MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turkish
Turkish have come up as cheap options for me on several trips but have often not quite had the flights at the right time and when I've flown to The Gulf with work, they pay for me to go direct!
Even though they are cheap, when I flew MAN to Istanbul, Lufthansa via MUC were cheaper and only two hours longer so I went with them.
Even though they are cheap, when I flew MAN to Istanbul, Lufthansa via MUC were cheaper and only two hours longer so I went with them.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Airport hits out at report claiming Heathrow expansion is good for the regions - Manchester Evening News
Finally, some fighting talk.
Finally, some fighting talk.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the MEN article and other bits and pieces. My emphasis in bold
From the National Connectivity Task Force website
Terms of Reference | National Connectivity Task Force
And here are the members
Members | National Connectivity Taskforce
Note the presence of Neil Pakey ex LPL but now at Shannon who of course have an interest in access to LHR.
And Rod Eddington. Now where have I heard of that name before in conjunction with Heathrow??
The NW rep is someone from Liverpool.
Cue Bagso...
The report, penned by a panel of experts dubbed the National Connectivity Task Force, says there should be a central international hub in London - with more flights connecting regional airports...........
The regional task force report was suggested by Heathrow but the task force stresses it is independent.
The regional task force report was suggested by Heathrow but the task force stresses it is independent.
Terms of Reference | National Connectivity Task Force
The National Connectivity Task Force board will comprise:
An Independent Chair;
Task Force members with relevant business and travel industry backgrounds, but no direct commercial interest in the schemes under review;
Leading academics that specialise in understanding the role of infrastructure and connectivity in local, city, regional and national economic development;
Representatives from the UK’s regions, nations and Crown Dependencies, chosen for their relevant knowledge and expertise.
It will act independently and be serviced by a Secretariat and supporting expert consultants, that will report directly to the Chair and Task Force membership.
The Chair and members of the Task Force will not be paid for their participation, but Heathrow Airport Ltd will cover their reasonable travel, accommodation and other expenses as part of its sponsorship of the Task Force’s Secretariat and the research programme it is leading. Heathrow Airport Ltd will have observer status at Task Force meetings, summary notes of which will be placed on the Task Force’s web site, but will not participate directly in the Task Force’s work or influence its conclusions.
An Independent Chair;
Task Force members with relevant business and travel industry backgrounds, but no direct commercial interest in the schemes under review;
Leading academics that specialise in understanding the role of infrastructure and connectivity in local, city, regional and national economic development;
Representatives from the UK’s regions, nations and Crown Dependencies, chosen for their relevant knowledge and expertise.
It will act independently and be serviced by a Secretariat and supporting expert consultants, that will report directly to the Chair and Task Force membership.
The Chair and members of the Task Force will not be paid for their participation, but Heathrow Airport Ltd will cover their reasonable travel, accommodation and other expenses as part of its sponsorship of the Task Force’s Secretariat and the research programme it is leading. Heathrow Airport Ltd will have observer status at Task Force meetings, summary notes of which will be placed on the Task Force’s web site, but will not participate directly in the Task Force’s work or influence its conclusions.
Members | National Connectivity Taskforce
Note the presence of Neil Pakey ex LPL but now at Shannon who of course have an interest in access to LHR.
And Rod Eddington. Now where have I heard of that name before in conjunction with Heathrow??
The NW rep is someone from Liverpool.
Cue Bagso...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only Heathrow Support Groups Can CLEAN The Staines That Other Airports Leave Behind
Thanks Suzeman
Finally, some fighting talk ! AT LAST !
Indeed shall we have a collective round of applause from posters in the Manchester TMA.
I may have to get my copy of the hallelujah chorus out !
But why oh why has it taken 2 years to speak up?
To be fair we really should have had a coherent, robust campaign galvanizing support from across the N West and well beyond 2 years ago!
We too have leading academics, business leaders, representatives for tourism etc who are supportive of the airport !
Putting the business case for Heathrow well aside...it has to be said there has been a fair bit of criticism regarding some of the groups supporting runway 3.
"Back Heathrow" is one such group which appears to have "form" in terms of being less than, how shall we say being "squeaky clean".
