MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re VS109, I assume that relates to the whitewash instead of the water cannon.
I suspect a nice bill will be coming the airport's way.
I suspect a nice bill will be coming the airport's way.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed as I have said before, "it's full potential" is almost meaningless as it means different things to different people. It's qualitative rather than quantitative. MAN cannot maximise potential throughput as a spoke, it needs a based network carrier, and I don't mean fly(may)be. Since BA can't make money hubbing at MAN that means, honestly, full potential is limited to competing for business as a spoke. Nothing wrong with that in the current trading environment.
Btw the Virgin farce is beyond parody. What were they celebrating? The third decade of ATL-MAN? 😉
Btw the Virgin farce is beyond parody. What were they celebrating? The third decade of ATL-MAN? 😉
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANFOD
According to the latest CAA survey, which dates from 2013, just 2.6% of MAN's passengers were making a connection at the airport.
I know that MAN needs a compelling vision for the airport's future, but I can't help feeling that this fascination with being some kind of hub (which has been a hobbyhorse of successive management teams at MAN for about 30 years) isn't really realistic.
According to the latest CAA survey, which dates from 2013, just 2.6% of MAN's passengers were making a connection at the airport.
I know that MAN needs a compelling vision for the airport's future, but I can't help feeling that this fascination with being some kind of hub (which has been a hobbyhorse of successive management teams at MAN for about 30 years) isn't really realistic.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view this foam salute is not just a huge mistake but something which has wider implications.
If this had happened in other circumstances the outcome could be very different. As these salutes usually involve two fire engines would I be correct to assume that both "pressed the wrong button" or only one. If the former then there is something seriously amiss which needs resolving quickly.
If this had happened in other circumstances the outcome could be very different. As these salutes usually involve two fire engines would I be correct to assume that both "pressed the wrong button" or only one. If the former then there is something seriously amiss which needs resolving quickly.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil, I appreciate it's a small percentage for transfer pax. However, 2.6% would amount to about half a million pax for 2013 wouldn't it, so it's not to be sniffed at. But I agree, it doesn't make MAN a hub.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, MANFOD, 521,000 according to CAA. But a smaller number/percentage than STN whose airlines don't offer connections! I don't want to imply that MAN should disregard the connecting market, but the periodic obsession with 'hubbing' seems out of proportion to reality.
Does anyone remember those old ads by MAN about the "morning wave" of connections from America, etc etc? It didn't amount to much then, and it is very unlikely to in the foreseeable, I'm afraid. MAN's core business will remain the outbound leisure market, and there are plenty of opportunities to grow that core market.
Does anyone remember those old ads by MAN about the "morning wave" of connections from America, etc etc? It didn't amount to much then, and it is very unlikely to in the foreseeable, I'm afraid. MAN's core business will remain the outbound leisure market, and there are plenty of opportunities to grow that core market.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a near weekly user of the airport, the prospect of incompetent firemen is about as alarming as incompetent pilots.
You couldn't make it up. Massive reputational damage to the airport.
Mercifully airport firemen don't have to do much but when they are called upon to do something, it has to be right 100% of the time.
What the hell was the point of the 'salute' anyway? Both ATL and VS have been at MAN for decades.
You couldn't make it up. Massive reputational damage to the airport.
Mercifully airport firemen don't have to do much but when they are called upon to do something, it has to be right 100% of the time.
What the hell was the point of the 'salute' anyway? Both ATL and VS have been at MAN for decades.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote "And your answer to my question to you, Skipness?"
Let's try not to make it personal. If HAL's shareholders want to spend £18bn of their money on Heathrow I'm not sure what that has to do with MAN. If MAN needs investment (as it surely does) then it's for MAG's shareholders to get off the pot and commit to invest in the airport's infrastructure. Unless, of course, you're arguing for public funding of airport infrastructure.
Let's try not to make it personal. If HAL's shareholders want to spend £18bn of their money on Heathrow I'm not sure what that has to do with MAN. If MAN needs investment (as it surely does) then it's for MAG's shareholders to get off the pot and commit to invest in the airport's infrastructure. Unless, of course, you're arguing for public funding of airport infrastructure.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VS109
The incident has made the Mail on Line. Some confusion as to whether it was the arriving or departing flight but what do you expect from the Mail.
To answer Viscount702's question (if the report is correct):
"Only one of the two fire tenders fired foam instead of water, said the airport: ‘Unfortunately it was a mistake. The firefighter did what he was trained to do in the event of a fire fighting situation when a plane is on fire – and hit the button for foam’."
The incident has made the Mail on Line. Some confusion as to whether it was the arriving or departing flight but what do you expect from the Mail.
To answer Viscount702's question (if the report is correct):
"Only one of the two fire tenders fired foam instead of water, said the airport: ‘Unfortunately it was a mistake. The firefighter did what he was trained to do in the event of a fire fighting situation when a plane is on fire – and hit the button for foam’."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil, I think Shed is raising a fair point here. Skipness is very keen on cost/benefit analysis when it comes to airlines not choosing MAN to operate certain routes, so it's not unreasonable to ask what the equation is for such a substantial investment at LHR, irrespective of whether it's public or private funding.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,251
Received 147 Likes
on
91 Posts
All
I think there are a number of issues which can be quite quickly summarised as follows :-
LHR Runway - Too expensive and of little value to the regions, money could be better spent elsewhere.
BA - Not interested in the regions and slowly pulling out it appears. Also why would you go to LHR to use them, with the current range of other better carriers available on most routes.
Manchester Hub - Have to agree with Skip, there just is not sufficient business travel yet, and there is no based carrier as BA pulled out.
HS2/3 - Can we have the money for something else please, as even the House Of Lords have now queried its viability and cost.
Incidentally have been away on business but came in on lunchtime EK which was full in Business, and apparently quite full in First as well.
Regards
Mr Mac
I think there are a number of issues which can be quite quickly summarised as follows :-
LHR Runway - Too expensive and of little value to the regions, money could be better spent elsewhere.
BA - Not interested in the regions and slowly pulling out it appears. Also why would you go to LHR to use them, with the current range of other better carriers available on most routes.
Manchester Hub - Have to agree with Skip, there just is not sufficient business travel yet, and there is no based carrier as BA pulled out.
HS2/3 - Can we have the money for something else please, as even the House Of Lords have now queried its viability and cost.
Incidentally have been away on business but came in on lunchtime EK which was full in Business, and apparently quite full in First as well.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil - Please be assured that I don't take Skipness' questions to me personally where the subject matter relates to the core topic under discussion. My question to him in return addresses only the issues surrounding the capacity debate. Nothing personal there. I respect Skipness as a contributor to our discussions and agree with him on many industry issues. But in the spirit of healthy debate I need to challenge his assumptions from time to time, as he frequently questions mine. Now, he has made clear his views on MAN's (lack of) future potential. I respectfully await his explanation concerning the value-for-money offered to UKplc by LHR's extraordinary R3 price-tag. And whilst I respectfully note expressions of opinion to the contrary, Davies currently suggests that £6,000,000,000 of that will be drawn from the public purse. So my question to him is entirely legitimate.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANFOD
The viability (or otherwise) of the HAL £18bn scheme as a private sector project is covered in some detail in https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-financing.pdf
It shows the increase in airport charges that will be required to remunerate the investment, both including and excluding the £6bn of surface access costs. There is a lot of supporting analysis on the Davies website, so I don't think anyone can legitimately claim that the figures are being kept from us.
The wider economic benefits to the UK are covered in other Davies docs (can supply links if required) but I tend to regard such calcs as economic voodoo. To my mind it's whether the project is viable in its own right that really matters.
Shed
No, Davies is not suggesting that the £6bn should be taxpayer funded. You are mixing up the fact that this work (if required) will be UNDERTAKEN by public bodies (as HAL has no jurisdiction outside the airport boundary) with the question of who will pay for it. Davies states quite categorically that it is normal procedure for such costs to be the subject of negotiation between the public bodies and the scheme promoters (ie HAL). I'm afraid I have form in such matters, and I can assure you that HAL will get short shrift from the public bodies if it doesn't stump up, and indeed is highly unlikely to get planning permission unless it does. That was the case for T5, where BAA/HAL was effectively blackmailed over the cost of projects such as the extension of the Piccadilly Line, and it will be even more the case for R3.
Having said all of this I am in full agreement with you that the £18bn figure is crazy. I'm afraid that, as a country, we seem have lost all sense of proportion when it comes to the cost of large infrastructure projects, whether air, rail or whatever. Indeed HAL R3 seems a relative bargain when compared with the cost of saving 10 minutes on the Manchester-Liverpool rail journey! The reasons for this are myriad, but it doesn't help when Davies adds a fairly arbitrary 40% to some elements of HAL's own estimates of R3, ostensibly to cover 'risk' but in practice creating a fudge fund that will inevitably be spent. And the crazy way in which HAL is regulated (basically cost-plus) hardly encourages it to be efficient.
Nevertheless, I'm still of the view that if HAL's shareholders wish to spend all that money, aided and abetted by a supine regulator in the form of CAA, then there aren't a lot of grounds to complain. On the assumption of no public funding, of course. After all, the more HAL's airport charges increase, the more attractive MAN is from an airline perspective...
The viability (or otherwise) of the HAL £18bn scheme as a private sector project is covered in some detail in https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-financing.pdf
It shows the increase in airport charges that will be required to remunerate the investment, both including and excluding the £6bn of surface access costs. There is a lot of supporting analysis on the Davies website, so I don't think anyone can legitimately claim that the figures are being kept from us.
The wider economic benefits to the UK are covered in other Davies docs (can supply links if required) but I tend to regard such calcs as economic voodoo. To my mind it's whether the project is viable in its own right that really matters.
Shed
No, Davies is not suggesting that the £6bn should be taxpayer funded. You are mixing up the fact that this work (if required) will be UNDERTAKEN by public bodies (as HAL has no jurisdiction outside the airport boundary) with the question of who will pay for it. Davies states quite categorically that it is normal procedure for such costs to be the subject of negotiation between the public bodies and the scheme promoters (ie HAL). I'm afraid I have form in such matters, and I can assure you that HAL will get short shrift from the public bodies if it doesn't stump up, and indeed is highly unlikely to get planning permission unless it does. That was the case for T5, where BAA/HAL was effectively blackmailed over the cost of projects such as the extension of the Piccadilly Line, and it will be even more the case for R3.
Having said all of this I am in full agreement with you that the £18bn figure is crazy. I'm afraid that, as a country, we seem have lost all sense of proportion when it comes to the cost of large infrastructure projects, whether air, rail or whatever. Indeed HAL R3 seems a relative bargain when compared with the cost of saving 10 minutes on the Manchester-Liverpool rail journey! The reasons for this are myriad, but it doesn't help when Davies adds a fairly arbitrary 40% to some elements of HAL's own estimates of R3, ostensibly to cover 'risk' but in practice creating a fudge fund that will inevitably be spent. And the crazy way in which HAL is regulated (basically cost-plus) hardly encourages it to be efficient.
Nevertheless, I'm still of the view that if HAL's shareholders wish to spend all that money, aided and abetted by a supine regulator in the form of CAA, then there aren't a lot of grounds to complain. On the assumption of no public funding, of course. After all, the more HAL's airport charges increase, the more attractive MAN is from an airline perspective...
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chester
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conflict of interest
I would find it really helpful if any individuals who had a professional interest in a particular airline or airport, e.g. BA or Heathrow, clearly declares it on their posts. It would allow me to understand the context of their comments; take the facts more seriously and their opinions with a more open mind. At the moment it is difficult to separate the enthusiast who has a genuine interest in an airport and the individual who may be financially motivated in a particular comment. Nothing would be lost by this. Thanks.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National Solution
That's a good point. For the record I have no financial interest in whether LHR, LGW or anywhere else gets a new runway. But having worked in this industry all my life, I just feel that airports should be allowed to grow so long as they can make a business case for it. Using their own money, with no recourse to taxpayer funds. And that principle applies to MAN, LHR, Timbuktu or wherever.
That's a good point. For the record I have no financial interest in whether LHR, LGW or anywhere else gets a new runway. But having worked in this industry all my life, I just feel that airports should be allowed to grow so long as they can make a business case for it. Using their own money, with no recourse to taxpayer funds. And that principle applies to MAN, LHR, Timbuktu or wherever.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The M.E.N had the foam fiasco story which someone had linked on another site.
It included this piece of misinformation (bold print is mine):
"The first flight had been due to take off at 10.35am, with Virgin Atlantic’s bigger Airbus A330-300 taking over from Delta’s Boeing 757-200 aircraft, boosting passenger numbers from 164 to 266."
Are reporters fed wrong information or do they just get it wrong themselves - in this case perhaps getting confused with DL's new B757 service to JFK to start this summer? At least the 266 seats in the A333 is right.
ps. Never worked in the industry. Just a long time enthusiast and user of MAN.
It included this piece of misinformation (bold print is mine):
"The first flight had been due to take off at 10.35am, with Virgin Atlantic’s bigger Airbus A330-300 taking over from Delta’s Boeing 757-200 aircraft, boosting passenger numbers from 164 to 266."
Are reporters fed wrong information or do they just get it wrong themselves - in this case perhaps getting confused with DL's new B757 service to JFK to start this summer? At least the 266 seats in the A333 is right.
ps. Never worked in the industry. Just a long time enthusiast and user of MAN.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National Solution
That's a good point. For the record I have no financial interest in whether LHR, LGW or anywhere else gets a new runway. But having worked in this industry all my life, I just feel that airports should be allowed to grow so long as they can make a business case for it. Using their own money, with no recourse to taxpayer funds. And that principle applies to MAN, LHR, Timbuktu or wherever.
That's a good point. For the record I have no financial interest in whether LHR, LGW or anywhere else gets a new runway. But having worked in this industry all my life, I just feel that airports should be allowed to grow so long as they can make a business case for it. Using their own money, with no recourse to taxpayer funds. And that principle applies to MAN, LHR, Timbuktu or wherever.