MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dnata and Airline services
Hi,
Heard a rumour about airline services starting up full pax services
Also just read about dnata also starting at MAN
Can anyone confirm these and what airlines they have in mind
Any news on ground handling for monarch, cx or vueling?
Heard a rumour about airline services starting up full pax services
Also just read about dnata also starting at MAN
Can anyone confirm these and what airlines they have in mind
Any news on ground handling for monarch, cx or vueling?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets hope any rumours of trans-Siberian route sanctions do not come to fruition.
You would expect that such sanctions would affect the yield of the new MAN-HKG route, which would be considered by many as one of the more 'marginal' CX long haul routes.
It wouldn't be the first time an issue concerning Russia has made us fall at the final hurdle regarding a Cathay Pacific and Hong Kong route
You would expect that such sanctions would affect the yield of the new MAN-HKG route, which would be considered by many as one of the more 'marginal' CX long haul routes.
It wouldn't be the first time an issue concerning Russia has made us fall at the final hurdle regarding a Cathay Pacific and Hong Kong route
At the moment it seems Russian overflight bans, if they do go ahead, would only affect US/EU airlines, or basically any countries that support sanctions against Russia. No idea where Hong Kong stands on that issue, although China as a whole is usually considered a friend of Russia.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I retract unreservedly my previous assertion that the Honorable Member for Wythenshawe had "gone missing ".
I refer those interested to the follow
Regional Airports | Digiminster Members Data Portal
It appears Mr Kane managed to secure a debate on regional airports and although it quote "become something of a game of bingo as each MP batted for their airport" he at least was shouting for Manchester and it has to be said with some venom ! Hallelujah !
Something that cannot be said for Graham Stringer who in his responses was quite strident about building 2 more runways in London.
I am tempted to say let London MPs argue for that. He is voted in by Mancunians and in my view should be batting for Manchester regardless of his own opinions !
Ironically I tracked this down whilst looking for Graham Stringers comments on bilaterals it was on that basis that my posting was made as he has been outspoken about these in the past.
When he appeared on the Transport Committee he was VERY adamant this was an issue, I am trying to find the exact comments which are held in Hansard !
He kept trumpeting the view that Manchester s/b be outside UK bilaterals as it was infected with issues relating to London rather than the very simple formualae I subscribe to;
The airport wants the services
An airline wants to offer these
Solved
IF it isn't an issue of bilaterals however, it is more of a worry as it is becoming crystal clear that Air China etc clearly have no interest in Manchester !
Where does that leave Manchester, wasn't this such a key plank of the Manchester - China Forum.
Are we now down to Hainan ?
Did AC spend the Ł to get into Manchester on the basis that there were no slots into LHR ?
Having now secured these maybe Ł600K will simply be written off as a by product of rights into the UK, rights that now take them to the Capital.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a separate theme has anybody seen Manchester's response to Davies ?
I appreciate the response from regional airport to his finding thus far was more about punting for connectivity to "their" airport but would still be interesting to see what MAG actually said ?
I refer those interested to the follow
Regional Airports | Digiminster Members Data Portal
It appears Mr Kane managed to secure a debate on regional airports and although it quote "become something of a game of bingo as each MP batted for their airport" he at least was shouting for Manchester and it has to be said with some venom ! Hallelujah !
Something that cannot be said for Graham Stringer who in his responses was quite strident about building 2 more runways in London.
I am tempted to say let London MPs argue for that. He is voted in by Mancunians and in my view should be batting for Manchester regardless of his own opinions !
Ironically I tracked this down whilst looking for Graham Stringers comments on bilaterals it was on that basis that my posting was made as he has been outspoken about these in the past.
When he appeared on the Transport Committee he was VERY adamant this was an issue, I am trying to find the exact comments which are held in Hansard !
He kept trumpeting the view that Manchester s/b be outside UK bilaterals as it was infected with issues relating to London rather than the very simple formualae I subscribe to;
The airport wants the services
An airline wants to offer these
Solved
IF it isn't an issue of bilaterals however, it is more of a worry as it is becoming crystal clear that Air China etc clearly have no interest in Manchester !
Where does that leave Manchester, wasn't this such a key plank of the Manchester - China Forum.
Are we now down to Hainan ?
Did AC spend the Ł to get into Manchester on the basis that there were no slots into LHR ?
Having now secured these maybe Ł600K will simply be written off as a by product of rights into the UK, rights that now take them to the Capital.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a separate theme has anybody seen Manchester's response to Davies ?
I appreciate the response from regional airport to his finding thus far was more about punting for connectivity to "their" airport but would still be interesting to see what MAG actually said ?
Last edited by Bagso; 7th Aug 2014 at 16:38.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a Mancunian, I am passionate about the development of services from my home town airport.
But equally I fully support the need for 2 not just 1 additional runways at Heathrow as it is good for the country.
We should not immediately assume that further development at Heathrow will be costly to Manchester, it may indeed however damaged MAG and their interest in Stansted.
