MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the debating on this thread quite interesting and refreshing. Although I admit to skimming over posts by a certain poster... mainly because of the style rather than content 
One of the issues is having everything lumped into one thread. Having a sub-forum for each airport (or at least some of them) would be good.
One of the issues is having everything lumped into one thread. Having a sub-forum for each airport (or at least some of them) would be good.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. It is obvious that an expanded Heathrow will be pushed as "the" gateway for the UK at the expense of ALL regional airports. The idea of
expanded connections from regional airports to feed LHR services, regardless of the fact that both business and leisure travellers would prefer
non stop flights from a more local departure point, gives the game away.
2. The plan is predicated on a massive expenditure which, given a legion of previous examples, will be an underestimate of the final cost.
3. Whilst HAL maybe a private company it cannot be seen to fail, thus if more money is needed, government will step in.
4. There is a subliminal bias in the Home Counties based decision influencers and decision makers to ensure the success of the project whatever
form it takes. History shows this means some form of "protection" for the project. This would impact on the regions' airports and economy. If
the UK leaves the EU the protections against unfair competition and even deregulation could be severely cut back or removed.
Transfers at Heathrow are currently a nightmare. I live in Ireland and regularly travel to Houston. I can get to IAH from Shannon only by changing somewhere en route and the timings and costs are not as good for my purposes changing in BOS, JFK or ORD as travelling over LHR. Ireland and the UK have basically a common border for their citizens. A transfer from the new T2 to T5 involves travelling up and down escalators or lifts, a bus journey, more escalators or lifts then a diluted form of immigration control even though I'm in transit, followed by the the "fun" of security joining long lines even though from passing through security at Shannon, I have been airside continually.
Unlike Ireland, the population of the UK is large enough and the concentrations of population are centred in such a way as, in normal economic times, the country can support a number of gateway airports of varying sizes. If Emirates, United, Turkish etc. can serve multiple UK airports, so can others. If the pressure on London is so great, spread the load both ways by both encouraging new routes from the regions which would reduce the load on LHR's runways and revisit the mixed mode use of the Heathrow runways. The old chestnut of not enough distance between them is a fallacy, proved both by the number of airports around the world operating mixed mode with a shorter distance between their runways and the use of the runways in mixed mode at LHR when necessary. Fewer flights into Heathrow would make mixed mode much easier.
The often stated argument that airlines only want to serve LHR in the UK is specious. Since deregulation and the reworking of various bilateral agreements, the number of foreign airlines serving UK regional airports has grown rapidly, as has the number of flights per day/week by those
airlines. It isn't that long ago that MAN for instance, had one Air France, one Lufthansa, one Sabena and on Emirates flight a day. This was the legacy of restrictive bilateral agreements and the protection of BA and its predecessors. Look at the expansion once the shackles were taken off.
No one is saying London should cease to be the premier UK gateway. London is a world city that will always attract the greater volume of traffic. The problem with the HAL proposal is that, to make a worthwhile return for the shareholders and for UK PLC not to be seen to fail, the marketing and, in a case worse scenario, the viability of the project will have to be underwritten in a way it cannot fail. Thus there will be no level playing field for the regions and, as has been the case in he past, the marketing of London will come first and will get the preponderance of the budget, in the worst case there will be some form of regulation to "encourage" use of LHR. History has a horrible habit of repeating itself.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an excellent post Phil, having once worked in conferences, business travel and groups in Manchester i concur exactly with what you have said,
I remember the days when lufthansa was 1 daily as was BA but timing still made very difficult to come/go for a business trip without having to stay overnight as for getting to Athens or the like.
I remember the days when lufthansa was 1 daily as was BA but timing still made very difficult to come/go for a business trip without having to stay overnight as for getting to Athens or the like.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post Phil and I'd particularly endorse the following comments regarding the pushing of Heathrow, marketing and likely impact on regional airports.
[quoteThe proposal ia a threat because:
1. It is obvious that an expanded Heathrow will be pushed as "the" gateway for the UK at the expense of ALL regional airports. The idea of expanded connections from regional airports to feed LHR services, regardless of the fact that both business and leisure travellers would prefer non stop flights from a more local departure point, gives the game away. ][/quote]
It seems inevitable to me that an even greater predominance of LHR and emphasis on connectivity would result in some important regional airports not gaining the range of viable direct short haul and long haul services they might otherwise win.
Edit: apologies the first quote didn't post in blue in the normal way.
