TUI Airways

[Marko1]

Today's cancun going via Manchester again. Seems to be a routine routing now.

 

[ethanegcc]

Is this to do with payload restrictions from BRS and the winds becoming stronger as we come into winter.

 

[Jerry]

Is this to do with payload restrictions from BRS and the winds becoming stronger as we come into winter.

Yep the runway isn't long enough so it means sometimes they'll have to divert. We can only guess that Thomson have factored into their pricing.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I think it's the third time this summer that the outbound Cancun flight has had to take on fuel at another UK airport because of winds coupled with the BRS runway restrictions. It's usually MAN but I think that EMA was used once this season.There was a fourth occasion when the outbound flight called at a UK airport (MAN) but that was for crew welfare reasons.

Cancun seems right on the edge of what is accessible but some weeks it's too far. Sanford and Punta Cana (this one starting next summer) seem ok.

When TOM operated the B767 to Cancun and Sanford the latter went non-stop but the former always called at MAN for fuel.

The B787 was supposed to be the panacea for BRS long haul but its performance from the runway is not as good as Boeing suggested to BRS when the aircraft was in development.

If a runway extension is not to feature in the forthcoming detailed reappraisal of the airport's master plan, and the recent consultative committee minutes suggest it won't feature, the airport will have to accept that its long haul options in the future will be severely limited.

 

[Jerry]

As long as the yields are high for the route then diverting via MAN should still make the route profitable but if they get competition in the area which forces their yields down then they may have to re evaluate the route.

 

[big g]

Here we go again! It has nothing to do with payload restrictions. The Atlantic has strong headwinds this time of year, couple that with the bad weather around the Gulf of Mexico it's no surprise they are doing tech stops. Not sure if anyone noticed the SFB-BRS last week did it in around 6h40 with a heathy tail wind.

And yes Thomson are not silly they would have factored in the stop if needed.

I think we have more chance of Continental returning than another operator doing BRS-CUN any time soon!

 

[Jerry]

If the payload wasn't restricted then why wasn't the flight able to go direct? Were flights from BHX, MAN, LHR and LGW to that area also having to do a tech stop?

Yes the likelihood of another BRS-CUN operator is nil but there is always a chance of CWL-CUN returning if the airport can attract an airline to operate it. There is also the chance that APD could be devolved which would help in that case. Would be interesting to see if TOM stuck with BRS if that happened.

 

[big g]

Fuel not part of the payload. If payload was restricted then bags and or passengers would be offloaded from the flight. TOM clearly see that if they did that it would have a greater negative effect and a fuel stop makes more commercial Sence.

I really don't see why people on here get all het up on a fuel stop, it's had 3 in what 16 flights?

 

[Seasider]

Fuel not part of the payload. If payload was restricted then bags and or passengers would be offloaded from the flight. TOM clearly see that if they did that it would have a greater negative effect and a fuel stop makes more commercial Sence.

I really don't see why people on here get all het up on a fuel stop, it's had 3 in what 16 flights?

3 may be a small number, but it equates to nearly 20% of flights. I think that it is a high percentage risk (for passengers) of having to make a fuel stop whether Thomson have factored in a cost or not.

 

[Jerry]

Fuel not part of the payload. If payload was restricted then bags and or passengers would be offloaded from the flight. TOM clearly see that if they did that it would have a greater negative effect and a fuel stop makes more commercial Sence.

I really don't see why people on here get all het up on a fuel stop, it's had 3 in what 16 flights?

Because it shows up the limits of the runway. TOM may be happy with 20% of the flights diverting via MAN but another potential airline looking at route of similar length may well not be and that could put them off looking at BRS as a potential destination.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

3 may be a small number, but it equates to nearly 20% of flights. I think that it is a high percentage risk (for passengers) of having to make a fuel stop whether Thomson have factored in a cost or not.

When TOM operated BRS-CUN for several years operating the Boeing 767 they always called at MAN for an en-route fuel stop outbound. It seems this is a continuation of that albeit so far most of the flights have gone non-stop.

I've long given up trying to understand the economics of airlines and airports. They seem more abstruse than Premier League football clubs at times.

Yes the likelihood of another BRS-CUN operator is nil but there is always a chance of CWL-CUN returning if the airport can attract an airline to operate it. There is also the chance that APD could be devolved which would help in that case. Would be interesting to see if TOM stuck with BRS if that happened.

I'm not sure that a CWL-CUN operation would make much difference to the BRS-CUN flights in terms of passenger numbers. TOM already operates 2 x weekly BHX-CUN which doesn't seem to have affected the BRS route.