“astroturfing” — a movement portrayed as a grassroots initiative but actually run on behalf of corporate interests"
With regards to this mob, i'm drawn to Suzemans post.. !
"Heathrow Airport Ltd will cover their reasonable travel, accommodation and other expenses as part of its sponsorship of the Task Force’s Secretariat and the research programme it is leading" (cough)
Well I for one am highly encouraged to see that the Heathrow Task Force is whiter than white, hopefully on that basis at the forefront of the Tasks Force research will be a full and frank assessment of the monstrous costs involved in RW3, to say that these were given a "light touch" by Sir Howard would be a understatement of biblical proportions !
I'm sure they can ALSO give that all important assurance on state subsidies as well (...remaining vigilant Basil).
(......NOTE ; the rest of this post has been deleted in the interests of full impartiality)
Can I pass the baton to Sir Shed ?
Thanks Suzeman
Finally, some fighting talk ! AT LAST !
Indeed shall we have a collective round of applause from posters in the Manchester TMA.
I may have to get my copy of the hallelujah chorus out !
But why oh why has it taken 2 years to speak up?
To be fair we really should have had a coherent, robust campaign galvanizing support from across the N West and well beyond 2 years ago!
We too have leading academics, business leaders, representatives for tourism etc who are supportive of the airport !
Putting the business case for Heathrow well aside...it has to be said there has been a fair bit of criticism regarding some of the groups supporting runway 3.
"Back Heathrow" is one such group which appears to have "form" in terms of being less than, how shall we say being "squeaky clean".
“astroturfing” — a movement portrayed as a grassroots initiative but actually run on behalf of corporate interests"
With regards to this mob, i'm drawn to Suzemans post.. !
"Heathrow Airport Ltd will cover their reasonable travel, accommodation and other expenses as part of its sponsorship of the Task Force’s Secretariat and the research programme it is leading" (cough)
Well I for one am highly encouraged to see that the Heathrow Task Force is whiter than white, hopefully on that basis at the forefront of the Tasks Force research will be a full and frank assessment of the monstrous costs involved in RW3, to say that these were given a "light touch" by Sir Howard would be a understatement of biblical proportions !
I'm sure they can ALSO give that all important assurance on state subsidies as well (...remaining vigilant Basil).
(......NOTE ; the rest of this post has been deleted in the interests of full impartiality)
Can I pass the baton to Sir Shed ?
Last edited by Bagso; 17th Mar 2015 at 19:13.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Came through T3 on Sunday, it was a zoo. Is this really the passenger experience Air France, KLM, BA and American are paying for? No offence to Ryanair who had four active and three static aircraft on the apron, but this terminal is all over the place. Outside American, is anyone seriously doing intl-intl connections from T3? The facial recognotion check is just another impediment to smooth progress.
What's the 2015 plan in terms of improvements for the summer? If this was a Sunday in winter, a summer weekend doesn't bear thinking about.
What's the 2015 plan in terms of improvements for the summer? If this was a Sunday in winter, a summer weekend doesn't bear thinking about.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks spanners. Great figures for Feb. but rather disappointing if a daily is already ruled out for next winter. I know some others may disagree but I think Hainan is looking increasingly unlikely, at least for this year, but a daily for CX would have been good compensation.
I've not seen LHR figures recently so can't comment.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Came through T3 on Sunday, it was a zoo. Is this really the passenger experience Air France, KLM, BA and American are paying for? No offence to Ryanair who had four active and three static aircraft on the apron, but this terminal is all over the place. Outside American, is anyone seriously doing intl-intl connections from T3? The facial recognotion check is just another impediment to smooth progress.
What's the 2015 plan in terms of improvements for the summer? If this was a Sunday in winter, a summer weekend doesn't bear thinking about.
What's the 2015 plan in terms of improvements for the summer? If this was a Sunday in winter, a summer weekend doesn't bear thinking about.
Terminal 3 wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for Ryanair who's size/config of aircraft along with their increasing programe has far outgrown T3's capacity. Problem is - where would you move them to ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I find Manchester Airport an embarrassment when compared to other international airports in developed countries.
