Teesside-2

[Harold77]

Originally Posted by Cautious Optimist

The demand is there

Could it be that the demand is there but not the right product.

What has been given has been small capacity less than 50 seater aircraft and sparse frequency.
The answer could be increase frequencies to be more attractive even with small capacity aircraft.

The other could be price. Using small capacity aircraft means cost units are higher due to limited capacity, thus fares aren't as competitive.
So answer could be in medium to high capacity aircraft. The more seats the more unit price is shared about thus reducing fares to a more competitive level that is more attractive.
I'm not saying every aircraft needs to be around 200 plus seats. For regional markets the 70-120 seat capacity would suffice as the cost units are much lower thus fares can be more competitive and attractive.

So getting the right product: the route, frequency, capacity and price levels right then business is there for the taking. If the right product isn't available then people will go to where the right product is available.

[Cautious Optimist]

I hate to find myself part-agreeing with something Harold77 churns out, but he's on the right lines, with the exception of price. I think someone else touched on this but people were too spoiled during the 2000s so that now anything above an ultra low cost fare is chalked up as "expensive", people need to recalibrate what they consider an expensive [base] air fare.

As a footnote, and to clarify, I have invested a great many hours in the recent past into the areas demographics as well as delving into our own history to establish what should work and what should not from MME, which is more than most internet commentators have done, and whilst it is speculative, what is an airline or airports own assessment if not speculative? Perhaps with the rare exception, routes should only be launched if even a pessimistic assessment of demand shows a sufficient amount.

[Harold77]

Originally Posted by Cautious Optimist

I hate to find myself part-agreeing with something Harold77 churns out, but he's on the right lines, with the exception of price. I think someone else touched on this but people were too spoiled during the 2000s so that now anything above an ultra low cost fare is chalked up as "expensive", people need to recalibrate what they consider an expensive [base] air fare.

I agree with your sentiments especially regarding prices. Everyone has come soo fixated on low price as possible no matter what line your in whether airline, railways, ferries, bus/ coach, shops etc.
What a lot of people have lost sight of is cost over time savings, in that time savings come with a slightly greater cost.

For Instance say a cheap single train ticket for a 7 hour journey £55, a 9 hour coach journey £30 and same route by air would take just over an hour be £130, but a slightly larger plane could mean cost of air be £10-15 cheaper than the £130. So £115 be more appealing to more than what £130 be.
Now take that approach for instance to same destination but from another airport in the area might be £30 cheaper at £100, so even for cost to get to other place still have savings after cost factors included. But if that fare was only £115 instead of £130 then the slightly extra cost than other airport then is worth it over the the extra travel hassle cost factored to get to other airport so is more appealing as cost after extra travel becomes break even. So having a slightly larger aircraft could mean more seats sold at £115 than £130, so more revenue overall with passengers not going from other airport because the right product is provided close by. Hence my saying the price has to be competitive in relation to offerings at other nearby airports doing the route. (For Instance)

Such like comments have been seen on various social media posts about flights by numerous people saying why pay £30 more when travel costs to other airport still gives a good saving hence why don't use this route. It is about making that difference more competitive on price where other airport savings don't become a factor anymore to make a decision where they fly from.

Would it be that 5-6 hours savings be worth the extra cost. For a number of people nowadays the extra two hour bus journey over rail would get them going by bus cause of the price.


Like in my line of work a company said there is no demand for using certain route for a service, if there was a demand we will run a connecting bus to that route.
A few years later a company set up on this route providing service and has proved that there is huge demand for this route. To such an extent they have had to add more services to the route since starting with numbers going through the roof.

As I say if the product is right then people will come.

It is like the fire triangle: Heat, Oxygen, Material. Together you can get a fire, but remove one of them then no fire can be had.
With an air route triangle: Price, Frequency, Capacity. Get each them all right then you have a good route. Don't get one of them right then the triangle falls apart.

