MANCHESTER 1

[Bagso]

ah see I have been mentioned in despatches.

Whilst a few on here seem to think I am evangelical about Manchester it's not total blind faith. Honest !

As Basil says we do 3m ...its a spot on the backside of humanity compared to London , and yes I do think the article was more about the spat between LHR and LGW which is becoming quite comedic as its becomes more and more desperate !

When you note what they have down there and the volume of wide bodies I am truly staggered that we even achieve 22M, a not insignificant figure against their 72m especially when you consider the volume of wide bodies which roll in and out every 90 seconds and having one of the largest based fleets in the World. Bit different to a dozen FlyBees.

So given all that dosh down and the fact that as we are constantly reminded they are rolling in money, it makes perfect sense to fund all aspects of the runway etc themselves.

No problem with that ! But Sorry not with my taxes !

I do object to them coming to up North cap hand "suggesting" how fortunate we will be when we get this connectivity but then suggesting same breath we fund what in truth will be a THIRD of the cost !

After all with a dozen shuttles a day in place already what benefit is there to Manchester anyway, we already have the connectivity as does GLA, EDI, NCL LBA etc

Sorry I would much rather see our proportion spent of that £6B spent on infrastructure in the N West. I'm sure folk in GLA EDI NCL and LBA think the same !

So there we go £1Billion each spread across the country ! All in it together !

We have NEVER had that sort of investment up here !

As ever its how the question is phrased, do you want connectivity to Heathrow ( I discount LGW as it is irrelevant people out side Surrey) yes please !

OR

Do you want the money spent on other Capital projects in your area ! Trains, Schools , Hospitals ,

.....how about a government loan for those upgrades to T1 T2 T3 at MANCHESTER....then call it a national asset as well ?

And don't say you can separate them out because you can't. It's OUR taxes that will be footing this bill.


One other point if it is LHR and its OUR £6Billion plus the other £11Billion from HAL that is eye watering.

One for Skip how long will it take for both HAL and us as tax payers to actually get a return ?

I reckon 20 years !


PS Basil, I detest fox hunting but may be persuaded to change my mind come next election !

[BasilBush]

Fairdealfrank

You and me too. Note that your first quote doesn't actually come from the original article - it was a mischaracterisation of what Holland-Kaye said (which was clearly aimed at Gatwick, not 'regional' airports anyway).

Bagso

Glad to be of service! Actually I tend to agree with you on the public funding point. I really can't understand why we are backtracking on the principle that airports should fund their development themselves. Including related infrastructure. After all, the former BAA had to pay the full cost of Heathrow Express, extending the Piccadilly Line to T5 etc. Why change that approach now? If airlines won't pay airport charges that are high enough to remunerate the total investment, then doesn't it say something about the viability of the overall project? Of course this is the fatal problem for the Gatwick "obviously" case - namely that the likes of easyJet will never agree to the increase in airport charges that would be necessary to remunerate a second runway. At least there is some prospect of the Heathrow airlines paying up.

[Fairdealfrank]

ah see I have been mentioned in despatches.

Whilst a few on here seem to think I am evangelical about Manchester it's not total blind faith. Honest !

As Basil says we do 3m ...its a spot on the backside of humanity compared to London , and yes I do think the article was more about the spat between LHR and LGW which is becoming quite comedic as its becomes more and more desperate !

Because there's a lot at stake: does the UK remain the major European hub or become a backwater.

When you note what they have down there and the volume of wide bodies I am truly staggered that we even achieve 22M, a not insignificant figure against their 72m especially when you consider the volume of wide bodies which roll in and out every 90 seconds and having one of the largest based fleets in the World. Bit different to a dozen FlyBees.

So given all that dosh down and the fact that as we are constantly reminded they are rolling in money, it makes perfect sense to fund all aspects of the runway etc themselves.

No problem with that !

But Sorry not with my taxes !

No, not with your taxes. Private sector investment will come from the private sector.

Funny that you complain about aviation infrastructure spending but are silent about rail infrastructure spending, where it could be argued that far less is spent in Manchester (Northern hub notwithstanding) than in London, where a case can actually be made.

I do object to them coming to up North cap hand "suggesting" how fortunate we will be when we get this connectivity but then suggesting same breath we fund part of this.

