Birmingham Airport - General Thread

[Ray Finkle]

I think we'd all love construction to begin on a huge, shiny new terminal and a second runway, unfortunately that somehow has to be paid for and it wouldn't come cheap.

The airport company have, in recent years, spent close to £1 billion on a new pier, new tower, new radar system, runway extension, new ILS system, new maintenance hangar, terminal reconfigurations and upgrades, the ongoing baggage system improvements and probably alot more that we don't know about. That £1 billion was needed just to bring us up to where we probably already should have been.

Sadly BHX saw decades of massive under investment and was allowed to 'rot', see the interview with Paul Kehoe about the state BHX was in when he arrived. Had things have been different and had the works we have recently seen been done over the last 30 years or so I have no doubt that we'd be seeing plans for a huge T3, possibly even another runway. It wasn't though and other airports were forging ahead whilst Birmingham sat back and did nothing. We've been playing catch up ever since and it's going to take time.

The current owners, along with the appointment of Paul Kehoe, have put things back on track and over the last 18 months or so we have been reaping the rewards. There are whispers of terminal extensions to be built along with another pier or two, possibly a loco terminal on the Elmdon site, these should happen in line with demand but having spent the amount that they have I wouldn't be surprised if it's quite a few years before we see anything really major. Obviously a huge commitment by an airline could of course speed things up a little.

Going by Paul Kehoe's words in that interview it seems as if he agrees that the current site is too constrained and wants to move everything over towards the HS2 site. The benefits would be immense but I shudder to think of the price tag that would bring, especially having just spent £1 billion on the current site. The final say will of course be with the shareholders.

The master plan is due in the coming months so we'll have a better idea of what may happen.

As for Belfast it offers up to 11 flights per day with almost 2200 daily seats. It may not be as glamorous as some long haul routes but destinations such as this are bread and butter for BHX

 

[route66]

I wasn't sure where to put these comments, but they concern the airport infrastructure, so here goes.

I returned to BHX with Qatar Airlines on May 1st after a month long holiday in Japan and Australia. My return was soured by the the state of the arrivals/baggage/customs areas which looked tired and grubby. My wife said that the ladies toilets were "disgusting". We decided to use the lift in the Cafe Nero area because of our heavy luggage so that we could catch a train. The lift appeared to have a floor tile missing and a corner of the lift had rubbish in it.

I emailed Paul Kehoe the next day highlighting my observations and comparing the airport with Hamed, Narita and Melbourne, which although relatively new and three times the size of BHX, were clean and modern looking.

Mr Kehoe responded quickly and pointed out that despite £300m having been invested at BHX in the last 8 years, it is not as new as many airports, having its origins in 1984. Mr Kehoe also said that the state of the toilets is inexcusable, but they are not always treated well by consumers. He said that colleagues will be giving me a full explanation, but I have not received any communication yet.

I pointed out to Mr Kehoe that first impressions are very important and although the team at BHX has been successful in recent years at gaining new routes and airlines, the airport could lose travellers if the infrastructure falls below standard.

Regarding Qatar Airlines, I travelled on the second flight to Doha business class which was full. The return flight was a third full in business class.

 

[nwoody2001]

JennyJet - you are indeed correct but one thing that you seem not to appreciate is that unlike many other countries, our airports are not nationalized and as such and private companies that fund themselves (with the exception of the most important infrastructure projects - for whish there are many bidding for the same pot of money).

Yes it would be great to expand ready for development, but the risks of building speculatively regarding what 'could' happen is horrifically high, and the chances of getting funding is next to Zero. Consequently, until our government adopt and nationwide aviation strategy, our airport have to grow incrementally! With the exception of Stansted, every single UK airport has grown as such, even heathrow!

The good news is that a) BHX is now in the mood to grow and whilst it has already spent an amazing amout of many on infrastructure and b) all its UK competitors are in a similar situation. Consequently, for airlines looking to invest in the UK market, BHX is not up against a big new shiny airport... look at LHR, LGW, LTN - close to their special limit regarding slots and pax levels, MAN is about to be a massive construction site similarly because of a lack of investment over time (though not to the extent of BHX) and have only just been able to reach the critical mass to redevelop, and then the likes of GLA, EDI and EMA, which are (in my view) even worse when it comes to under investment and incremental growth.

