AndrewJM70 wrote:

No great loss - UA is a dreadful airline. Let's hope that the gaps are filled with Norwegian and possibly Jet Blue in the future.

It's not the airline. It's the route ! As noted above no major city can afford not to have a lack of transatlantic air service.

This is a big loss for all of these airports.

I have a major issue with the SNP also wishing to meddle in the airline business by propping up PIK at a huge loss to the taxpayer and its Ryanair routes to the med, which are already well served all over Scotland, yet Glasgow is about to lose its only year round service to the world's biggest economy and a a huge hub operation like EWR. If they want to play politics with the aviation industry, they are doing it wrong. All done to keep Sturgeon's family's political interests down in Ayrshire sweet.

I can only hope the reduction in APD helps address this.

New A.net user here, just wanted to put my two pennies worth into the BHX to EWR route cancellation, specifically. To me it seems UA priced themselves out of the market at BHX. The round trip pricing for the 757 flights were often upto double that of even those out of LHR,even with LHR being such a congested (and expensive) airport. I know UA are able to justify higher pricing given there is no other competition at BHX, but even with LHR or LGW's extortionate car parking or travel costs it still often works out cheaper, this not helped by how much of BHX's traffic is leisure based. Throw MAN into the mix with flights from Virgin, Thomson and Thomas Cook, all being direct, affordable (and on wide-bodies) it seems more understandable.

It is a big shame though, imo, that there are basically no direct flights from BHX to North America, especially at a time when EK has plans to make it's BHX to DXB service a twice-daily A380 affair.

JamesCousins wrote:

It is a big shame though, imo, that there are basically no direct flights from BHX to North America, especially at a time when EK has plans to make it's BHX to DXB service a twice-daily A380 affair.

But according to this news piece, EK was previously flying x3 daily.


https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... ork-route/

Local newspapers are reporting that BHX could get another US service.

'Birmingham Airport said: "We expect to be making an announcement shortly regarding another airline serving North America non-stop from Birmingham, giving passengers additional choice."'

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/business/direct-flights-new-york-birmingham-13327945

No great loss? In terms of GLA, DY would only operate a point to point business model whereas UA offered a one stop daily business class product to every major city in the US. That's actually a blow to the West of Scotland economy, advantage Edinburgh once again. Great news for BA, EI and KLM though.
That BHX could support CO for so long and now lose UA may also show that UA are just as LHR centric as BA in this market. Even MAN is a shadow of it's former self. Thomas Cook and DY may carve this market up further leaving legacy carriers only in the larger markets.

skipness1E wrote:

No great loss? In terms of GLA, DY would only operate a point to point business model whereas UA offered a one stop daily business class product to every major city in the US. That's actually a blow to the West of Scotland economy, advantage Edinburgh once again. Great news for BA, EI and KLM though.
That BHX could support CO for so long and now lose UA may also show that UA are just as LHR centric as BA in this market. Even MAN is a shadow of it's former self. Thomas Cook and DY may carve this market up further leaving legacy carriers only in the larger markets.

Spot on. In addition, AF are offski also from GLA whilst they are going 3x daily at ABZ to CDG! I think its firmly been proven how limited the legacy market is at GLA now. MUC from LH will do well to survive even at 4x weekly. Could easily see GLA-PHL being chopped and at least one of the Canadian carriers also departing, possibly AC as they have previous for this. Any growth over the pond now will be limited stuff from holiday operators like TCX or possibly DY.

Think the next year from DY will be very interesting given their financial position and attempts at rabid growth combined with limited TATL services from many of the bigger UK regional airports.

gravytrain wrote:

This is a big loss for all of these airports.

I have a major issue with the SNP also wishing to meddle in the airline business by propping up PIK at a huge loss to the taxpayer and its Ryanair routes to the med, which are already well served all over Scotland, yet Glasgow is about to lose its only year round service to the world's biggest economy and a a huge hub operation like EWR. If they want to play politics with the aviation industry, they are doing it wrong. All done to keep Sturgeon's family's political interests down in Ayrshire sweet.

