MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I not true LAX-LHR? The FlightStats reports may offer both an explanation and also hope for better times. In November only 64.0% of the flights departing from MAN was on-time (on-time = before schedule to 15 minutes after schedule) and this month MAN ended up on 31st place among the 35 largest European airports. Best airport in November was Hamburg (HAM) with a punctuality of 90.7%. MAN had 23.7% of its departures in the "late" bracket (more than 15 minutes and less than 30 minutes). I would say a very large share of these "late" could easily have been moved inside the "on-time" bracket had all parties and facilities at MAN performed as they should do. I don't want to point at any single source to this low performance, but clearly every party at MAN has to improve to make MAN more attractive for its customers (passengers and airlines).
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LN-KGL makes a fair point. Speaking personally I have given up taking the morning Swiss flight out of MAN to ZRH as the handler always fails to turn the inbound flight round in anything like the scheduled 35/40 mins. It's rare for the flight to leave under 30 mins late, which makes connections through ZRH very risky.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it's the arrival time at destination that matters most to passengers.
Personally never experienced any significant 'late' departure from Manchester that was the result of anyone other than the airline.
In fact, I remember a Captain delaying departure of a Virgin flight from Orlando by 1 hour due to strong winds, and still had to hold at Manchester as the earliest arrival time was 6am (according to the Captain) and that was 1hour 20mins early.
Personally never experienced any significant 'late' departure from Manchester that was the result of anyone other than the airline.
In fact, I remember a Captain delaying departure of a Virgin flight from Orlando by 1 hour due to strong winds, and still had to hold at Manchester as the earliest arrival time was 6am (according to the Captain) and that was 1hour 20mins early.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
........the management may be forgiven for wondering if they might have spent a little more time and effort tub thumping the case for the ‘home’ airport at Manchester, which already has two runways, oodles of spare capacity and the sort of traffic mix that many other airport operators can only dream of !
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can also add to that the second runway can't be used parts of the day due to a noise agreement the neighbor community
The runway can be used all the time during the day if necessary. The agreement is not to use it at night (2200-0600) unless the original runway is closed for planned maintenance (in which case the airport must advertise this fact well in advance in the local press) or in a tactical emergency situation eg a disabled aircraft on 05L/23R
Here's the statement from the Environmental Plan
We operate both runways during the day, with landings on one and departures on the other. Where possible, aircraft land over Stockport and take off over Cheshire. During periods of easterly winds and some air traffic
control conditions, this can be reversed. We will be reviewing how more flexible use of the runways might reduce disturbance to local residents. However, we will not use Runway 2 between 2200 and 0600 unless
Runway 1 is unsafe to use or is closed for repairs..
control conditions, this can be reversed. We will be reviewing how more flexible use of the runways might reduce disturbance to local residents. However, we will not use Runway 2 between 2200 and 0600 unless
Runway 1 is unsafe to use or is closed for repairs..
Opening hours
Manchester Airport has operated on a 24-hour basis since the 1950s. Planning
permission for Runway 2 (23L/05R) permits use of both runways between the hours of 0600 - 2200. At night between the hours of 2200 - 0600 we usually* revert to single runway operations based on Runway 1 (23R/05L).
In practice we only operate both runways when we require the capacity to meet the high airline/public demand to arrive and depart aircraft. At present we use both runways in the morning and then again in the later afternoon and evening. We return to single runway operations based upon Runway 1 (23R/05L)* at other times.
Predicted growth over coming years will require greater use of dual runway
operations and so the hours of operation will change.
*(Exceptions would be during emergency or planned maintenance).
Manchester Airport has operated on a 24-hour basis since the 1950s. Planning
permission for Runway 2 (23L/05R) permits use of both runways between the hours of 0600 - 2200. At night between the hours of 2200 - 0600 we usually* revert to single runway operations based on Runway 1 (23R/05L).
