Airport expansions

[etr221]

My welsh business flying relation used to comment that Cardiff Airport was his gateway to the world - via Schipol (this was when they were seved by KLM), once there he could get anywhere.

But a point to make is that there is a segmentation between 'business' fliers, who want reasonably frequent flights everywhere - and are prepared to change flights, and pay, accordingly - and 'leisure' fliers, who want direct, cheap(ish) flights, but are prepared to accept them being infrequent, or using remote airports.

 

[pug1]

My welsh business flying relation used to comment that Cardiff Airport was his gateway to the world - via Schipol (this was when they were seved by KLM), once there he could get anywhere.

But a point to make is that there is a segmentation between 'business' fliers, who want reasonably frequent flights everywhere - and are prepared to change flights, and pay, accordingly - and 'leisure' fliers, who want direct, cheap(ish) flights, but are prepared to accept them being infrequent, or using remote airports.

KLM still use Cardiff for their Amsterdam interlining albeit on a reduced schedule and with much lower passenger numbers.

Agree though, leisure passengers tend to be price sensitive and will travel to find the right flights at the right times. Stands to reason then that that airport with direct access to more people (ideally people with more money) will always win out.

 

[Topological]

KLM still use Cardiff for their Amsterdam interlining albeit on a reduced schedule and with much lower passenger numbers.

Agree though, leisure passengers tend to be price sensitive and will travel to find the right flights at the right times. Stands to reason then that that airport with direct access to more people (ideally people with more money) will always win out.

KLM from Cardiff always seems very expensive.

As an example, San Francisco in February forcing a stop in Amsterdam. London Heathrow £533, Cardiff £624 (both are 1 hand baggage suitcase only)

Heathrow would be £474 if taking a direct flight.

This is the challenge whenever I look at Cardiff and so Heathrow it is.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Blaming poor management offers nothing than a distraction

I think in this case it isn't a distraction. Both airports were a similar size and had similar passenger numbers 20 years ago. Bristol numbers increased due to the good management of the airport, first by FirstGroup then by the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. Cardiff numbers dropped off a cliff due to the appalling management of the airport by their private owner. The Welsh Assembly were criticising the airport for years before they eventually bought it.

That's why we are where we are now. It isn't that Bristol has intrinsically more appeal, it's quite simply that it operated under better management and so was able to establish itself during the LCC boom whilst its nearest geographical competitor was run by a company that couldn't give a toss.

FWIW I don't think Bristol should have been given permission to expand further in 2019.

It'll be interesting to see where it all goes. If it is run competently then Cardiff still has a lot of potential, but Bristol is now so well established as the dominant player in the region that it's going to be a long road to fulfilling that potential.

DSA and Teesside are both basket cases though!

 

[pug1]

I think in this case it isn't a distraction. Both airports were a similar size and had similar passenger numbers 20 years ago. Bristol numbers increased due to the good management of the airport, first by FirstGroup then by the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund. Cardiff numbers dropped off a cliff due to the appalling management of the airport by their private owner. The Welsh Assembly were criticising the airport for years before they eventually bought it.

That's why we are where we are now. It isn't that Bristol has intrinsically more appeal, it's quite simply that it operated under better management and so was able to establish itself during the LCC boom whilst its nearest geographical competitor was run by a company that couldn't give a toss.

FWIW I don't think Bristol should have been given permission to expand further in 2019.

It'll be interesting to see where it all goes. If it is run competently then Cardiff still has a lot of potential, but Bristol is now so well established as the dominant player in the region that it's going to be a long road to fulfilling that potential.

DSA and Teesside are both basket cases though!

Trust me, it is that Bristol has greater appeal to the modern airline market. The former owners of Cardiff did their best but it was always a losing battle because of the position Bristol is in and its proximity to Cardiff. It’s exactly the same with Teesside and DSA and you could probably add other airports into the mix too, just look at what’s happened at Glasgow for instance now that Edinburgh has taken on a lot of the long-haul network!

What happened is consolidation following the recession of 08. We saw the traditional tour operators either go to the wall or merge. This resulted in fewer airlines overall and the cost conscious ones decided to focus their growth on fewer larger regional hubs to cut costs but maximise coverage. This is not isolated to Cardiff it’s happened across the board.

Bmibaby was one of the main sources of volume at Cardiff previously, but what happened to them? If the Welsh Government think they can do a better job well, how long have they owned it now? The data is all there. It’s the same stuff that the South Yorkshire leaders are coming out with re. DSA, and same again with Mayor Houchen up in Teesside. Airport starts losing routes and airlines through external factors outwith their influence and suddenly the owners don’t know what they’re doing and it MUST be taken out of their hands. I worked for a time at one large airline who were getting bombarded by the commercial bods at the mentioned airports, and whilst their airline oppos would always pay lip service, they’d always say they had no plans to grow at those airports and then decide to set up at one of their competitors. This happened at Cardiff when the Bristol base was opened. It’s just a fully functioning commercial market and not some underhand or incompetent management structure.