I can only hope the reduction in APD helps address this.

The SNP or on this case 'The Scottish Goverment' have a vested interest in preserving jobs and livelihoods over so called political point scoring, I'd suggest. Also consider they have no governance over United's overall downscaling of services in England and Ireland and furher consider that the only aircraft regularly crossing the pond from PIK these days, tend to have USAF or Can Force markings about them. So I'm not sure why you bring the Scottish National Party into the discussion ?

Given that DL transferred both MAN routes to VS, I would guess that most MAN-US traffic is MAN origin so the VS brand holds sway. Add DL FF to these flights and they make sense. AA has BA in the UK. UA has no one. I actually think UA is the worst off to serve regional UK. VS has the added benefit of transferring the route back to DL for the winter if a 757 is needed.

United doesn't have enough aircraft. Its as simple as that. The markets will return once United gets more Trans Atlantic equipment. Right now United is seeing the ability to make more money by putting the 757s elsewhere.

JannEejit wrote:

gravytrain wrote:

This is a big loss for all of these airports.

I have a major issue with the SNP also wishing to meddle in the airline business by propping up PIK at a huge loss to the taxpayer and its Ryanair routes to the med, which are already well served all over Scotland, yet Glasgow is about to lose its only year round service to the world's biggest economy and a a huge hub operation like EWR. If they want to play politics with the aviation industry, they are doing it wrong. All done to keep Sturgeon's family's political interests down in Ayrshire sweet.

I can only hope the reduction in APD helps address this.

The SNP or on this case 'The Scottish Goverment' have a vested interest in preserving jobs and livelihoods over so called political point scoring, I'd suggest. Also consider they have no governance over United's overall downscaling of services in England and Ireland and furher consider that the only aircraft regularly crossing the pond from PIK these days, tend to have USAF or Can Force markings about them. So I'm not sure why you bring the Scottish National Party into the discussion ?

The jobs they want to spend public money preserving there could easily be transferred with little to no loss up the road to GLA and no involvement from the tax payer. It's all because Sturgeon and her family come from the area. Yet whilst they waste money on that, they lose their only year round air link to the world's largest economy from their largest city. If they want to play political games in this industry, it makes absolutely no sense to preserve existing med routes at PIK as opposed to UA to EWR.

User001 wrote:

No great loss!?!

For the winter period at the very least, Birmingham now has zero, yes ZERO USA flying, and that's apparently no great loss?

The US is still a huge market from the UK. Still a large trading partner, still a huge global economy, still a huge leisure draw, but apparently it's no great loss?

These sort of comments remind me of the monty Python sketch where the knight keeps getting his limbs and torso cut off proclaiming 'no big deal, it's just a scratch'. Yes it may just be 7 weekly flights (4 in the winter), but the economic affects and the stigma of being a large airport with no flights to the US will be felt. 'No big loss' is loosing Vueline to Alicante which is still very well served. 'No big loss' is loosing Norwegian to an again well served Tenerife. Loosing your only direct link to the US on the other hand.....

Im sorry, but this is a huge loss, as gaps being filled in the future is just pure speculation until said gaps are confirmed as filled. I have no doubt eventually someone will come back on the scene, but for now, as of 5th October, BHX is a large city with no direct access to a still very important market.

I agree that BHX should have a year round transatlantic link, but with LHR so close, it probably doesn't really need it.

LHR ultimately provides all of the Midlands, south Wales, the Southwest and all of Southern England with more than enough trans-atlantic and intercontinental capacity . . . in the same way that MAN is the major airport in the north for such links. If everyone from Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool has to travel to MAN to fly to the States, then travelling from Birmingham to LHR (which has infinitesimally more options than MAN anyway) seems rather par for the course . . .

And I would assume that most people in Birmingham and the Midlands have always chosen to fly out of LHR anyway for the obvious reasons i.e. more choice and better prices. And the repeal of Bermuda II would have only made LHR that much more of an attractive option for such pax.

LondonCity wrote:

JamesCousins wrote:

It is a big shame though, imo, that there are basically no direct flights from BHX to North America, especially at a time when EK has plans to make it's BHX to DXB service a twice-daily A380 affair.

