MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think many people will be amazed in the new year so just lets wait and see
I see that the recent hotel planning application has incorrect labelling and switched T2 for T1. Is that it?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Maybe just a reaction to EY and QR but something else planned for Summer timetable but not released yet.
- It`s only just into January and most businesses only went back to normal working yesterday and I think the quote I heard was early early in the year so as said before we will just have to wait until they are ready
Ian
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stafford
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main issue of an A380 on the evening service is the drop in cargo space. Saw it suggested on another site that the excess cargo will be shifted down to the new BHX flight but seeing as that doesn't start until August it means there would be a significant period where belly capacity would be reduced.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all those increases EK, EY, QR and TK will offer aprox. 3,000 one-way seats to their hubs.... a day!
...and there are BHX, GLA, EDI, NCL, DUB. Could all have been yours, BA
...and there are BHX, GLA, EDI, NCL, DUB. Could all have been yours, BA
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re EK, the drop in cargo space and how any excess cargo will be dealt with is an interesting point.
On passenger capacity, perhaps the most significant aspect is that the A380 has 76 J class seats compared to 42 on the B777. And 14 F class compared to 8. (I think the evening flight is a 3 class 777 now, isn't it). That is certainly a vote of confidence in an airport that in the past has been labelled by some as having little demand for premium travel.
On passenger capacity, perhaps the most significant aspect is that the A380 has 76 J class seats compared to 42 on the B777. And 14 F class compared to 8. (I think the evening flight is a 3 class 777 now, isn't it). That is certainly a vote of confidence in an airport that in the past has been labelled by some as having little demand for premium travel.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and there are BHX, GLA, EDI, NCL, DUB. Could all have been yours, BA
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but they could have gone via LHR with BA, or MAN if BA had not stupidly given up there. If fail to see how millions that could have flown BA but not is irrelevant !
The leakage from the regions is more than sizable and all lost passengers as far as BA goes. There is no reason all those years ago BA could not have built up a hub at MAN instead of destroying it, they are now reaping the reward of that choice !
The leakage from the regions is more than sizable and all lost passengers as far as BA goes. There is no reason all those years ago BA could not have built up a hub at MAN instead of destroying it, they are now reaping the reward of that choice !
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am missing something here. Everyone seems to be talking about this being a permanent change whereas I thought it was only for February and March at least for the time being
Just the rest of the W14/15 scheduling season has been loaded on the website so far, S15 should be loaded soon. Not sure what the delay is, but, I assume there is no rush to update the website given this is not a new service that requires lead-in time.
Ive been told there was a quote on social media from Emirates that the service upgrade is permanent, but, I have not seen that quote myself.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to several 'good' sources (ei ones who are usually quite good for info), MAN-CLT will be returning May 2016.
Will also be a widebody service as cargo uplift is needed.
Will also be a widebody service as cargo uplift is needed.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"and there are BHX, GLA, EDI, NCL, DUB. Could all have been yours, BA "
Oh? Did the Republic of Ireland, of which DUB is Capital, complete with it's own national airline, rejoin the United Kingdom?
Oh? Did the Republic of Ireland, of which DUB is Capital, complete with it's own national airline, rejoin the United Kingdom?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but they could have gone via LHR with BA, or MAN if BA had not stupidly given up there. If fail to see how millions that could have flown BA but not is irrelevant !
The leakage from the regions is more than sizable and all lost passengers as far as BA goes. There is no reason all those years ago BA could not have built up a hub at MAN instead of destroying it, they are now reaping the reward of that choice !
The leakage from the regions is more than sizable and all lost passengers as far as BA goes. There is no reason all those years ago BA could not have built up a hub at MAN instead of destroying it, they are now reaping the reward of that choice !
Is this impression wrong?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currency Exchange Rates.
Quite a lot of publicity about foreign holidays being cheaper because the pound is stronger against the Euro and some other currencies such as for Turkey, Australia and South Africa. That's more relevant for accommodation, restaurants, car hire etc. when away, rather than flights.
On the other hand, sterling has fallen about 10% against the US dollar from about 6 months ago when I bought some. However, the dropping of APD for children if reflected in air fares should at least help family holidays to the USA.
How much of the big fall in oil prices will filter through to passengers or whether airlines will keep most of the savings to improve profitability remains to be seen, and will also depend to what extent they hedged their fuel and at what price.
I wonder what the net impact of all these factors will have on growth at MAN in 2015, plus of course the 'confidence' aspect. Many of the signs for MAN are encouraging although I imagine capacity for the summer is now pretty well fixed. The ACL report for the start of the summer for movements and available seats should be interesting and a good indicator.
