Troubled airport XXX needs to diversify more

[davidjohnson6]

As many are aware, the UK is possibly (or even probably) over served with passenger airports. As most airports try to operate as commercial companies, we end up with quite a few airports that are, at best, 'struggling'. The constant refrain is that airport XXX needs to diversify more.

Newquay needs to diversify. Perhaps Exeter as well. And Bournemouth. Gloucester already is diversified. Kemble has gone into scrapping. Cardiff has a big maintenance base. Oxford does private flying and training. Manston does cargo but needs to diversify more. Maybe also Cambridge needs to diversify a bit more. Norwich does some offshore energy. East Midlands does cargo in a big way. Blackpool needs to diversify. So does Doncaster. Humberside has diversified into offshore energy and private flying. Tesside does its bit like caravan storage but needs to diversify a lot more. And Prestwick. Mustn't forget Dundee either. Perhaps also Derry ?

Then of course there are all the passenger airports in the UK that are doing OK but fancy a bit more revenue from other diversified sources like cargo, police/ambulance, private facilities or FBOs etc etc. Yes that means large established airports pinching customers from airports which are desperately trying to diversify to survive

The point is that there is only so much aviation activity the UK needs or can profitably support. Diversification is an easy word to say but it's a lot harder to magic up those profitable activities which don't involve aircraft carrying passengers

[cornishsimon]

I'm fairly certain NQY is doing most of this.

Air ambulance based
2 bristow SAR choppers will be based
MX/scrapping facility being built for apple aviation.
Museum open
SAR training centre
Even the airport fire service offer driver blue light training !

They just don't have much in the way of scheduled movements.

[Dannyboy39]

Luton Airport is probably the most diverse airport in the country:


-A hub for low cost carriers, with easyJet supplying c5m passengers per annum. Primarily A320, B737 size aircraft operated.
-El Al operate a 'full service' route to Tel Aviv, often on the B767 and occasionally the B777.
-A maintenance base for 3 major UK airlines, as well as supporting third party operators.
-Head offices for the same 3 major airlines.
-FBO facilities plus maintenance. The leading private airfield in the UK.
-Cargo operations.


Just proves how much potential the airport would have if the location was slightly better.

[adfly]

Bournemouth is pretty diverse, there is a paint shop, scrappers and quite a few based light aircraft there.

[Cleared For A Coffee]

I'd add Liverpool to that list. Possibly just 3 scheduled airlines by next Summer. Loads of General Aviation, but could diversify a lot more. Cargo etc is non existent.

[bad bear]

Liverpool ?? they have more departures today before 12 noon than Doncaster have in the whole of next week!

bb

[SWBKCB]

Has Kemble ever been an airport in anything other than name? Similarly Gloucester, Oxford, Cambridge could be called airfields which have diversified into being airports with airline services being added to their other activities.

I agree that there are a lot of airports in the UK that would love to have LPL's problems - they've come a long way since the LCC's arrived.

[Phileas Fogg]

I believe Biggin Hill, Kemble and Llanbedr have injunctions in place preventing them from being (airline) airports.

[FRatSTN]

Don't get diversification confused with quantity. I'd say Liverpool is less diverse than Doncaster despite it being a lot busier.

Without doubt for me as the most diverse airport in the country is Manchester. Certainly in terms of passenger services.

Manchester sees regional/domestic, short haul, long haul, low-cost, full service/flag carriers and holiday charter, all to a significant level.

Plus Manchester is pretty much the only airport to see just about every major airline operating to/from the UK. For instance BA, Virgin, EasyJet, Ryanair, Jet2, Monarch, Thomson, Thomas Cook, Flybe and BMI Regional all operate from Manchester and is the only airport in the UK where all of these airlines operate.

[Phileas Fogg]

BA, Virgin, EasyJet, Ryanair, Jet2, Monarch, Thomson, Thomas Cook, Flybe and BMI Regional all operate from Manchester and is the only airport in the UK where all of these airlines operate.

Wow, that's fascinating, I'll make a note of it in my diary!

[davidjohnson6]

My point in opening this thread was to point out that many airports are already trying to diversify into all sorts of areas, but that there is competition for these activities from big players (eg Luton) for the money involved.

Are there really enough diverse aviation related business activities for the smaller passenger airports to be able to keep out of trouble or is further 'diversification' a bit like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow ?

[Tu.114]

This situation is not restricted to the UK. In Germany through the 1990s and 2000s, several small cities predominantly in the former GDR suffered the closure of their military airbase and tried to turn it into a gold mine by restoring the runway and building a new terminal. This usually was with the clear intent of attracting of all airlines Ryanair.

Thus, hubs like Neubrandenburg, Schwerin-Parchim, Cochstedt, Altenburg-Nobitz etc. were created. Ryanair indeed came and flew from some of those fields for a few years. The history of all those fields is comparable: sooner or later, the communities found out that the traffic created was not appropriate to the incentives paid (for example, not related to FR: Schwerin-Parchim cost the state 36 million Euros since 1994 and served 4600 passengers in 2005 and apparently none in 2013) and no longer caved in to FRs demand. So FR did what it always does in such a situation: it left for greener pastures.

And now there are several beautifully restored airports that see the occasional charter flight and some general aviation traffic. Attempts to diversify and to attract cargo traffic are occasionally made, but I have not yet heard of the break through at either of those fields. Worth the money? I doubt it.

[racedo]

Blunt answer is that there isn't enough business to keep all the airports open.

Desire of eveybody is to "fly" from local airport so they don't have to drive 2 hours to nearest big one. Great so Mr and Mrs A wish local airport to have 737/320s operating out of there for the 1 or 2 occasions a year fly from there but wish to pay same price as flying from Stansted/Man etc.

