MANCHESTER 1

[BDLBOS]

Bagso Chill Pill

You need to read things with a global mind set and remove the blinkers. China major cities does not stop at the airports at PEK, PVG, HKG. When I fly to China from KUL, I will normally go direct to HGH, SZX, CAN, XMN, WUH depending on where I am going. It is quite obvious that the LHR guy is talking about these major cities. I also point out to you that his competitors are already flying to a lot of these cities. So why shouldn't he use these facts to get R3 approved, I would hope that if you were in his position you would use the same arguments.

MAN needs to forget about battles with LHR, BHX, LPL etc. It is doing well, except where single engined planes are concerned. The terminal situation concerns me, you hit max capacity when you have to reduce capacity due to building work!!!!

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

What capacity has Air France cut? It still 3 daily with A321/A320 listed?

It is seat capacity rather than frequency which has been cut. Far greater deployment of the A320 in place of the larger A321. Stablemate KLM has also cut back, though with the bunfight on MAN-AMS that is unsurprising.

Swiss will be 2 daily F100 Zurich next summer as they were this summer

That is another cutback which will have worked through the calendar then. All good for not offsetting S2016 percentage increases going forward. Swiss has been one of the biggest losers as MAN has extended its own eastbound long-haul portfolio. This is likely a factor in Air France trimming capacity too. Reduced demand for hub connections over Europe.

But, enjoy the half full glass, it's a nice treat!

Agree completely. Top quality Vimto too. Can't ask for more than that!

When do you expect EasyJet to show their hand?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

HGH, SZX, CAN, XMN, WUH

So why shouldn't he use these facts to get R3 approved

LHR will accommodate all the services it needs to regional China regardless of whether R3 is built or not. In the event of runway capacity scarcity, you can be certain that expendable short-haul frequencies will be sacrificed to make way. That is the way it has always worked in this industry, at LHR and elsewhere. But actively promoting the myth that LHR will be turning away priority long-haul opportunities serves the vested interests who want R3 approved at all costs. Of course, the gutsy solution would be to permit increased night-flying by quieter new-generation widebodies. But the politicians are too wimpish to consider that.

The terminal situation concerns me, you hit max capacity when you have to reduce capacity due to building work!!!!

This actually isn't the true situation. The first phase of the TP is a massive new-build extension of T2 out to the West and onto 'Staff Wales' Car Park. Only when this terminal capacity comes online will there be a need to withdraw (much smaller) chunks of the existing complex section by section. Note that the TP increases T2 passenger capacity by 140%, so don't underestimate the scale of new-build involved in the extension to the West.

[BDLBOS]

Shed, I think you confused LHR and BA in your first reply to me.

Terminal reply, I hope you are right, but the extra real estate you are talking about will not keep up with required growth. By the time the project is finished the airport may be over 35m pax, but space restricted. I believe it is tight now.

[eggc]

Frank, can I quote you some words from Hainan that state "Shenzen, Xa'in, Chongqing and Wuhan as possible links from Manchester".

They the cities you mean that can never be served from anywhere but LHR ?

Slighly related, Hainan are currently busy setting up a UK HQ, at MAN.

[anothertyke]

Presumably the performance of the Chengdu route is a pretty good litmus test of the marketability of direct service to the second tier regional capitals.

[MANFOD]

When do you expect EasyJet to show their hand?

Shed, maybe LAX or Viscount 702 could provide a fuller picture but the current Easyjet schedules for dates in mid-July 2016 show gaps in the first wave of departures.

11 based a/c seem to be required on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday,
10 on Monday and Friday, 9 on Wednesday and I could only see 8 on Sunday. Unless a/c are being moved between bases, it does leave 7 slots for an 11 based fleet and that is without checking the second or third waves or flights with non-based a/c.

Of course, I can't guarantee these figures are correct despite rechecking, and it's possible schedules may still be juggled around I suppose.

[viscount702]

EZY

11 on Tuesday, Wednesday.Thursday(from 30/6) and Saturday.

10 on Monday and Friday but 11 for second wave.

9 on Sunday but 10 for second wave.

I can potentially see 11 gaps for more flights but clearly not all will be filled as some may be a bit short time wise.

There are some time changes and flights being added from mid June.


