Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

1973mcg · Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:37 pm

Don't see this having been mentioned before on here but Flybe are moving their Newquay/London flights from Gatwick to Heathrow

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... ck-2245892

Apparently the Embraers will be ditched for the Q400s and there will now be 4 flights a day on the route, up from 3 previously. Would love to know where the slots have magically come from!

SeanM1997 · Thu Nov 22, 2018 4:18 pm

Its been suggested that the slots have come from the remedy Virgin Little Red Manchester route - but unconfirmed. The Q400 has a significant capacity cut per flight compared to the Embraer, however it does streamline the Heathrow operation as Edinburgh and Aberdeen are also served by Q400. Flybe will now have 11 flights Monday-Friday and Sunday and 9 on Saturday across the 3 routes making them one of the largest carriers at the airport.

Personally, I would have liked this route to remain 3x daily on Embraer fleet, and the additional slot used for a route such as Carlisle, Exeter or Anglesey via Cardiff. I know daily isn't frequent, but would allow connections to additional destinations. Overall though, a good day for Newquay and Heathrow.

DobboDobbo · Thu Nov 22, 2018 4:42 pm

Perhaps a good day for NQY and LHR, but a bad day for the UK taxpayer.

As far as I can see, the catalyst for switching the route from LGW to LHR is the agreement of Cornwall Council and the DfT to each pay a subsidy of £1.7million (£3.4m total) to support the route as a Public Service Obligation.

The Independent believes this works out at £5 per seat per flight (ie £10 for a round trip).

This further underlines the inaccuracies in LHR’s case for a third runway. Specifically, the “regional connectivity argument” for the following reasons:

1 - finding the slots to service these routes is clearly not an issue. Despite LHR claiming to be “full” four daily slot pairs have magically appeared from a hidden pool. Ringfencing slots in a runway three world makes no difference to this position.

2 - That it requires a PSO confirms that this route is commercially unviable. It is only possible by the DfT (central government) and Cornwall Council (local government) spending taxpayers money. This may, or may not, keep the route going - in any event, it is a cost for taxpayers to bear and this position will not change in a LHR runway 3 world.

3 - this demonstrates that flights to the likes of Liverpool, Doncaster (and anywhere else in the UK that is not commercially viable into LHR) to LHR could have slots allocated now, if the local and national government is prepared to subsidise these routes. Unless their position changes and they are suffenly prepared TOMS unsexiest these routes in a LHR runway 3 world, they will never happen.

4 - there is no indication that LHR have done anything to support this route financially (eg lower charges) so the financial subsidy from the taxpayer is likely to go straight into LHR’s coffers. There is no indication LHR will change this position in a runway 3 world (likely because they will be seeking government support for runway 4).

Ultimately - this news does nothing to dispel the View that the UK government continues to act and support LHR as though it remains a UK government owned state enterprise - to the detriment of LGW and STN in particular.

skipness1E · Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:00 pm

DobboDobbo wrote:
Perhaps a good day for NQY and LHR, but a bad day for the UK taxpayer.

As far as I can see, the catalyst for switching the route from LGW to LHR is the agreement of Cornwall Council and the DfT to each pay a subsidy of £1.7million (£3.4m total) to support the route as a Public Service Obligation.

The Independent believes this works out at £5 per seat per flight (ie £10 for a round trip).

This further underlines the inaccuracies in LHR’s case for a third runway. Specifically, the “regional connectivity argument” for the following reasons:

1 - finding the slots to service these routes is clearly not an issue. Despite LHR claiming to be “full” four daily slot pairs have magically appeared from a hidden pool. Ringfencing slots in a runway three world makes no difference to this position.

2 - That it requires a PSO confirms that this route is commercially unviable. It is only possible by the DfT (central government) and Cornwall Council (local government) spending taxpayers money. This may, or may not, keep the route going - in any event, it is a cost for taxpayers to bear and this position will not change in a LHR runway 3 world.

3 - this demonstrates that flights to the likes of Liverpool, Doncaster (and anywhere else in the UK that is not commercially viable into LHR) to LHR could have slots allocated now, if the local and national government is prepared to subsidise these routes. Unless their position changes and they are suffenly prepared TOMS unsexiest these routes in a LHR runway 3 world, they will never happen.

4 - there is no indication that LHR have done anything to support this route financially (eg lower charges) so the financial subsidy from the taxpayer is likely to go straight into LHR’s coffers. There is no indication LHR will change this position in a runway 3 world (likely because they will be seeking government support for runway 4).

