MANCHESTER - 8

[Ian Brooks]

wanna_be_there

Totally agree with you Star Alliance now are getting stronger and stronger at
Manchester

Ian B

[Mr A Tis]

TSC

for Canada as TSC are only a few a week alas

TSC is a daily ex Wed, Dep MAN at 1315 for YYZ. A330 ex Sat which is A310.

[learjet50]

CX from T3

Re your post yre Cathy using stand 44.

I would imagine they will use the 50 s i e 53/54/55 etc as there would be no need to modify any thing I dont think

Since AF moved toT3 thay appear to use 44 all the time as do FlyBe on the Paris flights I dont know if thats part of the agreement to them moving to T3


Also looking at the Aerial picture with a 330 on 44 I suspect this is the largest a/c you would get there without blocking of the Taxy way where the B A is It also only has 1 Bridge I would think CX would want 2
We shall w.ait and C

[Will_McKenzie]

LJ50

I would imagine that a B777 would have to use stand 55, like the qantas B747 uses, due to taxiway restrictions.
As for the AF, it also uses 48, 49 other 50's too, though majority of the time it goes on 44L. Skipness is quite correct, a B747 is largest for stand 44, the stand layout has changed recently since an a330 was on the same stand :-)
I have to say i would be surprised to see Cathay in T3, either T1 or T2 would be more suitable, as what happened recently with the diversions

[JackRalston]

Just seen (approx 1520) what appeared to be a Chinook(?) flying VERY low directly over my house in Withington heading westbound. Certainly no higher then 1000ft i'd say. Any info?

[Ian Brooks]

Just headed south through 23 approach, what a sound


Ian b

[wanna_be_there]

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.

Skipness, Im all for keeping UK jobs, but bmi just frustrates me as they have never really had a clear commitment or path. Surely its better to have airlines and routes with clear directionality. LH have been consisten with serving their hubs, Qatar have been consistent, as have swiss, SAS and so on. But what about bmi?:

-Theyve changed the LHR route more times over the years than Ive had hot dinners

-The whole Tatl affair from MAN was a disaster

-have no clear 'Identity' at MAN. Regional to serve Lyon, Edinburgh and Aberdeen but then bmi baby to serve Belfast, Lisbon etc, then mainline for LHR?!?

-changed from british midland, to british midland international, then to bmi and now back to british midland international

Its just farcical really when you look at it.

[Skipness One Echo]

I agree with you, that's quite a good point. In fairness it may be that any MAN-FRA shuttle type ends up being operated by bmi anyway. Lufthansa have been very good for focussing bmi and there is a renewed sense of purpose about the firm.

Even the return of the words "British Midland International" in the cabin PA and website branding have been a good idea I think.

Incidentally the reason I reckon T3 for Cathay is that they're ONEWORLD and ideally might join BA and AA under the same roof. However to be fair, a B777-300ER is a better fit for T2 which already has a kink in Taxiway D on the South side when they realised they might have to park the A340-600 at some point and the stands were only marked for the B747! It's really noticeable at night when the green taxiway lights veer away half way down the Terminal....

[wanna_be_there]

Lufthansa have been very good for focussing bmi and there is a renewed sense of purpose about the firm.

Deffinatly. Lufthansa taking over control is probably the best thing to happen to bmi in recent years. It doesnt bear thinking about what might of happened if they didnt take it on.

In fairness it may be that any MAN-FRA shuttle type ends up being operated by bmi anyway

Its kind of a double edged sword this one. There will be some who book a LH flight because they want to fly LH, and will probably be confused as to why a bmi aircraft is at the gate.

On the other hand, by passengers who book soley through LH, it might raise brand awareness of bmi and its subsidaries.

[wanna_be_there]

Incidentally the reason I reckon T3 for Cathay is that they're ONEWORLD and ideally might join BA and AA under the same roof

Makes more sense to be with BA/AA, but then they used to be in T2, and the recent pax flights used T2.
Also worth considering, AA codeshare with EY, but EY are in T1 with AA in T2.

