Birmingham: Route Development & Rumours

[Butty]

United States Pre Border Clearance.

Thanks. coat hanger.

 

[Ray Finkle]

As I'm sat here bored some thoughts on a few unserved and under served destinations.

Unserved

Riga - Probably one of the top three European capital cities needed, the route shop profile has been updated and this is one of just two Euro routes on the wanted list. Ryanair serve Riga from EMA (this will be a common theme) so are less likely to open the same route just down the road. Personally I think it's perfect for Wizz.

Vienna - Consistently top of the Lufthansa most popular connections list with a good amount of pax also connecting through Brussels. Austrian were rumoured and I suppose technically it could still happen but it's probably looking increasingly unlikely. With their shift towards city breaks I could see this being a great one for Monarch.

Oslo - Flybe gave it one winter season before pulling it. It all looked good for Norwegian but they seem to have gone cold on BHX. I can't see anyone else?

Valencia - Possibly the biggest Spanish route that we lack? It's served from EMA by Ryanair so unlikely that we'll also see it here. Vueling have a presence at VLC, although far from extensive, I'm not so sure if they'd be persuaded to try a BHX route though. If I had my way I'd switch Monarch's 3x weekly Madrid to Valencia.

Split - Dropped by Monarch and has been the victim of Thomson's all too often add it then take it away shenanigan's, so it remains unserved. Jet2 are starting it from various bases this year so there may be some hope for 2018.

Thessaloniki - See Split re unserved and Jet2.

Zadar - Croatia is somewhere that we lack a presence compared to elsewhere. Zadar could be a great summer route.

Pisa - The second Euro destination added to The Route Shop and one with a big tourist draw. Flybe did well to Florence but as we know there were operational restrictions. Ryanair and Jet2 have the route from EMA, I'd like to get one of them for 2018.

Brindisi/Bergamo/Bologna - Italy also has quite a few unserved destinations all of which have potential. Ryanair pretty much seem the only hope there so I won't hold my breath.

Iasi/Bacau - Romania is doing very well with Bucharest booming and Cluj-Napoca starting on Friday. Surely these must only be a matter of time?

Helsinki - Finnair connections to Asia would be popular if nothing else.

Tel Aviv - Rumoured for Monarch but probably now unlikely given recent events. Possibly one for another time.

There are also the likes of Nuremburg, Basle, Agadir, Bilbao, Bremen, Tallin, Olbia, Kosice and Seville, all of which are probably unlikely for the forseable.

 

[User001]

For Oslo, would a route to TRF do given Ryanair seem to be in the phase where they remember they have a base at BHX?

In fact, I think Ryanair is a shoe in for the majority of those routes.

Bremen, Nuremburg, Oslo, Valencia, Bridisi, Bergamo, Bologna, Zadar, Thessaloniki and Riga are all realistically possible on Ryanair.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Underserved

Budapest - Given that Prague will be 9x weekly, Bucharest 7x weekly, Warsaw 6x weekly and Sofia 6x wekly it seems odd that Budapest is getting left behind. Ryanair will start the route from EMA next year so we're relying on an increase from Wizz.

Naples - Only served by Thomson and Thomas Cook so it would be nice to get a scheduled flight. Ryanair start it from EMA next year, I was hoping it could have been one for Monarch but it doesn't look likely. Possibly one for Jet2 in 2018.

Gdansk/Katowice - Both popular Polish destinations and both that have stagnated at 2x weekly. Ryanair did load KTW at 4x weekly for this summer but it never materialised. If Wizz could be persuaded to join Ryanair it may kick start some growth.

Porto - Will return 2x weekly with Ryanair but not currently bookable into winter. If it returns the year after I'll be happy that it's not a one season wonder.

Lisbon - Currently served between 3 and 5x weekly with Monarch. The capacity seems about right but TAP could offer another route to South America.

Rome - Daily by Monarch in the summer with reductions in the winter. I think some competition wouldn't go amiss, it seems like a prime route for Vueling.

Berlin - Flybe have a monopoly and fares can be ridiculous. There are potential options from the likes of Ryanair (served from EMA) and Jet2.

Almeria - Currently only served by Thomas Cook!

Marrakech - Only served by Thomson but with an increasing amount of our regions Muslim community choosing Morocco as a holiday destination it could be very popular. I was disappointed when Ryanair announced to to LPL.