@Topological the fares will always be higher on such routes, it’s how they justify operating them. It’s the same across their uk network.

 

[anthony263]

The Qatar flights were doing pretty well especially the amount of cargo . The route was slowly increasing its passenger numbers with people coming from the likes of bristol . If it wasn't for covid I think.it would still be here.

Wizzair didn't help themselves they were unreliable but their flights to budapest and bucharest were proving to be very popular. I disagreement Cardiff couldn't support some long haul routes. Cargo operators and military aircraft like to.use the airport too.

I think public transport links do need looking at a start would be 2tph over the Vale of Glamorgan line with the bus li k between those station and the airport terminal increased to half.hourly.

Id also rename the station to Cardiff airport parkway.

And finally some.of the local Facebook groups for the airport have mentioned eastern Airways coming back to Cardiff, they don't exactly havw a good reputation especially last time they had routes from Cardiff

 

[Topological]

Trust me, it is that Bristol has greater appeal to the modern airline market. The former owners of Cardiff did their best but it was always a losing battle because of the position Bristol is in and its proximity to Cardiff. It’s exactly the same with Teesside and DSA and you could probably add other airports into the mix too, just look at what’s happened at Glasgow for instance now that Edinburgh has taken on a lot of the long-haul network!

What happened is consolidation following the recession of 08. We saw the traditional tour operators either go to the wall or merge. This resulted in fewer airlines overall and the cost conscious ones decided to focus their growth on fewer larger regional hubs to cut costs but maximise coverage. This is not isolated to Cardiff it’s happened across the board.

Bmibaby was one of the main sources of volume at Cardiff previously, but what happened to them? If the Welsh Government think they can do a better job well, how long have they owned it now? The data is all there. It’s the same stuff that the South Yorkshire leaders are coming out with re. DSA, and same again with Mayor Houchen up in Teesside. Airport starts losing routes and airlines through external factors outwith their influence and suddenly the owners don’t know what they’re doing and it MUST be taken out of their hands. I worked for a time at one large airline who were getting bombarded by the commercial bods at the mentioned airports, and whilst their airline oppos would always pay lip service, they’d always say they had no plans to grow at those airports and then decide to set up at one of their competitors. This happened at Cardiff when the Bristol base was opened. It’s just a fully functioning commercial market and not some underhand or incompetent management structure.

@Topological the fares will always be higher on such routes, it’s how they justify operating them. It’s the same across their uk network.

My point is that very few people will choose a higher price to fly from Cardiff when there are cheaper flights from Heathrow. It is how airlines like KLM operate because they are basically providing Cardiff with the minimum offer and being happy if it gets passengers, rather than going into competition with Heathrow. The KLM fare I quoted from Heathrow is also £60 more expensive than the cheapest direct San Francisco flight because really KLM are not worried about getting London to San Francisco traffic onto their planes. IF KLM were struggling to fill the Amsterdam - San Francisco leg you might see different, but ultimately KLM will price on their overall business model.

Seeing Cardiff as a gateway to the world because KLM are there is something of a falsehood. KLM will just do what they can to recoup money on the Cardiff flight, whilst trying to extract any subsidies to keep it running. It almost suits them for it to be a basketcase small route.

Cardiff needs to focus on connections to Heathrow and then plug global connectivity as Heathrow + Train.

 

[pug1]

The Qatar flights were doing pretty well especially the amount of cargo . The route was slowly increasing its passenger numbers with people coming from the likes of bristol . If it wasn't for covid I think.it would still be here.

Wizzair didn't help themselves they were unreliable but their flights to budapest and bucharest were proving to be very popular. I disagreement Cardiff couldn't support some long haul routes. Cargo operators and military aircraft like to.use the airport too.

I think public transport links do need looking at a start would be 2tph over the Vale of Glamorgan line with the bus li k between those station and the airport terminal increased to half.hourly.

Id also rename the station to Cardiff airport parkway.

And finally some.of the local Facebook groups for the airport have mentioned eastern Airways coming back to Cardiff, they don't exactly havw a good reputation especially last time they had routes from Cardiff

If Qatar were doing well on the route they would have resumed it by now. It wasn’t even operating for 2 years, it’s been over 2 years of operation normal now so there’s been plenty of time to recommence. Sorry but it’s just noise from the Welsh Government who, like South Yorkshire, are hiding behind commercial confidentiality to dodge FOI requests.

Can’t emphasise enough how expensive it is for an airline to start a route, particularly when it’s a long-haul one. The passenger load factors were actually not great and though freight may have done OK, well it clearly wasn’t enough to sustain the operation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2025 ==

My point is that very few people will choose a higher price to fly from Cardiff when there are cheaper flights from Heathrow. It is how airlines like KLM operate because they are basically providing Cardiff with the minimum offer and being happy if it gets passengers, rather than going into competition with Heathrow. The KLM fare I quoted from Heathrow is also £60 more expensive than the cheapest direct San Francisco flight because really KLM are not worried about getting London to San Francisco traffic onto their planes. IF KLM were struggling to fill the Amsterdam - San Francisco leg you might see different, but ultimately KLM will price on their overall business model.