The issue does however come when we have to compete with other European airports where we are less favorable...

The reality is, only 40-45% of the revenue generated by an airport is from airlines. The rest is from passengers - shop rent and incomes, hotels, parking etc. Consequently, for the airport to gain revenue to fund expansion, it needs passengers, not only to attract airlines but to spend money at the airport. Consequently, whilst we would love to see a 2x weekly Norwegian 787 to LAX, but that only delivers upto 1,020 pax to the airport, yet a 3x weekly Ryanair flight to Oslo could also deliver up to 1,080 pax....both just as valuable to the airport!

We cant afford to rate long-haul above Low cost if we want the airport to grow. we need both for growth! Low cost carriers bring passangers and spend. Long-haul airlines are attracted to airports with growing passenger figures, the passanger they bring could then fund airport expansion.... and the circle starts again!

 

[Kevin Farnell]

Jennyjet, thanks for your thoughts. You must have taken considerable time to compose your post. Below, are a few of my thoughts -

To start,

Space!!! Where is the terminal space for more airlines and more premier routes? We could cap the low cost Mediterranean services to allow those willing to stretch their wings to Florida, Canada, Asia and even that dreadful gap in the US market for BHX..Las Vegas.
Or, as I have already elsewhere here mentioned, develop the west side and build a temporary terminal amongst the Elmdon site

I don't think it would be wise to impose a cap on any airline operating to BHX. Each airline will have entered into a legally binding agreement between airline and airport for a specific time period.
Also, any change to the political/economic outlook could have significant effects, even in the short term. A sudden hike in oil prices could have a major effect. Best to value each airline for the contribution they make to BHX, whether they be short or long haul, economy or full fare.
Temporary development, is just throwing good money after bad. A good permanent solution is the only answer.

We, or I myself, understand that BHX has evolved rather than having been built from a blank sheet of Architectural paper thus it seems to be a case of inventive expansion within current boundaries or subtle land acquisitions to provide for new infrastructure but not a secondary runway unless the current taxiway alongside R15/33 to the fire station is extended north into the Sheldon park and industrial area of Garretts Green!?! Ref: Gatwick!

I think we all understand that BHX (along with the majority of the worlds airports) have to adapt and grow within the confines of their boundaries. To grow outside of these, many years of planning, along with public enquiries and obtaining funding are required.
Who, could have envisioned back in the 1930's, today's need to handle aircraft of over 500 Tonnes and carrying 600 passengers?

I'm a little unsure about your reference to Gatwick and it's second runway. The current set up, is that 08L/26R is for emergency use only. This runway can only be used in VFR conditions and if runway 08R/26L is out of action/blocked. It also requires greater spacing between both arrivals and departures.
Even Heathrow's runways are too close together to allow simultaneous operation (parallel approaches/departures). So, BHX will have to look further afield, if it wants to have a true two runway operation.

I'm sure that all here would love to see BHX develop and grow from strength to strength. We also have to acknowledge the development over the last few years and the fact that this has to be paid for.
I was delighted to see BHX respond so quickly in adding a third air bridge to accommodate A380 operations, but this must have added to the expense of recent developments.
I have great faith in the BHX management that these are crucial and profitable investments.
I believe that BHX have a well thought out long term plan, even if we don't know it yet.

Regards

Kevin

 

[Ray Finkle]

Mr Kehoe responded quickly and pointed out that despite £300m having been invested at BHX in the last 8 years, it is not as new as many airports, having its origins in 1984. Mr Kehoe also said that the state of the toilets is inexcusable, but they are not always treated well by consumers. He said that colleagues will be giving me a full explanation, but I have not received any communication yet.

Having seen the way some people treat public toilets (not just at the airport) I can sympathise somewhat with that, the cleaners should be on it however and regular inspections should be taking place.