These are just my thoughts but please feel free to add any more

 

[ethanegcc]

Bergamo is definitely likely on Ryanair, to compete with Flybe, however they do offer sometimes multiple daily services from MAN and EMA. All the other routes you mention could be in with a chance. Many of them Ryanair. OSL should surely be one for SAS, no? Have they tried this route before?

 

[Ray Finkle]

For Oslo, would a route to TRF do given Ryanair seem to be in the phase where they remember they have a base at BHX?

In fact, I think Ryanair is a shoe in for the majority of those routes.

Bremen, Nuremburg, Oslo, Valencia, Bridisi, Bergamo, Bologna, Zadar, Thessaloniki and Riga are all realistically possible on Ryanair.

I thought the same thing myself but the rumoured 6th based aircraft looks to be getting less and less likely as time goes on. We also have a huge amount of away based flights next year which may be bought back to based should another aircraft happen.

I know it won't be a popular view but to me it seems as if Ryanair waking up to BHX is pretty much aimed at the competition. Porto and Verona aside, all of the new routes look to be in reaction to our new airlines, Wizz and Jet2 probably being the main ones.

If we get some new markets in the future to grow their Birmingham base then I will hold my hands up but as it stands there is very little to excite me.

 

[thunderchild]

Ljubljana is another one that would be nice to have back.

 

[Coathanger16]

For Oslo, would a route to TRF do given Ryanair seem to be in the phase where they remember they have a base at BHX?

OSL should surely be one for SAS, no? Have they tried this route before?

Haven't Ryanair switched their Stansted flight I think it is from TRF to OSL. Failing Ryanair, I'm sure either SAS or Norwegian could make it work.

 

[Ray Finkle]

I just look at routes announced from other airports and wonder if we'll ever see the day that an airline starts to take Birmingham seriously and give us something similar. Lets take Bristol and East Midlands as examples, two airports smaller than BHX.

Bristol's 14 aircraft Easyjet base offers routes such as Basel, Bilbao, Marrakech, Pisa, Vienna, Catania (we have TOM only), Naples, Olbia and Split. BRS also have Bergamo, Bologna, Valencia and Zadar from Ryanair. These are all routes that I'd love to see at BHX but many just look unlikely.

East Midlands nine aircraft Ryanair base also has the likes of Bergamo, Schoenfeld, Naples, Riga, Ciampino, Lodz, Rzeszow, Treviso, Pisa and Valencia. Not as extensive as BRS but still some needed routes.

Looking at Birmingham's offering and potential for the future.

Easyjet - Not worth mentioning.

Ryanair - Although we've seen recent growth I'm yet to be convinced that it's anything more than trying to see off the competition. Porto and Verona aside it's still just the basic sun and Eastern European routes. We had a glimmer of hope when Kenny Jacobs mentioned more to Italy, Greece and Germany, yet his comment came with a long list of provisos and as yet we've seen nothing.

Jet2 - I'm over the moon about their arrival but KRK and PRG aside, it's just the usual sun and ski routes. We'll see their Birmingham base grow but their focus is on the holiday side of the business.

Vueling - Paris and four sun routes. Would they ever be convinced to try the likes of Seville, Bilbao, Florence....etc?

Norwegian - Four sun routes. It appears as if BHX is now out of their thoughts?

Monarch - Probably the best with nine based aircraft but Lisbon and Stockholm aside, it's pretty much just basic sun and ski routes. We had some promise of expansion with the 738's coming but after the year they've had it's all gone quiet.

Wizz - A great addition opening much needed missing routes but they are pretty standard Eastern European destinations. They do have lots of potential but as yet nothing new for 2017.

I believe that we are the only airport to have a presence from all of the above airlines? Whilst on the face of it that sounds impressive, would it not be better to work closely with two or three of these to grow the bases year on year and offer much needed routes to new markets? Whilst having seven airlines competing to the likes of Tenerife and Malaga is great for the pax numbers I wonder how many people we lose on routes such as Pisa and Riga etc.

This is definitely not a moan, more of an observation. We've had a couple of decent niche routes added in the likes of Cluj and Chisinau and I'm also aware that we have an impressive list of full service carriers which could be vulnerable to loco pressure. Flybe offer a few different options but frankly I just don't trust them.

It's been an impressive couple of years but I'd just like one airline to now grab BHX by the balls and make things happen, in the same way that Easyjet have done at BRS adding an extra based aircraft every year

 

[Bhx_fifteen]

A very interesting observation Ray, I never looked at it like that, but why you said makes perfect sense. It explains why we don't have many 'unusual' or less obvious destinations - because there isn't a single airline that puts a particular emphasis on BHX. It isn't a particularly important base for any airline. As you said, ZB are the closest thing, but with the uncertainty they're facing, I don't hold too much hope that they will 'fill in the gaps'.

