Rumours about new destinations or airlines?

[Aviador]

Re: Rumours

That explains it. I can't say I blame them for delaying the launch of the 2010 brochures given the current economic climate but I would say things are probably going better than expected as far as LBA goes. Hopefully the airport will pull off the rumoured increases, fingers crossed!

 

[White Heather]

Re: Rumours

Aviador, my thoughts regarding a possible Canadian route by Jet2 can be expressed in 2 words only..........
YES PLEASE!!

 

[User0001]

Re: Rumours

I don't think TUI have any single aircraft bases in the network now, so unless LBA can persuade them to base 2 or 3, it won't be happening.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: Rumours

Exeter is a single aircraft TUI base - a 320.

It used to be a First Choice base and in fact only became one a couple of years ago.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Rumours

Could the terminal cope with more than a couple of based 737's at the moment. Even two based aircraft will add to the current overcrowding first thing in the morning and again in the afternoon. I would have thought that whether TOM open a base at LBA would be linked to whether there is going to be a shiny new bigger terminal in 2010, and at the moment that is looking iffy to say the least given the ludicrous delay.

I hope that TOM moving back to LBA (if it was ever an option) is not cancelled due to the delay with the terminal. It would be something if they just put one aircraft here in 2010, with the intention to increase it to two after the terminal development is opened. I can't see any more than 2 coming to LBA.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Rumours

Over capacity seems to be happening between 0700 and 0930 and then between 1200 and 1430 and then to a lesser extent 1530 until 1700 with slight variations between the days. For instance Saturday is busy throughout the day but extra flights could be accommodated early morning and in the evening. There are still many gaps that could be filled.

Another two aircraft could be accommodated by operating W rotations into other airports during the busy midday slots returning back to Leeds in the evening to operate during the quieter periods.

For example...

1 - - - - - - 0600 dep AGP - W rotation into HUY, DSA or MME
1 - - - - - - 2100 arr AGP
1 - - - - - - 2200 dep ALC
- 2 - - - - - 0300 arr ALC
- 2 - - - - - 0600 dep DLM
- 2 - - - - - 1630 arr DLM
- 2 - - - - - 1800 dep HER
- - 3 - - - - 0400 arr HER
- - 3 - - - - 0600 dep LCA - W rotation into HUY, DSA or MME
- - - 4 - - - 0030 arr LCA
- - - 4 - - - 0600 dep PMI - W rotation into HUY, DSA or MME
- - - 4 - - - 1730 arr PMI
- - - 4 - - - 1830 dep IBZ
- - - 4 - - - 2330 arr IBZ

etc etc....

 

[White Heather]

Re: Rumours

I would think that if TOM base any aircraft at LBA, they will be at the expense of a similar number at DSA. In the current climate I just can't see us having (say) 2 aircraft and DSA still having 3. There must be a proportion of DSA passengers flying with TOM who given the choice would fly from LBA, and Thomson will know how many that is. They will be able to estimate how many would fall within LBA's catchment area and how many they might claw back from Thomas Cook by doing more routes out of LBA, and from that determine the numbers at each airport - assuming they keep the DSA base at all!!

I do hope that if we do get a TOM base in the future that they are little more adventurous with their choice of destinations and give us something different. Over the years they have become increasingly reliant upon the tried and tested places. I would love to see a TOM flight to Turkey and a few to the Greek Islands such as Kos, Keffalinia, and even a welcome return to Haldikiki, which they operated to from LBA in the 80's. Some may remember the tour operator Sunseekers which based a leased BA 737-300 in the mid 90's and operated exlusively to the Greek Islands/Cyprus. At the time, the flights did well, although sadly the company eventually folded. I feel sure though that there are enough passengers out there to warrant a weekly flight to some of the smaller Greek Islands. Any thoughts?

 

[User0001]

Re: Rumours

I don't think TUI have any single aircraft bases in the network now, so unless LBA can persuade them to base 2 or 3, it won't be happening.

