MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks anothertyke.
There is no question of the taxpayer underwriting the £18bn. It would be a privately funded project, remunerated by higher airport charges regulated by CAA. The GAL R2 scheme, although cheaper, is actually more risky, as the Gatwick airlines are highly unlikely to stomach the uplift in airport charges. There's more risk to the taxpayer in the GAL scheme - don't believe the bluster coming from GAL, which is largely contradicted by easyJet's submission to Davies (which favours R3).
As for the £6bn of surface access costs at Heathrow, (i) the amount is disputed, ranging between a HAL estimate of under £1bn and a Davies estimate of £6bn, and (ii) there is no realistic prospect of this being taxpayer funded. As I've said several times, Davies has no mandate to say who should fund it. His report on funding notes that it is normal for scheme promoters (in this case HAL) to contribute, and also shows the impact of 100% funding by HAL. Recent precedent is that HAL has had to fund surface access costs, such as the Piccadilly Line and Hex extensions to T5, and it is inevitable that planning permission for R3 will be conditional on this.
Shed is one of the most valuable contributors to this thread, but I'm afraid he is barking up the wrong tree on this particular point. As for the latest comments about potential HAL financial distress, firstly HAL raises money at fixed rates over a very long term, so it is not exposed to rises in interest rates. Secondly, HAL's bonds are simply not guaranteed by taxpayers or anyone else, so that in the extremely unlikely event of HAL being unable to service its debts the only losers would be the bond holders. This is just scaremongering.
There is no question of the taxpayer underwriting the £18bn. It would be a privately funded project, remunerated by higher airport charges regulated by CAA. The GAL R2 scheme, although cheaper, is actually more risky, as the Gatwick airlines are highly unlikely to stomach the uplift in airport charges. There's more risk to the taxpayer in the GAL scheme - don't believe the bluster coming from GAL, which is largely contradicted by easyJet's submission to Davies (which favours R3).
As for the £6bn of surface access costs at Heathrow, (i) the amount is disputed, ranging between a HAL estimate of under £1bn and a Davies estimate of £6bn, and (ii) there is no realistic prospect of this being taxpayer funded. As I've said several times, Davies has no mandate to say who should fund it. His report on funding notes that it is normal for scheme promoters (in this case HAL) to contribute, and also shows the impact of 100% funding by HAL. Recent precedent is that HAL has had to fund surface access costs, such as the Piccadilly Line and Hex extensions to T5, and it is inevitable that planning permission for R3 will be conditional on this.
Shed is one of the most valuable contributors to this thread, but I'm afraid he is barking up the wrong tree on this particular point. As for the latest comments about potential HAL financial distress, firstly HAL raises money at fixed rates over a very long term, so it is not exposed to rises in interest rates. Secondly, HAL's bonds are simply not guaranteed by taxpayers or anyone else, so that in the extremely unlikely event of HAL being unable to service its debts the only losers would be the bond holders. This is just scaremongering.
Last edited by BasilBush; 29th Mar 2015 at 19:37.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this support for LHR from other cities is very forward thinking; in fact in advance of anything seen before on the UK Airports scene. 
So let's intoduce a few boring practicalities. First of all any advantages for them are very unlikely to be realised until LHR gets its additional runway capacity available.
Although LHR seem to be dangling the carrot of lower domestic charges from next year, who is going to take advantage of it when there will be no new slots? Airlines will therefore want to maximise the value of their slots and I don't think there will be any flights to LHR from unserved domestic destinations next year somehow.
When will new runway capacity become available? That's a big ask bearing in mind that firstly Davies has got to decide that LHR is the right place - quite likely on the basis that 2 chances out of 3 are at LHR ..and this assumes he makes a decision at all. But Davies having made a decision, what happens next?
The incoming Government (whoever he she or it may be) has to make a decision about what to do. I suspect it won't be a high priority bearing in mind all the other things that need fixing. Anything too controversial such as this will no doubt be parked on a taxiway somewhere for a while.
