MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not doubting Zurich's yield capability, its just, its obviously seen as a marginal route as Zurich has also been in the CX game of 'maybe, maybe', so to go straight in at daily seemed a little high. I would have expected something like the 4 weekly MAN flights.
The question is though, will the MAN cargo flights continue? I suppose they may carry outsized cargo to MAN to justify the B747's, and keeping the 3 weekly Cargo could effectively be MAN's form of daily CX flights. (3/4 split)
The question is though, will the MAN cargo flights continue? I suppose they may carry outsized cargo to MAN to justify the B747's, and keeping the 3 weekly Cargo could effectively be MAN's form of daily CX flights. (3/4 split)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also I wonder if by Jan 2015 MAN will finally have a stand ready for the CX (seen as the last 3 times CX has tried to divert to MAN they have been turned away, twice pax B777's and 1 B747-8F). 
Ill get me coat...
Ill get me coat...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so to go straight in at daily seemed a little high
At MAN, there's no home carrier on the route and they have an existing connection loyalty with BA over LHR they can tap. Less risk, but ZRH does I imagine, have the higher reward. Or possibly not?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waiting for comments from Spanners please !
Frankly January 2015 seems far to early for the resumption and where are the available frames ?
I do know they have outstanding 77Ws but don't know their delivery scheduled.
One would also presume use of the three class models and right now they numbers a sum total of just 9 aircraft. 4 of which currently fly the off peak Heathrow service 1 each to Vancouver and Toronto plus 2 to New York.
So almost certainly looks to need a upgrade elsewhere to accommodate Manchester.
Certainly possible.
I want to believe this is true and i've written elsewhere the justifications for the viability along with others after a US correspondent questioned Manchester .
Frankly January 2015 seems far to early for the resumption and where are the available frames ?
I do know they have outstanding 77Ws but don't know their delivery scheduled.
One would also presume use of the three class models and right now they numbers a sum total of just 9 aircraft. 4 of which currently fly the off peak Heathrow service 1 each to Vancouver and Toronto plus 2 to New York.
So almost certainly looks to need a upgrade elsewhere to accommodate Manchester.
Certainly possible.
I want to believe this is true and i've written elsewhere the justifications for the viability along with others after a US correspondent questioned Manchester .
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll take Spanner's word on CX, only to say an article also appeared in Business Traveller, so someone has pulled a quite credible April Fool.
Cathay Pacific expands in Europe - Business Traveller
Cathay Pacific expands in Europe - Business Traveller
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too would normally take Spanners word as gospel on matters CX related, but this time there is more to these rumours.
Im not sure where spanners works exactly (London or Manchester), but according to the Hammersmith office, CX are not happy about the articles for some reason and for one of the first times since ive been asking about rumours regarding MAN, would neither confirm or deny them.
Like i say, spanners is probably right as usual but there is something afoot, even if its laying the groundwork for flights for when the A350 arrives.
If the article was an april fool, it was a rather elaborate and detailed one!
Im not sure where spanners works exactly (London or Manchester), but according to the Hammersmith office, CX are not happy about the articles for some reason and for one of the first times since ive been asking about rumours regarding MAN, would neither confirm or deny them.
Like i say, spanners is probably right as usual but there is something afoot, even if its laying the groundwork for flights for when the A350 arrives.
If the article was an april fool, it was a rather elaborate and detailed one!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can positively state that the article is wrong and there will be NO CX pax flt launch in January 2015.
His statement would of course be correct if the Flights launched in March and not January.
There is no smoke without fire and I am thinking something is a foot but what and I can imagine CX are not happy if Aspire jumped the gun. We will see.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we have these CX rumours all the time, but never anything attributed to a source.
Aspire do a lot of work for CX and like I say, Hammersmith office let slip that the upper ranks of CX are not happy this article was released, so, there may be something to it this time.
Apparently there is a lot of murmurings that CX want a 6th daily LHR but cannot get it, which is why MAN may now finally be about to have its moment.
As you say, no smoke without fire and im 50/50 on this one, its likely to b a no, were used to it from CX, but, theres definitely something afoot this time.
