MANCHESTER 1
Hmm let's see. The clue is obviously in "long established".
My first thought too was SQ, but quickly ruled out as I recall reading somewhere their freight loads alone from MAN justify the extension from Munich, and anything upstairs is a bonus. Also would be strange timing for them to retreat at the same time as Little Red disappearing - how would they feed their LHR flights ? Anyway, Shed says it's not SQ so we can move on.
From time to time PK have been rumoured to be moving their transit flights elsewhere, but that's now only 2pw JFK out of (I think) 9pw flights in total, so wouldn't constitute a total pull out. You would have to think the size of the Pakistan market in the NW would justify keeping their other flights to ISB and LHE.
Delta maybe ? Replaced already by VS to ATL, but then launching a JFK flight mid year so can hardly see them withdrawing it again already.
So that brings us to the European legacies, most of whom are said to be losing money on short haul flights in the face of fierce competition from the LCCs. But then short haul is what feeds the long haul at their hubs. Could Star be looking at sacrificing services by one of SN, LX, LH or SK in an attempt to strengthen traffic through the other three hubs ? Would be fairly catastrophic for the one who gets the short straw if part of a UK or Europe-wide Star restructure. And the rumour of Austrian resuming to another Star hub VIE goes against this theory.
KL, AF, LH are all attempting to outsource their short haul flying to lower cost operators to varying degrees. So could "long established" mean replacement of a legacy by one it's younger and leaner offspring ??
Or could it be a freight operator eg LH Cargo ? They certainly qualify as long established, and have reduced service lately.
C'mon Shed give us another clue
Long haul or short haul ?? Full service or low cost ??
My first thought too was SQ, but quickly ruled out as I recall reading somewhere their freight loads alone from MAN justify the extension from Munich, and anything upstairs is a bonus. Also would be strange timing for them to retreat at the same time as Little Red disappearing - how would they feed their LHR flights ? Anyway, Shed says it's not SQ so we can move on.
From time to time PK have been rumoured to be moving their transit flights elsewhere, but that's now only 2pw JFK out of (I think) 9pw flights in total, so wouldn't constitute a total pull out. You would have to think the size of the Pakistan market in the NW would justify keeping their other flights to ISB and LHE.
Delta maybe ? Replaced already by VS to ATL, but then launching a JFK flight mid year so can hardly see them withdrawing it again already.
So that brings us to the European legacies, most of whom are said to be losing money on short haul flights in the face of fierce competition from the LCCs. But then short haul is what feeds the long haul at their hubs. Could Star be looking at sacrificing services by one of SN, LX, LH or SK in an attempt to strengthen traffic through the other three hubs ? Would be fairly catastrophic for the one who gets the short straw if part of a UK or Europe-wide Star restructure. And the rumour of Austrian resuming to another Star hub VIE goes against this theory.
KL, AF, LH are all attempting to outsource their short haul flying to lower cost operators to varying degrees. So could "long established" mean replacement of a legacy by one it's younger and leaner offspring ??
Or could it be a freight operator eg LH Cargo ? They certainly qualify as long established, and have reduced service lately.
C'mon Shed give us another clue
Long haul or short haul ?? Full service or low cost ??
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logohu - There is always gossip swirling around the affairs of a major airport. Some of it comes to fruition, some does not. It wouldn't be right to report such gossip as 'fact' or a 'done deal'. Playing guessing games would not be fair on people who may potentially be affected. If a carrier does make an unwelcome decision we'll all find out about it at the appropriate time, hopefully after any employee(s) involved. So I'm afraid I can't make a game of this.
The real point of my earlier posting was to cool the widespread presumption that MAN is assured of a swashbuckling Summer. S15 will bring plenty of positive changes but quite afew negative ones as well. The healthy jump in throughput we'd all hoped for is substantially compromised by Ryanair's apparent plateauing this summer. Afew short weeks ago we were speculating upto three additional based B738's. Now (it seems) they're sticking with seven based (no change). Big difference, especially considering RYR config and utilisation. They're not now going to offset the Monarch / Little Red / 'Others' cutbacks. That job will fall to the list of new entrants we've all enjoyed reading about lately. Net growth can be measured only after those withdrawals have been offset.
