MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another piece in the M.E.N
Manchester Airport boss looks back at 2014 - Manchester Evening News
Possibly not significant but I noticed something that isn't mentioned this time.
Manchester Airport boss looks back at 2014 - Manchester Evening News
Possibly not significant but I noticed something that isn't mentioned this time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear shed.. For the sake if others and the simple fact I'm a tad busybthiscam I will be brief.. I simply highlighted the anomaly of the reported figures v projected in a number of official maplc business plans actually post 9/11 so what's your point there? You asked me for the winning lottery numbers I simply highlighted I prefer to invest in equities rather than gamble on numbers. Mr big? I like that... I think I'll change my business cards.
Now go and find a friend to pick your toys up. Feel free to pm me to save others from further rants that the record will show you instigated. Please feel free to do so but don't expect a reply...
Now go and find a friend to pick your toys up. Feel free to pm me to save others from further rants that the record will show you instigated. Please feel free to do so but don't expect a reply...
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's worth looking back at the White Paper of 2003, the Future of Air Transport and the forecasting exercises done at that time to see what a different world that was. At a rough guess the DfT was at that time predicting around 27-32m at Manchester by 2014. They said that the existing terminal capacity is 30m and existing permissions would take that to 40-45m.
So what happened? MAN is at 22m instead of 27-32m. The national forecasts were hopelessly wrong. The global financial crisis destroyed most of the growth. There is a long list of culprits among whom I suggest the managers of MAN come rather low down on the list!
So what happened? MAN is at 22m instead of 27-32m. The national forecasts were hopelessly wrong. The global financial crisis destroyed most of the growth. There is a long list of culprits among whom I suggest the managers of MAN come rather low down on the list!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear lexoncd - Your Manchester Airport 'heads to roll' post is #543 on this thread. My first reply to you is #546. Yes, I'm sure all here will recognise that I instigated the topic. They'll never think to look back. My point was crystal clear: your call for 'heads to roll' was spiteful and unwarranted. You didn't 'simply highlight' the figures at all, so don't play the injured party now.
Now go away and reinvent history as you go along in your accustomed manner. No PM's required.
Now go away and reinvent history as you go along in your accustomed manner. No PM's required.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anothertyke's observation is helpful. In fact MAN was already under performing against the White Paper forecast before the financial crisis hit. This wasn't because the forecast was inaccurate, but mainly because MAN's management failed to engage with the leading LCCs, allowing LPL to grow rapidly to over 5mppa. If you looked at MAN and LPL together, the DfT's forecast was pretty good until the financial crisis hit.
So I think it is fair to criticise MAN's former management for some of the shortfall. But, as others have noted, the main players are long gone and are now largely discredited in the industry.
Overall, the shortfall against the White Paper forecast is probably split around 50:50 between MAG's own actions (in being late to the table on LCCs) and the 2008 financial crisis.
So I think it is fair to criticise MAN's former management for some of the shortfall. But, as others have noted, the main players are long gone and are now largely discredited in the industry.
Overall, the shortfall against the White Paper forecast is probably split around 50:50 between MAG's own actions (in being late to the table on LCCs) and the 2008 financial crisis.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BasilBush, excellent post if I may say.
In retrospect, MAN made a serious misjudgement about LCCs, believing they would be a short-term phenomenon, and preferred to stick with legacy carriers and charter operators. In the meantime, it saw its nearest competitor 30 miles up the road increase from 0.5m pax a year to over 5 million. The growth of the LCCs also created a change in the types of holiday with more folk doing DIY trips and shorter breaks, rather than the typical 1 or 2 week package holidays to which MAN was heavily committed. I'm sure that was a contributory factor why MAN lost nearly 25% of its passengers when the financial crisis struck.
It may have taken 8 years to almost get back to our record year, but personally I think it's to the credit of the present management that the position has recovered with easyJet and Ryanair now having a bigger base at MAN than at LPL (no disrespect to LPL). This has been achieved while retaining a strong presence by Thomson and Thomas Cook and seeing the development of Jet2.
