MANCHESTER - 5
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ Intentions
I am US Based, so use the MAN-SIN about once per year, if transiting through UK office. There seems to be some confusion on the SQ situation, so I thought I would ask the staff -ground and air. I came to the conclusion, that nobody, even the airline knows what the hell is going on with the route. Ground staff were told by the pax about the website showing 5/wk. The loads are high, the days being dropped don't make sense from previous comments, shortage of aircraft yet they are expanding elsewhere. I can't even get back SIN-MAN as it is full (not the first time), so have to go via the dump in the south.
Anybody have real facts on the situation?
Anybody have real facts on the situation?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just had a walk round T1, oh my gawd ! what a mess, I hope the hoardings start to come down before the summer season starts or its going to be mayhem, what with the work in progress and the concrete road blocks everywhere its a real shambles. I know I was shot down last time I said it but why the hell are we making yet more alterations to this 1960s dump, management have some bottle, level the place and start again, if LHR can build LHR East in the middle of such a busy place why cant we ?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN777 I have to agree. Whilst preferring to fly from Liverpool wherever possible (it is after all my local airport) when flying long haul or to many IT destinations I have no choice but to fly Manchester and quite frankly it's rarely a pleasant experience these days.
To me the sensible (and I think viable) option would be to revert to the original plan to build a mid field satellite terminal as an extension to T2. That would potentially add 10-12m capacity, enough to cater for existing T1 traffic (at least) enabling the demolition and rebuild of the T1 area, which once complete would leave the airport able to cater for upwards of 35m pax.
Having said that, with current growth rates maybe the management are beginning to think they don't need so much additional capacity?
To me the sensible (and I think viable) option would be to revert to the original plan to build a mid field satellite terminal as an extension to T2. That would potentially add 10-12m capacity, enough to cater for existing T1 traffic (at least) enabling the demolition and rebuild of the T1 area, which once complete would leave the airport able to cater for upwards of 35m pax.
Having said that, with current growth rates maybe the management are beginning to think they don't need so much additional capacity?
TUI Fly cut backs
TUI Fly (HLX) have dropped their planned summer Tuesday morning flights to Cologne & Stuttgart. Just had my flights changed from Tuesday morning to very late Wednesday night. Cancelled flights in favour of Lufty - cheaper too !
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Hangar
The Old BA hangar has finally opened its doors again and is being used for what it was intended !
B-KAG the Dragonair 747 with bent engines, is residing inside.
Hopefully this incident will leave a legacy at MAN in that a dormant building (sealed for years rather than pay rates) will get used properly.
Anybody know the full details ?
B-KAG the Dragonair 747 with bent engines, is residing inside.
Hopefully this incident will leave a legacy at MAN in that a dormant building (sealed for years rather than pay rates) will get used properly.
Anybody know the full details ?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spannersatcx
read the post !
Does anybody know anything about the use of the BA hangar for the Dragonair 747 ! Is this a one off ? Who is doing the work ? etc etc.
Didnt know I had to spell it out to what I thought were intelligent people on this forum !
read the post !
Does anybody know anything about the use of the BA hangar for the Dragonair 747 ! Is this a one off ? Who is doing the work ? etc etc.
Didnt know I had to spell it out to what I thought were intelligent people on this forum !
Yep, MA now own the hangar (or more precisely, MADL do). They will be leasing it out to anyone that needs it and are now actively advertising it.
It will bolster the airports attributes as it looks to attract a long haul, foreign airline - now that there is another (available) 747-capable hangar on site. Its a fine bit of hangarage, too.
They are looking to rename the hangar, and are looking for sensible suggestions - anyone?
It will bolster the airports attributes as it looks to attract a long haul, foreign airline - now that there is another (available) 747-capable hangar on site. Its a fine bit of hangarage, too.
They are looking to rename the hangar, and are looking for sensible suggestions - anyone?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN to become FedEx UK base then?
Would be excellent if it did.
Some of the pictures I have seen from MEM look cool - maybe MAN could become a mini MEM!
http://www.englandsnorthwest.com/inv...wing-city.html
(They have more space to fill!)
Would be excellent if it did.
Some of the pictures I have seen from MEM look cool - maybe MAN could become a mini MEM!
http://www.englandsnorthwest.com/inv...wing-city.html
(They have more space to fill!)
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN777, I'm obviously a thick engineer then! Didn't know if you wanted details of the incident or something else.
Hangar was always owned by airport but leased to BA.
£2000 a day, work being done by CX with assistance by SIA, MAN777 check your pm's.
Hangar was always owned by airport but leased to BA.
£2000 a day, work being done by CX with assistance by SIA, MAN777 check your pm's.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite correct. MA leases all the airport land (by virtue of a long lease from the 10 local authorities) and then leased some of it to BA, who built their own hangar on it.
