MANCHESTER - 8
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ho, ho, is this panic I see on the Manchester thread?
The same two claims come up yet again:
1. Manchester is situated at the centre of the country.
2. People from the South East would be delighted to travel past BHX to catch a flight from Manchester.
Sorry but both ideas are simply not true.
And of course we have the implied resentment that Birmingham Airport might actually have Government Assistance to grow.
I understand that Manchester's growth was actually subsidised with Government support but when BHX asked for the same treatment it was refused?
The same two claims come up yet again:
1. Manchester is situated at the centre of the country.
2. People from the South East would be delighted to travel past BHX to catch a flight from Manchester.
Sorry but both ideas are simply not true.
And of course we have the implied resentment that Birmingham Airport might actually have Government Assistance to grow.
I understand that Manchester's growth was actually subsidised with Government support but when BHX asked for the same treatment it was refused?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alvechurch
1. Manchester is situated at the centre of the country.
2. People from the South East would be delighted to travel past BHX to catch a flight from Manchester.
And of course we have the implied resentment that Birmingham Airport might actually have Government Assistance to grow.
"I understand that Manchester's growth was actually subsidised with Government support but when BHX asked for the same treatment it was refused"
Are all commetators in the Midlands so deluded ?
Wrong , wrong and er wrong again but otherwise 100% correct.
Please contribute on the basis that you are coherent, and have factual information otherwise best to go and sit down have a mug of warm milk !
1. Manchester is situated at the centre of the country.
2. People from the South East would be delighted to travel past BHX to catch a flight from Manchester.
And of course we have the implied resentment that Birmingham Airport might actually have Government Assistance to grow.
"I understand that Manchester's growth was actually subsidised with Government support but when BHX asked for the same treatment it was refused"
Are all commetators in the Midlands so deluded ?
Wrong , wrong and er wrong again but otherwise 100% correct.
Please contribute on the basis that you are coherent, and have factual information otherwise best to go and sit down have a mug of warm milk !
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: birmingham
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think you've got much to get worried about, reads nothing more to me than the government realising that people in North London and the Milton Keynes and Watford areas need a bit of cajoling to take the West Coast mainline or the M40 to BHX rather than trapse across London to get to LHR of LGW. Just good common sense for once about UK transport infrastructure.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Papers
I have also posted this on the Birmingham thread. It is relevant to both.
I've not heard anything of this 2011 White Paper except on this thread, but certainly the 2003 version needs updating, as its mantra of growth for everyone and new runways all over the place has patently floundered. Which is why we should not pay too much heed to the contents of such documents. If we go back to 1978 the White Paper declared MAN as a Category A International Gateway, along with just Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick(!). Unfortunately, BA weren't interested in anywhere but London, and a host of cosy bilateral agreements effectively barred airlines from serving MAN on long-haul routes. Years of campaigning by MAN and northern MPs eventually succeeded in removing some of these constraints to allow SQ, AA etc into MAN. BA played games with various long-hauls as spoilers before dumping them. As government regulation and ownership waned the markets took over. Everyone wanted a piece of the action at the newly open-skies Heathrow. Manchester lost many of its hard-won long-hauls in the scramble for Heathrow slots. And so the content of a White Paper is pointless unless it becomes policy backed by government action to bring about the stated aims. Manchester has never had any 'government assistance' as somebody claimed on this thread. MAN's development has always been on the back of operating profits and borrowing, although I will concede that being public-sector gave it access to some preferable financing arrangements.
The 2003 White Paper was a nonsense, representative of the whole flawed economic thinking of the Noughties. It was visibly toilet paper by 2007.
And so to 2011, if it is for real. Why are we so hung up about where London passengers should fly from? They have several big arports to choose from, and if they can't go direct they have a bewildering choice of connections. No-one is asking London/SE passengers to fly from Birmingham or Manchester. What we need is a national policy for air transport which provides the right range of services where they are required. We must stop comparing how far BHX or MAN is from London, it is not just about London, it is about the air transport needs of United Kingdom. If the London Airports are not to be expanded, which is current policy, then how do we accommodate growth for the UK's air travel requirements? A sensible answer is to stop people from outside the South East having to use the London airports, thereby freeing existing capacity at the London airports for use by 'local' passengers. Instead of saying 'we've only got 26 flights a day from London to New York, we need more because all those nasty northerners keep taking the seats', we can offer those people heading south on the M6 the chance to fly from Manchester and Birmingham, and perhaps Glasgow. This is not a new argument, it was around in the 1970s but keeps coming back because of the crazy 'winner takes all' market forces which have been allowed to run riot in this country and have brought it close to economic catastrophe. We must keep feeding the monster, we are told, 'so that we can remain competitive', and stop looking for another solution 'because the markets demand it'.
Any new White Paper on Airports must translate into positive action/intervention to support its central aims, otherwise it's just toilet paper again. A new paper will hopefully endorse current policy to cap the growth of the London airports, and provide active support to facilitate the use of spare/new capacity at the principal non-London airports to provide a range of services to serve the non-London market, with the secondary effect of freeing some capacity in the SE. The active support could take various forms, but include differential taxation (being considered), and conditions placed upon access to Heathrow such that beyond a certain frequency of service on any particular route there will be a requirement to serve another UK city. We already know that duplicating services from every small regional is not going to work, so I can't see the likes of Bristol and Newcastle getting many more routes than they have now. Manchester and Birmingham are the main players, with investment in ground transport infrastructure to make them easily accessible from around the country. GLA/EDI will service Scotland on a more limited range of routes. If all this makes our country 'uncompetitive' then so be it. A few big-wigs will have to relocate off-shore but at least our children will have some quality of life.
I've not heard anything of this 2011 White Paper except on this thread, but certainly the 2003 version needs updating, as its mantra of growth for everyone and new runways all over the place has patently floundered. Which is why we should not pay too much heed to the contents of such documents. If we go back to 1978 the White Paper declared MAN as a Category A International Gateway, along with just Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick(!). Unfortunately, BA weren't interested in anywhere but London, and a host of cosy bilateral agreements effectively barred airlines from serving MAN on long-haul routes. Years of campaigning by MAN and northern MPs eventually succeeded in removing some of these constraints to allow SQ, AA etc into MAN. BA played games with various long-hauls as spoilers before dumping them. As government regulation and ownership waned the markets took over. Everyone wanted a piece of the action at the newly open-skies Heathrow. Manchester lost many of its hard-won long-hauls in the scramble for Heathrow slots. And so the content of a White Paper is pointless unless it becomes policy backed by government action to bring about the stated aims. Manchester has never had any 'government assistance' as somebody claimed on this thread. MAN's development has always been on the back of operating profits and borrowing, although I will concede that being public-sector gave it access to some preferable financing arrangements.
The 2003 White Paper was a nonsense, representative of the whole flawed economic thinking of the Noughties. It was visibly toilet paper by 2007.
And so to 2011, if it is for real. Why are we so hung up about where London passengers should fly from? They have several big arports to choose from, and if they can't go direct they have a bewildering choice of connections. No-one is asking London/SE passengers to fly from Birmingham or Manchester. What we need is a national policy for air transport which provides the right range of services where they are required. We must stop comparing how far BHX or MAN is from London, it is not just about London, it is about the air transport needs of United Kingdom. If the London Airports are not to be expanded, which is current policy, then how do we accommodate growth for the UK's air travel requirements? A sensible answer is to stop people from outside the South East having to use the London airports, thereby freeing existing capacity at the London airports for use by 'local' passengers. Instead of saying 'we've only got 26 flights a day from London to New York, we need more because all those nasty northerners keep taking the seats', we can offer those people heading south on the M6 the chance to fly from Manchester and Birmingham, and perhaps Glasgow. This is not a new argument, it was around in the 1970s but keeps coming back because of the crazy 'winner takes all' market forces which have been allowed to run riot in this country and have brought it close to economic catastrophe. We must keep feeding the monster, we are told, 'so that we can remain competitive', and stop looking for another solution 'because the markets demand it'.
Any new White Paper on Airports must translate into positive action/intervention to support its central aims, otherwise it's just toilet paper again. A new paper will hopefully endorse current policy to cap the growth of the London airports, and provide active support to facilitate the use of spare/new capacity at the principal non-London airports to provide a range of services to serve the non-London market, with the secondary effect of freeing some capacity in the SE. The active support could take various forms, but include differential taxation (being considered), and conditions placed upon access to Heathrow such that beyond a certain frequency of service on any particular route there will be a requirement to serve another UK city. We already know that duplicating services from every small regional is not going to work, so I can't see the likes of Bristol and Newcastle getting many more routes than they have now. Manchester and Birmingham are the main players, with investment in ground transport infrastructure to make them easily accessible from around the country. GLA/EDI will service Scotland on a more limited range of routes. If all this makes our country 'uncompetitive' then so be it. A few big-wigs will have to relocate off-shore but at least our children will have some quality of life.
Last edited by roverman; 4th Jan 2011 at 11:22.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White papers (continued)
Addendum to my last posting...
UK airports policy needs to ensure that it is targeting both the economic and social benefits provided by air transport. Heathrow is a big economic engine but is has some grave environmental impacts which have now been recognised. Furthermore, the 30% or so of Heathrow's passengers who simply transfer from one international flight to another are providing no social benefit and only a little economic benefit to the UK. Growing Heathrow to provide for more transit traffic is irresponsible when capacity can be freed up by deterring this transit traffic and better serving the non-London UK market with mnore direct flights. London alone can support a great many point to point services, something which is more difficult for the UK regions. Heathrow then need not, and should not, be handling large numbers of international transit passengers. At MAN and BHX the social benefit argument for transfer traffic could be valid up to a point, where it makes the difference between a route which is socially or economically useful to the UK being viable or not.
UK airports policy needs to ensure that it is targeting both the economic and social benefits provided by air transport. Heathrow is a big economic engine but is has some grave environmental impacts which have now been recognised. Furthermore, the 30% or so of Heathrow's passengers who simply transfer from one international flight to another are providing no social benefit and only a little economic benefit to the UK. Growing Heathrow to provide for more transit traffic is irresponsible when capacity can be freed up by deterring this transit traffic and better serving the non-London UK market with mnore direct flights. London alone can support a great many point to point services, something which is more difficult for the UK regions. Heathrow then need not, and should not, be handling large numbers of international transit passengers. At MAN and BHX the social benefit argument for transfer traffic could be valid up to a point, where it makes the difference between a route which is socially or economically useful to the UK being viable or not.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of info,
Etihads 10 weekly flights are now bookable on their website, all seem to be A330-200 flights (max of 2620 seats each way per week). Compared to 7 weekly B773 flights (2884 seats weekly each way), I think this is actually a slight decrease in capacity, and despite their new lounge being F/J, there is still no F available. Maybe EY not doing as well at MAN as we think. Yes, 3 extra flights adds flexibility to Mon, tue and Wed, but still a downgrade in capacity. (loss of 264 seats each way weekly)
It hasnt been announced by them yet, and with a spare A340-600 floating round in the system, I suppose there could be time to change EQV and add F with plenty of time to see it before August.
Etihads 10 weekly flights are now bookable on their website, all seem to be A330-200 flights (max of 2620 seats each way per week). Compared to 7 weekly B773 flights (2884 seats weekly each way), I think this is actually a slight decrease in capacity, and despite their new lounge being F/J, there is still no F available. Maybe EY not doing as well at MAN as we think. Yes, 3 extra flights adds flexibility to Mon, tue and Wed, but still a downgrade in capacity. (loss of 264 seats each way weekly)
It hasnt been announced by them yet, and with a spare A340-600 floating round in the system, I suppose there could be time to change EQV and add F with plenty of time to see it before August.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EY flights operated by 332's were supposed to change back to 777's in late October if there was no other equipment change
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow's passengers who simply transfer from one international flight to another are providing no social benefit and only a little economic benefit to the UK
It's certainly true of our US based company, the frequency we rely on is underpinned by the people transitting the UK en-route. Take them out of the equation and frequency falls, hence businesses may well relocate to more other accesible shores.If you lose roughly a third of your passenger throughput, say cheerio to luxuries like daytime US flights, morning, noon and evening flights to choose from and non stop direct flights to London across the globe. Would this be a bad time to remind everyone just how much of UK Tax Revenue is genereated WITHIN the M25. We're a virtual City State, and you might not like it, but it pays for a Hell of a lot. We need to be realists, not indulge in simplistic Lib Dem Manifesto type thinking. "Well if we lose transit passengers we might lose 1/3 of the traffic and we have room for maneovour." In the real world you'd lose that 1/3 plus a whole lot more as critical mass to maintain profitability collapses.