Aspire do a lot of work for CX and like I say, Hammersmith office let slip that the upper ranks of CX are not happy this article was released, so, there may be something to it this time.
Apparently there is a lot of murmurings that CX want a 6th daily LHR but cannot get it, which is why MAN may now finally be about to have its moment.
As you say, no smoke without fire and im 50/50 on this one, its likely to b a no, were used to it from CX, but, theres definitely something afoot this time.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 new long haul routes with increases on 2-3 other long haul routes, plenty of short haul increases, at least 6 new based aircraft and lots of development around the airport and hopefully soon directly on airport too.
Well said, all the more reason why there should be more political support for Manchester especially when we continue to get idiotic statements from local MPs
http://www.conservativehome.com/plat...ritain-fly.htm
I refer to this gem which was referred to me in a reply from Mr Brady when I suggested that given the big push of long haul from Manchester he would do well to support his "LOCAL" airport instead of pushing London !
Graham Brady is the local Tory MP for Sale and also chairman of the 1922 committee who will be responsible for electing the next Tory leader when Mr Cameron steps down.
Whilst "George C" never misses a photo opportunity other local Tories seems ambivalent , I am also puzzled by the stance of Labour ?
Given that Manchester is slapbang in Labour territory why on earth would Milliband not grasp the opportunity to suggest expansion "in the North" based on this evidence ....... even "IF" it were for purely political reasons !
Come to think of it has he ever actually been up here ?
I do wonder if MAG actually brief MPs on what's happening at Manchester as the airport appears to have a somewhat lack lustre profile in political circles.
They really should be shouting about these developments to both MPs and indeed my arch nemesis Mr Davies !
It's all very well presenting your response to Davies to a bunch of plane spotters but I cannot help thinking they should be targeting opinion makers !
Well said, all the more reason why there should be more political support for Manchester especially when we continue to get idiotic statements from local MPs
http://www.conservativehome.com/plat...ritain-fly.htm
I refer to this gem which was referred to me in a reply from Mr Brady when I suggested that given the big push of long haul from Manchester he would do well to support his "LOCAL" airport instead of pushing London !
Graham Brady is the local Tory MP for Sale and also chairman of the 1922 committee who will be responsible for electing the next Tory leader when Mr Cameron steps down.
Whilst "George C" never misses a photo opportunity other local Tories seems ambivalent , I am also puzzled by the stance of Labour ?
Given that Manchester is slapbang in Labour territory why on earth would Milliband not grasp the opportunity to suggest expansion "in the North" based on this evidence ....... even "IF" it were for purely political reasons !
Come to think of it has he ever actually been up here ?
I do wonder if MAG actually brief MPs on what's happening at Manchester as the airport appears to have a somewhat lack lustre profile in political circles.
They really should be shouting about these developments to both MPs and indeed my arch nemesis Mr Davies !
It's all very well presenting your response to Davies to a bunch of plane spotters but I cannot help thinking they should be targeting opinion makers !
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that Manchester is slapbang in Labour territory why on earth would Milliband not grasp the opportunity to suggest expansion "in the North" based on this evidence ....... even "IF" it were for purely political reasons !
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some thoughts on Manchester
As an ex-pat Mancunian who many years ago was intimately involved in promoting Manchester as a destination as well as being involved on a group looking at how the airport could develop, during Gil Thompson's time, the debates on here regarding Manchester sometimes amuse and often annoy me.
Having just almost completed a round the world trip (currently in Houston) I've been through 12 airports in seven countries, nine of which I've never used before and, added to over 50 years experience of air travel around the world, the trip has highlighted certain points people make regarding the downsides of Manchester.
Let's look at ground transportation. The options at Manchester are as good as many major airports. The adverse comments regarding the new hire car centre are a nonsense. At Los Angeles I had to wait 30 minutes on Saturday for a Hertz bus for an 11 minute trip to the airport lot. At Houston, which I visit twice a year, you can wait 20 minutes for the bus to connect to the international terminal from the car hire centre.
Trains at Manchester may get held outside the station but you have a choice of destinations outweighing most rail linked airport stations which often only offer a premium price service.