After all with a dozen shuttles a day in place already what benefit is there to Manchester anyway, we already have the connectivity as does GLA, EDI, NCL LBA etc

Sorry I would much rather see our proportion spent of that £6B spent on infrastructure in the N West. I'm sure folk in GLA EDI NCL and LBA think the same ! So there we go £1Billion each spread across the country !

The whole country benefits from the increase in connectivity by expanding LHR provided that domestic links on thin routes are available (ringfenced if neccessary).

What £6 billion are you refering to?

.....how about a government loan for those upgrades to T1 T2 T3 at MANCHESTER....then call it a national asset as well ?

Good idea if MAN has to survive on govt. handouts. Regretably it will fall foul of EU regulations.

However, if govt. handouts for airports were to be available, it would be better spent on stuggling airports than a profitable eneterprise like Ringway. If MAG needs the money for terminal development, then sell STN.

Fairdealfrank

You and me too. Note that your first quote doesn't actually come from the original article - it was a mischaracterisation of what Holland-Kaye said (which was clearly aimed at Gatwick, not 'regional' airports anyway).

Would have thought so too (obviously, as they say at LGW), but there are those who took it as an attack on regional airports. Who knows why!

[Bagso]

doesn't it say something about the viability of the overall project?

One THIRD is Government money..! OURS

Only Two Thirds is Private investment !

THAT in my book is a "Government Hand Out" so yes if its good enough fro LHR a "much smaller amount" is good enough for Manchester !

Where are the ROI figures for Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle etc based on this patronage ?

SHD and indeed the adverts keep banging on about connectivity, this tsunami of wealth coursing at lightening speed thru the arteries of the country as whole.

What does it actually amount to in GLA NCL LBA ?

They may end up getting an extra shuttle a day OR maybe Exeter and IOM gaining a twice daily A320 !

AND OH MY GOD "Rail Investment" high on rhetoric low on investment at least in the N West where we have just inherited a load of clapped out shunters from Thameslink ....who funnily enough are getting brand new shiny bright rolling stock !

How about comparisons with investment in London Underground, Cross rail London etc

[Fairdealfrank]

What does it actually amount to GLA NCL LBA getting an extra shuttle a day OR maybe Exeter and IOM gaining a twice daily A320 ! 15th Jan 2015 19:07

Those 3 airports' managements plus ABZ and LPL recently sent out an joint open letter supporting LHR expansion. They must have good reasons for this.

All have links to/from LHR except LPL, who may want them.

[Skipness One Echo]

One other point if it is LHR and its OUR £6Billion plus the other £11Billion from HAL that is eye watering.
One for Skip how long will it take for both HAL and us as tax payers to actually get a return ?

THAT in my book is a "Government Hand Out" so yes if its good enough fro LHR a "much smaller amount" is good enough for Manchester !

Fair point, I think two things come to mind.
1) Heathrow has had to rebuild T2 right after building the new T5, with T1 to come down and potentially a new runway to be funded. The airlines are already screaming blue murder about charges at LHR, BA are in dispute with HAL over what they see as a rip off. Hence taxpayer getting on board to part fund a major national infrastructure scheme.
2) Any ROI at LHR will be calculated off the back of a wider benefit to UK PLC as a whole, whereas MAN's benefit would not be as great. Hence, literally, national vs local.

I do agree there is a good case for the taxpayer getting involved at MAN as the wider strategic benefits to business of an improved airport are self evident. Let's be honest, LHR has been torn down and almost rebuilt from the ground up. MAN needs the same for T3 and T1, in my view. It suffers from what LHR had until recently, piecemeal development, a "that'll do" attitude.

#joineduptransportpolicy

[cumbrianboy]

Does anyone have any information or links to the terminal developments at MAN?

[BasilBush]

I'm afraid you'll have to be a little more patient, Cumbrianboy. Nothing is yet in the public domain.

[Ringwayman]

No, that article doesn't dismiss entirely the notions of long-haul regional hub flying. Just look at BA. Perhaps something for the analysts to do: list all the non-hub airport that BA operates to on long-haul routes

However, someone should prod him and say the major airline at LHR had a VERY VERY unhealthy appetite for blocking any airlines for having the temerity of wanting to fly to MAN (or wherever). Then all the "encouragement" that airline gave to airlines who flew to MAN for years than magically upped sticks making passengers take the LHR route. Then the warped behaviour of steering premium passengers to ignore their own non-stop routes out the regions in favour of routing over LHR.

Airbus and Boeing may as well not bothered with the A350 and 787 if the airlines are only interested in routing long-haul into hubs. I wonder it is because they are frightened of regional long-haul because that for years that have listened to some ignoramus analysts state there's no demand. What will it take to for them to wake up? EK operating 2 A380s + 2 77W each day, with EY doing a minimum 2 77Ws and QR picking up the slack with 2 787s/A350s per day collectively carting hundreds of passengers per day through their hubs into other airlines home airports? You've just got to look at the CX figures and wonder what on earth what kept them from coming back. On the face of it the A350-900 is not going to be big enough for the routes seeing that was the type touted for this route.

[Skipness One Echo]

Ringwayman that's true from BOAC all the way back to kicking SABENA off MAN-Idlewild. BA was schizophrenic in it's departmentalisation. One part of BA fought for high value clients to route MAN-LHR-JFK while BA Regional fought for MAN-JFK. BA are their own worst enemy outside of LHR.

However I don't understand when you claim :

Airbus and Boeing may as well not bothered with the A350 and 787 if the airlines are only interested in routing long-haul into hubs. I wonder it is because they are frightened of regional long-haul because that for years that have listened to some ignoramus analysts state there's no demand. What will it take to for them to wake up?

Wake up to what? You do know BA fly the B787-8 with the -9 to come? Can you point me to some "ignoramus analyst" using the phrase "no demand". Most regular posters understand the concept of demand varying, I don't think anyone said there was none whatsoever. The huge selling point of the B787 as the hub buster btw, this was the exact same selling point of the B767-300ER ruthlessly used by American Airlines into Europe before they retreated to LHR hub (!) as STAR ALLIANCE domination ate them alive on the continent. Both models are still there, hubs and p2p. Careful in buying the marketing BS. The only comparable p2p long haul operation in the UK is Norwegian and the jury remains out on ROI.

No one, not one person of note, thinks there is no demand for long haul flying or premium travel out of MAN. I think nowadays, in the second decade of the 21st century, some people are arguing against a point that no one is even making anymore.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

It is wholly unsurprising that AIRPORT MANAGERS would come out in support of a project which may result in their facility receiving afew additional flights. But what about the bigger picture? What would senior council figures in Liverpool favour if instead offered a couple of billion pounds to completely replace the bottleneck which is Lime Street Station, constrained by Victorian cuttings and tunnels, half the size it really needs to be? Do that and they could accommodate more frequent rail services to London (in line with Manchester, perhaps), rail services direct to Scotland (which they currently cannot squeeze in), and - even - that desperately coveted direct link to HS2? Now that would beat three flights daily to LHR ... for a fraction of the cost.

How would senior council figures in Sheffield react if instead of being offered 'trickledown' from a third LHR runway they were to at last gain a transpennine motorway (Liverpool, Manchester and North Wales would really benefit from that as well).

Obviously, I could go on with a dozen similar examples but these two long-stalled proposals demonstrate the point. If six billion in public funding (the number came from the 'Runways UK' debate, BTW) were to be blown on LHR expansion, that money cannot then be made available for projects of merit in the regions. It can't be spent twice. And let's face it: the regions are long overdue their turn in the sun. The SE appears to have a conveyor belt of multi-billion-pound infrastructure projects being approved one after another; in the North, we're still awaiting our first one-billion-plus publicly funded innovation. Will the North be next up, or will it be LHR R3, Crossrail 2 [27.5 Billion for that one - WOW!], or more underground extensions first?

It is great to see the fantastic infrastructure now enjoyed by London and the SE. I don't begrudge it. But public money comes from taxpayers nationally and the largesse needs to be equitably spread around. What about the 70% of the population who live outside the SE?

The argument that six billion of public funding contributed to R3 at LHR can be justified because it benefits all of us is hogwash. We have long memories. The Channel Tunnel was going to benefit all of us up here ("not just London") because the big northern cities were going to get daily trains direct to the continent as well. Our regional business leaders supported that proposal too but we're still waiting for payback. I suspect we'll be whistling in the wind for many years more yet. No sign of that promised Manchester Piccadilly to Gare du Nord Eurostar which was promised in return for northern support.

