Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

East Midlands

Old 21st Sep 2015, 19:59
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DE74
Age: 47
Posts: 751
East Midlands

August pax figures.

560,992 pax used the airport in August, a very significant 10.1% decrease compared to August 2014.

Is this mainly due to Monarch's exit from EMA?

The rolling year to date total is 4,482,092. Just a 0.8% increase on the previous year.

The increase for all UK airports is 5.3% year in year.

For YTD figures EMA is now ranked 11th, all airports in the top 10 have very positive growth figures.
egnxema is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 20:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Where is the usual EMA thread?

A drop like that is a deliberate strategy. Who are your owners again?

Perhaps they want an airport in the vicinity to be given a helping hand / not fail?

Failure of that airport would swing doors wide open to another airport's development that in time would hugely affect the mothership.

A drop like that is a deliberate strategy. BTW what happened to your Aer Lingus service?
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 21:42
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,949
A drop like that is a deliberate strategy
Absolutely utter nonsense.
TSR2 is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 22:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
You don't accept that owners of multiple nearby airports will adjust their airline deal strategy in response to competition airports? Then you are not living in the real world. A 10% swing is a huge, huge movement - you would accept? - Other airports growing rapidly. It's not like mag don't have some clout is it?

But I respect your opinion.

Last edited by LEEDS APPROACH; 21st Sep 2015 at 22:14. Reason: spelling
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 23:05
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 228
An alternative theory for the decline in August passenger numbers

Compared to last year there's the loss of Monarch, as previously mentioned.

Another factor that affected only August is that Ryanair operated 7.9% fewer movements than in August 2014.

The number of RYR movements in August 2015 was roughly equal to the number operated in July 2015, but in August 2014 and in August 2013 there was a peak in flights (about 4 legs per day). In August 2015 this extra peak didn't happen.
anna_list is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 23:56
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
That's not an alternative theory. That is the theory proven. Strategy of the owner. Airlines or routes don't just operate - they are paid to operate or not (dissuaded). Do you think mag could have paid Monarch to stay at EMA if they had wanted? Ryanair additional flights? Just let EI backtrack on their schedule? Sometimes there are bigger battles to be won (or lost). If mag wants increase mag gets increase.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 00:33
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 371
I think somebody has been reading too many James Bond novels lately. Why would MAG conspire to somehow stop passengers from using EMA ? Those passengers would be far more likely to use nearby BHX airport, than trek all the way to MAN.

Oh and another thing...airports don't pay airlines to use their facilities, its the other way around. Sure discounts/incentives may be offered here and there, but airport costs are only a tiny proportion of what it costs to fly an aircraft from A to B.

Last edited by Logohu; 22nd Sep 2015 at 00:34. Reason: typo
Logohu is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 08:06
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,306
LEEDS APPROACH

Not sure what your agenda is here. Whatever it is, as others have already suggested, the logic is flawed.

Passengers "lost" by EMA will be picked up, generally, by one of three airports. In order, these will be BHX (because of it's proximity and range of destinations), LBA, and finally, if the destination is available, Doncaster. None of these are MAG airports, so IF a strategy such as you are suggesting were in play, MAG would be cutting off their corporate nose to spite their face.

There has been over capacity on some bucket and spade routes at EMA for a while. The loss of Monarch, combined with the growth of capacity on some routes at BHX / LBA will have redressed the balance. Whilst airlines like the discounts that some airports offer to attract them, if they can't put adequate bums on seats at the right yield something will give, and in the summer just gone, this appears to have happened. I see it as short term blip, not a long term decline.

Anyway, please look at EMA in the round. There is more to EMA than self loading freight. Pure freight is a real success story here, and whilst I have no idea what the split is, I would guess that the cargo sector provides something close to half the revenue for EMA, and is probably one of the chief drivers for MAG investing in EMA.

By the way - as has already been mentioned, why is this thread being opened, when there is / was a perfectly adequate existing thread, which to the best of my knowledge hasn't been shut down?
ATNotts is online now  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 08:59
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by Logohu View Post
I think somebody has been reading too many James Bond novels lately. Why would MAG conspire to somehow stop passengers from using EMA ? Those passengers would be far more likely to use nearby BHX airport, than trek all the way to MAN.

Oh and another thing...airports don't pay airlines to use their facilities, its the other way around. Sure discounts/incentives may be offered here and there, but airport costs are only a tiny proportion of what it costs to fly an aircraft from A to B.
Quite how a company's decision making and strategy adjustment in response to competition is "out of a James Bond novel" I'm not sure! MAN changed their strategy from dissuading the low cost model to encouraging it. That decision affected the competition. Completely normal industrial posturing the world over. Is coca cola v pepsi out of a novel? Are the squabblings LHR v LGW out of a novel? - No. Dog eat Dog out there.

