MANCHESTER - 8
Recently arrived from HKG via FRA after being on the go for almost 20 hours. Had to get from T1 arrivals to the rail station at 2300 with lots of luggage. The travelators were all switched off. If there were no travelators in the first place, I'd probably think OK. However, when you see the things designed to help you not working, it kind of makes it worse.
As for "help" I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. I passed through T3 last month with my 90 year old mother. We were basically dumped in T3 arrivals & the wheelchair whisked away because they were short, leaving my mother stranded & unable to get to the pick up area.
It's a pretty dull and uninteresting subject to many, but by & large I agree with Shed. What's wrong with sensors? All German airports have had them for decades.
As for "help" I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. I passed through T3 last month with my 90 year old mother. We were basically dumped in T3 arrivals & the wheelchair whisked away because they were short, leaving my mother stranded & unable to get to the pick up area.
It's a pretty dull and uninteresting subject to many, but by & large I agree with Shed. What's wrong with sensors? All German airports have had them for decades.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is some news......
More silverware for MAN
From the MEN today
Airport takes a starring role at industry Oscars - Manchester Evening News
Suzeman
From the MEN today
Airport takes a starring role at industry Oscars - Manchester Evening News
Suzeman
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MAN/Wherever
Age: 62
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear ZFW, a little touchy are we not??
Lighten up my friend and learn to tell the difference between a serious argument and a tongue in cheek comment
Despite my moniker, I fly for a living so I do see as many if not far more airport terminals than you my friend and althougn MAN has always been my hometown and would defend it vigorously, MAN airport leaves a lot to be desired in oh so many areas where the airport meets the customer. In my opinion I should stress.
Lighten up my friend and learn to tell the difference between a serious argument and a tongue in cheek comment
Despite my moniker, I fly for a living so I do see as many if not far more airport terminals than you my friend and althougn MAN has always been my hometown and would defend it vigorously, MAN airport leaves a lot to be desired in oh so many areas where the airport meets the customer. In my opinion I should stress.
Last edited by superspotter; 7th Nov 2010 at 19:14.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pwalhx / all,
I am the first to acknowledge that the news that MAG has elected to switch off a number of its escalators and travelators in the name of environmentalism is not the most exciting news topic to emerge from Manchester Airport this year. But it IS news about the airport. And it IS important. Because if the airport experience becomes unpleasant, or worse - unmanageable - for travelers, they can choose an alternative airport or mode of travel for their future journeys.
If MAG's policies give customers reason to prefer the experience at a rival airport (or train / coach / ferry travel etc), the effects will eventually trickle down to employment prospects in various departments at MAN. Airline load factors and yields from Manchester rely fundamentally on MAG providing an airport experience which customers will be happy to book again and again on a regular basis. If the customer chooses an alternative for future journeys, those ex-MAN airseats risk remaining unsold.
Keeping the airport's standards high does require attention to detail. This can be tedious, but it is no less important for that. If the customers vote with their feet and book from airports which offer short walks to aircraft (as opposed to the larger MAN with its distance-mitigating infrastructure switched off), then we will soon be able to return to more juicy topics on the thread. Like speculating who will be the latest operator to reduce services from the place in response to declining customer demand.
Paying attention to getting the passenger experience right is a boring and tedious subject. But so much else depends on it. Aviation industry professionals do not shove these matters aside because they induce a yawn effect on certain casual readers. These issues must be highlighted and discussed in the open, or the airport will incur damage to its business as former customers seek alternatives which better serve their physical needs and capabilities.
So I'm sorry if readers would like to see 'Manchester News' restricted to new airline service announcements only. Because they ultimately rely on the airport providing an attractive environment which customers are keen and physically able to use for their travel needs. We often discuss this airport handling 17 million plus passengers per annum. In reality, a large proportion of those statistics represent a hardcore of individuals who each use the airport on multiple occasions over the space of a year. There is a high price to pay for hacking them off with mindless customer-unfriendly "environmental" initiatives dreamed up in a trendy beancounter's office. Airports operate in a competitive environment. Every customer is courted by nearby rival airports. The stakes are high. Manchester must offer an unbeatable passenger experience, because it is unlikely to win the battle for customer loyalty on price.
SHED.
ADDED: Excellent news posted by Suzeman at 18:58 there. Let's keep those standards UP. We need the airport's facilities to remain fully functional.
I am the first to acknowledge that the news that MAG has elected to switch off a number of its escalators and travelators in the name of environmentalism is not the most exciting news topic to emerge from Manchester Airport this year. But it IS news about the airport. And it IS important. Because if the airport experience becomes unpleasant, or worse - unmanageable - for travelers, they can choose an alternative airport or mode of travel for their future journeys.
