 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Zippy
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: GLA's gains and losses |
 |
|
Feels a bit like writing an obituary ... but has anyone ever weighed up
GLA's scheduled airline gains v losses during the nineties/noughties?
Just thought it would make an interesting topic - and also the list
will be never ending...am too tired to think of them all but have made
a start below.
Also, WHEN are BAA going to give us some good news? I wish the
Manchester Airport Group would take over GLA and show them how a
succesful airport is run.
It realy annoys me that when I pass through Central Station during the
day there are all sorts of nationalities there that have come off a
train from our 'other' airport - why oh why oh why don't BAA take heed
of what kind of boom has happened 30 or so miles down the road?
Losses
AA - ORD (unconfirmed)
UA - IAD
NW - BOS
BA - JFK/BOS
GSM - AMS
EZY - AMS/STN/EMA
KL - STN/LCY
CB - LCY
BA - LCY
SK - CPH/SVG
WF - SVG
SN - BRU (twice)
AF - CDG (how many times?!)
JY/BE - CDG
AC - YYZ/YVR/YYC/YHZ
LH - FRA/DUS
BA - BFS/BHD/GWY/ORK/CWL
GO - STN/DUB
II - FRA/MAN
BD - EMA
BD - NOC
Gains
EK - DXB
PK - DXB/LHE/ISB etc
CO - EWR
US - PHL
GSM - all over the place!
EZY - LON/BFS/GVA/SXF/GVA/AGP/PMI/BRS...
WW - EMA/CWL
AB - STN
BE - BHX/BHD/EXT/SOU/NWI...
BD - CPH
VS - MCO
Z4 - Canada
Feel free to comment/update ... and don't forget the old phrase - use
it or lose it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zippy
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
Forgot ...
GAIN then LOSS
OK - PRG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Scotland
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:56 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
Zippy wrote:
| Quote: | Feels a bit like writing an obituary ... but has anyone ever weighed up
GLA's scheduled airline gains v losses during the nineties/noughties?
Just thought it would make an interesting topic - and also the list
will be never ending...am too tired to think of them all but have made
a start below.
Also, WHEN are BAA going to give us some good news? I wish the
Manchester Airport Group would take over GLA and show them how a
succesful airport is run.
It realy annoys me that when I pass through Central Station during the
day there are all sorts of nationalities there that have come off a
train from our 'other' airport - why oh why oh why don't BAA take heed
of what kind of boom has happened 30 or so miles down the road?
Losses
AA - ORD (unconfirmed)
UA - IAD
NW - BOS
BA - JFK/BOS
GSM - AMS
EZY - AMS/STN/EMA
KL - STN/LCY
CB - LCY
BA - LCY
SK - CPH/SVG
WF - SVG
SN - BRU (twice)
AF - CDG (how many times?!)
JY/BE - CDG
AC - YYZ/YVR/YYC/YHZ
LH - FRA/DUS
BA - BFS/BHD/GWY/ORK/CWL
GO - STN/DUB
II - FRA/MAN
BD - EMA
BD - NOC
Gains
EK - DXB
PK - DXB/LHE/ISB etc
CO - EWR
US - PHL
GSM - all over the place!
EZY - LON/BFS/GVA/SXF/GVA/AGP/PMI/BRS...
WW - EMA/CWL
AB - STN
BE - BHX/BHD/EXT/SOU/NWI...
BD - CPH
VS - MCO
Z4 - Canada
Feel free to comment/update ... and don't forget the old phrase - use
it or lose it!
|
BAA Glasgow like to run the airport on a one step forward three steps
backwards motto.
Its time BAA fuck off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zippy
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
| Quote: |
Its time BAA **** off.
|
No need for the language - where has the sensible debate gone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Scotland
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
Zippy wrote:
| Quote: |
Its time BAA **** off.
No need for the language - where has the sensible debate gone?
|
Sorry man, a little pissed off with this news.
But where has the sensible airport management gone with regards to BAA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zippy
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:19 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
| Quote: | Sorry man, a little pissed off with this news.
