Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

MANCHESTER 1

Old 24th Nov 2014, 20:48
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 377
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the point S1E is trying to make is why have longhaul, shorthaul, lowcost and domestic all shoehorned into a space which was originally designed to be just a domestic terminal (only later morphing into domestic/shorthaul). It kind of all worked until Ryanair came back on the scene in large numbers. The perceived benefits for the customer of having BA and AA co-located in T3 are surely being negated by having the AA aircraft parked over at T1, and the congestion inside T3 once they get there ?

So instead of inconveniencing ALL AA passengers with a bus transfer between T1 and T3, why not encourage AA to move back into T2 which is better designed for handling longhaul flights, and set up a proper transfer bus service between T2 and T3 just for the minority of AA passengers who are actually making a connection ?

Having all USA flights back in T2 might also be helpful in future if US pre-clearance from UK airports ever becomes an option.

Last edited by Logohu; 25th Nov 2014 at 02:03. Reason: TYPO
Logohu is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2014, 22:01
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hope you'll forgive a brief pax-related question.

It's been a while since I've connected through MAN, but this may soon change. If I arrive at T3 on Ryanair from Ireland, and am leaving again on KLM to AMS (T3 also), and have only hand baggage, is there an airside transfer route, or do I have to go landside and back in through security?

Thanks.
Cyrano is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2014, 23:12
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.K.
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some good points are being made but let's not forget that "most" pax couldn't really care less if they have to be bussed to an aircraft.
easyflyer83 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2014, 23:35
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manchester
Age: 33
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's no airside route for ryr pax but you'll be out of there in 20 seconds flat anyway
Millionmileshigh is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2014, 23:54
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A fair point, but what's disappointing is that Mr Stringer, in criticising Charlie Cornish, appeared not to take the opportunity of stating that expansion at LHR needn't be at the expense of MAN which can grow in its own right, if he believes that to be the case. If that isn't his view, then coming from a Manchester MP, it is a little worrying.
It isn't, and it can: MAN can and should grow in its own right, another rwy at LHR has no bearing on this.


So instead of inconveniencing ALL AA passengers with a bus transfer between T1 and T3, why not encourage AA to move back into T2 which is better designed for handling longhaul flights, and set up a proper transfer bus service between T2 and T3 just for the minority of AA passengers who are actually making a connection ?
Unless there are plans to house all Oneworld carriers in one terminal (unlikely), this would make sense.

Having all USA flights back in T2 might also be helpful in future if US pre-clearance from UK airports ever becomes an option.
Indeed, is this on the cards?
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 00:18
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some good points are being made but let's not forget that "most" pax couldn't really care less if they have to be bussed to an aircraft.
It is not acceptable for long haul passengers to be bused especially when there is a very simple solution. If AA go along with this for cheaper fees it says a lot about them as they would not tolerate at many other European airports. In fact they are prepared to pay more to get the service levels they require. Is there any difference between T2 and T3 (only being in 1 and 3) as I can't imagine why AA wouldn't move back if asked.

This goes back to the problem of airport facilities and then MAN are trying to attract all these big carriers.

Perfectly fine to pack any of the budget airline passengers onto buses.

Many would say that AA product at MAN is bad enough and adding this can only do more harm. I mean would MAG offer Emirates the same deal and do we think EK would accept it. Not a chance.
j636 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 02:19
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 377
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FDF - Indeed, is this on the cards?

I'm not aware of any immediate plans, however according to media reports the possibility of pre-clearance from UK airports was discussed by US and UK officials just recently. Apologies I don't know how to post a link, but the below from September is an example of reporting at the time.

US security checks could be based at British airports - Telegraph

Having US flights departing from multiple terminals could be a disadvantage, I don't know what the requirements would be ? But if it was to happen then of course MAN would not be the only UK airport with US flights currently leaving from more than one terminal.