In the 1970/80s airlines used to pay airports to be there. These days the airports (of which there are too many in England) fight tooth and nail to get an airline on board. In real terms the airport pays the airline to be there - the over all deal. Look around the country - Cardiff, Bournemouth, LBA even Teesside had a go.

As for the rest - it's nothing to do with Birmingham. It's to prevent another 'Birmingham' from spawning. Nothing to do with pushing EMA passengers to MAN. Perhaps read my post again. If you cannot get it - no problem. Lose a battle to help win a bigger battle - normal industrial affair the world over.

No one has answered my question;

What happened to the EI service that was announced from EMA? Half the flights shifted up the road to help to an airport that seemingly cannot sustain a Belfast or Isle of Man Service? Why? Is this a blip or a decision. (btw It's a decision). Could the owner of EMA kept those EI flights in tact if they had wanted to?

Oh well - I'll get back to my novel.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 09:42
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,306
What happened to the EI service that was announced from EMA? Half the flights shifted up the road to help to an airport that seemingly cannot sustain a Belfast or Isle of Man Service? Why? Is this a blip or a decision. (btw It's a decision). Could the owner of EMA kept those EI flights in tact if they had wanted to?
OK, I'll have a stab.

The EI Dublin service at EMA is up against it's own multi daily service from BHX, just down the road, and Ryanair. The EMA catchment is comparatively small, compared with BHX. Doncaster is further away from BHX, and the road / rail access to LBA is dreadful, giving Doncaster less competition on the Dublin route.

As for MAG "keeping these flights", it is not in the gift of MAG to "keep" EI. They (Aer Lingus) have to make a profit, and if the yields aren't there they will move the capacity to where it is. In case of doubt. Aer Lingus are continuing to operate through EMA this winter.

I'm not sure just how big a role you think that airports have in retaining traffic / carriers. They can always attract them, but keeping them, when any incentives have expired, is down to the economics of the airline, not the airport.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 11:32
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
That a good stab! Naive but good.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 12:52
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,949
Absolutely spot on ATNotts.
TSR2 is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 16:47
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
In light of BHX and MAN seemingly getting new routes IE MAN Vueling,IBX and BHX Vueling, IBX and Wizz announced recently amongst others.

The lack of news from EMA is puzzling.

Is there a strategy here for the MAG group.. funnel new passenger flts to MAN and just use EMA for freight, or are FR and Jet 2 going to announce big expansion for next year out of EMA?

Most of the new freight flts seem to being sent by MAG to STN as well ?
nigel osborne is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 18:12
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,638
Sat 26th Sept EMA 50th anniversary. 1515-1600LT
Flypast by DC3, A109, Spitfire,Eastern J41, Atlantic 737F and DHL B757F
Mr Angry from Purley is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 18:19
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DE74
Age: 47
Posts: 751
Reason for new thread

I searched for the existing thread, but couldn't find it on any of the 3 pages.

I suspect as nothing had been posted for a while it had slipped down the rankings and dropped off the bottom?

Happy for mods to merge this thread with the previous one if it still is open.
egnxema is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 19:25
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Derby
Posts: 31
I don't understand that while the likes of Liverpool, Leeds Bradford, Doncaster and Bristol have been able to expand by attracting the likes of KLM, Vueling and Wizzair in recent years, EMA has if anything lost variety on routes and continued to lack any real growth or major investment.
spitfirealex is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 20:23
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Sorry but I have explained it in my opening reply. It is not about holding EMA back it is about giving another airport a helping hand.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 20:29
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,455
Have the EI flights been cancelled? Bookable for me?
AerRyan is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 20:39
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 6,192
So MAG are disadvantaging EMA to help DSA to stop Leeds East developing?

Deep, LA, deep!

And what did happen to the EI service?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 20:46
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
It is not about holding EMA back it is about giving another airport a helping hand.

Errmm you mean the Number One airport outside London? I didn't realise that Monarch moved all the aircraft they based at EMA and shunted them off to MAN instead. Oh. My mistake, Monarch PULLED 3 aircraft from MAN. Wouldn't you say that has had a dramatic effect there? The idea that passenger numbers are increasing at 3 times the increase in seat capacity reflects well on MAN.

The full aircraft on SV and CX equate to something like 1200 passengers being carried on 4 flights. You'd be hard pressed to get 3 return flights each operating 100% loads on each and every flight for low-cost carriers and even then it's still less than the SV/CX combine.

Besides, you seem to have forgotten that Manchester Airport Group is not the sole preserve of the Greater Manchester councils. They are also answerable to the Australians. I hardly think they would be appreciative of getting an airport to running at a loss to "bolster" the already very profitable performance of the main airport in the group.

Most of the new freight flts seem to being sent by MAG to STN as well ?
Which freight flights were slated to come into MAN or EMA but ended up at STN instead? I'm struggling to think of them.
Ringwayman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.