Air France/KLM

[TheLocalYokel]

Anyone know how the loads are on the klm Amsterdam service. Just wondering why we have not had an upgraded service like Cardiff , Norwich and Aberdeen.

On the evidence of KLM loads it does seem surprising but the yields might tell a different story, although the KLM load factor at BRS is noticeably higher than at CWL, even with BRS operating the larger E190 far more often.

In 2017, the last calendar year for which official statistics have been published, BRS-AMS carried just over 410,000 passengers and CWL-AMS just over 134,000.

In normal circumstances we would not know how many of the 410,000 at BRS were KLM and how many were easyJet. However, in 2017 we did. There was an airport press release published last May celebrating KLM's 30 years operating at BRS, in which a KLM spokesman said that in 2017 their BRS-AMS route had carried over 260,000 passengers, an increase of 143% over the previous six years. In comparison, CWL-AMS carried just over 134,000 in 2017, all KLM.

https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/ab...d-media-centre/2018/5/klm-30-year-anniversary

The BRS route was primarily 4 x daily (28 x weekly) with 100-seat E190 aircraft with the CWL route primarily 3 x daily (21 x weekly) with 88-seat E175 aircraft.

It wasn't quite as clearcut as that because on occasions the smaller E175 operated some BRS rotations and, at times, some weekends were down to 3 x daily. CWL also saw the larger E190 occasionally but I'm not sure if it dropped to 2 x daily at any time.

I can't therefore establish a completely accurate load picture. Based on the E190 operating 4 x daily at BRS 365 days of the year the average load would have been 89 which is an 89% load factor on the E190. There were times when there weren't 4 x E190s per day, either because the frequency had been reduced because of operational, timetable or weather reasons, or because the smaller E175 stood in.

The best guess then is that the average load throughout the year was around 90, perhaps slightly higher (load factor low 90s%).

Based on the E175 operating 3 x daily at CWL 365 days of the year the average load would have been just over 61 which is a 69.5% load factor on the E175. There were times when there weren't 3 x E175s per day, either because the frequency had been reduced because of operational, timetable or weather reasons, or because the larger E190 stood in.

The best guess then is that the average load throughout the year was around 62, perhaps slightly higher (load factor low 70s%).

In 2017 easyJet would have carried around 150,000 on BRS-AMS. I haven't got the exact breakdown of aircraft types (319/320) or the frequency - it was certainly 11 x weekly for parts of the year but might have risen to 12 at times. If 11 x weekly the average load would have been in the low 130s which is below easyJet's airline load factor which broadly the BRS base seems to achieve.

 

[Jerry]

From tomorrow Stobart Air will operate KL1049 and KL1050 with a 118 seat E195. This will be for a couple of weeks apparently.

 

[Kernow Bravo]

Could this have anything to do with an increased demand for connecting traffic by any chance?!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

From tomorrow Stobart Air will operate KL1049 and KL1050 with a 118 seat E195. This will be for a couple of weeks apparently.

Could this have anything to do with an increased demand for connecting traffic by any chance?!

Possibly but more likely down to operational reasons as it's reportedly only for two weeks

 

[superking]

KLM are short of aircraft due to more routes and maintainence of aircraft.This is a reason also for the B737 turning up at various airports in the UK and Europe.

 

[Jerry]

Stobarts will be operating the Dublin route for them from March I think so this could be just them bedding the Stobart crews in maybe?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

With flybmi exiting the CDG route following their cessation as an airline that just leaves the daily P2P easyJet service on BRS-CDG which is often sold out, it appears that the route is underserved. Air France has come and gone a number of times over the past 30 years with some believing that the fear of its diluting the BRS-AMS service is a reason why it has not returned yet again.

I've been looking at Newcastle Airport, a facility that serves a far less prosperous section of the country than BRS, with overall annual passenger numbers 5.3 million in 2018 compared with BRS's 8.7 million.

In 2018 BRS-CDG handled 154,000 passengers of which easyJet probably saw 120,000-125,000 if the last time they had the route to themselves is a guide. flybmi had a very limited code share with AF at CDG that only involved 20-odd domestic French routes so it too was probably mainly P2P.

Last year NCL-CDG saw 144,000 passengers all with Air France (small Airbuses) as it's the only operator on the route.

Moving to AMS, in 2018 the BRS route handled 434,000 passengers of which probably around 270,000 were KLM passengers - based on KLM's publicly announced passenger figures for 2017. easyJet on P2P carried the remainder. NCL-AMS carried 348,000, all KLM as it's the only carrier on the route.

So it seems that NCL is handling more KLM passengers to AMS than BRS does, but that this has not stopped AF operating from there to CDG.

 

[Kernow Bravo]

I think the key point in comparing KL passenger loads between NCL and BRS is the relative proximity of these airports to a major international hub. Arguably MAN offers a significant number of long haul non stop destinations, but travel time from the NCL catchment to MAN is significantly longer than the equivalent from the BRS catchment to LHR, all other things being equal.

