MANCHESTER 1
Foam Fiasco
I just do not understand this water salute culture that seems to happen every other day somewhere, for the most banal reasons.
The arrival from ATL was nothing new or exceptional, nor the Airline involved.
A waste of water,(or in this case- foam) time & resource and now a costly mistake at huge expense, embarrassment and inconvenience to all inviolved.
Instead, settle for a PR "selfie" by the cabin door - if you must.
Inaugural Manchester to Atlanta flight grounded when firefighters spray aircraft with FOAM instead of water - Manchester Evening News
Make what you will of the MEN accuracy of reporting too.,
The arrival from ATL was nothing new or exceptional, nor the Airline involved.
A waste of water,(or in this case- foam) time & resource and now a costly mistake at huge expense, embarrassment and inconvenience to all inviolved.
Instead, settle for a PR "selfie" by the cabin door - if you must.
Inaugural Manchester to Atlanta flight grounded when firefighters spray aircraft with FOAM instead of water - Manchester Evening News
Make what you will of the MEN accuracy of reporting too.,
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airports have fallen into either corporate or semi corporate hands. Unless the government nationalises them they should stand on their own two feet unless, like certain highland and island airports, they can demonstrate a social necessity existence.
The problem with the Heathrow proposal is that the government is posturing in such a way as to be seen to be in favour of a development which favours one commercial operator which may be detrimental both to other airport operators around the country and certainly to the greater majority of passengers in the UK regions.
Londoncentricity has been rife in the UK for far longer than my almost 68 years, regardless of the fact that, historically, the Midlands, the North, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been the industrial powerhouses which produced the goods and thus the wealth of the country.
Osborne's Northern Powerhouse initiative is pale in comparison to Cross Rail and the plans for Heathrow and will likely be dropped by the next government of whatever complexion unless the combined local authorities really do both get their act together and make sure that whatever government is in power in June sits up and takes notice.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,993
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When our first 747-8f arrived at MAN it was asked to stop on a taxi way, when the captain asked why? So we can give you a water salute was the reply, Captain was heard to of politely decline 'I don't want those things anywhere near my aircraft' seems a wise decision now!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest adverts for Heathrow put up by Heathrow AT Heathrow are priceless !
One advert states that the country will benefit to the tune of £100 Billion
The second on the other side of T5 states £210 billion.
The backdrop is identical just the figures have changed.
What's £110 billion between friends !
Skip maybe can you clarify the actual figure ?
Clearly those paid vast sums to perform these calculations seem confused !
One advert states that the country will benefit to the tune of £100 Billion
The second on the other side of T5 states £210 billion.
The backdrop is identical just the figures have changed.
What's £110 billion between friends !
Skip maybe can you clarify the actual figure ?
Clearly those paid vast sums to perform these calculations seem confused !
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Motorways are and the railways should be national assets paid for by the taxpayer as beneficial to all in one way or another. Rail privatisation, especially the way it was done, was and still is a nonsense driven by politics rather than practicalities.
Airports have fallen into either corporate or semi corporate hands. Unless the government nationalises them they should stand on their own two feet unless, like certain highland and island airports, they can demonstrate a social necessity existence..
Airports have fallen into either corporate or semi corporate hands. Unless the government nationalises them they should stand on their own two feet unless, like certain highland and island airports, they can demonstrate a social necessity existence..
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,250
Received 142 Likes
on
87 Posts
National solution
Have no conflict of interest. I do not work for BA / MAG/ HAL however I do, and have in the past, been involved with a number of large airport projects worldwide. Currently coming towards the end of one in the Middle East in fact, and maybe being posted onto another soon. So I do know about certain aspects of airport developments, within my own specialisation with respect to terminal construction. As for other posters on this thread I would surmise that some indeed may work at airports that are being discussed, but in what capacity is not always clear.
Regards
Mr Mac
Have no conflict of interest. I do not work for BA / MAG/ HAL however I do, and have in the past, been involved with a number of large airport projects worldwide. Currently coming towards the end of one in the Middle East in fact, and maybe being posted onto another soon. So I do know about certain aspects of airport developments, within my own specialisation with respect to terminal construction. As for other posters on this thread I would surmise that some indeed may work at airports that are being discussed, but in what capacity is not always clear.
