Teesside-2
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have thought about this quite a bit and I think there are a few reasons:
1) Heathrow's landing fees make it difficult to make money with small aircraft.
2) The cost of slots (pre-covid) make it every expensive for a regional airline to start a Heathrow operation to provide feed
3) Amsterdam has 6 runways (5 of which are mainly used by airlines), Heathrow has 2 which means lack of spare capacity (and the high slot fees)
4) BA's union agreement prevents them from using smaller planes at Heathrow (apart from in exceptional circumstances) - going to be hard to fill a 180 seat plane on LHR-MME/NQY/IOM/CWL etc
5) BA can get more lucrative feed for the transatlantic services from elsewhere in Europe
6) Amsterdam is one giant terminal, Heathrow is almost 4 different airports. As T5 is full, more services into LHR means more people having to get on a bus to change terminals which is not a great experience
1) Heathrow's landing fees make it difficult to make money with small aircraft.
2) The cost of slots (pre-covid) make it every expensive for a regional airline to start a Heathrow operation to provide feed
3) Amsterdam has 6 runways (5 of which are mainly used by airlines), Heathrow has 2 which means lack of spare capacity (and the high slot fees)
4) BA's union agreement prevents them from using smaller planes at Heathrow (apart from in exceptional circumstances) - going to be hard to fill a 180 seat plane on LHR-MME/NQY/IOM/CWL etc
5) BA can get more lucrative feed for the transatlantic services from elsewhere in Europe
6) Amsterdam is one giant terminal, Heathrow is almost 4 different airports. As T5 is full, more services into LHR means more people having to get on a bus to change terminals which is not a great experience
This week, I flew MME-LHR on a 49 seat E145. It was just me and 5 other pax, or 12% load factor. Fares about £90 oneway about 2 days in advance.
Maybe I picked an offpeak date, but this suggests to me the route has some serious issues.
Darlington-London trains are excellent. Even Eaglescliffe-London direct trains are OK. Maybe having AMS as the sole hub connection is for the best.
Maybe I picked an offpeak date, but this suggests to me the route has some serious issues.
Darlington-London trains are excellent. Even Eaglescliffe-London direct trains are OK. Maybe having AMS as the sole hub connection is for the best.
The reason?
This week, I flew MME-LHR on a 49 seat E145. It was just me and 5 other pax, or 12% load factor. Fares about £90 oneway about 2 days in advance.
Maybe I picked an offpeak date, but this suggests to me the route has some serious issues.
Darlington-London trains are excellent. Even Eaglescliffe-London direct trains are OK. Maybe having AMS as the sole hub connection is for the best.
Maybe I picked an offpeak date, but this suggests to me the route has some serious issues.
Darlington-London trains are excellent. Even Eaglescliffe-London direct trains are OK. Maybe having AMS as the sole hub connection is for the best.
Not just Heathrow charges..but wrong aircraft..too small…and not enough passengers, a common problem in recent years at Teesside?
Someone being a bit ingenious blaming just Heathrow?
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Londonderry
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft was too small? There was 5 onboard. Sure, with more seats you could offer somewhat lower fares but there quite clearly was just no appetite to use the service. Fares remained considerable lower when compared to the offering across the LM network.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual the keyboard warriors know best. That load of six was a rare exception, loads had been very good of late and the route was making small increases week on week, and generally heading in the right direction...all with minimal marketing
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suffolk, Diss, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really wasn't that rare, but anyway it's gone and won't be returning end of story.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Suffolk, Diss, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my brother who used the route weekly last 6 months. Crew he spoke too did say there were higher numbers flights ie in the 20's and 30's your right but also told him management had recently said internally it was underperforming and ideally needed high 30's on flights to even break even with ever rising costs. but all too often flights with these loads below, which is obvious why Loganair said enough was enough. Always have understood Loganair Management was very open internally with its employees about routes and how they performed etc when asked.
Last couple of weeks he used it before switching back to Newcastle and BA
Mon April 11th - 10 Pax LHR - MME
Thurs April - 13 Pax MME - LHR
Mon April 18th - 5 Pax LHR - MME
Thurs April 21st - 16 Pax MME - LHR
Last couple of weeks he used it before switching back to Newcastle and BA
Mon April 11th - 10 Pax LHR - MME
Thurs April - 13 Pax MME - LHR
Mon April 18th - 5 Pax LHR - MME
Thurs April 21st - 16 Pax MME - LHR
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the answer to all of this in the quotes in post 1108 above? If you read what is said, it's pretty clear that MME has been supporting the route financially and that the decision to pull it is theirs and not Loganair's? That's the only way I can interpret what's being said here as there's no other explanation for a choice of words on both sides which seem to be quite carefully chosen.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 35
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite simple really. You ll never make money into LHR with a 50 seat aircraft when they charge high fees.
It's obvious that LHR would never last. Loganair were basically sitting on the slots and were paying for the lower landing fees at LHR, any subsidy or lack of charge (no one honestly knows) from MME was making it just about viable from what can be seen, as soon as LHR put the prices up its was never going to last.
LHR could work but would need to be marketed well, on an aircraft that makes fares competitive ie 130+ seat, at least twice a day but more realistically 3 times a day.
Add to the mix Covid, which has changed working patterns and the lack of full service airlines operating that size of aircraft with access to and the willingness to use slots on a MME-LHR and the likelihood is LHR a pipe dream. Its basic economics.
Remember how BMI manipulated the LHR when it was running in the 15-20,000 a month and managed to run the service into the ground by simply putting an Embraer on the route and messing with the timings, once they pulled off the route the 145s didnt then stay at LHR to use those slots vacated by the MME.
It's obvious that LHR would never last. Loganair were basically sitting on the slots and were paying for the lower landing fees at LHR, any subsidy or lack of charge (no one honestly knows) from MME was making it just about viable from what can be seen, as soon as LHR put the prices up its was never going to last.
LHR could work but would need to be marketed well, on an aircraft that makes fares competitive ie 130+ seat, at least twice a day but more realistically 3 times a day.
Add to the mix Covid, which has changed working patterns and the lack of full service airlines operating that size of aircraft with access to and the willingness to use slots on a MME-LHR and the likelihood is LHR a pipe dream. Its basic economics.
Remember how BMI manipulated the LHR when it was running in the 15-20,000 a month and managed to run the service into the ground by simply putting an Embraer on the route and messing with the timings, once they pulled off the route the 145s didnt then stay at LHR to use those slots vacated by the MME.