...as I predicted a month ago, the first release of next summer's brochures will show pretty much exactly the same programme as 2009 i.e. no base at LBA.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Rumours

I am not doubting what you are saying (although I wish you were wrong) but out of interest, how do you know as the brochures are not out until tomorrow? On another forum it is reported that someone who works for Thomson had said that the airline were 'definitely' coming back to LBA with a base in 2010 although admittedly that was at a time when most of us thought we would definitely have a terminal expansion capable of handling the extra passengers, and obviously, we don't.

 

[WYIA]

Re: Rumours

Well I am sorry to say that , Thomson Airways are not going to be re-establishing a base at LBA for 2010. This came from a source in Thomson just the other week.

This is purely down to the current trends and overall industry state. They can not justify putting a full program into Leeds at the moment. >>> Thats not to say it isnt on the cards for the coming years.

It really was looking good on the Thomson front for 2010 but booking figures and proffits are down and growth will be minimal for the next 12 months.

Lets just all hope that this is kept on the back burner for better days when they are in a position to come back to Leeds. The rumour really did have clout behind it so fingers crossed for 2011.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Rumours

Such a shame and I doubt that we will ever know if the postponement of the terminal work actually had any repercussions to their decision as to whether or not they would return to Leeds next summer.

Eitherway, it is clear that the recession will have taken its toll, but hopefully the airport management has managed to get Thomson's back to the drawing table with a view to reestablishing a base in the future.

 

[empire]

Re: Rumours

LS16 is pretty much spot on with his assessment of the situation as to the reason why TOM are not basing a unit at LBA. It has nothing to do with the terminal.

 

[lbaspotter]

Re: Rumours

Hi

Well it looks as though my source back last month was wrong afterall. As by the looks of things and as previously mentioned on here Thommos haven’t announced a base at LBA for summer 2010 afterall.

Instead they have dropped a bombshell yet again. The Weekly Wednesday, Ibiza service has been dropped while the Tuesday, Palma-Majorca has also been dropped. They are also sharing with Thomas Cook on the Monday Dalaman and on both weekly Air Europa services to Tenerife and Arrecife-Lanzarote.

I think we must have been in dreamland again. Never mind, did we really expect anything else?

Thomson Airlines flights for summer 2010
Palma - THU - 14.20 13.05
Corfu - FRI - 15.45 14.30

Ps. I’ll never believe what sources (How relialbe they maybe) tell me again in the future until it either turns up or gets officially announced.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Rumours

No smoke without fire as they say 'but not this year' which I suppose is understandable under the circumstances. What with the recession and lack of terminal expansion, whatever it might have been. So long as talks with the airline (which presumably took place, hence the rumours) have managed to mend the wounds of the past which have been obvious over the years. Hopefully the airport is in a better position now for potential growth by them in the future.

 

[backtrack]

Re: Rumours

We can only hope you're right Aviador.

 

[User0001]

Re: Rumours

The terminal was nothing to do with the decision. Single aircraft bases are expensive to set up and cost more per seat to operate. TUI know down to postcode level where their passengers come from, where they fly to and which UK airports they use to get there. The two factors combined are obviously leading them to a decision that financially they are better off not opening a LBA base than they are.

Just to be absolutely clear on this terminal issue, the reason the airprot want it is because it will allow them to make more money per passenger than the current set up. With passenger numbers at 2.6m - 2.7m, then they are already 300,000 adrift of their peak in the last few years and about 500,000 adrift of where Ed Anderson and co were planning pax numbers to be - there is at least half a million passenger growth in the current set up, and probably more with walls being knocked down and other tweaks. The capacity side of the new terminal doesn't come into play until pax levels are #well# above 3m.

The income per passenger aspect is an immediate issue though at any passenger throughput because the terminal is not set up to extract value bacause the retail and catering are generally in the wrong places - the upstairs landside catering being a prime example.

