Belfast City Airport-2

[A320.b744]

Originally Posted by EI-BUD

In relation to Eurowings, if A320 as you mention that Lufthansa used BHD BRU as the experiment of a Belfast route, why now would Eurowings be actively considering BFS Airport? Surlely for a German airline, who will attract mainly German originating pax, the question will be would a Belfast service work, the Brussels airlines experiment didn't prove that one airport suits better over the other. Eurowings would not be concerned by opening hours, runway length etc.so nothing had proven or disproven for them that BFS or BHD is better.

The Brussels Airlines experiment wasn’t to prove that one airport suits better over the other, it was to prove whether or not Belfast would be able to sustain a Lufthansa Group service. LH Group’s BRU service failed, hence the mooted Lufthansa route to FRA and SWISS route to ZRH never came into fruition.

With regards to Eurowings, my source tells me that BFS is the only airport on the cards for a potential Belfast route, and last years ‘Choose Our Next Route’ competition mentioned BFS by name, and was publicly supported by BFS management.

Originally Posted by EI-BUD

I am also curious as to what the 'lock on Aer Lingus slots is about? My sources tell me that Aer Lingus is performing extremely well on LHR...'

When IAG made their offer for Aer Lingus, they made a commitment that Aer Lingus slots would be ‘locked’ for a period of five years, meaning the slots had to be used for Aer Lingus services between LHR and Ireland. This was to ensure that Aer Lingus didn’t sell their LHR slots to British Airways, to be used for long haul expansion.

However, according to EI-A330-300 in their post above, BHD was not included in this agreement.

That doesn’t mean that my suspicions aren’t correct though - Aer Lingus could still just be holding onto the slots until BA needs them.

You mention that your sources say that Aer Lingus is performing well on its BHD-LHR route. That may be so, but what is good for Aer Lingus may not be good for IAG as a whole. Aer Lingus’ BHD-LHR flights carry flight numbers for several Star Alliance carriers. Surely this is bad for business for IAG, as Aer Lingus are essentially assisting the likes of Air Canada and United Airlines on services rivalling BA from LHR. It would make a lot more sense to axe Aer Lingus’ LHR service completely, and use the slots for a) 1-2 daily BA services to BHD, and b) 1-2 daily BA long haul services.

Originally Posted by EI-BUD

BHD I'd agree is trailing behind BFS, but the pax levels are good considering that Europe's 3 big low cost airlines are big up the road. The pax volume is typically at a sustainable level for BHD, the biggest issue is whether given competitive pressures can the airport charge sustainable rates to its operating airlines….

Between 1998-2008, passenger numbers doubled to 2,570,742, but since then passenger numbers have remained constant. Between 2008-2017, BHD’s average passenger figure was 2,559,093, which is almost identical to both the 2008 and 2017 figures. Stagnation has already lasted a decade at BHD, and will continue unless management can attract new routes and airlines.

The demographics of passengers at BHD has shifted substantially over the past few years. In 2014, just over half of passengers flew with Flybe. In 2018, that number is expected to exceed two thirds. Conversely, IAG’s market share has crumbled from 42% in 2014, to just 30% of passengers expected to fly with Aer Lingus or British Airways in 2018.

One of the key issues facing the airport is that their two largest airlines are either in financial difficulties (Flybe) or seem uninterested in the Belfast market (Aer Lingus). What happens if Flybe’s next round of capacity cuts hit hard on BHD, or if Aer Lingus axe their remaining sun routes? When BHD lost Ryanair and bmi baby, the airport had Flybe and Aer Lingus to fall back on and replace the lost capacity. BHD no longer has such a safety net.

The ideal solution would be if a new airline established a base at the airport, as this would give the airport some breathing room if Flybe or Aer Lingus were to cut capacity. However, the prospect of this is unlikely, why is why BHD needs to diversify its airline portfolio. By doing so, it gives the airport a passenger safety net, meaning that the airport can still make a profit, even if Flybe were to cut 20% of their capacity from BHD.

However, the time available for BHD management to attract these new routes and airlines is getting smaller. the rapid increase in passenger figures from BFS over the past few years has given BFS a competitive advantage over BHD, and here’s why;

Since 2014, BFS have increased their passenger numbers by 1,802,608, meaning the airport is receiving a lot more revenue than it did four years ago. Compared to 2014, BFS is now more able to invest in their terminal facilities, and to spend more money on advertising campaigns. Furthermore, an increase in aircraft movements means that BFS has greater flexibility in setting their airport fees.