[Atlantic Explorer]

Originally Posted by Harold77

I agree with your sentiments especially regarding prices. Everyone has come soo fixated on low price as possible no matter what line your in whether airline, railways, ferries, bus/ coach, shops etc.
What a lot of people have lost sight of is cost over time savings, in that time savings come with a slightly greater cost.

For Instance say a cheap single train ticket for a 7 hour journey £55, a 9 hour coach journey £30 and same route by air would take just over an hour be £130, but a slightly larger plane could mean cost of air be £10-15 cheaper than the £130. So £115 be more appealing to more than what £130 be.
Now take that approach for instance to same destination but from another airport in the area might be £30 cheaper at £100, so even for cost to get to other place still have savings after cost factors included. But if that fare was only £115 instead of £130 then the slightly extra cost than other airport then is worth it over the the extra travel hassle cost factored to get to other airport so is more appealing as cost after extra travel becomes break even. So having a slightly larger aircraft could mean more seats sold at £115 than £130, so more revenue overall with passengers not going from other airport because the right product is provided close by. Hence my saying the price has to be competitive in relation to offerings at other nearby airports doing the route. (For Instance)

Such like comments have been seen on various social media posts about flights by numerous people saying why pay £30 more when travel costs to other airport still gives a good saving hence why don't use this route. It is about making that difference more competitive on price where other airport savings don't become a factor anymore to make a decision where they fly from.

Would it be that 5-6 hours savings be worth the extra cost. For a number of people nowadays the extra two hour bus journey over rail would get them going by bus cause of the price.


Like in my line of work a company said there is no demand for using certain route for a service, if there was a demand we will run a connecting bus to that route.
A few years later a company set up on this route providing service and has proved that there is huge demand for this route. To such an extent they have had to add more services to the route since starting with numbers going through the roof.

As I say if the product is right then people will come.

It is like the fire triangle: Heat, Oxygen, Material. Together you can get a fire, but remove one of them then no fire can be had.
With an air route triangle: Price, Frequency, Capacity. Get each them all right then you have a good route. Don't get one of them right then the triangle falls apart.

I think your hypothesis is slightly misguided. By your reasoning, any route will work which is ludicrous. You could have cheap, regular flights on a big aircraft from Inverness to the Faroe Islands for example, but it would never make commercial sense and would cost hundreds of thousands to operate the route and is therefore clearly not commercially viable.

There needs to be an existing customer demand for a route pairing in the first place otherwise you can make it as cheap as you like but it will never be viable as it just won’t generate the bums on seats required. The problem here being that demand is diluted by LBA and NCL with LCC already in place there offering cheap flight. The route needs to generate a profit otherwise it just won’t last, unless of course you chuck blank cheques from the Mayor at it.

[N707ZS]

Rumour has it the mayors cheque book is empty at the moment.

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by Cautious Optimist

The demand is there

For regional markets the 70-120 seat capacity would suffice as the cost units are much lower thus fares can be more competitive and attractive.

If we accept these statements to be correct, and seeing that mathematics is the theme of the week - what about the other side of the equation, where's the supply?

I think someone else touched on this but people were too spoiled during the 2000s so that now anything above an ultra low cost fare is chalked up as "expensive", people need to recalibrate what they consider an expensive [base] air fare.

Good luck with that - reading the FB comments on the Iceland charter, there's a way to go

[Atlantic Explorer]

Originally Posted by N707ZS

Rumour has it the mayors cheque book is empty at the moment.

Im not surprised!

[pug]

Originally Posted by Atlantic Explorer

I think your hypothesis is slightly misguided. By your reasoning, any route will work which is ludicrous. You could have cheap, regular flights on a big aircraft from Inverness to the Faroe Islands for example, but it would never make commercial sense and would cost hundreds of thousands to operate the route and is therefore clearly not commercially viable.

There needs to be an existing customer demand for a route pairing in the first place otherwise you can make it as cheap as you like but it will never be viable as it just won’t generate the bums on seats required. The problem here being that demand is diluted by LBA and NCL with LCC already in place there offering cheap flight. The route needs to generate a profit otherwise it just won’t last, unless of course you chuck blank cheques from the Mayor at it.

