Regional Air Connectivity Fund - 19 routes
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The newspaper refers to the Derry-Dublin funding application being made for Citywing. How can Citywing be eligible? It is not an airline. It does not hold an AOC. This is an old tune, I know, but why is nothing changing?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drive time from Buncrana to Donegal Airport: about 90 minutes
Now, give us that point about "local airport" again...?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if I read today's spending review correctly, the routes that will get funding are:
I guess the Links Air routes could be a non-starter for obvious reasons.
Those four made it into the second round, but I do not see them mentioned in the spending review document:
After the first round, those four had already dropped out:
- Carlisle - Belfast, Stobart Air Daily return
- Carlisle - Southend, Stobart Air Daily return
- Carlisle - Dublin, Stobart Air Daily return
- Edinburgh - Oxford, Links Air Double-daily weekdays and daily return Sunday
- Dundee - Amsterdam, Flybe Daily return
- Derry - Dublin, City Wings Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekends
- Leeds/Bradford - Newquay, Flybe, Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter
- Norwich - Newcastle, Links Air Weekday double-daily return
- Norwich - Exeter, Flybe Daily return
- Southampton - Munich, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return, weekend
- Southampton - Lyon, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend
I guess the Links Air routes could be a non-starter for obvious reasons.
Those four made it into the second round, but I do not see them mentioned in the spending review document:
- Durham TV - Belfast, Links Air Double-daily return weekdays, single return Sunday
- Doncaster Sheffield, - Frankfurt BMI regional Weekday return
- Norwich - Charles de Gaulle, Flybe, Daily return
- Norwich - Dublin, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend
After the first round, those four had already dropped out:
- Derry - Birmingham, Flybe, weekday return
- Leeds/Bradford - Edinburgh, Flybe, double daily return weekdays, single daily return weekends
- Oban - Glasgow, no operator specified, 2 daily return flights (MFS)
- Oban - Barra, no operator specified, 3 daily flights (FS)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprised about this one
Leeds/Bradford - Newquay, Flybe, Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter
Given Flybe recent announcement on Doncaster - Newquay route
Leeds/Bradford - Newquay, Flybe, Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter
Given Flybe recent announcement on Doncaster - Newquay route
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not read too much into the applications. I don't think anyone is under an obligation to start the route and the funding is, if I am not mistaken, not spectacular (IIRC, something like a waiver of landing fees). I would be surprised if only half of the routes actually take off.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shocking waste of money. While I can see why routes to the Scottish Islands should receive support and probably already do I am at a loss why any route on this list needs government money.
Stobart comes out as a villain in all of this with their proposal for their double whammy services from their Carlisle airport using their own airline across the Irish sea for a town that has a population of just 70,000. Yes I can see the area's sheep farmers queuing up in their thousands for weekends away.
As for Stobart's proposed Carlisle's Southend service, which is a triple whammy, as they also own Southend, what is that all about? Carlisle already has an hourly town centre train service to London which is as quick as any service to London via Southend when you factor in minimum check-in times and the fact that Southend is on the coast and not in London.
I don't blame Stobart for applying for funding that at a stroke benefits all 3 of their enterprises but the service isn't needed and if there is a demand then it is for Stobart to carry the risk rather than looking for a government revenue stream.
Stobart comes out as a villain in all of this with their proposal for their double whammy services from their Carlisle airport using their own airline across the Irish sea for a town that has a population of just 70,000. Yes I can see the area's sheep farmers queuing up in their thousands for weekends away.
As for Stobart's proposed Carlisle's Southend service, which is a triple whammy, as they also own Southend, what is that all about? Carlisle already has an hourly town centre train service to London which is as quick as any service to London via Southend when you factor in minimum check-in times and the fact that Southend is on the coast and not in London.
I don't blame Stobart for applying for funding that at a stroke benefits all 3 of their enterprises but the service isn't needed and if there is a demand then it is for Stobart to carry the risk rather than looking for a government revenue stream.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't quite see why Sotbart is a villain.
Carlisle seems to be the exact place that this fund is aimed to help. It's a region which needs economic stimulation and it's a long proven fact that air service connections are a catalyst to economic growth.
Stobart have 48 seat aircraft that are ideal for this market. The Carlise, Penrith and the wider Northumberland / Cumbrian catchment area is particularly poorly served by air transport, as the only options are MAN (2 hours away) or NCL - a difficult crossing especially in marginal weather.