In contrast, BHD passenger numbers have stagnated, with aircraft movements falling. This means that BHD have less money available to make terminal improvements, and are unable to reduce airport fees without eating into their profits.

As BFS continues to grow, and if BHD continues to stagnate, then the gap between the two airports will keep on growing, with BFS being able to invest more and more money in their passenger facilities. Eventually, there will come a time when airlines - including those currently operating from BHD - will find BFS to be the more attractive airport, despite its distance from Belfast relative to BHD.

The Northern Ireland market is growing, and is expected to continue growing for the foreseeable future. Those such as El Bunto can suggest that there is no need to continue growing BHD because it is a ‘niche’ and can make a profit in its current guise. That’s all well and good, but passenger numbers from Belfast will grow, so if BHD doesn’t expand, ultimately all of the growth will go to BFS.

Eventually there will come a time when the difference in passenger numbers between BFS and BHD is so great that - despite having its own following - there will be calls for the airport to be closed. BHD doesn’t provide a unique service that makes it stand out from BFS. There would be no difference in passenger numbers or the service provided if BHD’s entire operations were shifted to BFS. After all, the vast majority of routes operated from BHD have been, or still are, operated from BFS as well, and Flybe is the only airline that hasn’t operated from BFS at one time or another.

By looking at the markets shares of both BFS and BHD since 2014, it is already evident that BHD are losing ground at a rapid rate. BHD’s market share has already fallen from 38.8% to 30.5%, and is only expected to get worse.


2014: 6,589,089 = BFS 61.2%, BHD 38.8%
2015: 7,084,020 = BFS 62.0%, BHD 38.0%
2016: 7,812,685 = BFS 65.9%, BHD 34.1%
2017: 8,396,398 = BFS 69.5%, BHD 30.5%

If we assume BFS continues to grow at an average rate of 5% (as it has done 1997-2017), and that BHD passenger numbers continue to stagnate at 2.6m, then here are the estimated market shares 2018-24;

2018: 8,728,380 = BFS 70.2%, BHD 29.8%
2019: 9,034,799 = BFS 71.2%, BHD 28.8%
2020: 9,356,539 = BFS 72.2%, BHD 27.8%
2021: 9,694,365 = BFS 73.2%, BHD 26.2%
2022: 10,049,083 = BFS 74.1%, BHD 25.9%
2023: 10,421,538 = BFS 75.1%, BHD 24.9%
2024: 10,812,615 = BFS 76.0%, BHD 24.0%

Between 2014-24, BHD’s market share is expected to fall by a whopping 15%. By 2024, fewer than a quarter of Belfast’s passengers will fly from BHD.

Hence, it is essential that BHD does grow its passenger numbers. Continuing to stagnate will ultimately lead to the closure of the airport. Various constraints mean that BHD is never going to become Belfast’s largest airport, but it needs to keep up with BFS for as long as possible, and attracting new routes and airlines is the key to the survival of the airport.

[DC9_10]

My youngest brother works at Shorts/Bombardier at the Belfast plant. My uncle's also did however hence retired. Flybe used to be the preferred airline for travel, however no longer. The policy now is the cheapest available and that's what they have to book. Mr Ambrose was moved from the factory to the airport many years ago. Him and Best lied to the environmental committee concerning noise and both were rebuffed. Ambrose also lied about Vueling loads claiming 60 per cent and rising, when in truth it was lower forties. As my uncle's have always said " Ambrose, you can't believe a word that comes out of that man's mouth". Him and Katy, otherwise known as Laurel and Hardy. I'd rather call them Hinge and Bracket ha.

[Startledgrapefruit]

I sort of miss the fake residents group knocking on my door with tales of woe. Pointing at Orange planes saying they were landing at the city.
But that extension to the lounge is not being built for nothing

[DC9_10]

And your point being Startled. Is it for Eastern going twice daily J41 and Carlisle.

[Startledgrapefruit]

Originally Posted by DC9_10

And your point being Startled. Is it for Eastern going twice daily J41 and Carlisle.

You don't invest 15m for nothing.
And it's Grapefruit to you 10.