[quoteThe proposal ia a threat because:
1. It is obvious that an expanded Heathrow will be pushed as "the" gateway for the UK at the expense of ALL regional airports. The idea of expanded connections from regional airports to feed LHR services, regardless of the fact that both business and leisure travellers would prefer non stop flights from a more local departure point, gives the game away. ][/quote]
No one is saying London should cease to be the premier UK gateway. London is a world city that will always attract the greater volume of traffic. The problem with the HAL proposal is that, to make a worthwhile return for the shareholders and for UK PLC not to be seen to fail, the marketing and, in a case worse scenario, the viability of the project will have to be underwritten in a way it cannot fail. Thus there will be no level playing field for the regions and, as has been the case in he past, the marketing of London will come first and will get the preponderance of the budget, in the worst case there will be some form of regulation to "encourage" use of LHR
Edit: apologies the first quote didn't post in blue in the normal way.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West UK
Age: 69
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL
And if you require a non aviation example, I suggest you look at Wembley stadium. Huge capital expenditure means that FA Cup semi finals are now played in that stadium to ensure maximised income, irrespective of whether that may be inconvenient for local fans.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the fact connecting at a huge airport is a nuisance, how are we explaining the following :
1) United not using a B777 MAN-EWR and poaching all those annoyed LHR connections.
2) Delta gifting MAN-ATL to the lower cost base of VS after a loyal quarter century.
3) American no longer offering ORD year round and not a sniff of the B788. (MD11 was at MAN the same year as LHR)
So to focus, EXACTLY what support do we see is needed to drive further connectivity to this pot?
1) United not using a B777 MAN-EWR and poaching all those annoyed LHR connections.
2) Delta gifting MAN-ATL to the lower cost base of VS after a loyal quarter century.
3) American no longer offering ORD year round and not a sniff of the B788. (MD11 was at MAN the same year as LHR)
So to focus, EXACTLY what support do we see is needed to drive further connectivity to this pot?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness - The three carriers you cite have a vested interest in filling capacity dumped at LHR in order to support the frequency they require to compete effectively at the front end from London. They have a surplus of economy seats to fill in particular, and it is quite common to see a MAN-LHR-USA Y-fare cheaper by GBP200+ return than the equivalent MAN-USA. A significant premium is applied to the non-stop MAN departure to encourage flows by price-sensitive leisure customers to those empty seats ex-LHR. A family of four can often save GBP1000+ by transferring at LHR using the same airline which offers Transatlantic non-stop from MAN.
MAN also has to contend with 'sweetheart deals' whereby specialist tour operators and cruise companies receive block discounts to fill capacity on LHR flights rather than the MAN alternatives. And then there is the issue of corporate travel policies and loyalty schemes which also divert passenger flows onto less logical routings. MAG needs to work on these continuing challenges.
As you know, Delta is now working in close partnership with Virgin Atlantic in which it owns a significant stake. It makes good sense from a business point-of-view to use Virgin metal on the MAN-ATL route. The A333 is a capacity upgrade on a route which can be leisure-heavy with passengers connecting through to Florida in particular.
In terms of allocation of the B788, it is normal for new state-of-the-art equipment to be allocated to the high visibility glamour routes first. At MAN, we are accustomed to having to wait patiently in line on that score.
One interesting development to watch is the introduction of Thomas Cook A332 schedules to JFK and MIA this Summer, traditionally routes we associate with dominance by the US majors. If this initiative proves successful, the three US majors will be less able to dictate traffic flows on routes such as New York (JFK/EWR) by strangling availability of capacity.
It is not long ago that MAN filled a daily B763 and a daily [BMI] A332 to ORD. Those passengers have not evaporated; they have just been forced to re-route due to capacity decisions made by AAL which has alot of empty seats to fill ex-LHR in partnership with BAW.
Just a friendly reminder, Skipness. You keep coming on here to ask us questions (to which I suspect you well know the answers already). We respectfully rise to the challenge. But afew days ago I asked you a very specific question in return. I'm still looking forward to the courtesy of your reasoned reply :-)
PS. Just a footnote to compliment the outstanding series of postings by 'philbky' over recent days.
MAN also has to contend with 'sweetheart deals' whereby specialist tour operators and cruise companies receive block discounts to fill capacity on LHR flights rather than the MAN alternatives. And then there is the issue of corporate travel policies and loyalty schemes which also divert passenger flows onto less logical routings. MAG needs to work on these continuing challenges.
