MANCHESTER - 7
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skippy 1E wrote
It certainly does but no thanks to BA who were determined to stop other L/H operators at every step of the bilateral process with unbalanced demands. Luckily the UK DfT or whatever they are called this week, eventually saw through this after careful targetted lobbying by MAN and long haul services were allowed to come in.
In addition MAN put its trust in what BA were telling them future developments would be and responded (eg by building T3) , only to find it never happened - similar I guess to what happened later at LGW. A misjudgement by MAN in hindsight as no doubt other opportunities were not exploited because of this.
So you can understand Skippy, that there is a certain amount of resentment in the NW (and probably other regions too) over BA's actions and lack of real support over many many years. Whilst the words may have been supportive of the regions, the actions certainly weren't.
And don't forget all the staff at MAN and BHX and other regional bases whose lives have already been disrupted by BA's withdrawal of services.
Thanks to Bagso's last response, I now realise that you are also applying to join the gang - certainly one of the same old faces - but I'm afraid that you are only halfway there as you are contributing new tripe to this thread. Please try harder.
Suzeman
MAN has more of a fine network and a connection to the world than BA ever offered.
In addition MAN put its trust in what BA were telling them future developments would be and responded (eg by building T3) , only to find it never happened - similar I guess to what happened later at LGW. A misjudgement by MAN in hindsight as no doubt other opportunities were not exploited because of this.
So you can understand Skippy, that there is a certain amount of resentment in the NW (and probably other regions too) over BA's actions and lack of real support over many many years. Whilst the words may have been supportive of the regions, the actions certainly weren't.
And don't forget all the staff at MAN and BHX and other regional bases whose lives have already been disrupted by BA's withdrawal of services.
I just get annoyed at the same old tripe regurgitated by the same old faces on here.
Suzeman
Ref EK 777 Scenic route...
You are indeed wrong. The crew originally raised this to the engineers who offered their wisdom. EK and MAN then came up with the roundabout route until a proper risk assesment could be carried out. (Something that perhaps should have been done before it was moved from T2). 
I think (but I may be wrong) the original question was actually raised by the engineers .....
..also ironic to find that BBC News were trailing this story with a substantial number of shots ALL taken off 23R at Manchester ! An airport where BA abdicated responsibility many years ago and where the strike will have only a modest effect compared to the South East.
A MAN based colleague just texted to say there was apparently a BE full emergency this evening at MAN, and there is also a GSM 738 with a tractor parked behind it.
For anyone that is interested.
For anyone that is interested.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly, last time there was a dispute at LHR we had several 747s divert direct to MAN with PAX as there were no stands left at LHR. Plenty of space at MAN ay the moment !!
Not really on topic, but I just had a rare thought
Say the strike goes ahead as threatened, what would the crews on long haul outbounds due out before the strike do ? Would you turn up for work knowing that you would be dumped the other side of the world for xmas ?
Not really on topic, but I just had a rare thought
Say the strike goes ahead as threatened, what would the crews on long haul outbounds due out before the strike do ? Would you turn up for work knowing that you would be dumped the other side of the world for xmas ?
MAG first half trading figues
Not quite as bad as many feared
MAG profits slump as passenger traffic falls 11.8 per cent - Crain's Manchester Business
MAG profits slump as passenger traffic falls 11.8 per cent - Crain's Manchester Business
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Suzeman, fair point I will try. My dad used to tell me tales of BOAC forcing SAS and KLM out of PIK and then buggering off themselves a few years later. It's a familiar tale. I promise to try and stop talking tripe, please don't think I am anti-MAN, I think it's a cracking airport.
As to BA, what goes around comes around. There may not be a BA next Christmas and that may actually be for the common good. Now I bet you never thought I'd be saying that? I think commercially, I can't see a way back for them.
As to BA, what goes around comes around. There may not be a BA next Christmas and that may actually be for the common good. Now I bet you never thought I'd be saying that? I think commercially, I can't see a way back for them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dad used to tell me tales of BOAC forcing SAS and KLM out of PIK and then buggering off themselves a few years later.
Forgotten about the goings on at PIK! BOAC of course stopped SN doing transatlantics from MAN - they were the first with the jet (707) whilst BOAC were still using Britannias. Then it was the turn of EI to get shafted as their 5th freedom services through MAN were curtailed (in the 70's or early 80s I think)
You write elsewhere about the BA Cabin Crew working practices. I think it was one of those that did for the LGW-MAN-ISB 747 services as they had to slip a crew at MAN, so increasing their costs. When they withdrew the route, (no doubt due to high costs), BA then announced that there would be no inconvenience as pax could still fly via the LGW shuttle and pick up the 747 for LGW-ISB. Yes that's two sectors and a transfer instead of a direct flight. It was an excellent own goal by BA PR as the airport used it extensively in the regional media and for lobbying purposes to demonstrate BA's disdain for passengers in the region.
