MANCHESTER - 7
DUS - ORD via MAN?
Rinwayman,
The problem is you can't compare the German market with the UK market. The UK is a non-federal country, where as a consequence, the world begins and ends in London.
Not so Germany, Each state has a main city, - Nordrheinwestfalen has Düsseldorf, Bavaria Munich; Niedersachsen Hannover, Hessen has Frankfurt; Baden Würtemburg has Stuttgart. The state governments all demand decent air services, so there are many more direct services from what you would call "secondary airports" than there are say, from airports in France, the UK or Italy which are very centralised politically.
As far as routing a Düssedorf transatlantic via a UK airport, I don't believe the German travelling public would wear it, when in the time it takes to transit a UK airport would be only a few minutes less than taking the ICE train to Frankfurt, then flying direct!
The problem is you can't compare the German market with the UK market. The UK is a non-federal country, where as a consequence, the world begins and ends in London.
Not so Germany, Each state has a main city, - Nordrheinwestfalen has Düsseldorf, Bavaria Munich; Niedersachsen Hannover, Hessen has Frankfurt; Baden Würtemburg has Stuttgart. The state governments all demand decent air services, so there are many more direct services from what you would call "secondary airports" than there are say, from airports in France, the UK or Italy which are very centralised politically.
As far as routing a Düssedorf transatlantic via a UK airport, I don't believe the German travelling public would wear it, when in the time it takes to transit a UK airport would be only a few minutes less than taking the ICE train to Frankfurt, then flying direct!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso
Having poured scorn on your thread opener,I find myself
after having read your last post#39,to be much more
satisfied with your effort.
Even though it still appears that this idea might just of
been 'invented' by yourself,the construction is much better
and is of more interest.
The premiss of your first post is so illegal/idiotic that to even
contemplate it made me wonder about the management skill
level at MAplc - however thinking of some of their decisions
over the last decade perhaps you may have a point!
MM
Having poured scorn on your thread opener,I find myself
after having read your last post#39,to be much more
satisfied with your effort.
Even though it still appears that this idea might just of
been 'invented' by yourself,the construction is much better
and is of more interest.
The premiss of your first post is so illegal/idiotic that to even
contemplate it made me wonder about the management skill
level at MAplc - however thinking of some of their decisions
over the last decade perhaps you may have a point!
MM
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Riyadh
Age: 61
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TartinTon, which EU treaty is that then?
Originally Posted by TartinTon
Hahahahahaha!!! That's one of the funniest posts I've read in ages!!!
They cannot stop anyone flying intra EU under the EU treaty.
It would be funny to see them try!
They cannot stop anyone flying intra EU under the EU treaty.
It would be funny to see them try!
Please don't comment on laws you don't understand, EU laws don't ban transport companies from withdrawing intra-EU services of any kind. By your logic if SNCF withdrew service from Paris to Lyon they would be in breach of EU regulations.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Riyadh
Age: 61
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LHR27C
What possible grounds could there be to refuse to let BA/BMI route pax via their hubs, but permit AF/KL/LH to do the same?
Absolutely none. The proposal is completely illegal and will never happen.
Absolutely none. The proposal is completely illegal and will never happen.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAr19...if MAG wanted to ban BA/BMI for a reason then they probably could. However, since the legitimacy of such an action would be against the EUs restraint of trade rules it seems unlikely that MAG have deep enough pockets to fund the court case and subsequent compensation claim.
Since 1993 the EU has operated as a free market for travel so an airport cannot ban travel between 2 airports unless there is a genuine reason.
Not really sure what you're babbling about with your SNCF example as you're talking about something completely different.
Bit less time in the sun, my old son.
Since 1993 the EU has operated as a free market for travel so an airport cannot ban travel between 2 airports unless there is a genuine reason.
Not really sure what you're babbling about with your SNCF example as you're talking about something completely different.
Bit less time in the sun, my old son.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Riyadh
Age: 61
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No what you were saying was that if MAN refused to serve BA it would be in breach of the free travel agreements which apply only to governments. There are probably other restrictions in terms of commercial law but the particular rules you mentioned with regard to intra-union travel don't apply to that situation, simply because they aren't restricting intra-EU travel (because they don't have the power to do that). I hope I'm being clear I have a tendency to talk around the issue. Put simply, companies can't be reprimanded under free travel agreements, EU commercial law is another matter of which I have zero knowledge.
Like I said, I was under the impression you were speaking of free travel agreements which ban any restriction of EU travel by goverments rather than free trade agreements. I hope you see my misunderstanding.
