American Airlines

[CL44]

I remember the first time AA pulled away from BHX and in fairness at that time (2002) the USA was still coming to grips with 9-11 and a number of Airlines were in a very fragile place business wise. AA took the opportunity to remove themselves from certain routes which may or may not have performed as well as the board expected. Please do not forget they also took the chance to "dispose" of a good number of employees (one of whom I stay in touch with having known him for 18 Years when he was made redundant). The situation here is totally different (apart from the end result). We know the Airlines and what routes they serve from BHX because we have either an interest or actually use them (either for travel or in my case for my job). How many times have we heard of people saying "I didn't know you could fly from Birmingham to XYZ". It is not just New York, it can be anywhere in the World. I have said this before and I will keep on repeating it, for any Carrier we currently handle here at BHX we have to use it or loose it. So it has happened with AA (again). Can we afford to have another Carrier turn around and say that the figures from BHX are not as good as we hoped (US Airways anyone), and so we will be withdrawing our flight from this date onwards. Unless Airlines and the Airport (mainly the Airlines) push the fact that they serve BHX (with the Airports help as required) I can see this happening again and again. It is not enough to try and attract more Carriers to the Airport we also have to work to keep the ones we have already got. Ok JFK and EWR are quite a different market to the bucket and spade destinations. Would it have been different if AA had served ORD with a wide-body? Possibly so, we will never know. Unless and until we have a concerted effort to make our services known to people there will always be passengers willing to travel up the M6 and down the M40.
Rant over.

 

[Darren brown]

I can't agree that the JFK service had to work in order for bhx to prove that it can sustain more than just one flight a day to the US. Firstly this route was in direct competition with already existing route to New york that has being flying for many years now and is well established. The product that AA was offering was poor from what i understand, compared to what united is offering currently. On top of that JFK is not major hub for AA as say chicago. Its onward connections is limited and in lot of cases you have to connect through laGuardia airport, which means a bus ride across town, which is not always ideal. Bhx can support multipe flights to the usa, it did so in the late 1990s, American airlines to chicago and Continental to Newark. AA had a 6 year run from BHX from 1995 to 2001, using a 767 AC, but was deleted due to the events of 9/11. Personal i think that it is possible for bhx to have another us route but it has to be the right product to the right destination. One possible airline for the future is Delta airlines to Atlanta. Atlanta is one of the biggest hub airports in the world, delta offers hundreds of on ward connection through the entire americas north central and south. It also flies wide bodied aircraft to atlanta "767" which would me much better than what AA was offering to jfk. The bottom line is good costumer service . BHX has to get this right if it wants to succeed to the US and if it wants to replicate the success it has see on flights to the middle east.

 

[Jerry]

It may be that BHX can only sustain 1 New York service. For AA maybe Chicago would be a better fit.

 

[Kevin Farnell]

How many times have we heard of people saying "I didn't know you could fly from Birmingham to XYZ".

This has been at the centre of my thoughts also. There seems to be a myth amongst the people of the West Midlands that BHX is a sub standard airport with a very short runway and limited destinations. This is something that the airport needs to address. The airlines may promote their routes to varying degrees, but if the local public have a low opinion of the airport then it must be in the airport's best interest to educate those people. I still believe that the best way to do this, is with a dedicated viewing facility (not a couple of picnic benches and a bus shelter).
It may not make money directly, but people seeing the airlines and departure screens will take note and tell friends and colleagues.
BHX losing AA and a prime route is a big loss. Short and even medium term, I think BHX will find it very difficult to persuade any other US carriers to commit to transatlantic services. I can only hope that Norwegian step in and fill the gap.

Kevin

 

[Aceshigh]

The local population having a view on their airport is well made. The medua spoon feed the public that London and by default Heathrow is the ONLY airport in town.

Take Skies Above Britain. Infograph of ñot Britain but South East , lots of chatter about busy airports but then a shot of Heathrow.

To me it simply builds on subliminal imagery reinforcing a myth!

 

[andrew.clarkson]

Hi there all, regarding American Airlines deciding to pull jfk route, this doesn't surprise me at all, when you look at the cost of a return flight in economy class fro birmingham to Jfk return it's £1,153.00 return, where as Manchester to Jfk for the same route is £753.00, some £400 pounds cheaper, plus also not forgetting the landing fees that Birmingham charges to land and take off, all this makes it very difficult for any airlines to attract and make it an attractive route, plus also not forgetting the amount of times your hear different people say that there friends and relatives and relations didn't know that they could or can fly from Birmingham airport at all to Jfk or newark, then you add all this up, it equates to loss of passengers not flying from the airport, plus sky high charges which prevents airlines from not just wanting to come, but also stay, so unless Mr Kehoe and his management team as I have said this before about landing fees, then this situation will get worse, where by no large airline will come to Birmingham, then passengers will have to go elsewhere... Andyc

 

[Brum X]

Now confirmed in the Birmingham Post:

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/business-news/flights-birmingham-new-york-scrapped-11864473

But who is the new carrier to take over this route, yeah i know they would say that wouldnt they. Unless they have now done a deal with Norweigan.

