UK’s Newcastle and Cardiff airports seek long haul flights
in [UK Air Travel]
|
Prev: U.S. Tourists -- "COME TO JAMAICA AND FEEL ..." SCARED AS HELL!
Next: UK's Newcastle and Cardiff airports seek long haul flights
From: William Black on 12 Jun 2010 05:37 On 12/06/10 09:50, Joe Curry wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:06:31 +0100, Roland Perry<roland(a)perry.co.uk> > wrote: > > >> Apparently not. BA's own (2008) figures show that the proportion of >> transit (to-rest-of-world) passengers on their regional flights to >> Heathrow are as follows: > >> Manchester(-LHR) 75% > > That one is strange give MAN offers a good range of long haul > flights.? But not with BA who just run a shuttle service to Heathrow. I fly to Paris on Air France and get my onwards connection from there. It's cheaper than BA, more comfortable and the food is better... -- William Black These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes their passage does so at his own peril.
From: Mizter T on 12 Jun 2010 06:47 On Jun 12, 6:08 am, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <feda2758-1907-47aa-9082-ed9468a7d...(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at > 14:25:10 on Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Mizter T <mizte...(a)gmail.com> remarked: > > >> >Birmingham to London > > >> >116 miles, just under two hours, but nobody actually ever wants to go > >> >to Heathrow. > > >> >If you're flying to London you always want to go somewhere that ISN'T > >> >the airport... > > >> Apparently not. BA's own (2008) figures show that the proportion of > >> transit (to-rest-of-world) passengers on their regional flights to > >> Heathrow are as follows: > > >> Manchester(-LHR) 75% > >> Leeds, Newcastle(-LHR) 55-60% > >> Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen(-LHR) "almost half". > > >> There's a pattern there, which suggests that if Birmingham-LHR flights > >> still existed, it would be well above 75% > > >I'm not sure I'd be so quick in making that assumption based on those > >figures - Birmingham is closer to London (and Heathrow), and my take > >on things is that such a short transfer flight might well be shunned > >by many (Manchester being far enough for more people to opt for the > >domestic transfer flight). > > We've already agreed (I think) that Birmingham-London by plane (if your > destination is somewhere other than LHR) is bonkers. So all you'd be > left with are those folks wanting to get "into the system" at Birmingham > rather than Heathrow. Think of it as "terminal six", with carparks nice > and close, a pleasant terminal with easy check in, without too many > security queues, or long walks to get to the plane. And if you live in > the Birmingham catchment area, a much cheaper and easier taxi ride (ever > tried getting picked up at Heathrow, it's a nightmare). OK, yes I was looking at it from the wrong angle - if the flights still existed then percentage wise the (overwhelming) majority of pax on-board would likely be transfer passengers, because no-one (sane) would be using them as a way of getting between London and Brum. Absolute numbers wise I can only imagine there'd be fewer passengers doing this from Birmingham than from Manchester - indeed the lower demand for such flights might well have meant that a suitably frequent service wasn't viable (no one really wants to hang around in LHR for half a day of course), hence they don't exist any more I suppose. (And no, I've never tried picking up a pre-ordered cab at Heathrow - been picked up by someone, but they parked and came into the terminal.)
