Continental Airlines

[TheLocalYokel]

July 2010 pasenger figures

9045 passengers travelled in the month on BRS-EWR, up 8% on July 2009 - ave load 146, load factor over 83%.

This is the best ever July, the previous best being 2008. 2010 is 2% up on that.

 

[alphagolf]

July 2010 pasenger figures

9045 passengers travelled in the month on BRS-EWR, up 8% on July 2009 - ave load 146, load factor over 83%.

This is the best ever July, the previous best being 2008. 2010 is 2% up on that.

Interesting to see that only 391 more pax used the BHX-EWR route in July compared with BRS.

Good performance BRS, shame that Conti are throwing in the towel. :whiteflag:

 

[Aviador]

Yes it certainly is and it's becoming more of a mystery why they would choose to end what is apparently a healthy route. The Local Yokel's theory of using BRS passengers to increase Heathrow utilisation and maybe to prop-up the Birmingham route looks more and more plausible.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The airport CEO was asked about the Continental situation at the last Consultative Committee Meeting held at the end of July.

He said the airport was still 'in dialogue' with Continental but they were anticpating the airline would not change its decision to withdraw the EWR route at the end of the summer season.

The airport was also talking with other airlines but did not expect a replacement carrier 'in the short term'.

 

[Aviador]

Such an unnecessary grim read. Bloody yanks. :nea:

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Such an unnecessary grim read.

It is in some ways, and certainly for those airport aficionados who believe in 'bragging rights' (I'm not one), though I'm coming round to the view that regional airports of Bristol's size should not try to be all things to all people.

Perhaps BRS should concentrate on things it's good at which really means Europe in terms of scheduled services.

I should like to see more legacy carriers return on European routes with LH the top of my wish list. There is optimism that LH will bring back the Frankfurt route when economic conditions improve. SAS also did well in its summer seasons to Stockholm and Oslo a few years ago but those routes were lost along with many others when SAS downsized drastically to stabilise the company.

Bristol has no Scandinavian routes and the only German one is Berlin by easyJet, apart from the niche OLT operation to Bremen.

There is still a decent charter programme and there are hubs at Amsterdam (via KLM Cityhopper), Paris Cdg (via Air France/Airlinair) and Brussels (via Brussels Airlines/bmi Regional)) for those who want to travel further afield from their local airport. A return of Frankfurt to this list would improve things in that regard still more.

From a passenger's perspective Bristol area residents are extremely fortunate. Apart from BRS itself with an excellent range of destinations Heathrow is within easy reach (though I don't like the place myself) as is BHX which has some destinations and connections not available at BRS. In addition, Cardiff and Exeter airports have one or two routes not served from Bristol.

Don't misunderstand me. I would be delighted to see the CO route return (or a replacement NYC carrier) but I feel that there are other important unserved gaps at BRS that could be more easily and more viably filled.

For the forseeable future I see BRS's long-haul market as the charter field and news that the airport will be one of TOM's bases (if not a full time one) for the B787 means that some exciting routes will be in reach of the quaint Lulsgate runway.

 

[jason1-11]

Regional airports are regional for a reason, hence the reason why the likes of Newcastle, Leeds and Bristol are unlikely to get USA flights in the near future.

Concentrate at what your good at and what the market can sustain as Bristol will never be able to compete with say LHR / LGW or BHX and the same could be said about the LBA and Man.

 

[Aviador]

Regional airports are regional for a reason, hence the reason why the likes of Newcastle, Leeds and Bristol are unlikely to get USA flights in the near future.

Concentrate at what your good at and what the market can sustain as Bristol will never be able to compete with say LHR / LGW or BHX and the same could be said about the LBA and Man.

Whilst I can understand what you are saying "jason1-11", BRS has proved that it can get the passenger loads to sustain a New York route.

The catchment area for BRS airport and 'some' other regional airports such as LBA should be big enough to allow the local airport provider to operate such flights without the need for passengers to travel to one of the larger hub airports. This wont always be the case but there will be some destinations such as New York where the route should work and the CAA statistics suggest this is the case.

Certainly, not all regional airports will have a catchment area large enough to make flights to the states work but I don't think BRS (or LBA) should stop trying to attract such services. Unfortunately we will probably never know the real reason for the airlines withdrawal from Bristol airport.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Of course, Manchester and Birmingham airports are still regional airports themselves.

As the UK is so London-centric in much of its everyday life, including air travel, together with being a relatively small island there is always going to be a limited scope for long haul air travel in the regions.

Indeed, Manchester is the only regional airport in the entire UK that is of any significant size in terms of passengers handled and if the London routes were stripped from Edinburgh and Glasgow they would be handling about the same number of passengers as Bristol, Glasgow actually fewer.

