the "always boarding " sign is an Irish thing I think - I can remember Aer Lingus doing it in the 80's out of Dublin and LHR

it wasn't the duty free they were trying to empty but the bar TBH

All Spanish airports do it, it says boarding for a minute or two and goes to final call even when its 30 minutes before departure.

Etihad Regional
 

Will Menzies be losing another contract to Swissport though??

Picked up a mate one night who flew in from Germany, it took him longer to get through BC than the flight took. It was late one Sunday and when he asked at BC was there something unusual on that it was so crowded and got told its always this way on a Sunday night and have the desks are unmanned.

STANSTED - 2
 

Rocket_dog

What makes you say that ?

Etihad regional
 

I believe Darwin Airlines already falls under SWP.

STANSTED - 2
 

Ah in that case then maybe. Depends on the local contracts I guess

Thought some might be interested by these old Stansted route maps from Ryanair, Air Berlin and EasyJet. (It also includes EasyJet from Luton).


By Air


I'm not sure when this is exactly but I would think probably around 2004 or 2005, how things change (and not necessarily for the better) in ten years!

Most of those easyjet routes but have been Fly Go routes.

Easyjet
 

STN-CPH and STN-LYS finish 02NOV14.

EasyJet
 

Whilst on the subject again, I'm not sure many people are fully aware of actually how much EasyJet has turned its back on STN. Below is EasyJet's schedules for Mondays in August 2011 v August 2014 to give an idea.


MONDAY (SUMMER 2011)
EZY3167 06:00 Alicante
EZY3043 06:00 Ibiza
EZY3357 06:15 Naples
EZY3111 06:25 Malaga
EZY3303 06:30 Cagliari
EZY3211 06:40 Palma de Mallorca
EZY3001 07:00 Amsterdam
EZY3461 07:00 Copenhagen
EZY3287 07:00 Faro
EZY3473 07:15 Bilbao
EZY255 07:50 Belfast-International
EZY3411 08:05 Munich
EZY233 08:10 Edinburgh
EZY3263 08:25 Madeira
EZY207 08:50 Glasgow-International
EZY3031 10:00 Barcelona
EZY3103 11:25 Nice
EZY235 11:40 Edinburgh
EZY259 11:55 Belfast-International
EZY3003 12:10 Amsterdam
EZY3189 12:25 Lyon-St. Exupery
EZY3361 12:35 Naples
EZY3065 12:45 Prague
EZY3113 12:50 Malaga
EZY3169 13:00 Alicante
EZY3291 13:00 Faro
EZY3085 13:15 Asturias
EZY3245 13:30 Ljubljana
EZY3465 13:55 Copenhagen
EZY215 15:35 Glasgow-International
EZY3315 15:40 Dalaman
EZY3005 16:05 Amsterdam
EZY239 16:50 Edinburgh
EZY3105 16:50 Nice
EZY3363 17:45 Naples
EZY265 18:00 Belfast-International
EZY3033 18:05 Barcelona
EZY3415 18:20 Munich
EZY241 18:25 Edinburgh
EZY217 18:30 Glasgow-International
EZY3467 18:40 Copenhagen
EZY3117 19:05 Malaga
EZY3009 19:20 Amsterdam
EZY3475 19:25 Bilbao
EZY3045 19:40 Ibiza
EZY3173 19:45 Alicante
EZY3215 19:55 Palma de Mallorca
EZY267 20:55 Belfast-International
EZY219 20:55 Glasgow-International
EZY3049 21:45 Ibiza
EZY245 21:50 Edinburgh


