Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/937808/

Topic: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: USAFHummer
Posted 2002-10-03 17:00:10 and read 2786 times.

Hey all,

I was just wonderinng if anyone knew what the average loads are on CO's EWR-BHX-EWR run and also if anyone has flown this route before, could you tell a little about it? I'll be on it tonight and frankly Im horrified by 7 hours on a 757...not that I dont like 757's just I think thats way too long to be on one...

Thanks,
Greg

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: FLYYUL
Posted 2002-10-03 17:10:35 and read 2758 times.

For the summer, very good loads. I work at NW/CO in Montreal, and got to see quite a bit of people connecting VIA EWR to get to BHX... September was weaker for everybody!

Mark

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: USAFHummer
Posted 2002-10-03 17:37:28 and read 2737 times.

Ok thanks for the reply...

Greg

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: FLYYUL
Posted 2002-10-03 19:01:14 and read 2681 times.

Dont worry about the B757, its a workhorse!

Mark

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: USAFHummer
Posted 2002-10-03 20:23:21 and read 2645 times.

I flew on a CO 752 IAH-SJO-IAH this summer and I was cramped like crazy, thus my concern lol....

Greg

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: David_itl
Posted 2002-10-03 20:29:54 and read 2640 times.


I don't know the domestic configuration but the international one is 16J/156Y.

David

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: By738
Posted 2002-10-03 22:52:54 and read 2574 times.

what about glasgow-ewr on the new 764 , hows the loads on them?
back to 757 for the winter

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: David_itl
Posted 2002-10-04 00:00:34 and read 2539 times.



The CAA stats for July are out now, so picking just EWR from the regions:

GLA 13890 pax, about 224 pax per flight (764 ops, down 14%)
MAN 12557 pax, about 202 pax per flight (764 ops, down 14%)
BHX 8747 pax, about 141 pax per flight (757 ops, up 1%)

Note: assumes the flights operated daily....the punctuality stats aren't online yet so no means of doing a quick check!

David

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Cedarjet
Posted 2002-10-04 00:53:57 and read 2518 times.

You people who are obsessed with avoiding narrowbodies on long haul are insane! Surely, unless you're in training for the London Marathon, the size of the plane makes not the slightest difference, surely it's the size of the seat. The only difference between narrowbody and widebody is that when you're one of the last off a 777 there's 250+ people in the queue for immigration, and fighting for pole position at baggage claim, but when you get off a 757 there's maybe 130 people in front of you, or less.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Bmi330
Posted 2002-10-04 01:02:38 and read 2503 times.

Nice to see how sucess full the Gla run is on the 767. Mabe they could have a we talk with Northwest and they will come back.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Nighthawk
Posted 2002-10-04 01:40:06 and read 2486 times.

GLA 13890 pax, about 224 pax per flight (764 ops, down 14%)

Last year the service was DC-10 through the summer. Continental just said recently when discussing plans to start service to EDI (not happening to 2004) that GLA was thier best performing route in the UK, and until EDI starts in 2004 further upgrades may be required, with next year parhaps seeing 777s on this route!

CO expect the EDI service to outperform the GLA service when it is introduced, so perhaps we may see 767s to both airports, or perhaps 777 to both!

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: GKirk
Posted 2002-10-04 01:51:23 and read 2476 times.

Sorry Gavin, but GLA is the best airport for Scotland, especially with the lack of security at EDI...
GLA is the bigger and more important city, better city ( I think EDI is a dump).

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Bmi330
Posted 2002-10-04 01:51:27 and read 2477 times.

Think a would prefer a 777 and 767 both at Gla or 2 777 cause am a greedy lol and dont like to share lol.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: GKirk
Posted 2002-10-04 02:14:30 and read 2463 times.

EDI aint gonna get a CO 777  Big grin It will be a 757/762 most of the time...if it starts

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: ContinentalEWR
Posted 2002-10-04 04:56:37 and read 2435 times.

