Further talks were held last week between management of IAH George Bush, ABZ Dyce & an UNNAMED US AIRLINE (also known as CONTINENTAL) about a service between the 2 oil cities.
Apparently some 32,000 journeys between the two are made each year.
Inevitably, runway length was raised as an issue by the UNNAMED US AIRLINE (ALSO KNOWN AS CONTINENTAL).
BAA have an application for an initial extension of the r/w 16/34 of 300m.
Also suspected RYR may be behind the need for a r/w extension as they have suggested new European routes out of ABZ if the r/w was long enough.
:rolleyes:
By: rdc1000 - 10th May 2006 at 16:00
[QUOTE=GKirk]
Remember, you only need to fill the front to make a transatlantic flight profitable 😉
[QUOTE]
Only if the yield is very strong, and whilst we are talking about the oil industry (ie a sector willing to pay high fares), it is only to an operational centre, and not for most senior management/execs, for whom these companies will pay the most to transport. In the cases of operational staff and management, experience shows that whilst they will typically be flown up front, the companies will not pay the highest of fares unless they really have to, and so such a route would struggle purely relying on the up front pax. If the fares are too high then some of those travellers will still find themselves connecting, which then reduces the pax demand.
By: GKirk - 10th May 2006 at 12:17
A Daily B767-200 would do fine.
Remember, you only need to fill the front to make a transatlantic flight profitable 😉
Therefore, I feel ABZ could fill 24 seats a day to Houston, perhaps make it via MAN if need be 😉
By: Pembo330 - 10th May 2006 at 12:10
Not convinced either. IAH is a good 10 hours away westbound which surely must be beyond the range of a 757. I just couldn’t imagine a 767 working unless it wasn’t daily and if it wasn’t daily, people would go elsewhere.
I regularly travel to IAH with work (off with AF on Sunday) and what I, any most others want is flexibility. 3 or 4 days a week just doesn’t do that unless it fits perfectly with your plans.
By: rdc1000 - 10th May 2006 at 11:05
Well I agree with David2386, the route would be sretching the legs of the 757 to say the least. In addition most LH airlines wouldn’t consider a route with 32k pax/annum (unless perhaps they’re quoting a one-way figure and the figure is actually 64k pax/annum), or at least not on a daily service anyway, in my reckoning the MAX you’d get would be 3x per week, and then they wouldn’t capture the whole market anyway, even allowing for some stimulation because the service is provided. So I’m a sceptic for one.
By: Richard Taylor - 10th May 2006 at 07:23
Personally a few years ago I wouldn’t have believed it either, as BAA were not particularly interested in ABZ. They would have been happier trunking passengers via London (just my opinion, you can disagree if you wish).
However now, I really do think something may be in the “pipeline” & the BAA are certainly now promoting ABZ.
Much work to do (runway extension, more a/c stands, expand terminal) but I think COA are interested in doing IAH-ABZ.
If it happens, I would imagine it would be a 752.
International traffic is certainly on the rise out of here, Apr 2006 v Apr 2005 apparently shows a 27.2% increase in travellers, a record Apr overall for ABZ.
Yes, it is mainly oil-generated, but if not here, then somewhere else would have benefited from the oil boom. I guess in some way, the energy industry will always play a part at Dyce.
By: OneLeft - 9th May 2006 at 21:22
ABZ-LGW/LHR-IAH is a huge routing for BA. Someone doing it direct would definately hurt. But then you could say that about lots of routes I guess.
1L.
By: by738 - 8th May 2006 at 21:21
These are the same talks that have been going since the mid 1980’s during the oil boom. I wouldnt read too much into it.
By: David2386 - 8th May 2006 at 21:00
UNNAMED US AIRLINE (also known as CONTINENTAL)
Love it 😀
IAH-ABZ is over 4000nm, would have to be a 767, bit of a stretch for a 757, especially on a bad day?
Sign In
May 8, 2006 at 8:40 pm