Flightblogging.com

December 12, 2009

What happens to flights when the Oil runs Dry?

Some people may want to bury their heads in the sand, and pretend that we can keep burning fossil fuels forever, but at Flightmapping.com, we’ve always taken the long term view, and wondered how medium to long haul journeys might adapt the challenges of Climate Change and oil price rises in the future. For the shortest journeys, we’ve essentially taken it as a no-brainer that most people will switch to high-speed rail, subject to a few small criteria which don’t always apply yet - especially here in the UK. And we’re not suggesting that trains will be able to walk on water just yet, although some of our youngest readers might be around to see a transatlantic tunnel appearing towards the end of this century!

So, to take aviation’s worst case scenario - that oil runs dry, and that biofuels are too costly to provide a commercially viable replacement, what do we do? Well, as a certain ultra-long haul cheapskates’ travel guide might say - Don’t Panic! Those pesky maglev trains might be able to provide the answer. Whereas flying is actually getting slower (Concorde has long gone, airlines are reducing speeds to save fuel, and let’s not get started on airport congestion), trains are progressively getting faster - with the Chinese having just launched a service from Wuhan capable of running at almost 400 kilometres per hour.

So this is what a global ‘tube’ network might start to look like from around 2050 - courtesy of our partner websites United Stations and Zug42.

htWorld Tube Map

htWorld Tube Map

November 23, 2009

7 Habits of highly effective travel cheapskates

7 Habits of highly effective travel cheapskates (based on The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey)

1.       Be active – hunt out the best deals. Get on all the emailing lists, have your electron card ready – and if you see a great deal, book it before it has gone.

2.       Begin with multiple destinations in mind – where do you want to go this year? How will you get there cheaply and efficiently – and can you visit several destinations in one trip?

3.       Put First Class Second – cheapskates only travel luxury when someone else is paying.

4.       Think gin/gin – don’t forget those duty free bargains, but make sure they will fit into your carry-on bag if you are travelling with Ryanair. And remember that most ‘duty-free’ offers aren’t really duty-free anymore - so do you want to save a couple of pounds on a bottle of plonk, just to lug it around with you for a week?

5.       Seek to understand and be understood – learn at least a few basic words of the lingo in any country you are visiting. It will also help prevent you from being ripped off by popular tourist traps, and make you many more friends.

6.       Economise – find more ways to creatively cut down your travel costs. Travel light, stay with those Facebook friends you haven’t seen for 20 years and eat where the locals eat. Don’t take any equipment with you that you can live without - you are travelling remember, not working - do you really need that laptop with you?

7.       Be sharp about what you saw – don’t try and cram in everything, just because it is in someone else’s guidebook. Go and visit the places that will excite you most, and enjoy the journey on the way.

 

Happy travels :)

 

November 5, 2009

Is this the beginning of the end for bmibaby?

Following on from yesterday’s news that Lufthansa can’t find a suitable buyer for bmi, we’ve had confirmation today that jobs are going to be axed, and that routes will be curtailed at Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff.

So, is it wise for bmibaby to concentrate their efforts on one large base at East Midlands airports. They say that they want to concentrate on ‘growth routes’, but with growth comes competition, and Ryanair are already very well established at Castle Donnington. Right now, can bmibaby really push themselves as the ones who offer a ‘more pleasant’ experience over Ryanair’s cut-throat service, or will customers continue to vote with their wallets and choose the airline which gives them the cheapest fees? When going after business passengers, it is much easier to play on offering services which take people closer to where they want to go, but is this so important for the leisure passenger - especially when East Midlands airport itself is playing a hybrid game of serving the three cities of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, and also trying to poach passengers from Birmingham, without being directly adjacent to any of these cities.

Easyjet might be out of the way at East Midlands, but there will have been obvious reasons why they made a commercial decision to pull out. Baby reducing their presence at Manchester leaves room for Jet 2 or Easyjet to add more services, whereas Ryanair and Flybe will swoon over any signs of weakness at Birmingham, and leave tiny with very little opportunity to come back in once the economy starts growing again. As for Cardiff? Not exactly Ryanair’s favourite airport a few years ago, but if baby reduce their presence there, Cardiff airport operators will have many more reasons to do a deal with Ryanair.

This scenario could easily see bmibaby exposed as a one-airport operator within a few months, with very few other places to go to. It would then be only a matter of time before Ryanair came in and made a pincer movement to finally kill off baby for good.

Why don’t no frills airlines offer more cheap flights to Greece?