Regards
Mr Mac
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northwest you obviously don't understand the first paragraph of my post. Please explain how "Motorways are and the railways should be national assets paid for by the taxpayer as beneficial to all in one way or another" means I'm against the Northern Rail Hub and the A6 Airport Relief Rd, both of which will be funded entirely by the taxpayer through various funds, some of which are rather convoluted but in the end it is the taxpayer who will provide the money.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just seen elsewhere that the diversion was definitely due to wind. The crew may have some explaining to do as nothing else diverted and aircraft landed normally immediately before the first approach, between the approaches and immediately after. There was some low drifting cloud down to around 600 ft on the approach but nothing significant.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to the Heathrow thread!
there's an awful lot on here about Heathrow. Good job it's not railways or we'd feel the wrath of trolling!
It’s Heathrow shareholders’ money, expect it to be spent at ..... Heathrow, if the government would allow it.
BA was unable to make money with a Ringway hub, hence the withdrawal.
Some use Heathrow for one-stop longhaul, others use Amsterdam, Dubai, etc.. Good to have a choice! A third rwy at Heathrow increases that choice as more longhaul destinations would become available there.
So, not just BA then. Can no other carrier make money with a Ringway hub either?
Agree, but an intercity standard rail link between Liverpool, Manchester, Ringway, Sheffield, Leeds and Hull is badly needed.
Yes, EK is very well entrenched at Ringway, this could be inhibiting the establishment of new non-stop longhaul routes.
Exactly, it’s not £6bn from public funds. Suspect that any planning permission would have a great deal of "planning gain" attached and that Heathrow shareholders would be paying a fair amount for motorway diversions, etc..
If this isn’t the case, then it’s the price for decades of indecision and dithering.
Had the rwy been built when it was needed, in the 1970s, motorway diversions would not have been an issue.
Maybe, but certainly a bargain compared to a few minutes off London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds!
Nothing to declare in my case, independently minded and proud of it. My view and opinions are my own and based on common sense and reality. Am always happy to have them demolished with superior arguments.
Well of course they have!
All
I think there are a number of issues which can be quite quickly summarised as follows :-
LHR Runway - Too expensive and of little value to the regions, money could be better spent elsewhere.
I think there are a number of issues which can be quite quickly summarised as follows :-
LHR Runway - Too expensive and of little value to the regions, money could be better spent elsewhere.
BA - Not interested in the regions and slowly pulling out it appears. Also why would you go to LHR to use them, with the current range of other better carriers available on most routes.
Some use Heathrow for one-stop longhaul, others use Amsterdam, Dubai, etc.. Good to have a choice! A third rwy at Heathrow increases that choice as more longhaul destinations would become available there.
Manchester Hub - Have to agree with Skip, there just is not sufficient business travel yet, and there is no based carrier as BA pulled out.
HS2/3 - Can we have the money for something else please, as even the House Of Lords have now queried its viability and cost.
Incidentally have been away on business but came in on lunchtime EK which was full in Business, and apparently quite full in First as well.
Regards
Mr Mac
Regards
Mr Mac
I respectfully await his explanation concerning the value-for-money offered to UKplc by LHR's extraordinary R3 price-tag. And whilst I respectfully note expressions of opinion to the contrary, Davies currently suggests that £6,000,000,000 of that will be drawn from the public purse. So my question to him is entirely legitimate.
No, Davies is not suggesting that the £6bn should be taxpayer funded. You are mixing up the fact that this work (if required) will be UNDERTAKEN by public bodies (as HAL has no jurisdiction outside the airport boundary) with the question of who will pay for it. Davies states quite categorically that it is normal procedure for such costs to be the subject of negotiation between the public bodies and the scheme promoters (ie HAL). I'm afraid I have form in such matters, and I can assure you that HAL will get short shrift from the public bodies if it doesn't stump up, and indeed is highly unlikely to get planning permission unless it does. That was the case for T5, where BAA/HAL was effectively blackmailed over the cost of projects such as the extension of the Piccadilly Line, and it will be even more the case for R3.
If this isn’t the case, then it’s the price for decades of indecision and dithering.
Had the rwy been built when it was needed, in the 1970s, motorway diversions would not have been an issue.
Indeed HAL R3 seems a relative bargain when compared with the cost of saving 10 minutes on the Manchester-Liverpool rail journey!
I would find it really helpful if any individuals who had a professional interest in a particular airline or airport, e.g. BA or Heathrow, clearly declares it on their posts. It would allow me to understand the context of their comments; take the facts more seriously and their opinions with a more open mind.
