MANCHESTER 1

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

eggc -

What does it have to do with Manchester? I'm SO GLAD you asked! That mindblowing sum of money required for the Heathrow proposals is REAL. And the publicly-funded portion of it can only be allocated once. Which means if it is spent in London (as such a vast disproportionate sum already has been over the last two decades), then yet again it cannot instead be used where it is desperately required (and long overdue) in the regions. Including the hinterland surrounding MANCHESTER.

Further, if that colossal sum is thrown at LHR it will distort the market. To the immediate detriment of MANCHESTER AIRPORT. For reasons which you can brief yourself upon by reading postings over the last few pages. I could repeat them here ... but hey, who wants to be accused of being repetitive, eh?

So there is your answer in a nutshell. The forthcoming UK airports capacity decision is quite possibly THE most significant threat to MAN's future in the near-term. And the wider issue relating to the equitable distribution of government-funded infrastructure investment is of critical importance to the regions in general. I'm sorry that such a crucial national issue bores you. Maybe we just shouldn't mention it and let Westminster roll over us again.

Well, you did ask!!!

By the way, how small are your pages? That posting covers about one-tenth of mine.

[AndyH52]

Shed, HAL generates in excess of £1.6 BILLION of revenue a year from landing fees, passenger charges and navigation fees...that excludes ancillary income from car parking etc. build a third runway and increase traffic by 50%+ and they raise that revenue to almost £2.5 billion a year in today's money. That amount of revenue can support an enormous amount of capital borrowing, especially if you look at a 15-20 year payback.

You constantly compare R2 at Manchester with R3 (and T6) at Heathrow. They are not comparable projects and the latter will be funded by HAL not the taxpayer. I don't see you calling for MAG to pay for the SE Manchester relief road, or the work to improve the A556...you seem quite happy for the DfT to pick up the tab for those projects...

As for your sandwich analogy, perhaps look at it as HAL wanting to buy a sandwich but then their pals in TFL and the Lord Mayors Office and the local councils start dictating the fillings, adding a drink, crisps, nice lunch box to put it all in...that's how the price adds up.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

AndyH52 - You presume that I oppose the principle of airport operators paying a contribution to surrounding public infrastructure. Not so. MAG made a significant contribution to the cost of constructing the recently-opened Airport Metrolink line. I am searching for up-to-date figures, but I believe MAG's input was around £50M. The document I found is about five years old, so it could have been more in the final reckoning. This is an initiative with which I wholeheartedly approve, as I approve of subsidies provided by MAG to local bus services also. There has been no need for me to be seen calling for MAG to invest in surrounding infrastructure because they actually do.

I am well aware that HAL will be called upon to contribute to funding supporting infrastructure in the area surrounding LHR. As indeed they should. The problem is that the numbers are so large that even after HAL contribute their prescribed share, the remaining burden on the taxpayer will still be enormous - well into the billions of pounds.

I remind you that the total budget for the SEMMMS road is £290M, note the 'M' there as opposed to a 'B'. And the project has been delayed for almost 30 years before receiving approval even at that modest price. How many publicly-funded projects has London and the SE been awarded in the meantime, several costed in the multi-billions? I do not oppose private investment in public infrastructure; I welcome it. I do not oppose publicly-funded investment in infrastructure; I welcome that too. But it has to make sense financially and provide a healthy ROI. And it needs to be distributed equitably across the UK as a whole, which is lightyears away from the reality over recent years.

I note your reference to 'revenues'. HAL incurs operational costs too. In 2013, Heathrow declared a profit of £426M (before tax). Note that 'M' - it is not a 'B'. Just how much additional debt do you believe it is wise for them to take on, especially in support of just a 50% increase in business? There is a cut-off point beyond which this expenditure defies common sense, and I suspect it is well below the costs being quoted for the R3 proposal.

[BasilBush]

If anyone cared to read the 'Funding and Financing' report on the Davies website they would see that a 50% increase in HAL's airport charges would be required to generate a commercial return on the investment in R3, including the £6bn estimated by Davies for surface access costs.

Few observers have questioned whether this 50% increase is achievable, and the stratospheric slot values lend support to the view that HAL could materially increase its airport charges without affecting demand.

Shed is clearly right to say that there is a level of R3 costs that would make the project unviable. But I don't think we are there yet. Although if TFL have their way they would kill the project, which is clearly their (political) aim, driven by Boris.

(Ps. I am inclined to agree with others that this is getting way off-topic)

[Omnia]

Dear All,


I am a newbie to comment on this forum, but I have viewed posts on it for many years.


When I was a teenager in the long distant past I use to spend my weekends at Ringway (as it was then) with meat paste sandwiches and a flask of coffee logging planes that would arrive probably hours apart. Dan Air Ambassadors, British Eagle 1-11 , Britannias whispering giants, BA viscounts & vanguards and BOAC 707 & VC10s, Aer Lingus Carvairs etc etc.


I enjoy looking at the various postings on this forum, but recently it has turned a little dark.


Manchester has come a long way since the early days.


I have used Heathrow to connect abroad but no longer use HEATHROW.


Why should I.


I can get to China to see my daughter courtesy of Emirates and the MEB3.


I can virtually get to anywhere from Manchester via some MEB3 or European hub.


Manchester is growing and should not be impeded by HAL R3 or BA blocking on the grounds of reciprocal rights.


Everyone down south believes that no one else matters. Heathrow is the B-all end End-all as far as they are concerned. WRONG. We pay taxes as well to pay for your grandiose schemes.


Manchester has a phenomenal catchment area, as good as or better that Heathrow.


Let MAN get a fair crack of the whip.


Spend the R3 billions on things that really matter. Railways and roads in the UK that need sorting.


If MAN (BHX,EDI) and other airports are allowed to get flights (long haul or short haul) to where they want, then this will reduce pressure on LHR and maybe R3 is defo not then needed.


May I say that LAX-LHR (world_rep as was) and Shed post sensible comments.


There are others who do so as well


There are also SOME NAUGHTY people on here who post crap and are anti-MAN. I always reads their posts and think b*******s.


This is a Manchester forum for our benefit and views and news.

[Bagso]

To be fair Shed, Heathrow is actually a not for profit organisation !

So whilst it generates employment opportunities, and is expected to generate £100B or the rather more enterprising figure of £210B depending on which advert you pass in T5

.... in 2013, which I think was year that was referenced. it surprisingly paid not a jot to the exchequer, see below !

Clearly a minor hiccup

John McDonnell MP condemns Heathrow Airport?s non-payment of Corporation Tax - John McDonnell

I would however agree that the complacency of some on here who "apparently" profess to support Manchester does me make think, My lord help us if they actually despised the place !

For the record I think it is BANG ON topic, we are being bled dry "up here" and now LHR is circling with a "potential", begging bowl !

How about a modest couple of Billion for Airport City ?

[BasilBush]

Bagso, I'm not sure if your comment is aimed at me, but please don't shoot the messenger.

I strongly support MAN, but I just don't buy the idea that supporting MAN necessarily means opposing LHR. I don't think it helps our industry for one airport to be fighting another.

That being said, I do agree with Shed that the cost of R3 is ridiculous. I have my own ideas why this is the case, but I won't bore others with them. I also agree that public money should not be used to develop R3 - my argument is that I don't think this is going to happen. I may be wrong in this, in which case I would join you and Shed in opposition. Based on the pretty detailed analysis by Davies, it does appear that R3 will wash its face, even at the ludicrous cost estimate that is being proposed (and including the Davies estimate of surface access costs).

However, I would advise against latching onto the TFL arguments about even higher costs. Their basic argument is that road congestion in the Heathrow area will continue to be very bad, such that (a) you shouldn't worsen it by further developing LHR, or that (b) if LHR is further developed then the road problems need to be solved by throwing vast sums of money at them. The problem here is the usual "sauce for the goose/sauce for the gander" issue. MAN would be ill-advised to go down this route in opposing R3 as it could easily find its own future growth being restricted because of concerns about congestion on the M56 and parts of the M60. Just be careful what you wish for.

There are no easy answers to any of this, but my greatest fear is that by opposing R3, MAN and other airports will suffer longer term adverse consequences. All airports need to work together to fight the forces that seek to restrict the growth of air traffic in our country.

(Ps sorry for the essay)

[Fairdealfrank]

What I would like to see

1. Let LHR get on with its own market. Focus on developing new and re-instating routes from MAN
2. Focus on Northern Hub, using devolved transport powers to max.
3. Abolish HS2, it has no benefit to us; capacity on West Coast is plentiful can be increased at peak times with less first class, perhaps something between std/1st, longer platforms/trains.
4. Use HS2 money on improving existing terminals at MAN and its infrastructure.
5. Use HS2 money on northern rail & road improvements.
6. US pre-clearance is a good idea

ps its just my opinion

Brilliant, gazza007, some common sense at last. Only take issue with no. 4: diverted HS2 funds should go to northern infrastructure (as you say in no. 5). Ringway shareholders or other private capital would have to finance airport infrastructure.

I strongly support MAN, but I just don't buy the idea that supporting MAN necessarily means opposing LHR. I don't think it helps our industry for one airport to be fighting another.

Exactly right, it doesn't!


Think that some of you may be missing the point.

1. Contrary to what some appear to believe, Ringway IS a major UK gateway airport (along with Gatwick). Heathrow is not, it is the UK’s only hub airport.

2. Airlines’ fare charging policies are not in the gift of the government, the Airports Commission, Heathrow and Ringway managements, holiday companies, travel agencies or anyone else. The days where IATA set the fares, first class was double the economy fare, and fares were the same on all IATA-member carriers (which was most of them) are long gone.

Most carriers charge more for direct/non-stop flights than for indirect, especially those that specialise in transferring pax at their hubs (EK, EY, KL, QR, SQ, etc.). So if MAN-LHR-elsewhere is cheaper than MAN-elsewhere, don’t be surprised.

3. While there is plenty of capacity in the entire London airports system (six airports), it’s not at the hub airport, where it’s desperately needed. Heathrow operates at 100% of its capacity and is more than full. Clearly it does need two more rwys.

4. Events at Heathrow do not impact on Ringway as much as some may think. Apparently, there are thirty or so carriers that want to start Heathrow routes. They either can’t obtain slots (at very specific times in the case of longhaul operators), can’t afford those that are available, or both.

These carriers are not rushing to Ringway, and just a handful opt for the Gatwick "waiting room". Most go to the other three main European hubs, a loss to the UK as a whole. Heathrow expansion would end this nonsense. Also bear in mind that most of the carriers at Ringway are also at Heathrow (holiday airlines and no frills carriers excepted).

5. The Airports Commission was set up for one purpose only - to conceal a coalition split. The Conservatives have changed their mind about Heathrow, the Libdems haven’t. Its remit is to kick the ball into the long grass. That is why it cannot report its findings before the election. It is as simple as that.

6. EK is very well entrenched at Ringway. Allegedly most Ringway longhaul pax are using Dubai rather than Heathrow to change aircraft. It is a possibility that having to take on such a well-established carrier (what is it 2 A380s plus a B777 everyday?) could be a deterrent to new potential longhaul carriers that may wish to offer non-stop/direct links to their hubs. It is what is known as the incumbency factor.

This does not mean it cannot be done, but clearly some effort will be needed to attract new carriers. It’s worked very well with CX, for example, and there’s the possibility of a mainland China carrier.

7. Heathrow expansion is privately financed and, in the very unlikely event of permission being granted, there will be some "planning gain" (contribution to public funds for infrastructure improvements), there always is.

The western rail link goes ahead irrespective of expansion and a southern rail link will also be needed, again, irrespective of expansion. So the contribution will be towards motorway/road diversions and tunnels. As for Transport For London, a mouthpiece for Boris, its involvement will be minimal: it’s mostly Network Rail and the Highways Agency.

The costs are unknown, and those against expansion will obviously conflate the figures and fool the gullible. It should go without saying!

