Pan....I have never ever had an opinion other than that which is good for NI as a whole.

As to fighting their own corner I would prefer to leave AIRLINES to compete....not airports 12 miles apart and each with their own specific strengths (no matter how niche).

Derry airport is owned by the council and costs the tax payer a certain amount yes, yet it's purpose is to provide net economic benefits for the region, which it does to the tune of £10million, far in excess of what it "costs".

Belfast City
 

does anyone know what this flight is????

Malaga Picasso GOJ620A 10:00 Departed 10:08

panpanpanpan; what a long forum name you have!
I dont see it that anybody is suggesting the above. Have you ever considered the point of sustainability? Recent reports suggest that BHD is scarcely making a return and that was for a year that numbers were high and FR was also in town. Baby is going and there is nothing concrete available in terms of a new operator and even if there is it wont go live until 2013, I still remain dubious at this stage.

If the airports want to continue to invest in the future and keep going as going concerns they need to make a realistic return. All parties in the equation need to make a realistic return, otherwise I would suggest that it is not 'sustainable'.

Think of the bigger picture. If 2 airports became one, the airline charges would be realistic, the airport would make an appropriate return, could continue to invest in the future and facilities, the airport keen to grow traffic would be in a better position to fund new route development in some way, as I have said routes like Toronto, Orlando, JFK, even Boston, maybe even a Dubai (a designated flight with onwards feed to Asia and Australia).

Yes there would certainly be some consolidation in the current schedules, but economic forces will always prevail and if say as you have suggested easyJet increased fares once they effectively removed Flybe, you can be sure that another carrier e.g. Ryanair would come on the scene to dip into the honey pot. I am not entirely sure that BE would be totally squeezed, they may need to become more competitive, but they could do the frequency on many routes like BHX, MAN as they currently do, but on routes like LGW they have a strong codesharing with BA.

My point is in summary, yes the punter wins when the market is over served with cheap seats (prob not sustainable anyway), but all parties in the supply chain (lets call it that) need to make an adequate return. I believe that Belfast needs one strong airport for all of the above reasons above, not 2 which attempt to wipe each other out in the long run.

EI-BUD

EI-BUD. I was wondering from where that notion had sprung myself.

As to the remainder of your post....concur entirely.:ok:

EI-BUD, couldn't agree more.

And to remember, perhaps with the exception of domestic flights, both Belfast airports are already competing with DUB, as many from NI will trek down the motorway if they think they will save a bob or two.

I feel that Belfast can support 2 airports. As this is only my opinion, i do expect views to differ. I regard BHD as an airport mainly to serve domestic, business orientated markets. I do think a few European Cities could be served i.e. FRA , MUC , LIS . Flybe seem suitable for this but I'm sure an airport can't rely on 1 major carrier. BFS in my eyes is a holiday airport. Its can serve all the bucket and spade routes, major european cites for the city break and long haul. it would be a great coup to get hold of a carrier to serve Canada, USA west coast or UAE.
On another note i would like to see someone return on a service to Cork, not sure if its sustainable tho.

Sealink, I agree that while Belfast has the two airports, certainly BHD should act as the regional / business orientated airport; with Aldergrove serving the holiday flights, longer haul and the loco's. As I stated before each playing to their strengths and their stereotypical clientele.

In the future however I would agree with EI-BUD for one 'sustainable' airport, with much improved infrastructure, for the benefit of all NI. Dublin has only one airport, with the closest realistic alternatives being Belfast or Cork. Edinburgh again has only one airport serving the city, with the closest being GLA or NCL.

Both these examples see loco's sitting beside European flag carriers, regional airlines and the charters. I see no reason why Belfast wouldn't be able to operate in a similar manner. DUB and to a lesser extent LDY will provide the competition to help keep prices realistic at Belfast.

i have heard that BHD is to get a route to Düsseldorf apparently by Germanwings as catering have been asked to research food for it

You sure its Dusseldorf?? Germanwings has a much larger operation out of Cologne, Dusseldorf currently only has one Germanwings route. If it is definitely Dusseldorf, it may be more likely to be Lufthansa.

Fantastic news if it goes ahead, is it definitely Düsseldorf, as they could surely entice more passengers if there was the ability to connect on to several routes from at Cologne?

I would also like to thank you for just saying what the route was without the whole secretive act others like to do! :ok:

Yeh would have thought Munich or Frankfurt would have been better, but I suppose it's all down to costs as usual, but someone said in the BFS thread that EZY are to launch 2 new routes soon and I have a feeling one of them must be Berlin as BFS is one of the only uk bases that doesn't have the route

Why would German wings or Lufthansa load food in BHD? Surely this would be loaded in Dusseldorf for the return legs also?

