Route Development & Rumours

[Llandudno]

TM3,

With all due respect, weren’t you asked to desist from this argument on the MAN threads as you weren’t listening to other posters and just derailing the thread? And now you’re doing it on this thread too with the exact same argument, and again not listening to people and taking on their opinions too?

You need to let this go, please. I’m sick of reading threads across several forums where you seem hell bent on derailing threads with the same illogical argument. I don’t know what your agenda is but it’s irksome and tiresome now.

 

[TM3]

I’m happy to keep it on topic.

 

[Aviador]

Let's get back on topic. Routes discussions please.

 

[TM3]

You are contradicting your own argument here.

Furthermore what you are saying is not geographically correct, there is only an extra 500 miles on the shortest direct polar route from KUL to JFK, which in any event would need a fuel stop somewhere, as would any final destination further down the eastern seaboard of USA. It is not the long way around.

With a 5th freedom the seats are available for sale on all legs, not really sure what you mean about empty seats here.

Also not sure how you can say airlines have already looked at it as it is the job of airports to ensure airlines keep looking at potential new routes, particularly when airlines are growing.

If you can find anything specifically wrong with my comments here I’m happy to address it.

 

[David_itl]

If SQ were to start JFK from a UK airport it would be LHR only. Years ago they made it clear that allowing them MAN-JFK was a non-starter and it had to be LHR or nothing as they would have had to use a too-heavy premium configured aircraft at an airport that would warrant less premium and more economy, Any SQ 5th freedom route would have to negate the need to restrict payload of their A359s should they want to offer non-stop out of SIN to USA such as the current SIN-MAN-IAH.

The problem for BHX is that the route that they would want is not something would SQ will do. Beside the numbers need to be there for them to start BHX and it may need to be as the end-tag of a completely new European route or expansion of a European route currently operating sub-daily to going daily to there with a 2 or 3 weekly BHX extension.

In the meantime, if I were BHX management, I would look how MAN has developed quite the portfolio of North African/Middle Eastern carriers and try to get 1 or 2 of those carriers to start operations.

 

[TM3]

SQ aren't going to start LHR - JFK , this would be very difficult to get the slots for and they would be entering a very competitive market.

If they were looking for an airport to stop for JFK BHX would be a good one as there is already unservered demand on that route without any apparent interest from other potential carriers.

SQ have a slightly more premium offer. SQ have a good enough business product to make people want to use it which has not really been the case with previous US operators from BHX.

Also you've got to consider that for a long segment to Asia there is going to be more demand for a comfortable product for the 12hr plus flight than there is going to be for 2 x 7 hrs via Doha or Dubai.

SQ also have premium economy which may also be attractive to some passengers over longer distances.

In any event the original post was about viability for MH not SQ, not to say SQ couldn't make it work but SQ have other routes to the US on their own metal whilst MH do not.

I don't think BHX should copy MAN and any pursue more African or Middle Eastern carriers as they erode yields and make it more difficult for direct connections to get a foothold. BHX already has plenty of connectivity to big Asian cities via one stop carriers and I can't see many destinations being offered that aren't already being offered by Emirates and Qatar.

Short of a direct connection to South Africa or maybe Cairo I don't see that African carriers will add anything significant to BHX connectivity that isn't already provided by existing European and Middle Eastern hub connectors.

 

[KARFA]

The point about seats is that people will buy the through SIN-BHX-JFK fare so not everyone gets off at BHX - which means you don't have all the seats to sell for a BHX-JFK flight. The fare you can charge for SIN-BHX-JFK is typically less than you can charge for SIN-BHX and BHX-JFK combined.

A350 fuel needed
SIN-BHX - 97T
BHX-JFK - 50T
SIN-JFK - 122T

So yes, about 25T more fuel. And you have the extra cost of increased aircraft utilisation needed for the stopover route, and extra crews since you would now have to have crews staying at least 1 night, probably 2 nights, in BHX as well as crews in NYC.

SQ already have two non-stop SIN-NYC routes. They don't need to start another one, especially with a stopover somewhere. It adds very little value to them. Their SIN-FRA-JFK makes some sense as FRA is a massive star alliance hub, there is no such connecting feed in/out of BHX which would help justify a BHX stop.

And of course we go to the issue of how a non-UK airline starts a UK-US route, they would need a waiver from the US government since they are not entitled to operate such a route under the Openskies agreement.

Therefore I don't understand why some convoluted stopover should be something BHX are pushing airlines for when compared to all the normal direct route possibilities to lots of major cities in Asia.

 

[Aviador]

I don't think BHX should copy MAN and any pursue more African or Middle Eastern carriers as they erode yields and make it more difficult for direct connections to get a foothold.

I would think BHX has already done that with the middle eastern carriers.

