MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What can Norwegian, or Vueling, really bring to MAN but duplication of what already exists ? There is little public knowledge of either versus the well established MON, TCX, TOM, EXS, RYR and EZY.
The Vueling base has been spoken about for the last year or so, as OW's way back into MAN's shorthaul network (with others making a move on longhaul as OW are not keen on the possible future of VS/DL at MAN), but even with Vuelings low cost base versus BA I still doubt it'll work.
Not often I am doom and gloom, but I just can't see room for all of the above.
The Vueling base has been spoken about for the last year or so, as OW's way back into MAN's shorthaul network (with others making a move on longhaul as OW are not keen on the possible future of VS/DL at MAN), but even with Vuelings low cost base versus BA I still doubt it'll work.
Not often I am doom and gloom, but I just can't see room for all of the above.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vueling can add some decent capacity ex-MAN.
Non-based aircraft can serve Orly, Seville and Florence that are unserved, and add capacity to Bilbao, Valencia and Barcelona which are all underserved (the latter underserved in winter).
Based aircraft could serve Romania (press stated Vueling were looking at Timisoara to Manchester), still swathes of South east Europe are un/underserved and with the likes of Tunisia being out of bounds, carriers are re-adding capacity back to the traditional sun spots in Spain, so, may no longer be as over served as once thought.
Norwegian work with Thomson on charter work now, so, could add to that programme, and, still one or 2 points in Scandinavia that could work with the traditional football traffic. Helsinki, Trondheim and Gothenburg come to mind (BA serve MAN-GOT but with a corporate contract hogging seats, is more akin to a private jet service).
Non-based aircraft can serve Orly, Seville and Florence that are unserved, and add capacity to Bilbao, Valencia and Barcelona which are all underserved (the latter underserved in winter).
Based aircraft could serve Romania (press stated Vueling were looking at Timisoara to Manchester), still swathes of South east Europe are un/underserved and with the likes of Tunisia being out of bounds, carriers are re-adding capacity back to the traditional sun spots in Spain, so, may no longer be as over served as once thought.
Norwegian work with Thomson on charter work now, so, could add to that programme, and, still one or 2 points in Scandinavia that could work with the traditional football traffic. Helsinki, Trondheim and Gothenburg come to mind (BA serve MAN-GOT but with a corporate contract hogging seats, is more akin to a private jet service).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seville is one that continues to amaze me. There must surely be a demand to go to this wonderful part of Spain, particularly in the winter when the weather is lovely and noting it's particularly hot in the summer.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seville is always surprising.
Like you say, lovely city, very hot and could be an alternative entry point for the Cadiz and Costa de Luz area.
Always heard a fair few English speakers around the city on my visits too.
Like you say, lovely city, very hot and could be an alternative entry point for the Cadiz and Costa de Luz area.
Always heard a fair few English speakers around the city on my visits too.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Israel, Kazakhstan, Spain
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I can confirm, it's 39degC here in the Sierra de Cadiz as the Spanish heatwave continues. I would love to see a flight from either XRY or SVQ to MAN, and their are a fair few that hail from the North of England who live around SVQ and would rather not trek down to the Malaga mad house or get stuck trying to cross the border into GIB.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NCL
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of flights from Seville to London's airports (up to 23 weekly departures), but none to others British ones. Hope to see either Ryanair or easyJet flying this route soon.
T2 and T1 Rebuild.
Anyone know when the airport plan will be finalised?
My information is that the airport want one solution, T2 extension Pier C demolished, but the airlines want another (more expensive) almost complete rebuild of T1 that is a linear extension of T2.
My information is that the airport want one solution, T2 extension Pier C demolished, but the airlines want another (more expensive) almost complete rebuild of T1 that is a linear extension of T2.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Terminals
How frustrating, a process that should have started 5 years ago, big pretty picture announcement a few months ago and now the airlines are just commenting. We all seemed to be concerned and upset that LHR R3 will take business, but less so about something which is in MAN control and affecting it's own capabilities. We are all hoping that growth will come from flights at off peak times, when people don't want to fly, because when people do want to fly the terminals can't handle it. Maybe MAN has two runways, but lack of terminal planning holds back it's potential.
Sad to see MAN missing opportunities.
Sad to see MAN missing opportunities.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How frustrating, a process that should have started 5 years ago, big pretty picture announcement a few months ago and now the airlines are just commenting.
The announcement made eventually was mainly aspirational, vague on detail and the artists impressions were just that, not finalised plans. However it is disappointing if major disagreements still exist at this stage.
As far as off peak operations are concerned, the current fees and charges show some useful reductions for off-peak flights - mind you they have been in place for some years and I'm not sure how effective they have been. But in the near future, this has to be the way to grow as the current terminal peaks show high levels of congestion and with all the work which will eventually take place, it ain't going to get better anytime soon.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terminals
Suzeman, My point is that this should have been worked on 5 years ago. Just imagine working at MAN and showing up for work at 2pm when your shift started at 8am. I am sure your boss would be displeased if you told him the 369 bus is very busy in the morning and GMT asked you to use it in the afternoon. 
