Dublin-London route 2nd busiest in world

Phil_Lives · 12-08-2014 02:39PM #1

http://breakingnews.ie/business/london-dublin-air-passengers-surge-638927.html

This route is the second busiest in the world. It is mostly served by 737 and A320.
Shouldn't a larger plane be in use on this route.

Of course the question of what is the route is open. Dublin side is clear but London is not so clear. Do people want to fly to london or do they need to fly the various airports around london.

Aard · 12-08-2014 02:49PM

Iirc Dublin-London was one of the busiest routes in the world during the early 2000s too. Not too surprising given the fact that the route connects the capital cities of two island nations whose economies have been well integrated historically.

DubDani · 12-08-2014 03:24PM

Not really the 2nd busiest route, but the 2nd busiest international route.

There are quite a few far more busy national routes (Tokyo - Sapporo with more then 7 mil. a year, for example) then Dublin - London.

Overall busiest routes are:

Sapporo-Tokyo (29,585 flights, 7,404,740 passengers)
Tokyo-Sapporo, (29,484, 7,376,637)
Seoul-Jeju, South Korea, (37,167, 6,939,204)
Jeju-Seoul, (36,809, 6,872,450)
Sao Paulo-Rio de Janeiro (37,520, 6,094,249)
Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo (37,420, 6,085,195)
Tokyo-Fukuoka, Japan (25,214, 5,886,273)
Fukuoka-Tokyo (25,130, 5,872,756)
Sydney-Melbourne (26,534, 4,997,700)
Melbourne-Sydney (26,512, 4,978,161)

A Dub in Glasgo · 12-08-2014 03:26PM

What Airports did they include as 'London'?

Phil_Lives · 12-08-2014 03:31PM

You'd think that if an Airbus 330 or larger was on the route to Heathrow and/or Stanstead and was being filled it would make the other more peripheral routes to London unviable.

Danbo! · 12-08-2014 03:33PM

I don't know much about operations tbh, but would it make any sense for EI to use an A330 or even one of the 757s for a return flight to LHR while they're sitting idle, similar to the AGP route during summer?

LoonyLovegood · 12-08-2014 03:51PM

A lot of it is also how much longer it would take for an A330 or a B757 to be turned around in Heathrow. There's no way it'd be turned around in the time EI currently spend turning around an aircraft.

highlydebased · 12-08-2014 04:07PM

Better to have more flights with small aircraft rather than big aircraft which would inevitably result in a lessor frequently.

No benefit of sending 757 as it only has an economy capacity of 165, also a thirsty jet on a short sector.

MuffinsDa · 12-08-2014 04:39PM

highlydebased wrote: »

Better to have more flights with small aircraft rather than big aircraft which would inevitably result in a lessor frequently.

No benefit of sending 757 as it only has an economy capacity of 165, also a thirsty jet on a short sector.

That's the common belief alright.

Just wondering then, how come BA uses 767 on EDI->LHR route sometimes? Is that a repositioning flight?

And what about Japanese arlines (JAL, ANA etc) that regularly use all manners of widebodies (767/777/787) on very short sectors (i.e. NRT/HND to KIX/ITM). How does it make money for them?

A Dub in Glasgo · 12-08-2014 04:50PM

BA used to run 767's on both Glasgow & Edinburgh flights from Heathrow. I travelled on a few of them, they only use it at Edinburgh nowadays and have been using it for years. It is not a repositioning flight as the aircraft is nightstopped in Edinburgh for the rushour to Heathrow

L1011 · 12-08-2014 05:50PM

767-200 can be turned around faster than an equivalent capacity narrowbody (757-300 basically) as its only got one more seat per row but twice the aisles. If you need more capacity than a 320/738 its probably the best choice. There would be very little checked baggage on that flight as its very much a business daytrip route.