The possibility of a (prolonged?) period of stagnation by Ryanair at MAN becomes a major concern at this point. Ideally, one would like to see their growth momentum maintained and Manchester Airport do its utmost to facilitate that. Of course (playing 'Devil's Advocate' here), there is always the possibility that MAG may not be too concerned by the medium-term capacity issues at T3 if Ryanair don't mind basing new additional frames at another in-house group terminal instead of MAN ... Stansted T1! I'm not suggesting that is happening, but it might actually suit both parties very well if it did. Readers here may prioritise growth at MAN specifically; MAG may be content to incentivise growth by Ryanair at other group sites rather than invest in expensive short-term fixes at T3, frontrunning major redevelopment further out? Just a thought ...
The Ryanair squeeze at T3 is the most obvious concern to draw our focus at this stage. If it was up to me, I'd like to see fuel connections to 56/57/58 established as a priority to make these stands 'Ryanair-friendly' for 25-minute turnarounds. Plus a MAG charm-offensive to persuade a couple of other carriers to switch from T3 to T1/T2. I guess that EasyJet (nine frames this summer?) do not face the same issues if they wish to expand further within T1. Likewise EXS, TCX, TOM etc at their respective terminals.
Any thoughts on the Ryanair conundrum? Under any long-term T3 redevelopment plan, I just can't see a major capacity increase being delivered there in less than two to three years at the very minimum. Probably more like five years? Will we be stuck at seven based Ryanair frames until then?
The real point of my earlier posting was to cool the widespread presumption that MAN is assured of a swashbuckling Summer. S15 will bring plenty of positive changes but quite afew negative ones as well. The healthy jump in throughput we'd all hoped for is substantially compromised by Ryanair's apparent plateauing this summer. Afew short weeks ago we were speculating upto three additional based B738's. Now (it seems) they're sticking with seven based (no change). Big difference, especially considering RYR config and utilisation. They're not now going to offset the Monarch / Little Red / 'Others' cutbacks. That job will fall to the list of new entrants we've all enjoyed reading about lately. Net growth can be measured only after those withdrawals have been offset.
The possibility of a (prolonged?) period of stagnation by Ryanair at MAN becomes a major concern at this point. Ideally, one would like to see their growth momentum maintained and Manchester Airport do its utmost to facilitate that. Of course (playing 'Devil's Advocate' here), there is always the possibility that MAG may not be too concerned by the medium-term capacity issues at T3 if Ryanair don't mind basing new additional frames at another in-house group terminal instead of MAN ... Stansted T1! I'm not suggesting that is happening, but it might actually suit both parties very well if it did. Readers here may prioritise growth at MAN specifically; MAG may be content to incentivise growth by Ryanair at other group sites rather than invest in expensive short-term fixes at T3, frontrunning major redevelopment further out? Just a thought ...
The Ryanair squeeze at T3 is the most obvious concern to draw our focus at this stage. If it was up to me, I'd like to see fuel connections to 56/57/58 established as a priority to make these stands 'Ryanair-friendly' for 25-minute turnarounds. Plus a MAG charm-offensive to persuade a couple of other carriers to switch from T3 to T1/T2. I guess that EasyJet (nine frames this summer?) do not face the same issues if they wish to expand further within T1. Likewise EXS, TCX, TOM etc at their respective terminals.
Any thoughts on the Ryanair conundrum? Under any long-term T3 redevelopment plan, I just can't see a major capacity increase being delivered there in less than two to three years at the very minimum. Probably more like five years? Will we be stuck at seven based Ryanair frames until then?
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 21st Feb 2015 at 03:50.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stafford
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised if the airline in question is indeed Delta, they've cut and changed JFK numerous times over the years. Now that ATL is in the hands of VS I think they could be the ones on the way out - the question is whether VS would take on JFK?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bramhall
Age: 50
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BmiR are the only likely candidate due to the unique relationship ABZ has to oil (and its price). Unfortunate as it is, it will not affect the airports position or future and should not be used as evidence of imminent doom by the usual suspects. It is clear growth will continue through the Summer. Anyone who disputes this is either playing devil's advocate or posting drivel.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etihad will use the B77W and A332 each daily to MAN from 29th March. The B77W will be used for their flights to FCO to replace the A332 (aircraft swap between MAN and FCO).
Emirates went the other way round as they removed the A380 from FCO to allocate this to MAN since 1st February.