Same for the airlines and their pax.
Same for the airlines and their pax.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're Doomed, Mr Mainwaring!
There can be a tendency for those of us on the outside of a planning process to believe that if we haven't heard about something it mustn't be happening. You may recall discussion on these pages suggesting that Manchester Airport should be pursuing a US PDC operation. Then, suddenly, the announcement came that this was in the advanced stages of planning. Work had clearly been going on quietly for quite some time to get to that stage ... there was just no need to let the public in on the plans any sooner.
Likewise, some here are presuming the worst about the terminal complex redesign now. Can you contemplate how much work has already gone in to get to the stage we are at now? When do you think that started? The airlines have known about all this for quite some time. Now think back. 2008. The credit crisis. The business world falling apart. Expansion couldn't be contemplated then, and if it had been funds could not have been raised. Add on a decent interval for economic recovery and an in-house expansion decision and look where we are now. They actually didn't waste much time. A planning process on this scale requires years.
What we do know is that the construction process is set to begin with a large-scale expansion of T2 to the West. Pier C will be demolished as soon as practicable to enable unrestricted aircraft access to the T2 complex. The design is such that this will not result in significant loss of gates. The finger piers will be spaced such that one pushback will not prevent a simultaneous pushback from the opposite side of the cul-de-sac (reducing scope for delays). Eventually, airside transfer will be possible from the most westerly T2 gate to the most easterly T3 gate. Total airside connectivity. And the final airside stand layout will be consistent and logical all the way across from W to E. Subject to final approval from the US authorities, US PDC will be built-in (the final decision on that is theirs). So aren't these the main features that we all hoped to see? What (within reason) would you like to see done differently?
There will be challenges, of course. That is inevitable. Keeping things running smoothly during the construction phase. Negotiating the next recession, because over the next fifteen years there is likely to be at least one. If we get a 2008 - The Sequel episode the whole project could be delayed. But a logical modular plan means that delayed phases can be re-activated as economic conditions improve again.
Don't worry. They've thought it all through. They just don't need to share the finer details with us lot straight off the bat.
Likewise, some here are presuming the worst about the terminal complex redesign now. Can you contemplate how much work has already gone in to get to the stage we are at now? When do you think that started? The airlines have known about all this for quite some time. Now think back. 2008. The credit crisis. The business world falling apart. Expansion couldn't be contemplated then, and if it had been funds could not have been raised. Add on a decent interval for economic recovery and an in-house expansion decision and look where we are now. They actually didn't waste much time. A planning process on this scale requires years.
What we do know is that the construction process is set to begin with a large-scale expansion of T2 to the West. Pier C will be demolished as soon as practicable to enable unrestricted aircraft access to the T2 complex. The design is such that this will not result in significant loss of gates. The finger piers will be spaced such that one pushback will not prevent a simultaneous pushback from the opposite side of the cul-de-sac (reducing scope for delays). Eventually, airside transfer will be possible from the most westerly T2 gate to the most easterly T3 gate. Total airside connectivity. And the final airside stand layout will be consistent and logical all the way across from W to E. Subject to final approval from the US authorities, US PDC will be built-in (the final decision on that is theirs). So aren't these the main features that we all hoped to see? What (within reason) would you like to see done differently?
There will be challenges, of course. That is inevitable. Keeping things running smoothly during the construction phase. Negotiating the next recession, because over the next fifteen years there is likely to be at least one. If we get a 2008 - The Sequel episode the whole project could be delayed. But a logical modular plan means that delayed phases can be re-activated as economic conditions improve again.
Don't worry. They've thought it all through. They just don't need to share the finer details with us lot straight off the bat.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinese carrier in talks with Scotland's two busiest airports over potential "piggy-back" flight via Manchester (From Herald Scotland)
Seems the Hainan rumour refuses to die........
Seems the Hainan rumour refuses to die........
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China
And some of us (well me at least) are getting more confused. I was under the impression that it was Air China that have rights from Beijing to MAN, which was the problem for Hainan.
Wasn't it Shanghai that was thought to be more likely for Hainan from MAN, or is there an issue with rights on that route as well?
No idea how the Scottish airports fit into either scenario.
And some of us (well me at least) are getting more confused. I was under the impression that it was Air China that have rights from Beijing to MAN, which was the problem for Hainan.
Wasn't it Shanghai that was thought to be more likely for Hainan from MAN, or is there an issue with rights on that route as well?
No idea how the Scottish airports fit into either scenario.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air China hold the MAN-PEK route authority from the CAAC and UK CAA. Hainan only hold UK CAA rights.
Hainan do however hold MAN-PVG for both CAAC and UK CAA, and the proposed route was supposed to be PVG-EDI/MAN.
