MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport company cannot announce anything until they negotiated with all the companies involved be it airlines, handing agents etc etc on the tempory moves and permenant moves later on which will take many months, then the plans have to go to the council planners etc and then they can announce what is happening.
Ian
Ian
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Good The Bad and the downright Ugly !
What sensational postings from Mr Philbky in the last few days, great passion and hard evidence of how we have ended up with a completely kackhanded UK airports policy in 2015 ! One which (sorry) I "thought" SHD was supposed to address "albeit as a part of the runway capacity debate in the SE " ?
And at this point "play the music" !
The "Arch Supporters" of Manchester will no doubt be circling....
"here we go again, Davies, HS2, Heathrow",
Well can I throw out a genuine question, if you have no interest why are you actually here ?
You profess to be supportive of Manchester , really ?
From where I am stood this appears to be a completely false premise.
You have not the slight interest in subjects which will influence its future
Whats the claim again "we need to get back to talking about . . . "
Well what exactly ? Please, please tell us !
The contributions from these naysayers are meagre in number, and when they do appear they are embellished with criticism of the poster, why not devote some of this hot air to creativity of thought !
If you took the time to actually read the postings the repetition as you describe it is based not on regurgitating the same old but invariably addresses "new information", this weeks Tfl report demonstrating a trebling of potential costs to the taxpayer posted on the Heathrow refers !
So as Shed suggests there is a "block option", I suggest you use it with a flourish !
What sensational postings from Mr Philbky in the last few days, great passion and hard evidence of how we have ended up with a completely kackhanded UK airports policy in 2015 ! One which (sorry) I "thought" SHD was supposed to address "albeit as a part of the runway capacity debate in the SE " ?
And at this point "play the music" !
The "Arch Supporters" of Manchester will no doubt be circling....
"here we go again, Davies, HS2, Heathrow",
Well can I throw out a genuine question, if you have no interest why are you actually here ?
You profess to be supportive of Manchester , really ?
From where I am stood this appears to be a completely false premise.
You have not the slight interest in subjects which will influence its future
Whats the claim again "we need to get back to talking about . . . "
Well what exactly ? Please, please tell us !
The contributions from these naysayers are meagre in number, and when they do appear they are embellished with criticism of the poster, why not devote some of this hot air to creativity of thought !
If you took the time to actually read the postings the repetition as you describe it is based not on regurgitating the same old but invariably addresses "new information", this weeks Tfl report demonstrating a trebling of potential costs to the taxpayer posted on the Heathrow refers !
So as Shed suggests there is a "block option", I suggest you use it with a flourish !
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN terminal redevelopments
There is also the small matter of the shareholders needing to see a strong business case a for a return on the considerable investment required. This takes time and the studies are no doubt on-going as more detail of the proposals is worked up.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The debate on the terminals and use of the apron has in the past drifted into the same "when will they, why don't they, they will be" area of speculation as the Hainan debate.
MAG is between a rock and a hard place. The current resurgence in pax numbers and the way airline alliances and mergers have come about mean that the use of both terminal and apron space has had to be reactive rather than planned. Add to that the demands of security, the legacy of the drive to convert airports into shopping malls in the last two decades and the eventual admission of the LoCos and we have seen a well organised and at times under utilised facility of thirty odd years ago turned into what at times can only be described as a mess.
New buildings don't just appear and the timing of announcements has to take into account a vast range of considerations from raising finance, through working with the statuary authorities, discussions with the airlines on the impact of the work in progress to the possible reaction of the NIMBYS and the environmentalists.
There is no doubt the will is there but, unlike in many other countries, major projects in the UK can't and don't just happen and the timing of announcements and what is said is subject to a great deal of discussion and fine tuning.
In the meantime, there are many airports in major cities around the world as bad and worse than MAN. Rio's international area can see hour long queues for security and immigration in the evening and even since new gate areas were built for the World Cup and Olympics, the food options are very poor. Auckland's bioscreening for inbound passengers is a nightmare when the three Emirates A380s arrive every afternoon in close order.