So, you have some regional flights into the local airport, with what is a comparatively small amount of funding over a couple of years to help the service get off the ground and help to cover the losses in the first few years.
it provides employment, boosts economic growth … hence satisfying the aims of the fund.
the routes will lose money initially, all new air services lose money in the first few years. But with support for a few years they have time to mature and develop and become self sustaining.
So, as I say, why exactly is stobart the villain? Are they any more of a villain than Flybe wanting funding for a LBA- NQY service? I think not,
Just because you don't want to use the flights, doesn't mean the people of cumbria won't be delighted to have direct access to air travel
And I know the usual arguments about the train being a good service will come to the fore, and i'm not saying it isn't but not everyone wants to go to the west end of london, and if you want to go anywhere north or east, then actually an air service to Southend is probably more appealing, efficient and will be probably be cheaper.
Carlisle seems to be the exact place that this fund is aimed to help. It's a region which needs economic stimulation and it's a long proven fact that air service connections are a catalyst to economic growth.
Stobart have 48 seat aircraft that are ideal for this market. The Carlise, Penrith and the wider Northumberland / Cumbrian catchment area is particularly poorly served by air transport, as the only options are MAN (2 hours away) or NCL - a difficult crossing especially in marginal weather.
So, you have some regional flights into the local airport, with what is a comparatively small amount of funding over a couple of years to help the service get off the ground and help to cover the losses in the first few years.
it provides employment, boosts economic growth … hence satisfying the aims of the fund.
the routes will lose money initially, all new air services lose money in the first few years. But with support for a few years they have time to mature and develop and become self sustaining.
So, as I say, why exactly is stobart the villain? Are they any more of a villain than Flybe wanting funding for a LBA- NQY service? I think not,
Just because you don't want to use the flights, doesn't mean the people of cumbria won't be delighted to have direct access to air travel
And I know the usual arguments about the train being a good service will come to the fore, and i'm not saying it isn't but not everyone wants to go to the west end of london, and if you want to go anywhere north or east, then actually an air service to Southend is probably more appealing, efficient and will be probably be cheaper.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as per the government document:
That's it. It is not as if taxpayers' money goes into propping up airlines or airports at a grand scale. I am not sure if that type of funding encourages the start of outlandish routes. I suppose it is more about encouraging the launch of routes that are deemed to be marginally profitable.
My understanding is that DND-STN and NQY-LGW already benefit from this type of funding (I don't think they are proper PSOs, but I might be wrong here).
Funding can be provided to cover up to 50% of airport aeronautical charges
My understanding is that DND-STN and NQY-LGW already benefit from this type of funding (I don't think they are proper PSOs, but I might be wrong here).
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NQY-LGW is a PSO
NQY-LBA will work, it's previously been operated as a multi day via BRS by SZ so there are good numbers to back up this route. However it does make me wonder why it's not already operating !
cs
NQY-LBA will work, it's previously been operated as a multi day via BRS by SZ so there are good numbers to back up this route. However it does make me wonder why it's not already operating !
cs
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funding can be provided to cover up to 50% of airport aeronautical charges
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from th fact the charges are published and the fund will use industry benchmarks and it will have been included in the business case.
So again, no I don't think they are the villains and actually one could argue that by having a sole company you are reducing the profit margins and so reducing the overall costs.
I think you just have an issue with Stobart and Carlisle. Personally I think funding flybe from Southampton to Munich is much more questionable ... But if it passes the test then so be it
So again, no I don't think they are the villains and actually one could argue that by having a sole company you are reducing the profit margins and so reducing the overall costs.
I think you just have an issue with Stobart and Carlisle. Personally I think funding flybe from Southampton to Munich is much more questionable ... But if it passes the test then so be it
Agreed - at least Stobarts have been talking about SEN and DUB ever since they have been looking to develop CAX.
Whether you agree that the Govt should be funding this sort of thing or not, they would be idiots not take advantage of any additional funding and reduce the risk of starting the services.
Whether you agree that the Govt should be funding this sort of thing or not, they would be idiots not take advantage of any additional funding and reduce the risk of starting the services.
Last edited by SWBKCB; 26th Nov 2015 at 18:34.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if I read today's spending review correctly, the routes that will get funding are:
I guess the Links Air routes could be a non-starter for obvious reasons.
