MANCHESTER - 8
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tale of two airports..
My posting of the links to articles on the contrasting financial reports from LPL and MAN was not intended as a pro-MAN gloat, but rather to support my assertion that the low-cost model is not sustainable, and that MAN has been wise to not court locos at the expense of legacy business. These figures are more than a snapshot, as was suggested in a response on the LPL thread. MAN has remained consistently profitable throughout recent years of traffic decline, just as LPL has generally been unprofitable throughout its years of rapid growth. LPL relies primarily on the patronage of two locos, whereas MAN has a broad spread of traffic across several sectors, and despite recent difficulties has retained many of its long-standing legacy customers. Peel, being substantially a real-estate business, may have stood the losses because the airport traffic levered land values across their portfolio. With VAS now being the majority shareholder, they will surely be looking for profits from the airport(s). LPL has no record of profitability despite huge % growth to a creditable 5mppa. Given the relatively small airport site at LPL there doesn't seem to be any indication that more traffic growth will bring the operation into profit via better utilisation. More likely that prices will have to rise. Since the only incentive for an airline serving the NW of England to use LPL over MAN is price, the next few years could be interesting. MAN has funds from its substantial profits to invest in upgrading and new capacity. LPLs growth has generated virtually no 'new' traffic, simply diverted it from MAN, and in the process has undermined MAN's ability to act as a major gateway for Northern England, with a critical mass to support a greater range of destinations. The signs are increasingly there across the UK that the 'every airport will grow' madness of the 2003 White Paper is proved unfounded, and that we have to look back to the 1978 version, which stressed MAN's role, as a credible blueprint.
Whilst i agree that your post is not "pro MAN", MAN has several low cost carriers amongst it's customers who, to my knowledge, pay their way. With this in mind, how can you categorically say that LPL is not making money because it's customer base is predominantly LCC without any actual proof? Could it not just be that MAN has a better strategy (in general) or a better, more efficient way of operating?
Considering that much of an airports revenue stream is from non-aeronautical activity I'm not sure whether your claim is valid.
Considering that much of an airports revenue stream is from non-aeronautical activity I'm not sure whether your claim is valid.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what Roverman is trying to say MAN does not do deals in the same way as LPL, i`m sure they do them!
Ryanair steamroller their way in and then keep threatning to pull out if the airport doesn`t play ball on rates, Easyjet/Baby/Jet2 are a little more civalised in the way they do business.
It is well known that MAN stood upto Ryanair and told them where to go if they didn`t like the rates, this caused Ryanair to get up and walk even partly dumping one of their most profitable routes.
Easyjet are supposed to have an agreement with LPL but if this is correct and they have agreed not to expand MAN faster than LPL, the time seems to have come when that may change as MAN are more than matching LPLs expansion and if the
rumours of more expansion next year up to 10 aircaft by 2012 are correct
Ian B
Ryanair steamroller their way in and then keep threatning to pull out if the airport doesn`t play ball on rates, Easyjet/Baby/Jet2 are a little more civalised in the way they do business.
It is well known that MAN stood upto Ryanair and told them where to go if they didn`t like the rates, this caused Ryanair to get up and walk even partly dumping one of their most profitable routes.
Easyjet are supposed to have an agreement with LPL but if this is correct and they have agreed not to expand MAN faster than LPL, the time seems to have come when that may change as MAN are more than matching LPLs expansion and if the
rumours of more expansion next year up to 10 aircaft by 2012 are correct
Ian B
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: , England
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are those ~10/15 check-in desks (400 upwards) for that are located in 'The Station' up from the bus stands?
Walked past them so many times and never thought to ask...
Walked past them so many times and never thought to ask...
I know this is where XL airways check-in was located.
There is also a similar downstairs / out of the way check-in area in the T2 arrivals area. Does anyone know which airlines now use these ones please?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
support my assertion that the low-cost model is not sustainable, and that MAN has been wise to not court locos at the expense of legacy business
LPLs growth has generated virtually no 'new' traffic, simply diverted it from MAN, and in the process has undermined MAN's ability to act as a major gateway for Northern England, with a critical mass to support a greater range of destinations
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also a similar downstairs / out of the way check-in area in the T2 arrivals area. Does anyone know which airlines now use these ones please?