He makes a good point about the building being from 1984 with various bits added here and there over the years. I wonder if there is scope for a complete terminal rebuild? Maybe a new structure stretching from the noise bund adjacent to the fire station right up to car park 5, with 5 or 6 piers extending from it. I guess the cost would be astronomical and probably not viable compared to other options.

 

[thunderchild]

I emailed Paul Kehoe the next day highlighting my observations and comparing the airport with Hamed, Narita and Melbourne, which although relatively new and three times the size of BHX, were clean and modern looking.

I think it's a bit silly to compare BHX to the likes of NRT, MEL and especially DOH which is a brand new airport and barely two years old!

 

[Brum X]

I think it's a bit silly to compare BHX to the likes of NRT, MEL and especially DOH which is a brand new airport and barely two years old!

You have a good point, how does BHX compare to our British competitors of MAN/EMA/BRS/LBA/ and Luton ????

 

[TheLocalYokel]

You have a good point, how does BHX compare to our British competitors of MAN/EMA/BRS/LBA/ and Luton ????

I used BHX in 2010 (Emirates) and was very impressed with it as an airport.

I've never used MAN, EMA, LTN or LBA so can't comment.

I use BRS a lot as it's my local airport but it's not really comparable with BHX in what it does. BRS is modern and the terminal seems to get bigger every year, but basically it is a low cost airline/charter airline airport unlike BHX which has a number of 'full service' airlines', increasingly on long haul.

MEL was also mentioned in this context in another post. Mrs TLY and I have flown into MEL five times (and out the same number) in the past five years (later this year will be the sixth) and although it's larger than BHX it does seem to attract a lot of negative comments on trip sites, not least from locals.

From personal experience, our flight from DXB is usually the first of the overnight long haul arrivals and consequently passage through the various formalities is fairly quick. Once though we were two hours late and the subsequent queues and congestion (took over an hour in total) showed why many people are less than impressed. Departing has always been very efficient.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Today I had a chat with a guy who is going to Reykjavik in November. Obviously I asked about his flight and he said he was going with Icelandair from Birmingham.

He then went on to say "I don't usually use Birmingham as it's a very, very expensive airport, alot more expensive than most others. I could have gone to Iceland for much cheaper but we're treating ourselves this time as Icelandair are supposed to be very good, but I wouldn't normally."

I checked a few prices for 19th Nov to 26th Nov (BRS is on the Fri).

Manchester to Keflavik with Easyjet - £90.98 (£130 with a bag)

Bristol to Keflavik with WOW Air - £72.78 (£119 with a bag)

Birmingham to Keflavik with Icelandair - £198.53

Says it all really. Whilst it's great seeing the full service carriers, they just cannot compete on pricing.

 

[User001]

Icelandair a main pricing seems to be towards UK-KEF-USA, this is where the competative fares kick in. O&D to them seems to be a bonus.

Icelandairs fares seem to be broadly similar across the UK, even on routes with competition.

 

[andrew.clarkson]

Hi there ray and all, regarding the airline fares quoted by nwoody2001 on 5th May and the other person about booking for Icelandair the other day saying that Birmingham is the most expensive to fly from, then when you look at those other quoted prices previously, when some are almost half the cost, you then wonder why airlines and passengers don't fly from Birmingham in the paxes to what they should, so unless Birmingham lowers it's fees to airlines, then Birmingham isn't going to get anything where it wants to be, what it should be doing is helping the airlines match the others, so that it gets those passengers coming back in there drothes...Andyc

 

[jfy1999]

Hi there ray and all, regarding the airline fares quoted by nwoody2001 on 5th May and the other person about booking for Icelandair the other day saying that Birmingham is the most expensive to fly from, then when you look at those other quoted prices previously, when some are almost half the cost, you then wonder why airlines and passengers don't fly from Birmingham in the paxes to what they should, so unless Birmingham lowers it's fees to airlines, then Birmingham isn't going to get anything where it wants to be, what it should be doing is helping the airlines match the others, so that it gets those passengers coming back in there drothes...Andyc