I'm not sure GLA will get the 777 next summer. Glasgow has been a popular and successful route for Continental because it is the only airline to operate a scheduled GLA-USA-GLA service and the route was established when the region's economy (Scotland) was booming. A New York Times article recently cited that many businesses are shutting their Scotland operations (multi-national corporations that is) and moving into the Euro-zone or simply re-trenching. Continental will probably revert to a 767-400 or a 767-200 on the route next summer, but the 777's are used for the highest density longhauls they fly, such as IAH/LGW/NRT/CDG, EWR/TLV/HKG/NRT/LGW/CDG/AMS and
on one IAH-HNL flight.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: David_itl
Posted 2002-10-04 11:27:17 and read 2378 times.

I believe the plan is for both GLA and EDI to get 757s once the EDI route is started!

Just for reference purposes, the head of CO's UK operations quoted as saying

"Continental's Glasgow-New York route was one of its most profitable in Britain, and it may use larger planes in a few years time."

Not quite the same meaning as Gavin said!

Thought you may want to see the traffic data for the other scheduled service routes to America from the regions.

Other services to America at GLA:
AA to ORD: 10933 pax, about 176 pax per flight (763? ops, up 24%)
Overall traffic: 24823 pax, virtually identical (down by 90 or so pax)

Other services to America at MAN:
DL to ATL: 14544 pax, about 234 pax per flight (MD11 ops, down 7%)
AA/BD to ORD: 21071 pax, about 170 pax per flight (763/A330 ops, up 11%)
BA to JFK: 11318 pax, about 182 pax per flight (763 ops, up 4%)*
VS to MCO: 19584 pax, about 376 pax per flight (742 ops, down 3%)
US to PHL: 13253 pax, about 213 pax per flight (A330 ops, up 8%)
BD to IAD: 8143 pax, about 156 pax per flight (A330 ops, up 3%)
Overall traffic: 100470 pax, virtually identical (up by 190 pax or so)

* ignoring the PK services as they are the great unknown!

Other services to America at BHX:
AA to ORD: 9273 pax, about 149 pax per flight (762/763 ops, up 3%)
Overall traffic: 18020 pax, up 2%

David

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Nighthawk
Posted 2002-10-04 17:03:43 and read 2335 times.

Sorry Gavin, but GLA is the best airport for Scotland, especially with the lack of security at EDI...
GLA is the bigger and more important city, better city ( I think EDI is a dump).


I have to disagree with you there!

GLA is the best airport for Scotland - EDI is the most accessible airport in scotland, and has the largest catchment of all scottish airports. Edinburgh airport will overtake GLA to become the busiest airport (PAX) within the next 4 years. EDI is the only airport that can handle an extra runway (in terms of economics and land space)

GLA is the bigger and more important city - Bigger in terms of population, yes. More important? I think not. Edinburgh is:
- Scottish Capital
- Second Most popular tourist destination in UK
- Second most important financial centre in UK

GLA falls a mere second to edinburgh in terms of importance.

( I think EDI is a dump) - Just your oppinion, which you are entitled to. However, i would disagree totally. Glasgow is an absolute dump! The skyline is spoiled by loads of low-cost flats, that are quite frankly an eyesore. Edinburgh is much more smart looking, with only a couple of high rise buildings. The worst areas in edinburgh still look a lot nicer than some of the better areas of glasgow!

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Billy
Posted 2002-10-04 17:17:05 and read 2326 times.

Oh good, a GLA vs EDI argument. It will drift into a MAN vs BHX scrap soon.

Bringing things back to topic, I hear that CO would have pulled their BHX operation if AA had not gone first. CO is really not enjoying good times in the UK at the moment.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: David_itl
Posted 2002-10-04 17:17:49 and read 2327 times.

Second most important financial centre in Britain

I've been told it Leeds, Manchester, Edinburgh in that order! I think we need to find out the criteria used for these statements.


David

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: 22886
Posted 2002-10-04 17:32:24 and read 2312 times.

Does CO still operate the EWR-STN flights (also operated by 752s) or did they end them after 9/11?

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: BDRules
Posted 2002-10-04 18:33:41 and read 2301 times.