Quite a lot of publicity about foreign holidays being cheaper because the pound is stronger against the Euro and some other currencies such as for Turkey, Australia and South Africa. That's more relevant for accommodation, restaurants, car hire etc. when away, rather than flights.
On the other hand, sterling has fallen about 10% against the US dollar from about 6 months ago when I bought some. However, the dropping of APD for children if reflected in air fares should at least help family holidays to the USA.
How much of the big fall in oil prices will filter through to passengers or whether airlines will keep most of the savings to improve profitability remains to be seen, and will also depend to what extent they hedged their fuel and at what price.
I wonder what the net impact of all these factors will have on growth at MAN in 2015, plus of course the 'confidence' aspect. Many of the signs for MAN are encouraging although I imagine capacity for the summer is now pretty well fixed. The ACL report for the start of the summer for movements and available seats should be interesting and a good indicator.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairdealfrank..
That was more to do with number shuffling and how costs were split / allocated. Sure many, incl BA staff, will back up MAN did OK for BA...it just didn't fit their future hub plans. Like I said a decision that BA now has to live with as millions and millions of UK travelers choose to fly from MAN, and the regions, on foreign carriers instead. I'd say that is a big worry for BA, a worry that will only get worse and worse for them...and harsh as it may sound personally I have not got one smidgen of sorrow for them.
Considering it did not take a genius to work out where LHR was headed, I'd say it was a mistake and short sighted by BA HQ to put all its eggs in one over crowded basket, and how long before we possibly get another runway at LHR...15/20 years !!
That was more to do with number shuffling and how costs were split / allocated. Sure many, incl BA staff, will back up MAN did OK for BA...it just didn't fit their future hub plans. Like I said a decision that BA now has to live with as millions and millions of UK travelers choose to fly from MAN, and the regions, on foreign carriers instead. I'd say that is a big worry for BA, a worry that will only get worse and worse for them...and harsh as it may sound personally I have not got one smidgen of sorrow for them.
Considering it did not take a genius to work out where LHR was headed, I'd say it was a mistake and short sighted by BA HQ to put all its eggs in one over crowded basket, and how long before we possibly get another runway at LHR...15/20 years !!
Last edited by eggc; 6th Jan 2015 at 14:03.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh? Did the Republic of Ireland, of which DUB is Capital, complete with it's own national airline, rejoin the United Kingdom? 
LH for example just offers trice daily to DUB-FRA and just a few times weekly to MUC; GLA, NCL isn't served by LH
Therefore do not always blame EK and Co. if passenger choose other airlines/airports. It's not always the price.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry what? BA didn't walk away because they didn't like the North, they were at a competitive disadvantage. On MAN-AMS say, KLM have a mix of point to point and spoke to hub. EZY entering this market can then pick up the bottom end of the leisure market leaving BA with expensively priced point to point only but without the cost base to match EZY's, and requiring the capital investment to go against a horde of new Airbus narrow bodies. Of course EZY didn't stop at the leisure end and now have good reputation amongst business travellers.
Can anyone here honestly see BA flying MAN-AMS on an A319 and making money? Because against EZY and KLM, an EMB145 just won't cut it. They'd be loser meat in someone elses sandwich. One thing IAG are rightly ruthless on, is that it must make money or go away. BA are competing against IB and more worryingly VY for the new A320 NEOS IAG are taking, more cost cutting is needed to make LHR short haul into the black at last. Not one person on here has ever shown me a persuasive case as to what a profitable BA operation at MAN would look like! Lufty are even retreating from regional Germany and "rebranding" as German Wings in a bid to save EZY stealing market share. It's not going well either! Also remember BA at MAN/BHX was a hub fed from Scotland, nowadays, Scots have many more cheaper and direct options with the locos.
There never was the remotest business case for BA putting in the rather high capital investment in new A319s to make MAN workable in a cut throat market against the locos. The return on investment would have been massively negative!
There's no point flying loads of passengers out of regional airports to drive volumes up if you cannot do so at an acceptable margin.
Can anyone here honestly see BA flying MAN-AMS on an A319 and making money? Because against EZY and KLM, an EMB145 just won't cut it. They'd be loser meat in someone elses sandwich. One thing IAG are rightly ruthless on, is that it must make money or go away. BA are competing against IB and more worryingly VY for the new A320 NEOS IAG are taking, more cost cutting is needed to make LHR short haul into the black at last. Not one person on here has ever shown me a persuasive case as to what a profitable BA operation at MAN would look like! Lufty are even retreating from regional Germany and "rebranding" as German Wings in a bid to save EZY stealing market share. It's not going well either! Also remember BA at MAN/BHX was a hub fed from Scotland, nowadays, Scots have many more cheaper and direct options with the locos.
