MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also Air China have managed to secure 2nd daily LHR flights. Does this mean MAN is off the cards? Not sure where the slots have come from:
Apparently, the bilateral is currently 'fully utilised', yet there are at least 4 new weekly flights this winter to China (MU have increased from 5 to 6 weekly, and CA have moved the 4 flights from LGW to LHR and added 3 extra weekly flights to the schedule.)
However, with this news, the big looser could be LGW, as, with the extra flights to LHR, one can safely assume they will not be back at LGW next summer.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the bilateral to China is currently 'fully utilised', does that mean no possibility of MAN flights either?
I think this pretty much confirms that Air China is not returning to Gatwick next summer; just hope MAN gets something.
I think this pretty much confirms that Air China is not returning to Gatwick next summer; just hope MAN gets something.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the bilateral to China is currently 'fully utilised', does that mean no possibility of MAN flights either
Chinese airlines are eager to expand in the UK, so its frustrating when it is just a piece of paper preventing that from happening.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't comment on something I haven't read.
Perhaps a link would be useful to those of us who have not read the Exec Summary of the UK/China treaty?
Perhaps a link would be useful to those of us who have not read the Exec Summary of the UK/China treaty?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand to be corrected but I understand the limiting factor is the aggregate frequency limit of 31 per week for each country, to all destinations added together. There is also a limit of 6 cities per country, but I guess that isn't of immediate concern.
HKG and (I assume) Macao are covered by separate agreements and do not therefore count towards the frequency limit.
Regional UK airports (sorry Bagso) are not treated separately from London, so if China wants to operate 31 weekly services from London then there isn't the headroom to fly from MAN or elsewhere. But is a China approaching this limit - if not, then the bilateral can't really be blamed for the lack of MAN services?
Does anyone have any updated info?
See also http://www.aviationeconomics.com/New...rease-flights-
HKG and (I assume) Macao are covered by separate agreements and do not therefore count towards the frequency limit.
Regional UK airports (sorry Bagso) are not treated separately from London, so if China wants to operate 31 weekly services from London then there isn't the headroom to fly from MAN or elsewhere. But is a China approaching this limit - if not, then the bilateral can't really be blamed for the lack of MAN services?
Does anyone have any updated info?
See also http://www.aviationeconomics.com/New...rease-flights-
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil, that link refers to "up to 6 departure points in the UK and China".
Are those departure points specified, and if not is it a total of 6 between the 2 countries i.e. could it be 5 in China and only 1 in the UK. Or does it mean 6 in each country?
The other thing that struck me is that it includes cargo carriers. That could imply that MAN is reliant on both passenger and cargo operators not wanting more flights into London before a MAN service is considered.
Perhaps someone has the stats for how many flights China currently has out of the 31 quota until a new agreement is reached, with and without the LGW flights continuing.
It has been argued by some that there is nothing to stop services to MAN starting under the present arrangement as Basil is trying to clarify. If that is the case, doesn't it suggest that Chinese carriers are more prepared to wait for suitable slots at LHR rather than take a risk on MAN?
The last point is how would Hainan fit into this arrangement as they don't appear at present to be one of the registered Chinese carriers?
Are those departure points specified, and if not is it a total of 6 between the 2 countries i.e. could it be 5 in China and only 1 in the UK. Or does it mean 6 in each country?
The other thing that struck me is that it includes cargo carriers. That could imply that MAN is reliant on both passenger and cargo operators not wanting more flights into London before a MAN service is considered.
Perhaps someone has the stats for how many flights China currently has out of the 31 quota until a new agreement is reached, with and without the LGW flights continuing.
It has been argued by some that there is nothing to stop services to MAN starting under the present arrangement as Basil is trying to clarify. If that is the case, doesn't it suggest that Chinese carriers are more prepared to wait for suitable slots at LHR rather than take a risk on MAN?
The last point is how would Hainan fit into this arrangement as they don't appear at present to be one of the registered Chinese carriers?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANFOD
It's 6 points in each country.
As for your other questions, re cargo flights and Hainan Airlines I don't know the answer. I would assume that Hainan would be included, as the definition in the ASA is based on airlines controlled by each country's nationals.
Your point about airlines perhaps not being prepared to take a risk on MAN is a fair one, and in that respect perhaps the frequency limit does indeed have an insidious effect even if it is not currently biting.
It's 6 points in each country.
As for your other questions, re cargo flights and Hainan Airlines I don't know the answer. I would assume that Hainan would be included, as the definition in the ASA is based on airlines controlled by each country's nationals.
Your point about airlines perhaps not being prepared to take a risk on MAN is a fair one, and in that respect perhaps the frequency limit does indeed have an insidious effect even if it is not currently biting.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bilaterals - the bagso school of diplomacy !
This quite frankly really is complete and utter codswallop !
Allow Air China in to serve a secondary airport ie Manchester or God forebid BHX and grant same rights to a UK airline in China.
If this was LHR whatever the issue i do not believe for one minute there would be a problem, (and thus proven), it would be fixed in an instant !
The senior management at MAN really do need to grow some GT b@@ls and get after whoever is obstructing this.
I will repeat nothing will change until there is a hell of a row !
We have had the softly softly approach and Whitehall does not get it !
This quite frankly really is complete and utter codswallop !
