SOUTHEND 5
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once Flybe take a beating at London City, maybe they will de-camp east?
I bet the news of 5 x Daily BA EMB to Dublin from City went down well at Exeter!
I bet the news of 5 x Daily BA EMB to Dublin from City went down well at Exeter!
Flybe would seem to have been the prime candidate to operate domestic services from SEN (who else is there?), but their move into LCY would seem to taken out many of the obvious destinations - either operating themselves or Stobart in BE cls.
Maybe Buster will be right?
The model of being an alternative destination for those cities (both domestic and continental) who don't have a London service looked like a good one, but other than Stobart where are the airlines to operate such routes?
Maybe Buster will be right?
The model of being an alternative destination for those cities (both domestic and continental) who don't have a London service looked like a good one, but other than Stobart where are the airlines to operate such routes?
Jota
I see that in an interview with Routesonline Jota are planning to add another aircraft to their fleet, probably an RJ85 this time, by next summer at the latest with the option of a third also a possibility. They obviously have confidence in this new market that they are entering. They have a nine day charter this month to get things rolling and are close to obtaining LCY certification for their crews.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tagron
Tagron - your post sums it up fairly accurately.
Although the SW jetstream is not unusual, last week's was particularly troublesome - FAO and TFS routes at 100kts plus exactly "on the nose" for the bulk of, if not the entire cruise. Compound that with primary alternates with poor wx and the fuel required is going up.
It's a foible of SEN that we just have to live with. Would more A320s help? Possibly. Could they be justified for the actual (small) number of problematic RTOWs? Probably not.
As an aside, RWY 24's obstacle problem may soon be, literally, cut down.
Hope this makes things clearer - eJ wants SEN to work as much as we all do.
Although the SW jetstream is not unusual, last week's was particularly troublesome - FAO and TFS routes at 100kts plus exactly "on the nose" for the bulk of, if not the entire cruise. Compound that with primary alternates with poor wx and the fuel required is going up.
It's a foible of SEN that we just have to live with. Would more A320s help? Possibly. Could they be justified for the actual (small) number of problematic RTOWs? Probably not.
As an aside, RWY 24's obstacle problem may soon be, literally, cut down.
Hope this makes things clearer - eJ wants SEN to work as much as we all do.
BK100
With reference to A320s being used in place of A319s, isn't it the case that the currently based A320 is fully utilised on routes other than TFS? For example it's operating the IBZ later today and tomorrow will operate PMI, AMS and ALC services. I believe its extra capacity is sold on all routes it's scheduled to operate so I would have thought use of A320s in the longterm might be possible - and profitable.
From what you say regarding 24's climb path obstacles (the critical ones anyway) I assume that are just trees. Looking at the Type A chart that does seem to be the case, apart from obstacle No. 16 which looks to be the church spire on Bridgewater Drive(?). Certainly it will be good news if the current weight restrictions on that runway can be eliminated.
With reference to A320s being used in place of A319s, isn't it the case that the currently based A320 is fully utilised on routes other than TFS? For example it's operating the IBZ later today and tomorrow will operate PMI, AMS and ALC services. I believe its extra capacity is sold on all routes it's scheduled to operate so I would have thought use of A320s in the longterm might be possible - and profitable.
From what you say regarding 24's climb path obstacles (the critical ones anyway) I assume that are just trees. Looking at the Type A chart that does seem to be the case, apart from obstacle No. 16 which looks to be the church spire on Bridgewater Drive(?). Certainly it will be good news if the current weight restrictions on that runway can be eliminated.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expressflight -
The current A320 is definitely used to capacity on other routes - so much so in fact the option to swap it last week to do the FAO was not available. Whilst it would be great to have a batch of A320s for us to play with, someone (much cleverer than myself) in hangar 89 has deemed that they can be more full more of the time at other EZY bases.
You are entirely correct regarding the trees. I'm lead to believe that this has long been a sticking point with all parties involved but which will hopefully be concluded soon.
Ofcourse once the whole fleet is shiny A320 neos these matters won't bother us!
As a wee aside, at present with the A319 the following (ballpark) takeoff weights are where some double (and triple) checking becomes necessary:
RWY24 nil wind - 61.8-62t ish.
RWY06 5kt tw - generally upwards of 63t.
I must stress that these are in no way official eJ performance figures but are merely off the top of my head.
