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

MANCHESTER 1

Old 5th Jan 2016, 17:22
  #4001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 352
The TP is actually a very impressive and complex undertaking. Given MAN's need to remain operational throughout the construction period, the TP will be completed in phases over 10 years. That is pretty good considering full operations continuing at the airport throughout. No major construction project of this size - even in a sterile environment - appears in days. As you say, the MAN TP probably would be paused in the event of a major recession. That is actually one of the advantages of the modular approach. Flexibility is a good thing in a highly-volatile business such as commercial aviation. And if recession does strike, don't expect STN to be immune from defensive measures to protect revenue either.
T2(Phase 1) at LHR which I think was somewhat bigger and complicated was done in half the time. If MAN got anything like T2 I am sure we would be delighted and we live in hope.

I am not a poster, on this site as such but having had the misfortune to have used Stansted a few times in recent years i have to say i see very little scope for this airport to expand and pull in legacy carriers, especially since Gatwick, cant hold on to them for too long.
You obviously haven't been to STN recently?

I have had the mispleasure of traveling through STN twice since August 2015, and I would go as far to say I'd rather use T3 at MAN, and I'm not a fan of T3 either. I just hope that as STN has just been remodelled by MAG, it isn't a sign of what the expansion of T2 will look.

Yes I have been recently as I now live within the catchment area and have to listen to Andrew Harrison at least twice a week on the BBC News. However the last time I flew through STN was over 40 years ago so can't speak directly from experience from a PAX point of view but I did make a stop there 6 years ago.. I nonetheless think that even landside
STN has advantages over T1 T2 and T3 at MAN. STN is far superior airside.


Don't get me wrong I am a huge MAN supporter and have flown more times from there than anywhere else. I also get so frustrated with the London Centric nature of this Country. I was born in London and spent over half of my working life living and working there but grew up in Stockport and spent many hours at MAN in the 1960s.

I would love MAN to grow in the way we all hope. However I feel that to do that well we must get the infrastructure right which at present it isn't for an airport of its size. Airside needs major work. Some of it was promised some years back but it wasn't done. Others cant be done until Pier C and part at least of A have gone. Unlike others I don't feel a full length taxiway for R2 is really required as there would be little gain. What I would prefer is the Dubai set up which would mean better use and increased capacity,

However the PAX don't see the airside they only see landside and the terminals.The TP is to be welcomed but it falls short of what ideally is needed. I also feel that it could be cut back or paused at each phase very quickly.

STN was a distraction for MAG and to the detriment of MAN and may continue to be so because of the "London" tag. The TP should have been in hand a few years ago but because of the STN distraction and the need to keep the Australians happy who lets face it were only interested because of STN it didn't come forward quick enough.

Stand Capacity at MAN is dire and you can't get expansion without the capacity. The TP is conflicting on the number of extra stands. The Planning application says only 1 extra. That I think means 1 more over what there is already on the ground and those already consented to but not yet built and takes account of those lost from Pier C but not A which is more long term. That I think could be up to an extra 20 overall but that is some years off and we really need them now.

LAX_LHR I know you have posted elsewhere on the start dates for new and increased services but I think a number of those are yet to be confirmed. TAP still seems to be 11 per week at present.
viscount702 is online now  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 17:39
  #4002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
I think we will have to agree to disagree about STN being superior airside, as, I am sticking firmly to my experiences which were far from enjoyable. Even the current T2 knocks the 'new' STN experience out of the park. It may have been designed as a superior facility, and, up until a few years ago, I Would have agreed that STN was the better port, however, that story has, for me and many others on review sites, changed quite considerably in the last 12 months.

Andrew Harrison may be 'bigging up' the 'new' STN in local media, but, that's his job. He's hardly going to say anything negative.

In terms of new flights, some are yet to be confirmed publicly (there are only 5 in that list you mention that are 'unconfirmed'), however, there are confirmations as such in the form of either direct quotes from the airlines/official spokespersons (Pegasus and TAP), media campaigns (air blue), tickets for sale via 3rd parties (Shaheen) or known by many just not confirmed in public yet (air China).

There are also some new routes not mentioned in my list, but, they will come in time....
LAX_LHR is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 17:41
  #4003 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,863
Originally Posted by LAX_LHR View Post
I think we will have to agree to disagree about STN being superior airside, as, I am sticking firmly to my experiences which were far from enjoyable. Even the current T2 knocks the 'new' STN experience out of the park. It may have been designed as a superior facility, and, up until a few years ago, I Would have agreed that STN was the better port, however, that story has, for me and many others on review sites, changed quite considerably in the last 12 months.

Andrew Harrison may be 'bogging up' the 'new' STN in local media, but, that's his job. He's hardly going to say anything negative.

In terms of new flights, some are yet to be confirmed publicly (there are only 5 in that list you mention that are 'unconfirmed'), however, there are confirmations as such in the form of either direct quotes from the airlines/official spokespersons (Pegasus and TAP), media campaigns (air blue), tickets for sale via 3rd parties (Shaheen) or known by many just not confirmed in public yet (air China).

There are also some new routes not mentioned in my list, but, they will come in time....
MAN T2 is ok at the moment. T1 and T3 are hellholes
GrahamK is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 17:56
  #4004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
T3 isn't great at all, but T1 is ok until you get to the piers.

I suppose it's all elementary now given T1 is going to be knocked down. I just hope T3 gets given a makeover too.
LAX_LHR is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 18:06
  #4005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 559
Value for money

Whilst making comparisons with Heathrow it would only be fair to compare also the fees levied. If the airlines, and ultimately their passengers, are willing to pay airport charges in the order of Heathrow's 33-42 per departing passenger then we might expect to see equivalent terminal and airside infrastructure. As it stands Manchester's charges are 20% to, at most, 35% of those, and that is before Heathrow reviews its charges to fund the development of Runway 3 (if it goes ahead).

Both airport's schedule of fees and charges are openly available on the internet.
roverman is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 18:14
  #4006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 59
Posts: 782
Viscount 702
I have to agree with LAX-LHR, T3 has largely been a hole since BA pulled out of the North, T2 is poorly designed and is plainly just shabby with extremely poor lounges to boot. T1 is not that bad with some reasonable lounges, indeed the EK one is one of my favourite's on the network. The retail offering appears OK for those who require to shop (not one of my requirement's I have to say.) As for Stansted last time I was through 10 months ago it looked akin to T2 Manchester, just a little grotty and tired. It has to be hoped that the redevelopment at Man is a little more inspiring internally, than that which is currently on offer in T2.


Regards
Mr Mac
Mr Mac is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 18:18
  #4007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,065
DECEMBER PAX.

Now posted on the airport web site:

http://mag-umbraco-media-live.s3.ama...ember-2015.pdf

I expect charter flights in Dec. will have been affected by SSH for one.

Including transit, 23,207,650 pax for the year, up 5.23%. And the signs for 2016 even better.

Freight for the year 103,922 tons, an increase of 10.3%.

LAX_LHR. Any hints as to whether these announcements of new routes not previously mentioned will be mainly long haul, short haul, or a mix? I guess the ones already semi-official are long haul.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 18:37
  #4008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Value for money
Whilst making comparisons with Heathrow it would only be fair to compare also the fees levied. If the airlines, and ultimately their passengers, are willing to pay airport charges in the order of Heathrow's 33-42 per departing passenger then we might expect to see equivalent terminal and airside infrastructure. As it stands Manchester's charges are 20% to, at most, 35% of those, and that is before Heathrow reviews its charges to fund the development of Runway 3 (if it goes ahead).

Both airport's schedule of fees and charges are openly available on the internet.
I totally agree.I wasn't suggesting we could complete with LHR. I was talking about the time for the rebuild though which is half that proposed for MAN.

