8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1343 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3431 times:
Does anyone know if KLM Cityhopper have any plans to operate to London Southend Airport?
Aer Lingus Regional are starting their 3 x daily service to DUB which will offer connections to the States....does anyone reckon KLM Cityhopper could operate a 3 x daily service to AMS to connect to the East?
I really cannot see KLM starting Amsterdam flights from Southend whilst easyJet is on the route. It was rumoured in the local press a few years ago that KLM was in talks with the SEN over flights, however that never materialised, and the oppurtunity for them has now been missed.
In an ideal world, KLM would be on the route, as without easyJet, with the vast connection oppurtunities it could facilitate . However easyJet is now on the route providing an awful lot of capacity (312 seats in each direction a day.)
So to say, if easyJet wren't on the route, a Fokker 70 is too large, is probably incorrect, since a thrice daily Fokker 70 service would provide only 240 seats in each direction a day.
However this is all academic, since the two carriers wouldn't in my opinion be able to co-exist on the route, at least at the moment.
SuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2744 times:
Well, judging by the map, I would expect it to be quite a journey from Southend and surroundings to LHR, so there will be a chance to offer a feeder service to an international airport. But it's true that a little Fokker 50 or an ATR 42 would be better suited for the job. I don't think the U2 route would be much of an issue, a KL Fokker 70 wouldn't be operating for O&D anyway.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4294 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
AFKL could deploy a Cityjet Fokker 50, no need for KLC and a Fokker 50. The question is whether SEN-LCY would cannibalize LCY-AMS or not. Not sure to what extent "non-City" people from East London use LCY to connect via AMS. As SEN is considerably cheaper to operate from for an airline, splitting low-yielding traffic and premium pax might make some sense in the long run. However, if those pax are needed to fill off-peak flights from LCY, it will most likely not happen.
countvis From UK - England, joined Feb 2012, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2682 times:
Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 6): I don't think the U2 route would be much of an issue, a KL Fokker 70 wouldn't be operating for O&D anyway.
I have to say I disagree with that statement. Although connecting traffic is very important for KL, higher yielding O&D passengers would play a significant role in the viability of such services. Elsewhere easyJet and KLM haven't been able co-exist on AMS route. Liverpool and Newcastle are examples of this. Southend is still an immature market, and a marketing mountain still needs to be overcome in promoting Southend as the very credible London alternative which I think it is.
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 7): The question is whether SEN-LCY would cannibalize LCY-AMS or not.
I agree, that is a significant factor. Although they are unique markets, there would be considerable overlap.
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
Quoting santos (Reply 4):
I don't think they meant on the SEN-AMS market, but on the SEN-AMS-XXX market. Connections are very valuable for KL
There must be some O&D for KL to pick up. KL axed STN and never tried again at LGW due to U2 (though LGW also has BA getting some of the pax). KL has enough capacity in in LON market already and I doubt they'll venture into other airports as this would create too much capacity.
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 7): As SEN is considerably cheaper to operate from for an airline, splitting low-yielding traffic and premium pax might make some sense in the long run. However, if those pax are needed to fill off-peak flights from LCY, it will most likely not happen.
I think KL wants its lower-yielding LON pax to use LHR where it has 10 flights on weekdays (slightly less on Saturdays and Sundays). Though with 8 weekday flights to LCY they also have lot of capacity on this route (therefore AMS-SEN would be an overkill).
Quoting vfw614 (Reply 7): AFKL could deploy a Cityjet Fokker 50, no need for KLC and a Fokker 50
However the F50 sin't deployed at AMS (at present). The F50s have a busy life at the smaller airports connecting to LCY. I doubt they have a spare F50 left.