MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent result for October and good to see something is being done about T3 Border Control, who I hope will provide sufficient staff for the extra desks.
I always find it worth reading the debate involving Shed and FDF. Regarding the necessity of a mega hub, although I accept there is a good case, I've never been totally convinced it's an overwhelming one in terms of benefits to cities and regions outside London and the South East. For example, would a domestic feeder from, say, DTV to Heathrow really generate extra business or would it mainly cause some London only passengers to transfer from rail? For those travelling abroad from Teeside, would it dilute traffic on the limited KLM service to AMS, or pax who might otherwise use NCL or LBA or even MAN? A similar argument could be put for a LPL-LHR feeder. Nevertheless, while pax simply transferring at LHR may not spend much money in the UK, I can appreciate that increased numbers can make flights to new destinations and increased frequencies to existing cities viable with the potential for extra cargo as well as passengers.
It was something of a shock to find a dissenting voice to the claimed benefits of a hub in the London-centric Daily Telegraph. Jeremy Warner, Assistant Editor and Business & Economics commentator, broke ranks rather in an article the other day suggesting a third runway at LHR would never be built and that there was a better, less risky case for LGW. He ended his article:
"And who wants a “hub” anyway. Having once had the chance to look around Singapore’s vast container port, I’m not convinced by the economic arguments for “hub” transport models. They can, of course, be very useful to the big operators, who can mix and match transit cargo and passengers to maximum effect, but their impact on the surrounding economy is at best marginal. Nor should we take seriously threats from BA to move to Madrid if Heathrow isn’t expanded sufficiently to accommodate its own ambitions. Passengers will only take indirect flights if offered huge discounts to fill up the seats. BA would lose its British customer base if it moved.
A third runway at Heathrow is never going to be built. Let’s just get used to it"
I'm not saying his comments about hubs are necessarily correct but simply pointing out that there is an argument to be had and one which I hope Davies has not closed his mind to.
As far as MAN is concerned, I share Bagso's delight that it has now come out of its corner fighting. Hope the rumour of 3 more easyjet routes to be announced is right - it will keep the 9th based a/c busy.
I always find it worth reading the debate involving Shed and FDF. Regarding the necessity of a mega hub, although I accept there is a good case, I've never been totally convinced it's an overwhelming one in terms of benefits to cities and regions outside London and the South East. For example, would a domestic feeder from, say, DTV to Heathrow really generate extra business or would it mainly cause some London only passengers to transfer from rail? For those travelling abroad from Teeside, would it dilute traffic on the limited KLM service to AMS, or pax who might otherwise use NCL or LBA or even MAN? A similar argument could be put for a LPL-LHR feeder. Nevertheless, while pax simply transferring at LHR may not spend much money in the UK, I can appreciate that increased numbers can make flights to new destinations and increased frequencies to existing cities viable with the potential for extra cargo as well as passengers.
It was something of a shock to find a dissenting voice to the claimed benefits of a hub in the London-centric Daily Telegraph. Jeremy Warner, Assistant Editor and Business & Economics commentator, broke ranks rather in an article the other day suggesting a third runway at LHR would never be built and that there was a better, less risky case for LGW. He ended his article:
"And who wants a “hub” anyway. Having once had the chance to look around Singapore’s vast container port, I’m not convinced by the economic arguments for “hub” transport models. They can, of course, be very useful to the big operators, who can mix and match transit cargo and passengers to maximum effect, but their impact on the surrounding economy is at best marginal. Nor should we take seriously threats from BA to move to Madrid if Heathrow isn’t expanded sufficiently to accommodate its own ambitions. Passengers will only take indirect flights if offered huge discounts to fill up the seats. BA would lose its British customer base if it moved.
A third runway at Heathrow is never going to be built. Let’s just get used to it"
I'm not saying his comments about hubs are necessarily correct but simply pointing out that there is an argument to be had and one which I hope Davies has not closed his mind to.
As far as MAN is concerned, I share Bagso's delight that it has now come out of its corner fighting. Hope the rumour of 3 more easyjet routes to be announced is right - it will keep the 9th based a/c busy.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From another forum, new rumoured routes for EZY are:
Split
Santiago de Compostela
Paris CDG
easyJet CEO also wants EZY to be the 3rd largest airline at MAN over the next few years. Currently they are 7th so some more expansion expected.
Have been trying to find some figures, does anyone know who the top 5 airlines are at Manchester in terms of passenger numbers? Thanks
Split
Santiago de Compostela
Paris CDG
easyJet CEO also wants EZY to be the 3rd largest airline at MAN over the next few years. Currently they are 7th so some more expansion expected.
Have been trying to find some figures, does anyone know who the top 5 airlines are at Manchester in terms of passenger numbers? Thanks
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit surprised there isn't a thread for the Davies debate but anyway, very enjoyable contributions in the last page or two. Couple of comments :
Fairdeal Frank : My reading of it is that LHR is roughly 50/50 private funding (ie air traveller funded) and taxpayer funded. LHR is not a pure private scheme by any means ; LGW is mostly private.
FDF : I think France has done even worse by building an enormous airport which doesn't work. CDG plus Orly makes LHR plus LGW look quite good!
MANFOD :I think if anything Gatwick has gained traction over recent months and is still well in the frame. The balance between the value added by the concentrated hub model versus the distributed LHR + LGW +MAN model is one of the key issues on which the recommendation (as opposed to decision!) will turn.
The costs --- if it was just a matter of building a runway I agree the costs would be stonkingly enormous. But it is not just that : at Heathrow you have all the road remodelling works and tunnelling, at Gatwick there's a new terminal, these are complex multi-aspect projects. Yes there are good business cases for both of them but they don't come cheap, except relative to Boris's Island.
Fairdeal Frank : My reading of it is that LHR is roughly 50/50 private funding (ie air traveller funded) and taxpayer funded. LHR is not a pure private scheme by any means ; LGW is mostly private.
FDF : I think France has done even worse by building an enormous airport which doesn't work. CDG plus Orly makes LHR plus LGW look quite good!
MANFOD :I think if anything Gatwick has gained traction over recent months and is still well in the frame. The balance between the value added by the concentrated hub model versus the distributed LHR + LGW +MAN model is one of the key issues on which the recommendation (as opposed to decision!) will turn.
The costs --- if it was just a matter of building a runway I agree the costs would be stonkingly enormous. But it is not just that : at Heathrow you have all the road remodelling works and tunnelling, at Gatwick there's a new terminal, these are complex multi-aspect projects. Yes there are good business cases for both of them but they don't come cheap, except relative to Boris's Island.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West UK
Age: 69
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
easyJet
Kieb
I find that a surprising comment by the easyJet CEO. My understanding is that they wish to be either No1 or No2 in each of their chosen markets. To aim to be No3 over a longish timescale appears to be significantly under shooting their published aspirations.
I find that a surprising comment by the easyJet CEO. My understanding is that they wish to be either No1 or No2 in each of their chosen markets. To aim to be No3 over a longish timescale appears to be significantly under shooting their published aspirations.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like I owe the Airport City people an apology......
Things appear to be moving swifter than I thought !
> News > Enterprise Zone growth on the cards in Autumn Statement - Place North West
"According to the report, the JV has occupier interest on 300,000 sq ft of office space and around 500 hotel bedrooms, with proposals and conversations at various stages of development with prospective occupiers. There is active occupier interest on 200,000 sq ft of space and 12 acres of land at Airport City South, including an 80,000 sq ft enquiry following the China Roadshow in June 2014. - See more at: http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news....T4VqOaEt.dpuf "
In order to quantify, can anybody confirm how big the DHL facility is ?
Things appear to be moving swifter than I thought !
> News > Enterprise Zone growth on the cards in Autumn Statement - Place North West
"According to the report, the JV has occupier interest on 300,000 sq ft of office space and around 500 hotel bedrooms, with proposals and conversations at various stages of development with prospective occupiers. There is active occupier interest on 200,000 sq ft of space and 12 acres of land at Airport City South, including an 80,000 sq ft enquiry following the China Roadshow in June 2014. - See more at: http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news....T4VqOaEt.dpuf "
In order to quantify, can anybody confirm how big the DHL facility is ?
Last edited by Bagso; 14th Nov 2014 at 14:37.
I've never been totally convinced it's an overwhelming one in terms of benefits to cities and regions outside London and the South East. For example, would a domestic feeder from, say, DTV to Heathrow really generate extra business or would it mainly cause some London only passengers to transfer from rail? For those travelling abroad from Teesside, would it dilute traffic on the limited KLM service to AMS, or pax who might otherwise use NCL or LBA or even MAN?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso:
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 ?
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 we bring this to MAN - the situation right now (September numbers since MAN has not published their traffic statistics for October yet) shows a 5.74% yearly growth. With this in mind and a startpoint of 21.66 million yearly passengers - MAN may end up with a yearly level of 37.9 million passengers in exactly 10 years from now and this is 75% more passengers than today.
A scenario with such a continued growth will be very uggly for MAN. The few minor complaints we see today will only be trivials compared with we may see in 10 years. A 60% growth in runway movements may be feasible (+60% provided 15 percentage points of the growth would be covered of larger aircraft/higher cabin loads), but the ground movement bottlenecks and the terminal capacity deficits will be very visible only within a few years. I presume it will take large part of a decade to complete the extensions to Terminal 2 alone, and still you will only have a one way lane in to and out from both T2 and the backside of pier C at T1. I have not mentioned replacement of remote stands to use during the construction period plus more remote stands needed because of the growth ... and more bussing, more Shell tankers...
I hope for MAN the growth goes down to more comfy +2%.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LN KGL
I have indeed heard of compound interest.
The figure quoted was, as I did actually indicate a "basic fag packet calculation" for illustration purposes only, in that regard it served the purpose.
It was not meant to be used for a detailed forensic evaluation as so much can happen over a 10 year timeline, it was however possibly the minimum that one might expect !
BUT adding another 10m pax serves only to "compound" the point I was attempting to make. Albeit somewhat unsuccessfully it seems.
I have indeed heard of compound interest.
The figure quoted was, as I did actually indicate a "basic fag packet calculation" for illustration purposes only, in that regard it served the purpose.
It was not meant to be used for a detailed forensic evaluation as so much can happen over a 10 year timeline, it was however possibly the minimum that one might expect !
BUT adding another 10m pax serves only to "compound" the point I was attempting to make. Albeit somewhat unsuccessfully it seems.
Last edited by Bagso; 14th Nov 2014 at 16:48.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LN-KGL, I'm not sure what extensions to T2 MAN, or you, have in mind, but it shouldn't take a decade, surely! It depends how advanced detailed plans are, but even if the airport has remained very quiet on the subject I expect much work has been done behind the scenes. Not sure how long is involved in getting plans approved, putting out to tender, appointing contractors etc. but I would hope to see something well before then even if extra facilities are opened in stages.
Nevertheless, your final comment about 2% growth is why I previously suggested, slightly tongue in cheek, that MAN may prefer more modest manageable growth given the present infrastructure constraints. I would hope however that they are more ambitious than that and will now expedite much needed development. Whether it was because of the recession and/or MAN has been genuinely surprised at the level of increased activity in the last 2 or 3 years, or whether STN became a distraction for MAG, I've no idea; but I can understand the perception by some that the airport is behind in the game as far as infrastructure is concerned and needs to start running to catch up.
Nevertheless, your final comment about 2% growth is why I previously suggested, slightly tongue in cheek, that MAN may prefer more modest manageable growth given the present infrastructure constraints. I would hope however that they are more ambitious than that and will now expedite much needed development. Whether it was because of the recession and/or MAN has been genuinely surprised at the level of increased activity in the last 2 or 3 years, or whether STN became a distraction for MAG, I've no idea; but I can understand the perception by some that the airport is behind in the game as far as infrastructure is concerned and needs to start running to catch up.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ireland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdealfrank said...
"Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in 20 years?"
followed by
"We know two things: ... 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)..."
It's enough to frighten one into moving to England and converting one's savings to Sterling to escape the meltdown. How long do you reckon we have left in the Eurozone Frank?
"Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in 20 years?"
followed by
"We know two things: ... 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)..."
It's enough to frighten one into moving to England and converting one's savings to Sterling to escape the meltdown. How long do you reckon we have left in the Eurozone Frank?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fairdealfrank … Thankyou for your response. My reply to you won't be terribly controversial, as I am in agreement with about 90% of what you wrote. Just afew points merit clarification, however.
We can’t assume that LHR will have sunk to sixth place any more than we can assume it will be in first.
As the saying goes: forecasting is notoriously difficult, especially when it concerns the future. All we can offer is our best educated guess, as indeed must the infrastucture planners. In this case, I have based my speculation upon the fact that LHR's passenger growth is limited to what can be delivered by the continuing trend towards using larger aircraft types. LHR's rivals can in many cases accept a considerable increase in ATM's from an already high base. Some of these airports are already starting to encourage use by no-frills carriers such as EZY/RYR/NAX/WZZ which offer the potential to significantly grow their throughput going forward. LHR cannot provide similar access. Thus I see less-constrained competitors pulling well ahead based upon a twenty year timeframe. The driver here is not underlying potential demand, but LHR's physical inability to service it. Of course, we are always prone to experience severe turbulence in the wider global economy and "black swan" events always have the potential to derail even the best forecasts regardless.
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.
I do not consider LHR's future 'dire'. Quite the contrary. But I do doubt the site's ability to accommodate significant growth above the commendably high plateau already achieved. From my perspective, the investment you cite is required to service LHR's existing throughput of around 72.5 million pax per annum. The original T1/T2/T3 arrangement in particular was well past its use-by date. Replacement was essential. The new projects sustain the viability of LHR's current operation and on that basis represent money well spent. 72.5+ million ppa is a world-class performance worth protecting.
In 20 years time aircraft will be even cleaner and quieter than today.
Entirely agree. It is profoundly regrettable that the industry is doing such a poor job of getting the message out there that today's airliners have already progressed so much. Some BANANA's are wilfully acting as if we're still in an era of VC10's and Tridents. Add to your statement the fact that aircraft will be SAFER too.
LHR is getting into the top 10 best airports these days.
I attach no credence to surveys of this nature, and I say that even as MAN has just won one such quality award. The respondent sample is simply too diverse to offer any worthwhile insights. How many of those voting have experienced even 10% of the airports under consideration? Even then, there are too many variables. A customer using LHR T5 will enjoy a wholly different experience than his T3 counterpart. Those who transfer between terminals will have a very different impression again.
Sometimes one's impression of an airport comes right down to luck on the day. Take my most recent experience via MAN T3: significant delay outbound due to refuelling issues at the allocated stand. And the homeward flight: through the entire arrivals process and outside within 10 minutes … flawless. So how might I vote in a quality survey? Multiply this across the spectrum of conditions which customers experience transiting any major airport and the whole voting process becomes a lottery.
These survey-based award ceremonies provide a nice social evening out for the suits, but I would not refer to them as any reliable guide to the true airport experience.
Looking at LHR specifically, I agree that T5 is a quality product. I have yet to experience 'new' T2. For me, LHR's challenges concern transfers (particularly those requiring a switch of terminals), and the slow and surly duplicated security checks endured by passengers who have just alighted from an already security-screened flight. Beyond the terminal infrastructure, the high incidence of domestic flight cancellations due to the fully-subscribed runways remains a major issue.
but would like to see MAN included in the list of up and coming airports.
I too hope to see MAN enjoy a thriving future. However, my list in this case concerned airports which would be leading choices as a hub interchange. Whilst MAN has a limited role to play in this respect (as demonstrated by FlyBe and envisioned by Thomas Cook Airlines), MAN is simply too peripheral from a geographical perspective to serve as a major hub. It is simply too far from the centre of Europe. MAN is also hampered as a hub by not having a single dominant home-based carrier. Future growth at MAN will depend overwhelmingly on servicing the needs of passengers originating and terminating their journeys within its own catchment area. MAN does, of course, benefit from having particularly good ground transport access especially by rail.
By the way, I learn alot from these civilised exchanges of views and ideas as well. IMO, more reasoned and researched discussion is far preferable to the soundbites, backbiting and silly name-calling sometimes seen elsewhere. I particularly cringe when I read posters who denounce others for daring to discuss "bad news". I admire the moderators for doing a very tough job, often called upon to regulate discussion topics which are of zero interest to them personally. But these threads do positively interest their intended core audience. I hope they note the generally courteous interaction on the MAN thread. There is a core of constructive contributors drawing in healthy discussion on here. Hopefully we Manchester AA&R regulars are a net positive in driving site traffic volume which the PPRuNe advertisers will appreciate.
PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes? Dumb question, I know. Give me a plane over a computer anyday.
We can’t assume that LHR will have sunk to sixth place any more than we can assume it will be in first.
As the saying goes: forecasting is notoriously difficult, especially when it concerns the future. All we can offer is our best educated guess, as indeed must the infrastucture planners. In this case, I have based my speculation upon the fact that LHR's passenger growth is limited to what can be delivered by the continuing trend towards using larger aircraft types. LHR's rivals can in many cases accept a considerable increase in ATM's from an already high base. Some of these airports are already starting to encourage use by no-frills carriers such as EZY/RYR/NAX/WZZ which offer the potential to significantly grow their throughput going forward. LHR cannot provide similar access. Thus I see less-constrained competitors pulling well ahead based upon a twenty year timeframe. The driver here is not underlying potential demand, but LHR's physical inability to service it. Of course, we are always prone to experience severe turbulence in the wider global economy and "black swan" events always have the potential to derail even the best forecasts regardless.
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.
I do not consider LHR's future 'dire'. Quite the contrary. But I do doubt the site's ability to accommodate significant growth above the commendably high plateau already achieved. From my perspective, the investment you cite is required to service LHR's existing throughput of around 72.5 million pax per annum. The original T1/T2/T3 arrangement in particular was well past its use-by date. Replacement was essential. The new projects sustain the viability of LHR's current operation and on that basis represent money well spent. 72.5+ million ppa is a world-class performance worth protecting.
In 20 years time aircraft will be even cleaner and quieter than today.
Entirely agree. It is profoundly regrettable that the industry is doing such a poor job of getting the message out there that today's airliners have already progressed so much. Some BANANA's are wilfully acting as if we're still in an era of VC10's and Tridents. Add to your statement the fact that aircraft will be SAFER too.
LHR is getting into the top 10 best airports these days.
I attach no credence to surveys of this nature, and I say that even as MAN has just won one such quality award. The respondent sample is simply too diverse to offer any worthwhile insights. How many of those voting have experienced even 10% of the airports under consideration? Even then, there are too many variables. A customer using LHR T5 will enjoy a wholly different experience than his T3 counterpart. Those who transfer between terminals will have a very different impression again.
Sometimes one's impression of an airport comes right down to luck on the day. Take my most recent experience via MAN T3: significant delay outbound due to refuelling issues at the allocated stand. And the homeward flight: through the entire arrivals process and outside within 10 minutes … flawless. So how might I vote in a quality survey? Multiply this across the spectrum of conditions which customers experience transiting any major airport and the whole voting process becomes a lottery.
These survey-based award ceremonies provide a nice social evening out for the suits, but I would not refer to them as any reliable guide to the true airport experience.
Looking at LHR specifically, I agree that T5 is a quality product. I have yet to experience 'new' T2. For me, LHR's challenges concern transfers (particularly those requiring a switch of terminals), and the slow and surly duplicated security checks endured by passengers who have just alighted from an already security-screened flight. Beyond the terminal infrastructure, the high incidence of domestic flight cancellations due to the fully-subscribed runways remains a major issue.
but would like to see MAN included in the list of up and coming airports.
I too hope to see MAN enjoy a thriving future. However, my list in this case concerned airports which would be leading choices as a hub interchange. Whilst MAN has a limited role to play in this respect (as demonstrated by FlyBe and envisioned by Thomas Cook Airlines), MAN is simply too peripheral from a geographical perspective to serve as a major hub. It is simply too far from the centre of Europe. MAN is also hampered as a hub by not having a single dominant home-based carrier. Future growth at MAN will depend overwhelmingly on servicing the needs of passengers originating and terminating their journeys within its own catchment area. MAN does, of course, benefit from having particularly good ground transport access especially by rail.
By the way, I learn alot from these civilised exchanges of views and ideas as well. IMO, more reasoned and researched discussion is far preferable to the soundbites, backbiting and silly name-calling sometimes seen elsewhere. I particularly cringe when I read posters who denounce others for daring to discuss "bad news". I admire the moderators for doing a very tough job, often called upon to regulate discussion topics which are of zero interest to them personally. But these threads do positively interest their intended core audience. I hope they note the generally courteous interaction on the MAN thread. There is a core of constructive contributors drawing in healthy discussion on here. Hopefully we Manchester AA&R regulars are a net positive in driving site traffic volume which the PPRuNe advertisers will appreciate.
PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes? Dumb question, I know. Give me a plane over a computer anyday.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends how advanced detailed plans are, but even if the airport has remained very quiet on the subject I expect much work has been done behind the scenes. Not sure how long is involved in getting plans approved
PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes?
Last edited by Ringwayman; 14th Nov 2014 at 19:48.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take 3:
Fingers crossed. Yup, finally worked. Third time lucky. Thanks, Rinwayman.
when replying, click the quote icon (between the "picture" and "#") then copy and paste
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 14th Nov 2014 at 21:41. Reason: This time it worked!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A brief revisit to one of our earlier hot topics. The latest marketing e.blast from MAG / Manchester Airport specifically features: the new EasyJet routes already announced to OPO, MRS & PSA; the new FlyBe BOH service; Cathay's imminent new MAN-HKG service; Ryanair's new route to SNN.
Full marks. Someone is taking note of our suggestions. You been on the phone, Bagso?
[QUOTE][Us Northerners put away our cloth caps and whippets many years ago/QUOTE]
Nope. Needed two cloth caps this morning. The deluge was so dire that Psycho and Fang (the whippets) demanded one each. There was an AN124 in that murk somewhere.
Edit: This blue box thingy is very temperamental, isn't it?
Full marks. Someone is taking note of our suggestions. You been on the phone, Bagso?
[QUOTE][Us Northerners put away our cloth caps and whippets many years ago/QUOTE]
Nope. Needed two cloth caps this morning. The deluge was so dire that Psycho and Fang (the whippets) demanded one each. There was an AN124 in that murk somewhere.
Edit: This blue box thingy is very temperamental, isn't it?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
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
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
The "waiting room" function of LGW would go as LHR slots become available, and BA long haul and VS could also be expected to move there. That frees up slots for U2 and others, and that could impact on LTN and STN as carriers shift from those airports to LGW.
It could mean that LGW doesn’t need another rwy in the short term.
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 ?
Manchester will not be force fed with traffic , its nonsense to suggest this would happen, BUT given these parameters what would the Germans do ?
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.
....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 !
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 !
I always find it worth reading the debate involving Shed and FDF. Regarding the necessity of a mega hub, although I accept there is a good case, I've never been totally convinced it's an overwhelming one in terms of benefits to cities and regions outside London and the South East. For example, would a domestic feeder from, say, DTV to Heathrow really generate extra business or would it mainly cause some London only passengers to transfer from rail?
For those travelling abroad from Teeside, would it dilute traffic on the limited KLM service to AMS, or pax who might otherwise use NCL or LBA or even MAN? A similar argument could be put for a LPL-LHR feeder.
Nevertheless, while pax simply transferring at LHR may not spend much money in the UK, I can appreciate that increased numbers can make flights to new destinations and increased frequencies to existing cities viable with the potential for extra cargo as well as passengers.
Fairdeal Frank : My reading of it is that LHR is roughly 50/50 private funding (ie air traveller funded) and taxpayer funded. LHR is not a pure private scheme by any means ; LGW is mostly private.
FDF : I think France has done even worse by building an enormous airport which doesn't work. CDG plus Orly makes LHR plus LGW look quite good!
Fairdealfrank said...
"Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in 20 years?"
followed by
"We know two things: ... 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)..."
It's enough to frighten one into moving to England and converting one's savings to Sterling to escape the meltdown. How long do you reckon we have left in the Eurozone Frank?
"Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in 20 years?"
followed by
"We know two things: ... 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)..."
It's enough to frighten one into moving to England and converting one's savings to Sterling to escape the meltdown. How long do you reckon we have left in the Eurozone Frank?
As for Ireland, it’s difficult to see why it is a member anyway. Would have made more sense for it to stay out along with Denmark, Sweden and the UK. Eurozone membership eventually killed off the Celtic Tiger.
LHR's rivals can in many cases accept a considerable increase in ATM's from an already high base. Some of these airports are already starting to encourage use by no-frills carriers such as EZY/RYR/NAX/WZZ which offer the potential to significantly grow their throughput going forward. LHR cannot provide similar access.
Thus I see less-constrained competitors pulling well ahead based upon a twenty year timeframe. The driver here is not underlying potential demand, but LHR's physical inability to service it. Of course, we are always prone to experience severe turbulence in the wider global economy and "black swan" events always have the potential to derail even the best forecasts regardless.
I too hope to see MAN enjoy a thriving future. However, my list in this case concerned airports which would be leading choices as a hub interchange. Whilst MAN has a limited role to play in this respect (as demonstrated by FlyBe and envisioned by Thomas Cook Airlines), MAN is simply too peripheral from a geographical perspective to serve as a major hub. It is simply too far from the centre of Europe. MAN is also hampered as a hub by not having a single dominant home-based carrier. Future growth at MAN will depend overwhelmingly on servicing the needs of passengers originating and terminating their journeys within its own catchment area. MAN does, of course, benefit from having particularly good ground transport access especially by rail.
Manchester’s stength is that where a country can support routes to 2 UK cities, it will generally be the second route after London. There are exceptions of course, e.g. in the case of India, it’s Birmingham). The rail access at Ringway is truly impressive.
By the way, I learn alot from these civilised exchanges of views and ideas as well. IMO, more reasoned and researched discussion is far preferable to the soundbites, backbiting and silly name-calling sometimes seen elsewhere. I particularly cringe when I read posters who denounce others for daring to discuss "bad news". I admire the moderators for doing a very tough job, often called upon to regulate discussion topics which are of zero interest to them personally. But these threads do positively interest their intended core audience. I hope they note the generally courteous interaction on the MAN thread. There is a core of constructive contributors drawing in healthy discussion on here. Hopefully we Manchester AA&R regulars are a net positive in driving site traffic volume which the PPRuNe advertisers will appreciate.
PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes? Dumb question, I know. Give me a plane over a computer anyday.
(2) highlight the text, and hit the icon that looks like a speech bubble from the row above. It's the third from the right, left of the hash. Put your mouse over it and the message "wrap [quote] tags around the selected text".
(3) the text will now appear with “
” in front of it, and “
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ireland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me it is not true. Do you honestly think that 18 vastly different economies...etc
Anyway, apologies for barging into this very interesting discussion.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the AC report on Heathrow North-West it looks like the surface access costs are £5.7bn out of £24bn so around a quarter is assumed to be taxpayer funded in the AC analysis (though it's left open what the contribution from the airport and therefore air travellers to the surface access costs might actually be). That's the basis on which they come up with their £8-9 increase in airport charges per pax.