Ultimately - this news does nothing to dispel the View that the UK government continues to act and support LHR as though it remains a UK government owned state enterprise - to the detriment of LGW and STN in particular.

So what you mean is if it can stand on it's own legs commercially it should close.
Like NQY.
Or anything under HIAL.
Or the whole ****ing rail network.
The *STRATEGY* piece is that Cornwall needs and deserves connectivity to the rest of the UK and wider world. So governent can choose to subsidise this, like say trains, nuclear power, the channel tunnel, prisons, the Royal Navy. None of which are "commercially viable". But anyway you've just argued Cornwall should lose the benefits ofair services to London cos it's subsidised. To be consistent, you'd argue the same for the Highlands and Islands? Cut the whole lot of and let the unfettered market do it's work? But Thatcherite that mate, that's wayy further than even Maggie dared go......

DobboDobbo · Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:26 pm

I’m not arguing to cut these subsidies.

It is a matter for the DfT and in this case Cornwall Council to decide how to spend their budgets.

Ultimately, if the PSO price is £5 per seat per flight to make it viable this can be found from either the taxpayer subsidy, or LHR reducing its charges (or a combination of both). In this instance it appears that LHR have done nothing to support the route and all the subsidy does is reduce LHR’s monopoly charges to something vaguely reasonable.

However, it does undermine LHR’s case that a third runway will open the floodgates for a raft of new routes from LHR to the UK regions. The truth is that these routes are commercially unviable and a third runway won’t change the fact that they need a taxpayer subsidy to operate.

SeanM1997 · Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:28 pm

Newquay to Gatwick has been subsidised for 6 years now. There are also PSO between Dundee and London, and Derry and London. Surely serving Heathrow will encourage more passengers and cargo onto the flights as there are more connections, and to encourage the routing to become commercially viable?

Also...I would argue this is better use of taxpayers money than airports in US paying millions for a BA service to Heathrow which is only 4x weekly

Andy33 · Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:30 pm

SeanM1997 wrote:
Its been suggested that the slots have come from the remedy Virgin Little Red Manchester route - but unconfirmed. .

I'm not surprised this is unconfirmed. The reason I'm not surprised is that there are not and never have been any BMI acquisition remedy slots available for LHR-MAN flights. When Virgin applied for remedy slots for LHR-ABZ and LHR-EDI (the only two domestic routes for which they can be available - the other routes are MOW, NCE, RUH and CAI), the slot coordinators pointed out that one of the conditions was that any operator granted any of these slots had to be fully using all their own slots first. Virgin weren't, they had several slots leased out, including some to A3. So they launched the MAN route using three of their own slots, reclaimed from the airlines that were using them, and one leased from Delta. As the route was spectacularly loss making (as it had been in the final years of BMI - which saw E145s being used to slot-sit), this proved to be a foolish move, perhaps the last Branson vanity project before Delta grasped the reins.
So while the slots to be used by BE for NQY may be some of those VS used for Manchester for the two years they operated it, these were VS slots all along, and will be being leased from them.

shamrock321 · Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:58 pm

BA are reducing NCL, ABZ and MAN next summer, have the slots come from here?

BestWestern · Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:18 pm

I have a sneeky feeling that BE are being duplicitous here. They are probably trying to get some Scottish route reallocated to Newquay.

ZuluTime · Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:31 pm

Dobbo, you're back on the anti-LHR / UK Government agenda again. The availability of slots for this route at LHR has nothing to do with the UK Government, but with Flybe's access to Heathrow slots from the BA/bmi takeover under competition remedies made to the EU. If you read the remedy document, you'll find the clause which permits them to seek more slots. What Flybe then do with them is entirely their choice assuming it's within the terms of the remedies, which is that they have to be flown on a European short-haul route. They just happen to have chosen Newquay.

There is no wider policy statement or implication here - it's an opportunity which was open to Flybe and they have taken it.

