Manchester-2
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Age: 48
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Menzies is very strong and by far the biggest handler at LHR but yes everywhere else they seem to be losing contracts right left and centre...the ground handling market in UK is becoming very fragmented with smaller companies entering (Stobart, Azzurra, Premier Handling etc) still think Dnata is the one to watch... a big global player with very deep pockets.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s in GDS and on Catania airport website so can only go off the information provided. Maybe an existing flight will be shuffled to accommodate it as there are still gaps in the based aircraft schedules.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Menzies is very strong and by far the biggest handler at LHR but yes everywhere else they seem to be losing contracts right left and centre...the ground handling market in UK is becoming very fragmented with smaller companies entering (Stobart, Azzurra, Premier Handling etc) still think Dnata is the one to watch... a big global player with very deep pockets.
Dnata at MAN have so far offered little. They even got an improvement notice from one of their customers once, I think they were called Emirates !
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unregulated ground handling market at MAN has been a dismal failure. Can anyone honestly say that an open door policy (enforced by EU Directive) has led to a better customer experience than if it were limited to say, 3 providers? That number, to me would seem about the right level at a 25-30 mppa airport to offer competition but a viable volume of work for each provider. It has become ridiculously fragmented now at MAN, with 7 or 8 players (I have lost count). Market economics does not seem to be able to work it out for the better. The race to the bottom is over and no-one has won, certainly not the passenger waiting forever for their bags in reclaim.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the dark side
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably referring to EU Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 "on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports"
Groundhandling at European airports | Kennedys
Groundhandling at European airports | Kennedys
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could argue the EU side but given MAN's size and uniqueness in Europe is equally a part of the cause. You will only see 3-4 at most major airports in Europe either because based carriers have such a major market share (40-50%) or self handle. MAN have 4-5 big but medium sized carriers who are probably spread across most handles there while the rest don't really matter.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
horatio_b
Thanks. And if anyone has bothered to read it, the Directive (not regulation, btw) makes provision for ground handlers to be “authorised” and that at airports with over 5m pax pa there are a minimum of two providers to choose from.
It does not create an open house.
Thanks. And if anyone has bothered to read it, the Directive (not regulation, btw) makes provision for ground handlers to be “authorised” and that at airports with over 5m pax pa there are a minimum of two providers to choose from.
It does not create an open house.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you have not taken into account the UK Regulations that flowed from this. Here's what the CAA say
See here for the exemption guidelines
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...ulations-1997/
This was a very time consuming and expensive process that the airport looked at very carefully before deciding not to proceed to ask for exemption. In addition, at the time, the Airport were fully economically regulated by the same people (CAA Economic Regulation Group or some such) and the airlines were not in favour of any limitation; perhaps their view was coloured by the fact that the Airport had until not long before done most of the manual handling at least.
The airport was worried that it would become a free for all and so it has proved. The race to the bottom had begun.
The Airports (Groundhandling) Regulations 1997 (GHRs)
The CAA has powers under the GHRs which implemented the European directive on access to the ground handling market at Community airports. The directive is intended to liberalise handling at EU airports.
The Airports (Groundhandling) Regulations 1997 (consolidated)
Airports with over 2 million passengers a year cannot limit the number of third party suppliers of ground handling services without permission from the CAA. The same applies at airports with more than 1 million passengers a year in relation to self-handling airport users.
Limitations may be granted, for example, on the grounds of safety, security, capacity or available space constraints at the airport concerned.
Airports can apply to the CAA for the number of third-party suppliers or self-handling airport users to be limited.
The CAA has powers under the GHRs which implemented the European directive on access to the ground handling market at Community airports. The directive is intended to liberalise handling at EU airports.
The Airports (Groundhandling) Regulations 1997 (consolidated)
Airports with over 2 million passengers a year cannot limit the number of third party suppliers of ground handling services without permission from the CAA. The same applies at airports with more than 1 million passengers a year in relation to self-handling airport users.
Limitations may be granted, for example, on the grounds of safety, security, capacity or available space constraints at the airport concerned.