So assuming someone finally makes a decision to put another runway at LHR what happens then? There is the planning process to go through whatever that is this week as the rules seem to change every couple of years. And the possibility of endless legal challenges, the only winners of which are m'learned friends
So permission is finally granted, the runway is built and new slots are created? Who gets first dibs at them? Under the EU slot regs, "new carriers" at LHR (basically those with very few per day) have 50% ringfenced for them. The remaining new slots go into the pool. But you can't ring fence slots for domestic routes unless they are seen as Public Service Obligation route which have to be approved by the Government under EU set criteria. And current UK Government policy is very strict.
However, that last paragraph may be nullified if the UK exits the EU
. But there again the UK government may chose to leave some non- controversial EU laws such as this on the statute book; if not maybe new legislation will have to be enacted?
The upshot of all this is that I think it will be a very, very long time before any new domestic routes into LHR will happen. In the meanwhile the world will go on and if airlines wish to continue to develop in the UK market, they will look at opportunities outside London.
If the cities that are supporting LHR expansion are expecting something to happen in the near future, I think they will be disappointed. So they ought to be also looking at supporting other airports in their regions that can support flights to new long haul destinations in the short term as well as backing LHR for the longer term.
So let's intoduce a few boring practicalities. First of all any advantages for them are very unlikely to be realised until LHR gets its additional runway capacity available.
Although LHR seem to be dangling the carrot of lower domestic charges from next year, who is going to take advantage of it when there will be no new slots? Airlines will therefore want to maximise the value of their slots and I don't think there will be any flights to LHR from unserved domestic destinations next year somehow.
When will new runway capacity become available? That's a big ask bearing in mind that firstly Davies has got to decide that LHR is the right place - quite likely on the basis that 2 chances out of 3 are at LHR ..and this assumes he makes a decision at all. But Davies having made a decision, what happens next?
The incoming Government (whoever he she or it may be) has to make a decision about what to do. I suspect it won't be a high priority bearing in mind all the other things that need fixing. Anything too controversial such as this will no doubt be parked on a taxiway somewhere for a while.
So assuming someone finally makes a decision to put another runway at LHR what happens then? There is the planning process to go through whatever that is this week as the rules seem to change every couple of years. And the possibility of endless legal challenges, the only winners of which are m'learned friends
So permission is finally granted, the runway is built and new slots are created? Who gets first dibs at them? Under the EU slot regs, "new carriers" at LHR (basically those with very few per day) have 50% ringfenced for them. The remaining new slots go into the pool. But you can't ring fence slots for domestic routes unless they are seen as Public Service Obligation route which have to be approved by the Government under EU set criteria. And current UK Government policy is very strict.
However, that last paragraph may be nullified if the UK exits the EU
. But there again the UK government may chose to leave some non- controversial EU laws such as this on the statute book; if not maybe new legislation will have to be enacted?The upshot of all this is that I think it will be a very, very long time before any new domestic routes into LHR will happen. In the meanwhile the world will go on and if airlines wish to continue to develop in the UK market, they will look at opportunities outside London.
If the cities that are supporting LHR expansion are expecting something to happen in the near future, I think they will be disappointed. So they ought to be also looking at supporting other airports in their regions that can support flights to new long haul destinations in the short term as well as backing LHR for the longer term.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And changing tack entirely, having spent some time over the weekend studying the linked ACL Summer '15 report, I have noticed a couple of interesting snippets which I don't recall seeing discussed previously on here.
Firstly, SAS SCANDINAVIAN plans to grace MAN with an additional 61,606 seats this season. That is an impressive upgrade, surpassing the numbers added by the third daily THY service and coming close the the 64,544 added by Emirates equipment changes. No doubt greater use of A321 equipment accounts for much of this increase but there are 137 additional movements in there as well.
ONUR AIR will not be serving MAN this Summer. They seem to have been around for ever. EVELOP! will also be absent, but they did not have such a long-established presence here as OHY, or the frequency of flights.
JET2's programme sees a fall of 7,289 seats across the season. This is a small drop, but the fact that there is a drop at all is disappointing. Jet2 includes a number of B752+B738 operations in place of the cancelled Air Asia X A333 lease, and allows for absorption of the former Blackpool programme. They also don't take up any of the Monarch Airlines shortfall.