It cannot impact on the Flybe Scottish routes as they haven't yet flown those for the six consecutive seasons required to "unlock" the remedy slots from the specific routes for which they were allocated, EDI and ABZ. From March 2020, if Flybe want to move those slots to other European short-haul routes, they can. I understand it is very likely that they will do so in one of the two cases mentioned.

mutu · Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:23 am

SeanM1997 wrote:

Also...I would argue this is better use of taxpayers money than airports in US paying millions for a BA service to Heathrow which is only 4x weekly

Remember these are guarantees not cash standouts and only trigger if the route underperformed in a set period. As it happens it is looking likely the recent oneswont be called uponwith e.g. BNA going daily next season and MSY performing to expectations. Different model

DobboDobbo · Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:36 pm

ZuluTime wrote:
Dobbo, you're back on the anti-LHR / UK Government agenda again. The availability of slots for this route at LHR has nothing to do with the UK Government, but with Flybe's access to Heathrow slots from the BA/bmi takeover under competition remedies made to the EU. If you read the remedy document, you'll find the clause which permits them to seek more slots. What Flybe then do with them is entirely their choice assuming it's within the terms of the remedies, which is that they have to be flown on a European short-haul route. They just happen to have chosen Newquay.

There is no wider policy statement or implication here - it's an opportunity which was open to Flybe and they have taken it.

It cannot impact on the Flybe Scottish routes as they haven't yet flown those for the six consecutive seasons required to "unlock" the remedy slots from the specific routes for which they were allocated, EDI and ABZ. From March 2020, if Flybe want to move those slots to other European short-haul routes, they can. I understand it is very likely that they will do so in one of the two cases mentioned.

Sorry - just seen this.

I’m not saying that LHR slots are created by the UK government.

I am saying that local and national government is subsidising what would otherwise be unprofitable routes into LHR.

The reality is that any new routes from regional UK to LHR (creates from “ringfenced” R3 slots or otherwise) will require government subsidy to survive because they are commercially unviable.

I don’t think this point can reasonably be disputed.

skipness1E · Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:45 pm

Of course it can!
It depends on the pricing structure. IF the operator takes the view that an A380 and a DHD taking up a runway slot should be charged the same way then the domestic route is slammed to a competitive disadvantage. LGW forced out flybe when the pricing changed a few years back.

What you ringfence is the cost of access and usage, APD makes domestic flying borderline anyway so HMG can take a view here. You can’t pretend the UK’s premier airport, government approved, designed and built, plugged into tube, rail and motorway can behave exactly like a wholly commercial enterprise. That’s nonsense, it’s as commercial as the Chunnel and nuclear power, in that it’s a major part of UK PLC.

It’s not so much a direct subsidy as HMG setting yhe rules to give operators a fair chance to make money.

BTW if you are so anti subsidy, I imagine you don’t fly Boeing or Airbus as a matter of principle?

DobboDobbo · Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:08 pm

skipness1E wrote:
Of course it can!
It depends on the pricing structure. IF the operator takes the view that an A380 and a DHD taking up a runway slot should be charged the same way then the domestic route is slammed to a competitive disadvantage. LGW forced out flybe when the pricing changed a few years back.

What you ringfence is the cost of access and usage, APD makes domestic flying borderline anyway so HMG can take a view here. You can’t pretend the UK’s premier airport, government approved, designed and built, plugged into tube, rail and motorway can behave exactly like a wholly commercial enterprise. That’s nonsense, it’s as commercial as the Chunnel and nuclear power, in that it’s a major part of UK PLC.

It’s not so much a direct subsidy as HMG setting yhe rules to give operators a fair chance to make money.

BTW if you are so anti subsidy, I imagine you don’t fly Boeing or Airbus as a matter of principle?

If LHR was a UK state owned asset I’d be with you.

However, it isn’t. It’s owned by overseas sovereign wealth and pension funds. It therefore doesn’t behave like a UK state owned enterprise, it makes decisions in order to generate as much profit as possible to return value to shareholders (which is fair enough).

All you’re doing is advocating a number of different ways the UK taxpayer can offer financial support to commercially unviable services that will end up boosting the profit margins of a company that will end up sending those profits out of the country in the form of dividends.

Saabdriver · Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:43 pm

All you’re doing is advocating a number of different ways the UK taxpayer can offer financial support to commercially unviable services that will end up boosting the profit margins of a company that will end up sending those profits out of the country in the form of dividends.

I can't see how the change will boost the profit margins of LHR (assuming that you're not suggesting Flybe is a company that sends profits it doesn't make out of the country in the form of non-existent dividends).

In this particular case, BA have had to give up four daily slots currently flown by A320-family aircraft which generate a landing fee and 143-220 passenger charges for LHR. Those slots, via a competition remedy arrangement accepted by the EU, are now to be flown by a Q400 which will pay the same landing fee as the A320 but generate only 78 passenger charges at LHR.

From Heathrow's perspective, it sees a cut in income. There is no compensatory mechanism for LHR to recover that loss from the EU or UK Government.

How does this possibly increase LHR's profit margins, funded by the UK Government?

Although I would say it's not sensible, that's an EU competition remedy in action and I can't see remotely how the change of BA A320s flying to ABZ, GLA and HEL for Flybe Q400s flying to NQY benefits the operator of the airport - it can't do. All the airport can do is what they have done, put a brave face on it and say that it's part of their strategy to become more centric to UK connectivity. That's a PR gloss. There can be no other financial outcome for LHR than a loss - so your argument simply doesn't hold water.

F737NG · Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:14 am

DobboDobbo wrote:
If LHR was a UK state owned asset I’d be with you.

However, it isn’t. It’s owned by overseas sovereign wealth and pension funds. It therefore doesn’t behave like a UK state owned enterprise, it makes decisions in order to generate as much profit as possible to return value to shareholders (which is fair enough).

All you’re doing is advocating a number of different ways the UK taxpayer can offer financial support to commercially unviable services that will end up boosting the profit margins of a company that will end up sending those profits out of the country in the form of dividends.

Your argument is that a taxpayer subsidy should not be paid to a private or foreign enterprise. Fair enough, but it misses a key economic point.

By offering a taxpayer subsidy, the UK government has decided that the NQY - LHR route generates more in tax receipts from increased economic activity by passengers on the route than the total cost of the subsidy. Any cost-benefit analysis undertaken has shown that this specific market requires fiscal support to stimulate the higher levels of activity.

PSOs occur on hundreds of routes across European countries and are not banned as a form of state aid by the European Commission - what should that tell you?

DobboDobbo · Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:27 am

F737NG wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
If LHR was a UK state owned asset I’d be with you.

However, it isn’t. It’s owned by overseas sovereign wealth and pension funds. It therefore doesn’t behave like a UK state owned enterprise, it makes decisions in order to generate as much profit as possible to return value to shareholders (which is fair enough).

All you’re doing is advocating a number of different ways the UK taxpayer can offer financial support to commercially unviable services that will end up boosting the profit margins of a company that will end up sending those profits out of the country in the form of dividends.

Your argument is that a taxpayer subsidy should not be paid to a private or foreign enterprise. Fair enough, but it misses a key economic point.

By offering a taxpayer subsidy, the UK government has decided that the NQY - LHR route generates more in tax receipts from increased economic activity by passengers on the route than the total cost of the subsidy. Any cost-benefit analysis undertaken has shown that this specific market requires fiscal support to stimulate the higher levels of activity.

PSOs occur on hundreds of routes across European countries and are not banned as a form of state aid by the European Commission - what should that tell you?

It tells me that PSO’s are a product of political pressure, what economists would call market intervention. It doesn’t make them right (or wrong) they are what they are.

However, In the context of linking further UK regional airports to LHR, PSO’s are evidently necessary and they are a cost to the UK taxpayer.

DobboDobbo · Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:34 am

Saabdriver wrote:
All you’re doing is advocating a number of different ways the UK taxpayer can offer financial support to commercially unviable services that will end up boosting the profit margins of a company that will end up sending those profits out of the country in the form of dividends.

I can't see how the change will boost the profit margins of LHR (assuming that you're not suggesting Flybe is a company that sends profits it doesn't make out of the country in the form of non-existent dividends).

In this particular case, BA have had to give up four daily slots currently flown by A320-family aircraft which generate a landing fee and 143-220 passenger charges for LHR. Those slots, via a competition remedy arrangement accepted by the EU, are now to be flown by a Q400 which will pay the same landing fee as the A320 but generate only 78 passenger charges at LHR.

From Heathrow's perspective, it sees a cut in income. There is no compensatory mechanism for LHR to recover that loss from the EU or UK Government.

How does this possibly increase LHR's profit margins, funded by the UK Government?

Although I would say it's not sensible, that's an EU competition remedy in action and I can't see remotely how the change of BA A320s flying to ABZ, GLA and HEL for Flybe Q400s flying to NQY benefits the operator of the airport - it can't do. All the airport can do is what they have done, put a brave face on it and say that it's part of their strategy to become more centric to UK connectivity. That's a PR gloss. There can be no other financial outcome for LHR than a loss - so your argument simply doesn't hold water.