Surely the investments in motorway and heavy rail links to MAN have been taxpayer funded to some degree?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 30th Mar 2015 at 23:29.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National Interest
For the record I have no financial interest in whether LHR, LGW or anywhere else gets a new runway. But having worked in this industry all my life, I just feel that airports should be allowed to grow so long as they can make a business case for it. Using their own money, with no recourse to taxpayer funds. And that principle applies to MAN, LHR, Timbuktu or wherever.
Same applies from me.
Whatever happens at LHR be it Yes or No it WILL have an impact on Manchester, that is why we are discussing it ....
AND why maybe the frustration of some of us can be vented here, when common sense questions and answers about this topic , be they from/to MPs, Transport Committee, Business Leaders are et al are in short supply !
Most answers are simply banal with no supportive evidence !
AND lets take my last previous post.
HAL think the country will benefit to the tune of £100 Billion
Airport Commission think its more like £210 Billion
HAL then get there knickers in a twist and end up with identical adverts appearing with the exception of two figures !
Forgoodnesake on what basis are these figures calculated ?
"and what of those build costs , on this basis it could be 50% of the estimate OR presumably if the calculators a a bit wonky in Whitehall double ."
AND yes HAL is a private company BUT Heathrow is a "national treasure" is it not, it is inconceivable that if somebody screws up the figures it would be allowed to go under, and who picks up that tab ?
I'm sure the when The Channel Tunnel was built the eventual cost meant it would be paying off debt fro 100 years ....OR was part of it written off by Government ?
For the record I have no financial interest in whether LHR, LGW or anywhere else gets a new runway. But having worked in this industry all my life, I just feel that airports should be allowed to grow so long as they can make a business case for it. Using their own money, with no recourse to taxpayer funds. And that principle applies to MAN, LHR, Timbuktu or wherever.
Same applies from me.
Whatever happens at LHR be it Yes or No it WILL have an impact on Manchester, that is why we are discussing it ....
AND why maybe the frustration of some of us can be vented here, when common sense questions and answers about this topic , be they from/to MPs, Transport Committee, Business Leaders are et al are in short supply !
Most answers are simply banal with no supportive evidence !
AND lets take my last previous post.
HAL think the country will benefit to the tune of £100 Billion
Airport Commission think its more like £210 Billion
HAL then get there knickers in a twist and end up with identical adverts appearing with the exception of two figures !
Forgoodnesake on what basis are these figures calculated ?
"and what of those build costs , on this basis it could be 50% of the estimate OR presumably if the calculators a a bit wonky in Whitehall double ."
AND yes HAL is a private company BUT Heathrow is a "national treasure" is it not, it is inconceivable that if somebody screws up the figures it would be allowed to go under, and who picks up that tab ?
I'm sure the when The Channel Tunnel was built the eventual cost meant it would be paying off debt fro 100 years ....OR was part of it written off by Government ?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning Bagso
On your last point, about the risk of the taxpayer picking up the table if Heathrow has some form of financial distress.
1. The risk of financial distress for HAL is extremely low, given that it is a regulated utility.
2. Even if HAL were unable to service its debts there would be no risk of the airport closing, such that Government would have to step in. HAL is extremely cash generative - for every £1 it takes in through the till 58p is cash profit (ie before interest & depreciation). It would therefore be in the interests of shareholders, banks, bond holders and all other parties for HAL to continue to trade while it sought to restructure its debts. Restructuring of debts might involve an extension of maturities or similar, or a forced refinancing, or at worse a partial default. In such cases it's the banks and bond holders that take a hit, not the taxpayer.
3. There is no realistic likelihood of the taxpayer standing behind HAL's debts. The comparison with the Channel Tunnel is inappropriate - I stand to be corrected but I don't think the taxpayer had to bail out the tunnel itself. You may be referring to HS1, for which taxpayer guarantees were there from the start because nobody in the financial community (of which I was one at the time) believed the projections, and we were right. (An investment banker of my acquaintance described the traffic forecasts as "completely potty"). By contrast, there is plenty of evidence for Heathrow's projected growth. (By the way, if there ever is a suggestion of taxpayer support for R3 I'd be inclined to be on the barricades with you and Shed).
On your last point, about the risk of the taxpayer picking up the table if Heathrow has some form of financial distress.
1. The risk of financial distress for HAL is extremely low, given that it is a regulated utility.
2. Even if HAL were unable to service its debts there would be no risk of the airport closing, such that Government would have to step in. HAL is extremely cash generative - for every £1 it takes in through the till 58p is cash profit (ie before interest & depreciation). It would therefore be in the interests of shareholders, banks, bond holders and all other parties for HAL to continue to trade while it sought to restructure its debts. Restructuring of debts might involve an extension of maturities or similar, or a forced refinancing, or at worse a partial default. In such cases it's the banks and bond holders that take a hit, not the taxpayer.
