Manchester Happenings (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Noordwest
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re an earlier question re Qantas, Gulf Air and Cathay.
QF left because of BA, as Golf-India Bravo has already said.
When Cathay Pacific joined One World, their services miraculously disappeared too. For One World, read one airport and one carrier.......London Heathrow and London Airways. London, London, London and again, London.
Gulf Air operated to Abu Dhabi, which at the time didn't offer significant connections. They said that they'd return when they finally developed Bahrain as their major hub. This hasn't happened, and possibly GF seem to have missed the boat with Emirates, Qatar and now Etihad developing their networks.
QF left because of BA, as Golf-India Bravo has already said.
When Cathay Pacific joined One World, their services miraculously disappeared too. For One World, read one airport and one carrier.......London Heathrow and London Airways. London, London, London and again, London.
Gulf Air operated to Abu Dhabi, which at the time didn't offer significant connections. They said that they'd return when they finally developed Bahrain as their major hub. This hasn't happened, and possibly GF seem to have missed the boat with Emirates, Qatar and now Etihad developing their networks.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jongeman
That is because London is the Capital, Manchester is NOT!! Nor is is close to becoming Englands second city, which is Birmingham.
London, London, London and again London
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Cathay Pacific joined One World, their services miraculously disappeared too.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leodis, we all know that London is the capital, but thanks for stating the obvious.
We also know that Birmingham is indeed Englands second city. However, in case you didn't notice, this is an aviation website and to me in this context (and that of media and the financial sector), Manchester is the second city. i.e look at MAN compared to BHX. Need i say more?
The whole BA MAN debate (both here and over at airliners.net) keeps re-appearing and i also have the view that BA (and other UK carriers) have neglected MAN. There is, i believe, much potential at MAN for BA to develop its Long Haul services. What i mean by that is LAX perhaps aswell as other 'popular' destinations and not to some far flung African destination that is operated from LHR!
A common response from those who oppose this view is......
1) "oh BA don't have an obligation to MAN, they are a business"
BA is a business and they haven't an obligation to MAN but they are missing an opportunity. Other long haul carriers have not only found MAN routes sustainable but also very lucrative. Also, contary to many peoples beliefs, Manchester and indeed several Northern Cities have business organisations (financial, manufacturing etc) that can support premium products aswell as there been many, not overly affluent people, that are willing to spend more on their well earned holiday. (yes prosperity really does exist North of Watford Gap)
While some may argue that the dual hub model does not work, Heathrow is, as we know, bursting at the seamswhile MAN could relieve some of that burden. At present BA has a relatively good European network that could feed a small portfolio of long haul routes aswell as those of fellow oneworld partners. In turn this would support european routes. Whilst those in the southeast wouldn't dream of transiting MAN, those connecting from Europe couldnt care less whether they changed at LHR or MAN as long as its easy, the service is good and the price is right. Apparently, GB Airways routes (who i'll be working for from next month-before any of you think i'm anti BA) are full of people connecting onto JFK.
In respect of dual hubs, some say that few other airlines have two or more hubs. But i think that the MAN situation is rarely replicated because whilst IB, for instance, doesn't offer Long haul out of BCN, BCN doesn't have many (if any) long haul ops anyway where as MAN does. Or put it a better way, name me another city that has the likes of EK,SQ,QR,US,DL,PK,AA,MH etc and not have many long hauls by it's National carrier.
This is my own personal view and i can understand why people get frustrated with BA MAN. The fact that shortly, we will lose some routes notably FCO makes it worse. I mean it's terrible that from then on the only route from Northern England to the Italian capital will be an FR from LPL that arrives in Rome and some late hour and all because BA wants to focus on 50 seat ops that can't make it that far. GB...thats your route for the takin!
We also know that Birmingham is indeed Englands second city. However, in case you didn't notice, this is an aviation website and to me in this context (and that of media and the financial sector), Manchester is the second city. i.e look at MAN compared to BHX. Need i say more?