MONDAY (SUMMER 2014)
EZY3111 06:05 Malaga
EZY3249 06:10 Naples
EZY3213 06:30 Palma de Mallorca
EZY3001 07:00 Amsterdam
EZY3091 07:00 Copenhagen
EZY3155 07:00 Dalaman
EZY3203 07:10 Cagliari
EZY3245 07:20 Ljubljana
EZY255 07:50 Belfast-International
EZY207 08:10 Glasgow-International
EZY231 08:25 Edinburgh
EZY3225 10:10 Bilbao
EZY3083 11:30 Asturias
EZY233 11:50 Edinburgh
EZY215 12:45 Glasgow-International
EZY3103 13:05 Nice
EZY259 13:15 Belfast-International
EZY3071 13:15 Munich
EZY3191 14:00 Lyon
EZY3095 15:15 Copenhagen
EZY237 16:10 Edinburgh
EZY3005 16:30 Amsterdam
EZY3055 16:45 Marrakech
EZY3251 16:55 Naples
EZY3067 18:20 Prague
EZY3117 18:20 Malaga
EZY3227 18:30 Bilbao
EZY3009 19:05 Amsterdam
EZY3215 19:35 Palma de Mallorca
EZY263 19:45 Belfast-International
EZY219 21:30 Glasgow-International
EZY241 21:40 Edinburgh
EZY3047 21:40 Ibiza


Just to add to this, on a Monday in February 2012 there were 39 departures, on the same day in February 2015 there will only be 22.


Not only is the level of decline really quite shocking (and only set to get worse still), but the general quality of the whole network has gone drastically downhill.


Lots of routes had multiple daily frequencies with morning, midday and evening options which suits both business and leisure pax. Of those routes that they do still choose to operate the frequencies and timings are rubbish. For example:
- AGP and PMI now only fly ridiculously early morning or ridiculously late at night (not very sociable for a family holiday). They don't even serve ALC and FAO anymore!
- MUC used to fly in the morning and evening, now is just 1 afternoon flight (so crap for business pax)
- CPH while they still operate it is a morning and afternoon (again, pretty unfriendly for business pax).
- High frequencies on the domestic routes to EDI and GLA have also dwindled to a mere 2 or 3 daily flights a lot of the time (perhaps just getting the train would be a better option).


I've never seen anything like this happen, especially in just 3 years. To have built such a dynamic and high quality route network from a major UK airport that suits a vast range of markets to completely tear it apart at a time when STN is growing and improving and the economy overall is on the up. Such a shocking way to do business.

Such A Shocking Way to do Business?
 

Such a shocking way to do business? Well, that all depends. I can certainly understand why a dramatic reduction in EZY's commitment to STN is profoundly disappointing to those who champion the airport. Believe me, I empathise. But that does not translate to poor business strategy from the point of view of a profit-orientated company. They have to prioritise the 'big picture' over local expediency. Loyalty to a locality is strictly the remit of mayors and councillors, not experienced corporate decision-makers.

EasyJet has in recent seasons seized the opportunity to expand rapidly at a competing airport serving the same conurbation as STN. As events abruptly freed up precious blocks of scarce slots on LGW's heavily-subscribed single runway, EasyJet was the carrier which very smartly took advantage. Each time slots came available, EasyJet was proactive in adding them to its portfolio. As a result of this policy, EasyJet has now secured a predominant position in short-haul at an airport which has become by far their most strategically-important base. Their fleet at LGW has grown at a phenomenal rate; the recent acquisition of former FlyBe slots facilitates another leap in capacity this year. What are they up to now … is it 68 based units at LGW? Something like that, anyway. And EasyJet is making good money. I haven't studied the accounts in any detail, but could LGW perhaps represent a higher-yield profit opportunity than STN? An airport where they are not head-to-head with Ryanair to such a significant extent?

Unfortunately, EasyJet is even more constrained than most other carriers in allocating additional airframes at short notice, as they are suffering the hangover from the dispute with Stelios concerning the rate of fleet expansion. So the airframes to support the LGW opportunity had to be sourced from other bases in a hurry. STN has been one of the losers as a result of this strategy, but not the only one. Other EasyJet bases have also seen cuts or slower-than-anticipated expansion to accommodate the LGW invasion. But of course STN, serving the same major city, is more in the crosshairs than most. I know we PPRuNers can argue passionately that STN and LGW catchment areas are different … that is true … but there is very considerable overlap, and EasyJet has determined that LGW is the airport which will maximise their bottom line in the long term. Placing supremely capital-intensive scarce resources (aircraft assets) at your most important profit centre isn't "a shocking way to do business". It is the only LOGICAL way to do business.