This means that for a NCL-catchment passenger to catch a direct flight they incur more time/cost in ground transportation than the equivalent BRS-catchment passenger. When you add to this the fact that there is a wider range of non-stop destinations ex LHR than ex MAN (or EDI which is also a possibility for those based in the North East), it's little surprise that making a connection is probably a more attractive option for NCL-catchment passengers than for those local to BRS.

Moreover the lack of any competition currently at BRS for eastbound or shorthaul connections in particular is unlikely to encourage KLM to be more competitive on pricing, which is another factor persuading passengers to make the M4 trip.

It will be interesting to see whether the 4 x daily FlyBE service NQY - LHR will entice some passengers on the south western fringes of the BRS catchment to take that option, particularly once the Virgin deal (presumably) firms up the interlining/code share arrangements, which would also presumably extend to Delta. LHR is not everyone's cup of tea and I have never connected there, but the NQY route is also subsidised, so it may be an attractive proposition at the expense of BRS.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I think the key point in comparing KL passenger loads between NCL and BRS is the relative proximity of these airports to a major international hub. Arguably MAN offers a significant number of long haul non stop destinations, but travel time from the NCL catchment to MAN is significantly longer than the equivalent from the BRS catchment to LHR, all other things being equal.

This means that for a NCL-catchment passenger to catch a direct flight they incur more time/cost in ground transportation than the equivalent BRS-catchment passenger. When you add to this the fact that there is a wider range of non-stop destinations ex LHR than ex MAN (or EDI which is also a possibility for those based in the North East), it's little surprise that making a connection is probably a more attractive option for NCL-catchment passengers than for those local to BRS.

Moreover the lack of any competition currently at BRS for eastbound or shorthaul connections in particular is unlikely to encourage KLM to be more competitive on pricing, which is another factor persuading passengers to make the M4 trip.

It will be interesting to see whether the 4 x daily FlyBE service NQY - LHR will entice some passengers on the south western fringes of the BRS catchment to take that option, particularly once the Virgin deal (presumably) firms up the interlining/code share arrangements, which would also presumably extend to Delta. LHR is not everyone's cup of tea and I have never connected there, but the NQY route is also subsidised, so it may be an attractive proposition at the expense of BRS.

The proximity of LHR to BRS is something that I considered before posting #147 but I decided to omit the reference to see if ayone else had the same thought, and you did.

There is no doubt that LHR does impact on BRS's chances of gaining direct long haul scheduled routes. From the Bristol city region itself LHR is anywhere between 65 and 110 minutes away by road in normal traffic conditions, depending in which part of the city region one lives. I have to either go through the centre of the city or around its south-eastern/ eastern edge partly on the ring road to reach the M4 and subsequently LHR from my home, and I can get there by road in one hour 40 minutes outside 'rush hour' periods, always provided there is no serious motorway incident, but that applies to any airport where a motorway is used including reaching BRS along the M5 from Devon.

NCL does have a service to LHR with BA and it carried a touch under half a million passengers on the route in 2018.

AF-KLM is still potentially missing out on a lot of business by not having a BRS-CDG connection because there is no guarantee that Bristol-area people using LHR will use a SkyTeam partner from there. In fact, looking at the various alliances it seems a sound guess that the majority do not.

Interesting thought that the new NQY-LHR route might have some effect on BRS. It could only really be the KLM AMS route (and to a far lesser extent the EI DUB route) and I don't know how many people come from Devon and Cornwall to use them to connect at the respective hubs.

I can't see anyone from the primary BRS catchment travelling to NQY to catch a connecting fight to LHR when they could reach LHR more quickly by independent means and have all the options that are available there. There will undoubtedly be some living in Devon, Cornwall and possibly west Dorset who might take the NQY-LHR option instead of using a BRS hub, but I doubt that the KLM passenger numbers will see much of a dent because of it.

 

[forest1979]

I think AF are short cited when it comes to Bristol.. people will travel but 8.7 million people also choose to use Bristol.. no competition on that route is not good and AF have an excellent programme out of CDG.. as do Lufthansa from Frankfurt.. for me AF, LH along with KLM should be on BRS hit list to provide that better mix of airlines and products..

 

[BRSregular]

Absolutely. I looked at a flight to CDG next week and it was £469 return! Cheaper to fly to LA from LHR!

 

[Jerry]

Is there some sort of union clause that would hold them back from serving it? I know AF is heavily unionised and maybe they are limited in what routes they serve especially if KLM serve them?

 

[forest1979]

Wouldn’t that be a problem for other regional airports?
If I was the boss I would just look at the competition and passenger numbers. Works for AMS with KLM and easy, why not CDG?

 

[Kernow Bravo]

Perhaps KL/AF take a holistic view of their hubs to try and balance out traffic between them. One of the techniques they can use is prioritising services from certain airports into either AMS or CDG, at the expense of the other, P2P considerations notwithstanding.

Talking to a few regular travellers I get the impression that the AMS connections market ex BRS is well utilised with several loyal customers who know their way around Schiphol. Trying to persuade them to use CDG instead (which has in the past had a poor user-experience reputation) could undermine that loyalty. Having said that, AMS was rumoured to be close to capacity recently and so AF/KLM may choose to rebalance their connecting traffic to make best use of the two hubs. Currently that is unlikely to affect BRS flights of course.