This is one of the downsides of codeshareing, it means numers are all oer the shop.

For example, AF is part of KLM, but AF in T3 with KLM in T2. If KLM moved to T3, then you have the DL codeshare with KLM still in T2.

I suppose with CX, when its finally announced we will know the terminals.

[Skipness One Echo]

Manchester Runway 2 Question

Hi chaps,

Quick question. I have searched pprune and google but can't find the definitive answer. I am looking for the date, runway and reg and flight number of the Emirates ldeparture that launched Runway 2 into comercial use. I think Emirates was a 24L departure...

Does anyone know the same for the first arrival on 06R I presume?

Finally I think some light aircraft and callibrators had used the new runway before the start of commercial operations. Is that correct?

[Curious Pax]

A trawl back through the TAS archives shows that Ops1 declared runway 2 open at 1411 on 5th Feb 2001, and at 1412 A330 A6-EAB operating EK36 departed becoming the first commercial flight to use it. Second departure was 146 G-MABR at 1507.

First ever landing was by PA28 G-MAHC at 1200 on 5th Nov 2000.

[spannersatcx]

CX will use neither T3, T2 or T1 they're not coming until at least 2016 when the A350 arrives!

[wanna_be_there]

CX will use neither T3, T2 or T1 they're not coming until at least 2016 when the A350 arrives

We will see. Im still holding out on the fact CX have said a press release is due. Seems to be more definative sources saying Yay than those saying nay.

[spannersatcx]

Seems to be more definative sources saying Yay

What are those sources as I'd like to know? The only things I've seen are on a few "rumour" internet forums, nothing official or definative anywhere!

[wanna_be_there]

What are those sources as I'd like to know? The only things I've seen are on a few "rumour" internet forums, nothing official or definative anywhere

Id say the CX FB page and the SFO sales reps are definitive, but I never anywhere said it was official.

In all fairness though, The internet rumours are only at the same credibility level of what you are saying. Dont forget, whilst I have no doubt what your managers have said to you, they have no obligation to tell you whats really going on behind the scenes.

[Skipness One Echo]

From the business perspective, the marketeers may LOVE to see MAN-HKG, but yield management may be wary and operationally the assets required may get "more bang for your buck" being deployed within an established route. Within any large company, often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. They often fail to speak with one voice.

[wanna_be_there]

Within any large company, often the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. They often fail to speak with one voice

Good way to put it, as its basically what I was trying to say. Whilst internal collegues tend to get a heads up on the General public, management will not pass everything down to protect their confidentiality.

All it would thak is for Hong Kong Airlines to jump into MAN first, for example, and not only will that scupper CX at MAN, but also ZRH as it no longer has a viable tag on, but also could affect their LHR ops, as there are a LOT of MAN pax that may be lost to a direct service. You can see why theyd want to keep it close to their chest.

From the business perspective, the marketeers may LOVE to see MAN-HKG, but yield management may be wary and operationally the assets required may get "more bang for your buck" being deployed within an established route

And this is why I think the proposed MAN-ZRH-HKG route would work well, youve basically got 2 chances to fill the cabin and get the required yield, and whilst I appriciate it doesnt translate to yield, with 138000 people transiting MAN-LHR-HKG, its not as if the MAN-HKG market is unproven.
CX have tried to relaunch MAN in 2005, so its evident they do see some potential here.

[Scottie Dog]

Having looked at the Cathay response on Facebook I must say that I support the group that think the flight will be launched 'later rather than sooner'.

Look at the wording of the reply "Hi Simon! Thank you for your inquiry. Please stay tuned for our official press release. Thanks" - does that not look like a very standard response which can interpreted in any way that the recipient may wish? I do not see this as being a definitive response.

Regards

Scottie Dog

[mickyman]

CX

Slightly saddened by the 'knowledgable' people on here falling over themselves to have an opinion on whether 'the great Cathay' will ever 'grace' the Manchester tarmac again......

build it and they will come......indeed!

MM