 

[Ray Finkle]

I have to agree with CL44.

People wanted more Oneworld, the airport got that. People wanted a route to JFK, the airport got that. How do the people of the region respond, a load factor that barely got above 60% out of the peak holiday period.

At launch there were billboards across the city, American flags all over the Bullring, and lots of promotion on social media. I've heard regular advertising on the radio, received regular adverts about the service by email and behind the scenes the airport have a team who speak to travel agents, from the region and beyond, promoting what Birmingham has to offer. I'm not sure what more they could have done?

It would be interesting to know what percentage of people, in particular those on business, still opt to use LHR, especially with their often cheaper fares. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it would be quite high. There are also still instances of travel agents pushing people to fly from LON or MAN when the same route is available from Birmingham.

All the airport can do is get the airline in to serve the route, it's then up to the people of the region to use it and on this occasion they have let the airport down. Granted an American 757 is about as bad as it gets across the Atlantic but I do feel for the route development team some times.

To get back to a positive the quote does state they are optimistic of another carrier shortly. I would have thought the route perfect for a Norwegian MAX but it seems that BHX are off their radar now. One other option could be Delta, if Atlanta is off the table for now maybe they'll try JFK, even for the summer period.

We shall see.

 

[thunderchild]

Given the influx of airlines and routes over the past 18 months or so there was always going to be causalities. I said at the time VLM wouldn't last and going by history it was always going to be tough to keep American. Admittedly I thought we may have bucked the trend when they survived the first year but at the end of the day the on board product is poor, loads have never been stellar, fares were cheap so the yields were probably low and Brexit was undoubtedly the final nail in the coffin. I was speaking to some customers who flew with AA a few weeks back and they had a terrible experience - admittedly it was on the US end but they still vowed they'd never fly with them again.

What's more disappointing is that ORD would probably have been a better option from BHX but hey ho. I note it's been mentioned they are optimistic another carrier will fill the void...somehow I doubt it but Delta would at least offer a better on board product and more connections at JFK than AA.

On the plus side AA's arrival didn't really have an impact on UA's loads so I'd hope that when the 757's are eventually retired they'd be able to put something bigger on the route.

I think it's going to a bumpy road ahead for BHX (and others) over the next year or so....sadly I can think of at least one other airline that could soon be added to the nostalgia list aswell.

 

[thunderchild]

And the Midlands Today report I've seen would give the impression to Joe public you can't fly to New York from BHX at all now!

 

[Ray Finkle]

Just reading some posts on the BHX thread of another forum. The general consensus about BHX ops to the USA is poor service, aircraft too small for long haul, IFE abysmal, much better options from LHR.......etc.

All posters state that they still use LHR to fly to the USA and will continue to do so until the product ex BHX is improved, something which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Stalemate.

It's just a shame that BHX couldn't get anywhere with Norwegian.

sadly I can think of at least one other airline that could soon be added to the nostalgia list aswell.

I wonder if you're thinking of the same one as me.

 

[Brum X]

Aegean ??

 

[Ray Finkle]

That's what I'm thinking.

 

[JENNYJET]

It is those pesky travel agents, both physical high street bods and those online. They always promote LHR for business or long haul and LGW or MAN for the exotic vacation routes.

My local independent travel agency suggested subliminally that she was paid to send people south or north by the tour operators and got larger commissions for doing so for selling a scheduled ticket on a legacy carrier.

With those attitudes, BHX shall never become an established all points served airport. Okay, we can use Emirates or United or Turkish to get anywhere on the planet but some of us would like if possible direct or nonstop services.

I want to visit Moscow..direct? No siree, connect at Istanbul or Amsterdam. This is why folks use LHR et al!!!

Management needs to grasp this nettle and talk or negotiate like the big boys.

I make not a personal point at this juncture but many countries use , shall we say, use $$$$$ to secure what they want. The UK have laws prohibiting such inducements!!

The public want something, they get it and don't use it. Just like the latest I Phone, use it for x months and then consign it to the back bedroom wardrobe when the next big thing appears.

 

[jfy1999]

To get back to a positive the quote does state they are optimistic of another carrier shortly. I would have thought the route perfect for a Norwegian MAX but it seems that BHX are off their radar now. One other option could be Delta, if Atlanta is off the table for now maybe they'll try JFK, even for the summer period.