JFK has arrogant TSA staff and massive departure queues of aircraft every evening. Sitting on an aircraft on the ground for up to an hour waiting for your turn on the runway is just as bad as having to wait in any type of line. LAX terminals are vastly different one to another and ground transfer to car rental or hotels can be a nightmare. Terminal E outbound at IAH has massive queues most late afternoons as the European flights check in and the food and drink facilities airside at the gates are both limited and expensive ($15 for a pint of domestic beer and an orange juice).
Inbound, Terminal E transportation centre is a covered, smelly, hot hell hole with no real order to the system for hotel and car rental buses. There are dozens of other examples.
Just be patient and hold any comments until we see what is proposed.
MAG is between a rock and a hard place. The current resurgence in pax numbers and the way airline alliances and mergers have come about mean that the use of both terminal and apron space has had to be reactive rather than planned. Add to that the demands of security, the legacy of the drive to convert airports into shopping malls in the last two decades and the eventual admission of the LoCos and we have seen a well organised and at times under utilised facility of thirty odd years ago turned into what at times can only be described as a mess.
New buildings don't just appear and the timing of announcements has to take into account a vast range of considerations from raising finance, through working with the statuary authorities, discussions with the airlines on the impact of the work in progress to the possible reaction of the NIMBYS and the environmentalists.
There is no doubt the will is there but, unlike in many other countries, major projects in the UK can't and don't just happen and the timing of announcements and what is said is subject to a great deal of discussion and fine tuning.
In the meantime, there are many airports in major cities around the world as bad and worse than MAN. Rio's international area can see hour long queues for security and immigration in the evening and even since new gate areas were built for the World Cup and Olympics, the food options are very poor. Auckland's bioscreening for inbound passengers is a nightmare when the three Emirates A380s arrive every afternoon in close order.
JFK has arrogant TSA staff and massive departure queues of aircraft every evening. Sitting on an aircraft on the ground for up to an hour waiting for your turn on the runway is just as bad as having to wait in any type of line. LAX terminals are vastly different one to another and ground transfer to car rental or hotels can be a nightmare. Terminal E outbound at IAH has massive queues most late afternoons as the European flights check in and the food and drink facilities airside at the gates are both limited and expensive ($15 for a pint of domestic beer and an orange juice).
Inbound, Terminal E transportation centre is a covered, smelly, hot hell hole with no real order to the system for hotel and car rental buses. There are dozens of other examples.
Just be patient and hold any comments until we see what is proposed.
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
If UA were pulling such volumes away from MAN they would address it since Red exited MAN-LHR
Not just United, many Air Canada fares via BA shuttle to LHR undercut their own Direct Rouge service, presumably to fill up all those 777 & 767s they operate from LHR.
The Manchester Rouge service to YYZ not only goes head to head with Air Transat but also their parent company via London. I just wished they (Rouge)had gone for Montreal from MAN where there is no direct service-unlike 40 years ago when BOAC provided a service.
I still hope the Rouge season this year is successful, but the handling needs to be substantially better than last year.
I'm connecting west Canada soon- all the Transat premium seats are sold out so, I am also being routed via BA to LHR to pick up AC from there.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the absence of Little Red, Star Alliance are happy to book connections to LHR with BA. Not just United, many Air Canada fares via BA shuttle to LHR undercut their own Direct Rouge service, presumably to fill up all those 777 & 767s they operate from LHR.
It is disappointing that UA haven't upgraded a/c to EWR. When I asked the question at their stand at the Manchester Travel Show in January, I got the inevitable answer that they would like to when suitable equipment was available.
Someone suggested the fact they hadn't returned to double daily or larger a/c was very 'telling' (and I must admit it was a surprise when United decided to start a NCL, a route previously announced by AA but then cancelled before it started). However, I don't think it tells us that the reason is due to lack of demand in view of the following:
Some figures reported about 18 months ago (I think by MAN) showed that the most under-served route from MAN was New York.
AA have actually decided to upgrade their JFK flight, albeit to an ageing B767.
More capacity for pax, including the enhanced J class, and cargo.
Delta obviously believe there is demand and that they can make money, as they start JFK shortly.
The high fares already referred to, which I hope is because the demand is there for the direct service and is not simply a device to get passengers to fill up those LHR seats irrespective of the impact on the MAN flights.
And thanks to some excellent posts recently by several contributors.
Last edited by MANFOD; 4th Apr 2015 at 11:17.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAG is between a rock and a hard place. The current resurgence in pax numbers and the way airline alliances and mergers have come about mean that the use of both terminal and apron space has had to be reactive rather than planned.
Nevertheless, given that we must be talking several years before anything substantial is built, (and presumably it will be a staged project which can be added to as demand warrants), I feel it is legitimate to ask whether some further measures could be implemented in the meantime. In this context, it did seem strange that at the time MAN was back in growth mode, the airport decided to convert some a/c stands to car parking. To be fair, some steps have been taken such as the new security channels at ground level in T1. But if MAN is to continue to fulfill its ambitions for growth in the interim the indications are that some more temporary improvements will be necessary.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manfod
i was told that the parking was the only option for a couple of years
which is slowly sorting it`s self out as new options come on line i: e the new 9000 space car park near Styal Rd in Heald Green
Ian
i was told that the parking was the only option for a couple of years
which is slowly sorting it`s self out as new options come on line i: e the new 9000 space car park near Styal Rd in Heald Green
Ian
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On parking I thought the new 9000 space car park was now fully operational. If so why are they still using the apron for parking. Bring the stands back into use they are needed.
On the terminals we were led to believe that there would be an announcement early this year. Nothing so far. More worrying is the fact that the plans which have been leaked on here and elsewhere are all different. What do you believe.
Mr Cornish said recently if I remember correct that we wouldn't recognise the airport in five years. This implies something is to be done but what and when. It is a bit like Hainan. Mind you he could have been talking about Airport City not the Airport itself
I also recollect that planning permission for the T2 extension already exists because is was gained at the time of the original building with a view to extending when needed which would seem to be now. So provided extending T2 as originally envisaged doesn't interfere with other proposals why not start with this.
There are already signs that expansion by Ryanair etc maybe held back due lack of stands if so it is important that something is done soon.
MAG have been distracted by STN. I think they still are as they see that as the main airport in the Group close to London with plenty of room for expansion and a far better layout into which to expand. Also I believe that on PAX STN will become No 3 again within 2years and that will mean more time will be spent on STN rather than MAN even despite what Davies said.
Mr Cornish said over a year ago that STN would have a China link in about 18 months. I am not sure it will happen but that is the way they are thinking and working.
If MAN doesn't do something about the Terminals and taxiways soon airlines may well start moving away and passengers decline and provided STN keeps growing they (MAG as a business won't care).
Again if I remember correctly a few years ago Taxiway Alpha was going to be rebuilt on a new alignment to improve things but I believe it was shelved and patched up again because of distraction on STN. Also two years ago R1 was completely renewed so why do they still keep closing it for months for maintenance.
It all seems to be do the minimum rather than do what is really needed.
On the terminals we were led to believe that there would be an announcement early this year. Nothing so far. More worrying is the fact that the plans which have been leaked on here and elsewhere are all different. What do you believe.
Mr Cornish said recently if I remember correct that we wouldn't recognise the airport in five years. This implies something is to be done but what and when. It is a bit like Hainan. Mind you he could have been talking about Airport City not the Airport itself
I also recollect that planning permission for the T2 extension already exists because is was gained at the time of the original building with a view to extending when needed which would seem to be now. So provided extending T2 as originally envisaged doesn't interfere with other proposals why not start with this.
There are already signs that expansion by Ryanair etc maybe held back due lack of stands if so it is important that something is done soon.
MAG have been distracted by STN. I think they still are as they see that as the main airport in the Group close to London with plenty of room for expansion and a far better layout into which to expand. Also I believe that on PAX STN will become No 3 again within 2years and that will mean more time will be spent on STN rather than MAN even despite what Davies said.
