

Even the airport bus to Watford has stopped, probably because no long distance trains stop there anymore.

Yep, I lived in Watford during the time that it was stopped. If you have not got enough capacity on the railways - they save time by not stopping as much, so that they can increase frequency.

When Bleurgh & Co were elected in '97 they blurbled about 'an integerated transport policy' but that was impossible because it had already been fragmented. One simple example that showed itself in the commuter stations feeding London from the North West (and I dare say most of the rest too):

• Tories allowed BR to sell of the car parks for profit.
• They got refurbished = nice
• Prices went through the roof = nasty
• Many folks stopped using the parks and used all the surrounding roads - then walked for five minutes = Bad
• Bad? Yes, because the locals then had parking from 06:30 up and down the street often obstructing the sightlines as they emerged from their drive into the road.
• Yes, we were one of those houses in Watford who had to get the council to paint double yellow lines so that we could safely use our drive. Which only displaced the traffic further down the road to some other hapless house.

I humbly suggest that the above sequence of unintended consequences is replicated across untold areas of British public life in the past 30 years.

For LHR? As I've said before, it's Game over. For the regions? They will continue to do rather well. With LCC for short/medium haul and a Euro hub (or MAN/GLA) for long haul with other carriers. Some small regionals (like Plymouth) will close but that is to be expected.