Groundloop

With respect, if the only aircraft larger than the Let-410 that you can come up with which can use Shoreham is one that is no longer in service in Europe, I cannot see how that "throws doubt on the accuracy of everything in the article." Perhaps the article was simply too positive for your liking.

Expressflight,

DHC7's, DHC8-100's, even 30 years ago I was putting 20 (20 being greater than 19) seater DHC6's thru Shoreham

Phileas - about a week ago, I flew Shoreham-Pontoise with Brighton City - I read the review on a later date an, ignoring aspects around launch day and press coverage, thought it gave a pretty accurate description of the product BCA offer. It's extremely rare that a handling agent at a commercial airline says "Go to the restaurant and have some breakfast - we'll phone you when about to board". Admittedly it was a little annoying that I had to shovel the last piece of scrambled eggs and toast in my mouth and get up quickly because the person in the kitchen took their time over making my breakfast, but such is the way of life...

Maybe a slightly larger aircraft could be used but it's a fairly minor point - particularly for an airline and route which late in 2012 people wrote off as no hope.

If we end up with passenger aviation run 100% by 3 network carriers, Easyjet and Ryanair, then we are back to the monopoly days of the 1970s with airlines flying only where is operationally convenient rather than where passengers want to fly.

How about an Ilyushin Il-18?

60 seats longhaul out of 1000m (even unpaved)

No, not that Il-18, this one.

About as realistic as Brighton City Airways, if you ask me.

davidjohnson6,

I'm not arguing that BCA is a little niche, indeed unique, operation, alas it has no recognised airport at either end of it's one solitary route thus I'd be willing to bet a beer that BCA's days are numbered.

The point I was making that a guy, believing himself to be knowlegable, made such a mistake without any research thus losing much, if not all, credibility of his obviously biased review.

And, should anyone believe that I am biased against Shoreham ... Once upon a time I resided in Storrington and would regularly drive around Shoreham and the surrounding area.

Wow, what a terrible error the writer of that article made in stating that the Let-410 was the largest aircraft that could operate from Shoreham.

How could he possibly have "made such a mistake" and got it so wrong and not realised that a Twin Otter could do so? I mean, one whole seat of extra capacity and he completely overlooked it; absolutely disgraceful. Naturally this results in the whole of his article being totally discredited and quite how he can sleep at night after such negilgence hardly bears thinking about it.

Expressflight.

A DHC8-100/200/Q200 has circa 36/39 seats and a DHC7 50 seats, 50 seats vs 19 seats, one whole seat the difference between 19 and 50 ... Really?

Back to your Sarfend thread before the mods may shut that down again!

Phileas

Final word on this: would you seriously expect any airline to nowadays operate a Dash 8 on a UK scheduled service from either a tarmac runway 18m wide or the alternative grass runways at Shoreham? Surely your self proclaimed wide aviation experience would tell you this?

Back to your concrete mixer I'd suggest.

Calm down chaps. Is this really worth getting heated over? Leave BCA alone and let them get on with it. Let's return to the subject at the end of the summer and see how they've prospered.....

BM,

Certainly not worth Expressflight getting heated over, alas it seems he's stalking me around a thread or few of this forum merely to find disagreement(s) with me ... and he was the root cause of the "Southend - 3" thread being shut down by the mods.

Alas if only we had a concrete mixer in this part of the world, we've got cement, we've got sand from the beach, we've got rocks that the locals pilfer from the roads, we've got water from our well ... and we've got shovels!

Regards from Cloud 9 :)

Looking at the level of BCA's available fares for the first two weeks in April it seems that bookings may perhaps be picking up a little. They certainly need to resolve the Customs problem at POX though, if they haven't already.

Their facebook page recently had 1000 bookings surpassed, and the flights are once again twice a day, so looks like there is some demand there. Aviation is a tough game though, so it'll be interesting to see how well it continues.