Like I said, I was under the impression you were speaking of free travel agreements which ban any restriction of EU travel by goverments rather than free trade agreements. I hope you see my misunderstanding.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mickyman
Having poured scorn on your thread opener,I find myself
after having read your last post#39,to be much more
satisfied with your effort.
Even though it still appears that this idea might just of
been 'invented' by yourself, the construction is much better
and is of more interest.
The premiss of your first post is so illegal/idiotic that to even
contemplate it made me wonder about the management skill
level at MAplc - however thinking of some of their decisions
over the last decade perhaps you may have a point!
after having read your last post#39,to be much more
satisfied with your effort.
Even though it still appears that this idea might just of
been 'invented' by yourself, the construction is much better
and is of more interest.
The premiss of your first post is so illegal/idiotic that to even
contemplate it made me wonder about the management skill
level at MAplc - however thinking of some of their decisions
over the last decade perhaps you may have a point!
Whatever your profession, it should be possible to offer an alternative point of view without being so patronising. Please let's not turn this valuable resource into just yet another internet forum.
(I guess you're not a teacher, though, or you would know that the correct grammatical construction is might have, not might of. And you might have spelt premise correctly.)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think any of us on here are qualified enough to know the legalities of such a move. One thing for sure is that MAG will, as too will the Airlines involved.
My view is this, if this story is even true, is just a public sympathy generating exercise with the intention of putting pressure of BA / BMI to reverse their decisions. MAG might be barking loud but I doubt it would bite.
My view is this, if this story is even true, is just a public sympathy generating exercise with the intention of putting pressure of BA / BMI to reverse their decisions. MAG might be barking loud but I doubt it would bite.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the pax going to LHR ex-MAN are transiting. Pretty sure Willie Walsh said it was in the region of 75%.
Thanks eggc for the info - I knew about the EWR and MIA services; will have to think of alternate xxx-MAN-ORD; those with historical books about MAN may have recognised my favoured routing as part of a route that actually happened with Lufthansa.
The best prospect for a domininant British airline offering long-haul ex-MAN would have to have a sufficient number in the based fleet that it could be run as a stand-alone sub-fleet in a conifiguration that might be more appropriate for ops here (just J + Y classes with no Y+ class to be seen). This is where VS 787s might be useful - perhaps as many as 5 based operating the existing VS programme (including the soon to be dropped St Lucia link), tagging in the leisure routes of BD, and add in the likes of JFK with some destinations such as BOM, HKG and JNB. Otherwise, MAN is going to at the whim of airlines that will fly here only if they are serving other destinations that can also support J and Y class operations.
Thanks eggc for the info - I knew about the EWR and MIA services; will have to think of alternate xxx-MAN-ORD; those with historical books about MAN may have recognised my favoured routing as part of a route that actually happened with Lufthansa.
The best prospect for a domininant British airline offering long-haul ex-MAN would have to have a sufficient number in the based fleet that it could be run as a stand-alone sub-fleet in a conifiguration that might be more appropriate for ops here (just J + Y classes with no Y+ class to be seen). This is where VS 787s might be useful - perhaps as many as 5 based operating the existing VS programme (including the soon to be dropped St Lucia link), tagging in the leisure routes of BD, and add in the likes of JFK with some destinations such as BOM, HKG and JNB. Otherwise, MAN is going to at the whim of airlines that will fly here only if they are serving other destinations that can also support J and Y class operations.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man Ba-bmi
All the posts suggesting that MAN is about to 'throw its toys out of the pram', 'draw up the drawbridge' etc are, although well intended, are pipe-dreams.
Whilst airports are commercial businesses, and on the face of it, free to choose who they trade with, are regulated by international, European and national legislation.
The cornerstone of international aviation is the 1944 Chicago Convention. Article 15 sets out that 'Every airport ... which is open to public use shall be open to uniform conditions'. This Article was intended to allow the development of international aviation, although was amended for US/UK traffic by Bermuda 2.
In Europe, clearly there is EU Restraint of Trade legislation.
In the UK, MAN operates under a CAA Public Use Licence. This requires that 'the aerodrome must be available to all persons (users) permitted to use it on equal terms and conditions.'
In short, as an international airport, MAN would not be able to restrict access to particular carriers. Why would it look to close access to BA/BMI and then see the routes disappear to LPL? More likely, promote through its marketing activity, the alternatives to LHR. And that's what they've started to do, and expect to see more.
Whilst airports are commercial businesses, and on the face of it, free to choose who they trade with, are regulated by international, European and national legislation.
The cornerstone of international aviation is the 1944 Chicago Convention. Article 15 sets out that 'Every airport ... which is open to public use shall be open to uniform conditions'. This Article was intended to allow the development of international aviation, although was amended for US/UK traffic by Bermuda 2.