3. There is no realistic likelihood of the taxpayer standing behind HAL's debts. The comparison with the Channel Tunnel is inappropriate - I stand to be corrected but I don't think the taxpayer had to bail out the tunnel itself. You may be referring to HS1, for which taxpayer guarantees were there from the start because nobody in the financial community (of which I was one at the time) believed the projections, and we were right. (An investment banker of my acquaintance described the traffic forecasts as "completely potty"). By contrast, there is plenty of evidence for Heathrow's projected growth. (By the way, if there ever is a suggestion of taxpayer support for R3 I'd be inclined to be on the barricades with you and Shed).
Last edited by BasilBush; 31st Mar 2015 at 09:17.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no stake in HAL, MAG or LGW except possibly as a member of the USS pension fund. I am just an interested observer of the scene.
The big numbers come from a report by PWC for the AC called Wider Economy Impacts published last November. There is really no substitute for reading it but in a sentence it attempts to measure, using an economic model, the direct effects of investment on jobs and output in the airline and airport system and the indirect effects on UK jobs and output via the impacts primarily on trade and tourism. This is what Basil Bush refers to as voodoo economics and he is clearly a voice worth listening to. In particular the proposition that IF the Government grants planning permission, HAL should fund the entire £24bn is an important one.
Having said that,the case for the scheme (or Gatwick come to that) is not a commercial matter for a bunch of shareholders alone. This is not a competitive market. HAL (or GAL) will be financing it but they will be financing it through aero charges and other revenue streams on airlines and their customers. It is not enough to say 'they can raise the money' , it has to be in the wider public interest that they do. This is what the AC is there to represent and actually having someone there to present the broad case is necessary so that it can be interrogated and cross-examined by all interested parties.
Two final thoughts.
1. The market price of a pair of slots at Heathrow is currently £20-60m. The place is 99% full. Unless the economy collapses again (not impossible but not the central assumption) we are in a growth air travel market. Airlines 'own' the slots. What does that tell you will happen if there is no change in capacity in the London system?
2. London has a Plan to 2050. They are extremely effective at pushing their plan, Crossrail 2 and all that. The North is just starting out, twenty years behind Livingstone and Johnson.We need to be coming up with something credible about what broader investment plan would take the North to the next level. Personally I don't believe the starting point is infrastructure investment in the air transport system but that may be a piece in the jigsaw puzzle. As far as MAN is concerned, 'It's the Northern economy, stupid'.
The big numbers come from a report by PWC for the AC called Wider Economy Impacts published last November. There is really no substitute for reading it but in a sentence it attempts to measure, using an economic model, the direct effects of investment on jobs and output in the airline and airport system and the indirect effects on UK jobs and output via the impacts primarily on trade and tourism. This is what Basil Bush refers to as voodoo economics and he is clearly a voice worth listening to. In particular the proposition that IF the Government grants planning permission, HAL should fund the entire £24bn is an important one.
Having said that,the case for the scheme (or Gatwick come to that) is not a commercial matter for a bunch of shareholders alone. This is not a competitive market. HAL (or GAL) will be financing it but they will be financing it through aero charges and other revenue streams on airlines and their customers. It is not enough to say 'they can raise the money' , it has to be in the wider public interest that they do. This is what the AC is there to represent and actually having someone there to present the broad case is necessary so that it can be interrogated and cross-examined by all interested parties.
Two final thoughts.
1. The market price of a pair of slots at Heathrow is currently £20-60m. The place is 99% full. Unless the economy collapses again (not impossible but not the central assumption) we are in a growth air travel market. Airlines 'own' the slots. What does that tell you will happen if there is no change in capacity in the London system?
2. London has a Plan to 2050. They are extremely effective at pushing their plan, Crossrail 2 and all that. The North is just starting out, twenty years behind Livingstone and Johnson.We need to be coming up with something credible about what broader investment plan would take the North to the next level. Personally I don't believe the starting point is infrastructure investment in the air transport system but that may be a piece in the jigsaw puzzle. As far as MAN is concerned, 'It's the Northern economy, stupid'.
Drifting again !!
Sorry but this thread is drifting again into essays. Heathrow should be discussed in that forum or a new thread on capital infrastructure.