In retrospect, MAN made a serious misjudgement about LCCs, believing they would be a short-term phenomenon, and preferred to stick with legacy carriers and charter operators. In the meantime, it saw its nearest competitor 30 miles up the road increase from 0.5m pax a year to over 5 million. The growth of the LCCs also created a change in the types of holiday with more folk doing DIY trips and shorter breaks, rather than the typical 1 or 2 week package holidays to which MAN was heavily committed. I'm sure that was a contributory factor why MAN lost nearly 25% of its passengers when the financial crisis struck.
It may have taken 8 years to almost get back to our record year, but personally I think it's to the credit of the present management that the position has recovered with easyJet and Ryanair now having a bigger base at MAN than at LPL (no disrespect to LPL). This has been achieved while retaining a strong presence by Thomson and Thomas Cook and seeing the development of Jet2.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In retrospect, MAN made a serious misjudgement about LCCs, believing they would be a short-term phenomenon, and preferred to stick with legacy carriers and charter operators
Not only has the LCC market grown, but, the traditional legacy carriers have also grown, with the addition of airlines/frequencies from TAP/LH/SK/KL/EI etc, maintaining a robust charter market, that even though is smoker than what it was, still has TCX/TOM as well as the smaller carriers in the UK such as Germania, Small planet and Condor.
Having such a broad range of carriers means your eggs are not all put in one basket. It means that if one of the carriers were to cut back, yes, it would set MAN back, but, would not be a disaster.
Look at Monarch, it has cut 5-6 routes from MAN this year, but, thankfully, the effects will be little felt due to increases on not just the routes Monarch have cut, but, other increases in general.
For example, Monarch have cut MAN-LCA, but, Jet2 are using an A330 on that route this year, and, Thomson are using a B787 there too, and TCX are adding 2 flights a week there. That should go some way to absorbing the Monarch loss. The loss of 5 routes in one go would have hit some airports very hard, but MAN, it was barely a drop in the ocean. That's not a bad position to be in.
What I do find interesting this year, is, winter is traditionally a weak season for MAN, as the charters cut back etc.
However, this winter, there have been many increases, which, mean winters are beginning to balance out against the summer. Not only have MAN just announced their busiest ever December, but, February will see more increases than I can ever remember in that month.
From February, Icelandair are running periods of 4-5 weekly, Emirates have just announced the 2nd daily A380, Etihad upgrading the morning flight to B77W for 2 months, Qatar returning to full 2 daily schedules, Easyjet begin 2 weekly Funchal and Flybe increase Amsterdam to 2 daily Mon-Fri.
So, yes, the original forecasts may well have been well off, and yes, the decision to turn away LCC's originally was a mistake, however, with MAN on the up financially, service wise and passenger number wise, even the 'glass half empty' crowd must be pleased with the way things are going at the moment.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I agree with you MANFOD, that the current management team is well on top of things, not just in their recognition of the vital nature of the two major LCCs, but also in nurturing the long haul market which is now on a path of strong growth. And MAG's success in rekindling a formerly moribund Stansted is very impressive. Well done to them!
The previous team's failures can't entirely be attributed to not recognising the LCC phenomenon. Even after it was blindingly obvious that the only growth in the short haul market was from LCCs, and that the legacy and charter markets were in serious decline, MAN pretended that it could deal with the LCCs by directing them to EMA. Of course, the key LCCs had long ago committed to LPL.
Of course you can understand their concern about not wanting to dilute revenues from legacy carriers and charter operators. But it took MAN an awfully long time to see the writing on the wall, by which time it was reduced to dealing with the 'also ran' LCCs such as bmibaby and (dare I say it) Jet2. The rest is history, but fortunately things are now on a much better footing.
Lax_lhr's observations about the breadth of MAN's traffic base is spot on. This diversity makes it much more resilient to specific events. And when our friend Bagso claims that "the Australians" are more interested in Stansted than Manchester, I would just point to the fact that MAN is a much less risky bet than STN, focussed as it is on a single demanding customer.
.
