Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No More Funding For Scottish Long Haul Flights  
User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 4
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6246 times:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=1335442006#new

Quote:
DIRECT flights from Scotland will be severely curtailed from next year after the European Commission ordered an end to subsidies to long-haul destinations.

Scotland on Sunday has learned that the EC, under pressure from European national flag carriers, has stepped in to curb expansion of Scotland's international air services.

In a move that will dismay business and leisure travellers alike, the EC will not permit the Executive to invest further taxpayers' money from the Route Development Fund into flights beyond European Union boundaries.



Quote:
It has been copied in Northern Ireland, but it is understood that some of the big European airlines, whose identities have not been disclosed, have been lobbying against it.

Another reason to leave the EU

The system is fair and non-discriminatory. Are airlines concerned about less transfer passengers at their hubs? Well how about responding to the changing market and launching new point to point flights or opening new routes from their hubs to smaller markets (eg KLM to Chengdu) rather than moaning to the EU?

And dont the EU recognise the role of the RDF in economic development? Im not surprised the Scots are outraged. I hope this mess gets sorted out


Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24869 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6195 times:

Hate to say it, however good for the EU!

Government subsidies do nothing more than skew the market place, creating an unbalanced playing field. If a market cannot sustain itself on its own economic merits, why should a small group of people benefit via costly subsidies?

Not that I have anything against Scotland, however is having long haul links truly a dire and essential thing? It might be nice or convenient, but far from essential.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6195 times:

I actually don't see any reason to give airlines public subsidies for some routes. Only routes which are economical should be flown the others not. Period. If you don't have the market for these flights there is also no need for them. From Scotland for example you can easily change planes in London, Amsterdam or anywhere else.

[Edited 2006-09-10 21:58:58]

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6183 times:

Only flights that are required to provide vital economic links or maintain territorial integrity should be subsidised. Flights from Scotland to the US and Canada are neither - if they are not profitable, why should taxpayers pay for them ?

User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4876 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6156 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 3):
if they are not profitable, why should taxpayers pay for them ?

But if Scottish taxpayers approve of them (I don't know if they do, but for arguments' sake they do) because they want convenient nonstop service to the U.S., for example, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend that money any way they choose, even if it's not economical?


User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1346 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6151 times:

I think one does have to look at this from a market based perspective, and not just the airline market, but the entire local market. The question basically is, is the taxpayer getting a good return for their money. Subsidising a loss-making service makes sense if the total economic benefit of having the flights to the local (Scottish in this case) economy is greater than the money spent. I mean if it costs $10 million to subsidize the flights, but the economic impact of having such flights is a $15 million increase in the local economy, then it makes economic sense, and should be allowed.

User currently offlineGLAGAZ From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2004, 1982 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
Government subsidies do nothing more than skew the market place, creating an unbalanced playing field. If a market cannot sustain itself on its own economic merits, why should a small group of people benefit via costly subsidies?

So there is no demand from Scotland to EWR, ATL, DXB etc which have all been subsidised and are all proving extremely popular?

No, the problem here is that BA want to feed everything through LHR/LGW, AF want to feed everything through CDG/ORY, LH FRA/MUC, KL AMS...and they have all gone bitching to the EC because other airlines offering non-stop international flights from Scotland and stealing their paxs and lowering their yields.

Sometimes all an airline needs to start a route is a little encouragement, so whats wrong with offering it?

Gaz



Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

Quoting Panamair (Reply 4):
But if Scottish taxpayers approve of them (I don't know if they do, but for arguments' sake they do) because they want convenient nonstop service to the U.S., for example, why shouldn't they be allowed to spend that money any way they choose, even if it's not economical?

But it's not Scottish taxpayers money that is being spent - it's EU taxpayers money. And any subsidies payed by Scotland must be made available to any EU-based carrier, not just Scottish/British ones.


User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4876 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 7):
And any subsidies payed by Scotland must be made available to any EU-based carrier, not just Scottish/British ones.

But aren't the Scottish subsidies available to just about any carrier willing to start flights to GLA/EDI - that's why we have DL to ATL from EDI, EK to DXB from GLA, etc. In fact, isn't it precisely the British carriers that don't want to start nonstops out of EDI/GLA?


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25009 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6070 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Where do you draw the line?

Stockton, California, desperately wants an "international" airport, and has complained to their local representing politician to get one.

But they are sixty miles from three major international airports.

So they'll get their FIS facility through political intervention, and then they'll offer subsidies to an airline to use those facilties, and then Modesto, twenty four miles away, will want their own international service.

And all that money p*ssed down the gutter could be used for things that actually are of value to the community.

cheers

mariner

[Edited 2006-09-10 22:25:29]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24869 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6064 times:

Quoting GLAGAZ (Reply 6):
So there is no demand from Scotland to EWR, ATL, DXB etc which have all been subsidised and are all proving extremely popular?

Its terrific the routes are "popular" but can they support themselves sans the subsidies?
If they can, thats wonderful, if not however they should certainly not continue. Why should millions of people be subsidizing a service being used by a small group? There are hundred of communities around the world that likewise would love to have various services, however cant as the economics are simply not there.