Note that I do not present this case out of any bias towards LGW. My local airport is MAN. EasyJet's fleet there is stubbornly frozen at eight based units … I would dearly love to see double that. But I can completely understand why it just can't be so (yet). LGW is an opportunity that EasyJet as a profit-driven business must seize. I empathise with the frustration of STN cheerleaders on this issue, but I cannot for one moment agree that EZY's strategic decision to colonise LGW represents "a shocking way to do business".

They've refocussed on business travel and whilst not abandoning loco land, they're aiming higher with a better quality product. It seems, again, that Stansted struggles to hang onto business on any measure beyond price. Aircraft are the most mobile of assets and the laser like focus on Gatwick coupled with the launch of Southend is all about improving yields and profitability. As Shed says, Gatwick is now an Orange fortress in the same way it was a BA hub, excpet with more based units. Look at the branding, the only loco thing about the brand now is the aircraft livery which is actually at odds with every other piece of branding and marketing you'll see in terms of font and positioning.

FR@STN

As a shareholder in EZY I'm glad that the company are looking at where they can get the best return on investment. The top brass have access to all the stats needed to make these decisions and we do not. It's not nice for the crew who may need to relocate as a base shrinks or for those who champion their local airport but at the end of the day, if the yield or airport deal is better elsewhere then I expect the bosses to look after my investment and do what's best for the company.

EZY have a history of chopping routes that may have fantastic load factors but a poor yield . The annual profits continue to rise each year so the strategy that is being followed is working.

The thing that is "such a shocking way to do business" is EZY continued inability to be able to expand at one location, whether it be LGW, LTN or SEN without it be at the expense of another.


Please remember that SEN has bought NO GROWTH to the London or even the Essex areas at all. Literally every single passenger that travels through SEN with EZY, and then some, used to travel through STN in statistical terms. If you look at the S11 schedule I posted earlier, you can see at least 12 aircraft (though if I remember correctly it was actually 13) and 51 departures from STN. Compare that to 8 aircraft and 33 departures this summer (a reduction of 4/5 aircraft and 18 departures). That reduction is significantly larger than the level of traffic EZY have at SEN.


Were they completely incapable of opening a small base at SEN without it having too much of an impact on STN? Probably not, but the management of the company decided to move substantial capacity away at the time. SEN is no more than a case of EZY relocating its assets and hasn't created any extra growth, jobs and passengers like they seem to make out, not in the "big picture" anyway!


Let's take FR up in the north-west for example where a similar thing appears to be happening between LPL and MAN. FR has taken aircraft, flights and passengers out of LPL this year in favour of MAN, most likely because they (like EZY) haven't been getting many aircraft deliveries. Last year they grew ops at both airports although MAN took most of the growth. This winter FR will be growing very slightly at both airports and has expressed interest to grow again at LPL from next summer once more aircraft start coming in. There is a commitment there to grow at both airports and I'm confident they will do just that. And when you look at the "big picture" the north-west is a lot bigger in terms of FR traffic now than it was 3 years ago, that's more than can be said in EZY's case down in Essex.


EZY have done and I'm sure will continue to do very well at LGW. It is amazing what they have achieved there along with the prospects of them having the North Terminal to themselves but it is slot constrained and limited as to how much more growth it can take, especially in the peak times where based aircraft need to fly out. Any major growth at LGW in future unless it has a 2nd runway will have to be by night stopping aircraft and crews at non-base airports so they can fly into LGW first thing in the morning when there's more slots and that can be very expensive, particularly for a low-cost airline.


But take a look at a few of the routes EZY have dropped from STN in recent years:
ALC - now up to 3x daily by FR
BCN - now 4x daily by FR
FAO - now up to 3x daily by FR


Go back about five or six years and it was purely EZY on these routes with no FR. EZY have been undoubtedly weak to have in that time given FR a monopoly on these routes from STN when they were not too long ago some of their primary routes from one of their primary base airports.


