MANCHESTER - 8

[Skipness One Echo]

I suppose VS LAS will be a reasonable tester how far a successful west direct service can be. Even better would be a MAN-LAS-AKL

The question you need to answer before you get a shiny new MAN-LAX service is this one :

Given that LHR-LAX barely makes money as there is so much competition on price from London-Hub-West Coast such that the LHR-LAX direct has very competitve prices, how do you exepct to make MAN-LAX pay given that substantial discounts will exist going over the usual hubs. The market is super price sensitive and even MAN's US carriers will still offer a better deal over EWR, ORD, PHL, JFK and ATL.

The economics don't add up for a year round scheduled service.

[Alvechurch]

Bagso

I'm afraid your claim that Manchester is at the centre of the country won't convince too many people and do you really think that BHX hasn't got good transport links?
The last time you jumped on this particular bandwagon you failed to answer a rather basic question - if London and the South East suffered restrictions which resulted in passengers having to fly long haul from regional airports, why would anyone want to drive past BHX or not get off the train there and instead travel on to Manchester?
In those circumstances if BHX had the right routes those passengers would surely travel up from the South and use them?

[mickyman]

Alvechurch

'why would anyone want to drive past BHX or not get off the train there and instead travel on to Manchester?'
The opposite argument is being used ie: Why should 'Northerners' travel
by air/road/rail to go long haul at LHR ??
With the advent of 'global airline alliances' the argument of 'funnelling'
passengers through hubs applies to all airlines not just BA at LHR.
The success of airlines like Emirates etc at MAN may proove that some
routes would be able to maintain numbers (but not as some on here guestimate)and yields.
Whilst the 3rd LHR runway remains on the backburner MAN may gain
one or two 'practise' routes with the promise of transfer, when the city applies pressure on politicians to build R3.The politicians can only pay
lip-service to the masses before market forces take-over the decision
process.

MM.

[MUFC_fan]

Whilst the 3rd LHR runway remains on the backburner MAN may gain
one or two 'practise' routes with the promise of transfer, when the city applies pressure on politicians to build R3.The politicians can only pay
lip-service to the masses before market forces take-over the decision
process.

Quite simply, the most intelligent comment ever made on this forum.

[Bagso]

Alvechurch

..I absolutely agree !

BHX is ideally placed.

With fast rail links central London would not be much different in time to LGW, in addition a sizeable chunk of the North of England would be within 50mins, it was a major opportunity missed !

I say "missed" because the runway length and indeed to a certain degree terminal capacity will always be an issue that will restrict operations.
Full length/full load departures to all "possible" desinations are just not possible!

In addition, its proximity to London may be an advantage or indeed the opposite. Gatwick doesnt quite work and neither does Stansted because LH airlines in particular will not split costs so near to Heathrow.

The points I raised re Manchester addressed all issues ! Its far enough away to at least have its own identity.

Yes Birmingham and possibly other airports "might" score as well as MAN in individual areas but not on all points.

[Going loco]

Going Loco

I am confused by your argument ?

I'm not actually suggesting they focus on one place far from it, but lets "within reason" put demand where it originates, rather than artificially funnel it through one hub, having said that, the originating airports do at least have to be able to support that demand !

But as anyone who understands UK traffic patterns will testify to, MAN handles a huge amount of traffic that comes from areas where MAN would not be first or in some cases even second choice for the consumer. In otherwords the big shiny airport you are so proud of is built on a principle of "artifically funnelling" passenger that you seem to fundamentally disagree with.

Rationally of course, there are very valid economic reasons why businesses like TUI, Thomas Cook, Lufthansa, Air France and even BA on the shuttle "artifically funnel" their Northern passengers into MAN rather than offering more convenient options. They are the same economic reasons you won't be seeing BA doing anything interesting in MAN either. You can't moan about the latter when it doesn't meet your view of the world, but quietly ignore the former when it adds passengers and benefits to MAN that wouldn't be there otherwise.

I say "missed" because the runway length and indeed to a certain degree terminal capacity will always be an issue that will restrict operations.
Full length/full load departures to all "possible" desinations are just not possible!

But even if there are long haul flights squeezed out of LHR, it will the thickest routes first e.g. New York, which should be doable from many UK airports. Transferring West Coast US, Asia Pacific, LATAM services will be very unlikely

[purplehelmet]

manchester security alert

manchester's t1 evacuated this morning at 0850 due to suspicsous parcel being found in the terminal, causing major disruption to all flights.
more details at. www.menmedia.co.uk

[750XL]

Any idea if T1 is open now?

[Betablockeruk]

Was still evacuated at 1110.

[Betablockeruk]

Manchester Airport's Terminal One re-opening after evacuation - Manchester Evening News

Just in time for the Emirates due at 1223.

