757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1555 times:
It's been interesting being a BHX enthusiast over the past few months - The sudden upturn in interest in EMA from GO and BMiBaby has suddenly got us all worried. EMA is only a 30min drive from BHX, and many think these new lost cost flights from EMA will take PAX away from BHX.
Now, the bosses at BHX have always tried to promote the airport as a business hub. Hence why BA and it's franchise partners have such a large network from here. The only lost cost no frills flights from BHX are with Ryanair, much like Manchester. The men at the top have seemed to look down their noses at the likes of Easyjet and Go, assuming they'll be safe because these carriers seemed to concentrate from Luton and Stansted - Not exactly on their doorstep.
However, no frills airlines are here to stay. I'm sure many assumed they'd be a passing fad, but nope, they are not. Easyjet and Ryanair have made record profits and both carriers have placed large orders for new aircraft. Bonkers Ryanair boss Mr O'Leary even stated that he'd be bigger in BA in a few years time! This may seem a bizarre statement to make, but given BA's current woe's, you never know.
Now with the low cost airlines setting up bases at EMA, BHX suddenly seems vunerable. The European network from this airport is already suffering with low loads, especially BA and Maersk Air. What will happen when Go and BMiBaby start their ops in a few weeks? Does one really think people will keep paying BA's overpriced fares? OK, with a low cost airline you don't get the same level of service, but do a few extra inches of legroom and a Gourmet meal really justify an extra £100 on a return fare? I doubt it.
So, if the MD of BHX, Mr Brian Summers, is reading this, please take note. Here are some tips for you:
1. Ditch BA. They obviously only want to focus on LHR, and when was the last time they introduced a brand new service from BHX? Madrid is over three years old.
2. Give the vacant BA slots to Maersk and British European. Though Maersk is a BA franchise, they have been very good at promoting and introducing new services. BE have a good reputation and have also put in place a good network of well supported services from BHX, at very good fares too.
3. Phone up the bosses of PIA and tell them to pull their finger out and get their flights rolling from BHX again. Daily 747's please.
4. Phone up the bosses of Air India and get them to start daily flights too. I promise you they'll be full each time.
5. Phone up Rod Eddington and shout at him.
6. Push to get the main runway extended to 3,000m - You wonder why CX laughed when you asked them to fly from BHX? Plus AA can't operate their 763's with full payload can they? EK want the 777 on the daily DXB service - Pity they can't because they'd not get off the deck before that dual carriageway at the end of rwy 15.
7. Phone up Go and BMiBaby and tell them to dump EMA and choose BHX as a base. EMA is hardly in the same league as BHX when it comes to terminal facilities is it? Plus the West Midlands has three million people screaming for more services and cheaper fares.
8. Copy exactly what the bosses at MAN have done over the last 15 years - You'll be handling 15 million passengers a year by 2012!
There, I think that does it. It's nice to get these things off your chest once in a while.
BDRules From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 1501 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1410 times:
EMA has no slot restriction, no curfew, terminal facilities are being updated all the time and landing fees and parking fees are a lot cheaper than BHX. need i go on? BHX can keep BA and Maersk and keep struggling while EMA can get ready for a boom in PAX numbers
757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1399 times:
EMA does not have the transport infrastructure. EMA does not have airbridges. It's main apron is only small. BHX have frozen landing fees for the last five years. It is linked to a mainline railway statiion. It is next door to the M6 and M42. It has good onward connections to major worldwide hubs. Daily transatlantic flights. Daily flights to the middle east. BHX's terminals do not resemble and old bus station either.
How many long haul flights does EMA have? A seasonal Air 2000 767 charter flight to Orlando via Belfast? Oh really. Oh dear. BHX has up to five Orlando flights on just one summer weekend - Direct.
ChrisEMA From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
Seeing as I live close to East Midlands (not too far from BHX either), it's naturally very interesting to see the arrival of 'no frills' carriers at EMA.