I was asked on twitter by @Korb0s why there aren’t any Ryanair flights to Greece. The question could of course be extended to why there aren’t more cheap flights to Greece from all of the budget airlines, with Easyjet and Jet2 perhaps being the main exceptions. I narrowed down the 140 characted twitter answer to two words (airport monopoly), and said I’d give a bit more explanation later. So here are the key reasons:

  1. Airports monopoly. Greek airports operate on a monopoly basis, and to paraphrase Ryanair’s route development manager, ‘they wouldn’t know a commercial deal if it came up to them and slapped them in the face’. One of Ryanair’s biggest driving factors in developing new routes is the ability to secure the best possible deals out of the airports it wants to fly to. This can make or break a route decision just as much as whether or not they actually forecast demand to be there. If they get their sums wrong about demand, they can quickly drop the route, if they can’t screw a good deal out of the airports, they are stuck with paying high handling fees forever - that is the crux of the matter.
  2. Seasonality - no-frills airlines prefer to operate routes which have demand throughout the year. The market for flights to Greece has traditionally been dominated by charter companies, who offer packages during the summer season. Greece is not typically seen as a winter sun destination, and unlike destinations like Barcelona (Girona) or Granada, there aren’t any Greek airports which are close to ski resorts.
  3. Dispersal - when no-frills airlines have competed well against charter operators, they have opened up routes where they can put on a reasonable frequency of flights, and where a good range of resorts can be accessed from the destination airports. Apart from the capital Athens, Greek destinations are scattered around a plethora of islands, making no-frills flight routes to any one island less likely to be viable.
  4. Distance - a flight from London to Alicante is 914 miles, whereas a flight to Athens is 1,485 miles. This extra flying distance doesn’t just burn up a lot more fuel, it also means more crewing time, and more usage of the aircraft. For example, Easyjet’s 6:20 flight from Gatwick to Athens doesn’t arrive back into Gatwick until 14:20 - effectively half the day gone to service just one route. Sure, passengers have a higher perception of value for the longer routes, but it is still easier to juggle slots around two shorter routes than one longer one. At a regional level, Flybe have opened up a number of routes into various regional airports in France, but Greece would simply be out of the range of the Bombardier Q400 aircraft that they use on these routes - although flights to Athens from Birmingham using their Embraer 195 jets would seem to make reasonable sense.
  5. Ancilliary revenue - this is just a theory, but I would guess that as many Greek island destinations are fairly small, a large proportion of passengers use transfer buses to get to and from the resorts they are staying at. There is less benefit from having a hire car, and people who do might be more likely to rent a car just for the day. If this is the case, it means less chance of earning extra money for the airlines - but they should at least sell a few more sandwiches onboard their flights.

As always, this is just my tuppence, but I hope it gives a few insights into why there aren’t more flights to Greece from the UK. James

November 2, 2009

At last they admit it - flight taxes pay for bank bailouts

At long last, Chancellor Alistair Darling has said what we’ve known all along - that flight taxes (Air Passenger Duty) are used to sort out the dodgy banks, and nothing to do with the environment. Speaking to Northeast website The Journal last week, Darlin said:

I am quite blunt about it, we need to raise money to pay for some of the things we have done. If unemployment goes up there is a cost obviously to the family, there is cost in increased benefits, Northern Rock has cost a lot of money.

Now to be honest, no-one is going to step forward and offer their sympathy for the bankers, but many would still say that the bailouts had to be made in order to save the financial services industry. So, should airlines be made to suffer so another sector can survive?

Well, Darling seems to think so:

But if you think about it, what we are doing is putting a pound on to your average ticket, which about three quarters of people travel on. And you consider the cost of an air ticket, I don’t think a pound is that unreasonable.

The problem of course is that it isn’t “just a pound” on the average flight ticket. Last year, air passenger duty was doubled overnight in a move which saw one of the few taxes to have been reduced under the Labour government get re-stealthed. To make matters worse and add insult to injury, taxes had to be collected on flights which were already paid for - as if the chancellor (and former transport minister) was more interested in act of vengeance than a fair tax. Of course, Mr Darling, as MP for Edinburgh Central, is a fully paid-up member of the “you shouldn’t fly but I will” brigade, and that’s long before we bring up the issue of MP’s expenses.

Unlike some airlines and passengers, I don’t have a problem with air passengers paying their way through a ‘reasonable’ level of taxation - and I fully accept that the aviation industry must pay for its environmental costs. But let’s not forget that whereas motoring taxes are supposed to pay for the upkeep of the roads, usage of airports is already covered by separate airport handling fees levied by the (predominantly) private companies who run Britain’s airports.

