 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
paris
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:36 pm Post subject: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
 |
|
I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to Bru.....The
least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla route was (I think
28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks the
highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered was 11.
There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and not from
Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that the landing
charges are the reason for the failure to attract and to keep?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fly gla
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
Its diffilcult to say but funny things are going on at Glasgow airport
these days. But BAA dont seem to be in any rush to prevent these
airlines from leaving rather expressing mildest dissapointment at there
choice. But they also on the other hand look like there going about
trying to replace the airlines.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
B
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
paris wrote:
| Quote: | I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to Bru.....The
least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla route was (I think
28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks the
highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered was 11.
There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and not from
Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that the landing
charges are the reason for the failure to attract and to keep?
|
It may well be and maybe it's time for some realism in the BAA Scotland
'Board Room.' PIK/RYR are there and they aint gonna go away, so, time
for a rethink of the BAA charges at GLA to give PIK a bit of
competition, the other place can look after itself I'm sure?
B
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidP
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
How do you mean they look to be going about replacing the airlines lost?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clive Braham
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
"paris" <gdunnhome20 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to Bru.....The
least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla route was (I think
28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks the
highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered was 11.
There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and not from
Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that the landing
charges are the reason for the failure to attract and to keep?
|
GLA also carried more pax than the more mature NCL route last time I
checked. Maybe it's a case of last in first out but I have no doubt revenues
were affected by the strength of FF loyalty schemes ensuring the LHR status
quo prevailed - a point Mr Baxter was warning about. Not as many pax were
travelling onward from BRU as SN wanted :-(
An acceptable deal was reached with GLA regarding charges so BAA cannot be
blamed for the demise. I assume the terms of that acceptable deal were not
changed so soon.
Clive
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
"paris" <gdunnhome20 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to Bru.....The
least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla route was (I think
28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks the
highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered was 11.
There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and not from
Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that the landing
charges are the reason for the failure to attract and to keep?
|
What do you mean by healthy? - 50%, 60%?
It is interesting to hear what you've seen and certainly raises some
questions. However, at the end of the day, as I'm sure you realise, you
can't really judge the success or failure of a flight based on anecdotal
evidence - The only time I've flown PIK-BVA with FR, there were only 11
people on board, but that obviously doesn't mean the flights are doing
poorly! I think you really have to look at the CAA stats, which appear to
suggest the GLA flights had sub-50% loads for most of the time (apart from
the summer). Not really that great.
I have to admit though that the loads on BRS-BRU have never tended to look
that great either (although I haven't looked recently). Maybe it's a
question of yields? Mind you, I can't imagine what the 3 pax on the flight
you were on would have to be paying in order for the flight to be
profitable!
I guess that we do have to wonder about the costs of GLA given this
comparison - maybe BRS management are giving airlines some kind of discount
if thier flights are doing poorly? Whether or not this is the issue, I do
think SN could have stuck it out a bit longer and advertised a bit more, as
I suspect that many frequent travellers to Belgium were unaware of the
service and just went to the FR website automatically :-(
Maybe worth firing off an email to SN pointing out what you experienced and
see what they say?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GKirk
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
Clive Braham wrote:
| Quote: | "paris" <gdunnhome20 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1137620164.817423.305100 (AT) g43g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to Bru.....The
least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla route was (I think
28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks the
highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered was 11.
There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and not from
Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that the landing
charges are the reason for the failure to attract and to keep?
GLA also carried more pax than the more mature NCL route last time I
checked. Maybe it's a case of last in first out but I have no doubt revenues
were affected by the strength of FF loyalty schemes ensuring the LHR status
quo prevailed - a point Mr Baxter was warning about. Not as many pax were
travelling onward from BRU as SN wanted :-(
An acceptable deal was reached with GLA regarding charges so BAA cannot be
blamed for the demise. I assume the terms of that acceptable deal were not
changed so soon.
Clive
|
The pax loads on GLA-BRU were decent and growing, HOWEVER, and thats a
big however  thanks to Ryanair at PIK, the Yields were apparently
horrific.
BRS and NCL both generate average loads, but very high yields.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
"GKirk" <grahamkirk1983 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
Clive Braham wrote:
"paris" <gdunnhome20 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1137620164.817423.305100 (AT) g43g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to Bru.....The
least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla route was (I think
28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks the
highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered was 11.
There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and not
from
Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that the landing
charges are the reason for the failure to attract and to keep?
