Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Manchester-2

Old 24th Jun 2019, 23:01
  #3141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 134
Rhino no way Manchester could work on single runway , if you look at the cost it was very very cheap and what else do you suggest, during summer there are constant times
where movements are one after another for very long periods from 06..00 through to late evening and even as I type this there have been 5 consecutive movements.
chaps1954 is online now  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 07:28
  #3142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Behind a desk, dreaming of the sky
Posts: 507
Should the airport look to build a T4 due to the capacity restraints building on the existing footprint? Although where the new footprint would be is up for a debate. (I think the western maintenence area even though I know it would be costly moving the fuel farm.)
this would be VERY long term. It's taken them long enough to get the development on T2 going. Also with T1 scheduled for demolition, there's a large development they could put in its place.
Once both of these are done, It's either T3 expansion, or a new T4. As you've pointed out, the location would be up for discussion.
There's some argument for moving the fuel farm/ hangar areas in favour of a new terminal, but as to where these could move to remains to be seen.
An alternative would be to completely remove the Runway Visitor park and put the new terminal there, then move the Runway park to the other side of the airfield (around the Airport inn and South side viewing area

despite this, this would be 2050'esque' levels of 'long term'. and will not happen anytime soon
Plane.Silly is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 12:33
  #3143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 38
Posts: 386
you pay peanuts for air travel but expect the infrastructure to be operating like a private yacht with unlimited funds!
Remember all that about showcasing MAN as a key part of UK PLC? All those (genuine) complaints about why don’t BA serve long haul from MAN? Because MAN is touted as gateway to the North as well as Scotland, so if that’s true, then the *basics* need to be there and they are not.
Penny pinching on the little things kills the customer experience and in a competitive market that’s important. T3 is still a write off, a Hell to be endured, and while I get huge progress is underway, someone keeps dropping balls on the day-to-day.

BTW if LGW with a similar volume of night stoppers and traffic profile can get by on one runway, so could MAN, with a will. R2 was an remains such a sub-optimal layout depending on wind direction and SID.
Skipness One Foxtrot is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 14:17
  #3144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 69
Posts: 889
April 2019 passenger statistics

Manchester Statistics - April 2019

Introduction

Back in September 2015 I decided that I should start to correlate statistics for Manchester and use 2005 as a reference point for historical data. My file now consists of 14 years of monthly figures and 486 destinations that have been served from Manchester over that period.

Destinations that are either new (no passengers since my records started in January 2005), or have not been served for a number of years - if the latter then the month and year of the last service is shown.
No new destinations were served in April 2019.

Million passenger routes (Rolling annual figures)
Amsterdam - 1,045,211 passengers

The following domestic statistics are missing from the CAA report for April.
All airports have report for this month

Moving monthly and annual figures - based on CAA statistics/MAG statistics
Monthly passengers - 2,390,976 +8.18%
Annual Total - 8,050,122
Moving Annual Total - 28,838,398 +3.22%
Monthly Movements - 16,577 +2.78%
Annual Movements - 58,579
Moving Annual Movements - 202,109 +0.21%

Top 25 destinations - by passenger numbers


Top 25 destinations with highest percentage increase.


Figures for the European and long haul destinations that I consider to be the main points for our connecting traffic.


Comparison of top 25 destinations - April 2009 versus April 2019


Major changes to domestic traffic


Based on a combination of CAA data, aircraft configurations supplied by Planespotters.net and movements from FR24 I have complied the followed suggested load factors for long-haul scheduled services.

It must be remembered that the MAN-ADD/MAN-IAH and MAN-SIN services are shared with intermediate points and therefore reflect a lower than load-factor that true.
MAN-JFK shows an odd figures but I have been unable to ascertain why this is - I know that a couple of the Virgin flights were operated using A330 & A340 equipment but this has been taken into account.

CAA statistics for April are final.









Scottie Dog is online now  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 22:00
  #3145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Northwich
Posts: 33
Worryingly low load factors month after month for Hainan's 4 x weekly service to Beijing. 67% in April is very low. I wonder what the yield is? Is this route sustainable in the long run? I think the inconvenient flight times are hurting growth on this route. The fight departs Man at 12.15pm - arriving Pek 5.45am. On the return leg, the flight departs at 1.45am, arriving at Man at 5.40am. For business travelers and tourists, you can't usually check-in to hotels till around 12 noon leaving the weary passenger with some time to burn. Also, who wants to fly at 1.45am in the morning? Maybe after Beijing's new airport is open, better slot timings will become free?

My feelings are with better slot timings, this route is very sustainable for 7 x weekly for an all round year service.
Nostoodian is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 22:11
  #3146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 134
Skipness 1F
Manchester has a very different profile from Gatwick with many slow Dash 8s, ATR and also the taxiway layout is very different as Gatwick has more high speed exits from memory plus the famous Mobberley bend which can slow departures and arrivals down considerably.
chaps1954 is online now  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 22:25
  #3147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 836
Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot View Post

BTW if LGW with a similar volume of night stoppers and traffic profile can get by on one runway, so could MAN, with a will. R2 was an remains such a sub-optimal layout depending on wind direction and SID.
So are you suggesting MAN mothball R2?

Remember that when R2 was being planned the traffic profile was very different - many movements by small jets such as the CRJ and E145. Plus the fact that the airlines weren't prepared to accept delays of the same order as at LHR and a lesser extent LGW. In addition, the MAN R1 runway layout (RETs, holding bays etc) was far inferior to that of LGW even after the addition of a RET and the 24 holding bay - really just a passing point - and capacity was becoming severely limited in the peaks.

Not much more could be done to increase it. Airlines were getting hacked off at not being able to get any decent peak runway slots at commercially sensible times and several potential services didn't start as a result, so the Airport started looking at a new runway.

The R2 layout was always sub-optimal, the optimal location to the NW to allow fully independent ops with the terminals in the middle was not sustainable - think public safety zone requiring T2 to be demolished, the proximity of the M56 and not to mention Ashley Girl Guide camp....A fully spaced parallel to the south would have resulted in the destruction of the Bollin Valley as well as having runway crossings, so already sub-optimal. Neither of these options would have been likely to get through the planning process and were hugely expensive. In the end the current R2 configuration was put forward for the planning and inquiry process as it seemed to be a good compromise between the ideal operationally and the environmental factors. It was approved.

The SIDS at MAN are not optimal due to the presence of some very vocal opposition to changes to make things better - and that has always been the case. LGW is not constrained as much with SIDs splitting quickly beyond the runway end.

Anyway MAN already has that extra capacity in the bag for the future. How long until LHR or LGW get an extra runway, especially with the heightened environmental concerns these days?

T3 was originally built as a joint venture between the Airport and BA for a mix of BA domestic, European and long haul flights. In the end BA changed their strategy and walked away. This demonstrates the issue that airports have - airlines can move their aircraft around and change their focus in a short period - airports commit to bricks and mortar which is a long term project.

Penny pinching on the little things kills the customer experience and in a competitive market thatís important. T3 is still a write off, a Hell to be endured, and while I get huge progress is underway, someone keeps dropping balls on the day-to-day.
I do agree that not getting the little things right is important. I'm not defending what I read about in terms of poor customer service; however I wonder how many of MAN's passengers have the luxury of being able to go somewhere else instead bearing in mind all the other things that they take into account when planning a trip? And will they run into similar issues elsewhere now that our lives everywhere are dominated by blinkered bean-counters poring over financial spreadsheets rather than looking at the bigger picture?

I also believe that many modern-day travellers accept lower standards than previous generations; they don't know or expect any better.

It's enough to make you cry sometimes.

Suzeman is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 06:55
  #3148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 69
Posts: 889
An excellent summary by Suzeman who, whilst now getting, like myself, to be a "little long in the tooth", knows what he is talking about when it comes to R2 and T3.
Scottie Dog is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 07:23
  #3149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
Nailed it Suzeman!
Navpi is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 07:44
  #3150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 960
Scotties summary is interesting - looks like a major diversion of connecting traffic from LHR to AMS and CDG over the ten year period - and who would blame them?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 07:47
  #3151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: United kingdom
Posts: 157
New Tui route to Marsa Alam Eff 06NOV19 1x weekly B737 Max8
Plane mad 134 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 07:58
  #3152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 134
Very much doubt AMS as they are full
chaps1954 is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 14:46
  #3153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 69
Posts: 889
MANTP Update #95 courtesy of the MANTP Team

Part 1 o 2

























Scottie Dog is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 14:47
  #3154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 69
Posts: 889
MANTP Update #95 courtesy of the MANTP Team

Part 2 of 2









Scottie Dog is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 14:48
  #3155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Where the next project takes me
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Nostoodian View Post
Worryingly low load factors month after month for Hainan's 4 x weekly service to Beijing. 67% in April is very low. I wonder what the yield is? Is this route sustainable in the long run? I think the inconvenient flight times are hurting growth on this route. The fight departs Man at 12.15pm - arriving Pek 5.45am. On the return leg, the flight departs at 1.45am, arriving at Man at 5.40am. For business travelers and tourists, you can't usually check-in to hotels till around 12 noon leaving the weary passenger with some time to burn. Also, who wants to fly at 1.45am in the morning? Maybe after Beijing's new airport is open, better slot timings will become free?

My feelings are with better slot timings, this route is very sustainable for 7 x weekly for an all round year service.
I've used this service extensively since it was launched over 3 years ago.
*Anecdotal evidence alert*
From my experience the load factors appear to be about right....which leaves me puzzled...why the big A333 bird when they have much more appropriately sized B787s, which they used to fly and I've also been on? (and from a pax perspective are far superior).

Most recent flight had around 14 in Business and was around 2/3 full down the back.
One thing that has really been noticeable between 3 years ago and now is that recently I have been almost certainly the only non-Chinese (origin?) person on the entire plane whereas at the beginning it was much more mixed. I take from that that the service just ain't cutting it with the locals here. I used to hear a lot of complaints about this and that back then but nothing cohesive enough to point to anything totally wrong.

The MAN experience from T2 is not too bad - apart from that wretched Escape lounge which is not really a C Class lounge just one of those pay on entry fakes.
Using the new A pier is pretty good (despite what people on PPRuNe have said, it's actually turned out alright).
On flight times: outbound from MAN frankly it's spot on but arrival time in to PEK is very (too)early.
The return at 01.45 is totally awful and the T2 experience at PEK is a bit grim and dingy but HNA do have a very nice lounge there. PEK is a busy airport at that time of the night with flights going to many European destinations. In fairness HNA's Brussels flight which appears to be one of their European flagship routes also goes at that time and I've used it on days when the MAN service is non-op. From my personal perspective I like getting home very early in the morning - the airport is dead and therefore a breeze and you can be off the plane and in a taxi in 20 mins if all goes well.

One other thing I have noticed between then and now is the decline in the quality of the on-board product. It used to be pretty good but now is no better than an average (say) Air China type product. The quality of training appears to have taken a dive. The crew often seem very young indeed and very inexperienced to be serving a C-Class product and their English is sometime nothing more than absolute basic.
FFMAN is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 14:57
  #3156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 69
Posts: 889
Could freight be a good reason for the A330? I believe can take more belly cargo than the B787 and a good freight load can make a service profitable.
Scottie Dog is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 15:08
  #3157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 69
Posts: 889
Update #96 courtesy of the MANTP Team

A number of the updates were already covered in Issue #95 but are included for continuity from the original document.

Part 1 of 2



























Scottie Dog is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 15:11
  #3158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 69
Posts: 889
Update #96 courtesy of the MANTP Team

A number of the updates were already covered in Issue #95 but are included for continuity from the original document.

Part 2 of 2













[

Scottie Dog is online now  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 20:08
  #3159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by FFHKG View Post
nothing seems to have changed and no effort seems to have been made to improve this situation.
The 2 long travelators in the sky link, between T1 and the train station, are in the process of being boarded and sealed up, floor to ceiling. It looks like they are planning some long term work and I suspect they are being completely replaced as there appeared to be some deep excavation work taking place.
Trav a la is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2019, 20:15
  #3160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 69
Posts: 889
Hopefully they might be back in use in a couple of months.
Scottie Dog is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.