Also seen them used by Emirates during the T1 bomb scare and by various airlines during football matches etc
Chav City Direct, I mean Travel City Direct used to use the station check in desks, always seemed an odd location to me.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester has actively courted lo-cos for some time (Easyjet and Ryanair being prime examples) and this has generally been at the expense of its existing 'legacy' operators.
About 10 years ago when lo-co was very much in its infancy, I attended a meeting at Manchester Airport addressed by the then MD Mr John Spooner. He very clearly explained the airport strategy at that time which was to encourage lo-cost airlines to operate from East Midlands whilst Manchester would concentrate on 'legacy' scheduled services and charter. At the time charter services accounted for 60%+ of passenger numbers. Also, the only lo-cost operator was Monarch Scheduled who at that time were a FULL SERVICE airline.
In the following years, the success of the lo-cost airlines at Liverpool, Leeds and to a lesser extent Blackpool, had a dramatic impact at Manchester in two ways. Firstly it hit the charter market extremely badly to the extent that charter today represents just over 30% of annual passengers. Secondly, the popularity of short city breaks hit the 'legacy' hard with many business passengers moving from the legacy carriers to the cheaper lo-cost carriers.
So the move by Manchester Airport in recent years towards more lo-cost services is in my opinion more a reaction to the reduction in charter services than anything else.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
easyflyer and Andy H52,
Thanks for your comments. It is not always posible to set out all the arguments in detail within a short post such as my previous, and I accept therefore that some of the logic may be hard to follow. I was drawing attention to the fact that LPL's traffic (mainly loco) is not generating profits even at 5mppa, and therefore there is a question mark over how sustainable this is. Airport infrastructure has to be financed from somewhere and if there is continuously no profit, how will this be done?
You are right - I didn't mention Leeds. I haven't looked at their profit and loss figures but the arguments are broadly the same, except that you can argue that LBA serves NE England rather than just fragmenting the NW market as MAN/LPL competition does.
Yes, MAN has recognised the importance of locos, but has been careful and measured in its approach so as not to become reliant on this volatile sector in the way that LPL, LBA, and STN have.
I suppose the main tenet of my argument is to question the value (to society and to the economy of the NW) of the loco business at LPL, as it simply fragments services over a small geographic area. It has mainly duplicated or replaced services at MAN using a business model which generates no profit for the airport. Profits at MAN can be re-cycled into improved infrastructure as well as contributing to local taxation. For example, MAN is able to make a substantial funding contribution to the Metrolink tram system extension, without which it probably wouldn't happen. This has benefits far beyond the airport's business.
The smaller regional airports like LPL have a role in serving niche markets, but it is wasteful to have them compete with the main regional gateway. The most enlightened approach to this would be to spread the public ownership of MAN beyond just the Greater Manchester authorities, and to include the other authorities of NW England. This would give true ownership of the regional gateway to all the cities and counties, a broader base for funding, broader dividend contributions, and help to foster a coordinated rather than competitive approach to transport and infrastructure planning. An example is Munich, owned by the City of Munich, the State of Bavaria, and the Federal Goverment as equity sharing partners. Not likely in the present political climate, I know.
Thanks for your comments. It is not always posible to set out all the arguments in detail within a short post such as my previous, and I accept therefore that some of the logic may be hard to follow. I was drawing attention to the fact that LPL's traffic (mainly loco) is not generating profits even at 5mppa, and therefore there is a question mark over how sustainable this is. Airport infrastructure has to be financed from somewhere and if there is continuously no profit, how will this be done?
You are right - I didn't mention Leeds. I haven't looked at their profit and loss figures but the arguments are broadly the same, except that you can argue that LBA serves NE England rather than just fragmenting the NW market as MAN/LPL competition does.
Yes, MAN has recognised the importance of locos, but has been careful and measured in its approach so as not to become reliant on this volatile sector in the way that LPL, LBA, and STN have.