Would any of the American airlines ever consider EMA or do they stear clear of here because of BHX

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: 757man
Posted 2002-10-04 18:48:02 and read 2300 times.

It's all very well discussing PAX loads on these services, but I think you'll find that BHX transatlantic services have usually done quite well with the amount of cargo they carry. Certainly the soon defunct AA23/24 daily service BHX-ORD carried a nice amount of gear under the cabin, as did the long gone BA daily service to JFK (before they swapped the pefectly suited 763 for a 752). Obviously the 752 cannot carry a massive cargo load, so I doubt CO will have carried as much cargo as other transatlantic services from BHX. The trouble with PAX loads on all of these services has been highlighted before - Economy seats are quite easy to fill from BHX, but it's the likes of Business Class which have suffered. Some CO flights have had every seat taken in the Business section, but many were upgrades. These services are low yield for the carriers which operate them and I doubt BHX will see any equipment upgrade for quite some time. I hear travel agents still tend to forget that BHX (and MAN) have long haul scheduled services and many unwitting passengers are still departing from LHR.....Some things will never change.

Diverting from transatlantic services for a mo, I've heard that the daily EK service (BHX-DXB) also does quite well with cargo - PAX figures have always been quite healthy on this one too, so I think the future looks quite bright for the Dubai run (Doubt it will catch up with MAN, but at least they've looked at a 2nd daily service)

Regards,
James.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Bmi330
Posted 2002-10-04 18:50:54 and read 2291 times.

edinburgh more important than Glasgow I don't think so. Bigger catchment area no chance. There airport is on the edge of a city, Glasgow is right in the middle of a Conerbation so that satement is bull. The only way edinburgh is more important is because of a Mickey mouse parliament that is heavily biest towards the east of Scotland.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: 757man
Posted 2002-10-04 18:59:15 and read 2281 times.

BDRules...

Whilst it's possible that EMA may attract a transatlantic service a few years from now, I doubt AA will be the one that gives the airport an ORD service. This is simply due to the fact that they share the OneWorld partnership with BA, the latter already having a large operation at BHX. The service at BHX feeds PAX through T2 Eurohub - the only other airlines at T2 are BA and it's franchise partners.

Would it be fair to assume that EMA would attract a certain US carrier with ties to BMi? I reckon that it's along way off, but a much safer assumption.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: BDRules
Posted 2002-10-04 19:04:04 and read 2276 times.

Now you wouldnt be talking about UA would you by any chance :-p. but why in a couple of years though. could MAN have a stranglehold on EMA in attracting services across the pond or even going the other way.

Regards

BDRules

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: 757man
Posted 2002-10-04 19:26:32 and read 2266 times.

EMA is still finding it's feet - The introduction of the low cost boys will help it along nicely. I cannot give you an honest answer as to whether or not MAN may interfere with any possible transatlantic ops from EMA, but if it did happen, then it would give the already struggling BHX services something to worry about.

It would be nice if the following was to happen:

1. BMI (or UA) introduce a three times per week JFK/ORD service, going to daily if it did well - At least you've got a runway length to be proud of!

2. BMI (or UA) to take the place of AA at BHX. With some visible marketing, they could do a fair trade out of Brum. AA carried 90,000 PAX in the first twelve months of their ORD service from BHX (May '95 - May '96, type used was 762).

As always, time will tell...

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: BDRules
Posted 2002-10-04 19:28:22 and read 2259 times.

I agree with you 757man and that has to be the 1st time ever  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: 757man
Posted 2002-10-04 19:40:45 and read 2255 times.

Fair play BDRules - At the end of the day we're all aviation nuts here, and it's nice to see the UK regional airports are (slowly) getting recognised - EMA has as much of a bright future as the rest of the pack - though not as bright as BHX  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I'm off to have a nice cold gold one.....
Adios!

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: GKirk
Posted 2002-10-04 19:46:26 and read 2244 times.

Whats BHX and EMA? Never heard of them? Are they busier or bigger than CAX/EGNC?  Confused

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: By738
Posted 2002-10-04 20:17:19 and read 2235 times.

