MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
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 would sooner it didn't exist and yes its has caused some damage.
Again what I said was that I would not and don't belief MAG would support a variable rate mechanism that may have unintended consequences to their bottom line.
Remember Manchester retains a small but important long haul network has been courting the LCCs and continues to support a significant range of IT services.
With a variable rate that IT and LCC business could well be lost if smaller regionals gain a benefit - Bristol has also realised this in relation to Cardiff.
UK PLC needs to reconsider the whole mechanism , however like I said and it's a truism punitive taxes tend to have a waining negative effect over time as they really do become a normal cost of doing business.
Again i'd sooner it not exist and certainly not at the levels being applied to long haul and premium travel.
Right now through what UK political party exists willing to change this -NONE
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are simply not enough 777's to go around, although we are still getting deliveries, another one last month, they are replacing the 744's which are being scrapped.
You will see a CX 744 pax a/c on the 5th, unfortunately the flt out will be its last, being broken up. The 340, I'm lead to believe, was looked at, however the operating costs made it too expensive to operate to MAN.
If Air New Zealand had not given the 5th LHR-HKG slot to CX then it would of been highly likely that it would of been used to MAN, however CX will not look a gift horse in the mouth, win/win as far as they are concerned.
I think we've been here before and are going over old stuff. You'll just have to wait until the 350 enters service, and hope that what they say materialises!
You will see a CX 744 pax a/c on the 5th, unfortunately the flt out will be its last, being broken up. The 340, I'm lead to believe, was looked at, however the operating costs made it too expensive to operate to MAN.
If Air New Zealand had not given the 5th LHR-HKG slot to CX then it would of been highly likely that it would of been used to MAN, however CX will not look a gift horse in the mouth, win/win as far as they are concerned.
I think we've been here before and are going over old stuff. You'll just have to wait until the 350 enters service, and hope that what they say materialises!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if CX so chose, they could begin HKG-MAN asap? If the three class non F B77W is too premium heavy why not use an A343? Not sure, and I am not denying the point just trying to understand it, why it would be uneconomic.
Paid for aeroplane, of an identical type that VS prefer over the A346 to LAX/HKG/PVG when they can get away with it. If Cathay need a new generation of aeroplane before they'll re-open MAN-HKG, then the business case can't be that strong, in their view. Which seems odd given the size of the market.
I agree about EK/EY/QR squeezing others out, that's been evident for a while now.
Paid for aeroplane, of an identical type that VS prefer over the A346 to LAX/HKG/PVG when they can get away with it. If Cathay need a new generation of aeroplane before they'll re-open MAN-HKG, then the business case can't be that strong, in their view. Which seems odd given the size of the market.
I agree about EK/EY/QR squeezing others out, that's been evident for a while now.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
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 ?
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.
But if dealing with an overseas govt. that doesn‘t favour fewer restrictions, then restrictions will remain, irrespective of what the Commission says or thinks.
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 !
Perhaps because none of these addresses the problem of lack of capacity (which is at Heathrow). Extra routes/destinations at Ringway are clearly desirable, but it would not mean fewer at Heathrow. It is not “other/or”.
It really is not a difficult concept to understand.
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 !
There is no case, more routes/destinations at Ringway is unrelated to the issue of capacity constraints at Heathrow.
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.
Agreed, but at Heathrow, not on the estuary. Traffic forced out of Heathrow goes to "the usual suspects": Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris.
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.
In this respect it was an utter and abject failure.
There is a limit to what they can recommend, in the real world, it had to be Heathrow expansion.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 4th Jan 2014 at 10:07.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
At the risk of being repititive and boring, what will attract services to Ringway is a belief by carriers that there is sufficient premium business, that there is sufficient connectivity, and that there is sufficient money to be made. It is as simple as that.
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.
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.
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
To state that capacity problems are concentrated at Heathrow is a statement of the “bleeding obvious”, it is not a denigration of Ringway. To suggest this is disingenuous.
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.
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.
Also, as mentioned above, the government does what it can to liberalise bilaterals, but if the other governments concerned won’t “play ball”, there is little that can be done, because of the reciprocal nature of these.
On the case of Hong Kong well questions remain of why CX continue to add LHR capacity at the expense of Manchester.
Please re-read the post.
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.
That may be the case, but (as mentioned above), the UK government favours liberal bilaterals. However, if other governments concerned won’t “play ball”, there is little that can be done. However it is not an issue for the Commission.
Concerns remain India just what does MAG have to do to get someone to Delhi/Mumbai
The UK-India bilateral was liberalised back in 2005 and that resulted in up to 6 carriers on Heathrow-Bombay route since then. There are now 4 carriers on the route. Liberalising bilaterals is not always the answer.
What is keeping India off the Ringway direct-routes map is possibly the fact that 10 cities in India are accessible from Ringway (with a connection at Dubai) on EK.
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).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a small observation re APD, it is not across the board.
At all UK regional airports (except Belfast), almost every single passenger will pay APD because they are domestic to international passengers or vice versa. There is very little international to international transit traffic.
I cannot recall the exact figure but at Heathrow at least 30% and it may be higher are International to International passengers, unless they call in for a burger at McDonalds whilst in transit to another gate these passengers do not pay a penny to the UK exchequer !
In effect at Manchester 20m pax save for a minuscule number of transit passengers pay full APD !
By comparison at Heathrow somewhere in the order of 20m+pax actually avoid it altogether !
As an aside Manchester would appear to be a highly efficient tax generator for Gideon would it not ?
On a theme I accept the argument that these transit passengers contribute to routes that might otherwise be unsuccessful and enhance connectivity BUT have we gone too far in terms of providing such a high frequency on some routes ?
Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?
Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?
Some of the European destinations have 30 minute and hourly services, total overkill in terms of duplication, some of these airlines are even in alliances so they are killing each other !
Would it really hurt that much to have larger aircraft flights over a slightly longer timescale ?
Would it make Heathrow that less competitive ?
This mornings Independent is floating an idea again by Howard Davies that in order to minimise stacking over The Home Counties, planes arriving before or after their allotted slot will face heavy fines, cannot wait to see how on earth that will work........ having said that slightly less planes and higher capacity would surely make some sense ?
In terms of coming full circle it leads me onto another other gem that totally escaped scrutiny in the Howard Davies Report, this being the premise that more direct international long haul routes from regional airports would ultimately be environmentally damaging, this bizarre observation was based on the fact that the commission felt higher load factor could be achieved out of London due to the higher propensity of people in the Home Counties to travel and the lure of London. The main loser here would of course be Manchester, quite why MAG , local media and our local MPs remained mute is a mystery ?
This incredible dare I say baffling piece of logic also omitted to explain how passengers from "The regions" might get to Heathrow or any commentary on the economic effect on the absence such services.
Unless they actually walk down there in a loin cloth surely they going to catch either a shuttle or go by car, is this not worse than a single direct flight from say Manchester ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem re bi laterals is not one of access !
If an airline (foreign) wants to operate to Manchester, my understanding is that in the main they can, BUT this is the issue.
The UK airline BA or VS will want demand reciprocal / equal rights, BUT and this is the killer they ALWAYS demand these from Heathrow because they have no interest in Manchester.
The bilaterals are negotiated on a UK wide basis not on an airport by airport basis which is what is required...at least from the Manchester perspective.
No airline is going to operate to a secondary airport like Manchester whilst allowing their competitor to operate from the Capital...thus the status quo is maintained !
THAT is the problem !
The MEBs fill their flights so are happy to allow extra from LHR if that is what BA/VS desire ...other airlines especially the Chinese less so !
At all UK regional airports (except Belfast), almost every single passenger will pay APD because they are domestic to international passengers or vice versa. There is very little international to international transit traffic.
I cannot recall the exact figure but at Heathrow at least 30% and it may be higher are International to International passengers, unless they call in for a burger at McDonalds whilst in transit to another gate these passengers do not pay a penny to the UK exchequer !
In effect at Manchester 20m pax save for a minuscule number of transit passengers pay full APD !
By comparison at Heathrow somewhere in the order of 20m+pax actually avoid it altogether !
As an aside Manchester would appear to be a highly efficient tax generator for Gideon would it not ?
On a theme I accept the argument that these transit passengers contribute to routes that might otherwise be unsuccessful and enhance connectivity BUT have we gone too far in terms of providing such a high frequency on some routes ?
Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?
Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?
Some of the European destinations have 30 minute and hourly services, total overkill in terms of duplication, some of these airlines are even in alliances so they are killing each other !
Would it really hurt that much to have larger aircraft flights over a slightly longer timescale ?
Would it make Heathrow that less competitive ?
This mornings Independent is floating an idea again by Howard Davies that in order to minimise stacking over The Home Counties, planes arriving before or after their allotted slot will face heavy fines, cannot wait to see how on earth that will work........ having said that slightly less planes and higher capacity would surely make some sense ?
In terms of coming full circle it leads me onto another other gem that totally escaped scrutiny in the Howard Davies Report, this being the premise that more direct international long haul routes from regional airports would ultimately be environmentally damaging, this bizarre observation was based on the fact that the commission felt higher load factor could be achieved out of London due to the higher propensity of people in the Home Counties to travel and the lure of London. The main loser here would of course be Manchester, quite why MAG , local media and our local MPs remained mute is a mystery ?
This incredible dare I say baffling piece of logic also omitted to explain how passengers from "The regions" might get to Heathrow or any commentary on the economic effect on the absence such services.
Unless they actually walk down there in a loin cloth surely they going to catch either a shuttle or go by car, is this not worse than a single direct flight from say Manchester ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem re bi laterals is not one of access !
If an airline (foreign) wants to operate to Manchester, my understanding is that in the main they can, BUT this is the issue.
The UK airline BA or VS will want demand reciprocal / equal rights, BUT and this is the killer they ALWAYS demand these from Heathrow because they have no interest in Manchester.
The bilaterals are negotiated on a UK wide basis not on an airport by airport basis which is what is required...at least from the Manchester perspective.
No airline is going to operate to a secondary airport like Manchester whilst allowing their competitor to operate from the Capital...thus the status quo is maintained !
THAT is the problem !
The MEBs fill their flights so are happy to allow extra from LHR if that is what BA/VS desire ...other airlines especially the Chinese less so !
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ground Accessability
In relation to ground accessibility:
Rail - connections to the North are excellent with stoppers and direct services from Central Manchester and much beyond - Leeds, Edinburgh etc. effectively, Trans Pennine Express tries to terminate all services at MAN (MIA in rail station code). The 3rd platform helped with this and now there is the 4th platform under construction. The Northern Hub will also provide 2 extra through platforms at Picc and in the short term, the Chord, allowing Leeds trains to run through Victoria, Ox Rd, Picc and on to MIA. This removes the crossing movement currently made across the throat of Picc by Leeds-Picc-MIA trains.
From the south the rail connectivity is poor though. We need Services from directly south of MAN to attract people currently travelling from BHX and potentially from the West Midlands who are currently flying from LHR where we have the same flight.
Tram - eastern part of Wythenshawe loop under construction which will mainly serve staff/passengers from there plus Sale / Trafford. Completing the Western part of the Loop will aid connectivity.
Road - M56 connects to M60 and then over the Pennines and there are easy connections to the North and West. Again, South is an issue with routes going via the congested A556 to the M6.
Airport City and A6MARR (A6 - Manchester Airport Relief Road) will drastically change the road network around the airport over the next few years making it easier to access from the immediate East and reducing congesting / simplifying the network nearest to the airport (and let's face it, it needed simplifying!)
Bus/coach - many stopping services including to the South!
Overall - connectivity to West, North, East is good and improving. Connectivity to South is not as we would want it with no immediate signs of this changing.
Rail - connections to the North are excellent with stoppers and direct services from Central Manchester and much beyond - Leeds, Edinburgh etc. effectively, Trans Pennine Express tries to terminate all services at MAN (MIA in rail station code). The 3rd platform helped with this and now there is the 4th platform under construction. The Northern Hub will also provide 2 extra through platforms at Picc and in the short term, the Chord, allowing Leeds trains to run through Victoria, Ox Rd, Picc and on to MIA. This removes the crossing movement currently made across the throat of Picc by Leeds-Picc-MIA trains.
From the south the rail connectivity is poor though. We need Services from directly south of MAN to attract people currently travelling from BHX and potentially from the West Midlands who are currently flying from LHR where we have the same flight.
Tram - eastern part of Wythenshawe loop under construction which will mainly serve staff/passengers from there plus Sale / Trafford. Completing the Western part of the Loop will aid connectivity.
Road - M56 connects to M60 and then over the Pennines and there are easy connections to the North and West. Again, South is an issue with routes going via the congested A556 to the M6.
Airport City and A6MARR (A6 - Manchester Airport Relief Road) will drastically change the road network around the airport over the next few years making it easier to access from the immediate East and reducing congesting / simplifying the network nearest to the airport (and let's face it, it needed simplifying!)
Bus/coach - many stopping services including to the South!
Overall - connectivity to West, North, East is good and improving. Connectivity to South is not as we would want it with no immediate signs of this changing.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FairDealFrank
Frank - the points you make are all absolutely valid and correct. I also agree with you that there is a tendency for people to complain bitterly about absolutely everything without actually specifying what they would like Davies et al to do!
However, you are wrong in saying that the Davies Commission's interim report was solely restricted to the issue of runway capacity in the London area. It had a wider remit, namely:
The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
●● its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and,
●● its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long-term options.
The UK's 'Global hub status' was explicitly considered through a national prism, as opposed to just focussing on the south-east. Measures to improve national (not just London) connectivity were explicitly addressed by the Commission.
Equally the Commission had an entire work stream focused on making best use of existing runway capacity, with its own set of deadlines for submissions etc. Again the Commission stressed that this was to address all parts of the UK.
It is in relation to both of these points that Bagso has a valid point. Whereas the Commission spent a lot of time on discussing these issues (and MAG and others spent a lot of time and money writing detailed submissions at the Commission's request) its interim report tends to deal with them in a rather superficial way. The differential APD issue is a case in point, where only one scenario is modelled and the details of the methodology are extremely opaque. And the climate change argument against differential APD is frankly bizarre - taken to its logical conclusion it would imply that all regional flying should cease and we should all be forced to fly on full A380s or B787s out of London.
So I think that MAG and other regional airports do have some grounds for disappointment that the Commission's interim report - which was supposed to focus on such issues - didn't do what it said on the tin.
Of course you are right that the meat of the Commission's work from now on is concerned with the nationally-crucial issue of London runway capacity (and I agree with you that LHR is the only viable option). But that is not an excuse for the Commission neglecting its wider remit to find ways of enhancing overall UK connectivity and to make best use of existing runway capacity throughout the UK. And it is in precisely that context that issues such as differential APD and restrictive bilaterals were considered by the Commission, even if (in my opinion) in a rather superficial way.
However, you are wrong in saying that the Davies Commission's interim report was solely restricted to the issue of runway capacity in the London area. It had a wider remit, namely:
The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
●● its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and,
●● its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long-term options.
The UK's 'Global hub status' was explicitly considered through a national prism, as opposed to just focussing on the south-east. Measures to improve national (not just London) connectivity were explicitly addressed by the Commission.
Equally the Commission had an entire work stream focused on making best use of existing runway capacity, with its own set of deadlines for submissions etc. Again the Commission stressed that this was to address all parts of the UK.
It is in relation to both of these points that Bagso has a valid point. Whereas the Commission spent a lot of time on discussing these issues (and MAG and others spent a lot of time and money writing detailed submissions at the Commission's request) its interim report tends to deal with them in a rather superficial way. The differential APD issue is a case in point, where only one scenario is modelled and the details of the methodology are extremely opaque. And the climate change argument against differential APD is frankly bizarre - taken to its logical conclusion it would imply that all regional flying should cease and we should all be forced to fly on full A380s or B787s out of London.
So I think that MAG and other regional airports do have some grounds for disappointment that the Commission's interim report - which was supposed to focus on such issues - didn't do what it said on the tin.
Of course you are right that the meat of the Commission's work from now on is concerned with the nationally-crucial issue of London runway capacity (and I agree with you that LHR is the only viable option). But that is not an excuse for the Commission neglecting its wider remit to find ways of enhancing overall UK connectivity and to make best use of existing runway capacity throughout the UK. And it is in precisely that context that issues such as differential APD and restrictive bilaterals were considered by the Commission, even if (in my opinion) in a rather superficial way.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?
Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?
Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?
Only CDG, AMS or FRA would benefit if you attack this. MAN has lost BA in favour of American then lost Delta completely in this market. The old Continental service to Newark has dropped from twice daily seasonal on favour of a EWR / IAD split. The key point here is that MAN-NYC is in no important way, linked to LON-NYC. Capacity on one impacts capacity,or *opportunity* on the other in no way. Anyone flying MAN-LHR-NYC needs, how can I put this? A slap?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me Bagso you hanker after some sort of planners world in which the frequencies and destinations are set by spotty youth in the CAA. However good an idea that is, it ain't going to happen. We believe in the market round here and if that means 30 min headways to New York, so be it. But take heart.
Let's say there's going to be 2 to 3% growth in air travel. So it will double in 30 years. Combine that with Dreamliners, A350s etc and the number of long haul routes from MAN will increase. In turn that will enable a better 'weak hub' to be developed.
The sad thing is that unless things change, the long haul growth will mostly be foreign airlines serving their strong hubs. If BA and VS don't see a market to foreign hubs from MAN I'm afraid that's life.
Is MAN really in a very different situation than Lyon, Rome, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Bordeaux, Seville etc? I doubt it.
Let's say there's going to be 2 to 3% growth in air travel. So it will double in 30 years. Combine that with Dreamliners, A350s etc and the number of long haul routes from MAN will increase. In turn that will enable a better 'weak hub' to be developed.
The sad thing is that unless things change, the long haul growth will mostly be foreign airlines serving their strong hubs. If BA and VS don't see a market to foreign hubs from MAN I'm afraid that's life.
Is MAN really in a very different situation than Lyon, Rome, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Bordeaux, Seville etc? I doubt it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is MAN really in a very different situation than Lyon, Rome, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Bordeaux, Seville etc? I doubt it.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I need to correct Bagso a bit. It's only around half the international bound passengers at MAN that payed APD - departing passengers, not arriving passengers. This equals to 8.68 million international passengers that payed APD in 2012. Domestic passengers usually all payed APD except passengers arriving where the flight in to MAN is the last leg on an international flight with a transfer inside UK (in most cases at LHR). In 2012 MAN had 2.29 million domestic passengers, but since no open sources give out these transfer exception it is only possible to say it was close to 2 million.
Now to LHR. All passengers that start their journey inside the UK have to pay APD. Transfer passengers at LHR that don't start inside the UK naturally don't pay. If you count inviduals transfering at LHR it is half of the transfer passenger number. In other words it was just below 60 million individuals going through LHR in 2012, and over 25 million of these payed APD.
Now to LHR. All passengers that start their journey inside the UK have to pay APD. Transfer passengers at LHR that don't start inside the UK naturally don't pay. If you count inviduals transfering at LHR it is half of the transfer passenger number. In other words it was just below 60 million individuals going through LHR in 2012, and over 25 million of these payed APD.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH have announced a retreat to their key hubs of FRA and MUC (with a smaller operation at DUS). Other airports to be left to Germanwings.
And you can't really compare the UK with Germany, which has historically been a federal collection of largely independent states. We may not like the dominance of London in the UK, but it is a fact.
The argument that 'if LH can do it in Germany then why can't BA do it in the UK' is misguided, I'm afraid.
And you can't really compare the UK with Germany, which has historically been a federal collection of largely independent states. We may not like the dominance of London in the UK, but it is a fact.
The argument that 'if LH can do it in Germany then why can't BA do it in the UK' is misguided, I'm afraid.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?
Just to clarify I wasn't in any way advocating transfer of traffic to Manchester (not actually sure I said that but heyho), I was simply suggesting that given the criticality of the situation at LHR this might have been something that the commission looked at.
I'm all for the free market but given that LHR is burdened with an inability to serve "new markets" reducing frequency marginally on some routes might assist...
Stand corrected LN
Just to clarify I wasn't in any way advocating transfer of traffic to Manchester (not actually sure I said that but heyho), I was simply suggesting that given the criticality of the situation at LHR this might have been something that the commission looked at.
I'm all for the free market but given that LHR is burdened with an inability to serve "new markets" reducing frequency marginally on some routes might assist...
Stand corrected LN
Last edited by Bagso; 4th Jan 2014 at 17:35.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?
Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?
Some of the European destinations have 30 minute and hourly services, total overkill in terms of duplication, some of these airlines are even in alliances so they are killing each other !
Would it really hurt that much to have larger aircraft flights over a slightly longer timescale ?
Would it make Heathrow that less competitive ?
Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?
Some of the European destinations have 30 minute and hourly services, total overkill in terms of duplication, some of these airlines are even in alliances so they are killing each other !
Would it really hurt that much to have larger aircraft flights over a slightly longer timescale ?
Would it make Heathrow that less competitive ?
This incredible dare I say baffling piece of logic also omitted to explain how passengers from "The regions" might get to Heathrow or any commentary on the economic effect on the absence such services.
FairDealFrank
Frank - the points you make are all absolutely valid and correct. I also agree with you that there is a tendency for people to complain bitterly about absolutely everything without actually specifying what they would like Davies et al to do!
However, you are wrong in saying that the Davies Commission's interim report was solely restricted to the issue of runway capacity in the London area. It had a wider remit, namely:
The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
●● its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and,
●● its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long-term options.
The UK's 'Global hub status' was explicitly considered through a national prism, as opposed to just focussing on the south-east. Measures to improve national (not just London) connectivity were explicitly addressed by the Commission.
Frank - the points you make are all absolutely valid and correct. I also agree with you that there is a tendency for people to complain bitterly about absolutely everything without actually specifying what they would like Davies et al to do!
However, you are wrong in saying that the Davies Commission's interim report was solely restricted to the issue of runway capacity in the London area. It had a wider remit, namely:
The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
●● its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and,
●● its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long-term options.
The UK's 'Global hub status' was explicitly considered through a national prism, as opposed to just focussing on the south-east. Measures to improve national (not just London) connectivity were explicitly addressed by the Commission.
The wording is altered for political reasons because the Conservative part of the govt now realises it's mistake in cancelling LHR expansion in 2010 and needs to find a way out, without chasing the Libdems out of the coalition.
Also, the govt is running scared of a tiny, mostly rich, vocal minority, and/or a small number of "eco-warriors", none of which live anywhere near the airport.
Hence a device for kicking the issue into the long grass, with a report date after the election.
It's classic "Yes Minister"!
Where has there been rwy capacity problems for several years? Heathrow.
Where is there rwy capacity problems now? Heathrow.
Where will there be rwy capacity problems in the next 5 years? Heathrow.
Anywhere else? Possibly Gatwick.
Anywhere else? No.
Maybe that's why the Commission concentrated on LHR and LGW?
And the climate change argument against differential APD is frankly bizarre - taken to its logical conclusion it would imply that all regional flying should cease and we should all be forced to fly on full A380s or B787s out of London.
Hmm, where is Alitalia's main base and hub?
And you can't really compare the UK with Germany, which has historically been a federal collection of largely independent states. We may not like the dominance of London in the UK, but it is a fact.
The argument that 'if LH can do it in Germany then why can't BA do it in the UK' is misguided, I'm afraid.
The argument that 'if LH can do it in Germany then why can't BA do it in the UK' is misguided, I'm afraid.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 5th Jan 2014 at 12:38.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LYS...your not serious surely ! LYS handles 8m per year, less than half that of MAN. In 2011 MAN was 21st busiest airport in Europe with 19m pax, although we know that is now in excess of 20m. LYS was 54th !
MAN is no MUC admittedly, but it is equal at least to DUS, from which LH finds it quite easy to operate a sizable SH and small LH operation.
I would bracket MAN with DUB, BRU, VIE, CPH, OSL etc etc, but LYS...come off it !
If the more service were offered from MAN for those north of Birmingham how many millions of passengers would not be forced to treck to LHR, which in turn would free up slots with reduction of shuttles needed and frequency on LH certain routes. MAN has a role to play, yet anyone South of Watford cannot see it, and what is more frustrating is little extra infrastructure would be required as its mostly already in place i.e. an under utilised 2nd runway, 3 terminals etc.
MAN is no MUC admittedly, but it is equal at least to DUS, from which LH finds it quite easy to operate a sizable SH and small LH operation.
I would bracket MAN with DUB, BRU, VIE, CPH, OSL etc etc, but LYS...come off it !
If the more service were offered from MAN for those north of Birmingham how many millions of passengers would not be forced to treck to LHR, which in turn would free up slots with reduction of shuttles needed and frequency on LH certain routes. MAN has a role to play, yet anyone South of Watford cannot see it, and what is more frustrating is little extra infrastructure would be required as its mostly already in place i.e. an under utilised 2nd runway, 3 terminals etc.
Last edited by eggc; 5th Jan 2014 at 15:11.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... and Manchester region is 20th largest city region in W Europe. It's population and income per head that drive these things plus a remoteness factor. Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki probably overperform relative to more central locations of equivalent size and status. Also there must be a capital city effect which is why my suggestion of Rome was silly. Naples or Turin would have been better comparators from Italy.