But equally I fully support the need for 2 not just 1 additional runways at Heathrow as it is good for the country.
We should not immediately assume that further development at Heathrow will be costly to Manchester, it may indeed however damaged MAG and their interest in Stansted.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree....
But he is being paid to represent policies that best support his constituents therein lies the difference. Are they best served by concentrating on Manchester or an airport 200 miles away !
But he is being paid to represent policies that best support his constituents therein lies the difference. Are they best served by concentrating on Manchester or an airport 200 miles away !
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not allowed to use the kind of language to describe Mr. Stringer. But clearly he has forgotten who he represents.
However, Georgie boy only recently seems to have remembered he represents a Northern constituency, wouldn't be an election due would there?
However, Georgie boy only recently seems to have remembered he represents a Northern constituency, wouldn't be an election due would there?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso, do I take it that was a separate debate on Regional Airports on 15th July for which our local MP, Mike Kane, was congratulated all round on getting it called, from the transport debate reported in Hansard for 10 July. The latter also included some discussion on regional airports in which MAN got a warm endorsement from Sir Alan Haselhurst - a SE MP - but also from Robert Goodwill, Under-Secretary of State for Transport (MP for Scarborough). Ministers usually sit on the fence but he admitted to being a great fan of Manchester Airport and also referred to it's having "exciting plans for further development". Perhaps he knows more than us!
Surprised at Stringer's contribution. He used to be a useful advocate for MAN.
Surprised at Stringer's contribution. He used to be a useful advocate for MAN.
Last edited by MANFOD; 8th Aug 2014 at 08:58.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
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 2014 S
Which comes to 48 per week
26 between BA/VS
22 between the
Chinese airlines.
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 2014 S
Which comes to 48 per week
26 between BA/VS
22 between the
Chinese airlines.
Firstly, lets take away the UK slots, the chance of a UK airline operating MAN/BHX/EDI/Wherever to China is slim to none.
We are then left with the Chinese carriers.
MU (China Eastern) currently run at 4 weekly. They are increasing to 6 weekly and hold a 7th slot.
China Southern hold 7 slots
Air China now hold 14 slots
That's 28 slots straight off.
Air China Cargo still hold 2 slots back from the days of serving Manchester, to which cargo is covered in the bilateral, but I suppose if Air China were deadly serious about a MAN flight, probably can transfer the slot back into the passenger division. So that leaves 1 unused slot, which, is pretty much useless for any airline wanting to start a scheduled flight. It does however, until the bilateral is changed, leave no scope for expansion, which, in theory, could put airlines off if they cannot have scope to grow to what they expect.
Therefore, we can safely assume that the bilateral is an issue, and goes some way to explaining why Air China have spent their own money chasing an addendum.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, an issue? Perhaps? A block? No, Air China could have used the spare capacity to open MAN in the last few years it seems.
Is the bilateral restricted on slots held or flights operated?
Is the bilateral restricted on slots held or flights operated?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the bilateral restricted on slots held or flights operated?
Therefore, yes, it is entirely possible that nothing has stopped Air China opening MAN in the past (maybe holding out for the LHR slots, after all LGW was purely a waiting room), but, on the flip side, if all the rights were held by other carriers, then yes, Air China were effectively blocked.
However, it still does not alter the fact that only 1, 3 at a maximum if the CA cargo rights get transferred, slots are left to operate UK-China flights at this time, ergo, bilaterals are currently an issue at this moment in time, when they are being touted as a non-issue.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Airways upgrading PHL to an A330-300 this winter:
US Airways W14 International Operation Changes as of 09AUG14 | Airline Route
But Delta seems to have reversed plans for 767-400 - back to a 763
DELTA W14 International Operation Changes as of 09AUG14 | Airline Route
Delta are however upgrading a couple of flights this week to a 764
US Airways W14 International Operation Changes as of 09AUG14 | Airline Route
But Delta seems to have reversed plans for 767-400 - back to a 763
DELTA W14 International Operation Changes as of 09AUG14 | Airline Route
Delta are however upgrading a couple of flights this week to a 764
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few of us are baffled by the Bilateral issue.
Its worth throwing the aims of the Manchester - China Forum into the mix.
Manchester-China Forum
This site is "campaigning" for better links, it does not state as far as I can see the lifting of bilateral agreements as a barrier to trade ?
Now it may be that this is an area that the group do not want to highlight preferring a softly softly approach but " as a campaign group" IF its seen as a genuine issue you would think it would be on there would you not ?
Not saying you are wrong Lax (btw) but if an airline had indeed spent a substantial sum to gain access you would hope Charlie Cornish would be plastering this over every media outlet he could lay his hands using the very simple template that GT laid down some years back !
If its is red tape then heads need banging together, if it isn't then the the simple matter is Air China want to serve the Capital not Manchester !
As an aside I noticed that arguably one of the largest brand name in the World is not a part of the group ...neither are some of the largest retail developers, nor are any of the tourist organisations. I appreciate MIDAS is about trade but I would have thought an holistic approach might be a better way forward ?
