Flightblogging.com

March 27, 2007

Flight routes and property investment

Filed under: Aviation Economics — ja @ 5:21 am

I’ve often wondered about how much emphasis is placed on flight routes when people are investing in property. OK, the answer is pretty obvious - a very great deal! If you are searching for a second home in the south of France, then you can be fairly sure that there will always be plenty of flights to Nice from the major UK airports.

What if you live in Norwich though, and found a really good investment deal, but don’t relish the constant drive down to Stansted to catch Easyjet’s flights to Nice? With Flybe having recently added Nice flights from Southampton and Exeter, is there a chance that they’d also start a route there from Norwich? Maybe, but I wouldn’t advise making an investment decision on it. However, you do still have plenty of other options.
Ryanair have recently announced flights to Maribor in Slovenia - this looks like an area which is set to see plenty of growth, but would you want to risk buying property there, only to find out that the route gets axed? Maybe, at least there are other alternatives via Ljubljana, or perhaps even Graz, just across the border in Austria. But at the moment, this part of the world is still not so easy to get to from outside London. A good investment is always a better one when it is easy to reach from the whole of the UK, not just one region.

I don’t know if we’d be in a position to offer this advice to individuals or companies on a commercial basis, but I certainly love the guesswork.

Some factors worth looking at would include:

  1. Is the local airport expanding, or applying for permission to do so. 
  2. Is there local community support for expansion. 
  3. Have airlines made comments about intentions to grow there. 
  4. Does the local government have plans to encourage tourism – or discourage flying. 
  5. Is there an opportunity for traffic to flow in both directions (very relevant for the new EU entrants). 
  6. How stable are existing routes – be careful about anywhere with just one 3x weekly Ryanair route from Stansted. 

It is certainly worth being cautious about the intensely speculative nature of air routes – they are so much more vulnerable to change than road or rail developments, which rely far more on fixed infrastructure.

March 25, 2007

Flights to Zurich from Newquay

Filed under: Charter flights, Routes & News — ja @ 3:50 pm

When I saw Newquay Airport’s press release about its defence of BA’s new Newquay flights, there was a mention of flights also operating to Zurich. in Switzerland.

I didn’t think this sounded likely, but it turns out that weekly charters will be operating in the summer season. I’m not sure if they will also be bringing people back in the other direction, but this is certainly one of the more obscure routes we’ve seen in recent times.

Monarch Scheduled’s flights to Malaga were dropped very quickly, but they were trying to fill a much larger aircraft (an Airbus A320) on a much higher frequency (3x per week). For now, this is the only destination Newquay Airport offers outside the British Isles. It would be interesting to see which European cities the airport’s management think might be able to sustain regular scheduled services, and whether any airlines have been interested. Flybe would certainly make a good candidate for a route to either Paris or Amsterdam, either of which would provide numerous onward connections, but we’re not sure how ambitious a route like this would be for an airport of this size?

Some safety questions I’d like answered

Filed under: Aviation Economics, Environmental Issues, Regulation, Safety & Security — ja @ 9:35 am

One nice thing about a blog is that I don’t have to do all the research myself. If we publish a news article, we do at least need to make reasonable efforts to check that what is being said is correct.

So, these are some questions I’ve never got round to answering, but I’d love to see some comments:

  1. How many years are spent listening to in flight safety announcements - and how many lives have actually been saved due to people taking note of what is being said?
  2. How many lifetimes have been spent manufacturing life jackets for usage onboard aircraft? How many times has an aircraft landed on water, with fuselage intact (i.e. there are survivors), and how many lives have actually been saved by these jackets?
  3. How much fuel is burnt each year carrying all of these life jackets over deserts and mountain ranges?
  4. Have the new security measures introduced last year really prevented any further terrorist atrocities? And how many years do we Brits now spend queueing at airports, because lazy airport managers can use terrorism as an excuse for not bothering to recruit enough staff?
  5. How many fatalities are there on the roads each year, due to accidents involving people who are fearful or either flying, or taking the train?
  6. How many people will die from obesity related illnesses, because their parents ferried them 500yards to school, because they were concernd about a bogeyman hiding in the bushes?
  7. How many villagers are there who have hurtled in their 4×4’s through country lanes, just so they can’t be late to that public meeting about their local airport expansion, where they will hear endless tirades about planes falling out of the sky, and spraying their washing with unburnt kerosine?

Technorati Profile

Hello to Travel Rants

Filed under: Travel websites — ja @ 9:13 am

So Flightmapping’s blog has finally pulled back from the stand, and the engines are roaring in preparation for take-off. But somewhere in the front of the cabin, there’s a passenger who just won’t shut up about his travel experiences. Don’t get me wrong, he’s behaving himself and pretending to keep an eye on the hostess who’s giving a safety demonstration he’s heard a thousand times before, but he really just wants to get back on his soapbox. At least he gets to smile at the eye candy - and no, not said hostess in front of him, but all those other aircraft lining up for take-off behind him.

