Originally Posted by
Mr A Tis
Am I the only one that is not getting into a overheated frenzy of salivation over more new services ? I find using this airport is a depressing miserable experience and the thought of more services nothing to shout about. The infrastructure is 10 years behind capacity and the new TP barely adds new aircraft parking and the benefit (if any) will not be seen fully for another 10 years- by which time it will already be inadequate. As someone who regularly shells out £2K-£4K for a ticket, what I see is a very high cost airport with a remarkably low level of service.
Maybe some people on here should get back down to earth & think about improving the passenger experience BEFORE adding more services.
Manchester, so much to answer for. I confess to being a MAN-fan but also a critical friend of the Global Gateway for the North. No one is pretending that the experience of transiting MAN is a world class one, it isn't. It will be better for some than others partly dependent on timings etc and sheer good/bad luck. But expensive?, what doest Thou mean, Sir? For airlines? Looking at Heathrow's fees and charges I would say not. For the passenger, you can choose to pay for what you want, most airport's charge a premium for goods and services because they've got you captive.
As for passenger surveys and travel trade awards, whether complimentary or critical I pay them no heed as they are highly subjective and often display a lack of understanding of the air transport world. OTP is a much-abused measure and flawed in its recording, it's also true that many of the factors affecting it are outside the direct control of the airport.
MAN is investing a lot of money in TP. Yes it could have come sooner. It won't be Changi or Doha when finished because we have a democracy in this country which requires accountability over any spending in the public domain, and vanity projects are frowned upon.
Ask yourself this. Why do you use MAN? I'll give you my answer. I use MAN because on my doorstep I have an airport where I can fly to a large number of destinations, such as Los Angeles where I recently flew directly in 10 hours for £460 return. The alternatives via LHR / DUB etc started at twice that price and took a minimum of 15 hours. Imagine living in Lyon, France's second city with a nice modern airport all payed for by the State, and from where you can fly to errr, nowhere in the USA. MAN has such an incredible range of services. Whilst I would agree that ideally using an airport should be a pleasant experience, what is its ultimate purpose? Right! - to get you to where you want to go. Manchester gets you to a lot of places and why wouldn't we want yet more destinations? Far from being clueless, MAN's management are landing big fish almost weekly whilst the wannabes of Europe look on. Manchester displays the great Northern tradition of demanding and offering value for money. Airlines don't pay a fat tariff to access a huge market of 20+ million people and many industries. Passengers get an almost un-rivalled range of air services at a non-capital/hub airport. They don't get marble and glass, they get an airport experience which sometimes has its trials but will get better in the coming years. No airline is at MAN to slot sit or wave their flag like at Heathrow, they are here to make a profit, something they can't at many so called 'nice' airports, it seems. I wonder why.
Apologies if I my post has wandered a little, but it's in the ball park.