Those four made it into the second round, but I do not see them mentioned in the spending review document:
After the first round, those four had already dropped out:
- Carlisle - Belfast, Stobart Air Daily return
- Carlisle - Southend, Stobart Air Daily return
- Carlisle - Dublin, Stobart Air Daily return
- Edinburgh - Oxford, Links Air Double-daily weekdays and daily return Sunday
- Dundee - Amsterdam, Flybe Daily return
- Derry - Dublin, City Wings Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekends
- Leeds/Bradford - Newquay, Flybe, Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter
- Norwich - Newcastle, Links Air Weekday double-daily return
- Norwich - Exeter, Flybe Daily return
- Southampton - Munich, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return, weekend
- Southampton - Lyon, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend
I guess the Links Air routes could be a non-starter for obvious reasons.
Those four made it into the second round, but I do not see them mentioned in the spending review document:
- Durham TV - Belfast, Links Air Double-daily return weekdays, single return Sunday
- Doncaster Sheffield, - Frankfurt BMI regional Weekday return
- Norwich - Charles de Gaulle, Flybe, Daily return
- Norwich - Dublin, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend
After the first round, those four had already dropped out:
- Derry - Birmingham, Flybe, weekday return
- Leeds/Bradford - Edinburgh, Flybe, double daily return weekdays, single daily return weekends
- Oban - Glasgow, no operator specified, 2 daily return flights (MFS)
- Oban - Barra, no operator specified, 3 daily flights (FS)
Carlisle seems to be the exact place that this fund is aimed to help. It's a region which needs economic stimulation and it's a long proven fact that air service connections are a catalyst to economic growth.
Stobart have 48 seat aircraft that are ideal for this market. The Carlise, Penrith and the wider Northumberland / Cumbrian catchment area is particularly poorly served by air transport, as the only options are MAN (2 hours away) or NCL - a difficult crossing especially in marginal weather.
So, you have some regional flights into the local airport, with what is a comparatively small amount of funding over a couple of years to help the service get off the ground and help to cover the losses in the first few years.
it provides employment, boosts economic growth … hence satisfying the aims of the fund.
the routes will lose money initially, all new air services lose money in the first few years. But with support for a few years they have time to mature and develop and become self sustaining.
Stobart have 48 seat aircraft that are ideal for this market. The Carlise, Penrith and the wider Northumberland / Cumbrian catchment area is particularly poorly served by air transport, as the only options are MAN (2 hours away) or NCL - a difficult crossing especially in marginal weather.
So, you have some regional flights into the local airport, with what is a comparatively small amount of funding over a couple of years to help the service get off the ground and help to cover the losses in the first few years.
it provides employment, boosts economic growth … hence satisfying the aims of the fund.
the routes will lose money initially, all new air services lose money in the first few years. But with support for a few years they have time to mature and develop and become self sustaining.
Clearly this won't happen at present, but come the third rwy.......
And I know the usual arguments about the train being a good service will come to the fore, and i'm not saying it isn't but not everyone wants to go to the west end of london, and if you want to go anywhere north or east, then actually an air service to Southend is probably more appealing, efficient and will be probably be cheaper.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 26th Nov 2015 at 18:19.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it shows this route fund is a waste of money when Flybe can start an E195 DSA-NQY flight with no issues, yet, it can't possibly start an LBA-NQY DH8 flight without funding.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere In The South China Sea
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX-LHR how do you come to the notion that Flybe operate DSA-NQY with no issues, as you put it? Flybe have obvious done a deal with DSA airport so the route is subsidised one way or the other. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the DSA route is using a discounted deal on fees etc set down by DSA/Peel. It's a business deal as opposed to using public money.
The LBA route is using government money to get it going.
What was stopping Flybe getting a good deal at LBA?
Why should my taxpayer money be used to subsidise a flight I will never use when Flybe are starting a similar route down the road with no such requirement for a hand out of public money?
You are missing the point that Flybe can start a route using traditional methods at one airport, but up the road couldn't possibly start the route without a public handout.
What makes LBA-NQY a PSO route but DSA-NQY not?
The LBA route is using government money to get it going.
What was stopping Flybe getting a good deal at LBA?
Why should my taxpayer money be used to subsidise a flight I will never use when Flybe are starting a similar route down the road with no such requirement for a hand out of public money?
You are missing the point that Flybe can start a route using traditional methods at one airport, but up the road couldn't possibly start the route without a public handout.
What makes LBA-NQY a PSO route but DSA-NQY not?