MANCHESTER - 8
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mickeyman try adding some facts, information, background, perspective, analysis, statistics or input to the debates or is that asking too much?
.....on the watch of the supposedly prudent socialist Gordon Brown. He was no fool, he needed to tax their wealth to fund his brave new world. Except he did not undertake due diligence of what they were up to. Odd given that he was the number two in government and became PM. I'm not defending uber rich eejits in banking but be honest about the fools that let them screw us.
Let the top 1% of earners leave the UK and how big a hole in tax revenues is that then Mickey? Not gonna fill much in the F cabin of Emirates or Etihad except out of Geneva is it? Be careful what you wish for!
My taxes are going up now.......and are these the same bankers who
manufactured the world ecomomy crisis with their American mortgage
fiasco ???
manufactured the world ecomomy crisis with their American mortgage
fiasco ???
Let the top 1% of earners leave the UK and how big a hole in tax revenues is that then Mickey? Not gonna fill much in the F cabin of Emirates or Etihad except out of Geneva is it? Be careful what you wish for!
FRA-MAN
Just received a schedule change from Lufthansa for a FRA-MAN flight in June, it states clearly flight is operated by....Lufthansa, so maybe BMI are not operating all the MAN-FRA-MAN rotations. Does anybody know?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Skipness,
I must confess, I was counting down the minutes wondering when you would weigh in on this particular discussion! But don't take that the wrong way ... your points are as always well presented, and your welcome challenges are as usual deserving of response. In the case of your latest posting, I agree with certain points you make and disagree with others. Let's address some issues which you raise.
Firstly, you refer to "localism". The very epitome of a 'Dirty Word' in the Skipness thesaurus! In the past you have labeled me a 'L-O-C-A-L' (which I presume was not intended as a compliment) and a 'Manchester fanboy'. So let me clear this one up. You appear to have a problem with people making travel decisions which place their own needs first, and which do not pay homage to certain "sacred cow" special interests in London.
In my case, I am entirely happy to support businesses which offer good quality services in my area. That is true whether we refer to tradesmen, retailers, Manchester Airport, or the various airlines (regardless of their domicile) which provide useful connections from here. I do not regard this as disloyal in any way, and the idea that I should shun (for example) THY Turkish Airlines (whose services benefit the L-O-C-A-L British taxpaying business community) in favour of a dire transit of Heathrow with an airline which might operate my connecting flight if they feel like it ... well, the idea is just bizarre.
Do you honestly propose that we should endure the BA MAN-LHR-XXX experience to (allegedly) support employment in Hounslow? Or maybe you believe that we should happily pay a double-dose of APD to fatten the exchequer. Please don't forget that supporting the viability of foreign carriers' MAN services in turn supports the economy in this region. And that's apart from the fact that they are more convenient and reliable than BA from the point of view of a Manchester-area customer.
In fact, I don't care whether the airline I use is "local" to my area or not. The "little Englander" brand of patriotism is not for me. I do care that my chosen carrier provides safe, competitive, reliable and convenient service to the destination offered to the "local" customer. My purchasing choice is based on these considerations. My choice to use MAN is down to its convenient location and ease of use for my journey, nothing more. If I could rely on BA not to cancel my connecting shuttle, they might stand a better chance of winning my business as I have nothing against flying with them per se. But experience has taught me that they are not reliable, and I don't owe BA and LHR a living if they think nothing of letting me down. Please remember too that BA's unreliable service to/from the Manchester area has consequences for the national interest too; crucial missed meetings impede British business in any region and are not appreciated. Our national economy is not enhanced by potential new contracts forfeited due to unreliable travel to and from the regions.
So, in answer to your charge: "If I can't fly from Manchester direct I will use foreign competition", I say yes, absolutely. Perhaps the foreign carrier will actually make an effort to get customers to their destination in time for meetings (unlike some). Perhaps they will thank us for our custom and confirm that it is valued. Perhaps my bookings will help them prosper in their commitment to provide a valuable service which benefits businesses in the Greater Manchester economy. No apologies for that. The people round here as just as British as those supporting London's businesses.