Airports can apply to the CAA for the number of third-party suppliers or self-handling airport users to be limited.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...ulations-1997/
This was a very time consuming and expensive process that the airport looked at very carefully before deciding not to proceed to ask for exemption. In addition, at the time, the Airport were fully economically regulated by the same people (CAA Economic Regulation Group or some such) and the airlines were not in favour of any limitation; perhaps their view was coloured by the fact that the Airport had until not long before done most of the manual handling at least.
The airport was worried that it would become a free for all and so it has proved. The race to the bottom had begun.
Last edited by Suzeman; 19th Feb 2018 at 12:02.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK regulations are often tighter and more pointless than anything the EU brings in, our people take them too far. (See also Security at MAN T3)
For example, to help deaf and blind people, trains are meant to have announcements and dynamic signage that assists them, the law rightly says their needs must be taken "into account". So on some local stopping trains, the automated announcements callout 20+ stations on the route, then proceed to the "now approaching station" call only to repeat. Heathrow Connect is the worst offender in London with 30+ PA's between Paddington and Heathrow. I got the BHX-London stopping service once and lost count. This is not an EU regulation as such, it's a narrow UK view on a sensible rule, and I am no fan of the EU tbh. If it was illegal not to do this, then it would happen on the Tube and there would a be a riot (!)
The days when Britannia had a UK handling agent in Servisair and some contingency in manpower are long gone. easyJet and the locos, have been joined by BA in being ruthless in cost cutting in ground handling. There's just no way to make money over the medium term as you have to cut to the bone each year just to get through another season. This is the reason you get the same employees often TUPEd over again and again, as nothing changes, because it can't and people get demoralised.
For example, to help deaf and blind people, trains are meant to have announcements and dynamic signage that assists them, the law rightly says their needs must be taken "into account". So on some local stopping trains, the automated announcements callout 20+ stations on the route, then proceed to the "now approaching station" call only to repeat. Heathrow Connect is the worst offender in London with 30+ PA's between Paddington and Heathrow. I got the BHX-London stopping service once and lost count. This is not an EU regulation as such, it's a narrow UK view on a sensible rule, and I am no fan of the EU tbh. If it was illegal not to do this, then it would happen on the Tube and there would a be a riot (!)
The days when Britannia had a UK handling agent in Servisair and some contingency in manpower are long gone. easyJet and the locos, have been joined by BA in being ruthless in cost cutting in ground handling. There's just no way to make money over the medium term as you have to cut to the bone each year just to get through another season. This is the reason you get the same employees often TUPEd over again and again, as nothing changes, because it can't and people get demoralised.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR
This new route to CTA is showing on the CTA website. However it has the same flight numbers as the new PMO flights from MAN. They are on the same days and the timings are one to two hours apart.
Unless some flights are substantially changed on Monday and Friday I can't see how this new CTA flight can be fitted in to the timetable as there just isn't room.
Could it be that FR was going to do CTA but changed it to PMO instead
This new route to CTA is showing on the CTA website. However it has the same flight numbers as the new PMO flights from MAN. They are on the same days and the timings are one to two hours apart.
Unless some flights are substantially changed on Monday and Friday I can't see how this new CTA flight can be fitted in to the timetable as there just isn't room.
Could it be that FR was going to do CTA but changed it to PMO instead
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Where the next project takes me
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more. Well done to Jet2 for breaking with recent convention.
Insourcing is the new outsourcing don't you know
The only people that make money out of outsourcing are lawyers.
Insourcing is the new outsourcing don't you know
The only people that make money out of outsourcing are lawyers.
Could not agree more FF. If anyone needs a lesson in outsourcing and the race to the cheapest is best, just look at the current Fiasco with KFC & DHL .
As far as MAN goes, of the low cost operators, without doubt, Jet2 wins hands down. In terms of check in, baggage claim & everything else -simply the best. Same applies in PMI.- Who handles Jet 2 at these places ? Jet2 of course. Their fate is in their own hands. Well done.
As far as MAN goes, of the low cost operators, without doubt, Jet2 wins hands down. In terms of check in, baggage claim & everything else -simply the best. Same applies in PMI.- Who handles Jet 2 at these places ? Jet2 of course. Their fate is in their own hands. Well done.
