Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

MANCHESTER - 9

Old 12th Nov 2014, 08:46
  #4541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think T2 will be first

Ian
Ian Brooks is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2014, 08:56
  #4542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
T2 expansion first could make sense Ian in that it would provide more wriggle room for when T1 is eventually demolished. Depending on the timescale, some limited expansion of T3 in the short term may even be necessary if the idea ultimately is to replace both 1 & 3 with a new terminal. There's Shed's stands 56, 57 and 58 for a start that could be upgraded.
MANFOD is online now  
Old 12th Nov 2014, 11:21
  #4543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flybe opening Bournemouth base and restarting double daily Manchester flights
Oh oh, that's now 11 BE departures in 20 minutes (0840-0900). Challenging.


Dear Menzies/Flybe

Please don't continue to use the SOU flight as your 'spare'.
Betablockeruk is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2014, 18:04
  #4544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In my humble opinion, one of the big challenges to MAN being taken seriously as an alternative to the London options is the way in which airlines p1$$ around with the schedules.
I put a serious amount of money Delta's way each year on a regular trip.
Today I tried to fly out on a Sunday toward the end of this month coming back on the following Wednesday - guess what? No flights.

I mean seriously no Westbound on a Sunday? That has to be THE day when business folk like me want to go somewhere - I've never done that flight on a Sunday when the C cabin is less than 100% full (other than the usual pilot sleep seat - 6A or whatever it is).
Are they trying to annoy their business class pax and make them go elsewhere? - if not they're doing a mighty fine job.
All names taken is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2014, 21:45
  #4545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 896
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Health warning for Bagso.

Another HAL attempt to push it's credentials in the regions.....


The role of the National Connectivity Task Force is to develop an in-depth understanding and associated evidence base of current and future requirements for enhanced transport connectivity to Heathrow Airport and the wider London and South East Region from each region, nation and Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom, with a view to making recommendations to Heathrow Airports Ltd (HAL) and its key stakeholders about:
  1. the ‘regional access’ enhancements that should accompany its proposals to build a third runway – both before and after its completion;
  2. the measures that are required to ensure that these are optimized to the benefit of the economies of regions concerned, the development of a ‘globally’ competitive hub operation, the airport’s commercial partners and users and its neighbours and wider stakeholders;
  3. and the timetable for their implementation.
Membership not yet announced

National Connectivity Task Force
Suzeman is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2014, 23:33
  #4546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There should be a real opportunity with Davies to suggest that if LHR RW3 does not go through, its not all bad news, airlines by choice OR constraint are looking outside the M25 ,
In truth if LHR third rwy is not built it will be a catastrophe. Airlines may well be "looking outside the M25" but don't forget that "outside the M25" include airports like AMS, CDG and FRA that can provide, like LHR, a great deal of connectivity and premium business.

Quote from the MEN:
"Mr Cornish wrote last month to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin arguing for a model in which the country’s transport needs are served by Manchester and Heathrow - which already have two runways - along with Gatwick and MAG-owned Stansted, which wish to build second runways, combined with high-speed rail links.
He said he disagreed with the Heathrow operator’s argument that a third runway is necessary to allow British businesses to open new routes to fast-growing markets in the developing world."

Does the boss of Ringway really not understand the concept of hub airports? Does he really think that taxpayers would pony-up billions for high speed links between LHR, LGW and STN?

Sounds like a reheated "Heathwick" which has already been rejected. Maybe time to try and keep up?






Some interesting stuff in that MEN write-up, MANFOD. Thanks for the link. When you stop to think about it … GBP 7.8 BILLION for one new runway at LGW (and a forecast that it will cost more!). The streets of London may not be paved with gold, but to cost that much the runways must be. One more LHR runway … GBP 17 BILLION and rising. These figures must include buying and demolishing Sussex and Middlesex respectively.
It would have cost a hell of a lot less had it been done when it should have been, in the 1970s/1980s. BTW only a tiny bit of Middlesex would to be demolished: sacrificing a small bit of the county for the national good, and it is the national good.

How much did MAN's 23L/05R cost again? What an absolute bargain! At the end of the day, a runway is a relatively simple project from a construction point of view … those stellar sums must relate to land acquisition costs and lining the pockets of several hundred lawyers. With those price-tags, would either runway ever truly justify its cost? Because there are alternatives however sub-optimal they might be.
Yes, Ringway has already doubled its rwy capacity, why should Heathrow be denied the same opportunity? There are no alternatives, that is the point.



1) LHR needs a third and fourth runway.
Correct, and now, not years in the future.


2) Good that MAN is best airport in UK, what about outside UK....not so good.
3) Forget the 4m pax travelling to LHR, they are BA's. What about the other tranfer pax to DUB, FRA, CDG etc, don't hear much moaning here.
Yes, funny that! and no one moans about those transferring at AUH, DOH and DXB either.


4) Focus on MAN, make it a better P2P and transit airport.

MAN management needs to look at it's own infrastructure, as far as I can see there is zero planning for growth. MAN wants to play in the big leagues, so do something about it, give the airlines an airport they want to use.
Indeed, there's huge potential at Ringway.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2014, 01:45
  #4547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LHR … The Battle is Already Lost. MAN Must Bat for Itself.

I agree with several of your points, Fairdealfrank … LHR expansion is the preferred solution to London's capacity dilemma, and yes, the work should have been done thirty years ago. But a couple of other considerations now arise. Because the work at Heathrow was NOT done thirty years ago. LHR's early advantage has ALREADY been squandered as a result of political ineptitude. Heathrow WILL now be surpassed by continental rivals. Dithering and inertia at Westminster have already assured that. Number one status will not be easily reclaimed once lost. LHR's future is (at best) to play catch-up. Against continental rivals with fewer constraints to growth and superior infrastructure (third runway notwithstanding).

The cost quoted for adding a runway at LHR does appear wildly excessive. GBP 17 Billion minimum? "Probably GBP 4 Billion more". How is this preposterous sum calculated? Even GBP 5 Billion seems a heck of alot by my reckoning. Even though LHR expansion remains desirable from an operational point of view, growth should not come at a cost beyond its true value to the nation. Just think what GBP 17+4 Billion could do for Northern England's decrepit infrastructure. That would boost UK plc too. There must be a cut-off figure above which we acknowledge that the bill just isn't worth it. The alternative SE capacity proposals (yes, there are alternatives) bring some advantages of their own to UK plc, so if LHR development costs are so staggeringly high the operationally less-ideal solutions merit careful consideration from a value perspective.

You mention that LHR needs new runway capacity NOW. You are 100% correct. But that option is not on the table. Britain has endured 50 years of untalented, visionless political lightweights of all hues allowing our air transport infrastructure to fall way behind the nation's requirement. Even today, many MP's consider this a very good thing because (as you know) aeroplanes are killing the planet (if you don't accept this obvious truth you are an evil climate change denier!). This mindset will continue to dog the planning and inquiry process, further delaying any real solution going forward.

When do you (honestly) think a third LHR runway will open for business, even in a 'best case' scenario? My guess is 15-20 years. And LHR is full right now. So the question arises: what will be the status of LHR 20 years from now? My guess is well behind CDG, FRA, AMS and maybe two or three others in Europe alone. And the airlines using those airports will be established and entrenched, their infrastructure and support in place, their investments made years earlier. Perhaps several of these carriers will by then be content to use LHR as a spoke rather than their European hub of choice. We can't assume that the major carriers will up sticks en-masse to a LHR by then languishing at no.6 in Europe, still occupying a constrained site which cannot match the infrastructure of its main continental rivals.

We can presume that LHR has growth in its future. But we cannot presume that its status as Europe's hub of choice is a divine right. In twenty years time I strongly suspect it will lag far behind the competition.

And now a quick look at the twenty year window up until a third LHR runway could be expected to open. MAN has a key role to play during (and beyond) this timeframe. MAN's role is not to replace LHR, but to be the airport of choice for the cities comprising the newly-branded "Northern Powerhouse" and several of the shires beyond. This will be facilitated by MAN's existing second runway which, BTW, increases movement capacity by approximately 50%. 23L/05R is a staggered close parallel runway which means it cannot double MAN's throughput. But the extra 50% comes in quite handy!

Many of the passengers displaced from LHR will indeed use foreign hubs en route to their final destination. The problem is, several of these rival hubs represent a much better travel experience for the passenger than does LHR. Again, one cannot assume that all this footfall will magically switch allegiance back to LHR just because a new runway finally opens 50 years too late. Customers will choose the deal which suits them best. And there will be new choices in the mix: Berlin Brandenburg (they'll get it right eventually!); the new Istanbul. And established growing second-tier favourites: MUC, MAD, ZRH, CPH and the like. Plus hubs beyond Europe.

By the time LHR opens 'Runway 3', my hunch is that the airport will already be far adrift of Europe's top tier. It will grow, but it will never again catch up. Our politicians have already seen to that.

Meanwhile, MAN has a key role to play. Not as a LHR replacement, but as a big city-region destination in its own right.

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 13th Nov 2014 at 02:33.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2014, 09:07
  #4548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 3,578
Received 330 Likes on 184 Posts
Definition of an essay?

Anyone?
TURIN is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2014, 09:31
  #4549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LH2505 MAN-MUC this morning diverted into STR due to smell in cockpit.
The interesting nuggest in the media reports are that the A321 carried just 82 Pax. Must have been a comfortable flight up to the smell issue.
insuindi is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2014, 10:00
  #4550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It`s never quite as clear cut re pax figures as they are looked for the days rotaions and not just 1 flight as a particular aircraft maybe swapped for many reasons i:e heavy load on 1 flight, delayed on a previous
etc etc

Ian
Ian Brooks is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2014, 12:43
  #4551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2 Antonov 124 due this weekend at MAN. 1st arrived this morning as VDA2512. Not sure on the timings of the second.
kieb92 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2014, 14:00
  #4552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MAN management seem to spend more time blowing sh*t in the media !

Dear oh dear oh dear tell me that you are joking !

Bloody hell , for the most part they are more subdued than a church mouse, infact please quote some references.

As far as I am aware despite being one of the largest organisations in the UK its only the second time the CEO has come out fighting his corner and whether you agree with him or not is immaterial.

Even then instead of using a national agency to get his message into "THE NATIONAL MEDIA" it's ended up in the good old MEN. A newspaper whose news and coverage barely extends beyond the M60 ......!

Hate to say it but the airport are almost totally "ManchesterCetric" appreciate it is more marketing than communications BUT few billboards in Yorkshire and the Midlands is not exactly going to get your message heard at a national level !


With regard to postings I would much rather read Sheds posting than some of the other contributions, a substantial number of which make no meaningful contribution to debate.
Bagso is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2014, 18:03
  #4553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting report by IPPR

Northern towns and cities account for one-fifth of UK's economy - Manchester Evening News

and "a fix" sort of re T3

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....-news--8101037


AND the best one, clearly irked by recent comments by the Chamber Of Commerce for Lancashire, finally a response , better late than never !

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/traffic-tr...oars-1-6946901

Last edited by Bagso; 13th Nov 2014 at 18:21.
Bagso is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 01:59
  #4554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good post, Shed

LHR … The Battle is Already Lost. MAN Must Bat for Itself.

I agree with several of your points, Fairdealfrank … LHR expansion is the preferred solution to London's capacity dilemma, and yes, the work should have been done thirty years ago. But a couple of other considerations now arise. Because the work at Heathrow was NOT done thirty years ago. LHR's early advantage has ALREADY been squandered as a result of political ineptitude. Heathrow WILL now be surpassed by continental rivals. Dithering and inertia at Westminster have already assured that. Number one status will not be easily reclaimed once lost. LHR's future is (at best) to play catch-up. Against continental rivals with fewer constraints to growth and superior infrastructure (third runway notwithstanding).
Since reading these comments, have been racking my brain: are there any other countries that have thrown away such a huge competitive advantage?


The cost quoted for adding a runway at LHR does appear wildly excessive. GBP 17 Billion minimum? "Probably GBP 4 Billion more". How is this preposterous sum calculated? Even GBP 5 Billion seems a heck of alot by my reckoning. Even though LHR expansion remains desirable from an operational point of view, growth should not come at a cost beyond its true value to the nation.
Just like it’s possible to manipulate statistics to suit a particular point of view, creative accounting can be used to the same ends. Who really knows how much the rwy will cost? It can be spun in many ways. Are the Davis Commision costs included? the work preceding the White Paper of 2003? The RUTCATSE study of 1995? Just look at the ever-increasing estimates for HS2, no one really knows.

Just think what GBP 17+4 Billion could do for Northern England's decrepit infrastructure. That would boost UK plc too. There must be a cut-off figure above which we acknowledge that the bill just isn't worth it. The alternative SE capacity proposals (yes, there are alternatives) bring some advantages of their own to UK plc, so if LHR development costs are so staggeringly high the operationally less-ideal solutions merit careful consideration from a value perspective.
£21 bn. could do a lot for northern infrastructure. The problem is, from that point of view, is that this particular £21 bn. (if it is an accurate figure) is private sector money paying for a particular infrastructure project for which there is a very good business case.

As for the other south east alternatives, they don’t address the very specific problem: no spare capacity at the UK’s hub airport.

You mention that LHR needs new runway capacity NOW. You are 100% correct. But that option is not on the table. Britain has endured 50 years of untalented, visionless political lightweights of all hues allowing our air transport infrastructure to fall way behind the nation's requirement.
Can’t argue with your comments about the lightweights that run the country.

Even today, many MP's consider this a very good thing because (as you know) aeroplanes are killing the planet (if you don't accept this obvious truth you are an evil climate change denier!). This mindset will continue to dog the planning and inquiry process, further delaying any real solution going forward.
As for the pollution argument, that falls down because more fuel is wasted, and pollution generated, by aircraft queuing up for 20 minutes to take off and for 20 minutes plus while in a stack before landing. It all adds to fares.

There’s also one other mindset that holds things up: the vocal minority of anti-aviation (till they want to fly off somewhere) well-off NIMBYs who live miles away from the airport being taken more seriously than the needs of the UK as a whole.

The sorry saga appears to be about to repeat itself over the issue of fracking, but that's another story.

When do you (honestly) think a third LHR runway will open for business, even in a 'best case' scenario? My guess is 15-20 years. And LHR is full right now.
You optimist!

My guess is probably not in most of our lifetimes.

So the question arises: what will be the status of LHR 20 years from now? My guess is well behind CDG, FRA, AMS and maybe two or three others in Europe alone. And the airlines using those airports will be established and entrenched, their infrastructure and support in place, their investments made years earlier. Perhaps several of these carriers will by then be content to use LHR as a spoke rather than their European hub of choice. We can't assume that the major carriers will up sticks en-masse to a LHR by then languishing at no.6 in Europe, still occupying a constrained site which cannot match the infrastructure of its main continental rivals.

We can presume that LHR has growth in its future. But we cannot presume that its status as Europe's hub of choice is a divine right. In twenty years time I strongly suspect it will lag far behind the competition.
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in 20 years? We can’t assume that LHR will have sunk to sixth place any more than we can assume it will be in first.

One has to follow the money, if Heathrow’s long term future is so dire, it’s unlikely that billions of private money would be going into infrastructure improvements on the airport. Two new terminals are the current examples.

We know two things:

(1) That we need to grow our economy and trade with the entire world. Forget about the sclerotic eurozone (which contains AMS, CDG, FRA) it’s dying from deflation and high unemployment and will probably implode in the medium term). To that end we need connectivity both to/from the big world out there, and that needs to be linked to all parts of the UK by feeder routes.

(2) In 20 years time aircraft will be even cleaner and quieter than today.

And now a quick look at the twenty year window up until a third LHR runway could be expected to open. MAN has a key role to play during (and beyond) this timeframe. MAN's role is not to replace LHR, but to be the airport of choice for the cities comprising the newly-branded "Northern Powerhouse" and several of the shires beyond. This will be facilitated by MAN's existing second runway which, BTW, increases movement capacity by approximately 50%. 23L/05R is a staggered close parallel runway which means it cannot double MAN's throughput. But the extra 50% comes in quite handy!
Have always stated that Ringway is an important part of the UK’s aviation infrastructure and that it has great potential, but it is not a case of "either/or".

Ringway’s growth will follow on when the great northern powerhouse becomes a reality, when it becomes like the Rhine-Ruhr area of Germany. It looks as if it could be on the way, so bring it on.

Many of the passengers displaced from LHR will indeed use foreign hubs en route to their final destination. The problem is, several of these rival hubs represent a much better travel experience for the passenger than does LHR.
Not necessarily the case any more. CDG is dire and wins several “worst airport” awards while LHR is getting into the top 10 best airports these days.

Again, one cannot assume that all this footfall will magically switch allegiance back to LHR just because a new runway finally opens 50 years too late. Customers will choose the deal which suits them best.
Don’t they always?

And there will be new choices in the mix: Berlin Brandenburg (they'll get it right eventually!); the new Istanbul. And established growing second-tier favourites: MUC, MAD, ZRH, CPH and the like. Plus hubs beyond Europe.
Good, plenty of competition, pity it doesn’t always keep fares down. What you describe above already happens and will continue.

Don’t see BER, CPH, MAD, MUC, ZRH overtaking LHR, but would like to see MAN included in the list of up and coming airports.

By the time LHR opens 'Runway 3', my hunch is that the airport will already be far adrift of Europe's top tier. It will grow, but it will never again catch up. Our politicians have already seen to that.
As mentioned above, not completely convinced.

Meanwhile, MAN has a key role to play. Not as a LHR replacement, but as a big city-region destination in its own right.
As mentioned above, agreed.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 02:03
  #4555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With regard to postings I would much rather read Sheds posting
Me too.........
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 04:08
  #4556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
3 more Easyjet routes to be announced soon by all accounts.
LAX_LHR is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:44
  #4557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Always good to see some actual evidence to support a view or proposition, its where some posters fall down .....

Heathrow - build and be damned, no rationale, no supportive thinking, kneejerk headline ! (FairDealFrank excluded).

That said it is one of the reasons I find part of the Davies submission so lame.

I cannot locate the original NATs article but here is a reference to it.

Four runway Heathrow would cut Gatwick by half | News | Wandsworth Council

If we assume an average 5% growth in pax over say 10 years based on a fag packet calculation, that would equate to;

75m per year X 5% =3.75 m lost pax

Timeline to build min..10 years but assume it opens in 2025, highly optimistic that's 37.5m, if its such a magnet for trade , will it not be full immediately assuming all the traffic lost in the intervening years then comes back ?

If you build 4 runways which is the ideal solution you then effectively cut down total SE movements by 10% who takes the hit for that one ?

AND not much discussion by Davies about how the M4, M25 and Paddington Express will deal with all these extra pax !

Its an utter mess, therefore how do we try and claw back some of that lost traffic. Do you throw in the towel to AMS CDG FRA or place at least some emphasis on a place like Manchester which has excellent road/rail links, is central for the UK, is within 1 hour of some of the UKs largest Cities and already has double the direct links to the UK regions.

Manchester will not be force fed with traffic , its nonsense to suggest this would happen, BUT given these parameters what would the Germans do ?

As a footnote whether Manchester will invest in facilities to match the aspirations of a few of us on here is very doubtful, you have a major investor with a 35% holding whose stated interest is Stansted, everytime a new long haul route is announced Ex Man (and there has been a few since they bought in) it must irk enormously !