Take Sydney. The relatively new airport service also serves suburbs either side of the airport. The fare to, say, Town Hall from the two suburbs immediately adjacent to either side is $3.80, from the domestic terminal is $16.40, from the international terminal is $17.20. This "airport access" fee obviously puts off tens of thousands of passengers and many airlines wishing to serve Sydney. The hotel shuttle buses can take well over an hour from downtown in rush hours and the road network is average.
There are complaints about the border and security checks at Manchester. Let's stay with Sydney where outbound to New Zealand, checking in at 07.30, the Air NewZealand check in is a zoo followed by 40 minutes to get through security.
Inbound, let's look at Auckland. New Zealand has a population of just over 4 million, about 1.75 million live in Auckland's land transport catchment area. The airport is smaller than Manchester. Arriving mid afternoon from Sydney, from parking at the gate to walking into the arrivals hall to meet relatives took 75 minutes. Why, well too few immigration officers, New Zealand's stringent bio security regime and the fact that Auckland has no fewer than 3 Emirates A380s arriving pretty much together. I'll come back to them later.
Los Angeles immigration had just 3 officers handling international passengers at terminal 2 to handle 300 odd Air New Zealand passengers and two flights from Mexico last Friday. 85 minutes to get through, fairly typical of US international gateways. Most regular travellers are used to long lines at both security and immigration around the world. It's the once or twice a year traveller that complains, or those who just want to moan about their home airport. That, of course, doesn't put off the 600 or so pax per day who fly into Rarotonga every day and put up with up to two hour immigration lines with no air conditioning in tropical heat.
Back to Auckland and those A380s. What are they doing there every day? They come from Dubai having called at Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane respectively. They are by no means full. There are no problems with handling them all together on the ramp, they do increase the lines at immigration but this is accepted as they are bringing in visitors and give the city a much needed connection over Dubai to compete with the home carrier.
They were enticed to Auckland by a lady born in Denton Manchester, during her time as Chairman of the Airport Authority. The benefit to Emirates comes from being able to offer Europe three daily flights to New Zealand, something no-one else offers.
She also has gained a daily B787 China Southern flight to Guangzhou, not the most natural
Chinese destination as other areas of China are more relevant to the country.
Perhaps Manchester Airport should try to entice my "can do" cousin back home to do a job for them!
The fact is, folks, that Manchester is no worse and in many respects much better than many airports around the world. What it currently lacks is another Gil Thompson and a team who are "aviation to make money minded" rather than the accountants who think shops and car parking are the fast route to big profits.
It would also help if the UK wasn't so London centric but as long as Dave and his friends from Eton and their like are in power there's little hope of that.
Having just almost completed a round the world trip (currently in Houston) I've been through 12 airports in seven countries, nine of which I've never used before and, added to over 50 years experience of air travel around the world, the trip has highlighted certain points people make regarding the downsides of Manchester.
Let's look at ground transportation. The options at Manchester are as good as many major airports. The adverse comments regarding the new hire car centre are a nonsense. At Los Angeles I had to wait 30 minutes on Saturday for a Hertz bus for an 11 minute trip to the airport lot. At Houston, which I visit twice a year, you can wait 20 minutes for the bus to connect to the international terminal from the car hire centre.
Trains at Manchester may get held outside the station but you have a choice of destinations outweighing most rail linked airport stations which often only offer a premium price service.
Take Sydney. The relatively new airport service also serves suburbs either side of the airport. The fare to, say, Town Hall from the two suburbs immediately adjacent to either side is $3.80, from the domestic terminal is $16.40, from the international terminal is $17.20. This "airport access" fee obviously puts off tens of thousands of passengers and many airlines wishing to serve Sydney. The hotel shuttle buses can take well over an hour from downtown in rush hours and the road network is average.
There are complaints about the border and security checks at Manchester. Let's stay with Sydney where outbound to New Zealand, checking in at 07.30, the Air NewZealand check in is a zoo followed by 40 minutes to get through security.