But where has the sensible airport management gone with regards to BAA?
|
To be fair it's not the airport operator ... it's the airlines that
choose to drop service ... that said - what sort of carrots do they
dangle to entice these carriers to stay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zippy
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
| Quote: | Losses
GSM - AMS
EZY - AMS/STN/EMA
|
told you I was tired ... should read
| Quote: | GSM - AMS/STN
EZY - AMS/EMA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Scotland
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:30 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
Zippy wrote:
| Quote: | Sorry man, a little pissed off with this news.
But where has the sensible airport management gone with regards to BAA?
To be fair it's not the airport operator ... it's the airlines that
choose to drop service ... that said - what sort of carrots do they
dangle to entice these carriers to stay?
|
Judging by the number of flights that have been axed in recent
years....none!
They don't even know what flights operate from the own airport, they
gave Ryanair from PIK a good wee bit of free publicity for their new
flights to Riga and Eindhoven.
Will we have a daily link to Toronto next year? I cant see Canadian
Affair using an Air Transat A330 for a daily flight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clive Braham
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:39 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
"Zippy" <kwa0711 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1154559164.786095.84820 (AT) m79g2000cwm (DOT) googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Losses
AA - ORD (unconfirmed)
UA - IAD
NW - BOS
BA - JFK/BOS
GSM - AMS
EZY - AMS/STN/EMA
|
EZY still do STN. [tentatively goes to check, just in case....]
Air UK (latterly KLMuk) to STN but I'm not sure they ever did LCY?
| Quote: | CB - LCY
BA - LCY
SK - CPH/SVG
|
CPH wasn't lost. It was transferred to partner airline British Midland and
still goes.
| Quote: | WF - SVG
SN - BRU (twice)
AF - CDG (how many times?!)
|
Twice. BA did it very many moons ago too with a daily direct BAC1-11 IIRC
but I don't know how far back we want to go?
No point in listing JY as well as AF. They never flew that route from GLA in
their own right. It was an operating contract for AF. Before that it was
similarly operated for AF by Regional Air and in the previous life in the
late 80's AF itself with a daily 737.
| Quote: | AC - YYZ/YVR/YYC/YHZ
|
Hold on. AC never flew YVR and YYC from GLA IIRC.
| Quote: | LH - FRA/DUS
BA - BFS/BHD/GWY/ORK/CWL
|
Unfortunately we need to add INV, ABZ, DUB and now SOU to that lot :-(
No point in listing Go to STN as the airline was bought over by easyJet who
continued the service.
II never flew direct to FRA IIRC.
Clive
PS add Euromanx to IOM, Atlantic Airways to FAE, Gill Airways to BOH,
Eastern Airways to HUY, Manx to IOM, Highland Airways to INV. We could go on
all night if we go far back enough. Air Ecosse, BCAL, Dan Air, Ryanair (!),
etc, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zippy
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:18 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
| Quote: | EZY still do STN. [tentatively goes to check, just in case....]
|
I corrected myself above ...
told you I was tired ... should read
| Quote: | GSM - AMS/STN
EZY - AMS/EMA
KL - STN/LCY
Air UK (latterly KLMuk) to STN but I'm not sure they ever did LCY?
|
LCY - It was KLMUk who operated the route - with both the KL and UK
prefix. just after the Air UK brand became KLMUk
Might as well add UK to LGW and KL/UK to STN
| Quote: |
CB - LCY
BA - LCY
SK - CPH/SVG
CPH wasn't lost. It was transferred to partner airline British Midland and
still goes.
|
Still a loss though nevertheless in terms of carrier and probably
capacity.
| Quote: | WF - SVG
SN - BRU (twice)
AF - CDG (how many times?!)
Twice. BA did it very many moons ago too with a daily direct BAC1-11 IIRC
but I don't know how far back we want to go?
|
As per my original post just the 90's and 00's will do ...
| Quote: |
JY/BE - CDG
No point in listing JY as well as AF. They never flew that route from GLA in
their own right. It was an operating contract for AF. Before that it was
similarly operated for AF by Regional Air and in the previous life in the
late 80's AF itself with a daily 737.
|
IIRC it also had a JY flight number and was often seen operating in JY
colours...thought I would add the JY also incase I was corrected by
someone for missing them off.
| Quote: | AC - YYZ/YVR/YYC/YHZ
Hold on. AC never flew YVR and YYC from GLA IIRC.