[True Blue]

So who are these new airlines that could start a new base and routes? Have you considered the continuing consolidation of airlines? Some names please of airlines that could start a base that would make a difference?

[ECR]

Originally Posted by A320.b744

When IAG made their offer for Aer Lingus, they made a commitment that Aer Lingus slots would be ‘locked’ for a period of five years, meaning the slots had to be used for Aer Lingus services between LHR and Ireland. This was to ensure that Aer Lingus didn’t sell their LHR slots to British Airways, to be used for long haul expansion.

However, according to EI-A330-300 in their post above, BHD was not included in this agreement.

That doesn’t mean that my suspicions aren’t correct though - Aer Lingus could still just be holding onto the slots until BA needs them.

You mention that your sources say that Aer Lingus is performing well on its BHD-LHR route. That may be so, but what is good for Aer Lingus may not be good for IAG as a whole. Aer Lingus’ BHD-LHR flights carry flight numbers for several Star Alliance carriers. Surely this is bad for business for IAG, as Aer Lingus are essentially assisting the likes of Air Canada and United Airlines on services rivalling BA from LHR. It would make a lot more sense to axe Aer Lingus’ LHR service completely, and use the slots for a) 1-2 daily BA services to BHD, and b) 1-2 daily BA long haul services.

From what I recall the agreement protected the Heathrow slots to the other Aer Lingus airports (Dublin, Cork, Shannon) for a number of years, and prevented them being used elsewhere. In respect of the Belfast route though the slots were not restricted to Belfast, but were restricted to the Island of Ireland.

I don't think there would be anything stopping IAG indirectly using the Belfast slots elsewhere by instead using them on Dublin services and reducing equivalent number of BA slots to Dublin and using these BA slots elsewhere.

I think IAG are required to still provide connections to other airlines (e.g. Star Alliance) on favourable terms. I can see the advantages from IAG's point of view though of replacing the Belfast Aer Lingus services to LHR T2 with some BA services to LHR T5, as it makes it just a little bit more inconvenient to connect to Star Alliance services. It also makes it a lot more convenient to connect to other BA services due to the fact that domestic passengers on flights to T5 don't have to go through security at LHR and can go straight to departures with only a boarding pass scan.

[DC9_10]

From what I read about the takeover. Belfast slots were protected for a shorter period of only two years, unlike Dublin. Remedy slots were made available from LGW to competitors. FR took the advantage however have handed them back, preferring Stanstead. Apparently under current EU law, IAG group airlines cannot operate services from LGW to either Belfast airports due to the monopoly on LHR.

[BCALBOY]

[QUOTE=DC9_10 Apparently under current EU law, IAG group airlines cannot operate services from LGW to either Belfast airports due to the monopoly on LHR.[/QUOTE]

April1st?


IAG have a monopoly on Services from BCN,GLA,MAD to LHR and still operate those routes to LGW.

[DC9_10]

Since when were Barcelona Glasgow and Madrid on the island of Ireland. Just stating well publicised facts. Btw, BMI gave up Glasgow well before the BA take over leaving only BA on the route.

[BCALBOY]

The point is both BFS/LON and GLA/LON have the same status .Same rules apply.
No restriction on IAG optg N.I to LGW if they wanted to.

IAG also have a monopoly on DUB/LHR and didn't give up DUB/LGW though they had to make slots available.

[EI-A330-300]

Nothing stopping IAG operating Belfast to Gatwick, they have thousands of other slots they could use. The only restriction was they had to give up the slot pairs and DUB/Belfast and they have since had Belfast returned and as soon as the 3 years runs out they can use them on anything.

EU demanded a token gesture, they knew full well IAG had no monopoly on Belfast market but rather London airports slot restricted is whats causing the domestic monopoly by Easyjet and BA at LGW and LHR.

[DC9_10]

IAG have the monopoly on the Belfast to Heathrow route. They were forced to give up Gatwick. If a competitor wants those slots they have to be provided. IAG cannot use them on this route, however can use the slots for other routes until a competitor requires the slots to fly LGW to BFS/BHD. Nothing to do with Glasgow. Likewise a competitor cannot request the slots to fly another route. Akin to flybe and their Heathrow operations. EDI and ABZ only.

