Saabdriver wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:24 pm
OK, so let's cover a few points:
DUS didn't work for Eurowings with a Q400 and they pulled out of GLA despite having Lufthansa distribution behind the route.
Loganair went in with the E145 and that didn't work either and it's been pulled.
An ATR72 is a lot slower than a Q400 and is unlikely to bring any improved economics versus a Q400 over that length of sector.
The E170 or E190 are high seat-cost aeroplanes as well, as their engine overhaul costs are apparently really high.
An A319/320/321 is too big in terms of capacity, but can achieve lower fares.
So what does work for GLA-DUS? I can't think of a viable "fit" of operator and aircraft that would work.
If you then use DUS as an example for several other markets including CPH and BRU, where do you go to get these routes served?
And if you're Loganair, why would you commit aircraft and crews to routes that you know now won't work, but there are options elsewhere that will?
Some find it hard to believe the likes of Teeside-Newquay in competition with another airline is seen as a better business case than the likes of GLA-BRU/CPH.
PreCovid of course. No idea how much discretional business flying will take place after Covid but that goes for ALL routes and all airport pairs.
MME-NQY is twice a week, I think, or maybe three. From an airport at which the airline will have a base, to another airport at which it is the largest operator and has (or certainly will have) a reasonably meaningful sales & marketing presence. It's off-peak utilisation which doesn't require any more aircraft and/or crews than are already engaged. The same wouldn't be said of GLA-BRU, CPH etc.
And I'm sure that there's a lot more support from MME for the whole based aircraft than would be offered for an extra based aircraft at GLA.
Saabdriver wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:24 pmDUS didn't work for Eurowings with a Q400 and they pulled out of GLA despite having Lufthansa distribution behind the route.
DUS was a daily A320 when it ended. I suspect there was more to it than it simply 'not working' given the chopping and changing that Lufthansa/Eurowings were making at the time at both GLA and EDI. Eurowings was and is the best fit.
Saabdriver wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:49 pm
MME-NQY is twice a week, I think, or maybe three. From an airport at which the airline will have a base, to another airport at which it is the largest operator and has (or certainly will have) a reasonably meaningful sales & marketing presence. It's off-peak utilisation which doesn't require any more aircraft and/or crews than are already engaged. The same wouldn't be said of GLA-BRU, CPH etc.
And I'm sure that there's a lot more support from MME for the whole based aircraft than would be offered for an extra based aircraft at GLA.
“ Loganair eyes Heathrow to Isle of Man route
Scottish regional airline Loganair (LM/LOG) is planning to launch services between London Heathrow and the Isle of Man.
Sources close to the airline said that if approved the flights are expected to begin in mid-November using a 49-seat Embraer jet to operate the twice-daily service.
Loganair has been rapidly expanding its domestic UK market and is aiming to fill the space left by Flybe*.”
*except at GLA where it can’t find a suitable market?
Loganair wouldn't be the first airline to express frustrations with the Glasgow market though would they ?
So looking at the bigger picture, what's being done to address the wider issue of GLA catchment area customers, drifting off to Edinburgh and Manchester to save a few quid on their fares ?
Oh my what short memories we have. I remember the brief flirtation with the 146, even on weekend ski /sun charters it was hard to be profitable and certainly proved unprofitable on the schedules.
Fast forward to the latter days of BD on GLA-LHR: latterly it was worked by E145s sky high fares and low load factors. The 319/320s proved too big as they couldn’t sell the seats at realistic rates and when they finally pulled the route there was only 30% transfer passengers for Star Alliance partners.
So it’s hardly surprising that Eurowings and Loganair could make DUS work. The 135/145 could make money in ABZ thanks to oil company block bookings although that, now, must be in doubt.
I don’t envy anyone in airline ops or crewing and forward planning must literally be “ up in the air”.
Until politicians meet with airport and airline operators and management then give practical help instead of mealy mouthed words the situation will only deteriorate even further.
It's quite amusing really. The airline which has stuck by Glasgow and is flying a higher proportion of its schedule than anyone else, planning next summer to resume routes suspended like EXT, NQY and has started a "new" route - BHD - despite all that's going on, and it's bashing mode.
What, really, do you expect? If you think Loganair would forego the opportunity presented to it at MME and instead base a 145 at GLA to fly CPH, BRU, DUS then I'm afraid this genuinely is cloud cuckoo land. There's no way that the numbers would stack up on that right now, and you must have seen the huge reduction in international flying from all locations - NCL-BRU gone, EDI-HAJ not started and more.
Saabdriver wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 7:40 pm
It's quite amusing really. The airline which has stuck by Glasgow and is flying a higher proportion of its schedule than anyone else, planning next summer to resume routes suspended like EXT, NQY and has started a "new" route - BHD - despite all that's going on, and it's bashing mode.
What, really, do you expect? If you think Loganair would forego the opportunity presented to it at MME and instead base a 145 at GLA to fly CPH, BRU, DUS then I'm afraid this genuinely is cloud cuckoo land. There's no way that the numbers would stack up on that right now, and you must have seen the huge reduction in international flying from all locations - NCL-BRU gone, EDI-HAJ not started and more.
I think folks meant post-Covid. Now’s probably not the time for anything except Lifeline services.
Why would Loganair decide to start GLA-CPH or GLA-BRU instead of seeking new opportunities from other UK airports, exactly? CPH is largely leisure traffic and is served by easyJet, Ryanair and Norwegian from EDI at high frequency with highly competitive fares. Could Loganair realistically operate a similarly high frequency and offer competitive fares? I think not.
BRU has a higher proportion of business traffic but SN are offering EDI twice daily with connections to much of Europe and Africa on top of Ryanair's multiple-weekly route to CRL.
Loganair do well at connecting GLA with the Highlands and Islands and increasingly the rest of the UK so why would they waste their time flying routes that they cannot compete on?
southflyer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 3:52 pm
Why would Loganair decide to start GLA-CPH or GLA-BRU instead of seeking new opportunities from other UK airports, exactly? CPH is largely leisure traffic and is served by easyJet, Ryanair and Norwegian from EDI at high frequency with highly competitive fares. Could Loganair realistically operate a similarly high frequency and offer competitive fares? I think not.
BRU has a higher proportion of business traffic but SN are offering EDI twice daily with connections to much of Europe and Africa on top of Ryanair's multiple-weekly route to CRL.
Loganair do well at connecting GLA with the Highlands and Islands and increasingly the rest of the UK so why would they waste their time flying routes that they cannot compete on?
Perhaps it depends on whether or not you think EDI is a Glasgow airport. It wouldn’t come into my travel plans.
But by your logic it’s a wonder GLA has any flights at all.