MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso usually i agree with you however
Think is utter rubbish -China are using their airline(s) to project their global influence -Its very intentional.
They see no fear from those carriers - they dominate and control their domestic and internal market -Can make it pretty hard for their citizens to travel on anything other than organised tours using their own carriers or via codeshares with alliance partners - Hence CA in *A and both CE/CZ in Skyteam.
That said you may have stubbled on one interesting point in the BA hasn't yet completed a suitable (to the CAAC and thereby the regime) alliance partnership.
Both France and Germany (by association the LH group AUA/SWR) have.
Right now UK is not favoured nation so is being ignored
Again this points to politics.
I have mentioned before that CAPA indicated that the Chinese are highly suspicious of opening up routes where BA, AF/KL and LH could muscle in, is this a factor ?
They see no fear from those carriers - they dominate and control their domestic and internal market -Can make it pretty hard for their citizens to travel on anything other than organised tours using their own carriers or via codeshares with alliance partners - Hence CA in *A and both CE/CZ in Skyteam.
That said you may have stubbled on one interesting point in the BA hasn't yet completed a suitable (to the CAAC and thereby the regime) alliance partnership.
Both France and Germany (by association the LH group AUA/SWR) have.
Right now UK is not favoured nation so is being ignored
Again this points to politics.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotted below in article mainly about Dundee...
"Proposed Join! routes include services from Manchester and London Southend to Holland, France, Germany, Poland and elsewhere."
Join! offers hope for Dundee Airport - Local / News / The Evening Telegraph
EDIT : probably belongs on Southend thread as it seems to be based there with MAN's only flight to Southend.
"Proposed Join! routes include services from Manchester and London Southend to Holland, France, Germany, Poland and elsewhere."
Join! offers hope for Dundee Airport - Local / News / The Evening Telegraph
EDIT : probably belongs on Southend thread as it seems to be based there with MAN's only flight to Southend.
Hi Bagso
As far as I know BCN, VIE, and DUB (not to mention BHX !!) are so far all in the same boat as MAN when it comes to possible direct China flights - occasional rumours (mainly on here), but nothing concrete on the table yet.
MUC is logical, it's a major hub for Air China's Star Alliance buddy LH, so they are probably looking at the availability of onward feed from MUC (including ironically to MAN via LH or SQ connections). MUC is also a lot less congested than FRA.
I doubt possible competition from BA is a concern for the Chinese - BA simply don't do longhaul from anywhere other than LHR/LGW. Apparently it doesn't suit their business model and the Chinese will know that.
No I suspect MAN just isn't far enough up the Chinese carriers' priority list just yet. Perhaps their LHR flights are not yet full enough or profitable enough to justify another UK point - they already tried and failed at LGW. Or the MEB3 are seen as being too strong ? Or UK visa restrictions are putting them off, APD, or any of the other possible reasons which have been put forward on here.
Personally I still think MAN is more likely to see the return of a HKG flight before anything to mainland China, based on the O&D numbers which have been posted by others. Whether either ever materializes is anyones guess at the moment.
As far as I know BCN, VIE, and DUB (not to mention BHX !!) are so far all in the same boat as MAN when it comes to possible direct China flights - occasional rumours (mainly on here), but nothing concrete on the table yet.
MUC is logical, it's a major hub for Air China's Star Alliance buddy LH, so they are probably looking at the availability of onward feed from MUC (including ironically to MAN via LH or SQ connections). MUC is also a lot less congested than FRA.
I doubt possible competition from BA is a concern for the Chinese - BA simply don't do longhaul from anywhere other than LHR/LGW. Apparently it doesn't suit their business model and the Chinese will know that.
No I suspect MAN just isn't far enough up the Chinese carriers' priority list just yet. Perhaps their LHR flights are not yet full enough or profitable enough to justify another UK point - they already tried and failed at LGW. Or the MEB3 are seen as being too strong ? Or UK visa restrictions are putting them off, APD, or any of the other possible reasons which have been put forward on here.
Personally I still think MAN is more likely to see the return of a HKG flight before anything to mainland China, based on the O&D numbers which have been posted by others. Whether either ever materializes is anyones guess at the moment.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a general note if we had a degree of federalism in the UK we might see a fairer playing field with regards this subject but with our rabble, not a chance. Generally speaking there is no interest in Manchester OR the airport from either side until election time and then come fawning around a gullible NWest public.. within 24 hours, gone again for another 4 years !
In my view a degree of "Mancunianism" would help Manchester Airport no end !
In my view a degree of "Mancunianism" would help Manchester Airport no end !
Its rather clear that England rather likes Political Centralism me thinks.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed thanks to our friends in the North East we were the authors of our own doom on the subject of regional devolution in England:
I quote from the not always reliable Wikipedia, but I believe this to be correct.
Devolution referendums in Northern England were proposed under provisions of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. Initially, three referendums were planned, but only one took place. The votes concerned the question of devolving limited political powers from the UK Parliament to elected regional assemblies in North East England, North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber respectively.
On 4 November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, which halted the government's proposed referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber which were postponed and then dropped.
I quote from the not always reliable Wikipedia, but I believe this to be correct.
Devolution referendums in Northern England were proposed under provisions of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. Initially, three referendums were planned, but only one took place. The votes concerned the question of devolving limited political powers from the UK Parliament to elected regional assemblies in North East England, North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber respectively.
On 4 November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, which halted the government's proposed referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber which were postponed and then dropped.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flybe summer 2014.
Looking at the schedule, seems some minor changes are afoot.
IOM: increase from 23 to 32 weekly. 5 daily Mon-Fri
MXP: Increase from 7 to 8 weekly. New Saturday flight
ABZ: Increase from 5 daily Mon-Fri to 6 daily. New BE1027/1028 flight.
I suppose more changes could happen as the based aircraft from those closing get re-allocated.
Looking at the schedule, seems some minor changes are afoot.
IOM: increase from 23 to 32 weekly. 5 daily Mon-Fri
MXP: Increase from 7 to 8 weekly. New Saturday flight
ABZ: Increase from 5 daily Mon-Fri to 6 daily. New BE1027/1028 flight.
I suppose more changes could happen as the based aircraft from those closing get re-allocated.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed thanks to our friends in the North East we were the authors of our own doom on the subject of regional devolution in England:
On a general note if we had a degree of federalism in the UK we might see a fairer playing field with regards this subject but with our rabble
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know the logic of Ryanair's schedule for Malaga on Wednesdays this summer?
FR3232 MAN 1650 AGP 2055
FR3208 MAN 1655 AGP 2055
Seems rather odd, unless a schedule change is due?
FR3232 MAN 1650 AGP 2055
FR3208 MAN 1655 AGP 2055
Seems rather odd, unless a schedule change is due?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know the logic of Ryanair's schedule for Malaga on Wednesdays this summer?
FR3232 MAN 1650 AGP 2055
FR3208 MAN 1655 AGP 2055
Seems rather odd, unless a schedule change is due?
FR3232 MAN 1650 AGP 2055
FR3208 MAN 1655 AGP 2055
Seems rather odd, unless a schedule change is due?
In fact Wednesday is a bad day.
The morning CIA changes from based to non based for just August and in the reverse way the TFS changes from non based to based. again just for August.
Further I really do not understand why DUB is two or three flight per day for June July and August but either side four or five a day.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is an interesting debate and if I remember correctly the previous administration had some plans to create and devolve some decision making powers to a combination of elected mayors and/or regional assembles in order to promote things such regional development tourism and international visibility - However when put to the electorate these points were missed and opportunity declined.
Its rather clear that England rather likes Political Centralism me thinks.
Its rather clear that England rather likes Political Centralism me thinks.
Indeed thanks to our friends in the North East we were the authors of our own doom on the subject of regional devolution in England:
I quote from the not always reliable Wikipedia, but I believe this to be correct.
Devolution referendums in Northern England were proposed under provisions of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. Initially, three referendums were planned, but only one took place. The votes concerned the question of devolving limited political powers from the UK Parliament to elected regional assemblies in North East England, North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber respectively.
On 4 November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, which halted the government's proposed referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber which were postponed and then dropped.
I quote from the not always reliable Wikipedia, but I believe this to be correct.
Devolution referendums in Northern England were proposed under provisions of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. Initially, three referendums were planned, but only one took place. The votes concerned the question of devolving limited political powers from the UK Parliament to elected regional assemblies in North East England, North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber respectively.
On 4 November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, which halted the government's proposed referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber which were postponed and then dropped.
This is the much-flawed John Prescott agenda. Actually, over threequarters of the voters of the northeast sensibly threw it out, more than likely saving themselves from a “pigs breakfast“ and even higher local taxation.
Bear in mind two facts: (1) UK local government had already been centralised into large, remote, and accountable units at various points in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s; and (2) the northeast referendum was tied to more of the same, scrapping of either district or county councils, and options for this were included in the vote.
Let’s avoid confusing devolution and decentralisation, the former actually means more centralisation, as illustrated in the existing devolved administrations, where local government functions are increasingly run by the devolved executives, e.g police in Scotland; housing, education and police in Northern Ireland. Most would probably agree that sub-central government in the UK needs to be far more decentralised.
As all of the centralising local government changes (both in the case of reorganisation of councils and the “nationalisation” of local government functions) since the 1960s were imposed with no consulation and in the teeth of local opposition. There is no evidence “that England rather likes Political Centralism”.
Aside from that, logically, devolution in England does not mean a series of tinpot toothless “assemblies”, it means an English parliament/executive. We all know that this will never happen because such a government would be more than large enough to challenge Westminster.
Those who think that there may be an English parliament/executive in the future could consider whether it would happen before or after Heathrow gets a third/fourth runway.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So at 00:14 another short lived A340 route left MAN for the last time, as Air Blue will no longer serve MAN.
I suppose its back to the occasional visits now, which will mostly be provided by Lufthansa, Virgin and Iberia on their visits to Air Livery, with Etihad making sporadic visits on the scheduled flights. Suppose we can at least be grateful for that.
I suppose its back to the occasional visits now, which will mostly be provided by Lufthansa, Virgin and Iberia on their visits to Air Livery, with Etihad making sporadic visits on the scheduled flights. Suppose we can at least be grateful for that.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN profits
Greater Manchester's 10 town halls are on course to pocket another bumper dividend due to the soaring fortunes of Manchester Airport.
The gateway's parent company today released its half-year results for the six months to September 30, which showed revenues rocketed from £229.8m in 2012 to £390m this time around.
A large chunk of that is down to Manchester Airports Group's £1.5bn purchase of Stansted Airport, which delivered a turnover of £138.4m.
Stripping out the contribution of the Essex airport, MAG's revenues grew by 9.5 per cent to £251.6m, largely down to the performance of Manchester Airport, which saw 12.3m passengers pass through its terminals in the six month period.
That was up 5.1 per cent from 11.7m in 2012. The other airports in the group, which won an MEN Business of the Year awards in November, are East Midlands and Bournemouth.
Underlying pre-tax profits at MAG grew by a huge 80.2 per cent, from £93.4m in 2012 to £168.3m, with 63.5 per cent of that down to the impact of Stansted.
On a like-for-like basis, earnings were up 16.7 per cent.
In July, the M.E.N revealed MAG's council shareholders shared £48m of a special £72m dividend as a result of its Stansted swoop.
As part of the deal, Australian investor Industry Funds Management took a 35.5 per cent stake in the businesses, with Manchester council holding 35.5 per cent and the remaining nine Greater Manchester town halls holding 29 per cent between them.
The bumper dividend included a one-off £30m boost, which won't be repeated, while the core dividend payment grew from £20m in 2012 to £42m.
And MAG chief financial officer Neil Thompson told the M.E.N the firm was on course to deliver a similar windfall this financial year.
He said: “We will take a decision at the end of the year but another dividend at that level would represent another strong return for our shareholders.”
Neil Thompson, group finance director of Manchester airports group
MAG's £251.6m turnover included £128.2m from airlines, which was up from £111.5m in 2012, thanks to a number of carriers adding new routes.
Parking revenues soared 13.9 per cent from £35.3m to £40.2m, with a large number of new spaces created, while retail income grew from £43.5m to £45m.
Looking forward, MAG hailed the launch of US Airway's service to Charlotte, North Carolina, this summer, and said it was targeting services to China, India, Hong Kong and other parts of America “in the medium-term.”
Mr Thompson, who recently won an outstanding achievement award at the North West Finance Director of the Year Awards, added: “MAG continues to outperform the UK market in terms of growing our passenger numbers, and through the endeavours of our teams; we have secured long term agreements with leading airlines and retailers, creating a strong future for our Group. With a number of significant projects underway at present, the next six months will be as exciting and rewarding as the last and the strong earnings growth trajectory we have delivered to date will continue.”
MAG also singled out the deal to secured Chinese investment in its £800m Airport City scheme as a highlight of the period.
And asked whether the firm would consider swoops for other airports, Mr Thompson said: "Like any strong business, we would look at any opportunity that came along.
"Our immediate focus is on integrating Stansted and there is a lot of work still to do, as well as on growing Manchester and our other airports."
The gateway's parent company today released its half-year results for the six months to September 30, which showed revenues rocketed from £229.8m in 2012 to £390m this time around.
A large chunk of that is down to Manchester Airports Group's £1.5bn purchase of Stansted Airport, which delivered a turnover of £138.4m.
Stripping out the contribution of the Essex airport, MAG's revenues grew by 9.5 per cent to £251.6m, largely down to the performance of Manchester Airport, which saw 12.3m passengers pass through its terminals in the six month period.
That was up 5.1 per cent from 11.7m in 2012. The other airports in the group, which won an MEN Business of the Year awards in November, are East Midlands and Bournemouth.
Underlying pre-tax profits at MAG grew by a huge 80.2 per cent, from £93.4m in 2012 to £168.3m, with 63.5 per cent of that down to the impact of Stansted.
On a like-for-like basis, earnings were up 16.7 per cent.
In July, the M.E.N revealed MAG's council shareholders shared £48m of a special £72m dividend as a result of its Stansted swoop.
As part of the deal, Australian investor Industry Funds Management took a 35.5 per cent stake in the businesses, with Manchester council holding 35.5 per cent and the remaining nine Greater Manchester town halls holding 29 per cent between them.
The bumper dividend included a one-off £30m boost, which won't be repeated, while the core dividend payment grew from £20m in 2012 to £42m.
And MAG chief financial officer Neil Thompson told the M.E.N the firm was on course to deliver a similar windfall this financial year.
He said: “We will take a decision at the end of the year but another dividend at that level would represent another strong return for our shareholders.”
Neil Thompson, group finance director of Manchester airports group
MAG's £251.6m turnover included £128.2m from airlines, which was up from £111.5m in 2012, thanks to a number of carriers adding new routes.
Parking revenues soared 13.9 per cent from £35.3m to £40.2m, with a large number of new spaces created, while retail income grew from £43.5m to £45m.
Looking forward, MAG hailed the launch of US Airway's service to Charlotte, North Carolina, this summer, and said it was targeting services to China, India, Hong Kong and other parts of America “in the medium-term.”
Mr Thompson, who recently won an outstanding achievement award at the North West Finance Director of the Year Awards, added: “MAG continues to outperform the UK market in terms of growing our passenger numbers, and through the endeavours of our teams; we have secured long term agreements with leading airlines and retailers, creating a strong future for our Group. With a number of significant projects underway at present, the next six months will be as exciting and rewarding as the last and the strong earnings growth trajectory we have delivered to date will continue.”
MAG also singled out the deal to secured Chinese investment in its £800m Airport City scheme as a highlight of the period.
And asked whether the firm would consider swoops for other airports, Mr Thompson said: "Like any strong business, we would look at any opportunity that came along.
"Our immediate focus is on integrating Stansted and there is a lot of work still to do, as well as on growing Manchester and our other airports."
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profits up again.
No, it cant be right, it was only just the other day we were told it was in fact MAN getting squeezed financially when I suggested it was Liverpool feeling the pinch.
Hmmm......
No, it cant be right, it was only just the other day we were told it was in fact MAN getting squeezed financially when I suggested it was Liverpool feeling the pinch.
Hmmm......
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q - Profits up again.
No, it cant be right, it was only just the other day we were told it was in fact MAN getting squeezed financially when I suggested it was Liverpool feeling the pinch.
Hmmm......
Never suggested MAG wouldn't see the benefit but other airlines at MAN yield per passenger on some routes would fall. All in the pricing...
No, it cant be right, it was only just the other day we were told it was in fact MAN getting squeezed financially when I suggested it was Liverpool feeling the pinch.
Hmmm......
Never suggested MAG wouldn't see the benefit but other airlines at MAN yield per passenger on some routes would fall. All in the pricing...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting figures.....
Despite my perpetual mantra to always want more and accentuate the negative they ARE clearly doing something right !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we have a detailed spilt of the pure trading / revenues/ profit /loss per airport AND prior to consolidation of the group figures without any distortion by one off dividends ?
I find the wording odd.
Underlying pre-tax profits at MAG grew by a huge 80.2 per cent, from £93.4m in 2012 to £168.3m, with 63.5 per cent of that down to the impact of Stansted.
Impact of Stansted, is an interesting phrase.
Does that mean that in effect that "proportionately" STN made a larger contribution to profit per passenger than MAG as a whole -> ie MAN, EMA, BOH OR is there a bit of spin re figures relating to the sale ?
One off gains/losses are usually highlighted and taken out to reflect a true trading picture ?
It would make more sense to say earnings for the group as a whole were
MAN up 5.1%
EMA x%
BOH x%
and of course STN "hopefully up" x %
So were they up Or Not, stripping out one offs is STN viable going forward ?
If the MAN return was 5.1% what is STN.
Are the actual costs associated with processing a passenger at STN similar to Manchester , I would have thought they would be ?
And yet what of revenue comparisons, you would think MAN would have a much better return on these based on the mix of airlines serving MAN versus STN dominated as it is by RYR.
Plus MAN traffic throughput/footfall is 30odd % higher ?
Basically I am saying the STN figure MUST be much lower but is buried under an avalanche of good news re dividends !
In effect that headline suggests pre tax profits of "MAG The Group" were £168m BUT a massive 63.5% relates purely to the STN operation !
That cannot possibly be right, it must include revenue relating to the purchase so what contribution is STN making to the group !
Can anybody decipher
Despite my perpetual mantra to always want more and accentuate the negative they ARE clearly doing something right !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we have a detailed spilt of the pure trading / revenues/ profit /loss per airport AND prior to consolidation of the group figures without any distortion by one off dividends ?
I find the wording odd.
Underlying pre-tax profits at MAG grew by a huge 80.2 per cent, from £93.4m in 2012 to £168.3m, with 63.5 per cent of that down to the impact of Stansted.
Impact of Stansted, is an interesting phrase.
Does that mean that in effect that "proportionately" STN made a larger contribution to profit per passenger than MAG as a whole -> ie MAN, EMA, BOH OR is there a bit of spin re figures relating to the sale ?
One off gains/losses are usually highlighted and taken out to reflect a true trading picture ?
It would make more sense to say earnings for the group as a whole were
MAN up 5.1%
EMA x%
BOH x%
and of course STN "hopefully up" x %
So were they up Or Not, stripping out one offs is STN viable going forward ?
If the MAN return was 5.1% what is STN.
Are the actual costs associated with processing a passenger at STN similar to Manchester , I would have thought they would be ?
And yet what of revenue comparisons, you would think MAN would have a much better return on these based on the mix of airlines serving MAN versus STN dominated as it is by RYR.
Plus MAN traffic throughput/footfall is 30odd % higher ?
Basically I am saying the STN figure MUST be much lower but is buried under an avalanche of good news re dividends !
In effect that headline suggests pre tax profits of "MAG The Group" were £168m BUT a massive 63.5% relates purely to the STN operation !
That cannot possibly be right, it must include revenue relating to the purchase so what contribution is STN making to the group !
Can anybody decipher
Last edited by Bagso; 20th Jan 2014 at 13:53.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as per last Basil, does that really stack ?
An airport dominated by one airline...
screwed down by said airline on fees..
a more discerning "lo-co" passenger less likely to spend at STN
and all underpinned with a much much lower pax throughtput..
... seemingly makes double the profit of Manchester ?
Maybe it does ?
but how ?
I am not questioning your reasoning BTW the way i'm just genuinely interested in what factors might lower MAN profits to such a large extent ?
We don't have massive capital expenditure up here, I would have thought more pax travel in by car re fees, spend more on retail etc etc, employee costs must be marginally similar, I doubt we have double the workforce pro rata etc
..so the Q is how does STN do it ?
An airport dominated by one airline...
screwed down by said airline on fees..
a more discerning "lo-co" passenger less likely to spend at STN
and all underpinned with a much much lower pax throughtput..
... seemingly makes double the profit of Manchester ?
Maybe it does ?
but how ?
I am not questioning your reasoning BTW the way i'm just genuinely interested in what factors might lower MAN profits to such a large extent ?
We don't have massive capital expenditure up here, I would have thought more pax travel in by car re fees, spend more on retail etc etc, employee costs must be marginally similar, I doubt we have double the workforce pro rata etc
..so the Q is how does STN do it ?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from another press report:
"The group added earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA), again excluding Stansted, rose 16.7 per cent from £93.4m to £109m. Including Stansted, EBITDA was £168.8m."
What they are saying is that total profits (at the Ebitda level) increased by £75.4m, of which £15.6m was down to 'old' MAG and £59.8m was down to STN (which didn't feature in MAG's previous year numbers, of course)
I haven't seen these results split by airport (ie MAN/EMA/BOH), but there is a split of pax nos between 'old' MAG (15.8m in the half year) and STN (10.1m in the half year). You can therefore calculate the profit (Ebitda) per pax, which I work out as £6.90 for 'old' MAG and £5.92 for STN.
"The group added earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA), again excluding Stansted, rose 16.7 per cent from £93.4m to £109m. Including Stansted, EBITDA was £168.8m."
What they are saying is that total profits (at the Ebitda level) increased by £75.4m, of which £15.6m was down to 'old' MAG and £59.8m was down to STN (which didn't feature in MAG's previous year numbers, of course)
I haven't seen these results split by airport (ie MAN/EMA/BOH), but there is a split of pax nos between 'old' MAG (15.8m in the half year) and STN (10.1m in the half year). You can therefore calculate the profit (Ebitda) per pax, which I work out as £6.90 for 'old' MAG and £5.92 for STN.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso - I edited my post based on additional info. Hopefully it is now clear that STN's profit per pax is lower than the average of the other MAG airports. The three 'old' MAG airports still account for 65% of total profits while STN accounts for 35%.