There never was the remotest business case for BA putting in the rather high capital investment in new A319s to make MAN workable in a cut throat market against the locos. The return on investment would have been massively negative!
There's no point flying loads of passengers out of regional airports to drive volumes up if you cannot do so at an acceptable margin.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 157 Likes
on
99 Posts
Skipness One Echo
I think the point that pepole are driving at is that there was a possibility in the past of doing what Lufty has done at Munich with some long haul ops to certain key locations where they could have linked up with other One World Partners. How much would it have cost to keep 4 777 there for routes to say JFK, Singapore, HK for example given the full front end cabins for carriers on these routes via mid east or direct ?. I agree with your comments re short haul by the way, but think they missed a trick long haul. No way back now though.
Regards
Mr Mac
I think the point that pepole are driving at is that there was a possibility in the past of doing what Lufty has done at Munich with some long haul ops to certain key locations where they could have linked up with other One World Partners. How much would it have cost to keep 4 777 there for routes to say JFK, Singapore, HK for example given the full front end cabins for carriers on these routes via mid east or direct ?. I agree with your comments re short haul by the way, but think they missed a trick long haul. No way back now though.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the attitude BA had Skippy, look where it got them...a vastly reduced market share of UK traffic (and shrinking), losing passengers hand over fist to the ME3, US carriers and others.
On short haul european routes, which I am not particually on about anyway, the locos may well had not found MAN so easy to crack had BA handed it over on a plate. There is no way back on that front - ever.
The trick BA missed was domestic feed. How many UK airports now crave a feed into LHR ? How many domestic destinations does MAN serve today (and it could easily be more) ?. That is where BA went wrong. Their opportunity was not serving CDG, AMS etc from MAN, but providing a comprehensive domestic feed, adding to the sizable local demand, for a splattering of popular long haul destinations.
I am not having it that a well run venture could not have fed MAN from nearly every UK airport that would provided enough passengers to successfully fill a modest long haul base serving JFK, LAX, HKG and the likes.
It would even have helped BA at LHR by allowing a few services like the above to be flown from MAN instead of LHR, freeing up slots for growth to new destinations from LHR.
I never expected BA to provide a fleet of spanking 319's up here, but if they were cleverer they could easily have kept lots of these lost passengers - and profitably, whilst easing the glaringly obvious future pressure on LHR a little, by running a feeding fleet and say a dozen or so long haul a/c from MAN.
No euro routes will ever be possible now, but will BA have the sense to see what I'm saying ? The domestic feed is already there with Flybe, but despite that, and despite LHR being rammed to breaking point all but denying BA growth for the foreseeable future, I still doubt they will see the light.
I maybe looking at this far to simplistically, but with no new runway for a long time, MAN seems an obvious solution...to me anyway, buy hey, what the hell do I know !
On short haul european routes, which I am not particually on about anyway, the locos may well had not found MAN so easy to crack had BA handed it over on a plate. There is no way back on that front - ever.
The trick BA missed was domestic feed. How many UK airports now crave a feed into LHR ? How many domestic destinations does MAN serve today (and it could easily be more) ?. That is where BA went wrong. Their opportunity was not serving CDG, AMS etc from MAN, but providing a comprehensive domestic feed, adding to the sizable local demand, for a splattering of popular long haul destinations.
I am not having it that a well run venture could not have fed MAN from nearly every UK airport that would provided enough passengers to successfully fill a modest long haul base serving JFK, LAX, HKG and the likes.
It would even have helped BA at LHR by allowing a few services like the above to be flown from MAN instead of LHR, freeing up slots for growth to new destinations from LHR.
I never expected BA to provide a fleet of spanking 319's up here, but if they were cleverer they could easily have kept lots of these lost passengers - and profitably, whilst easing the glaringly obvious future pressure on LHR a little, by running a feeding fleet and say a dozen or so long haul a/c from MAN.
No euro routes will ever be possible now, but will BA have the sense to see what I'm saying ? The domestic feed is already there with Flybe, but despite that, and despite LHR being rammed to breaking point all but denying BA growth for the foreseeable future, I still doubt they will see the light.
I maybe looking at this far to simplistically, but with no new runway for a long time, MAN seems an obvious solution...to me anyway, buy hey, what the hell do I know !
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a case of "how much would it cost" to base 4 B777s at MAN, it's more of "where will we make the most money by utilising these most mobile of assets"?
JFK is a good point, huge point to point opportunity that BA mucked up because of their own internal schizophrenic London centric view. Nowadays they also have the AA JV! However Hong Kong and Singapore would have no feed at the UK end and HKG would rely on CX who are not the most co-operative of Oneworld partners. The QF hub at SIN has been wound up as QF cut their (alleged) losses and palmed some ops to Jetstar and spooned quietly with Emirates instead.