[EI-A330-300]

IAG have the monopoly on the Belfast to Heathrow route. They were forced to give up Gatwick. If a competitor wants those slots they have to be provided. IAG cannot use them on this route, however can use the slots for other routes until a competitor requires the slots to fly LGW to BFS/BHD. Nothing to do with Glasgow. Likewise a competitor cannot request the slots to fly another route. Akin to flybe and their Heathrow operations. EDI and ABZ only.

IAG could of stayed on BHD-LGW if they wanted to, yes they gave up slots to enable another operator operate a commercially viable alternative but they were free to continue BHD-LGW had BA wanted to give EI slots to do so or EI re-apply for new slots.

There was no obligation for them to pull BHD-LGW. IAG took a wise decision to let it go for the greater good.

[DC9_10]

IAG group were forced by the EU competition commission to surrender the BHD to LGW slots. It was one of the conditions in allowing the group to buy Aer Lingus.

[EI-A330-300]

Originally Posted by DC9_10

IAG group were forced by the EU competition commission to surrender the BHD to LGW slots. It was one of the conditions in allowing the group to buy Aer Lingus.

They surrendered slots but not the route. The route cancellation was tactical on IAGs part and most likely not particularly high yielding for EI either.

Not specific slots, they were forced to give up 5 slot pairs 3 at BHD and 2 at DUB. EI could have applied to LGW for new slots or BA give them existing slots to enable then continue flying in addition to Easyjet at BFS and in this case Ryanair at BFS.

[canberra97]

Originally Posted by EI-A330-300

IAG could of stayed on BHD-LGW if they wanted to, yes they gave up slots to enable another operator operate a commercially viable alternative but they were free to continue BHD-LGW had BA wanted to give EI slots to do so or EI re-apply for new slots.

There was no obligation for them to pull BHD-LGW. IAG took a wise decision to let it go for the greater good.

Your last comment is totally incorrect.

There absolutely was an obligation and it was well publicised at the time of the takeover in July 2015.

Under the terms of the purchase of Aer Lingus five daily slot pairs on LGW to BHD had to be surrendered by IAG to ensure competition in the market place.

The facts are there for everyone to see online so I don't understand why you have to state totally false information!

Or is it just suiting your agenda!

[EI-A330-300]

Originally Posted by canberra97

Your last comment is totally incorrect.

There absolutely was an obligation and it was well publicised at the time of the takeover in July 2015.

Under the terms of the purchase of Aer Lingus five daily slot pairs on LGW to BHD had to be surrendered by IAG to ensure competition in the market place.

The facts are there for everyone to see online so I don't understand why you have to state totally false information!

Or is it just suiting your agenda!

You need to check it was 5 slots with 2 op ex DUB and 1 op ex Belfast with the other 2 slots for optional use at either airport. So the winner could have ran x4 daily ex DUB and x1 daily ex Belfast had they wanted.

There is no agenda the facts are 5 slot pairs had to be given up to allow a new operator enter the market. IAG could have kept LGW with other slots if they wanted.

[EI-A330-300]

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Mergers: Commission approves acquisition of Aer Lingus by IAG, subject to conditions

The clearance decision is conditional upon the following commitments, which address the Commission’s concerns:

* the release of five daily slot pairs at London-Gatwick airport to facilitate the entry of competing airlines on routes from London to both Dublin and Belfast ; and
* Aer Lingus continuing to carry connecting passengers to use the long-haul flights of competing airlines out of London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick, Manchester, Amsterdam, Shannon and Dublin .

IAG submitted:

* IAG submitted commitments to release five daily slot pairs at London Gatwick which can be used on the specific routes of concern, namely Dublin–London and Belfast–London. The availability of these slots, and other incentives such as the acquisition of grandfathering rights after a certain period of time, facilitate the entry of competing airlines.

* Furthermore, IAG made a commitment to enter into agreements with competing airlines which operate long-haul flights out of London Heathrow, London Gatwick, Manchester, Amsterdam, Shannon and Dublin so that Aer Lingus will continue to provide these airlines with connecting passengers. Passengers will therefore continue to have a choice to use other airlines than IAG when connecting at these airports, for instance on Heathrow–New York, Gatwick–Las Vegas, Manchester–Orlando, Amsterdam–Singapore, Shannon–Chicago, and Dublin–Chicago.

They were not forced to exit BHD-LGW.

[DC9_10]

Thank you Canberra. IAG were forced to give the slots up.