MANCHESTER - 8
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MUFC_fan
'How can my interpretation be wrong? How can anyone's interpretation be wrong'
Clearly you cannot comprehend.
I was saying that having a choice is better than being
forced to fly through London - why do you not
understand that ?
I was gonna right because your th*** but decided not too.
682ft AMSL:
Very interesting - thanks.
Skipness:
Thankyou
MM
'How can my interpretation be wrong? How can anyone's interpretation be wrong'
Clearly you cannot comprehend.
I was saying that having a choice is better than being
forced to fly through London - why do you not
understand that ?
I was gonna right because your th*** but decided not too.
682ft AMSL:
Very interesting - thanks.
Skipness:
Thankyou
MM
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Shed, at least you've grasped the mettle and understood where I'm coming from (and where I want to go 
)
I could have written a long and laboured reply to various people, but there really isn't much point, it'd only be going over old ground. I might be new in terms of signing up, but I've been a very very long time reader!
MAN is doing well, BA's departure is BA's loss.
)I could have written a long and laboured reply to various people, but there really isn't much point, it'd only be going over old ground. I might be new in terms of signing up, but I've been a very very long time reader!
MAN is doing well, BA's departure is BA's loss.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there anybody working at MAG who shares Shed's/Roverman's passion ?
The silence from MAG board members has been deafening, its as though they are afraid to voice an opinon.
At Least when GT was running the show we had press releases spewing forth almost weekly, they EVEN got past the M.E.N. and made the national press and Radio4 etc !
These were matched to a constant onslaught on MPs across the region to back expansion at Manchester.......it almost became boring BUT there is little doubt in my mind that it did influence policy changes albeit on the margins !
Surely in 2011 there must be a corporate view on how these changes effect Manchester and it passengers but I for one would love to know what these are ?
The silence from MAG board members has been deafening, its as though they are afraid to voice an opinon.
At Least when GT was running the show we had press releases spewing forth almost weekly, they EVEN got past the M.E.N. and made the national press and Radio4 etc !
These were matched to a constant onslaught on MPs across the region to back expansion at Manchester.......it almost became boring BUT there is little doubt in my mind that it did influence policy changes albeit on the margins !
Surely in 2011 there must be a corporate view on how these changes effect Manchester and it passengers but I for one would love to know what these are ?
You seem to be quite worried by all this lack of public comment? Why? It doesn't mean nothing is happening.
If you think that MAG has no views think again. They certainly do - it is just that most of the time they choose to express it to the movers and shakers rather than through the press and to us on Prune. Why should we be told? Does every company have to reveal its policies and strategies in public - I don't think so!
MAG has always been highly proficient in lobbying and putting its views forward with a great degree of success. If the press needs to be used it will be. As you say, when Gil Thompson was boss, there was a need to use the press as the Sir Humphreys in Whitehall (who by and large tell their "here today - gone tomorrow" ministers what to do) did not take note of oiks from a small aerodrome north of Watford. They were in thrall to the views of BA (who were desperate to stop foreign carriers operating to MAN and other airports) and to a lesser extent the owners of LHR, the BAA.
In the instance of getting SQ in, a massive press campaign added to cross-party pressure from MPs publically shamed the Transport Minister of the day - can't remember who now - and they started. Many other lobbying exercises have followed over the years, mostly sucessful. Most of these you will be totally unaware of because a result was achieved without a need to involve the press. The end result of this is that the MAG view is now respected in Whitehall - may not always be agreed with - but at least it is heard along with other interested parties. So all the lobbying (public and private) has been rather more than
influencing policy changes albeit on the margins !
What about BHX and the press? Almost certainly, Kehoe at BHX was pressurised by the press to respond to the suggestion about the rail link and so had to say something.
As to the nonsense issuing from Boris and other politicians, it is just that, as Skipness has said. But BHX may indeed become an alternative for some passengers in the South East when the rail link is up and running. And when will that be? 2026 is the earliest date that it will be in use and there is plenty of potential for delay. What happens in the meanwhile? Possibly extra capacity at LHR with parallel runway ops - still a political hot potato. Limited capacity at LGW and capacity available at STN/LTN.
So when LHR finally is totally full what choice do the airlines in the South East have? Each airline will make its own choices. Bigger aircraft ? Possibly. More ops at other SE airports? Quite likely. Additional ops to some UK regional airports like BHX, MAN and Scotland? Also quite likely. Some new flights will also go to Continental Europe instead of coming to the South East. That is a consequence of the policy and prevaracation the UK has adopted over airport expansion and it's too late now with AMS, CDG, FRA all expanding. The market will decide.
So a lot of froth being created about this. I'm sure we will continue this debate when we know what the MAG views are
Suzeman
PS Excellent posts Mr Shed - couldn't agree more.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN is doing well, BA's departure is BA's loss.
