- Moderator
- #81
Re: Route Development & Airport Rumours
I gone over the reply that Hassaan received from BHX, now I don't believe for one minute it was written by Mr Kehoe himself but even for a representative of his it's quite surprising. It has to be said that Hassaan's email probably wasn't constructed in the best way and could have appeared as nothing more than a long rant but even so the reply was, at best, unprofessional and at worst rather childish and rude, this makes me wonder, did it touch a raw nerve somewhere??? The reply seemed to answer everything without actually answering anything.
A large chunk of the topic was landing fees, the general opinion seems to suggest BHX is at the top end price wise whereas BHX say they're not expensive, compared to what we don't know and never will as the figures will (rightly) remain private.
There seemed to be much made about the competition BHX has, we do compete with the likes of MAN, EMA, LTN, LHR, BRS but those airports all have to compete too and I don't hear too much moaning from them. Wasn't it Mr Kehoe who was recently in the press saying there were too many UK airports and we should only have a spine of London, Birmingham, Manchester & Glasgow? Also I believe one of the main points in BHX's reply to the aviation capacity debate was the 'great airports for great cities' this being the government stepping in to create hubs in the previously mentioned cities? So why do BHX find it so difficult to compete, so much so they want the government to intervene? It's situated on the edge of the UK's second largest city, within a huge metropolitan area, the Greater Birmingham region is doing very well at the moment, it's 'The UK's most connected airport', so what's the problem? If it costs the same to operate a flight from BHX as it does from the likes of BRS, LTN or EMA then why do we have to drive past BHX to these other airports to fly to key destinations such as Madrid, Prague, Lisbon, Warsaw, Berlin.....? It's always been suggested that high fees have dissuaded airlines from BHX but if, as they say, they are competitive then I'm at a loss as to why? It's quite concerning.
The point about advertising also concerned me. 'Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't being done', I'm at a loss to see how advertising can be effective if nobody sees it. I understand there maybe targeted campaigns aimed at certain sections of the business community happening but simply saying 'MAN and EMA are part of the same group which share our catchment area and have deeper pockets than us' comes across, to me anyway, as a very defeatist attitude.
Towards the end, in between some of the childish comments, they mention recent expansion. The Thomson Dreamliner, is this a direct result of BHX or simply the fact that Thomson are replacing their 763's? The Flybe new routes and extra Thomas Cook aircraft, both very, very welcomed but again are they a direct result of BHX or something that has just happened in the natural course of events? Aegean and Icelandair again are both very, very welcome but 2x seasonal A320's and 2x B757's per week are hardly going to set the world alight. So that leaves us Air India. I think they did a fantastic job in getting back what must have been a very difficult airline to deal with, but, that is the only really significant new route we've seen since Turkish Airlines arrived in 2009, five years. Air Transat expanded at LGW, MAN and GLA whereas BHX saw nothing, Emirates have expanded at LGW and MAN with GLA next in line for an A380, again BHX has seen nothing. MAN, EDI and GLA(?) have seen expansion to the USA, BHX can't even keep the one flight daily all year round. Thomson are stagnant in their long haul offering with one weekly flight the only expansion in years. Virgin are having a dabble with some short season flights from Belfast and Glasgow, nothing at BHX. Thomas Cook announced last year they were open to talk to airports about potential long haul routes, lots of expansion but nothing at BHX except the one off Easter special that sold out, indeed a poster on another forum emailed BHX about the dismal offering to Florida and got back some garbage about landing slots, flight times and the lack of demand from the region????? Other airports have seen flights, Thomas Cook filled their one off flight, Thomson are at capacity on all of their long haul and I speak to so many, many people who holiday to Florida from MAN because either 'you can't fly there from Birmingham' or 'Birmingham flights are too expensive/sold out' so demand is certainly not the issue. So what is? Why is BHX continually overlooked if, as they say, the fees are competitive?
I wonder if the constant bigging up of the runway extension, the persistent rumours that an EK third daily is imminent, Qatar announcing BHX will be served, the headlines about BHX being in Chicago to secure a new route, the China flights with the constant line that 'the airport are working hard to try and make them permanent' have given people, certainly me, false hope that BHX is on the verge of some big things when it actually isn't, because some of the childish words and the tone of the reply suggested to me that BHX have tried hard and got nowhere, and don't like to be challenged about it?