[Bagso]

I]But as anyone who understands UK traffic patterns will testify to, MAN handles a huge amount of traffic that comes from areas where MAN would not be first or in some cases even second choice for the consumer. In otherwords the big shiny airport you are so proud of is built on a principle of "artifically funnelling" passenger that you seem to fundamentally disagree with. [/I]

Going Loco - No, not particularly proud of Manchester just making some common sense arguments about what we do about capacity constraints in the South East. If you look back at previous threads I did actually suggest that a possible answer to this, is to build a brand new world class airport with 6/8 runways and close Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted Luton etc BUT what do we do in the meantime ? However I digress....

I'll bow to your obvious knowledge in this area clearly I am not worthy, but could you substantiate your argument regarding the "huge amount of traffic" that Manchester handles from "outside of area" with some actual figures ? My own understanding is that these are insignificant but I am happy to be corrected.

Are you really suggesting that potential pax from say Birmingham, Bristol, Norwich etc are really traveling on road and rail up to Manchester, bypassing not only their local airport offering connecting service to Paris Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc but ALSO completely dismissing the fact that Heathrow is within a 90 minute drive and would be more convenient and would no doubt offer lower fares and higher frequency versus Manchester flights !

Rationally of course, there are very valid economic reasons why businesses like TUI, Thomas Cook, Lufthansa, Air France and even BA on the shuttle "artifically funnel" their Northern passengers into MAN rather than offering more convenient options.

.....No, lost me on that one as well, can you explain what you mean ?

[hammerb32]

The thing of it, no matter how constrained the runways in the South East get, a solution will always be found to protect the South Easts interests. There's so many examples, look at Crossrail, billions to fund, the cost of this alone would provide an extensive light rail network to service the whole of the West Mids, we're spending this on 1 rail line to protect the South Easts interests, I say we because it's the tax payer funded it.

Arts funding is another example, government grants for the British Museum in London for the last 12 months are more than has been given the West Mids ever, that's 1 museum. I'm using the West Mids as an example but in reality it could be anywhere in the UK.

A third runway will be built at Heathrow, reality is the economy of the surounding area is to reliant on it not to and to reliant on it to mount any sort of realistic oppostion. In typical British style though it will be long after it should have been and until then we'll just muddle through.

[mytravela330]

i cant see a third runway been built at LHR, this goverment will be in power for 5 years, then all the planning has to go through again, and then and only then if it was to be passed, it will take another 3-4 years to build..... and where will they get the extra money to pay the people in the 700 houses they will have to bulldoze...

[hammerb32]

I would suggest the 700 houses is the cheap bit, they've found the best part of £20 billion for the 1 new rail line across London, it will come.

[Ian Brooks]

It`s not the money, Con/Lib were very against it for it`s green credentials or lack of
and destroying a complete community.
If they cut all the domestic and Northern France/Belgium flights and had a high
speed link direct from airport it would free a vast number of slots for much more profitable flights

Ian B

[Going loco]

I'll bow to your obvious knowledge in this area clearly I am not worthy, but could you substantiate your argument regarding the "huge amount of traffic" that Manchester handles from "outside of area" with some actual figures ? My own understanding is that these are insignificant but I am happy to be corrected.

It's about 1/3rd. So, about 6 million today and 7.5 million back in the day. Write to the CAA and ask for the supporting data from CAP 775, CAP 754, CR 07 and CR 08. There's many different but corroborating data points

[Prestonrdr]

Going Loco

I have been reading the brick bats batted back and forth between yourself and Bagso with interest. Could I arbitrate ?

You have challenged his/her opinion BUT curiously have quoted documents that fully validate the other persons argument ?

To quote your documents, yes of course Manchester handles traffic from other areas, to a greater or lesser extent every airport does, BUT critically looking at the papers, the vast majority of the 6m passengers coming in from out of area, come specifically from East Midlands and Yorkshire, both are "adjoining regions which are a relative short drive or train journey.

Neither region has airports which could sustain scheduled long haul traffic, so they are hardly being funnelled into the NWest at the expense of other airports unless you are advocating direct long haul service to EVERY regional airport in Britain ?

The point of the argument is that the North Of England has a major airport which is underused at a time when UK capacity, albeit dominated by the South East is under severe pressure. Maybe there is an argument for a more equal distribution although commercial interests do seem to prevent this.

[Going loco]

I suppose if all 6m were travelling to MAN to catch long-haul that might be the case, but is that what the data says? MAN only has 3m long haul in total and that includes charter, so not sure the long haul argument holds water. So what about the short haul traffic. Probably 4m - 5m coming from Yorks, Merseyside, East Mids - why shouldn't that be picked up by the airports that can handle that traffic. Why wouldn't posters on here who've made a name for themselves by arguing so strongly that regional airports should handle the traffic a region generates, actually be supportive of that? As I said from the start, double standards surely?

[Ringwayman]

So instead of an airline operating 1 service profitably into 1 airport with large catchment areas you'd want that airline operating into 3, 4 or 5 airports unprofitably because you object to MAN being the beneficiary?

[mickyman]

Ringwayman

Insert LHR for your MAN and we are back to square one - are we not?

MM