Manchester-2

[brian_dromey]

Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn

Because MAG's airports are not interchangeable. Each offers a unique business proposition based upon its geography. Stansted best serves the South-East. East Midlands best serves ... err, the East Midlands and the M1 corridor.

Rather, you should ask why did they wilfully run down the perfectly good cargo operation which thrived at MAN as recently as 2008. There are people who leave behind a rich legacy in business. And there are others who leave disaster like this in their wake. Business mistakes need to be acknowledged with honesty and transparency. Then corrected. Defending failed strategy with religious zeal until your market share is decimated generally doesn't work out well from a business perspective.

We are clearly looking at this from a different perspective. I appreciate that cargo provides variety on the airfield at all hours of the day and night and that in the past there was a lot of dedicated cargo traffic. But you are revising history. Prior to COVID-19 dedicated fright was in decline, as were yields. Dedicated freighters were being retired because the modern wide-bodied aircraft like the 77W and A350, even the 787 have huge cargo ability, even with heavy passenger loads, the ME3 have flooded the market. MAN's cargo figures support that.

You mention 2008, MAN handled 141,000 tonnes. In 2018 Man handled was 114,000 tonnes, roughly 20% decrease, hardly a collapse and a good performance when looking at tother UK airports.
https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/air-freight/
LHR, EMA and STN have seen increases of between 15 and 20% in that decade and MAG has a net growth of 73 tonnes. What I am saying is that the cargo market has fundamentally changed, rather than mismanagement MAN have actually grown their business, albeit via different airports which have a better geographical location to feed to/from the ground-based logistics infrastructure.

I agree that cargo volume has collapsed and MAN could probably have taken more cargo. No doubt it would have done if EMA and STN had been overrun, but the air fright industry did the logical thing - they added capacity to ports they already serve. Look at it another way. Why do TK fly multiple times a day from and not add an LPL and an LBA instead?

[750XL]

Over the past few summers there's been virtually no spare capacity for aircraft parking, especially during the night/early hours when all the TCX, TOM, LS, EZY, FR etc were back home before the first wave. Pissing off the majority of your airport users to accommodate a 3x weekly 744F freighter (which barely brings any revenue into the airport compared to passengers) doesn't make business sense. They're more hassle than they're worth at an airport that's already filled to the brim.

[Curious Pax]

Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn

Rather, you should ask why did they wilfully run down the perfectly good cargo operation which thrived at MAN as recently as 2008. There are people who leave behind a rich legacy in business. And there are others who leave disaster like this in their wake. Business mistakes need to be acknowledged with honesty and transparency. Then corrected. Defending failed strategy with religious zeal until your market share is decimated generally doesn't work out well from a business perspective.

I think you need to look a little closer at how cargo only operations have changed over the last 10-20 years. Of those that used MAN - China Airlines have reduced from 21 to 18 744Fs; Lufthansa are in the final stages of removing their MD11 fleet, with the number of 777Fs replacing them far fewer, Cathay’s freight only operation (which now also incorporates Air Hong Kong) disappeared as part of their wider consolidation, but that has been replaced by the (probably greater) under floor space on the daily pax flights. Great Wall folded, as did the Singapore-based outfit whose names escapes me. Of course others have been and gone for different reasons over the years, but it’s the air freight business that has changed in the main, and not much to do with MAN discouraging anything.

Maybe the extra Chinese flights over the next few weeks will calm you a little!

[OzzyOzBorn]

Glad we have once again established - so quickly - that MAG has handled the cargo business at MAN so impeccably, even though throughput is sharply below that of 2008. Twelve years on. Awesome performance guys.

Manchester's freight strategy is perfection. I concede. It is every other airport that has it wrong. They're just so stupid.

Malpensa? Schiphol? You fools!!! You've got it all wrong.

Listen to those freight industry titans shaping Manchester Airport's cargo strategy. They're the bee's knees, and no argument! No improvement required. -85.9% in a boom period for cargo is just fine. Break out the bubbly.

[750XL]

Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn

Schiphol? You fools!!! You've got it all wrong..

Apples and oranges.