Inbound, let's look at Auckland. New Zealand has a population of just over 4 million, about 1.75 million live in Auckland's land transport catchment area. The airport is smaller than Manchester. Arriving mid afternoon from Sydney, from parking at the gate to walking into the arrivals hall to meet relatives took 75 minutes. Why, well too few immigration officers, New Zealand's stringent bio security regime and the fact that Auckland has no fewer than 3 Emirates A380s arriving pretty much together. I'll come back to them later.
Los Angeles immigration had just 3 officers handling international passengers at terminal 2 to handle 300 odd Air New Zealand passengers and two flights from Mexico last Friday. 85 minutes to get through, fairly typical of US international gateways. Most regular travellers are used to long lines at both security and immigration around the world. It's the once or twice a year traveller that complains, or those who just want to moan about their home airport. That, of course, doesn't put off the 600 or so pax per day who fly into Rarotonga every day and put up with up to two hour immigration lines with no air conditioning in tropical heat.
Back to Auckland and those A380s. What are they doing there every day? They come from Dubai having called at Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane respectively. They are by no means full. There are no problems with handling them all together on the ramp, they do increase the lines at immigration but this is accepted as they are bringing in visitors and give the city a much needed connection over Dubai to compete with the home carrier.
They were enticed to Auckland by a lady born in Denton Manchester, during her time as Chairman of the Airport Authority. The benefit to Emirates comes from being able to offer Europe three daily flights to New Zealand, something no-one else offers.
She also has gained a daily B787 China Southern flight to Guangzhou, not the most natural
Chinese destination as other areas of China are more relevant to the country.
Perhaps Manchester Airport should try to entice my "can do" cousin back home to do a job for them!
The fact is, folks, that Manchester is no worse and in many respects much better than many airports around the world. What it currently lacks is another Gil Thompson and a team who are "aviation to make money minded" rather than the accountants who think shops and car parking are the fast route to big profits.
It would also help if the UK wasn't so London centric but as long as Dave and his friends from Eton and their like are in power there's little hope of that.
I agree entirely about MAN's transport links. I too was in SYD a couple of weeks ago and thought about the criticism of MAN when I read you had to pay an access few to arrive at the airport by train.
As for being 'aviation to make money" rather than shops etc, I think we all need to accept that airlines simply don't pay as much as they used to. These days we're not just talking about the LCC's screwing an airport over but in fact all airlines pay less now than they ever used to. The result being that the airport has no choice to supplement aeronautical revenue with ancillaries such as retail.
As for being 'aviation to make money" rather than shops etc, I think we all need to accept that airlines simply don't pay as much as they used to. These days we're not just talking about the LCC's screwing an airport over but in fact all airlines pay less now than they ever used to. The result being that the airport has no choice to supplement aeronautical revenue with ancillaries such as retail.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point about shops etc. is that, whilst of course other revenue streams have to replace falling revenues from carriers, other airports seem to manage to grow such revenue by serving passengers on a growing number of SUSTAINABLE services.
Looking at the range of "come and gone" services at Manchester over the last ten, let alone 25 years, even allowing for economic and politic upheavals, the airport seems to have suffered from a merry go round of services coming and going or being reduced in capacity and much has been said here about the lack of drive by management in obtaining and keeping services.
Looking at the range of "come and gone" services at Manchester over the last ten, let alone 25 years, even allowing for economic and politic upheavals, the airport seems to have suffered from a merry go round of services coming and going or being reduced in capacity and much has been said here about the lack of drive by management in obtaining and keeping services.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely most airports are like that, apart from Heathrow to some extent, who due to the nature of the beast lose relatively few. Take another well performing airport, Amsterdam. A glance back to a few days spent there in 2005 - gone now are Lithuanian, Fly Air, Malev, Sky Europe, Ethiopian, Air Canada, Armavia, Air Moldova, Iranair, Pulkovo, JAL, Smartwings, Macedonian to name but a few. The skyline at Gatwick is dramatically different to 15 years ago, etc etc.
Don't forget that as well as economic and political changes influencing the changing nature of services to particular cities, immigrant/emigrant demographics also plays a part. The number of people heading to/from Canada in the 70s/80s was packed with people visiting relatives. As the generations move on, and those ties are loosened that number falls away.