|
Perhaps not YYC (have a sneaky suspiscion they did one year and
continued to YVR)? But am sure pretty sure there was once a YVR
service during the 90's.
| Quote: | LH - FRA/DUS
BA - BFS/BHD/GWY/ORK/CWL
Unfortunately we need to add INV, ABZ, DUB and now SOU to that lot :-(
GO - STN/DUB
No point in listing Go to STN as the airline was bought over by easyJet who
continued the service.
|
Again - a loss in some people's eyes.
| Quote: | II - FRA/MAN
II never flew direct to FRA IIRC.
|
They did - I flew on it several times. II operated on behalf of LH
(wetlease perhaps) - when the LH GLAFRA daily service disappeared, II
only operated it on behalf of LH on a Saturday and Sunday - they could
not operate it thriough the week as II already operated LCY-FRA on
behalf of LH when LH started ther LCYFRA service - and they only had
the one BAe 146.
| Quote: | PS add Euromanx to IOM, Atlantic Airways to FAE, Gill Airways to BOH,
Eastern Airways to HUY, Manx to IOM, Highland Airways to INV. We could go on
all night if we go far back enough. Air Ecosse, BCAL, Dan Air, Ryanair (!),
etc, etc.
|
Just the 90's and 00's
Oh - and Euroscot to BOH!
Finally - Let's not start on ELN/GRE!!! ;-p |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Scotland
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:32 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
| Quote: | I'd get that pint ready for Clive soonish, David. BAA indicated today
in the Evening Times that they expect progress within "weeks". That
sounds way too specific to be a coincidence. If new services were years
away I don't think they would have used "weeks". It's all in the
language 
|
Doesn't say how many weeks, could be 300 weeks ;-)
That big empty space on the International pier where AA and AC used to
park? ;-)
Maybe BAA knew about this and other axed routes and that is why they
are now expanding the international area, or any other area of the
terminal.
| Quote: | Not just loyalty but flexabiltiy of timing......none of GLA's YYZ
services operate on a daily basis or even on the level of frequency
that even comes close to AC and BA out of LHR which are better suited
to business.
|
Maybe frequency of flights from Glasgow would be higher if people and
businesses shows an interest in using direct flights from Glasgow and
not BA via London?
This seems to be what AA are doing, using London for pretty much all
their UK flights and using the BA domestic services to Glasgow as
feeders.
| Quote: | BTW it looks like there will be still fewer seats between here and Toronto
next summer with Canadian Affair using the 3 weekly Air Transat flights
instead of offering 4-7 a week with TCX 757's whilst Globespan share with
Zoom.
|
Kind off seen this one coming, couldn't see them using a A330 for the
daily flight. More bad news, as if we needed it!!!
What makes you so sure? Where would the money come from for the sort of
investment GLA needs? BAA has deep pockets.
I would be happy to see Glasgow City Council take control of GLA. They
could be more interested in more flights than huge profits, as the more
flights are better for the city as a whole and they could get benefits
and money from it that way rather than BAA who can only make it
directly from the airport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Damian
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
Andrew Scotland wrote:
| Quote: | I would be happy to see Glasgow City Council take control of GLA.
|
Please god, no. Local authorities in Scotland are strapped for cash as
it is, and should be concentrating on delivering the core services they
are responsible for - education, environment, housing etc. Let's leave
the politicians out of it - they have more important things to attend
to, and most of them aren't doing a particularly good job at it,
either!
| Quote: | They could be more interested in more flights than huge profits, as the more
flights are better for the city as a whole and they could get benefits
and money from it that way rather than BAA who can only make it
directly from the airport.
|
I'd much rather the airport professionals ran the place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:42 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
"Damian" <damianlearyo (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154632488.351511.316120 (AT) i3g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
DavidP wrote:
Clive Braham wrote:
"DavidP" <dperston (AT) rim (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1154610652.955896.152630 (AT) i3g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com...
Blackpool Airport for
example is doing way better than GLA in those terms but that's
hardly
relevant IMO.
Clive to be honest just about every other airport in the UK is doing
better in terms of growth. GLA has and continues to miss the boat.