BA has plenty of slots. Even the LHR cheerleaders acknowledge that. I don’t accept LHR has “lost” anything as a result of this switch.

The PSO (at £5 per seat) means that BE operate a route four times a day into LHR (paying LHR’s substantial landing, handling, baggage fees etc) when they otherwise would not have done.Those fees go straight into the bottom line of a business that is profitable and sets its charges to be profitable.

There is no credible or logical basi to assert that this will cause LHR to loose money.

Saabdriver · Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:19 am

LHR will make less money from those slots being used for four a day on the Q400 than four a day on an A320.

DobboDobbo · Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:42 am

The A320 will use other slots (of which BA have plenty). They are not “bumped” by virtue of this new BE route.

The upshot is that LHR gets revenue from the whatever A320 slots you are referring to as well as the 4x daily Q400 (the latter of which would not happen without PSO).

Saabdriver · Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:15 pm

I think you'll find that there are some frequency cuts on BA routes for Summer 2019 and the overall number of flights will reduce by four a day to release the remedy slots for the Q400 Newquay operation. Flights are being bumped, if you wish to term it that way.

DobboDobbo · Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:46 pm

If there are frequency cuts (and I don’t doubt BA amongst others constantly refine their schedules) I’m sure they are more than made up for by new services and frequencies - such as BE’s NQY-LHR service.

Saabdriver · Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:46 pm

Yes ... but replacing an A320 with a smaller capacity Q400 on the very same slots (as is happening) is cutting LHR’s income so not adding to its profits, as you had suggested!

DobboDobbo · Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:24 am

If it’s happening (Q400 replacing A320) I’m sure you’ll supply the evidence - absent which your position is not credible.

bennett123 · Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:49 am

My query is about separation.

Given that the DHC8 is smaller and slower, does the separation increase.

YYZatcboy · Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:37 am

bennett123 wrote:
My query is about separation.

Given that the DHC8 is smaller and slower, does the separation increase.

The Q400 can fly jet speeds on approach if they land flaps 15. It can also provide potential efficiencies going slower by needing less distance on final and thus you can turn them in sooner than a jet airspace and traffic providing of course.

Andy33 · Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:50 am

Saabdriver wrote:
I think you'll find that there are some frequency cuts on BA routes for Summer 2019 and the overall number of flights will reduce by four a day to release the remedy slots for the Q400 Newquay operation. Flights are being bumped, if you wish to term it that way.

Which competition remedy ruling do you think the slots have been allocated under and taken from BA? The only competition rulings affecting BA at LHR this century have been either long-haul ones resulting from the AA/BA/IB/AY transatlantic joint venture, which are linked to specific US airports (so not available for domestic flights to Newquay), and ones resulting from the takeover of BMI mainline services in 2012. The 2012 ruling was for a specific number of slots to be released to airlines wishing to operate service to six (and only six) cities - the six are Aberdeen and Edinburgh (which Flybe are currently using), Moscow, Riyadh, Cairo, and Nice. These were the six routes on which BA and BMI competed head to head at the end, where the regulators found there would be a significant loss of competition. Nobody is currently using the remedy slots for the latter four cities, and unless somebody starts doing so, the slots remain with BA. Neither BA nor BMI operated LHR-NQY in 2012, so there was no loss of competition.
If Flybe continue to operate the Aberdeen and Edinburgh routes for 6 consecutive IATA seasons (=3 years) the associated slots become grandfathered to them, and can be used for other routes, but only ones within the UK/EU. Right now the 3 years are some way off. If they stop before the three years are up (as Virgin Little Red did) the slots revert to BA unless and until some other suitably qualified airline airline has a try.

qf789 · Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:33 pm

Please debate the topic and keep the personal attacks out of the discussion

AndyEastMids · Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:57 pm

Andy33 wrote:
Which competition remedy ruling do you think the slots have been allocated under and taken from BA?

The IAG / bmi ruling says: "Where a New Air Services Provider has operated Competitive Air Service on two or more Identified City Pairs using Slots in accordance with these Commitments for at least two (2) consecutive IATA seasons, it shall be entitled to apply for any Slots still available… to operate Frequencies on any European Short-haul City Pair…”

Basically once Flybe had done one summer and one winter on LHR-ABZ and -EDI, it had access to the remaining remedy slots to use for European routes of its choosing - and it chose Newquay. The slots were held by IAG, which had to surrender them.