The current A320 is definitely used to capacity on other routes - so much so in fact the option to swap it last week to do the FAO was not available. Whilst it would be great to have a batch of A320s for us to play with, someone (much cleverer than myself) in hangar 89 has deemed that they can be more full more of the time at other EZY bases.
You are entirely correct regarding the trees. I'm lead to believe that this has long been a sticking point with all parties involved but which will hopefully be concluded soon.
Ofcourse once the whole fleet is shiny A320 neos these matters won't bother us!
As a wee aside, at present with the A319 the following (ballpark) takeoff weights are where some double (and triple) checking becomes necessary:
RWY24 nil wind - 61.8-62t ish.
RWY06 5kt tw - generally upwards of 63t.
I must stress that these are in no way official eJ performance figures but are merely off the top of my head.
BK100
Thank you for that very interesting weight information. Could you just clarify if the weights indicated are for ISA conditions or for this morning's actual ambient temperature?
Thank you for that very interesting weight information. Could you just clarify if the weights indicated are for ISA conditions or for this morning's actual ambient temperature?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expressflight
The aforementioned weights are just ballpark figures that the SEN based crew, when seeing them, would think they need to check things as there is a potential issue.
I couldn't tell you that these are ISA based numbers or not, they're merely indicators brought about by SEN experience and observed RTOWs.
I couldn't tell you that these are ISA based numbers or not, they're merely indicators brought about by SEN experience and observed RTOWs.
Last edited by BK100; 18th Oct 2014 at 19:20. Reason: readability
CAA provisional stats
For the Stobart / Flybe routes:
I know that comparing different calendar months is not really valid, but I'm trying to make a comparison between August when Europe was largely in holiday mode and traffic was much more leisure focussed, and September when everyone was back at work and traffic becomes more business reliant
Left column is pax in Aug-2014, right 2 columns are pax and load factor in Sep-2014
Antwerp ..... 1,392 (33 round trips, load factor = 29%) ..... 1,193 (58 round trips, load factor = 14 %)
Caen ..... 2,092 (25 round trips, load factor = 58 %) ..... 1,084 (17 round trips, load factor = 44 %)
Groningen ..... 2,065 (26 round trips, load factor = 55 %) ..... 1,550 (26 round trips, load factor = 41 %)
Maastricht ..... 927 (26 round trips, load factor = 25 %) ..... 498 (17 round trips, load factor = 20 %)
Munster ..... 2,093 (31 round trips, load factor = 47 %) ..... 1,445 (30 round trips, load factor = 33 %)
Rennes ..... 3,142 (35 round trips, load facor = 62 %) ..... 2,848 (56 round trips, load factor = 35 %)
Note - I'm assuming a 72 seat aircraft for all sectors, that the September frequencies are the same as for October and there were no cancellations. If any of these 3 assumptions are wrong, happy to be corrected by those with better information
Edited to include number of round trips and load factors based on ExpressFlight's post on 16 September
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...ml#post8658911
I know that comparing different calendar months is not really valid, but I'm trying to make a comparison between August when Europe was largely in holiday mode and traffic was much more leisure focussed, and September when everyone was back at work and traffic becomes more business reliant
Left column is pax in Aug-2014, right 2 columns are pax and load factor in Sep-2014
Antwerp ..... 1,392 (33 round trips, load factor = 29%) ..... 1,193 (58 round trips, load factor = 14 %)
Caen ..... 2,092 (25 round trips, load factor = 58 %) ..... 1,084 (17 round trips, load factor = 44 %)
Groningen ..... 2,065 (26 round trips, load factor = 55 %) ..... 1,550 (26 round trips, load factor = 41 %)
Maastricht ..... 927 (26 round trips, load factor = 25 %) ..... 498 (17 round trips, load factor = 20 %)
Munster ..... 2,093 (31 round trips, load factor = 47 %) ..... 1,445 (30 round trips, load factor = 33 %)
Rennes ..... 3,142 (35 round trips, load facor = 62 %) ..... 2,848 (56 round trips, load factor = 35 %)
Note - I'm assuming a 72 seat aircraft for all sectors, that the September frequencies are the same as for October and there were no cancellations. If any of these 3 assumptions are wrong, happy to be corrected by those with better information
Edited to include number of round trips and load factors based on ExpressFlight's post on 16 September
http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airpo...ml#post8658911
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 19th Oct 2014 at 13:49.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was always going to be a struggle to make any sort of profit on a thin route while loses are easy to come by and Stobart/Flybe has 6 of them at SEN.