If you look at the top 10 airports which one has had the lowest
growth
over the last couple of years......would be prepared to put money on
it
that it would be Glasgow.
I'm guessing LHR.
Take it back further than that and I would bet GLA would still be
pretty near the bottom.
And Andrew should note, GLA has more long haul services than BRS
and STN
put
together. It might just be that AA know of NW looking at DTW-GLA or
DL
doing
JFK-GLA with 757's and decided they didn't want to compete with
those as
well as US and CO.
Not for much longer. TX services at STN seem to be litteraly taking
off
right now and if as rumoured GSM start out of there then I would
imagine on a year round basis STN could move more TX than GLA.
|
I don't think we can compare STN (or any LON area airports) to GLA.
| Quote: | No, I don't see that at all. In fact GLA are talking to more than one
US
airline about year round services. That is confirmed today from the
horses
mouth - we just have to hope they can convince the airlines there is a
genuine, sustainable business case. The two in question are probably
DL to
JFK and NW to DTW. It might be that AA knew this was happening.
Yeah the spin doctors at BAA GLA would say that wouldnt they. Oh Im
sure they are talking but the chances of it happening..........nah!
I bet you a beer the next time Im over that there will be no new
scheduled TX services out of GLA by a full service airline within the
next 2 years if at all, and I dont call GSM a full service airline. My
only caveat to this would be the rider that this would be under BAA
control. Another owner might see something a bit sooner.
I'd get that pint ready for Clive soonish, David. BAA indicated today
in the Evening Times that they expect progress within "weeks". That
sounds way too specific to be a coincidence. If new services were years
away I don't think they would have used "weeks". It's all in the
language :-)
Cant remember the exact year that TX services started out of GLA but
if
I assume it was 1990 I would say we are worse off now. We had :
NW D10 daily
AA 767 daily
AC 767 to daily to YYZ and twice weekly to YHZ
BA 1011 3 or 4 times daily
4 daily? Surely not?
Apoligies that should have read weekly as you well know. Point is that
we are not better off in fact we are worse off.
Watch this space.
and I think most operated through the winter.
Sure we have more charters but they all stop for the winter and dont
necessarily appeal to the business travelers who now travel
elsewhere.
For instance, I work for a Canadian company. When AC flew from GLA
most
of our Scottish based staff flew out of GLA. Now as most of them
stay
on the East side of Glasgow ; Hamilton , Motherwell,etc they travel
through to EDI and fly to YYZ via LHR.
That's the problem with loyalty schemes. They preserve the status quo
for
the likes of BA and LHR and help make direct flights to the regions
difficult. I'm presuming this is why your colleagues don't use the
direct
services which are available. Donal Dowds famoulsy commented on that
saying
"use it or lose it". He was so right and I'll bet there are still
horrendous
numbers of Scots travelling via LHR.
Not just loyalty but flexabiltiy of timing......none of GLA's YYZ
services operate on a daily basis or even on the level of frequency
that even comes close to AC and BA out of LHR which are better suited
to business.
|
AC's GLA service never operated anywhere close to the level of frequency
offered by BA and AC out of LHR (they were after all infrequent or non-op in
winter and only daily in high summer), so I don't really think you can
suggest the situation's changed in that sense - LHR always has and always
will offer better frequency and choice if you're prepared to fly down there
and change aircraft. I'm sure even when AC operated to GLA many people still
chose to route via LHR to Canada.
| Quote: |
Because the route is overwhelmingly leisure, surely?
Just look at the Canadian pax numbers this year. They are down , not
because people arent traveling to Scotland but because they are
going
via other airports.
|
Do we know that for sure? I think people were probably travelling a lot
cause there were cheap unsustainable (for the airlines) fares. I bet less
are travelling this year between Scotland and Canada cause the fares are not
quite as keen. I suspect the fact of the matter with flights to Canada and
particularly YYZ was that there was way too much capacity and everyone was
losing money. Of course the flights were full, becuase very low fares were
available and this stimulated people to travel - I experienced this myself
with relatives coming and going more often. However, there was probably no
yeild. BAA most definately have their faults, but I don't see how this
situation and the pull-out of AC can be blamed on them. In fact, if BAA
wanted to keep AC, they probably should have tried to price Z4 etc. out of
using GLA! - and how we would have complained!
| Quote: |
So there is plenty opportunity for more direct flights then? Or will
frequent flyers still use other airlines?