JobsaGoodun · Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:23 am

AndyEastMids is correct, however just a minor correction. 2 consecutive IATA season means 2 summers and two winters so 2yrs in total. This period is up for the start of Summer 2019 enabling Flybe to acces the remaining slots in the pool to use on any European short haul service.

VS are launching a new route to Las Vegas next year from LHR but these aren't new slots, they are likely suddenly needing to find a use for the Slots they leased to the now defunct Cypriot carrier Cobalt.

The myth that LHR somehow has slots available is incorrect. They may have odd slots here and there available for one off, ad-hoc operations but I can absolutely guarantee that if all airlines claim their historic rights, there is no way that an airline would be able to get a consistent arrival and departure slot for every day of season at the same time each day. If slots were available, why on earth would airlines trade slots for £multimillion's? LHR has reached (some years ago), the total number of movements per annum permitted by its planning permission and that's why no consistent slots are available. It's the same at Amsterdam Schiphol.

Saabdriver · Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:07 am

DobboDobbo wrote:
If it’s happening (Q400 replacing A320) I’m sure you’ll supply the evidence - absent which your position is not credible.

The slot coordinator's pre-season report will show a reduction in the number of BA slots held and a corresponding increase in BE slots held. It will be publicly available and so that will provide evidence to anyone who wants to see it.

There is some turnover in the BA operation at LHR for S19 - e.g. HEL reduces from 2 to 1 roundtrips per day and the HEL nightstop slots are re-used for the new INV nightstop, the evening MUC rotation is being switched to leisure routes in July and August, and so on.

That is usual. The unusual element is frequency cuts coming up on some routes to release slots for the competition remedies. Those do not yet look to be in the public arena and it's not for me to change that if so. For Summer 2019, BA will have fewer short-haul operations at LHR than in Summer 2018 as a result.

More broadly, it is sometimes possible to obtain new slots at LHR. The greatest constraint is the 480,000 annual air transport movement limit which was introduced as part of the planning consent for Terminal 5. In practical terms, this translates to 9,636 slots per week being allocated but the declared runway capacity in terms of slots per hour adds up to more than that number - around 9,800. Actual runway slots may exist but if there are no movements spare within the 480,000 then you can't use them.

For example, slots are available for an arrival in LHR at 1905 on a Sunday and a departure at 0800 on Mondays for the whole of Summer 2019. There is a Friday arrival at 1445 and a departure at 1735 available (not great, but they are LHR slots). If you wanted to add a new service using those slots, you could - provided the movement quota is available. The scope for this is very limited but it does exist.

If the movement limit shifts as part of the planning process for the third runway, there will be some LHR slots created by runway occupancy and capacity improvements in 2021 - basically getting a couple more movements an hour onto/off the runway.

DobboDobbo · Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:50 pm

Saabdriver wrote:
DobboDobbo wrote:
If it’s happening (Q400 replacing A320) I’m sure you’ll supply the evidence - absent which your position is not credible.

The slot coordinator's pre-season report will show a reduction in the number of BA slots held and a corresponding increase in BE slots held. It will be publicly available and so that will provide evidence to anyone who wants to see it.

There is some turnover in the BA operation at LHR for S19 - e.g. HEL reduces from 2 to 1 roundtrips per day and the HEL nightstop slots are re-used for the new INV nightstop, the evening MUC rotation is being switched to leisure routes in July and August, and so on.

That is usual. The unusual element is frequency cuts coming up on some routes to release slots for the competition remedies. Those do not yet look to be in the public arena and it's not for me to change that if so. For Summer 2019, BA will have fewer short-haul operations at LHR than in Summer 2018 as a result.

More broadly, it is sometimes possible to obtain new slots at LHR. The greatest constraint is the 480,000 annual air transport movement limit which was introduced as part of the planning consent for Terminal 5. In practical terms, this translates to 9,636 slots per week being allocated but the declared runway capacity in terms of slots per hour adds up to more than that number - around 9,800. Actual runway slots may exist but if there are no movements spare within the 480,000 then you can't use them.

For example, slots are available for an arrival in LHR at 1905 on a Sunday and a departure at 0800 on Mondays for the whole of Summer 2019. There is a Friday arrival at 1445 and a departure at 1735 available (not great, but they are LHR slots). If you wanted to add a new service using those slots, you could - provided the movement quota is available. The scope for this is very limited but it does exist.