If MAG's policies give customers reason to prefer the experience at a rival airport (or train / coach / ferry travel etc), the effects will eventually trickle down to employment prospects in various departments at MAN. Airline load factors and yields from Manchester rely fundamentally on MAG providing an airport experience which customers will be happy to book again and again on a regular basis. If the customer chooses an alternative for future journeys, those ex-MAN airseats risk remaining unsold.
Keeping the airport's standards high does require attention to detail. This can be tedious, but it is no less important for that. If the customers vote with their feet and book from airports which offer short walks to aircraft (as opposed to the larger MAN with its distance-mitigating infrastructure switched off), then we will soon be able to return to more juicy topics on the thread. Like speculating who will be the latest operator to reduce services from the place in response to declining customer demand.
Paying attention to getting the passenger experience right is a boring and tedious subject. But so much else depends on it. Aviation industry professionals do not shove these matters aside because they induce a yawn effect on certain casual readers. These issues must be highlighted and discussed in the open, or the airport will incur damage to its business as former customers seek alternatives which better serve their physical needs and capabilities.
So I'm sorry if readers would like to see 'Manchester News' restricted to new airline service announcements only. Because they ultimately rely on the airport providing an attractive environment which customers are keen and physically able to use for their travel needs. We often discuss this airport handling 17 million plus passengers per annum. In reality, a large proportion of those statistics represent a hardcore of individuals who each use the airport on multiple occasions over the space of a year. There is a high price to pay for hacking them off with mindless customer-unfriendly "environmental" initiatives dreamed up in a trendy beancounter's office. Airports operate in a competitive environment. Every customer is courted by nearby rival airports. The stakes are high. Manchester must offer an unbeatable passenger experience, because it is unlikely to win the battle for customer loyalty on price.
SHED.
ADDED: Excellent news posted by Suzeman at 18:58 there. Let's keep those standards UP. We need the airport's facilities to remain fully functional.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed-on-a-Pole
I'm not sure that I totally agree with you.
As I see it, an airport is somewhere you depart from or arrive into as part of an overall itinerary. It matters not one jot if certain nice-to-have features are fully operational or not providing basic conditions are provided. What really matters are the airlines and destinations served from the airport and I cannot imagine any airline not wanting to offer services from the airport due to the lack of certain specific passenger facilities. Passengers are highly unlikely to desert Manchester for let's say Liverpool just because Liverpool Airport may have more modern facilities, but they would certainly consider deserting Manchester if Liverpool offered a better choice of destinations, business or leisure, no matter what the condition of either airport.
In other words, I believe passengers choose an airport for the choice of airline destinations, price and convenience NOT for the facilities provided.
Just my thoughts.
As I see it, an airport is somewhere you depart from or arrive into as part of an overall itinerary. It matters not one jot if certain nice-to-have features are fully operational or not providing basic conditions are provided. What really matters are the airlines and destinations served from the airport and I cannot imagine any airline not wanting to offer services from the airport due to the lack of certain specific passenger facilities. Passengers are highly unlikely to desert Manchester for let's say Liverpool just because Liverpool Airport may have more modern facilities, but they would certainly consider deserting Manchester if Liverpool offered a better choice of destinations, business or leisure, no matter what the condition of either airport.
In other words, I believe passengers choose an airport for the choice of airline destinations, price and convenience NOT for the facilities provided.
Just my thoughts.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2
But isn't this the reason that many on this thread advise that we don't travel via Heathrow, because the airport 'experience' isn't good' ??
Just my thoughts, or rather the thoughts of many on this thread
But isn't this the reason that many on this thread advise that we don't travel via Heathrow, because the airport 'experience' isn't good' ??
Just my thoughts, or rather the thoughts of many on this thread
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSR2 -
I agree with all the factors you mention as playing a major role in determining a customer's choice of departure airport. However, probably the most common reason I hear for people avoiding a particular airport is: "The planes are parked so far away at XXX ... its just TOO FAR to walk! I always pick one of the small airports now ..."
So let's make sure that the less able passengers at MAN aren't OBLIGED to walk the whole distance. Although the OPTION to walk is a fine thing.
I agree with you that an airline is unlikely to withdraw purely because they as a company don't like the facilities (Ryanair being a possible exception!). But if a sufficient number of passengers avoid an airport because they find it difficult to negotiate, that will feed through to booking levels. That is when the airlines take notice.
Cheers, SHED.
I agree with all the factors you mention as playing a major role in determining a customer's choice of departure airport. However, probably the most common reason I hear for people avoiding a particular airport is: "The planes are parked so far away at XXX ... its just TOO FAR to walk! I always pick one of the small airports now ..."
So let's make sure that the less able passengers at MAN aren't OBLIGED to walk the whole distance. Although the OPTION to walk is a fine thing.
I agree with you that an airline is unlikely to withdraw purely because they as a company don't like the facilities (Ryanair being a possible exception!). But if a sufficient number of passengers avoid an airport because they find it difficult to negotiate, that will feed through to booking levels. That is when the airlines take notice.
Cheers, SHED.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Travelators etc
Ok, as an occasional user of MAN (2 - 3 times pa), I have to say that I only use it if there is no other choice. From my user experience, it is consistently unpleasant, and there is always something not working to cause inconvenience. And, given that the area is well known for rainfall, you would think that they would find a more sophisticated solution to the leaking roofs than the plastic boxes on the floor !
From NE England, on several occasions I have elected to drive to LHR rather than use MAN. Even the T1/T3/T4 experience at LHR is better than MAN, and T5 despite its faults, leaves MAN far behind.
So if you think that the non-working travelators are unimportant to the Airport's future, think again, because here's one discretionary user who is rather influenced by such things.
From NE England, on several occasions I have elected to drive to LHR rather than use MAN. Even the T1/T3/T4 experience at LHR is better than MAN, and T5 despite its faults, leaves MAN far behind.
So if you think that the non-working travelators are unimportant to the Airport's future, think again, because here's one discretionary user who is rather influenced by such things.
Hipennine I don't think any of the orevios posters have denied that so explicitely. Of course some people will be put off by relatively minor issues (anal if I were to add my opinion) but they are in the minority. Please don't under estimate how popular MAN is amongst the travelling public (anecdotal maybe) and the fact that the industry who plays a major part in supplying pax think so too.
I guess what really p***** me off on this thread is that while in an ideal world the travelators would work and ceiling can leak, MAN is always made out to be an utter disaster on it's knees when in fact it suffers the same snags as other airports right around the world. I know I've certainly witnessed them.
Another thing that irritates me that I have read several times in the past is the. "oh EK won't stand for that" when in actual fact they fly to some right dives across their network.
Discuss MAN's issues by all means but don't paint the place to be something that it's not.
I guess what really p***** me off on this thread is that while in an ideal world the travelators would work and ceiling can leak, MAN is always made out to be an utter disaster on it's knees when in fact it suffers the same snags as other airports right around the world. I know I've certainly witnessed them.
Another thing that irritates me that I have read several times in the past is the. "oh EK won't stand for that" when in actual fact they fly to some right dives across their network.
Discuss MAN's issues by all means but don't paint the place to be something that it's not.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a fit and (dare I say good looking British fellow) and even I with many years to go to my dotage am grateful for the travellators being on at the end of the day humping luggage around from God knows where, thinking only of my bed. Hence as a paying customer it annoys me greatly that MAG, in my view, knowingly mislead people about why the travelattors are off. It's simply untrue and takes the paying customer to be stupid, something that has not gone unnoticed.
As far as the elderly go, they are an obvious help. If your aunty or your gran was travelling, you wouldn't dare explain to her that she was humping her bags all that way to save the planet. Why not? Because such people have BS detectors....
Yes MAN has great connections but a working travellator is not much to ask. Re-read the whole argument submitting travellator for air bridge and see what you think.
As far as the elderly go, they are an obvious help. If your aunty or your gran was travelling, you wouldn't dare explain to her that she was humping her bags all that way to save the planet. Why not? Because such people have BS detectors....
Yes MAN has great connections but a working travellator is not much to ask. Re-read the whole argument submitting travellator for air bridge and see what you think.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: British
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if its the travelators that are getting peoples backs up, the airport as a whole can't be doing too much wrong.
Im based out of MAN. Yup its not perfect , but i have never been to a perfect one yet. At the very least MAN invest in the product.
Im based out of MAN. Yup its not perfect , but i have never been to a perfect one yet. At the very least MAN invest in the product.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you that an airline is unlikely to withdraw purely because they as a company don't like the facilities (Ryanair being a possible exception
Ryanair withdrew due to price, not facilities.
I think my main bone of contention is, that of all the people I have known travel through MAN, and there are many, not ONE complained about lack of working travelators.
It is kind of anal, put it this way, would you refuse to use a generic high street store if their escalator was switched off?
At MAN, there are always options:
Airside:
If you are genuinly unable to walk the distance, then there is help available, whatever you say
Landside:
Busses take you to the car parks, and there are pick up/drop off points right outside if you need to use them. Yes the walk from the station to T1/T2 is long, but, they have luggage trolleys to help with, so why are you all 'lugging' them around? Seems you are deliberatly making it difficult for yourselves???
An issue which can be easily resolved with a straightforward solution (fitting motion sensors). And that solution offers the benefit of reducing energy costs as a bonus.
You make it sound easier than it is! You have to completely re-wire the on/off switches, fit the motion sensors and then certify them. Its an expensive and awkward process if the escalator is not already fitted with such a device.
Can I just say this is getting tedious now. First we had all the hoo-haa of how disgusting it was that a plane arrived at gate on time, now MAN is a regional let down because passengers have to walk!
Whats going to be next on your list of MAN let downs? That there are no men wearing flat caps with whippets on leads representing the true essense of the north?!?!?
Its always the same thing with Britain. Quick to blast soemthing when its wrong but not enough priase when its right.
What about the fact we are winning awards, so someone seems to like MAN for all your tantrums. What about the fact we handled A380's on scheduled service with no prior testing. No, I presume you happily overlook things like that.
Ryanair withdrew due to price, not facilities.
I think my main bone of contention is, that of all the people I have known travel through MAN, and there are many, not ONE complained about lack of working travelators.
It is kind of anal, put it this way, would you refuse to use a generic high street store if their escalator was switched off?
At MAN, there are always options:
Airside:
If you are genuinly unable to walk the distance, then there is help available, whatever you say
Landside:
Busses take you to the car parks, and there are pick up/drop off points right outside if you need to use them. Yes the walk from the station to T1/T2 is long, but, they have luggage trolleys to help with, so why are you all 'lugging' them around? Seems you are deliberatly making it difficult for yourselves???
An issue which can be easily resolved with a straightforward solution (fitting motion sensors). And that solution offers the benefit of reducing energy costs as a bonus.
You make it sound easier than it is! You have to completely re-wire the on/off switches, fit the motion sensors and then certify them. Its an expensive and awkward process if the escalator is not already fitted with such a device.
Can I just say this is getting tedious now. First we had all the hoo-haa of how disgusting it was that a plane arrived at gate on time, now MAN is a regional let down because passengers have to walk!
Whats going to be next on your list of MAN let downs? That there are no men wearing flat caps with whippets on leads representing the true essense of the north?!?!?
Its always the same thing with Britain. Quick to blast soemthing when its wrong but not enough priase when its right.
What about the fact we are winning awards, so someone seems to like MAN for all your tantrums. What about the fact we handled A380's on scheduled service with no prior testing. No, I presume you happily overlook things like that.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is kind of anal, put it this way, would you refuse to use a generic high street store if their escalator was switched off?
If I was 60+ with bags?
If I had any health issue that makes walking that far with heavy bags a trial?
If I was stressed about security, again?
Now quickly quantify what proportion of the travelling public we're dismissing as anal.
Fixing this isn't rocket science. It's indicative of penny pinching. The capital investment of installation has been done. Is care and maintenance the issue
It certainly is at a lot of airports where no one cares once the ribbon has been cut sometimes.
Flying is one of the most stressful things some people do. Let's not ADD to it if it's avoidable.
Anyway moving on....did KLM ever follow Air France to T3?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness:
-kids tend to mess about more on travelators anyway
-what about trolleys?
-were forgetting a travelator is still standing, means you have to quickly grab all your bags just before the end, and is not a seat, so, realistically, what are we saving here?
-security has naff all to do with escalators. I really dont understand your point here?
Anyway, it seems its another arguement thats spiralling into oblivion again. The fact is a few on here seem to have a major issue with such a small thing, but the fact is the majority of pax dont care. (as evident from the awards and the fact pax numbers rose again last month)
Im going to leave it be now, as Im bored and would rather focus on the real news of MAN, after all, its an airport, not a travelator show room!
-kids tend to mess about more on travelators anyway
-what about trolleys?
-were forgetting a travelator is still standing, means you have to quickly grab all your bags just before the end, and is not a seat, so, realistically, what are we saving here?
-security has naff all to do with escalators. I really dont understand your point here?
Anyway, it seems its another arguement thats spiralling into oblivion again. The fact is a few on here seem to have a major issue with such a small thing, but the fact is the majority of pax dont care. (as evident from the awards and the fact pax numbers rose again last month)
Im going to leave it be now, as Im bored and would rather focus on the real news of MAN, after all, its an airport, not a travelator show room!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wanna be there / All,
First, just a housekeeping point. In the first quote you lifted from my posting, you removed the exclamation mark from the comment which says: "Ryanair being a possible exception!" By removing this essential piece of punctuation, one alters the way people will read the sentence. In my original version, it is a 'tongue-in-cheek' remark - Ryanair routinely offer colourful reasons for their whackier decisions and most readers on here know that. But in removing the exclamation mark, you alter the structure of the sentence making it read as a serious comment. The way you used the quote - curiously removing a punctuation mark and a close bracket - suggests to me that you thought through the effect on the reader that this subtle alteration would have. Naughty, naughty! Now if we're all going to have a constructive discussion here, lets not resort to petty wordplays please.
Moving on, let me be crystal clear here. I actually find the MAN travel experience to be very good all things considered, and I am keen to see it stay that way. MAN is my airport of choice and is likely to remain so whilst I am fit and able. If you search back through my posting history, you will find that I have at times stood accused of being a "Manchester Fanboy" for contributing comments which are generally perceived as favourable to MAN. So, I am not "down" on the place as you imply. But I do wish to see high standards maintained, and when I see that jeopardized I will highlight the problem which (IMO) needs to be addressed. My criticism of MAN in this discussion is NOT generic; it relates to one very specific issue which MAG can easily rectify if they choose to do so. The pursuit of excellence in a business requires that regular customers identify and point out perceived shortfalls; that is what I am doing in this case. For the most part, I praise the changes MAG management have made in improving the airport experience, but when they slip up they must not be treated as if they are above criticism.
"What about the fact we are winning awards, so someone seems to like MAN for all your tantrums."
May I invite you to look back a couple of pages to Suzeman's posting in which he links to news of MAN's latest award. Now look at my posting just below. I believe the words I used were "Excellent news." So lets keep things in perspective here. Nobody is having a tantrum; we are engaged in a serious discussion regarding one specific area of MAN's operation which could be done better. Or should I say - could be completely eradicated as an issue with a comparatively modest investment in motion sensors. I'm not saying they're cheap - I take your point - but taking the 'big picture' view MAG can easily afford them and the payback is self-evident.
So wanna be there, I know from your past posts that you have always championed what is best for MAN. I put it to you that my posting history shows that I am also supportive of MAN. But it is wrong to support MAN as one might cheer on a football team; this is not about blind loyalty. MAN is an asset to the area and a great business, but its management (like any other) is capable of making poor decisions from time to time. And when they do, those who really care about the place will point out the shortcomings and ask management to address them. Contributor 'Tight Seat' puts it well in his 10:27 posting. "Well, if its the travelators that are getting peoples backs up, the airport as a whole can't be doing too much wrong." SPOT ON! The airport is NOT doing too much wrong ... all the more reason to identify and correct those few remaining mistakes!
MAN management must remain aware that, as a comparatively large airport with long walking distances involved for the customers, ease of passage through the facility has to be treated as a priority. Older and less able people are generally aware of their physical limitations, and they will actively avoid an airport which they have found exhausting or traumatic in the past. So MAG needs to ensure that these customers have no reason to look back on their airport experience with negativity. That means that the travelators, escalators and lifts must be seen to work. We all know that occasional malfunctions can occur - most reasonable people will make allowances for that. But switching them off en masse to save money is another matter entirely. That needs to be addressed.
Skipness has answered a number of your points eloquently, so I will not duplicate what he has written. What I do say to you is that most contributors on this thread have the best interests of Manchester Airport at heart, so don't take discussion of certain specific issues personally. This is a forum which is used for the exchange of opinions amongst other things; we will all disagree on certain points of view, but healthy debate in pursuit of the greater good is a worthwhile thing. Ultimately, I want Manchester Airport to be the best it can be. I suspect that you want the same outcome. So shortcomings must be identified, discussed and put right. Is that such an offensive thing?
Regards, SHED.
First, just a housekeeping point. In the first quote you lifted from my posting, you removed the exclamation mark from the comment which says: "Ryanair being a possible exception!" By removing this essential piece of punctuation, one alters the way people will read the sentence. In my original version, it is a 'tongue-in-cheek' remark - Ryanair routinely offer colourful reasons for their whackier decisions and most readers on here know that. But in removing the exclamation mark, you alter the structure of the sentence making it read as a serious comment. The way you used the quote - curiously removing a punctuation mark and a close bracket - suggests to me that you thought through the effect on the reader that this subtle alteration would have. Naughty, naughty! Now if we're all going to have a constructive discussion here, lets not resort to petty wordplays please.
