Continental Airlines

[Aviador]

It must be a bitter pill to swallow for Bristol as United Continental this week promotes it's fifth daily service from Heathrow. I don't think the Americans understand the UK regional passenger market at all. Although some people will continue to bite the bullet and suffer the inconvenience of driving the 120 miles down the road to Heathrow, United Continental don't seem to understand how the flying British public value their local services. The very success of Bristol airport itself shows the determination of British people to fly from their local airports and this is not unique to Bristol. All around the UK there has been an emergence of regional airports expanding on the back of low cost airlines offering local departures points. The larger airports have in many ways been left behind with national flag carrier British Airways having to make cuts in services to try to match the 'low cost' offering.

 

[Seasider]

Who are Delta Continental, I thought Continental had "tied up" with United?

 

[Aviador]

My mistake sorry. I've altered it accordingly. :blush:

 

[TheLocalYokel]

A poster on the BRS thread in the Dried Plum who I think is a travel agent reckons there was such a demand for seats when CO announced the closure of the route that the airline seriously thought they may have made the wrong decision.

Can't confirm the CO reconsideration bit but when LH announced the closure of the BRS-FRA last year from the end of the following month the final four weeks of the route saw the biggest monthly load factor of the route's short history.

Such is the perversity of aviation economics, and of punters for that matter.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Continental Airlines: Bristol-Newark May 2005 until November 2010 – a case study

A common theme amongst aviation enthusiasts is a tendency to assert confidently that this or that route would 'work', often based on what they perceive as a large reservoir of passengers just waiting to take advantage.

Many of us know that large numbers of passengers alone doesn't necessarily mean a particular route would be profitable, or at least sufficiently profitable, to make it worth a carrier's while to start.

The CO route between Bristol and Newark was commenced at a time when the airline had no access to Heathrow. It had also embarked on a policy of flying to airports around Europe, including some in the UK, that would not normally expect a direct regular scheduled transatlantic link.

CO negotiated favourable deals with some smaller airports - at Bristol for example it was widely reported that landing charges were waived for the first three years such was the airport's desire to get the service.

The route was always operated by a 175-seat (actually for the first few months the aircraft had 178 seats) Boeing 757-200, with 16 of the 175 seats in the business/first cabin.

The service operated daily from early March to early November each year, then five times weekly for the rest of the year. In fact, it often reduced rotations further over the Christmas period, at the American Thanksgiving period and sometimes in January, and last winter was only four times weekly.

During the five years and six months of the route's life nearly 483,000 passengers were carried which is about 88,000 per year. The airline had publicly stated when it started the route that it was looking to carry 75,000 people in the first year so it might be thought that the route has done pretty well in terms of raw passenger numbers, accepting that the airline would have expected the 75,000 to increase as the route built in subsequent years

The CO route was equivalent to around 1.5% of BRS's annual passenger numbers.

Various reasons have been given by both the airport and carrier for the route's demise: the business-first section did not attract sufficient passengers at full fare; the airline's subsequent access to Heathrow and its rapid build-up of the route structure there meant the BRS route was no longer necessary; the inability of the aircraft to carry a significant cargo load from the BRS runway (questionable as the airline would have known this before it embarked on setting up the route); the recession; the increased UK air passenger duty, especially that for premium fare passengers.

Whatever the reason or reasons, the fact remains that despite the very real proof of a market in terms of bodies the route did not in the end work for the airline.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Reasons for axing of CO BRS-EWR

In communicating with the Wales Government over recent suggestions that BRS could be of more use to Wales-originating and terminating travellers, the BRS management issued this statement.

It's concise and, because of its source, far more enlightening than the various reasons that have appeared in the local press since the route ceased.

In 2007 the Continental service between Bristol and Newark was performing in line with expectations and was profitable, carrying approximately 80,000 passengers a year.

“However, the service ceased in 2010 in the face of mounting losses as a result of rising oil prices, a fall in the value of the pound against the dollar, increases in air passenger duty and the worldwide economic recession.

“There is little prospect of the Bristol Airport catchment area supporting a return of a New York service in the immediate future and any such proposal for Cardiff Airport would require a massive tax payer subsidy.

This has resonance for a number of UK regional airports of broadly similar size who are looking to a New York service - or some their supporters are, anyway.

You have to wonder how much subsidy would be needed from the Wales Government - assuming they could find a legal way of applying it; the easiest way might be to buy into the airport itself and become part owners but that would require the agreement of the current owners and may not be politically easy to achieve.