Quote: "If we end up with passenger aviation run 100% by 3 network carriers, Easyjet and Ryanair, then we are back to the monopoly days of the 1970s with airlines flying only where is operationally convenient rather than where passengers want to fly."

Ah yes, the days when fares were fixed by IATA with economy class at 50% of the first class fare, no business and premium economy classes, with the odd APEX and ABC fares creeping in to get round this, and everyone else on charter operations out of Luton.



Quote: "Calm down chaps. Is this really worth getting heated over? Leave BCA alone and let them get on with it. Let's return to the subject at the end of the summer and see how they've prospered....."

Makes sense!

Am I reading the CAA Stats correctly that during March Shoreham had 86 flights yet only 94 passengers?

That's certainly what the provisional stats show. It's a bit odd though that Shoreham doesn't appear in the route analysis section; if they've declared the POX route numbers you would expect them to have been shown there.

No different to normal - Shoreham had 435 ATMs in 2012, all of which were schedules, and these flights carried a total of 480 pax.

But there's a number of issues with the CAA stats. They don't necessarily tell a full or accurate story.

NS

435 movements and 480 pax over 12 months in 2012 equates to 36.25 movements and 40 pax per month.

Yet, last month, based on these figures ESH had an additional 49.75 movements yet only an additional 54 passengers thus just a smidgen over 1 passenger per additional movement based on the previous year.

Were those additional 49.75 movements Brighton City Airways or private puddle jumpers?

Those CAA figures are only for schedules, or charters by aircraft >15 tonnes. As I understand it that rules out anything at Shoreham other than BCA.
NS

Just tried to book a flight for later this month. Quite a few flights showing as Full or no available.

Does anyone know if this is because the flights are sold out or is it because they are cutting back there schedule?

If you try to book just 1 seat and the website says fliggt is full, then you're looking at a cancelled flight. If booking 1 seat gives you availability, but booking 2 or more seats means the flight shows as full then it probably mean the 19 seat aircraft hasn't got room for both existing booked passengers and all of your party as well..

It didn't even last 2 months...

From their press release....

FRENCH BUREAUCRACY FORCES BRIGHTON CITY AIRWAYS TO
SUSPEND PARIS FLIGHTS
Brighton City Airways announced today May 2 that from Tuesday May 7 it will suspend its
recently launched service between Brighton and Paris, due to ongoing French Customs and
Immigration delays in setting up a point of entry at Paris Pontoise airport.
Said Jonathan Candelon of Brighton City Airways: “Just two weeks before we launched the
airline in March, we were advised by the French authorities that there would be a short delay
of a couple of weeks before a customs and immigration port of entry was in place at Paris
Pontoise. However, eight weeks later, this intolerable issue remains in place and with no firm
date set for a resolution.
“In the meantime, we have been obliged to land in another French airport – usually Rouen or
Le Touquet – en route to Pontoise and more often than not, the authorities have very rarely
come aboard to check passports.
“This has meant having two take offs and climbs instead of one, longer flight times, extra
airport fees and extra maintenance costs, all of which add up to a single flight to Paris
costing us 60 per cent more than a direct flight would cost, never mind the inconvenience for
passengers.
“We are truly sad to suspend the flights, not least because our ticket sales are over target
and the demand for this airline is proven to be there, but we are forced to postpone flights
until the issue is solved at Paris Pontoise.” “Brighton City Airways will operate the return flights to Paris until May 6 to allow passengers
to return from their bank holiday breaks in Paris, but will suspend the service after the return
flight to Shoreham lands on Monday evening.
“We want to thank everyone for the tremendous support they have given us –Brighton
(Shoreham) Airport, Van Air Europe, Aeroports de Paris, Handling Partners, KA Exec
Handling and our enthusiastic passengers. We will of course be giving a full refund to
passengers expecting to fly from May 7 onwards and we want to apologise to them for the
inconvenience. It is a huge disappointment for all of us.”
Ric Belfield, General Manager of Brighton Shoreham Airport said: “Brighton Shoreham
Airport are deeply disappointed that the French Customs issues at Paris Pontoise show no
signs of being resolved and as a result Brighton City Airways have reluctantly had to take the
difficult decision to suspend the operation until the matter is resolved. There are many
people who have worked hard and made considerable investment both in time and money to
bring the scheduled service into being. It is very hard to come to terms with the fact that the
route which has proved extremely popular with customers should be frustrated by matters
outside Brighton City Airways control. Brighton Shoreham Airport look forward to the French
Customs issue being resolved and the resumption of this valuable service. “
An official statement from the Aéroports de Paris Group said: The Aéroports de Paris Group
regrets this decision but is aware that without this Schengen entry-point agreement,
Pontoise and Toussus operators are losing money. Aéroports de Paris is continuing to work
on reopening these two airfields up to non-Schengen traffic as soon as possible in order to
maintain the promising scheduled services between Pontoise and Brighton.

