Birmingham: Qatar Airways News & Flight Discussion

[pug]

Hassaan, putting your age aside, i think you need to take more notice of what is being said on here. LHR/LGW simply cannot be compared with any of the regional airports its a different market. It looks as though LGW will lose its Qatar service anyway.

A petition of 5000, largely of people taking the p155 will not make them sit up and listen. Rest assured that the BHX marketing team probably invest alot of money and time into talking to airlines about services.

 

[User0001]

Hassan, Qatar are not interested in serving BHX. Look at the MAN press release, it clearly states it is the point of departure for midlands pax. That shows they have no intention of serving BHX for the future, otherwise they would have not mentioned BHX in readiness for a BHX service.

Also, you are submitting your petitions to Birmingham council. This is a flaw as Birmingham council have no jurisdiction over an airline route. Even if you ask for a subsidy, they will mearly ask why the route subsidy is needed if this 'overwhelming' demand was there. I think you have 2 hopes of this service coming to life, bob hope and no hope!

 

[Aviador]

That may well be the airlines position at the moment and perhaps even into the medium term, but given the rate the Middle Eastern hubs are expanding there's nothing to say the airline wont add flights from BHX or from other regional airports in the future. Afterall, look at the way Emirates has expanded into regional services offering connections through their hub in Dubai. These types of flights are becoming real alternatives to using Heathrow and even Amsterdam for those that don't want to use KLM or it's Skyteam Alliance partners.

 

[User0001]

I have no doubt that eventually Qatar may go into BHX, but I dont think thats going to happen for a long time yet.
Id make an assumption that once both MAN/LHR flights become too busy, BHX may see a service, but then again they could just add more flights into LHR/MAN.

Just because a lot of people travel BHX-XXX-ATQ doesnt mean its an instantly attractive market. Take MAN. It had 138000+ pax travel MAN-LHR-HKG alone in 2009, which instantly sounds like a hell of a lot of pax. So much so, it was LHR's busiest pax transfer route. Then you add the fact may travel MAN-FRA/ZRH/DXB/DOH/AUH/SIN/AMS/CDG/XXX-HKG, the number could easily reach 200000 pax per annum, yet there is not a single non-stop link to HKG from MAN!

So, its all about what the airlines could make on the route.

1) Cargo- Will cargo be restricted on the A332 due to runway legnth. Cargo can make or break a route so they will take it into consideration.
2) pax location- where are the pax using BHX comming from. If its north of the city, they could use MAN, and south, they could use LHR. So, would QR be in 'competition' with itself on LHR/MAN if it opened BHX?
3) Yields- What the pax pay for a ticket makes all the difference. Just because a flight is full, doesnt mean its making money. I have said before, I could start an airline, fly BHX-ATQ and charge a pax ticket at £10 all in. You'd be damn sure the flight would be full, but I can guarantee the flight looses money faster than a rat up a drainpipe!
4)Demand- yes, AI did well on BHX-ATQ, but, with EK on the scene, and the many connections already on offer from BHX, would QR be adding or overflooding the market? Dont forget, BHX-DOH-ATQ would still be a connection, so its only as attractive as a connection elsewhere, so would have to fight for its pax.

Anyway, rant over.

 

[Aviador]

There's also something else you need to account. Bham city itself maybe more populated than Manchester, but the Manchester urban collective is bigger than bham. This means more people are living in bham city centre than man, which is beneficial for the man economy as it means man's city centre is used more for commerce than living, which brings more money in.

Eurostat, the EU stats section, has come up with the concept of Larger Urban Zones (LUZ) to measure urban populations. This is because so often the local municipal (as in the UK) population bears no relation to the wider urban area in which it sits.

This list shows the populations of UK LUZs with their position in Europe noted in the left hand column.

1. London 11,917,000

16. Manchester 2,600,000

22. Leeds-Bradford 2,393,300

23. Birmingham 2,357,100

32 Glasgow 1,747,100

41. Liverpool 1,365,900

45. Sheffield 1,277,000

58. Tyne and Wear 1,055,600

63. Bristol 1,006,600

78. Cardiff 841,600

79. Nottingham 825,600

82. Edinburgh 787,700

86. Leicester 772,400

98. Coventry 651,00

100. Belfast 641,600

That's interesting stuff TheLocalYokel. The only problem with that is you could easily consider Nottingham (825,600), Leicester (772,400) and Coventry (651,000) as part of the Birmingham catchment area totalling 2,249,000 plus Birmingham itself come to 4,606,100.