The only non based flights at present are to Belfast

[MANFOD]

Thanks Viscount 702. It seems I missed 1 on Sunday and 2 on Wednesday somehow, unless you are looking at something different to the web site schedules. So, only 4 gaps on the first wave then, which suggests limited scope for new routes unless served by non-based a/c.

Was BFS also the only route served with non-based a/c in 2015? I had a feeling GVA was at some stage but maybe not this year.

[viscount702]

In 2015 non based were:-

BFS 8

GVA 2

BIO 1

[AndyH52]

This actually isn't the true situation. The first phase of the TP is a massive new-build extension of T2 out to the West and onto 'Staff Wales' Car Park. Only when this terminal capacity comes online will there be a need to withdraw (much smaller) chunks of the existing complex section by section. Note that the TP increases T2 passenger capacity by 140%, so don't underestimate the scale of new-build involved in the extension to the West.

I hope you're right as well SHED. My reading of the (admittedly limited) designs released to date is that whilst there is an extension to the current 'core' terminal building to the west and north, the largest element of the capacity increase will be the addition of the new piers. Certainly as the work is undertaken to add the middle and eastern piers - which looks like a new airside frontage being required too - capacity will drop, potentially by some margin.

Don't forget that it is not just space for passengers affected by the work but for aircraft too. Most of the midfield remote stands will be impacted by this work and I suspect that Pier C of Terminal 1 will have to go before the eastern pier of T2 can be built.

I would be interested in views on which carriers will go where in the post expansion world. Whilst alot depends on how Pier B is integrated into the T2 layout I can't see how, for instance, T3 and Pier B alone could accommodate EZY, RYR, LS and BEE, yet I don't see there being space for them at T2 either?

[easyflyer83]

Some PRG sectors are also operated by non based aircraft in recent summers.

Post expansion: The main reason EZY prefer pier B is due to terminal layout. B pier generally allows pre-boarding where as C pier doesn't due to arrivals channel having to be crossed to enter the airbridge. This was never an issue in T3.

[MANFOD]

easyflyer83, do you happen to know if EZY plan to make a formal announcement about their MAN s2016 program, even if you can't say what it might contain?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed, I think you confused LHR and BA in your first reply to me.

No, I didn't. BA can swap short-haul and long-haul slots around in-house, but LHR has a very active second-hand slot-trading market used by other carriers to accommodate lucrative opportunities.

the extra real estate you are talking about will not keep up with required growth. By the time the project is finished the airport may be over 35m pax, but space restricted.

I sincerely hope that you are correct and that we see MAN enjoy the scale of medium-term traffic growth you envisage. Certainly, 2016 is shaping up as a boom year. But the reality of the economic cycle is such that we can expect to experience at least one more recessionary phase within the next ten year period, and given the overheated debt markets it could be a stinker. And oil prices won't stay at $45bbl indefinitely either; make hay while the sun shines! However, if you are correct and demand does soar beyond expectations, remember that MAN can activate its shelved plans to significantly expand T3 to the East and North. And in practical terms it should be possible to do this work concurrently with the existing TP if necessary, as most of the land required is outside the key operational areas. I personally don't expect this to be needed so quickly, but I'll be delighted if it is and its good to know that the contingency exists if required.

the largest element of the capacity increase will be the addition of the new piers.

But keep in mind that the very large T2 extension to the West uses the piers model also. MAG's plans call for these to be brought on stream to accommodate existing demand before (smaller) older sections of the complex are withdrawn for development in sequence.

I would be interested in views on which carriers will go where in the post expansion world.

I think decisions at this level are still a long way out. Five years from now, one or two of our familiar names may have merged, other carriers could join or swap alliances, and hopefully there will be some new names in the frame too. Apart from the obvious, determined by the location of US pre-clearance facilities for example, it isn't advisable to micro-manage airline terminal distribution so far ahead.

By the way, thanks to all who have addressed my query regarding EasyJet's programme.

[viscount702]

Some PRG sectors are also operated by non based aircraft in recent summers.