 

[rollo]

I would think BHX has already done that with the middle eastern carriers.

That's exactly why I've previously posted several times I wouldn't want PIA to restart at BHX and dilute Emirates, Qatar, Air India, Turkish (increasing to 18 weekly this summer)and now Saudis offerings and let them grow over next few years. Meanwhile try and concentrate on heading West starting with NYC Kennedy or Newark and maybe Toronto for starters.

 

[IanFarquharson]

SQ aren't going to start LHR - JFK , this would be very difficult to get the slots for and they would be entering a very competitive market.

If they were looking for an airport to stop for JFK BHX would be a good one as there is already unservered demand on that route without any apparent interest from other potential carriers.

SQ have a slightly more premium offer. SQ have a good enough business product to make people want to use it which has not really been the case with previous US operators from BHX.

Also you've got to consider that for a long segment to Asia there is going to be more demand for a comfortable product for the 12hr plus flight than there is going to be for 2 x 7 hrs via Doha or Dubai.

SQ also have premium economy which may also be attractive to some passengers over longer distances.

In any event the original post was about viability for MH not SQ, not to say SQ couldn't make it work but SQ have other routes to the US on their own metal whilst MH do not.

I don't think BHX should copy MAN and any pursue more African or Middle Eastern carriers as they erode yields and make it more difficult for direct connections to get a foothold. BHX already has plenty of connectivity to big Asian cities via one stop carriers and I can't see many destinations being offered that aren't already being offered by Emirates and Qatar.

Short of a direct connection to South Africa or maybe Cairo I don't see that African carriers will add anything significant to BHX connectivity that isn't already provided by existing European and Middle Eastern hub connectors.

SQ wouldn't even consider SIN-BHX-JFK, so forget that idea.

I agree with Dave, BHX should be looking at Ethiopian etc next

 

[TM3]

The point about seats is that people will buy the through SIN-BHX-JFK fare so not everyone gets off at BHX - which means you don't have all the seats to sell for a BHX-JFK flight. The fare you can charge for SIN-BHX-JFK is typically less than you can charge for SIN-BHX and BHX-JFK combined.

A350 fuel needed
SIN-BHX - 97T
BHX-JFK - 50T
SIN-JFK - 122T

So yes, about 25T more fuel. And you have the extra cost of increased aircraft utilisation needed for the stopover route, and extra crews since you would now have to have crews staying at least 1 night, probably 2 nights, in BHX as well as crews in NYC.

SQ already have two non-stop SIN-NYC routes. They don't need to start another one, especially with a stopover somewhere. It adds very little value to them. Their SIN-FRA-JFK makes some sense as FRA is a massive star alliance hub, there is no such connecting feed in/out of BHX which would help justify a BHX stop.

And of course we go to the issue of how a non-UK airline starts a UK-US route, they would need a waiver from the US government since they are not entitled to operate such a route under the Openskies agreement.

Therefore I don't understand why some convoluted stopover should be something BHX are pushing airlines for when compared to all the normal direct route possibilities to lots of major cities in Asia.

The initial post was about MH, who don't have any direct services to the US on their own metal.

The aircraft flies further, has more take offs and land landings and uses more fuel, but how is this different to any hub transfer (such as via Emirates), (other than that the passengers get back on the same plane they arrived on)?

The point you have failed to address is if 5th freedoms are not viable per se, what factors exist at MAN that make SIN-MAN-IAH viable that don't exist at BHX.

You also have to consider the viability of BHX-JFK as a stand alone leg, which there clearly is some demand for, NYC has sustained regular services before.

SQ wouldn't even consider SIN-BHX-JFK, so forget that idea.

I agree with Dave, BHX should be looking at Ethiopian etc next

What does Ethiopian bring in terms of services that is not already met by the existing carriers?

I'd rather see more frequent Qatar or Emirates for that matter.

If SQ were to start JFK from a UK airport it would be LHR only. Years ago they made it clear that allowing them MAN-JFK was a non-starter and it had to be LHR or nothing as they would have had to use a too-heavy premium configured aircraft at an airport that would warrant less premium and more economy, Any SQ 5th freedom route would have to negate the need to restrict payload of their A359s should they want to offer non-stop out of SIN to USA such as the current SIN-MAN-IAH.

As SQ now do offer 5th freedoms through MAN they are obviously open to doing 5th freedoms through the UK.

It stands to reason they wouldn't choose JFK at MAN as there are already 2 completing services there.

BHX is also a lot closer to Londonw with a direct rail link that takes 1 hr 5 minutes. This will reduce to 36 in 2029 with HS2.

A lot of Heathrow users are also in the M40 / M1 corridor area which is actually sometimes better for BHX than LHR.

SQ have opened LGW so they obviously have an appetite for growth in the South.

 

[David_itl]

Ethiopian came very late to the scene at MAN. When we already had a plethora of services that Middle Eastern carriers thar could do what they do, What we find though is that they are good at connecting to Southern + Western Africa. In fact it was surprising that they came out and said they were looking at doing more Northern British airports and not "Midlands". Have you ever wondered why LOTS of airlines going keep looking at MAN if there is some kind of "limited" demand when at BHX there is a virtual freehand to mop up?

With SQ, we have to remember the original routing: SIN-DME-IAH. With tensions between Russia and America increasing, they needed to find a place to route IAH through as no aircraft can fly SIN-IAH economically non-stop. The oil related traffic that generates out of ABZ may been a factor (remember ABZ once had services to Azerbaijan). With north of 30 years experience of flying to MAN with various stop-off points (some of which were 5th freedom) and also doing some years of non-stop service, it seemed to be a quickfire win - unserved transatlantic market from an airport they could restore frequency to. Additionally back in the day, MAN-New York was Thomas Cook, American and Virgin to JFK with United to Newark so JFK would have been ruled out even if they hadn't already stated they would only operate JFK out of LHR

If the travel times on the motorways are sometimes better for BHX than LHR, can you explain why there is a growing list for airlines wanting slots at LHR when they could easily just start BHX with passengers going by rail/car to London?

 

[Birmingham Aviation]

I would like to see a emirates stopover or a Saudia stop over

 

[Aviador]

At the end of the day it's all down to where the airlines wants to be. If they see an advantage in using one of the UK regional airports like Birmingham or Manchester they will but the evidence is stacking up against both airports. As you say, airlines are queuing for slots at Heathrow, not so much at BHX or MAN or anywhere else in the UK for that matter.

I do agree that the Middle East airlines have all but removed the possibility of many direct services but arguably those services may have struggled on their own outside of London. There will always be a possibility of niche direct routes where local factors make a direct flight more viable, such as a large Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi community for example.

 

[IanFarquharson]

I would like to see a emirates stopover or a Saudia stop over

Never going to happen with EK or SV, the only chance realistically would be AI restarting BHX-YYZ

 

[TM3]

I'm not disputing that LHR is more popular with airlines, but even if airlines want slots there they can't get them.

As such any preference towards LHR has become moot, it's just about which of the alternatives are better than each other, which is why airlines are now considering LGW and STN.

In respect of train passengers very little (if anything) is done at Euston to show that there is a direct frequent train link to BHX, where as LHR on the tube map but quite a long journey from there.

There is also the issue of very expensive fares if you turn up on the day and try to travel by the next train. This can be more than many budget airline fares.

All of these things could easily be improved with HS2 and I would hope that the likes of Andy Street were lobbying HS2 Ltd and TfL for the right kind of signage, connections and fares to encourage passengers to travel via BHX.

The situation with MH is slightly different though as they are a competitor of SQ, Thai and CX.

If they went early at BHX they could be the first choice SE Asia hub rather than 3rd or 4th depending on whether Thai launch at MAN.

In addition they are One World, which gives the chance to earn BA miles and status along with Qatar and somewhat complementing the existing connections with Qatar.

 

[gulftraveller]

Maybe I missed something but I understood that MH had raised a possible return to MAN.

 

[IanFarquharson]

Maybe I missed something but I understood that MH had raised a possible return to MAN.

Yes they are talking about a return and are now sponsoring MUFC replacing Aeroflot

 

[Aviador]

As such any preference towards LHR has become moot, it's just about which of the alternatives are better than each other, which is why airlines are now considering LGW and STN.

Very true but as you point out LGW and STN are higher up the pecking order due to their proximity to London. BHX and MAN are unlikely to be considered unless there are specific factors such as those I referred to in my previous post.

All of these things could easily be improved with HS2 and I would hope that the likes of Andy Street were lobbying HS2 Ltd and TfL for the right kind of signage, connections and fares to encourage passengers to travel via BHX.

My concern about HS2 is your theory works both ways and anything that makes it easier to get to the London airports will only further hamper the UK regions from getting a slice of the cake.

 

[andrew.clarkson]

Hi there all, this debate about Birmingham Airport lost direct flight links to the USA, has been ongoing for many years, Birmingham airport may have a demand for it, but Birminghams issue all this time is down to costing purposes. What ever deal Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Stansted, Edinburgh or Glasgow are offering to US airlines, is obviously not what Birmingham airport is offering, so that is why Birmingham is not only having difficulty in securing any agreement, but also maintaining and keeping it. That is where Birmingham airports problems are, until Birmingham airport management changes it's policy, then they won't get any direct flights at all, then lose out to other rival airports.