A319er · 12-08-2014 05:52PM

BA used B757 on LHR DUB back in the early 90,s
But not at a profit , certainly the aircraft type used on all 6
Airports in London served by DUB will continue to increase in seats
Lcy and LGw are the best growth airports

Strumms · 12-08-2014 05:55PM

Phil_Lives wrote: »

http://breakingnews.ie/business/london-dublin-air-passengers-surge-638927.html

This route is the second busiest in the world. It is mostly served by 737 and A320.
Shouldn't a larger plane be in use on this route.

Of course the question of what is the route is open. Dublin side is clear but London is not so clear. Do people want to fly to london or do they need to fly the various airports around london.

A very high percentage of travelers would be business travelers. The fact that there is great frequency between the four operating airlines if I'm counting right (EI,FR,AF,BA) is to suit the customer.. business and otherwise by giving them options throughout the day. It is this model that has those routes profitable. Are you seriously alluding that an airlines(s) should operate say two A380s or 4 A330s per day ?

I's perfectly clear as to the various reasons why people want to fly into London and visa versa. What's not clear about it ?

folbotcar · 12-08-2014 06:53PM

Not really the 2nd busiest route, but the 2nd busiest international route.

Certain people argue that Dublin is really a just another British provincial city and therefore practically a domestic route.

But who listens to those grumpy people from outside the pale!:p

I think Paris - London still counts at the busiest international route?

As Strumms points out most of the travellers are business travellers who want to fly when they need to not when the airline sees fit. Any airline that doesn't offer that flexibility will be at a competitive disadvantage. I think the only time they really put bigger aircraft on the route is to clear a backlog.

If the traffic was more leisure oriented there would be bigger aircraft flying to London.

Tenger · 12-08-2014 08:00PM

Posters are correct. However the obvious reason for this is not always obvious to non-aviation people or those who read up on the sector. Lets allow new posters the benefit of the doubt,

From a personal point of view looking at the US industry is a great indicator of where Europe is going. US carriers seem to place more emphasis on frequency over capacity. UK-Ireland business/tourism/work/family links would have a similar emphasis.

Concurrently to that is that fact that the B737/A320 families are pretty much optimised for that sort of high utilisation/quick turnarounds that we see on Dublin-London or indeed most similar Euro city pairs. Out of place movements like BA using B767/B757 LHR-Scotland or EI using A330 on DUB-AGP are the exception rather than the rule.
EG. I have been on an EI flight many years ago LHR -DUB...it was Dec 23rd after 2 days of bad weather which saw multiple cancellations...the A330 was not required to go the the US so EI used in in place of an A321 to life 3 days of bags and over 300 customers out of LHR. (was 6-8 years ago)

*Looking at 2013 IATA stats while the top 30 airports based on pax numbers are pretty balanced worldwide when it comes to 'aircraft movements' the US airports are all over that top 30. EG. Dubai is #7 worldwide base on pax numbers, but no even in the top 30 based on aircraft movements.

Strumms · 12-08-2014 08:28PM

Respectfully, it's little at all to do with aviation knowledge or otherwise... Unless you have been living in a rainforest in Borneo.. The links between The capital cities of the two countries and indeed cities should be known to all...and that should explain why there is a requirement for flexible and frequent links between both cities...

The business links that exist due to the amount of trade between both countries.

The number of people who have emigrated and have family there.. Huge irish population many of who are recent emigrants due to the recession flying back and forth regularly...

Both cities are major tourist spots and attractions both in the own right and as starting points for onward connections by road and train...

Both airports have onward international connections, DUB with pre-clearance and London a gateway to so many other destinations..

I'm sure there are a lot more but it's been a long day

Chris_5339762 · 12-08-2014 09:22PM

Lets be controversial.

How much (overall) is being spent on air travel between Dublin and London and would it pay for either the Tusker crossing or a Dublin - Holyhead bridge in a sensible amount of time. I've always said that if this was Japan, there would be a bridge!

Tenger · 12-08-2014 09:33PM

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Lets be controversial.