Seeing Cardiff as a gateway to the world because KLM are there is something of a falsehood. KLM will just do what they can to recoup money on the Cardiff flight, whilst trying to extract any subsidies to keep it running. It almost suits them for it to be a basketcase small route.

Cardiff needs to focus on connections to Heathrow and then plug global connectivity as Heathrow + Train.

I’d agree with your last paragraph. Just makes sense. KLM couldn’t justify flooding the market with cheap seats, that’s why they justify serving it by increasing the fares and go for the time sensitive market rather than the price sensitive one. They do this across the board and are not alone in this. If they didn’t they wouldn’t offer the service at all!

I find the convenience of Humberside means I’m willing to pay more to avoid travelling to Leeds or Manchester.

 

[TravelDream]

Very low incomes though and high relative deprivation.

Undoubtedly true. However, it is estimated (by Bristol Airport themselves) that 20%/ around 2 million of Bristol's passengers come from Wales. If we, generously, said a quarter preferred Bristol for distance/ whatever reason, that's still 1.5 million to add to Cardiff's almost one million. A fairly decent number for a regional airport and higher than Cardiff's peak of 2.1 in 2007.

The wizzair stuff was a distraction. Alarm bells should always start ringing when a ULCC starts flying from an airport because of the subsidies it can provide

I think you'd be shocked on the level of subsidy regional airports across Europe give to airlines to operate/ be based there.
It's just in the UK the public have a lot less appetite than you will find in other countries.

A report from 2019 estimated over a quarter of airports Ryanair operate to in the EU were unprofitable without state subsidies. From the same report, we know Paris Vatry were directly subsidizing Ryanair to the equivalent of €30 a passenger, and that doesn't account for indirect ones..

Morocco is another prime example of state subsidies in action. Since Covid, Ryanair have opened multiple bases there and even offer domestic flights. However, they interestingly haven't opened routes/ a base in Casablanca to compete with Royal Air Maroc.
The state there denies it has provided them subsidies.
Clearly nonsense. But the benefit to Morocco of opening the country to Europe for business and tourism (the latter in an incredibly important thing to bring in foreign exchange in what is a very poor country) is immense.

Of course most subsidies are impossible to see.
How much are easyjet paying Bristol Airport in landing fees? How about Ryanair? How much do Ryanair pay Cardiff? All unknowns, but all have a massive impact of profitability.

 

[pug1]

Undoubtedly true. However, it is estimated (by Bristol Airport themselves) that 20%/ around 2 million of Bristol's passengers come from Wales. If we, generously, said a quarter preferred Bristol for distance/ whatever reason, that's still 1.5 million to add to Cardiff's almost one million. A fairly decent number for a regional airport and higher than Cardiff's peak of 2.1 in 2007.



I think you'd be shocked on the level of subsidy regional airports across Europe give to airlines to operate/ be based there.
It's just in the UK the public have a lot less appetite than you will find in other countries.

A report from 2019 estimated over a quarter of airports Ryanair operate to in the EU were unprofitable without state subsidies. From the same report, we know Paris Vatry were directly subsidizing Ryanair to the equivalent of €30 a passenger, and that doesn't account for indirect ones..

Morocco is another prime example of state subsidies in action. Since Covid, Ryanair have opened multiple bases there and even offer domestic flights. However, they interestingly haven't opened routes/ a base in Casablanca to compete with Royal Air Maroc.
The state there denies it has provided them subsidies.
Clearly nonsense. But the benefit to Morocco of opening the country to Europe for business and tourism (the latter in an incredibly important thing to bring in foreign exchange in what is a very poor country) is immense.

Of course most subsidies are impossible to see.
How much are easyjet paying Bristol Airport in landing fees? How about Ryanair? How much do Ryanair pay Cardiff? All unknowns, but all have a massive impact of profitability.

Yes but like you say that 2 million only accounts for 20% of Bristol’s overall throughput. So it’s a clear example of why airlines prefer Bristol because it’s got a greater coverage.

Let’s look at it another way, in a very crude sense if 20% of passengers are from Wales you could say that 20% of the passengers on every flight are from Wales. What therefore is the incentive for an airline to duplicate its flights from Bristol by starting flights from Cardiff which would take 20% of its loadings from Bristol and add only 20% (plus possibly a little more) to the loads on their flights at Cardiff? Doesn’t make sense does it, costs a lot to operate a flight and it would cost twice as much to run two concurrently and result in a drop in load factors (revenue).

So when airports start banding figures around like that it might seem like a lot but in reality it isn’t and would be the difference between profit and loss on a given route.