When BA lost interest, there was the problem of their asset (their hangar), on someone else's land. If BA ever stop paying the ground lease payment, the landlord (MA) could repossess the asset on their land. They would also still have to pay business rates to the local authority (Mcr City Council) even if it was empty. After it was consistently unused for a while, they could apply to suspend paying rates. However, once it's used again, rates become liable, even if it's only used for one day. That's why it couldn't be used for temporary uses. Meanwhile BA tried to sell the building, along with the right to lease MA's land, but because it's typical BA spec (gold taps, anyone?) the price was too high and no-one was interested.
I suspect MA and BA have agreed a payment (by BA to MA) to extract themselves from their ongoing ground lease liabilities, and to allow MA to re-let it as a normal lease (like any other building e.g. cargo shed). Knowing MA's incompetence in striking truly commercial deals, they've probably agreed to let BA walk away without paying anything, citing "wider strategic benefits" or some such tosh.
When BA lost interest, there was the problem of their asset (their hangar), on someone else's land. If BA ever stop paying the ground lease payment, the landlord (MA) could repossess the asset on their land. They would also still have to pay business rates to the local authority (Mcr City Council) even if it was empty. After it was consistently unused for a while, they could apply to suspend paying rates. However, once it's used again, rates become liable, even if it's only used for one day. That's why it couldn't be used for temporary uses. Meanwhile BA tried to sell the building, along with the right to lease MA's land, but because it's typical BA spec (gold taps, anyone?) the price was too high and no-one was interested.
I suspect MA and BA have agreed a payment (by BA to MA) to extract themselves from their ongoing ground lease liabilities, and to allow MA to re-let it as a normal lease (like any other building e.g. cargo shed). Knowing MA's incompetence in striking truly commercial deals, they've probably agreed to let BA walk away without paying anything, citing "wider strategic benefits" or some such tosh.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the legalities lets get it filled with aircraft and get some more engineers employed in the north.
Ocean sky is always packed these days, perhaps they might like to spend some roubles on a BBJ service centre ?
Ocean sky is always packed these days, perhaps they might like to spend some roubles on a BBJ service centre ?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Macclesfield
Age: 53
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T2 windmill
Noticed the new windmill on T2 what the ...... is going on there anybody know??
Also whats' with the scaffold around T1 near the Glodfish Bowl?
Was talking to SR engineer today, reckons they will get 90 days notice next week,
hope they can find something.
Fuelboy
Also whats' with the scaffold around T1 near the Glodfish Bowl?
Was talking to SR engineer today, reckons they will get 90 days notice next week,
hope they can find something.Fuelboy
typical BA spec (gold taps, anyone?)
You should write the leader for the Daily Liar.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qatar Feb Pax
The CAA Feb provisional route analysis figures show MAN - Doha as: -
10603 down from 14350 - is this due to the re-timing of the flights?
Is it daily as that makes it 183 per flight!
The rest of the long-haul looks good but of course there was an extra day compared to 2007.
Islamabad was higher than Heathrow and up over 6 or 7k. The Leeds ISB pax are not shown.
EK was up to 42841 from 39768 which is 369 a flight about 85%.
EY was up to 12994 from 11237.
Pete
10603 down from 14350 - is this due to the re-timing of the flights?
Is it daily as that makes it 183 per flight!
The rest of the long-haul looks good but of course there was an extra day compared to 2007.
Islamabad was higher than Heathrow and up over 6 or 7k. The Leeds ISB pax are not shown.
EK was up to 42841 from 39768 which is 369 a flight about 85%.
EY was up to 12994 from 11237.
Pete
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QR
There is something odd about the QR figures.
This is the second month showing large losses.
Last month of LHR LGW and MAN,Man showed the least drop.
This month LGW showed a huge drop of 45% LHR and MAN showed a drop of 26%.
Therfore according to the figures MAN is not the only one suffering and in fact is suffering less than the others.
There is therfore something wrong with the figures or QR are in trouble in the UK. Which is it. I think we need to see the final figures for the last two months to find out what may be happening.
Otherwise the figures aren't that bad.
Question? Why do the figures never show anything for KIR
Viscount
This is the second month showing large losses.
Last month of LHR LGW and MAN,Man showed the least drop.
This month LGW showed a huge drop of 45% LHR and MAN showed a drop of 26%.
Therfore according to the figures MAN is not the only one suffering and in fact is suffering less than the others.
There is therfore something wrong with the figures or QR are in trouble in the UK. Which is it. I think we need to see the final figures for the last two months to find out what may be happening.
Otherwise the figures aren't that bad.
Question? Why do the figures never show anything for KIR
Viscount