Emirates went the other way round as they removed the A380 from FCO to allocate this to MAN since 1st February.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't buy losing airlines to already served destinations loses that much TBH.
Little Red / less BA shuttles, pax will use other routes, but still probably ex MAN in the main.
MON pax will end up on another carrier, such LS/TCX/TOM/U2/FR, they'll still go on holiday to such places even if it's not on MON.
If DL pulled out, maybe VS would would take JFK up with a better product.
The loss of carriers that are the only carrier on said route would have a much worse effect, so very glad to hear it's not SQ considering departing. I do wonder about Qatar though, consistent loss of pax for months now...maybe a switch to BHX maybe better for them in the face of such competition at MAN ? 188 pax per flight in JAN is average at best, it can't drop much more.
All in all though 2015 looks good so far, despite perceived cuts, and with further talk of more new airlines/routes for the time being growth will continue. I'd actually say the glass is more than half full.
Little Red / less BA shuttles, pax will use other routes, but still probably ex MAN in the main.
MON pax will end up on another carrier, such LS/TCX/TOM/U2/FR, they'll still go on holiday to such places even if it's not on MON.
If DL pulled out, maybe VS would would take JFK up with a better product.
The loss of carriers that are the only carrier on said route would have a much worse effect, so very glad to hear it's not SQ considering departing. I do wonder about Qatar though, consistent loss of pax for months now...maybe a switch to BHX maybe better for them in the face of such competition at MAN ? 188 pax per flight in JAN is average at best, it can't drop much more.
All in all though 2015 looks good so far, despite perceived cuts, and with further talk of more new airlines/routes for the time being growth will continue. I'd actually say the glass is more than half full.
Last edited by eggc; 21st Feb 2015 at 09:16.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised in a way that BA are reducing the number of LHR flights at the same time as Little Red are pulling out. I wonder if that suggests they are not so concerned about the amount of potential transfer business from MAN they are losing to other carriers flying to their hubs, or whether it reflects more on a reduction in domestic passengers due to greater use of the train.
BA have the ability to keep the number of seats fairly static while still managing to free up slots at LHR.
They could just be swapping equipment 319-321/320
cs
BA have the ability to keep the number of seats fairly static while still managing to free up slots at LHR.
They could just be swapping equipment 319-321/320
cs
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE BA
I think the London market has grown so enormous relative to the rest of the UK they possibly feel the regions are becoming more and more irrelevant to them.
Going East all their former markets from MAN, GLA, EDI, NCL are now served at multiple frequency by QR, Etihad, EK, THY etc. That only leaves ABZ and LBA.
It's odd that the main plank of BackHeathrow and indeed the Airport Commission review was connectivity, Little Red have almost gone and BA retracting frequency does not exactly sell the case !
I think the London market has grown so enormous relative to the rest of the UK they possibly feel the regions are becoming more and more irrelevant to them.
Going East all their former markets from MAN, GLA, EDI, NCL are now served at multiple frequency by QR, Etihad, EK, THY etc. That only leaves ABZ and LBA.
It's odd that the main plank of BackHeathrow and indeed the Airport Commission review was connectivity, Little Red have almost gone and BA retracting frequency does not exactly sell the case !
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is that odd? Surely if you want to make a case for a very expensive investment in a very congested location, as HAL does, you have to argue that the investment will improve connectivity between regions and the world and between the UK and the rest of the world in what is fundamentally a growth environment and thereby improve UK competitiveness. That is not odd. How else would you begin to assemble a convincing case?
The issue is whether those parts of the case are credible -- for example, will the market for domestic be fundamentally weak ;will HS2 trains be branded as BAxxxx with through ticketing ; will the northern economy improve or worsen relative to London? And so on.
The issue is whether those parts of the case are credible -- for example, will the market for domestic be fundamentally weak ;will HS2 trains be branded as BAxxxx with through ticketing ; will the northern economy improve or worsen relative to London? And so on.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
188 pax per flight in JAN is average at best, it can't drop much more.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if stats are wrong Ringwayman, obviously some duff info on another site !
"DOH-Manchester = 21,088 pax -10% = approx. 188/flight"
Someone wanna log on A.net and put him right
"DOH-Manchester = 21,088 pax -10% = approx. 188/flight"
Someone wanna log on A.net and put him right
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if stats are wrong Ringwayman, obviously some duff info on another site !