Overall many more passengers from the South West use BHX than use CWL.

The CAA passenger survey for 2015 (the latest available that includes South West/Welsh airports) shows that in the year surveyed 473,000 passengers with origin/final destination in the South West used BHX (5% of BHX's total passenger numbers) with 35,000 passengers with origin/final destination in the South West using CWL (3.1% of CWL's total passenger numbers).

What would be likely to make a difference is devolution of APD especially if the Welsh Government reduced it to nil or abolished it altogether. From April 2018 long haul rates will rise from the current £75 to £78 for travel in the lowest class of travel on the aircraft and from the current £150 to £156 for travel in any other class. Even though APD is chargeable only on flights leaving the UK this sort of level could give CWL a significant advantage over airports such as BRS (and possibly BHX to a lesser degree) if airlines chose to reduce fares by the entire amount of a nil rate APD.

 

[737 400]

Are B787 flights to Cancun from LGW or other UK airports further east than BRS similarly affected, or is the need to make an additional fuel stop only affecting B787 flights from BRS?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Are B787 flights to Cancun from LGW or other UK airports further east than BRS similarly affected, or is the need to make an additional fuel stop only affecting B787 flights from BRS?

Just from BRS it would seem. The other airports with these flights have longer runways.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

Whatever you call it, payload, fuel restriction, runway, the flight is sold as direct (Yes i'm aware of some Airlines interpretation of "Direct") but isn't always going straight from BRS to wherever.
People book BRS for convenience instead of BHX, LGW, MAN. At least they are on the aircraft and don't have to worry about extra travelling time to any of the above Airports.
I don't know why this keeps turning into a CWL vs BRS discussion. The only way CWL will gain a regular LH service to match what's being offered by TOM would be TCX. TCX have high capacity A330's than TOM's 787s. TOM could decide to up sticks and move the LH op to BRS if the runway does become an issue, but I can't see that happening.
It will restrict any new potential route that's longer than CUN though. I guess with the weather changing as we go into Winter it will be interesting to see how the rest of the season performs.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

TOM could decide to up sticks and move the LH op to BRS if the runway does become an issue, but I can't see that happening.

Typo? Do you mean to CWL?

 

[Foxlimayankee]

Typo? Do you mean to CWL?

Indeed it was

 

[big g]

Whatever you call it, payload, fuel restriction, runway, the flight is sold as direct (Yes i'm aware of some Airlines interpretation of "Direct") but isn't always going straight from BRS to wherever.
People book BRS for convenience instead of BHX, LGW, MAN. At least they are on the aircraft and don't have to worry about extra travelling time to any of the above Airports.
I don't know why this keeps turning into a CWL vs BRS discussion. The only way CWL will gain a regular LH service to match what's being offered by TOM would be TCX. TCX have high capacity A330's than TOM's 787s. TOM could decide to up sticks and move the LH op to BRS if the runway does become an issue, but I can't see that happening.
It will restrict any new potential route that's longer than CUN though. I guess with the weather changing as we go into Winter it will be interesting to see how the rest of the season performs.

I think it's more likely we will see TCX oprtate BRS-MCO before they will start CWL-CUN. As I have said in previous post we don't see people comment when the JSI-BRS had to do a fuel stop and that's sold as "Direct" but planned to stop.

The decision the make the stop in MAN usually comes in the last hour before departure, and that's at the pilots discretion, and as 80% of flights have made it direct on a larger plane carrying more passenger's than before when operating on the 767, it's good going. The BRS-SFB has no problems operating direct and has yet to stop for fuel.

It may restrict airlines who want to fly longer westbound routes than CUN not coming, but flying eastbound is a different story having tailwinds in its favour.

People have the impression that the 787 is this amazing aircraft, when in fact it's overweight and under performing from what Boeing promised.

 

[andrewgreen]

Do you mean flying Eastbound as in the middle East ? If so its got to come back so it makes no difference

 

[Jerry]

Do you mean flying Eastbound as in the middle East ? If so its got to come back so it makes no difference

Middle East would be fine range wise. It's further like Thailand or Singapore that could be problematic.
Also an aircraft could get headwinds in eithter direction I'd imagine.

 

[big g]

Middle East would be fine range wise. It's further like Thailand or Singapore that could be problematic.
Also an aircraft could get headwinds in eithter direction I'd imagine.

Yes you can get headwinds flying eastbound but the majority of the journey will have a tailwind increasing the range, for the return westbound, more than likely they would fly from a longer runway therefor carrying more fuel.