Frequent flyers will use other airlines or other aiports depending on
what works best.
|
Sometimes GLA will work best, sometimes another, it's all swings and
roundabouts, although I accept it's better if more and more airlines fly to
GLA.
| Quote: | ie I flew Scotland direct but gave GLA a miss inbound because EDI
offered better frequency of services to INV.
|
I think 90% of people coming here would drive to INV tbh, hence why flights
to there are not that popular!
| Quote: |
BTW it looks like there will be still fewer seats between here and
Toronto
next summer with Canadian Affair using the 3 weekly Air Transat
flights
instead of offering 4-7 a week with TCX 757's whilst Globespan share
with
Zoom.
BAA has to find a way to help these airlines thru what are hard
times
or face losing more of them. Something GLA can ill afford.
BAA can't do much more than plead with us to use the services. If AA
weren't
feeling the yield, there is nothing BAA can do to change that. What
would
you suggest?
BAA controls the landing fee's. Soemthing could be done with them to
help keep these services. To make up for the loss of landing fees they
could open up a few more retail outlets, charge you one pound to use
the wash rooms , charge a clean air tax on everyone enetering the
terminals, etc, etc. Im sure BAA GLA could come up with a few inovative
ways to gouge you.
They already do a pretty good job at that using many different
approaches, but at the end of the day they're a business, not a
charity. I'm sceptical, in the case of AA, that landing fees were the
critical factor here.
Im sorry Im with Andrew on this and believe BAA GLA are doing a pi$$
poor job of managing things at GLA and as I've said many times
before I
wouldnt be surprised if they off load it soon which in part is why I
dont think they are workign too hard at GLA.
Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
for me a good thing if BAA offload GLA.
What makes you so sure? Where would the money come from for the sort of
investment GLA needs? BAA has deep pockets.
Yes I think we will see AA and AC back in Scotland, but not at GLA.
Where then?
EDI
Unlikely.
What would they find different at another Scottish airport
nearby?
How about some RDF!
As Clive has already explained to you, such a switch would not qualify
them for RDF. Seasonal flights also do not qualify. They would only
operate from EDI if they considered the service was viable in its own
right. That's also a requirement of the RDF, and BAA have in fact
turned away RDF applications which they don't consider viable.
|
Have they?, that's news to me - can you provide examples? Apart from
anything else I have always been under the impression that the RDF is
administered by Scottish Enterprise. Whether or not they are turned away,
why would an airline want to apply to start up a route that's blatantly
unviable?
Neither airline would be "switching" - they have both pulled out. They could
now come along and make an application for a "new" flight from EDI to
wherever - I very much doubt that the SE would bat an eyelid at any
complaints of dodgy dealings. they would just say what happened in the past
is history and funding the new route would be a golden opportunity to
improve airlinks - "Surely them operating to EDI is better than nothing at
all?" would be the argument. However, the point which makes me agree an RDF
funded return is unlikely is the seasonal issue - I can't see either airline
operating a frequent year-round schedule any time soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Damian
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:50 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | "Damian" <damianlearyo (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154632488.351511.316120 (AT) i3g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com...
As Clive has already explained to you, such a switch would not qualify
them for RDF. Seasonal flights also do not qualify. They would only
operate from EDI if they considered the service was viable in its own
right. That's also a requirement of the RDF, and BAA have in fact
turned away RDF applications which they don't consider viable.
Have they?, that's news to me - can you provide examples? Apart from
anything else I have always been under the impression that the RDF is
administered by Scottish Enterprise. Whether or not they are turned away,
why would an airline want to apply to start up a route that's blatantly
unviable?
|
"The past few years have been rewarding for BAA. The number of routes
opened up directly from Scotland has increased thanks to financial
support from BAA and the Scottish executive through the route
development fund.
But although Dowds thinks the fund is one of the executive's success
stories, he warns it only works if the route is viable long term
without support.
"We don't approve every application that comes across this desk. I
reject more than we approve because it has to be viable," he said.