Moving on, let me be crystal clear here. I actually find the MAN travel experience to be very good all things considered, and I am keen to see it stay that way. MAN is my airport of choice and is likely to remain so whilst I am fit and able. If you search back through my posting history, you will find that I have at times stood accused of being a "Manchester Fanboy" for contributing comments which are generally perceived as favourable to MAN. So, I am not "down" on the place as you imply. But I do wish to see high standards maintained, and when I see that jeopardized I will highlight the problem which (IMO) needs to be addressed. My criticism of MAN in this discussion is NOT generic; it relates to one very specific issue which MAG can easily rectify if they choose to do so. The pursuit of excellence in a business requires that regular customers identify and point out perceived shortfalls; that is what I am doing in this case. For the most part, I praise the changes MAG management have made in improving the airport experience, but when they slip up they must not be treated as if they are above criticism.
"What about the fact we are winning awards, so someone seems to like MAN for all your tantrums."
May I invite you to look back a couple of pages to Suzeman's posting in which he links to news of MAN's latest award. Now look at my posting just below. I believe the words I used were "Excellent news." So lets keep things in perspective here. Nobody is having a tantrum; we are engaged in a serious discussion regarding one specific area of MAN's operation which could be done better. Or should I say - could be completely eradicated as an issue with a comparatively modest investment in motion sensors. I'm not saying they're cheap - I take your point - but taking the 'big picture' view MAG can easily afford them and the payback is self-evident.
So wanna be there, I know from your past posts that you have always championed what is best for MAN. I put it to you that my posting history shows that I am also supportive of MAN. But it is wrong to support MAN as one might cheer on a football team; this is not about blind loyalty. MAN is an asset to the area and a great business, but its management (like any other) is capable of making poor decisions from time to time. And when they do, those who really care about the place will point out the shortcomings and ask management to address them. Contributor 'Tight Seat' puts it well in his 10:27 posting. "Well, if its the travelators that are getting peoples backs up, the airport as a whole can't be doing too much wrong." SPOT ON! The airport is NOT doing too much wrong ... all the more reason to identify and correct those few remaining mistakes!
MAN management must remain aware that, as a comparatively large airport with long walking distances involved for the customers, ease of passage through the facility has to be treated as a priority. Older and less able people are generally aware of their physical limitations, and they will actively avoid an airport which they have found exhausting or traumatic in the past. So MAG needs to ensure that these customers have no reason to look back on their airport experience with negativity. That means that the travelators, escalators and lifts must be seen to work. We all know that occasional malfunctions can occur - most reasonable people will make allowances for that. But switching them off en masse to save money is another matter entirely. That needs to be addressed.
Skipness has answered a number of your points eloquently, so I will not duplicate what he has written. What I do say to you is that most contributors on this thread have the best interests of Manchester Airport at heart, so don't take discussion of certain specific issues personally. This is a forum which is used for the exchange of opinions amongst other things; we will all disagree on certain points of view, but healthy debate in pursuit of the greater good is a worthwhile thing. Ultimately, I want Manchester Airport to be the best it can be. I suspect that you want the same outcome. So shortcomings must be identified, discussed and put right. Is that such an offensive thing?
Regards, SHED.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed,
Ryanair being a possible exception! Ryanair being a possible exception.
Firstly the quote lift was a genuine mistake. I dont know how to use the 'qoute' feature on here, and missing off the end was a mistake, as you will notice I also missed off the end bracket. Also, how on earth can you read the quote wrongly? Either you are saying Ryanir pulled out due to the infrastructure or you werent?
Im not attempting to sway anybody, im just trying to make sense of why such a minor issue is being made out to be so huge?
Lastly, to sum up your last part of the post. All I am saying is that people seem to be making a huge issue over the lack of a travelator.
Im trying to put forward that there are ALWAYS alternatives, as MAG will have studied before making this decision.
Do you think they are sitting in Olympic house, looking down at the skylink seeing an elderly woman struggling due to the lack of a travelator, and laughing?
Now, I know many many who travel through MAN, and the travelators are the last things on their mind. Does anyone even consider MAN may have conducted a survey asking pax if it was a good idea to switch the escalators off for x period of the day? Just because nobody here was asked doesnt mean it didnt happen.
MAG is working hard to improve pax experience, and if the vast majority see the switching off of escalators see it as a bad idea, do you really think they would do it.
