New BMI Baby base?

Old Feb 7, 03, 2:28 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 1,213
New BMI Baby base?

From press release on BMI site:

"bmibaby, the low cost arm of bmi, will be including Belfast International as a destination to be served from a new UK base to be announced shortly. This follows on from the successful launch by bmibaby of low cost flights to Cardiff and East Midlands from the airport last October. This will enable bmibaby to focus on a "low cost" strategy at Belfast International and allow bmi to concentrate its full service offering at Belfast City."

Any idea where it will be?

Stephen
sjharte is offline  
Old Feb 7, 03, 4:18 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,117
MAN, I believe...
Wingnut is offline  
Old Feb 7, 03, 4:46 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 16,521
Strange. With Easyjet just up the road?

NickB is offline  
Old Feb 7, 03, 5:20 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 346
This would seem to rule out GLA or EDI as the new base. easyJet already fly those routes and I doubt bmibaby are ready to go head-to-head yet.

I hope I'm wrong though.

Nick

StarAllianceGold is offline  
Old Feb 7, 03, 7:15 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Singapore and London
Programs: BA Gold; SQ PPS; UA Gold; LH FTL; Flying Blue Silver; Starwood Gold; ICHG AMB; Hyatt Platinum;
Posts: 5,391
MAN is what I have heard too, and agrees with reports over on pprune.org (not always 100% reliable but usually not too far wrong). Not sure what impact this would have on scheduled services ex-MAN (e.g. MAN-TLS could well move from BD Regional)
House is offline  
Old Feb 7, 03, 1:59 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London and Edinburgh
Programs: BA GGL, British Midland Lifetime* Gold, Marriott Lifetime Premier Platinum
Posts: 7,458
I think MAN for WW, too.

BD pulling out of BFS was bound to happen. The yields into BHD are much better.
ajamieson is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 2:18 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Coast, UK
Programs: Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 2,030
Pity it's not Gatwick.......
mike turnbull is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 2:42 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chilling with penguins
Posts: 13,032
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mike turnbull:
Pity it's not Gatwick.......</font>
I would have to agree with that one...

But even then, why doesn't bmi set up some flights out of LGW? or would they not be sustainable?
YOWkid is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 4:31 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,117
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by YOWkid:
why doesn't bmi set up some flights out of LGW?</font>
Why on earth should they? No *A carrier flies out of Gatwick, all are based at LHR. Splitting your hub between 2 airports in a city can only cause problems (cf BA). OK, I can understand people who live near LGW wanting this, but at the end of the day it's a hick airport for charter flights.
Wingnut is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 5:53 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Coast, UK
Programs: Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 2,030
Why would they ? It's called passenger convenience.....nothing to do with connecting to other * alliance members...and if they can run from other small locations I would imagine that Gatwick would see BM get it's fair share of revenue passengers...and I would hardly call LGW a charter airport...there's a considerable number of main stream airlines running out of there.
mike turnbull is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 6:13 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,117
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mike turnbull:
Why would they ? It's called passenger convenience.....nothing to do with connecting to other * alliance members...and if they can run from other small locations I would imagine that Gatwick would see BM get it's fair share of revenue passengers...and I would hardly call LGW a charter airport</font>
Other than the occasional convenience of people living in the immediate vicinity of LGW, I can't see any reason for a LGW operation at all. It would have to double up on destinations with LHR (otherwise you'd end up having to transfer between LHR & LGW) so would lead to a reduction in frequency from each airport.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">nothing to do with connecting to other * alliance members</font>
Connections with other *A carriers are important (why else would airlines spend on programmes to get gates close to each other, align timetables etc). Are you trying to tell me that if BD operated exclusively out of LGW and all the other * carriers were at LHR that BD would ever have been asked to join???

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I would imagine that Gatwick would see BM get it's fair share of revenue passengers...</font>
Which would come predominantly from their LHR operation, so you're really only keeping the same revenue while significantly increasing the cost.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">there's a considerable number of main stream airlines running out of there.</font>
Really? I grant there's the remnants of BA, Virgin's bucket and spade routes and the handful of US carriers who can't get slots at LHR but other than that who are you talking about?

