Tag Archives: Continental

When flights to hub airports are still cheaper if you go indirect

Posted on by
Reply

If you want to reach many destinations from regional airports like Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow, you would expect to take a connecting flight through a major European hub airport.

But what about when you want flights to that hub itself? You would have thought that there would be enough capacity on the route for it to be cheaper to go direct with the airline which operates that hub facility. As it happens, the opposite is often the case, even when flights via that hub are cheaper than direct flights to the other hub.

Looking at flights to 10 hub airports served by direct and connecting flights from Birmingham, we found the following:

Hub airport
Airline
Direct £
Indirect £
Premium%
Airline
Via
Brussels Brussels Airlines 255 200 28 KLM AMS
Copenhagen SAS 208 151 57 KLM-AF AMS / CDG
Dubai Emirates 470 339 131 Swiss ZRH
Frankfurt Lufthansa 396 151 245 KLM AMS
Istanbul Turkish 183 161 22 KLM AMS
Munich Lufthansa 193 151 42 KLM AMS
New York Continental* 437 369 68 KLM-DL AMS
Zurich Swiss 193 161 32 KLM-AF AMS / CDG

Flight prices were searched using Expedia.co.uk for a 1 week trip (therefore including a Saturday night stay and often being cheaper), between 1st and 8th December. Only flights to Paris and Amsterdam were cheaper direct – hardly surprising considering how close they are, but Brussels still worked out more expensive to go direct.

Now these dates might be quite soon, but they are still before the mid-December Christmas rush. Looking forward to March next year, prices for direct flights to Brussels, Frankfurt, Munich and Zurich fell below the prices for flight connections.

This shows that the network carriers are still charging hefty premiums for direct flights. This seems to fly in the face of environmental concerns over short haul flights being the most polluting – and two short haul flights when one will often do being particularly bad for the environment.

The low cost airlines have shown that point to point routes are what the customers want, and that they shouldn’t need to pay for the privilege. Most low cost airlines actively shun transfer passengers, as if one flight is late, they don’t want to deal with missed connections, and their smallprint makes it clear that they are your problem, not theirs.

Yet, of the routes featured, none have a low cost alternative from Birmingham. At a push, you could fly to Paris with Flybe, and then take Thalys to Brussels, or if your dates were flexible, you could find a cheap flight to Geneva and then train it to Zurich.

So will the legacy airlines ever wake up to the idea that direct flights should be cheaper for them to operate, better for the environment, and therefore cheaper for the consumer? Not without a heft taxation penalty against them, and UK Air Passenger Duty is onerous enough as it is. In the meantime, they will continue to charge more for the convenience of a direct service, especially if there isn’t a realistic low cost alternative.

Notes:

  • *Continental dates were 2nd-9th December. No direct Continental flights found in March 2012.
  • AF = Air France, DL = Delta
  • AMS = Amsterdam, CDG = Paris CDG, ZRH = Zurich

Passengers put Heathrow in Dragon’s Den

Posted on by
Reply

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’