"This support will disappear at some point because it would be
illegal to maintain it in perpetuity. We found a way through a thorny
state aid dilemma which enables us to support in those early years,
because we know planes won't be full in the first day or even the
first year. But if they cannot see a way to making it work then
there's no point."
The above is from an interview with BAA's Donal Dowds which appeared in
The Sunday Times on 08/01/06.
Also, isn't it quite common for airlines to start up routes which they
don't necessarily have confidence are viable in the long term, often to
try to knock competitors off them? Example - FR flights to certain
destinations in Ireland. Once they did what they set out to achieve and
knocked Easy Jet off the routes, they threw in the towel themselves.
| Quote: |
Neither airline would be "switching" - they have both pulled out. They could
now come along and make an application for a "new" flight from EDI to
wherever - I very much doubt that the SE would bat an eyelid at any
complaints of dodgy dealings. they would just say what happened in the past
is history and funding the new route would be a golden opportunity to
improve airlinks - "Surely them operating to EDI is better than nothing at
all?" would be the argument. However, the point which makes me agree an RDF
funded return is unlikely is the seasonal issue - I can't see either airline
operating a frequent year-round schedule any time soon.
|
Nor can I. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:17 am Post subject: Re: GLA's gains and losses |
|
|
"Damian" <damianlearyo (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154634605.981641.115640 (AT) 75g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Iain wrote:
"Damian" <damianlearyo (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154632488.351511.316120 (AT) i3g2000cwc (DOT) googlegroups.com...
As Clive has already explained to you, such a switch would not qualify
them for RDF. Seasonal flights also do not qualify. They would only
operate from EDI if they considered the service was viable in its own
right. That's also a requirement of the RDF, and BAA have in fact
turned away RDF applications which they don't consider viable.
Have they?, that's news to me - can you provide examples? Apart from
anything else I have always been under the impression that the RDF is
administered by Scottish Enterprise. Whether or not they are turned
away,
why would an airline want to apply to start up a route that's blatantly
unviable?
"The past few years have been rewarding for BAA. The number of routes
opened up directly from Scotland has increased thanks to financial
support from BAA and the Scottish executive through the route
development fund.
But although Dowds thinks the fund is one of the executive's success
stories, he warns it only works if the route is viable long term
without support.
"We don't approve every application that comes across this desk. I
reject more than we approve because it has to be viable," he said.
|
Fair enough, but I always though that Scottish Entrprise administered the
fund - i.e. you apply to them.
| Quote: |
"This support will disappear at some point because it would be
illegal to maintain it in perpetuity. We found a way through a thorny
state aid dilemma which enables us to support in those early years,
because we know planes won't be full in the first day or even the
first year. But if they cannot see a way to making it work then
there's no point."
The above is from an interview with BAA's Donal Dowds which appeared in
The Sunday Times on 08/01/06.
Also, isn't it quite common for airlines to start up routes which they
don't necessarily have confidence are viable in the long term, often to
try to knock competitors off them? Example - FR flights to certain
destinations in Ireland. Once they did what they set out to achieve and
knocked Easy Jet off the routes, they threw in the towel themselves.
|
That's a whole other can of worms - there are major issues in funding
competing routes - If one routes recived money and someone wants to operate
a competeting route then in some situations I believe they must also recive
aid - the RDF had to fund 2 competing airlines (BD and Eastern) on ABZ-GRQ
for a while cause to fund only one and not the other would have been illegal
state distortion of the market. So I actually think the situation you
suggest actually may not be one SE can dismiss off-hand (even though it of
course is a stupid situation given that one or other of the operators will
be forced off!).
| Quote: |
Neither airline would be "switching" - they have both pulled out. They
could
now come along and make an application for a "new" flight from EDI to
wherever - I very much doubt that the SE would bat an eyelid at any
complaints of dodgy dealings. they would just say what happened in the
past
is history and funding the new route would be a golden opportunity to
improve airlinks - "Surely them operating to EDI is better than nothing
at
all?" would be the argument. However, the point which makes me agree an
RDF
funded return is unlikely is the seasonal issue - I can't see either
airline
operating a frequent year-round schedule any time soon.
Nor can I.
|
|
|
| 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