MAN's overall projected increase in seats for the S15 season at 229,635 includes 13,320 seats attributed to Hainan Airlines and 11,468* for Austrian Airlines. Neither of the scheduled services proposed by these carriers are confirmed at this stage. With these two carriers excluded, the increase stands at just 204,847 seats. Quite fragile growth.
*Clarification: The Austrian Airlines figure is not exact, as I deducted the same number of seats as last year to represent the tail-end of the ski-season charters running into April.
Plenty of other interesting reading in the report, but most of it will not be new to regulars on this forum.
Firstly, SAS SCANDINAVIAN plans to grace MAN with an additional 61,606 seats this season. That is an impressive upgrade, surpassing the numbers added by the third daily THY service and coming close the the 64,544 added by Emirates equipment changes. No doubt greater use of A321 equipment accounts for much of this increase but there are 137 additional movements in there as well.
ONUR AIR will not be serving MAN this Summer. They seem to have been around for ever. EVELOP! will also be absent, but they did not have such a long-established presence here as OHY, or the frequency of flights.
JET2's programme sees a fall of 7,289 seats across the season. This is a small drop, but the fact that there is a drop at all is disappointing. Jet2 includes a number of B752+B738 operations in place of the cancelled Air Asia X A333 lease, and allows for absorption of the former Blackpool programme. They also don't take up any of the Monarch Airlines shortfall.
MAN's overall projected increase in seats for the S15 season at 229,635 includes 13,320 seats attributed to Hainan Airlines and 11,468* for Austrian Airlines. Neither of the scheduled services proposed by these carriers are confirmed at this stage. With these two carriers excluded, the increase stands at just 204,847 seats. Quite fragile growth.
*Clarification: The Austrian Airlines figure is not exact, as I deducted the same number of seats as last year to represent the tail-end of the ski-season charters running into April.
Plenty of other interesting reading in the report, but most of it will not be new to regulars on this forum.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quoteJET2's programme sees a fall of 7,289 seats across the season. This is a small drop, but the fact that there is a drop at all is disappointing.][/quote]
Shed, this surprised me as the ACL report also refers to two additional based a/c.
However, I recall reading elsewhere there will be two spare a/c this summer. Were there any spare based last summer?
As I noted earlier, the peak week shows an increase in both movements and available seats (nearly 5% for the latter), which suggests greater concentration in their programme on the peak part of the summer season with perhaps some schedules starting later or finishing earlier. Nevertheless, the overall reduction, although small, is disappointing, especially as expectations were for something better.
Shed, this surprised me as the ACL report also refers to two additional based a/c.
However, I recall reading elsewhere there will be two spare a/c this summer. Were there any spare based last summer?
As I noted earlier, the peak week shows an increase in both movements and available seats (nearly 5% for the latter), which suggests greater concentration in their programme on the peak part of the summer season with perhaps some schedules starting later or finishing earlier. Nevertheless, the overall reduction, although small, is disappointing, especially as expectations were for something better.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dootz. Unless I'm mistaken I don't think that actual load factor data is routinely published, either by ACL or CAA. CAA publish load factor by airline but not by airport. Some airports state average load factors in their monthly traffic stats, but I don't think MAG normally does this (although I have seen some numbers being selectively quoted in the past suggesting the average load factor is in the high 70s).
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The inbound VS110 from Atlanta received a water cannon salute this morning to celebrate the swap with Delta.
Slight problem, however, that the aircraft was doused in foam, rather than water....
Outbound flight now delayed until 1315.
Ooops.
Slight problem, however, that the aircraft was doused in foam, rather than water....
Outbound flight now delayed until 1315.
Ooops.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point about LFs achieved and what might happen this summer.
In terms of seats available from the ACL report, one interpretation might be that the huge loss of 495,000 seats by MON is more than compensated by the additional capacity provided by RYR, EZY, TOM & TCX (about 560,000 seats).
It has been suggested, not unreasonably, that the reason for MON dropping routes was disappointing LFs (and presumably yields).
Does it therefore follow that if the 4 carriers mentioned can achieve higher LFs on their additional capacity than MON, then MAN should achieve a better result than the seats available statistics indicate, providing that LFs for other airlines and routes are maintained?