And I heard that allegedly the costs of repatriating MAN bound baggage mishandled at LHR, particularly between T4 and T1 in the early days of T4 when there was a good chance your bag would not arrive from LHR with you, was paid for by the BA station at MAN, not LHR....
What with all the spoiling tactics, lack of committment and arrogant attitude, a lot of people in the North with long memories, often in the business community, are put off using BA. And potential pax who are not aware of this long history, I guess are now wary about travelling on BA because of the uncertainty of whether there will be a strike or not! Maybe they will try some of the other alternatives from MAN, so hopefully some good will come out of it for MAN (and other regional airport services).
As you say, there may not be a commercial way back for BA by the time it is all sorted out as the Union appear to be going to re-ballot
Suzeman
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we are having some Christmas gripes and further tripe I may as well join the fray...nothing else going on so we may as well have a rant !
Forgotten about the goings on at PIK! BOAC of course stopped SN doing transatlantics from MAN - they were the first with the jet (707) whilst BOAC were still using Britannias. Then it was the turn of EI to get shafted as their 5th freedom services through MAN were curtailed (in the 70's or early 80s I think)
Suzeman...see also Pan Am and TWA...Northwest....and Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without recalling the continual BA spoiling tactics....
Eg Cathay start and lo and behold an angel appeared from the South in the form of BA, remember the short lived L1011 service and the comment....
"..it was always our intention to undertake this commitment to the North Of England blah blah blah "
...what a load of B*****Ks
As I recall the BA MAN - ISB service only started when PIA announced they were starting service ?
Air India wanted Bombay but were denied thanks to pressure from BA and offered Delhi, and as I recall didn't ALIA want another destination but were denied ?
All to protect the London shuttles...
Now history and most would probably be defunct now anyway !...
BUT as you say Suze...some of us do have long memories !
Never has an airport been in the grip of the stranglehold of one airline!!!!
Forgotten about the goings on at PIK! BOAC of course stopped SN doing transatlantics from MAN - they were the first with the jet (707) whilst BOAC were still using Britannias. Then it was the turn of EI to get shafted as their 5th freedom services through MAN were curtailed (in the 70's or early 80s I think)
Suzeman...see also Pan Am and TWA...Northwest....and Christmas wouldn't be Christmas without recalling the continual BA spoiling tactics....
Eg Cathay start and lo and behold an angel appeared from the South in the form of BA, remember the short lived L1011 service and the comment....
"..it was always our intention to undertake this commitment to the North Of England blah blah blah "
...what a load of B*****Ks
As I recall the BA MAN - ISB service only started when PIA announced they were starting service ?
Air India wanted Bombay but were denied thanks to pressure from BA and offered Delhi, and as I recall didn't ALIA want another destination but were denied ?
All to protect the London shuttles...
Now history and most would probably be defunct now anyway !...
BUT as you say Suze...some of us do have long memories !
Never has an airport been in the grip of the stranglehold of one airline!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Bagso, apologies for the tripe. It was a little bitter, sorry.
Worth remembering that hub and spoke airlines are a little schitzo. When BA flew directly from GLA-JFK, other parts of BA were very keen to route people GLA-LHR-JFK, on the same day, arriiving in the US at roughly the same time.
What's a great idea to one department, is anathema to someone trying to fill a shuttle. Screw BA anyway, they're dead men walking into 2010. They're already trying to bribe Executive Club members not to flee to airlines with fewer BASSA / UNITE harridans.
Worth remembering that hub and spoke airlines are a little schitzo. When BA flew directly from GLA-JFK, other parts of BA were very keen to route people GLA-LHR-JFK, on the same day, arriiving in the US at roughly the same time.
What's a great idea to one department, is anathema to someone trying to fill a shuttle. Screw BA anyway, they're dead men walking into 2010. They're already trying to bribe Executive Club members not to flee to airlines with fewer BASSA / UNITE harridans.
Slightly "skewed" viewpoint there I think Mickyman.
As we are talking about longhaul, and ignoring any increases in the loco's/short haul growth, most major airports are suffering a downturn.. not all.
As a result of the global economic situation and consequent uncertainty, few carriers are looking to expand ( with the possible exception of Gulf carriers who are expected to increase capacity out of MAN next year!)
and in the case of EK, EY and QR , people ARE supporting those services, in increasing numbers.