Same can be said for Yorkshire where less than 50% of air passengers travelling to or from Yorkshire use an airport in Yorkshire. Can Leeds claw some back? Well yes, but it will always be the case that people will travel to Manchester or down to London for flights because the costs associated don’t stack up!

There are too many airports in the U.K. and so little impetus for state funding.

 

[TravelDream]

KLM from Cardiff always seems very expensive.

KLM charge very comparable fares from Bristol and the other small regional airports they fly from.

Why? Because they offer something fairly 'unique'. Flights from regional airports to the world which some people are willing to pay a premium for.

KLM are obviously very successful at it as they fly to more airports in the UK than anyone else. Though even they can't make everywhere work as they have cut Liverpool (Jet2/ easyjet/ Ryanair base) and East Midlands (Jet2/ Ryanair/ tui base).

The Qatar flights were doing pretty well especially the amount of cargo . The route was slowly increasing its passenger numbers with people coming from the likes of bristol . If it wasn't for covid I think.it would still be here.

Wizzair didn't help themselves they were unreliable but their flights to budapest and bucharest were proving to be very popular. I disagreement Cardiff couldn't support some long haul routes. Cargo operators and military aircraft like to.use the airport too.

Clearly they weren't doing pretty well or they'd be back.

Qatar has moved back to almost every airport it cancelled during the Covid cuts. In fact, the airline is currently growing fairly strongly (seat growth of 4% this year) and is opening new routes.
Cardiff is one of the very very few they haven't.

Another change has to do with Qatar itself and has nothing to do with Cardiff. The airline was started as a prestige project by the gas rich state.
Qatar Airways are now a lot more profit focused than they were pre-Covid.

Let’s look at it another way, in a very crude sense if 20% of passengers are from Wales you could say that 20% of the passengers on every flight are from Wales. What therefore is the incentive for an airline to duplicate its flights from Bristol by starting flights from Cardiff which would take 20% of its loadings from Bristol and add only 20% (plus possibly a little more) to the loads on their flights at Cardiff? Doesn’t make sense does it, costs a lot to operate a flight and it would cost twice as much to run two concurrently and result in a drop in load factors (revenue).

Very crude indeed. Clearly there will be times when it makes sense for airlines and times there won't be.

tui clearly sees it as worthwhile to operate at both. Though tui is also is the position that they are a near monopoly operator at Cardiff which is to their advantage financially. Summer 2026 will see five 737s at Bristol and 4 737s at Cardiff.

Talking crudely, take Ryanair as an example, If they operate twice daily from airport X to Malaga. They could operate 11 times a week from X and 3 times per week from Y to Malaga keeping the same total capacity. That may be more profitable than 14 weekly from airport X. And that doesn't account for how low cost carriers increase demand. People who wouldn't have gone somewhere now go because there are flights. Or how flights from airport Y may attract a premium despite low demand because of low capacity.

Liverpool and Manchester could be seen as another example. Under an hour by road (with nice roads unlike Bristol) and National Express operating a direct service in under an hour too. Yet easyjet, Jet2 and Ryanair all deem it profitable to operate from both.

 

[pug1]

KLM charge very comparable fares from Bristol and the other small regional airports they fly from.

Why? Because they offer something fairly 'unique'. Flights from regional airports to the world which some people are willing to pay a premium for.

KLM are obviously very successful at it as they fly to more airports in the UK than anyone else. Though even they can't make everywhere work as they have cut Liverpool (Jet2/ easyjet/ Ryanair base) and East Midlands (Jet2/ Ryanair/ tui base).



Clearly they weren't doing pretty well or they'd be back.

Qatar has moved back to almost every airport it cancelled during the Covid cuts. In fact, the airline is currently growing fairly strongly (seat growth of 4% this year) and is opening new routes.
Cardiff is one of the very very few they haven't.

Another change has to do with Qatar itself and has nothing to do with Cardiff. The airline was started as a prestige project by the gas rich state.
Qatar Airways are now a lot more profit focused than they were pre-Covid.



Very crude indeed. Clearly there will be times when it makes sense for airlines and times there won't be.

tui clearly sees it as worthwhile to operate at both. Though tui is also is the position that they are a near monopoly operator at Cardiff which is to their advantage financially. Summer 2026 will see five 737s at Bristol and 4 737s at Cardiff.

Talking crudely, take Ryanair as an example, If they operate twice daily from airport X to Malaga. They could operate 11 times a week from X and 3 times per week from Y to Malaga keeping the same total capacity. That may be more profitable than 14 weekly from airport X. And that doesn't account for how low cost carriers increase demand. People who wouldn't have gone somewhere now go because there are flights. Or how flights from airport Y may attract a premium despite low demand because of low capacity.

Liverpool and Manchester could be seen as another example. Under an hour by road (with nice roads unlike Bristol) and National Express operating a direct service in under an hour too. Yet easyjet, Jet2 and Ryanair all deem it profitable to operate from both.

