MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Preston
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is a bit of subject at the moment but could this be hinting of a second daily emirates A380 ??Big rise in passengers travelling to and from UAE and India at Manchester Airport (From Asian Image)
I maybe wrong, just curious about it.
I maybe wrong, just curious about it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you were. It's a meagre start up regional airport connectivity fund. MAN does not qualify.
A complete and utter waste of money !
Anybody get to TAS, reference response to Davies Commission ?
A complete and utter waste of money !
Anybody get to TAS, reference response to Davies Commission ?
Last edited by Bagso; 19th Mar 2014 at 17:49.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vinnym
I'll rephrase, "its a waste of time AND a waste of money ".
I listened to the speech, the comment ref this fund was mentioned in a blink with no supporting detail !
It was an attempt at a headline grabber that worked, it got a few "here, heres" from ill informed MPs who don't have a clue.
I am happy to be corrected but the fund as I understand it only currently applies to airports with a throughput of 3m a year.....
Exeter, Inverness Durham Doncaster .....etc
"I am offering more help to Britain's regional airports like Liverpool, Leeds"
"here here guffaw, bloody guffaw"
What utter drivel !
So in effect it appears the scope or cap is being extended to airports where say the throughput is much higher !
Yes , this would then include the like of Liverpool etc its a pot which will if divided equally amongst only a small percentage of the UK regional airports would in effect be spread so thinly its almost transparent ?
The devil is in the detail, the actual budget documents themselves say little more.
Obviously I do realise that civic pride is at stake but the reality is we have too many airports and it would have been better "only in my opinion" to spend the money on a specific project (ideally in the North) in a concentrated manner with a guaranteed return on investment in a place where it WILL make a difference.
Over to Skippy on how much it costs to start a route and the burn rate ...but pretty sure £20m won't go very far
I'll rephrase, "its a waste of time AND a waste of money ".
I listened to the speech, the comment ref this fund was mentioned in a blink with no supporting detail !
It was an attempt at a headline grabber that worked, it got a few "here, heres" from ill informed MPs who don't have a clue.
I am happy to be corrected but the fund as I understand it only currently applies to airports with a throughput of 3m a year.....
Exeter, Inverness Durham Doncaster .....etc
"I am offering more help to Britain's regional airports like Liverpool, Leeds"
"here here guffaw, bloody guffaw"
What utter drivel !
So in effect it appears the scope or cap is being extended to airports where say the throughput is much higher !
Yes , this would then include the like of Liverpool etc its a pot which will if divided equally amongst only a small percentage of the UK regional airports would in effect be spread so thinly its almost transparent ?
The devil is in the detail, the actual budget documents themselves say little more.
Obviously I do realise that civic pride is at stake but the reality is we have too many airports and it would have been better "only in my opinion" to spend the money on a specific project (ideally in the North) in a concentrated manner with a guaranteed return on investment in a place where it WILL make a difference.
Over to Skippy on how much it costs to start a route and the burn rate ...but pretty sure £20m won't go very far
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bet you wouldn't be saying it was a waste of money if MAG had been eligible
to get their snout into the funds being made available
to get their snout into the funds being made available
Firstly,
Airports in the UK are private business'. Why should one airport be favoured over another 'just because it is smaller'. The government wouldn't give Morrisons £10million to give it a boost against Tesco or Asda, so why should say, LPL be given a boost against MAN?
If there was a scenario where say, TAROM were looking at a North West-Bucharest route, where do you think they will go? The airport with the bog standard fees or the one with the shiny pot of money attached? How is that a fair competition?
The one to watch could be Pegasus. They have publicly stated they are looking at a MAN/LPL-SAW route. Could MAN argue an unfair advantage by LPL if it waves the route fund in front of them? Surely all airports should compete based on the resources they have produced themselves, without the added bonus of public money. Yes, this could mean MAN has the advantage of a bigger profit pot, but at least its money they have made themselves and not a public hand out.
Secondly,
Could one argue that a route that requires a fund to get it off the ground likely to be a viable route in the long term? Surely if a route was so obviously needed, it could be started under its own steam?
Look at LPL-CPH. Norwegian got a fund from the CPH end to get it started, and where is the route after March? Oh yes, its gone.
Thirdly,
Without stringent conditions, this fund could be subject to abuse. Lets say Ryanair move MAN-CRL to LPL to get access to the fund as its technically a 'new route'. Firstly, very little, likely none new business is created as you are shifting flights within the same area. Then, Ryanair move the route back to MAN after the incentive period (Ryanair seem to like shifting routes between LPL and MAN). For the North West, what have you achieved after all that, apart from wasting public money on essentially, nothing?