The whole BA MAN debate (both here and over at airliners.net) keeps re-appearing and i also have the view that BA (and other UK carriers) have neglected MAN. There is, i believe, much potential at MAN for BA to develop its Long Haul services. What i mean by that is LAX perhaps aswell as other 'popular' destinations and not to some far flung African destination that is operated from LHR!
A common response from those who oppose this view is......
1) "oh BA don't have an obligation to MAN, they are a business"
BA is a business and they haven't an obligation to MAN but they are missing an opportunity. Other long haul carriers have not only found MAN routes sustainable but also very lucrative. Also, contary to many peoples beliefs, Manchester and indeed several Northern Cities have business organisations (financial, manufacturing etc) that can support premium products aswell as there been many, not overly affluent people, that are willing to spend more on their well earned holiday. (yes prosperity really does exist North of Watford Gap)
While some may argue that the dual hub model does not work, Heathrow is, as we know, bursting at the seamswhile MAN could relieve some of that burden. At present BA has a relatively good European network that could feed a small portfolio of long haul routes aswell as those of fellow oneworld partners. In turn this would support european routes. Whilst those in the southeast wouldn't dream of transiting MAN, those connecting from Europe couldnt care less whether they changed at LHR or MAN as long as its easy, the service is good and the price is right. Apparently, GB Airways routes (who i'll be working for from next month-before any of you think i'm anti BA) are full of people connecting onto JFK.
In respect of dual hubs, some say that few other airlines have two or more hubs. But i think that the MAN situation is rarely replicated because whilst IB, for instance, doesn't offer Long haul out of BCN, BCN doesn't have many (if any) long haul ops anyway where as MAN does. Or put it a better way, name me another city that has the likes of EK,SQ,QR,US,DL,PK,AA,MH etc and not have many long hauls by it's National carrier.
This is my own personal view and i can understand why people get frustrated with BA MAN. The fact that shortly, we will lose some routes notably FCO makes it worse. I mean it's terrible that from then on the only route from Northern England to the Italian capital will be an FR from LPL that arrives in Rome and some late hour and all because BA wants to focus on 50 seat ops that can't make it that far. GB...thats your route for the takin!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: MANCHESTER
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mancry
The reason why Manchester has your stated
long-haul routes IS BECAUSE BA has 'neglected'
Manchester in favour of London.You dont get the
mix of carriers any where else with the obvious
exception of LHR,as you do in Man
I can only assume that the JFK makes so much
money for them that they dare not cut it!
Any increase in BA long-haul from Manchester
would affect other carriers - but I think the dye
has been caste - with GB moving in on leisure
routes and maybe BARed (Crap name) picking up
minor (as in 50 seat) 'business' eurozone routes.
I'm still struggling with the fact that BA is a
'favorite' airline given that everybody seems
to slag them off.
Who the hell flies with them????
BA has always had 2 London bases and in all the
years this has not changed at all.
I for one would rather see more exotic traffic at
Manchester in the future than BA B747's/B777's
thundering down 24 left.
The reason why Manchester has your stated
long-haul routes IS BECAUSE BA has 'neglected'
Manchester in favour of London.You dont get the
mix of carriers any where else with the obvious
exception of LHR,as you do in Man
I can only assume that the JFK makes so much
money for them that they dare not cut it!
Any increase in BA long-haul from Manchester
would affect other carriers - but I think the dye
has been caste - with GB moving in on leisure
routes and maybe BARed (Crap name) picking up
minor (as in 50 seat) 'business' eurozone routes.
I'm still struggling with the fact that BA is a
'favorite' airline given that everybody seems
to slag them off.
Who the hell flies with them????
BA has always had 2 London bases and in all the
years this has not changed at all.
I for one would rather see more exotic traffic at
Manchester in the future than BA B747's/B777's
thundering down 24 left.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes BA has always placed emphasis on LGW although long hauls from here is now declining.
I am an enthusiast and love seeing various other carriers but i am looking at a it from a business perspective and not from one of nostalgia or anything like that.