In terms of seats available from the ACL report, one interpretation might be that the huge loss of 495,000 seats by MON is more than compensated by the additional capacity provided by RYR, EZY, TOM & TCX (about 560,000 seats).
It has been suggested, not unreasonably, that the reason for MON dropping routes was disappointing LFs (and presumably yields).
Does it therefore follow that if the 4 carriers mentioned can achieve higher LFs on their additional capacity than MON, then MAN should achieve a better result than the seats available statistics indicate, providing that LFs for other airlines and routes are maintained?
In terms of seats available from the ACL report, one interpretation might be that the huge loss of 495,000 seats by MON is more than compensated by the additional capacity provided by RYR, EZY, TOM & TCX (about 560,000 seats).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight problem, however, that the aircraft was doused in foam, rather than water....
Outbound flight now delayed until 1315.
Outbound flight now delayed until 1315.
I suspect someone is due a "hats-on" interview with no tea and biccies....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carriers which provide direct employment and connectivity from OUR hub solution here at MAN. We are not being unpatriotic by opposing economically
None of this make MAN a hub, for that one needs critical mass of connectivity of which MAN has no based or in situ carrier to provide. A spoke it remains, albeit a very succesful one.
....VS not happy bunnies at the mo
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that apart from Flybe and their partners, MAN is no hub. The small numbers of connecting PAX in the CAA figures tell us that. But my question is could it become one?
What if MAN had its APD slashed and Flybe went into a growth drive and simultaneously started to feed additional carriers like SQ and the Caribbean charters. Could we see our flights in from the US connecting with alliance partners into Europe? Could we encourage one of the MEB3 to operate into the US via MAN like we've heard rumours for? What could MAN do?
What if MAN had its APD slashed and Flybe went into a growth drive and simultaneously started to feed additional carriers like SQ and the Caribbean charters. Could we see our flights in from the US connecting with alliance partners into Europe? Could we encourage one of the MEB3 to operate into the US via MAN like we've heard rumours for? What could MAN do?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Ken O'Toole moving from a group to a specific MAN role as MD, and Andrew Cowan (formerly COO for MAN) responsible for Strategy (Group), this might suggest a greater focus and impetus on MAN's development.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness ... If you revisit the line which you quote from my earlier posting, you will note that I refer to MAN as "our hub solution". "Our" in this case referring to the North of England. Note also that word "solution". I do not refer to MAN as a mature hub or the finished article. It is a work-in-progress. But if developed to its full potential alongside the UK's other large regional airports, it is a solution offering UK plc far greater value for money than the prohibitively expensive proposals for LHR R3. And actually a BETTER solution than LHR for the regions themselves.
Now, that is the second occasion I've answered the same question over recent days in response to your challenges. Now, your turn. How about you enlighten us about the issue which you so carefully avoid? Can you explain to us how spending almost three times the inflation-adjusted cost of delivering the entire Channel Tunnel project on constructing just one additional runway at LHR makes financial sense over developing the major airports in the regions at a small fraction of the price? And please let's stick to the numbers on this one. The 'London Pride' angle doesn't wash too well with we investment-starved provincials in Manchester.
Now, that is the second occasion I've answered the same question over recent days in response to your challenges. Now, your turn. How about you enlighten us about the issue which you so carefully avoid? Can you explain to us how spending almost three times the inflation-adjusted cost of delivering the entire Channel Tunnel project on constructing just one additional runway at LHR makes financial sense over developing the major airports in the regions at a small fraction of the price? And please let's stick to the numbers on this one. The 'London Pride' angle doesn't wash too well with we investment-starved provincials in Manchester.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memo to Ken O' Toole:
Congrats on the promotion! Now sort out some more quick-turnaround stands for your old employer to expand onto. Fuel linkage and safe walkways to stands 56 / 57 / 58 would be a great start. MAN urgently needs those additional high-utilisation B738's to kickstart the growth momentum again ...
Congrats on the promotion! Now sort out some more quick-turnaround stands for your old employer to expand onto. Fuel linkage and safe walkways to stands 56 / 57 / 58 would be a great start. MAN urgently needs those additional high-utilisation B738's to kickstart the growth momentum again ...