I suppose the main tenet of my argument is to question the value (to society and to the economy of the NW) of the loco business at LPL, as it simply fragments services over a small geographic area. It has mainly duplicated or replaced services at MAN using a business model which generates no profit for the airport. Profits at MAN can be re-cycled into improved infrastructure as well as contributing to local taxation. For example, MAN is able to make a substantial funding contribution to the Metrolink tram system extension, without which it probably wouldn't happen. This has benefits far beyond the airport's business.
The smaller regional airports like LPL have a role in serving niche markets, but it is wasteful to have them compete with the main regional gateway. The most enlightened approach to this would be to spread the public ownership of MAN beyond just the Greater Manchester authorities, and to include the other authorities of NW England. This would give true ownership of the regional gateway to all the cities and counties, a broader base for funding, broader dividend contributions, and help to foster a coordinated rather than competitive approach to transport and infrastructure planning. An example is Munich, owned by the City of Munich, the State of Bavaria, and the Federal Goverment as equity sharing partners. Not likely in the present political climate, I know.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: crawley
Age: 74
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re post 584 from ian h1
Pardon me but am I Missing something here.
Why would we want to know who was admitted at Wythenshawe Hospital ??
Did you get the Doctors diagnose as to the nature of her illness??
Perhaps we could post it here.
Would any body like to know which Emergency Ambulances where available to Wythenshawe Hospital.
Again I must be missing some point about this totally in appropriate thread.
Could anybody please help
Thanks
Why would we want to know who was admitted at Wythenshawe Hospital ??
Did you get the Doctors diagnose as to the nature of her illness??
Perhaps we could post it here.
Would any body like to know which Emergency Ambulances where available to Wythenshawe Hospital.
Again I must be missing some point about this totally in appropriate thread.
Could anybody please help
Thanks
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EY015, 8th October
I flew in on the Etihad on 8th October - a long journey from Sydney, and an excellent flight and service from Etihad, as always. However, upon arrival at MAN we had to wait 49 minutes to get to our stand. After spending 29 hours on my journey, it was not a welcome development.
The Etihad flight had a large number of Australians on board who were visiting the UK and had decided to avoid LHR. This is fantastic news; however, there was great anger at the long wait for a stand and there was a lot of talk about never flying into Manchester again. This is a very great shame.
I have flown well in excess of 1 million miles in the last few years, to destinations all around the globe. I have only ever had to wait a long period for a stand at Manchester - and not just on this occasion. It reflects very poorly on the airport. If other airports can accomodate traffic upon arrival, why can't MAN?
Then, of course, the travellators in Pier C were not working.
I am proud to come from the North West of England, and I used to be proud of my local airport. But now, it hurts me to say, that pride has turned to embarrassment.
I will write a letter to MAPLC to give my feedback. But it seems such a shame that the airport works so hard to encourage passengers to fly into MAN when visiting the UK, then undoes all the hard work by providing a poor passenger experience.
I know this topic has been raised multiple times on PPRUNE, and I'm not looking to be controversial or cause offence. It just hurts me to see my local airport offer such a low standard of service when compared to other global destinations.
The Etihad flight had a large number of Australians on board who were visiting the UK and had decided to avoid LHR. This is fantastic news; however, there was great anger at the long wait for a stand and there was a lot of talk about never flying into Manchester again. This is a very great shame.
I have flown well in excess of 1 million miles in the last few years, to destinations all around the globe. I have only ever had to wait a long period for a stand at Manchester - and not just on this occasion. It reflects very poorly on the airport. If other airports can accomodate traffic upon arrival, why can't MAN?
Then, of course, the travellators in Pier C were not working.
I am proud to come from the North West of England, and I used to be proud of my local airport. But now, it hurts me to say, that pride has turned to embarrassment.
I will write a letter to MAPLC to give my feedback. But it seems such a shame that the airport works so hard to encourage passengers to fly into MAN when visiting the UK, then undoes all the hard work by providing a poor passenger experience.
I know this topic has been raised multiple times on PPRUNE, and I'm not looking to be controversial or cause offence. It just hurts me to see my local airport offer such a low standard of service when compared to other global destinations.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester exile
I think there may have been an issue with delays that day as the DL and VS in T2 also had to wait for a stand (DL for about 30mins and VS about 25 mins).