If BA were to expand then the routes i'd see them doing would not really overlap much with other carriers and emphasis likely placed on North America. So LAX and SFO etc.
Finally, why not let GB take over some 'business' routes that cannot be flown by BACX or those which would be more profitable under a smaller organisation such as GB. I have stated before that several of BA's routes would be suited to GB as, while true its a mainly leisure airline, its route network centres on southern europe/med....so FCO and NCE (as examples of dropped BACX routes, would be prime for GB)
I am an enthusiast and love seeing various other carriers but i am looking at a it from a business perspective and not from one of nostalgia or anything like that.
If BA were to expand then the routes i'd see them doing would not really overlap much with other carriers and emphasis likely placed on North America. So LAX and SFO etc.
Finally, why not let GB take over some 'business' routes that cannot be flown by BACX or those which would be more profitable under a smaller organisation such as GB. I have stated before that several of BA's routes would be suited to GB as, while true its a mainly leisure airline, its route network centres on southern europe/med....so FCO and NCE (as examples of dropped BACX routes, would be prime for GB)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Leodis, thankyou for clarifying that London is the capital. I believe it is disgraceful that passengers would even consider flying out of a regional airport. In fact, I'm fully in favour of closing down all regional airports and channeling everyone through LHR.
It is quite correct that airlines such as Qantas and Cathay, who were running profitable operations from Manchester, close the routes down in favour of everyone flying from the capital city, on the British national airline.
Let's hope and pray that all other long-haul carriers out of Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham immediately cease operations. We don't want to detract from our capital city, do we?
It is quite correct that airlines such as Qantas and Cathay, who were running profitable operations from Manchester, close the routes down in favour of everyone flying from the capital city, on the British national airline.
Let's hope and pray that all other long-haul carriers out of Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham immediately cease operations. We don't want to detract from our capital city, do we?
One of the travel trade mags is, this month reporting that BA will pull the MAN-JFK route very soon.
Whether this is speculation based on airport generated rumour or has more substantial facts behind it I do not know.
Wait and see eh?
Whether this is speculation based on airport generated rumour or has more substantial facts behind it I do not know.
Wait and see eh?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumor has it BACX will stop operating it with there crew, possibly manned with ex BRAL crew from BACX who will be mainline shuttle. But also heard it might operate in a W ex LHR with London crew.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MANCHESTER
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well it doesnt look like ba wants to expand from manchester anymore with the possibility of the jfk route going, bacx cutting routes. ba wants everything back into heathrow even gatwick is suffering with ba. its lucky gb are expanding in man or there wouldnt be no use for t3. but if virgin continues to expand in man then thats good news and ethihad coming.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETIHAD
I have also heard it's in the bag , daily operation with A330's, morning deps,starting in spring 06.
Also heard that there has been more than enough interest to fill the 32 prime time daily slots given up by BA. Some by already established MAN operators but interestingly, by one carrier who is'nt established ! (and before you ask I was'nt told who but it was UNLIKELY to be EZY)
Also heard that there has been more than enough interest to fill the 32 prime time daily slots given up by BA. Some by already established MAN operators but interestingly, by one carrier who is'nt established ! (and before you ask I was'nt told who but it was UNLIKELY to be EZY)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the change in runway designation is actually going ahead now. Runways 24L/R and 06L/R will become Runways 23L/R and 05L/R.
How much this change (due to the gradual shift of magnetic north) is going to cost the airport is currently being calculated.
How much this change (due to the gradual shift of magnetic north) is going to cost the airport is currently being calculated.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lichfield
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester second City
Manchester is not even the third city in the UK thats Glasgow and finance media etc Edinburgh is much more of an Important financial centre than Machester as is Leeds. BHX suffers from being too close to London Manchester is just far enough away to desuade most to travel to London by road. Dont forget BHX has lost routes too!
