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

MANCHESTER - 9

Old 14th Nov 2014, 09:16
  #4561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,192
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 ďhubĒ anyway. Having once had the chance to look around Singaporeís vast container port, Iím not convinced by the economic arguments for ďhubĒ 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 isnít 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. Letís 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.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 10:38
  #4562 (permalink)  
 
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
kieb92 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 12:24
  #4563 (permalink)  
 
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.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:32
  #4564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West UK
Age: 69
Posts: 268
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.
eye2eye5 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 13:46
  #4565 (permalink)  
 
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 ?

Last edited by Bagso; 14th Nov 2014 at 14:37.
Bagso is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 14:38
  #4566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Approx. 37,308 sq ft

200,000 sq ft!!! That must be industrial, storage or Google!
Betablockeruk is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 15:53
  #4567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,787
Received 167 Likes on 115 Posts
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?
The argument generally used for a London link is that not being able to fly from LHR is seen as a disadvantage to inward investment - basically, if you can't fly there investors think you don't exist...
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 15:58
  #4568 (permalink)  
 
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 ?
Bagso, have you heard about compund interest? Your calculation method only gives the correct answer for the first year. The second year this 5% growth is based on 78.75 million passengers of the previous year. With a continued constant 5% growth over 10 years and the start point being 75 million passengers, you'll end up with 122.2 million passengers 10 years later - not 112.5 million as you claimed.


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%.
LN-KGL is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 16:07
  #4569 (permalink)  
 
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.

Last edited by Bagso; 14th Nov 2014 at 16:48.
Bagso is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 16:29
  #4570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,192
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.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 17:11
  #4571 (permalink)  
 
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) itís 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?
Paul_from_Dublin is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 18:48
  #4572 (permalink)  
 
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.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 19:11
  #4573 (permalink)  
 
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
They've already got planning permission - what's in use is approximately half of what they can build. Think the permission also included a satellite pier as well.

PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes?
when replying, click the quote icon (between the "picture" and "#") then copy and paste what you want between the [quote]s

Last edited by Ringwayman; 14th Nov 2014 at 19:48.
Ringwayman is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 21:40
  #4574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Take 3:

when replying, click the quote icon (between the "picture" and "#") then copy and paste
Fingers crossed. Yup, finally worked. Third time lucky. Thanks, Rinwayman.

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 14th Nov 2014 at 21:41. Reason: This time it worked!
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 22:08
  #4575 (permalink)  
 
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?
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 23:30
  #4576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the real world
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Morning all, I noticed a couple of AN 124's today which my 3 year old would love to see, does anyone have any idea what time they are scheduled to depart?

Thanks
DooblerChina is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2014, 23:41
  #4577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1st one 12.00 Sunday 2nd 12.00 Monday both to EMA so should be lively
on take off

Ian
Ian Brooks is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 04:25
  #4578 (permalink)  
 
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
Would it really? To an extent maybe, but it isnít that simple.

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 doesnít 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 ?
The two issues are unrelated, one is insufficient capacity at LHR driving premium business and transfer pax to AMS, CDG, FRA, the other is about growing MAN with more available destinations for which it needs sufficient premium business that makes these new destinations viable.

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.
In fairness to Davies, he probably didnít spend much time in Manchester (or Birmingham, Glasgow, etc.) because the Commissionís remit is to examine a lack of hub capacity at the countryís hub.

....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 !
Many northern MPs (and others) are supportive of LHR expansion because they want their areas to have reasonable links to LHR, to help with inward investment and the export drive and to grow their local area economies. Only 7 UK cities have this at present, the thinner routes are pushed out.

An awful lot of Northern MPs may change their position if they think they may be booted out !
No, airport/aviation policy is not an issue that gets MPs elected or defeated. Even the expenses scandal wasn't sufficient to motivate electors to get rid of their MPs (with perhaps a handful of exceptions).

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?
MME-LHR on BD and MME-AMS on KL co-existed for many years. When LH wholly owned BD, many slots were "asset-stripped" from BD to other other carriers in the LH group because of the lack of available slots to use on thicker routes. The effect on MME was catastrophic.

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.
Not convinced by this argument, its lack of slots, not lack of pax that closed the thin routes to/from LHR.

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.
This is an important point, new long haul routes need feeder services.

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.
AFAIK, the only part publicly funded would be the M25 tunnels, etc..

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!
Nothing wrong with ORY, CDG is a dump.


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) itís 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?
Tell me it is not true. Do you honestly think that 18 vastly different economies, with every country breaking the rules (ďthe Maastricht criteriaĒ) starting with France and Germany in 1995, and a common currency created for political rather than economic reasons is sustainable in the medium/long term?

As for Ireland, itís 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.
This is one of the arguments for expansion. FR has made it clear that it wonít be operating from LHR, CDG, FRA. Wouldnít expect the no frills carriers that follow the FR model to be heading to the big European airports either.

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.
LHR has the advantage that premium business want to use it. Who knows why, but itís always been the case, and still is even with the inconvenience of the delays and aggravation caused by lack of capacity.

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.
Up to a point MAN is not as central, in European geographical terms, as MUC or ZRH for example, but then again it is as peripheral as CPH, DUB, FCO or MAD. Yes, these are capital cities and hubs for their national carriers.

Manchesterís 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, itís 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.
Agreed, 100%

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.
(1) copy and paste the text in "the reply to thread" window.

(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 ď
Ē in front of it, and ď
Ē at the end of it. When read, the text should be in the box.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 09:58
  #4579 (permalink)  
 
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
Sorry Frank, that's a huge debate not appropriate for this thread. I was just poking a little fun at the way the word "euro" has become so toxic in England that it seems (from over here anyway) that the idea of "euro = root of all evil" appears to have been accepted as a self evident truth. Sometimes the onesidedness on display makes you all sound, on this topic, a bit like North Korea railing against the evils of the West.

Anyway, apologies for barging into this very interesting discussion.
Paul_from_Dublin is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2014, 10:30
  #4580 (permalink)  
 
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.
anothertyke 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.