So it looks like Darren at Travel Rants and myself have plenty in common. Take a look at what he says about Gordon Brown’s new air tax swindle. We both agree that he’s conned us by calling APD an environmental tax, and then stuffing the cash straight into some over-paid and under-performing NHS administrator’s back pocket. Like me, he doesn’t like to drive - ok, he’s one better, he doesn’t drive - but we both like to use public transport, and yes, that DOES include planes!

So if ever I need any further inspiration to fuel my rants, I think I know where to look. I’m sure we’ll be speaking again soon.

Now, please keep your tray tables upright. If you find a sudden increase in blood pressure due to reading anything I’ve said here, please do remember that a large amount of it is either obviously tongue in cheek, or deliberately provocative. Please bear this in mind, even if you are a regular reader of my rantings.

Have a nice flight :)

James

When did science come into it?

Filed under: Aviation Economics, Environmental Issues, Flights v. Trains, Routes & News — ja @ 8:58 am

Just having a scout round a few other posts on these new Newquay flights, and I came across an article in the Ecologist, with the headline:

“BA ‘fly in the face of science’ with Newquay flights “

Just exactly what science are they flying in the face of? If we are talking about the hotly debated issue of climate change, then they should remember that BA are at the forefront of carbon trading initiatives, and that they have never tried to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist - even though there are still plenty of scientists out there who would say it doesn’t, or that if it does, that we’re really not the culprits.

If they are saying that we should reduce our dependency on domestic flights, then fine - but did they ever check to see where this plane was going before they launched their tirade? No, they did not. The answer is Glasgow - another domestic destination, and one which IS served by DIRECT, ELECTRIC powered trains.

The article then goes on to state the so-called science:

“Greenpeace campaigner, Emily Armistead, said that BA’s decision to open the route – especially in the light of a new high-speed rail link which will open later this year – flew in the face of science:
‘Planes are ten times more damaging to the climate than trains, so if we don’t do something about the growth in aviation Britain will find it very hard to meet its global warming targets,’ she said.”

 Newquay airport have meanwhile issued their own rebuttal, claiming that:

“Eight coach HST (High Speed Train) with 472 seats emits 12,170 g/km of CO2; at 30% occupancy (i.e. 140 seats), a standard occupancy rate used for UK rail travel, equates to 0.04 tonnes per passenger; for 105 pax (equivalent to 75% occupancy on a Boeing 737-400) the equivalent figure is 0.05 tonnes.”

We have no reason to dispute the 30% occupancy claim about the trains - and perhaps if Greenpeace activists spent more time on them, they’d realise that this is quite realistic! Over-crowding grabs the headlines (remember how the Cumbria incident was initially reported as being a ‘packed’ train to add more impact to the headline?). The reality is that outside peak times, trains are just very good at moving around huge volumes of air. The further away from London the train gets, the more passengers get off - and since when will the tin-pot branch line to Newquay be a high speed route? It might be scenic, as is the route along much of the way, but please stop pretending it is quick!

So far, this route seems pretty unpopular, if the numbers on the inaugral flight are anything to go by. One thing is certain though - if the route is a flop, it will get dropped like a hot potato. Train companies just can’t, and won’t do this.

So, the claim that “planes are ten times more damaging to the environment than trains” is utter garbage - nonsensical, unethical, and totally unscientific. But do Greenpeace provide further justification of their figures? No, they are far too busy going on their headline-seeking rants, knowing full well that they will get the media support they want, and that their figures will rarely be scutinised.

Does it matter then if flights are still more environmentally damaging, but “only” by a factor of between, say, 50% and 200%, and not the 1000% that Greenpeace are claiming?

Yes it does - because there is a huge difference in logic between the two. If trains really are super-clean, as could be said for the Swiss system, where virtually all of the network is electrified, and where far more electricity is generated from HEP, then the environmental case for using them is compelling. If the difference is only by a small factor, then surely any efforts to reduce transport’s emmissions should be targetted at ALL modes of movement, not just flights? And how come, all of a sudeen, environmentalists have started saying that flying is worse than “driving and going by train”. It isn’t! It all depends on the journey being undertaken, the directness of the route, the fuel or power source, and perhaps most importantly of all, the levels of occupancy.

So if you are really concerned about science, there is only one place for the kind of nonsense spouted by Greenpeace - the recycling bin.

 

 

Flights to Newquay - should BA bother?

Filed under: Aviation Economics, Budget flights, Environmental Issues, Flights v. Trains, Routes & News — ja @ 6:45 am

As usual, it looks like the green lobby missed a trick with their pointless protest against BA’s new flights from Gatwick to Newquay, which started this week.

They chose to target the CO2 emmissions of the industry as a whole, and to say that these flights should not be needed, because the route is a very short one, and people should travel by train instead for domestic journeys.

Newquay airport countered by saying that the train service to Newquay was actually pretty lousy (let’s face it, it is), and that a fair comparison needs to take into account that trains usually only operate at 30% occupancy.

Their figures suggested that the CO2 emmissions per passenger for the flights would be no greater than the train journey, because these flights should be around 75% full.

So when Greenpeace turned up to give their usual tirade, it looks like there were almost as many protesters as passengers, since only 34 people turned up for the Gatwick to Newquay leg. There were also just 18 passengers on the return flight.