Last edited by Logohu; 25th Nov 2014 at 02:25. Reason: typo
Logohu is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 04:28
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with j636. Passenger surveys generally show that bussing is one of the most disliked elements of the airport process. And I'm surprised that AA tolerate it - bussing is virtually unknown at most US airports - again reflecting the fact that US pax simply won't put up with it. MAG really ought to get their act together on T3 - the real problem is not AA but FR. FR would be much better served in T1, using non-airbridge gates that facilitate boarding via front and rear steps. Quite why MAG put some FR flights on airbridge-equipped stands in T3 and then banish an AA flight to a T1 stand beats me.
BasilBush is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 07:33
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bussing is loathed by the people needed to turn a profit on a year round schedule, the ones who fly down the pointy end and who would happily connect via BA over LHR to fly on a refurbished B772 or a new B77W both of which have a superior hard product on board and also, in the lounge. Unless those key players are shown some TLC, they won't be loyal.

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 25th Nov 2014 at 09:02.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 08:32
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Easyflyer

Most people don't care about being bussed? Are you kidding?

I used to travel through MUC quite a lot transferring east until the balance of flights started using remote stands - goodbye MUC, similarly Zurich when they were re-building the pier - goodbye ZRH.
One simple reason - if you're traveling up front, you're first on the bus, get crushed by everyone else and are then one of the last off the bus.
Also you get swung violently all over the airport whilst standing - you know what happens when even one idiot stands up as the aircraft is pulling on to stand - it's as if the entire safety of the aircraft has been compromised - but it's ok to stand on a bus which is going faster and making more aggressive moves.

As for AA, I have already made a mental note to continue to avoid them - that has been too difficult in recent times - their very presence in T3 is enough (although the lounge is better than Delta's or UA). The AA product out of the regions is 15 years out of date - and expensive for what it is.
My T/A ranking of US carriers out of MAN
1. DL
2. UA
3. AA/US
All names taken is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 09:43
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.K.
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I stand by what I say. I agree, some of your business class pax might not be thrilled but if you do a straw poll of people departing on that 757/767, the majority would not really care.

As someone who has worked for a couple of 'legacies' and low cost, it is very, very rare that you get complaints about bussing provided it is handled efficiently. And trust me, the crew get all the complaints. The low cost carrier however, as a business, doesn't like bussing generally speaking which is probably why Ryanair hasn't been shipped onto a T1 stand. Plus their aircraft, in the summer at least, don't spend 3 hours on the ground.

The AA product ex MAN isn't great, that I agree in, and good luck to those who connect via LHR, I know I would if I ever fly AA-I tend to only fly them domestically. But to suggest they'd connect through LHR due to a 5 minute bussing experience at MAN is pretty ridiculous.
easyflyer83 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 10:42
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FR would be much better served in T1, using non-airbridge gates that facilitate boarding via front and rear steps
Nice in theory, but as things stand it would be nigh on impossible with Jet2, easyjet and TCX in T1, as well as some short haul legacy carriers plus EK and EY. Even allowing for some remote parking it's already tight first thing in a morning in the summer, not to mention the queues for security that have been reported at times. Trying to accommodate 7 or 8 RYR a/c would be a non-starter unless there was a lot of shuffling of other airlines.

It just emphasises the fact that, apart from terminal capacity, immigration and security aspects, MAN is not flush with parking stands at peak times, and highlights the issues caused by its strongly fluctuating traffic flow.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 11:07
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well I'd suggest that MAN is about to reap the reward for failing to invest in terminal capacity in recent years.
All well and good saying that T3 is not suitable for the AA operation - it clearly isn't - but what are the alternatives?

T1 is totally rammed in the peak morning as MANFOD Has pointed out. FULL.

T2 there are no parking spaces now in the morning peak. Add in the soon to start CX777 and the increases by SV both arriving at THAT time of the morning, where would you put 2x AA 767s and an A330?

Premium pax are not going to tolerate being bussed from and to their aircraft - they'll choose alternatives and that will hurt AA's yield.

Why would AA agree to receive an inferior service so that RYR can access contact stands and put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to DL and UA?
Madness.
All names taken is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 11:15
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Skipness - I admire your continuing loyal advocacy of the LHR transfer experience, but you are again pointing out only the upside … the superior cabins on the AAL B777 fleet. Let me remind you of the rest. The MAN-originating passenger must first take a domestic shuttle to LHR, a service with an elevated risk of cancellation whenever the slightest problem affects runway usage rates down there. If they're lucky on that count, disembarkation sees them join the queue for the famously slow and surly LHR security search experience, which takes no account of the fact they've just alighted from a flight already security screened to the highest standards. If they intended mischief, they've just passed up their chance! Negotiate all this and there just remains the small matter of transferring T5 to T3. Might that involve a bus, I wonder? Then they can enjoy use of a lounge if they've got any minutes left to spare.