But according to this news piece, EK was previously flying x3 daily.


https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... ork-route/

That is true, it was 2 x 77W and 1 x A380 daily but they are cutting it down to twice daily A380, bumping 2 77W's in favour for one A380. You do have to bear in mind though that the A380s being operated are the higher density 2 class versions, with 615 seats as a pose to the 2 777W's total of 728.

I also understand EK's government backing allows them to operate routes not always other financially viable, but still 1200+ daily seats to Dubai and none to New York, one of the US's biggest cities is pretty sad

gravytrain wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

gravytrain wrote:

This is a big loss for all of these airports.

I have a major issue with the SNP also wishing to meddle in the airline business by propping up PIK at a huge loss to the taxpayer and its Ryanair routes to the med, which are already well served all over Scotland, yet Glasgow is about to lose its only year round service to the world's biggest economy and a a huge hub operation like EWR. If they want to play politics with the aviation industry, they are doing it wrong. All done to keep Sturgeon's family's political interests down in Ayrshire sweet.

I can only hope the reduction in APD helps address this.

The SNP or on this case 'The Scottish Goverment' have a vested interest in preserving jobs and livelihoods over so called political point scoring, I'd suggest. Also consider they have no governance over United's overall downscaling of services in England and Ireland and furher consider that the only aircraft regularly crossing the pond from PIK these days, tend to have USAF or Can Force markings about them. So I'm not sure why you bring the Scottish National Party into the discussion ?

The jobs they want to spend public money preserving there could easily be transferred with little to no loss up the road to GLA and no involvement from the tax payer. It's all because Sturgeon and her family come from the area. Yet whilst they waste money on that, they lose their only year round air link to the world's largest economy from their largest city. If they want to play political games in this industry, it makes absolutely no sense to preserve existing med routes at PIK as opposed to UA to EWR.

So should The Scottish Government/tax payer be subsidising United Airlines ? That method didn't really go to plan in Belfast did it ? I'd suggest this is merely a business decision and not a political one.

Link/Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... 39816.html

"Poor ticket sales have triggered the closure of key international air links this winter. Birmingham’s only American connection is to be grounded, while British Airways will stop flying from Heathrow to western Norway’s two biggest cities."

"United Airlines says its last-ever flight on the Birmingham-New York (Newark) route will take of on 5 October 2017. A spokesperson said": “We have regretfully taken this decision because of the route’s poor financial performance.”

"A number of airlines have flown between Birmingham and New York over the years, with British Airways operating to JFK in the 1990s. The United link has operated for 20 years."

How much of this has to due with Brexit and the terms at which the UK will exit being an EU member vs poor ticket sales

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

How much of this has to due with Brexit and the terms at which the UK will exit being an EU member vs poor ticket sales

I don't think Brexit fears vs poor ticket sales are separable things – economic anxiety is a part of weak ticket sales.

Article I read mentioned impact of Dublin transit with clearance and Norwegian. I can see Norwegian trying - 737max should reach

Seems crazy a city size of Birmingham can't sustain the link, I know people even talking about Emirates and fifth freedom link, hard to see if unable to fill a 757

UA is also focusing the 757 on its Coast product transcons.BOS/LAX/SFO/EWR.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

How much of this has to due with Brexit and the terms at which the UK will exit being an EU member vs poor ticket sales

I think this has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit . . . and all to do with the poor sales on the route which would have happened with or without it. It's so ridiculously common these days for companies to blame pulling out of a market or downsizing on Brexit, take it all with a very large grain of salt. UA partially blamed pulling out of NCL on Brexit as well when that route had struggled from the beginning long before the vote ever took place.

Has EK been downsizing it's capacity from airports like BHX and NCL since the Brexit vote ??? Not at all . . . UA from EWR is just not going to make UK regional routes work, that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.

Want BHX to have multiple connections to US? Allow ME3 to Operate 5th freedom flights!

Plus they are freeing up 757's for the Hawaii build up in December

Such a shame regarding the BHX flights.