Sir Richard Leese put it best at the recent Manchester Airport 'Runways' event: "In my experience, trickledown really does mean a trickle!"

Let's face it, infrastructure spending in London benefits London. The 'trickledown' we see up here is microscopic. Indeed, wealth is extracted from our regions as London heats up still further. Business planners favour the shiny state-of-the-art facilities provided in the SE. They aren't queueing up to ride to their new HQ on our 'Pacers'. The time has come for London to pause and digest it's existing (fantastic) recently-added innovations. We're long overdue seeing the PUBLIC portion of infrastructure spending head into the regions for a change.

"Minister, what have you done for Middlesbrough recently? Stoke? Barnsley? Blackburn? Sheffield? ..."

[Bagso]

My God Skip, we may exchange cards next Christmas !

[Homo Simpson]

Shed that is a very good post.
I don't hate london or begrudge spending there. But I do think that there is a very blinkered view that ignores the rest of the country. Manchester clearly has a lot to offer in terms of an alternative for some people to the likes of Heathrow. Nobody believes it is going to be a big hub but it can and has to use that potential to offer more than the status quo.
I just don't buy into the nobody will want to invest and it's bad for the UK if they can't fly into Heathrow.

[sarah19981]

Hainan

Hainan airlines apparently have the slots for Manchester with 4 weekly to PEK! Can anyone else confirm this? if this is correct or is it just Barter?

[gazza007]

The Future

I would love to see the forum focus on MAN; time to leave the arguments about our friends in the South and London Airways to them and the correct forums. Irrespective of Howard Davies etc. things will happen for them and all the best. we now have the impetus following the recent devolved powers to GM to move forward in developing and promoting the northern hub with MAN and it's Great City and Towns at the centre. This means jobs and prosperity for our local economy and the great people who live here. Many of them from the South including my Fiancé who realise that there is live outside of the M25. Lol

[MANFOD]

Re Increase in Dec. Domestic pax.

when the CAA figures come out we will be able to get an idea but at a guess I would say Flybe.

The increase seems to be shared Ian. LHR pax up 11,000 (we don't know the BA/VS split) but good increases for flybe on Exeter, Southampton and Newquay.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

gazza007 - Airports do not operate in isolation. MAN's future prospects cannot be meaningfully considered without taking account of developments affecting its principal competitors. Certainly, LHR is one of these, and a third runway there would affect MAN. To what extent would it affect MAN? Well, that's part of the reason we discuss the topic. Clearly, a second runway at LGW would impact MAN far less, as well as leaving a much larger sum of taxpayer funds available for public infrastructure initiatives elsewhere in the UK. It is anticipated that LHR R3 would cost GBP6 Billion in public funds (plus private investment) whilst LGW R2 would require sub-GBP1 Billion from the taxpayer.

Like yourself, I welcome the 'Devo-Manc' proposals. But we do need to keep this in perspective. The government budget for this is GBP1 Billion (spread across all functions). Compare this with Crossrail 2: projected cost (from private and public funding) is GBP27.5 billion and LHR R3 is GBP18.5 Billion. One analyst already anticipates a GBP4 Billion overrun on top of that LHR figure. Now you see the problem. It is all about scale.

As we all know, MAN is planning for a major re-development of its terminal complex. It will be very interesting to note the costing projections for this and to observe how the required capital will be raised and over what time-frame.

[MANFOD]

Good news for the city of Manchester.

Birmingham and Manchester listed as top business travel cities

But oh dear, what's missing in the narrative? A bit of PR for Manchester as well as Birmingham wouldn't have gone amiss.

[getonittt]

Good news for the city of Manchester.

Birmingham and Manchester listed as top business travel cities

But oh dear, what's missing in the narrative? A bit of PR for Manchester as well as Birmingham wouldn't have gone amiss.

Rennes at No 14!! Rennes for goodness sake ... that is all I'm saying on the matter.

[Suzeman]

An award for Manchester

From bagso's favourite paper

Manchester Airport IS the best airport, according to new award - Manchester Evening News