I appreciate the perceived "impact" of all this on Manchester, but TBH all these comments are very repetitive. No need to keep going over the same things every day.
I appreciate the perceived "impact" of all this on Manchester, but TBH all these comments are very repetitive. No need to keep going over the same things every day.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The points everyone on the Heathrow side of the argument seems to be missing are, even if HAL achieves its aim, raises all the money itself and successfully runs a state of the art airport in the next 20 or so years, its management knows any failure or financial problem will immediately be covered by government because it is Heathrow. Didn't happen for Blackpool whose passengers now have to travel via Manchester or Liverpool.
Then there is the cost of the inevitable public enquiries, appeals and rehearings. Have these been costed in or will it be the taxpayer picking up the bill?
The whole project is predicated on Heathrow being the promoted as "the" gateway to the UK and, as part of this, regional airports are being left to sink or swim as best they might, their principal role being seen as feeding Heathrow.
As for the statement that Manchester and other places only now getting their act together and are twenty years behind London, that is the biggest load of rubbish I've read in a long time regarding the North. In the late 1970s until the mid 1980s I was responsible for generating business tourism for Greater Manchester, had an input into leisure tourism and into the development of Manchester Airport.
In eight short years before Thatcher killed the metropolitan councils I generated conference business, including a large number of high profile international conferences, which brought millions in revenue to Manchester. In 1986 alone the value of international events in the county was in excess of £6 million (over £12.3 million today) yet, compared to today the hotel stock was much smaller and the airport had far fewer links - even fewer when we started talking to organisers years before the events took place. What we started then has been developed over the last 30 years and Greater Manchester can now compete with any city in terms of hotels, tourism venues and centres of excellence in many disciplines.
For years before I started the conference operation the airport had been campaigning for more routes only to be baulked at every turn by BA and its predecessors and by ministers in a heavily regulated world. A visit by a junior minister in 1981 to discuss a way round BA's constant objections to route applications can be summed up in a single sentence from the home counties based minister "not many people in the North want to fly, those that can afford it can fly through London". That arrogance was not only displayed by the minister but also by BA which, at the time had flights from MAN to three destinations in the US and Canada. All originated in MAN but, though the distances covered were shorter than from London given the average track distances flown, the prices were higher by up to 15%. A similar arrogance is often displayed by southern contributors on here which can be summed up as "it's grim up north and they don't have much to spend".
The Greater Manchester Economic Development Corporation raised hundreds of millions of both private and government funding for the county. The Northwest Tourist Board and various other bodies across the Northwest worked together to develop growth and investment in a vast range of projects, events and new businesses. There are more millionaires per square mile in Wilmslow and Prestbury than in any similar area in the Home Counties.
The disolution of the Greater Manchester Council and Merseyside Council had a far more delitarious effect on the northwest than the the dissolution of the GLC had on London.
Trying to increase tourism to the area, I had to visit various British Tourist Authority offices in Europe and the USA in the 1980s. All were dedicated to the "Milk Run", i.e. London, Stonehenge, Stratford, Chester, Edinburgh and York. Time after time I was told that those were the only places people wanted to visit. When asked if they tried to sell anywhere else, the answer was always the same - "what else is there anywhere else for people to see".
Times have changed. I moved on years ago and live hundred of miles from the UK and cities around the UK now have exploited their historic and other tourism gems and the tourism marketing of the UK is much more balanced. The country has centres of excellence in a vast range of disciplines all generating business tourism. The hotel stock in the UK has expanded beyond recognition. I could only dream of the range of hotels Manchester now has.
The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has the potential to pick up from where the Greater Manchester Council left off almost 30 years ago. The airport is critical to the economic success of not only the county but the region. No one in Milan, Munich, Melbourne or any of the US states would countenance the sort of detrimental to the regions thinking that is behind the HAL proposal if applied to Rome, Berlin, Sydney or, for instance in Texas, if Austin were to be developed to the detriment of Houston.
The relationship between the plans for Heathrow and the regional airports threatens to turn the clock back and to cement Londoncentricity in the national phyche. By all means let the Heathrow plan go ahead as a fully commercial venture with government accepting it has to be totally impartial and the regions and their airports recognised as being on an equal, competitive basis.
Then there is the cost of the inevitable public enquiries, appeals and rehearings. Have these been costed in or will it be the taxpayer picking up the bill?
The whole project is predicated on Heathrow being the promoted as "the" gateway to the UK and, as part of this, regional airports are being left to sink or swim as best they might, their principal role being seen as feeding Heathrow.
