TheLocalYokel
Honorary Member Of Forums4airports
- Jan 14, 2009
- 15,711
- 343
- IMPORTANT!! To reduce spam, we request that you make a post soon after completing your registration. We request you keep your account active by posting regularly. Inactive accounts risk being deleted.
- Yes
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #521
If the TOM 787-8s can get to Cancun from BRS non-stop, as seems will be the case, the Caribbean and Florida should not present a problem. The former First Choice B 767-300s used by TOM could reach Sanford non-stop although they had an en-route fuel stop at MAN for Cancun.
Why airlines and tour companies do certain things is often puzzling from the outside but there is invariably a sound commercial rationale for their actions. Having to fuel-stop with 767s to Mexico from BRS when they could have gone non-stop from CWL is one example of eyebrow-raising, but no doubt taking the operation as a whole TUI decided they were happy with their commercial decision.
Operational constraints aside, because BRS has a larger and generally more prosperous catchment, both business and leisure, airlines almost always tend to pick it if it's a case of it or CWL and all other considerations are equal. I suppose part of the reasoning is that if a service needs some topping up from outside the core catchment it will need less from BRS than from CWL because of the respective catchment sizes.
I'm very surprised that Thomas Cook hasn't expanded its Florida and Cancun programme from CWL apart from a small addition for next summer which still amounts only to a handful of flights. CWL has a history of strong support for such services. I can only assume that currently tour companies think they can make more money elsewhere.
Why airlines and tour companies do certain things is often puzzling from the outside but there is invariably a sound commercial rationale for their actions. Having to fuel-stop with 767s to Mexico from BRS when they could have gone non-stop from CWL is one example of eyebrow-raising, but no doubt taking the operation as a whole TUI decided they were happy with their commercial decision.
Operational constraints aside, because BRS has a larger and generally more prosperous catchment, both business and leisure, airlines almost always tend to pick it if it's a case of it or CWL and all other considerations are equal. I suppose part of the reasoning is that if a service needs some topping up from outside the core catchment it will need less from BRS than from CWL because of the respective catchment sizes.
I'm very surprised that Thomas Cook hasn't expanded its Florida and Cancun programme from CWL apart from a small addition for next summer which still amounts only to a handful of flights. CWL has a history of strong support for such services. I can only assume that currently tour companies think they can make more money elsewhere.