Clearly, were both KL and AF to offer connections from BRS then for long haul in particular one could route (e.g.) outbound via CDG and return via AMS all on the same ticket. I gather that Lufthansa offer something similar to this but a bit more dynamically, so for a reduced long haul fare, travelling say LHR-HKG, pax may be routed through one (or more) of FRA, MUC, VIE or ZRH at the group's discretion. Presumably this is determined depending on load factors and various other metrics assessed per sector close to the date of travel. The IT involved is quite clever but the final routing could result in long layovers and protracted journey times of course.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Perhaps KL/AF take a holistic view of their hubs to try and balance out traffic between them. One of the techniques they can use is prioritising services from certain airports into either AMS or CDG, at the expense of the other, P2P considerations notwithstanding.

Talking to a few regular travellers I get the impression that the AMS connections market ex BRS is well utilised with several loyal customers who know their way around Schiphol. Trying to persuade them to use CDG instead (which has in the past had a poor user-experience reputation) could undermine that loyalty. Having said that, AMS was rumoured to be close to capacity recently and so AF/KLM may choose to rebalance their connecting traffic to make best use of the two hubs. Currently that is unlikely to affect BRS flights of course.

Clearly, were both KL and AF to offer connections from BRS then for long haul in particular one could route (e.g.) outbound via CDG and return via AMS all on the same ticket. I gather that Lufthansa offer something similar to this but a bit more dynamically, so for a reduced long haul fare, travelling say LHR-HKG, pax may be routed through one (or more) of FRA, MUC, VIE or ZRH at the group's discretion. Presumably this is determined depending on load factors and various other metrics assessed per sector close to the date of travel. The IT involved is quite clever but the final routing could result in long layovers and protracted journey times of course.

Thank you for those throughts.

AF and KLM agreed a merger in 2003 and I think by the following year it was operating. At the time I believe that Air France Regional was still operating three daily E145s against BA franchise 3 daily E145s to CDG. No easyJet on the route then. AF came off the route within a year or two (I'm writing this from memory without checking precise dates). There was a hiatus for a few years during which time easyJet began its own service. Air France then returned in the form of Airlinair (3 daily ATR 42s, later 72s) which carried on until about 2013 by which time CityJet RJ85s then a single daily Hop E190 had taken over the operation for AF.

KLM was going strongly all through the 'noughties' as it has continued to do. Towards the end of the 'noughties', when AF returned in the form of Airlinair, AF-KLM must have believed that there was room for two hubs from BRS for their combined group. Perhaps in the light of subsequent experience that view has altered.

CDG is underserved from BRS. When one considers that easyJet operates Barcelona at 2 x daily for most of the year and AMS 10/11 weekly against KLM, that the likes of Venice see almost double daily with a combination of easyJet and Ryanair and even Krakow has more weekly rotations than CDG's single daily it's a puzzle that one of the world's major cities is so poorly connected from BRS. easyJet would only be P2P, and in reality so was flybmi as it only had limited French domestic connectivity, but in the absence of a hub service an increased easyJet service would at least be something. It's not as if easyJet struggles for passengers as it is all too often sold out, sometimes a week or more ahead, and was when flybmi competed.

Your point about long layovers and protracted journey times is a valid one. Fare price is certainly important for many, sometimes the important factor, but there are also many people for whom such things as the length of the overall journey is a major consideration as well as flight times. This might particularly resonate with premium customers.

When I fly to Australia every year I always see what is on offer at BHX, and last year at CWL, but because of the much greater choice at London airports, especially LHR, I invariably finish up flying from the capital. As it happens, Emirates suits us but I always spend time with my long haul travel agent exploring other possibilities, both airlines and UK departure airports.

I've looked at using KLM from BRS via AMS and flybmi via FRA to reach Oz but the offerings did not come close to being a serious consideration.

Funnily enough, our son who has been flying the world for many years on business but who now flies mainly for leisure (and regularly at that), told us the other day that he and his partner had booked a trip to the Maldives using Qatar. As he also lives in Bristol I assumed he was using CWL. He isn't. He echoed my thoughts that timings and overall journey time are his main considerations, and LHR provided the best choice.

 

[Red Flyer]

The KL1053/54 is now on sale with aircraft change to B737 on the KLM website.

 

[Jerry]

The KL1053/54 is now on sale with aircraft change to B737 on the KLM website.

Seems the good news keeps on coming for BRS! When does this start?

 

[Severn]

KLM are upgrading their evening departure Mon-Fri to a B737 from Monday 24th June.
The B737-700 will arrive from AMS at 16:55 and depart BRS at 17:25 Mon-Fri.

From the 24th June, the schedule will be as follows:
Mon-Fri - 4x daily (1x B737-700, 3x E190)
Sat, Sun - 4x daily (1x E175, 3x E190)

The B737 will operate through to the start of the winter season (beginning of November), where it will revert to Cityhopper only (still 4x daily) - mostly E190s and some E175s.

 

[Red Flyer]

Wait and see what happens for winter - summer changes will always be first

 

[forest1979]

Didn’t they plan this before and then it didn’t happen?