Route Development & Rumours

[Scania1800]

Very occasionally, most likley the 789 coming into play

I have been told it will stay daily but maybe with an upgrade to a 77W

 

[gulftraveller]

The 773 is less common in UK than last year so the 789 is a more likely replacement. Jumping from a 788 to a 773 would be highly ambitious.

 

[Karl C]

The 773 is less common in UK than last year so the 789 is a more likely replacement. Jumping from a 788 to a 773 would be highly ambitious.

Less ambitious than going double daily

 

[rashmanj]

Ian any chance of qsuites coming to brum if it stays as one daily?

 

[IanFarquharson]

Ian any chance of qsuites coming to brum if it stays as one daily?

No

 

[nwoody2001]

No

That’s an interesting one… I would expect q-suites the moment they stop the 788. All there European 77W have them, all their 789 have a version on them, and a majority of the 359s have them. Its only their 788/388s that don’t have qsuite

 

[Scania1800]

So far as in all records, the 787-8 is still staying until further notice

 

[rashmanj]

What a shame ... we are always seen as a gateway for cheap low cost fare airlines. Yes emirates and qatar are here but they don't expect to see full loads and so put on inferior aircraft. Thats also why the USA airlines or virgin or BA dont cpme here as they cannot fill the high end seats which is needed for an airline to be profitable. I am grateful that we still have choice towards the east but I am hearing the same threats from BHX mngt that new airlines are in negotiation and thats a never ending story ...

 

[Scania1800]

What a shame ... we are always seen as a gateway for cheap low cost fare airlines. Yes emirates and qatar are here but they don't expect to see full loads and so put on inferior aircraft. Thats also why the USA airlines or virgin or BA dont cpme here as they cannot fill the high end seats which is needed for an airline to be profitable. I am grateful that we still have choice towards the east but I am hearing the same threats from BHX mngt that new airlines are in negotiation and thats a never ending story ...

We aren’t the “gateway of cheap low cost airlines”, our taxes are too high alongside airport fees. Our geographic location is also a main factor as we’re sandwiched between Manchester and London

 

[andrew.clarkson]

Hi there Scania 1800, I totally agree with you on the issue with taxes and high airport fees, I have mentioned this before in previous previous posts, charging higher fees, won't create good business. Yes, we know that airlines don't pay the advertised fees, they agree a deal with the airport for a lower fee. But it's when the initial first deal is coming to an end and fees go up to what the airport wants, that is when airlines pull out, this happened with Iceland air. So until the airport management follows the same formula that Manchester Airport uses, any aircraft any size, with a fixed fee, then Birmingham airport is never going to achieve the passenger numbers it future forecasts.

 

[nwoody2001]

Hi there Scania 1800, I totally agree with you on the issue with taxes and high airport fees, I have mentioned this before in previous previous posts, charging higher fees, won't create good business. Yes, we know that airlines don't pay the advertised fees, they agree a deal with the airport for a lower fee. But it's when the initial first deal is coming to an end and fees go up to what the airport wants, that is when airlines pull out, this happened with Iceland air. So until the airport management follows the same formula that Manchester Airport uses, any aircraft any size, with a fixed fee, then Birmingham airport is never going to achieve the passenger numbers it future forecasts.

Where have you got this information from and how do you have insight into how Birmingham fees and charges compare to the Manchester? Fees and charges are negotiated privately with individual airlines, the published and public charges are commonly only paid by adhoc and last minute charters... I know you have been told this before but you still seem to push this narrative but on what basis?

Icelandair left BHX 6 years ago in 2018 when the airport was a very different place with a different CEO. Since then, Jet2 increased its base at BHX by 4x to become the largest airline at the airport, Ryanair has almost tripled the size of its operation at the airport and we have now become Easyjets first new base in the UK in the last 10 years!

Im curious to know what your expectations are because the growth of Loco Operations at BHX in the last 5 years have been pretty exceptions and that's before you even consider the collapse of 3 major airlines (flybe, Monarch and Thomas Cook) and and global pandemic!

 

[rollo]

A couple of points.

1. BHX or any other airport does not get to choose what taxes are charged government decides that. Airports do get to decide their charges.

2. When an arrangement is agreed between airline and the airport both sides will be aware of the financial incentives if any and length of agreement. At the end of that arrangement the airlines have to decide whether the the service is viable or not. It can always be argued that greater incentives should be offered
but all businesses have financial realities to face and to argue for greater incentives you need to know the figures offered if any in the first place

Obviously the airport needs to play its part in attracting and retaining airlines but ultimately is answerable to its shareholders who clearly demand a financial return especially Birmingham City Council in particular.

As pointed out by Scania1800 geography is and always has been the major issue for BHX.

 

[Birmingham Aviation]

A couple of points.