And what happens if we ever see the day where EZY do want to grow again at STN, the airport which it was quick to reach a growth framework with and is the only one in London that already has significant space to grow? Most of the routes they successfully built up at STN are now flown multiple times daily by it's largest rival airline. That means they have probably lost their chances with these routes now and would have to explore new opportunities in new markets that may present further commercial risks that could easily have been avoided under a different strategy.


I don't think it's ever sustainable to remove a lot of your existing capacity because other options arise elsewhere which allow very rapid growth such as that at LGW. Any company should strive to grow in a way where all of its activities can grow alongside each other, not at the expense of each other.

FRatSTN -


Well - I can categorically state that myself and a number of my friends resident in South Essex now use Easyjet FAR more since they started operating from Southend. It is simply so much more convenient and so much more pleasant than the hassle of the alternatives. So certainly - in our own small way we have contributed to growth because we now fly on leisure trips far more often!!


Long may Easyjet continue at Southend!!!!

FRatSTN - would the long term dispute between Easyjet management and Stelios who owned 40% of the shares over whether or not to order more aircraft perhaps have anything to do with Easyjet's fleet strategy ? Took a long time to resolve whether the company would remain in growth mode or not - because of the lead times between ordering aircraft and delivery, we are probably still seeing the effects of that dispute.

3 or 4 years ago, when Europe's economy was lousy and a euro breakup was being actively considered, it was a brave airline CEO who ordered lots more shorthaul aircraft in Europe, particularly when Airbus / Boeing were able to sell their products in Asia and didn't feel the need for desperate discounting sale prices.

EssexMan61


Well you can't argue, it's fact that SEN hasn't contributed any growth to EZY since they have taken more capacity out of STN than they have added to SEN.


The fact that you as a local resident in Essex flies with them more frequently now they are at SEN actually implies that less individual people are flying with them now, but instead more frequent custom from the same individuals. And that links back to what we have said in the past about how moving traffic from STN to SEN is shrinking their catchment area.




davidjohnson6


But that doesn't explain why EZY are still growing in other markets. It's very unlikely that they would take out the effects of aircraft delivery issues so heavily on one airport. Plus they have even said they expect to grow 20% in size at Luton next year, so far the only new flights this winter at Luton are 2 routes being moved over there from Stansted.

FR@STN: Whilst you may consider the capacity moved to SEN brought no growth it may well have brought extra profits if they were offered a better deal. As you often bemoaned at the time, BAA probably charged top whack to airlines using STN. If SEN offered a better deal & EZY can still charge similar fares then that's a bigger piece of the pie going in to their pockets. Which I think they would consider a good deal.


Now MAG have almost certainly offered a better deal but as others have stated, EZY do not (yet) have the airframes to expand their offering at all the bases they would like. LGW slots acquired from Flybe had to be used or lost so it seems both sensible & inevitable they would fill them first.


As to business lost to FR, I think most people these days are loyal only to their wallets not a specific airline. (Timing and days of operation may also come into consideration.) If the price is right they will fly Orange again no doubt! What EZY will have to ensure is that if / when they return they manage to either pinch business back or create new business without undermining their existing offerings from SEN or LGW.

EZY might not be carrying as many passengers from SEN as they were before from STN but I'd bet they are probably making more money from them doing so. This is due to the fact that they have a monopoly there, are probably getting a very good deal from stobart and most importantly being able to charge more since SEN is considered to be fairly 'local' and easy for travellers. Flybe have a rather similar position at SOU.

However STN does still have some of EZY's less common routes (OVD, BIO, LJU, CAG) which I personally would have expected to see go before the more obvious BCN, ALC, FAO, and maybe these type of routes will become what the airport focuses on.

I don't doubt at all that EZY is a very well run airline and every decision they make is for a good reason but it does seem strange to publicly go on about expanding at STN and doubling the operation there only to go and cut it further a few months later, this possibly suggests the deal may have just been a bargaining point for LTN.