Oh I didnt mean so stir up such trouble, just glad to see GLA doing well on the EWR route.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Skymonster
Posted 2002-10-04 20:18:29 and read 2237 times.

Would any of the American airlines ever consider EMA or do they stear clear of here because of BHX

Yes, they already have considered EMA and are already operating. I can name two immediately - DHL Airways (op by Gemini) and United Parcel Service Big grin

However, if you're talking self loading cargo rather than packages, what on earth makes anyone think EMA is going to get transatlantic services any time soon? Birmingham has shown itself largely incapable of sustaining transatlantic ops long term, so it ain't gonna happen at EMA, almost certainly not for decades to come.

Consider another thing... All this "US airline with ties to BMI". Well I hate to tell you this, but BMI won't be operating through EMA at all after the end of this month - EMA falls off the edge of the Star Alliance map within the next four weeks. Its 37 years since the airport first opened, and if you look at the schedule for November 2002 its the first time ever in the airport's history when there are zero (read no) BD flights into or out of EMA - quite a lot of history gone down the pan there. Thing is, BMIBaby doesn't offer through checkin, through baggage, etc, and nor does Go/Easy, so the chance of hubbing at EMA from/to trans Atlantic has been wrecked (as has hubbing long haul from EMA through places like AMS, for that matter). EMA this winter is able to boast "normal" full-service (i.e. not no-frills) airline service to a sum total of three destinations - Eastern Airways to Aberdeen, Aurigny to Guernsey and EuroManx to the Isle of Man. Wow!

Face it guys. Within the next month, East Midlands will be more like Luton than Birmingham - East Midlands will have become a charter/low-fares ghetto. And that, with Birmingham 45 minutes down the road, simply doesn't cut it for transatlantic operators.

Andy

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: BDRules
Posted 2002-10-05 23:12:14 and read 2150 times.

Fair point Andy. I have tried not to think about no more bmi 'full service' at my home/fav airport. they have been there forever and now we are down to 3. GREAT. 1/2 of a 1/2 a dozen. sounds good eh.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Co 757-300
Posted 2002-10-06 08:51:15 and read 2091 times.

GKirk:

BHX= Birmingham, England
EMA= East Midlands Airport, England

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Ammunition
Posted 2002-10-06 09:06:32 and read 2087 times.

Co 757-300..... LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: ContinentalEWR
Posted 2002-10-06 14:18:00 and read 2067 times.

Someone asked about Continental's Newark-Stansted route. It was dropped in 2001, just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It has never been restarted since. Apparently though, the STN route did well for Continental as many New York-based investment banks and law-firms have offices in the East End of London around Canary Wharf and Stansted's rail link to Liverpool Street station made for a faster connection to Canary Wharf than either Heathrow or Gatwick. The Stansted route along with the Newark-Dusseldorf nonstop are the only two Transatlantic routes that Continental cut and never resumed following 9/11.

ContinentalEWR

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Billy
Posted 2002-10-06 16:34:21 and read 2049 times.

CO are doing badly in the UK at the moment. BHX may be on borrowed time. It really needs a boost in yields. And cargo revenues are the worst they have been for a long time. There is no cargo coming from the US to Europe at the moment. How much cargo can you stuff on a 757? Not much, and it does not have containers either.

Doesn't it say something that the STN flight has not been reinstated? If it was full of City bankers, what rate were they paying?

For UK expansion, you are all sniffing at the wrong US airlines.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: BDRules
Posted 2002-10-06 19:46:50 and read 2017 times.

Well who should we be looking at then Billy?

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: GKirk
Posted 2002-10-06 21:16:31 and read 1988 times.

Nobody at EMA anyway  Big grin
What about Delta expansion...  Big grin

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Bmi330
Posted 2002-10-06 23:32:14 and read 1955 times.

If a US airline was to expand in the Uk it would most probaly be Delta flying from Atlanta or Boston or both to Glasgow. Mabe northwest from Detroit again into Glasgow but to me it seems the best place for expansion in the UK plus im hevaly biest lol.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: ContinentalEWR
Posted 2002-10-06 23:34:44 and read 1952 times.