Whilst I agree that management at MAN could ( and should) have done better,they wanted BA and I think the greater damage was done by BA effectively either competing , albeit short term, or putting pressure on their alliance carriers such as CX and QF as previously mentioned.
Of course MAN wanted BA to stay and grow.. but they bet on the wrong horse
Having said that , you are correct , its up to MAN now to prove that they dont need, indeed dont want, BA and go and get other carriers to come in and compete
(as CO, DL, US have already shown they can do.)
Not forgetting Virgin , who, whilst still having a rather London centric approach, have at least shown some commitment to MAN.
Time will tell, and I hope that all at MAN now have got the message.
"BA ARE NOT INTERESTED IN MAN"
( I think they have!)
As we are talking about longhaul, and ignoring any increases in the loco's/short haul growth, most major airports are suffering a downturn.. not all.
As a result of the global economic situation and consequent uncertainty, few carriers are looking to expand ( with the possible exception of Gulf carriers who are expected to increase capacity out of MAN next year!)
and in the case of EK, EY and QR , people ARE supporting those services, in increasing numbers.
Whilst I agree that management at MAN could ( and should) have done better,they wanted BA and I think the greater damage was done by BA effectively either competing , albeit short term, or putting pressure on their alliance carriers such as CX and QF as previously mentioned.
Of course MAN wanted BA to stay and grow.. but they bet on the wrong horse
Having said that , you are correct , its up to MAN now to prove that they dont need, indeed dont want, BA and go and get other carriers to come in and compete
(as CO, DL, US have already shown they can do.)
Not forgetting Virgin , who, whilst still having a rather London centric approach, have at least shown some commitment to MAN.
Time will tell, and I hope that all at MAN now have got the message.
"BA ARE NOT INTERESTED IN MAN"
( I think they have!)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gsky
As happens quite frequently my post has been removed by the powers that be because............
I agree with most of your posting and would like to see
MAN grow without BA's help, but people moaning about how
hard done too they were 30 years ago (and since) is pointless
in my opinion.
MM
As happens quite frequently my post has been removed by the powers that be because............
I agree with most of your posting and would like to see
MAN grow without BA's help, but people moaning about how
hard done too they were 30 years ago (and since) is pointless
in my opinion.
MM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso
Quite correct - PK caught BA on the hop by announcing their service and starting 2 weeks later
And another one for the list - GF wanted BAH - their hub at the time - but were only offered AUH. Result - no GF service
Skipness
And exactly the same situation was experienced at MAN
In my opinion, this is the main reason that people from the regions still fly BA via LHR
Mickeyman
Not pointless at all as what happened 30 years ago - and what has gone on since - has shaped the situation we have today and therefore our discussion. We can rue the lost opportunities at MAN due to lots of things, many which were out of the airport's control, which have led to routes operating - or not - today.
And here's an another example which you might be familiar with from the NW. At LPL, it may well have been a different story if the owners - then the Council - had been bothered to develop their airport. LPL was bigger than MAN in the mid 50's but Manchester were aggressive in developing their airport, BEA were enticed away to MAN and the rest is history. I'm sure older people on Merseyside still feel aggrieved by the lack of council support until the airport was sold.
Oh hang on -come to think of it, I've never heard anyone in LPL moan about that, so MAN people must now be t' Champion moaners in NW.
Wonder where we got that trait from?
Suzeman
As I recall the BA MAN - ISB service only started when PIA announced they were starting service ?
And another one for the list - GF wanted BAH - their hub at the time - but were only offered AUH. Result - no GF service
Skipness
Worth remembering that hub and spoke airlines are a little schitzo. When BA flew directly from GLA-JFK, other parts of BA were very keen to route people GLA-LHR-JFK, on the same day, arriiving in the US at roughly the same time.
They're already trying to bribe Executive Club members not to flee to airlines with fewer BASSA / UNITE harridans.
Mickeyman
but people moaning about how hard done too they were 30 years ago (and since) is pointless
in my opinion.
in my opinion.
And here's an another example which you might be familiar with from the NW. At LPL, it may well have been a different story if the owners - then the Council - had been bothered to develop their airport. LPL was bigger than MAN in the mid 50's but Manchester were aggressive in developing their airport, BEA were enticed away to MAN and the rest is history. I'm sure older people on Merseyside still feel aggrieved by the lack of council support until the airport was sold.
Oh hang on -come to think of it, I've never heard anyone in LPL moan about that, so MAN people must now be t' Champion moaners in NW.
Wonder where we got that trait from?Suzeman