Unfortunately, it has to be said that it is not totally fair to condem the terminal facilities at EMA. Yes, they are now much better at Birmingham (at least you can see out of some windows in the main terminal), but I personally do not rate the current parking arrangements, crowded terminal and arrogant staff problem at BHX. Of course, that's just based on my experiences! Surely, the fact that both these airports are right alongside major motorways and quite close geographically means that there is perhaps less reason to worry about just where these 'low cost' carriers operate from?? It's fair to say that there are currently more overseas connections at BHX plus it's a 'bigger' more 'important' airport, but seeing as half or more of the pax on the new carriers will surely start from the UK - what does it matter??
I'm due to fly BA/QF to Perth, all over Oz, all over NZ and then home through Seattle later this year. Shame that I can't fly from BHX or EMA! That would be nice!
Our local newspapers are full of articles about lobbies of locals trying to ban night flights at EMA. Seeing as these night flights include many 727s and widebodies, it's not suprising that a shift to more 'quiet' and 'friendly' 737s might please the moaners! I personally love to hear the A300s roar over at 2am - but then, I'm in a minority!!
As for Maersk, well I flew with them 2 years ago to Amsterdam and thought that they were very poor. I made the same flight from EMA with BMI last year and was much more impressed. In fact, the outbound flight was sub-chartered to Titan. Now that was good! In fact, a close friend of mine is a boss for them down at Stanstead and helps run a fantastic little airline. He told me that he would forward my remarks to his friends at Maersk!
The last word must go to British European, who are indeed a reasonably good company. I couldn't fault them on my buisness trip to Jersey and Guernsey last year. Comfortable 146s with hot coffee and bacon sanwiches all round! What I didn't approve of was the fact that they had to remote stand at BHX with the bus transfer and terminal hassle taking (seemingly) as long as the flight. With a light and airy terminal, huge car park, extended runway and position right alongside the M1 motorway, I'm not suprised that EMA is getting bigger.
Well, whatever, it's good to have 2 expanding airports here in the heart of the country!
Mailboxb1 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1359 times:
The trouble with East Midlands Airport is the name, nobody outside of the country actually knows where it is
and only a handfull of people in the country can say that it is somewhere near Derby or Nottingham.
757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
Good post, I agree with your points about the attitude of staff at BHX. Though the parking has improved with the arrival of more surface car parks and a bloody big short stay multi storey. Most of my comments regarding EMA were meant as a joke - I've been to this airport quite a few times and the terminal is much better than it used to be.
As far as I know, AMM will be operating X2 757's and X1 767-300's at BHX for the Summer 2002 season. This is subject to change of course.
Dan330 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 439 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1352 times:
Overall EMA isn't a bad little airport. OK the terminal needs a lot of work, especially the baggage reclaim bit and the pub with wooden outdoor seats (inside)!
The road network around EMA is fantastic and there is due to be a train station built close by.
BHX is also a very good airport, the terminal building is excellent now, but the size of the runway lets it down.
Mailboxb1 - and Leicester!
Isn't the AMM EMA-Orlando flight going to be direct this year?
757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1348 times:
Looking at the blueprints for BHX, the main surface car park will be a thing of the past by 2015. A new terminal is due to be built on the one that runs next to T2 Eurohub. Both LGW and LHR have big surface car parks - LGW has one that is supposed to be the largest open space car park in Europe. Though if BA pullout, I think the apron area will be put to good use as a car park
ChrisEMA From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1339 times:
good thing about the car parks!
One good thing that I didn't mention is that both airports have excellent spotting facilities etc (albeit behind glass in the terminals). I have yet to see the new visitors centre at BHX, but it's nice to have the aeropark at EMA as well as the planned nature trails and picnic sites around the perimeter. Good too to have the excellent aviation shops at BHX and EMA. I have parted with much hard earned cash at the latter!
Going back to my future trip down-under, should I expect to be dissapointed with BA/QF after many, many flights with Air New Zealand? Also, it's ironic that hundreds of folk travel to BHX and EMA to pick up Flightlink coaches to take them to Heathrow or Gatwick. What a shame that there is such little chance to depart long haul from the midlands. Or failing that, would there ever be a demand for a commuter flight from here in the midlands to London. Now that would be a novelty!!