What you perceive as 'localism' on my part is actually pragmatism borne of experience. I have the good fortune to be well-traveled across the world, so I am not blind to the advantages enjoyed by certain other countries, cities and regions. But that is not to say that I am in any way ashamed to hail from the Manchester area; I am entirely at ease with my 'local' roots here and proudly acknowledge them. But I do also acknowledge merit elsewhere; I am not an apologist for bitter narrow-mindedness. As I have pointed out to you before, everybody is local somewhere. Making the most of your local environment is not a shameful concept if exercised in the right spirit (ie. not warped tribal animosities etc.). I hope that you are local to a nice area too, and unapologetically make the most of what it has to offer.
You go on to say that my earlier post reads as a North v South battle. Then you have misinterpreted what I have written. It is a Convenience v Inconvenience battle. It is a Reliability v Unreliability battle. It is a Service v Lack of Service Battle. It is a Good Journey v Bad Journey battle. The geography is entirely incidental. But the suggestion that we should show loyalty to a company which provides unreliable service because it happens to employ people in London is just crazy ... the notion makes no sense to me at all. I accept your point that competition from CDG, FRA, AMS and so on is an issue for the London airports system. But it does not follow that the Manchester public should consent to shun our own air services in support of Ferrovial versus its continental rivals! It is not our problem ... sorry.
I don't wish to spend too long on the banking issue, as this is an aviation forum. But I do wish to challenge one pervasive myth which you again raise. We are constantly told (usually by the banks themselves) that Britain is uniquely blessed to have them based here, keeping our economy solvent with the immense taxes they pay to fund our state programmes. The ugly truth is very different. People quickly forget just how much the TAXPAYER has shelled out to preserve these banks from instant insolvency. People saw the reports of "large number" bailouts to the banks ... and their eyes glazed over. The figures involved were so large that the public fails to begin to grasp the true extent of the catastrophe which has befallen the British economy as a direct consequence of reckless gambling by these self-proclaimed "Masters of the Universe". Our national debt has ballooned, we have vast quantities of toxic financial instruments on the state balance sheet, all thanks to these banks. The sums involved in the bailouts (adjusted for inflation) bear comparison with the financial burden of reparations which buried the Reichmark in the Weimar Republic era. That debacle led directly to the rise to power of a certain "strongman" dictator ... it didn't end well. So don't buy into the hype that we are incredibly lucky to have these genius bankers on our shores. Let some of them decamp to Geneva ... after they repay their inconceivably massive debts to us. Then they can see if the Swiss public will bail out their next reckless bet! As for funding the NHS and education ... well, 10% of the bank bailout money should set them right for all eternity!
Moving on, you raise the issue of BA in the '70's and 80's. "The world has changed Shed," you say. Indeed it has, and I'm not big on nostalgia, but for all BA's shortcomings back then they did successfully get me from MAN to CDG, GVA, FRA, AMS etc. whenever I booked them to do so. If they offered services like that today I might still be a 'loyal' regular ... but it is not to be, so we have all moved on to the most convenient contemporary alternatives. Misty-eyed reminiscences of a bygone BA era have no place in shaping my travel plans for 2011!
Good to exchange ideas with you as always.
SHED.
I must confess, I was counting down the minutes wondering when you would weigh in on this particular discussion! But don't take that the wrong way ... your points are as always well presented, and your welcome challenges are as usual deserving of response. In the case of your latest posting, I agree with certain points you make and disagree with others. Let's address some issues which you raise.
Firstly, you refer to "localism". The very epitome of a 'Dirty Word' in the Skipness thesaurus! In the past you have labeled me a 'L-O-C-A-L' (which I presume was not intended as a compliment) and a 'Manchester fanboy'. So let me clear this one up. You appear to have a problem with people making travel decisions which place their own needs first, and which do not pay homage to certain "sacred cow" special interests in London.
In my case, I am entirely happy to support businesses which offer good quality services in my area. That is true whether we refer to tradesmen, retailers, Manchester Airport, or the various airlines (regardless of their domicile) which provide useful connections from here. I do not regard this as disloyal in any way, and the idea that I should shun (for example) THY Turkish Airlines (whose services benefit the L-O-C-A-L British taxpaying business community) in favour of a dire transit of Heathrow with an airline which might operate my connecting flight if they feel like it ... well, the idea is just bizarre.