You can't possibly be seriously suggesting AMS's importance as a cargo hub is in any way, shape or form, relatable to MAN?

The Netherlands flower industry for starters...!

[commit aviation]

....& in non-cargo related news:

https://www.travelweekly.co.uk/artic...7-destinations

Virgin looking to restart Orlando from August 24th with Manchester Barbados from October.
No specified dates for other routes beyond looking to resume in September and October.
(Usual statements about dependence on quarantine and other countries opening up)

[Suzeman]

Ah Mr Oz Born

How nice of you to be so concerned about cargo at MAN from so far away. This subject seems to flare up from time to time just like a certain virus undoubtedly will, so thank you for raising it yet again

The freight through-puts posted for MAN are for flown freight only; I'm sure you know that . And of course with your excellent knowledge of the industry and truck routes, you must know that the volume of freight actually passing through the World Freight Terminal sheds and being dealt with by the forwarding community has always been significantly higher than the flown freight figure. But that doesn't suit your narrative does it?

In the mid 2000s when flown cargo was at its peak, a survey estimated that there was at least 50% more freight being processed in the sheds than the total being flown in/out of MAN because of consolidations and trucking. If such a survey was carried out today under pre-coronavirus conditions, I have no idea what the figure would be but I would guess it would be the same or even higher nowadays .

So where does MAN generate all it's cargo income from?. There would be runway and ATC charges for all freighters, but as most cargo comes in the belly of pax aircraft, there is not a lot of revenue coming in this way and any sum would be a very small proportion of the overall. There is no throughput charge for freight and handling fees will go to the handling agents. The main source of cargo -related revenue will be via rents etc of the cargo buildings on the airport site.

So rather than having a rant about throughput, why not ask questions about whether the freight community in Manchester feel short changed by the facilities and services on offer bearing in mind the way the global business now operates?. Can they sustain their business and protect and offer jobs? What are the spin offs that having these businesses at MAN bring?

I perceive that your rant (and those of others on this subject) is really about being upset at not being able to willy-wave anymore. We were all used to Manchester producing top line figures and lots of different cargo tails when it was a single entity. It was certainly a source of local pride. Now it is part of a group and the global business has changed. But has that affected the viability of the freight forwarders and transit sheds businesses at the Airport? Has it affected the region in it's ability to import and export goods?

I don't know the answer and I suspect you don't either. We can all speculate, but I know there are some in the cargo industry at MAN on this board and maybe they can share their views.

[matjr79]

Originally Posted by Curious Pax

I think you need to look a little closer at how cargo only operations have changed over the last 10-20 years. Of those that used MAN - China Airlines have reduced from 21 to 18 744Fs; Lufthansa are in the final stages of removing their MD11 fleet, with the number of 777Fs replacing them far fewer, Cathay’s freight only operation (which now also incorporates Air Hong Kong) disappeared as part of their wider consolidation, but that has been replaced by the (probably greater) under floor space on the daily pax flights. Great Wall folded, as did the Singapore-based outfit whose names escapes me. Of course others have been and gone for different reasons over the years, but it’s the air freight business that has changed in the main, and not much to do with MAN discouraging anything.

Maybe the extra Chinese flights over the next few weeks will calm you a little!

It was Jett8 - I used to do the weight and balance for it along with Dragonair, China Airlines, Air China, Great Wall.
We used to have around 10-15 74F a week back then - glorious period for MAN freight figures.

Matjr79

[OzzyOzBorn]

You can't possibly be seriously suggesting AMS's importance as a cargo hub is in any way, shape or form, relatable to MAN?

No. And I didn't suggest that. Neither for tulips from Amsterdam nor for luxury sports cars from Malpensa. The product profile differs from one region to another. But the point I did make was that all-cargo flights and passenger schedules with underfloor space can co-exist quite successfully at the same airport. A matter about which certain entities at MAN are in constant denial.

Though, since you mention it, the 17.4 million population of the Netherlands is slightly below that claimed as falling within MAN's catchment area. So there is room for at least a little ambition. Decent industrial base to go at too.

How nice of you to be so concerned about cargo at MAN from so far away.

