MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: birmingham
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed, the M56 is not a major motorway, it's connected to the M6 and M60 so in essence is connected to 1 major motorway and 1 overgrown ring road. As for the rail hub, how many services to these places you mention run with no changes? I have no dis-like for MAN, just have a dis-like of getting to it, having worked in Stretford for a year I'm pretty well versed in the commute.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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."
Has to be the stupidest comment I've ever read, we only have the M60, M56, Train line, Metrolink, and a well served bus station, you utter clown.
Has to be the stupidest comment I've ever read, we only have the M60, M56, Train line, Metrolink, and a well served bus station, you utter clown.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm … ALL the rail destinations mentioned require no changes from Manchester Airport. As for the motorway, once you have entered it via one of Manchester Airport's two designated junctions (one cargo, one pax terminals) you can drive to most regions of Britain without exiting the motorway network. You seem to be less 'well versed' than you think!
By the way, I inadvertently missed out rail services to Barrow-in-Furness and the Lake District from my earlier list.
By the way, I inadvertently missed out rail services to Barrow-in-Furness and the Lake District from my earlier list.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The commissions view on APD 'congestion charging' in respect of MAN was as follows
A fact well understood and appreciated by the management at MAG, less so on here on seems. Any move to distort the market via APD is a bad thing for MAN because it relies disproportinatly on traffic coming in from outside of its core catchment area. The moment you start saying, let's create a framework to "encourage" 3 or 4 of the LHR - JFK services to move to MAN then in parallel you open up the opportunity for Blackpool or Liverpool or Leeds or Doncaster to say, we should have 20 of the weekly PMI flights or whatever. Dull as they may be to the fans of exotic tail fins and long haul destinations on the screens, the weekly exodus to the likes of PMI is where the money is. Filling these flights with folks from outside of GM is what fills the car parks and generates hotel nights and it's big business. The biggest threat to MAN's profitability is customers from outside of GM using their own airports instead of Ringway. You shouldn't be surprised at all that the management kept very quiet indeed about the subject. Same reason the management at BRS had on coronary when proposals for different rates of APD in CWL were mentioned.
As for the bilateral thing, is it really a big issue anymore. Why are the airlines not chomping at the bit on this one if it is preventing money to be made ?
The analysis suggested that a congestion charge would result in an overall increase in the number of flights out of regional airports. As Figure 4.6 shows, Birmingham, Luton and Stansted would be the main beneficiaries of this policy. Manchester would not benefit to the same extent, as newly energised regional competitors would draw traffic away from it.
As for the bilateral thing, is it really a big issue anymore. Why are the airlines not chomping at the bit on this one if it is preventing money to be made ?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed, the M56 is not a major motorway, it's connected to the M6 and M60 so in essence is connected to 1 major motorway and 1 overgrown ring road. As for the rail hub, how many services to these places you mention run with no changes? I have no dis-like for MAN, just have a dis-like of getting to it, having worked in Stretford for a year I'm pretty well versed in the commute.
And tell me its less of a mare on the M42 - Yeah right !
As for the general issue like many particularly Fred of Middlesex they are missing the point re LHR . Almost all the Manchester contributors acknowledge the need for the third runway however what we also want is a levelled playing field -those pesky bi-laterals dealt with such that Manchester (and others) can actually meet their local demands and growth potential
As for BA and historical regional operations i think there is more than enough written from both sides of the argument if you care to read and research -Again remember the effects also decimated that other airport in Birmingham.
Right now Manchester handles more than 20 million pa to more than 140 scheduled destinations in Europe/North America/Caribbean/North Africa/MiddleEast/Pakistan and Singapore with freight services to Hong Kong -this is a serious airport .
Added to which known annual boardings to Hong Kong are in excess of 140,000 and mainland China a further 127,000 and rising.
In the case of the China there are cities with similar and indeed fewer boardings (Boston USA) winning new flights where the bi-latterals allow.
On the case of Hong Kong well questions remain of why CX continue to add LHR capacity at the expense of Manchester.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fact well understood and appreciated by the management at MAG, less so on here on seems. Any move to distort the market via APD is a bad thing for MAN because it relies disproportinatly on traffic coming in from outside of its core catchment area. The moment you start saying, let's create a framework to "encourage" 3 or 4 of the LHR - JFK services to move to MAN then in parallel you open up the opportunity for Blackpool or Liverpool or Leeds or Doncaster to say, we should have 20 of the weekly PMI flights or whatever. Dull as they may be to the fans of exotic tail fins and long haul destinations on the screens, the weekly exodus to the likes of PMI is where the money is. Filling these flights with folks from outside of GM is what fills the car parks and generates hotel nights and it's big business. The biggest threat to MAN's profitability is customers from outside of GM using their own airports instead of Ringway. You shouldn't be surprised at all that the management kept very quiet indeed about the subject. Same reason the management at BRS had on coronary when proposals for different rates of APD in CWL were mentioned.
MAG operations HAVE already been effecting to the tune and loss of potentially 3.5m+ boardings when they thought flexible fares operations beneath them whilst continuing to court BA !
They are not going to do that again over variable taxes.
I don't think APD will ever disappear however as with most taxes the negative impact does wain relatively quickly as it simply becomes a normal cost of business.
What is certain however is the very high rates on the longer hauls has adversely impacted the viability of regional operations far more than those from LHR where something in the region 35-38% pay nought !
I disagree with you that bi-latterals today have limited impact. They continue to have a large impact in those emerging economies UK PLC are targeting as part of the manufactured exporting lead economic rebalancing process.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion.
But I would like to ask a specific question about the bi-laterals, about which I think a lot of hot air is spouted.
These were a problem in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had to intervene personally to allow flights to MAN by SQ and AA - which still operate to this day. The world of bi-lateral restrictions has moved on dramatically since those days.
The Question:
Can anyone provide a single example of an airline that wants to operate to Manchester (or any other airport outside London) that is being prevented from doing so by a 'bi-lateral' ??
But I would like to ask a specific question about the bi-laterals, about which I think a lot of hot air is spouted.
These were a problem in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had to intervene personally to allow flights to MAN by SQ and AA - which still operate to this day. The world of bi-lateral restrictions has moved on dramatically since those days.
The Question:
Can anyone provide a single example of an airline that wants to operate to Manchester (or any other airport outside London) that is being prevented from doing so by a 'bi-lateral' ??
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion.
But I would like to ask a specific question about the bi-laterals, about which I think a lot of hot air is spouted.
These were a problem in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had to intervene personally to allow flights to MAN by SQ and AA - which still operate to this day. The world of bi-lateral restrictions has moved on dramatically since those days.
The Question:
Can anyone provide a single example of an airline that wants to operate to Manchester (or any other airport outside London) that is being prevented from doing so by a 'bi-lateral' ??
But I would like to ask a specific question about the bi-laterals, about which I think a lot of hot air is spouted.
These were a problem in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had to intervene personally to allow flights to MAN by SQ and AA - which still operate to this day. The world of bi-lateral restrictions has moved on dramatically since those days.
The Question:
Can anyone provide a single example of an airline that wants to operate to Manchester (or any other airport outside London) that is being prevented from doing so by a 'bi-lateral' ??
We also know that the limits on the current UK-Sino bilateral are impeding growth potential including in the London market !
True the number of markets now fully open is exponentially larger than the heady days of 1970 and 80s.
Canada/USA/EU/UAE/Morocco/Israel - all liberated and all served.
Russia renegotiated (After spat between Transaero and Easy) and now served.
I have to add i believe MAG (Well Manchester Airport) is actually well placed to see continued growth across all sectors if the UK economy actually performs anywhere near some analysts expectations.
There remains potential within the short haul arena , further/restoration of some Caribbean services and a certainty of something to China.
I also expect a resumption of Mombasa at some point.
Concerns remain India just what does MAG have to do to get someone to Delhi/Mumbai
As for Sub Sahara Africa and South America well UK PLC just struggles to do business in these areas period.
You will note i haven't mentioned the USA because frankly the market is absolutely saturated and actually distorted beyond belief out of LHR.
Last edited by rutankrd; 3rd Jan 2014 at 13:36.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposed CX via Moscow is a bit of a red herring tbh.
CX have previously run pax services to MAN and therefore already have the rights as of course do their existing regular freighters.
Had they really wanted to run from HKG to MAN at that time, they would have re-routed elsewhere other than Moscow. However they didn't.
Ultimately the answer to the MAN/HKG/CX conundrum can be found by re-arranging the following two words : World / One
CX have previously run pax services to MAN and therefore already have the rights as of course do their existing regular freighters.
Had they really wanted to run from HKG to MAN at that time, they would have re-routed elsewhere other than Moscow. However they didn't.
Ultimately the answer to the MAN/HKG/CX conundrum can be found by re-arranging the following two words : World / One
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately the answer to the MAN/HKG/CX conundrum can be found by re-arranging the following two words : World / One
For fear of being impaled as a heretic :
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposed CX via Moscow is a bit of a red herring tbh.
CX have previously run pax services to MAN and therefore already have the rights as of course do their existing regular freighters.
Had they really wanted to run from HKG to MAN at that time, they would have re-routed elsewhere other than Moscow. However they didn't.
Ultimately the answer to the MAN/HKG/CX conundrum can be found by re-arranging the following two words : World / One
CX have previously run pax services to MAN and therefore already have the rights as of course do their existing regular freighters.
Had they really wanted to run from HKG to MAN at that time, they would have re-routed elsewhere other than Moscow. However they didn't.
Ultimately the answer to the MAN/HKG/CX conundrum can be found by re-arranging the following two words : World / One
It's not about HKG-MAN rites it is HKG-UK, as there are 5 pax flts to LHR and numerous freighter services to the UK, a viable alternative could not be found, or available slots to the UK. HKG-MAN would die within a year it had to tag with somewhere else and DME was the preferred option. We now have an a/c sat at DME for almost 12 hours everyday.
The reason you don't have a CX pax flt to MAN at the moment lay with BMI.
When the 350's start coming then there may be a CX pax flt to MAN and not before.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, like I said, if that flight had been about HKG-MAN a way would have been found. The fact that the HKG-DME went ahead anyway shows what CX's prime motivation was in that case (and nothing wrong with that by the way).
And without stating the obvious, since there is no BMi to object anymore, why is the plane sat on the ground in Moscow if MAN is such a prize?
As an infrequent flyer to HKG, I couldn't have imagined going via DME anyway.
A 1-stop flight is a 1-stop flight - may as well go on the A380 all the way with Emirates. Takes a bit longer but boy is it so much better than CX.
In order for that to change to the point of viability, CX would need to offer a non-stop and as you say that isn't going to happen for a while yet.
And without stating the obvious, since there is no BMi to object anymore, why is the plane sat on the ground in Moscow if MAN is such a prize?
As an infrequent flyer to HKG, I couldn't have imagined going via DME anyway.
A 1-stop flight is a 1-stop flight - may as well go on the A380 all the way with Emirates. Takes a bit longer but boy is it so much better than CX.
In order for that to change to the point of viability, CX would need to offer a non-stop and as you say that isn't going to happen for a while yet.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a sacred cow you CAN NOT mention Oneairline (World) the influence of Watership Down or Compass House in any debate what ever
When the 350's start coming then there may be a CX pax flt to MAN and not before.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does nobody else think the dominance of the ME3 at MAN is a factor in how hard MAN finds it to attract CX/MH etc etc ? They really do have MAN sewn up with their very regular one stop services to anywhere going East. DXB will soon be the biggest destination from MAN, and that's before a 2nd daily A380, or 4th daily service from EK, or upgrades from the other 2. Why would anyone bother ??
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're not exactly close allies, if Cathay thought they could make a go of MAN without the BA codeshare over LHR they'd stomp on BA's interests without a second thought. The lack of MAN service is a CX issue, not a BA one.
As for a direct non stop absolutely allowed however spanner asserts the 77w is to much aircraft -Its certainly the case the majority are rather premium heavy even the 3 class frames of which there are only nine have almost 80 premium seats !
The 343 remains far more suited with just 26 premium across most of the dwindling fleet.
The 359 fleet will by double that of the 343 and will likely have similar premium cabins 25-35 may also have a Y+ will have far superior operating costs performance and a very handy cargo uplift.
As spanners asserts it may make the direct non stop HKG-MAN a viable consideration yet we have at least 15 more months to wait.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does nobody else think the dominance of the ME3 at MAN is a factor in how hard MAN finds it to attract CX/MH etc etc
By the way they are not always the cheapest by any means.
However their combined effects have mainly been to damage opportunities from the Sub-continent and Australian markets.
We have answers for CX i suppose whilst the loss of KL really was inevitable as MAS are a hopeless money loosing sink- Its said they can't even make a profit on 2 daily 388s from LHR .
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey … Let's Keep APD!!!
So … let me get this right. Some contributors on here - and allegedly some within MAG management - believe that our excessive APD burden should be retained because adjusting or scrapping it may sway market share in favour of other airports. Well, I've really heard it all now!
APD has been retained in the UK even as other countries including (our competitors) Ireland and the Netherlands have scrapped equivalent taxes having belatedly recognised the destruction wrought upon their aviation and tourism sectors. I contend that APD costs Great Britain more in lost trade and tourism than it brings in to the exchequer. It is a regressive tax imposed in response to flawed ideological mythology rather than economic common sense. I have always opposed its imposition and campaigned for its total abolition (though I'm not naive enough to expect any early success on that front). This idea that Manchester Airport should support the retention of APD because removing it *may* increase business at other airports slightly more than at MAN itself defies belief. Of course APD removal would increase business across the board … that is the point! The whole country would benefit, not just airports. If the MAG hierarchy is genuinely rooting for the retention of APD then I must truly despair for their sanity … but then again, these are the folks who thought massively overpaying for STN was a great idea.
Now of course I do fully understand why APD is a wonderful idea. It allows 600 or so clueless MP's to demonstrate "green credentials" to an electorate cowed by eco-extremist propoganda. Even as a crew of Global Warming Alarmists are rescued from the record-breaking Antarctic ice which they went to prove isn't actually there, we are reliably informed by the media that flatulent cows and overfilled kettles are killing the planet. And aviation … ye gods … don't even mention that evil destroyer of all things wonderful … the carbon-based lifeforms will spontaneously combust with rage! Ooops … did I mention carbon? That hideously evil element which is essential to all plant life? Sorry about that.
In fact, maybe we should lobby to keep APD. Maybe we should triple it. That should stifle growth at EMA, BHX and LPL. Which is a good thing … isn't it??? If MAG has fallen for this line of reasoning, can they please employ somebody with a brain … B42L8!!!
APD has been retained in the UK even as other countries including (our competitors) Ireland and the Netherlands have scrapped equivalent taxes having belatedly recognised the destruction wrought upon their aviation and tourism sectors. I contend that APD costs Great Britain more in lost trade and tourism than it brings in to the exchequer. It is a regressive tax imposed in response to flawed ideological mythology rather than economic common sense. I have always opposed its imposition and campaigned for its total abolition (though I'm not naive enough to expect any early success on that front). This idea that Manchester Airport should support the retention of APD because removing it *may* increase business at other airports slightly more than at MAN itself defies belief. Of course APD removal would increase business across the board … that is the point! The whole country would benefit, not just airports. If the MAG hierarchy is genuinely rooting for the retention of APD then I must truly despair for their sanity … but then again, these are the folks who thought massively overpaying for STN was a great idea.
Now of course I do fully understand why APD is a wonderful idea. It allows 600 or so clueless MP's to demonstrate "green credentials" to an electorate cowed by eco-extremist propoganda. Even as a crew of Global Warming Alarmists are rescued from the record-breaking Antarctic ice which they went to prove isn't actually there, we are reliably informed by the media that flatulent cows and overfilled kettles are killing the planet. And aviation … ye gods … don't even mention that evil destroyer of all things wonderful … the carbon-based lifeforms will spontaneously combust with rage! Ooops … did I mention carbon? That hideously evil element which is essential to all plant life? Sorry about that.
In fact, maybe we should lobby to keep APD. Maybe we should triple it. That should stifle growth at EMA, BHX and LPL. Which is a good thing … isn't it??? If MAG has fallen for this line of reasoning, can they please employ somebody with a brain … B42L8!!!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So … let me get this right. Some contributors on here - and allegedly some within MAG management - believe that our excessive APD burden should be retained because adjusting or scrapping it may sway market share in favour of other airports. Well, I've really heard it all now!
I'm pretty sure everyone in the business is in favour of a APD being removed across the board, but it is not as if there haven't been numerous campaigns from within the industry on this point - all of which have failed.