I remember going down to the fence to watch the CO DC-10 depart once upon a time.

That being said, when we travelled to EWR (often with CO in those days) we usually used LGW on the 772 as it more often than not cheaper than the BHX flight. I haven't flew to EWR in some time so I don't know if London departing flights are still that bit better priced.

westgate wrote:

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

How much of this has to due with Brexit and the terms at which the UK will exit being an EU member vs poor ticket sales

I think this has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit . . . and all to do with the poor sales on the route which would have happened with or without it. It's so ridiculously common these days for companies to blame pulling out of a market or downsizing on Brexit, take it all with a very large grain of salt. UA partially blamed pulling out of NCL on Brexit as well when that route had struggled from the beginning long before the vote ever took place.

Has EK been downsizing it's capacity from airports like BHX and NCL since the Brexit vote ??? Not at all . . . UA from EWR is just not going to make UK regional routes work, that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.

Except Brexit has hurt the GBP and made the US more expensive for British travellers, impacting sales. Same reason GLA is going seasonal.

I agree with User001 it is a significant loss for BHX especially after losing EK41/2 (6 weeks left) but you also have to be realistic with some services and it is just a sign of the times.

The 757 is getting no younger and UA26 was cancelled today due tech at BHX, coupled with the fact that others have pointed out that there are cheaper options up and down the road which is probably always going to be the case. However if the operation alluded to in the local press as posted earlier it would be an eye-opener albeit bit left-field. There are other rumours as well and these as far as I know were around prior to the United announcement.

The route is important to the region but all new comers rumoured are loco or of a similar product and as most would expect they are not full service airlines. It appears it will be a winter without a scheduled flight to the US but it sounds like something could be in place for summer 2018.

Sometimes it just gets to a point that it is the wrong airline or the wrong aircraft or certain local circumstances make it difficult for a route to continue and it appears it will just have to be one of the new (transatlantic) kids on the block to give it a go. Although like others APD is a not a help for the regions and this needs addressing urgently alas I would imagine this will not happen due to other more high-profile priorities.

All in a week that record passenger figures were recorded for June (1.3 Million, up 16.4%) and the rollercoaster is likely to go on for a while. It is still difficult to believe that winter will see two 615 seat A380's a day but nothing scheduled going west..

In my opinion, the overall order of profit contribution (other than new routes) is US domestic, intra-North America, South America (if they could repatriate money cleanly), international JV's and finally at the bottom, international.

When you can schedule fully written down aircraft on international routes, with low fuel prices, true underlying low profitability is concealed. But when you have to start acquiring new aircraft, and even new model versions just for international, then the real soul searching starts.

While other operations are so lucrative, it makes sense to focus on fortress USA, and control / cap those pesky foreigners who want to fly in yet more visitors.

anshabhi wrote:

Want BHX to have multiple connections to US? Allow ME3 to Operate 5th freedom flights!

Who's preventing this currently?

adamblang wrote:

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

How much of this has to due with Brexit and the terms at which the UK will exit being an EU member vs poor ticket sales

I don't think Brexit fears vs poor ticket sales are separable things – economic anxiety is a part of weak ticket sales.

Sorry but this utter nonsense. Whatever the reasons the UA B`ham -JFK service is failing has nothing to do with Brexit.
Why is Brexit brought up all the time as an excuse for thing going tits-up!

CriticalPoint wrote:

United doesn't have enough aircraft. Its as simple as that. The markets will return once United gets more Trans Atlantic equipment. Right now United is seeing the ability to make more money by putting the 757s elsewhere.

CO/UA has been flying to BHX, GLA and the second daily MAN for years and years, so I couldn't work out why they were suddenly bailing. The weak GBP has surely impacted tourism to the US to one extent or another, but no other airlines seem to be jumping ship this qucikly.

Looking at the greater United network though I think that you are spot on. These markets might not generate massive profits but they must make money otherwise they wouldn't have lasted this long. They simply didn't make enough, and the opportunity cost of serving these markets is too high. At the moment United need all the 757s they can get for domestic transcons and Hawaii, and while these things ebb and flow the domestic market is the profit machine at the moment.