In Europe, clearly there is EU Restraint of Trade legislation.
In the UK, MAN operates under a CAA Public Use Licence. This requires that 'the aerodrome must be available to all persons (users) permitted to use it on equal terms and conditions.'
In short, as an international airport, MAN would not be able to restrict access to particular carriers. Why would it look to close access to BA/BMI and then see the routes disappear to LPL? More likely, promote through its marketing activity, the alternatives to LHR. And that's what they've started to do, and expect to see more.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANs strategy re: SHuttles and LO-CO
SHUTTLES -
I do not believe for one moment than MAN will attempt to ban, block or disrupt the existing air links to London, for all the well-argued reasons in this thread.
LOCOs-
Shed-on-a Pole. I think most of your posts are spot-on, but regarding MAN's strategy on Lo-cos, consider this:
In the mid-nineties as Lo-Co's began to emerge, MAN had healthy traffic growth, an enviable schedule of direct flights into most major EU cities by the primary flag-carriers, a strong BA base, a decent spread of long-haul schedules with big name carriers, and a large charter operation with the big names in the IT business. Furthermore, the airport had consistently made a profit, despite price regulation introduced in 1991 by the Monopolies & Mergers report.
Does it not seem a reasoned business decision then, to avoid risking this position by opening the doors to LoCos? At that time there was no guarantee that these carriers would survive, they were not offering any destinations which weren't already served by other carriers out of MAN, and at the fees they expected to pay, there would be no profit for the airport. Does that make business sense?
The fact than MANs traffic has now suffered from erosion by LOCos, amongst other factors, does not make the 1990's position wrong. LoCos have been spectacularly successful, so far. But those others airports which welcomed in LoCos - LPL, LBA, EMA, LTN, had very little to lose at the time - it was a no-brainer. However MAN was in a unique position.
Liverpool has only just turned in a meagre profit after 10 years of EZY and RYR. MAN has to make an operating profit to survive, unlike Peel who are a real-estate outfit for whom airports add value to the portfolio - different business model entirely.
How long the LoCO boom will continue is not yet clear. In the longer term I feel that the UK is too small to support all these fragmented operations we're seeing right now, and the novelty of getting pissed in Prague drys up. What has just happened at CVT may be the start of the retrenchment back to the traditional centres of flight operations. Let's see what happens in the next five years.
I do not believe for one moment than MAN will attempt to ban, block or disrupt the existing air links to London, for all the well-argued reasons in this thread.
LOCOs-
Shed-on-a Pole. I think most of your posts are spot-on, but regarding MAN's strategy on Lo-cos, consider this:
In the mid-nineties as Lo-Co's began to emerge, MAN had healthy traffic growth, an enviable schedule of direct flights into most major EU cities by the primary flag-carriers, a strong BA base, a decent spread of long-haul schedules with big name carriers, and a large charter operation with the big names in the IT business. Furthermore, the airport had consistently made a profit, despite price regulation introduced in 1991 by the Monopolies & Mergers report.
Does it not seem a reasoned business decision then, to avoid risking this position by opening the doors to LoCos? At that time there was no guarantee that these carriers would survive, they were not offering any destinations which weren't already served by other carriers out of MAN, and at the fees they expected to pay, there would be no profit for the airport. Does that make business sense?
The fact than MANs traffic has now suffered from erosion by LOCos, amongst other factors, does not make the 1990's position wrong. LoCos have been spectacularly successful, so far. But those others airports which welcomed in LoCos - LPL, LBA, EMA, LTN, had very little to lose at the time - it was a no-brainer. However MAN was in a unique position.
Liverpool has only just turned in a meagre profit after 10 years of EZY and RYR. MAN has to make an operating profit to survive, unlike Peel who are a real-estate outfit for whom airports add value to the portfolio - different business model entirely.
How long the LoCO boom will continue is not yet clear. In the longer term I feel that the UK is too small to support all these fragmented operations we're seeing right now, and the novelty of getting pissed in Prague drys up. What has just happened at CVT may be the start of the retrenchment back to the traditional centres of flight operations. Let's see what happens in the next five years.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely spot on roverman.
I remember a presentation in the late 90's given by John Spooner (MD at the time) who made a very strong case that MAN would continue to develop the international scheduled and charter services whilst EMA (owned by MAPLC) would develop lo-co services for the very reasons you site.