Exactly, this is the problem when stating ‘there is demand’. Of course there is demand, but is it sufficiently strong enough to support a service day in day out? Teesside core market is smaller than Leeds and Newcastle so the battle will always be competing with airports with access to more people. For instance, I’m sure there are people travelling between Teesside and Dubai every day, does that mean there is demand for a service to Dubai from Teesside? An extreme example perhaps, but ticket tracing models don’t account for things such as choice and flexibility in isolation. Also in the U.K. it doesn’t account for what people like to define as a catchment area. Manchesters catchment area isn’t just Manchester, because it’s offering is so large the North and Midlands is it’s catchment area. Similar goes for the North East, Teesside is in the Newcastle and Leeds catchment area, but it doesn’t quite work the other way around. How do you convince an airline to invest millions into operating from an airport that has less appeal to larger numbers of people?

Not knocking Teesside at all, I hope it does find its feet again.

[Cautious Optimist]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying any route will work, of course not. Cardiff was probably the wildcard in our recent history

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

what about the other side of the equation, where's the supply?

There enlies the real issue, the ATR72 is the only game in town, Saabs, Jetstreams and Dorniers all a dying breed with nothing to replace them, we need 30-50 seat turboprops ideally

[Hipennine]

Originally Posted by Cautious Optimist

Just to be clear, I'm not saying any route will work, of course not. Cardiff was probably the wildcard in our recent history


There enlies the real issue, the ATR72 is the only game in town, Saabs, Jetstreams and Dorniers all a dying breed with nothing to replace them, we need 30-50 seat turboprops ideally

If there was a significant viable market in smaller aircraft regional flying, manufacturers would be designing and building those aircraft. The viable ops are in specialist niche routes. Wrt MME, I would suggest that Aberdeen is the only such route, and that will become increasingly un-sustainable as the oil sector winds down in NE Scotland.

[pug]

Originally Posted by Hipennine

If there was a significant viable market in smaller aircraft regional flying, manufacturers would be designing and building those aircraft. The viable ops are in specialist niche routes. Wrt MME, I would suggest that Aberdeen is the only such route, and that will become increasingly un-sustainable as the oil sector winds down in NE Scotland.

Exactly this. Times have changed, the industry has moved on from the days of small commuter airlines serving the peripheral airports in the U.K. Everything has been consolidated onto larger aircraft operating from fewer more well situated airports that can pull in passengers from a wider radius but also have millions of potential customers on their doorstep.

Unless you are offering a very niche connection where industry will happily pay over the odds for a ticket to position workers around, there really isn’t the demand for the smaller 30-50 seat airliners in this country any more. ABZ being a great example and one which itself is dropping off now.

I can only foresee it becoming harder for small regional airports in the U.K. to become financially sustainable serving passenger flights with the increasing costs in doing so. Get a reasonable operation from Ryanair or something and the ancillary revenue generated might cover those costs, but otherwise it doesn’t bode too well currently in my opinion. Not just a Teesside issue.

[highwideandugly]

Good post Pug..

To say demand is there , is this now just naturally historical?

Aberdeen…yes for now , a dynamic market.
Amsterdam..again an unequalled choice for world wide connectivity.
Alicante..always popular.
Palma..the same.

But there lies the problem..other than those four..it’s going to be difficult to generate new routes and get them up and running for a few years without a cost risk to the airlines or a dilution of nearby established markets?

[pug]

Originally Posted by highwideandugly

Good post Pug..

To say demand is there , is this now just naturally historical?

Aberdeen…yes for now , a dynamic market.
Amsterdam..again an unequalled choice for world wide connectivity.
Alicante..always popular.
Palma..the same.

But there lies the problem..other than those four..it’s going to be difficult to generate new routes and get them up and running for a few years without a cost risk to the airlines or a dilution of nearby established markets?