Also I don't think T2 at LHR is plush by any means but it has space and is or was a pleasure to use and is functional.

Viscount 702
I have to agree with LAX-LHR, T3 has largely been a hole since BA pulled out of the North, T2 is poorly designed and is plainly just shabby with extremely poor lounges to boot. T1 is not that bad with some reasonable lounges, indeed the EK one is one of my favourite's on the network. The retail offering appears OK for those who require to shop (not one of my requirement's I have to say.) As for Stansted last time I was through 10 months ago it looked akin to T2 Manchester, just a little grotty and tired. It has to be hoped that the redevelopment at Man is a little more inspiring internally, than that which is currently on offer in T2.


Regards
Mr Mac
I would seem that I was wrong on STN landside and will bow to those who have used it recently. Airside is a different matter.
viscount702 is online now  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 19:04
  #4009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 54
Posts: 843
Don't forget that LHR had just opened T5, and so were able to clear T2 out and crack on. MAN is forced into a much more piecemeal approach due to a lot less wiggle room.
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 20:13
  #4010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
However I feel that to do that well we must get the infrastructure right which at present it isn't for an airport of its size.
MAN takes lots of flak on here for its alleged poor infrastructure planning. But just a moment ... MAN is the one and only UK airport of size which had the foresight and vision to build an additional full-length runway when the going was good. The result is that MAN does not have a runway capacity problem today, and slot capacity looks ample for the foreseeable future. That is an enviable position to be in. Some very good management decisions led up to that. If we're doling out criticism for the terminals then it is only fair to give full credit for the runway initiative. Terminal upgrades are far, far easier to plan and implement than a new runway.

The TP is to be welcomed but it falls short of what ideally is needed.
Ah, but does it? You haven't seen the final version of the TP. Actually, neither have I. For good reason. Many of the designers have only just been awarded contracts for their roles. What we have seen so far are outline plans which will evolve dramatically between now and final completion.

STN was a distraction for MAG and to the detriment of MAN and may continue to be so because of the "London" tag
I have sympathy with this point of view and confess to being unenthusiastic when news of the acquisition was first announced. However, that is water under the bridge and STN is now an integral part of the group. One thing that I must say is that in the light of recent estimates of the cost of constructing new runways at LHR/LGW, it is clear that MAG picked up STN for peanuts by comparison. As an asset, STN must now be valued multiples higher than the sum initially paid by MAG. That gives an enviable level of financial security to the group.

I agree that STN can sometimes appear to be a management distraction from MAN. Some executives split their time between the sites. There are some conflicts of interest too as demonstrated by the recent situation which has seen a major cargo airline choosing between two airports represented by the same marketing executive. And he is based at STN. Having said that, I don't believe that MAG will neglect MAN in favour of STN. They see the numbers, they speak with the airlines, they know the potential of (by far) the largest airport in the North. MAN has a client-base which is far more varied and lucrative than that at a Ryanair-dominated no-frills gateway which happens to be close to London. I'm not playing down STN ... it is a major airport with a bright future. But the same is true of MAN as well and MAG understands that. As for the Australians, rest assured that Manchester (as a city) enjoys very high recognition dunnunda. If MAN continues to yield healthy profits and dividends they'll be happy with their investment decision.

The TP is conflicting on the number of extra stands. The Planning application says only 1 extra
Yes, but that is the initial planning application to get the project underway. As alluded to earlier, much of the TP hasn't been designed yet. There is alot more to follow between now and ten years hence. I had the opportunity to ask one of the senior executives involved in the project about this. Will the TP provide sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth? "Of course. It wouldn't be worth our while undertaking this otherwise!"
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2016, 16:33
  #4011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
I note that the FlyBe 6x weekly CWL-MAN rumour has now made it to the Cardiff and FlyBe threads on this forum ...
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2016, 17:02
  #4012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 563
So is the MAN-CWL-MAN rumours true then ? When will they be announced if true ?
Letsflycwl is online now  
Old 6th Jan 2016, 19:57
  #4013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 860
Terminal upgrades are far, far easier to plan and implement than a new runway.
Not sure I agree with you entirely on that one Shed

The only interface with the existing operation when R2 was constructed was the crossing points on R1. Otherwise it was just one big builders compound where the contractor could phase things as they wanted to for the most efficient construction schedule.