If the movement limit shifts as part of the planning process for the third runway, there will be some LHR slots created by runway occupancy and capacity improvements in 2021 - basically getting a couple more movements an hour onto/off the runway.

Thank you for the detailed and reasoned response.

I fear we are at a slight crossed purposes (slot allocation vs use of those slots) but as you say the detailed information is not yet (to my knowledge) in the public domain to verify the position.

You may be right - but while the number of used slots remains south of the 480k cap and while new routes and frequencies keep getting added (from a variety of airlines - not just BA and it’s partners) I would be surprised if it were the case.

Ph1l1p · Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:18 am

I can see from the BA App that the LHR-NCL Route has been cut again down to 5 flights a day Mon-Fri and 3 on Saturday and 4 on Sunday, so that’s a cut of 7 weekly flights.

The Manchester flights look to have a cut! Only 6 flights a day Mon-Fri and 4 flights on a Saturday and 5flights on a Sunday.

Aberdeen also appears to have had some frequency reductions too.

BA have certainly given up slots, some are for Flybe and others for new routes I suppose.

Cunard · Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:25 am

Those cuts that you have mentioned were announced quite a while back by British Airways and long before NQY to LHR was even announced by Flybe.

BritishB747 · Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:16 pm

A very interesting thread, and a number of very detailed responses.

It is my view that the PSO routes in the UK from London to Newquay, Londonderry, and Dundee are viable on an economic basis, and it is the nature of the London aviation market that has made these routes unsustainable. I feel that routes to Carlisle, Isle of Man, and Jersey would also be sustainable to Heathrow in future.

Before I get shot down in flames, let me explain my rationale. Much has been made of these routes not being viable, and the context of a three runway Heathrow has been discussed. It is my view that in a three runway Heathrow situation that these routes become more and not less value. It seems to me to be a case of simple supply and demand economics. Heathrow (and Gatwick) are at capacity and slots are therefore at a premium. There seems to be some slots available, but at low frequency, or restricted to certain routes. This means that airlines have to pay a premium to acquire additional slots, and as such they want to operate routes that will claw back that investment in the shortest possible time, therefore justifying the initial investment. It is unlikely that a twice daily Saab 340 to Dundee is as profitable as a 77W to Hong Kong. These smaller domestic routes cant be justified when the costs and fees are taken into account. History shows us that existing domestic routes to LHR were squeezed out in favourable of more profitable routes. This doesn't make them inherently unprofitable.

Looking forward to an expanded three runway Heathrow. The same, rather simplistic calculation, would suggest that due to higher availability of slots the costs to acquire a slot and operate to Heathrow would be more viable on these smaller domestic routes, and at competitive frequencies to stimulate demand and maximise connection opportunities. It would be easier to obtain the slots as the availability would decrease the value of existing slots. The 15% ring-fence of slots for UK domestic/territories use would be used to safeguard these routes in the future as Heathrow fills and protect them from being squeezed out as in the past. The ring-fence doesn't mean these slots will be PSO's, subsidised or propped up, it means that they can be retained rather than disappearing back to the current situation.

What about other London airports? Currently the Dundee and Londonderry flights use Stansted as their London terminus. This is all well and good for point to point, but it is hampering onward connections. EasyJet and Ryanair are hardly in the business of offering seamless connections. This may see people who are bound for long-haul connections ignoring these PSO routes and heading for Edinburgh/Aberdeen (in the case of Dundee), and Belfast (in the case of Londonderry), to fly straight to LHR and connect to the US/Asia/Africa. This further undermines the viability of these routes, so I feel it is important that they connect to LHR where people from Dundee, Newquay and Londonderry can be offered efficient international connections.

How about other UK domestics that we have lost/could have? An opposite situation appears to be true for the likes of Liverpool and Doncaster if they were connected to Heathrow. They would be relying mainly on connecting passengers, as the railways are much more competitive on point to point at such a short distance. It may be a tough ask to see these routes being operated at a three runway Heathrow.

Only time will tell whether these routes will become more viable if given a proper chance. The biggest question is whether they will expand Heathrow and get the chance.

Ph1l1p · Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:32 am

Cunard wrote:
Those cuts that you have mentioned were announced quite a while back by British Airways and long before NQY to LHR was even announced by Flybe.

When were they announced publicly? As they only went live with the reductions today. They announced cuts for Winter 18/19 earlier on for certain domestic routes but not for summer 19.

Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Re: Flybe switches Cornwall flights from LGW to LHR

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net