MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What none of the rail operator sites say is if the Heald Green to Airport buses are "rail replacement" and therefore included in the price paid if you have a rail ticket from/to the Airport, or a free bus operated by Manchester Airport/Network Rail to and from Heald Green Station from the Airport or whether normal bus routes are to be used and passengers have to pay.
I would also suggest however your average punter will NOT hunt down this information.......... they will rely on being informed.
There's plenty of places that people can find out; surely doing research is all part of travelling anywhere especially onto unfamiliar territory; many passengers are far more savvy than you give them credit for.
But what else to do? Perhaps Bagso could go round every home in the catchment area and tell people individually.....
Let's get talking about something sensible such as the much rumoured terminal re-developments. Some stories suggest it is quite radical and may commence this year. My question is if that is correct, what is the planning situation and will a public inquiry be required?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The terminal developments will indeed be interesting, and I wonder what the plan is to cater for passengers and aircraft stands during the knockdown/rebuild process. A temporary terminal for loco's, perhaps? Possibly the expansion of T2 first, to create additional capacity?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terminals
Discussion on another forum suggested that T2 expansion would cater for a lot of capacity lost during construction. A T2-T1 link would allow for passengers to check-in at T2 but depart from T1 whilst a substantial part of T1 was out of action (all bar the piers and the lounge).
One would have thought that bussing onto remotes would be required at some point mind. Interesting that design discussion indicated the majority of the new Terminal to replace T1 and T3 would be on the space currently occupied by car parking so a lot of work could be done without 'significant' impact on operations.
The Station
It's wonderful to think that MAN will have a station with SIX platforms shortly. It's not that long since it was built. And of course it also now has the bus stops and coach stops.
Next for The Station will be some re-configuration to add more shops and to allow for a logical route over to Airport City. One would assume that with the new Terminal development and the Airport City works that eventually that part of the airport campus will eventually be less cluttered with illogical roads and will hopefully feel more like the heart of overall campus area catering for workers and passengers alike.
As a slight aside, I'm travelling from Piccadilly to MAN during the total closure. I have the option of a complete rail replacement from Picc to MAN replacing the Transpennine which will terminate at MAN or a rail replacement from Heald Green as Northern Trains will instead route to Wilmslow. Both are listed as 40 minutes which gives a lot of scope but then they don't want passengers missing flights. I'm not sure which one will be best though as I'm going at around 6pm so do I go direct but on a coach that might get stuck in traffic or take the traffic free train to Heald Green but have to change onto the coach from there. There's also the tram potentially as well. Decisions, decisions....
Discussion on another forum suggested that T2 expansion would cater for a lot of capacity lost during construction. A T2-T1 link would allow for passengers to check-in at T2 but depart from T1 whilst a substantial part of T1 was out of action (all bar the piers and the lounge).
One would have thought that bussing onto remotes would be required at some point mind. Interesting that design discussion indicated the majority of the new Terminal to replace T1 and T3 would be on the space currently occupied by car parking so a lot of work could be done without 'significant' impact on operations.
The Station
It's wonderful to think that MAN will have a station with SIX platforms shortly. It's not that long since it was built. And of course it also now has the bus stops and coach stops.
Next for The Station will be some re-configuration to add more shops and to allow for a logical route over to Airport City. One would assume that with the new Terminal development and the Airport City works that eventually that part of the airport campus will eventually be less cluttered with illogical roads and will hopefully feel more like the heart of overall campus area catering for workers and passengers alike.
As a slight aside, I'm travelling from Piccadilly to MAN during the total closure. I have the option of a complete rail replacement from Picc to MAN replacing the Transpennine which will terminate at MAN or a rail replacement from Heald Green as Northern Trains will instead route to Wilmslow. Both are listed as 40 minutes which gives a lot of scope but then they don't want passengers missing flights. I'm not sure which one will be best though as I'm going at around 6pm so do I go direct but on a coach that might get stuck in traffic or take the traffic free train to Heald Green but have to change onto the coach from there. There's also the tram potentially as well. Decisions, decisions....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought ... will the Metrolink trams be running normally during the MAN Airport station closure? That is where they terminate as well, although they are segregated from the Network Rail infrastructure on their own dedicated platforms. They would be an alternative option for passengers traveling from within the city region itself (quick change at Cornbrook required), although through-ticketed rail passengers originating further afield would see no benefit over the rail-replacement bus links.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester is potentially in a great position as it could consolidate all three terminals into one large mega terminal making seamless connectivity a reality. Is this not the way most mega hubs are going and whilst we are not on that page its worth replicating what the leading airports are doing.