This is another problem with crude ticket tracing analysis. Whilst it’s a good way of establishing overall propensity to fly in any given region, the route breakdowns are problematic. I think it’s reasonable to believe that the single most common airport Teesside passengers use is Newcastle. So say Teesside region generates 30,000 air passengers per year between itself and Copenhagen and Newcastle accounts for say 70,000, it’s a much safer bet to run the route from Newcastle and the Teesside based passengers are still an important portion of the NCL-CPH market. Should the same airline decide to operate the route from Teesside as well as Newcastle, you would effectively double your costs and perhaps gain a few extra passengers from York (for instance), but probably not enough to justify increasing your costs. In all likelihood Newcastle would have a decent frequency which appeals to the passengers but that would be sacrificed to operate alongside Teesside. So in conclusion it makes far more sense from an operators perspective to concentrate on just serving Newcastle. Same principle applies if it is a competitor airline, market is diluted, frequency becomes threatened. This is then compounded by Leeds Bradford to the South, again same principle applies. So the only way that a new route would work like this is as was previously mentioned, a niche where the operator is guaranteed a sufficient number of people travelling in high value tickets to service industry. Appreciate this is a very round the houses explanation of what I mean.

Add to all this the number of leisure operators that have disappeared over the last 20 years.. Thomas Cook, Airtours/Mytravel, a plethora of IT specialists that had multiple weekly flights to Turkey. All the low cost airlines like BMIBaby, Globespan, FlyBe (mk1), going further back Go, Mytravel lite etc. plus all those familiar names like Air2000, Britannia, Astreus, XL, Monarch and the overseas ones that used to position from the Med like Futura, Air Europa, Spanair, Iberworld, Eurocypria, Cyprus Airways etc etc I’m sure there are loads that I’ve forgotten. How many of those still exist? How many large tour operators still exist? These days there isn’t much in the U.K. except for TUI, Jet2, Ryanair and Easyjet. They all operate from Newcastle and Leeds. Much like Teesside, Doncaster was built when a lot more of those operators were around.

KLM do a great job for the U.K. regions, long may that continue. There is undoubtably some untapped/unserved demand for more bucket and spade destinations. But apart from that, Teesside should continue to develop its GA businesses to give it a USP/undisputed core business.

[SWBKCB]

2006 was peak MME - some numbers comparing pax stats between then and the last comparable year

2006 - NCL 5,431,976, LBA 2,792,686, MME 917,963

2019 - NCL 5,199,000, LBA 3,992,862, MME 150,735

[Jamesair1]

Re pax demand on routes......when the last attempt at a NCL - LGW service failed the reason given by the operator was.....there is no shortage of pax between NCL and LGW but very little demand between LGW and NCL illustrating that their must be a good two way sourcing of pax to make a route work. Obviously, this argument doesn't apply to SUN ROUTES, more applicable to domestic and business routes.

[Beafer]

NO Avgas

Grapevine says No Avgas until 13th January if your planning on a refuel at Teesside International.

I thought the mayor might have had his photo taken next to the bowser

[David Thompson]

Originally Posted by Beafer

Grapevine says No Avgas until 13th January if your planning on a refuel at Teesside International.
I thought the mayor might have had his photo taken next to the bowser

The 'Grapevine' is called a NOTAM and is there in plain sight for all to see .

[N707ZS]

Has Willis taken over the avgas?

[jmdavies86]

Originally Posted by Cautious Optimist

There enlies the real issue, the ATR72 is the only game in town, Saabs, Jetstreams and Dorniers all a dying breed with nothing to replace them, we need 30-50 seat turboprops ideally

Your point about there not being anything to replace aircraft like Dorniers simply isn't true as there's the new Deutsche Aircraft D328eco, which will sit right in the middle of the 30-50 seat market with 38-40 seats.

[Asturias56]

"Service entry for the D328eco – a stretched and modernised version of the original Dornier D328 twin-turboprop – is due in the second half of 2026."

Assuming they can raise the cash and get it certified of course