MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ainsdale
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. How many aircraft (as in airliners) are based at MAN?
I post these every day :Manchester Airport Based Airliners | North West Air News
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one point, if the regions need all this connectivity and higher frequency why has Little Red not been a runaway success?
By all acounts every flight should be full ...but aren't
By all acounts every flight should be full ...but aren't
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MKY661
Thanks, very interesting - a labour of love though?
So I make that around 72 airliners based of which 16 are wide bodies
Thomson has most planes based at 14
Oh, one mistake I think - you mention nine based TCX planes but the numbers add up to 10.
Thanks, very interesting - a labour of love though?
So I make that around 72 airliners based of which 16 are wide bodies
Thomson has most planes based at 14
Oh, one mistake I think - you mention nine based TCX planes but the numbers add up to 10.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MKY661.
Yes, thanks for that. The number does vary slightly from day-to-day but 70-75 seems to be the range based on your figures.
A few of those a/c won't of course be on the ground overnight as they arrive back from long haul flying early morning - VS and some TCX and TOM.
On the other hand, there are some night-stoppers which off the top of my head are:
LH x 2
KLM
BA x 2
LR
Perhaps someone could confirm the number of parking stands (pier attached)
and remote stands excluding the car park. There are I think 12 remote stands not currently in use for a/c but which I believe are due to be returned for their intended purpose.
I make it about 60 pier stands and currently about 30 remote, not counting any stands that allow double parking for smaller a/c. The airfield certainly looks pretty full at 06.00 in the summer.
Yes, thanks for that. The number does vary slightly from day-to-day but 70-75 seems to be the range based on your figures.
A few of those a/c won't of course be on the ground overnight as they arrive back from long haul flying early morning - VS and some TCX and TOM.
On the other hand, there are some night-stoppers which off the top of my head are:
LH x 2
KLM
BA x 2
LR
Perhaps someone could confirm the number of parking stands (pier attached)
and remote stands excluding the car park. There are I think 12 remote stands not currently in use for a/c but which I believe are due to be returned for their intended purpose.
I make it about 60 pier stands and currently about 30 remote, not counting any stands that allow double parking for smaller a/c. The airfield certainly looks pretty full at 06.00 in the summer.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair Summer Schedule
Welcome to Ryanair!
Two new routes "already announced" is pretty dismal stuff.
On the plus side it was announced immediately on the airport twitter feed
Welcome to Ryanair!
Two new routes "already announced" is pretty dismal stuff.
On the plus side it was announced immediately on the airport twitter feed
Last edited by Bagso; 9th Sep 2014 at 15:56.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree Bagso if that is Ryanair's final offering. They do sometimes announce new destinations later but I assume the current schedule can be achieved with the same 7 based a/c plus quite a few services with non-based. Bremen still showing no flights so how does 37 destinations for s15 compare with this year?
Let's see what happens with Easyjet over the next few weeks as currently they just seem to have loaded existing summer destinations and frequencies (plus Madeira from Feb), and those only for April/May 2015.
Let's see what happens with Easyjet over the next few weeks as currently they just seem to have loaded existing summer destinations and frequencies (plus Madeira from Feb), and those only for April/May 2015.
Last edited by MANFOD; 9th Sep 2014 at 16:41.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair Comparison - UK Bases Summer '15 - As Envisaged at 09-09-2014
STN 1132 deps pw; 134 routes ("10% increase")
MAN 204 deps pw; 37 routes
EDI 130 deps pw; 32 routes
LPL 122 deps pw; 32 routes
BRS 113 deps pw; 28 routes
BHX 91 deps pw; 21 routes
GLA 57 deps pw; 9 routes
PIK 44 deps pw; 16 routes
Further info awaited: EMA 36 routes advised in earlier press release, number of deps pw TBA. Info awaited for LBA, LTN, BOH etc.
MAN's share of the pie doesn't look too bad viewed in this context. Of course, additions may still follow as new aircraft deliveries are finally starting up again after a lengthy pause. STN's increase would presumably require additional based units. And bases on the continent will be bidding for new aircraft too.
This seems a pretty good offering (at MAN) for me. Further growth would be nice, but given the aircraft delivery situation I will regard any further additions as a very welcome bonus.
STN 1132 deps pw; 134 routes ("10% increase")
MAN 204 deps pw; 37 routes
EDI 130 deps pw; 32 routes
LPL 122 deps pw; 32 routes
BRS 113 deps pw; 28 routes
BHX 91 deps pw; 21 routes
GLA 57 deps pw; 9 routes
PIK 44 deps pw; 16 routes
Further info awaited: EMA 36 routes advised in earlier press release, number of deps pw TBA. Info awaited for LBA, LTN, BOH etc.
MAN's share of the pie doesn't look too bad viewed in this context. Of course, additions may still follow as new aircraft deliveries are finally starting up again after a lengthy pause. STN's increase would presumably require additional based units. And bases on the continent will be bidding for new aircraft too.
This seems a pretty good offering (at MAN) for me. Further growth would be nice, but given the aircraft delivery situation I will regard any further additions as a very welcome bonus.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LS
Just checked the current position for S15.
JER is definitely gone no longer in menus.
CDG and EGC were in the earlier S15 release but now gone.
TLS is now showing at 2pw down 2 on last year.
FCO,HER, BCN showing 1 less flight each than earlier release.
FAO up 4 to same as last year.
PMI up 2 but still 4 down from last year.
PSA up 1 to same as last year.
ACE up 1 but still 1 down from last year.
Just checked the current position for S15.
JER is definitely gone no longer in menus.
CDG and EGC were in the earlier S15 release but now gone.
TLS is now showing at 2pw down 2 on last year.
FCO,HER, BCN showing 1 less flight each than earlier release.
FAO up 4 to same as last year.
PMI up 2 but still 4 down from last year.
PSA up 1 to same as last year.
ACE up 1 but still 1 down from last year.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed MAN is now by some margin FR's second largest UK base after STN. One does have to think if there is some sort of deal between FR and the entire MAG portfolio of airports as I believe this is followed by EMA in 3rd (certainly through summer schedules) and of course they are the dominant carrier in BOH as well.
As it stands with based aircraft:
LPL seems to lose 1 through much of next summer except in August when it's the same as this year.
...Same goes for BHX.
PIK is down 1 but compensated by GLA base (and more than compensated in terms of weekly flights).
EDI is the same as this year but an increase in flights, just like MAN.
BRS gains an aircraft but that doesn't really equate to any increase in flights as it stands.
STN, despite the strong growth, to my knowledge is actually a few aircraft down with more flying done from aircraft based overseas. I would almost guarantee new routes between now and April for STN though so could balance out.
BOH, EMA, LBA and LTN still to come. They are not looking too bad at all for the UK next year considering its early days. Let's hope MAN and the UK as a whole does see further aircraft being based here now that the new deliveries are coming in.
As it stands with based aircraft:
LPL seems to lose 1 through much of next summer except in August when it's the same as this year.
...Same goes for BHX.
PIK is down 1 but compensated by GLA base (and more than compensated in terms of weekly flights).
EDI is the same as this year but an increase in flights, just like MAN.
BRS gains an aircraft but that doesn't really equate to any increase in flights as it stands.
STN, despite the strong growth, to my knowledge is actually a few aircraft down with more flying done from aircraft based overseas. I would almost guarantee new routes between now and April for STN though so could balance out.
BOH, EMA, LBA and LTN still to come. They are not looking too bad at all for the UK next year considering its early days. Let's hope MAN and the UK as a whole does see further aircraft being based here now that the new deliveries are coming in.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed, taken in isolation within the MAN operation, your figures on Ryanair do show that MAN has fared remarkably well since the relaunch of the airline's base here. Over 200 weekly departures in s2015 is significant and welcome.
However, I think some of us are looking at what happens with Ryanair and Easyjet next year in the context of what is almost certainly happening with MON with less destinations and frequencies and, in all probability, at least 2 less based a/c. The information posted by Viscount 702 on Jet2 is also a concern in that while this second version of their schedule is probably no worse overall in the number of weekly departures than the first release, the latter certainly meant a decrease on this summer. It is still possible that more flights will be introduced but as things stand, two of MAN's main customers may be doing less business than this summer.
Put in this context, I would be hoping that Ryanair and Easyjet might expand, not just to compensate for the reduction in the two airlines mentioned, but sufficiently to help MAN grow overall. Of course, there's TOM and TCX and while we know the latter is doing some new things, I'm not clear how their total schedules compare with this year. Then there's long haul with legacy carriers where the position is not finalised, but CX to HK and DL to JFK will be a boost but with question marks over Egyptair and US to Charlotte. (and if Skip is to be believed, AA to JFK).
It's still early days. A lot can happen before the final situation for summer is known and there may be other things in the pipeline that if they come to pass will enable MAN to continue its growth of the last 2 years. And it could be argued that the quality and mix of MAN's portfolio of destinations and airlines is just as important as passenger numbers; speaking of which, it would be nice to see some August figures.
However, I think some of us are looking at what happens with Ryanair and Easyjet next year in the context of what is almost certainly happening with MON with less destinations and frequencies and, in all probability, at least 2 less based a/c. The information posted by Viscount 702 on Jet2 is also a concern in that while this second version of their schedule is probably no worse overall in the number of weekly departures than the first release, the latter certainly meant a decrease on this summer. It is still possible that more flights will be introduced but as things stand, two of MAN's main customers may be doing less business than this summer.
Put in this context, I would be hoping that Ryanair and Easyjet might expand, not just to compensate for the reduction in the two airlines mentioned, but sufficiently to help MAN grow overall. Of course, there's TOM and TCX and while we know the latter is doing some new things, I'm not clear how their total schedules compare with this year. Then there's long haul with legacy carriers where the position is not finalised, but CX to HK and DL to JFK will be a boost but with question marks over Egyptair and US to Charlotte. (and if Skip is to be believed, AA to JFK).
It's still early days. A lot can happen before the final situation for summer is known and there may be other things in the pipeline that if they come to pass will enable MAN to continue its growth of the last 2 years. And it could be argued that the quality and mix of MAN's portfolio of destinations and airlines is just as important as passenger numbers; speaking of which, it would be nice to see some August figures.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West UK
Age: 69
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair
FR at STN, please see my posting on the Liverpool thread. The Ryanair rep has stated that there are 5 based aircraft for summer 2015 and that passenger volumes are expected to fall by 50k as a result of the transfer of Shannon to MAN. I think he is likely to know what he is talking about.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the new fixed term parliament you need a two thirds majority to dissolve parliament (to stop a PM going early to an election), as such very unlikely parliament will be dissolved before May 2015, both major parties would have to agree to it and whichever was likely to lose an early election would not vote to dissolve parliament.
When that law was drafted no one anticipated a potential constitutional crisis within the fixed-term. The beauty of an unwritten constitution is flexibility: a one clause bill repealing that stupid piece of legislation could be passed in a day.
Apart from anything else, it’s in the long term interests of both the Conservative and Labour parties do so. Expediency is a wonderful thing.
FairDealFrank
An eloquent reply (..as ever)
Just one point, if the regions need all this connectivity and higher frequency why has Little Red not been a runaway success?
By all acounts every flight should be full ...but arn't
An eloquent reply (..as ever)
Just one point, if the regions need all this connectivity and higher frequency why has Little Red not been a runaway success?
By all acounts every flight should be full ...but arn't
Good question, Bagso, my guess would be that this was because VS duplicated existing well-established routes that already have high levels of frequency.
Trading under a rather silly and unhelpful name couldn’t have helped.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connectivity depends on critical mass, BA has it, LH has it, EK/QR/EY AF have it, KL has it however VS doesn't come close and VS/DL is still not there. Do you deny the UK should even have a hub Bagso? I assume you mean you'd prefer KLM to leave MAN-AMS on fiddling little narrow bodies and set up a point to point MAN long haul operation with spare MD11s? Or am I misunderstanding?
Well my response was to a slightly different question posed by FFD so unsure what narrow bodies to AMS has to do with it , but as you ask Skip.
Lets be clear my interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North in that order, I see Manchester Airport as key to that. I hope therefore those who are charged with running its operation over their tenure do their damnedest to secure new routes and of course retain them.
How you view that performance is difficult to quantify with no based airline, and located 200 miles from one of thee largest hubs in the World, you could argue it still does brilliantly well.
It currently also has to put up with a torrent of media output focused on London and its airport expansion.
As a slight aside no finer example than the constant outpouring of support from @Telegraph who even this week ran the headline in their business column
" 6 out of 10 MPs support expansion at Heathrow,
This utterly misleading headline suggested a vast majority of our MPs support this, quite frankly its utter BULL@@@@
When you read the detail only 140 MPs were actually questioned , the 6 out of 10 figure relates to them.
how about an equally misleading line therefore ...
40% of MPs reject Heathrow ?
I'm not against a hub airport but please lets base the conclusion on a "thorough decision making process" and also have a fair playing field and not this blind faith that it has to be LHR just because its there .....
And certainly not a decision made by the imbeciles on the Airport Commission or the MPS who will then vote on this poor research.
"We have to compete , no new runways have been built in since WW2",
That was another line trotted out this week, hang on, did you not have your chance with Stansted or did i miss that one, a huge white elephant fortunately saved only by the coincidence of a locost revolution, there was an opportunity then, but nobody turned up, they are still try now, all to no avail !
Right airport Wrong location !
For what its worth "a hub" should have been been built in my view out towards the M40 corridor somewhere near the old USAF airfield at Croughton. A large 4 runway airport, where there is room to expand, where the current workforce can get to etc.
But they didn't.....the opportunity in my view was lost. So sorry no I don't believe this desperate attempt and that is what it is to expand LHR is the answer, its in totally the wrong place , the infastructure won't support the airport, another runway to the North merely tinkers at the edges , but like the bankers before them we have consultants , etc all rubbing their hands with glee at the £000,000s to be made, if its the wrong decision well the devil take the high road.
Its a mess, that cannot be unraveled but lets not make a bigger one !
So we are where we are like it or lump it !
On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it. I'm sure you will argue again maybe its false demand based on an inability to get into LHR, maybe it is, I would argue that we have significant capacity in TheNorth that will support a sizeable amount of demand that originates up here.
It has to go somewhere and whilst it may not be the complete answer I would much prefer airlines such as ;
USAir
Rouge
SAUDIA
Cathay
Thomas Cook
Delta
Hainian etc
.... come to Manchester, which is the actuality, than to have somebody preach if we don't do this or don't do that they will go somewhere in Europe.
Well my response was to a slightly different question posed by FFD so unsure what narrow bodies to AMS has to do with it , but as you ask Skip.
Lets be clear my interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North in that order, I see Manchester Airport as key to that. I hope therefore those who are charged with running its operation over their tenure do their damnedest to secure new routes and of course retain them.
How you view that performance is difficult to quantify with no based airline, and located 200 miles from one of thee largest hubs in the World, you could argue it still does brilliantly well.
It currently also has to put up with a torrent of media output focused on London and its airport expansion.
As a slight aside no finer example than the constant outpouring of support from @Telegraph who even this week ran the headline in their business column
" 6 out of 10 MPs support expansion at Heathrow,
This utterly misleading headline suggested a vast majority of our MPs support this, quite frankly its utter BULL@@@@
When you read the detail only 140 MPs were actually questioned , the 6 out of 10 figure relates to them.
how about an equally misleading line therefore ...
40% of MPs reject Heathrow ?
I'm not against a hub airport but please lets base the conclusion on a "thorough decision making process" and also have a fair playing field and not this blind faith that it has to be LHR just because its there .....
And certainly not a decision made by the imbeciles on the Airport Commission or the MPS who will then vote on this poor research.
"We have to compete , no new runways have been built in since WW2",
That was another line trotted out this week, hang on, did you not have your chance with Stansted or did i miss that one, a huge white elephant fortunately saved only by the coincidence of a locost revolution, there was an opportunity then, but nobody turned up, they are still try now, all to no avail !
Right airport Wrong location !
For what its worth "a hub" should have been been built in my view out towards the M40 corridor somewhere near the old USAF airfield at Croughton. A large 4 runway airport, where there is room to expand, where the current workforce can get to etc.
But they didn't.....the opportunity in my view was lost. So sorry no I don't believe this desperate attempt and that is what it is to expand LHR is the answer, its in totally the wrong place , the infastructure won't support the airport, another runway to the North merely tinkers at the edges , but like the bankers before them we have consultants , etc all rubbing their hands with glee at the £000,000s to be made, if its the wrong decision well the devil take the high road.
Its a mess, that cannot be unraveled but lets not make a bigger one !
So we are where we are like it or lump it !
On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it. I'm sure you will argue again maybe its false demand based on an inability to get into LHR, maybe it is, I would argue that we have significant capacity in TheNorth that will support a sizeable amount of demand that originates up here.