Seems to be symptomatic of the the 'just fill the pot hole in' culture that Britain has become renowned for.
Seems to be symptomatic of the the 'just fill the pot hole in' culture that Britain has become renowned for.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how many International airports you travel through but I find Manchester no better nor worse than most in Europe. It can and will, if what we are told is to be believed, improve.
I have personally travelled through a lot of airports and apart from new builds in the Far East its not as bad as many would like to suggest.
I have personally travelled through a lot of airports and apart from new builds in the Far East its not as bad as many would like to suggest.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, many of MAN's terminal infrastructure issues date back to sudden state-mandated rule changes introduced in response to terrorist incidents. MAN has suffered particularly from the requirement to segregate departing and arriving passengers. Terminal access restrictions were imposed overnight after those two Excrement-of-Satan* nutjobs attempted to detonate their vehicle inside the doors at Glasgow Airport.
MAN has lost the ability to offer an indoor T1 - T3 landside walking route. T3 internal corridors seize up for 15 mins whenever an aircraft disembarks at Gate 141. Vehicles cannot drop off directly outside the terminals, and road traffic backs up because fewer usable traffic lanes are available. And, within the terminals, arriving passengers face multiple level changes to avoid transiting the departure lounges. MAN's terminals were never designed to cope with any of this and have been adapted to the extent that difficult circumstances would allow.
It is an open secret on PPRuNe that MAG is currently working on 'gamechanging' plans to completely redevelop the terminals complex. The general belief is that we will be seeing change at a fundamental level representing a very substantial investment. No doubt we will all be appraised of the detailed proposals once they are finalised. Consultations with airlines are in progress. In the meantime, the existing infrastructure must cope. Beyond the purely cosmetic, there is little more that can be done to improve the customer experience in the short term. Though switching on the escalators and travelators would be a great help (hint, hint!).
Outside the terminal certain short-term measures would be helpful, such as upgrading stands 56/57/58 for Ryanair 25-minute turnarounds by providing safe walking routes and direct access to refuelling. But grander schemes must wait for the main rebuild. The passenger experience may become even messier during the rebuild period, but the end result should be a facility which the whole region can be proud of. Some disruption through to completion will be unavoidable, but isn't a large-scale terminals rebuild the best outcome we could be asking for?
*Explanation: I apply a strict policy of never honouring lowlife terrorist scum with their title of choice.
MAN has lost the ability to offer an indoor T1 - T3 landside walking route. T3 internal corridors seize up for 15 mins whenever an aircraft disembarks at Gate 141. Vehicles cannot drop off directly outside the terminals, and road traffic backs up because fewer usable traffic lanes are available. And, within the terminals, arriving passengers face multiple level changes to avoid transiting the departure lounges. MAN's terminals were never designed to cope with any of this and have been adapted to the extent that difficult circumstances would allow.
It is an open secret on PPRuNe that MAG is currently working on 'gamechanging' plans to completely redevelop the terminals complex. The general belief is that we will be seeing change at a fundamental level representing a very substantial investment. No doubt we will all be appraised of the detailed proposals once they are finalised. Consultations with airlines are in progress. In the meantime, the existing infrastructure must cope. Beyond the purely cosmetic, there is little more that can be done to improve the customer experience in the short term. Though switching on the escalators and travelators would be a great help (hint, hint!).
Outside the terminal certain short-term measures would be helpful, such as upgrading stands 56/57/58 for Ryanair 25-minute turnarounds by providing safe walking routes and direct access to refuelling. But grander schemes must wait for the main rebuild. The passenger experience may become even messier during the rebuild period, but the end result should be a facility which the whole region can be proud of. Some disruption through to completion will be unavoidable, but isn't a large-scale terminals rebuild the best outcome we could be asking for?
*Explanation: I apply a strict policy of never honouring lowlife terrorist scum with their title of choice.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso ... How could I possibly improve upon your eloquent prose in post No.1289?