Now, taking the 'of course you are against it as it is possibly detrimental to your preferred airport' hat off, surely the above are valid points, and a scenario that could be repeated in other areas too?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX
It't as if MAN dosn't already have a twice daily link to IST, does it really need another and woudl it not just dilute the market. Such a route will probaly not work from LPL or LBA even if moeny was thrown at it.
It't as if MAN dosn't already have a twice daily link to IST, does it really need another and woudl it not just dilute the market. Such a route will probaly not work from LPL or LBA even if moeny was thrown at it.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It't as if MAN dosn't already have a twice daily link to IST, does it really need another and woudl it not just dilute the market. Such a route will probaly not work from LPL or LBA even if moeny was thrown at it
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAXLHR
That's a very good post.
I cannot believe that a Conservative chancellor is even contemplating subsidizing one private business over another. Total market distorting economics of the mad house.
Also I wonder: 'IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?'
One of the scenarios you point out might lead to a test case in the EU Court.
Then we'll all end up wasting even more public money on expensive lawyers.
The best way to create extra business in all regional airports AND create a level playing field is to reduce or eliminate APD for non London airports.
London is different because demand outstrips supply - taxation policy can therefore be an effective tool for constraining demand whilst supply issues are being resolved.
For everywhere else it just crushes growth potential.
That's a very good post.
I cannot believe that a Conservative chancellor is even contemplating subsidizing one private business over another. Total market distorting economics of the mad house.
Also I wonder: 'IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?'
One of the scenarios you point out might lead to a test case in the EU Court.
Then we'll all end up wasting even more public money on expensive lawyers.
The best way to create extra business in all regional airports AND create a level playing field is to reduce or eliminate APD for non London airports.
London is different because demand outstrips supply - taxation policy can therefore be an effective tool for constraining demand whilst supply issues are being resolved.
For everywhere else it just crushes growth potential.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well its Pegasus themselves who have said they wish to serve the North West, and with TK looking at 3 daily from MAN also, there must still be some wiggle room on the Istanbul market.
I still think what would be on offer isn't much and take DY's time at LPL I would be very suprised if they make any profit even with the subsidy. Completly loss making and Pegaus I can't see them doing much better.
Also I wonder: 'IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?'
One of the scenarios you point out might lead to a test case in the EU Court.
Then we'll all end up wasting even more public money on expensive lawyers.
One of the scenarios you point out might lead to a test case in the EU Court.
Then we'll all end up wasting even more public money on expensive lawyers.
The best way to create extra business in all regional airports AND create a level playing field is to reduce or eliminate APD for non London airports.
London is different because demand outstrips supply - taxation policy can therefore be an effective tool for constraining demand whilst supply issues are being resolved.
For everywhere else it just crushes growth potential.
London is different because demand outstrips supply - taxation policy can therefore be an effective tool for constraining demand whilst supply issues are being resolved.
For everywhere else it just crushes growth potential.
Supply/Demand sholdn't come into it and it would also be classed as illegal under EU rules to drop it outside of London and keep it in London.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all names taken.
I too would question the legality of using public funds to subsidise a private business against another.
The one thing I have seen reported is that airports between the 3-5 million bracket, attracting a non-EU route can access the fund in 'exceptional circumstances'.
Now, what exactly is an 'exceptional circumstance'?
Blackmail from an airline stating 'we won't start a route without help', which is pretty much extortion?
If an airline states they will start say, MAN or LPL, using the fund to get a leg up against the competitors fees and make your airport more attractive, which would lead to an unfair competition case?
A route which is 'essential' to the airport, which one could then argue if the route was that 'essential', it should be able to start and run under its own steam and merit?
Clarification of what an 'exceptional circumstance' is, is needed.
The whole thing just doesn't stand up to scrutiny so far, and I agree a blanket reduction on APD for all regional airports, that while costing more money, would have had far better results IMO.
I too would question the legality of using public funds to subsidise a private business against another.
The one thing I have seen reported is that airports between the 3-5 million bracket, attracting a non-EU route can access the fund in 'exceptional circumstances'.
Now, what exactly is an 'exceptional circumstance'?
Blackmail from an airline stating 'we won't start a route without help', which is pretty much extortion?
If an airline states they will start say, MAN or LPL, using the fund to get a leg up against the competitors fees and make your airport more attractive, which would lead to an unfair competition case?