Reality is that small local airports do not have a long term future but unless there is a realistic culling then they will limp on for another 15 years. Companies exiting and fresh faced business people with cash entering before they too exit with empty pockets.

[racedo]

The best thing some airports could do, those will never reach the stage of self support, is to apply to set up as a new town, use Runway for main road in and taxi ways for side roads.

Its brown field sites with potential.

[V12]

The irony is that there is way too little runway capacity in the SE and far too much elsewhere in the regions. Much of the latter was originally developed for military use, and is now redundant; indeed just how many of our remaining military air bases do we really need?

I think most leisure travellers' choice of departure airport is largely driven by price, and most people I know will drive at least a couple of hours to save £100-£150 in today's austere times. Take a family of 4 and maybe you're talking of a 3 hr drive to save £600.

Now put the loco bases on a map and add driving catchment areas and the justification of many non-loco served airports just isn't there. On that basis 90% of air travellers are caught by LHR, LGW, LTN, STN, MAN, SOU, BRS, BHX, NCL, EDI, INV and ABZ.

Ryanair and easyJet have demonstrably proved that you can go to the Med on a nice shiny big plane for as little as £50 one way. Unless the local airports offer that sort of deal, passengers won't compromise with old, small, or prop planes, nor will one flight a day do; they want choice of times too! Then its the killer case of the laws of diminishing returns. People drive past their 'local' airport to go to the big loco hub, so others follow. Airlines serving the local airport see a drop in numbers, so fares rise, so further drop. Airlines substitute smaller planes with far higher unit seat costs; so the routes become unprofitable; so the airlines pull out. The disparity between local and no-loco fares is so significant that its difficult to imagine any more than those 12 airports will be needed by the leisure market within the next decade.

And as we see, the business traveller is already heavily switching to the locos.

The cost of airport regulation, labour, capital equipment and maintenance is so high now for minor UK airports, there surely is no commercial future for them unless they have something special/unique in their area?

I wish it were otherwise but one has to remember: airlines are not there for providing what passengers want; they provide what passengers will pay for. And the passenger is clearly saying I want what is £100 cheaper down the road.

There is no point trying to offer daily/weekly 319/320 IT flights locally if you can't fill them and make money at hub prices. Otherwise you're playing against the market and you will lose, even as you extract local govt subsidies.

Today's pressure comes from local taxation (so cutting APD, subsidised airports etc.) and more housing. Some airports are ideal for that.

[Skipness One Echo]

BA, Virgin, EasyJet, Ryanair, Jet2, Monarch, Thomson, Thomas Cook, Flybe and BMI Regional all operate from Manchester and is the only airport in the UK where all of these airlines operate.

Year round based yes but that would only be really true if we forget Glasgow and Edinburgh, EDI with VS short haul only, though both are about to lose their huge BMI Regional operations shortly.

Blunt answer is that there isn't enough business to keep all the airports open.

There never was, like a lot of what has happened from 1997, and even since the coalition, planning too often remains in the realm of fantasy.

[racedo]

The irony is that there is way too little runway capacity in the SE and far too much elsewhere in the regions. Much of the latter was originally developed for military use, and is now redundant; indeed just how many of our remaining military air bases do we really need?

There is runway capacity but desire is to grow airports bigger so flights can be offered to far flung destinations using transit passengers who add nothing, spend nothing.

Too many vested interests and nimbys to change the policy.

[V12]

racedo: good point, perhaps scrap APD and offer incentives for stopovers to balance out the demand. Then less need for new infrastructure.

Maybe we have too much business desire to retain traffic thru the UK; perhaps if we all used AMS for connections, then The Davies Airport Commission could be stood down…

[davidjohnson6]

Could we try to stay on topic please ? The question as to whether small regional airports can survive on passenger numbers alone has been long discussed. The refrain by many has been that regional airports need to diversify into other aviation related activities.

The question is whether there are enough other aviation related activities for all these other airports to diversify into.

[CelticRambler]

Originally Posted by racedo

Blunt answer is that there isn't enough business to keep all the airports open.

Desire of eveybody is to "fly" from local airport so they don't have to drive 2 hours to nearest big one. Great so Mr and Mrs A wish local airport to have 737/320s operating out of there for the 1 or 2 occasions a year fly from there but wish to pay same price as flying from Stansted/Man etc.

Surveys that I have seen recently agree between themselves that Mr & Mrs A's actual reasons for choosing a flight from airport YYY are (in order) Location, Flight times, and price. The reason they don't fly from XXX is more often due to a poor choice of destinations or flights at the wrong time rather than the cost.

At a trade fair last week where I was discussing this question with interested business parties, the opinion was unanimous: they don't want a token B737 or A320 appearing twice or three times a week. They want a smaller aircraft sitting at XXX around which they can build their business. It doesn't matter that the operating costs are higher because Mr & Mrs A are getting a whole lot more "added value" from the service provider (and that doesn't just mean a key to the executive lounge or an extra couple of centimetres of legroom).

Unfortunately, there is a misconception in the airline industry that aircraft have to be kept flying to make money, when the reality is that the diversification needed means letting us on the "outside" use aircraft that way we want. The same applies to regional airports. I've currently got a portfolio of businesses and regional customers waiting to spend several million €/annum on a new air service, but it is proving almost impossible to get any AOC holder to agree to park his 'plane where we can see it, i.e. on the ground where we can make (a lot) more than the paltry $5/3€70 profit per passenger reported by IATA for a "good" year.