Environmental costs should be covered by a global carbon trading agreement, due to be discussed in Copenhagen next month. Of course there’s loads of other arguments about the benefits of switching passengers from short hop flights to high speed rail, but that’s for another time. Or maybe, if that’s where APD funds were being directed, the travelling public wouldn’t mind so much. Mr Darling, if you are reading this, that isn’t an excuse to double APD again on you’re next whim!

 

 

 

 

October 7, 2009

Is it time for Ryanair to start over-booking?

Right now, I should be somewhere in Scandinavia, probably crossing the glorious Oresund Bridge between Copenhagen in Denmark and Malmo in Sweden. I booked my outbound flight from Birmingham to Billund via one of Ryanair’s £1 special offers, but never got round to booking the rest of the trip, and then other commitments this week meant I couldn’t go anyway.

So what put me off booking the rest of the trip? Well, the problem is that when you can get a flight for £1, all taxes and hidden charges included (I have an Electron Card), everything else just seems so much more expensive. I wanted to head all the way up to Helsinki in Finland, mainly to visit the garden suburb of Tapiola, which is reputed to be one of the best places to live in the World. But by the time I had added in the cost of a ferry from Stockholm to Helsinki (I like to get in a couple of ferry trips each year), and all the rail travel, it all got out of hand very quickly - and that’s long before I’ve had my first pint of Carlsberg!

So I wonder just how many other people avail themselves of Ryanair’s free or £1 flights, and then don’t turn up? Or are people who do this so keen to protect their ‘investment’ that these special offer flights actually have a very good turn out? Whatever the case, Ryanair have always claimed that they never over-book passengers, i.e. if each flight has 189 seats, they only sell 189, and no more. This doesn’t sound like particularly sound economics, considering that there are always going to be no-shows, and logic would imply that the proportion of no-shows goes up as the fares get cheaper. With Ryanair’s keenness to put bums on seats at any cost, it does seem surprising that they won’t oversell their flights by even one or two seats.

Anyway, as I write this, Ryanair have just launched another £1 ticket sale. This time, I might see if I can nail down a return flight as well as an outbound one, and make sure I get to go somewhere a little bit cheaper than Denmark and Sweden.

Airlines put Heathrow’s Third Runway in the Dragon’s Den

And so to the final ‘dragon’ in my review of the arguments for and against Heathrow’s Third runway.

If we just looked at the airlines serving Heathrow, then support for a third runway would be overwhelmingly positive. But no frills airlines such as Easyjet and Ryanair, who are being asked to pay increased landing charges at Gatwick and Stansted in order to help fund Heathrow’s infrastructure improvements, are less keen. As I haven’t yet mentioned the alternative High Speed Rail, perhaps this is the place to consider what ‘rail based airlines’ might think.

Heathrow’s existing Tennants

British Airways are unsurprisingly the most vocal in favour of a third runway at Heathrow, as they already benefit from having a massive hub operation in Terminal 5, which they want to expand by having extra runway capacity. In terms of the environmental damage caused by airlines, BA boss Willie Walsh was in New York recently, arguing that airlines across the world could achieve a 50% reduction in CO2 emmissions by 2050 - but many environmentalists are cynical about the industry’s ability to meet such targets, and even those that believe they are achievable do not consider that a 50% reduction is enough. So how does this relate to Heathrow, which is after all, just one airport out of several thousands worldwide which operate passenger flights, albeit the busiest one in terms of international passengers? The current government have made reductions in CO2 emmissions part of the conditions which would have to be met in order for Heathrow to gain approval. Obviously, this is all immaterial if the Conservatives stick with their policy to block an additional runway at Heathrow, but as Willie Walsh argued on Questiontime back in January, politicians in opposition can always play a completely different role once the enter government. At last week’s CIMTIG meeting, BAA’s director for Runway 3 said that “Conservative policy is about going after easy votes. As a transport policy, it is indefensible.”

Virgin meanwhile are pinning their environmental credentials on a massive investment of ‘all Virgin profits for the next 10 years’ in alternative fuels. Clearly both of these airlines believe that the aviation industry can still grow and cut emmissions at the same time. BMI also support a third runway, although speculation is that they will have been snapped up by one of their larger rivals by the time it gets built!

Non Heathrow based airlines

Ryanair in particular have launched legal challenges against BAA over the fees they are charged at Stansted, and have repeatedly refused to pay passenger handling bills, as they claim they are being forced to payin advance for infrastructure which they will never actually use.