"DOH-Manchester = 21,088 pax -10% = approx. 188/flight"
did the flight operate every day as it was supposed to?
no dropped flights ?
cs
"DOH-Manchester = 21,088 pax -10% = approx. 188/flight"
did the flight operate every day as it was supposed to?
no dropped flights ?
cs
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to go back a page, but,
Shed:
You are correct, it is the numbers that do the talking, and with month on month increases in passenger figues, added premium capacity from the likes of Emirates (up to the A380) and Singapore (taking out economy seats to add more expensive premium economy seats), as well as the increased dividends paid out by the airport to the council, it seems you have to do a lot more work to prove a negative case than positive.
Im sorry to sound harsh, but, we are talking about the same airport here, aren't we? I mean, increases of some variety on the majority of our long haul network, several new carriers, several new based frames, more new routes than I have seen in a long long time (with still some major ones to come), linked to nearly every major EU capital for the first time in years, versus some, naturally expected decreases, I seem to be seeing a completely different picture to the one you paint
Is this in itself not to be seen as a positive? The fact we have such a broad range of carriers that MAN is not held to ransom by one or 2? Do we not remember what the XL collapse did to MAN? Surely it should be seen as a huge plaudit that the los of 3 based frames has been well and truly absorbed, I mean, that could be enough to really leave a smaller airport in the mire.
And why has the onus been left on Ryanair? Monarch loose 3 based, but, Easyjet, Thomas Cook, Enter Air and Jet2 have all added one based each, as has I think flybe. Im sorry, but I make that a net gain of 2 based aircraft already, before we even contemplate talking about away based flights.
1 route was dropped, which was a 3 weekly Bremen. Again, this was directly countered by adding a 6 weekly Stuttgart. And there lies another gain.
Im sorry if it seems I have singled out your post for scrutiny Shed, but, as you can see, this is one point I simply cannot agree with you on. Yes, we have lost some, but, I do personally think that what we have gained far outweigh those losses, and the pasenger number trend at the moment seems to back this up.
Shed:
It is the numbers which do the talking and they don't care what you or I think. The numbers are the same regardless of whether or you interpret them positively and I interpret them negatively.
Right now, the capacity increase projected for S15 versus S14 doesn't look so robust.
We may have been lulled into expecting otherwise because most of the setbacks are spread across a small subset of carriers, whilst new capacity is spread across many operators.
If Monarch had dropped three and Ryanair had added three most of the rest would be jam. But that didn't happen.
And don't forget, Ryanair dropped a couple of routes too. The gains v losses margin is tighter than we may have anticipated.
Im sorry if it seems I have singled out your post for scrutiny Shed, but, as you can see, this is one point I simply cannot agree with you on. Yes, we have lost some, but, I do personally think that what we have gained far outweigh those losses, and the pasenger number trend at the moment seems to back this up.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going East all their former markets from MAN, GLA, EDI, NCL are now served at multiple frequency by QR, Etihad, EK, THY etc.
It's not "odd" bagso, it's a reflection of reality. If the BA service was dropped tomorrow there's no way all of that capacity would suddenly be flying direct out of MAN, you'd leak to LBA of all places but more so to Virgin trains. Still glass half empty and all that jazz.....
Now genuine question, does anyone local have an informed view on why Emirates have leapt ahead leaving EY and QR behind at MAN? Is it really the A388 effect?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course (playing 'Devil's Advocate' here), there is always the possibility that MAG may not be too concerned by the medium-term capacity issues at T3 if Ryanair don't mind basing new additional frames at another in-house group terminal instead of MAN ... Stansted T1! I'm not suggesting that is happening, but it might actually suit both parties very well if it did
As LAX points out, it seems we are getting an 8th based a/c just for the month of August which certainly helps a little.
I’ve not checked again recently but I think Ryanair have just over 200 weekly departures a week from MAN in the summer. A minority, but significant, portion of those are with non-based a/c which avoids the early morning airfield congestion. Admittedly, these include all (I think) Dublin flights and perhaps all but one of Shannon services. 7 based a/c doing 3 departures a day all week (and for longer sectors it could only be 2) would mean 147 departures, at least 60 less than the schedule for the summer period. Someone may have a more accurate figure for flights with non-based a/c. While each non-based a/c movement may only offer a single extra departure a day compared with a based unit, it is a means by which Ryanair could continue to grow at MAN if there are terminal constraints early morning.