Given that Manchester was/is not exactly flavour of the month with one of the largest shareholders will there be resistance in pushing the plans thru or will they still insist on spending £s on STN ?
Sir Shed of Poleshire ...The METROLINK services will terminate in Wythenshawe. A bus will be provided to whisk you to the terminal.
Given that Manchester was/is not exactly flavour of the month with one of the largest shareholders will there be resistance in pushing the plans thru or will they still insist on spending £s on STN ?
Sir Shed of Poleshire ...The METROLINK services will terminate in Wythenshawe. A bus will be provided to whisk you to the terminal.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trams appear to be affected only at the weekends.
I don't know where you've got the idea that the Australians are only after spending at STN. They want a return on the investment into MAG whether money is thrown at MAN, STN, EMA or EMA?! Besides, MAG approached them and other suitors as potential partners for buying STN
I don't know where you've got the idea that the Australians are only after spending at STN. They want a return on the investment into MAG whether money is thrown at MAN, STN, EMA or EMA?! Besides, MAG approached them and other suitors as potential partners for buying STN
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFM did indicate that they would only invest in MAG on condition that the STN deal went through. At the time STN was in the frame to be part of the solution to expansion in the South East. I think many observers assumed on that basis that they saw STN as the main prize. The STN option was thrown out by Davies but of course IFM are still there.
Maybe the Manchester board have convinced them that MAN is a good investment ?
Maybe the Manchester board have convinced them that MAN is a good investment ?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso, I'm sure I've explained this before. IFM didn't set out the terms of the deal - MAG did. MAG only needed third party capital if their bid for STN was successful. Hence they invited in potential new shareholders on the condition that the deal would only proceed if MAG won STN.
Without the STN deal MAG had no immediate need for new capital, whether from IFM or any other bidder.
It is simply incorrect to infer from this that IFM has any preference to invest in STN over MAN.
Without the STN deal MAG had no immediate need for new capital, whether from IFM or any other bidder.
It is simply incorrect to infer from this that IFM has any preference to invest in STN over MAN.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Shed of Poleshire ...The METROLINK services will terminate in Wythenshawe. A bus will be provided to whisk you to the terminal.
will the Metrolink trams be running normally during the MAN Airport station closure?
Only two rail platforms will be in use between Sunday 11 and Saturday 17 January and the station will then be closed to all trains until Monday 9 February.
In addition, between Saturday 17 January and midday on Sunday 18 January, Metrolink services between the Wythenshawe Town Centre and Airport stops will be replaced with like-for-like bus services.
In addition, between Saturday 17 January and midday on Sunday 18 January, Metrolink services between the Wythenshawe Town Centre and Airport stops will be replaced with like-for-like bus services.
Meanwhile no trams on Sat 17th and am Sun 18th with normal service outside those dates.
So the only time there is no tram or train option is am next Sunday
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil
AND as last time ......
"MAG only needed third party capital if their bid for STN was successful."
AND equally one could argue IFM only then put in that very specific investment based on the prospect of STN then becoming a major third London Airport.
I will once again quote a well respected industry journalist who presumably looked at the manifesto on the table at that time !
"It was not possible to extract from MAG speakers what MAG’s external investor, Australia’s Industry Funds Management (IFM), thinks about the airport city development. IFM is a 35% shareholder in MAG and thus presumably holds a 17.5% in the JV building the airport city. But it came onboard for an entirely different reason, namely to invest into a group operation that includes London Stansted Airport. Those were its terms – an unsuccessful bid for Stansted by MAG would mean no investment by IFM in MAG."
The Aerotropolis ? a strategy, not a project. ?Aerotropolis EMEA? Conference report: Part 1 | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
They may well be very satisfied with how things are turning out at STN, but even you would agree it is both naive and totally absurd to suggest that the conditions that prevailed when IFM came on board are the same as they are now !
A) Airport City according to this article was presumably not part of their thinking.
B) Stansted was very much part of the South East Airport debate. It might still be, even though SHD clearly thinks it is merely a bit player. Though equally you could ask what does he know !
C) Improvement and expansion of infastructure at Manchester requiring substantial investment was I suspect not on the table at that time IFM came onboard.
I am heartily reassured by your insistence that MAG did not actually need Australian monies or indeed investment of any kind if the deal did not go through but what of investment in Airport City and the Airport?
It is perfectly reasonable to be inquisitive if the journalist was not able to illicit a comprehensive and supportive response, from a main shareholder with regard to their thoughts about what they think about a "new" proposal to invest £800m on Airport City.
If we are unaware of their thoughts on this key area (and I am sure everybody on here thinks Airport City is highly positive), what do they now think about a muti million investment in terminal infastructure specifically at MAN ?
AND as last time ......
"MAG only needed third party capital if their bid for STN was successful."
AND equally one could argue IFM only then put in that very specific investment based on the prospect of STN then becoming a major third London Airport.
I will once again quote a well respected industry journalist who presumably looked at the manifesto on the table at that time !
"It was not possible to extract from MAG speakers what MAG’s external investor, Australia’s Industry Funds Management (IFM), thinks about the airport city development. IFM is a 35% shareholder in MAG and thus presumably holds a 17.5% in the JV building the airport city. But it came onboard for an entirely different reason, namely to invest into a group operation that includes London Stansted Airport. Those were its terms – an unsuccessful bid for Stansted by MAG would mean no investment by IFM in MAG."
The Aerotropolis ? a strategy, not a project. ?Aerotropolis EMEA? Conference report: Part 1 | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
They may well be very satisfied with how things are turning out at STN, but even you would agree it is both naive and totally absurd to suggest that the conditions that prevailed when IFM came on board are the same as they are now !
A) Airport City according to this article was presumably not part of their thinking.
B) Stansted was very much part of the South East Airport debate. It might still be, even though SHD clearly thinks it is merely a bit player. Though equally you could ask what does he know !
C) Improvement and expansion of infastructure at Manchester requiring substantial investment was I suspect not on the table at that time IFM came onboard.
I am heartily reassured by your insistence that MAG did not actually need Australian monies or indeed investment of any kind if the deal did not go through but what of investment in Airport City and the Airport?
It is perfectly reasonable to be inquisitive if the journalist was not able to illicit a comprehensive and supportive response, from a main shareholder with regard to their thoughts about what they think about a "new" proposal to invest £800m on Airport City.
If we are unaware of their thoughts on this key area (and I am sure everybody on here thinks Airport City is highly positive), what do they now think about a muti million investment in terminal infastructure specifically at MAN ?
Last edited by Bagso; 11th Jan 2015 at 20:03.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of flogging a dead horse...
CAPA are mistaken in saying that the conditionality of the STN deal was down to IFM. This was simply the terms of the deal set out by MAG, as part of their strategy to raise funds so as to be able to afford the price tag for STN.
Here is an extract from a May 2012 press statement by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, followed by a press comment:
"Following a strategic review of the group's performance and future prospects, MAG is pursuing two key recommendations: one to explore the opportunity to add a quality airport to the Group; and the other, to bring in new equity investment as part of the deal. Both of these recommendations are interdependent and one will not happen without the other," the joint statement said.
Meanwhile, MAG confirmed it had started to invite detailed proposals from private investors.
It is understood other frontrunners for the stake in MAG are Cheung Kong Infrastructure, the investment vehicle of Asia's richest man Li Ka-shing, and Australia's Industry Funds Management.
I can't say whether IFM had a particular view on Airport City. However, I suspect that they attached little value (if any) to the potential for STN to have a second runway. As with LGW, it is very difficult to see how STN's value would be enhanced by a second runway, given the enormous costs involved and the unwillingness of airlines to pay the necessary fees.
You do however have a good point about the investment in MAN being a lot more expensive than was envisaged when IFM came on board. I'm sure that MAG are working up their business case so as to persuade all shareholders (not just IFM) that they can earn a good return on the much higher capital costs.
CAPA are mistaken in saying that the conditionality of the STN deal was down to IFM. This was simply the terms of the deal set out by MAG, as part of their strategy to raise funds so as to be able to afford the price tag for STN.
Here is an extract from a May 2012 press statement by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, followed by a press comment:
"Following a strategic review of the group's performance and future prospects, MAG is pursuing two key recommendations: one to explore the opportunity to add a quality airport to the Group; and the other, to bring in new equity investment as part of the deal. Both of these recommendations are interdependent and one will not happen without the other," the joint statement said.