High Speed Rail as an Alternative

The Conservatives have said that they will spend £20 billion on a high speed rail line between London and Manchester, and that they will encourage more people to travel to Continental Europe by train, in order to reduce the demand for a third runway at Heathrow. However, as BAA management have pointed out, offering easier rail access to Heathrow will only end up making it far more attractive for customers from the North of England. Meanwhile, Eurostar already have a 75% market share for point to point travel between London and Paris and Brussels, so there is little that government policy could do to switch more people onto the trains, apart from ban these flights entirely - a move which would be very un-Conservative! Although there is potential to see Eurostar services extended to cities such as Cologne and Amsterdam, this is a commercial matter for Eurostar to decide, and there is very little that a UK government could do to influence this, when the track and station access needed to make this happen is in other EU countries.

Verdict: Just as it goes without saying that most of Heathrow’s neighbours will be against further expansion, it can also be taken for granted that the main airlines using Heathrow would want to see it expand. But this misses out on the wider picture, especially as it is the no-frills airlines who are investing most heavily in new aircraft and new routes. It is therefore not a foregone conclusion to assume that the airline industry as a whole would say ‘we’re in’.

Final score - some of the referee’s decisions may be controversial, but my verdict is 2-3 against.

October 5, 2009

Environmentalists put Heathrow’s third runway in Dragon’s Den

Continuation from Heathrow’s Runway in Dragon’s Den | Neighbours | Passengers | Economy

I’m not going to look at the local environmental issues - these are covered under ‘Neighbours’. This section is about the contribution of Heathrow and the aviation industry in general to climate change.

So, the arguments against are well known and well practiced - aviation currently represents around 5% of the UK’s contribution to greenhouse gas emmissions, and this figure is set to keep rising as other industries clean up their act. There is a suggestion that if current trends continue, all other sectors would have to reduce their emmissions by 90%, rather than the previously suggested 80%, just to allow people to keep flying. The most efficient form of flying in terms of fuel usage per passenger kilometre travelled is to use no-frills airlines, as they offer the following environmental advantages:

  1. Point to point service meaning no wasteful connections.
  2. Younger business model almost certainly means newer fleet - especially in the case of Flybe, Easyjet and Ryanair.
  3. No frills airlines tend to operate routes with higher load factors, and are quicker to withdraw unprofitable routes.
  4. No frills airlines use less congested airports, cutting down on ground taxiing and pre-landing stacking.
  5. No frills airlines tend to ruthlessly cut costs - and lower costs usually go hand in hand with better environmental performance.

So how can Heathrow’s third runway possibly be justified in the face of such serious environmental concerns, and the lower environmental performance of traditional ‘legacy’ carriers?

Time to play devil’s advocate:

A new runway would reduce airfield congestion and stacking

More capacity means less congestion - this is a fair point, except that more capacity also means more flights to take up that capacity. And in Heathrow’s case, this would almost certainly mean going from being 99% full on two runways to 99% full on three runways. Result - some efficiency improvements might be created, but these would be counterbalanced by the increase in flights.

We still need hub and spoke networks

However much better the no-frills airlines might seem on paper, there will always be a need for some hub and spoke routes, and only Heathrow can serve these - not Gatwick or Stansted, even though those airports might have smaller noise footprints.

If Heathrow doesn’t expand, somewhere else will - and the UK loses out without any CO2 reduction

This is true to a point, but the passengers would still need to get to the other hub airports. Taking up slots with feeders into Frankfurt or Amsterdam will use up more runway space per passenger than operating direct flights to the destinations people want to go to (assuming long haul flights use larger aircraft), so whatever BAA claim, Heathrow will always cherry pick the most important and profitable destinations, rather than serve every route it can.

Expanding Heathrow means more direct flights, so less need for connections

With regards to flights into European hubs from other UK regional airports, passengers from cities such as Birmingham or Bristol are already more likely to transfer through Amsterdam or Paris, as they have feeder routes from most parts of the UK, whereas such a short route into Heathrow would not be viable. This is obviously more wasteful than a direct flight from Heathrow, so adding more capacity and building a high speed rail link into Heathrow would partially alleviate this problem.

Verdict: The environmental dragons would always be expected to shoot down any proposal for expansion at any airport. Although there are clearly some environmental benefits, these are often outweighed by other factors. For example, for every seat which an expanded Heathrow would enable to be filled on a point to point bases, how many other seats would just be filled by transfer passengers who might have gone elsewhere? Even if a clear distinction is made between the need to minimize the contribution made to climate change by aviation as a whole and the effects of one single airport, there is still an obvious correlation between more capacity and more flights. However much BAA try to massage the arguments, the concept of ’sustainable aviation growth’ is always going to be an oxymoron.