Sounds to me like this is game over for good not just temporarily?

Well that was quick
 

https://www.brightoncityairways.com/...essrelease.pdf

Even I didn't think the party would end this quickly, but I don't hold out much hope for any restart given the wording - especially given the 'final' nature of the press release, unless of course this relates to it being the final draft.

One hell of a lot of tongue in cheek ...

[I]Just two weeks before we launched the airline in March, we were advised by the French authorities that there would be a short delay of a couple of weeks before a customs and immigration port of entry was in place at Paris Pontoise.[/I]

Were they advised bollox! Pontoise is not regarded as a "Paris" airport even by it's operator so nobody in France ever referred to it as "Paris Pontoise"

So if Pontoise doesn't have customs/immigration then how about Beuvais, Toussus and the other airfields surrounding Paris?

Perhaps the CAA Stats for March have something to do with this whereas apparently the load factors have been circa one pax per flight not taking in to consideration other flights that have been cancelled.

Would French customs/immigration seriously attend an aerodrome for circa one pax per day? :)

It is, of course, correct that Aeroports de Paris is the operator of POX so I wouldn't say it is very far fetched for BCA to refer to it as Paris Pontoise. We're seeing marketing-speak here in the Press Release when all's said and done.

I'll be surprised to see the number of pax as being "circa one pax per flight" when the stats come out but let's wait and see.

If the passenger numbers, the revenue, were there then they'd find a way, come hell or high water, to move their passengers, their bread and butter, to and from an airport somewhere close to Paris.

It was a nonsense to tech stop in Le Touquet or Rouen to then fly onwards to/from Pontoise, four sectors instead of two, why not just select an alternate airport close to Paris, after all they would have nominated a customs/immigration airport to divert to if need be, then why not divert (re-route) to it due to Pontoise being unavailable due to customs/immigration?

For some reason it seems BCA will not consider any other Pariis area airport than Pontoise, it's Pontoise or bust ... and it seems "bust" has won.

It was never going to work, operations between two airfields that aren't recognised airports nor indeed destinations and their "throwing in the towel" press release is merely a case of "let's blame it on anybody except ourselves".

I actually think the future is exactly this. With the hell that air travel has become, the hub system will not offer any future growth. We're sick of connecting and going through screenings in giant people mills, fly out of our way and add travel time to save airlines money and make their logistics easier. As a seasoned traveller for work, I alway go as direct as possible. I would never stay true to an airline and frequent flyer scheme that made me do an extra stop on the way if a competitor has a direct flight. Ever. Therefore, a city like Brighton with over 300K inhabitants could support this route. Maybe not in the way it was setup this time, but in a better way down the line.

The growth and the future is smaller, longer, thinner routes that fly direct. The hub system has it's place, but it's not going to grow much more. We just need less red tape, better and cheaper aircraft and less bureaucracy.