Pretty sure its NOT what they signed up for !

It remains to be seen whether they will stick or twist !

Us Northerners put away our cloth caps and whippets many years ago , with Devo Manc, NorthernPowerhouse etc there is a major opportunity and momentum to influence at a national level, ManAirport whatever your thinking needs to be leading that charge.

Last edited by Bagso; 14th Nov 2014 at 10:14.
Bagso is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 07:50
  #4558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More growth in October
News / New routes and increased capacity boosts Manchester Airport THEBUSINESSDESK.COM

MANCHESTER Airport is within touching distance of reaching its pre-recession record of 22 million passengers after another strong month of growth.

The airport said passenger numbers rose 7.1% in October to more than two million, taking the rolling annual total to 21.8 million.

During October there was a 12% year-on-year increase in passengers flying internationally, as numbers were boosted by new route launches and the introduction of increased capacity on existing long haul routes.

Ken O’Toole, chief commercial officer at MAG, owner of Manchester Airport, said: “It’s been another strong month of growth for Manchester Airport where we have further improved our credentials as being the international gateway for the North of England.

"Our ongoing ‘Fly Manchester’ campaign, has been hugely successful in communicating to passengers that there is no need to make the long trek to use congested and expensive airports in the south, when better options are available right on their doorstep.

"As we see more passengers come through our doors, Manchester Airport can play an even more effective role in helping deliver the ‘Northern Powerhouse' through providing new jobs and business opportunities to the region."

During October, Ryanair announced it would be extending its winter flying schedule from Manchester and a new service to Eindhoven in Holland, a previously unserved destination, launched.

Flybe also commenced a new year-round daily service to Amsterdam, marking the start of its winter flying programme, where it will operate 17 routes to and from Manchester offering a choice of up to 660 flights a week.

Saudia Airlines announced an additional service on its successful Manchester- Jeddah flights, increasing their offering from three to four flights per week on a Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday.
Ian Brooks is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 08:19
  #4559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"the international gateway for the North of England "

"Manchester Airport can play an even more effective role in helping deliver the ‘Northern Powerhouse"

GOOD GOD.......... they live and breathe at last, terminology I never thought would see the day


I'm not one to do politics but given the DevoManc, Northern Powerhouse momentum maybe certain Politicians are using the rationale to suggest that us Northerners are sick to the back teeth of money being spend down South ?

I hasten to add its not an argument I necessarily agree with ......

But call me a cycnic and I know Davies came to Manchester Town hall 18 months back but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Davies would not have been scheduled to head back up the M6 at this late hour if it had not been suggested by the great and the good.

Will he be foolish enough to totally ignore Manchester in the new political climate ?

What is the betting that Manchester "miraculously" emerges as a major player in the debate ?

I suspect some strong arm tactics have come into play !

"....all ahead back, get that man up North, and quick"

....on a wider note gaining political Capital from this could now dissuade a lot of Northern MPs from supporting RW3 if they see the mood music changing, if Manchester is the benefactor then so be it.

I suspect they thought that many of their constituents were ambivalent about their support of expansion down South,
Eg Graham Stringer, Louise Ellman, they thought wrong !

An awful lot of Northern MPs may change their position if they think they may be booted out !

Interesting also that in that PR piece "Gateway To The North " has re-emerged, tweeked to say long haul to protect the sensitivities of LIV and LBA of course.

what was the phrase "All in it together " ...by eck.

It's taken a while but just maybe with the assault by Charlie Cornish, the response that Andrew Cowan gave to the Lancashire Evening Post and re-introduction of a term often used by GT, Manchester has finally woken from its slumbers !

About time....bloody time !

Heart pills away.....

Last edited by Bagso; 14th Nov 2014 at 10:19.
Bagso is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 08:32
  #4560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bagso
Don`t move i`ll get somewhere to lie down lol!
Ian Brooks is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.