1. BHX or any other airport does not get to choose what taxes are charged government decides that.Airports do get to decide their charges.

2. When an arrangement is agreed between airline and the airport both sides will be aware of the financial incentives if any and length of agreement. At the end of that arrangement the airlines have to decide whether the the service is viable or not. It can always be argued that greater incentives should be offered but all businesses have financial realities to face and to argue for greater incentives you need to know the figures offered if any in the first place

Obviously the airport needs to play its part in attracting and retaining airlines but ultimately is answerable to its shareholders who clearly demand a financial return especially Birmingham City Council in particular.

As pointed out by Scania1800 geography is and always has been the major issue for BHX.

Hi Rollo
Birmingham Airport is actually owned by two councils Solihull and Birmingham

R33 side A45 side is owned property by the airport which Solihull and Bhx actually agreed to extend the runway..

R15 is owned by BCC and bhx .

Bcc and Solihull council have legal rights to own a part of the airport area
However bhx hold majority of land

A couple of points.

1. BHX or any other airport does not get to choose what taxes are charged government decides that.Airports do get to decide their charges.

2. When an arrangement is agreed between airline and the airport both sides will be aware of the financial incentives if any and length of agreement. At the end of that arrangement the airlines have to decide whether the the service is viable or not. It can always be argued that greater incentives should be offered but all businesses have financial realities to face and to argue for greater incentives you need to know the figures offered if any in the first place

Obviously the airport needs to play its part in attracting and retaining airlines but ultimately is answerable to its shareholders who clearly demand a financial return especially Birmingham City Council in particular.

As pointed out by Scania1800 geography is and always has been the major issue for BHX.

Hi Rollo
Birmingham Airport is actually owned by two councils Solihull and Birmingham

R33 side A45 side is owned property by the airport which Solihull and Bhx actually agreed to extend the runway..

R15 is owned by BCC and bhx .

Bcc and Solihull council have legal rights to own a part of the airport area
However bhx hold majority of land

 

[rollo]

Hi Rollo
Birmingham Airport is actually owned by two councils Solihull and Birmingham

R33 side A45 side is owned property by the airport which Solihull and Bhx actually agreed to extend the runway..

R15 is owned by BCC and bhx .

Bcc and Solihull council have legal rights to own a part of the airport area
However bhx hold majority of

Not so I'm afraid Birmingham and Solihull do not own or run BHX, ownership is as follows and has been for years÷

Ontario Teachers Plan 48.25%
Employees pension fund 2.75%
Plus the following seven councils of Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton,Sandwell, Solihull, Dudley and Walsall who own the remaining 49% between them. I think from memory Birmingham City Council own 13% and my reference to them related to the fact they're broke.

The above is easily accessible on the Company House website.

Given the propensity of politicians to ***** amongst themselves I would guess the Ontario Teachers Plan which is a pension fund mostly call the shots.

As an aside the Ontario Teachers own BRS outright and Bristol has done rather well over recent years

 

[nwoody2001]

Hi Rollo
Birmingham Airport is actually owned by two councils Solihull and Birmingham

R33 side A45 side is owned property by the airport which Solihull and Bhx actually agreed to extend the runway..

R15 is owned by BCC and bhx .

Bcc and Solihull council have legal rights to own a part of the airport area
However bhx hold majority of land



Hi Rollo
Birmingham Airport is actually owned by two councils Solihull and Birmingham

R33 side A45 side is owned property by the airport which Solihull and Bhx actually agreed to extend the runway..

R15 is owned by BCC and bhx .

Bcc and Solihull council have legal rights to own a part of the airport area
However bhx hold majority of land

I have idea what you are suggesting here. Yes the Airport straddles 2 local authority boundaries but that has no impact on ownership, no more so Birmingham City Council owns anyones house that is located within Birmingham City Council.

Birmingham Airport owns Birmingham Airport for which Birmingham, Solihull and other West Midlands authority control a 49% share...

 

[TM3]

I agree that the growth of Jet2 et al has been stellar, however these airlines concentrate on the same routes, plus it seems the airport struggles to deal with the numbers of passengers they push though it a peak times.

Many routes the airport would like are still unserved however, which necessitates a trip to another airport.

It's a fair point to reference the (partial) ownership of the airport by the local councils as the airport doesn't just exist to provide cheap holidays in Magaluf, it's supposed to support the area with connections to other cities (and markets) for local businesses.

Personally the absolute number of pax through the airport in a year means nothing to me if I can't access the services I need through Birmingham.

But it's not just about me it's about inbound value to the economy, very few passengers are coming in, spending money in Brum, starting their journeys from places like Palma or Lanzerote.

I don't favour a flat rate at all, I think every destination should be considerered primarily based on the diversity it brings to the route portfolio, a bit like they do with slot allocation at Heathrow right now.