Perhaps a slightly stupid question here, but why would UA not choose to take it down to 3x weekly service, or even a once weekly? The demand must either be terrible, or UA's need for those aircraft elsewhere very high.

cosyr wrote:

Except Brexit has hurt the GBP and made the US more expensive for British travellers, impacting sales. Same reason GLA is going seasonal.

That's a lot of inference there . . . GBP was over-valued and was due for a correction, Brexit may have been what ultimately caused that to happen, but many other things could have as well and this may have happened regardless of Brexit anyway.

Like I said in my previous post, EK seems to be doing just fine out of regional UK airports. Much of that traffic is to Australia as EK has the monopoly on 1-stop itineraries from those cities. GBP has also fallen significantly in relation to the AUD, but that doesn't seem to have impacted travel there or to any other of their destinations where GDP has also dropped in comparison to the local currency.

I honestly think that Trump being elected, who isn't exactly very popular in the UK, could have had as much an impact on Brits travelling to the States as Brexit. His so called 'Muslim' travel ban could certainly have put off a lot of potential travellers, especially from Birmingham which has a a large Muslim population. Also Norwegian could definitely be making an impact as well. And speaking of Norwegian, there was a very well publicised incident where an entire Muslim family was denied boarding at the last minute by US officials on a DY flight from LGW to LAX, and even David Cameron who was PM at time got involved with that.

Ultimately it is very, very difficult to specifically blame Brexit on anything. Could it be a major factor, absolutely. Can we say for sure if it is, absolutely not !!! Just because companies like to use it as their number 1 excuse doesn't necessarily make it true . . . .

Tedd wrote:

adamblang wrote:

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

How much of this has to due with Brexit and the terms at which the UK will exit being an EU member vs poor ticket sales

I don't think Brexit fears vs poor ticket sales are separable things – economic anxiety is a part of weak ticket sales.

Sorry but this utter nonsense. Whatever the reasons the UA B`ham -JFK service is failing has nothing to do with Brexit.
Why is Brexit brought up all the time as an excuse for thing going tits-up!

The flight goes to EWR not JFK UA pulled out of JFK a couple years back. The flight is being dropped because it isn't performing well financially.

Brussels flights were recently by AA. Nothing to do with Brexit. Norwegian introduced several new U.K./US routes, despite Brexit. Brexit is a convenient excuse.

Brexit has nothing to do with this.

I'll start worrying about brexit when LHR is no longer slot restricted...

If UA can't fill a 757 from the UK's second largest city to one of the largest O&D markets in the world, it should be an indication that Brexit and the effects of low cost carriers going long haul does have a hand in this. UA has 400+ daily flights at EWR. The market is clearly just not there.

Armaghman wrote:

impact of Dublin transit with clearance (BHX)

Not surprised at all. Once Aer Lingus becomes a member of Oneworld & AA / IAG TATL pricing, I expect DUB to impact USA flying from the UK Regions even more with MAN being the most vulnerable, currently drawing & depending on USA bound passengers from nearby cities with DUB service. The Virgin expansion may be short lived.

UK regional airports are not dying. There are still plenty of flights to other destinations. The key factor I believe are the travel patterns in the average Brit. There are no shortage of flights to Tenerife, Malaga, etc, etc... basically flights to the sun. NYC may be high on many people's destination lists, but the average Brit is chasing some heat and sunlight on a regular basis.

DXB is the new Malaga and EK has the advantage of offering onward connections to cheap destinations like Thailand and Bali.

Channex757 wrote:

The figure I saw wasn't 1500, but 150 who lost their jobs. That's a separate debate altogether from the service offering then and now.

If there was any justice for them the staff would be TUPE'd across to VS, which I doubt happened at all.

It's not 150 jobs lost, it's 1,500 jobs lost. That number comes straight from Ed Bastian himself.

[twoid][/twoid]BHX is a short drive to LHR with dozens of US bound flights to choose from. Same with BRS. Nothing to do with Brexit.