Do you honestly propose that we should endure the BA MAN-LHR-XXX experience to (allegedly) support employment in Hounslow? Or maybe you believe that we should happily pay a double-dose of APD to fatten the exchequer. Please don't forget that supporting the viability of foreign carriers' MAN services in turn supports the economy in this region. And that's apart from the fact that they are more convenient and reliable than BA from the point of view of a Manchester-area customer.
In fact, I don't care whether the airline I use is "local" to my area or not. The "little Englander" brand of patriotism is not for me. I do care that my chosen carrier provides safe, competitive, reliable and convenient service to the destination offered to the "local" customer. My purchasing choice is based on these considerations. My choice to use MAN is down to its convenient location and ease of use for my journey, nothing more. If I could rely on BA not to cancel my connecting shuttle, they might stand a better chance of winning my business as I have nothing against flying with them per se. But experience has taught me that they are not reliable, and I don't owe BA and LHR a living if they think nothing of letting me down. Please remember too that BA's unreliable service to/from the Manchester area has consequences for the national interest too; crucial missed meetings impede British business in any region and are not appreciated. Our national economy is not enhanced by potential new contracts forfeited due to unreliable travel to and from the regions.
So, in answer to your charge: "If I can't fly from Manchester direct I will use foreign competition", I say yes, absolutely. Perhaps the foreign carrier will actually make an effort to get customers to their destination in time for meetings (unlike some). Perhaps they will thank us for our custom and confirm that it is valued. Perhaps my bookings will help them prosper in their commitment to provide a valuable service which benefits businesses in the Greater Manchester economy. No apologies for that. The people round here as just as British as those supporting London's businesses.
What you perceive as 'localism' on my part is actually pragmatism borne of experience. I have the good fortune to be well-traveled across the world, so I am not blind to the advantages enjoyed by certain other countries, cities and regions. But that is not to say that I am in any way ashamed to hail from the Manchester area; I am entirely at ease with my 'local' roots here and proudly acknowledge them. But I do also acknowledge merit elsewhere; I am not an apologist for bitter narrow-mindedness. As I have pointed out to you before, everybody is local somewhere. Making the most of your local environment is not a shameful concept if exercised in the right spirit (ie. not warped tribal animosities etc.). I hope that you are local to a nice area too, and unapologetically make the most of what it has to offer.
You go on to say that my earlier post reads as a North v South battle. Then you have misinterpreted what I have written. It is a Convenience v Inconvenience battle. It is a Reliability v Unreliability battle. It is a Service v Lack of Service Battle. It is a Good Journey v Bad Journey battle. The geography is entirely incidental. But the suggestion that we should show loyalty to a company which provides unreliable service because it happens to employ people in London is just crazy ... the notion makes no sense to me at all. I accept your point that competition from CDG, FRA, AMS and so on is an issue for the London airports system. But it does not follow that the Manchester public should consent to shun our own air services in support of Ferrovial versus its continental rivals! It is not our problem ... sorry.
I don't wish to spend too long on the banking issue, as this is an aviation forum. But I do wish to challenge one pervasive myth which you again raise. We are constantly told (usually by the banks themselves) that Britain is uniquely blessed to have them based here, keeping our economy solvent with the immense taxes they pay to fund our state programmes. The ugly truth is very different. People quickly forget just how much the TAXPAYER has shelled out to preserve these banks from instant insolvency. People saw the reports of "large number" bailouts to the banks ... and their eyes glazed over. The figures involved were so large that the public fails to begin to grasp the true extent of the catastrophe which has befallen the British economy as a direct consequence of reckless gambling by these self-proclaimed "Masters of the Universe". Our national debt has ballooned, we have vast quantities of toxic financial instruments on the state balance sheet, all thanks to these banks. The sums involved in the bailouts (adjusted for inflation) bear comparison with the financial burden of reparations which buried the Reichmark in the Weimar Republic era. That debacle led directly to the rise to power of a certain "strongman" dictator ... it didn't end well. So don't buy into the hype that we are incredibly lucky to have these genius bankers on our shores. Let some of them decamp to Geneva ... after they repay their inconceivably massive debts to us. Then they can see if the Swiss public will bail out their next reckless bet! As for funding the NHS and education ... well, 10% of the bank bailout money should set them right for all eternity!