Birmingham, given the size of its hinterland in population terms, is a poor performer when compared with Manchester. Possibly, as with Bristol, its proximity to the London airports, especially Heathrow, is a negative influence, although it might become a virtue in the future, particularly in the case of BHX, if LHR runs out of room because of the lack of a third runway.

BHX has very few intercontinental scheduled services and its CO route to Newark doesn't carry that many more passengers each month than the Bristol route, but of course raw numbers alone are not the telling factor on any airline route.

To get back on topic, the CO BRS-EWR route was started at a time (May 2005) when the airline had no access to LHR. Its London to Newark route operated out of Gatwick (which was subsequently axed when the airline began to use LHR). CO therefore decided to operate to secondary, even tertiary (in some people's view) airports in the UK to overcome their inability to access the UK's major airport.

Bristol was chosen because of its proximity to the capital, its large business base and very big reservoir of well-off leisure travellers with a propensity to fly (and a very able and persuasive senior management team) - incidentally broadly the same reasons that led to Go making the airport its second base and easyJet building on it when Go was bought.

The first year exceeded CO's expectations (publicly announced but one sometimes cynically suspects that airlines deliberately underplay their hopes for a new route so they can then celebrate if it proves more successful, apart from Ryanair who seem to go the opposite way) and the summer periods have been generally well patronised. The problem has been the winters, away from pre-Christmas shopping weeks and Christmas/New Year, when loads were disappointing in January and February particularly. Furthermore, there was a suggestion that there were too few full-fare business-first passengers at times.

My own view, and it is supported by some in the industry, is that once CO gained access to LHR their Bristol route was always on borrowed time, and as they gained more slots (as they have) it was a near certainty it would go, however well it had been performing.

Many regular flyers, especially business passengers, also preferred LHR because though BRS-EWR was fine for the New York area it entailed a sometimes longish wait to change aircraft at Newark, whereas just along the M4 was a selection of non-stop flights from many carriers to all sorts of destinations in North America.

Given its small site, short runway, challenging weather conditions at times and poor road links (no rail), together with several other airports within reasonable distance including LHR of course, it might be considered quite a feat that BRS has managed to get itself up to the vicinity of 6 mppa (it comfortably exceeded 6 mppa in 2008 before the recession took hold) with a determination to get well beyond that.

One can only imagine what sort of airport the city would have now if the city fathers had chosen Filton instead of Lulsgate when Whitchurch became too small in the 1950s – it's not fanciful to imagine a throughput closer to 10 mppa than 6.

Filton has most of the attributes that Lulsgate lacks, and although recent housing developments have reduced the size of of its site it still remains better situated than BRS.

 

[jason1-11]

This route plus Newcastle - Dubai was a seminal one in relation to long haul from the regions. They proved that a, there was a market and b, there was money to be made. The loss is a massive blow to Bristol and other airports that have aspirations in relation to this sector.

Now that slots are available post the BA/AA tie up, I think we´ll find that LHR will be the desired location for most of the US carriers at the expense of the regions.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I'm sure you are right, jason.

If CO can operate 5 x daily to Newark from LHR, as they are now doing, it makes little sense from a business point of view to operate either a sixth or one of the five from a small airport one hundred miles away.

Furthermore, as the US giant airlines slowly merge there will be less opportunity for regional routes anyway.

It's still a great shame for the 90,000 bodies that used the BRS-EWR route each year but that's how business and life is of course.

My son has used the route regularly for both business and pleasure (with his family) almost since its inception and he, his family and some friends (seven in total) will be using it for the last time in October - they are due to return on one of the last days of the route's life.

What they find very useful is not having a drive to Bristol from London having flown overnight back to the UK.

 

[alphagolf]

September 2010

Figures released by CAA show 9,240 pax used the BRS - EWR route a 7% increase on September 2009. :good:

Interesting that this is the third month in a row that pax numbers have been in excess of 9,000. Not gone into detailed pax but, on occasion when I have, Business First has been maintaining good figures as has economy. Obvious Continental/United aren't :whiteflag: going to change their minds as this late stage, but there is definately a demand even if just seasonal, April to Oct say!!!!! I am sure someone will pick this up again in the medium term!

 

[alphagolf]

Further to my last post I have taken a look at the BFS to EWR route!

Sept Pax 8,967 down 6% on Sept 2009, this may not bode well for Belfast considering BRS handled more in September.

I hope I am proved wrong! I don't know what the yields may have been for BFS!!

GLA - EWR Sept Pax 9,403.

BHX - EWR Sept Pax 9,609.

BRS is not a million miles away from this, with BRS doing rather well, this would lead me to suggest that the dropping of the BRS route has nothing to do with Pax numbers its more to do with where Continental/United can make the most money!!!!

Arrrgggghhhh!!!!!! :sad:

 

[Aviador]

I can fully understand your frustration. Their decision makes no sense at all. How long is left before the route ceases? I suppose it's even too late in the day for them to rescue the route and reverse their decision.