As you know, Delta is now working in close partnership with Virgin Atlantic in which it owns a significant stake. It makes good sense from a business point-of-view to use Virgin metal on the MAN-ATL route. The A333 is a capacity upgrade on a route which can be leisure-heavy with passengers connecting through to Florida in particular.
In terms of allocation of the B788, it is normal for new state-of-the-art equipment to be allocated to the high visibility glamour routes first. At MAN, we are accustomed to having to wait patiently in line on that score.
One interesting development to watch is the introduction of Thomas Cook A332 schedules to JFK and MIA this Summer, traditionally routes we associate with dominance by the US majors. If this initiative proves successful, the three US majors will be less able to dictate traffic flows on routes such as New York (JFK/EWR) by strangling availability of capacity.
It is not long ago that MAN filled a daily B763 and a daily [BMI] A332 to ORD. Those passengers have not evaporated; they have just been forced to re-route due to capacity decisions made by AAL which has alot of empty seats to fill ex-LHR in partnership with BAW.
Just a friendly reminder, Skipness. You keep coming on here to ask us questions (to which I suspect you well know the answers already). We respectfully rise to the challenge. But afew days ago I asked you a very specific question in return. I'm still looking forward to the courtesy of your reasoned reply :-)
PS. Just a footnote to compliment the outstanding series of postings by 'philbky' over recent days.
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 said, American introduced the MD11 to MAN at the same time as LHR. So what practical steps can be taken, to ensure MAN has a competitive product? I know DL/VS have a JV and VS are growing at MAN, but mainly in P2P leisure. So with the alliances focussing elsewhere, to get MAN to "full potential", somehow they need to square the circle of alliances (cartels?) no longer focussing so much on hubs. Agreed? Pm the question and I'll have a go.
Also remember connectivity to London out of MAN is now at an all time low with Virgin Red following BMI into the history books and BA having dropped MAN-LGW. Something more appealing needs to be in place than a twenty five year old AA B763, in that sense maybe DL made a good move. And surely MAN can do better than the B757 with United, it's not like they're connecting pax outta MAN over LHR. Without mentioning London, I strongly believe the current hard product going West with the legacy US carriers isn't competitive. Surely scope for Norwegian to step in and shake things up massively?
Also remember connectivity to London out of MAN is now at an all time low with Virgin Red following BMI into the history books and BA having dropped MAN-LGW. Something more appealing needs to be in place than a twenty five year old AA B763, in that sense maybe DL made a good move. And surely MAN can do better than the B757 with United, it's not like they're connecting pax outta MAN over LHR. Without mentioning London, I strongly believe the current hard product going West with the legacy US carriers isn't competitive. Surely scope for Norwegian to step in and shake things up massively?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 3rd Apr 2015 at 16:11.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could we please get all of the MAN/the regions vs LHR and LHR/LGW new runway talk/repeated essays into separate threads to a) Make it easier for those interested in the discussion to read and contribute in one place and b) keep the existing threads for more 'regular' news and developments, without them all being hidden amongst all of the lengthy discussion. I have nothing against anyone debating the issues but I feel if it were to be done in a separate thread it would benefit everyone who views/contributes to this section of the forum.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed as I said, American introduced the MD11 to MAN at the same time as LHR.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness, I would echo Shed's point about your questions. I've been watching Manchester since 1956 when I was 9. My first letter to the Evening News was when I was in the sixth form to protest the removal of SABENA's fifth freedom rights to New York after a decade of successful operation to protect BOAC. The same thing happened with Aer Lingus later to protect BEA's flights into Europe. I, and Shed et al, know what we are talking about from experience and involvement. You know we know the answers, as you do if you have done your research, which, of course you have.
Taking up the point on the London connection, the facts are these. Virgin Trains provide a train every twenty minutes between Manchester and London for much of the day with a journey time between 2 hrs 8 mins and 2hrs 20 mins. The business people travelling to/from London I used to fly with on the 757, often with another as back up, in the 1980s now all go by train. Using the 07.30 departure, even with the inevitable hold over Brookmans Park, I could be in central London by 09.00. There were no security queues and hassles and there was always a seat, whereas the train used to leave at 07.00 and get me into Euston at 09.35. Trains were generally hourly and were often crammed with standing passengers especially on a Friday.