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7260 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1339 times:
I'm afraid MAN has also been too benevolent to BA therefore PLEASE DON'T copy the MAN management decisions!
We'd also love Air India back here....hopefully with 747s are they wanted to operate originally; the 4 weekly A310s averaged something like 70 to 75% loads. Imagine if you will, the day when the combined BHX & MAN Indian and Pakistani services obliterate the LHR services!
As for Emirates, believe me the BHX route will remain A330 based for the next year or two because it will have to be upgraded from a daily A330 low density to a daily A330 high density.
Whereas dear old MAN is waiting patienty, so patiently, for a 2nd daily service: I am led to believe that 95% loads were experienced in December. EEEK! We need 777s now and not intermittently, though it is slated for the summer (if we have one in MAN )
757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1326 times:
Funny you should mention a commuter service from the Midlands to London.
British Midland (as they were once called!) used to fly a daily ATP lunchtime service from BHX to LHR in the late 1980's, though the Shorts 360 was often used too. Alas, the service ended by around 1989/1990. Not sure how good the loads were. Brymon Airways (before it's BA days) also used to fly a daily Twin Otter service from BHX to LGW - Again this service ended at about the same time as the BM one. I would have loved to have flown on a Twin Otter.....
Many people actually travelling to Oz and NZ will fly from either BHX or EMA to somewhere like DXB and AMS and make their onward journeys from these hubs.
ChrisEMA From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
Have to fly from LHR this time since the Seattle BA services are, I think, to London only. Well, the tickets are booked now!
We are due to fly to Zakinthos in June with Britannia. Since they have more services from BHX, they have much better timings too! So, I have made an important choice in favour of Birmingham on that one!
As for London flights - if we keep having rail strikes and congestion on the motorways keeping at its current rate, then who knows what the next 10 years will bring!
Billy From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2000, 895 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
What you all fail to understand is that these airports are run as businesses. The low cost airlines really screw airports on charges. They make it really tough to make money out of their business. Ask MAN how much they make from their FR service. Although BA does not provide tons of passengers, it does pay its bills at full tariff.
Believe me, EMA will have paid dearly for these BMI and Go flights.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
What you pro-Birmingham guys aren't acknowledging is that EMA is in a much better position to take advantage of the low cost boom:
* Well connected to the UK motorway network
* Nice long runway, underutilised, not flow control / slot issues
* Plenty of ramp space during the day
* Terminal with some room for expansion - further baggage reclaim underway
* Not too much past investment in terminal infrastructure which needs to be recovered (unlike BHX) through high charges
* Room for expansion
* Large population base that is considerably further from other low cost bases than Birmingham
* Low cost airlines don't want air bridges (both Go and BMIBaby have specifically asked for remote stands to avoid even push-back costs) and fancy facilities
* Low cost airlines don't want / don't offer interline or connections, so the scope of existing services from EMA is irrelevent
* A management that was prepared to deal on landing fees, which will to an extent will be recoved in greater revenue from parking and concessions, etc.
I understand the expectation is that EMA will pull around a quarter of a million pax out of Birmingham. That's fine
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2592 posts, RR: 59 Reply 24, posted (11 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1297 times:
I think the increased presence of low-cost airlines could be very dangerous for airports like Manchester, and Birmingham.
Most European services from these airports are operated by smaller aircraft types such as the B737-500, BAe146, ERJ-145, CRJ etc.
At the moment the full service airlines provide a reasonable network coverage, at a reasonable frequency catering for both point-to-point and hub transfer passengers to places like Amsterdam and Paris.
However, there is always the persistant problem of yield on MAN/BHX routes. You can usually fill the planes at Y class fares, but there are a lack of C class passengers. As a result flights tend to be successful in terms of passenger numbers, but not in terms of profits. As a result any downturn in the economic climate, or passenger traffic will result in airlines taking a hard look at whether serving MAN/BHX is worth it when they already have X flights to LHR/LGW.