With its close proximity to the city and its short time from check-in to gate BHD certainly has a big advantage over BFS when it comes to business passengers travelling domestically. This marries well with flybe's policy of allowing checking in until 20 minutes before departure which makes it the sensible proposition for business travellers. BFS however has the advantage of more flexible scheduling as it is not constrained by the 2130/0630 curfew. Provided both can make money (or at least break even) there is no reason why they shouldn't co-exist. Northern Ireland being geographically isolated from mainland UK and Europe needs as many links as possible to as many places as possible in order to make the most of business opportunities and to be competitive and desireable as a region to do business in. Should the two airports Belfast currently has amalgate into one I can only see the diversity and total number of flights decreasing very much to the detriment of those relying on the aviation industry for employment and more importantly to Northern Ireland PLC.

sr

At last, someone talks some sense. Well said Sir :D

Speed +1 :D:D:D

There is no need for 2 airports in a small regional city like Belfast, there just isn't the market to either justify it nor sustain it. While some people from Belfast might take pride in being able to claim their city has 2 international airports, the fact is it would be better served were BHD and BFS to be amalgamated into one airport. The extra revenue that would be generated from a single international airport would inevitably lead to improved infrastructure, and the increased throughput would also further the case for a rail link with Belfast city centre in any cost:benefit analysis. This would be the only chance a Belfast airport would have of effectively competing with Dublin.

I also disagree with the suggestion that were the 2 airports to be amalgamated, routes would be lost. To suggest this is to suggest the 2 airports are competing with each other, and yet as has been pointed out numerous times, this is not the case. BHD serves a mainly business orientated market, while BFS serves the leisure market. But then what is the point of having 2 airports if not for them to compete with each other? How is having 2 airports that compliment each other benefiting anyone?

In any case what routes are served is decided ultimately by the airlines, and as long as there is competition between the airlines, then there will be competition on routes. The only routes that would suffer are ones where there is not a market, which are already suffering as proven by BMI Baby's pulling out of BHD, FlyBe's capacity reduction on BHD-BRS, Aer Lingus pulling European routes from BFS etc etc.

The reality is as long a small market like Belfast is divided across 2 airports instead of being served by one, both airports will suffer from lack of investment and lack of facilities. Surely that's more important to the future of the North's economy?

BHD is limited in how much it can expand. This wouldn't necessarily be the case had IKEA not been allowed to build its megastore right beside the airport which has probably been one of the worst planning decisions made in recent years, but the fact is its there now and as such heavily restricts BHD from any future expansion. Not to mention the ongoing conflict with local residents regarding any extension of the runway.

That's why you'd choose BFS over BHD.

The way I see it, it's not a case of closing BHD to make BFS more profitable, it's about merging 2 airports to have 1 sustainable international airport.

You don't have to look far to see it happening. Berlin is about to amalgamate 3 airports into 1.

I personally think (and I stress this) in an ideal world, the two Belfast airports would be amalgamated in a new location. Not in the Maze site as someone previously suggested but of junction 5 of the M2. Why?

1. It's proximaty to the main urban centre in Northern Ireland
2. It is just of a motorway, and has a rail line present which could be integrated into the new airport
3. Gives a good distance between it, and Dublin airport which would maximise the potential catchment area.

However, even if the assembly had the brains to do something as rational as this (ha!) they don't have the power to shut two commercial enterprises. How did Germany manage this I wonder?

But, it doesn't need to mean mass job losses. A new airport could consist of more than one terminal, with both current airports responsible for one. One terminal could be streamlined for low cost operation, whilst the other dealt with long haul and business The loss incurred by the executive vesting the current airports could be somewhat recovered upon recovery of the economy, by selling of land at BHD that wouldn't affect Bombardier's business to private developers etc. whilst renting/selling aldergrove to the military.

But of course this is just to logical to ever happen!

All this talk about massive job losses. What about the extra staff needed at Bfs if all Bhd services moved there. Or are you suggesting that Bfs could cope with all the Bhd pax with no increase in staff at Bfs at all?

I am completely amazed that some cannot see the damage our 2 airports within a few miles does. Services moving back and forth. Fragmented services on some routes. At times I have had to fly out of one airport and back to the other, car now at wrong airport.

As costs increase, the idea that 2 or even 3 airports are necessary for a population of about 1.8m is madness. We all want to fly for nothing, that has been part achieved by airlines not paying decent fees to airports to use them. Then the airports try to raise revenue some other way, like a £1 charge for drop off etc, so we avoid that by parking down the road. If at the end of the day, the provider of a service cannot make a profit, then there is no point in running that business. The population at large will soon have to make a decision, is all they are ever interested is the cheapest. And NI plc will have to make a decision, do we want one good airport with frequent services between one airport here and other cities, or several airports, none of which are really cutting it.

TB