However, the most difficult phase of the runway development was the work required to get to the stage where the planning permission was granted. Work started in 1989, an application was made in 1993, the Inquiry was in 1995, permission was granted in 1997 and operations commenced in 2001.

Getting planning permission for a terminal should be a lot easier - just look at LHR. The planning Inquiry for R2 at MAN was around 100 working days; I seem to remember the MAN T2 Inquiry was a couple of days.

If you are building a new terminal on a new site such as T2 at MAN, again it will be mostly a contained building site during construction. AFAIK the new T2 at LHR was also effectively one big building site which was isolated from the rest of the operation for most of the construction period as all the T2 traffic had been decanted elsewhere

But as soon as you start working on a terminal upgrade, you are working in an operational area and therefore you have to maintain access to enough areas to ensure that passenger operations can continue. In order to do this the plan has to be split into many phases which takes longer and costs more. The MAN TP is like this because unlike LHR there is much less scope for decanting and this will be a major challenge to ensure that the demand can be handled all the time. We know the rough sequence of events but as Shed posted there is a lot of detail yet to come out and as the design progresses we may see some changes.

This addresses Viscount's point about the different timescales for the MAN TP and LHR T2 and has already been pointed out by Shed.
Suzeman is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2016, 21:02
  #4014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Suzeman - I agree with you entirely on this. I phrased my point badly. My intention was to convey that it is a much tougher task to get a new runway approved than is the case for a terminal. Construction challenges are another matter as you correctly point out.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2016, 08:40
  #4015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 268
Interesting to see the rumours about Cardiff. The train takes a long time to get there and is often not a proper long distance train either so this could take up some point-point demand along with presumably a lot of opportunities to connect onto Flybe services further north and onto Code Shares.
GavinC is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2016, 09:23
  #4016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,065
CARDIFF

As regards p2p traffic, the problem is it's only forecast to be 6 x weekly - presumably Mon-Fri plus 1 at weekend.

An early arrival in MAN at say 08.00 (replacing the Bournemouth slot?) is fine for business in Manchester or connecting with their own flybe flights or transfers to other carriers including long haul to the US or to EK for example. But at what time do they operate the return? I guess late afternoon or evening provides the better options for business pax and inward transfers from domestic or other flights, including the ME3. Not much use though for transfers from the US.

Just to add, while such timings would enable a day trip for pax from Cardiff to MAN, it wouldn't work in the opposite direction. It's probably reasonable though, given the transfer possibilities, to assume that the main flow would be Cardiff originating.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2016, 10:54
  #4017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,928
Suzeman - I agree with you entirely on this. I phrased my point badly. My intention was to convey that it is a much tougher task to get a new runway approved than is the case for a terminal. Construction challenges are another matter as you correctly point out.
Indeed! it's ridiculous and it's holding the country back.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2016, 11:42
  #4018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Do we know how advance bookings are re Hainan?

_________________________________________________

Has there been any official announcement by MAG of the new PR guru from Heathrow?

Seems very odd not to make some capital from this. Apologies if I missed it but not seem anything by MAG themselves on social media or the more usual MEN !
Bagso is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2016, 08:01
  #4019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Bold statement

MAG_PressOffice ‏@MAG_PressOffice
One of the reasons MAG airports are growing faster than other UK airports is that they have the spare capacity to handle new services.
I'm not convinced....
Betablockeruk is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2016, 08:07
  #4020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 351
Of course there is capacity for new services. Large parts of the day, the place is like a ghost town with only one runway needed.
Where the capacity is constrained is during the morning peak and for the overnight parking of aeroplanes - that's all.
All names taken is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.