I'm a stark MAN supporter. It's my local major airport and that that I use mostly. I too have been lucky to have been to many destinations across the world on dozens of airlines via many airports.
My point is that whatever we say about Heathrow, whether it builds world class terminals or opens a dozen runways making it the easiest airport in the world to transfer through - while BA rule in London, people on here will not let it drop and those words above pretty much clear it up.
Some people want to fly via DXB, others DOH or maybe AMS. But people on here have to accept that people do want to fly via LHR from MAN.
The fact that Emirates are showing just how many people do not want
to fly from Londinium should be a lesson to more airlines.
to fly from Londinium should be a lesson to more airlines.
[quote]
Hand all the passengers over to Paris,Frankfurt and Amsterdam - no benefit to the country as a whole having London as a mega-port.
[quote]
And I'm thick? How on earth is it no benefit to the country?
Losing potential business to a competitor is always a loss to any country whether it happens in London, Manchester, Bristol or Newcastle. Remember this country operates a big pot in which all the money goes into and London is definitely an exporter of money to the regions whether we like it or not.
Is it so hard to understand that without expanding the likes of CDG, FRA and AMS have potential capacity here and now. I would love more than anything for MAN to grow massively as a benefit of London's lack of resources. But it just isn't going to happen. There is so much more for companies to go to London for than Manchester. The BBC has moved some offices to Manchester and there is major investment in the city but it's going to take time. London needs capacity now. MPs see this, economists see this, businesses see this - why can't you? Or are they all thick too?
It really is very simple - even I can understand it and I'm thick! More business means more jobs, more jobs means more people have more money, many of those with more disposable income(stop me I'm getting dizzy!) for which they will spend within our economy. How is that not good news?
Clearly you cannot comprehend.
I was saying that having a choice is better than being
forced to fly through London - why do you not
understand that ?
I was saying that having a choice is better than being
forced to fly through London - why do you not
understand that ?
This subject is nothing to do with outbound MAN passengers. This all started about inbound passengers using BHX to access London. It was then asked why BHX was blowing hot air and not MAN.
As soon as someone mentions the word 'London' on this thread, BA automatically comes up and is immediately condemned because they made a business decision to focus on their main hub down south.
Britain - open for business, as long as you don't want to expand in the world city...
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MUFC_fan / All,
In response to your latest remarks, I must remind you that my posts go out of their way NOT to condemn BA for choosing to concentrate on their LHR hub. If in doubt, re-read what I wrote earlier. They are a PLC; their mandate is to pursue profit in whatever manner they see fit. What I do condemn is the attitude of afew people who vilify customers in the Manchester area for selecting carriers which actually offer the best solution to their particular travel needs. Because BA genuinely DOES have reliability issues with their shuttle connections (I would dearly LOVE to see these resolved), customers' preferred option is frequently not BA via London. These travelers should not be demonized as disloyal or unpatriotic for their entirely logical choices.
Nowhere in my postings do I suggest that I wish anything other than success for companies such as BP, Vodafone and Tesco. Where did this idea spring from? I would actually *like* the banks to be successful too ... sadly, they are not, and we will all pay a heavy price for that for many years to come. What was your point in mentioning this list of large LSE-listed multinationals? Surely you are not suggesting that air travel customers in the regions are going to threaten a FTSE100 titan's viability by flying direct from MAN instead of via LHR? Please tell me that you are not suggesting that my bookings with Jet2 to Rome and Delta to Atlanta will bring BP and Vodafone to their knees?!!! Let's just keep matters in perspective, please.
You also imply that I have suggested "getting rid of the top 10% to Switzerland". I do not use these words anywhere. The point I did make was to remind readers of the sheer scale of losses that reckless banks have lumbered us with. The grandchildren of today's taxpayers will still be suffering the consequences of the banking catastrophe. Any suggestion that the banking industry has been a massive net asset to our nation is now categorically void. My tongue-in-cheek remark about the NHS and education draws a comparison between the perceived high tax cost of maintaining them versus the immense and growing burden of bailing out the banking industry. And don't worry ... there is much more to come. Credit Default Swaps (CDS derivatives) will soon come to be recognized as a far greater problem than MBS's were in 2008. Whole countries need bailing out now due to the extent of their native banking liabilities.
Finally, a brief word of thanks to those who have commented on my postings. Mr ATIS, mickyman, groobs, suzeman, bagso, skipness and anybody else I have missed.
Best to all. SHED.
In response to your latest remarks, I must remind you that my posts go out of their way NOT to condemn BA for choosing to concentrate on their LHR hub. If in doubt, re-read what I wrote earlier. They are a PLC; their mandate is to pursue profit in whatever manner they see fit. What I do condemn is the attitude of afew people who vilify customers in the Manchester area for selecting carriers which actually offer the best solution to their particular travel needs. Because BA genuinely DOES have reliability issues with their shuttle connections (I would dearly LOVE to see these resolved), customers' preferred option is frequently not BA via London. These travelers should not be demonized as disloyal or unpatriotic for their entirely logical choices.