There are of course exceptions, and I’ve said previously I don’t think Cardiff is a basket case, but I firmly believe to ensure survival it must play to its strengths and not trying to compete on a level with Bristol. You are of course correct that Ryanair can service similar more popular routes from both Cardiff and Bristol, but what they might be reluctant to do is open a base which requires a larger route portfolio to ensure aircraft useage targets. So whilst there will be opportunities for some growth on a route by route basis, the large scale high volume growth that they are angling for is unlikely given the reasons I’ve outlined.

Fewer airlines than 20 years ago, more air passengers travelling but they’re travelling on fewer airlines. Most U.K. airlines have a presence at an airport within 90 minutes of the majority of the U.K. population. It’s all demand driven and I can’t see anything changing too much from now on sadly.

The Liverpool Manchester example is a bit different. Nobody seems to question that London has 5 airports (6 if you include Southend). The North West is one of the most densely populated regions outside of the South East, stands to reason then that it can support two airports. Regardless Liverpool will never be on a level playing field with Manchester.

 

[The exile]

The A1 is basically operating as frequently as it can and any growth of it would likely see the A1 split into an express route to the centre and a few 'connect' style routes which make more stops.

Which is what had happened IIRC just before COVID.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2025 ==

Lufthansa has dropped Frankfurt-Bristol so I think there is zero chance of that happening*. (*OK there are summer Edelweiss flights to Zurich).

Did FRA - BRS ever start (it was supposed to in August 2020 but didn’t for obvious reasons)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2025 ==

Liverpool and Manchester could be seen as another example. Under an hour by road (with nice roads unlike Bristol) and National Express operating a direct service in under an hour too. Yet easyjet, Jet2 and Ryanair all deem it profitable to operate from both.

There is of course a far higher population density in the general area. Just looking at geography, Cardiff’s catchment (think of it like fishing areas) is only “uncontested” to the West and North, which once you leave the coastal strip, means a fairly scattered passenger base. To the south is water and to the East you come up against Bristol pretty quick. Obviously the same applies to the West of Bristol’s catchment but it has a large circle on the east side of the Severn until you start conflict’s with Birmingham and then the London airports (with Heathrow not really competing for much of the same market). There’s an awful lot of people in that “natural catchment”.

 

[Acfb]

Which is what had happened IIRC just before COVID.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2025 ==


Did FRA - BRS ever start (it was supposed to in August 2020 but didn’t for obvious reasons)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2025 ==


There is of course a far higher population density in the general area. Just looking at geography, Cardiff’s catchment (think of it like fishing areas) is only “uncontested” to the West and North, which once you leave the coastal strip, means a fairly scattered passenger base. To the south is water and to the East you come up against Bristol pretty quick. Obviously the same applies to the West of Bristol’s catchment but it has a large circle on the east side of the Severn until you start conflict’s with Birmingham and then the London airports (with Heathrow not really competing for much of the same market). There’s an awful lot of people in that “natural catchment”.

Frankfurt-Bristol was operating in 2023 but then they scrapped it last year. I think it's interesting that their Newcastle route continues (NCL has half the passengers of BRS) but perhaps there's more of a business class market there and it's far enough away from MAN?

 

[pug1]

Which is what had happened IIRC just before COVID.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2025 ==


Did FRA - BRS ever start (it was supposed to in August 2020 but didn’t for obvious reasons)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Aug 2025 ==


There is of course a far higher population density in the general area. Just looking at geography, Cardiff’s catchment (think of it like fishing areas) is only “uncontested” to the West and North, which once you leave the coastal strip, means a fairly scattered passenger base. To the south is water and to the East you come up against Bristol pretty quick. Obviously the same applies to the West of Bristol’s catchment but it has a large circle on the east side of the Severn until you start conflict’s with Birmingham and then the London airports (with Heathrow not really competing for much of the same market). There’s an awful lot of people in that “natural catchment”.

They also have a lot more disposable income. It’s why Bristol has recorded some quite phenomenal growth if you look at what it was like 30 years ago. Similarly with Liverpool and the success they had in becoming a low cost option before Manchester cottoned on to the trend. Sadly this couldn’t be replicated at DSA.

 

[TravelDream]

They also have a lot more disposable income. It’s why Bristol has recorded some quite phenomenal growth if you look at what it was like 30 years ago. Similarly with Liverpool and the success they had in becoming a low cost option before Manchester cottoned on to the trend. Sadly this couldn’t be replicated at DSA.

Bristol's immediate catchment area is a lot wealthier than Cardiff's.
Though even they have their crosses as it were.
They've struggled to maintain any European hub carrier other than KLM and Aer Lingus, and have recently lost Air France (there was a time not too long ago when Air France operated three times a day) and Lufthansa (the latter operating for very little time before pulling out).
They lost their Continental/ United connection to New York (well, Newark).
They haven't attracted any of the Middle East hub airlines. Not even Turkish who undoubtedly could make it work.