 

[nwoody2001]

Whilst I don't think you're points are unreasonable - we all want more routes and more options - your perspective seems to miss a few points:

• Regardless of who owns the airport, airports have to be commercial entities which are viable. Airports are not nationally owned in the UK like they are in the likes of Spain, and as such the only way they can be run is profitably. Unprofitable airports - like DSA - are closed down. This is even more important when a local authority own an airport.
• Routes need to demand to be viable. Its not for an airport to subsidise a route to make it viable, especially if ran by local authorities as that would be just a case of public tax funds being used to line the pocket of airline shareholders. Yes airports will help with some of the costs in setting up a route initially and some financial support until it becomes viable, but if it never becomes profitable, the route simply wont last, and nor should it.
• In order for a route to be profitable, there need to be the demand for the route. In order to create demand, you need to grow market share, and you do that by attracting people to your airport in the first place. So whilst you see the likes of RYR/EZY etc of "just" adding more flights to ALC/AGP, that attracts more passengers, increases market share and will help generate greater demand to other routes. I think it it was our former CEO that stated "big airlines take notice of big airports", the bigger the airport grows, the more other airlines take note. Take BHX-BER as a prime example. An unserved route which had been serviced for a number of years by Flybe. EZY opens a base at BHX and offers BHX-BER, which wouldn't have happened if BHX hadn't attracted EZY to setup a base. Now EZY has opened the route, RYR wants a piece of that action and sets up the same route. We now have Daily flights between BHX-BER when last year we had none!

Hope that helps add some context to the challenge ahead for the airport, but more routes and more pax are always a good thing, we just need to make sure the airport has the infrastucture in place to manage.

 

[TM3]

The rationale behind the airport being in part owned by local councils is to promote the region over profit.

If the local councils just see the airport as a cash cow, like city centre car parking, they aren't fulfilling their obligation to their region. In the case of Birmingham City Council, which is skint due to total mismanagement of their own affairs, they may as well sell their share to investors if it's just about maximising short term return like it appears to be at the moment.

Maybe the councils' shares should be transferred into a local aviation trust with wider obligations in terms of growing the route portfolio in a more sustainable way.

BTW, there has always been demand for Berlin and it used to command very high fares in the Flybe days.

 

[Ray Finkle]

I really do get the point about the same old routes, believe me there are numerous unserved destinations I'm desperate to get back.

What I would say though is that Jet2 opened their base with the same old routes yet as it's developed they now have Split, Nice, Athens, Kalamata, Mytilene, Preveza, Rome, Olbia, Catania, Tivat and Almeria, all exclusive to Jet2. One could also add in winter seasonal routes to Vienna and Reykjavik as well as a smattering of Christmas market flights. Without that initial base there is every chance that these may have remained on the missing list.

The easyjet base is only a couple of months old and, as said, they've bought back Berlin with rumours of Gibraltar for next summer, another unserved destination. If it does well the potential is phenomenal and I'd bet Ryanair won't take it lying down either.

Ultimately the market will decide but I'm really hoping that we have an exciting few years ahead of us.

 

[nwoody2001]

The rationale behind the airport being in part owned by local councils is to promote the region over profit.

If the local councils just see the airport as a cash cow, like city centre car parking, they aren't fulfilling their obligation to their region. In the case of Birmingham City Council, which is skint due to total mismanagement of their own affairs, they may as well sell their share to investors if it's just about maximising short term return like it appears to be at the moment.

How is a council generating money for the public benefit - through revenue via and airport or parking or anything else - a council not meeting its obligations? Have you got a list of these obligations or are these simply obligations you think should exist? If the council forfeited the income stream generated by the airport, would you prefer the council increase council tax to cover the lost revenue or cut other services? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts...

The very fact local councils share a 49% stake is to the benefit of the region in many aspect. I suspect its a lot harder to close an airport which is 49% owned by councils than it is to close an airport which is 100% owned by the private sector. And i suspect the councils do have a say in strategy, approach and growth, but what the councils SHOULD NOT be doing using using tax payers money to subsidise routes that will never be viable purely to line the profits of private airlines.

In the UK where the aviation market is privatised, people need to drop this concept that an airport is their to serve the needs or is obliged to meet the needs of the local community. The matter of fact is that they are not. They are private commercial operations that are their to serve their own financial interests. Thankfully in a majority of cases, a successful airports tend to meet the need of both the region as well as their shareholders, but lets not kid ourselves that they will put the interest of the region above their shareholders.

BTW, there has always been demand for Berlin and it used to command very high fares in the Flybe days.

Exactly my point, and yet Ryanair had zero interest in serving BHX-BER it in the 4 years since the original Flybe went bankrupt UNTIL Easyjet arrived at BHX. I suspect if EasyJet hadnt arrived into BHX, Ryanair still wouldn't be serving BHX-BER!