MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole T3 thing is becoming a joke.
There are two full size terminals that could swallow a 77W whole without batting an eyelid. Instead they try to squeeze it into an already crowded mini terminal that was designed for domestic and some local BA stuff.
It's also rammed with Ryanair passengers.
I absolutely hate going through T3 and try to avoid airlines that use it.
There are two full size terminals that could swallow a 77W whole without batting an eyelid. Instead they try to squeeze it into an already crowded mini terminal that was designed for domestic and some local BA stuff.
It's also rammed with Ryanair passengers.
I absolutely hate going through T3 and try to avoid airlines that use it.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All names taken,
I agree with you. CX has always used T2, even as recently as 2010 when they ran the extra flights after LHR was snow closed for days.
Why MAG, or even CX themselves, have decided to ram themselves into T2 is a mystery.
The only thing I can think of is that at 0620, T2 is usually packed out with the Monarch, Thomson and any early arriving TATL flights (The UA IAD flight arrives at 0535 and the 1st VS B747 gets in about 7am for example), so maybe it wasn't available?
I agree with you. CX has always used T2, even as recently as 2010 when they ran the extra flights after LHR was snow closed for days.
Why MAG, or even CX themselves, have decided to ram themselves into T2 is a mystery.
The only thing I can think of is that at 0620, T2 is usually packed out with the Monarch, Thomson and any early arriving TATL flights (The UA IAD flight arrives at 0535 and the 1st VS B747 gets in about 7am for example), so maybe it wasn't available?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much doubt it has anything to do with availability of T2, more them wanting to be with other One World Airlines. The timings may mean though that both arriving and departing CX passengers may miss the busiest times in T3 though, and as someone mentioned earlier the a/c will probably be moved remote for a few hours ?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, just looked at GDS availability for MAN-HKG an vv, seats seem to be disappearing fast! Pretty much all reward allocation* in J has gone for Dec-Feb already (about 4 seats each way per day) *those using FF points, and quite a few rev fares gone already.
Seems a few people have wanted this route to come online!
Seems a few people have wanted this route to come online!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't easy keeping it quiet, we've known since January, it is a little earlier than the planned release of the 'official' news, most likely due to the many rumours floating about on the internet.
I guess the success will be down to sales and marketing, price it correctly and I see no reason why it should not be successfull!
4 days a week is a good start, depending on the success will determine whether the flts will increase to daily, more and more 777's arriving over the next couple of years and then the 350 coming into service, too early to tell.
I would suspect that the arrival will be before 6, the 251 leaving HKG gets in around 0430 so 0530 would be my guess. No info on the terminal as yet.
Freighters, I think will remain the same in the first instance until more is known.
Flt number is a bit strange, but is subject to change, until now all European flts start with a 2, the 3's go to China.
I guess the success will be down to sales and marketing, price it correctly and I see no reason why it should not be successfull!
4 days a week is a good start, depending on the success will determine whether the flts will increase to daily, more and more 777's arriving over the next couple of years and then the 350 coming into service, too early to tell.
I would suspect that the arrival will be before 6, the 251 leaving HKG gets in around 0430 so 0530 would be my guess. No info on the terminal as yet.
Freighters, I think will remain the same in the first instance until more is known.
Flt number is a bit strange, but is subject to change, until now all European flts start with a 2, the 3's go to China.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All names taken is spot on with his views on the current T3 design. It's really not fit for long haul.
@ LAX_LHR did I not say it would be T3?
MAG announced their terminal reshuffle to try and bring alliances together which is fine in theory but in practice it's a mish mash. T3 is now further bottlenecked by the domestic pier and ex BMI area being secure for domestic travellers only meaning space to find a quiet corner is now further constrained. I agree T2 would make way more sense as the alliance synergies are fairly small at a non hub for Oneworld. Indeed trying to create a hub at T3 has just undermined the customer experience for domestic travellers who now need biometric photos taken and verified, all to drive more customers through retail.
Awesome news though !
@ LAX_LHR did I not say it would be T3?
MAG announced their terminal reshuffle to try and bring alliances together which is fine in theory but in practice it's a mish mash. T3 is now further bottlenecked by the domestic pier and ex BMI area being secure for domestic travellers only meaning space to find a quiet corner is now further constrained. I agree T2 would make way more sense as the alliance synergies are fairly small at a non hub for Oneworld. Indeed trying to create a hub at T3 has just undermined the customer experience for domestic travellers who now need biometric photos taken and verified, all to drive more customers through retail.
Awesome news though !
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comment at the CAPA summit this morning from Irish Transport Minister !
DUBLIN is a secondary European transit hub we intend to take a very liberal view on 5th freedoms ......
Is DUB going after Eithad / Emirates US traffic ?
I would suggest Manchester is quickly falling into that category !
DUBLIN is a secondary European transit hub we intend to take a very liberal view on 5th freedoms ......
Is DUB going after Eithad / Emirates US traffic ?
I would suggest Manchester is quickly falling into that category !
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX website states T3. If you click the MAN flight number in the booking process it gives more flight info inc terminals:
12:00 Mon 08 Dec 2014
Manchester, Manchester International (MAN), United Kingdom
Terminal 3
Manchester, Manchester International (MAN), United Kingdom
Terminal 3
Last edited by LAX_LHR; 10th Apr 2014 at 12:38.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay Pacific
Says on Manchester airport website T2 and wikipedia.
surely T3 wont be able to cope with the demand of a 777, these isnt many food outlets or bars.
T2 would be the sensible choice.
if they want to get t3 as one world terminal theyll have to move finnair and qatar over too!
Cant wait til this starts!
surely T3 wont be able to cope with the demand of a 777, these isnt many food outlets or bars.
T2 would be the sensible choice.
if they want to get t3 as one world terminal theyll have to move finnair and qatar over too!
Cant wait til this starts!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beijing
...according to update on the M E N a service to Beijing is sealed, flights apparently ready to launch with small caveat ...
"subject to alteration of Bi lateral agreement" !
Hand up who wants some "Government Interference" !
Yah or nay ?
...according to update on the M E N a service to Beijing is sealed, flights apparently ready to launch with small caveat ...
"subject to alteration of Bi lateral agreement" !
Hand up who wants some "Government Interference" !
Yah or nay ?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso, re Beijing
"subject to alteration of Bi lateral agreement"!
If the market was as free as some on here affirm, and contend that is why airlines want to fly to LHR and not MAN, there wouldn't be a bi-lateral to alter.
Now here's a scenario: Chinese airline wants to fly to MAN but British airline demands extra flights to LHR in return. Nothing new there. British airline then complains there are no slots at LHR to operate the flights. Does it have to create slots for additional flights to China by reallocating existing slots and reducing frequency elsewhere, or does the lack of slots mean our DfT don't approve a new bi-lateral? In other words, where bi-laterals still exist, do capacity constraints at LHR facilitate direct flights to MAN, or in a strange way make it more difficult?
"subject to alteration of Bi lateral agreement"!
If the market was as free as some on here affirm, and contend that is why airlines want to fly to LHR and not MAN, there wouldn't be a bi-lateral to alter.
Now here's a scenario: Chinese airline wants to fly to MAN but British airline demands extra flights to LHR in return. Nothing new there. British airline then complains there are no slots at LHR to operate the flights. Does it have to create slots for additional flights to China by reallocating existing slots and reducing frequency elsewhere, or does the lack of slots mean our DfT don't approve a new bi-lateral? In other words, where bi-laterals still exist, do capacity constraints at LHR facilitate direct flights to MAN, or in a strange way make it more difficult?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they moved FR out would there be room for all of the oneworld carriers in T3?