I often wonder how things would be if BHX hadn't been so hasty towards FR when they first showed interest many years ago. BHX weren't interested in lowering their fees to attract FR and said they were safe with BA, who obviously withdrew from BHX. Lack of interest from BHX led to FR setting up a pretty impressive base at EMA. Perhaps that would've been us.

 

[Coathanger16]

These are things I've often considered about BHX. Bristol, Newcastle & East Midlands are all smaller airports than Birmingham and have smaller populations within their catchment, yet they each have a fairly large presence from either easyJet or Ryanair. Whilst Ray pointed out we have a lot of airlines flying to Birmingham, none really have a large presence (when compared to other airports) and mostly tend to compete on summer sun destinations.

I wonder if the lack of significant interest from the airlines has been to how BHX management have positioned themselves. The best way I can describe it is by tiers:

Tier 1: Very big airports/Hub (Heathrow, possibly Gatwick but more likely in tier 2)
Tier 2: Large airports (Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester)
Tier 3: "Normal" airports (Luton, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc)

In general, airlines are happy to pay more to operate from a tier 1 airport than a tier 2 airport, and more at a tier 2 than tier 3, as they see them offering greater returns.

If airlines are looking to set up flights from Birmingham and consider it a tier 3 airport, they will expect a "deal"/"offer" based on that. I believe the problem is that Birmingham management, in the past as well as the present, consider Birmingham to be a tier 2 airport.

In essence, Birmingham feels that they should be able to offer airlines the same deals as Manchester, whilst the airlines expect deals more akin to those "offered" by Luton/Bristol.

This is all just my personal opinion and speculation, but I consider Birmingham to be at the upper end of the tier 3 group. So whilst Birmingham is a larger airport than Bristol and East Midlands, it is still nowhere near in the league of Manchester.

 

[nwoody2001]

With regard to airlines taking BHX seriously, I think you are all missing a wider point here, and this is to Birmingham success....

Airports with a large presence of 1-2 carriers fit into 2 categories 1) smaller airports where an airline has only a small number of competitors or 2) large airports that have utilised their catchment. In this regard BHX is neither. We are a big airport, 11.5m pax in a year is pretty big, but alas we know that we only utilise circa 40% of our catchment…

However, now, a brief look at Wiki tells a wider story. If you count all the major airports in the and total up the number of airlines/airline franchiese that use those airports, you get the following picture…

MAN – 64 Airlines
STN – 19 Airlines
LTN – 15 Airlines
EDI – 36 Airlines
BHX – 47 Airlines
GLA – 32 Airlines
EMA – 10 Airlines
BRS – 18 Airlines

To therefore say that airlines don’t take BHX seriously is a joke. In fact 47 airlines do, 11 more than our closest competitor, and over 3x more than LTN!!!! You also seem to gloss over the fact that Flybe has 13-14 based aircraft at BHX and Monarch 9-10 based aircraft.

With the exception of all but MAN above, all those other airports have an overly large dependency on a small number of airlines. In the event an airline merges, have financial difficulties or goes bust, they are all much more at risk than an airport like BHX that has a much more varied portfolio of airlines.

The reality is, I suspect that until BHX can utilise its catchment more, we may not get a big base. But that said, in the event that the economy holds out and the bubble doesn’t burst, if we sustain growing as we do and pass 15m in the next 2-3 years, that may well change. The fact that Jet2 will be basing 4x units in a brand new base at BHX is a pretty bog vote of confidence….

 

[Ray Finkle]

To therefore say that airlines don’t take BHX seriously is a joke. In fact 47 airlines do

but alas we know that we only utilise circa 40% of our catchment…

They take us so seriously that, despite all of the recent growth, we still lose 60% of our catchment area. This is a figure that has been banded around for as long as I can remember and doesn't seem to get any smaller.

Just a thought, could a based airline, one that increases the number of based aircraft year on year, opening routes to destinations that people can currently only access from other airports, possibly help claw back some of those people heading elsewhere? I'd say that there is a pretty strong chance.

Also, what's the point of having 47 airlines if there is so much duplication?

You also seem to gloss over the fact that Flybe has 13-14 based aircraft at BHX and Monarch 9-10 based aircraft.

No glossing, it was mentioned

Flybe are adding routes and frequencies then taking them away faster than I've ever known before (do we remember that route cull with RTM now looking to be the next in their list of one season wonders). Their prices are also ridiculous at times which potentially puts off city breakers, people who add not only to pax growth but also to retail spend. I once did price comparisons to Berlin and the likes of LTN and EMA were ridiculously lower than BHX. Not that I'm ungrateful as Flybe fill an important role, but for me they are not an airline to pin future growth on.

Monarch have been great for BHX but, as mentioned, it's just more of the same sun and ski routes.

11 more than our closest competitor, and over 3x more than LTN!!!!

Yet there are still so many destinations left unserved from BHX that are available from smaller airports? Why?

Today, various airports have gained routes to the likes of Olbia, Granada and Preveza yet we're still waiting for the likes of Pisa?

With the exception of all but MAN above, all those other airports have an overly large dependency on a small number of airlines. In the event an airline merges, have financial difficulties or goes bust, they are all much more at risk than an airport like BHX that has a much more varied portfolio of airlines.

So lets just play it safe, stick to getting even more to TFS and AGP and watch people go elsewhere to get to the more niche routes?

Where is the ambition?

The reality is, I suspect that until BHX can utilise its catchment more, we may not get a big base.

That's the thing, we need a big base and we need one soon. Double digit daily departures to the Costa's look great on the end of year pax figures but don't we all think that BHX can be so much more?

I'm not asking for double daily flights to Sao Paulo but surely the like of Pisa, Vienna, Valencia etc aren't beyond reach?

 

[IanFarquharson]

I think Easyjet would have been the airline to give BHX a greater number of desinations (look at Bristol), BHX could have had a 10-15 a/c base by now.
But I think it is too late now, we have seen some great new carriers Wizz, Norwegian, Vueling, Jet 2, Blue Air to name just five.
So my point is that we now have a great mix of airlines but not one airline that ticks all the boxes !

 

[route66]

I think that airlines take BHX seriously, but it would appear that they don't take the catchment area seriously when it comes to niche routes. If these routes can work in a smaller catchment area like Bristol it must be down to the demographics, or is it the case that those niche routes operating from both Bristol and Birmingham would see a dilution of passenger numbers and that wouldn't be attractive to an operator.

 

[nwoody2001]

Apologies ray, I'm away on business (in Birmingham of all places) and on my mobile so excuse my reply if a little brief, I will reply more comprehensively in time, but I must admit not being able to see how BHX can win based on what you're saying.

In one post, you seem to suggest that there are certain routes that lack capacity, and then in the next post, criticise airlines for doubling up! You then criticise the likes of Flybe on some routes because they don't have competition on popular routes and as such, prices are sky-high ...so do you want routes to be doubled up, and competitively priced, or monopolised and high priced?!?

I just don't see how BHX can win. BHX got into bed with one airlines that offered a wealth of routes (BA) only for them to pull out. BHX has then (wisely) over time sought to diversify their customer and product base, and got 47 airlines in, - great balance of full service and Loco airlines. With the exception of LHR and MAN, you'd struggle to find more diversity anywhere else in the UK. You have the likes of GLA who only managed to secure Air France to Paris last year!!!!

The reality is, BHX was stagnant for too long after BA and it took them a while to pick up the pieces. For BHX to get its market back, it has to have brand awareness. You don't get that from 2x weekly niche Ryanair flight. You get that from the bucket and spade holiday. Once brand awareness is achieved, market share is secured and THAT is when niche routes can grow and airlines establish! Let's not forget, onky last year we were showing how we had massive undercapacity on sun-shine routes compared to the likes of EMA, how can we criticise the airport/airlines for addressing that!?!?

I'm not saying BHX has it sorted, it doesn't! I think it's too easy to get woooed by the big bases. I'm proud that my parents flew BHX-PRG on the only CSA flight to the UK, and not on Ryanair, I'm glad they flied BHX-KEF last year on Icelandair and not EasyJet!

To my mind, diversity in product is a great position to be in, and for once, I think think BHX has done the right thing. Hopefully growth will continue and as the airport grows and market share is secured, BHX will be in a more powerful position. In that case the airlines will be coming to BHX, not BHX going to the airlines begging!