Fewer airlines than 20 years ago, more air passengers travelling but they’re travelling on fewer airlines. Most U.K. airlines have a presence at an airport within 90 minutes of the majority of the U.K. population. It’s all demand driven and I can’t see anything changing too much from now on sadly.

So many names have gone. But other airlines, and I am primarily talking about Ryanair and Jet2 here, have significant growth plans.
Ryanair plans to grow from a 620 plane airline today to a 700 aircraft airline by 2030 and an 800 aircraft airline by 2034.
I am pretty sure Ryanair sees the UK as a growth market too.

 

[Topological]

Bristol's immediate catchment area is a lot wealthier than Cardiff's.
Though even they have their crosses as it were.
They've struggled to maintain any European hub carrier other than KLM and Aer Lingus, and have recently lost Air France (there was a time not too long ago when Air France operated three times a day) and Lufthansa (the latter operating for very little time before pulling out).
They lost their Continental/ United connection to New York (well, Newark).
They haven't attracted any of the Middle East hub airlines. Not even Turkish who undoubtedly could make it work.



So many names have gone. But other airlines, and I am primarily talking about Ryanair and Jet2 here, have significant growth plans.
Ryanair plans to grow from a 620 plane airline today to a 700 aircraft airline by 2030 and an 800 aircraft airline by 2034.
I am pretty sure Ryanair sees the UK as a growth market too.

The suggestion is Bristol can handle a Boeing 787-8 or an Airbus A330. Whilst Qatar and Etihad do use planes that small, Emirates do not really. It is not even clear if Bristol can take a 787-9 or 787-10. This is another way in which they messed up with Filton, which could take anything.

I do not think we are going to see Bristol getting a Middle East flight.

The American airlines do use the smaller planes so it is possible one could come back. However, even Manchester is struggling with US flights at the moment.

 

[pug1]

The suggestion is Bristol can handle a Boeing 787-8 or an Airbus A330. Whilst Qatar and Etihad do use planes that small, Emirates do not really. It is not even clear if Bristol can take a 787-9 or 787-10. This is another way in which they messed up with Filton, which could take anything.

I do not think we are going to see Bristol getting a Middle East flight.

The American airlines do use the smaller planes so it is possible one could come back. However, even Manchester is struggling with US flights at the moment.

I wouldn’t rule it out, they’ll certainly have people at those airlines crunching the numbers on the performance apps and seeing what’s possible. They don’t need a full load of fuel to get off the runway there, but they do need a profitable load.

USA is a non starter, Birmingham used to have a daily Newark flight that’s never been replaced. Like you say Manchester is struggling with that segment but luckily Virgin and Aer Lingus are able to step up. Glasgow has lost most of its trans Atlantic network to Edinburgh. Newcastle has tried to get a lasting connection to the USA and that’s never worked out.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wouldn’t rule it out, they’ll certainly have people at those airlines crunching the numbers on the performance apps and seeing what’s possible. They don’t need a full load of fuel to get off the runway there, but they do need a profitable load.

USA is a non starter, Birmingham used to have a daily Newark flight that’s never been replaced. Like you say Manchester is struggling with that segment but luckily Virgin and Aer Lingus are able to step up. Glasgow has lost most of its trans Atlantic network to Edinburgh. Newcastle has tried to get a lasting connection to the USA and that’s never worked out.

I do wonder if the A321XLR will shift the economics of regional flights to the US.

 

[pug1]

I do wonder if the A321XLR will shift the economics of regional flights to the US.

Probably not. They’d be competing with a lot of other airports in Europe for the capacity.

 

[TravelDream]

The suggestion is Bristol can handle a Boeing 787-8 or an Airbus A330. Whilst Qatar and Etihad do use planes that small, Emirates do not really. It is not even clear if Bristol can take a 787-9 or 787-10. This is another way in which they messed up with Filton, which could take anything.

I wouldn’t rule it out, they’ll certainly have people at those airlines crunching the numbers on the performance apps and seeing what’s possible. They don’t need a full load of fuel to get off the runway there, but they do need a profitable load.

Aircraft can do a lot better on 'short' runways than people imagine as planes taking off on long runways are typically using significantly reduced engine performance which saves on engine maintenance and life. . Pug1 is also very right that airlines need a viably profitable load, not the maximum load possible.

Take Emirates - an A350-900 operator.
The A350-900 from Bristol to Dubai under ISA conditions (15 degrees / 1013 hPa) and with no wind would have a regulated take off weight limited by its structural take off weight. This is with maximizing everything to improve take off performance. i.e. it can go out full full.
Obviously conditions aren't always like this. Planes usually have a headwind which would increase the potential TOW. Then temps (high bad/ low good for increasing TOW), pressure (high good/ low bad). Plus other things like wet runways (bad) and things inop (bad).

And an airline may want some sort of margin and to assume they will be able to use a certain reduced take off level.

But the idea an Middle East airline would struggle getting into Bristol is not true. They really aren't that long as flights.