The number of direct flights has impacted on the need for LHR flights but far more telling, which must be a concern to HAL, is the number of pax willing to travel the wrong way to AMS, FRA or CDG to travel west, never mind those going east, to avoid what I described in a previous post. I suspect the vast majority of passengers between the two points are now connectees from whom the income for the sector is a smaller amount than the advertised prices.
Reading your posts over a few years you seem to have a down on leisure travellers in so far as their profitability is concerned. The gospel according to Skipness seems to be that a route cannot be profitable if the sharp end is not full. Whilst many airlines still make their profit from the front end, the fact is the reduction of dedicated freighters to almost zero in most legacy fleets means that the hold vies with the premium fare seats as the greatest profit provider. Fares in other classes are then balanced on the required revenue. I belong to a generation that is demographically a bulge in population. We have more spending power than previous generations at our age and are fitter than our parents at the same age. Travelling around the world, the number of leisure travellers I see is now far greater than when I travelled on business in years gone by and they are now spread across the cabins and are older than in the past.
There is a crazy situation at LHR where airlines wanting to keep slots are actually discounting seats to a massive degree and are sending flights out with marginal if not loss making load factors. Last Autumn Aer Lingus and Jet Blue wanted €1750 to take my wife and I from SNN to IAH and back on a through ticket. Using Aer Lingus and BA I paid €1350 for the same date. The 777 outbound was two thirds full in economy, half full in World Traveller Plus, three quarters full in Club. I didn't see into First. On the return the 747 was half empty throughout and I know the inbound First was almost empty as the cabin suffered a birdstrike on a window on finals which penetrated through to the inner perspex and no one on board noticed.
So we already have a nonsense situation of over capacity at Heathrow, especially on the Atlantic (check the daily departures to JFK on BA/AA alone) a situation that the HAL proposal can only extend.
Taking up the point on the London connection, the facts are these. Virgin Trains provide a train every twenty minutes between Manchester and London for much of the day with a journey time between 2 hrs 8 mins and 2hrs 20 mins. The business people travelling to/from London I used to fly with on the 757, often with another as back up, in the 1980s now all go by train. Using the 07.30 departure, even with the inevitable hold over Brookmans Park, I could be in central London by 09.00. There were no security queues and hassles and there was always a seat, whereas the train used to leave at 07.00 and get me into Euston at 09.35. Trains were generally hourly and were often crammed with standing passengers especially on a Friday.
The number of direct flights has impacted on the need for LHR flights but far more telling, which must be a concern to HAL, is the number of pax willing to travel the wrong way to AMS, FRA or CDG to travel west, never mind those going east, to avoid what I described in a previous post. I suspect the vast majority of passengers between the two points are now connectees from whom the income for the sector is a smaller amount than the advertised prices.
Reading your posts over a few years you seem to have a down on leisure travellers in so far as their profitability is concerned. The gospel according to Skipness seems to be that a route cannot be profitable if the sharp end is not full. Whilst many airlines still make their profit from the front end, the fact is the reduction of dedicated freighters to almost zero in most legacy fleets means that the hold vies with the premium fare seats as the greatest profit provider. Fares in other classes are then balanced on the required revenue. I belong to a generation that is demographically a bulge in population. We have more spending power than previous generations at our age and are fitter than our parents at the same age. Travelling around the world, the number of leisure travellers I see is now far greater than when I travelled on business in years gone by and they are now spread across the cabins and are older than in the past.
There is a crazy situation at LHR where airlines wanting to keep slots are actually discounting seats to a massive degree and are sending flights out with marginal if not loss making load factors. Last Autumn Aer Lingus and Jet Blue wanted €1750 to take my wife and I from SNN to IAH and back on a through ticket. Using Aer Lingus and BA I paid €1350 for the same date. The 777 outbound was two thirds full in economy, half full in World Traveller Plus, three quarters full in Club. I didn't see into First. On the return the 747 was half empty throughout and I know the inbound First was almost empty as the cabin suffered a birdstrike on a window on finals which penetrated through to the inner perspex and no one on board noticed.
So we already have a nonsense situation of over capacity at Heathrow, especially on the Atlantic (check the daily departures to JFK on BA/AA alone) a situation that the HAL proposal can only extend.