Heathrow's advocates can produce as many reports as they like stressing the *operational* advantages of LHR R3. Operationally, an expanded LHR actually *is* the best solution to the SE capacity crunch. We know that. But they're very careful to avoid any forensic examination of the *financial* implications of implementing their preferred solution. A single new runway at LHR will cost almost THREE-TIMES the INFLATION-ADJUSTED sum invested in the delivery of the Channel Tunnel. Think about that for a minute! Likewise, Istanbul is set to deliver a 90-million pax per annum newbuild airport with three runways, state-of-the-art terminals and all supporting infrastructure for just over one-third the quoted cost of building a single additional runway at LHR.
The operational advantages of expanding LHR are not the issue we in Manchester contest. It is the stratospheric price-tag, assuring a debt on a par with the GDP of many nation states. It is the prospect of £6 Billion of public funding to LHR freezing out more worthy infrastructure projects around the rest of the country for years to come. It is the nightmare of an unfathomably large private debt being underwritten by the British taxpayer. And of course, it is irksome to be condescendingly informed that LHR expansion will benefit those of us 'up North'. 'Trickledown' will work its magic, we are told, and some smaller airports will enjoy three daily flights to LHR! BUT, no money left in the public pot for infrastructure priorities which would benefit the regions directly. A pact with the Devil, that one!
LHR R3 is not even close to being cost-effective at the prices quoted. Nebulous notional 'payback' numbers are thrown around with no grounding in reality. LGW R2 just about passes the smell-test provided that it is entirely privately funded.
Given those extraordinary cost considerations, developing the existing long-haul offering here at MANCHESTER has to make financial sense for UK plc. We represent 'UK-connectivity' too! Likewise (for long-haul) BHX, NCL, GLA and EDI have demonstrated that they can play a role. And the UK has an over-abundance of airports scrapping to serve the short-haul market. There is no shortage of runways, only a political will to encourage their use to full potential.
Manchester Airport is the long-haul solution for the North. LHR and LGW expansion benefits the SE alone. Nothing wrong with that at the right price, but let's drop the pretence that £20 Billion-plus splurged on upping LHR capacity (by just one-third!) will be a godsend for us up here. We provincials aren't as gullible as some in the capital would like to believe.
Heathrow's advocates can produce as many reports as they like stressing the *operational* advantages of LHR R3. Operationally, an expanded LHR actually *is* the best solution to the SE capacity crunch. We know that. But they're very careful to avoid any forensic examination of the *financial* implications of implementing their preferred solution. A single new runway at LHR will cost almost THREE-TIMES the INFLATION-ADJUSTED sum invested in the delivery of the Channel Tunnel. Think about that for a minute! Likewise, Istanbul is set to deliver a 90-million pax per annum newbuild airport with three runways, state-of-the-art terminals and all supporting infrastructure for just over one-third the quoted cost of building a single additional runway at LHR.
The operational advantages of expanding LHR are not the issue we in Manchester contest. It is the stratospheric price-tag, assuring a debt on a par with the GDP of many nation states. It is the prospect of £6 Billion of public funding to LHR freezing out more worthy infrastructure projects around the rest of the country for years to come. It is the nightmare of an unfathomably large private debt being underwritten by the British taxpayer. And of course, it is irksome to be condescendingly informed that LHR expansion will benefit those of us 'up North'. 'Trickledown' will work its magic, we are told, and some smaller airports will enjoy three daily flights to LHR! BUT, no money left in the public pot for infrastructure priorities which would benefit the regions directly. A pact with the Devil, that one!
LHR R3 is not even close to being cost-effective at the prices quoted. Nebulous notional 'payback' numbers are thrown around with no grounding in reality. LGW R2 just about passes the smell-test provided that it is entirely privately funded.
Given those extraordinary cost considerations, developing the existing long-haul offering here at MANCHESTER has to make financial sense for UK plc. We represent 'UK-connectivity' too! Likewise (for long-haul) BHX, NCL, GLA and EDI have demonstrated that they can play a role. And the UK has an over-abundance of airports scrapping to serve the short-haul market. There is no shortage of runways, only a political will to encourage their use to full potential.