Moving on, you raise the issue of BA in the '70's and 80's. "The world has changed Shed," you say. Indeed it has, and I'm not big on nostalgia, but for all BA's shortcomings back then they did successfully get me from MAN to CDG, GVA, FRA, AMS etc. whenever I booked them to do so. If they offered services like that today I might still be a 'loyal' regular ... but it is not to be, so we have all moved on to the most convenient contemporary alternatives. Misty-eyed reminiscences of a bygone BA era have no place in shaping my travel plans for 2011!
Good to exchange ideas with you as always.
SHED.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankfurt
Mr A Tis
BHX - FRA times also slightly changed this week but still showing Lufthansa as the operator.
However on a BHX forum today it was posted that staff handling LH have been told to expect a BMI A320 based operating three of the four flights.
The other flight will remain Lufthansa and at BHX it is the 09.10 inbound 09.50 outbound.
I expect the MAN flight will be exactly the same if it all goes ahead.
Same post mentions BHX-BRU on Saturday only, will change from Brussels
Airlines to BMI Regional 145.
None of these changes are reflected in the respective booking engines.
Pete
BHX - FRA times also slightly changed this week but still showing Lufthansa as the operator.
However on a BHX forum today it was posted that staff handling LH have been told to expect a BMI A320 based operating three of the four flights.
The other flight will remain Lufthansa and at BHX it is the 09.10 inbound 09.50 outbound.
I expect the MAN flight will be exactly the same if it all goes ahead.
Same post mentions BHX-BRU on Saturday only, will change from Brussels
Airlines to BMI Regional 145.
None of these changes are reflected in the respective booking engines.
Pete
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superbly put Shed, couldn't have said it any better, your views mirror mine 100%.
Just booked flights to NYC, could have saved £100 by going via LHR, but why run the risk? Friends did that last month and whilst they got to New York, their bags didn't. That happened to me the last time I used LHR long-haul, bags didn't make the shuttle flight back to MAN after flying all around the globe.
I try to use MAN whenever I can, occasionally LPL for the odd weekend away. But if MAN can't do the trip in one hop, they certainly can via AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC and DXB.
That isn't localism, its just being sensible.
Just booked flights to NYC, could have saved £100 by going via LHR, but why run the risk? Friends did that last month and whilst they got to New York, their bags didn't. That happened to me the last time I used LHR long-haul, bags didn't make the shuttle flight back to MAN after flying all around the globe.
I try to use MAN whenever I can, occasionally LPL for the odd weekend away. But if MAN can't do the trip in one hop, they certainly can via AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC and DXB.
That isn't localism, its just being sensible.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness
You seem to think that bankers operate with the same
laws as everyone else - I do not.Whatever colour of
government gets in the bankers are not affected to any
significant degree.....still waiting for bonuses to be capped -
still waiting for the ConDems to legislate the banking
system (like Labour b4 them)might be a long wait.
The British tax payer bailed out two banks - Barclays
got help from Arabia.
You might find the tax bills of the rich and famous are
dis-proportionate to their earning if they have such people
as accountants doing the sums (footballers exposed this
last week).
It would be interesting to see some figures of the numbers
of out of London passengers travelling to the Capital to travel onwards
through the airports.From a commercial point of view
its obviously an advantage to funnel people through your
main base (as BA have done)and I have no argument with that.
But when an airline provides a service locally it doesnt matter
who/where they come from etc in this 'globalised' world that
bankers have created for us.
MM
Shed....I concur with your post.
You seem to think that bankers operate with the same
laws as everyone else - I do not.Whatever colour of
government gets in the bankers are not affected to any
significant degree.....still waiting for bonuses to be capped -
still waiting for the ConDems to legislate the banking
system (like Labour b4 them)might be a long wait.
The British tax payer bailed out two banks - Barclays
got help from Arabia.