Same issue, they'd be sandwiched between Singapore who have a huge hub at SIN and the loss of Qantas feed. It's geography as much as anything nowadays. Let BA concentrate on markets where they have a fighting chance.
BA are profitable not loss making, market share is useless if it's loss making. The idea of a long haul hub fed by Flybe out of MAN is a non starter as the economies of scale just aren't there. Aside from JFK and maybe LAX, most long haul destinations suggested are at a competitive disadvantage as say, SQ has feed beyond SIN. Genuine point, if it was "glaringly obvious", if that profitable market niche was capable of being done with a good return, some clever and able person would have run the numbers, presented a business case and made it happen. It does not follow that because LHR is busy, moving assets to MAN is profitable. You would then need to argue for additonal capital investment (new aircraft) to run that operation, something which in the cut throat environment across the pond, seems that the numbers did not add up.
Remember BA need all those GLA/EDI/MAN/NCL/BHD/DUB/LBA punters to fill cabins out of LHR.
JFK is a good point, huge point to point opportunity that BA mucked up because of their own internal schizophrenic London centric view. Nowadays they also have the AA JV! However Hong Kong and Singapore would have no feed at the UK end and HKG would rely on CX who are not the most co-operative of Oneworld partners. The QF hub at SIN has been wound up as QF cut their (alleged) losses and palmed some ops to Jetstar and spooned quietly with Emirates instead.
Same issue, they'd be sandwiched between Singapore who have a huge hub at SIN and the loss of Qantas feed. It's geography as much as anything nowadays. Let BA concentrate on markets where they have a fighting chance.
BA are profitable not loss making, market share is useless if it's loss making. The idea of a long haul hub fed by Flybe out of MAN is a non starter as the economies of scale just aren't there. Aside from JFK and maybe LAX, most long haul destinations suggested are at a competitive disadvantage as say, SQ has feed beyond SIN. Genuine point, if it was "glaringly obvious", if that profitable market niche was capable of being done with a good return, some clever and able person would have run the numbers, presented a business case and made it happen. It does not follow that because LHR is busy, moving assets to MAN is profitable. You would then need to argue for additonal capital investment (new aircraft) to run that operation, something which in the cut throat environment across the pond, seems that the numbers did not add up.
Remember BA need all those GLA/EDI/MAN/NCL/BHD/DUB/LBA punters to fill cabins out of LHR.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 6th Jan 2015 at 18:49.
Raking over the history of BA and MAN isn't going to change anything. The reality is that both moved on a long time ago, and both are doing quite nicely without each other thank you very much.
BA's primary business and profit source is feeding passengers via its LHR hub. The fact they are able to sustain eight shuttles a day from MAN means they still have a sizeable following in the north who are happy to do that. Those who prefer not to be hubbed through LHR now have a large and growing choice of other options to choose from.
BA is now part of IAG, and IAG is part of Oneworld. BA doesn't appear to have too many problems finding slots for new services from LHR when it needs to. And if one day IAG does finally run out of LHR slots, or for other reasons wants to increase it's footprint at MAN and the regions it doesn't need BA to base its aircraft there. It can do it by codesharing on its Oneworld partners, signing up new codeshares, or acquiring more airlines. IAG's recent interest in EI is perhaps a case in point.
As for the airport, we will never know if MAN would have been more successful had BA hung around for longer than it did. What MAN does now have is an excellent and growing selection of long and shorthaul point to point, point to hub, low cost and charter services - arguably the best selection of any airport in the UK.
And where would BA park those based 777s anyway - certainly not at T3 !!
BA's primary business and profit source is feeding passengers via its LHR hub. The fact they are able to sustain eight shuttles a day from MAN means they still have a sizeable following in the north who are happy to do that. Those who prefer not to be hubbed through LHR now have a large and growing choice of other options to choose from.
BA is now part of IAG, and IAG is part of Oneworld. BA doesn't appear to have too many problems finding slots for new services from LHR when it needs to. And if one day IAG does finally run out of LHR slots, or for other reasons wants to increase it's footprint at MAN and the regions it doesn't need BA to base its aircraft there. It can do it by codesharing on its Oneworld partners, signing up new codeshares, or acquiring more airlines. IAG's recent interest in EI is perhaps a case in point.
As for the airport, we will never know if MAN would have been more successful had BA hung around for longer than it did. What MAN does now have is an excellent and growing selection of long and shorthaul point to point, point to hub, low cost and charter services - arguably the best selection of any airport in the UK.
And where would BA park those based 777s anyway - certainly not at T3 !!