Its worth throwing the aims of the Manchester - China Forum into the mix.
Manchester-China Forum
This site is "campaigning" for better links, it does not state as far as I can see the lifting of bilateral agreements as a barrier to trade ?
Now it may be that this is an area that the group do not want to highlight preferring a softly softly approach but " as a campaign group" IF its seen as a genuine issue you would think it would be on there would you not ?
Not saying you are wrong Lax (btw) but if an airline had indeed spent a substantial sum to gain access you would hope Charlie Cornish would be plastering this over every media outlet he could lay his hands using the very simple template that GT laid down some years back !
If its is red tape then heads need banging together, if it isn't then the the simple matter is Air China want to serve the Capital not Manchester !
As an aside I noticed that arguably one of the largest brand name in the World is not a part of the group ...neither are some of the largest retail developers, nor are any of the tourist organisations. I appreciate MIDAS is about trade but I would have thought an holistic approach might be a better way forward ?
Last edited by Bagso; 10th Aug 2014 at 05:48.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the bilateral issue is far from clear. It is quite possible that Air China and others are deterred from opening up services to MAN because they don't want to use up the limited frequencies available under the current bilateral when they might be better used to improve the service out of London. That would be a commercial decision for the Chinese carriers.
This gets us back to the renegotiation of the bilateral, where progress appears to be slow. Or perhaps it just takes time to agree these things, especially when dealing with a country such as China which has a different attitude to timescales and will not be rushed.
What we do know is that (if you believe the press releases) the British side wants a thorough liberalisation of the bilateral. If that is indeed the case, then let's consider the possibility that the hold up is on the Chinese side. Perhaps the issue is that China is reluctant to allow a free for all, as this would probably result in BA grabbing even more of the premium traffic on the key routes out of London. It may suit the Chinese to restrict frequencies on the key LHR routes while seeking to cherry pick non-LHR routes that will clearly be of no interest to UK carriers whose hub is at LHR.
This is pure speculation on my part, but if it is true then I can see why the British side would be reluctant to enter into side agreements on regional access, preferring to hold out for a wider liberalisation. And if the Chinese want restrictions lifted out of regional UK airports, then why not offer similar flexibility into Chinese airports other than Beijing (and possibly Shanghai). Sauce for the goose etc.
If the hold up is indeed on the Chinese side then no amount of head banging or intervention from non-entities such as Stringer will have any effect whatsoever. It could actually be counterproductive if it backs the Chinese into a corner, given the importance of 'face' in the Chinese culture.
Just a theory...
This gets us back to the renegotiation of the bilateral, where progress appears to be slow. Or perhaps it just takes time to agree these things, especially when dealing with a country such as China which has a different attitude to timescales and will not be rushed.
What we do know is that (if you believe the press releases) the British side wants a thorough liberalisation of the bilateral. If that is indeed the case, then let's consider the possibility that the hold up is on the Chinese side. Perhaps the issue is that China is reluctant to allow a free for all, as this would probably result in BA grabbing even more of the premium traffic on the key routes out of London. It may suit the Chinese to restrict frequencies on the key LHR routes while seeking to cherry pick non-LHR routes that will clearly be of no interest to UK carriers whose hub is at LHR.
This is pure speculation on my part, but if it is true then I can see why the British side would be reluctant to enter into side agreements on regional access, preferring to hold out for a wider liberalisation. And if the Chinese want restrictions lifted out of regional UK airports, then why not offer similar flexibility into Chinese airports other than Beijing (and possibly Shanghai). Sauce for the goose etc.
If the hold up is indeed on the Chinese side then no amount of head banging or intervention from non-entities such as Stringer will have any effect whatsoever. It could actually be counterproductive if it backs the Chinese into a corner, given the importance of 'face' in the Chinese culture.
Just a theory...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't forget Birmingham is "potentially" also in the mix having totally outflanked MAN with its audacious charter programme and first mover advantage !
The CAPA website has quite a bit on China and is certainly worth a ferret
Birmingham Airport shows the value of marketing, to deliver the first UK non-London Chinese flights | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
There is "another" article about the Politics in China but cannot find just at min'
On a theme.....
I'm also drawn by this this comment in this article .......
"For their part supporting hotels, attractions, retailers and tour operators are expected to make themselves ‘China-ready’ by providing information in Chinese and adapting their products for the market."
Any initiatives re Hong Cong / Cathay on the horizon ?
Hopefully it spurs MAN out of its perceived malaise ?
The CAPA website has quite a bit on China and is certainly worth a ferret
Birmingham Airport shows the value of marketing, to deliver the first UK non-London Chinese flights | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
There is "another" article about the Politics in China but cannot find just at min'
On a theme.....
I'm also drawn by this this comment in this article .......
"For their part supporting hotels, attractions, retailers and tour operators are expected to make themselves ‘China-ready’ by providing information in Chinese and adapting their products for the market."
Any initiatives re Hong Cong / Cathay on the horizon ?
Hopefully it spurs MAN out of its perceived malaise ?