But very close to the home of one of MAG's largest shareholders! Though I think SYD has the edge over MEL myself! :-)

But that doesn't suit your narrative does it?

The narrative of being a perpetual apologist for the negativity, failure and lack of ambition which typifies MAN's attitude to cargo business doesn't sit well with me. You're quite right, mate. Business leaders in competing regions must be euphoric.

I perceive that your rant (and those of others on this subject) is really about being upset at not being able to willy-wave anymore.

Rant. Defined as any point of view which you don't agree with? OK. The willy-wave reference is intriguing. So many on here seem to imply extensive experience of this. I feel I must have missed out on a whole dimension of life. We're a bit sheltered in the outback. Well, till we step out into the sunshine. Then it isn't very sheltered at all. But I digress.

There would be runway and ATC charges for all freighters, but as most cargo comes in the belly of pax aircraft, there is not a lot of revenue coming in this way and any sum would be a very small proportion of the overall. There is no throughput charge for freight and handling fees will go to the handling agents. The main source of cargo -related revenue will be via rents etc of the cargo buildings on the airport site.

Well, absolutely. Competing for business of this sort is just so tiresome. Why bother? These are the scraps we grandees can leave for the hoi-polloi. Can't have B747-8F's occupying stands at MAN ... stands constructed to handle real planes. Important ones! And the only metric worthy of consideration is the flow of cash into MAG's own coffers. Never mind all the other employers on site. And jobs in the NW. And as for supporting the Northern Powerhouse Partnership by developing MAN to its full potential ... yeah, lip-service to that is quite sufficient. Let no feathers be ruffled in the towering spires of MAG Cargo. The strategy is beyond reproach. Manchester has got it right again and every other airport's business practices are a bunch of dingo droppings. -85.9% is a great result. Hold those heads up high.

[Suzeman]

Oh dear - another posting which doesn't answer the question.

I'm not suggesting that all is sweetness and light, but to support your position, please present us with

• The evidence that the people who work in the air cargo business are not generally satisfied with the number of services and the facilities at MAN.
• That the shareholders are not happy with this aspect of MAN's performance within the group.
• And that the regional development authorities see the current flown cargo throughput and lack of all freight services as being a drag on the regional economy

Then your arguments may gain some credibility

[OzzyOzBorn]

Please present us with the evidence that the people who work in the air cargo business are not satisfied with the number of services and the facilities at MAN.

And that the shareholders are not satisfied with this aspect of MAN's performance within the group.

Please present evidence that they wouldn't be delighted with something much better. And I'm sure the shareholders will be deeply impressed by -85.9% in the midst of a boom in cargo. Way to go! Nothing to see here.

[Suzeman]

Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn

Please present evidence that they wouldn't be delighted with something much better. And I'm sure the shareholders will be deeply impressed by -85.9% in the midst of a boom in cargo. Way to go! Nothing to see here.

I have already said that I have no evidence either way; you have come out with your opinion and I am now asking you to justify it.

And the shareholders will be more worried with the financial situation of the Group rather than a decrease of flown freight through Manchester. I have already explained to you that the flown freight figure does not reflect what is actually going on at the site; I do not understand your fixation with this.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by G-ARZG

Nope, they will use A321`s instead

Er the A321s they currently have can’t actually manage a meaningful load on YYZ-UK, they don’t have the range. Air Transat and Aer Lingus use the much more capable A321NX for transatlantic ops, Rouge doesn’t have any. Any Rouge routes coming back are going to mainline if and until the stored B763s return, or some new NEO’s arrive.

[brian_dromey]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot

Er the A321s they currently have can’t actually manage a meaningful load on YYZ-UK, they don’t have the range. Air Transat and Aer Lingus use the much more capable A321NX for transatlantic ops, Rouge doesn’t have any. Any Rouge routes coming back are going to mainline if and until the stored B763s return, or some new NEO’s arrive.

AC were planning to acquire Air Transat, the competition authorities were not very happy about it, but AC may not want to spend money on a leisure airlines in the current climate. IAG has a similar issue in Spain with Air Europa. The Sharklet A321s AirTransat have would be suitable for Canada-UK routes, but no further. The NEO/LRS could push into Europe. I don't think Transat flies very much cargo, so can use all the payload for passengers and their baggage.

