For airports with establsihed 'full service' operators, following the the low cost route is something of a gamble; and the bigger the size of the established operation, the bigger the gamble it is.

Low cost operators will demand reduced landing & handling fees as well as a contribution to marketing & promotion costs in return for setting up a large scale operation. Unsurprisingly, existing airlines are likely to be cheesed off if they are not receiving similar deals. More so if the low cost airline is going to compete directly with them on particular routes.

At airports like LPL, PIK etc, the decision was simple. More recently however airports like BRS and EMA have invested in attracting a low-cost operator - suggesting that they believe there is limited future growth from 'full service' airlines or that they can accommodate the two types of carrier simultaneously.

At bigger airports such as MAN / BHX, the size and range of the existing full service network means it would take a sustained and fairly dramatic reduciton in traffic from establshed operators for the low cost option to become attractive to the airport authorities.

682

I understand what you are saying about the likes of MAN and BHX not wanting to entertain low cost carriers when there is a demand for 'full service' carriers from these airports. However, would you not agree that the low cost carriers have made such an impact, in the UK especially, that whichever airports they fly from suddenly attract passengers from further afield than their expected catchment areas. If these carriers continue to expand in such a successful manner (I don't think it's going to slow down just yet), then BHX will feel the pinch from GO at EMA and the traditional airlines at BHX will have their work cut out. A similar thing to easyJet at LPL v's MAN. Not many airlines can afford to keep a route that isn't pulling its weight these days. If GO do things properly at EMA by way of routes and marketing, then I don't think that BD or BA will be able to deny suffering as a result of GO's presence.

How long until there is a real low cost longhaul carrier in the UK again?

The issue for these airports is that to go down the low cost route risks jeopordising the existing business model. How does MAN or BHX offer an incentive package to a low cost operator without damaging their relationship with existing "full service" airlines like BA etc?

682

I seem to remember talking to a taxi driver at BHX not so long ago when he told me that it was cheaper for passengers to take a taxi ride to Luton and fly with Squeezy to Edingurgh than to take the cheapest service from BHX. Now EMA is much closer than Luton to BHX and the taxi fare is only about 30 quid. ;)

Manchester can offer a brilliant deal to Go, it is called East Midlands, which is part of the Manchester airports group following on from thier purchase from National Express.

Manchester's low cost base to compete with Liverpool.

Could the next airline announcing services from East Midlands be Ryanair?

As an aside, Monarch Crown and easyJet compete from Luton on the Palma and Malaga routes very well, each suplementing the other.

Buster ... you are quite right! Is East Midlands trying to become the first "low cost airport"? Manchester may be using the airport primarily for cargo,charter and low cost which would be a kick in the teeth for bmi british midland. I am only speculating but there wouldn't be much of an EMA if it hadn't been for the support of Midland during the years.

The MD of Manchester was recently MD of EMA and he should be careful not to be too fickle to one of his most loyal supporters!!

ES ;)

Re the post from Buster the Bear, easyJet and Monarch do both fly Luton - Malaga but sadly Monarch stopped flying Crown Service to Palma some years ago - before easyJet started flying the route I hasten to add.

B&B has a valid point. How can anyone justify cheaper airport fees for any of the low cost operators, and expect the longer established airlines to pay more? (And thereby subsidise the competition)

These operators were once 'start-up' airlines who arguably deserved special treatment. They are no longer in that position, so how can this bias be fair?

Go has just applied for EMA to Prague, a very popular destination that should do well :)

They are advertising on the local radios now as well. I understand that they will be basing 3 737-300s at the airport from May.

ES ;)

bmi,s idea was to reduce aircraft operating cost,s with the 145,s but to increase frequencies to maintain yields.They have done nothing of the sort by removing 4 145,s and
have a load of Fokker,s sitting idle most of the day and cancelling flights on a day to day basis.
The airport has to survive like any other buisness and you cant blame them for wanting to attract new airlines.
in the last few days i have heard more about Go through advertising than i have ever heard from bmi, can one assume bmi are not interested?

Prague is definitely one of the new Go routes from East Midlands, according to the 'new non-EC' route application web site.

if that was the case then Go would also be doing PRG from BRS and EDI as well as they have been granted permission for these months ago!