I would've thought that changing to SEN airport would make sense in order to consolidate all of Loganairs London ops into the one airport. I can't imagine too many people connecting onto the EK service especially given that you can go direct from Edinbrugh and Glasgow just down the road and that the prices appear to be quite a bit more anyway.

Comparing STN/SEN it would make no sense from the passenger perspective to operate the PSO into Southend as it would total zero gain in benefit & short change passengers.

PSO is for the passenger/user not for the operational suitability of an incumbent airline.

But as I have said before everyone had better ask Lorraine what she wishes.

Looking at the passenger numbers from the CAA website there were 1438 passengers in all of January ( 23 each way each day??). 21185 passengers for the whole of 2018 which spread over half of the £3.7m equates to a subsidy of £87 per passenger ( each way??) and that's before subsidising the airport itself which looses money .

bb

Dundee is listed as a destination on the Emirates website because of the thru service.

Passengers can travel via STN to Emirates network of 155 destinations on a single ticket & with thru checked luggage.

Because DND/STN is a PSO passengers flying to London & onward with EK save APD of £78 in economy & £515 in business..charges which of course will be paid in EDI.

bad bear helps make the point...how then does a switch to SEN improve those figures?

But misses the point generally tho with PSO.

A/C type utilised in January SB340.

Doesn't this point undermine the whole reason for the PSO? EDI and GLA are just down the road, so why are we subsidising flights?

Absolutely! What has the operational convenience of the airline got to do with it? Only argument would be if they could offer the same level of benefit at a reduced cost to the taxpayer.

Isn't the whole point of having a PSO is because the loads mean the route wouldn't normally be viable?

I would suspect that most passengers as mentioned above are London O&D so moving to SEN is not really going to make much difference to the passenger experience as travel time in to Liverpool St is roughly the same as from STN.

If SEN is offering better fees than STN then surely this is better for the tax payer.

Whilst it is 100% certain that the use of the peak time slots would be hugely productive to STN in pax numbers if the slots were allocated elsewhere (18 then v the average factor 180+ ) might it be the case the slots & costings to the airline are Government controlled as part of PSO obligations.

Regarding EK timings northbound that will change nicely with the start of the second daily UAE 67 from 1.7

The reason for using EK as an illustration is clear however as the DND operator is extremely happy "promoting" their airport with EK/DXB & worldwide connections thru STN so therefore if a change of airport in the South is to be considered a better connector over STN would be LHR with multitudes of the same possibilities.

My contribution was essentially STN v SEN & that Southend brings nothing extra to the table.

The Dundee PSO has existed long before any EK flights to STN, so it was never intended to provide longhaul connections in the first place (remember that when the London route was operated on a purely commercial basis by Suckling/Scot Airways, it went into LCY). Obviously the primary purpose of the route is to provide a connection to the UK capital. If connections were of any real importance, the PSO tender would have specified a gateway better suited for that. So I really don't see a reason why not to move to SEN. For a short domestic flight, SEN would be a better travel experience anyway as time required at the airport for getting through the terminal, check-in and security and onwards to the gate area would be much shorter at departure and on arrival it would be a matter of five minutes from the aircraft to the train station.

As for "the PSO is not for the airline" - it is a tender and if Loganair feels fit to submit a bid for SEN that is cheaper than for STN, it would reduce the subsidy required. Unless there are compelling reasons why public money should be spent on a more expensive STN link, it would be a non-brainer to go for SEN. And I don't feel that allowing a few people a connection to a Ryanair flight for a tenner or to do a two-stop-connection on EK from Dundee instead of a one-stop connection from EDI, is such a compelling reason. Plus, unless there are other bidders (which apparently has not been the case for quite a few UK PSOs recently due to a lack of regional airlines). Loganair would be free anyway to only bid for a SEN route as the London gateway in those PSO tenders is never specified.

The history of Dundee-London is a given of course.

Again I mention EK only to illustrate the kudos thus enabled for DND marketing.

Attitudes & expectations do change too of course.

Many cities in the UK are keen again to promote themselves with hoped "prestigious" connections to LHR.

I wonder why the NQY PSO is switched to LHR certainly for connections.

No problem LOG removing to SEN though I would still regard it as ultimately inhibiting for the passenger when other more attractive options for Dundee are available.

Ask Lorraine is she is happy if so then we all are.

The difference is from my point of view that Loganair is building up a sizeable operation at SEN whereas Flybe's NQY service is the only remaining BE route at LGW. Consolidating at LHR therefore makes sense for BE, particularly if BE needs to grandfather slots there.

I acknowledge that for LOG it may be a good option for themselves if the new SEN routes become successful...(that discussion not for here)

Good point perhaps though regarding BE & grandfather rights at LHR.

Has that been proved though that PSO grants those rights?

My question regarding slots for DND at STN at peak times & associated landing charges too being perhaps protected by Government & not endangered by commercial ops remains unanswered too.

Not sure where Flybe's slots for NQY come from (GCI is operated with ex Cobalt Air slots). Just tried to find something out about it and found an article from the Independent that they were part of the IAG/BD merger remedy slots portfolio. Straightforward use of such slots is unlikely though, as those slots are route specific and NQY and GCI are none of the handful of routes that are covered. However, the FT mentioned in an article that the government allowed Flybe to "repurpose" its existing slots at Heathrow, which suggests that the slots are indeed former remedy slots (but probably not those for ABZ and LHR as those routes continue to be operated by BE). Before, my suspicion was that BE was babysitting/grandfathering slots for VS, but this does not appear to be the case. If they are using remedy slots, the interesting question is what owuld happen if an airline shows up that intends to serve one of the orutes for which they were designated as remedy slots in 2012 (e.g. Cairo, Riyadh, Nice).

As for PSOs at LHR, I don't think there is currently a mechanism for automatic access to LHR if the route is operated under a PSO scheme. Making slots available for PSOs in the future has been used as a bait by the airport in the discussion about an expansion of LHR, though.

Thanks for the research & reply & agree finding answers does appears rather opaque.

UK cities & airports hoping for access at some stage to LHR particularly with the 3rd R/W have as you state been baited by the airport & authorities to enhance their (LHR`s) credentials.

Not sure if those slots are to be PSO or normal commercial ops granted/allocated under coercion from Government.

BE’s NQY slots
 

Flew from Dundee to Stansted and all pax were asked to fill in a survey form which mentioned there was to be a new round of bidding later this year for the route

I had thought the main source for the PSO money was to end in spring 2019, and the emergency funds from Dundee council would expire in late October 2019

Has a fresh source of funds been found, or is Loganair just trying to encourage somebody to find funds ?

The most obvious airlines to fly this route (even if UK stays in the EU) are presumably Eastern or Loganair... seems unlikely many other airlines with aircraft with 30-40 seats would be particularly interested unless money was significantly increased