As for the statement that Manchester and other places only now getting their act together and are twenty years behind London, that is the biggest load of rubbish I've read in a long time regarding the North. In the late 1970s until the mid 1980s I was responsible for generating business tourism for Greater Manchester, had an input into leisure tourism and into the development of Manchester Airport.
In eight short years before Thatcher killed the metropolitan councils I generated conference business, including a large number of high profile international conferences, which brought millions in revenue to Manchester. In 1986 alone the value of international events in the county was in excess of £6 million (over £12.3 million today) yet, compared to today the hotel stock was much smaller and the airport had far fewer links - even fewer when we started talking to organisers years before the events took place. What we started then has been developed over the last 30 years and Greater Manchester can now compete with any city in terms of hotels, tourism venues and centres of excellence in many disciplines.
For years before I started the conference operation the airport had been campaigning for more routes only to be baulked at every turn by BA and its predecessors and by ministers in a heavily regulated world. A visit by a junior minister in 1981 to discuss a way round BA's constant objections to route applications can be summed up in a single sentence from the home counties based minister "not many people in the North want to fly, those that can afford it can fly through London". That arrogance was not only displayed by the minister but also by BA which, at the time had flights from MAN to three destinations in the US and Canada. All originated in MAN but, though the distances covered were shorter than from London given the average track distances flown, the prices were higher by up to 15%. A similar arrogance is often displayed by southern contributors on here which can be summed up as "it's grim up north and they don't have much to spend".
The Greater Manchester Economic Development Corporation raised hundreds of millions of both private and government funding for the county. The Northwest Tourist Board and various other bodies across the Northwest worked together to develop growth and investment in a vast range of projects, events and new businesses. There are more millionaires per square mile in Wilmslow and Prestbury than in any similar area in the Home Counties.
The disolution of the Greater Manchester Council and Merseyside Council had a far more delitarious effect on the northwest than the the dissolution of the GLC had on London.
Trying to increase tourism to the area, I had to visit various British Tourist Authority offices in Europe and the USA in the 1980s. All were dedicated to the "Milk Run", i.e. London, Stonehenge, Stratford, Chester, Edinburgh and York. Time after time I was told that those were the only places people wanted to visit. When asked if they tried to sell anywhere else, the answer was always the same - "what else is there anywhere else for people to see".
Times have changed. I moved on years ago and live hundred of miles from the UK and cities around the UK now have exploited their historic and other tourism gems and the tourism marketing of the UK is much more balanced. The country has centres of excellence in a vast range of disciplines all generating business tourism. The hotel stock in the UK has expanded beyond recognition. I could only dream of the range of hotels Manchester now has.
The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has the potential to pick up from where the Greater Manchester Council left off almost 30 years ago. The airport is critical to the economic success of not only the county but the region. No one in Milan, Munich, Melbourne or any of the US states would countenance the sort of detrimental to the regions thinking that is behind the HAL proposal if applied to Rome, Berlin, Sydney or, for instance in Texas, if Austin were to be developed to the detriment of Houston.
The relationship between the plans for Heathrow and the regional airports threatens to turn the clock back and to cement Londoncentricity in the national phyche. By all means let the Heathrow plan go ahead as a fully commercial venture with government accepting it has to be totally impartial and the regions and their airports recognised as being on an equal, competitive basis.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't happen for Blackpool whose passengers now have to travel via Manchester or Liverpool.
LHR is another dimension, and I might remind you it was built by the taxpayer.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Manchester
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but this thread is drifting again into essays. Heathrow should be discussed in that forum or a new thread on capital infrastructure.
I appreciate the perceived "impact" of all this on Manchester, but TBH all these comments are very repetitive. No need to keep going over the same things every day.
I appreciate the perceived "impact" of all this on Manchester, but TBH all these comments are very repetitive. No need to keep going over the same things every day.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: manchester/berlin
Age: 62
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR.
Looks to me like the first warning shot, has been fired with regard to posts becoming just a tad boring and repeatedly off forum. Post anything regarding Heathrow on its own page. This page used to be interesting now its just propaganda for heathrow.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree that the effects of HAL's plan for Heathrow on regional airports and their hinterlands needs a thread of its own as it is possibly one of the most important topics facing the industry in the UK at present and for the foreseeable future. If the mods could open this and transfer the relevant posts those who don't want to read the arguments won't have to.
MODS. Can we have this thread locked please. Ban the usual suspects for a few (years?) and start again. This is ridiculous.