In practice we only operate both runways when we require the capacity to meet the high airline/public demand to arrive and depart aircraft. At present we use both runways in the morning and then again in the later afternoon and evening. We return to single runway operations based upon Runway 1 (23R/05L)* at other times.
Predicted growth over coming years will require greater use of dual runway
operations and so the hours of operation will change.
*(Exceptions would be during emergency or planned maintenance).
The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here
Airport Coordination Limited - Reports/Statistics - Manchester Airport
And here's this summer's upcoming capacity declaration
http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File...mer%202014.pdf
Hope this wealth of information does not mean you will have to re-analyse everything
As mentioned by the airport the hours will be extended again as traffic builds up. If the opening hours are significantly extended, this will require careful planning and advance notice to ensure that sufficient validated controllers are available.
FlightStats monthly on time reports this summer was really bad reading for MAN
And did it tell you what were the causes of delay such as used by Eurocontrol?
ATC Capacity, Weather, Special Event,ATC Staffing, Aerodrome Capacity,ATC Routeings, Accident / Incident,De-Icing, Equipment non-ATC
or by IATA?
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/def...des-ahm730.pdf
I think we should be told.
Fair Deal Frank
As has already been pointed out to you, the Commission has failed to look at issues with a UK wide perspective - see their terms of reference below taken from here
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...rts-commission
The commission’s terms of reference will be as follows:
The commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub; and it will identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term.
It should maintain a UK-wide perspective, taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.
It should engage openly with interested parties and members of the public, providing opportunities to submit evidence and proposals and to set out views relevant to its work.
It should seek to engage with a range of stakeholders, including with local and devolved government as well as the opposition, to build consensus in support of its approach and recommendations.
The commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub; and it will identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term.
It should maintain a UK-wide perspective, taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.
It should engage openly with interested parties and members of the public, providing opportunities to submit evidence and proposals and to set out views relevant to its work.
It should seek to engage with a range of stakeholders, including with local and devolved government as well as the opposition, to build consensus in support of its approach and recommendations.
Anyway, at the end of it all, I reckon sweet FA will happen and the UK will slip further behind.
Last edited by Suzeman; 2nd Jan 2014 at 21:54.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN punctuality 2013:
January 56.9% http://flightstats.sightworks.net/do...nuary-2013.pdf
February 59.5% http://flightstats.sightworks.net/do...ruary-2013.pdf
March 55.4% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...March-2013.pdf
April 58.5% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...April-2013.pdf
May 53.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...t-May-2013.pdf
June 43.7% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...June-2013-.pdf
July 46.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...July-2013-.pdf
August 52.3% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...ugust-2013.pdf
September 50.7% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...ber-2013-7.pdf
October 59.9% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...ber-2013-1.pdf
November 64.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...ber-2013-2.pdf
January 56.9% http://flightstats.sightworks.net/do...nuary-2013.pdf
February 59.5% http://flightstats.sightworks.net/do...ruary-2013.pdf
March 55.4% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...March-2013.pdf
April 58.5% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...April-2013.pdf
May 53.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...t-May-2013.pdf
June 43.7% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...June-2013-.pdf
July 46.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...July-2013-.pdf
August 52.3% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...ugust-2013.pdf
September 50.7% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...ber-2013-7.pdf
October 59.9% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...ber-2013-1.pdf
November 64.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-conten...ber-2013-2.pdf
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's see what the CAA says for January 2013 with these "early to up to 15 minutes late" stats:
EDI 85.54%
GLA 84.55%
LCY 82.64%
STN 79.30%
BHX 77.70%
LGW 76.45%
LTN 75.57%
MAN 73.08%
NCL 72.67%
LHR 70.97%
Not brilliant but nowhere near how bad as flightstats portrays. It couldn't be that flightstats doesn't include ALL airlines unlike the CAA? If they don't, why should we give any credence to them
EDI 85.54%
GLA 84.55%
LCY 82.64%
STN 79.30%
BHX 77.70%
LGW 76.45%
LTN 75.57%
MAN 73.08%
NCL 72.67%
LHR 70.97%
Not brilliant but nowhere near how bad as flightstats portrays. It couldn't be that flightstats doesn't include ALL airlines unlike the CAA? If they don't, why should we give any credence to them
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The POINT Fair Deal Frank is don't call it a UK wide enquiry if it doesn't actually include ...er The UK !
As Suzeman points out it is not that long ago that the last Government White paper suggested Manchester as a gateway international airport, my God in this review you would be forgiven for thinking Manchester even exists !
Notional increases in pax throughput disguise the real damage APD is doing, at least in 2014 we can all catch a high frequency shuttle to Dublin as well as Heathrow if we want to get to the USA.
Bilateral issues conveniently swept under the carpet, one incidentally not quite as large as the one which will end up hiding the review as a whole !
As Suzeman points out it is not that long ago that the last Government White paper suggested Manchester as a gateway international airport, my God in this review you would be forgiven for thinking Manchester even exists !
Notional increases in pax throughput disguise the real damage APD is doing, at least in 2014 we can all catch a high frequency shuttle to Dublin as well as Heathrow if we want to get to the USA.
Bilateral issues conveniently swept under the carpet, one incidentally not quite as large as the one which will end up hiding the review as a whole !
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ringwayman, FlightStats airport part only include departures and charter flights/other non-scheduled are excluded. In other words, if you look at both the CAA numbers and FlightStats together - the only conclusion I can draw from this is: a large share of flights in to MAN are on schedule, but many of these ends up between 15 and 30 minutes late on departure.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They upped the capacity but it's not been doubled as far as I know. The runways are too close together and Runway 2 has no full length taxiway.
btw the Air Canada Rouge loco is, pretty far from cheap!!!
btw the Air Canada Rouge loco is, pretty far from cheap!!!
MAN's close parallel runways give you in effect 1.5 runways, not twice the single runway capacity. This is due the need to facilitate crossing of 05L/23R, and the SIDs which mostly follow the same initial routing off 23L. It certainly can't be compared to LHR's wider-spaced runways which can achieve more or less double the single-runway throughput. MAN is also constrained by the northside taxiways which are still set out around the old three-runway WW2 layout.
Yes, but even if you only regard it as half a runway it has substantially increased MAN's capacity at an affordable cost.
I can't help thinking that LGW and STN should have focused on similarly incremental development, rather than persisting with multi-billion pound schemes that their airline customers will never be prepared to pay for.
I can't help thinking that LGW and STN should have focused on similarly incremental development, rather than persisting with multi-billion pound schemes that their airline customers will never be prepared to pay for.
So the airport chooses not to use the second runway during certain hours when capacity does not demand it. This has the benefit of minimising the environmental effects of the runway so demonstrating its good neighbour policy It also means that NATS employ less controllers than if the runway was open all daytime hours - saving on the contract price.
The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here
The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here
No matter how it is spun, it cannot be suggested that Ringway is operating anywhere near capacity, so it is hardly going to be a priority for extra rwys. Pretty obvious really.
If carriers can be convinced that there is money to be made at Ringway, they will be there. Would love to see it, but this is not the job of the Commission.
So what should the Commission to do? It can't recommend that the government directs carriers to operate to/from Ringway instead of Heathrow. Pax, and therefore carriers, want to use Heathrow.
Directing carriers and routes away from Heathrow was tried in the 1970s and 1980s when Heathrow was declared "full". At that time Gatwick was the recipient airport under the so-called "second force" policy, with longhaul routes from West Africa and South America (and others) transferred from Heathrow to Gatwick and from BOAC to BUA later BCAL. The end result was the failure of BCAL.
Are we seriously suggesting that the Commission recommends the government to do a U-turn on its free market, open skies and private sector-run aviation industry, and revive the "second force" policy and base it on Ringway this time?
Under our system, it is not possible to artificially create Heathrow levels of connectivity and premium business at other UK airports. That being the case, what exactly is Davies supposed to have done with reference to Ringway?
Given the remit, clearly, the decision to concentrate on Heathrow and Gatwick was correct. The key words in its terms of reference are "hub", "additional" and "capacity".
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They upped the capacity but it's not been doubled as far as I know. The runways are too close together and Runway 2 has no full length taxiway.
btw the Air Canada Rouge loco is, pretty far from cheap!!!
btw the Air Canada Rouge loco is, pretty far from cheap!!!
MAN's close parallel runways give you in effect 1.5 runways, not twice the single runway capacity. This is due the need to facilitate crossing of 05L/23R, and the SIDs which mostly follow the same initial routing off 23L. It certainly can't be compared to LHR's wider-spaced runways which can achieve more or less double the single-runway throughput. MAN is also constrained by the northside taxiways which are still set out around the old three-runway WW2 layout.
Yes, but even if you only regard it as half a runway it has substantially increased MAN's capacity at an affordable cost.
I can't help thinking that LGW and STN should have focused on similarly incremental development, rather than persisting with multi-billion pound schemes that their airline customers will never be prepared to pay for.
I can't help thinking that LGW and STN should have focused on similarly incremental development, rather than persisting with multi-billion pound schemes that their airline customers will never be prepared to pay for.
So the airport chooses not to use the second runway during certain hours when capacity does not demand it. This has the benefit of minimising the environmental effects of the runway so demonstrating its good neighbour policy It also means that NATS employ less controllers than if the runway was open all daytime hours - saving on the contract price.
The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here
The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here
No matter how it is spun, it cannot be suggested that Ringway is operating anywhere near capacity, so it is hardly going to be a priority for extra rwys. Pretty obvious really.
If carriers can be convinced that there is money to be made at Ringway, they will be there. Would love to see it, but this is not the job of the Commission.
So what should the Commission to do? It can't recommend that the government directs carriers to operate to/from Ringway to relieve Heathrow overcrowding. Pax, and therefore carriers, want to use Heathrow.
Directing carriers and routes away from Heathrow was tried in the 1970s and 1980s when Heathrow was declared "full". At that time Gatwick was the recipient airport under the so-called "second force" policy, with longhaul routes from West Africa and South America (and others) transferred from Heathrow to Gatwick and from BOAC to BUA later BCAL. The end result was the failure of BCAL. Virgin survived because it was able to transfer to Heathrow.
Are we seriously suggesting that the Commission recommends the government to do a U-turn on its free market, open skies and private sector-run aviation industry, and revive the "second force" policy and base it on Ringway this time?
Under our system, it is not possible to artificially create Heathrow levels of connectivity and premium business at other UK airports. That being the case, what exactly is Davies supposed to have recommended with reference to Ringway?
Given the remit, clearly, the decision to concentrate on Heathrow and Gatwick was correct. The key words in its terms of reference are "hub", "additional" and "capacity".
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the report was termed " A Review Of Capacity Contraints in the South East" you would have a point Frank, BUT it wasn't Or did I miss something ?
Certainly I was given the impression in respect of the submissions it was a route and branch review of UK wide airport policy !
Why on earth were hearings held in Manchester ?
Why did those collecting evidence provide submissions about the viability of Tokyo and Hong Kong flights in respect of flights from Manchester, why was so much time spent on this ?
Why was the subject of bilaterals discussed, by a number of MPs who raised this no fewer than 3 or 4 times, it its not an issue why was it mentioned.
Why was the introduction of US preclearance at Manchester as a way of stimulating growth discussed ?
None of these ended up anywhere near the report !
As you say Frank Government can only provide a framework in which airlines operate, they cannot dictate policy, there could and should however have been a bit more creativity in this regard.
Manchester is at the epicentre of the UK surrounded by the UKs 5 largest cities, it has thee best road and rail connections , it has better connectivity to the rest of the UK in terms of domestic air feed than LHR and LGW and as pointed out has capacity, if this was Germany they would come up with a methodology to capitalise on those benefits because they think differently, I defy anybody to suggest otherwise, sadly we don't, same old mindset, same old thinking ! Once again Manchester was lumped in as a irrelevance, a meaningless "regional airport", that in essence was the gist of the report.
To a certain degree those that initially pressed the case on behalf Manchester are equally culpable, as soon as the STN deal went through the arguments that the CAPA analysts have remarked on completely vanished, it was as though Manchester never existed. The tiller was swung toward Essex but the boat sank !
BUT lets be clear Nobody "Up North" Is suggesting that traffic is forced away from London far from it I have long since argued London needs I airport , 5 runways, but what we have now is nothing short of shambolic, 5 major airports all vying for the same airspace and all around the M25. 1 new runway will not solve the problems that this has created.
Given the complete bind that airport policy is now in I thought there would have been some really creative thinking in this report on how better to try and manage the situation.
In this respect it was an utter and abject failure.
Certainly I was given the impression in respect of the submissions it was a route and branch review of UK wide airport policy !
Why on earth were hearings held in Manchester ?
Why did those collecting evidence provide submissions about the viability of Tokyo and Hong Kong flights in respect of flights from Manchester, why was so much time spent on this ?
Why was the subject of bilaterals discussed, by a number of MPs who raised this no fewer than 3 or 4 times, it its not an issue why was it mentioned.
Why was the introduction of US preclearance at Manchester as a way of stimulating growth discussed ?
None of these ended up anywhere near the report !
As you say Frank Government can only provide a framework in which airlines operate, they cannot dictate policy, there could and should however have been a bit more creativity in this regard.
Manchester is at the epicentre of the UK surrounded by the UKs 5 largest cities, it has thee best road and rail connections , it has better connectivity to the rest of the UK in terms of domestic air feed than LHR and LGW and as pointed out has capacity, if this was Germany they would come up with a methodology to capitalise on those benefits because they think differently, I defy anybody to suggest otherwise, sadly we don't, same old mindset, same old thinking ! Once again Manchester was lumped in as a irrelevance, a meaningless "regional airport", that in essence was the gist of the report.
To a certain degree those that initially pressed the case on behalf Manchester are equally culpable, as soon as the STN deal went through the arguments that the CAPA analysts have remarked on completely vanished, it was as though Manchester never existed. The tiller was swung toward Essex but the boat sank !
BUT lets be clear Nobody "Up North" Is suggesting that traffic is forced away from London far from it I have long since argued London needs I airport , 5 runways, but what we have now is nothing short of shambolic, 5 major airports all vying for the same airspace and all around the M25. 1 new runway will not solve the problems that this has created.
Given the complete bind that airport policy is now in I thought there would have been some really creative thinking in this report on how better to try and manage the situation.
In this respect it was an utter and abject failure.
Last edited by Bagso; 3rd Jan 2014 at 08:20.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ringwayman, FlightStats airport part only include departures and charter
flights/other non-scheduled are excluded. In other words, if you look at both
the CAA numbers and FlightStats together - the only conclusion I can draw from this is: a large share of flights in to MAN are on schedule, but many of these ends up between 15 and 30 minutes late on departure.
flights/other non-scheduled are excluded. In other words, if you look at both
the CAA numbers and FlightStats together - the only conclusion I can draw from this is: a large share of flights in to MAN are on schedule, but many of these ends up between 15 and 30 minutes late on departure.
The simple fact is, the majority of MAN's 'bad punctuality' comes on the 1-15 minute category. I, and no doubt the vast majority of passengers could not care less if a flight leaves within this time frame. In the grand scheme of things 15 minutes is nothing, and aircraft can usually make up the time en route.
-----------------------------------------
In other new, airlineroute is reporting TAP MAN-LIS is 12 weekly this summer, but, I can still only find 11 weekly loaded. Saturday was initially loaded as double daily to make the 12 weekly but as of yet has not been re-loaded if this is where the 12th weekly flight will be.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surrounded by the UKs 5 largest cities, it has thee best road and rail connections , it has better connectivity to the rest of the UK in terms of domestic air feed than LHR and LGW and as pointed out has capacity, if this was Germany they would come up with a methodology to capitalise on those benefits because they think differently, I defy anybody to suggest otherwise,
Manchester is at the epicentre of the UK
In terms of delays, the taxiway layout remains decidely sub optimal, especially in terms of getting to and from T2, coupled with the fact that on departures, too much of the traffic is going the same way to make the most use of runway capacity.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, Fairdealfrank, I have not seen any contributor on PPRuNe argue that those representing the interests of MAN should have argued for additional runway(s) here or for air services to be forcibly relocated from London to this airport. Such issues never arose and I doubt that any here would seriously advocate them.
What thread contributors have advocated is greater use of the carrot (not use of the stick). Measures such as the rewriting of restrictive bilaterals which 'force' airlines to avoid considering MAN, the introduction of US departure pre-clearance at MAN, and a rethink of the APD regime which disadvantages MAN (and the UK generally) in favour of overseas competitors such as DUB, MXP, BRU and AMS. I'm sure many here would have appreciated some visible lobbying in favour of measures such as these by MAG.
Having said all that, I don't think that any here have argued against the provision of additional runway capacity in the SE which is sorely needed. Whether or not that is ultimately provided is an issue for the politicians, but that is a different debate altogether. What we are keen to see up here is the removal of barriers which inhibit MAN's innate growth potential within its own market, and hence its ability to contribute fully to the national capacity solution. Unfortunately, from the outside, it was difficult to perceive any significant lobbying in favour of such measures by MAG and other interested parties which could have influenced the debate.
What thread contributors have advocated is greater use of the carrot (not use of the stick). Measures such as the rewriting of restrictive bilaterals which 'force' airlines to avoid considering MAN, the introduction of US departure pre-clearance at MAN, and a rethink of the APD regime which disadvantages MAN (and the UK generally) in favour of overseas competitors such as DUB, MXP, BRU and AMS. I'm sure many here would have appreciated some visible lobbying in favour of measures such as these by MAG.
Having said all that, I don't think that any here have argued against the provision of additional runway capacity in the SE which is sorely needed. Whether or not that is ultimately provided is an issue for the politicians, but that is a different debate altogether. What we are keen to see up here is the removal of barriers which inhibit MAN's innate growth potential within its own market, and hence its ability to contribute fully to the national capacity solution. Unfortunately, from the outside, it was difficult to perceive any significant lobbying in favour of such measures by MAG and other interested parties which could have influenced the debate.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither FlightStats or the CAA provide a true on-time performance figure. As has been mentioned FlightStats do not have 100% data coverage of all flights. The CAA's data is also flawed as they use a fixed average taxi time (8 mins at MAN) to calculate an assumed departure time.
We all know there is a mass of taxi time variance between say T3 and 23R and the far end of T2 to 05L. The CAA ia aware of this, however their defence is this that this is the only way they can collate data from all UK airfields to a common standard. This is why their published data for any large airport (LHR/LGW/MAN/STN etc) will always be inaccurate.
For the record, true OTP for MAN in Nov was 86.7% and for the calender year of 2013 - 81.4%.
Someone mentioned about MAN-ZRH. Yes this is one of the worst performing city pairs, however it is nothing to do with MAN. Operational runway restrictions at ZRH create significant destination ATFM delay for which there is no avoidance.
We all know there is a mass of taxi time variance between say T3 and 23R and the far end of T2 to 05L. The CAA ia aware of this, however their defence is this that this is the only way they can collate data from all UK airfields to a common standard. This is why their published data for any large airport (LHR/LGW/MAN/STN etc) will always be inaccurate.
For the record, true OTP for MAN in Nov was 86.7% and for the calender year of 2013 - 81.4%.
Someone mentioned about MAN-ZRH. Yes this is one of the worst performing city pairs, however it is nothing to do with MAN. Operational runway restrictions at ZRH create significant destination ATFM delay for which there is no avoidance.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: birmingham
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with much of what is being suggested is that you will create an uneven playing field, the owners of LHR will legally challenge any move to do things like reducing APD outside of London, not having access to US pre-clearence, when they challenge they will win without doubt.
Not sure how you can think MAN is the best connected airport in terms of road and rail in the UK, I would suggest it's one of the worst, it's not on a mainline rail route, not connected to a major motorway, for me it's a right pain to get to and a last resort.
The report for states the obvious, LHR is the main UK gateway, a third runway is a must and there is no viable alternative to this. There is a ton of capacity at MAN, there is a ton at BHX, no airline is thinking of making meaningful use of this in terms of relieving the pressure at LHR. Without a commercial will or want to use it there is little any white paper or government initiative can do. The real headline is how LHR has managed to reach 99% capacity and there is still no plan to do anything concrete about it.
Not sure how you can think MAN is the best connected airport in terms of road and rail in the UK, I would suggest it's one of the worst, it's not on a mainline rail route, not connected to a major motorway, for me it's a right pain to get to and a last resort.
The report for states the obvious, LHR is the main UK gateway, a third runway is a must and there is no viable alternative to this. There is a ton of capacity at MAN, there is a ton at BHX, no airline is thinking of making meaningful use of this in terms of relieving the pressure at LHR. Without a commercial will or want to use it there is little any white paper or government initiative can do. The real headline is how LHR has managed to reach 99% capacity and there is still no plan to do anything concrete about it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hammerb32 -
Not on a major motorway? What is that running alongside the Western perimeter? Not on a mainline railroute? Did you miss the rail hub located between the terminals which is the start-point for services through Manchester to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle (via Leeds, York), Blackpool, Liverpool, Southport, Cleethorpes (via Sheffield), and southwards to Crewe and beyond?
Could it be that you are posting with an agenda? Don't confuse your obvious dislike of MAN with the facts.
Not on a major motorway? What is that running alongside the Western perimeter? Not on a mainline railroute? Did you miss the rail hub located between the terminals which is the start-point for services through Manchester to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle (via Leeds, York), Blackpool, Liverpool, Southport, Cleethorpes (via Sheffield), and southwards to Crewe and beyond?
Could it be that you are posting with an agenda? Don't confuse your obvious dislike of MAN with the facts.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone give me a history lesson?
London is the main international/long-haul hub of the UK, has an attempt been made by an airline to establish a longhaul operation outside of London? What happened with that? I have heard that BA used to have a lot of MAN activity, why was that cancelled?
The point I'm trying to make is that if there is capacity at MAN, why is it not a longhaul hub? Flybe seem to use MAN as a hub but this is for domestic and shorthaul traffic, when it comes to longhaul carriers instead use feeders. I doubt it's coincidence that BA, KLM, LH, SN etc all have an early morning flight going out to their main longhaul hubs.
If all the capacity is available, at an airport that supposedly has cheap handling costs and is in a good geographic location, why is it not used as a longhaul hub? Has it ever been attempted?
London is the main international/long-haul hub of the UK, has an attempt been made by an airline to establish a longhaul operation outside of London? What happened with that? I have heard that BA used to have a lot of MAN activity, why was that cancelled?
The point I'm trying to make is that if there is capacity at MAN, why is it not a longhaul hub? Flybe seem to use MAN as a hub but this is for domestic and shorthaul traffic, when it comes to longhaul carriers instead use feeders. I doubt it's coincidence that BA, KLM, LH, SN etc all have an early morning flight going out to their main longhaul hubs.
If all the capacity is available, at an airport that supposedly has cheap handling costs and is in a good geographic location, why is it not used as a longhaul hub? Has it ever been attempted?