Considering all the free publicity that Greenpeace and chums have given BA about this new route, I would have expected more people to have wanted to use it. Of course, it is early days yet, but as we already commented last week, this route now has three airlines competiting against each other. I would still expect more passengers to travel with Air Southwest, who offer a much higher frequency of service on this route.

Maybe this route will pick up over the summer, maybe it will not, but I wouldn’t be too surprised to see it quietly dropped at the end of the season.

Then, Greenpeace can have their little organic beer party and dance a merry jig about the nanogram of C02 which will have been saved, but the simple reality is that this route will thrive or fall on pure commercial logic. As it happens, commercial logic will also be environmental logic, as is so often the case.

Flightmapping out of action

Filed under: Site updates, Travel websites — ja @ 6:15 am

Well as if this week hasn’t been eventful enough already, we seem to be having a problem with our server right now.

By the look of things, this is a DNS issue, as some traffic (about a third of the usual levels) seems to be getting through, we certainly can’t see, or edit, the site ourselves.

I am not sure of the reasons for this - it looks like some gremlins have buzzed into our server, but I don’t know if it has anything to do with clock changes.

As soon as I find out anything else, I will post and update. Our blog sites are totally un-affected, as they are hosted elsewhere.

James

UPDATE: This problem was due to a DNS issue with our hosting company. It was fixed on Sunday afternoon (25th March).

March 24, 2007

Stung by Flybe, trod on a hornets’ nest

Filed under: Aviation Economics, Budget flights, Site updates, Travel websites — ja @ 2:23 pm

We ran an article on Flightmapping last week about dropping adverts for Flybe, because they has asked for all affiliate marketing activity to be suspended. The reason for this was quite clearly stated - they were approaching the financial year end, and the budget had reached its limit.

Then they told us that it was all a mis-understanding, they just wanted affiliates (sites like ourselves) to cool things down a bit, and actually we could carry on advertising them, but could we just tone down any suggestion about them being short of cash?

We made a few small changes to the story, but they then wanted us to go further, explaining exactly how we’d made this mis-understanding, and adding some general comment about what a nice airline they were.

Unfortunately, we just can’t do that, and our commercial arrangements with them are suspended by mutual disagreement, with immediate effect.

For further details about this (from the perspective of the affiliate industry), please see my personal blog post on the subject. 

 

 

March 23, 2007

We must stop this obsession with domestic flights

Filed under: Aviation Economics, Budget flights, Environmental Issues, Flights v. Trains, Routes & News — ja @ 8:09 pm

It seems that the Conservative party have blindly jumped on the directionless and disingenuous bandwagon which seeks to penalise people who take domestic flights within the UK. Last week, the Independent carried a front-page article about British Airways’ new flights to Newquay, claiming that the airline was being irresponsible by starting a new domestic route — even if this service was merely a reallocation of a previous Glasgow rotation!Of course, the industry needs to cover its environmental costs, but in the rush to go carbon crazy, we seem to be shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to protecting our own domestic market. As coverage of the British travel trade fair in Birmingham has pointed out, 80% of the UK tourism market is fed by domestic visitors, yet anyone who chooses to fly to internal destinations is now being penalised by two sets of air passenger duty, instead of just one. How can we persuade a family of four from Belfast to take a short break in London, which is already one of the most expensive cities in Europe, when they will have to fork out £80 in air passenger duty? Instead, this family could drive down to Dublin airport, and take a short break to Spain, and pay no air passenger duty at all on the outbound journey, and a mere €5.78 each on the return — despite the fact that the flight to Spain will be almost 3 times as far.At least bed tax proposals seem to have been dropped for now, but if we are going to be serious about asking more people to take their holidays in the UK, then this will inevitably mean we will have to build more accommodation facilities along the South Coast. This will no doubt bring the travel industry back into conflict with an untold number of nimby groups, crewed by the very people who are trying to stop us from flying to more distant destinations.

Whilst any policy measures to encourage the development of more high-speed rail routes should be broadly encouraged, the West Coast Mainline upgrade has already shown us just how massively over budget these projects can run — so much so that the (allegedly unpaid) carbon cost of a flight from Birmingham to Edinburgh is significantly less than the subsidy handed out to the railways for the short train journey from Birmingham New Street to the airport!

Any transport infrastructure needs to balance its social and environmental impacts with its financial costs, but it would be disastrous to give the rail industry blank cheques in the name of combating global warming, especially as domestic flights make up such a tiny proportion of aviation’s contribution to the problem.

 

 

Nantes to Aberdeen flights?

Filed under: Routes & News — ja @ 8:06 pm

According to Christopher Rodrigues, chairman of Visit Britain, no frills flights could be a blessing for British tourism. He commented that there is a potential for the inbound UK market to be exploited at every overseas airport, but then remarked that no one would have thought 10 years ago that there would be direct Nantes to Aberdeen flights.

I wasn’t aware that these flights existed now, and to be honest, I think that’s one route which still won’t exist in 10 years time, but who knows?

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress