MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re #2603 MAN-HAJ/MXP
One daily certainly doesn't do justice to the potential on those routes. HAJ-MAN was operated up to 3daily by BACon, and then 7/7 BE + 5/7 X3 with 737-700/800 - seeing about double the current pax level in 2006, 2007 and 2008. On a E175 (rather than X3's 737) there should clearly be the potential for going 12/7.
One daily certainly doesn't do justice to the potential on those routes. HAJ-MAN was operated up to 3daily by BACon, and then 7/7 BE + 5/7 X3 with 737-700/800 - seeing about double the current pax level in 2006, 2007 and 2008. On a E175 (rather than X3's 737) there should clearly be the potential for going 12/7.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just having a look at old MAN routes and came across this article from Summer 2009 regarding Air China. Seems the route has been in the planning for some time and had the traffic rights for daily A330 Beijing flights:
CAAC initial int?l route allocation for 2008 & 09 | Airline Route
Never knew the route got so far down the line.
Interesting thing about the article though is that of the 12 routes mentioned, Manchester and Warsaw are the only 2 Air China has never flown too. All the other routes have either operated historically or are due to start this summer like Washington and Vienna. Or in most cases they operate the routes currently and have done since the article was released in summer 2009.
CAAC initial int?l route allocation for 2008 & 09 | Airline Route
Never knew the route got so far down the line.
Interesting thing about the article though is that of the 12 routes mentioned, Manchester and Warsaw are the only 2 Air China has never flown too. All the other routes have either operated historically or are due to start this summer like Washington and Vienna. Or in most cases they operate the routes currently and have done since the article was released in summer 2009.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One daily certainly doesn't do justice to the potential on those routes. HAJ-MAN was operated up to 3daily by BACon, and then 7/7 BE + 5/7 X3 with 737-700/800 - seeing about double the current pax level in 2006, 2007 and 2008. On a E175 (rather than X3's 737) there should clearly be the potential for going 12/7.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kieb92
My posting re #2140 on 5th freedom rights (or lack of) refers to a study into a proposed Air China link as an extension of Stockholm.
Houston, Mumbai, Bangkok are also in there !
My posting re #2140 on 5th freedom rights (or lack of) refers to a study into a proposed Air China link as an extension of Stockholm.
Houston, Mumbai, Bangkok are also in there !
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting articles. I just wasn't aware how close Air China was in 2009 to fly to MAN with the traffic rights in place. Could certainly see them here especially so with the Chinese investment of Airport City and judging by passenger numbers posted on here of MAN-Beijing potential, the route could support a chinese carrier. I'm sure Zurich has been mentioned as a potential stop if the MAN route was announced?
Also the articles are 10 years old so a little of date. The Emirates route mentioned is already served direct now and PIA do stop on the JFK route
Also the articles are 10 years old so a little of date. The Emirates route mentioned is already served direct now and PIA do stop on the JFK route
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Surely high loads on this route were related to VFR traffic for people serving in the UK Armed Forces in Germany? Since then of course there has been a massive draw-down in our forces and presumably therefore demand on this route."
Valid point, but the troops withdrawal appears to matter only so much for the UK-HAJ market over time:
Total UK-HAJ CAA pax stats (prov. for Dec13)
2013 444039 19.4%
2012 372022 -7.9%
2011 403793 4.2%
2010 387410 16.1%
2009 333748 -8.9%
2008 366386 -1.9%
2007 373451 3.7%
2006 360017 -3.9%
2005 374514 -4.6%
2004 392398 13.0%
2003 347156 26.1%
2002 275377 -3.6%
2001 285533 -11.0%
2000 320736
Anyway, just a thought. Danger of going a bit OT here
Valid point, but the troops withdrawal appears to matter only so much for the UK-HAJ market over time:
Total UK-HAJ CAA pax stats (prov. for Dec13)
2013 444039 19.4%
2012 372022 -7.9%
2011 403793 4.2%
2010 387410 16.1%
2009 333748 -8.9%
2008 366386 -1.9%
2007 373451 3.7%
2006 360017 -3.9%
2005 374514 -4.6%
2004 392398 13.0%
2003 347156 26.1%
2002 275377 -3.6%
2001 285533 -11.0%
2000 320736
Anyway, just a thought. Danger of going a bit OT here
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso, re your post #2140
"Aviation Strategy (10th January 2013)"
Was this further evidence (Dec'12) to the Transport Select Committee?
More importantly, did MAG submit similar comments to the Davies Commission, which in the wider context of UK capacity were very relevant I would have thought?
Perhaps someone could provide clarification on a couple of related issues:
As I understand it, there is Open Skies between UK regional airports and the USA. If, therefore, say United wanted to fly MAN-IAH, would it still be subject to governments' approval and could BA/AA still make objections? I was under the impression this was not the case. (I'm not referring to transit flights here)
Does Open Skies apply to London Airports as well?
Going East, the situation appears to be different with some bi-laterals still in place, some of which include MAN, or UK airports in general, not just London.
The issue seems to be here that British airlines demand reciprocal rights into LHR if licences were to be awarded for a service xxx - MAN. Is this correct?
For transit flights, is the approval of 3 governments required, and then subject to objections by other carriers?
Apologies if this is somewhat basic but I find I'm getting confused as to what the situation is. (old age my excuse!)
"Aviation Strategy (10th January 2013)"
Was this further evidence (Dec'12) to the Transport Select Committee?
More importantly, did MAG submit similar comments to the Davies Commission, which in the wider context of UK capacity were very relevant I would have thought?
Perhaps someone could provide clarification on a couple of related issues:
As I understand it, there is Open Skies between UK regional airports and the USA. If, therefore, say United wanted to fly MAN-IAH, would it still be subject to governments' approval and could BA/AA still make objections? I was under the impression this was not the case. (I'm not referring to transit flights here)
Does Open Skies apply to London Airports as well?
Going East, the situation appears to be different with some bi-laterals still in place, some of which include MAN, or UK airports in general, not just London.
The issue seems to be here that British airlines demand reciprocal rights into LHR if licences were to be awarded for a service xxx - MAN. Is this correct?
For transit flights, is the approval of 3 governments required, and then subject to objections by other carriers?
Apologies if this is somewhat basic but I find I'm getting confused as to what the situation is. (old age my excuse!)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANFOD
I think best person to answer this would be "Mr Brush" or "Suzeman" who can always be depended upon to have the detail.
Appreciate the document was quite old BTW, I was just using it as a reference point.
Clearly it is quite an old document but I felt it was quite an interesting discussion point as it was produced by an outside agency, namely the CAA so was actually unbiased ...and of course Manchester features prominently.
It demonstrates how long this thorny issue has been debated !
Emirates were of course operating to Dubai well before that doc was produced , they were included as the case referred specifically to a
US-Man-Dubai service (ie Houston) NOT the Manchester - Dubai leg !
The comment from the airport was as I understand it part of a written submission only. Graham Stringer MP banged on about at this at length at the hearings, but incredibly (and I may be doing them a disservice ), I did not hear any airport spokesman actually mention it.
For something which is clearly so utterly vital and fundamental to future growth you could be forgiven for thinking it fell under the radar somewhat, have said before it seemed a glaring omission to me ?
Maybe the airport cannot be seen OR does not wish to be encouraging new direct services too much, IF that is to the detriment of airlines already serving Man via connecting hubs ?
Possibly the thinking is that the airlines have to approach them so they are seen as honest broker ?
--------------------------------
In terms of bilaterals the implication seems to be "lets have Open Skies" BUT the critical wording suggests that can only happen "if it is not to the detriment of our own national UK airlines", which it quite clearly will be !
If Air China wish to operate into Manchester I cannot see BA sitting there and saying fair enough, off you go without demanding reciprocal rights, problem is they don't operate from MAN , they only want to fly from LHR and thus the status quo is maintained.
If Air China were granted 3 flights a week Beijing - Manchester, they are only going to agree to BA doing the same , if the reciprocity was from LHR , they are simply not going to agree to that !
As a business I do actually have some sympathy with BAs stance, why would you let somebody into your backyard when you could pull in some of that demand routing pax via LHR, but how on earth do we square this, I really do not know and how the MEBs were allowed in, again no idea !
The Q is , do you protect the national airline which appears to have been by and large the strategy thus far OR do you allow foreign airlines to serve Manchester direct thus creating better trade links, opening up more opportunities for trade etc ?
I think best person to answer this would be "Mr Brush" or "Suzeman" who can always be depended upon to have the detail.
Appreciate the document was quite old BTW, I was just using it as a reference point.
Clearly it is quite an old document but I felt it was quite an interesting discussion point as it was produced by an outside agency, namely the CAA so was actually unbiased ...and of course Manchester features prominently.
It demonstrates how long this thorny issue has been debated !
Emirates were of course operating to Dubai well before that doc was produced , they were included as the case referred specifically to a
US-Man-Dubai service (ie Houston) NOT the Manchester - Dubai leg !
The comment from the airport was as I understand it part of a written submission only. Graham Stringer MP banged on about at this at length at the hearings, but incredibly (and I may be doing them a disservice ), I did not hear any airport spokesman actually mention it.
For something which is clearly so utterly vital and fundamental to future growth you could be forgiven for thinking it fell under the radar somewhat, have said before it seemed a glaring omission to me ?
Maybe the airport cannot be seen OR does not wish to be encouraging new direct services too much, IF that is to the detriment of airlines already serving Man via connecting hubs ?
Possibly the thinking is that the airlines have to approach them so they are seen as honest broker ?
--------------------------------
In terms of bilaterals the implication seems to be "lets have Open Skies" BUT the critical wording suggests that can only happen "if it is not to the detriment of our own national UK airlines", which it quite clearly will be !
If Air China wish to operate into Manchester I cannot see BA sitting there and saying fair enough, off you go without demanding reciprocal rights, problem is they don't operate from MAN , they only want to fly from LHR and thus the status quo is maintained.
If Air China were granted 3 flights a week Beijing - Manchester, they are only going to agree to BA doing the same , if the reciprocity was from LHR , they are simply not going to agree to that !
As a business I do actually have some sympathy with BAs stance, why would you let somebody into your backyard when you could pull in some of that demand routing pax via LHR, but how on earth do we square this, I really do not know and how the MEBs were allowed in, again no idea !
The Q is , do you protect the national airline which appears to have been by and large the strategy thus far OR do you allow foreign airlines to serve Manchester direct thus creating better trade links, opening up more opportunities for trade etc ?
Last edited by Bagso; 30th Jan 2014 at 12:24.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Air China were granted 3 flights a week Beijing - Manchester, they are only going to agree to BA doing the same , if the reciprocity was from LHR , they are not going to agree !
I do actually have some sympathy with BAs stance, why would you let somebody into your backyard but how on earth we square this I really do not know and how the MEBs were allowed in again no idea !
I do actually have some sympathy with BAs stance, why would you let somebody into your backyard but how on earth we square this I really do not know and how the MEBs were allowed in again no idea !
Example CAAC Air China (Or other branch) awarded a regional PEK-MAN license . BA (VS other UK carrier) receive a LHR- Regional City Chinese license (Not more PEK/PVG) or a opportunity to compete directly MAN-PEK.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone supply the current situation regarding bi-laterals and opportunities that currently exist and could begin ASAP?
Current UK-China :
CX LHR-HKG x 5 Daily
BA LHR-HKG x 2 Daily
VS LHR-HKG x 1 Daily
CA LHR-PEK x 1 Daily and CA LGW-PEK 3 x weekly summer only
BA LHR-PEK x 1 Daily
MU LHR-PVG x 4 weekly
VS LHR-PVG x 1 daily
BA LHR-PVG x 1 daily
CZ LHR-CAN x 1 Daily
BA LHR-CTU x 4 weekly
This is a daily total of eight Hong Kong and a maximum of seven mainland each day, 15 flights every day from London. So could Air China launch MAN-PEK tomorrow and if not, what's the actual detail stopping them?
Current UK-China :
CX LHR-HKG x 5 Daily
BA LHR-HKG x 2 Daily
VS LHR-HKG x 1 Daily
CA LHR-PEK x 1 Daily and CA LGW-PEK 3 x weekly summer only
BA LHR-PEK x 1 Daily
MU LHR-PVG x 4 weekly
VS LHR-PVG x 1 daily
BA LHR-PVG x 1 daily
CZ LHR-CAN x 1 Daily
BA LHR-CTU x 4 weekly
This is a daily total of eight Hong Kong and a maximum of seven mainland each day, 15 flights every day from London. So could Air China launch MAN-PEK tomorrow and if not, what's the actual detail stopping them?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 30th Jan 2014 at 20:37.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....But then I guess it comes down to how much BA/VS would value a LHR - secondary city would it not ?
If they felt they were at a disadvantage would BA buy into that ...?
If it was "simply an opportunity to compete directly MAN-PEK" they are going to politely decline are they not ? It then comes down to selling your case and point of view to the game changers and who has more clout MAG batting for Manchester (and now sadly Stansted) or BA/VS.
If they felt they were at a disadvantage would BA buy into that ...?
If it was "simply an opportunity to compete directly MAN-PEK" they are going to politely decline are they not ? It then comes down to selling your case and point of view to the game changers and who has more clout MAG batting for Manchester (and now sadly Stansted) or BA/VS.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bilaterals
Bagso
I'm afraid that I don't pretend to be an expert on bilaterals. But you are right that MAG's written submission to Davies (in relation to making best use of existing airport capacity in the UK regions) proposed removing the right of UK airlines to object to route applications, if they didn't intend to operate the route themselves.
The Davies report responded to this as follows:
"5.92 Current Government policy – as articulated in the 2013 Aviation Policy Framework – is liberal, supporting the granting of air services agreements at less congested airports. However, some have suggested Government should further relax its policy in this area, by reducing or removing the requirement for overseas airlines to demonstrate that they are not dependent upon state aid, or by removing the ability of competing airlines to object to applications.
5.93 The Commission sought legal advice on whether this would be possible. On the basis of this advice, the Commission has concluded that current Government policy represents the furthest point in the direction of liberalisation to which the Government might plausibly travel.
5.94 The Government is free to grant traffic rights despite objections (including where it determines that objections are driven only by commercial self-interest). However it would likely be inconsistent with the modern approach to ignore legitimate concerns regarding anti-competitive state aids. A UK based carrier without Government support would have a legitimate right to object to fifth freedoms being granted at its home base to an overseas carrier supported by direct Government subsidy, preferential loans or tax exemptions."
So Davies basically said that the Government has gone as far as it reasonably could, in relaxing the restrictions at regional airports. Personally I thought this was a bit weak, but there you are.
I'm afraid that I don't pretend to be an expert on bilaterals. But you are right that MAG's written submission to Davies (in relation to making best use of existing airport capacity in the UK regions) proposed removing the right of UK airlines to object to route applications, if they didn't intend to operate the route themselves.
The Davies report responded to this as follows:
"5.92 Current Government policy – as articulated in the 2013 Aviation Policy Framework – is liberal, supporting the granting of air services agreements at less congested airports. However, some have suggested Government should further relax its policy in this area, by reducing or removing the requirement for overseas airlines to demonstrate that they are not dependent upon state aid, or by removing the ability of competing airlines to object to applications.
5.93 The Commission sought legal advice on whether this would be possible. On the basis of this advice, the Commission has concluded that current Government policy represents the furthest point in the direction of liberalisation to which the Government might plausibly travel.
5.94 The Government is free to grant traffic rights despite objections (including where it determines that objections are driven only by commercial self-interest). However it would likely be inconsistent with the modern approach to ignore legitimate concerns regarding anti-competitive state aids. A UK based carrier without Government support would have a legitimate right to object to fifth freedoms being granted at its home base to an overseas carrier supported by direct Government subsidy, preferential loans or tax exemptions."
So Davies basically said that the Government has gone as far as it reasonably could, in relaxing the restrictions at regional airports. Personally I thought this was a bit weak, but there you are.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: England
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea that MH are even thinking of returning to MAN is one of the funniest things I have read on here for a while. With the idea that they'll then fly on to JFK I think that might well be the bit that puts it straight in at number one.
Nothing more than a figment of a plane spotters imagination I'm afraid.
Nothing more than a figment of a plane spotters imagination I'm afraid.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
January passenger figures up 4.36%
Manchester Airport : Traffic Statistics
Click on January
Passenger figures 1,231,414
Schedule up around 95000 and IT down around 45000.
Freight down 7.87%
Movements down 2.47%
Pete
Click on January
Passenger figures 1,231,414
Schedule up around 95000 and IT down around 45000.
Freight down 7.87%
Movements down 2.47%
Pete
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Olton Pete, I thought the MAN thread had almost died !
In other news
Condor Plans 4 Long-Haul Routes in W14 | Airline Route
...what happened to Thomas Cook /Condor hub maybe that's on life support as well !
In other news
Condor Plans 4 Long-Haul Routes in W14 | Airline Route
...what happened to Thomas Cook /Condor hub maybe that's on life support as well !
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA1390 Thursday 6th
Anyone know why the BA1390 did a missed approach this lunchtime? Lots of fire trucks on the second approach, accompanying the aircraft to a remote stand beyond T2. Captain came on after landing and said that there had been a "fairly major problem" on short finals. The only sign of something odd on the first approach was that the engines spooled up sharply (more than just auto throttle) a few seconds before go-around power was applied.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt advised Tower that it was an avionics issue.
Then requested a 10 mile final but picked up ILS Ok for 2nd approach, Though fire team were on local standby crew advised not needed on landing.
Then requested a 10 mile final but picked up ILS Ok for 2nd approach, Though fire team were on local standby crew advised not needed on landing.