I see the recovery being stronger for the leisure market than business, I think companies will be reluctant to take risks with employee health and/or wish to conserve as much money as possible. In this scenario frequency might not be an issue for the next couple of years, certainly for the rest of this year. I think we might see a lot of daily routes being operated 2-3/4 weekly. AC might choose to fly their A330 or 777 on that basis. Watching the recover will be interesting.

[chaps1954]

Ozzy Most cargo is not time sensitive and doen`t really care where it flies to, if you go to Heathrow you will see many lorries with cargo
and most of the cargo has come from Amsterdam, Cologne, East Midlands and will not even go airside. and the same for Manchester.
Manchester could not handle the like of UPS, DHL and Amazon because there isn`t the space to park 6 or 7 aircraft at nightime and they
want it to go through one central operation BUT who owns EMA and STN where probably most of the cargo that doen`t come under belly
goes to.

[ATNotts]

Originally Posted by Suzeman

I have already said that I have no evidence either way; you have come out with your opinion and I am now asking you to justify it.

And the shareholders will be more worried with the financial situation of the Group rather than a decrease of flown freight through Manchester. I have already explained to you that the flown freight figure does not reflect what is actually going on at the site; I do not understand your fixation with this.

Surely one of the key changes in the air cargo industry is the rise, and rise of the integrators - UPS, FedEx, TNT, DHL being the principal players. They offer a door to door service principally, but by no mean exclusively, for the smaller shipment sector that, before their dominance, used to phone the freight forwarder, who called the airline (or used their ABC / OAG) to get a rate, picked the shipment up, documented it then delivered it to the airline who flew it to destination, where another agent cleared it through customs and handed it to the delivery company to get ti to the customer. What a faff! How did anything move, with any speed and at a reasonable price? Answer, it did because a lot of different organisations worked hard to make sure it would, but the cost was hardly cheap.

The integrators like centralisation, so Stansted has been the destination of choice for for London and the Southeast, and for the rest of the UK the hub is EMA, with flights feeding into there from Scotland and Ireland, and from the other principal hubs such as Leipzig and Köln on the European mainland.

It is that, as much as anything else, that has seen a steady decline in all cargo services through the likes of Manchester, and for that matter, Gatwick.

[Mr A Tis]

Most of the Ad hoc wide body freight traffic has been picked up by Doncaster, who appear to have multiple daily wide body movements. I don't know, but I'd guess operating into Doncaster is a lot cheaper & without parking congestion.We can't also assume that all freight needs to come to the Manchester area. As pointed out, where the freight goes is very often decided by the likes of DHL, TNT, Fedex, Amazon etc.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I have already explained to you that the flown freight figure does not reflect what is actually going on at the site; I do not understand your fixation with this.

Ozzy Most cargo is not time sensitive and doen`t really care where it flies to, if you go to Heathrow you will see many lorries with cargo
and most of the cargo has come from Amsterdam, Cologne, East Midlands and will not even go airside. and the same for Manchester.

Alright then. I can't help but smile right now. The responses on here panned out exactly as I anticipated.

You see, certain corporate structures become so incestuous and inward-looking over time that they become quite convinced that there is only one 'correct' way to do business. Their way. Businesses which do things differently are viewed with scorn. Those who question the status quo draw a roll of the eyes and a 'here we go again' response ... someone else who just doesn't understand!

In the case of MAG Cargo's MO, it is as if everybody has had to learn ancient proverbs from 'Chairman Mag's Little Red Book'. Woe betide anybody who challenges the orthodoxy. Even when the truth machine reports -85.9%. Whilst the competition reports very healthy numbers in precisely the same market segment.