I remember a presentation in the late 90's given by John Spooner (MD at the time) who made a very strong case that MAN would continue to develop the international scheduled and charter services whilst EMA (owned by MAPLC) would develop lo-co services for the very reasons you site.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Spooner did say that, but for clarity, he didn't join MAPLC from EMA until some time mid-2000. Before then, he was only MD of EMA and BOH and thus not interested in, nor paid to speak about, MAN.
Once again, btw, I raise my hat to Shed's excellent posts. It worries me that it's happened again
Once again, btw, I raise my hat to Shed's excellent posts. It worries me that it's happened again
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it April the 1st already?
In the UK the government, via the CAA, grants each airport a Public Use Licence to operate. It is a requirement of the issuance of that Licence, that the airport is available to all users without hindrance. The fact that the aircraft owner (I'm thinking of GA aviation here) can be priced out, by any airport authority, is for another debate. I have not seen the Licence for some years, but it is a requirement that a copy has to be on public display as a statement of UK Government Law.
It is for this very reason that GA light aircraft can not be banned from MAN, as officers of MAplc wanted in the mid-1990s, when R2 was under discussion; the resident GA community and business aircraft users threatened to invoke their Licence Right to Access, as what the airport authority was proposing would have been discrimination against a sector of aviation. Should the government withdraw Licence approval, then all flying activities would have to cease forthwith, leaving only the feathered variety flying.
P.S. - just noted that Higher Archie has now posted along similar lines.
P.P.S. - Shed: well written posts, esp # 485 on Manchester-6.
It is for this very reason that GA light aircraft can not be banned from MAN, as officers of MAplc wanted in the mid-1990s, when R2 was under discussion; the resident GA community and business aircraft users threatened to invoke their Licence Right to Access, as what the airport authority was proposing would have been discrimination against a sector of aviation. Should the government withdraw Licence approval, then all flying activities would have to cease forthwith, leaving only the feathered variety flying.
P.S. - just noted that Higher Archie has now posted along similar lines.
P.P.S. - Shed: well written posts, esp # 485 on Manchester-6.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how come GA has all but gone from LHR, could a Tomahawk insist on using the place ? If the Owner of said Tomahawk insisted, LHR would have to accept using this right of access law ?
Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.
Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"....Having poured scorn on your thread opener,I find myself
after having read your last post#39,to be much more
satisfied with your effort.
Even though it still appears that this idea might just of
been 'invented' by yourself,the construction is much better
and is of more interest "
many thanks mickyman....
...why on earth I would invent such a bizarre story quite frankly beggars belief, i felt it was an interesting "take" on a major story and believing it might just be of interest to fellow ppruners passed it on in good faith as indeed other readers do, I did qualify the post by suggesting that it might be merely spin. If you reread the original piece I was simply asking the question as to whether it was enforceable and if it was, what was the likely impact
commercially ?
My second post simply speculated on why such a story "might" have legs ?
.....however your consent to my contribution is by definition, both an honour and dare I say a privilege, may all of us on this forum bow our heads, kneel and prostitute ourselves to your greater understanding, I trust Christmas will bring you its traditional mix of good food and violent stomach cramp
ps Micheal SWS ...it appears we are not worthy !
after having read your last post#39,to be much more
satisfied with your effort.
Even though it still appears that this idea might just of
been 'invented' by yourself,the construction is much better
and is of more interest "
many thanks mickyman....
...why on earth I would invent such a bizarre story quite frankly beggars belief, i felt it was an interesting "take" on a major story and believing it might just be of interest to fellow ppruners passed it on in good faith as indeed other readers do, I did qualify the post by suggesting that it might be merely spin. If you reread the original piece I was simply asking the question as to whether it was enforceable and if it was, what was the likely impact
commercially ?
My second post simply speculated on why such a story "might" have legs ?
.....however your consent to my contribution is by definition, both an honour and dare I say a privilege, may all of us on this forum bow our heads, kneel and prostitute ourselves to your greater understanding, I trust Christmas will bring you its traditional mix of good food and violent stomach cramp
ps Micheal SWS ...it appears we are not worthy !
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a PA-31 yesterday landing on 27L at Heathrow. Slots are really pricey, as are charges. No in their right mind would want to use it for real GA. The light stuff that gets in is often medical or crew taxis.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London
Age: 37
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Annnnyyyywaaaayyyy........
On to something else that isnt going to happen:
Has anyone seen an air syhlet aircraft yet? its due into MAN this month and as of yet, i still aint seen an aircraft in their colours? Pushing it a bit fine arnt they?
On to something else that isnt going to happen:
Has anyone seen an air syhlet aircraft yet? its due into MAN this month and as of yet, i still aint seen an aircraft in their colours? Pushing it a bit fine arnt they?