How much (overall) is being spent on air travel between Dublin and London and would it pay for either the Tusker crossing or a Dublin - Holyhead bridge in a sensible amount of time. I've always said that if this was Japan, there would be a bridge!

Well this is taking a political turn.

I would say that the expenditure on that would be colossal. Best option (for the connection point) would be Northern Ireland to Scotland, but then you have the issue of rail/road links to Southern England. Which 'wastes time' for biz purposes

Looking at a "Dublin-Holyhead bridge"......bloody hell. Thats 120KM (according to my non-scientific typing of "dublin to holyhead distance" into Google) Channel tunnel is approx 50km long, with almost 40km underwater.

(Wikipedia as a source) That cost £4.65Bn from 1988 to 1994. So lets x5-x7 that for Dublin-Holyhead in the 2020's.

A319er · 12-08-2014 09:38PM

Iirc we once had BandI Boeing jet foils to Holyhead and the ill fated Dublin City Helicopter services to Holyhead, weather beat them both to death ,

Has to be a tunnel?

2 stroke · 12-08-2014 10:05PM

2nd busiest international route, but how much of that traffic actually wants to go to London and how much is just using london as a stepping stone. In my mind, instead of improving connections between Dublin/London, its time to figure out where travellers are realy going and the viability of Dublin direct routes.

Strumms · 12-08-2014 10:15PM

2 stroke wrote: »

2nd busiest international route, but how much of that traffic actually wants to go to London and how much is just using london as a stepping stone. In my mind, instead of improving connections between Dublin/London, its time to figure out where travellers are realy going and the viability of Dublin direct routes.

The thing is though... I'd imagine that is being done fairly regularly by airlines and agencies in this country and further afield. The thing is airlines like BA out of Heathrow already have the routes and the infrastructure and the demand including a direct connection from DUB. The only real inconvenience is the 1 hour connecting flight which if we are looking at a 12 hour flight to South America isn't that much in the grand scheme.

The bridge idea scares the **** out of me. Going by our record.. Sorry I'll rephrase it... 'Their' record as regards managing big capital projects effectively and bringing them in on time and on budget it's unlikely to be viable as even with high speed rail links flying will always be the mode of transport on that route.. In my lifetime anyway and I'm 35.

A Dub in Glasgo · 12-08-2014 10:20PM

A bridge / tunnel connection from Dublin to Holyhead is pie in the sky stuff

2 stroke · 12-08-2014 10:57PM

Strumms wrote: »

The thing is though... I'd imagine that is being done fairly regularly by airlines and agencies in this country and further afield. The thing is airlines like BA out of Heathrow already have the routes and the infrastructure and the demand including a direct connection from DUB. The only real inconvenience is the 1 hour connecting flight which if we are looking at a 12 hour flight to South America isn't that much in the grand scheme.

Its more than just the one hour flight, theres the time between flights & going through customs again and worry about missed connections should a flight be delayed. Personally I avoid London, preferring France or Germany for connecting flights if there isnt a direct flight.

L1011 · 12-08-2014 10:59PM

folbotcar wrote: »

I think Paris - London still counts at the busiest international route?

Paris-London has barely* had flights since the Channel Tunnel opened - numbers of flights and hence passenger volume has collapsed. Its Hong Kong to Taipei.

*OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but still.

john boye · 12-08-2014 11:13PM

I've actually noticed EI using A319s on DUB - LHR quite a bit lately. I assumed (wrongly perhaps) that numbers were maybe down slightly

Tenger · 12-08-2014 11:46PM

john boye wrote: »

I've actually noticed EI using A319s on DUB - LHR quite a bit lately. I assumed (wrongly perhaps) that numbers were maybe down slightly

But they have increased frequency while moving the A321's on to other less frequent Euro routes. (from 1998-2006 the A321's were almost exclusively DUB-LHR)

Strumms · 13-08-2014 12:07AM

john boye wrote: »

I've actually noticed EI using A319s on DUB - LHR quite a bit lately. I assumed (wrongly perhaps) that numbers were maybe down slightly

I was on both a BA and EI A319s into LHR over the last month and both were full or close to full services. Having said that during the year I've been on EI 320s that have also been full and one that was next to empty I think I coumted about 40 passengers on a weekday mid afternoon service.