Last edited by philbky; 3rd Apr 2015 at 17:43.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And surely MAN can do better than the B757 with United
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do better yes but the 752 isn't the problem and UA will keep wide bodies for routes where 757s can't reach. Not getting the second EWR back and/or ORD is very telling, UA are growing across Europe but MAN not getting a look in and the markets where they are adding are very similar to MAN.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UA situation is based very much on the need to fill seats ex LHR. They have five flights a day ex LHR to EWR to fill in an overcrowded market which offers no fewer than 30 flights a day to EWR and JFK. The similar markets to Manchester in other parts of Europe do not have that sort of competition, and especially do not have the airline trying to keep slots at the premier airport in the same country, even if it means flying partly full aircraft, whilst the regional airport which had previously performed well enough to fill a double daily schedule and is filling its current seating capacity, is ignored for upgrades.
Last edited by philbky; 3rd Apr 2015 at 23:19.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#knownShtStirrer Youre joking...right? Chinese dont care where they arrive in UK (look at BHX... 
The inbound touristy trade wont be enough to support a year round multiday schedule to EDI. That is what the next China to UK carrier will be wanting to offer as soon as collaterals renegotiated. Its cargo, pax numbers inbound and out, plus frequency first... Loch Ness last. EDI cant sustain NYC daily in the winter never mind Beijing. MAN or BHX at a push. Even BAs outbound to China arent doing amazing
The inbound touristy trade wont be enough to support a year round multiday schedule to EDI. That is what the next China to UK carrier will be wanting to offer as soon as collaterals renegotiated. Its cargo, pax numbers inbound and out, plus frequency first... Loch Ness last. EDI cant sustain NYC daily in the winter never mind Beijing. MAN or BHX at a push. Even BAs outbound to China arent doing amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UA situation is based very much on the need to fill seats ex LHR. They have five flights a day ex LHR to EWR to fill in an overcrowded market which offers no fewer than 30 flights a day to EWR and JFK. The similar markets to Manchester in other parts of Europe do not have that sort of competition, and especially do not have the airline trying to keep slots at the premier airport in the same country, even if it means flying partly full aircraft, whilst the regional airport which had previously performed well enough to fill a double daily schedule and is filling its current seating capacity, is ignored for upgrades.
If UA were pulling such volumes away from MAN they would address it since Red exited MAN-LHR
Only FRA, MUC, DUB, BRU, YYZ are offered.
I accept LHR generally is a factor but primarily in winter and not summer. UA can fill 3 daily ex EDI but only 2 daily ex MAN. While EDI is a better place to visit
MAN should have much higher demand outbound.Two things - UA are making significant profits ex MAN and they are able to allow for example when DL enter JFK and AA placed larger aircraft or UA are not making enough to justify additional capacity and other carriers have squeezed them so much that NCL-EWR looks more profitable for them to name one.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
j636 - What MAN can fill and what MAN is given the opportunity to fill are not the same thing where the US big 3 are concerned. Historic data confirms this. And given the fares charged ex-MAN, the yields must be fantastic throughout the Summer months.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet the silence of any terminal improvements is deafening......
If LHR R3 does not go ahead, then what is MAN offering? An even worse Terminal experience. You have to make an airport great, plan, build, provide customers what they want/need. Some Airports do it well, and others don't. I hope MAN does it well (one day), but to be honest I do not have the confidence.
I still prefer to arrive/depart into the UK via MAN, but the novelty is wearing thin, good job you still have SQ.
If LHR R3 does not go ahead, then what is MAN offering? An even worse Terminal experience. You have to make an airport great, plan, build, provide customers what they want/need. Some Airports do it well, and others don't. I hope MAN does it well (one day), but to be honest I do not have the confidence.
I still prefer to arrive/depart into the UK via MAN, but the novelty is wearing thin, good job you still have SQ.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UA no longer have connections at LHR connections ex MAN!
If UA were pulling such volumes away from MAN they would address it since Red exited MAN-LHR
Only FRA, MUC, DUB, BRU, YYZ are offered.
I accept LHR generally is a factor but primarily in winter and not summer. UA can fill 3 daily ex EDI but only 2 daily ex MAN. While EDI is a better place to visit MAN should have much higher demand outbound.
If UA were pulling such volumes away from MAN they would address it since Red exited MAN-LHR
Only FRA, MUC, DUB, BRU, YYZ are offered.
I accept LHR generally is a factor but primarily in winter and not summer. UA can fill 3 daily ex EDI but only 2 daily ex MAN. While EDI is a better place to visit
MAN should have much higher demand outbound.Little Red has only just departed the scene and whilst not in the same alliance as BA there is nothing to stop particularly in house travel agents with good UA prices from London putting their clients on BA to London to connect, especially if mileage points come into the equation, though DUB would be more acceptable due to immigration pre-clearance
UA is still going through a major merger and the fleet is still being shaken down. The regional European airports are suffering the 757 because 767s and 777s not required for primary European and Asian destinations are more profitably used to South America where the hold capacity has a greater profit potential. My estimate is that the use of 757s to MAN has driven away a good number of former passengers. The delays to the introduction of the 787 hasn't helped.