How many BA long haul routes would survive without connections? What is the point of loss making BA short haul if they're not to feed the heavies? How many jobs rely on that? This sort of wishy-washy thinking makes me angry.
Growing Heathrow to provide for more transit traffic is irresponsible when capacity can be freed up by deterring this transit traffic and better serving the non-London UK market with mnore direct flights
A few big-wigs will have to relocate off-shore but at least our children will have some quality of life.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 4th Jan 2011 at 16:27.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etihad Lounge
For those that are interested.
Used the Etihad Lounge on Monday. It's basically a copy of the one in AD with a bar area, lounge area, reading area and eating area. The decor is the same as in AD in every way. Overall, it's a nice place and the food was of excellent quality. In the morning (9am flight) there was a hot and cold breakfast (halal) with the hot food being tailored to your needs and made fresh, something that doesn't happen in AD where the food is a buffet. The staff seemed a little unsure about what was on offer and a list of available items would have helped the passengers who were often confused when the could see people eating hot food, asked for a menu, and was told there wasn't one! I guess they are still finding their feet as the service was mediocre although the staff were pleasant.
The flight was full in both classes and this made the lounge busy. I was surprised how little room there appeared to be when it was full of passengers to be fair. Whilst it's not a tiny place, it is quite small for the number of people using it (on my flight).
Overall though, it is a far superior product to the old lounge Etihad were using and many passengers commented on that to the staff.
With regards to whether EY need a capacity upgrade or not, my recent experience with them over the holiday period is that their flights in/out of MAN have been very busy, particularly up front. However, back in November, i was on a half empty plane so overall, it's hard to say. Certainly, as a frequent EY passenger, i am looking forward to the increased flexibility the 10 weekly will offer whether or not there are more seats overall.
Used the Etihad Lounge on Monday. It's basically a copy of the one in AD with a bar area, lounge area, reading area and eating area. The decor is the same as in AD in every way. Overall, it's a nice place and the food was of excellent quality. In the morning (9am flight) there was a hot and cold breakfast (halal) with the hot food being tailored to your needs and made fresh, something that doesn't happen in AD where the food is a buffet. The staff seemed a little unsure about what was on offer and a list of available items would have helped the passengers who were often confused when the could see people eating hot food, asked for a menu, and was told there wasn't one! I guess they are still finding their feet as the service was mediocre although the staff were pleasant.
The flight was full in both classes and this made the lounge busy. I was surprised how little room there appeared to be when it was full of passengers to be fair. Whilst it's not a tiny place, it is quite small for the number of people using it (on my flight).
Overall though, it is a far superior product to the old lounge Etihad were using and many passengers commented on that to the staff.
With regards to whether EY need a capacity upgrade or not, my recent experience with them over the holiday period is that their flights in/out of MAN have been very busy, particularly up front. However, back in November, i was on a half empty plane so overall, it's hard to say. Certainly, as a frequent EY passenger, i am looking forward to the increased flexibility the 10 weekly will offer whether or not there are more seats overall.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness, thanks for your comments and responses to my post. You are an intelligent writer and clearly know a bit about the air transport business and wider economics. Yes, there is an underlying political theme to my post. I think that the role of air transport in the prosperity of London is overstated. London has enjoyed excellent air transport links for many years, mainly as a legacy of Britain's imperial past. The main reasons for London's popularity with international footloose businesses today are, I believe, less to do with global air links and more to do with relatively low levels of taxation, and minimal regulation. Furthermore, London has become a playground for the super-rich who travel in private jets, not on BA. London is now largely an irrelevance to many of the UK population who can never afford to live there. I don't buy the arguments that we must forever expand London's economy. The UK is already one of the richest nations on Earth, why do we need to be richer? The wealth we have accumulated has not made life here any better. We are not a happy nation, we have one of the most divided societies in the world. So I'm struggling to understand how feeding more to the South-east at the expense of the rest of the country will help resolve this. Neither do I believe that the London economy props up the regions quite as much as is arrogantly claimed. Take Manchester Airport, for instance. Financed from its own revenues for decades, and paying tax to London.