Well said, Mr. Frisch. In one sense, the LoCos have done the industry a favour in defining the bottom of the barrel and provoking the phrase "It costs more to get to the airport than I paid for the ticket!" Once the slightly cash-strapped Paying Joe Public realises the full meaning of that phrase and marries it up to the fact that £5/5€ fares haven't been seen for a long time, there will be plenty of space (and demand, I believe) for the kind of service offerd by BCA.

While there is some implied criticism of the French in this thread, it should be remembered that it's the UK being outside of Schengen that's causing the problem, not to mention the hefty Anti-Passenger Duty that has applied to 19-seat/<20t aircraft since 1st April. One could almost believe HM's government doesn't want her subjects mixing with us unwashed continentals, but I'm sure there's some other very good reason for trying to kill off regional commuter airlines/airports.

Really? Only 2 days ago I paid £1.65 (£10.36 including all the extras) for international travel Philippines to Hong Kong and such fares are available for all nationalities to book.

Guys,

I've worked for the long haul carriers, the commuter airlines, the cargo airlines and indeed such an airline as Brymon Airways when Bill Bryce ran the show struggling to operate such niche routes as Plymouth to Morlaix and Brest ... just as one example.

Plymouth/Brymon, in those days, had something of an advantage because RAF St. Mawgan had no customs/immigration and EXT was only good for perhaps the Channel Islands and an on/off Air UK Bandit to LGW or to AMS via SOU I seem to recall, Plymouth had it's own catchment area and it still struggled to make a go of things.

Now with relation to Shoreham, it's been mentioned that Brighton has a population of 300K ... But isn't it just as easy for those 300K to take a train or take a drive to LGW than it is to ESH?

Shoreham also serves Worthing (no direct trains to LGW I believe) but then Worthing has a lesser population than Brighton, a drive to LGW is less than an hour and if they drive up the A24, and keep going, then end up, pretty much, at LHR.

Get much further west than Worthing then one stumbles upon SOU's catchment area with significant frequencies of services ... including Paris/Orly!

So what is ESH's catchment area? I'd suggest it is little more than Shoreham-By-Sea ... unless an operator can offer something unique and/or fares that will attract customers from afar.

So along come BCA, another in a long line of past failures attempting to provoke schedules services out of ESH, clearly realising that they could never compete with LGW routes they established that one couldn't fly LGW/PAR but rather than offer, let us say, LGW/CDG or ESH/CDG, BCA decided upon ESH/POX, very few want to travel from ESH, very few want to travel to POX ... and this route is the something unique that will attract customers from afar and/or that a Brighton population of 300K can support?

And suggestion that the hub operation has had it'd day ... just as an example someone had better tell BHX this because BHX's connections to hubs are second to none, KLM (5 services daily), Lufthansa (DUS, FRA & MUC), Swiss, SAS, Air France etc. etc. etc.

Personally I prefer not to fly on, to quote, "giant people machines" and when, just as an example, I could fly BHX/DUS/KBP/DUS/BHX on 50 seater CRJ's all the way and with less than 1hr connections and adjoining gates in DUS and at a fare that suited my pocket then why the hell would I ever consider travelling down to LHR or LGW just for a direct flight?

And all these passengers that may travel to/from PAR, so many of those are not destination PAR but merely travelling there, with the likes of AF, to connect onwards, my last time in CDG I was there for an hour before flying onwards to SIN. LGW/PAR services have been withdrawn, perhaps the only route monopoly AF may have is to French regional cities, the French Caribbean and French Africa, LGW's catchment area will probably be routing via LHR or have sourced a hub operator, other than AF, to make their worldwide connections on.