Economic Arguments for Heathrow’s Third Runway in Dragon’s Den

Continued from - Heathrow in Dragon’s Den | Neighbours | Passengers

According to the Institute of Directors (IOD), delaying further investment in Heathrow is costing UK PLC £1 billion each year in lost opportunity and congestion.  Heathrow employs 72,000 people, making it the largest single-site source of employment inthe UK. Yet a third runway is projected to cost a massive £8 billion. How will this investment be recouped? Clearly, BAA believe that they will get their investment back, and the IOD figure would suggest that UK PLC would see a return in just 8 years - not bad for such a huge piece of infrastructure. But what if the airline industry continues to see weak demand?

Heathrow’s attraction

In the current downturn, Heathrow has stayed steady whilst other UK airports have seen demand fall. Heathrow operates at 99% capacity, whereas its main three European rivals (Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris Charles De Gaulle) all operate at around 75% capacity. Neither Amsterdam nor Frankfurt has the population to support airports of such size in their own right - these two airports only thrive because of the huge volumes of transfer passengers they attract. Only London and Paris can claim to be true hub cities, where there is substantial latent demand together with the demand for inter-connecting flights, which makes more routes viable.

But does UK PLC really want all these transfer flights?

There is a legitimate argument to say that transfer flights are the most wasteful form of air travel, and that it would be better to encourage people to make such connections at airports like Paris, where there is a lower noise footprint. This is, of course, a blatant ‘not in my back yard’ argument, but in terms of economics, is it really worth building an extra runway just to encourage more transfer passengers? The argument behind such transfers is that they enable huge numbers of routes to be profitable, when they would not otherwise be viable. Typically, 25-40% of passengers on long haul flights to and from Heathrow are making transfers - without these passengers, there would be much fewer routes.

Of course, point to point flying is the most efficient way of getting from A to B, but there are always going to be journeys where the hub and spoke system will be needed - for example from Edinburgh to Entebbe or Oslo to Osaka. Is it really right that these passengers should be forced to be funnelled through Paris, Dubai or Amsterdam, just because Heathrow doesn’t have the capacity?

Verdict: UK PLC clearly sees the advantages of Heathrow’s third runway and says ‘I’m in’. Score so far: 2-1 in favour.

Continue to: Environment | Airlines

Passengers put Heathrow in Dragon’s Den

Continuation from: Heathrow in the Dragon’s Den | Neighbours

The recent deregulation of flights to the USA has shown very clearly that passengers vote with their feet, and choose Heathrow over Gatwick every time. Why else would Continental Airlines shell out £100m for two slot pairs at Heathrow in order to operate flights to New York, when they already have access at Gatwick? Despite the current economic woes, Heathrow has remained resilient as passenger numbers at almost all other UK airports have plummeted.

Do passengers like the Heathrow (or is that Hellthrow?) experience? Well, according to BAA’s own surveys, the user experience is slowly improving. Within two years, over half of Heathrow passengers will be using facilities that are less than 4 years old. Heathrow is already ‘moving up the table’ in terms of passenger surveys, and management claim they are hot on the heels of Amsterdam.

So would a third runway enable freer flowing traffic, or would it just snarl things up even more? Management claim that the new runway would preserve important feeder routes, and stop the airport ‘robbing destinations to pay for frequency’. Since 1990, Heathrow has gone from serving over 220 destinations to around just 180 today. This argument over hubbing is very persuasive. Most other arguments are essentially linear - i.e. more flights means more pollution and more contribution to the economy. The power of a hub increases dramatically due to the fact that doubling the number of routes means four times as many opportunities for connections.

Consider:

1 route = o connections.

2 routes = 1 connection pair (A to B via LHR).

3 routes = 3 pairs (A to B, A to C, B to C)

10 routes = 45 pairs - and so on.

This presents a very compelling argument on behalf of passengers. The key question to ask is what effect extra airfield capacity would have on the terminals. It is only natural to assume that BAA would want to build a sixth terminal in order to recoup their investment. Details of this are patchy at present - but anything which needs new terminal space to move outside the area in between the existing two runways is going to get very messy, considering how current rail infrastructure has to split to serve the central area (T1,2,3), T4 and T5.

Defending such claims, Heathrow’s Runway 3 Director argued that new capacity would make it easier to group flights according to airline alliances. Terminal 5 was already putting most BA flights under one roof, whereas Star Alliance would be hosted in the central area. This still doesn’t help passengers much who are connecting between different airline networks, or who might be using Sky Team airlines, who don’t offer feeder flights from within the UK and Ireland. However, these are in the minority, compared to BA or Star passengers.

Verdict - the most likely to say ‘we’re in’

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress