MANCHESTER 1

[LAX_LHR]

Never implied you did but why would an airline cut a route so short if it was making a profit. Weak Yield does not mean profit

And I never implied the route was making a profit either? You seem to be trying to call me on something I haven't said?

Just a pessimistic view on the excuses being made because I dont quite know the MAN market as well I would like, if you don't like it hit the block button!

I corrected the statement for you.

Notice you didn't come back on the cargo comment, if it was a money makeing an A330 would be made available. Guess Barcelona was more commercially viable to return.....

What are you on about? Of course the lack of widebodies is a come back, how can they carry cargo on a widebody aircraft which has been prioritised on another route so not available? And yes, Barcelona was more commercially viable than MAN. Again, no comment was made on that so again why are you trying to call out on something that hasn't been said?


But anyway, how about you let us enjoy our moment in the sun now that we have a modernisation plan and pre-clearance on the way, its not often these projects come along so would rather focus on the benefits this could bring rather than counter the bitchiness on whether a route may or may not re-start.

[Jamie2k9]

You seem to be trying to call me on something I haven't said?

Did nothing of the sort

I corrected the statement for you.

OK, whatever you say....

What are you on about? Of course the lack of widebodies is a come back, how can they carry cargo on a widebody aircraft which has been prioritised on another route so not available? And yes, Barcelona was more commercially viable than MAN. Again, no comment was made on that so again why are you trying to call out on something that hasn't been said?

The part about cargo being in such high demand would fly directly at a preium and deliver positive benefits to US. Larger aircraft mean more space less profit but balanced out if they are full up most of the time.

But anyway, how about you let us enjoy our moment in the sun now that we have a modernisation plan and pre-clearance on the way, its not often these projects come along so would rather focus on the benefits this could bring rather than counter the bitchiness on whether a route may or may not re-start.

Relevance?? by the way it looks pretty good but short on detail which would of being nice.

Not to open a can of worms but the cynic in me believes it was a timely announcement with lack of detail for a good reason.

Queue the criticism!

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Mustn't be too hard on the BBC coverage. At least their local news did a good job. The ITV local news led on a story about some woman pretending to have cancer. Far more important than one of the largest NW construction projects in years, and its implications for the entire North of England over decades to come. When they finally got round to mentioning the MAN redevelopment, they spent much of the report interviewing eco-extremists. We should all be using a horse and cart, not flying. Lamentable coverage.

[LAX_LHR]

They will get a lot more reaction to the girl who faked terminal cancer, than an airport development. It has a higher 'shock' value and lets face it, 'gossip' has always been a big seller.


In terms of the 'friends of the earth' who said 'the £1bn should be spent on greener transport', they just want their 5 minutes to say 'were still here' rather than present a cohherant argument.

[MANFOD]

Mustn't be too hard on the BBC coverage. At least their local news did a good job.

It was perhaps unfortunate there were 3 big news stories which the BBC News Channel understandably covered in depth - the death of Charles Kennedy, and then later in the afternoon, the Alton Towers accident and the Blatter affair. I do agree that Look North West did a good job with lengthy coverage in the evening and late bulletins. Didn't watch Granada but I'm slightly surprised if they only gave it scant mention.

As a subscriber to the DT, I did not expect any reference in that newspaper to MAN's investment and wasn't disappointed. I dared to hope there might just be a snippet in the Business section but no luck; although there was a piece about a Kendal mint cake firm coming out of administration. A concession to the regions perhaps?

Anyway, the announcement was very good news, although it's difficult to be too objective until some more detail is flushed out.

As regards the T3 problems that Mr A Tis raised, I assume the times he refers to of 07.00 to 09.00 would include the processing of the 3 AA flights, the AF and maybe a couple of RYR flights that originated elsewhere for example as well as flybe pax. If the first extension of T2 is only going to be available in 2018, then it seems action is required in T3 earlier unless some flights are moved to another terminal, are dropped (heaven forbid), or rescheduled. In other words, how much flexibility is there to improve things over the next 3 years while hopefully continuing to grow?

[MANFOD]

Valid questions Mr Tis, but I suspect that the most significant factor in the domestic drop is the pullout of Little Red.

I'm sure this is right, but the CAA provisional stats should shed more light re domestic pax in due course. What won't be easy to determine is how many of the Little Red pax BA has picked up.

