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

Newquay

Old 22nd Nov 2018, 12:34
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,457
Any news on how this is being funded - is the funding just being moved over from LGW, is it a fixed amount by year, per flight, per pax, etc?

Last edited by SWBKCB; 22nd Nov 2018 at 15:47.
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 15:22
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,152
Is a 40-minute turnround at Heathrow feasible?
LGS6753 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 17:34
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 865
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
Any news on how this is being funded - is the funding just being moved over from LGW, is it a fixed amount by year, per flight, per pax, etc?
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/heathrow-newquay-flights-flybe-taxpayers-subsidise-cornwall-airport-a8646691.html
PDXCWL45 is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 17:52
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 37
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by LGS6753 View Post
Is a 40-minute turnround at Heathrow feasible?
With the number of pax involved yes it would be, though it does look like they’re pushing their luck slightly with block times.
AirportPlanner1 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 18:03
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 471
Its funded by the DFT with taxpayer money and somewhat oddly Cornwall council.

Absolutely no objection to a direct Heathrow service but a taxpayer subsidy from the DFT ?

Any route should stand or fall on merit, if the Newquay service is so important the demand has to be there. You cannot prop up a service and distort the market with UK wide taxpayer monies whilst then claiming it's a vital air link, if nobody uses it, it's clearly not that vital. And why should Newquay claim a service over say Liverpool OR Durham?
Who decides who gets what ?

i presume that politically there was no mileage in giving consideration to a Liverpool service which is of course staunch Labour.

....and as for the local council chipping in. Clearly this is a better ways to spend ratepayers money than social care and keeping libraries open.

It smacks of a contrived marketing ploy between the DFT and HAL.

And where have 8 slots a day suddenly appeared from, is Derren Brown working approach ?

Last edited by Navpi; 22nd Nov 2018 at 18:24.
Navpi is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 18:32
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,457
Any route should stand or fall on merit, if the Newquay service is so important the demand has to be there. You cannot prop up a service and distort the market with UK wide taxpayer monies whilst then claiming it's a vital air link, if nobody uses it, it's clearly not that vital. And why should Newquay claim a service over say Liverpool OR Durham? Who decides who gets what ?
Last time I looked, Cornwall was the poorest region in England and the most remote from the capital (and with crap surface transport links). These conditions have been generally accepted as being reasons for a PSO. Are you saying that no forms of public transport should be subsidised and left to the free market? And do you not accept that there's a place for taxpayers money in promoting regional development?
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 18:36
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,457
Originally Posted by PDXCWL45 View Post
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/heathrow-newquay-flights-flybe-taxpayers-subsidise-cornwall-airport-a8646691.html
Thanks - but this doesn't say whether this is the same as is currently being spent on the Gatwick flights (it impiles that it is more), or on what basis the money is paid out.
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 19:33
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 709
I was told that no money was spent on the LGW flights as they performed so well. The PSO was not a guaranteed sum of money but an underpin should the route not perform well. It did and so the public purse was not touched.

I have no idea yet if the LHR deal is the same but I'm also curious as to where the slots have come from as there are no remedy slots applicable for this route.
TartinTon is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 19:55
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 208
Apparently the slots are from the Manchester pool which BA was made to give up following the buy out of BMI. That’s according to an article in the Independent. I assume this is where the Government involvement comes in as they would have had to agree to allow these to be used for another route.
BA318 is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 20:30
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,211
This rumour from early Oct has a little more credence now...

Rumour from within the BE cabin and flight crew community is that BE will open a small crew base at NQY from S19
Who knows - they could flying for Virgin Regional by then.....

Virgin Atlantic and Flybe
Wycombe is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 21:26
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,497
I agree about the potential crew base.

i could see Manchester going x3 daily ex NQY with BHX making up the flying for a second based Q


cs
cornishsimon is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 22:19
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 280
The crew base won't happen. I wouldn't be hanging your hats on it.
Reversethrustset is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 22:54
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 471
I absolutely agree that Cornwall should have proper investment as indeed should Wales, East Anglia, The North East etc etc.