September might not be the Summer school holiday peak but it should still be a busy month and should be a lot busier than say November and February.
The big question is will the passenger figures slowly grow over the months to save the Southend operation from closure? As recent history has shown at Oxford and Cambridge that is often not the case so there must be a few worried people in the Stobart camp.
One must assume that when setting up the SEN base that the Airline went for what it thought were the best routes in terms of potential profits but if all 6 routes continue to perform badly will they try a different 6 routes. Can't see it some how.
Maybe I am being a little pessimistic as it is still early days to come to any sort of conclusion and most airlines seem to make losses in the winter.
Out of interest what was the load factor on the Waterford route which was closed down?
Makes you wonder though why the airline did not start services in the Spring to maximize earnings through the whole of the peak period to carry it over the winter period.
Lets all hope that the airline gets over its rocky start and that good growth will be just around the corner.
September might not be the Summer school holiday peak but it should still be a busy month and should be a lot busier than say November and February.
The big question is will the passenger figures slowly grow over the months to save the Southend operation from closure? As recent history has shown at Oxford and Cambridge that is often not the case so there must be a few worried people in the Stobart camp.
One must assume that when setting up the SEN base that the Airline went for what it thought were the best routes in terms of potential profits but if all 6 routes continue to perform badly will they try a different 6 routes. Can't see it some how.
Maybe I am being a little pessimistic as it is still early days to come to any sort of conclusion and most airlines seem to make losses in the winter.
Out of interest what was the load factor on the Waterford route which was closed down?
Makes you wonder though why the airline did not start services in the Spring to maximize earnings through the whole of the peak period to carry it over the winter period.
Lets all hope that the airline gets over its rocky start and that good growth will be just around the corner.
Last edited by LTNman; 19th Oct 2014 at 06:41.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suffolk, Diss, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have been told they need to be hitting a 59% LF to start making money although this isn't the rule due to many factors, such as ticket pricing etc
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davidjohnson6,
Thanks for the detailed analysis on performance. Stobart Air will need to stick with over the next year at least on the most of these routes, as being too risk averse will spell doom for the airports reputation and could serve as a deterrent to other carriers from coming in.
A few things strike me, I can see the wisdom of picking spots on the map where gaps exist and serve these routes to attract mainly inbound tourists. This shows that Stobart broadly has avoided the high volume routes where the most demand exists. However, it appears quite clear that easyJet is getting most of its traffic or rather it's most successful routes are those that serve the outbound market, being attractive mostly to the airports catchment. Eg AMS, FAO, ALC and the broader sun routes.
Stobart could experiment with some near points in Europe that could be of most interest to the locals. Sons research could be conducted. But points like Düsseldorf, Paris ( I accept Eurostar but other London Paris routes work ), and some French holiday routes for summer, Brest, Rennes etc.
My view is that the current strategy and route choices are difficult to develop due to lack of brand awareness.ie Flybe, for this reason selection routes that are to core or busier destinations could be marketed more effectively in the carchment - even if there are other airlines operating from the London area. I suspect the locals would like to fly from the local airports. Perhaps identifying the primary airports that FR do not serve ex STN that can be reached by 72 could a good start...
Thanks for the detailed analysis on performance. Stobart Air will need to stick with over the next year at least on the most of these routes, as being too risk averse will spell doom for the airports reputation and could serve as a deterrent to other carriers from coming in.
A few things strike me, I can see the wisdom of picking spots on the map where gaps exist and serve these routes to attract mainly inbound tourists. This shows that Stobart broadly has avoided the high volume routes where the most demand exists. However, it appears quite clear that easyJet is getting most of its traffic or rather it's most successful routes are those that serve the outbound market, being attractive mostly to the airports catchment. Eg AMS, FAO, ALC and the broader sun routes.
Stobart could experiment with some near points in Europe that could be of most interest to the locals. Sons research could be conducted. But points like Düsseldorf, Paris ( I accept Eurostar but other London Paris routes work ), and some French holiday routes for summer, Brest, Rennes etc.