 

[User0001]

Well, its a little extreme to use those 3 in the Birmingham city catchement.
Due to distances, transport and infrastructure, thats the equivilent of me saying Sheffield, Liverpool and Leeds are in the Manchester urban collective!
That would push Manchester through the 7,636,200 mark!

Dont forget, Nottingham and Liecster have EMA, which has been taking away a LOT of traffic from BHX, so the figures can easily negate themselves, and equally Liverpool leeds and sheffield have their own airports.

This in a way shows the demands, as the MAN 'urban area' needs 4 airports, while the BHX 'urban area' only needs 2. Birmingham has BHX/EMA/CVT. one of them is in general decline (BHX),one no longer has flights (CVT) and only EMA is showing growth. In the DSA/LPL/MAN/LBA case, LBA/MAN are growing whilst 2 are in decline, so shows a huge need for travel in the north west.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

That's interesting stuff TheLocalYokel. The only problem with that is you could easily consider Nottingham (825,600), Leicester (772,400) and Coventry (651,000) as part of the Birmingham catchment area totalling 2,249,000 plus Birmingham itself come to 4,606,100.

LUZs aren't aimed at airport catchment sizes. They are a device to more accurately assess populations of an urban area/conurbation beyond the strict municipal definitions of city populations.

As you say, some of the LUZs will overlap when it comes to airport catchment areas.

one of them is in general decline (BHX),one no longer has flights (CVT) and only EMA is showing growth.

EMA has lost around 27% of its passenger numbers since 2008 when it handled 5.62 million passengers in the year. It's now down to fewer than 4.10 mppa (January 2011) and shows no sign of improving. In November its passenger numbers declined by 18.9% on the previous November and in December it saw a decrease of 24%. In January it was down by 12% even though January 2010 was severely weather affected.

BHX, like most airports, has declined since its best year (in its case 2008 when it handled 9.58 mppa) but only six UK top 20 airports have fared better since the recession bit. Its passenger figures are down by 10.6% since his best year.

It is true that BHX is having some trouble in attracting new routes/operators given its size but I can't in any way see it is performing worse than EMA: the reverse in fact.

I'm not a poster who has a football club-like allegiance to any airport. My local airport is BRS and I use it most of the time because it's convenient. LHR, BHX, CWL, EXT and even SOU are all in range and I will use them if they are better options though I don't like giant airports, hence my aversion to LHR.

My long haul alternatives to LHR are BHX (limited) or via AMS/CDG/BRU/DUB from BRS. This is the reason I'd like to see BHX find some more lh routes. However, I recognise its geographical situation between the southeast mega hub and the northwest major hub makes life potentially difficult in this regard.

MAN is certainly starting to do very well again but it has to be remembered that it lost 20% of its passenger numbers since its high point in 2006 when 22.12 mppa were handled so it has some work to do to get back to that level.

 

[User0001]

BHX, like most airports, has declined since its best year (in its case 2008 when it handled 9.58 mppa) but only six UK top 20 airports have fared better since the recession bit

But, whilst most airports are seeing increases in frequencies/routes, BHX is going in the opposite direction. How many new routes/frequencies are being added in 2011? I can cant even think of one! (I dont count RYR, as any new route at BHX seems to be a substitute for another one, and has recently lost rotations on GRO based aircraft).
Even KLM, who have increased a lot of UK routes with capacity/frequency have neglected BHX, and Lufthansa cant be counted as they are swapping their A319/A320 for a BD A319.

Anyway, its starting to veer way off topic now, so this is where I will end it and keep it relevent to QR (not) at BHX.

 

[Hassaan]

I wonder what the key is to get an airline interested in an airport... The catchment area possibly and demand. I really shouldn't be doing this but this is the petition I was talking about, and if you want me to change anything then i'd be happy to do it. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/flight ... r-airways/

But i'll take on board what you all said, it's probably not the time.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Fantastic news if true :yahoo:

Although the BHX cynicism ingrained in me means I won't get too excited until there is an official press release 🙄

Qatar Airways plans Birmingham-Doha route

Qatar Airways plans to fly from Birmingham airport after taking delivery of new aircraft later this year.

The carrier currently operates five services a day from Heathrow and 10 a week from Manchester to its base at Doha.