Andrew, if you read Ray's post again you will see the problem is with the type of airline that flies the route from BHX compared to other airports. The reason the prices are so much higher to KEF from BHX than MAN and BRS, is because BHX only has a flag carrier on the route, while MAN and BRS have low cost carriers. The fact is, BHX now has one of the lowest cost bases in the country. The high landing charges are largely a thing of the past, hence the expansion from Ryanair, Wizz, Vueling etc.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Just to add that I'm not against the full service carriers at all. Icelandair are a fantastic asset to Birmingham, especially given their connections to North America.

I was just making the point that Birmingham has a long held reputation of being an expensive place to use. Iceland is a popular destination over the winter months.

A point was made about seeing more full service airlines rather than the likes of Jet2. I was just suggesting that it's the loco's that bring in the huge passenger growth and when it comes to pricing the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet are hard to compete with.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Obviously ticket pricing is a complicated business and they vary as the flights fill up (or don't) but looking at two popular Eastern European destinations Birmingham is very competitive indeed.

Budapest 22nd - 24th September

Jet2 East Midlands - £106.25
Ryanair Manchester - £102.98
Ryanair Bristol - £78.98
Wizz Air Birmingham - £66.98

Warsaw same dates

Ryanair Manchester (Modlin) - £47.98
Ryanair Bristol (Modlin) - £100.98
LOT Polish Heathrow (Chopin) - £143.01
Wizz Air Birmingham (Chopin) - £52.98

 

[andrew.clarkson]

Hi there jfy1999, ok, if it's not the airport regarding these flight costs but the airline, then why is the airline charging alot more to fly from any other airports than Birmingham, doesn't seem to balance out by charging say for return of £85.00 for example to fly to Charles De Gaul, France, back to Birmingham, or £45.00 return fare back to Manchester or Gatwick or Stansted, where as if all the return fares were the same to fly from the above airports, then that would be the choice for the customer and not the airline to dictate... Andyc

 

[Ray Finkle]

I think alot of it comes down to the airline rather than the airport.

Flybe are one of Birmingham's biggest operators and for all the good that they do, they can be very expensive compared to others. We used to travel to Scotland when BMIBaby did EDI, their prices were very reasonable whereas Flybe on the same route were often eye watering.

A quick comparison for a Friday to Monday trip to Berlin in September shows Easyjet from Luton at £72.88, whereas Flybe from Birmingham is £189.49. If you take the second daily flight, meaning Fri and Mon are useless it comes down to £145.49. There is no doubt that if we had Easyjet on Birmingham to Berlin prices would be cheaper.

 

[nwoody2001]

Andrew, just to be clear, you are aware of the fundamental difference between a full service airline and a low cost operator? Ie hense why Icelandair from Reykjavik is more expensive than Easyjet or Wow, or why Air France to Paris will likely be more expensive than Ryanair?!

I don't mean to sound condescending but you appear in your messages to completely underestimate the fundimental differences in their cost, markets, and models!!

 

[User001]

then why is the airline charging alot more to fly from any other airports than Birmingham

As Ray says, it's the airline choice that's the issue.

In terms of comparisons, it's not Icelandair charging £200 to fly from BHX but only £100 from MAN, as both airports are about £200. It's the fact Easyjet is much cheaper.

It's like going to waitrose, paying £4 for a ready meal, but Tesco charging £2 for their range of ready meals, it's all about different suppliers. Some towns have a Tesco, some towns have a waitrose, some towns have both. It's when you have both, you can make a choice, otherwise, you would have to travel to the next town to make your choice.

 

[andrew.clarkson]

Hi there nwoody2001, yes I do know what each one means, low cost means no frills, full service, means your paying the extra for that service and. experience... Andyc

 

[Seasider]

Gentlemen, Airlines are in business to make money, not offer cheap flights. Sometimes they offer cheap flights to attract business from other airlines/airports and hopefully get repeat business. What the supermarkets would call a "loss leader".