Don't forget that as well as economic and political changes influencing the changing nature of services to particular cities, immigrant/emigrant demographics also plays a part. The number of people heading to/from Canada in the 70s/80s was packed with people visiting relatives. As the generations move on, and those ties are loosened that number falls away.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's great to have a working public transport system to and from an airport, but it needs to be used.
The graph above shows results for the airports that participated in the 2012 UK CAA Passenger Survey and there is a very clear correlation between the UK residens share and private transport use. With such a high private transport share among local residents at MAN, I suspect it must be an attitude problem. The share number of cars may hinder any further development of the airport (no more free space for parking). Or is it an attitude problem? Why does all airports outside the South East region in this survey have a private transport share of 80% or more? Could it be that the public transport system at MAN (and the five other airports) is that bad and isn't an option to the car?
The graph above shows results for the airports that participated in the 2012 UK CAA Passenger Survey and there is a very clear correlation between the UK residens share and private transport use. With such a high private transport share among local residents at MAN, I suspect it must be an attitude problem. The share number of cars may hinder any further development of the airport (no more free space for parking). Or is it an attitude problem? Why does all airports outside the South East region in this survey have a private transport share of 80% or more? Could it be that the public transport system at MAN (and the five other airports) is that bad and isn't an option to the car?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that the public transport system at MAN (and the five other
airports) is that bad and isn't an option to the car?
airports) is that bad and isn't an option to the car?
May be down to number of people who drive too? London has a high dependency on its public transport (just look at what happens when the tube goes wrong), because I assume people do not 'need' to drive there (I didn't learn to drive while I lived in London due to transport but did learn when I moved to Cheshire).
I 'need' to drive now as the public transport in my local area is bad, so, while people can take a tube/train/bus to the immediate London airports, the poor public transport in my local area is poor and gets me no where near an airport.
The transport for intra-Manchester and immediate large towns is excellent, second to none in my opinion, but to get to the smaller towns which fall in the catchment is a bit trickier.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The graph above shows results for the airports that participated in the 2012 UK CAA Passenger Survey and there is a very clear correlation between the UK residens share and private transport use. With such a high private transport share among local residents at MAN, I suspect it must be an attitude problem. The share number of cars may hinder any further development of the airport (no more free space for parking). Or is it an attitude problem? Why does all airports outside the South East region in this survey have a private transport share of 80% or more? Could it be that the public transport system at MAN (and the five other airports) is that bad and isn't an option to the car?
With regards to rail in particular the majority of users are likely regional with limited to no local patronage.
This has also been observed around Heathrow.
Manchester also as you have stated has a very high proportion of annual leisure oriented flyers.
These are actually likely to prefer a private hire taxi to use of public transport even where available.
For a typical family this can be cost effective and convenient.
Then there is a simple issue of inertia prevalent with car users . Its outside the door and requires little in the way of forethought or planning.
philbky, MAN has a hell of a lot of sustainable routes that have operated for years. Sure, there has been losses but there have been strong performances on many of our services. 12 years ago who would have imagined we would have upto 7 daily services by the ME3, with one carrier operating 3 of them with nothing smaller than a 77W and one rotation being an A380. We still have one of AA's (reportedly) best performing European routes and continue to served well by Lufthansa and other European majors.
Charter wise, MAN has weathered the decline of the market but is still the main, or one of the main bases, for TOM and TCX. LCC's meanwhile, are doing well. Sure, there has been a bit of chopping and changing from Easyjet but they have launched and sustained routes that MAN needed, notably ATH and SXF.
I think you're wrong in saying that MAN has failed to launch and keep sustainable services. Some would say MAN punches above it's weight and does incredibly well.
p.s does anyone know why my 'quote' button doesn't work?
Charter wise, MAN has weathered the decline of the market but is still the main, or one of the main bases, for TOM and TCX. LCC's meanwhile, are doing well. Sure, there has been a bit of chopping and changing from Easyjet but they have launched and sustained routes that MAN needed, notably ATH and SXF.
I think you're wrong in saying that MAN has failed to launch and keep sustainable services. Some would say MAN punches above it's weight and does incredibly well.
p.s does anyone know why my 'quote' button doesn't work?