MANCHESTER - 7
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stalybridge
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we are on the subject on airlines and routes.Do those who know more than me think there will ever be a Chinese passenger carrier at MAN?? I know we have Cathay,etc with freight.I would have thought there was a possible market as Manchester at some point in the future as one of the few "Tiger" cities in the world by having a ceremonial gate to China town and there is a large(ish) Chinese population in the North West of England,even Midlands for those wishing to avoid LHR.I know there has been talk of it in the past with Cathay or was that just rumour control at work.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...to Madrid must happen soon! Andalus was the latest rumour.
UK-(BA)-LHR-(BA/IB)-MAD/BCN-(IB)-Spain will be the general pattern if you wish to travel with Oneworld.
Unless one of the LCCs are looking that is...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UTUXA
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay gave up on Man to Hongkong a while back didn't they?I flew the route just once.Via AMS with barely a quarter load.It filled up at AMS.Likewise on the return via CDG.Just a handfull remained for Man after most left at Paris.Pity,it was a good experience overall.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems A380 is coming ever closer. The larger airline forum has stated that LHR, PVG, PEK, MAN and JFK will get daily services each.
However, TAS has said that the plan is for a 3rd daily flight offering first class on all three services.
One thing that is for certain is that EK don't want SQ getting hold of MAN's F class passengers!
However, TAS has said that the plan is for a 3rd daily flight offering first class on all three services.
One thing that is for certain is that EK don't want SQ getting hold of MAN's F class passengers!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not time we had a direct Jo'burg?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay was actually well patronised, it went when CX got into bed with BA.
CX blamed poor load factors UK-HK etc etc but it was reasonably well used. Certainly all the press releases until this point indicated that it was a major success until that marriage. General UK market conditions were blamed BUT fares shot up so that it was actually cheaper to get on a shuttle and fly via LHR with BA and then CX than it was to fly direct.
As a footnote and despite "market conditions" the slot miraculously re-appeared at LHR about 3 months after our service ended moving them to about 4 a day..........and almost an hourly shuttle to HK !
SAA had 80% load factors but when apparthied was ended this opened previously closed markets to countries and major capital cities which had not been served up to this point.......our aircraft was needed to serve what were considered more prestigious destinations.....
QANTAS also had 80% load factors but we lost that one when BA bought a 25% stake in QF .....again service finished within about 6 months !
For the record the same was true with IBERIA !
....don't wish to to start whinging about BA but when these mergers and takeovers occurred they bleated about "increased competition, more customer choice etc etc !
It was and remains complete bollocks !
They manipulated fares and screwed the market !
...I am only amased that they have never not put pressure on EK and AA !
BA told the airlines to stop serving Manchester
Same happened with QF , BA bought a 25% stake and within
CX blamed poor load factors UK-HK etc etc but it was reasonably well used. Certainly all the press releases until this point indicated that it was a major success until that marriage. General UK market conditions were blamed BUT fares shot up so that it was actually cheaper to get on a shuttle and fly via LHR with BA and then CX than it was to fly direct.
As a footnote and despite "market conditions" the slot miraculously re-appeared at LHR about 3 months after our service ended moving them to about 4 a day..........and almost an hourly shuttle to HK !
SAA had 80% load factors but when apparthied was ended this opened previously closed markets to countries and major capital cities which had not been served up to this point.......our aircraft was needed to serve what were considered more prestigious destinations.....
QANTAS also had 80% load factors but we lost that one when BA bought a 25% stake in QF .....again service finished within about 6 months !
For the record the same was true with IBERIA !
....don't wish to to start whinging about BA but when these mergers and takeovers occurred they bleated about "increased competition, more customer choice etc etc !
It was and remains complete bollocks !
They manipulated fares and screwed the market !
...I am only amased that they have never not put pressure on EK and AA !
BA told the airlines to stop serving Manchester
Same happened with QF , BA bought a 25% stake and within
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....I said "Direct" !
Also, I think those connections show that actually, there is:
1. No need for a non-stop service
2. The market is very much satisfied
Globespan failed for similar reasons to the JFK service - inconsistencies and the only way the route would work is with a long haul carrier that isn't OW...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Globespan never even got the MAN-JNB off the ground. It was cancelled prior to launch.
You lot are like stuck records 'they tried it and failed', 'they tried it and failed'! So by that measure, nothing would ever progress at Manchester, or any other airport. What may not have worked in 1997 with fuel inefficient a/c doen't really apply today.