As far as the hubs, while they might seem inconvenient, they offer the Scottish flyer and for that matter any flier much greater access to many markets that could never be supported on their own.
I bet you you can access 100's of individual markets one-stop via these hubs that could ever come close to supporting direct service to Scotland.
Hubs provide a very valuable means of liking the world.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6064 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
Government subsidies do nothing more than skew the market place, creating an unbalanced playing field. If a market cannot sustain itself on its own economic merits, why should a small group of people benefit via costly subsidies?

This free market nonsense only goes so far. You're saying Scotland should just be abandoned? Air service is an essential utility. The air service may be unprofitable, but the business it brings supports a whole nation and generates loads of money for the treasury. Who's to say the tax payer is better off without paying the subsidy. I say the tax payer is ahead, if the subsidy is paid. Think how much revenue is generated by the traffic brought in by longhaul direct flights.

People who are dogmatic about the free market are doomed to the same fate as commies were dogmatic about socialism. The solution lies in the middle. But Americans only seem to do black and white. Much of the world is gray, believe it or not.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineGLAGAZ From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2004, 1982 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6030 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
Its terrific the routes are "popular" but can they support themselves sans the subsidies?

I'm pretty sure the funding only lasts for a year. But for instance, EDI-EWR was initially daily in the summer and 5x weekly in winter. Last year it was 10x weekly in summer and daily in winter. This year it is 11x weekly in summer and daily in winter.

GLA-DXB was initially an A332 service, but upgraded to a 77W. It is also widely reported that EK are looking to either add a second GLA flight or start EDI operations.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
I bet you you can access 100's of individual markets one-stop via these hubs that could ever come close to supporting direct service to Scotland.

That is always going to be true, but there are still many destinations which can be supported from Scotland.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
Hubs provide a very valuable means of liking the world.

True, but Boeing and Airbus see the balance changing from a hub reliant one to a mixture of both, hence the 787 and A350 to go along with the 748 and the A380.

Gaz



Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6009 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 11):
You're saying Scotland should just be abandoned?

Scotland being abandoned?? That's ridiculous. How fare is Scotland from London, less than an hour flight. Berlin for example is much bigger than Glasgow or Edinburgh and does not have intercontinental flight as well.


User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4917 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5997 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 7):
But it's not Scottish taxpayers money that is being spent - it's EU taxpayers money

The RDF funding comes from the Scottish Executive which as far as Im aware is funded by Scottish taxes and not by the EU

Quoting ZRH (Reply 13):
and does not have intercontinental flight as well.

DL to JFK
CO to EWR

[Edited 2006-09-10 22:47:41]


Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5979 times:

Just got a question on it all....

How does this affect CO?



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Quoting Humberside (Reply 14):
The RDF funding comes from the Scottish Executive which as far as Im aware is funded by Scottish taxes and not by the EU

Oh. But then that's the same thing as the airports in France that subsidised FR to fly to them - that's not legal. Government subsidies to airlines are not allowed, except for economic lifeline and territorial continuity. GLA-EWR is neither. Scottish taxpayers, aviation enthusiasm aside, should be militating for better air links to London, never mind direct flights to Dubai - I for one would be miffed if my tax money was being splurged so that people on expense accounts could fly direct EDI-EWR, when they would be travelling anyway, via somewhere else, without the subsidy.


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24869 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 11):
You're saying Scotland should just be abandoned? Air service is an essential utility

Scotland is far from being abandoned. It matter of fact has a very vibrant aviation market and where Europe's top LCCs offer frequent services to many destinations.

What I will say however is that long haul air service links to the US or other places is far from being "essential" if they cannot be supported on their own economic merits.

Using your reasoning, I guess the European tax payer will have to fork out huge sums of money to increase long haul services from other markets such as Lyon, Barcelona, Geneva, Berlin, Marseilles, Athens, Sofia etc.. which have minimal if any long haul service.

At the end of the day, the market will take care of itself. If Scotland can indeed support services across the globe, the airlines will come.
No need to skew this with subsidies that only benefit a small group of people and can be viewed as discriminatory to other airlines and markets.

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 11):
But Americans only seem to do black and white. Much of the world is gray, believe it or not.

While I might be located in the US, I am not native born. European actually, but strongly believe in the efficiency of the market based economy and dislike the European tilt towards government intervention in many aspects of life across the pond.

Quoting GLAGAZ (Reply 12):
eekly

Glad to hear the services are doing well.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCXA330300 From South Africa, joined May 2004, 1560 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

No one says anything about state aid to flag carriers.....

Quoting ZRH (Reply 13):
Berlin for example is much bigger than Glasgow or Edinburgh and does not have intercontinental flight as well.

TXL has routes to EWR, JFK, ULN, and DOH. SXF has routes to TLV, CAI and soon HKG as well as charters to Mombasa.



The sky is the limit as long as you can stay there
User currently offlineDeltaSFO From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5930 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
Hate to say it, however good for the EU!