Sorry you are right I missed a PRG rotation for s15

[AndyH52]

But keep in mind that the very large T2 extension to the West uses the piers model also. MAG's plans call for these to be brought on stream to accommodate existing demand before (smaller) older sections of the complex are withdrawn for development in sequence

That's precisely my point SHED. As the work is undertaken to add those piers, there will be a significant drop in apron and gate capacity for the duration of those works. There is every chance you will have lot's more terminal space but nowhere to park aircraft at various stages of the construction.

Also, you do keeping repeating about the 'very large extension' to T2 as though this will make everything ok. To put things in perspective, whilst a 140% expansion is an impressive figure you have to bear in mind the starting point, i.e. 140% of what. Believe it or not the core 'terminal' part of T2 (i.e. excluding the gate area along the front) is only a couple of thousand square metres larger than Liverpool's terminal in terms of footprint.

Apart from the obvious, determined by the location of US pre-clearance facilities for example, it isn't advisable to micro-manage airline terminal distribution so far ahead.

I would have thought that having a vague clue whether the redesigned facilities can actually accommodate their customers effectively would be essential before embarking on the construction phase? I suspect if MAG turned round to Ryanair or Easyjet and said "we'll think about where you're going nearer the time", the response would be unprintable...

[MANFOD]

T2 expansion.

I easily get confused so can Shed or Andy clarify a couple of points please?

Does 140% increase in pax capacity for T2 mean that when it's complete it can handle 2.4 times the present capacity or 1.4 times?

Will only the extended T2 building provide the additional parking gates (i.e. contact stands) or will there be extra remote stands on space beyond where the new structure finishes?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

As the work is undertaken to add those piers, there will be a significant drop in apron and gate capacity for the duration of those works.

The first (very large) stage of the TP is the expansion of T2 westwards on to land which is currently car parks. Only after this comes on stream are there plans to start closing existing sections of the terminal complex in sequence. Construction work on the car park site will have minimal impact airside.

you do keeping repeating about the 'very large extension' to T2 as though this will make everything ok.

And why wouldn't it? Are you under the impression that MAG plans to close off the rest of the complex in one swoop when that extension opens? Once the new capacity comes on stream, the next section of the complex will be closed off for redevelopment in turn. This will be done in digestible chunks. As each new section opens, the next in sequence will then close for works. That is how capacity will be managed in the interim.

All interested parties accept that some operational disruption is inevitable. But MAG has no plans to close such a large portion of terminal in one go that the entire operation will be jeopardised. That would make no sense.

I would have thought that having a vague clue whether the redesigned facilities can actually accommodate their customers effectively would be essential

Indeed it is, and MAG consults with its airline customers on a regular and ongoing basis. But you are talking about deciding gate allocations years ahead of time. This is not practical in the real world. By the time the whole complex opens, some carriers will have merged, some will have failed or withdrawn from MAN, new carriers will have entered the fray, the major alliances will have evolved. It would be crazy to attempt to micro-manage terminal allocations so far in advance.

I suspect if MAG turned round to Ryanair or Easyjet and said "we'll think about where you're going nearer the time", the response would be unprintable...

And I suspect that if MAG asked RYR or EZY to give details of their MAN operation five or ten years from now the answer would be equally unprintable. Actually, they'd probably just laugh. Nobody knows. Every senior executive in the industry understands this.

By the way, don't think in terms of MAN's current three-terminal layout. The completed project will consist of two large terminals with full connectivity airside. Passengers will have airside access from the easternmost gate on what we today call T3 to the westernmost gate on the complex currently known as T2. This will allow for far greater flexibility in the parking of aircraft and should reduce the need to rely on remotes.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Does 140% increase in pax capacity for T2 mean that when it's complete it can handle 2.4 times the present capacity or 1.4 times?

Based upon current T2 capacity of approximately 8 million pax per annum, the new capability would be around 19.2 mppa by my calculations. However, in the longer term, the demarcations between the structures we currently recognise as T1, T2 and T3 will be removed. Under the new two terminal layout, a redefinition of where the two structures intersect will be required. Obviously, the stated capacity of the two terminals will be completely revised at that point.

will there be extra remote stands on space beyond where the new structure finishes?

Good question. I haven't seen the plans for this (or if I have I failed to absorb that particular detail in the time available!).

[viscount702]

I have raised the question of more remote stands previously but the silence is probably a clue. Specifically I queried if there would be any to the west of the new western pier.