Ryanair Slams Development Fee at Blackpool Airport

No real surprises here, Ryanair runs on subsidies of many kinds, “favourable operating discounts”, exemptions from paying the market rate for this that and the other, rumours of nice fat discounts from the guys that build their aircraft. They barge in to various places driving out the existing operators and then leave the area again just as quickly and dramatically when things don’t go their way (ie: they actually have to pay a supplier what the service supplied actually costs) then the area concerned is often left with no airline service at all as a result of the companys activities. Stand your ground Blackpool…there are other operators out there…just ask Inverness!

I wonder if Ryanair will complain about having passengers pay 10eu to leave Knock in Ireland then,for `airport development`….!

It depends what the market will bear, and whether their yield is high enough to allow a little bit of a reduction in average fare to sustain the market.

I wonder if Ryanair will complain about having passengers pay 10eu to leave Knock in Ireland then,for `airport development`….!

If EVERYONE in the aviation food chain – airline and airport alike – can’t make money, then to be honest I believe that the flights shouldn’t operate.

That’s exactly the point though – right now, its all for Ryanair and nothing for BLK.

I don’t see BLK’s desire to develop and improve facilities as being “gold plating” – they want to grow their market, and in order to do so need to improve their facilities. In order to do so, they need to make some money from their existing customers. What’s wrong with that? See previous comments to the effect that if all parties aren’t making enough money to develop and grow, it probably shouldn’t be happening.

A

On the first two points, the point is that everyone shall have a piece of the pie, but this has to come through volume growth rather than charging the limited number of pax through the roof.

On the second point, I was invited by the Airport to the opening of their extension and felt that the facility was more than adequate for the type and scale of their traffic.

The margins are now very tight for all concerned admittedly, and perhaps you make a fair point regarding all parties being able to make money, but the business model has changed, and for regional airports the scope for making money is through volume growth. Don’t forget, the same facilities were loss making in the days when they saw a single daily Bandeirante service, but they now see RYR as a way to make money, which is fine, but then don’t get greedy until your time has come.

The airline needs to achieve it’s desired load factors, at a suitable yield, and I know the yield at BLK is very low. This is because they have to sell very cheap tickets to sell the seats as the market is weak, both in terms of size and value. Bear in mind that the economy of the Blackpool area is actually quite weak, and there isn’t an awful lot of money to be spent on flights.

If EVERYONE in the aviation food chain – airline and airport alike – can’t make money, then to be honest I believe that the flights shouldn’t operate.

The airline needs to achieve it’s desired load factors, at a suitable yield

That’s exactly the point though – right now, its all for Ryanair and nothing for BLK.

One problem is that a lot of perfectly functional airports want to gold plate themselves when the airlines don’t see it as necessary (as they NEED the lowest cost). It’s all very well saying passengers are the clients of the airport, but remember, without airlines, there will be no passengers, and you have to ask yourself how many passengers are only there because their fare was £1 instead of £90. I know over the last year I have been to Dublin twice because the fare was 1p, I wouldn’t have gone if the fare had been £100, or maybe even £10.01 in one case. So actually, by buying 1p tickets passengers are saying, we prefer low fares than frilly airports, even without realising/thinking about it. In some cases there is a blind view that “If you build it they will come”, and we all know, unless you have a field of dreams, this is utter rubbish.

I don’t see BLK’s desire to develop and improve facilities as being “gold plating” – they want to grow their market, and in order to do so need to improve their facilities. In order to do so, they need to make some money from their existing customers. What’s wrong with that? See previous comments to the effect that if all parties aren’t making enough money to develop and grow, it probably shouldn’t be happening.

A

Ryanair throwing their toys out of their pram again – surely not! :rolleyes:

It seems sometimes that according to the law of Ryanair, no one can make money or grow their business except Ryanair. I think that half the time its Ryanair rhetoric – they’re not making money but because of the deals they have made with airports they wait until there’s someone else to blame before they pull services. Grow up Ryanair – airports need to make money (BLK is loss-making at present) and need to provide reasonable facilities.

A

I disagree with you I’m afraid. The airline needs to achieve it’s desired load factors, at a suitable yield, and I know the yield at BLK is very low. This is because they have to sell very cheap tickets to sell the seats as the market is weak, both in terms of size and value. Bear in mind that the economy of the Blackpool area is actually quite weak, and there isn’t an awful lot of money to be spent on flights.

You have to think of it in the perspective of a ticket price, and the effect of £10 on that. If somebody buys a ticket to Dublin for £20 return, because that makes it cheaper to go to Dublin for the weekend than Manchester then the £10 charge is 50% more, and may make Manchester cheaper by train (this is a hypothetical, I don’t know what exact figures would be). Therefore some of those buying £20 tickets would choose not to fly, so RYR has 2 choices, go with the existing number of passengers still willing to pay £20+£10, or lower the fares to make Dublin cheaper, including the Airport’s £10, than Manchester. Either way, the yield per seat drops, and I have to say, from my understanding, it would not take much of a drop to make BLK unprofitable! Then you have to ask, why should RYR keep an unprofitable route? That goes against the contestable nature of their business because they would have to cross subsidise the route from other parts of their network, which cannot be done under their business model.

One problem is that a lot of perfectly functional airports want to gold plate themselves when the airlines don’t see it as necessary (as they NEED the lowest cost). It’s all very well saying passengers are the clients of the airport, but remember, without airlines, there will be no passengers, and you have to ask yourself how many passengers are only there because their fare was £1 instead of £90. I know over the last year I have been to Dublin twice because the fare was 1p, I wouldn’t have gone if the fare had been £100, or maybe even £10.01 in one case. So actually, by buying 1p tickets passengers are saying, we prefer low fares than frilly airports, even without realising/thinking about it. In some cases there is a blind view that “If you build it they will come”, and we all know, unless you have a field of dreams, this is utter rubbish.

Where the Catch 22 situation really comes into play is on the necessary development, such as runway resurfacing etc, because many of these airports are loss making and cannot access the funds to do the work, either through reserves of their own cash, or on the money market because their business plan would suggest they are a risk to lend to. But they need to deliver volume growth to profit.

As I’m sure I don’t need to spell out, modern airport management is a difficult task.

What are/were Blackpools development plans? Surely its big enough for the current level of service? If it thinks it can attract more services by having a bigger better terminal then that money needs to come from investors and recouped subsequently from increased passenger numbers not from fleecing current passengers.
I’m with Ryanair that sustainable profit comes from taking a little from many rather than a lot from a few.

Ryanair throwing their toys out of their pram again – surely not! :rolleyes:

It seems sometimes that according to the law of Ryanair, no one can make money or grow their business except Ryanair. I think that half the time its Ryanair rhetoric – they’re not making money but because of the deals they have made with airports they wait until there’s someone else to blame before they pull services. Grow up Ryanair – airports need to make money (BLK is loss-making at present) and need to provide reasonable facilities.

A

It has happened the same with Valencia in Spain and Fuerteventura. Valencia has decided not to fullfill it´s commitment with the airline by not paying the subsidies. In fact, the real issue is Air Nostrum base in Valencia, it´s contacts with the regional goverment, and their aim to control the Valencia skies. I don´t know why Lanzarote has decided to do the same.

Anyway, there are many Spanish cities fighting to get a new base, and new planes from these bases. My city and Santander are the final contenders. I am affraid Santander will be able to pay more.