Route Development & Rumours

[rollo]

You could go back to the 1970s and B.O.A.C. to New York with VC10s. The US to Philidelphia was a one summer wonder but at least it lasted longer than Primera.

The A321LR has to be BHXs best bet for the future.

 

[andrew.clarkson]

Then bhx runaway fees will keep them away.

 

[IanFarquharson]

Then bhx runaway fees will keep them away.

Pretty sure BHX would do anything to secure a US service

 

[Poshgirl]

There seems to be lots of discussion in the past tense about BHX and US flights!

Perhaps lots of US bound passengers ex BHX take the short hop to DUB, pre-clear US immigration then use EI to JFK, etc.

So far, the runway extension has only proved worthwhile for EK A380. Apparently, Sir Tim Clark was very "instrumental" in getting approval.

 

[rollo]

There seems to be lots of discussion in the past tense about BHX and US flights!

Perhaps lots of US bound passengers ex BHX take the short hop to DUB, pre-clear US immigration then use EI to JFK, etc.

So far, the runway extension has only proved worthwhile for EK A380. Apparently, Sir Tim Clark was very "instrumental" in getting approval.

No contest the vast majority travelling to the USA charge down the M40 to Heathrow unless it's family holidays to Florida then it's Gatwick or Manchester although BHX gets a bit of a look in two or three times a week I think next year.

 

[CM.]

Don't forget BA to JFK and YYZ and also USAirways to PHL (I think).

Kevin

I don’t remember those flights I’m only going back to flights that were done only a few years ago. But thanks for the information.

There seems to be lots of discussion in the past tense about BHX and US flights!

Perhaps lots of US bound passengers ex BHX take the short hop to DUB, pre-clear US immigration then use EI to JFK, etc.

So far, the runway extension has only proved worthwhile for EK A380. Apparently, Sir Tim Clark was very "instrumental" in getting approval.

In my opinion the Midlands and North of England are underserved of USA routes even before the pandemic. Lots of people including myself like to fly from the local airports rather than having to travel all the way to to places like London, Dublin, Amsterdam Ect. Yes you have pre clear US immigration at DUB but some don’t mind doing it in the US either.

 

[HPsauce]

Primera were a disaster for BHX. We lost our two American carriers in quick succession and Icelandair who offered a good range of destinations in North America including Canada, via Reykjavik. It is so hard to get these routes back, particularly now with Covid.

 

[KJAY 786]

I think we need to convince POP AIRLINES to start Birmingham UK Flights it be ideal for Asia and USA/CANADA - fingers crossed.

 

[CM.]

I think we need to convince POP AIRLINES to start Birmingham UK Flights it be ideal for Asia and USA/CANADA - fingers crossed.

These are good ideas. Asia is another part of the world that I think is underserved from BHX and other airports so maybe something to China wouldn’t go amiss.

I believe they have plans to start from London STN with flights to Pakistan (Islamabad and possibly Lahore).

 

[Brum X]

I think we need to convince POP AIRLINES to start Birmingham UK Flights it be ideal for Asia and USA/CANADA - fingers crossed.

No thanks, they will last 5 minutes and go POP

 

[rollo]

To be honest BHX was pretty well served going east up to eighteen months ago with Emirates double daily using A380s, Qatar and Air India daily with 787s plus PIA not forgetting Turkish with around twelve weekly flights. That makes around forty plus weekly with plenty of onward connections

Hopefully they'll all come back as currently only Emirates and Turkish are operating limited services when this virous is under control

 

[Matty_85]

Is JetBlue winging it from London to New York?

With air travel at historic lows, airlines going bust and tests and form-filling making flying no fun at all, you would think that launching a transatlantic air

www.thetimes.co.uk

JetBlue’s Heathrow to JFK service will be followed next month by a daily service from Gatwick, if current restrictions on Britons flying to the US have eased by then. Flights between Boston and Heathrow will begin next year, followed by seasonal shuttles between New York and Manchester and Glasgow.


Sorry but I don’t understand this at all. Why is BHX so overlooked when it comes to TATL? With a history of supporting daily services including twice daily at one point on NY, how are we not on JetBlue’s radar... I’m dumbfounded

 

[Jerry]

Is JetBlue winging it from London to New York?

With air travel at historic lows, airlines going bust and tests and form-filling making flying no fun at all, you would think that launching a transatlantic air

www.thetimes.co.uk

JetBlue’s Heathrow to JFK service will be followed next month by a daily service from Gatwick, if current restrictions on Britons flying to the US have eased by then. Flights between Boston and Heathrow will begin next year, followed by seasonal shuttles between New York and Manchester and Glasgow.


Sorry but I don’t understand this at all. Why is BHX so overlooked when it comes to TATL? With a history of supporting daily services including twice daily at one point on NY, how are we not on JetBlue’s radar... I’m dumbfounded

Because it's not that far from London especially by train and HS2 will make that even quicker.

 

[Ash]

1. General population and average disposable income is much higher in London and the SE.

2. M40 provides easy access to Heathrow.

3. Negligible inbound tourist demand from Americans to BHX.

4. Virtually nil onward connecting opportunities available at BHX.

5. But most overlooked IMO is the great structural change in the US airline industry in the early 2010's with NW/DL, CO/UA and AA/US mergers. Domestic capacity and competition became quickly constrained as a result and yields on US domestic routes skyrocketed. If you are United it becomes hard to justify a marginal route like EWR-BHX (even if it is profitable) when you can just allocate that 757 to yet another umpteenth daily EWR-LAX flight and make a ton more money. I think this is what fundamentally drove the retrenchment of US carriers from the regional UK market, it also affected MAN and EDI.

 

[Vile8er]

Because it's not that far from London especially by train and HS2 will make that even quicker.

Sadly for BHX I think you're correct

 

[Matty_85]

1. General population and average disposable income is much higher in London and the SE.

2. M40 provides easy access to Heathrow.

3. Negligible inbound tourist demand from Americans to BHX.

4. Virtually nil onward connecting opportunities available at BHX.

5. But most overlooked IMO is the great structural change in the US airline industry in the early 2010's with NW/DL, CO/UA and AA/US mergers. Domestic capacity and competition became quickly constrained as a result and yields on US domestic routes skyrocketed. If you are United it becomes hard to justify a marginal route like EWR-BHX (even if it is profitable) when you can just allocate that 757 to yet another umpteenth daily EWR-LAX flight and make a ton more money. I think this is what fundamentally drove the retrenchment of US carriers from the regional UK market, it also affected MAN and EDI.

Sorry but I disagree. BHX doesn’t just serve Birmingham’s population, it’s serves Sutton Coldfield, Solihull, Stratford, Leamington Spa, Staffordshire, Shropshire & the East Midlands & it’s VERY well connected to all these places (arguably better connect to BHX than Heathrow). There is definitely a sufficiently sized market to support a daily NY flight by JetBlue. BHX has supported TATL flights to New York, Toronto etc (Chicago did very well apparently before 9/11 happened) for over 20 years before they were pulled. I don’t think for a second that market has dried up... I also do not think it’s at all helpful to compare us to London. TATL is successful in London because of inbound tourism, connecting flights & business passengers not because of disposable incomes in the SE. my point is if Manchester and Glasgow can be seen as viable TATL markets (seasonal or year round) there is no reason BHX can’t irrelevant of it’s geographical location.

And finally, we are really not that close to Gatwick & Heathrow is really not convenient for most of the Midlands with congestion or costly train connections through central London. The HS2 argument works both ways when talking about distance. Goldman Sachs, Arup, PWC & one other investment bank which is yet to be announced were all partly encouraged to relocate or grow their bases in central Birmingham because of HS2.

 

[Jerry]

There is definitely a sufficiently sized market to support a daily NY flight by JetBlue. BHX has supported TATL flights to New York, Toronto etc (Chicago did very well apparently before 9/11 happened) for over 20 years before they were pulled.

I'm sure there is a market and historically it has supported flights but airlines must also believe that the passengers that make up that market are more than willing to travel to either Heathrow or Manchester or use one of their partners via a European hub. People are more willing to travel in general to catch a long haul flight.

 

[Ash]

Sorry but I disagree. BHX doesn’t just serve Birmingham’s population, it’s serves Sutton Coldfield, Solihull, Stratford, Leamington Spa, Staffordshire, Shropshire & the East Midlands & it’s VERY well connected to all these places (arguably better connect to BHX than Heathrow). There is definitely a sufficiently sized market to support a daily NY flight by JetBlue. BHX has supported TATL flights to New York, Toronto etc (Chicago did very well apparently before 9/11 happened) for over 20 years before they were pulled. I don’t think for a second that market has dried up... I also do not think it’s at all helpful to compare us to London. TATL is successful in London because of inbound tourism, connecting flights & business passengers not because of disposable incomes in the SE. my point is if Manchester and Glasgow can be seen as viable TATL markets (seasonal or year round) there is no reason BHX can’t irrelevant of it’s geographical location.

And finally, we are really not that close to Gatwick & Heathrow is really not convenient for most of the Midlands with congestion or costly train connections through central London. The HS2 argument works both ways when talking about distance. Goldman Sachs, Arup, PWC & one other investment bank which is yet to be announced were all partly encouraged to relocate or grow their bases in central Birmingham because of HS2.

Sorry but you can't just ignore macroeconomic factors I'm afraid. Airline travel is almost entirely a discretionary purchase (barring the small % of business passengers) so demand for flights is inextricably linked to the wealth of the catchment.

From ONS data the West Midlands (region not county) is only 86% of the UK average per head disposable income (and Birmingham itself is almost certainly lower than this due to large areas of deprivation).

So WM is not even at the average level, and then you have to consider that London is almost 40% above that average.

I know you didn't bring up London but surely you can see that airlines will go where the money is?

 

[andrew.clarkson]

But when you look at the distance between Birmingham and Manchester is 86 miles or 1 hour and 33 minutes, not on door step, also Birmingham Airport to Heathrow Airport is 114 miles or 1 hour 56 minutes, so again, not on the door step either. But Birmingham Airport problem is landing fees, and seven Councils that own 49% majority stake in the airport, the Councils don't even put investment in, they only act as a guarantor, nothing else, because local authorities by law are not allowed from what I read allow to fund any private sector organisations. So until a private investor comes in and takes over control of the airport, the airport is stuck with Councils, hence stagnation of growth and expansion.

 

[IanFarquharson]

But when you look at the distance between Birmingham and Manchester is 86 miles or 1 hour and 33 minutes, not on door step, also Birmingham Airport to Heathrow Airport is 114 miles or 1 hour 56 minutes, so again, not on the door step either. But Birmingham Airport problem is landing fees, and seven Councils that own 49% majority stake in the airport, the Councils don't even put investment in, they only act as a guarantor, nothing else, because local authorities by law are not allowed from what I read allow to fund any private sector organisations. So until a private investor comes in and takes over control of the airport, the airport is stuck with Councils, hence stagnation of growth and expansion.

Not true Andrew, landing fees have nothing to do with it, BHX is simply too close to London & Manchester, 100 miles to an American is down the road !