Allow Air China in to serve a secondary airport ie Manchester or God forebid BHX and grant same rights to a UK airline in China.
If this was LHR whatever the issue i do not believe for one minute there would be a problem, (and thus proven), it would be fixed in an instant !
The senior management at MAN really do need to grow some GT b@@ls and get after whoever is obstructing this.
I will repeat nothing will change until there is a hell of a row !
We have had the softly softly approach and Whitehall does not get it !
Last edited by Bagso; 6th Aug 2014 at 16:53.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso, the problem is that I'm not sure it's been clearly established that anything is obstructing Air China starting a MAN service.
For example, if the 4 LGW flights are being transferred to LHR and Air China are adding 3 to go double daily, does it not suggest that they could have elected to put those 3 extra flights into MAN? What I'm trying to say is even if the bilateral was amended to allow more flights between the UK and China, what guarantee is there that Air China would start a MAN service? And even if they did, would the result be the same as at LGW when slots at LHR became available?
Neither has anyone confirmed as far as I know that these 3 extra flights to London will fill up the Chinese quota of 31 weekly flights if this is still the maximum.
Just to add, if the bilateral was amended to increase the number of flights allowed and Hainan was registered as one of the airlines (which it may not be at present), then in my view MAN may have a better chance.
For example, if the 4 LGW flights are being transferred to LHR and Air China are adding 3 to go double daily, does it not suggest that they could have elected to put those 3 extra flights into MAN? What I'm trying to say is even if the bilateral was amended to allow more flights between the UK and China, what guarantee is there that Air China would start a MAN service? And even if they did, would the result be the same as at LGW when slots at LHR became available?
Neither has anyone confirmed as far as I know that these 3 extra flights to London will fill up the Chinese quota of 31 weekly flights if this is still the maximum.
Just to add, if the bilateral was amended to increase the number of flights allowed and Hainan was registered as one of the airlines (which it may not be at present), then in my view MAN may have a better chance.
Last edited by MANFOD; 6th Aug 2014 at 17:03.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does seem to be taking an unacceptably long time, Bagso. Here is the DfT press release from last October. Sounds all hunky dory, but what on earth is taking so long?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...ons-with-china
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...ons-with-china
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CA 851 05:50 PEK LGW N 2014S 4
CA 937 17:45 PEK LHR T2 2014S 7
VS 251 17:20 PVG LHR T3 2014S 7
CZ 303 15:25 CAN LHR T4 2014S 7
MU 551 18:40 PVG LHR T4 2014S 4
BA 1168 13:00 PVG LHR T5 2014S 1
BA 38 15:10 PEK LHR T5 2014S 7
BA 88 16:10 CTU LHR T5 2014S 5
BA 168 16:25 PVG LHR T5 2014S 6
Which comes to 48 per week
26 between BA/VS
22 between the Chinese airlines.
#rantyrantyranty
CA 937 17:45 PEK LHR T2 2014S 7
VS 251 17:20 PVG LHR T3 2014S 7
CZ 303 15:25 CAN LHR T4 2014S 7
MU 551 18:40 PVG LHR T4 2014S 4
BA 1168 13:00 PVG LHR T5 2014S 1
BA 38 15:10 PEK LHR T5 2014S 7
BA 88 16:10 CTU LHR T5 2014S 5
BA 168 16:25 PVG LHR T5 2014S 6
Which comes to 48 per week
26 between BA/VS
22 between the Chinese airlines.
The senior management at MAN really do need to grow some GT b@@ls and get after whoever is obstructing this.
I will repeat nothing will change until there is a hell of a row !
We have had the softly softly approach and Whitehall does not get it !
I will repeat nothing will change until there is a hell of a row !
We have had the softly softly approach and Whitehall does not get it !
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Skip. So with the 3 extra flights by Air China, it takes the total by Chinese carriers to 25, still well within the 31 allowed.
Final point. Unless Manchester has been excluded in some way e.g. if the British have only stipulated London, despite 6 destinations apparently being allowed, I really can't see the obstacle. Has anyone from MAN actually stated that the bilateral is the reason for the delay?
Final point. Unless Manchester has been excluded in some way e.g. if the British have only stipulated London, despite 6 destinations apparently being allowed, I really can't see the obstacle. Has anyone from MAN actually stated that the bilateral is the reason for the delay?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one at MAN is saying the bilateral is an obstacle. They are working through the relevant channels to secure a direct MAN-Beijing service, there is a commercial case and it will surely happen before long. I think we just need to trust the people tasked with achieving it.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank goodness for a spot of clarity. So are there any other countries where bilaterals are known to be a binding constraint on ops out of MAN or is this all just theoretical?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware, MAG made no specific references in its Davies Commission submissions on the issue of bilaterals inhibiting the development of new services. So it could well be a red herring.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to have got hung up on the bilateral being a problem when it appears it isn't, at least as things stand.
''Air China has already spent £625,000 seeking an addendum to serve Manchester, to which they have the rights to serve from the CAAC (granted in 2009), but cannot start services at this time as there is no room in the current UK-China bilateral''
Now, given cargo flights are covered in the bilateral, the fact Manchester has been served by Air China shows MAN is one of the 6 points allowed in the current bilateral. Given there is room right now to start a flight, I am genuinely at a loss as to why Air China are reportedly having such an issue that they have already parted with that amount of money.