The previous team's failures can't entirely be attributed to not recognising the LCC phenomenon. Even after it was blindingly obvious that the only growth in the short haul market was from LCCs, and that the legacy and charter markets were in serious decline, MAN pretended that it could deal with the LCCs by directing them to EMA. Of course, the key LCCs had long ago committed to LPL.
Of course you can understand their concern about not wanting to dilute revenues from legacy carriers and charter operators. But it took MAN an awfully long time to see the writing on the wall, by which time it was reduced to dealing with the 'also ran' LCCs such as bmibaby and (dare I say it) Jet2. The rest is history, but fortunately things are now on a much better footing.
Lax_lhr's observations about the breadth of MAN's traffic base is spot on. This diversity makes it much more resilient to specific events. And when our friend Bagso claims that "the Australians" are more interested in Stansted than Manchester, I would just point to the fact that MAN is a much less risky bet than STN, focussed as it is on a single demanding customer.
.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so sure I agree. The resilience factor is more about why people fly rather than who they fly with. The MAN market is very leisure orientated and very UK focussed - majority being UK residents flying outbound for holiday and VFR. Therefore any UK factors that impact disposable incomes and discretionary spend in the MAN catchment will impact. True is same to an extent at all regional airports. London, including STN, benefit from a much larger share of inbound travel and so they are more insulated from UK specific factors. Nowhere is really immune from the type of geo-policitcal events such as the 2008 financial crisis.
I also think the criticism of the forecasts were fair. The numbers were initially to influence a very controversial planning application for R2 and so were more than just a regular round of DFT / Govt planning. I see no difference between the R2 campaign and the current round of posturing between LHR and LGW and so can't help but see the irony when folks representing MAN get agitated. Remember a well that part of the R2 campaign was to make the point that the traffic that would be attracted with a second runway was of a nature that could't be satisfied at other Northern airports. The fact that the airport has now gone after EZY and RYR (at the expense of other Northern airports) is also not without irony.
I also think the criticism of the forecasts were fair. The numbers were initially to influence a very controversial planning application for R2 and so were more than just a regular round of DFT / Govt planning. I see no difference between the R2 campaign and the current round of posturing between LHR and LGW and so can't help but see the irony when folks representing MAN get agitated. Remember a well that part of the R2 campaign was to make the point that the traffic that would be attracted with a second runway was of a nature that could't be satisfied at other Northern airports. The fact that the airport has now gone after EZY and RYR (at the expense of other Northern airports) is also not without irony.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the argument being made is that MAN is less exposed to specific risks, such as individual airline failures (or falling out with a key customer). You are right that MAN's traffic is heavily focussed on outbound leisure (although it has a higher business component than either Gatwick or Stansted). As such it is exposed to systematic risk, eg economic downturns. But in practice, MAN's traffic is probably more robust than STN in difficult economic times, given the extreme price sensitivity of much of STN's traffic, whether inbound or outbound.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tendency for project promoters to overstate demand is common and certainly not restricted to MAN's R2, or to the UK or even to airports. Worldwide this goes on when project promoters - roads, runways, railways, bridges etc want to persuade governments or private investors or banks to part with their cash to build their pet project.
I remember blanching with disbelief at the traffic projections even way back then and also the long forgotten mantra 'airlines are queuing up to get into Manchester'. From a very quick glance at some of these projections at the time, I seem to recall that direct services to Indonesia with Garuda were seriously expected to be in place by 2010. Made me laugh even then.
BHX overstated the need for very long haul services to justify their runway extension too.
Enjoy watching the hyperbole over the 'new runway in the SE'..........in fact there should be a prize for the most ridiculous over the top claim about what might happen in the event of there being no runway.
This happens. It's a game - albeit a very expensive one.
I remember blanching with disbelief at the traffic projections even way back then and also the long forgotten mantra 'airlines are queuing up to get into Manchester'. From a very quick glance at some of these projections at the time, I seem to recall that direct services to Indonesia with Garuda were seriously expected to be in place by 2010. Made me laugh even then.
BHX overstated the need for very long haul services to justify their runway extension too.