Akbar Al Baker, Qatar Airways chief executive, confirmed: “We are going to start operating [from Doha] to other UK airports. We will operate to three new destinations in the UK.”

Birmingham will be one of the airports, Al Baker told Travel Weekly, but he declined to identify the others. Asked when the services would begin, Al Baker said: “It depends how soon we get the additional aircraft from Boeing.”

The airline confirmed the Birmingham-Doha service would operate daily. A Birmingham airport spokesman appeared surprised at the news, but said: “We welcome the announcement by the Qatar Airways chief executive of services between Doha and Birmingham.”

Other UK airports under consideration, according to Qatar sources, include Edinburgh and a return to Gatwick. Travel Weekly understands Qatar is also considering a return to double-daily services from Manchester.

The airline cut its Manchester services from 14 to 10 at the end of March. Qatar withdrew from Gatwick in May 2011, arguing there was no feeder traffic on to long-haul flights at the airport and that domestic traffic “was not enough”.

Al Baker has previously announced Qatar is looking at other UK airports. He said last year: “We have several options.”

Birmingham is the UK’s third-largest airport outside London and the UK’s seventh largest overall, handling nine million passengers last year.

http://m.travelweekly.co.uk/Article.asp ... s&id=41136

 

[752]

Great News, i wonder what the other UK airports may be, any thoughts?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Great News, i wonder what the other UK airports may be, any thoughts?

It is great news for BHX and, possibly, for me too as it gives me further options to fly 'Down Under'.

EDI and LGW are mentioned in the piece as being under consideration by Qatar.

 

[Ray Finkle]

It's been suggested that a 787 was originally planned but it will now be an A330. Hope we get an official press release soon.

 

[Aviador]

That's fantastic news for Birmingham airport and a huge coup for the management team who have being pushing for more long haul flights.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Agreed. I think a bit of patience may be needed with this one, getting the new aircraft may be the problem.

Also, once the start date is released, I wonder if we'll see any retaliation from Emirates with either a lunchtime A380 or a third daily morning service.

 

[Aviador]

Cheers Ray, will you keep us informed on when the start date is. :good:

 

[Ray Finkle]

One forum is suggesting a tentative start date of Dec 15th but I think I'd rather wait for the official release.

 

[Aviador]

One forum is suggesting a tentative start date of Dec 15th but I think I'd rather wait for the official release.

That would seem a reasonable lead in time so it could be genuine. Fingers crossed! :good:

 

[Ray Finkle]

Well Dec seems very unlikely now with the continuing delay of the 787's. As they eventually do start being delivered I guess it depends on how high BHX is up the new routes list as to when we may get a start date.

ROUTES: Al Baker blasts Boeing’s 'failure' over 787 deliveries

Qatar Airways boss Akbar Al Baker is losing patience with Boeing over its failure to begin deliveries of the airline's 787, as delays are now threatening its network growth.

The Doha-based airline's first 787 made its public debut at Farnborough in July and was expected to be handed over to Qatar Airways by late August. However, as a result of what Al Baker describes as "a creeping delivery date", the handover has still not taken place, forcing the airline to delay plans to introduce the twinjet on international services to London.

This had been slated to begin in September, and five 787s were due to be delivered by the end of the year.

Qatar Airways is adding five new routes to its network in the coming months but Al Baker tells Flightglobal that further expansion has been stymied by the delays. "Others [routes] we will have to delay due to the 787 deliveries, which is very disappointing to Qatar Airways," he says.

"We are now at the mercy of the manufacturer of the 787 to fulfil our growth, which is very difficult for us to digest as we never thought we would have been failed so badly by Boeing," he adds.

With no firm delivery date currently in sight, Al Baker says the airline "now has to look at all our options".

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-377099/

No Boeing 787 delivery until engine fault fixed - Qatar Airways

Oct 2 (Reuters) - Qatar Airways will not take delivery of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner until an engine defect is modified, the Gulf Arab carrier's chief executive said on Tuesday.

"The 787 has an engine with new technology. However, there has been a material defect in the engine which now needs replacement and inspection," Akbar Al Baker said after a speech in the Qatari capital.

"We have informed Boeing that we will not take delivery until the 787s have the new modified shaft."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... arketsNews

 

[Hassaan]

I'm not sure they will use a 787 on a new route - they seem to be using them on established routes like LHR.