I gone over the reply that Hassaan received from BHX, now I don't believe for one minute it was written by Mr Kehoe himself but even for a representative of his it's quite surprising. It has to be said that Hassaan's email probably wasn't constructed in the best way and could have appeared as nothing more than a long rant but even so the reply was, at best, unprofessional and at worst rather childish and rude, this makes me wonder, did it touch a raw nerve somewhere??? The reply seemed to answer everything without actually answering anything.
A large chunk of the topic was landing fees, the general opinion seems to suggest BHX is at the top end price wise whereas BHX say they're not expensive, compared to what we don't know and never will as the figures will (rightly) remain private.
There seemed to be much made about the competition BHX has, we do compete with the likes of MAN, EMA, LTN, LHR, BRS but those airports all have to compete too and I don't hear too much moaning from them. Wasn't it Mr Kehoe who was recently in the press saying there were too many UK airports and we should only have a spine of London, Birmingham, Manchester & Glasgow? Also I believe one of the main points in BHX's reply to the aviation capacity debate was the 'great airports for great cities' this being the government stepping in to create hubs in the previously mentioned cities? So why do BHX find it so difficult to compete, so much so they want the government to intervene? It's situated on the edge of the UK's second largest city, within a huge metropolitan area, the Greater Birmingham region is doing very well at the moment, it's 'The UK's most connected airport', so what's the problem? If it costs the same to operate a flight from BHX as it does from the likes of BRS, LTN or EMA then why do we have to drive past BHX to these other airports to fly to key destinations such as Madrid, Prague, Lisbon, Warsaw, Berlin.....? It's always been suggested that high fees have dissuaded airlines from BHX but if, as they say, they are competitive then I'm at a loss as to why? It's quite concerning.
The point about advertising also concerned me. 'Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't being done', I'm at a loss to see how advertising can be effective if nobody sees it. I understand there maybe targeted campaigns aimed at certain sections of the business community happening but simply saying 'MAN and EMA are part of the same group which share our catchment area and have deeper pockets than us' comes across, to me anyway, as a very defeatist attitude.
Towards the end, in between some of the childish comments, they mention recent expansion. The Thomson Dreamliner, is this a direct result of BHX or simply the fact that Thomson are replacing their 763's? The Flybe new routes and extra Thomas Cook aircraft, both very, very welcomed but again are they a direct result of BHX or something that has just happened in the natural course of events? Aegean and Icelandair again are both very, very welcome but 2x seasonal A320's and 2x B757's per week are hardly going to set the world alight. So that leaves us Air India. I think they did a fantastic job in getting back what must have been a very difficult airline to deal with, but, that is the only really significant new route we've seen since Turkish Airlines arrived in 2009, five years. Air Transat expanded at LGW, MAN and GLA whereas BHX saw nothing, Emirates have expanded at LGW and MAN with GLA next in line for an A380, again BHX has seen nothing. MAN, EDI and GLA(?) have seen expansion to the USA, BHX can't even keep the one flight daily all year round. Thomson are stagnant in their long haul offering with one weekly flight the only expansion in years. Virgin are having a dabble with some short season flights from Belfast and Glasgow, nothing at BHX. Thomas Cook announced last year they were open to talk to airports about potential long haul routes, lots of expansion but nothing at BHX except the one off Easter special that sold out, indeed a poster on another forum emailed BHX about the dismal offering to Florida and got back some garbage about landing slots, flight times and the lack of demand from the region????? Other airports have seen flights, Thomas Cook filled their one off flight, Thomson are at capacity on all of their long haul and I speak to so many, many people who holiday to Florida from MAN because either 'you can't fly there from Birmingham' or 'Birmingham flights are too expensive/sold out' so demand is certainly not the issue. So what is? Why is BHX continually overlooked if, as they say, the fees are competitive?
I wonder if the constant bigging up of the runway extension, the persistent rumours that an EK third daily is imminent, Qatar announcing BHX will be served, the headlines about BHX being in Chicago to secure a new route, the China flights with the constant line that 'the airport are working hard to try and make them permanent' have given people, certainly me, false hope that BHX is on the verge of some big things when it actually isn't, because some of the childish words and the tone of the reply suggested to me that BHX have tried hard and got nowhere, and don't like to be challenged about it?