Granted, I would probably feel a little different if I lived in Crawley, but logically there's no question about it. Do you live in Sussex, Mike?

[This message has been edited by Wingnut (edited 02-10-2003).]
Wingnut is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 6:13 am
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chilling with penguins
Posts: 13,032
I would see why you would call it a hick airport... The departure screens they use post-security look like it is being run by an old Atari computer system. But, all in all, it is a relatively decent airport.

But yes, you are right -- it's only because I live closer to LGW than LHR that I would like to see this (not to mention it is significantly cheaper to get to!)
YOWkid is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 6:27 am
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chilling with penguins
Posts: 13,032
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Other than the occasional convenience of people living in the immediate vicinity of LGW, I can't see any reason for a LGW operation at all. It would have to double up on destinations with LHR (otherwise you'd end up having to transfer between LHR & LGW) so would lead to a reduction in frequency from each airport.
</font>
Or people who want to avoid the hassels and chaoticness LHR brings?

I honestly think BD would give BA a run for its money if doubled out on some routes out of LGW -- and I'm sure LH would codeshare as would a few others...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Connections with other *A carriers are important (why else would airlines spend on programmes to get gates close to each other, align timetables etc). Are you trying to tell me that if BD operated exclusively out of LGW and all the other * carriers were at LHR that BD would ever have been asked to join???</font>
This doesn't mean LGW cannot connect into other hubs like FRA etc. I don't know how the UK - US Transatlantic rules work, but could they not try to fly LGW - ORD? Or is the agreement apply to all LON?

If *A didn't ask BD to join, who would it have asked? BE? They would have no UK market which is obviously pretty important... So, I don't think it would have mattered whether if BD flew solely out of LGW or not.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Which would come predominantly from their LHR operation, so you're really only keeping the same revenue while significantly increasing the cost.
</font>
Sure, some would, but I'm sure that many more would come from BA -- I know if they flew out of LGW, they would have gotten the other half of my travels.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Really? I grant there's the remnants of BA, Virgin's bucket and spade routes and the handful of US carriers who can't get slots at LHR but other than that who are you talking about?
</font>
There are a few more reputable airlines than that... LO flies out of LGW and they're about to be *A, no? So, there will be at least one very soon.
YOWkid is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 7:22 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London and Edinburgh
Programs: BA GGL, British Midland Lifetime* Gold, Marriott Lifetime Premier Platinum
Posts: 7,458
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> I don't know how the UK - US Transatlantic rules work, but could they not try to fly LGW - ORD? Or is the agreement apply to all LON?</font>
The agreements apply only to LHR. The fact that BD prefers to hub at LHR rather than LGW despite the opportunity for transatlantic services is evidence of the extent to which LHR is lucrative and LGW isn't. BD will not leave LHR as a hub. Even MAN has more *A connection opportunities right now than LGW. Both LHR and LGW are hell on earth; the difference is that LHR makes by far the most money for both the operator and the airlines.

Furthermore, BAA plc itself is pushing LGW towards a mixture of low-cost/point-to-point short haul and transatlantic LHR spillover. Look at the way BAA plc has gone to extraordinary lengths to encourage the growth of EZY at LGW. If EZY could grow LGW as its main hub in place of LTN, both sides would be delighted.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">If *A didn't ask BD to join, who would it have asked? BE? They would have no UK market which is obviously pretty important... So, I don't think it would have mattered whether if BD flew solely out of LGW or not.</font>
It was not a case of *A asking BD to join. BD had been codesharing with a lot of different *A members and affiliates for some time, so the market access was there.

Discussion of BD at LGW is a waste of breath. Discussion of WW at LGW? Perhaps.

In the interim, you can expect more WW flights at BFS and a possible new hub at MAN, BOH or LBA.
ajamieson is offline  
Old Feb 10, 03, 7:36 am
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chilling with penguins
Posts: 13,032
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ajamieson:
Discussion of BD at LGW is a waste of breath.</font>
Well, you're right about that...
YOWkid is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: