MANCHESTER - 8
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: stockport uk
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is not airliners.net and normally photos don't belong on PpRune, but today is no normal day for Manchester...so to hell with it - here's my favourite shot of it's first touch down on...
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_BS8bZwGruog/TH.../154935279.jpg
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_BS8bZwGruog/TH.../154935279.jpg
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: halifax
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a great day today at MAN. watched the EK A380 landing from the top of Olympic house, then watched her depart whilst stood on the apron by T3. Big thanks to the lass that organised this for me, and here's to the next airport visit.......
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: crawley
Age: 74
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamburg 2KB
Re your cooment why did the Cathy not land after the A380 ?
Why should it it departed before the A380 and therefore should not be held for another A/C without good reason
It was a great day to see an 380 at Manchester and full marks to the Airport for doing what no body thought was possible at a regional Airport but life goes on u cant delay A/C without just reason..
Anyhow how much more ****e would be put into the Atmosphere if you held Cathy for 10 mins The A380 puts less ****e into the Air than the 747
I am glad everbody had a nice day as we said a Perfect day for all concerned
Why should it it departed before the A380 and therefore should not be held for another A/C without good reason
It was a great day to see an 380 at Manchester and full marks to the Airport for doing what no body thought was possible at a regional Airport but life goes on u cant delay A/C without just reason..
Anyhow how much more ****e would be put into the Atmosphere if you held Cathy for 10 mins The A380 puts less ****e into the Air than the 747
I am glad everbody had a nice day as we said a Perfect day for all concerned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr ... folks! Reality check! Why SHOULD the Cathay be made to land after the Emirates A380? Cathay Pacific Cargo is one of MAN's best customers and on this occasion their B744 was best placed in the traffic sequence to make its approach first. On other days the opposite will be the case. There is no possible justification for putting regular flights into the hold (wasting fuel and time) to facilitate queue-jumping by a "preferred" flight (except in an emergency). Airports and ATC operators alike must be seen to treat their customers impartially for the benefit of all. Both Emirates and Cathay Pacific Cargo are daily stalwarts at MAN. I wouldn't like to see either of them hacked off by being forced to wait for the later-arriving aircraft to land first. Be careful what you wish for. If you take the regulars for granted they can quickly become ex-regulars. Cargo operators in particular can easily relocate to another airport if they do not receive the level of service which they deserve and pay for.
MAN is very fortunate to be graced with regular schedules by Emirates, Cathay Pacific Cargo and many other carriers. We need to appreciate them all. No second-class citizens. Impartiality is the only way to keep all the customers happy.
NB. This response was prepared prior to the appearance of similar comments by learjet50.
MAN is very fortunate to be graced with regular schedules by Emirates, Cathay Pacific Cargo and many other carriers. We need to appreciate them all. No second-class citizens. Impartiality is the only way to keep all the customers happy.
NB. This response was prepared prior to the appearance of similar comments by learjet50.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 1st Sep 2010 at 22:11. Reason: Acknowledging learjet50's comments.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
may i ask why 5-600 passengers will have to walk the lenght of pier B to board or disembark from this aircraft ?? no moving walkway and no comfortable seating area as i recall.
the worlds largest commercial airliner,but certainly not the worlds most convenient parking stand.
maybe some further infrastructure investment is required to make the whole travel experience at manchester a pleasant one.
the worlds largest commercial airliner,but certainly not the worlds most convenient parking stand.
maybe some further infrastructure investment is required to make the whole travel experience at manchester a pleasant one.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW England
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done to all!
A great day for MA, EK and all the many, many individuals and companies (NATS, Swissport, Costain, Jetway etc etc) who have been involved in this project. As someone with a connection - but not major - into the delivery of this project, I don't think that the majority of posters on here have any inkling of what it took to get one A380 onto stand 12 today.
I just wonder what Willie Walsh, CX of Heathrow Airways makes of another few hundred northerners proving to him that, yet again, long-haul from MAN is a very, very, viable proposition.
I just wonder what Willie Walsh, CX of Heathrow Airways makes of another few hundred northerners proving to him that, yet again, long-haul from MAN is a very, very, viable proposition.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PQC,the longhaul success for EK from MAN,is because DXB is it' hub,i estimate 90% of passengers from manchester are transiting dubai,to pakistan,india,the far east and australia.manchester to dubai as a stand alone route would be a none starter,
BA operate about 8 shuttle flights a day to heathrow,it's hub,offering around 1200 seats,more than emirates 2 flights a day to DXB.
it's a simple numbers game.other than new york,i cannot envisage a longhaul route from manchester that would be profitable for BA.
BA operate about 8 shuttle flights a day to heathrow,it's hub,offering around 1200 seats,more than emirates 2 flights a day to DXB.
it's a simple numbers game.other than new york,i cannot envisage a longhaul route from manchester that would be profitable for BA.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They may well be transferring through DXB but I've not heard of many airlines adding capacity specifically detailing that there was a need for F class out of MAN when connecting to their own hubs in addtion to the "traditional" J and Y classes. My gut feeling is that it's going to be a bog standard 20% to 30% of EK passengers being point to point.
Projecting my 7 month total into a full year, we're talking roughly 550000 passengers on the route. So even just 10% travelling point to point still leads to 55,000 passengers that other airines would have the potential to attract away. (In crude terms, more than enough to fill 2 weekly 767s operated by BA in their "regional" configuration).
As for BA, they ceased to be of any relevance some years ago to the majority of the UK as they were unable to grasp any ideas of how to operate out of the regions profitably.
Projecting my 7 month total into a full year, we're talking roughly 550000 passengers on the route. So even just 10% travelling point to point still leads to 55,000 passengers that other airines would have the potential to attract away. (In crude terms, more than enough to fill 2 weekly 767s operated by BA in their "regional" configuration).
As for BA, they ceased to be of any relevance some years ago to the majority of the UK as they were unable to grasp any ideas of how to operate out of the regions profitably.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bermudatriangle.
MAN made a very nice profit off the JFK and the ISB when it operated through there, I even believe the short-lived LAX was profitable, going back even further, the YYZ and HKG were as well.....
BA also caused mayhem with AA, QF and CX operating at non "pit" airports.
Sooner BA go to the wall the better, MAN are better without them.
MAN made a very nice profit off the JFK and the ISB when it operated through there, I even believe the short-lived LAX was profitable, going back even further, the YYZ and HKG were as well.....
BA also caused mayhem with AA, QF and CX operating at non "pit" airports.
Sooner BA go to the wall the better, MAN are better without them.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bermuda Triangle, every time I have transitted Dubai (and that is quite a few times although not recently) I have walked a considerable amount further from the aircraft to the business lounge than from the end of Pier B to the luggage hall in Manchester. Equally in Manchester I haven't had the hazard of the amount of people arranged on the floor like an obstacle course.
ExCargoClown
Thanks very much, I'll be standing outside your front door with my little girl and a begging bowl the next time she needs some new shoes, a hot meal and a roof over her head. 
Jeesus, some people. How would you feel if I wished your employer go bust.
Sooner BA go to the wall the better, MAN are better without them.
Jeesus, some people. How would you feel if I wished your employer go bust.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for BA, they ceased to be of any relevance some years ago to the majority of the UK as they were unable to grasp any ideas of how to operate out of the regions profitably.
1) People and businesses were voting with their feet when the locos arrived
2) BA were utterly useless at making money outside of LHR. Compare Speedbird Manchester, self handling, the highest paid cabin crew in the country and then pitch them up against a new generation of upstarts with a fraction of that. It took BA until now to face down BASSA.
MAN made a very nice profit off the JFK and the ISB when it operated through there, I even believe the short-lived LAX was profitable, going back even further, the YYZ and HKG were as well.....
Given MAN-LAX was five a week and launched in the opposition of LHR who had other plans for a B767 it's a wonder it lasted as long.
The best example of BA's inability to get it right can be the LHR-BFS shuttle. Always busy, loads of connections but the internal accounting and allocation of revenue meant that it somehow managed to lose money. Same with the British Regional J41 fleet, Friday afternoon independent operator making money, Monday morning BA subsidiary losing money.
The ongoing hate affair between some Manchester posters and BA is like a soap opera. Many of the people who screwed MAN over in the BA / BOAC days are gone, some are even dead now ! BA couldn't make MAN work even with slashing the pay of regional staff they were still oddly uncompetitive. The future of MAN long haul is Emirates with staff on market rates and new shiny big aircraft. Let BA be the Heathrow hub + spoke that it needs to be to survive and *move on*. As a BA supporter, they're London Airways now, that's what they chose to be to survive. With ATI and the AA / BA / IB tie up they might have a long term future up against the might of the STAR ALLIANCE. What Manchester needs is exactly what touched down on 1-Sep to much acclaim. I don't demonise BA and take it personally, in the 21st century nor should you. I could have a poke at Emirates starting with a blank sheet and a low cost base and treating *some* of it's staff in a way that 95% of us cossetted Europeans would find reprehensible but I don't hero worship capitalist businesses. Now that would be odd!
Having said that I will be waving a camera towards Stand 12 at the weekend
and just to mess with your heads, unlike last week and BA I'll be venturing North on Derby Airways I believe.....
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 2nd Sep 2010 at 10:22.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Skipness,
I broadly concur with your comments that we in Manchester should accept BA's commercial decision to concentrate on the South-East and move on. However, I say this subject to two very important provisos.
1) In the case of those services on which BA does take bookings to/from MAN (ie. the Shuttles to LHR & LGW), the airline must respect the travel plans of the customers whose money it accepts. It is not acceptable for BA to cancel all Shuttles at the drop of a hat whenever there is the slightest whiff of problems in London. We may not live as far away from London as some other customers, but if we have entrusted BA to get us to our vital business meeting or cruise ship vacation, our need to travel is as important as that of anybody else. If the cruise ship is missed or the meeting is over by the time BA get you there they must accept that they will not find favour with the customers who are let down. Shuttle cancellations remain a major issue at MAN, especially in the Winter months. During bad weather, some LHR flights have to be cancelled. But the pain should be shared around. Scrubbing the MAN shuttles en bloc to run everything else is unacceptable.
2) Having elected to concentrate on London alone for its own business strategy (and fair enough), BA should not then be permitted to wield its considerable lobbying influence to inhibit competing carriers which are prepared to offer attractive services from the regions.
If BA respect these two important considerations, I would see no reason to argue with the company's decision to otherwise run its business however it chooses. As a frequent traveller, LHR transfers do not appeal to me personally, but I have no problem with BA concentrating on those offerings if they so choose.
Regards. SHED.
I broadly concur with your comments that we in Manchester should accept BA's commercial decision to concentrate on the South-East and move on. However, I say this subject to two very important provisos.
1) In the case of those services on which BA does take bookings to/from MAN (ie. the Shuttles to LHR & LGW), the airline must respect the travel plans of the customers whose money it accepts. It is not acceptable for BA to cancel all Shuttles at the drop of a hat whenever there is the slightest whiff of problems in London. We may not live as far away from London as some other customers, but if we have entrusted BA to get us to our vital business meeting or cruise ship vacation, our need to travel is as important as that of anybody else. If the cruise ship is missed or the meeting is over by the time BA get you there they must accept that they will not find favour with the customers who are let down. Shuttle cancellations remain a major issue at MAN, especially in the Winter months. During bad weather, some LHR flights have to be cancelled. But the pain should be shared around. Scrubbing the MAN shuttles en bloc to run everything else is unacceptable.
2) Having elected to concentrate on London alone for its own business strategy (and fair enough), BA should not then be permitted to wield its considerable lobbying influence to inhibit competing carriers which are prepared to offer attractive services from the regions.
If BA respect these two important considerations, I would see no reason to argue with the company's decision to otherwise run its business however it chooses. As a frequent traveller, LHR transfers do not appeal to me personally, but I have no problem with BA concentrating on those offerings if they so choose.
Regards. SHED.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: birmingham
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed - I think you're point 1 is so pertinant, when ever there's an issue that results in cancelled flight the domestic transfers are the first to go, BA have to address this going forward. In terms of point 2 I would dis-agree, I just don't buy the conspiracy theory that BA blocks or inhibits other carriers from operating from MAN or any other airport. Problem now is that leaner and fitter carriers such as Emirates, Qatar and Etihad are dominating the market, I really can't see in current conditions a Cathay or Qantas going up agains them from anywhere in the UK other than LHR.