It has to go somewhere and whilst it may not be the complete answer I would much prefer airlines such as ;
USAir
Rouge
SAUDIA
Cathay
Thomas Cook
Delta
Hainian etc
.... come to Manchester, which is the actuality, than to have somebody preach if we don't do this or don't do that they will go somewhere in Europe.
Last edited by Bagso; 10th Sep 2014 at 07:36.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ainsdale
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use Flightradar24.com to find the based airliners information every night I know there are some night stoppers as well but I don't include these as they are pretty much all gone by early in the morning
I often make these by accident haha. Cheers for that
I would include this one but there is lack of information on where it goes.
I never planned to add these but this has been asked a lot so I am considering it. Moves around quite a bit though
You should see my flight sim at this time It's really full. I really feel like MAN needs an expansion. If the proposed satellite Terminal for T2 and the Pier extension for T3 will come, then I think it would make a big difference to this
I know there are some night stoppers as well but I don't include these as they are pretty much all gone by early in the morning
Oh, one mistake I think - you mention nine based TCX planes but the numbers add up to 10.
And don't forget the only based light aircraft PA-28 G-BCCF.
Also to add, there is a based FedEx B757-200F and Air Contractors ATR72.
I make it about 60 pier stands and currently about 30 remote, not counting any stands that allow double parking for smaller a/c. The airfield certainly looks pretty full at 06.00 in the summer.
It's really full. I really feel like MAN needs an expansion. If the proposed satellite Terminal for T2 and the Pier extension for T3 will come, then I think it would make a big difference to this
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it.
MAN's long haul portfolio is bouncing back but it's not growing dramatically in the way you seem to think it ought to as LHR remains constrained and has done so since intial closure to new entrants in 1977.
Lets be clear my interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North in that order,
if we don't do this or don't do that they will go somewhere in Europe.
#bettertogether
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also to add, there is a based FedEx B757-200F and Air Contractors ATR72.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Airport soaring towards having its busiest year ever - Manchester Evening News
8.2% growth in August!
8.2% growth in August!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness - The gridlock in the SE airports system is unfortunate, and whilst we can debate the numerous factors which have contributed to the evolution of that situation, I think it is safe to conclude that MAN is not to blame! I wholeheartedly agree that LHR needs additional runway capacity, but for whatever reason it is not there and is not going to be there any time soon. So we are where we are and this is the framework we must plan around going forward.
Given this environment, I see no problem with MAN securing such business as it can. In reality, there is virtually no requirement for Londoners to travel north to commence their air travel so they are not inconvenienced in that respect. However, many residents of the North have for years had little choice but to make their journeys to long-haul destinations via LHR, and I have no problem with MAG and other agencies working with overseas carriers to reverse that trend.
Where I must strongly take issue with you concerns the implicit criticism of northern customers supporting overseas carriers operating from MAN rather than religiously patronising BA and its dreadful unreliable transfer hub. I have no objection to BA operating in whatever manner it chooses - it is a commercial business with tough choices to make and I respect that. If that means MAN is just a spoke for afew A319s daily to LHR so be it. But the key word there is CHOICE … BA make a strategic choice which best serves their business. Fine. But here is the bit which is NOT fine … the condemnation of northern travellers who in consequence make a choice to support those carriers which best serve their own travel needs. Their choice is valid too. They have a right to choose too. They do NOT owe LHR a living. And they certainly don't owe loyalty to BA, an airline which offers the bare minimum in serving them. BA and its apologists cannot have their cake and eat it too.
I remind you (once again) that Emirates and Etihad are both large employers in the NW. Etihad and its Abu Dhabi partners are also enormous investors in Greater Manchester specifically. The NW operations of these two carriers alone contribute significant taxes to the UK exchequer (who can then spend it all on Crossrail, London Olympics Villages etc. as they choose). Your objections to the political climate in Qatar have merit, BUT … if we choose to fly only with carriers domiciled in nations with saintly politicians I'm afraid we're all doomed to stay on the ground! Sociopathic megalomania and questionable moral judgment is a universal job-requirement for successful politicians.