Meanwhile, MAG confirmed it had started to invite detailed proposals from private investors.
It is understood other frontrunners for the stake in MAG are Cheung Kong Infrastructure, the investment vehicle of Asia's richest man Li Ka-shing, and Australia's Industry Funds Management.
I can't say whether IFM had a particular view on Airport City. However, I suspect that they attached little value (if any) to the potential for STN to have a second runway. As with LGW, it is very difficult to see how STN's value would be enhanced by a second runway, given the enormous costs involved and the unwillingness of airlines to pay the necessary fees.
You do however have a good point about the investment in MAN being a lot more expensive than was envisaged when IFM came on board. I'm sure that MAG are working up their business case so as to persuade all shareholders (not just IFM) that they can earn a good return on the much higher capital costs.
Last edited by BasilBush; 11th Jan 2015 at 20:56.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airport City zone was announced at the beginning of 2012, while the IFM investment relating to STN was announced in September 2012. I would also be very surprised if the long term plans for MAN were not shared with IFM as part of the due diligence process that will have taken place at that time. Just because no major plans for redeveloping the MAN terminals have been made public doesn't mean they haven't been shared with the shareholders including IFM. Similarly just because a MAN spokesman doesn't wish to tell the press what a major shareholder is thinking on a range of issues doesn't mean that a dialogue hasn't taken place.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airport City zone was announced at the beginning of 2012, while the IFM investment relating to STN was announced in September 2012. I would also be very surprised if the long term plans for MAN were not shared with IFM as part of the due diligence process that will have taken place at that time. Just because no major plans for redeveloping the MAN terminals have been made public doesn't mean they haven't been shared with the shareholders including IFM. Similarly just because a MAN spokesman doesn't wish to tell the press what a major shareholder is thinking on a range of issues doesn't mean that a dialogue hasn't taken place.
Amazing that things go on behind closed doors. If I was doing due diligence I would want to know about every aspect of MAG's business including EMA, BOH and Airport City too. And any fule know that the projections of growth at MAN would eventually require capacity enhancements at some stage, so I would want to know the scale of developments and costs over the period. People involved in this sort of thing will have signed confidentiality agreements, so hardly surprising that they would remain tight lipped when questioned by the press.
Sorry Bagso, but as I've said several times, there's lots of things going on behind the scenes which you and I don't know about; that's the way most businesses run nowadays.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stansted Dec AND YTD 2014 figures released.
Any word on Manch ?
Any word on Manch ?
STN was up 18.5% in the month of December and 12% for the year so MAG will be chuffed.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester named in New York Times' list of 'top places to visit in 2015' - Manchester Evening News
Quiz time:
"There are now direct flights from Manchester Airport to nine US cities with Delta Airlines to begin daily flights to New York this summer."
Nine? ORD, EWR/JFK, LAS, MCO, PHL, ATL, IAD, CLT (but canc).....
I mustn't quote the particularly parochial comment............
Quiz time:
"There are now direct flights from Manchester Airport to nine US cities with Delta Airlines to begin daily flights to New York this summer."
Nine? ORD, EWR/JFK, LAS, MCO, PHL, ATL, IAD, CLT (but canc).....
I mustn't quote the particularly parochial comment............
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nine? ORD, EWR/JFK, LAS, MCO, PHL, ATL, IAD, CLT (but canc).....
Miami is the missing link there, but technically its 10 if you count SFB, after all, JFK and EWR are counted separately.
Last edited by LAX_LHR; 12th Jan 2015 at 16:59.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another website is quoting Andrew Cowan's weekly email to MAG staff:
"Passenger numbers continued to grow in December and reached 1,435,470, which was 99,000 or 7.4% higher than December 2013. Overall in 2014, 21.973 million passengers travelled through the airport and we expect to exceed the peak of 22.262 million reached in July 2006 over the coming months."
So MAN didn't quite make it to 22million after all. Looking forward to the busiest year ever in 2015 though hopefully.
"Passenger numbers continued to grow in December and reached 1,435,470, which was 99,000 or 7.4% higher than December 2013. Overall in 2014, 21.973 million passengers travelled through the airport and we expect to exceed the peak of 22.262 million reached in July 2006 over the coming months."
So MAN didn't quite make it to 22million after all. Looking forward to the busiest year ever in 2015 though hopefully.