I wonder if it's worth writing to them to put those figures to them directly and ask why they have decided to end the route at a time when it would seem the service is going from strength to strength?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Aviador,

The last flight will be in early November - for some reason the 7th sticks in my mind but that could be wrong.

BRS is not a million miles away from this, with BRS doing rather well, this would lead me to suggest that the dropping of the BRS route has nothing to do with Pax numbers its more to do with where Continental/United can make the most money!!!!

alphagolf,

I suspect that with the connections you have at BRS you will have spoken to one or two people there in senior positions, as I have.

From this and other things it was no surprise to me that the BRS route was in the firing line once CO gained access to LHR.

I believe that the BRS route would have had to have been doing phenomenal business to have retained its EWR link given BRS's proximity to LHR. The same argument could be applied to BHX except it has a bigger catchment than BRS and to have 'moved' that route to LHR at the same time as the BRS route (effectively it has been moved to LHR as CO is increasing daily rotations from there) might have been seen as a 'panic' measure by CO. Nevertheless the BHX route may be under serious scrutiny.

BFS and GLA are slightly different in that they are further from LHR.

September 2009 and September 2010 are not quite like for like. For some reason CO dropped the Wednesday rotation from 16 September in 09 until the end of the summer season which meant there were only 27 rotations in September 09 compared with 30 in September 10. In fact, September 09 saw the biggest monthly load factor in the route's history at 91.5% which was incongruous given the decision to drop one weekly rotation in the usually busy September period.

Incidentally, a senior source at BRS told me that the LH FRA route was sacrificed to protect the yields at LHR and BHX because of the looming recession at the time in early 2009. The source said the LH UK manager had told him only a few weeks before that the route was ahead of its business plan and all at Lulsgate were stunned when they were told it was to be withdrawn, though LH's wording suggested it might return when the economy picked up. Just under 100,000 passengers in 12 months is not bad going for a new route such as that one.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Just had an email from Continental urging me to use them from my local airport to Las Vegas.

Don't they know they're axing their Bristol route in two weeks time?

I suppose the marketing people don't communicate with operations.

 

[Aviador]

Or rubbing salt into the wounds more like. You should e-mail them telling them you would be more than happy to use your local airport had the airline not decided to withdraw the route.

 

[alphagolf]

What really amazes me is, do Continental really think that because they have moved the aircraft to LHR that the average 80k to 90k passengers per year that use the BRS to EWR route are going to drive upto LHR to fly with them. I think they are sadly misguided, I will be gobsmacked if LHR see's a year on year increase of 90k passengers on the Newark route in 2010-2011.

With the BA/AA alliance on the Transatlantic routes, Continental/United are going to struggle at LHR. They may well look back on the decision to axe the BRS - EWR, and quietly admit they made a monumental mistake (Not in public though). There would be too many saying, "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen".

Rant over!!!

 

[Aviador]

alphagolf

I tend to agree with your sentiments. In the United States a 120 mile drive to the airport might be totally acceptable but in the UK people tend to fly from airports within an hours drive from their home. Heathrow might only be around 120 miles away but the congestion as you head towards central London can be horrendous making it difficult to plan your journey to ensure you have sufficient time to get there. I think people will simply use an interlining operator such as KLM from Bristol via Amsterdam which will be far less stressful.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

A lot of people from the Bristol area do use LHR for all sorts of journeys, even some that could realistically be made from BRS.

It has been intimated that one of the reasons for pulling the BRS-EWR link was the relatively poor take-up of business people, although I remain convinced that CO's access to LHR was the reason for the axing of BRS-EWR no matter how well it was doing. The front cabin on BRS-EWR might have been well filled on many occasions but how many seats were sold at discounted prices?

My son used the EWR link from BRS on many occasions for both business and pleasure - he's in the USA at the moment with his family and will return on almost the last flight.

He worked for a major US company and when he first began flying for them to the US he had no idea there was a Bristol link - neither did the travel company that booked flights for his employers because they always routed him from LHR. It was only a casual remark from me that alerted him to the CO link.

He was in a fairly senior position so was able to use the BRS-EWR link thereafter. He's not an aviation aficionado but is well travelled and was very satisfied wioth CO's business-first though not their domestic first, but that would probably apply to all US airline domestic first.

What he found most useful about the BRS link was not having to drive to Bristol from London following an overnight flight from the USA.

He did say though that whilst the EWR link was fine for New York, onward flying within the Americas could be problematic in terms of timings - having to either run through EWR for a connection or wait for hours. It could be sometimes easier to drive to LHR and fly direct to a destination in the USA.

Incidentally, KLM is making a big effort around Bristol on advertising hoardings to promote its AMS connection, presumably to try to entice some CO customers.