As regards the overall increase in pax for May, I'm rather relieved frankly that it's over 2%. How it compares with the national trend and airports such as LGW, BHX and BRS (airports of varying size) remains to be seen. Given that some of the new services and extra frequencies start later in the summer - Vueling, Iberia, Austrian for example, - easyjets 9th a/c and new routes starting mid June, and Virgins extra flights in July/Aug; plus the immediate loss of Little Red and decrease in Monarch's operations, I wouldn't have been too surprised to see May flat or even slightly negative. Bear in mind also the ACL report showing only a 1.3% increase in available seats for the summer.

No doubt TCX gave the figures a boost with their new services to JFK and MIA. The timing of Easter was an extra factor in April, so based on the April and May results I'm actually rather more optimistic now for the rest of the summer, although the negative Monarch impact will be greater in the peak months.

[LN-KGL]

MANFOD:
As regards the overall increase in pax for May, I'm rather relieved frankly that it's over 2%. How it compares with the national trend and airports such as LGW, BHX and BRS (airports of varying size) remains to be seen. Given that some of the new services and extra frequencies start later in the summer - Vueling, Iberia, Austrian for example, - easyjets 9th a/c and new routes starting mid June, and Virgins extra flights in July/Aug; plus the immediate loss of Little Red and decrease in Monarch's operations, I wouldn't have been too surprised to see May flat or even slightly negative. Bear in mind also the ACL report showing only a 1.3% increase in available seats for the summer.

There are a number of explanations for why May ended up at 2.8% growth. One could be the change in cabin loads the last year. The average passenger number per flight in May this year was at almost 134 passengers compared with 126 passengers one year ago - that's a 6.3% increase.

[Bagso]

Why do we have such idiotic local MPs

Step forward the latest variant Andy Burnham

https://www.transportxtra.com/magazi...news/?ID=44269

Bags of time apparently to comment on Airport Commission issues and London airports but seemingly oblivious to news of Manchester expansion yesterday !

Maybe he still smarting after he told the "Manc Bruvers" to tell Osbourne to take a hike re DevoManc.....

They in turn apparently told him to sod off, or words like that !

Surely he doesn't bear a grudge ?

[pwalhx]

Manfod if by DT your mean the Telegraph they certainly carried a piece online, albeit with the very negative headline of a terminal to close and with a photo of HS2.


Manchester Airport to close terminal as part of £1bn revamp - Telegraph

[MANFOD]

PWALHX, I was meaning the hard copy version from newsagents which was bereft of the story. But I did see that article in the on-line version later with its caustic headline. Typical I'm afraid.

[LAX_LHR]

Weekly Lyon announced by Monarch. Starts 20th Dec on Sundays. Thats now 4 operators on 4 weekly flights to 1 destination!

[Ringwayman]

Irish newspaper on the expansion

Suppose the main thing is that I hadn't see the forecast increase anywhere so here it is:
"Manchester Airport grew passenger numbers by 6% in its last financial year and expects to add another 5% in the 2015-16 period. The £1bn investment programme would ensure it can handle more flights and passengers."

Oh. And let's throw this in as well

"Mr Cornish said, adding that the airport was bringing in more long-haul routes, including to the US and Middle East, where airlines such as Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar Airways had added capacity in recent years."

Adding more Middle East routes? Can only be Oman Airways or Kuwait Airways. Out of those 2, I think it's Kuwait Airways that might be slight favourites as years ago they stated they'd be adding MAN flights.

[dave59]

No, no, no, dave59, T2 first phase which opened in 1993 cost £260 million, not £500 million. I know because I was there. The planned second phase - a doubling in size of the terminal building to the north and a remote pier, was expected to follow within ten years but due to slower than forecast traffic growth, and the development of T3 for British Airways, it didn't happen

Thanks for the correction. Still, T2 was over £400 million at today's prices so the scale of the new development would suggest much more than a billion.

With regard to moving all USA flights to T2 for pre-clearance: Is this not a sensible idea for immediate implementation?

[Ian Brooks]

possibly not as a lot of the infrastructure is already there as it was pre planned to expand terminal years ago and a false end was put on terminal

[MANFOD]

Today's article in the M.E.N focuses on the US Pre-Clearance aspect but also includes some additional quotes from Charlie Cornish and Ken O'Toole. This from the former:

"I think if both Heathrow and Manchester had pre-clearance it would be good for the UK economy but clearly given that we are in the final stages of outlining design and moving to final design, we have a great opportunity to create a really modern pre-clearance facility in Manchester."

The words I've put in bold do suggest that some of the detail we've been asking about is not yet agreed, but perhaps those more knowledgeable on project processes and terminology can clarify the significance.

[Fairdealfrank]

Manchester Airport could become the only one in Britain to be able to clear passengers through US immigration before they take off.