But with many local services on their knees this just smacks of a cheap shot at buying Tory votes in SW marginals. And buying the support of locals re Heathrow. If they realised they could benefit to the tune of say £1bn in direct investment or £1bn 250 miles away what do you think they would choose. It will take an awful lot of punters to generate that kind of indirect investment.

If we had some politicians who cared about the country rather than just London we might get somewhere.

Did anybody see last week's Apprentice, OMG one of the new CROSSRAIL stations looked like The Eden Project. And that is just one single station. It puts regional transport infastructure to shame.

When it's investment in London, Whitehall seem to sign off the finer things in life off with a flourish but for everywhere else it's gruel for supper everyday.
Navpi is online now  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 23:59
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 265
I’m not convinced that the move to LHR is such good news. Ok, if you want a long haul connection it’s better than LGW, but if you want to get to a mainland europe destination easyJet’s LGW network is huge, and goes to most of the business destinations served by LHR in addition to a vast number of leisure destinations, but will generally be cheaper. As for getting into central London, LGW trains to Blackfriars or Victoria beat the heathrow express on getting you to the city, lawyers or Westminster, both on price and time. Crossrail won’t be much better unless you want to go shopping.
nonemmet is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 00:31
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,497
I actually agree. It’s a shame that LHR couldn’t be run in addition to say a twice daily LGW and a seasonal LCY ?


cs
cornishsimon is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 12:18
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LCY
Posts: 357
The DfT announcement does not specify, but I presume the new PSO-supported LHR slots are picked from the pool of ex-bmi remedy slots that, by happy coincidence, Flybe is operating. Win-win for the airline and LGW by removing a one-off "outlier" service.
Originally Posted by nonemmet View Post
easyJet’s LGW network is huge, and goes to most of the business destinations served by LHR in addition to a vast number of leisure destinations .... . Crossrail won’t be much better unless you want to go shopping.
Untrue. Besides, connectivity is for business and investment, not access to cheaper holidays.
ajamieson is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 12:28
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 37
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Navpi View Post
Did anybody see last week's Apprentice, OMG one of the new CROSSRAIL stations looked like The Eden Project. And that is just one single station. It puts regional transport infastructure to shame.

When it's investment in London, Whitehall seem to sign off the finer things in life off with a flourish but for everywhere else it's gruel for supper everyday.
Just to note the ‘Eden’ station is Canary Wharf which was privately funded. Regardless the income it generates from commercial lets is infinitely greater than would be the case in your average British town, thus even if public probably wouldn’t fall into the category of “vanity project” or “white elephant”.

Another point to note is that additional rail capacity in London is desperately needed, probably more critically than other areas. While the need for investment is also true outside London, the two shouldn’t be mutually exclusive.
AirportPlanner1 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2018, 14:03
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,554
I've been reflecting in the news of NQY-LHR route. On the face of it, this sounds to be great news.
I would throw some caution to thec wind.

When BA acquired Brymon, one of the first things that happened was to switch the route to the west country over to LGW. JER and IOM routes went the same way. They saw this course of action add commercially attractive.

And so it goes, as soon as these slots become eligible for other operations, you can be sure NQY will be the looser. Will LGW slots be available the service? No.

The transfer to LHR will drive increased connecting traffic, surely when a PSO was agreed it was to ensure that people living in the west country had adequate connectivity to London, to the capital for work etc. Therefore, I suggest that a move to LHR means that the PSO is subsiidising the airline to increase connecting psssengers. No such subsidy is available to other airlines or routes ex NQY for such an activity??
EI-BUD is online now  
Old 24th Nov 2018, 14:37
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,457
A PSO can be considered for a route "considered vital for the economic and social development of the region which the airport serves" - so connecting traffic certainly comes into the equation. As LHR is the main airport of the capital and economic centre, as well offering connections to the most destinations, it's the airport that most meets that definition.
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2018, 21:33
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,497
The PSO was available to others to bid on. However the most likely operator of a domestic route at LHr doesn’t seem to of been interested

that’s not to say that if the worse happens and BE goes belly up that BA won’t decide to take on the pso contract.


cs
cornishsimon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.