If everything goes to plan and they reach the gate in time, they can then enjoy the slightly better cabin aboard the B777. Which is crewed by staff trained to exactly the same standard as those crewing AAL55 and AAL211. Well, they are the same people after all.

Alternatively, they could just book AAL54/55 or AAL210/211. No transfer at LHR required. Significantly quicker journey. One security search instead of two. Maybe 5 minutes on an airport bus (it's a tough life). I just hope that these pointy-end jetsetters who choose the stressful detour instead aren't entrusted with any really important decisions during the course of their work!

Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 25th Nov 2014 at 13:24.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 11:24
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: herefordshire
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bussing

This discussion on bussing is very interesting and is one which does seem to engender harsh criticism.

From a personal point of view i travel frequently to Faro (probably in excess of more than 400 times over the years) on quasi-business agendas. For many years i flew with Monarch and was quite happy to do so but what did bug me was that it was always a bus to the terminal. Now, being on a tight schedule, this used to add at least 30 minutes to the time in passing through customs/arrivals etc.

Now, i try and travel with Ryanair. No bus, parking close to the terminal and after a brisk short walk i can be through in about six - seven minutes.

Bussing is very much a no-no. For anyone travelling where time is important, it is a no-brainer.
Monty Gordo is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 11:58
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ainsdale
Posts: 1,746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For many years i flew with Monarch and was quite happy to do so but what did bug me was that it was always a bus to the terminal. Now, being on a tight schedule, this used to add at least 30 minutes to the time in passing through customs/arrivals etc.
Never been bussed with Monarch before at MAN (though known other people have done), but I used to be bussed with them a lot at AGP.
MKY661 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 12:01
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its clearly a false economy saying passengers will opt for a LHR transfer over bussing to a stand.

For the sake if 5-10 minutes, you are going to waste around 3 hours transferring and backtracking.

Also, if AA at LHR is your option, to get from T5 to T3, you need to get, erm..... A bus.

......Doh!
LAX_LHR is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 12:20
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was 'bussed' at Washington and will be 'bussed' at Southampton (even though I could dash to the terminal a lot quicker). The 'bussing' at Frankfurt was great as a ramp tour!

'Bussing' is not exclusive to Manchester.

The term buzzin' is exclusive to the residents of Manchester though
Betablockeruk is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 12:45
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its clearly a false economy saying passengers will opt for a LHR transfer over bussing to a stand.

For the sake if 5-10 minutes, you are going to waste around 3 hours transferring and backtracking.

Also, if AA at LHR is your option, to get from T5 to T3, you need to get, erm..... A bus.

......Doh!
People are people, this is what happens. If the hard product is better elsewhere, snobbery kicks in. The T3 experience is poor, the demographic is no longer BA on business but Ryanair on holiday and the points chasers and front end money has a certain mindeset. Also, if one is connecting T5/T3, they still get to use the Admirals Club and fly on a newer and more compfortable hard product. MAN-ORD-MIA vs MAN-LHR-MIA, MAN-ORD-LAX vs MAN-LHR-LAX. Surely we can all recall how the BA183 / BA1503 was the poor relation to the LHR product on offer. There was and remains a cache of people who make that choice, regardless of whether local supporters agree with them.

Skipness - I admire your continuing loyal advocacy of the LHR transfer experience, but you are again pointing out only the upside … the superior cabins on the AAL B777 fleet.
Hardly, I am suggesting MAN and AA get their act together and offer a comparable product at MAN. My point is you guys are competing with the LHR transfer experience with the B763s we've all seen since they were delivered from 1988 onwards now from a terminal built for Dash 8s and Embraers. Raise your game would be the message, I think AA have lost interest at MAN, the US merger might be a kick up the backside they need.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2014, 12:59
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oooh Skipness - Use of the put-down "local supporters" again. And another oversight in failing to acknowledge the glaring inadequacies of the LHR transfer experience. We must have touched a nerve! The points made in my 12:15 posting #34 clearly make me a "local supporter" as opposed to a rational traveller. :-)
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.