Manchester Airport is the long-haul solution for the North. LHR and LGW expansion benefits the SE alone. Nothing wrong with that at the right price, but let's drop the pretence that £20 Billion-plus splurged on upping LHR capacity (by just one-third!) will be a godsend for us up here. We provincials aren't as gullible as some in the capital would like to believe.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By all means object to being condescended to by those in the SE and their trickledown ideas, fair point. However the notion MAN is the gateway to "the North" might not go down well as United join Emirates at NCL and GLA and EDI do rather well without needing to feed MAN....
Works both ways chaps. The seperation of arriving and departing pax was implemented at most UK airports years ago, the sight of an A380 parked at the end of a pier built for self parking One Elevens and Viscounts tells you all you need to know about investment. T2 dates from 1993(?) and T3 is just an addition to the old Domestic Terminal, infrastructure investment at MAN has not remotely kept up with traffic.
Having said that I'd be delighted to see the new proposals for terminal layout. Now if they can only fix the taxiway layout to something more intuitive.....
Btw you blithely speak of developing MAN long haul. Excuse me but American have dropped ORD for months at a time and DL don't maintain year round daily. You keep assuming that long haul growth will "be developed" overlooking the fact there's nothing stopping most of it launching tomorrow. (UK-China bilateral confusion excepted). Cathay should never have gone away but SQ still remains uniquely for them, a stopping service. Delta are handing routes to Virgin, American's best equipment is still US Airways metal to PHL and United are still flying B757s. Truth is that each alliance has a fortress hub in Europe so constraints at LHR see Skyteam at AMS/CDG benefit or STAR at FRA. MAN remains a spoke. Airlines will serve a market in the most profitable way, with Air Canada it was over LHR with bmi, Delta sees a Hell of a lot of connecting pax over MAN-AMS. Oddly enough American sell a lot of LHR-MAN-US!
LHR expansion allows a lot more opportunities on ABZ/EDI/GLA/NCL/LBA/MAN-LHR-XYZ connections as you well know. To suggest it benefits only the SE is insular thinking of the worst sort.
Works both ways chaps. The seperation of arriving and departing pax was implemented at most UK airports years ago, the sight of an A380 parked at the end of a pier built for self parking One Elevens and Viscounts tells you all you need to know about investment. T2 dates from 1993(?) and T3 is just an addition to the old Domestic Terminal, infrastructure investment at MAN has not remotely kept up with traffic.
Having said that I'd be delighted to see the new proposals for terminal layout. Now if they can only fix the taxiway layout to something more intuitive.....
Btw you blithely speak of developing MAN long haul. Excuse me but American have dropped ORD for months at a time and DL don't maintain year round daily. You keep assuming that long haul growth will "be developed" overlooking the fact there's nothing stopping most of it launching tomorrow. (UK-China bilateral confusion excepted). Cathay should never have gone away but SQ still remains uniquely for them, a stopping service. Delta are handing routes to Virgin, American's best equipment is still US Airways metal to PHL and United are still flying B757s. Truth is that each alliance has a fortress hub in Europe so constraints at LHR see Skyteam at AMS/CDG benefit or STAR at FRA. MAN remains a spoke. Airlines will serve a market in the most profitable way, with Air Canada it was over LHR with bmi, Delta sees a Hell of a lot of connecting pax over MAN-AMS. Oddly enough American sell a lot of LHR-MAN-US!
LHR expansion allows a lot more opportunities on ABZ/EDI/GLA/NCL/LBA/MAN-LHR-XYZ connections as you well know. To suggest it benefits only the SE is insular thinking of the worst sort.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 18th Mar 2015 at 01:06.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insular Londoncentric Thinking of the Worst Form!
Skipness - Last time I checked, GLA and EDI were in Scotland which I consider a country in its own right. Scotland has a North of its own, commonly referred to as 'The Highlands'. I do include NCL within my definition of 'The North' but my post did specifically credit the role that airport is already playing in long-haul. No oversight by me there.
Long haul development at MAN ... my post "assumes" nothing whatsoever. Nothing "blithe" about it. MAN's current four million long-haul pax per annum represents a healthy foundation to build upon, not a readymade finished product. I attract a certain amount of loathing from some on this board because I'm often the one who chucks proverbial cold water over those who do get carried away in their expectations. If challenges did not exist, there would be no need to *continue* developing MAN's long-haul offering; it would be mature to its full potential already. The very examples you specify to illustrate your point are symptomatic of the areas in which improvement is needed. My posting is not at odds with the long-haul issues you raise ... they are the very reason I call for CONTINUING development of the offering at MAN.