From: Jon Simpson on 12 Jun 2010 07:01 "Roland Perry" <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:72nv2JPzYxEMFAPp(a)perry.co.uk... > In message > <feda2758-1907-47aa-9082-ed9468a7d087(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at > 14:25:10 on Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Mizter T <mizter.t(a)gmail.com> remarked: >>> >Birmingham to London >>> >>> >116 miles, just under two hours, but nobody actually ever wants to go >>> >to Heathrow. >>> >>> >If you're flying to London you always want to go somewhere that ISN'T >>> >the airport... >>> >>> Apparently not. BA's own (2008) figures show that the proportion of >>> transit (to-rest-of-world) passengers on their regional flights to >>> Heathrow are as follows: >>> >>> Manchester(-LHR) 75% >>> Leeds, Newcastle(-LHR) 55-60% >>> Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen(-LHR) "almost half". >>> >>> There's a pattern there, which suggests that if Birmingham-LHR flights >>> still existed, it would be well above 75% >> >>I'm not sure I'd be so quick in making that assumption based on those >>figures - Birmingham is closer to London (and Heathrow), and my take >>on things is that such a short transfer flight might well be shunned >>by many (Manchester being far enough for more people to opt for the >>domestic transfer flight). > > We've already agreed (I think) that Birmingham-London by plane (if your > destination is somewhere other than LHR) is bonkers. So all you'd be left > with are those folks wanting to get "into the system" at Birmingham rather > than Heathrow. Think of it as "terminal six", with carparks nice and > close, a pleasant terminal with easy check in, without too many security > queues, or long walks to get to the plane. And if you live in the > Birmingham catchment area, a much cheaper and easier taxi ride (ever tried > getting picked up at Heathrow, it's a nightmare). > -- > Roland Perry Spot on...Last month I took a taxi from terminal 2 to Stockly Park (West Drayton). The driver was having a fit. How dare I not go into London and pay him £80 since he had sat in the holding park for an hour? He then tried to tell me that there would be a surcharge if the trip took longer that 20 mins as they have some sort of time to return condition and it would be my fault if he missed it.... Yea right. LHR No Thank you. JRS
From: William Black on 12 Jun 2010 15:51 On 12/06/10 06:08, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > <feda2758-1907-47aa-9082-ed9468a7d087(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at > 14:25:10 on Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Mizter T <mizter.t(a)gmail.com> remarked: >>> >Birmingham to London >>> >>> >116 miles, just under two hours, but nobody actually ever wants to go >>> >to Heathrow. >>> >>> >If you're flying to London you always want to go somewhere that ISN'T >>> >the airport... >>> >>> Apparently not. BA's own (2008) figures show that the proportion of >>> transit (to-rest-of-world) passengers on their regional flights to >>> Heathrow are as follows: >>> >>> Manchester(-LHR) 75% >>> Leeds, Newcastle(-LHR) 55-60% >>> Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen(-LHR) "almost half". >>> >>> There's a pattern there, which suggests that if Birmingham-LHR flights >>> still existed, it would be well above 75% >> >> I'm not sure I'd be so quick in making that assumption based on those >> figures - Birmingham is closer to London (and Heathrow), and my take >> on things is that such a short transfer flight might well be shunned >> by many (Manchester being far enough for more people to opt for the >> domestic transfer flight). > > We've already agreed (I think) that Birmingham-London by plane (if your > destination is somewhere other than LHR) is bonkers. So all you'd be > left with are those folks wanting to get "into the system" at Birmingham > rather than Heathrow. Think of it as "terminal six", with carparks nice > and close, a pleasant terminal with easy check in, without too many > security queues, or long walks to get to the plane. However the introduction of strict air-side checks for transit passengers has killed that as a good idea. -- William Black These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes their passage does so at his own peril.
From: William Black on 12 Jun 2010 16:48
On 12/06/10 21:27, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <hv0ogd$nu9$6(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 20:51:41 on > Sat, 12 Jun 2010, William Black <william.black(a)hotmail.co.uk> remarked: >>>>> >If you're flying to London you always want to go somewhere that ISN'T >>>>> >the airport... >>>>> >>>>> Apparently not. BA's own (2008) figures show that the proportion of >>>>> transit (to-rest-of-world) passengers on their regional flights to >>>>> Heathrow are as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Manchester(-LHR) 75% >>>>> Leeds, Newcastle(-LHR) 55-60% >>>>> Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen(-LHR) "almost half". >>>>> >>>>> There's a pattern there, which suggests that if Birmingham-LHR flights >>>>> still existed, it would be well above 75% >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I'd be so quick in making that assumption based on those >>>> figures - Birmingham is closer to London (and Heathrow), and my take >>>> on things is that such a short transfer flight might well be shunned >>>> by many (Manchester being far enough for more people to opt for the >>>> domestic transfer flight). >>> >>> We've already agreed (I think) that Birmingham-London by plane (if your >>> destination is somewhere other than LHR) is bonkers. So all you'd be >>> left with are those folks wanting to get "into the system" at Birmingham >>> rather than Heathrow. Think of it as "terminal six", with carparks nice >>> and close, a pleasant terminal with easy check in, without too many >>> security queues, or long walks to get to the plane. >> >> However the introduction of strict air-side checks for transit >> passengers has killed that as a good idea. > > Apparently not, given the figures above. Strict air-side checks came in after those figures were collected. Manchester is just far enough away for it to be worthwhile, Birmingham is too close. Plus long check-in times have almost killed the domestic flight market in the UK. -- William Black These are the gilded popinjays and murderous assassins of Perfidious Albion and they are about their Queen's business. Any man who impedes their passage does so at his own peril. |