It isnt normal to wait that long.
With regards to your flight, dont forget you were on an A340-600, and as its a larger aircraft, it needs a larger stand. If an outbound was delayed leaving, then it meant the EY couldnt get on.
Its not just a MAN problem though, I have arrived through LHR 4 times this year, and waited 25, 34, 42 and 15 minutes for a stand, but maybe I am just unlucky, unless you count the 20 minute wait at JFK and the 10 minute wait at ORD too?
So yes, its frustrating to wait for a stand, but please remember, it might not be an issue that MAN is to blame for.
As for the travelators, yes the lasck travelators is frustrating, but after a '29 hour flight' Id rather walk and stretch my legs anyway to be honest. In terms of poor level of service, but God forbid if people have to use their legs!
I think there may have been an issue with delays that day as the DL and VS in T2 also had to wait for a stand (DL for about 30mins and VS about 25 mins).
It isnt normal to wait that long.
With regards to your flight, dont forget you were on an A340-600, and as its a larger aircraft, it needs a larger stand. If an outbound was delayed leaving, then it meant the EY couldnt get on.
Its not just a MAN problem though, I have arrived through LHR 4 times this year, and waited 25, 34, 42 and 15 minutes for a stand, but maybe I am just unlucky, unless you count the 20 minute wait at JFK and the 10 minute wait at ORD too?
So yes, its frustrating to wait for a stand, but please remember, it might not be an issue that MAN is to blame for.
As for the travelators, yes the lasck travelators is frustrating, but after a '29 hour flight' Id rather walk and stretch my legs anyway to be honest. In terms of poor level of service, but God forbid if people have to use their legs!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Exile
Sorry to hear of your woes but was your flight early and therefore
you had to wait for a position?
roverman
Are you not in danger of becomming MANchester-centric with your
perceived argument?
If I substituted LHR and Long-haul into your equation would you be
so keen?
MM
Sorry to hear of your woes but was your flight early and therefore
you had to wait for a position?
roverman
Are you not in danger of becomming MANchester-centric with your
perceived argument?
If I substituted LHR and Long-haul into your equation would you be
so keen?
MM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to hear of your woes but was your flight early and therefore
you had to wait for a position?
Come to think of it, this flight arrived at 06:33, as I looked at an arrival log that day. The schedule time of arrival is 07:10, so that accounts for 37 minutes of the wait, and then add on 5 mins of taxi time (as the EY had to wait between 05L/R, then there is your 42 minutes.
So, to summerise, not a MAN issue whatsoever!
you had to wait for a position?
Come to think of it, this flight arrived at 06:33, as I looked at an arrival log that day. The schedule time of arrival is 07:10, so that accounts for 37 minutes of the wait, and then add on 5 mins of taxi time (as the EY had to wait between 05L/R, then there is your 42 minutes.
So, to summerise, not a MAN issue whatsoever!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is 49 minutes really that noticeable during a 29hour journey? I think you were very unlucky, but I really don't believe MAG is to blame for your delay. Your flight arrived over 30 minutes earlier than it should have.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the main tenet of my argument is to question the value (to society and to the economy of the NW) of the loco business at LPL, as it simply fragments services over a small geographic area.
The smaller regional airports like LPL have a role in serving niche markets, but it is wasteful to have them compete with the main regional gateway.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great, ANOTHER LPL vs MAN arguement. Please please please can we stop clogging up the various threads with this boring non-arguement.
MAN has its traffic, LPL has its traffic. Some people prefer to use MAN for whatever reason, and some people prefer to use LPL for whatever reason.
End of.......
MAN has its traffic, LPL has its traffic. Some people prefer to use MAN for whatever reason, and some people prefer to use LPL for whatever reason.
End of.......
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 40
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't heard anything about the airbridge that broke on Stand 12 a few weeks back? Is this working now? What was/is the problem, there brand fire new, how can this happen? What was Emirates reaction to this?
Also, a A380 question, due to some tight turns on some of MAN's taxiways, does the A380 have to vacate the runway at certain points? Is the landing gear problem that bad that it will brake all the time? I have seen it land both at the airport and when watching a video on you tube and all those landings (about 6 or 7 I think I've seen) the A/C has vacated from 23R on AG. I thought AF would of been the turning off point, I take it AF1 is to tight for a A/C that size? I remember seeing Biman DC-10's a few years ago get off at AF1 and slow down very quickly when landing on 23R, but then again suppose they weren't exactley full of passengers were they?!
Also, a A380 question, due to some tight turns on some of MAN's taxiways, does the A380 have to vacate the runway at certain points? Is the landing gear problem that bad that it will brake all the time? I have seen it land both at the airport and when watching a video on you tube and all those landings (about 6 or 7 I think I've seen) the A/C has vacated from 23R on AG. I thought AF would of been the turning off point, I take it AF1 is to tight for a A/C that size? I remember seeing Biman DC-10's a few years ago get off at AF1 and slow down very quickly when landing on 23R, but then again suppose they weren't exactley full of passengers were they?!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would you spend £80mill at MAN?
Manchester confidential.
Airport generates £100m dividend
Greater Manchester councils share £20m: airport keeps £80m
£100m dividend in 2010. The whopping payout – which is more than double the amount of last year - is revealed in the firm’s latest set of accounts, covering the year to March 31, 2010.
The dividend increased from £47.3m in 2009 despite turnover and profits remaining largely the same in 2010. The firm recorded a turnover of £282m (2009: £286m) and pre-tax profits of £46m, the same as the previous year.
Of that £100m, its parent company, Manchester Airport Group Plc, will get £20m, shared between the 10 Greater Manchester Councils that own it. Manchester City Council has a 55 per cent share, which equates to £11m. The other nine borough councils will get £1m each. [/B]
The airport itself will keep £80m to reinvest in the business.
In the notes to the accounts, the directors said the group was ‘well placed’ to manage the business successfully through a number of long-term contracts and ‘considerable financial resources.’ The group is due to renegotiate its banking facilities in July 2011, and the directors said that nothing had been drawn to their attention ‘to suggest a renewal would not be forthcoming on acceptable terms.’
The turnover is broken down into aviation (£131m); retail concessions (£59m); car parking (£34m); property (£29m) and ‘other’ (£28m).
The airport employed 2,040 staff (2009: 2,145), which carried a wage bill of £50.5m (2009: £52.8m). The airport owes £195m to creditors before March 31, 2011 and £181m after that period. I is owed £152m by debtors.
The company finished the year with net assets of £808m, down slightly from £899m the previous year.
The accounts also mention a contingent liability ‘in the respect of claims that have been made to the lands tribunal...from individual property owners in respect of alleged loss of property value arising from the development and use of new and extended airport runways.’
This refers to an on-going battle between the airport and more than 330 home-owners in Knutsford and Mobberley, who are being represented by law firm Hugh James. The claimants argued their house prices had been affected by the construction of runway 2. The airport reached a settlement in July.
The three regional airports owned or controlled by Manchester Airports Group also filed accounts today. East Midlands Airport and Bournemouth International Airport both recorded profit in 2010, but Humberside Airport lost money.
Here are the financial highlights:
Bournemouth International Airport Ltd
Turnover £15.7m (2009: £16.1m)
£4.8m – aviation
£2m – car parking
£2.5m – retail
£6.3m – property
Pre-tax profit £3m (2009: £1.8m)
Net assets £62m (2009: £60.8m)
Staff 116 (2009: 118)
Wage bill £4.6m (2009: £4.7m)
East Midlands International Airport Ltd
Turnover £49.5m (2009: £58.2m)
£23.8m – aviation
£9.2m – car parking
£5.1m – retail
£9m – property
£2.1m - other
Pre-tax profit £6m (2009: £9.2m)
Net assets £221.7m (2009: £213m)
Staff 253 (2009: 272)
Wage bill £11.4m (2009: £11.5m)
Highest paid director £307,000
Humberside International Airport Ltd
Turnover £8.3m (2009: £12.7m)
£2.7m – aviation
£1m – car parking
£927,000 – retail
£380,000 – property
£3.2 - other
Pre-tax loss £1.8m (2009: £1m)
Net liabilities £5.7m (2009: £3m)
Net debt £20m
Staff 142 (2009: 149)
Wage bill £3.9m (2009: £4.2m)
Airport generates £100m dividend
Greater Manchester councils share £20m: airport keeps £80m
£100m dividend in 2010. The whopping payout – which is more than double the amount of last year - is revealed in the firm’s latest set of accounts, covering the year to March 31, 2010.
The dividend increased from £47.3m in 2009 despite turnover and profits remaining largely the same in 2010. The firm recorded a turnover of £282m (2009: £286m) and pre-tax profits of £46m, the same as the previous year.
Of that £100m, its parent company, Manchester Airport Group Plc, will get £20m, shared between the 10 Greater Manchester Councils that own it. Manchester City Council has a 55 per cent share, which equates to £11m. The other nine borough councils will get £1m each. [/B]
The airport itself will keep £80m to reinvest in the business.
In the notes to the accounts, the directors said the group was ‘well placed’ to manage the business successfully through a number of long-term contracts and ‘considerable financial resources.’ The group is due to renegotiate its banking facilities in July 2011, and the directors said that nothing had been drawn to their attention ‘to suggest a renewal would not be forthcoming on acceptable terms.’
The turnover is broken down into aviation (£131m); retail concessions (£59m); car parking (£34m); property (£29m) and ‘other’ (£28m).
The airport employed 2,040 staff (2009: 2,145), which carried a wage bill of £50.5m (2009: £52.8m). The airport owes £195m to creditors before March 31, 2011 and £181m after that period. I is owed £152m by debtors.
The company finished the year with net assets of £808m, down slightly from £899m the previous year.
The accounts also mention a contingent liability ‘in the respect of claims that have been made to the lands tribunal...from individual property owners in respect of alleged loss of property value arising from the development and use of new and extended airport runways.’
This refers to an on-going battle between the airport and more than 330 home-owners in Knutsford and Mobberley, who are being represented by law firm Hugh James. The claimants argued their house prices had been affected by the construction of runway 2. The airport reached a settlement in July.
The three regional airports owned or controlled by Manchester Airports Group also filed accounts today. East Midlands Airport and Bournemouth International Airport both recorded profit in 2010, but Humberside Airport lost money.
Here are the financial highlights:
Bournemouth International Airport Ltd
Turnover £15.7m (2009: £16.1m)
£4.8m – aviation
£2m – car parking
£2.5m – retail
£6.3m – property
Pre-tax profit £3m (2009: £1.8m)
Net assets £62m (2009: £60.8m)
Staff 116 (2009: 118)
Wage bill £4.6m (2009: £4.7m)
East Midlands International Airport Ltd
Turnover £49.5m (2009: £58.2m)
£23.8m – aviation
£9.2m – car parking
£5.1m – retail
£9m – property
£2.1m - other
Pre-tax profit £6m (2009: £9.2m)
Net assets £221.7m (2009: £213m)
Staff 253 (2009: 272)
Wage bill £11.4m (2009: £11.5m)
Highest paid director £307,000
Humberside International Airport Ltd
Turnover £8.3m (2009: £12.7m)
£2.7m – aviation
£1m – car parking
£927,000 – retail
£380,000 – property
£3.2 - other
Pre-tax loss £1.8m (2009: £1m)
Net liabilities £5.7m (2009: £3m)
Net debt £20m
Staff 142 (2009: 149)
Wage bill £3.9m (2009: £4.2m)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to hear of your woes but was your flight early and therefore
you had to wait for a position?
Come to think of it, this flight arrived at 06:33, as I looked at an arrival log that day. The schedule time of arrival is 07:10, so that accounts for 37 minutes of the wait, and then add on 5 mins of taxi time (as the EY had to wait between 05L/R, then there is your 42 minutes.
So, to summerise, not a MAN issue whatsoever!
you had to wait for a position?
Come to think of it, this flight arrived at 06:33, as I looked at an arrival log that day. The schedule time of arrival is 07:10, so that accounts for 37 minutes of the wait, and then add on 5 mins of taxi time (as the EY had to wait between 05L/R, then there is your 42 minutes.
So, to summerise, not a MAN issue whatsoever!