What you also have to consider is, MAN as an airport is under attack from many angles. You have the tax situation/competition (meaning it has to do more to attract pax), it has the green lobbists and then what the airlines want. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made, sometimes it will do something that annoys you, but you have to remember what happens behind the scenes.
This comment:
If MAG's policies give customers reason to prefer the experience at a rival airport (or train / coach / ferry travel etc), the effects will eventually trickle down to employment prospects in various departments at MAN. Airline load factors and yields from Manchester rely fundamentally on MAG providing an airport experience which customers will be happy to book again and again on a regular basis. If the customer chooses an alternative for future journeys, those ex-MAN airseats risk remaining unsold.
Got me. Now I know you state policies in general, but is being used in the travelator arguement. I would love to know how many pax MAN looses per year due to lack of a travelator. It just makes no sense. If the airport was a constant building site, or a huge maze, or had constant 4 hour queues for security, then Id be the first to question about whats going on, but its a TRAVELATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We used to cope without them before, what is it that is stopping us from coping again, or is it the typical attitude that people want everything done for them, including walking?
I know quite a few business pax, and they could not care less about the airport in general, its just point A or point B for them. Most families I know arrive by car/taxi, so get picked up dropped off outside and I must add, 9 times out of 10 that I have arrived via the rail hub, the travelators have been working, so dont see what the issue is any way.
I think my main frustration though, is just some of the arguements that take place on here, drawing back to the whole Etihad issue. I just wonder whether pax sometimes expect too much, or whether it is MAN's fault for setting its standards too high.
Either way, I think the issue should be dropped. MAG have made their decision, pax will continue to use the airport and no amount of bickering on here is going to change that.
Ryanair being a possible exception! Ryanair being a possible exception.
Firstly the quote lift was a genuine mistake. I dont know how to use the 'qoute' feature on here, and missing off the end was a mistake, as you will notice I also missed off the end bracket. Also, how on earth can you read the quote wrongly? Either you are saying Ryanir pulled out due to the infrastructure or you werent?
Im not attempting to sway anybody, im just trying to make sense of why such a minor issue is being made out to be so huge?
Lastly, to sum up your last part of the post. All I am saying is that people seem to be making a huge issue over the lack of a travelator.
Im trying to put forward that there are ALWAYS alternatives, as MAG will have studied before making this decision.
Do you think they are sitting in Olympic house, looking down at the skylink seeing an elderly woman struggling due to the lack of a travelator, and laughing?
Now, I know many many who travel through MAN, and the travelators are the last things on their mind. Does anyone even consider MAN may have conducted a survey asking pax if it was a good idea to switch the escalators off for x period of the day? Just because nobody here was asked doesnt mean it didnt happen.
MAG is working hard to improve pax experience, and if the vast majority see the switching off of escalators see it as a bad idea, do you really think they would do it.
What you also have to consider is, MAN as an airport is under attack from many angles. You have the tax situation/competition (meaning it has to do more to attract pax), it has the green lobbists and then what the airlines want. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made, sometimes it will do something that annoys you, but you have to remember what happens behind the scenes.
This comment:
If MAG's policies give customers reason to prefer the experience at a rival airport (or train / coach / ferry travel etc), the effects will eventually trickle down to employment prospects in various departments at MAN. Airline load factors and yields from Manchester rely fundamentally on MAG providing an airport experience which customers will be happy to book again and again on a regular basis. If the customer chooses an alternative for future journeys, those ex-MAN airseats risk remaining unsold.
Got me. Now I know you state policies in general, but is being used in the travelator arguement. I would love to know how many pax MAN looses per year due to lack of a travelator. It just makes no sense. If the airport was a constant building site, or a huge maze, or had constant 4 hour queues for security, then Id be the first to question about whats going on, but its a TRAVELATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We used to cope without them before, what is it that is stopping us from coping again, or is it the typical attitude that people want everything done for them, including walking?
I know quite a few business pax, and they could not care less about the airport in general, its just point A or point B for them. Most families I know arrive by car/taxi, so get picked up dropped off outside and I must add, 9 times out of 10 that I have arrived via the rail hub, the travelators have been working, so dont see what the issue is any way.
I think my main frustration though, is just some of the arguements that take place on here, drawing back to the whole Etihad issue. I just wonder whether pax sometimes expect too much, or whether it is MAN's fault for setting its standards too high.
Either way, I think the issue should be dropped. MAG have made their decision, pax will continue to use the airport and no amount of bickering on here is going to change that.
Last edited by wanna_be_there; 8th Nov 2010 at 12:07.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wanna be there -
If you say that you did not deliberately alter the quote concerning Ryanair, then I will accept that. However, the omission of essential punctuation from a sentence does alter the way in which readers interpret what is written. Punctuation guides the reader through subtle nuances in the text; that is why we use it.