MAN is fully justified in attracting whatever carriers it can and the NW public are right to support the services offered as a result. Their only obligation is to best serve their own travel needs. BA is most welcome to commit more resources up here (we don't "hate" them), but we all know they won't. Well, thats absolutely fine - its just business. But that means that we up here will continue flying with QTR, UAE, ETD, KLM, AFR, DLH, DAL, AAL, UAL and all the others, and BAW supporters have NO moral grounds to condemn us for that. We support UK jobs at Manchester Airport by so doing; we support businesses which prosper in the NW hinterland based on this connectivity. We support the UK tax revenue which arises in consequence of this economic activity. And we are proud to do so. Manchester workers pay their taxes into the same pot as London workers. Those who suggest that tolerating the LHR transfer experience is something we should all patriotically endure for the benefit of UK jobs are talking pure hogwash. Sorry.
And now, changing topic entirely. MANFOD - I share your concerns regarding potential retrenchment by carriers such as Monarch and Jet2. I agree that it would be nice to see RYR / EZY expansion filling the void. I suspect that RYR / EZY would like to take up the slack too, but aircraft availability limits expansion options in the short-term so we must be patient a while longer. In the case of Monarch in particular, we are facing not only the possibility of fewer based frames but also the impact of MAN having been home to many of their larger types in the past. A 'double whammy' in the short term, but better to take that pain now rather than see an airline not secure financial viability for the future. Better a leaner, fitter Monarch for the long term than a non-downsized financial black-hole Monarch till the money runs out. Good luck to all affected.
Given this environment, I see no problem with MAN securing such business as it can. In reality, there is virtually no requirement for Londoners to travel north to commence their air travel so they are not inconvenienced in that respect. However, many residents of the North have for years had little choice but to make their journeys to long-haul destinations via LHR, and I have no problem with MAG and other agencies working with overseas carriers to reverse that trend.
Where I must strongly take issue with you concerns the implicit criticism of northern customers supporting overseas carriers operating from MAN rather than religiously patronising BA and its dreadful unreliable transfer hub. I have no objection to BA operating in whatever manner it chooses - it is a commercial business with tough choices to make and I respect that. If that means MAN is just a spoke for afew A319s daily to LHR so be it. But the key word there is CHOICE … BA make a strategic choice which best serves their business. Fine. But here is the bit which is NOT fine … the condemnation of northern travellers who in consequence make a choice to support those carriers which best serve their own travel needs. Their choice is valid too. They have a right to choose too. They do NOT owe LHR a living. And they certainly don't owe loyalty to BA, an airline which offers the bare minimum in serving them. BA and its apologists cannot have their cake and eat it too.
I remind you (once again) that Emirates and Etihad are both large employers in the NW. Etihad and its Abu Dhabi partners are also enormous investors in Greater Manchester specifically. The NW operations of these two carriers alone contribute significant taxes to the UK exchequer (who can then spend it all on Crossrail, London Olympics Villages etc. as they choose). Your objections to the political climate in Qatar have merit, BUT … if we choose to fly only with carriers domiciled in nations with saintly politicians I'm afraid we're all doomed to stay on the ground! Sociopathic megalomania and questionable moral judgment is a universal job-requirement for successful politicians.
MAN is fully justified in attracting whatever carriers it can and the NW public are right to support the services offered as a result. Their only obligation is to best serve their own travel needs. BA is most welcome to commit more resources up here (we don't "hate" them), but we all know they won't. Well, thats absolutely fine - its just business. But that means that we up here will continue flying with QTR, UAE, ETD, KLM, AFR, DLH, DAL, AAL, UAL and all the others, and BAW supporters have NO moral grounds to condemn us for that. We support UK jobs at Manchester Airport by so doing; we support businesses which prosper in the NW hinterland based on this connectivity. We support the UK tax revenue which arises in consequence of this economic activity. And we are proud to do so. Manchester workers pay their taxes into the same pot as London workers. Those who suggest that tolerating the LHR transfer experience is something we should all patriotically endure for the benefit of UK jobs are talking pure hogwash. Sorry.
And now, changing topic entirely. MANFOD - I share your concerns regarding potential retrenchment by carriers such as Monarch and Jet2. I agree that it would be nice to see RYR / EZY expansion filling the void. I suspect that RYR / EZY would like to take up the slack too, but aircraft availability limits expansion options in the short-term so we must be patient a while longer. In the case of Monarch in particular, we are facing not only the possibility of fewer based frames but also the impact of MAN having been home to many of their larger types in the past. A 'double whammy' in the short term, but better to take that pain now rather than see an airline not secure financial viability for the future. Better a leaner, fitter Monarch for the long term than a non-downsized financial black-hole Monarch till the money runs out. Good luck to all affected.