There can only be one possible explanation as to why an objective observer would question the sacred way in which MAG Cargo conducts its business. We're dealing with another idiot who simply doesn't understand how the industry works. Cue really simple "explanations" of the most basic elements of the industry. Because the subject will immediately realise that they're just being dumb and that MAG Cargo's way of doing things is truly beyond reproach. Once we've explained the difference between a truck and a plane, the annoying visitor will go away, chastised with a virtual pat on the head, acknowledging unconditionally that MAG Cargo's policy is the one true way. See the light. And don't dwell on that inconvenient -85.9%. It is of no concern to the blessed few who "get it".

But there is just one slight problem with that attitude. Well, more than one actually. This particular idiot has been in and around the industry for many years now. He actually does know the difference between a truck and a plane. But ... errr ... NO. He is not prepared to scurry away reassured that MAG Cargo has stumbled across the one true path to business glory. No, that -85.9% figure, drawn from a booming market sector, rings alarm bells for our observer. Is it even vaguely conceivable that MAG Cargo isn't perfect [GASP!!!]. Is it possible that it might be worth asking: "Is there a better way to approach this business?" MAG apologists say "Hell NO!!!". -85.9% says: "Hey! Look at me!!!"

Now here is the problem I have. I don't just look at MAN. I don't just look at MAG airports. I look at lots of airports. In fact, I look at lots of businesses across multiple sectors. I look at performance stats. I look at balance sheets. And I have to tell you that I even know the difference between a truck and a plane. I know what a consolidator does. Without having a condescending "explanation" provided so that I will finally "understand". Truth is, I've been familiar with this business for more years than I care to admit to.

So let me be more specific. I see a figure of -99.3% on the airport passenger stats. And I think: Not great, but wholly in line with the industry norm in this highly-challenging COVID-19 environment. I'm seeing harsh trading conditions, not company-specific underperformance. So I'm not inclined to be critical of this. But then I see that -85.9% stat for cargo. And that screams 'Red Flag!". Because - in this sector - comparable airports in Manchester's peer group are reporting buoyant numbers. In this circumstance, a good business will ask what it is doing wrong. What measures can be taken to improve. But MAG Cargo's perennial approach appears to be that only they understand the one true path, every other airport is doing it wrong, -85.9% is fine and dandy. Well, I'm not convinced.

MAG say that they don't want whole-plane freighter ops because they compete with and undermine the economics of scheduled passenger services offering underfloor cargo space. MAG can secure and retain such services because freighters are not competing with them. Here is my response. I am familiar with several airports which are well-diversified across multiple sectors. They accept whole-plane freighters; they accept mixed-use passenger / freight services. And yes, those services do compete for boxes on some level. But so do those boxes which head off on trucks to EMA / STN / DSA / LHR / AMS etc. That competition is there anyway. And what does the evidence tell us? Well, Manchester is losing a swathe of prestigious scheduled passenger services anyway, and its flown cargo throughput is down by a dire -85.9%. Excluding those freighters didn't save the day for them when it counted. Other airports have lost scheduled passenger services too ... but at least because their business is more diversified they offer more resilience to this economic crisis. And their cargo figures are great. So forgive me for suggesting that it is those airports - not MAG cargo - whose approach to this business is the correct one.

Now, let me run by you afew of the common myths promulgated in association with 'Chairman Mag's Little Red Book'. For brevity, I'll go with bullet-point format.

MYTH: MAN mustn't compete for whole-plane freight business because that would undermine our passenger schedules and we'd end up losing them.
My Response: Both types of service co-exist just fine at comparable airports. They do lose some passenger schedules. But so does MAN. Just the same. So it might be worth ... you know ... competing for the business???? That extra resilience could come in really useful during these tough economic times.

MYTH: There is no point in competing for whole-plane freighter business because MAG gets comparatively little revenue back in return.
My Response: Well, let's see. MAG gets the payment it asks for. If that figure isn't worthwhile, review the charges you levy. Meanwhile, other agencies on the airport campus do make money from flights of this sort. Valuable jobs are created and sustained. Businesses within the 'Northern Powerhouse' catchment are better served. Its a win-win.

MYTH: MAN is better off turning freighters away because they occupy a stand.
My Response: What is an aircraft parking stand for? Of course a freighter occupies a stand for the duration of its turnaround. And so does a passenger airliner. Productive use of assets is a good thing!