Nowhere in my postings do I suggest that I wish anything other than success for companies such as BP, Vodafone and Tesco. Where did this idea spring from? I would actually *like* the banks to be successful too ... sadly, they are not, and we will all pay a heavy price for that for many years to come. What was your point in mentioning this list of large LSE-listed multinationals? Surely you are not suggesting that air travel customers in the regions are going to threaten a FTSE100 titan's viability by flying direct from MAN instead of via LHR? Please tell me that you are not suggesting that my bookings with Jet2 to Rome and Delta to Atlanta will bring BP and Vodafone to their knees?!!! Let's just keep matters in perspective, please.
You also imply that I have suggested "getting rid of the top 10% to Switzerland". I do not use these words anywhere. The point I did make was to remind readers of the sheer scale of losses that reckless banks have lumbered us with. The grandchildren of today's taxpayers will still be suffering the consequences of the banking catastrophe. Any suggestion that the banking industry has been a massive net asset to our nation is now categorically void. My tongue-in-cheek remark about the NHS and education draws a comparison between the perceived high tax cost of maintaining them versus the immense and growing burden of bailing out the banking industry. And don't worry ... there is much more to come. Credit Default Swaps (CDS derivatives) will soon come to be recognized as a far greater problem than MBS's were in 2008. Whole countries need bailing out now due to the extent of their native banking liabilities.
Finally, a brief word of thanks to those who have commented on my postings. Mr ATIS, mickyman, groobs, suzeman, bagso, skipness and anybody else I have missed.
Best to all. SHED.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MUFC_fan: I'd love to use BA and connect via LHR. T5 is a nice place to catch flights from.
But unfortunately, they just repeatedly fail me and my colleagues on an all too regular occasion that it really isn't worth the hassle any more, other airlines and airports offer me a better combination thesedays, they seized the opportunities afforded to them.
But unfortunately, they just repeatedly fail me and my colleagues on an all too regular occasion that it really isn't worth the hassle any more, other airlines and airports offer me a better combination thesedays, they seized the opportunities afforded to them.
I too would use BA longhaul via LHR except for the fact:
1. The shuttles are far too unreliable ( delayed or cancelled )
2. It is over priced ( eg a flight HAM-LHR-LAX would be cheaper than MAN-LHR-LAX etc).
My lack of BA flying since the demise of BACON is purely because the current offerings do not suit my requirements, not because of some spat over their policy.
If you want to transit at LHR not with BA, then it involves a pretty awful terminal change, whereas at AMS FRA ZRH or MUC it is usually pretty effortless
For those reasons my longhaul requirements are usually met very well, very reliably & reasonably priced from MAN with Delta / Swiss / Lufthansa / Qatar.
By supporting these airlines here in Manchester, we are supporting our airport, our jobs and our local economy.
keep up the good work Shed.
1. The shuttles are far too unreliable ( delayed or cancelled )
2. It is over priced ( eg a flight HAM-LHR-LAX would be cheaper than MAN-LHR-LAX etc).
My lack of BA flying since the demise of BACON is purely because the current offerings do not suit my requirements, not because of some spat over their policy.
If you want to transit at LHR not with BA, then it involves a pretty awful terminal change, whereas at AMS FRA ZRH or MUC it is usually pretty effortless
For those reasons my longhaul requirements are usually met very well, very reliably & reasonably priced from MAN with Delta / Swiss / Lufthansa / Qatar.
By supporting these airlines here in Manchester, we are supporting our airport, our jobs and our local economy.
keep up the good work Shed.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: crewe, cheshire, uk
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after reading for some time now about a re-start of a MAN-HKG service which will be good for the 138,000 passengers who have to travel down to LHR, is there any plans in the near future that a MAN-LAX will re-start??
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after reading for some time now about a re-start of a MAN-HKG service which will be good for the 138,000 passengers who have to travel down to LHR, is there any plans in the near future that a MAN-LAX will re-start??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after reading for some time now about a re-start of a MAN-HKG service
And I totally agree with Skipness (for once) about LAX - no chance.
Suzeman
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN-Tinseltown
I take the point about linking hubs, but I wouldn't entirely rule out a direct MAN-LAX at some time in the future. There have been discussions with airlines on the possibility of a 5th freedom service originating to the east of MAN and terminating at LAX. Or perhaps there could be ANZ at some point. More likely again when the B787 / A350 are here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Roverman - an interesting possibility which I should have thought of! 
Must be getting old......
And just for Mr Bagso, the availability of 5th freedom rights for most carriers at UK regional airports in bilaterals was mainly due to the lobbying of the UK Government by Manchester and later BHX and the AOA. Not much used but at least the opportunity is there if needed.