A route which is 'essential' to the airport, which one could then argue if the route was that 'essential', it should be able to start and run under its own steam and merit?
Clarification of what an 'exceptional circumstance' is, is needed.
The whole thing just doesn't stand up to scrutiny so far, and I agree a blanket reduction on APD for all regional airports, that while costing more money, would have had far better results IMO.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So all us rich people living or working in London area should be ripped off and pay for the poor regional airports to send passengers away
BUT in reality with reference to APD is that realistically going to happen, I just don't see it personally.
If airline X based in say US has a spare aircraft and they have a slot available to operate into LHR, THAT is where they are going to operate regardless of an APD subsidy elsewhere.
BUT if the same airline has the opportunity of operating to a more marginal destination , say Dublin (No APD) or Manchester (Full APD) and taking all other factors into account it could be that an unrestricted Dublin scores !
Introducing a zero rate will only work where the two competing airports are in a similar market !
My beef is that Manchester is in my view penalised against other European Airports, not London !
Zero APD at Exeter, Southampton, Norwich etc etc is simply not going to make any difference to LHR !
AND yes it might be a back door method to subsidise the Newquay - London, maybe Cameron had his hand twisted by the Lib dems in the West Country.
BUT in reality with reference to APD is that realistically going to happen, I just don't see it personally.
If airline X based in say US has a spare aircraft and they have a slot available to operate into LHR, THAT is where they are going to operate regardless of an APD subsidy elsewhere.
BUT if the same airline has the opportunity of operating to a more marginal destination , say Dublin (No APD) or Manchester (Full APD) and taking all other factors into account it could be that an unrestricted Dublin scores !
Introducing a zero rate will only work where the two competing airports are in a similar market !
My beef is that Manchester is in my view penalised against other European Airports, not London !
Zero APD at Exeter, Southampton, Norwich etc etc is simply not going to make any difference to LHR !
AND yes it might be a back door method to subsidise the Newquay - London, maybe Cameron had his hand twisted by the Lib dems in the West Country.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J636
You slightly missed my point if you don't mind me saying so.
What I am suggesting is that instead of APD being used as a phoney 'green tax', it could be better used to manage the variability in supply and demand that we have in the UK system.
The demand at London is partially constrained by APD (but not by much I accept) whilst supply side issues are argued about.
Outside London, APD has a disproportionate effect on constraining growth, particularly long haul.
Airlines don't need to be persuaded to come to London - some do it for prestige rather than profit - but they will be deterred from flying elsewhere in the UK if they can deploy their assets in to alternatives with zero APD as opposed to flying in to the teeth of a taxation system that constrains growth and therefore constrains their probability of making a profit.
You slightly missed my point if you don't mind me saying so.
What I am suggesting is that instead of APD being used as a phoney 'green tax', it could be better used to manage the variability in supply and demand that we have in the UK system.
The demand at London is partially constrained by APD (but not by much I accept) whilst supply side issues are argued about.
Outside London, APD has a disproportionate effect on constraining growth, particularly long haul.
Airlines don't need to be persuaded to come to London - some do it for prestige rather than profit - but they will be deterred from flying elsewhere in the UK if they can deploy their assets in to alternatives with zero APD as opposed to flying in to the teeth of a taxation system that constrains growth and therefore constrains their probability of making a profit.
Would that mean a nightstopper?
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turin quoted
Why ?
The current Finnair (op by Flybe Nordic) services are timed precisely to connect over Helsinki with their late afternoon local time Far Eastern departures wave which included the daily JAL 788 to Tokyo within two/three hours maximum transit time.
The evening flight into Manchester reverses the feeders departing west right after the early afternoon Far East arrivals wave completes.
The three hour time difference and flying times actually makes a viable day return business trip to Helsinki pretty pointless through.
The early morning arrival into Manchester has also carried some transit transfers onto/off of the American Chicago flight as well so it not one way traffic !
Would that mean a nightstopper?
The current Finnair (op by Flybe Nordic) services are timed precisely to connect over Helsinki with their late afternoon local time Far Eastern departures wave which included the daily JAL 788 to Tokyo within two/three hours maximum transit time.
The evening flight into Manchester reverses the feeders departing west right after the early afternoon Far East arrivals wave completes.
The three hour time difference and flying times actually makes a viable day return business trip to Helsinki pretty pointless through.
The early morning arrival into Manchester has also carried some transit transfers onto/off of the American Chicago flight as well so it not one way traffic !