 

[Topological]

Aircraft can do a lot better on 'short' runways than people imagine as planes taking off on long runways are typically using significantly reduced engine performance which saves on engine maintenance and life. . Pug1 is also very right that airlines need a viably profitable load, not the maximum load possible.

Take Emirates - an A350-900 operator.
The A350-900 from Bristol to Dubai under ISA conditions (15 degrees / 1013 hPa) and with no wind would have a regulated take off weight limited by its structural take off weight. This is with maximizing everything to improve take off performance. i.e. it can go out full full.
Obviously conditions aren't always like this. Planes usually have a headwind which would increase the potential TOW. Then temps (high bad/ low good for increasing TOW), pressure (high good/ low bad). Plus other things like wet runways (bad) and things inop (bad).

And an airline may want some sort of margin and to assume they will be able to use a certain reduced take off level.

But the idea an Middle East airline would struggle getting into Bristol is not true. They really aren't that long as flights.

Interesting, so it is possible to get the A350-900 in.

However, most Emirates flights to the UK are A380, which presumably cannot use Bristol. So the question is whether they want to use a smaller plane relative to most of their UK flights (I do recognise not all UK are A380 and that they will often use A350 (B777) to test an extra flight. Manchester's 3rd flight was not an A380 when first launched, for example.

It would be great to have a Middle East flight from Bristol, but these days I struggle to get a competitive price on any of the three. Transiting in Dubai was great when living in Manchester, so much of the world was easily reached.

 

[TravelDream]

However, most Emirates flights to the UK are A380, which presumably cannot use Bristol. So the question is whether they want to use a smaller plane relative to most of their UK flights (I do recognise not all UK are A380 and that they will often use A350 (B777) to test an extra flight. Manchester's 3rd flight was not an A380 when first launched, for example.

It would be great to have a Middle East flight from Bristol, but these days I struggle to get a competitive price on any of the three. Transiting in Dubai was great when living in Manchester, so much of the world was easily reached.

Not at all. Emirates flies the A350 to the UK (Edinburgh and soon Gatwick). And not everywhere is an A380 destination. Gatwick is going to four daily soon (with said A350), but is losing 2 of its A380 flights and just 1 of 4 will be on the A380.

And the ME carriers are a lot more profit focused nowadays. Whilst they are still national promotional tools, long gone are the days of them being pure vanity projects.
Flying to South East Asia or Australia, the Chinese airlines offer far more attractive fares generally - especially outside of the peak Chinese outbound tourist season (The two golden weeks and July/ August).

 

[Topological]

Not at all. Emirates flies the A350 to the UK (Edinburgh and soon Gatwick). And not everywhere is an A380 destination. Gatwick is going to four daily soon (with said A350), but is losing 2 of its A380 flights and just 1 of 4 will be on the A380.

And the ME carriers are a lot more profit focused nowadays. Whilst they are still national promotional tools, long gone are the days of them being pure vanity projects.
Flying to South East Asia or Australia, the Chinese airlines offer far more attractive fares generally - especially outside of the peak Chinese outbound tourist season (The two golden weeks and July/ August).

Yes, though do not forget the Spring Festival (Chinese New Year) when prices also increase. Otherwise, you can get some very good deals. The two legs are even comparabale to using one the ME carriers, just the longer leg is from the UK, instead of being from the ME to Australia.

It also made me think what Emirates do with Newcastle these days. That must have some comparison with Bristol.

I would like to see the UK organised around fewer, larger, regional airports than the current position. Whether anything in the South West expands to play the role remains to be seen.

 

[philosopher]

I wouldn’t rule it out, they’ll certainly have people at those airlines crunching the numbers on the performance apps and seeing what’s possible. They don’t need a full load of fuel to get off the runway there, but they do need a profitable load.

USA is a non starter, Birmingham used to have a daily Newark flight that’s never been replaced. Like you say Manchester is struggling with that segment but luckily Virgin and Aer Lingus are able to step up. Glasgow has lost most of its trans Atlantic network to Edinburgh. Newcastle has tried to get a lasting connection to the USA and that’s never worked out.

Antidotally I think there is a perception that the US is not welcoming to tourists at the moment, with fears they will be questioned excessively on arrival into the US or denied entry for some spurious reason. While this may not be true, many tourists are very fickle and avoid holidays in a destination where they think they could run into problems.

This means I just can’t see there being much expansion of UK to US flights for the next few years. I think it is unlikely Birmingham, Bristol or Newcastle will gain a New York flight before 2030.

Long haul growth from regional airports I suspect therefore will continue to be focused on the Middle East and Asia.

 

[Topological]

Antidotally I think there is a perception that the US is not welcoming to tourists at the moment, with fears they will be questioned excessively on arrival into the US or denied entry for some spurious reason. While this may not be true, many tourists are very fickle and avoid holidays in a destination where they think they could run into problems.

This means I just can’t see there being much expansion of UK to US flights for the next few years. I think it is unlikely Birmingham, Bristol or Newcastle will gain a New York flight before 2030.