Government subsidies do nothing more than skew the market place, creating an unbalanced playing field. If a market cannot sustain itself on its own economic merits, why should a small group of people benefit via costly subsidies?

Out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that Essential Air Services subsidies here in the U.S. should also be done away with?



It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
User currently offlineGSM763 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5896 times:

There will always be a need to subsidize certain air services. For example the services to the Scottish islands I'm sure everyone would agree is an essential service that can't be made commercially viable. The difficulty is where you draw the line at what is essential. Is a GLA-BRS flight essential? While the loss of this money pot is a blow to Scottish air routes it does put Europe on a level playing field and I believe may be one of the concessions made by the EU in order to facilitate faster EU-US open-skies. We have seen argument after argument here over Ryanair getting money to fly from say HHN-SDR which many would argue is a far from essential route. However when we see for example a route from GLA-BOS we welcome it with open arms. This is not a level playing field and must be changed. I'm all in favour of new routes from Scotland (obviously being resident there) however I don't think money should be sunk in to routes which can't pull their weight.

User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2921 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5791 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 17):
What I will say however is that long haul air service links to the US or other places is far from being "essential" if they cannot be supported on their own economic merits.

So what's wroing with Government giving an incentive for new routes to be tried? If no airlines will try the routes then they won't know if they can be supported on their own economic merits. Surely that is one of the roles of a good Government in seeking to expand their economies?


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24869 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5730 times:

Quoting DeltaSFO (Reply 19):
Out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that Essential Air Services subsidies here in the U.S. should also be done away with?

Personally, I accept them, but not enthusiastically. I do see how they can be classified as "essential". I suppose in for such remote communities one does not have a choice.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 21):
So what's wroing with Government giving an incentive for new routes to be tried? If no airlines will try the routes then they won't know if they can be supported on their own economic merits

Generally airlines do lots of market research to determine if a route has any potential. It should not be the governments place to put money on the table to provide services in markets that otherwise naturally would not have any.
Again, if some the the Scottish long haul routes work, that is terrific, however there is nothing "essential" about Scotland having links to Atlanta, Dubai etc..

I certainly would not want my tax dollars to try to create odd ball routes from my home town. If any airline want to try it at their risk fine, however why should tax dollars go to subsidize such questionable forays?



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineNzrich From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5716 times:

Sometimes when airlines are looking at new routes ..If a country is going to help them out with advertising etc etc it could be the swaying factor for the start up of a route over another destination.. Personally i dont believe in permanent subsidies for routes that will never become profitable except if its a lifeline ie to some island that has no other way of getting easily to a major city. But if its just a one off incentive to get a service started that will be profitable whats wrong in the end it becomes a win win situation for the community.. Also the with direct services you also have the added benifit of freight capacity for exports.. The whole community wins with direct services tourists exports etc etc..

Lots of countries / airports off incentives for new routes ie half price landing fees just to get new routes flying ..The incentives are paid for a set period and i dont see what is wrong in the slightest there ..



"Pride of the pacific"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24869 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5638 times:

Quoting Nzrich (Reply 23):
Lots of countries / airports off incentives for new routes ie half price landing fees just to get new routes flying ..The incentives are paid for a set period and i dont see what is wrong in the slightest there ..

Its one thing to offer some temporary incentives such as fee reductions, which are very much along the lines of commercial and consumer marketing agreement in all types of industries.
It is a very different thing for the government to offer subsidies in the form of covering and airlines operating losses on a route, or by guaranteeing a certain level of profitability.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
25 Vega : The largest airline subsidies in the world are the U.S. Bankruptcy laws.
26 Sydscott : So on that basis you're not in favour of retaining any of the domestic US funding for Essential Air services either. C'mon drop the textbook market l
27 Nzrich : Being honest either way a subsidy is paid ie reduced landing costs or a guarranteed income its still a subsidy!!! As VEGA said the largest subsidy of
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Leather Seats For BA Long Haul? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 19:23:42 by 8herveg
No More BA Long Haul Flights At LGW posted Sun Nov 26 2000 11:00:29 by OO-VEG
Tunisair: Why No Long Haul Flights? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 21:03:04 by LY777
Priceline In The UK - No More Bidding For Flights posted Tue Mar 8 2005 14:59:22 by Rwylie77
Charging For Meals On Long Haul Flights posted Thu Mar 3 2005 05:35:02 by Planenutz
Long Haul Flights For Jet 9W posted Wed Dec 8 2004 15:42:43 by Airindia
New Long Haul Flights For Blue Panorama posted Fri Oct 22 2004 14:02:32 by Airblue
Long Haul Flights Dangerous For Health posted Wed Mar 10 2004 16:07:13 by Dutchflyer
Does Geneva (GVA) Deserve More Long-haul Flights? posted Sat Mar 10 2001 04:12:22 by WorldVoyager
Alitalia: No More Skirts For Its F/A (funny) posted Fri Nov 10 2006 11:27:17 by Wingedarrow