I'm sure that in a time when the new terminal is operating, the economy is stronger and airlines and tour operators are prepared to take risks, then the airport company will, backed by their ability to make money per passenger, be able to offer some great deals to grow volume. So, the terminal is important, but to keep blaming the delay on every route decision being made at the moment is completely missing the point I'm sorry to say.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Rumours

Just to be absolutely clear on this terminal issue, the reason the airprot want it is because it will allow them to make more money per passenger than the current set up. With passenger numbers at 2.6m - 2.7m, then they are already 300,000 adrift of their peak in the last few years and about 500,000 adrift of where Ed Anderson and co were planning pax numbers to be - there is at least half a million passenger growth in the current set up, and probably more with walls being knocked down and other tweaks. The capacity side of the new terminal doesn't come into play until pax levels are #well# above 3m.

I fully understand that the primary reason for the terminal development was to increase the money made per passenger. The terminal as it stands does still have some capacity left in it based on knocking walls down like you say but it would also depend on utilising the airport much more during the quieter evening periods. Unfortunately this is at the mercy of airlines and their scheduling departments. Up to press PIA and Ryanair are the only airlines to utilise this quieter period on a regular basis and this is probably because they are using aircraft based else where. For the best part of the rest of the day the terminal has reached capacity. Areas where current capacity still exists is often prevented from being utilised because of capacity issues further down the chain.

 

[lbia]

Re: Rumours

I fully agree with Aviador, as much as we want it no airline in the right mind would be adding flights many flights with the way the Terminal is at the moment, yes we are down on our peak but the majority of those passengers were lost during the quiter months, take a look in departures between 06.00-10.00, 13.00-19.00 any day this summer (I'm dreading the school holidays!) and you will see that there is no room what so ever for another 200 or so passengers. We are going to have to accept that until we get a capable terminal we are going to have to stick with what routes and airlines we currently have.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Rumours

I have sat and listened to the airport directors on several occasions, giving presentations on why the terminal development is required, and I can tell you categorically that the prime reason given is that the present terminal is insufficient in size and so poor in layout, so as to effectively decrease the airports chances of growing its passenger numbers, basically for the reasons given above by lbia - ie the peak times are already packed to capacity, the delays at security are becoming an issue and there are simply not enough seats for all the passengers in the departure lounge.

Although there is a current downturn due to the economy, that will eventually finish and it is likely that there will be additional demand for existing routes, and a demand for new routes too. Airlines like Jet2 are always looking for options to expand and won't take it well if their doing so causes complaints from passengers due to being packed in like sardines and flights subsequently being delayed. If, by chance, we were able to get an airline such as Flybe based here, it is a reasonable assumption that some of their routes will be international, and scheduled to leave early, only adding to the existing problems at peak times.

All that said, of course the airport are wanting to increase the money made per passenger and the terminal will achieve that no doubt. They also want more passengers to make money from and the current terminal is already hampering that aim to some extent - purely the result that, as at all airports, there are peak periods. In the past it was often argued that we didn't need a 24 hour airport since the airport was underutilised at certain times of day, which was (and is) true. But the people making those statements (sadly, our councillors more often than not) had no knowledge of how the aviation industry works. No doubt some will claim the same now relating to the terminal.

One thing is for certain, Bridgepoint are not likely to admit or deny whether or not the failure to get the terminal development off the ground has impacted on their inability to get Thomson Airlines, or Ryanair for that matter, into LBA with a base. Although LS16 says the terminal development is NOT the reason, bear in mind that with the terminal development, there would ultimately be more passengers, making more money for the airport, which would enable them perhaps to offer the airlines better deals than they can at the present time. Didn't Ryanair say LBA was 'to expensive'? Apart from Government Taxes, that would suggest that the landing fee isn't to their liking, or if there isn't one, there are other 'incentives' not on offer that might be more likely with an extended terminal.

I don't think therefore that anyone can say the terminal is nothing to do with it. Nobody really knows unless they work in the airport in the department that deals with airline development. Personally I think that the lack of planning consent AND reduction on passengers over the winter months, will have impacted on Bridgepoint's cash flow forecasts and certainly made it more difficult to offer the incentives that airlines are looking for at this difficult time.

 

[wawkrk]

Re: Rumours

Rumours abound about 2 Jet2 767's being painted down at Stansted.