BCA have/had no codeshare agreement to offer onward connections from PAR so, unless travellers wanted to pay for two tickets rather than one, all they were offering was a service for passengers destination PAR area and/or northern France ... and as for French travellers travelling in t'other direction ... they'd more than likely be questioning where the hell Brighton is. :)

Many of us love the romance associated with a "cottage industry", it seems particularly in aviation, and there is a place for such cottage industries in UK aviation. Business Air up there in Scotland was one such cottage industry which still survives today as "BMI Regional", CWL might be another location for such a cottage industry to thrive, it's been suggested that Air Wales might still be in business had they stuck with Do228's rather than upgrade to ATR42's, I'd like to have seen the aftermath of Brymon, ASW, thrive down in Devon and Cornwall but they were never likely to achieve it operating something as large as 50 seaters whilst adopting a LoCo business model.

I recall Suckling Airways starting up with their solitary Do228. East Anglia (NWI & STN) to/from AMS was Air UK's territory so Suckling tried services between (grass runway) Ipswich and AMS, Ipswich didn't work so they tried RAF Wattisham before Cambridge and those didn't work either, none of them had a substainable catchment area for an operation that, in particular, didn't provide for a codeshare agreement with the likes of KLM. But atleast Suckling tried operating to/from a mainstream airport rather than a regional airfield out in the sticks someplace.

So I believe there are places for UK aviation cottage industries to survive and, perhaps prosper, in such locations as Scotland, South Wales, Devon & Cornwall, all of which have their catchment areas but catchment areas for "cottage industry" sized aircraft to build route networks upon.

With LGW on it's doorstep scheduled operations are never going to work from ESH, BCA attempted to fill one gap that they though existed in the market, Paris, but one route doesn't make for a successful airline, what were their 2nd and 3rd routes etc. to be? ... ahem. :)

Phileas - just to pick up on the Suckling point, they had to move on from Ipswich because their aircraft was churning up the grass runway. You may have been aware of that, but "didn't work" in the context of your post suggests pax numbers weren't there which wasn't true. At the time, STN wasn't what it is today and access from ipswich was poorer, pretty much country roads all the way. Ipswich was quite an economic centre, with industry, manufacturing and a developing financial sector. Felixstowe with its international logistics and shipping was just 15 mins away from the airport, and the surrounding rural areas were (and still are) very wealthy.

Wattisham was just an interim measure.

You can't really say Cambridge didn't work though, yes it became unsustainable in a changing world but it operated for the best part of about 15 years

Phileas - it must have been a while since your last DUS flight. No 50 seaters left, mainly CR900...

Phileas - the very passion and argument of your post is why several "cottage industry" airlines can and should succeed in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. The challenge - as I see it - is to break the economic model. BCA almost did that, for example, with their invitation to secure a fare with a flat rate deposit, but it's not enough.

I don't argue that hubs are obsolete; on the contrary, I agree with you that a multi-step journey by air from A-near-me to Z-where-I-want-to-be ought to be no more expensive or uncomfortable than a multi-step terrestrial journey to get a "direct" flight from somewhere I'm not to somewhere I don't want to be. A new type of "regional hub" served by multiple niche airlines with a single combined feed into major hubs would achieve this.

Niche airlines can survive with a single route if that route is properly integrated into a wider commercial venture. Make air seat miles the source of "ancillary revenue" and the rest of it works. This demands a completely different mental attitude to managing the airline, one that is almost deliberately excluded by the regulations and financiers as they are, but every other consumer-oriented sector has embraced the benefits of cross-fertilisation.

BCA serves as a good example of falling between too stools: advertising flights to "Paris" creates an expectation in the public mind of CdG and Orly, but when they find out it's the unfortunately labelled "POX" and not quite Paris (no, neither is Roissy, but who's ever heard of that place ...?) this rings the Ryanair bell. There are problems with the natives, but had the Shoreham destination been Toussus instead, it could have been sold as "Versailles" and targetted a new market, not one that is already settled in its ways.