The additional flights from STN are not meeting demand from the North West. If Ryanair believe there is extra demand and potential from this region and had the aircraft available, is it conceivable that they may renew a stronger interest in their LPL operation if there are capacity constraints at MAN? Both Ryanair and EasyJet now have a stronger presence at MAN than LPL (it’s to the credit of MAN/MAG management that they eventually reacted and changed policy towards LCCs). However, MAN cannot be complacent and assume that the present situation will prevail. I’m not denigrating LPL but airports are in competition for business.
It’s reported that changes are being made to stand 49 on T3 with stand 50 becoming a bussing facility. Which airline(s) will be parking remote that makes this necessary (AA, US, flybe?) as I wouldn’t have thought bussing helped Ryanair’s 25 minute turnrounds. Depending on the scale, and of course remote stands being available, it could free up more stands on T3 itself.
Finally, I would question whether there is much spare space on T1 or even remote for airlines to move from T3. When you think that Easyjet have 9 based a/c, Jet2 in double figures and TCX, plus the overnight LH stoppers, I imagine T1 is pretty full first thing with quite a few remotes occupied too. T2 may have a little more space with the Monarch reduction and I don’t know what a/c TOM will have based.
I can only repeat that I find it difficult to assess how overall seat capacity will work out this summer. I'm confident there will be growth but the extent of that growth in my view is difficult to assess but the ACL start of season report will shed some light. And let's not forget that whatever seats are available, passengers still have to fill them.
Last edited by MANFOD; 21st Feb 2015 at 11:55.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not simply post the % increase in seats for the IATA summer 2015 scheduling period vs. the equivalent period in summer 2014.
This would seem a very simple and straightforward data point to make the argument one way or another.
Considering the number of posters who are happy to give the impression they are representatives of the airport company, I'm surprised it isn't being made available.
This would seem a very simple and straightforward data point to make the argument one way or another.
Considering the number of posters who are happy to give the impression they are representatives of the airport company, I'm surprised it isn't being made available.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"DOH-Manchester = 21,088 pax -10% = approx. 188/flight"
This was calculated on the basis of 10 flights a week with the morning flights operating on Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. I don't know how the 188 was arrived at, but if I've got it wrong please correct me. I thought the 4 evening flights only started February.
"Now genuine question, does anyone local have an informed view on why Emirates have leapt ahead leaving EY and QR behind at MAN? Is it really the A388 effect?"
I don't think that's unique to EK at MAN, I can't think of any airport in the world served by all the MEB3 (excluding DOH and AUH !!) where EK is not out in front in terms of market share. There's many reasons for this - they fly to more places more frequently than the others, superior brand and market awareness wherever they are, the A380 factor, attractive and user friendly website, good loyalty programme, top notch lounges, in flight entertainment, and so it goes on. Plus of course they've been around the longest - to an extent the other two have always been playing catch up. Like them or not, EK is a marketing juggernaut and even though I often find them to be more expensive than the other two, they seem to have no problem filling their planes and staying ahead.
In MAN's case EK also garnered massive local brand awareness and goodwill by making MAN the first "regional" airport on the planet to get a regular A380. The publicity and public response to that day in 2010 was staggering, and massively lifted EK's profile in the region.
I don't think that's unique to EK at MAN, I can't think of any airport in the world served by all the MEB3 (excluding DOH and AUH !!) where EK is not out in front in terms of market share. There's many reasons for this - they fly to more places more frequently than the others, superior brand and market awareness wherever they are, the A380 factor, attractive and user friendly website, good loyalty programme, top notch lounges, in flight entertainment, and so it goes on. Plus of course they've been around the longest - to an extent the other two have always been playing catch up. Like them or not, EK is a marketing juggernaut and even though I often find them to be more expensive than the other two, they seem to have no problem filling their planes and staying ahead.
In MAN's case EK also garnered massive local brand awareness and goodwill by making MAN the first "regional" airport on the planet to get a regular A380. The publicity and public response to that day in 2010 was staggering, and massively lifted EK's profile in the region.