Now ... about 'insular thinking of the worst sort'. That presumes that spending £6 Billion of public funds and £20 Billion+ overall on increasing LHR capacity (by just one third) exceeds the benefits of spending said £6 Billion directly on long-neglected infrastructure priorities in the regions. Yes, Liverpool could enjoy 3 x Daily flights to LHR (which could be pulled as 'uneconomic' after a 'decent' period) if £6 BILLION+ of public money is thrown at LHR. However, for a sum of public money considerably less than that, Liverpool could completely replace their bottleneck principal gateway rail station at Lime Street and its restrictive Victorian cuttings which mandate artificially limited frequencies to London Euston, NO direct services to Scotland and an underwhelming portfolio of other inter-city offerings. Now THAT would help Liverpool. MUCH more than three daily A319's to LHR. What about a transpennine motorway from Sheffield? Now THAT would really help the entire North of England (and by default UK plc). And just how much benefit will SHEFFIELD see from LHR expansion anyway?
As a worthy offspring of the Ayrshire diaspora, I'm sure you're much better placed than myself to identify publicly-funded infrastructure initiatives which would benefit Scotland to a FAR greater extent than a couple of extra daily frequencies to LHR. Indeed, PIK aside, Scotland has little to gain from extra LHR slots as the whole country is generously served by flights to London already ... as you well know.
That £6 Billion of taxpayers' money CANNOT BE SPENT TWICE. We are obliged to be selective in identifying national priorities. Maximising value for scarce public expenditure must be a paramount consideration. And London has enjoyed VASTLY more than its fair share of public infrastructure funding over recent years already. What is the betting that 'Crossrail 2' will be effortlessly waved through at £27.5 Billion in the near future? To suggest that regional infrastructure priorities are STILL less deserving of long overdue direct investment than an outrageously value-deficient boost for LHR is ... INSULAR LONDONCENTRIC THINKING OF THE WORST SORT!
Long haul development at MAN ... my post "assumes" nothing whatsoever. Nothing "blithe" about it. MAN's current four million long-haul pax per annum represents a healthy foundation to build upon, not a readymade finished product. I attract a certain amount of loathing from some on this board because I'm often the one who chucks proverbial cold water over those who do get carried away in their expectations. If challenges did not exist, there would be no need to *continue* developing MAN's long-haul offering; it would be mature to its full potential already. The very examples you specify to illustrate your point are symptomatic of the areas in which improvement is needed. My posting is not at odds with the long-haul issues you raise ... they are the very reason I call for CONTINUING development of the offering at MAN.
Now ... about 'insular thinking of the worst sort'. That presumes that spending £6 Billion of public funds and £20 Billion+ overall on increasing LHR capacity (by just one third) exceeds the benefits of spending said £6 Billion directly on long-neglected infrastructure priorities in the regions. Yes, Liverpool could enjoy 3 x Daily flights to LHR (which could be pulled as 'uneconomic' after a 'decent' period) if £6 BILLION+ of public money is thrown at LHR. However, for a sum of public money considerably less than that, Liverpool could completely replace their bottleneck principal gateway rail station at Lime Street and its restrictive Victorian cuttings which mandate artificially limited frequencies to London Euston, NO direct services to Scotland and an underwhelming portfolio of other inter-city offerings. Now THAT would help Liverpool. MUCH more than three daily A319's to LHR. What about a transpennine motorway from Sheffield? Now THAT would really help the entire North of England (and by default UK plc). And just how much benefit will SHEFFIELD see from LHR expansion anyway?
As a worthy offspring of the Ayrshire diaspora, I'm sure you're much better placed than myself to identify publicly-funded infrastructure initiatives which would benefit Scotland to a FAR greater extent than a couple of extra daily frequencies to LHR. Indeed, PIK aside, Scotland has little to gain from extra LHR slots as the whole country is generously served by flights to London already ... as you well know.
That £6 Billion of taxpayers' money CANNOT BE SPENT TWICE. We are obliged to be selective in identifying national priorities. Maximising value for scarce public expenditure must be a paramount consideration. And London has enjoyed VASTLY more than its fair share of public infrastructure funding over recent years already. What is the betting that 'Crossrail 2' will be effortlessly waved through at £27.5 Billion in the near future? To suggest that regional infrastructure priorities are STILL less deserving of long overdue direct investment than an outrageously value-deficient boost for LHR is ... INSULAR LONDONCENTRIC THINKING OF THE WORST SORT!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CX A359 seat layout has been revealed. It's 38/28/214 cabin so 290 passengers only which means it may be too small for our route unless they bump frequency using this aircraft on all services.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the meantime, the existing infrastructure must cope. Beyond the purely cosmetic, there is little more that can be done to improve the customer experience in the short term. Though switching on the escalators and travelators would be a great help (hint, hint!).
Remains to be seen what will happen nowadays.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there would be no need to *continue* developing MAN's long-haul offering; it would be mature to its full potential already.
American still offer huge connections over LHR and Delta still have a huge hub to fill at AMS whereas United have grown LHR and EDI, whilst adding NCL and allowed MAN to coast, merely swapping a EWR rotation for an IAD. BMI tried and failed, whereas Virgin seem to have refocussed on MAN long haul in a positive way. There's not a whole lot of additonal capacity going West as the existing market appears mature. Going East to the Gulf and Oz , the ME3 have killed any additional airlines from entering the market as they have the market sewn up between them and continue to encroach on market share held by the exisiting European legacies.
It appears MAN suffers from a similar problem from DUB, in that long haul going West is too seasonal for serious TLC from the operator which is shame. I think the limits to further direct growth Westbound are limited by the existing market carve ups by alliance members over selected hubs.
Remember in terms of spoke to hub :
Continental's EWR was a DC10 / B777 operation
Delta's ATL was also a B777
American's ORD was year round and used to fill an MD11 alongside a B762 to JFK.
I think the issue here is alliance membership is constraining the eagerness for further capacity.
Going East, the ME3 have it killed already.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 18th Mar 2015 at 14:59.
Border Control
Speaking of Terminal infrastructure.
With the soon to be re-introduction of outbound border control measures, does anyone know how this will be achieved at MAN?
At the moment domestic pax can be mixed with international pax through security. However, am I right to assume that Domestic pax will now have to be seperated, as they don't require the outbound passport control.
As inbound Border Control can be patchy in staffing, how will this impact on the outbound traffic? Somehow I doubt they have recruited hundreds of extra staff.
With the soon to be re-introduction of outbound border control measures, does anyone know how this will be achieved at MAN?
At the moment domestic pax can be mixed with international pax through security. However, am I right to assume that Domestic pax will now have to be seperated, as they don't require the outbound passport control.
As inbound Border Control can be patchy in staffing, how will this impact on the outbound traffic? Somehow I doubt they have recruited hundreds of extra staff.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suzeman ... You are absolutely correct in pointing out that changes to staffing deployment can improve the passenger experience. I was thinking more in terms of infrastructure changes (building alterations etc.) in my post. During recent transits of T3 I have actually noted quite active queue management in security at busy times. This does appear to help. I'm passing through there again tomorrow morning so I'll see how everything flows then.
Skipness ... I am in broad agreement with most of the challenges to long-haul which you identify in your 13:52 post. I would point out though that I have never argued that such challenges are not a consideration. However, I do feel that MAN has scope to further develop its long-haul portfolio, particularly with regard to leisure/VFR markets. The process will never be straightforward, but expansion of the existing offering can be achieved. It is interesting to see Thomas Cook challenging the legacy lethargy on MAN - New York (and taking on Miami) ... a leisure solution appearing in two of the less-expected markets. Interesting too that the re-emergence of Cathay Pacific at MAN has coincided with the squeeze on MAN-LHR connecting capacity in recent times. If that was a factor, it has produced one large positive for Manchester Airport at least.
In the longer term (Westbound) it will be interesting to watch the impact of low-cost long-hauls such as Norwegian, Thomas Cook (and Ryanair???) on the market generally. MAG cannot take it for granted that an airline such as RYR/NAX will automatically choose MAN as a long-haul base at some stage ... they must be lovingly courted to that end. But, if low-cost long-haul can succeed (and the many challenges to that are another conversation), AAL / DAL / UAL with their B752's may find themselves unable to dictate passenger-flows to the same extent they take for granted today.
Those MAN-LHR transfer pax bound for the US are motivated in many cases by much lower fare offers to the same final destination, not a preference for changing planes in London. Leisure carriers can win these back. And then there are the customers whose bookings are made by specialist tour operators and cruise companies whose 'expert staff' appear to believe that the only flights operating from the regions are BA Shuttles to LHR. Education is required there. Loyalty-point chasers and corporate travel policy victims will be a tougher nut to crack in the short-to-medium term.
Thomas Cook's MAN-JFK is the first tangible reminder that if the US majors wish to restrict affordable leisure capacity on core routes ex-MAN there are others who can muscle in and take advantage. The transfer of MAN-ATL from Delta to its more leisure-focused partner Virgin Atlantic is another indicator of the pattern MAN's Transatlantic growth is likely to follow. UAL and AAL aren't the only game in town. If they want to keep their market share at MAN they're going to have to put in a bit of effort. This Summer, AAL will be all widebody B763/B763/A332 at MAN (no B752's), although the unfortunate withdrawal of MAN-CLT is one of the reasons for that.
MAG must continue to work hard in growing MAN's long-haul portfolio, not least due to the challenges you outline. But they shouldn't shrug their shoulders and throw in the towel for a long time yet!
Skipness ... I am in broad agreement with most of the challenges to long-haul which you identify in your 13:52 post. I would point out though that I have never argued that such challenges are not a consideration. However, I do feel that MAN has scope to further develop its long-haul portfolio, particularly with regard to leisure/VFR markets. The process will never be straightforward, but expansion of the existing offering can be achieved. It is interesting to see Thomas Cook challenging the legacy lethargy on MAN - New York (and taking on Miami) ... a leisure solution appearing in two of the less-expected markets. Interesting too that the re-emergence of Cathay Pacific at MAN has coincided with the squeeze on MAN-LHR connecting capacity in recent times. If that was a factor, it has produced one large positive for Manchester Airport at least.
In the longer term (Westbound) it will be interesting to watch the impact of low-cost long-hauls such as Norwegian, Thomas Cook (and Ryanair???) on the market generally. MAG cannot take it for granted that an airline such as RYR/NAX will automatically choose MAN as a long-haul base at some stage ... they must be lovingly courted to that end. But, if low-cost long-haul can succeed (and the many challenges to that are another conversation), AAL / DAL / UAL with their B752's may find themselves unable to dictate passenger-flows to the same extent they take for granted today.
Those MAN-LHR transfer pax bound for the US are motivated in many cases by much lower fare offers to the same final destination, not a preference for changing planes in London. Leisure carriers can win these back. And then there are the customers whose bookings are made by specialist tour operators and cruise companies whose 'expert staff' appear to believe that the only flights operating from the regions are BA Shuttles to LHR. Education is required there. Loyalty-point chasers and corporate travel policy victims will be a tougher nut to crack in the short-to-medium term.
Thomas Cook's MAN-JFK is the first tangible reminder that if the US majors wish to restrict affordable leisure capacity on core routes ex-MAN there are others who can muscle in and take advantage. The transfer of MAN-ATL from Delta to its more leisure-focused partner Virgin Atlantic is another indicator of the pattern MAN's Transatlantic growth is likely to follow. UAL and AAL aren't the only game in town. If they want to keep their market share at MAN they're going to have to put in a bit of effort. This Summer, AAL will be all widebody B763/B763/A332 at MAN (no B752's), although the unfortunate withdrawal of MAN-CLT is one of the reasons for that.
MAG must continue to work hard in growing MAN's long-haul portfolio, not least due to the challenges you outline. But they shouldn't shrug their shoulders and throw in the towel for a long time yet!