I accept your point that no customer rejects an airport simply because a travelator was unavailable. However, I never suggested this. The thought process is far more complicated than that. An older person may recall their previous journey through a particular airport as having been exhausting and stressful. Therefore, they consider alternatives which they believe will present an easier proposition next time. They do not have a ticklist of specific defects on their mind; their travel decisions are based on a summation of past experience - it is the overall impression which counts. An elderly person may not recall the precise reason why transiting XXX left them exhausted ("never again!"), they will simply remember that it did and adjust their future travel plans accordingly. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the airport managers to identify elements of their operation which inhibit ease of passage. And then they must ideally resolve those issues, and certainly not make them worse as part of a misguided economy drive. Remember also that if Mrs X says she finds using NNN Airport too difficult, it will be her entire party which accompanies her on the alternative journey next time.
I must confess to harbouring some doubt regarding your suggestion that MAG would have done careful research amongst its customers before deciding to switch off its escalators and travelators. I rather suspect that they did no such thing, but if they did I would be delighted to eat my words. By all means put forward any such research you are aware of; I'd be fascinated to know how these passengers responded. Even if the majority (and fit, healthy people will be in the majority) can get by easily without these facilities, certain customers cannot for various reasons. That may be due to age, disability, copious quantities of luggage, jetlag, fatigue, young kids in tow, or many other reasons. But I suspect that their response to any MAG researcher would be quite unequivocal. We'd like the escalators to work, please!
All the best. SHED.
If you say that you did not deliberately alter the quote concerning Ryanair, then I will accept that. However, the omission of essential punctuation from a sentence does alter the way in which readers interpret what is written. Punctuation guides the reader through subtle nuances in the text; that is why we use it.
I accept your point that no customer rejects an airport simply because a travelator was unavailable. However, I never suggested this. The thought process is far more complicated than that. An older person may recall their previous journey through a particular airport as having been exhausting and stressful. Therefore, they consider alternatives which they believe will present an easier proposition next time. They do not have a ticklist of specific defects on their mind; their travel decisions are based on a summation of past experience - it is the overall impression which counts. An elderly person may not recall the precise reason why transiting XXX left them exhausted ("never again!"), they will simply remember that it did and adjust their future travel plans accordingly. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the airport managers to identify elements of their operation which inhibit ease of passage. And then they must ideally resolve those issues, and certainly not make them worse as part of a misguided economy drive. Remember also that if Mrs X says she finds using NNN Airport too difficult, it will be her entire party which accompanies her on the alternative journey next time.
I must confess to harbouring some doubt regarding your suggestion that MAG would have done careful research amongst its customers before deciding to switch off its escalators and travelators. I rather suspect that they did no such thing, but if they did I would be delighted to eat my words. By all means put forward any such research you are aware of; I'd be fascinated to know how these passengers responded. Even if the majority (and fit, healthy people will be in the majority) can get by easily without these facilities, certain customers cannot for various reasons. That may be due to age, disability, copious quantities of luggage, jetlag, fatigue, young kids in tow, or many other reasons. But I suspect that their response to any MAG researcher would be quite unequivocal. We'd like the escalators to work, please!
All the best. SHED.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not aware of MAG conducting market research, but Like I say, just because us on here wernt asked/took part, that doesnt mean it hasnt happened.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here, otherwise this could end up taking more and more pages of this thread, and its not why people log on to here.
Anyway, what do people think of Virgin Holidays building a V-room at T2? Lounge overkill in T2 or a welcome addition?
I for one think its great, as it shows VS is committed to MAN, especially in the face of the huge rise in APD (especially for carribean pax, and I know we only have BGI on VS, but all the same)
Would also love to know what Etihad have got planned for MAN after their lounge is built. Thier press release specifically said the lounge is for pearl and diamond class (F/J), and as they dont offer F at MAN, are they planning to bring it here?
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here, otherwise this could end up taking more and more pages of this thread, and its not why people log on to here.
Anyway, what do people think of Virgin Holidays building a V-room at T2? Lounge overkill in T2 or a welcome addition?
I for one think its great, as it shows VS is committed to MAN, especially in the face of the huge rise in APD (especially for carribean pax, and I know we only have BGI on VS, but all the same)
Would also love to know what Etihad have got planned for MAN after their lounge is built. Thier press release specifically said the lounge is for pearl and diamond class (F/J), and as they dont offer F at MAN, are they planning to bring it here?