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

Manchester-2

Old 23rd Nov 2020, 17:26
  #4581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 335
Whilst I suspect this pandemic has a way to run yet, EZY took a position fairly early on with long term cost efficiencies by closing bases as STN, SEN and NCL. It would appear they have looked at the near term future as best as anyone can and put measures in place to reduce overheads - they are currently anticipating operating at around 20% normal traffic levels over winter.
Any "sweeteners" from airports may see the traffic return quicker in those places next spring but I get the impression EZY are battening down the hatches now whilst planning for the longer term in the remaining bases. It is always possible that the situation could take a turn for the worse over the winter and they would then need to revisit the base situation again but for now, I personally don't think this will happen.
commit aviation is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2020, 18:09
  #4582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by BACsuperVC10 View Post
Liverpool Airport were bases for Easyjet and Ryanair prior to them arriving at Manchester so those airlines were not attracted away from Manchester indeed neither have expanded greatly at Liverpool since that happened. I very much doubt Liverpool Airports management ever expected Adria to begin their proposed operations considering their financial situation, of course we are not privy to negotiations but I cant really imagine why Liverpool Airport would go after an airline in such dire shape. Wizz and Blue have only ever operated from Liverpool and of course they will have to offer them attractive rates but there will be a limit to what an airport the size of Liverpool can offer compared to its much large neighbour same for LBA which as far as I know also hasn't attracted any business from Manchester airline wise, with Jet2 growing very slowly if at all there.
If Manchesters financial dominance allows them to offer much lower rates than Liverpool and indeed any other northern airport, I'm not sure how this can be considered a benefit to the region as a whole or passenger.

We are basically left with less choice and a growing monopoly at one airport not to mention job losses. I don't accept the lower fares argument , weather you fly from Liverpool or Manchester or Leeds they are all competing and would have to therefore offer attractive fares otherwise many passengers would just use Manchester if the fare from there was so much less.

If Liverpool looses its main carriers to Manchester due to anti-competitive pricing, I fear for Liverpool Airports future, which I believe to be highly detrimental for the travelling public and the loss of a northwest asset.
A number of points raised here. Firstly, I have made no assertions concerning which airline operated from which airport first. It seems irrelevant to the points I addressed in my earlier post. Indeed, LPL was absolutely dominant in the no-frills sector for many years, so they have shown that they are able to compete very effectively in this space without an artificial 'leg-up' from a regulating authority. LPL continued to do well in the no-frills sector right up until C-19 brought the entire market grinding to a halt. With reference to my earlier post, the point I made was that EZY and RYR did play their MAN and LPL bases off against each other over a number of years and presumably benefitted from doing so in the form of more competitive terms which they could pass along to their customers. Wizz - whilst never to date operating from MAN - has also used the mechanism of seeking alternative offers to keep terms competitive. I expect that Blue Air routinely does likewise. And fair enough; that is how the business works. Similarly, those airlines which have selected MAN as their primary operating base will also periodically sound out alternatives to keep their terms as competitive as possible. MAN has in the past lost CSA, Air India and Bangladesh Biman (first time around) to this process, and Adria had expressed intent to do likewise. Primera Air also selected BHX as their main base ahead of MAN, and Monarch Airlines reduced their MAN presence in favour of expanding at BHX instead. MAN doesn't automatically win every battle. And BTW, I doubt that LPL would have enjoyed privileged access to Adria's accounts at the time of that bid. They were business worth pursuing when they were pitched. This competitive bidding process is healthy for airlines and their customers, and from the perspective of airports it works both ways. LPL (and others) can (and do) gain at MAN's expense as well as the other way around.

You may recall that afew years ago Ryanair abruptly pulled all its schedules ex-MAN with the exception of the Dublin service in a dispute over "rip-off fees". So MAN certainly wasn't using any "anti-competitive pricing" powers to gain advantage over the thriving LPL base at that point. And Ryanair's return to MAN post-dispute came with higher charges attached ... I don't know what the LPL fees were but it does seem that Ryanair was paying more to use MAN. So again, the evidence suggests that MAN has not used its size to undercut LPL on price in the past. On the contrary, it has leveraged its attractive business proposition to charge more than smaller airports do.

The situation vis-a-vis LBA is different again. The reason that Jet2 stopped growing much there was that they had effectively bulked out the airport in terms of overnight aircraft parking capacity. Pre-COVID, LBA was operating pretty much to the capacity its fixed infrastructure could tolerate, so no adverse effects from neighbouring airports inhibiting the action there. We don't know how the market will respond post-C19, but beyond it's 2019 throughput, LBA growth is primarily dependent on increasing terminal and aircraft parking capacity on site. Certainly, MAN was not eating their lunch back then. Note too that LBA actually DID attract a Ryanair base AFTER that carrier was an established based operator at MAN.

Your assertion of MAN operating on a monopolistic basis doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pre-COVID, LPL was scoring around five million pax per annum which is pretty healthy going. LBA, as mentioned, was restrained by the limitations of their infrastructure but operating broadly to capacity. DSA was doing fine, and has offset the recent loss of it's FlyBe operation with a two-ship Wizz base (alongside their existing TUI business). That would put them on course for record passenger throughput once C-19 is behind us. EMA is most notably a cargo hub, though it does have a healthy sideline in passenger airline business which appeared to be ticking along nicely pre-virus. Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, BHX can point to its fair share of wins in the perennial battle for business with MAN.

So there is no evidence of any genuine issue with the existing system of airports competitively pitching for airline business. All local airports can boast their share of successes. MAN has never run away with 100% of the pie, and I don't anticipate anything close to that transpiring, notwithstanding that first-level airports tend to be the focus of consolidation in an immediate post-recession market environment. We may see an element of that playing out, but it does not constitute anti-competitive behaviour by the beneficiary airport. MAN is not state-backed ... it needs to make money, and all it's business pitches must allow for a worthwhile return to the bottom line, no matter how bids are structured. They've got an expensive new terminal extension to pay off.

The recent round of alarmism from some LPL advocates is without merit. The current system of airports competing for business from a range of carriers is working just fine. And the ultimate winners from this process are the fare-paying passengers.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2020, 18:26
  #4583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 55
Posts: 851
It won’t go down well with my friends further down the Mersey, but I would suggest that the renaissance that came when EZY and RYR took off there was actually because of Manchester. It’s well known that Manchester management at the time were pretty dismissive of the low cost carriers, preferring to court full service airlines. If they hadn’t done that, and had encouraged EZY and RYR as they do now, then it’s not unrealistic to suggest that both airlines would have come to MAN and not served Liverpool, which would have made things extremely difficult or even fatal for them.
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2020, 10:45
  #4584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 172
True that Manchester management were anti LCC and that EZY went to LPL instead however I think that FR were instructed by the Irish Government to use LPL to protect Aer Lingus at that time. FR eventually went back but have fell out with MAN a few times and and have moved flights at the whim of MOL. Now MAN has bags of space with the opening of T2 extension and are hoping to tempt W6 from LPL as well. Could be interesting in the next few months.
lplsprog is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2020, 10:53
  #4585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,635
I think that FR were instructed by the Irish Government to use LPL to protect Aer Lingus at that time
Sounds like an interesting conversation....
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 24th Nov 2020, 11:07
  #4586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by lplsprog View Post
True that Manchester management were anti LCC and that EZY went to LPL instead however I think that FR were instructed by the Irish Government to use LPL to protect Aer Lingus at that time. FR eventually went back but have fell out with MAN a few times and and have moved flights at the whim of MOL. Now MAN has bags of space with the opening of T2 extension and are hoping to tempt W6 from LPL as well. Could be interesting in the next few months.
Rod Hill who was the CEO at LPL at the time was the man who got Easyjet to look at a north of England base. They started with Amsterdam and Nice.
BACsuperVC10 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2020, 11:12
  #4587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 184
Originally Posted by lplsprog View Post
True that Manchester management were anti LCC and that EZY went to LPL instead however I think that FR were instructed by the Irish Government to use LPL to protect Aer Lingus at that time. FR eventually went back but have fell out with MAN a few times and and have moved flights at the whim of MOL. Now MAN has bags of space with the opening of T2 extension and are hoping to tempt W6 from LPL as well. Could be interesting in the next few months.
Yes that was what happened at the time Aer Lingus were told to stop flying to Liverpool by the Irish Government in favour of Ryanair, and vice versa at Manchester.
BACsuperVC10 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2020, 12:29
  #4588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,709
...& yes way back in the day a similar arrangement existed at STN too on the direction of the Irish Government re EIN & RYR.
southside bobby is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2020, 15:29
  #4589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 179
Hey MAG! Opportunity knocks ... if you're quick, agile and up for a challenge!!!

Dig out that plan you shelved around five years ago. Blow off the dust. The one which would have resulted in the T3 pier being extended to the east, allowing for afew more gates to accommodate based Ryanair B738's. Back then, you discovered that a number of utility and fibre cable trunk routes were routed under Old Ringway Road, and these would have to be rerouted at your expense to allow the build to proceed. So you dropped the extension plan on cost grounds - and, lo and behold - you subsequently had to turn away Ryanair's request to base an additional five B738's at MAN because T3 was bulked out. Quelle surprise! And that was certainly detrimental to the economy of this region. Was it three extra EasyJet's you couldn't fit in T1 as well? Tragic.

Well, now Santa is coming to town and he is bearing gifts. 4Bn available for projects in the North which offer "clear benefit to the region" and which can be delivered during the lifetime of this government (three years?).

You can borrow this letter template which I've prepared for you if you like. Save time!

Dear Rishi (me old cock-sparrow),

We know you've chucked us under the bus so far during this covid pandemic-thingie. But maybe you could glance in our direction now? Time you showed us some love, pal!!! [**Remember to sound very Northern so those Westminster civil servant types take note of your inherent regionalness and oikish charm**].

We've got this ace cool plan to extend out our T3 Pier to the east so we can accommodate additional European air services for the economic benefit of our region (brill for post-Brexit trading links 'n' all). Unfortunately, there is a bunch of utility cables under the site we need which meant we couldn't make the numbers work for our shareholders, even though that expansion would have greatly benefitted the region's economy. We subsequently had to refuse an additional five based Ryanair B738's due to lack of space in T3. And EasyJet Airbi in T1 'cos we'd not expanded there either. So hows about we sit down tomorrow and talk about paying for our T3 pier extension with dough from your 4Bn 'levelling-up' war-chest? We can deliver within three years - honest! - and we'll certainly be needing the extra stands by then with C-19 well in the rear-view mirror. And here's the best bit: Ryanair don't even want fancy gates with business lounges and artworks. They want low cost functional ones which do the job effectively. So they're actually quite cheap to build if we could just shift those darned utility cables out of the way? Howzabout it, Guv? Maybe chuck in an extra twenty quid for some harp stickers (the new ones with enhanced kn*ckers) and a bit of blue and gold paint?

Oh, and if you could spare afew bob to help us complete T2 Pier 2 which we've had to freeze that would be really great as well. The planes will all be back in three years and we can't afford to build anything for them right now. No dosh coming in and all that.

Cheers, Pal!

Lots of Luv and Sloppy Kisses,

Cheerful Charlie, ('New Broom') Can-Do Kaz and all your mates the MAG Massif.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know it makes sense. How could Rishi refuse?

And let's be honest here. We all know that there were long term hopes to replace T1 & 3 with a new T2-style replacement eventually. But that idea is an absolute dead duck now following what Covid has wrought. So what we really need to do (in a hurry) is knock T1 and T3 together into a single terminal. Then knock down T1 car park and extend the existing complex to the North with a new mega-security area for fast and efficient processing of passengers. Lots of baggage drops, QR-code readers and a big arrivals area with zillions of egates. Then we buy a bunch of orange, blue / gold, pink / purple paint and ... wizzo ... we got ourselves an awesome quick-turnaround cheap and cheerful no-frills mega terminal for three well known carriers to bulk out? What's not to love?

Then we concentrate all the long-haul, business travel and upmarket leisure stuff in our new T2 interchange with a super-efficient transfers lounge and great facilities. Compact parking area measured up for Dashes and ATR's. Domestic arrivals channel. Dedicated areas for Oneworld, Star Alliance and SkyTeam. Jet2 Zone. TUI Zone. Virgin Zone (airline variety). Every other misfit zone. Private lounges. Top-end retail. The works! A fantastic amenity for the North. Demonstrable benefit to the economy. Deliverable within the lifetime of this government. If you cast aside MAN's favourite word ... "NO!!!"

Text Rishi now. Ask for some dosh. Blow the dust off the T3 pier extension plan. Buy some shovels. Get to work. You've got three years to get it done. Tick tock ...

Oh ... and if you do a Zoom meeting with Whitehall, be sure to bury that Manchester cargo marketing guy under the floorboards. He will blow the whole game again. Suggest they spend the dosh at Stansted. You've seen his track record. Is he dead already?
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2020, 15:40
  #4590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 179
P.S. Dear Rishi. Please will you buy us a new Hi-Lo. From that fund. Huge benefit for the North. We promise not to ship it out to Stansted later. Honest! Fingers crossed and hope to die! Love, Chaz and Kaz. :-)
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2020, 15:47
  #4591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Where ever I am
Posts: 20
Manchester cargo guy?? Well he doesn't appear to know where the 'reply' button on emails is - assuming that he receives them.

Sorry.....
Sioltach Dubh Glas is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2020, 16:38
  #4592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,552
If major utilities need to be moved then there is no chance of delivery in 5 years, let alone 3.
inOban is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2020, 16:42
  #4593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by Sioltach Dubh Glas View Post
Manchester cargo guy?? Well he doesn't appear to know where the 'reply' button on emails is - assuming that he receives them.

Sorry.....
OK, I confess. That bit was a joke. There isn't one. There's just a guy based at EMA who takes MAN's calls and switch-sells them to EMA / STN! :-)

If major utilities need to be moved then there is no chance of delivery in 5 years, let alone 3.
Give me some shovels. I'll get it sorted for 'em.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2020, 16:44
  #4594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 61
Posts: 582
Originally Posted by inOban View Post
If major utilities need to be moved then there is no chance of delivery in 5 years, let alone 3.
I think the original plans suggested three so mr Mr Ozzy is infact correct.

Always liked Paranoid btw........
Navpi is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2020, 16:50
  #4595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,552
MAG may have thought 3 years, but had they discussed it with the utility companies, whose workplans have to be agreed with their regulators...?
inOban is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2020, 16:58
  #4596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 179
Yep. But they can blame Gubmint bureaucracy for that inevitable delay. And so keep the dosh. Or risk hacking off the voters at a crucial moment!
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2020, 13:20
  #4597 (permalink)  
DP.
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn View Post
And let's be honest here. We all know that there were long term hopes to replace T1 & 3 with a new T2-style replacement eventually. But that idea is an absolute dead duck now following what Covid has wrought. So what we really need to do (in a hurry) is knock T1 and T3 together into a single terminal. Then knock down T1 car park and extend the existing complex to the North with a new mega-security area for fast and efficient processing of passengers. Lots of baggage drops, QR-code readers and a big arrivals area with zillions of egates. Then we buy a bunch of orange, blue / gold, pink / purple paint and ... wizzo ... we got ourselves an awesome quick-turnaround cheap and cheerful no-frills mega terminal for three well known carriers to bulk out? What's not to love?
Even allowing for what has happened to the industry this year - I can't see MAG spending the money to extend T1, when the plan was for it to be mothballed pretty soon after the entirety of the T2 works were complete. The costs of demolishing that car park and rebuilding a new passenger handling structure in its place would be significant, and I can't see that it make financial sense when they've already accepted that T1 needs to go, and that it's likely that terminal capacity is going to be much less of an issue for the foreseeable.
DP. is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2020, 15:38
  #4598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 39
Posts: 651
On the topic of new stands for Ryanair and easyJet based growth, is it not simpler to concrete some off terminal apron and bus? It's far from ideal but it's also pretty common to do so. I mean if you really want more loco, that would seem a decent halfway house. Or is the cost of the bussing being passed onto the airlines who won't pay for an airbridge a deal breaker?
Skipness One Foxtrot is online now  
Old 27th Nov 2020, 16:16
  #4599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,086
It's a fair question Skip, and I'm sure someone can give you a more informed answer than me. However, with the boundary limits, I'm just not sure how much ground is left to concrete over for additional apron parking. I've a feeling there may still be space to the NW of Pier 1 of T2 and beyond the existing remote stands newly completed. With the inevitable staggering of the first wave departure slots, I think before covid, a/c for the later departures of that wave were often brought onto stand after the early flights had gone, rather than busing. But that requires a slick towing operation.

Can't really comment on relative costs and who stands them.



MANFOD is online now  
Old 27th Nov 2020, 20:14
  #4600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by inOban View Post
MAG may have thought 3 years, but had they discussed it with the utility companies, whose workplans have to be agreed with their regulators...?
This would be a service diversion, paid for by MAG so not requiring any agreement from the regulator. It would take a while to plan in just because of the nature of the cables to be moved.
AndrewH52 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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