 

[Daza]

Great post nwoody. Remember airports are also about supporting business, the city they serve and the larger regional economy. Hub access with Legacy airlines link us to the world. Leisure routes are great but don't bring inward investment. I have to say one area BHX seems to have problems is with flights to North America something I hope the marketing team are working on. Ray you are normally such a "glass half full" guy
Daza

 

[richard winterbourn]

nwoody is right to highlight the dilemma BHX found itself in when BA pulled the plug. But even if BA hadn't pulled the plug BHX was then nowhere near the position it should have been in. The real problem was the virtual inactivity by BHX management nigh on 50 years ago.

I well remember my first flight, it should have been a MATO BAC1-11 to Faro from what was then a truly small BHX. The flight was cancelled due to fog and we were bussed to Manchester.

What a revelation; chandeliers, a duty free lounge and even then the daily flight waiting to fly to New York.

That's when the real trouble started and it is now, only in the last few years, that BHX has woken up. And for that i applaud the management team, now putting right the wrongs of the 1970s.

We are getting there, but you cannot catch up 50 years of virtual stagnation overnight.

 

[Ray Finkle]

In one post, you seem to suggest that there are certain routes that lack capacity, and then in the next post, criticise airlines for doubling up! You then criticise the likes of Flybe on some routes because they don't have competition on popular routes and as such, prices are sky-high ...so do you want routes to be doubled up, and competitively priced, or monopolised and high priced?!?

There is nothing wrong with doubling up and, to me, routes such as Berlin and Rome really need some competition. There is taking it to the extreme though, are we really thinking that an 8th, 9th, 10th airline doing AGP and Tenerife is more beneficial than two more based aircraft fulfilling a mix of more to the sun with some new markets thrown in?

Just take a look at the recent huge success of Eastern Europe as a prime example of expanding the network of destinations offered.

You don't get that from 2x weekly niche Ryanair flight. You get that from the bucket and spade holiday. Once brand awareness is achieved, market share is secured and THAT is when niche routes can grow and airlines establish!

I'm can't see how that works? Too many airlines on one route sure is great for the punters heading to Benidorm but there is a massive risk of diluting yields, which is no good for anyone. Witness Norwegian come in like a blaze of glory only to cut one route, reduce another to seasonal and curtail capacity on others.

I'm struggling to see how forcing people to use EMA/BRS/LTN to travel to the likes of Marrakech, Valencia, Pisa....... creates brand awareness for Birmingham. If anything it could have the reverse effect, showing people that some routes are only available elsewhere and if the journey is painless (and cheap) enough they may be lost permanently. People are creatures of habit.

Hopefully growth will continue and as the airport grows and market share is secured

To me hopefully isn't good enough, I've spent too many years saying hopefully. Other airports are expanding not only their core routes but also gaining destinations that BHX can only dream about. Are we to be left playing catch up yet again? What about taking the initiative and working with one or two airlines to increase bases and get these destinations now, something other airports are currently doing?

BHX will be in a more powerful position. In that case the airlines will be coming to BHX, not BHX going to the airlines begging!

Because that has been a tactic that has been very effective so far. Easyjet avoid us like the plague, Ryanair only respond in reaction to others, Norwegian look to have lost faith, Vueling are growing and have potential but that's all it is at the moment, potential, likewise Wizz. Lets then take Monarch who are one of our biggest airlines, whilst Stockholm is great did BHX get a piece of the recently added new destinations of Tel Aviv, Zagreb and Porto? No! Birmingham isn't as important as London and doesn't have the geographical advantage of Manchester, airlines will not come running to us, we have to be proactive.

Ray you are normally such a "glass half full" guy

I suspected that it would come across as negative but it wasn't meant to be. I've been extremely happy with what has been achieved over the last two years but there is so much more to do. I'm now wondering how we do that and my conclusion is that we need some serious attention off Ryanair or, dare I say it, Easyjet (although not at any cost). I can't remember if it was in an article or via a Tweet but after many congratulations Mr Kehoe replied along the lines of "We have done some but there is still much left to do". I'm in full agreement and am eager to see what the next step is in getting even more destinations served

I'll leave it there now. I respect everybody's opinions (even if I don't agree) and points are duly noted

Lets just sit back and wait for Vueling to announce Palma, then we can celebrate another 50K seats added

 

[thunderchild]

I think the main issue regarding Ryanair is the power of MAG - it's no conincidence that both MAN and EMA bagged flights from the new Naples base. It works both ways of course (i.e. CSA, Wizz) but it would be good to see BHX being in a position to offer more attractive incentives. At the end of day what goes on at the discussion table will only be truly known by the airlines and the airport.