MANCHESTER - 9

[rutankrd]

To me the numbers and cross section of traffic types place Manchester Dusseldorf Dublin and Barcelona in the same category -Secondary Major Regional Airport.

All have similar range and mix of Schedules to the Alliance Hubs and other important business cities.

Frequent TALC connections to all major East Coast Alliance hubs

Strong presence of ME3 carriers offering one stop services to Asia/Australia/Dog legs to Africa.

Schedules serving culturally significant local migrant populations _ Manchester-Pakistan/North Africa, Dublin-Boston/Chicago, Barcelona - South America Dusseldorf - Russia/CIS and Turkey.

Huge outbound seasonal tourist travel (Inbound in case of Barcelona !)

At a push i would add Palma to the group through highly seasonal and perhaps Milan Malpensa.

What makes Manchester I little unique is that all the others retain significant services and route networks from Their National Carrier (albeit in the form of a flexible fares subsidiaries at Barcelona and LH increasing use of the Germanwings brand out of Dusseldorf !)

[eggc]

It is more than just the Manchester area when we are talking about airport capacity in the UK. MAN could serve the entire north of England...a huge area with many major cities, and much industry / leisure. MAN could elleviate much traffic for LHR, if only BA could see past the M25 and serve the entire country as a national carrier should, instead it (and LHR owners) just keeps harping on about growing LHR that nobody else really wants !

[Suzeman]

Quote:
Why was the introduction of US preclearance at Manchester as a way of stimulating growth discussed ?

An excellent idea, obviously, and certainly more do-able than at Heathrow, but again, a matter for Ringway managers and the US govt. Are they prepared to pay?

Incorrect FDF. US pre-clearance requires a UK legislation change to allow the US Authorities to have rights within the UK. So the UK Government has to be involved. See below

UK government backs US security checks at UK airports

The UK government's new Aviation Policy Framework states: “The Government believes that introducing US pre-clearance at the UK airports could offer significant passenger benefits and improve the overall end-to-end journey experience for passengers flying from the UK to the US, whilst at the same time maintaining passenger security and a secure border, which are shared US and UK priorities.

“The decision on whether to operate such facilities at airports overseas ultimately rests with the US authorities.

“Accordingly, the Government will consider, with the US authorities and interested stakeholders in the UK, the feasibility of such facilities being made available in the UK, including the practical and legal issues that would need to be addressed.”

And that's before you have to decide where to put it as you will only get one at your airport because of the US costs...so all US flights have to go from the same terminal if they are to use the facility. In a multi-terminal airport this is an interesting capacity issue to solve and could make a less efficient use of airport capacity than at present

As far as bilaterals are concerned Bagso wrote

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 !

This is how it goes;

Bilaterals are negotiated on the basis of balanced benefits for both sides. So long haul foreign airline A applies for a flight from its main base to a UK regional airport as it is not covered in the current bilateral agreement. Especially if it sees it as a threat, a long haul British carrier will then demand reciprocal rights from LHR but probably to the foreign carrier's main base knowing that this will immediately put a spanner in the works. (To be fair, however, if they really want something to a secondary airport in that foreign country a deal may well be done.)

Foreign government rejects this as unbalanced and says you can have regional rights to our country. UK airline lobbies UK Govt to hold out for what they originally wanted. And a whole raft of other things may well intervene such as doing aviation business issues and relationships with that country in general. The Government will take other UK parties views into account before it takes its decision. The airlines have a very long-standing relationship with the Government so it is necessary for the UK regional airport to be involved in all the discussions and bilateral negotiations to ensure that they are not being shafted. Sometimes the negotiation stalls, the status quo is retained and the UK airlines have stopped the foreign carrier serving UK regional airports which may well have been the object of the exercise all along.

In addition, say an airline is looking at its route planning options and has a couple of new destinations fighting it out for use of an additional aircraft. If the economics of both routes are roughly the same, other elements will come into the process. All other things being equal, the destination where difficulties are likely to be encountered in getting the rights will lose to that where the rights already exist or there are less difficulties perceived.

Mr FDF, in your recent posts you have singularly failed to acknowledge despite myself, Shed and others pointing it out, that nowhere on here has anyone suggested any direction of traffic away from LHR or the SE, argued against the requirement for additional capacity in the SE or even lobbied for another runway at Ringway. What we are saying is that an opportunity has been missed, bearing in mind that one of the terms of reference for the Commission was

It should maintain a UK-wide perspective, taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.

for regional airports to do their bit to serve their own markets better.

You said

Extra routes/destinations at Ringway are clearly desirable, but it would not mean fewer at Heathrow.

Absolutely so and I don't think anyone has suggested that either. However what it would mean is that myself and my great unwashed cousins from north of Watford would have more options available from our local airports.

So if a number of us then chose to go on a direct route instead of via LHR that would immediately free some seats up to/from London on those flights which would then be used by others. This would help you in the SE in the short term to make sure the limited capacity is used better for your market by reducing the proportion of UK regional passengers using SE airports. Numbers would be small admittedly, but it would be a help to your local airport which I believe is called LHR?

As you yourself have said, the report timetable was the classic Sir Humphrey tactics to kick it into the long grass until after the election. After that - heaven knows if anything will happen. And even if it does, significant additional capacity will be years away, so as demand grows in the short term, you have to make the best of what you've got.

So you down there need all the help you can get to enable the SE Airports serve their expanding market; regional airports can do a bit to help by taking some regional passengers out of your system and you can then replace them with others from the expanding SE market. I would therefore suggest you should be supporting our annoyance that Davies has failed to address these regional issues in any depth in his report especially as he was charged with looking at a UK-wide perspective.

Remember as someone once said "Every little bit helps"

[rutankrd]

Suzeman - well put and in total agreement with those perspectives.

Discussion and actually figures have been discussed in another place

Around 20m are international-international transfers at LHR and already behind other EU Hubs however on the other hand and the reason for the high yields London by itself is a magnitude the largest market in Europe period.

The current constraints may actually be advantageous to the major customer BA in maintaining and improving yield and revenue potential.

Their mite means they (BA) can secure more capacity as needed and have been doing so through a rolling programme of acquisitions for several years.

Sudden and massive increases in capacity would weaken that very investment and perhaps the answers why the Irish gentlemen at IAG is so ambivalent !

I think however this should be the final words on the Manchester thread regarding this.

Continue on the Heathrow or BA threads if you must.

Let face reality the report and continued inaction are with us for at least another 20 months with a spring election in 2015 summer recess and finally new parliament after September 2015.

Even after that we have no idea if or when the commission/select committees will be given time or what priority the new government will place on these issues - Very long grass pretty much.

[Skipness One Echo]

my great unwashed cousins from north of Watford would have more options available from our local airports.

Please don't do that, it's not helpful. You mean long haul I assume? Everyone does, it's the glamour....

What specific bilaterals need the most urgent review for MAN to benefit. I am assuming China? EU-US is open skies, the ME3 have much of the traffic going the other way sewn up. Can we manage four more?
1) China
2)
3)
4)
5)

[rutankrd]

Nigeria
Kenya
Thailand
Sri Lanka

One out their
North Korea - Lets face it AirKoryo has visited Manchester more frequently than any other UK airport !

[Skipness One Echo]

I wonder if Thailand is too much geared towards low(er) yielding leisure and sewn up with Emirates already?
BA struggles to fill a B772 out of LHR against TG with two daily B744 / A346s. Not sure TG would even think about MAN sadly, but I like the way you're thinking.
Can someone share the MAN-Kenya or Nigeria numbers if they have 'em?

What makes Manchester I little unique is that all the others retain significant services and route networks from Their National Carrier (albeit in the form of a flexible fares subsidiaries at Barcelona and LH increasing use of the Germanwings brand out of Dusseldorf !)

You contradicted yourself there a little bit. Lufthansa and Iberia are actually following what BA did years ago and selling off loss making regional routes to loco competitors or subsidiaries. The BA routes out of MAN are in the main better served, cheaper and more frequent now the old flag carrier mentality has gone. There's nothing wrong with being a regional powerhouse, nothing at all.

[LAX_LHR]

Not sure TG would even think about MAN sadly

Thai have said for years they would like to serve Manchester, most recently last year , saying they would come to MAN if they needed more UK capacity as they cannot get more slots at LHR. Im sure someone will be able to find the press release.
Alas they have been all talk no action thus far.

Can someone share the MAN-Kenya or Nigeria numbers if they have 'em?

Kenyan is another airline that has threatened to serve MAN in the past, the last plan being a B767 via AMS.

Lagos/Abuja is not an issue bilateral wise as far as I know, as the last time the Nigerians kicked up a fuss about not being allowed more LHR slots they complained that 'they had only been offered flights at Manchester which was not acceptable to them'. Again there is a press release buried somewhere in the internet for clarification.

Sri Lanka

I believe this was another bilateral amended recently, with the UK allowing Sri Lankan 14* slots to be used at LHR/LGW/MAN.

*again clarification on number needed. It was between 14-16 but cannot remember.

[Ringwayman]

Im sure someone will be able to find the press release.

Thai and MAN possibility form August 2013

"London might even be able to support four daily frequencies if the aircraft deployed including smaller Boeing 777 planes, Kitchathorn said. A service to Manchester is another option. "

For Sri Lanka, all that I've found is this from 2011 where we find "Sri Lanka has a vast number of bilateral agreements of which SriLankan Airlines is the only user, for instance, take the bilateral to the United Kingdom where the airlines of each country are permitted to operate 14 flights each. SriLankan currently operates 13, and very soon will operate 14." There is a line on a CAPA article saying they can increase from 14 to 21 to service Canada 7 times weekly ex London with no source quoted for that increase.

[Suzeman]

Here's the last lot of bilateral talks scheduled that I could find on the DfT website

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ices-talks.pdf

Not much going on, but ones I would hope that MAN would want to put their oar in with Dft on Bahrain, China, Hong Kong, India, Saudi, Russia, Tunisia and Turkey at least. No sign of Japan which at one stage was one of the most difficult ones - possibly now negotiated with the EU?

Of course we don't know what the issues are for each country

If you've never seen a bilateral agreement, here's a nice open one between the UK and Trinidad and Tobago with 5th freedoms available. Route schedule at Annex 1 and involves points in the UK rather than specific airports - this is normal nowadays.

But also notice all the other articles covering issues that may need to be discussed which can occasionally provide show stoppers to an agreement

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.../8031/8031.pdf

And here's an EU one with Indonesia - trouble is you have to know what each individual countries agreements were that are incorporated into Annex 1 and 2

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...02:0011:EN:PDF

And here is the exchange of notes which sorted the Russian issue out for MAN. No sign of what the issues were though
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...29625/8597.pdf

Quote:
my great unwashed cousins from north of Watford would have more options available from our local airports.
Please don't do that, it's not helpful.

Not intended to cause offence Skippy, but as you will probably aware from being darn London, some locals down there regard anyone coming from north of Watford as coming from another world....

[Skipness One Echo]

Not intended to cause offence Skippy, but as you will probably aware from being darn London, some locals down there regard anyone coming from north of Watford as coming from another world....

Speaking as a Scot, that's not really true, and it's perpetuated by Northerners and Scots who love playing the underdog.
London's way too international to care frankly nowadays. OK so we have a number of bilaterals, the missing bit is some realism. I actually do not think there is any realistic profitable route from MAN with the exception maybe of China that's prevented by a bilateral treaty. IS there really anything else major that's likely in the medium term? I ask as a genuine supporter of the airport btw

[LAX_LHR]

IS there really anything else major that's likely in the medium term? I
ask as a genuine supporter of the airport btw

Realistic long haul in the short to medium term:

Beijing with Hainan or Air China
Phuket with Thomson (1 weekly at most)
1-2 more trans-Atlantic routes with the TCX/DE combination
Miami with American (as a Charlotte summer/Miami winter combination)
Hong Kong with Cathay and the A350
Biman Bangladesh are supposedly coming back!
AC Rouge going year round eventually
Saudia increase to 5-7 weekly (already talks weekly)
the MEB3 continue their growth as ever.

[All names taken]

Well quite.
I asked on here a few days ago whether there were any airlines wanting to serve Manchester or any other non-London airport that were currently prevented from doing so by bi-laterals.
No responses on that.
Probably because there aren't any.

It's mainly about the business case.
'Bi-laterals' are used as an all too easy excuse for failure or to kick something off in to the long grass.

[rutankrd]

You contradicted yourself there a little bit. Lufthansa and Iberia are actually following what BA did years ago and selling off loss making regional routes to loco competitors or subsidiaries. The BA routes out of MAN are in the main better served, cheaper and more frequent now the old flag carrier mentality has gone.

Skip - I get your point however I am going hold off on judgement of the Germanwings experiment for a while yet. One thing LH have done is ensure the brand remains visibly a Lufthansa product - If that disappears any time soon I think I might be more worried.

Vueling well its true that they have supplanted IB at Barca' and whilst now an IAG owned brand I will give you that many of their customers aren't necessarily fully aware of the links with IB/BA - That said IB continue to place their code directly on most VY services.

The Vueling brand already has a bigger presence in the UK regions than IB at Cardiff and Edinburgh does it not ?
I would not be surprised to see them operating a MAN-BCN service at some point.

LAX-LHR Whilst I have no evidence i would not be surprised if AA try a Dallas service again after all they and their Oneworld partners are really promoting and driving this as their primary hub aren't they?

I would also add Mombasa as a quasi charter return.

And as the economy expands those India Ocean points might return Male/Seychelles and/or Mauritius - Admittedly the ME3 have that market right now.

Other that I could see in the future include Aeroflot RAM or Air Arabia, Tarom and perhaps return of Cyprus if they survive.

[Fairdealfrank]

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 !

Was equating MAN with LYS in the sense that Lyon is an important city sufficiently far away from the capital just like Manchester is in the UK. The fact that MAN has more than twice the pax traffic of LYS is a testament to its success. Sorry not to make it clear.

In terms of pax traffic alone, yes, the above is obviously correct. However, DUB, BRU, VIE, CPH, OSL are all capital cities and the busiest airports in their countries. MAN (and LYS) are neither.

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.

Of course MAN has a role to play, and would love it to have a larger role than at present. Have never suggested otherwise. But this cannot be magiced out of nowhere, even by the Commission.

MAN used to have more non-stop/direct longhaul routes before. The question to ask is why are these carriers no longer there?

It is more than just the Manchester area when we are talking about airport capacity in the UK. MAN could serve the entire north of England...a huge area with many major cities, and much industry / leisure. MAN could elleviate much traffic for LHR, if only BA could see past the M25 and serve the entire country as a national carrier should, instead it (and LHR owners) just keeps harping on about growing LHR that nobody else really wants !

Indeed, it could, but why does it not? It’s not just to do with carriers preferring LHR because that has always been the case, after all, LHR is the world's third busiest airport (pax numbers) for Pete's sake! This was the case even when there was more longhaul at MAN than now.

It’s nothing to do with BA’s inability to “see past the M25” . To suggest that no one wants LHR expansion and that Heathrow expansion would be detrimental to Ringway is to completely miss the point.

Since 1977, when LHR was declared “full” by the government, there has been no rwy expansion there. Over the same period time, MAN has lost a series of longhaul non-stop/direct flights, despite adding terminals and a rwy.

Don’t make this into another north-south divide.

Incorrect FDF. US pre-clearance requires a UK legislation change to allow the US Authorities to have rights within the UK. So the UK Government has to be involved.

Stand corrected, but as you state, the UK govt is supportive, is the USA govt as well?

Absolutely so and I don't think anyone has suggested that either. However what it would mean is that myself and my great unwashed cousins from north of Watford would have more options available from our local airports.

Have never stated that this should not happen, in fact have stated on several occasions that it would be beneficial.

Please do not misrepresent my comments.

Am questioning just one thing: in a climate of deregulation, increasing open skies and liberalisation, privatisation and market forces in aviation, how can the government or the commision force carriers to MAN or any other airport?

Am stating the obvious: in the prevailing operating climate in aviation (market forces), commercial considerations will determine whether there are more longhaul flights to/from MAN. Carriers have to be able to make money in these endeavours.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

So if a number of us then chose to go on a direct route instead of via LHR that would immediately free some seats up to/from London on those flights which would then be used by others. This would help you in the SE in the short term to make sure the limited capacity is used better for your market by reducing the proportion of UK regional passengers using SE airports. Numbers would be small admittedly, but it would be a help to your local airport which I believe is called LHR?

Would love to see it. There, have stated it yet again.

It’s chicken and egg. Insufficient direct longhaul availability at MAN means changing planes at LHR, (AMS, DXB and others as well).

But would sufficient numbers, including critical business/first class pax, use direct services if they were available?

Yes, my local airport is indeed LHR, ….. and?

So you down there need all the help you can get to enable the SE Airports serve their expanding market; regional airports can do a bit to help by taking some regional passengers out of your system and you can then replace them with others from the expanding SE market. I would therefore suggest you should be supporting our annoyance that Davies has failed to address these regional issues in any depth in his report especially as he was charged with looking at a UK-wide perspective.

This is not disputed, but it’s not “either/or“. Would suggest that we need both: LHR expansion and more traffic using other major UK airports: MAN, BHX, GLA, etc.. we know how to do the first, how do we do the second, given that carriers have to be able to make money in these endeavours?

What specific bilaterals need the most urgent review for MAN to benefit. I am assuming China? EU-US is open skies, the ME3 have much of the traffic going the other way sewn up. Can we manage four more?
1) China
2)
3)
4)
5)

Nigeria
Kenya
Thailand
Sri Lanka

One out their
North Korea - Lets face it AirKoryo has visited Manchester more frequently than any other UK airport !

　

I wonder if Thailand is too much geared towards low(er) yielding leisure and sewn up with Emirates already?
BA struggles to fill a B772 out of LHR against TG with two daily B744 / A346s. Not sure TG would even think about MAN sadly, but I like the way you're thinking.

So do I!!

Thai have said for years they would like to serve Manchester, most recently last year , saying they would come to MAN if they needed more UK capacity as they cannot get more slots at LHR. Im sure someone will be able to find the press release.
Alas they have been all talk no action thus far.
Kenyan is another airline that has threatened to serve MAN in the past, the last plan being a B767 via AMS.

Lagos/Abuja is not an issue bilateral wise as far as I know, as the last time the Nigerians kicked up a fuss about not being allowed more LHR slots they complained that 'they had only been offered flights at Manchester which was not acceptable to them'. Again there is a press release buried somewhere in the internet for clarification.

This exactly the sort of thinking we need! It means that they believe that there is money to be made on the route.

Any other carriers on the same lines?

I actually do not think there is any realistic profitable route from MAN with the exception maybe of China that's prevented by a bilateral treaty. IS there really anything else major that's likely in the medium term? I ask as a genuine supporter of the airport btw

If correct, that is the obstacle to more routes to/from Ringway. It’s nothing to do with Heathrow expansion.

Realistic long haul in the short to medium term:

Beijing with Hainan or Air China
Phuket with Thomson (1 weekly at most)
1-2 more trans-Atlantic routes with the TCX/DE combination
Miami with American (as a Charlotte summer/Miami winter combination)
Hong Kong with Cathay and the A350
Biman Bangladesh are supposedly coming back!
AC Rouge going year round eventually
Saudia increase to 5-7 weekly (already talks weekly)

Would really love to see it, but again it’s nothing to do with Heathrow expansion.

Well quite.
I asked on here a few days ago whether there were any airlines wanting to serve Manchester or any other non-London airport that were currently prevented from doing so by bi-laterals.
No responses on that.
Probably because there aren't any.

It's mainly about the business case.
'Bi-laterals' are used as an all too easy excuse for failure or to kick something off in to the long grass.

Exactly right.

[LAX_LHR]

Would really love to see it, but again it’s nothing to do with Heathrow expansion.

I was just listing possible routes, Im not really getting involved in the LHR expansion debate as I think personally while the report may have been about UK expansion, there was only going to be one point of concern, Heathrow.

In terms of Manchester, it seems to do what it does well and will continue to do so in the future, more than likely continue on its path if LHR expands or not.

[Mr A Tis]

Sadly the whole slot system at LHR really distorts the market. With such a high value on the slots, they are held onto like the Holy Grail.
When you look at some of the longhaul loads at LHR, they can be dire.Airlines would rather fly into LHR at a loss than lose their slots.

This is what distorts the Manchester market. Despite really good loads on the majority of longhaul ex MAN it's an uphill battle. Pundits often site "yield" at MAN as the problem. However, my experience of J class with Swiss, Lufthansa, Qatar, Emirates, Etihad etc, is that they are full or overbooked most days. Becasue premium seats are in demand at MAN, they are often more expensive than LHR/LGW. Again cheaper from LHR because they really do need to fill their multiple frequencies.

So, the reason they want you to shuttle to LHR is not because, they couldn't make money from Manchester -but they need you to support their often "struggling" LHR operation.

Not forgetting of course, if you're not a savvy traveler & book via Expedia, e-bookers or similar online agents, you will be most likely directed to their "prefered" flights via LON.
I've struggled to book Air Canada Rouge ex MAN -not one online agent offered me available MAN flights-even though they were quicker, more convenient & cheaper than via another hub.I even had problems booking direct with Air Canada !

Unfortunately, there is no prospect of any change in the near future. The position for most airlines is like Thai - if they can't get another LHR slot & fear loss of market share, they might consider MAN-as a definite maybe possibility.

[LAX_LHR]

Not confirmed yet but Air Blue are pulling Manchester flights in April.

They are in dire straits at the moment. The 2 A340's are apparently being handed back to the lessor by the end of January, and ISB-MAN will be run via SAW on an A320 to fulfil a contract with MAN and avoid a penalty charge.

I suppose any hopes of UK expansion are well and truly gone now....

[viscount702]

Just been checking the TCX website.

It would appear that ANU will finish next May 2014 not to return in the Winter

BGI continues through summer on Thursday calling at UVF on the way out.

The second BGI returns in November calling at Tobago. This also seems to be TCX metal rather than DE

[nigel osborne]

Viscount702.

Thought Thomas Cook were building a long haul hub at MAN being fed by Fly Be.

So expected an increase in long haul .Were their press releases just spin then or are they still planning extra routes/capacity. ?

Nigel