We need to better distribute wealth and economic activity in this country, and we need to be bold enough to do what we think is best for our people, not the markets. More jobs in London are no good to me, I can't afford to move my family there even if I earned £100k. We also have to think about our environment, and use the spare capcity we have before building more. Is it a risk? Perhaps. Perhaps it's a risk that we might discover life is better if we stopped worshipping consumption and some of us learned to live with less. Yes, I am in favour of regulation.
We need to better distribute wealth and economic activity in this country, and we need to be bold enough to do what we think is best for our people, not the markets. More jobs in London are no good to me, I can't afford to move my family there even if I earned £100k. We also have to think about our environment, and use the spare capcity we have before building more. Is it a risk? Perhaps. Perhaps it's a risk that we might discover life is better if we stopped worshipping consumption and some of us learned to live with less. Yes, I am in favour of regulation.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If other parts of the country had the kind of investment in the infrastructure that helps to drive the local economy to the same extent as London gets funded then there would certainly not be the requirement for London to 'fund' the rest of the nation.
Compare the vast sums spent on Crossrail, Thameslink, tube maintenance, DLR expansion etc etc with the pennies spent across the rest of the country.
Invest in infrastructure outside of the SE of England and you'll find that the rest of the country doesn't require the money for benefits going forward.
In the SE tax payers money is spent on delivering infrastructure to make the region rich.
In the north tax payers money is spent on benefits payments that do nothing whatsoever to make the region richer and just lead to the area falling further behind the infrastructure rich region in the SE.
Compare the vast sums spent on Crossrail, Thameslink, tube maintenance, DLR expansion etc etc with the pennies spent across the rest of the country.
Invest in infrastructure outside of the SE of England and you'll find that the rest of the country doesn't require the money for benefits going forward.
In the SE tax payers money is spent on delivering infrastructure to make the region rich.
In the north tax payers money is spent on benefits payments that do nothing whatsoever to make the region richer and just lead to the area falling further behind the infrastructure rich region in the SE.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMI Heathrow
Reported on another site and seems to be confirmed by the flybmi website that MAN-LHR for summer 2011 is being reduced to four daily in the week and all on the 145.
Saturday is showing three flights out of LHR (one A319) and Sunday two
flights out of LHR (one A319).
Checked EDI & GLA as well but only a couple of dates and EDI was showing
just 319's but GLA a mix of 319's/320's but only 6 daily.
All part of juggling the fleet for the A320 MAN & BHX Lufthansa Frankfurt flights?
Pete
Saturday is showing three flights out of LHR (one A319) and Sunday two
flights out of LHR (one A319).
Checked EDI & GLA as well but only a couple of dates and EDI was showing
just 319's but GLA a mix of 319's/320's but only 6 daily.
All part of juggling the fleet for the A320 MAN & BHX Lufthansa Frankfurt flights?
Pete
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reported on another site and seems to be confirmed by the flybmi website that MAN-LHR for summer 2011 is being reduced to four daily in the week and all on the 145
We have a wealth of other star connections, both short and long haul, and that means connecting down at LHR is loosing its appeal.
Star wise we have:
-FRA/MUC/ZRH/DOH for far/middle east connections
-EWR/PHL for American connections
-SIN for direct far east service
-LIS for South America
-BRU/FRA for the African continent
-OSL/ARN/STR/DUS/LIS/CPH/BSL/HAM for direct city services
The only main ones I can see people going to LHR for now is maybe NZ to AKL, bmi services themselves and maybe Asiana for Seoul.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was about time MAN travellers let go of the LHR apron strings.
Is there nothing to be said for keeping the jobs in the UK? Try and support British groud handlers and airline staff? I'm not advocating BA or BMI here I'm just suggesting we try and hold onto what we have.
STAR wise you also have Air Canada at Heathrow as well which is a good option for Canada as TSC are only a few a week alas in the colder months.
Quick question. If Cathay do use T3 and they do use the B777-300ER, are they going to have to modify Stand 44 and move the airside road?
I seem to remember BA B744s used this on the Islamabad run?
JetPhotos.Net Photo » EGCC Airport Overview Airport by Dan Valentine
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 6th Jan 2011 at 11:02.