Billy, the STN route was dropped because of the expected fall off in air travel immediately following 9/11/01 and the US airline industry's 20% reduction in flying. The global capital markets business is in a slump and so is business air travel in general, so the STN route is one that CO cannot afford to operate. But sniffing at the wrong airlines? What are you talking about???? What airlines should we be "sniffing"?

Isn't AA dropping ORD-MAN after nearly a decade of service? UA is on the brink of Chapter 11 and is axing BOS-LHR? Delta is cutting ATL-LGW to 2 from 4 (seasonal)? Dude, no one is making money in the air right now, unless you are JetBlue, Southwest, Ryannair, or EasyJet and the last time I checked, none of them flew BHX to EWR!!!!

ContinentalEWR

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: David_itl
Posted 2002-10-07 00:15:59 and read 1948 times.

The AA route pulled is the BHX-ORD one (it was easier for them to drop that one seeing that BD/UA would then pick up some of the F/J class passengers that fly on the MAN-ORD route, ensuring that profitability will arise sooner rather than later and allowing BD/UA tog make play of the fact in future advertising along the lines of "an airline committed to MAN").

The only MAN service to America that was impacted post Sept 11th was MAN-EWR which went down to 6 weekly in the winter, and to daily 767-400 for the summer from year-round 777.

Aye Bmi330, GLA will get future long-haul expansion after Liechtenstein introduces a parallel runway, four terminal airport (...and deservedly so  Wink/being sarcastic).

Daivd

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Bmi330
Posted 2002-10-07 01:21:18 and read 1940 times.

Am not getting it David_it just dont understand lol. Hears hoping we do get long haul expantion soon

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: 757man
Posted 2002-10-07 18:52:53 and read 1887 times.

I keep hearing rumours that BHX-ORD will be taken over by VS......I think it's a load of c**p myself - Mr Branson has never showed a very serious interest in any UK airport outside London (and that includes MAN) and they don't have suitable equipment for the route to start with (A340 and 747 types are far too large to fill for this sector).

To say that BHX cannot sustain transatlantic services is a load of bollocks as well. CO carried 120,000 PAX in it's first year of ops from the airport. Maybe if the serving carriers marketed their services more often from BHX then it would attract the PAX they needed. Though as someone pointed out before, cargo is rock bottom at the moment. I mentioned in my previous post about AA doing well with cargo on BHX-ORD...until 9/11 that is. Cargo contracts went down the plughole one after another and the service began to bleed AA dry. I hate to admit it though, but I've also come to the conclusion that BHX-EWR is on borrowed time as well....You've got to love the airline industry.....

I also appeared to get blazed for my comments regarding transatlantic services from EMA - I agree that it's a long way off, but it was a pure hypothetical discussion and nothing more.

Regards,
James

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: BDRules
Posted 2002-10-07 19:44:53 and read 1872 times.

Does Cargo have any input to where airlines start PAX flights. this was something that came to me earlier. As far as i can see, all regional airports can keep the low fares carriers away from the main airports while they get the full service services.
Is that right.

If so then EMA can look after as many l/c airlines as they can get their hands on.

Also what airports are bmibaby looking at operating to from EMA and CWL as i have heard there are a number of airports trying to get some services. EMA must attract someone.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Skymonster
Posted 2002-10-07 21:30:32 and read 1845 times.

To say that BHX cannot sustain transatlantic services is a load of bollocks as well

No it isn't. Look at the history...

Highland Express - bankrupt
British Airways - withdrawn
American Airlines - withdrawing
Continental - in your own words I hate to admit it though, but I've also come to the conclusion that BHX-EWR is on borrowed time as well

Anyone else? PIA - Only really making it with through Birmingham connections from Asia. Uzbekistan - Same as PIA.

Not exactly a good track record is it? BHX has been unable to sustain transatlantic services. And until some airline makes a go of it on a long term basis, which doesn't seem likely in the short term, that will remain the case.