My view is that the current strategy and route choices are difficult to develop due to lack of brand awareness.ie Flybe, for this reason selection routes that are to core or busier destinations could be marketed more effectively in the carchment - even if there are other airlines operating from the London area. I suspect the locals would like to fly from the local airports. Perhaps identifying the primary airports that FR do not serve ex STN that can be reached by 72 could a good start...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stobart/Flybe must have allowed for a period of loses in the early days but they could do with a couple of successful routes while they wait to see if the others pick up.
LTNman
You make a very good point regarding the start dates of these new routes in June/July, plus the fact that they were not put on sale until April. I believe that was not the original plan and was always going to make 2014 more difficult.
Another point worth making is that the ATR42 rather than the 72 was the original intention for the launch of most, if not all, the routes. Indeed, at the initial presentations to airlines back in 2011 CFR was always presented as a daily route for a 50-seater rather than 70-seater for the first couple of years. I know some will point out that the larger aircraft has allowed lower lead-in fares to be offered, but not to as great an extent as would be the case of a 150-seater against a 70-seater for example.
Direct comparisons between August and September are indeed valid for GRQ, MST and FMO (which carried many more pax in both months than did the Cityjet service the previous year incidentally) but the ANR and RNS routes both had increased flight frequencies in September. CFR offered 25 rotations in August against 17 in September and the far better pax numbers/load factor in August might suggest that it is a route which needs a higher frequency to meet its particular market needs; especially for business users outside of the summer season.
In light of the above I think it is just too early to judge the potential of any of the routes except perhaps MST and the October figures may show some improvement - let's wait and see. Both RNS and CFR also now codeshare with AF which adds credibility to the operation in the eyes of the French market.
You make a very good point regarding the start dates of these new routes in June/July, plus the fact that they were not put on sale until April. I believe that was not the original plan and was always going to make 2014 more difficult.
Another point worth making is that the ATR42 rather than the 72 was the original intention for the launch of most, if not all, the routes. Indeed, at the initial presentations to airlines back in 2011 CFR was always presented as a daily route for a 50-seater rather than 70-seater for the first couple of years. I know some will point out that the larger aircraft has allowed lower lead-in fares to be offered, but not to as great an extent as would be the case of a 150-seater against a 70-seater for example.
Direct comparisons between August and September are indeed valid for GRQ, MST and FMO (which carried many more pax in both months than did the Cityjet service the previous year incidentally) but the ANR and RNS routes both had increased flight frequencies in September. CFR offered 25 rotations in August against 17 in September and the far better pax numbers/load factor in August might suggest that it is a route which needs a higher frequency to meet its particular market needs; especially for business users outside of the summer season.
In light of the above I think it is just too early to judge the potential of any of the routes except perhaps MST and the October figures may show some improvement - let's wait and see. Both RNS and CFR also now codeshare with AF which adds credibility to the operation in the eyes of the French market.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly operating brand spanking new ATR72-600s that need to be paid for does not help the bottom line - one has to wonder if some written-off, but not too knackered ATR42/72s would have been a better choice?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
virginblue
EI-REL and EI-REM are ATR72-500s and not part of the recent delivery of brand new ATR72-600s. When the new 600s were delivered (for the Aer Lingus Regional/Stobart Air operation) two of the older 500s were swapped to support the new Flybe/Stobart Air routes.
EI-REL and EI-REM are ATR72-500s and not part of the recent delivery of brand new ATR72-600s. When the new 600s were delivered (for the Aer Lingus Regional/Stobart Air operation) two of the older 500s were swapped to support the new Flybe/Stobart Air routes.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Ireland
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest what was the load factor on the Waterford route which was closed down?
Dont have LF to hand but the totals were:-
LTN - 32,283
SEN - 44,294
The SEN service was all over the place for the last year of operation with the ATR42 only semi-based in Waterford positioning up and down to Dublin empty to cover other routes.
5Q
Dont have LF to hand but the totals were:-
LTN - 32,283
SEN - 44,294
The SEN service was all over the place for the last year of operation with the ATR42 only semi-based in Waterford positioning up and down to Dublin empty to cover other routes.
5Q
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Antrim
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From recollection WAT was better L/F wise than all those routes and it ran twice daily. There was normally around 30 pax on the many flights I took, and it seemed to grow over time with free rail ticket promotions and marketing. Assuming there wasn't lots of day return pax using it, I would have thought a daily run would be very profitable.