The shocking lack of European capitals served by flights from Birmingham

As I see that the Birmingham Airport twitter feed has many comments about the runway extension and the High Speed 2 railway proposals, I thought it was worth a quick reminder of just how many major European capital cities are not served by flights from Birmingham Airport.

Now I’m not just talking about Vaduz or Andorra-la-Vella, which don’t even have airports, these are major European capital cities, including the capital of the largest country in the EU (Germany), aswell as other major players such as the Spanish capital Madrid and the Polish capital Warsaw. Even Lisbon and Rome will not get Birmingham flights until the end of March 2012.

European capitals not served by flights from Birmingham

(but these are served by flights from Manchester or other UK regional airports):

City Birmingham Manchester Edinburgh
Notes
Athens (previously operated by various airlines)
Berlin (previously operated by BACON)
Helsinki
Lisbon (YES) (new route starts 31 March 2012)
Moscow
Oslo (previously by Ryanair to TRF?)
Rome (YES) (new route starts 25 March 2012)
Stockholm (previously by Ryanair to NYO?)
Vienna
Warsaw (previously operated by Norwegian)

Now, surely I’m not being fair on Birmingham here? Aren’t there many other European capitals and major cities which are served by flights from Birmingham?

European Capital* Cities which are served by Birmingham flights:

City Birmingham Manchester Edinburgh
Amsterdam*
Brussels
Copenhagen
Dublin
Istanbul*
Paris
Prague
Zurich*

In virtually all of the above cases, other the cities served from Birmingham are also served from Edinburgh. European cities which are served by Birmingham flights, but not by flights from Manchester, are few and far between.

If there is any unfairness, it is that there are numerous cities in Germany which are both more commercially important than Berlin, and which are served from Birmingham. Yet, Berlin is still important in its own right, both for business, and as a key city break destination. If there are flights to Berlin from several other UK airports, then why not from Birmingham, especially as the new Brandenburg Airport should create an opportunity for new routes.

Surely, it would be easier to create incentives for the airlines already at Birmingham to open up new routes to some of these key cities, rather than chasing much harder to win contracts for flights to Asia, which have so far failed to materialise in any great way from Manchester, and which would be even less likely to work from Birmingham, given its proxmimity to London. And why should anyone fork out a hefty High Speed 2 rail fare to arrive in some field right on the edge of the Birmingham Airport complex, when Virgin Trains will take them to within a two minute shuttle ride of the main terminal building, with an only marginally longer journey time?

Notes:

  • * Amsterdam is nominal capital and most important commercial city in the Netherlands. Seat of government is in The Hague.
  • Zurich is both commercial capital of Switzerland and main gateway airport to Bern.
  • Istanbul is largest commercial city in Turkey.

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.