Locker10a · 13-08-2014 12:52AM

MYOB wrote: »

Paris-London has barely* had flights since the Channel Tunnel opened - numbers of flights and hence passenger volume has collapsed. Its Hong Kong to Taipei.

*OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but still.

Quite the opposite, LON-PAR is operated frequently by Air France, British Airways, Cityjet and Easyjet and possibly Ryanair but im not sure on them!

Irish Steve · 13-08-2014 12:58AM

I have to laugh at the short sightedness of some of the contributors to this thread. There are significant numbers travelling between the UK and Dublin, not just London, but all of that traffic is very much dependant on the future availability of oil, which is not a given, and if oil is not available at a sensible price, then alternatives are going to be needed, and given that ships also need large quantities of oil, and the sea crossing is very unreliable in winter months, that suggests to me that a tunnel, using electric powered rail, is going to happen at some stage, and if we had any politicians with serious long term vision, they would be looking at this now, and planning for it, along with the requirements for high speed rail between Dublin and Shannon area, in order to provide a service that could then be used to connect to the routes that will still need air connections, to the East Coast of the USA, with rail (at much higher speeds than are currently available) being used to get large numbers of passengers and significant freight volumes to and from the UK and Europe.

It's not going to happen in my lifetime, (I'm over 60), but unless someone comes up with a viable alternative to oil that's not going to use massive numbers of acres of land that currently grow food, we're not going to be able to carry on travelling by air in the way that we do now, because there won't be the oil to make that possible. It's also possible that we wont' have road travel to the same extent as now, unless renewable electricity is a lot more plentiful.

On the subject of aircraft types on the route to London, there was a time when BA could and did use anything from a BAC1-11 to a Tristar, and 757's were also used on occasions.

I don't buy the suggestion that it takes longer to turn a 757 than a smaller jet, with the right number of ramp crew on the turnround, it's possible to get a 757 completely turned (and fuelled for a much longer flight than LHR - DUB) in under the hour, and that's on a flight that was carrying full catering for all passengers, and a full (230 plus) load of bags in both directions, I know, we did it at DUB for First Choice on a night when the inbound was over an hour late arriving, and was due out again in 55 minutes. We had to go some on the bags, but we got it turned in 53 minutes. There's no doubt that it's quicker to use bin loaded aircraft from a speed of loading aspect, but not all Airbus are bin loaded, and narrow body Boeings are not bin loaded. The worst aircraft in that respect is the 757-300, due to the length of the holds, it needs a large ramp crew to get them off loaded and reloaded in a reasonable time.

They've sold them on now, but there was a time when BA used 757's on shorter sectors than LHR-DUB, I have some very good memories of a jump seat trip from Brussels to Heathrow, on a gin clear day that meant we could see from the Wash to Portland as we crossed Dover at FL310.

In terms of numbers, for a completely different reason, I was looking at the numbers travelling between Dublin and Gatwick, and there are almost as many passengers travelling from Ireland to Gatwick (1.2 million ) per annum as there are between Gatwick and the USA (1.6 Million) . that surprised me, I'd have expected a lot more North Atlantic numbers compared to Ireland, given the routes and size of the aircraft used.

L1011 · 13-08-2014 10:53AM

Locker10a wrote: »

Quite the opposite, LON-PAR is operated frequently by Air France, British Airways, Cityjet and Easyjet and possibly Ryanair but im not sure on them!

All at a tiny fraction of the early 1990s frequency though.

13-08-2014 05:43PM

@irish Steve you can laugh at people's shortsightedness but at least they are being realistic. A bridge or tunnel will NEVER be built between the UK and Ireland.

Dublin-London route 2nd busiest in world

Comments