You might find the tax bills of the rich and famous are
dis-proportionate to their earning if they have such people
as accountants doing the sums (footballers exposed this
last week).
It would be interesting to see some figures of the numbers
of out of London passengers travelling to the Capital to travel onwards
through the airports.From a commercial point of view
its obviously an advantage to funnel people through your
main base (as BA have done)and I have no argument with that.
But when an airline provides a service locally it doesnt matter
who/where they come from etc in this 'globalised' world that
bankers have created for us.
MM
Shed....I concur with your post.
Ringway Man, is Etihad going double daily or ten a week? I am confused. 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must confess Skippy I also enjoy your posts as well.....beats TV,
even MUFC_Fan to a lesser degree , sorry !
Skip, your a bit like Tony Benn, (well maybe not as left wing), I cannot abide the politics, Mr Benn that is, but everytime he opens his mouth I am totally compelled to listen, as it is usually thougthful, interesting and very well delivered, I could listen to him all day !
Your repeated eulogy's in respect of Heathrow are to be appluaded for the devotion to the cause , BUT whilst you are always quick to unflinchingly give the impression that you will lay down your body to defend the principle of an expanded Heathrow, actual solutions as to how this might be achieved are in much shorter supply!
Thank-you for at least conceeding that Birmingham is a busted flush, (in that at least we agree), having ditched Heathrow the politicians are groping feveroushly for anything that might just fill the void .... Birmingham is a case in point, if it wasnt so incredibly and so utterley preposterous it would be amusing ?
On this wider point we can hammer on all day about expanding Heathrow, but there is simply no room left in the airspace in the South East, therefore if we do want to salvage something where UK Plc benefits, then MAN could be a solution !
As I have said on countless occasions it has to be an option given the 000s of passengers from the North Of England that are still funneled into the SE.
If AMS CDG and FRA is the alternative for these pax, then so is MAN !
...my "original point" which concerned MAG using every opportunity to convey this message appears to have been lost in the fog of prune wars !
even MUFC_Fan to a lesser degree , sorry !
Skip, your a bit like Tony Benn, (well maybe not as left wing), I cannot abide the politics, Mr Benn that is, but everytime he opens his mouth I am totally compelled to listen, as it is usually thougthful, interesting and very well delivered, I could listen to him all day !
Your repeated eulogy's in respect of Heathrow are to be appluaded for the devotion to the cause , BUT whilst you are always quick to unflinchingly give the impression that you will lay down your body to defend the principle of an expanded Heathrow, actual solutions as to how this might be achieved are in much shorter supply!
Thank-you for at least conceeding that Birmingham is a busted flush, (in that at least we agree), having ditched Heathrow the politicians are groping feveroushly for anything that might just fill the void .... Birmingham is a case in point, if it wasnt so incredibly and so utterley preposterous it would be amusing ?
On this wider point we can hammer on all day about expanding Heathrow, but there is simply no room left in the airspace in the South East, therefore if we do want to salvage something where UK Plc benefits, then MAN could be a solution !
As I have said on countless occasions it has to be an option given the 000s of passengers from the North Of England that are still funneled into the SE.
If AMS CDG and FRA is the alternative for these pax, then so is MAN !
...my "original point" which concerned MAG using every opportunity to convey this message appears to have been lost in the fog of prune wars !
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's 10 a week from August but double daily at the end of the year.
From the horse's mouth and similar story from the Australian with this quote:
"Manchester would initially move to 10 flights a week, but would go double daily before year-end, and there would be new European destinations, Mr Hogan said."
From the horse's mouth and similar story from the Australian with this quote:
"Manchester would initially move to 10 flights a week, but would go double daily before year-end, and there would be new European destinations, Mr Hogan said."
Thanks Ringwayman.
Good news all round then.
Good news all round then.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever has been said, this sums up the whole argument:
Some people would agree with you spending the extra £100 on your flight and 30 odd million do not. If you have had a bad experience with BA then I would probably do the same as you within reason.
At the end of the day people decide which airport they wish to fly from/to/via by their own experiences, price and suitability. Not because over years BA have pulled out of an airport and focused on the capital.