So the situation as it stands; Reasonable networks that have suffered some cutbacks in the last 6 months, and face further reductions mainly from British Airways in the months ahead as they donwsize to RJs on many routes, such as MAN-CDG which goes from a B737 to a mainly BAe146 service this summer.
Now the low cost airlines come in.
Are they going to provide connections to the major hubs for transfer passengers? No.
Are they going to provide point to point service for business travellers to cities accross Europe? No
Are they going to cherry pick the profitable, high-volume destinations, at the expense of incumbent carriers? Yes
If low cost airlines established a significant presence at MAN/BHX there would be capacity and frequency reductions the routes they start to places like Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt - probably down to RJ service at reduced frequencies. As evidenced by the effect of easyJet on British Airways MAN-AMS flights; low-cost gets nearly all point-to-point traffic, incumbent gets transfer traffic - if you have very little transfer traffic from that destination, you have very little traffic.
After a relatively short period of time when the low fare carriers are established, you will probably see a very different network. High frequency flights to a relatively small number of destinations by low-cost airlines, mainly serving tertiary airports. Established carriers concentrating on their hub routes with smaller aircraft. Destinations such as Rotterdam, Oslo, Oporto, Prague, Vienna, Lyon, Stuttgart, Berlin will probably be gone - many passenger who previously have travelled to those destinations will be drawn onto alternative low-cost routes.
While low-cost airlines would increase passenger numbers at MAN/BHX, as Billy said the would reduce profits for the airport. They would hurt existing carriers, causing route withdrawals and capacity reductions. They would reduce the range of point-to-point secondary routes primarily catering for the business traveller.
Low cost carriers can be the saviour of airports like Luton, Prestwick and Standsted. But they can be very dangerous for medium sized airports; just look at routes where low-cost competition exists, not even from the same airport such as MAN/LPL-BFS and MAN/LPL-AMS and the effect on existing flights. It's about to occur at BHX where bmibaby/Go flights overlap existing BHX routes.
25 Mailboxb1: With the routes that GO and BMIBaby are going to serve this coming March onwards are the likes of Brittania,Air 2000 and the likes going to suffer at
26 GKirk: I wouldnt think so Mailboxb1, BY AMM etc serve IT companies whereas No-frills are flight-only so, I supose it would affect those flying flight-only bu
27 Mailboxb1: Cheers GKirk but what about the flights from Glasgow and Edingburgh, I just can't see business men flying down into East Mids and then treking into Bi
28 GKirk: Err...probably a lot of leisure pax on Go GLA-EMA and EDI-EMA, or the other way round anyway, but this is about BHX so... BA and BE might be affected
29 David_itl: It's a poor do if the "frills" airlines can't make money on 70% loads when other airlines can. MAN has got the problem of LHR connections and BHX the
30 AndyEastMids: Mailbox1, There is some concern over the charter carriers positions at EMA. Whilst Go and BMIBaby won't impact the inclusive tour part of the charter
31 BDRules: Just checked and on EMA's web site Florida is not being mentioned as a summer route. EMA apparently is enquiring about Airbridges, they are going to s
32 GKirk: Haha NCL-Much better than BHX and EMA put together
33 BDRules: GKIRK i was up at NCL last week on business and its not that good. its only a slight bit worse than EMA and a million air miles better than BHX becaus
34 757man: It is quite clear to me that EMA has suddenly become a threat to BHX because of who it's boss is - Manchester Airport. I refuse to get into a MAN vs B
35 BDRules: Ill shove it in my pipe and smoke it. thats a good coment to make but being serious now i really feel that EMA is going to become real competition in
36 Karliboy: ding ding...seconds out...over to David...will Man dip into their pockets to help out BDRules....? Karl
37 757man: You see, most of my comments are tongue in cheek regarding EMA - I'm just scared for my beloved BHX. BA really have messed things up for us....
38 David_itl: MAN is too full of itself to actually realise what's going on! The priority has to be to look after itself first and foremost, perhaps with some newl