Norwegian & BA continue to add TATL capacity. Low cost or not, they're still flying people to the US which still suffers from a poor exchange rate following the rightvaluing of the pound. People are also visiting here. Many regionals are experiencing strong growth and record passenger numbers, despite Brexit, flying people to EU27 locations where avian we suffer from a poor exchange rate. Large capacity growth (despite Brexit) on many routes is keeping yields and prices down which is somewhat offsetting increased spending money costs on arrival. Cruising and all inclusive holidays are seeing strong growth as consumers try hedge against the increased spending money costs abroad.

TCX have increased long haul flying at LGW and MAN. VS and Norwegian at BFS. EDI US flights still going strong. What we seem to see is a consolidation of regional TATL flying toward bigger hubs.

Even Remoaners-in-chief Ryanair have added routes and capacity to and from the UK. Maybe 'pivot' means something different in Ireland?

Jet2.com's TATL programme is stronger than EVER this year and have added A330 flights from STN, despite Brexit.

But yes, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit.

IPFreely wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The figure I saw wasn't 1500, but 150 who lost their jobs. That's a separate debate altogether from the service offering then and now.

If there was any justice for them the staff would be TUPE'd across to VS, which I doubt happened at all.

It's not 150 jobs lost, it's 1,500 jobs lost. That number comes straight from Ed Bastian himself.

Did Ed give a breakdown on that? In other words, is this his estimate of the total number of jobs across the UK and the USA that were required to keep the service flying? Is it just direct Delta employees, or does it include subcontractors such as caterers?
Delta didn't employ 1500 people in Manchester, or anything even remotely like it. What on earth would they have done all day? After all, pilots and flight attendants were US-based, heavy maintenance was US based, and so on.

And how was his statement worded? Have people actually lost jobs and are now unemployed, or have they been transferred to other jobs? For example, the pilots and flight attendants off this route won't have lost their jobs, they'd have been pretty senior. Have they bumped more junior staff who are now off the payroll altogether, or have the most junior people on the seniority list simply filled gaps that would otherwise have required new hires?

Have the planes used on Delta flights to MAN been redeployed to other routes? Well, we know they have, but after a lot of shuffling around, has an equivalent number of other mainline aircraft gone to the desert? If not, then the mx jobs must still exist in the US.

When it comes to job creation and redundancy, airlines are very selective. Take Ryanair. Each new aircraft brings 1000 'jobs'. If they shut a base, this miraculously reduces to just a small handful.

Brexit = Weak Pound v Dollar, Weak Pound v Dollar = less UK travel to the US, not rocket science to join the dots.

As has been said earlier in the thread, real blow to BHX but given the fares are often twice that offered from LHR on UA, added to the fare war going on between TCX and VS at MAN than it's a pretty perfect storm that was never going to end well.

Sometime last year BHX's then CCO said Norwegian will start transatlantic flights from BHX within 2 years. I can't help but think he will be proved right. Let's wait and see.

hammerb32 wrote:

Brexit = Weak Pound v Dollar, Weak Pound v Dollar = less UK travel to the US, not rocket science to join the dots.

Not rocket science . . . but definitely pseudo science !!!

So NCL was cut, but that was performing poorly from the very beginning, an entire year before the Brexit vote.

And what is the situation with BHX specifically ? Were bookings actually down ? Was the route making less money recently ? Or was it cut simply because UA felt they could make more money using that equipment elsewhere ???

hammerb32 wrote:

Brexit = Weak Pound v Dollar, Weak Pound v Dollar = less UK travel to the US, not rocket science to join the dots.

As has been said earlier in the thread, real blow to BHX but given the fares are often twice that offered from LHR on UA, added to the fare war going on between TCX and VS at MAN than it's a pretty perfect storm that was never going to end well.

But on the flip side it makes travelling to the UK cheaper for USA citizens. Not sure though that Birmingham is at the top of every US citizens travel list though...

Birminghams too close to LHR, same with Bristol and Cardiff. Hence no BA shuttle's to these cities.

Emirates has seriously cut USA capacity. Perhaps blame brexit for this too?