Someone said TP and IB are concentrating on hubs; correct, but they need feeds into these hubs! A hub is useless without its spokes....just ask BA at LHR.
As regards MAD, Air Europa might be an option with one of their efficient E190s.
You lot are like stuck records 'they tried it and failed', 'they tried it and failed'! So by that measure, nothing would ever progress at Manchester, or any other airport. What may not have worked in 1997 with fuel inefficient a/c doen't really apply today.
Someone said TP and IB are concentrating on hubs; correct, but they need feeds into these hubs! A hub is useless without its spokes....just ask BA at LHR.
As regards MAD, Air Europa might be an option with one of their efficient E190s.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upon the marriage of BA and Iberia, MAD will look very unlikely. People seem to think that, like with the AA move, it will be better for the regions. Maybe so, but only in the form of shuttle runs to LHR.
UK-(BA)-LHR-(BA/IB)-MAD/BCN-(IB)-Spain will be the general pattern if you wish to travel with Oneworld.
Unless one of the LCCs are looking that is...
UK-(BA)-LHR-(BA/IB)-MAD/BCN-(IB)-Spain will be the general pattern if you wish to travel with Oneworld.
Unless one of the LCCs are looking that is...
If BA/IB judge that MAN can generate sufficient point-to-point traffic and transit traffic to make it worthwhile then it is likely to happen, especially with IB having the (presumably cheaper) option of Air Nostrum. You would hope that the extra transit traffic that the merger may generate would tip the balance on the beancounter's spreadsheet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..on paper all these proposed direct services make perfect sense but sadly in the real world the reality is different ! It is nonsense to keep hubbing thru LHR and then answering pandering to demands for more runway capacity but sadly that is what we are facing !
You cannot blame BA, a single hub is much more cost effective.....
For a long time we also suffered from a semi compliant public in the North Of England "happy with their lot" and subservient enough to do what the airlines and BA offered them ......it reinforced the notion that the only way out of the country was via the South East !
......the success of EK, etc means that the travelling public are at long last a bit more discerning in their choice !
I would like to share Vuelo's optimism but the pax are STILL heading in one direction on many sectors.......
You cannot blame BA, a single hub is much more cost effective.....
For a long time we also suffered from a semi compliant public in the North Of England "happy with their lot" and subservient enough to do what the airlines and BA offered them ......it reinforced the notion that the only way out of the country was via the South East !
......the success of EK, etc means that the travelling public are at long last a bit more discerning in their choice !
I would like to share Vuelo's optimism but the pax are STILL heading in one direction on many sectors.......
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Manchester United in Turkish Airlines sponsorship deal
Could this benefit the airport at all?
IST-MAN-LAX?
Could this benefit the airport at all?
IST-MAN-LAX?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a couple of major factors associated with why Air Asia did NOT launch MAN and why TK MAY expand MAN operations.
Firstly, and most obviously, TK already fly from MAN, they are 9 hours flight time nearer to MAN than Air Asia's new KUL long-haul base.
Secondly, at the time of Air Asia's deal with MUFC, there was no long haul aircraft to be seen. They made the correct decision to launch STN over MAN yet I would never suggest that MAN would fall off of their radar as it would be a great route, but not as lucrative as STN and you cannot launch two destinations into the same country when there is already competition as fierce as EK, QR, EY, LH, AF etc.
THIRDLY, the route IST-MAN-LAX was mentioned some time back.
It may be the case that TK have made their deal solely for advertisement, however they have NOT signed a shirt deal - their logo will not be seen around the globe week in week out as has AIG for the past X amount of years. It may be simply for the advertisement boards and programmes but I think it is something more than that...
Firstly, and most obviously, TK already fly from MAN, they are 9 hours flight time nearer to MAN than Air Asia's new KUL long-haul base.
Secondly, at the time of Air Asia's deal with MUFC, there was no long haul aircraft to be seen. They made the correct decision to launch STN over MAN yet I would never suggest that MAN would fall off of their radar as it would be a great route, but not as lucrative as STN and you cannot launch two destinations into the same country when there is already competition as fierce as EK, QR, EY, LH, AF etc.
THIRDLY, the route IST-MAN-LAX was mentioned some time back.
It may be the case that TK have made their deal solely for advertisement, however they have NOT signed a shirt deal - their logo will not be seen around the globe week in week out as has AIG for the past X amount of years. It may be simply for the advertisement boards and programmes but I think it is something more than that...