So, the article may be confused and automatically thought 'an airline wants to open UK-China route, must be beijing', or, Hainan may be playing in a loophole, that maybe they can get around a PEK-MAN route by saying that technically they are serving MAN-EDI which just so happens that the same aircraft continues onto PEK. Unlikely, but, you never know. If they can't get the authorities they want, they may have tricks to get around it, China isn't as big as it now is by playing by everybody else's rules.......
Hainan do however hold MAN-PVG for both CAAC and UK CAA, and the proposed route was supposed to be PVG-EDI/MAN.
So, the article may be confused and automatically thought 'an airline wants to open UK-China route, must be beijing', or, Hainan may be playing in a loophole, that maybe they can get around a PEK-MAN route by saying that technically they are serving MAN-EDI which just so happens that the same aircraft continues onto PEK. Unlikely, but, you never know. If they can't get the authorities they want, they may have tricks to get around it, China isn't as big as it now is by playing by everybody else's rules.......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suzeman, My point is that this should have been worked on 5 years ago. Just imagine working at MAN and showing up for work at 2pm when your shift started at 8am. I am sure your boss would be displeased if you told him the 369 bus is very busy in the morning and GMT asked you to use it in the afternoon. Same for the airlines and their pax.
My point was that you were saying
big pretty picture announcement a few months ago and now the airlines are just commenting.
I'm afraid your analogy about peak and off peak using the example given is only part of the picture. For sure if you are travelling on business you need flights at convenient times to allow you to do business; to Europe say an early out and a late back for example. Every travel mode has a peak period because of this.
However the big proportion of Manchester's passengers are travelling for leisure reasons and so can be more flexible, so airlines do have more potential on these routes for off-peak operations and maybe therefore to increase frequency.
Here's the off peak period for passenger charges from the current fees and charges book
In order to qualify for the PFC Off-Peak Rate an Airline must:-
a) operate a minimum of one Service each Week for 52 weeks of a Year, and
b) ensure that the departure of the Aircraft in the Off-Peak Periods 05:30 to
05:59, 06:30 to 06:59, 13:00 to 13:29, 19:00 to 19:59 and 22:00 to 22:59
achieves the applicable QC Ratings shown in the table at Section 1.7
a) operate a minimum of one Service each Week for 52 weeks of a Year, and
b) ensure that the departure of the Aircraft in the Off-Peak Periods 05:30 to
05:59, 06:30 to 06:59, 13:00 to 13:29, 19:00 to 19:59 and 22:00 to 22:59
achieves the applicable QC Ratings shown in the table at Section 1.7
The ACL scheduling process should ensure that terminal capacity is not overloaded; however once you have declared a capacity it is very difficult to reduce it in future years because major work is taking place or processes such as security requirements have changed; in this case someone is going to lose a slot and I don't think that is covered in the slot regulations?
So short term management methods can be used to operate known congestion points in the terminals and / or service standards can be reduced. Not sure what is going on this summer, but there seem to be some whinges on here although the MEN has been quite quiet so far!
Terminal capacity planning and management is incredibly complex and no day ever turns out as planned. The trick is to have a series of measures in place which can kick in when required.
It would seem that the next few years will see if they are up to this challenge
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post Suzeman, and you are absolutely right to emphasise the difference between the needs of business folk compared to more flexible leisure travellers in terms of the timing of flights.
I have to say I'm surprised that the 'off-peak' periods for departures includes 06.30-06.59 but then only 13.00-13.29 from late morning until 19.00.
LAX, thanks for the clarification on China rights. On that basis, I hope it is PVG that Hainan are reportedly planning, and you never know - Air China may eventually take up their PEK rights to MAN!
I have to say I'm surprised that the 'off-peak' periods for departures includes 06.30-06.59 but then only 13.00-13.29 from late morning until 19.00.
LAX, thanks for the clarification on China rights. On that basis, I hope it is PVG that Hainan are reportedly planning, and you never know - Air China may eventually take up their PEK rights to MAN!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 years of United at MAN with all the noise about long term expansion:
Bob Schumacher, managing director of sales, told the M.E.N: "The dream would be to connect all our US hubs to Manchester.... We have no immediate plans today but we have other hubs in the US that are unconnected to Manchester so when the time comes we will expand.”
Bob Schumacher, managing director of sales, told the M.E.N: "The dream would be to connect all our US hubs to Manchester.... We have no immediate plans today but we have other hubs in the US that are unconnected to Manchester so when the time comes we will expand.”
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The United quote, to me, isn't even remotely exciting. It basically States MAN will not be expanded.
I know MAN has seen a fairly considerable increase to the USA for 2015 and into 2016, but, I personally think it's quite disappointing that UA won't move past its 2 daily flights for a while, when DUB has gained 2 extra flights after offering the same level of UA service as MAN for a long time and EDI shot past MAN from 1 to 3 daily flights in the summer.
I know MAN has seen a fairly considerable increase to the USA for 2015 and into 2016, but, I personally think it's quite disappointing that UA won't move past its 2 daily flights for a while, when DUB has gained 2 extra flights after offering the same level of UA service as MAN for a long time and EDI shot past MAN from 1 to 3 daily flights in the summer.