Please explain how Edinburgh is a better place to visit than Manchester. In terms of leisure tourism Manchester itself comes third in the UK after London and Edinburgh with just a quarter of Edinburgh's visitors but the airport attracts more inbound leisure tourists than Edinburgh airport because of the greater number and diversity of attractions accessible from the airport and the fact that the majority of inbound visitors to Edinburgh arrive by road or rail. In terms of business tourism, Manchester has three times the number of inbound visitors, even more if you add those who use the airport to visit the surrounding counties. VFR trips are almost equal but Manchester has almost four times the number of Edinburgh's study and unclassified visitors, again the figure increases due to the airport serving the surrounding counties.
MAN Terminal redevelopment
Well said BDLBOS, as a regular user of MAN I agree entirely.
LHR R3 is at least 20 years away, and based on past form of our learned and dithering politicians it could quite possibly never be built at all. In the meantime MAN (and other airports) have at least a 20 year head start to continue building on the growing selection of point to point, and point to "any hub except LHR" services which have increasingly changed the way people from the regions travel over the years. Given properly planned and delivered alternatives, in 20 years time most of the UK market north of Watford will have forgotten LHR even exists.
The problem for MAN is the terminals and apron areas are already congested right now during peak months and at popular times of the day. So just what growth alternatives are they actually offering ?
If MAN really has ambitions to become "the Northern gateway" of choice for airlines and their passengers, MAG need to start doing something significant and long term about the much discussed plans for terminal redevelopment, apron capacity and inter-terminal transfer experience without further delay.
They should also be vigorously pursuing any possibility of becoming the first UK airport to offer a US pre-clearance facility. This should all form part of a long term strategy for MAN to become "the Northern Gateway". Maybe I'm being unfair and there actually is such a strategy ?
Short term band aid solutions, such as overflowing car parks onto the aircraft aprons, won't cut it much longer. Like BDLBOS I would dearly like to see MAN make the most of the opportunity it now has, but as it requires long term planning and major investment I too have my doubts. Could it be MAG are waiting for a decision on LHR/R3 from the pollies before committing to major investment ? If so I fear they could be waiting a very long time ! Too much time spent naval gazing / prevaricating and MAN risks waking up one morning to find a few airports rather closer to home than LHR have already stolen its lunch - again
PS. I note from the ACL website that seat capacity at DUB this summer is up by 11% on last year. Makes MAN's 1.3% look very underwhelming indeed
LHR R3 is at least 20 years away, and based on past form of our learned and dithering politicians it could quite possibly never be built at all. In the meantime MAN (and other airports) have at least a 20 year head start to continue building on the growing selection of point to point, and point to "any hub except LHR" services which have increasingly changed the way people from the regions travel over the years. Given properly planned and delivered alternatives, in 20 years time most of the UK market north of Watford will have forgotten LHR even exists.
The problem for MAN is the terminals and apron areas are already congested right now during peak months and at popular times of the day. So just what growth alternatives are they actually offering ?
If MAN really has ambitions to become "the Northern gateway" of choice for airlines and their passengers, MAG need to start doing something significant and long term about the much discussed plans for terminal redevelopment, apron capacity and inter-terminal transfer experience without further delay.
They should also be vigorously pursuing any possibility of becoming the first UK airport to offer a US pre-clearance facility. This should all form part of a long term strategy for MAN to become "the Northern Gateway". Maybe I'm being unfair and there actually is such a strategy ?
Short term band aid solutions, such as overflowing car parks onto the aircraft aprons, won't cut it much longer. Like BDLBOS I would dearly like to see MAN make the most of the opportunity it now has, but as it requires long term planning and major investment I too have my doubts. Could it be MAG are waiting for a decision on LHR/R3 from the pollies before committing to major investment ? If so I fear they could be waiting a very long time ! Too much time spent naval gazing / prevaricating and MAN risks waking up one morning to find a few airports rather closer to home than LHR have already stolen its lunch - again
PS. I note from the ACL website that seat capacity at DUB this summer is up by 11% on last year. Makes MAN's 1.3% look very underwhelming indeed