Enjoy watching the hyperbole over the 'new runway in the SE'..........in fact there should be a prize for the most ridiculous over the top claim about what might happen in the event of there being no runway.
This happens. It's a game - albeit a very expensive one.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North West,
I think you missed the point of my post.
The original statements were about Manchester's reluctance to welcome LCC's. I went on to state that the broad range of carriers means that MAN's exposure to airline cutbacks is much less severe than other airports that are reliant on a handful of carriers, ala the excel closure a few years ago.
In terms of market demographics, of course MAN is exposed being a predominantly outbound market, but, less so as a predominantly leisure airport, given the leisure aspect typically outranks the business aspect of Travellers demographics in the UK on average 60% leisure versus 40% business, even at Heathrow.
Therefore, if leisure travel suffers in the UK, every airport will suffer, not just MAN.
I think you missed the point of my post.
The original statements were about Manchester's reluctance to welcome LCC's. I went on to state that the broad range of carriers means that MAN's exposure to airline cutbacks is much less severe than other airports that are reliant on a handful of carriers, ala the excel closure a few years ago.
In terms of market demographics, of course MAN is exposed being a predominantly outbound market, but, less so as a predominantly leisure airport, given the leisure aspect typically outranks the business aspect of Travellers demographics in the UK on average 60% leisure versus 40% business, even at Heathrow.
Therefore, if leisure travel suffers in the UK, every airport will suffer, not just MAN.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
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.
Last edited by LAX_LHR; 14th Jan 2015 at 14:01.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the leisure proportion of the total market measured in passenger numbers is around 70%. I can't immediately find the split of domestic between business and leisure for some reason. Source DfT 2013 forecasting document.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did mean transit pax.
I'm getting incredibly frustrated with this tablet computer, its only from a recent software update that the auto correct feature was added, and, it keeps changing so many random words for what appears to be no reason at all.
Anyway, its good news that indeed the 22m pax figure was actually reached in 2014.
Your probably correct. I'm at home so couldn't access the document, so couldn't remember if it was 60/40 or 70/30
I'm getting incredibly frustrated with this tablet computer, its only from a recent software update that the auto correct feature was added, and, it keeps changing so many random words for what appears to be no reason at all.
Anyway, its good news that indeed the 22m pax figure was actually reached in 2014.
I think the leisure proportion of the total market measured in passenger numbers is around 70%.
Your probably correct. I'm at home so couldn't access the document, so couldn't remember if it was 60/40 or 70/30
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, he means transit pax, ie those arriving and departing on the same aircraft. His reference to LHR is mistaken - Heathrow has a lot of transfer pax but virtually no transit pax.
For the record (again):
Terminal pax = terminating (ie O&D) pax plus transfer (ie connecting) pax
Total pax = terminal pax plus transit pax
As a general rule, most inter-airport comparisons tend to be done on the basis of Terminal pax (ie including Transfers but excluding Transits). It's just a convention.
Returning to the topic of MAN's traffic make-up, the general dominance of leisure traffic is clear. According to the 2013 CAA survey, LHR had only 29.5% business pax, while MAN had 18.6%, LGW 13.3% and STN 14.1%.
See Table 2.2 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/81/2013CAAPaxSurveyReport.pdf
For the record (again):
Terminal pax = terminating (ie O&D) pax plus transfer (ie connecting) pax
Total pax = terminal pax plus transit pax
As a general rule, most inter-airport comparisons tend to be done on the basis of Terminal pax (ie including Transfers but excluding Transits). It's just a convention.
Returning to the topic of MAN's traffic make-up, the general dominance of leisure traffic is clear. According to the 2013 CAA survey, LHR had only 29.5% business pax, while MAN had 18.6%, LGW 13.3% and STN 14.1%.
See Table 2.2 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/81/2013CAAPaxSurveyReport.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, its good news that indeed the 22m pax figure was actually reached in 2014.
Domestic up 16.27% (12 months up 9.75%)
Sch. Intl. up 6.61% (10.63%)
Charter up 2.78% (-10.36%)
I wonder if the domestic increase is mainly due to flybe or Little Red.