Mr Cornish said over a year ago that STN would have a China link in about 18 months. I am not sure it will happen but that is the way they are thinking and working.
If MAN doesn't do something about the Terminals and taxiways soon airlines may well start moving away and passengers decline and provided STN keeps growing they (MAG as a business won't care).
Again if I remember correctly a few years ago Taxiway Alpha was going to be rebuilt on a new alignment to improve things but I believe it was shelved and patched up again because of distraction on STN. Also two years ago R1 was completely renewed so why do they still keep closing it for months for maintenance.
It all seems to be do the minimum rather than do what is really needed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that the 5 stands turned to car parking last year are still part of the apron this year.
There are a number of others which are still used for car parking which I understood would be put back to stands when the new 9000 space carpark was fully open which I think it is now.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
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.
Three points:
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.
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.
2 - Don't buy the merger excuse, UA have found 752 (2 for DUB, 1 NCL, 1 EDI, 1 SNN) plus 2 B764 for VCE/FCO to name a few for this summer and in recent summers....I agree about the larger aircraft however it's not the route of the problem at MAN.
3 - I knew the EDI comment would ruffle a few feathers! Yes a lot arrive via ground however an new routes with UA, AA and AC in recent years have changed it. If couldn't possible explain my reasons for saying EDI is better, would be here all day!
It is disappointing that UA haven't upgraded a/c to EWR. When I asked the question at their stand at the Manchester Travel Show in January, I got the inevitable answer that they would like to when suitable equipment was available.
Someone suggested the fact they hadn't returned to double daily or larger a/c was very 'telling' (and I must admit it was a surprise when United decided to start a NCL, a route previously announced by AA but then cancelled before it started). However, I don't think it tells us that the reason is due to lack of demand in view of the following:
Some figures reported about 18 months ago (I think by MAN) showed that the most under-served route from MAN was New York.
AA have actually decided to upgrade their JFK flight, albeit to an ageing B767.
More capacity for pax, including the enhanced J class, and cargo.
Delta obviously believe there is demand and that they can make money, as they start JFK shortly.
The high fares already referred to, which I hope is because the demand is there for the direct service and is not simply a device to get passengers to fill up those LHR seats irrespective of the impact on the MAN flights.
And thanks to some excellent posts recently by several contributors.
Someone suggested the fact they hadn't returned to double daily or larger a/c was very 'telling' (and I must admit it was a surprise when United decided to start a NCL, a route previously announced by AA but then cancelled before it started). However, I don't think it tells us that the reason is due to lack of demand in view of the following:
Some figures reported about 18 months ago (I think by MAN) showed that the most under-served route from MAN was New York.
AA have actually decided to upgrade their JFK flight, albeit to an ageing B767.
More capacity for pax, including the enhanced J class, and cargo.
Delta obviously believe there is demand and that they can make money, as they start JFK shortly.
The high fares already referred to, which I hope is because the demand is there for the direct service and is not simply a device to get passengers to fill up those LHR seats irrespective of the impact on the MAN flights.
And thanks to some excellent posts recently by several contributors.
On a more general point are MAG is active discussions with these carriers and making MAN a destination of choice for them to expand into by offering the competitive fees like competitors? or are they solely focused on East routes?
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
In the absence of Little Red, Star Alliance are happy to book connections to LHR with BA.
Not just United, many Air Canada fares via BA shuttle to LHR undercut their own Direct Rouge service, presumably to fill up all those 777 & 767s they operate from LHR.
Not just United, many Air Canada fares via BA shuttle to LHR undercut their own Direct Rouge service, presumably to fill up all those 777 & 767s they operate from LHR.
Out of the carriers serving the NYC market, CO, and now UA have tended to be the most leisure orientated for MAN. They acknowledged it as much themselves.
They'll quite happily route that kind of non-FF customer through FRA or MUC.
I don't believe they see any immediate requirement to upguage or get people down to LHR via another alliance as much as, say AC, just to get their FFs on UA metal if the 80 and 101 happen to be full, as they regard current 2 x 757 capacity as matching demand.
I wonder if they'll suffer the most from the arrival of Thomas Cook though.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On parking I thought the new 9000 space car park was now fully operational. If so why are they still using the apron for parking. Bring the stands back into use they are needed.
On the terminals we were led to believe that there would be an announcement early this year. Nothing so far. More worrying is the fact that the plans which have been leaked on here and elsewhere are all different. What do you believe.
Mr Cornish said recently if I remember correct that we wouldn't recognise the airport in five years. This implies something is to be done but what and when. It is a bit like Hainan. Mind you he could have been talking about Airport City not the Airport itself
I also recollect that planning permission for the T2 extension already exists because is was gained at the time of the original building with a view to extending when needed which would seem to be now. So provided extending T2 as originally envisaged doesn't interfere with other proposals why not start with this.
There are already signs that expansion by Ryanair etc maybe held back due lack of stands if so it is important that something is done soon.
MAG have been distracted by STN. I think they still are as they see that as the main airport in the Group close to London with plenty of room for expansion and a far better layout into which to expand. Also I believe that on PAX STN will become No 3 again within 2years and that will mean more time will be spent on STN rather than MAN even despite what Davies said.
Mr Cornish said over a year ago that STN would have a China link in about 18 months. I am not sure it will happen but that is the way they are thinking and working.
If MAN doesn't do something about the Terminals and taxiways soon airlines may well start moving away and passengers decline and provided STN keeps growing they (MAG as a business won't care).
Again if I remember correctly a few years ago Taxiway Alpha was going to be rebuilt on a new alignment to improve things but I believe it was shelved and patched up again because of distraction on STN. Also two years ago R1 was completely renewed so why do they still keep closing it for months for maintenance.
It all seems to be do the minimum rather than do what is really needed.
On the terminals we were led to believe that there would be an announcement early this year. Nothing so far. More worrying is the fact that the plans which have been leaked on here and elsewhere are all different. What do you believe.
Mr Cornish said recently if I remember correct that we wouldn't recognise the airport in five years. This implies something is to be done but what and when. It is a bit like Hainan. Mind you he could have been talking about Airport City not the Airport itself
I also recollect that planning permission for the T2 extension already exists because is was gained at the time of the original building with a view to extending when needed which would seem to be now. So provided extending T2 as originally envisaged doesn't interfere with other proposals why not start with this.
There are already signs that expansion by Ryanair etc maybe held back due lack of stands if so it is important that something is done soon.
MAG have been distracted by STN. I think they still are as they see that as the main airport in the Group close to London with plenty of room for expansion and a far better layout into which to expand. Also I believe that on PAX STN will become No 3 again within 2years and that will mean more time will be spent on STN rather than MAN even despite what Davies said.
Mr Cornish said over a year ago that STN would have a China link in about 18 months. I am not sure it will happen but that is the way they are thinking and working.
If MAN doesn't do something about the Terminals and taxiways soon airlines may well start moving away and passengers decline and provided STN keeps growing they (MAG as a business won't care).
Again if I remember correctly a few years ago Taxiway Alpha was going to be rebuilt on a new alignment to improve things but I believe it was shelved and patched up again because of distraction on STN. Also two years ago R1 was completely renewed so why do they still keep closing it for months for maintenance.
It all seems to be do the minimum rather than do what is really needed.
As far as runway and other work is concerned no company does unnecessary work. If the work needs doing, it needs doing.
Finally Stansted. MAG owns Stansted but it operates as a separate entity. You seem to think the airport, the groups major asset, is in danger of being neglected. I certainly don't see it that way.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian Brooks, As they say, "If you say it often enough, you actually believe it". The debate should be what will be first LHR Runway 3 or MAN doing something about the terminals.
Philbky. I think doing the comparison game between MAN and the worse airports you have been to, is not productive. If you start that then you end up the same, look at the best and aim high.
Philbky. I think doing the comparison game between MAN and the worse airports you have been to, is not productive. If you start that then you end up the same, look at the best and aim high.