GLA also carried more pax than the more mature NCL route last time I
checked. Maybe it's a case of last in first out but I have no doubt
revenues
were affected by the strength of FF loyalty schemes ensuring the LHR
status
quo prevailed - a point Mr Baxter was warning about. Not as many pax
were
travelling onward from BRU as SN wanted :-(
An acceptable deal was reached with GLA regarding charges so BAA cannot
be
blamed for the demise. I assume the terms of that acceptable deal were
not
changed so soon.
Clive
The pax loads on GLA-BRU were decent and growing, HOWEVER, and thats a
big however thanks to Ryanair at PIK, the Yields were apparently
horrific.
|
Source?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GKirk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | "GKirk" <grahamkirk1983 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1137627513.496982.70630 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com...
Clive Braham wrote:
"paris" <gdunnhome20 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1137620164.817423.305100 (AT) g43g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to Bru.....The
least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla route was (I think
28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks the
highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered was 11.
There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and not
from
Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that the landing
charges are the reason for the failure to attract and to keep?
GLA also carried more pax than the more mature NCL route last time I
checked. Maybe it's a case of last in first out but I have no doubt
revenues
were affected by the strength of FF loyalty schemes ensuring the LHR
status
quo prevailed - a point Mr Baxter was warning about. Not as many pax
were
travelling onward from BRU as SN wanted :-(
An acceptable deal was reached with GLA regarding charges so BAA cannot
be
blamed for the demise. I assume the terms of that acceptable deal were
not
changed so soon.
Clive
The pax loads on GLA-BRU were decent and growing, HOWEVER, and thats a
big however thanks to Ryanair at PIK, the Yields were apparently
horrific.
Source?
|
Obvious thinking.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dagspot
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
GKirk wrote:
| Quote: | Iain wrote:
"GKirk" <grahamkirk1983 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1137627513.496982.70630 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com...
Clive Braham wrote:
"paris" <gdunnhome20 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1137620164.817423.305100 (AT) g43g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to
Bru.....The least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla
route was (I think 28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the
flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks
the highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered
was 11. There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and
not from Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that
the landing charges are the reason for the failure to attract and
to keep?
GLA also carried more pax than the more mature NCL route last time
I checked. Maybe it's a case of last in first out but I have no
doubt revenues were affected by the strength of FF loyalty schemes
ensuring the LHR status quo prevailed - a point Mr Baxter was
warning about. Not as many pax were travelling onward from BRU as
SN wanted :-(
An acceptable deal was reached with GLA regarding charges so BAA
cannot be blamed for the demise. I assume the terms of that
acceptable deal were not changed so soon.
Clive
The pax loads on GLA-BRU were decent and growing, HOWEVER, and
thats a big however thanks to Ryanair at PIK, the Yields were
apparently horrific.
Source?
Obvious thinking.
|
Scaremongering, speculation and hearsay.... ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GKirk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Gla - Bru..Compared to Brs - Bru. |
|
|
dagspot wrote:
| Quote: | GKirk wrote:
Iain wrote:
"GKirk" <grahamkirk1983 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1137627513.496982.70630 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com...
Clive Braham wrote:
"paris" <gdunnhome20 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1137620164.817423.305100 (AT) g43g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
I have in the last 5 weeks flown from both Gla and Brs to
Bru.....The least No. of passengers I experienced on the Gla
route was (I think 28?) with four in buisiness. Normally the
flights looked healthy.
I have flown also from Brs to Bru to Brs 3 times in as many weeks
the highest No. of passengers on this service that I encountered
was 11. There was one day only 3.
Why then does this service survive from little old Bristol and
not from Glasgow, Scotlands Metropolis??? Is it troooo then that
the landing charges are the reason for the failure to attract and
to keep?
GLA also carried more pax than the more mature NCL route last time
I checked. Maybe it's a case of last in first out but I have no
doubt revenues were affected by the strength of FF loyalty schemes
ensuring the LHR status quo prevailed - a point Mr Baxter was
warning about. Not as many pax were travelling onward from BRU as
SN wanted :-(
An acceptable deal was reached with GLA regarding charges so BAA
cannot be blamed for the demise. I assume the terms of that
acceptable deal were not changed so soon.
Clive
The pax loads on GLA-BRU were decent and growing, HOWEVER, and
thats a big however thanks to Ryanair at PIK, the Yields were
apparently horrific.
Source?
Obvious thinking.
Scaremongering, speculation and hearsay.... ?
|
Sure, thats what a few AAUG regulars do anyway is it not?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