Andy

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Continentalcle
Posted 2002-10-07 22:04:25 and read 1831 times.

blah blah like it freakin maters

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Billy
Posted 2002-10-07 22:09:44 and read 1823 times.

I think that one airline in Chapter 11 is looking for more things to do in the UK. And the silver bullet is looking at the UK.

The BHX business market (for some reason only known to themselves) will only use LHR. More AA passengers used LHR to ORD than used the direct service from BHX sales area. Yes, BHX can support its own transatlantic service, but only if the business market supports it. This did not happen with BA to NYC, and with AA to ORD. Co WILL go the same way if BHX yields continue to slide.

For the record, this is info from the airlines themselves, and not spotter speculation.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Bmi330
Posted 2002-10-08 01:00:18 and read 1767 times.

Ua or us airways in at GLA now that would be sweet

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Flyguydsl
Posted 2002-10-08 01:10:21 and read 1761 times.

Trvl Agt here - just checked my CRS and you are overbooked! Sorry man... have a good flight anyway

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Flyguydsl
Posted 2002-10-08 01:15:18 and read 1756 times.

OK nevermind  Big grin I just realized what the time was at EWR!! It is probably on stop sell now since it is departing in 90min!! However it did show full with space in J.
Cheers
flyguy

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Sjc>sfo
Posted 2002-10-08 02:23:54 and read 1750 times.

VS selling 376 seats/flight in to Orlando? That's gotta be some major bucks...

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: 757man
Posted 2002-10-08 17:23:33 and read 1700 times.

Skymonster, you list a number of BHX transatlantic failures in your post, but it doesn't tell the story why some of those carriers withdrew....

British Airways - When the daily JFK started in March 1993 it did indeed suffer from low passenger loads. As time went by, these loads increased (by late 1994 it averaged at 69%). Cargo carried made lots of money on this service and the route looked as though it was starting to do well. So what do BA then do? Replace the 767-300 with a 757-200 - A fatal move for the route. Cargo contracts went out the window and the service became unreliable (cancellations were common). Plus, the lack of proper endorsement from BA themselves.....The service last flew in 1998 and was set to return for the Summer '99 season.....We're still waiting.

American - The daily service to ORD proved a hit to begin with and even saw a permanent aircraft upgrade due to good load factors. May 1995 was the time this service started (767-200ER) and was a premier route for BHX. Like the BA service to JFK, the route saw some big cargo contracts and proved popular with passengers using ORD as an onward connection to the USA. This is one service which looked like it was here to stay - but with the global economy slowing down and then 9/11, the service hit trouble and was withdrawn almost straight after the terrorist attacks. It returned in April 2002 (not that AA marketed it) and averaged load factors in the 60% mark (The service used to average at the 80% mark). Plus, most cargo contracts that were lost never returned. The service has now been pulled and will not return.

Continental - The daily 757 to EWR, like AA, proved a hit when launched in 1997. The majority of flights were full and the service was operated by a DC-10 in the summers of 98/99. This service has always done quite well, but as mentioned before, economy is usually full but it's Business class which often lets the side down. Plus the 757 isn't exactly renowned for the amount of cargo it can carry in the hold....

Verdict? I still disagree - BHX can sustain transatlantic services, but obviously only a small number at one time - no more than 2 or 3. Maybe if the airlines treated the airport with less contempt and stopped looking at LHR then we would see more services..

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: David_itl
Posted 2002-10-08 18:05:24 and read 1685 times.


SJC>SFO

That's lower than the average they had in 2000 when they were carting some 405 passengers per flight! That was the year when they decided to use Air Atlanta for the 1st time on the MAN-MCO route, targetting the UK school summer holiday period specifically (July to early September) with VS operating at other times (April to June & late September to November). There were a largish number of complaints by travel agents in the North of England who were not informed of this change and had passengers complain to them about the lack of facilities on board. I believe the CC 747s were configured for more passengers than the VS ones were and so helped sway the decision by VS to use them for 2 months of peak travel.