Cointrin330 wrote:

If UA can't fill a 757 from the UK's second largest city to one of the largest O&D markets in the world, it should be an indication that Brexit and the effects of low cost carriers going long haul does have a hand in this. UA has 400+ daily flights at EWR. The market is clearly just not there.

I think it's more that flights from London are generally less expensive, Brits can fly with BA, have less stops instead of having to go through EWR, and not have to deal with United.

I don't think these decisions are particularly down to Brexit. I completely agree with the comments that UA can make more money flying the aircraft to other places. UA certainly isn't pulling back in Dublin (upguaged UA 22/23 to 772 from 752 & increased length of second seasonal EWR service) nor are they doing so in LHR.

But I do think that the relentless race to the bottom fare wise is making marginal routes less viable. Fares from DUB to NYC, WAS, LAS, LAX are running sub 350euro for Nov-April. Maybe Norwegian & WOW air are having an effect, maybe it's more capacity due to lack of availability of smaller planes. But the public are demanding lower and lower prices and if you can't match then you're not in the race

hammerb32 wrote:

Brexit = Weak Pound v Dollar, Weak Pound v Dollar = less UK travel to the US, not rocket science to join the dots.

As has been said earlier in the thread, real blow to BHX but given the fares are often twice that offered from LHR on UA, added to the fare war going on between TCX and VS at MAN than it's a pretty perfect storm that was never going to end well.

Latest tourism figures actually show the opposite. Brits going abroad have remained relatively unchanged, and US to UK tourism is actually up due to the cheaper pound.

Andy33 wrote:

Did Ed give a breakdown on that? In other words, is this his estimate of the total number of jobs across the UK and the USA that were required to keep the service flying? Is it just direct Delta employees, or does it include subcontractors such as caterers?
Delta didn't employ 1500 people in Manchester, or anything even remotely like it. What on earth would they have done all day? After all, pilots and flight attendants were US-based, heavy maintenance was US based, and so on.

And how was his statement worded? Have people actually lost jobs and are now unemployed, or have they been transferred to other jobs? For example, the pilots and flight attendants off this route won't have lost their jobs, they'd have been pretty senior. Have they bumped more junior staff who are now off the payroll altogether, or have the most junior people on the seniority list simply filled gaps that would otherwise have required new hires?

Have the planes used on Delta flights to MAN been redeployed to other routes? Well, we know they have, but after a lot of shuffling around, has an equivalent number of other mainline aircraft gone to the desert? If not, then the mx jobs must still exist in the US.

"Every international route we cut eliminates 1,500 jobs." It's at about the 10:30 mark in this video:

http://news.delta.com/delta-releases-fu ... elta+Video

I've seen lots of discussion here, but nobody has put forth the actual counts to see what is going on, so here's some to assist (source is the CAA published route statistics) https://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis ... port-data/

BHX-EWR
2014 (year) - 94,346
2015 (year) - 88,573 (down 6% over 2014)
2016 (year) - 78,469 (down 11% over 2015) - interestingly JFK was up nearly 20K during the period...
2017 YTD - 29,585 vs 28,724 (up 3%)

So definitely down over the last 3 years, but an uptick this year despite the issues with the GBP etc. But overall yields must have suffered, as it's not folks in seats that appears to be the issue, least not this year anyway.

Tedd wrote:

adamblang wrote:

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

How much of this has to due with Brexit and the terms at which the UK will exit being an EU member vs poor ticket sales

I don't think Brexit fears vs poor ticket sales are separable things – economic anxiety is a part of weak ticket sales.

Sorry but this utter nonsense. Whatever the reasons the UA B`ham -JFK service is failing has nothing to do with Brexit.
Why is Brexit brought up all the time as an excuse for thing going tits-up!

Hardly "utter nonsense."

Brexit is making businesses more cautious. That's a fact. Cautious businesses make more conservative decisions and employees of those cautious businesses make more conservative decisions. That's a fact. If one or two people choose not to fly every day because they're being cautious, that's part of weak ticket sales.

Nobody knows what Brexit is going to look like, but business taking a wait-and-see approach depresses economic activity now.