BCA also jumped straight into the double-daily, every day routine. Why? That level of service can only be justified by a very strong business market, the same one that will have established patterns, preferred partners and a resistance to change. Most other travellers are quite happy with less frequent flights and would prefer a greater choice of destinations rather than additional services to the same one. Why didn't/don't BCA operate a twice weekly service to Rouen? Great little airport, wonderful restaurant, dynamic new-and-old town. It's even got customs facilities!

This is the kind of service that smaller operators using smaller aircraft can offer and win against the SLF-carriers.

ESH-POX
 

Suspect this service was only started because there are no longer any flights between LGW and PAR (all airports). If there were this service would probably have been a non-starter irrespective of the activities of French border control/customs.

Also suspect that ESH-POX was intended as a point-to-point service only, and that may have imposed constraints on it from the start.

How can POX not be a "Paris airport". It is some 16mi. NW of Paris so within the conurbation and no further away in distance than CDG from Paris centre. Compare that with BVA at about 50 mi. north of Paris.

Look at Virgin. Both Atlantic and America. They thrive on point to point and have made a great business out of not having a traditional hub system.

I think long, but thin lines have a huge potential in the future, but the problem is that there are no aircraft that serves it. Just imagine if there were 50-100 seat CRJ's with intercontinental range that flew direct. Edinburgh or Glasgow to NY, or maybe Belfast to San Paolo. The benefit with point to point is a captive audience - people's willingness to pay more goes exponentially up the shorter the travel time is and here the hub system starts to fall short. It's nonsense that you can't design an aircraft that has the same cost per seat to operate as a 380. They just haven't tried hard enough.

Remind me why VS have launched Little Red?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../1/1193197.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../4/1939445.jpg

Quote: "Look at Virgin. Both Atlantic and America. They thrive on point to point and have made a great business out of not having a traditional hub system.

I think long, but thin lines have a huge potential in the future, but the problem is that there are no aircraft that serves it. Just imagine if there were 50-100 seat CRJ's with intercontinental range that flew direct. Edinburgh or Glasgow to NY, or maybe Belfast to San Paolo. The benefit with point to point is a captive audience - people's willingness to pay more goes exponentially up the shorter the travel time is and here the hub system starts to fall short. It's nonsense that you can't design an aircraft that has the same cost"

The reported death of the hub system is somewhat premature.

Replacement of hub-and-spoke by more point-to-point, means more flights. This needs cheap oil for a start, and uncongested skies.

People will pay more for direct flights, so it's good to have a choice, but there can be only so many point-to-point flights, it's just not going to happen from secondary airports to other secondary airports on long haul.

VS has a certain amount of transfer pax over LHR, just like BA, it's not purely a point-to-point carrier.

"Thrive" is hardly a word one could use about either company. Great product, yes, certainly, but sustainable financial performance? Not yet.

I understand you would like there to be a 50-100 seater with intercontinental range and the seat costs of an A380. Many of us would. Really. But wishing doesn't make it so.

The forthcoming C Series is a brand new design, optimised for its size, with new engines and heavy use of composites. It will (just about) have intercontinental range, but it is far from A380 seat-mile costs. (Actually, I think the B777-300ER is at least as good a yardstick for excellent seat-mile costs.) Truthfully, I struggle to see what can be done with existing technology that would deliver an aircraft much smaller than the C Series and at the same time with much better seat costs.

And if some new game-changing technology comes along, why would it not also be applied to larger aircraft? I believe the seat cost disadvantage of smaller aircraft over larger ones (for the same mission) is a structural one which can't simply be magically wished away by implying laziness on the part of engineers or manufacturers.

C.

Could I gently suggest someone open a thread on airline business plans to discuss the topic rather than using the thread on Brighton City Airways ? It's a very interesting topic but being hidden in a thread about BCA probably doesn't attract the audience it deserves

Why don't they just go to Le Bourget??
Good enough for Business jets to Paris.

Kind of, precisely the point ... So Pontoise becomes unavailable so divert/reroute to a Paris area alternate airfield/airport.

Is this rocket science or the sour grapes of a failed infrastructure?