8. Compare like with like, to finance the much needed rail infrastructure that is needed in the North, including an east-west intercity-standard rail line between the large cities, scrap HS2 and spend that money in the North.

Contrary to what its supporters say, HS2 WILL suck economic activity to London. It happened in France and Japan, both countries with high speed rail and a very large and dominant capital city. So why would it be any different here in the UK?



Hope this helps.

[eggc]

Thanks Frank...I'm now a Tory

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Another well-argued post as usual, Frank. But most of us are actually persuaded by the operational case for expanding LHR. The barrier is the price-tag, which although "unknown" as you say (in an absolute sense) is convincingly "known" to be pitched at an exorbitant level. That is the nature of the objection: value for money. And the likelihood that despite HAL contributing to the cost of supporting infrastructure, the public purse will still be lumbered with a bill amounting to multiple billions of pounds. Money which cannot then be allocated to investment-starved regional initiatives which offer better value to UKplc by an order of magnitude.

[crewmeal]

On a lighter side there is more of a reason to promote a Chinese carrier into MAN.

Chinese tourists flock to Britain's only hat-making museum - thanks to TV documentary in Far East - Mirror Online

[MANFOD]

Hats off to the Chinese then!

[BasilBush]

That's so funny about the Hat Museum. Wasn't there an exchange on here a few weeks ago about the relative merits of various visitor attractions for Chinese visitors, trying to explain the Hainan service to Birmingham? And some wag tried to stop the willy-waggling by saying that you might as well push the merits of the Hat Museum.

Very prescient. Any tips on lottery numbers?

[Bagso]

I suggest the airport and visitmanchester get on the phone to the producer Mr /Mrs Yang and produce a series of other programmes sharpish.

I suspect sadly they are not fleet of foot. ....

[kieb92]

Airport effectively closed, no ILS for 23R due to abnormal glideslope and localiser indications causing the Brussels Airlines to have 2 go arounds. Lufthansa A321 heading south and LH Cargo MD11 going to EMA.

05 end not available due to essential work.

As of 11.30 05R will be available for CAT1 landing.

[MANFOD]

And of course it has to coincide with grotty weather making VOR approaches unacceptable at the moment. Out of interest, what would happen if there was an easterly wind such that 05 had to be the active runway?

So much for the benefit of having 2 runways.

[kieb92]

Guess they look at the weather and schedule maintainance when the chances are good the other runway will be in use. Unfortunate that this happened when weather not good enough for a VOR approach.

[tattbenj]

Norwegian

Does anyone know what was wrong with DY4480? It taxied as normal before turning around and holding in front of the viewing park before making a very slow taxi to further down the taxiway before returning to the gate.

Also, good to see landings resumed quickly after they stopped earlier. Feel sorry for the Icelandair passengers, pretty much just as they touched down at Birmingham they resumed landings, although they were back not long after

[roverman]

Hainan - Swiss Toni's take

This thread is in need of lightening up. Anyone remember the 1990s TV sketch series 'The Fast Show'? Swiss Toni says 'D'you know Charlie, landing the Hainan service is like making love to a beautiful woman. First you have to show her what you've got, and then you have to make it so irresistible she will be just melting for you to get into her groove'.

The one thing Swiss Toni might not say is that you also need to know when to walk away. Like with any deal-making, believe in what you have to offer, look for the win-wins, but never hang too much on it. Anyone who has ever courted a beautiful woman will know this. Yes, they are tempting, yes they are desirable, yes they are sexy. But if they play too hard to get, walk, and maybe come back some time later. Don't get hung up, there are plenty of great women out there, maybe not so sexy but you'll have a better time and not expend so much energy.

Hainan can be in no doubt what the Manchester market has to offer, and MAG have some excellent commercial people who have no doubt made it attractive. It's up to Hainan now - they will have other suitors. MAG should chill out, and if it's meant to happen, it will happen.

[sarah19981]

Roverman (Hainan)

The service will happen and according to them they will make a Announcement during May with a septermber start. That's what there head office on there hotline number is saying now. If there saying this I don't see why we can't sit back and wait

Meanwhile let's wait and see...