It is also noteworthy that CO averaged 250 passengers per flight on MAN-EWR.

David

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Skymonster
Posted 2002-10-08 18:39:18 and read 1673 times.

757man,

Whatever the reasons for irthe demise, pretty much all of the transatlantic services from Birmingham have gone down the pan sooner or later. Airlines do not give up lucrative money making operations voluntarily, nor do they downgrade them deliberately to transform them from money-making to loss-making. Whether or not there is really a viable transatlantic market from Birmingham is an arguable point because everyone who has tried to prove that there is such a market has so far dismally failed to prove it.

Andy

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: EGBB
Posted 2002-10-08 19:12:08 and read 1662 times.

Andy,

You can tell you're not a brummie  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

It's a fact that since early 2000 that pax figures on all transatlantic routes have fallen but what one or two have hit on is the total collapse of the cargo market from the US. I am sure back in the late nineties I read a statement from AA saying that the BHX-ORD was the most successful of their routes to Europe and that was largely down to the cargo side.

I believe this is an excellent opportunity for CO to now upgrade to a 767 and really push the cargo side just like EK have to Dubai (amazing what goes on this each day). Any new route takes years to develop so to stop for 6 months and then re start is the same as starting any other new service ie. it needs marketing, money and time which I guess AA have little of at present.

I am sure that the American market will continue to improve, it's just going to take time. When it has and Birmingham has its nice long runway and Airlines use the correct aircraft type and the right marketing and get the feeder traffic in to connect - like say BE feeding Delta comes to mind - then I see no reason why transatlantic services can't be a huge success from here .

Derek

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Skymonster
Posted 2002-10-08 19:20:20 and read 1658 times.

Derek,

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see a bunch of viable transatlantics from Birmingham. Living in the East Midlands, its far easier for me to get to BHX than to MAN or, god forbid, LHR. Leaving aside my private flying, this year I've flown out of and into BHX far more than I have out of EMA, LHR and MAN combined, including last week on the EK040 to DXB. Its just that its not happened in the past, and it doesn't appear to be happening now - I'm just looking at what's happened realistically rather than trying to blow sunshine about the prospects up everyone's ass!

Andy

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: USAFHummer
Posted 2002-10-08 19:58:42 and read 1641 times.

Wow...I never imagined a simple thread like the one I started could get 55 replies...interesting discussion going on...for the record, Y class was full on the segment to BHX, not sure about BizFirst...

Greg

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: GKirk
Posted 2002-10-08 20:19:53 and read 1633 times.

Why would anyone want to visit Birmingham anyway? I mean, Mr Pedley lives there for crying out loud  Laugh out loud

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: EGBB
Posted 2002-10-08 21:00:07 and read 1620 times.

Greg
was it N12114 on the 4th you came in on?, if so I have a picture of it awaiting upload.

Kirky
Hows the Jetscreams doing ?

Andy
Very pleased to hear you choose Brum for your flights, 10 bonus points for you

Derek


Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Billy
Posted 2002-10-08 21:10:47 and read 1613 times.

AA always had problems with pax bags and cargo lift off the BHX runway. There were occassions when it could take neithr out of BHX. The 762 cannot lift much cargo at all (say 2 to 3 tonnes on an average load, but can hit 7 on peak days). That makes £3,500 per sector on a good day - or the revenue from two discounted J-class tickets.

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: GKirk
Posted 2002-10-09 00:27:53 and read 1561 times.

EGBB: Dunno, havenae been to NCL for a wee while. In fact Im flying from MAN this Friday on a MYT DC-10. Looking forward to it  Smile
Last time (and first time) I flew from BHX, I found the bit a wee bit confusing.  Confused

Topic: RE: CO EWR-BHX Loads?
Username: Pzurita1
Posted 2002-10-09 01:05:08 and read 1552 times.

Aerolíneas Azteca has shown interest in MTY-BHX route... For all Monterrey Students attending University of Warwick.

I am just kidding... I just wanted to suggest a link between two airports which I consider are underserved for intercontiental services.

PZ


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/