Just booked flights to NYC, could have saved £100 by going via LHR, but why run the risk? Friends did that last month and whilst they got to New York, their bags didn't. That happened to me the last time I used LHR long-haul, bags didn't make the shuttle flight back to MAN after flying all around the globe.
At the end of the day people decide which airport they wish to fly from/to/via by their own experiences, price and suitability. Not because over years BA have pulled out of an airport and focused on the capital.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
But if MAN can't do the trip in one hop, they certainly can via AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC and DXB.
Personally, if I'm having to connect then I'd rather do it through London, at least they speak my language and I can use free minutes on my phone during the transfer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MUFC_fan,
With all due respect, your post appears to be rather disingenuous. Your '30 odd million' statistic is misleading as a response to groobs' posting because you are not comparing like with like.
31,825,000 is the number of passengers reported to have been carried by BA in the 12 month period to March 2010. A large number of these passengers were traveling to or from London as their point of origin or final destination; connection issues at LHR are not of concern to these customers. A price differential for alternative flights from MAN is of no interest to the vast majority of these people either.
Moving on to connecting passengers who change aircraft at LHR, many of these are on international transits and are unaffected by the reliability issues affecting BA's Shuttle operations in particular. So, if you wish to contrast groobs' booking decision with other customers on a meaningful basis, you need to compare with the numbers who connect to / from BA's domestic shuttle operations. And arguably, you should be using only the number who use the MAN Shuttles to make your case, as groobs is comparing prices for flights from Manchester.
Let's tackle this subject on a more analytical level and avoid use of eye-catching but inapplicable statistics and hyperbole, eh?
All the best. SHED.
With all due respect, your post appears to be rather disingenuous. Your '30 odd million' statistic is misleading as a response to groobs' posting because you are not comparing like with like.
31,825,000 is the number of passengers reported to have been carried by BA in the 12 month period to March 2010. A large number of these passengers were traveling to or from London as their point of origin or final destination; connection issues at LHR are not of concern to these customers. A price differential for alternative flights from MAN is of no interest to the vast majority of these people either.
Moving on to connecting passengers who change aircraft at LHR, many of these are on international transits and are unaffected by the reliability issues affecting BA's Shuttle operations in particular. So, if you wish to contrast groobs' booking decision with other customers on a meaningful basis, you need to compare with the numbers who connect to / from BA's domestic shuttle operations. And arguably, you should be using only the number who use the MAN Shuttles to make your case, as groobs is comparing prices for flights from Manchester.
Let's tackle this subject on a more analytical level and avoid use of eye-catching but inapplicable statistics and hyperbole, eh?
All the best. SHED.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 23rd Jan 2011 at 16:40.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we seem to have lost the actual aim of this discussion.
It was all started when the subject of London's airport restraints came up and Birmingham was proposed (quite rightly I believe) as an alternative to building a new facility as with a new train service the time from BHX to the centre of London would be quicker than that off the Stansted/Heathrow/Gatwick Expresses.
mickyman then came in with his comments regarding "Londinium" and how people do not want to travel via LHR (again without your required stats).
Then I replied regarding how important transport into London is so important for Britain as a whole. BP, HSBC, Lloyds, Aviva, Royal Bank of Scotland, Tesco, Prudencial, Vodaphone, Legal and General and Barclays are all in the top 100 companies worldwide (source). 7 of those have their world HQs in London. Add in the hundreds of others companies with UK/European HQs in London and you see the need for ease of access and to be fair to everyone who thinks we can get everywhere on the train - trains don't run on water.
Shed then made a post about how we should not be patriotic and stick with BA (the person who actually brought BA up!) and that the banks are not good for this country. Banks maybe not - but get rid of BP and other oil companies then this country really is in a dire state.
It then grew from there into a BA bashing really about how they offer unreliable services to London and how bad connecting in is Heathrow. Oh and a bit of rubbish about getting rid of the top 10% to Switzerland, and the best bit about spending the money they owe us on the NHS (actually my favourite sentence ever on Pprune I think).
They're the facts and a few figures thrown in for help.
