MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trash, it isn't. If you are on PAYE the tax is allocated to wherever your company reports from. The location of your tax office has no bearing on the matter. I have worked for companies in Watford tax office in Portsmouth; Reading, tax office in Newcastle; Bury, tax office in Bury; Manchester, tax office in Leeds whilst all the time living in the Manchester area. When I worked for a company in Croydon, reporting from a Peterborogh HQ, the tax office was Edinburgh then changed to Liverpool. The same for National Insurance. VAT take is based on the reporting HQ. The only time branches would be involved is if the VAT man linked a query to a branch.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://twitter.com/Airlineroute just issued a tweet about "Air China W16 Shanghai – Europe service changes" but the link doesn't work. Could it be...????
No? Ok then, let's get back to tax office discussions.
No? Ok then, let's get back to tax office discussions.
Thread Drift
I'm with Bar none. Too much thread drift.
Accept the concept of North of England finance etc, however, this is not the forum for it.
To a degree I understand the need for some infrastructure discussion including ground transport etc , however the thrust of this thread should be specific to rumours and news of Manchester Airport.
Tax and accounting lessons are NOT specific to Manchester because you could apply these same arguments to Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle airports etc.
Therefore start a new thread.
Accept the concept of North of England finance etc, however, this is not the forum for it.
To a degree I understand the need for some infrastructure discussion including ground transport etc , however the thrust of this thread should be specific to rumours and news of Manchester Airport.
Tax and accounting lessons are NOT specific to Manchester because you could apply these same arguments to Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle airports etc.
Therefore start a new thread.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr A Tis, of course you could apply the argument to anywhere outside the Home Counties. As I have said in a previous post "This is not just a Manchester problem, nor an air services problem. It is a major problem for the UK as a unit and with a Cabinet dominated by Home Counties MPs, the rest of the country needs to sit up, take notice and work together to not only divide the wealth more evenly but to share the services and benefits as well."
Where this discussion fits in this thread is that the very developments of infrastructure upon which new routes and increases in passengers and freight depend are intrinsically linked to funding.
Manchester Airport has historically funded itself to the point where it is not only the number three airport in the UK but a major gateway/income earner for a massive swathe of the country.
This is not only ignored/dismissed/or seemingly unknown by many in power, by the press and public but when reasons are given as to why Heathrow and other Home Counties projects should receive massive amounts of public funding, distorted tax take figures are trotted out to justify the expenditure.
For those wanting to see interesting aircraft from new carriers and discuss them here, or hang on every rumour in the hope of seeing services expand, it is important to know just why Manchester does not get a fair deal, how history has influenced development and how the system works.
If this discussion were to be buried in another forum or thread with a title indicative of the content, fewer would read it. Being here at least some might sit up and take notice.
There's not much left to add at present. The facts are there. Make of them what you will.
Where this discussion fits in this thread is that the very developments of infrastructure upon which new routes and increases in passengers and freight depend are intrinsically linked to funding.
Manchester Airport has historically funded itself to the point where it is not only the number three airport in the UK but a major gateway/income earner for a massive swathe of the country.
This is not only ignored/dismissed/or seemingly unknown by many in power, by the press and public but when reasons are given as to why Heathrow and other Home Counties projects should receive massive amounts of public funding, distorted tax take figures are trotted out to justify the expenditure.
For those wanting to see interesting aircraft from new carriers and discuss them here, or hang on every rumour in the hope of seeing services expand, it is important to know just why Manchester does not get a fair deal, how history has influenced development and how the system works.
If this discussion were to be buried in another forum or thread with a title indicative of the content, fewer would read it. Being here at least some might sit up and take notice.
There's not much left to add at present. The facts are there. Make of them what you will.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philbky..... Stick to your guns. The discussion of money is directly relevant to the future of MAN and the North of England. If the Spotters with their enthusiasm for 'new' airlines and 350/787 sightings don't get it then perhaps they don't really understand. When a crime is committed they say "follow the money" and that truism applies here too.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philby 100% correct !
3rd largest airport in the country, 25m pax, one third size of Heathrow but who knows.....?
Your assertion is bang on.
We may as well be transparent at both government level and in the media.
As another poster suggested no different to airports in Leeds, Liverpool etc and that i'm afraid is how it's perceived in Whitehall.
The "can do/must do" of those batting for Heathrow is in some way to be appluaded, perish the thought Manchester handles 25m and is one of the largest economic generators in the country.
Whose batting for us MAG ?
3rd largest airport in the country, 25m pax, one third size of Heathrow but who knows.....?
Your assertion is bang on.
We may as well be transparent at both government level and in the media.
As another poster suggested no different to airports in Leeds, Liverpool etc and that i'm afraid is how it's perceived in Whitehall.
The "can do/must do" of those batting for Heathrow is in some way to be appluaded, perish the thought Manchester handles 25m and is one of the largest economic generators in the country.
Whose batting for us MAG ?
Last edited by Bagso; 15th Aug 2016 at 21:30.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-writes-trade-letter-to-china-amid-hinkley-deal-row-10538571
Excellent news re Airport City and the billion pound development in Sheffield (nearest long haul airport is of course Manchester).
Excellent news re Airport City and the billion pound development in Sheffield (nearest long haul airport is of course Manchester).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reassuring words from Mrs May were certainly needed in my view and to be made public, so that puts a better complexion on other infrastructure developments involving Chinese investment. Important from the airport's standpoint as well that relations with Chinese carriers are not harmed by political spats between governments.
Last edited by MANFOD; 16th Aug 2016 at 11:30.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomson schedules Dubai service in W16 :: Routesonline
Assume all cruise related. Hard to compete with EK offering from all these airports (too many to count)
Assume all cruise related. Hard to compete with EK offering from all these airports (too many to count)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can lay all the concrete and erect all the steel you like (funded in whatever way you want) but if the airlines don't want to come then the additional facilities aren't going to get used. Manchester only last year finally surpassed its best previous passenger throughput in 2006, and even now the number of aircraft movements are barely more than 2/3rds of what they were back then. Passenger and movement capacity hasn't been a limiting factor at MAN for almost ten years now. What makes people think that throwing more money at the airport will suddenly make more airlines want to use it?
If the capacity at Heathrow (or Gatwick for that matter) was upped substantially then I'd wager it would be utilised almost as quickly as it was built - if that was allowed. Up capacity at Manchester by the same sort of magnitude (however it is funded), and I bet it would take quite a lot longer before a lot of it was needed.
Cut it any way you want, but the greater demand is in the London area. Even with the current constraints down south there has only been some, but not a huge sway towards launching new routes to more northerly airports. You cannot force airlines to use Manchester rather than London - a few might take the bait, but many will say if I can't serve London I won't bother, because the yields are softer further north even if I could fill all the seats.
So if significant additional central government investment did get put into MAN, where would all the traffic come from to fill the infrastructure that was created?
If the capacity at Heathrow (or Gatwick for that matter) was upped substantially then I'd wager it would be utilised almost as quickly as it was built - if that was allowed. Up capacity at Manchester by the same sort of magnitude (however it is funded), and I bet it would take quite a lot longer before a lot of it was needed.
Cut it any way you want, but the greater demand is in the London area. Even with the current constraints down south there has only been some, but not a huge sway towards launching new routes to more northerly airports. You cannot force airlines to use Manchester rather than London - a few might take the bait, but many will say if I can't serve London I won't bother, because the yields are softer further north even if I could fill all the seats.
So if significant additional central government investment did get put into MAN, where would all the traffic come from to fill the infrastructure that was created?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth are you on about?
Who is 'forcing' airlines to use Manchester rather than London? In any case do you think they would? Paranoia at its worst.
The current transformation plan aims to replace a lot of very old and somewhat disfunctional assets - it won't add much capacity.
Who is 'forcing' airlines to use Manchester rather than London? In any case do you think they would? Paranoia at its worst.
The current transformation plan aims to replace a lot of very old and somewhat disfunctional assets - it won't add much capacity.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EastMids ... So many misapprehensions there! Where do I begin!
Technically correct. However, with around 70 carriers serving MAN at the present time that isn't an issue in this case. Also, most growth in throughput at MAN is attributable to increased services operated by incumbent based carriers rather than to 'new tails'. Note also that the T2 TP (GBP850M redevelopment of T2) is about replacing obsolete infrastructure with new state-of-the-art infrastructure. It doesn't require further traffic growth to justify its construction, although that would of course be very welcome.
This doesn't tell the whole story. MAN used to have a thriving GA scene which would see around 100 movements by light singles such as PA28's and PA38's on a nice day. Also, many schedules in the past were operated by small types such as the Jetstream and the E145. And four different London Airports enjoyed upto 50 departures per day from MAN ... we are now down to 8 or 9 per day to LHR only. Meanwhile, business has shifted towards the LCC's in particular with average passengers per movement having soared in consequence. Pressure on the terminals has grown sharply.
Hmmm ... You don't know MAN very well, do you? Terminal 3 has been bursting at the seams for some time now. It is in desperate need of expansion. Ryanair has indicated in the past that they hoped to be at 10 MAN-based B738's well before now. This hasn't been possible because their ops require contact stands and T3 hasn't got sufficient available. The Ryanair fleet is stuck at 8 for now, and T3's quick runway access means they won't consider switching terminals. Also, Vueling, another T3 operator, had allegedly considered adding a two aircraft base at MAN a year ago. This didn't happen at that time. So T3 limitations have been and remain a limiting factor to capacity at MAN for a while now.
Meanwhile, MAN's throughput is unusually dependent on based fleets which require overnight stand space at the airport. Whilst acknowledging that some long-haul aircraft are away flying at night, most of the short-haul types overnight at the airport. And many of the long-hauls (TCX, TOM etc.) arrive back before the based fleet has departed on first rotation. Current based aircraft are: EXS 18; TOM 14; TCX 13; EZY 11; RYR 8; MON 8; BEE 8;VIR 4; LLC 2; FDX/ABR 2; CFG 1. A further 8 aircraft operating for European flag carriers etc. also night-stop at MAN. Acknowledgment to 'MKY661' for providing that information. The takeaway from this is that MAN's apron is actually very constrained indeed - already. A solution is needed - remember, the TP is providing principally like-for-like capacity replacement.
Glad you asked. Well, if we can provide more contact stands at capacity-challenged T3 we already have solid indications that Ryanair and Vueling would be very interested! And that's just for starters. I must take issue with your phraseology here as well. MAG proposes to deliver the ambitious new TP (see mantp website) for GBP850M + GBP150M contingency. That is actually phenomenal value for money if they pull it off. Compare the price-tags applied to similar projects proposed elsewhere. MAG funds development itself, so "throwing around" money doesn't come into it!
MAN is not and has never planned to develop as a replacement for the London Airports system. However, it does seek to redress 'leakage' which has drained from MAN's own catchment area to those airports in the past. MAN's capacity growth is tailored to the requirements of its own 22.5M catchment. The scale of development required or planned at airports in other regions is irrelevant. That is a matter for them.
Find me any posting on here which has ever suggested otherwise and we can discuss this.
Nobody is proposing this. MAN is attracting carriers based upon the proposition of its own inherent market of 25M pax per annum and potential growth beyond that. London is not MAN's target market. That would make no sense.
I can assure you that carriers evaluating services from MAN are considering the MAN business proposition. There is a large catchment to be tapped here, as around 25M pax this year will testify. MAN attracts business on its own merits, not because it isn't somewhere else. As for yields, these vary by route and carrier. They're very complex. It is unhelpful to generalise or make assumptions on this topic.
From the 22.5 million people identified as living in MAN's catchment, from overseas visitors coming in, and from a modest number of additional connecting passengers using local links with carriers such as FlyBe. MAN needs and merits investment to serve the North, not as a London substitute. Get that idea out of your head.
MAN makes a huge contribution to the economy of UKplc. It is every bit as deserving of government support as any airport in the SE ... arguably more so, as MAN has never enjoyed tangible government support for its infrastructure development before. It is overdue its share of state-backed TLC.
Meanwhile, this discussion arose because MAN is alleged to be facing problems when addressing options to expand T3. And we've already discussed the pressing need for that. If there is some grand public utilities superhighway running under the land they need for this expansion, then that is exactly the sort of issue which government funds should be called upon to resolve. If LHR or LGW receive billions in public funding for support work surrounding their proposed developments, MAN deserves equal consideration. And I mean well beyond the millions which relocating those utilities would cost.
You can lay all the concrete and erect all the steel you like (funded in whatever way you want) but if the airlines don't want to come then the additional facilities aren't going to get used.
even now the number of aircraft movements are barely more than 2/3rds of what they were back then.
Passenger and movement capacity hasn't been a limiting factor at MAN for almost ten years now
Meanwhile, MAN's throughput is unusually dependent on based fleets which require overnight stand space at the airport. Whilst acknowledging that some long-haul aircraft are away flying at night, most of the short-haul types overnight at the airport. And many of the long-hauls (TCX, TOM etc.) arrive back before the based fleet has departed on first rotation. Current based aircraft are: EXS 18; TOM 14; TCX 13; EZY 11; RYR 8; MON 8; BEE 8;VIR 4; LLC 2; FDX/ABR 2; CFG 1. A further 8 aircraft operating for European flag carriers etc. also night-stop at MAN. Acknowledgment to 'MKY661' for providing that information. The takeaway from this is that MAN's apron is actually very constrained indeed - already. A solution is needed - remember, the TP is providing principally like-for-like capacity replacement.
What makes people think that throwing more money at the airport will suddenly make more airlines want to use it?
If the capacity at Heathrow (or Gatwick for that matter) was upped substantially then I'd wager it would be utilised almost as quickly as it was built - if that was allowed. Up capacity at Manchester by the same sort of magnitude (however it is funded), and I bet it would take quite a lot longer before a lot of it was needed.
Cut it any way you want, but the greater demand is in the London area.
You cannot force airlines to use Manchester rather than London
but many will say if I can't serve London I won't bother, because the yields are softer further north even if I could fill all the seats.
So if significant additional central government investment did get put into MAN, where would all the traffic come from to fill the infrastructure that was created?
MAN makes a huge contribution to the economy of UKplc. It is every bit as deserving of government support as any airport in the SE ... arguably more so, as MAN has never enjoyed tangible government support for its infrastructure development before. It is overdue its share of state-backed TLC.
Meanwhile, this discussion arose because MAN is alleged to be facing problems when addressing options to expand T3. And we've already discussed the pressing need for that. If there is some grand public utilities superhighway running under the land they need for this expansion, then that is exactly the sort of issue which government funds should be called upon to resolve. If LHR or LGW receive billions in public funding for support work surrounding their proposed developments, MAN deserves equal consideration. And I mean well beyond the millions which relocating those utilities would cost.
Not a MAN (or even a UK) resident and it's probably been about 5 years since I even visited the airport so take my comments in that context.
Manchester Rovers and Wanderers both announced new signings in the small hours GMT recently. Local fans in bed, Americans going to bed, so who was this for eh? Asians. With those two and the Merseyside red socks on your doorstep, I actually think MAN could support routes to cities in that part of the world that maybe even LHR could not. Over a hundred cities in China with populations in the millions, Garuda about to be allowed fly to the EU and US with their own crews and metal again...excuse the pun but the sky could really be the limit here.
The airport needs to market these three football clubs for all it's worth.
Manchester Rovers and Wanderers both announced new signings in the small hours GMT recently. Local fans in bed, Americans going to bed, so who was this for eh? Asians. With those two and the Merseyside red socks on your doorstep, I actually think MAN could support routes to cities in that part of the world that maybe even LHR could not. Over a hundred cities in China with populations in the millions, Garuda about to be allowed fly to the EU and US with their own crews and metal again...excuse the pun but the sky could really be the limit here.
The airport needs to market these three football clubs for all it's worth.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, and we mustn't forget that British higher education generally and Universities in particular are hugely popular with the Asian market also. Large numbers of students from Asia are signed-up for degree courses at prominent universities across the North.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EastMids post was one of the most ill informed I've read on this topic for a very long time. He seems to have woken up in the late 1970s. I have only just caught up on this thread and he already has had a comprehensive reply.
I would add that he may not realise that Manchester is now the third most visited destination in the UK by overseas business, leisure and VFR travellers combined. Those figures are based on bed nights and passenger surveys at stations, the airport and certain visitor attractions. The visitors don't all come through London, or even visit there. Add in the overseas visitors to destinations within the catchment area where no visit to the city or the conurbation is made and the larger region has shown an average sustained visitor growth over the last 16 years, with the 2008 recession causing the only dip, the effects of that recession being totally ignored by East Mids when he mentioned the airport passenger figures.
I would add that he may not realise that Manchester is now the third most visited destination in the UK by overseas business, leisure and VFR travellers combined. Those figures are based on bed nights and passenger surveys at stations, the airport and certain visitor attractions. The visitors don't all come through London, or even visit there. Add in the overseas visitors to destinations within the catchment area where no visit to the city or the conurbation is made and the larger region has shown an average sustained visitor growth over the last 16 years, with the 2008 recession causing the only dip, the effects of that recession being totally ignored by East Mids when he mentioned the airport passenger figures.