Long haul growth from regional airports I suspect therefore will continue to be focused on the Middle East and Asia.

The US situation is daft, there is no issue at all about going there but people are letting themselves get worked up. That is their porogrative and I will just continue to enjoy visiting the US and hopefully continue to enjoy seemless border transit.

This is the challenge for airports in the UK. Domestic routes are rightly very limited, so demand is always going to be subject to behavioural factors (both here and in the destination country).

I was always brought up with the idea that politics and religion were not good topics of conversation. That has always seemed sound advice since most conversations on those two topics end up in arguments.

 

[pug1]

The US situation is daft, there is no issue at all about going there but people are letting themselves get worked up. That is their porogrative and I will just continue to enjoy visiting the US and hopefully continue to enjoy seemless border transit.

This is the challenge for airports in the UK. Domestic routes are rightly very limited, so demand is always going to be subject to behavioural factors (both here and in the destination country).

I was always brought up with the idea that politics and religion were not good topics of conversation. That has always seemed sound advice since most conversations on those two topics end up in arguments.

I don’t believe it’s politics that is causing a downturn in demand for U.K.-US flights. Not entirely sure what the cause is but it’s been happening for the past 10-15 years. Perhaps it’s the strength of the dollar against the pound being much less favourable, perhaps less business travel. Some theories suggest it’s the visiting friends and relatives traffic that has slowed down as generations sadly pass on, this has apparently happened with some of the Canadian routes. Not too long ago you could fly direct to Canada from Exeter and Leeds! These days it would be a strange decision to link those airports up.

 

[philosopher]

Some theories suggest it’s the visiting friends and relatives traffic that has slowed down as generations sadly pass on, this has apparently happened with some of the Canadian routes. Not too long ago you could fly direct to Canada from Exeter and Leeds! These days it would be a strange decision to link those airports up.

With the friends and family market, I suspect it is because in recent decades UK citizens have tended to emigrate to Australia or New Zealand rather than North America. As they will have emigrated relatively recently they will still have good contacts with their UK based relatives hence will continue to fly regularly between the UK and Australia.

Those who emigrated to North America tended to do so several decades ago or earlier so may have lost contact with their family roots in Britain and so will not see any need to visit the UK to visit some relatives they are only very distantly related to.

I am guessing Emirates does so well in the UK because it does very well serving people visiting friends and family in Australia.

 

[pug1]

With the friends and family market, I suspect it is because in recent decades UK citizens have tended to emigrate to Australia or New Zealand rather than North America. As they will have emigrated relatively recently they will still have good contacts with their UK based relatives hence will continue to fly regularly between the UK and Australia.

Those who emigrated to North America tended to do so several decades ago or earlier so may have lost contact with their family roots in Britain and so will not see any need to visit the UK to visit some relatives they are only very distantly related to.

I am guessing Emirates does so well in the UK because it does very well serving people visiting friends and family in Australia.

Agreed. Emirates does well because it’s a good hub for connections to emerging markets. Links for back packers etc. obviously ex pats (though the Australian contingent in my family tend to prefer Singapore for their connections!) and mainly because Dubai is a popular holiday destination now (no idea why, I think it’s an awful place) and there are plenty of uk nationals living and working out there. Gone are the days when i
emirates were able to undercut every other airline due to state sponsorship, but it has become a formidable hub and spoke operation that due to its central location globally will continue to do exceptionally well.

The US and Canada is best served from the regions either by connections through Heathrow, Dublin or Amsterdam. The fact that Manchester has failed to hold on to the US airlines (I know the Virgin Delta partnership does help), signals that the US based airlines aren’t all that interested in serving the regional U.K. market any more. Continental gave a good account of themselves, alas they are no more. Shane really because I’m sure I remember AA running flights from Manchester and Birmingham to Chicago and Continental to EWR (from BHX) not to mention Manchester to Charlotte (?), Boston, Chicago and others with US Airways.. All gone now of course so thanks to Virgin and Aer Lingus for stepping up!

Even Gatwick which traditionally had a fairly solid U.K.-US link (I flew TWA once from Gatwick to St Louis!), well all that appears to have is a seasonal connection with Delta to JFK and it looks line BA are pulling their New York service from there leaving a Las Vegas flight and of course Norse serving a few flights over the pond.

I think therefore that any airport trying to get in on this US act need to maybe accept that now is not the time to focus on what has historically been seen as a prestigious market. The Middle East is where it’s at these days it seems.

 

[Topological]

Thomas Cook was also a regular airline serving Manchester to the US, their loss made a big difference in the offering.

Norse have come into the budget space, but they operate from Gatwick rather than Manchester. I have used Norse twice (New York and Miami) and would try to avoid them if at all possible. After flying with them to New York I vowed never again, but most other airlines wanted £1400 and Norse had some £400 tickets left for that Miami trip. The flight back was empty and almost everyone had 3 seats to themselves.