It was all started when the subject of London's airport restraints came up and Birmingham was proposed (quite rightly I believe) as an alternative to building a new facility as with a new train service the time from BHX to the centre of London would be quicker than that off the Stansted/Heathrow/Gatwick Expresses.
mickyman then came in with his comments regarding "Londinium" and how people do not want to travel via LHR (again without your required stats).
Then I replied regarding how important transport into London is so important for Britain as a whole. BP, HSBC, Lloyds, Aviva, Royal Bank of Scotland, Tesco, Prudencial, Vodaphone, Legal and General and Barclays are all in the top 100 companies worldwide (source). 7 of those have their world HQs in London. Add in the hundreds of others companies with UK/European HQs in London and you see the need for ease of access and to be fair to everyone who thinks we can get everywhere on the train - trains don't run on water.
Shed then made a post about how we should not be patriotic and stick with BA (the person who actually brought BA up!) and that the banks are not good for this country. Banks maybe not - but get rid of BP and other oil companies then this country really is in a dire state.
It then grew from there into a BA bashing really about how they offer unreliable services to London and how bad connecting in is Heathrow. Oh and a bit of rubbish about getting rid of the top 10% to Switzerland, and the best bit about spending the money they owe us on the NHS (actually my favourite sentence ever on Pprune I think).
They're the facts and a few figures thrown in for help.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MUFC_fan
Your interpretation of what I actually wrote is wide of the mark.
People have a choice if a service exists locally -they do not if it
means going south - obviously not everywhere can be served
at your local.
I then asked if anyone had stats as too the number of people
travelling through London from the regions and onwards - that is
why I did not quote any stats - it was a request.
Ease of access for the banking community - do they not use
City......
MM
Your interpretation of what I actually wrote is wide of the mark.
People have a choice if a service exists locally -they do not if it
means going south - obviously not everywhere can be served
at your local.
I then asked if anyone had stats as too the number of people
travelling through London from the regions and onwards - that is
why I did not quote any stats - it was a request.
Ease of access for the banking community - do they not use
City......
MM
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mickyman - this is the estimated origin / destination of LHR terminating passengers. It is a measure of where people start or end their journey, not where they live, so obviously overseas residents landing at LHR and then commuting onwards will be included in these numbers.
Connecting passengers are not shown, but should be easy enough to work out from the route data the CAA publish monthly as is freely available.
Clearly if the government are looking at proposals to take regional traffic out of LHR, the South West and the Midlands are the biggest opportunities
1,353k East Midlands
3,828k East of England
83k North East
427k North West
89k Scotland
29,736k South East
2,835k South West
746k Wales
1,186k West Midlands
570k Yorkshire & Humberside
Connecting passengers are not shown, but should be easy enough to work out from the route data the CAA publish monthly as is freely available.
Clearly if the government are looking at proposals to take regional traffic out of LHR, the South West and the Midlands are the biggest opportunities
1,353k East Midlands
3,828k East of England
83k North East
427k North West
89k Scotland
29,736k South East
2,835k South West
746k Wales
1,186k West Midlands
570k Yorkshire & Humberside
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your interpretation of what I actually wrote is wide of the mark.
In terms of people flying MAN-LHR-XXX and vice versa, I am not sure of exact figures but over 12 months it will be in excess of 1m.
Ease of access for the banking community - do they not use
City......
City......
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ease of access for the banking community - do they not use
City......
City......
Clearly if the government are looking at proposals to take regional traffic out of LHR, the South West and the Midlands are the biggest opportunities
So no more capacity where it's badly needed (LHR), might be needed (LGW), isn't needed (STN), but more capacity at LCY. As a former local, it's worth mentioning the vast increase in noise levels since the coming of the A318 and ERJ-190. 146s they are not.
The logic goes that if they constrain capacity, then we can grow BHX and other airfields. History suggests that AMS, CDG and FRA will the real winners. London traffic in F and J isn't that keen on using Gatwick, clearly BHX is the answer. Quite how though, is only in the heads of our beloved leaders.
It's worth noticing the amount of rather REALLY nice houses surrounding MAN. Taxing that lot even more isn't going to fill the front cabin in Emirates or Etihad.