Daza
Daza
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just before I moved to Manchester three years ago, i read or heard a media report saying that in some statistic or other, Manchester (the city) had overtaken Birmingham as the second city. What people also forget is that Manchester is greater (no pun intended) than the city itself. Manchester is made up of 10 districts/councils (as many will know)
Manchester City
Stockport
Tameside
Oldham
Rochdale
Bury
Bolton
Salford
Trafford
Wigan
Not a Manc myself but i believe Manchester has everything. Regardless of whether it is second or third or whatever, after London it probably has the biggest profile
Commonwealth Games
Manchester United
Manchester Airport
Coronation Street (i'll be lynched for that one, but its true, corrie is shown in several other countries)
If it's not second/third city....it should be! lol
Manchester City
Stockport
Tameside
Oldham
Rochdale
Bury
Bolton
Salford
Trafford
Wigan
Not a Manc myself but i believe Manchester has everything. Regardless of whether it is second or third or whatever, after London it probably has the biggest profile
Commonwealth Games
Manchester United
Manchester Airport
Coronation Street (i'll be lynched for that one, but its true, corrie is shown in several other countries)
If it's not second/third city....it should be! lol
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: cheshire
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad we are now getting back onto the correct subject. I feel it is pointless comparing cities (or indeed Counties), It is beneficial to see most airports expand.
However, just to correct MancRy, By no means of the imagination is Manchester Britains 2nd City.
The Factual information is, according to population:
1. London
2. Birmingham
3. Glasgow
4. Liverpool
5. Sheffield
6. Leeds
7. Bristol
and er,
8. Manchester
Unfortunately, Britains cities do not include their real make up like other countries so it is difficult to make true comparisons, therefore it is best to stick to the facts available.
You can not compare the County of Greater Manchester to other cities, but to other Counties. Try comparing like with like. i.e. West Midlands and Gtr Manchester.
As for a higher profile:
Commonwealth Games - Edinburgh?
Manchester United - But its in Trafford, not Manchester. Try using Manchester City as a comparitor.
Manchester Airport - Fair point, but part of it used to be in Cheshire, and as the rest of the region start to claw back their own Pax, Manplc will expand at a slower rate.
Coronation Street - What, a sad soap opera unknown outside of the U.K. - I have never even watched it.
I'm sure most, if not all other Cities can register a higher worldwide profile than the above.
What you missed (and it is this what has probably couloured your thinking) is that the majority of the Media in the North is based in Manchester and they, being born and bred mancunians, have yet to learn that Manchester is merely the 2nd largest city in the region and is actually based on the periphery of that.
But then again, why don't we all just stick to aviation.
However, just to correct MancRy, By no means of the imagination is Manchester Britains 2nd City.
The Factual information is, according to population:
1. London
2. Birmingham
3. Glasgow
4. Liverpool
5. Sheffield
6. Leeds
7. Bristol
and er,
8. Manchester
Unfortunately, Britains cities do not include their real make up like other countries so it is difficult to make true comparisons, therefore it is best to stick to the facts available.
You can not compare the County of Greater Manchester to other cities, but to other Counties. Try comparing like with like. i.e. West Midlands and Gtr Manchester.
As for a higher profile:
Commonwealth Games - Edinburgh?
Manchester United - But its in Trafford, not Manchester. Try using Manchester City as a comparitor.
Manchester Airport - Fair point, but part of it used to be in Cheshire, and as the rest of the region start to claw back their own Pax, Manplc will expand at a slower rate.
Coronation Street - What, a sad soap opera unknown outside of the U.K. - I have never even watched it.
I'm sure most, if not all other Cities can register a higher worldwide profile than the above.
What you missed (and it is this what has probably couloured your thinking) is that the majority of the Media in the North is based in Manchester and they, being born and bred mancunians, have yet to learn that Manchester is merely the 2nd largest city in the region and is actually based on the periphery of that.
But then again, why don't we all just stick to aviation.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In view of everyone being correct, lets be honest when people refer to the population of London they are referring to Greater London not the City of London (which is not that high) so why can we not refer to Greater Manchester in the same way.