Suzeman
Must be getting old......And just for Mr Bagso, the availability of 5th freedom rights for most carriers at UK regional airports in bilaterals was mainly due to the lobbying of the UK Government by Manchester and later BHX and the AOA. Not much used but at least the opportunity is there if needed.
Suzeman
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks suzeman
...even I dont don't think MAG are sat back and do nothing but as you yourself pointed out the publicity generated back then shamed the Governement into action.
I just think a similar approach may work this time but surely that will only work with the backing of the media ?
By any sensible measure Manchester would be the place to develope, but it appears the Government have looked on a map with a compass !
...even I dont don't think MAG are sat back and do nothing but as you yourself pointed out the publicity generated back then shamed the Governement into action.
I just think a similar approach may work this time but surely that will only work with the backing of the media ?
By any sensible measure Manchester would be the place to develope, but it appears the Government have looked on a map with a compass !
From t airport Management today......
I am delighted to announce that Ryanair will today confirm plans to expand its services from MAG Airports from this summer.
Starting in April, Ryanair will operate four flights a week to Madrid (a new destination for MA), six flights a week to Alicante, four a week to Tenerife and daily services to Faro all from Manchester Airport. In addition, Ryanair's existing 17 services per week to Dublin will increase by four to 21.
Discuss
zfw
I am delighted to announce that Ryanair will today confirm plans to expand its services from MAG Airports from this summer.
Starting in April, Ryanair will operate four flights a week to Madrid (a new destination for MA), six flights a week to Alicante, four a week to Tenerife and daily services to Faro all from Manchester Airport. In addition, Ryanair's existing 17 services per week to Dublin will increase by four to 21.
Discuss
zfw
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by the businessdesk.com
BUDGET airline Ryanair is to announce a major expansion of its Manchester routes, 17 months after axing all but one service.
The Irish carrier's outspoken boss Michael O'Leary was hosting a press conference at Terminal 2 at Manchester, to reveal that Ryanair will be launching a number of new flights over the coming months, and increasing the number of daily flights to Dublin.
Among the destinations Ryanair will fly will be holiday destinations such as Alicante, Faro and Tenerife and also to the Spanish capital Madrid.
He will explain too his rapid change of heart, having previously fallen out with Manchester Airport bosses over landing fees.
Sources at Manchester Airport said the new agreement with Ryanair is on "commercial terms" - rather than the deal previously sought, whereby the airline would expand at Manchester and in return, not pay for landing slots.
After all but quitting Manchester Ryanair expanded aggressively at Liverpool John Lennon Airport.
The deal at Manchester could potententially bring 600,000 more passengers and £3m a year. A significant number of jobs will be created too.
The Dublin-based carrier operates more than 1,400 flights per day and expects to carry approximately 73.5 million passengers in the current financial year.
The Irish carrier's outspoken boss Michael O'Leary was hosting a press conference at Terminal 2 at Manchester, to reveal that Ryanair will be launching a number of new flights over the coming months, and increasing the number of daily flights to Dublin.
Among the destinations Ryanair will fly will be holiday destinations such as Alicante, Faro and Tenerife and also to the Spanish capital Madrid.
He will explain too his rapid change of heart, having previously fallen out with Manchester Airport bosses over landing fees.
Sources at Manchester Airport said the new agreement with Ryanair is on "commercial terms" - rather than the deal previously sought, whereby the airline would expand at Manchester and in return, not pay for landing slots.
After all but quitting Manchester Ryanair expanded aggressively at Liverpool John Lennon Airport.
The deal at Manchester could potententially bring 600,000 more passengers and £3m a year. A significant number of jobs will be created too.
The Dublin-based carrier operates more than 1,400 flights per day and expects to carry approximately 73.5 million passengers in the current financial year.
And now the bad news
Following the liquid ban in 2006, Manchester Airport invited catering companies to tender for a permanent presence on the airfield to try and address the issues that airside workers had getting food and liquid through security. Willow Catering won the contract and have been on the Tower Road for over two years. Sadly they have now decided that their presence at the airport is no longer commercially viable and they will be removing their catering van this week.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take-off: Cut-price flights and jobs bonanza as Manchester Airport lands Ryanair deal - Manchester Evening News
Is MOL correct?
Is MOL correct?
"We know that Mancunians and Scousers don't like each other – so Mancunians will use Manchester and Scousers will use Liverpool airport where we also fly from. We think the market is big enough and we need the extra capacity. Any extra seats at Liverpool will be taken up by people from there.”
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The press conference is at T2, assuming that FR are moving to T2, then? I guess it would make sense from the airports point of view to get some less seasonal traffic through T2. Now that EK are at 1 and AF are (sometimes) at 3.