We shall see.

Read something last month on another forum about some "big news" which was due to have been announced before now but had been delayed until this month.

I think United could conceivably make a 763 work on EWR. Based on June's CAA statistics, their new 183-seat configuration would have an average load of 73% which would only be 6% down on the 757. Also, passenger numbers are likely to grow for UA anyway now that AA are off.

ORD might possibly have been a better option, but after looking at the comparatively appalling catalogue of tech issues suffered by AA's ORD-based fleet this summer I wouldn't have been surprised to see an ORD-BHX route fail to survive in the current climate if it suffered what MAN has been through.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Read something last month on another forum about some "big news" which was due to have been announced before now but had been delayed until this month.

I believe that was Delta to Atlanta, which now doesn't look like happening after their post Brexit rethink.

 

[whateverg]

It's just a shame that BHX couldn't get anywhere with Norwegian.
.

How do we know this is the case? What happened?

 

[TM3]

Long time lurker first time poster on this forum.

I think there is a lot of demand for US flights from BHX. I maybe go to the US 5 or 6 times per year a lot of times in J and I've got a strong preference to flying from BHX over elsewhere. I've flown on this flight, back when it started last year and on the United one, however most cases I end up flying to the US from LHR. I'm sure there a plenty of pax in the West Mids who fly more often than me.

The fact that this flight is on an older single aisle aircraft isn't really a problem but the old cabins, no IFE, no lie flats is. This is a 10 year old product that wasn't particularly good when it was new, now it's tatty and old and not very appealing. The plastics on the interior look discoloured and old, at least on the United flight the interiors have been refreshed. I'm sure there are plenty of business class passengers flying from LHR who were not aware of this flight but I'm not so sure that many would have been that impressed if they bought a seat on this vs what they would have got at LHR.

As others have pointed out part of the problem with this flight is it's a very similar offer to the existing United flight, aside from the inferior cabin, but it shares many of the problems with that flight;

Mainly the times aren't very good and the frequency isn't good either:

They leave quite early in the morning. I'm not sure of the exact times now but typically they have been 7-9am. This requires quite an early get up which isn't welcome when you have a long day ahead of you. When you get to the US it's often too early to check in to your hotel. I'd much prefer to arrive in the late afternoon check, have a sleep and be ready for work the next day.

On the way back it's the same, the flight leaves too early in the afternoon, for a 6 hour flight leaving at 4 or 5pm is not great for getting any sleep on the plane. It also requires you to give up on an afternoon's work in US vs a London flight where you could leave NYC in the evening if you wanted.

I realise part of this timing is due to connections etc but it's not always great from a passenger perspective and there is no choice.

To make things worse neither airline offers a daily flight. For some of the journeys I could have had to NYC this would have meant an extra 2 nights in NYC due to the flight leaving too early and there not being a flight the following day.

It's not great for connections either as if you miss your flight you could be waiting a long time for another.

The flights I have taken over the past year have been to destinations further into the US than NYC; Seattle, San Diego and Miami. Obviously there is an advantage of getting a direct flight here time wise but that's not the be all and end all. Part of the problem with these US connections is once you hit NYC you then have to transfer to an even worse domestic flight, often more crowded, poorer product than the international leg changing at NYC for these destinations could give you a domestic leg as long as your international leg. For that reason if I am flying business I want to get the longest international leg as possible to enjoy the better product, so I might be just as likely to go to AMS and get a connection there as fly through NYC, however the extra time to do this does make it a very even choice with LHR.

Going forward maybe this does clear this route up for Delta to have a go with, and they do have better product on their 757s and a bigger hub at JFK, however they do seem to be pushing MAN now as the other option out of LHR.

Norwegian I'm not keen on as they don't have a proper business class nor any connections in the US so I think if the come to BHX they are just going to make it less attractive for a full service airline try to get a foothold.

Personally I don't think Oneworld are that interested, as IAG would probably now prefer BHX passengers who don't want to go to LHR to transit through DUB on Aer Lingus instead.

I would say United are in the best position to increase or improve their service by adding more frequencies or maybe another service. I had to drive to LHR I wouldn't be getting on a United flight so their best chance of winning my business from BA or Virgin would to be offer another direct route or more frequencies from BHX.

Perhaps there is also now some scope for Air Canada giving further Star Alliance connections?

 

[Ray Finkle]

Welcome to the forum TM3

Great first post, it's good to get an insight from someone who is a would be regular user and probably the bread and butter market for such a route.

 

[Jerry]

Perhaps there is also now some scope for Air Canada giving further Star Alliance connections?

Do Air Canada fly from regional airports?