LIVERPOOL-3
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by Ametyst1
I will not betray a confidence
I will not betray a confidence
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX you should know about being petty and insular. I really think you have an over inflated view of your own importance, or should that be impotence?, on this forum. We will never agree about Manchester, Wizz Air or LPL. So let's leave it there!
TSR2
Worry not, my friend/acquaintance is no longer in the position he was and has no fear about losing his job, house, car, wife or children over this matter, but thanks for your concern.
TSR2
Worry not, my friend/acquaintance is no longer in the position he was and has no fear about losing his job, house, car, wife or children over this matter, but thanks for your concern.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see a reverse in the decline of passenger numbers using the airport which has seen the airport slip right down to 14th place in annual pax numbers. The increase is small but steady.
Does anyone think that there is any reasonable chance that pax numbers will return to the levels of 5/6 years ago in the forseeable future, and what is needed to attract the extra 1.5million or so pax needed?
Does anyone think that there is any reasonable chance that pax numbers will return to the levels of 5/6 years ago in the forseeable future, and what is needed to attract the extra 1.5million or so pax needed?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liverpool has risen to 13th based on the provisional moving annual total for the year August 14 - July 15. Realistically it won't get higher than 10th as the gap from there to catch 9th placed Bristol is quite significant (over 2 million).
10th though should be achievable as Newcastle and East Midlands are only about 430k ahead and it looks as though 2016 will see a return to growth from Ryanair as well as a number of other new services (EIN, TOM, VLG to name three). Whether that happens in one year remains to be seen!
10th though should be achievable as Newcastle and East Midlands are only about 430k ahead and it looks as though 2016 will see a return to growth from Ryanair as well as a number of other new services (EIN, TOM, VLG to name three). Whether that happens in one year remains to be seen!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NW Airports rock
It's all getting a bit silly on here again. Personally, I think it's great that Wizz fly into Liverpool. If I want to fly to their destinations then they may be a better bet than from MAN and the airport is less than an hour away. If I want to fly to Hong Kong or the USA I can go direct from MAN - absolutely brilliant. No-one in the NW of England has to use London anymore, we have a great airport system right here. LPL and MAN are complimentary.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ribble
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nantes stays at Liverpool, it was muted it might move elsewhere, also there's no Easy Stuttgart from Manchester as previously suggested.
Last edited by Ribble56; 23rd Oct 2015 at 06:26.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Manila
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LPL to LHR not necessary but essential
LPL has backed LHR expansion and its essential. MAN has a direct one Hong Kong service 5 times a week hardly an alternative to LHR with at least 8 daily and throughout the day. I fully support the expansion of LHR which is the only UK hub airport and a service to LPL. Terminal 5 is world class and BA is the preferred airline of many business people and UK residents. A LPL link is long overdue.
Whilst the NW airports can play complementary roles we should not forget the advantages of a strong local airport. Yes use MAN /LPL when its the best option but we need LHR its good for UK plc Lets have choice
Whilst the NW airports can play complementary roles we should not forget the advantages of a strong local airport. Yes use MAN /LPL when its the best option but we need LHR its good for UK plc Lets have choice
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operational case for LHR expansion is widely accepted. However, the financial cost of providing LHR R3 is extraordinarily high, at close to 100x the inflation-adjusted cost of delivering the second runway at Manchester (£273M). Many, myself included, argue that this extraordinary sum does not come close to offering value for money. The choice you desire cannot be provided without due consideration to cost. The (very large) public element of funding required would be far better spent directly on long-neglected infrastructure projects in the regions, for example dealing with the bottleneck that is Lime Street Station.
This debate is comprehensively discussed on the PPRuNe Heathrow thread. Go back about three months and read to date if interested in this particular topic.
This debate is comprehensively discussed on the PPRuNe Heathrow thread. Go back about three months and read to date if interested in this particular topic.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Manila
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well SHED its well known thats your view and its been well debated.
The Davies commission didn't agree with you and neither did LPL.
I was commenting on "No-one in the NW of England has to use London anymore".
Many thousands of people i suspect would like to have the opportunity to use London airports specifically LHR from LPL.
Comparing an infrastructure project R2 to LHR expansion is irrelevant.
Its silly to say its LHR expansion or Lime Street. Maybe we can have both!
The Davies commission didn't agree with you and neither did LPL.
I was commenting on "No-one in the NW of England has to use London anymore".
Many thousands of people i suspect would like to have the opportunity to use London airports specifically LHR from LPL.
Comparing an infrastructure project R2 to LHR expansion is irrelevant.
Its silly to say its LHR expansion or Lime Street. Maybe we can have both!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Davies commission didn't agree with you and neither did LPL.
Many thousands of people i suspect would like to have the opportunity to use London airports specifically LHR from LPL.
Its silly to say its LHR expansion or Lime Street. Maybe we can have both!
Comparing an infrastructure project R2 to LHR expansion is irrelevant
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is because funds allocated to projects in London and the SE cannot be allocated twice
You could regard investment in infrastructure in the same way. Passengers travelling from Heathrow generate in excess of £1 billion of APD a year for the Treasury. Investing say £5bn in infrastructure to support expansion at Heathrow will generate increased APD so the 'investment' could in effect be repaid within maybe 10 years?
Interestingly (as this is the Liverpool thread, after all) Liverpool City Council is to consider a recommendation next Friday to provide investment finance for Liverpool Airport's short to medium term expansion, primarily because they see it as an asset to the City Region, but also because it should generate a return on that investment over time.
Comparing the price-tag for delivering a long-haul capable runway at two different locations in the UK could hardly be more relevant. London prices are higher than regional prices but doesn't 100x more expensive in the same country ring any alarm bells with you?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is REALLY batting for Merseyside in this debate?
When you finally start comparing like with like Shed, people may take your argument more seriously, but your insistence on comparing R2 at Manchester(which was indeed a new runway and associated taxiways) with the third runway at Heathrow (which includes a new runway, taxiway, aprons, terminal, satellites, road and rail infrastructure and over £1bn of compensation to local residents) undermines your case.
So how does that combined total compare with LHR R3 projections? A long-haul capable runway, a vast total terminals rebuild, a major dual-carriageway road and a twin-track light rail link to the city all for under £2Bn. These numbers expose the outrageous cost of the LHR proposal. And if £2Bn buys what I just listed in the North, just imagine what £5Bn of direct infrastructure investment could do for Liverpool! Because that 'rounding error' £5Bn happens to be the low-end estimate of the public contribution (by you!) to the LHR works, though the highest estimate is £20Bn and the most credible estimate is £10Bn. Don't forget this would be just the latest in a long series of major infrastructure innovations which you have contributed to on behalf of London and the SE.
Those of you who seriously believe that this magnitude of additional public spending concentrated in the SE (before even considering Crossrail 2!) is a good deal for Merseyside need to sit down with a calculator and an Aspirin. Trickledown is a joke. If you genuinely care about Liverpool you need to up your game and lobby your MP's to demand direct infrastructure investment. Up here. Three A319's per day to LHR - which may not even happen - is no substitute.
The operational case for LHR expansion is widely accepted. However, the financial cost of providing LHR R3 is extraordinarily high, at close to 100x the inflation-adjusted cost of delivering the second runway at Manchester (£273M). Many, myself included, argue that this extraordinary sum does not come close to offering value for money. The choice you desire cannot be provided without due consideration to cost. The (very large) public element of funding required would be far better spent directly on long-neglected infrastructure projects in the regions, for example dealing with the bottleneck that is Lime Street Station.
This debate is comprehensively discussed on the PPRuNe Heathrow thread. Go back about three months and read to date if interested in this particular topic.
This debate is comprehensively discussed on the PPRuNe Heathrow thread. Go back about three months and read to date if interested in this particular topic.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Una Due Tfc -
Two brief points ... because I'm aware this is the Liverpool thread (apologies).
1) The value from MAN's second runway comes from the ability to accommodate high-value peak demand (peak hours slots are fully allocated in Summer months, and respectably so during Winter). Many flights using these slots would not be viable in off-peak periods. They wouldn't operate. Also, growing demand is now spreading the load more fully again following the upturn since the 2010 recessionary lows.
2) The proximity to the original runway was a necessary trade-off, sacrificing increased functional utility for a site which could achieve planning approval in practice. No good drawing up a perfectly spaced runway layout if the planning authorities won't countenance it. And the need for tunnelling to accommodate the River Bollin and the Wilmslow Road meant that the chosen site wasn't a low-budget choice.
Two brief points ... because I'm aware this is the Liverpool thread (apologies).
1) The value from MAN's second runway comes from the ability to accommodate high-value peak demand (peak hours slots are fully allocated in Summer months, and respectably so during Winter). Many flights using these slots would not be viable in off-peak periods. They wouldn't operate. Also, growing demand is now spreading the load more fully again following the upturn since the 2010 recessionary lows.
2) The proximity to the original runway was a necessary trade-off, sacrificing increased functional utility for a site which could achieve planning approval in practice. No good drawing up a perfectly spaced runway layout if the planning authorities won't countenance it. And the need for tunnelling to accommodate the River Bollin and the Wilmslow Road meant that the chosen site wasn't a low-budget choice.
Una Due Tfc
There are few variable to look at
1. The airfield layout, taxiways, and runway exits
2. Mix of traffic
3. Actual needs of traffic (ie does it all arrive/depart similar times)
Manchester between 06.00 and 10.00 and in evening has a huge demand with about 50 plus per hour with a large mix of aircraft i:e Dash 8 then B747 Then EMB-175 for example, this causes big gaps which Gatwick suffers much less as most aircraft are A319 upwards, could MAN operate on one runway ask the ATC guys but I very much doubt it on an hour by hour day by day basis
I remember many times before 2 runways as many as 12 at holding point and as many in holds waiting to come in which I know for certain made the controllers eyes water and the airlines.
Ian
There are few variable to look at
1. The airfield layout, taxiways, and runway exits
2. Mix of traffic
3. Actual needs of traffic (ie does it all arrive/depart similar times)
Manchester between 06.00 and 10.00 and in evening has a huge demand with about 50 plus per hour with a large mix of aircraft i:e Dash 8 then B747 Then EMB-175 for example, this causes big gaps which Gatwick suffers much less as most aircraft are A319 upwards, could MAN operate on one runway ask the ATC guys but I very much doubt it on an hour by hour day by day basis
I remember many times before 2 runways as many as 12 at holding point and as many in holds waiting to come in which I know for certain made the controllers eyes water and the airlines.
Ian
Una Due Tfc
There are few variable to look at
1. The airfield layout, taxiways, and runway exits
2. Mix of traffic
3. Actual needs of traffic (ie does it all arrive/depart similar times)
Manchester between 06.00 and 10.00 and in evening has a huge demand with about 50 plus per hour with a large mix of aircraft i:e Dash 8 then B747 Then EMB-175 for example, this causes big gaps which Gatwick suffers much less as most aircraft are A319 upwards, could MAN operate on one runway ask the ATC guys but I very much doubt it on an hour by hour day by day basis
I remember many times before 2 runways as many as 12 at holding point and as many in holds waiting to come in which I know for certain made the controllers eyes water and the airlines.
Ian
There are few variable to look at
1. The airfield layout, taxiways, and runway exits
2. Mix of traffic
3. Actual needs of traffic (ie does it all arrive/depart similar times)
Manchester between 06.00 and 10.00 and in evening has a huge demand with about 50 plus per hour with a large mix of aircraft i:e Dash 8 then B747 Then EMB-175 for example, this causes big gaps which Gatwick suffers much less as most aircraft are A319 upwards, could MAN operate on one runway ask the ATC guys but I very much doubt it on an hour by hour day by day basis
I remember many times before 2 runways as many as 12 at holding point and as many in holds waiting to come in which I know for certain made the controllers eyes water and the airlines.
Ian
And Shed, appreciate the reply, and I'll readily admit I'm not familiar with the surrounding geography of MAN. I've passed through at least ten times now but I always just jump straight in a cab into town!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LPL to LHR not necessary but essential
LPL has backed LHR expansion and its essential. MAN has a direct one Hong Kong service 5 times a week hardly an alternative to LHR with at least 8 daily and throughout the day. I fully support the expansion of LHR which is the only UK hub airport and a service to LPL. Terminal 5 is world class and BA is the preferred airline of many business people and UK residents. A LPL link is long overdue.
Whilst the NW airports can play complementary roles we should not forget the advantages of a strong local airport. Yes use MAN /LPL when its the best option but we need LHR its good for UK plc Lets have choice
LPL has backed LHR expansion and its essential. MAN has a direct one Hong Kong service 5 times a week hardly an alternative to LHR with at least 8 daily and throughout the day. I fully support the expansion of LHR which is the only UK hub airport and a service to LPL. Terminal 5 is world class and BA is the preferred airline of many business people and UK residents. A LPL link is long overdue.
Whilst the NW airports can play complementary roles we should not forget the advantages of a strong local airport. Yes use MAN /LPL when its the best option but we need LHR its good for UK plc Lets have choice
The operational case for LHR expansion is widely accepted. However, the financial cost of providing LHR R3 is extraordinarily high, at close to 100x the inflation-adjusted cost of delivering the second runway at Manchester (£273M). Many, myself included, argue that this extraordinary sum does not come close to offering value for money. The choice you desire cannot be provided without due consideration to cost. The (very large) public element of funding required would be far better spent directly on long-neglected infrastructure projects in the regions, for example dealing with the bottleneck that is Lime Street Station.
This debate is comprehensively discussed on the PPRuNe Heathrow thread. Go back about three months and read to date if interested in this particular topic.
This debate is comprehensively discussed on the PPRuNe Heathrow thread. Go back about three months and read to date if interested in this particular topic.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, good to read some common sense.
Shed, you're flogging a dead horse. The decision, if there is one, won't be made on grounds of finance