Ian
I really hope you are right, but I must confess it may have passed me by but I havn't seen ANY reference other than here about terminal changes/expansion, certainly nothing from MAG.
Is this commitment to a mid Feb announcement referenced anywhere in the media ?
I hasten to add I am not being picky, it is a genuine question, I "thought" we were relying on well informed insider knowledge , which the rest of us outside the perimeter are really hoping proves correct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On a wider note is it not an odd juxtaposition that one week a MAG spokesperson suggests capacity is a "spectacular" 55m whilst then presumably suggesting to shareholders the need to raise significant funds to reconfigure the terminals .....
....essentially to accommodate the dozen or so RYRs first thing in the morning ?
Lord knows we need the expansion and reconfiguration and most of us on here would see the benefit but how will this be sold to said shareholders ?
Skippy
To reiterate I was merely making the observation !
"that the main plank of BackHeathrow and indeed the Airport Commission review was the NECCESSITY to connect to Heathrow".
Little Red have almost gone and BA retracting are frequency.
It is silly to suggest that I was intimating that we would want to lose all BA flights to Heathrow replacing these with directs Ex MAN, but the fact remains that when I did maths before leaving school, the calculated loss in terms of Little Red and 1 BA flight a day represents a circa 30% decrease in capacity to the main hub, or am I missing something ?
Either demand is not there OR passengers are using other hubs to connect.
I noticed the term "masses going on behind the scenes " has on some forums morphed into IAG rather than just Vueling.
Are they somehow going to use Vueling in a much wider sense than we ever imagined to address leakage to other airlines ex MAN ?
Last edited by Bagso; 22nd Feb 2015 at 13:02.