It has been shortlisted by the US Department of Homeland Security as a ‘priority base’ to host security pre-clearance - known to cuts queues, woo airlines and boost business.

There are currently only two bases in Europe with such rights - Dublin and Shannon.

The vote of confidence by the USA has enabled airport bosses to add the facility to their ambitious £1bn transformation project which was revealed yesterday !

The only other UK airport on the shortlist of 10 is Heathrow - but it doesn’t currently have plans for a fit-for-purpose terminal development which has been announced by Manchester.

Ringway will almost certainly be ahead of Heathrow on this one.

Heathrow will have difficulties implementing pre-clearance because of the sheer number of USA flights across several terminals on several diferent carriers.

Also because of the numbers, any pre-clearance facility would need to be open longer hours than, say, at DUB, MAN or SNN. Would it be adequately staffed for the long hours it would be required to operate?

Why do we have such idiotic local MPs

Step forward the latest variant Andy Burnham

https://www.transportxtra.com/magazi...news/?ID=44269

Bags of time apparently to comment on Airport Commission issues and London airports but seemingly oblivious to news of Manchester expansion yesterday !

Possibly because the Ringway expansion is going ahead without controversy (good!) while poor old Heathrow is still mired in dither and indecision after 30 years and "idiotic MPs" (sic) are still running scared of a vocal NIMBY minority who are mostly nowhere near the airport (bad!).

As for Gatwick, it’s either a make-weight or a cop-out, alternatively, nothing will happen, as usual.

Time will tell.

[Bagso]

The MPs in our area Frank are complete imbeciles ! They are voted in by local people and therefore issues which effect the local area and in this case benefit a much wider are ie The North should be at the forefront of their thinking. I have no idea why but it NEVER is.

Can you imagine MPs in Surrey, Sussex suggesting events in Manchester are more important than their region ? That said BBC business editors are no better. Unless you were on here Frank I suspect you would not have seen any coverage of this at all. Our local patch MEN, Look NWest , Key103 and the (Wigan Observer), did of course immerse itself in the subject but quite frankly UK wide national coverage was appalling, nay almost non-existent. Two national papers carried it on their websites for about 4 hours.

Even 5 Live whose HQ is 8 miles away managed to swerve us completely. An accident of timing meant of course we were swept down the pecking order, thoroughly understandable, but not to the extent that we are totally transparent ! When the Airport Commissions report comes out "regardless of what is happening in the wider world" I guarantee LHR/LGW expansion will be lead item, it is a seen as being in the "national interest", so why is an airport located 200 miles North , but capable of handling (55m, cough) and seemingly having a massive footprint in terms of catchment be any less significant ?

In recent months the PR Ex MAN has changed they are now suggesting that ; "MAN covers a massive catchment from The Midlands to Scotland", and "it's a national asset LIKE HEATHROW"

These comments have appeared multiple times but there is little point saying that locally within a "regional bubble". One quote I saw suggested "This is great for Greater Manchester", They should of course have said this is great for the North, no wonder civic pride is understandably irked in Merseyside and Yorkshire ! How about sensitive reporting with a diplomatic slant re Northerpowerhouse ?

And what of the Look NWest business editor, in his online piece he suggested "Manchester cannot of course compete with LHR or LGW" Not even LGW , really ?

Some of are "locals" have no nous when it comes to media delivery ! There is abject failure to engage at a national level, whether that is the fault of London Centric BBC Editors OR a strategic failure by MAN in the way it engages with the media , don't know !

Thank goodness Bloomberg and Rueters got hold of the story, people in Gtr Manchester and Vietnam are at least well informed !

Using the Jim ONeill contacts would have been tactical genius .....!

[MANFOD]

DRAFT SUSTAINABLE STRATEGY PLAN.

For those who enjoy reading reports and documents relating to MAN, thanks to CHAPS2034 on the skyscrapercity site for this link.

Manchester Airport Sustainable Development Plan | Manchester Airport

The release was overshadowed somewhat by the headline news and artist impression pictures of the £1bn investment program.

This is a draft document for consultation and comments can be submitted up to 1 Sep.

There is a summary and 4 sections, of which The Economy & Surface Access, and Land Use may be of most interest.

And no, I've not read it all.

[LAX_LHR]

3 new jet2 routes for S16.

Naples, Krakow ang Girona, all 2 weekly each from May.

[Bagso]

Just as a postscript to my rant re media coverage of MAN expansion , I see ITV offered some major propaganda to LHR cunningly masquerading as a documentary.....

And with Davies about to report as well, my goodness truly a biblical coincidence !

Oh how i wish MAN had that same guile......