MYTH: Freight is not time-sensitive / Cargo doesn't care where it lands / Freight doesn't complain abut its route to destination.
My Response: Inanimate objects rarely complain very loudly. Funny that! But it doesn't mean they wouldn't be better served by an expedited more efficient route to the end user. We can't cite the silence of a box as a measure of satisfaction re its treatment! And actually, shippers do pay a premium for air freight because it generally IS time-sensitive. Otherwise it would go by sea, wouldn't it? Much cheaper. Time IS money.

MYTH: Manchester's freight offer is just fine. Everything gets where it is going just fine. No need to improve the cargo proposition at MAN!
My Response: Well, that wasn't the experience reported by 'The Hut Group', was it? They were so darned frustrated trying to get their goods from the NW to where they needed them in a timely fashion that they concluded forming their own cargo airline was the only workable solution! So that suggests that complacency is not OK and there is room for improvement. BTW, did the usual MAG Cargo suspects try to switch sell THG to "anywhere but here"? I'd love to know!

MYTH: Manchester is cargo-friendly in reality. If you don't accept that you're just another troll slagging off MAG.
My Response: Manchester appears to operate a default business strategy of discouraging flown cargo through MAN whenever a freighter aircraft is involved. Cargo leads are routed through a marketing team whose mission appears to be to switch-sell the business away from MAN come what may. Are they on bonuses for everything they lure away to EMA or STN regardless of what best serves the customer? From time to time, we hear rumours that FedEx - MAN's one based all-freighter operator - is going to up sticks to EMA. Yet they have stayed so far. Do these rumours stem from MAG's efforts to persuade them to move out rather than being something the airline would actually like to do? Or are the rumours just hot air? Afew years back, start-up freight carrier CargoLogicAir put out a PR piece explaining that they intended to set up a based B747F operation at MAN. I can only imagine the consternation that must have caused in MAG Towers. Fortunately, they popped up at STN afew months later. Phew ... close one!!! DHL announced planned routes from MAN in association with their new warehousing operation at Airport City. Flights appeared - very briefly - on a much smaller scale than anticipated. Then everything decamped to EMA never to be seen again. What angle did MAG Cargo take on this? Were they actively encouraging DHL to stay and develop a successful spoke from MAN to Leipzig? Or might it have been ... nah, your useless freighter is occupying a stand at MAN. It's making the place look untidy. Shift it to EMA!

MYTH: Manchester doesn't have sufficient stands to accommodate freighters.
My Response: Then that is down to exceptionally poor planning. Get it sorted! Though I suspect it won't be very difficult to accommodate freighters for the next few years now!

MYTH: There is no point in MAN pitching for freighter business. Apart from it being useless / waste of space / beneath our dignity, other airports are cheaper and offer a better package.
My Response: In 2008 MAN offered a superb proposition for freighters. If that is no longer so it is because MAG has neglected the sector by design. Other airports may now hold the whip-hand, but that is no excuse to throw in the towel at the starting post. Go out and compete for business again. If the handling arrangements are insufficient, improve them. Adopt a 'can do' mindset - MAN had that many years ago. No, MAN won't win all the contracts. Not by a long shot. Yes, the business has evolved since 2008 (but it is still there). But they will win some business if they just try. Be proactive! THG Air, CargoLogicAir's original plan, FedEx's stickiness: these developments indicate that there is interest in MAN if it is given half a chance.

So that is my take on this. An -85.9% drop in a buoyant sector needs to serve as a wake-up call. Complacency is not good enough. Other airports comparable to MAN have proven that whole-plane cargo and mixed-use passenger scheduled services can successfully co-exist. And in this harsh economic climate, the diversity this gives their businesses provides a level of resilience which MAN simply doesn't enjoy. That's not good. A re-examination of the business plan is called for wrt MAN's attitude to cargo. Telling me that I 'don't understand' the basics of this business may make you feel superior. But it doesn't support employment, it doesn't serve NW business to the level it deserves and it betrays the Northern Powerhouse 'levelling-up' agenda. And stupid as I am, I can't help but notice that all these other airports which dismiss the MAG Cargo 'divine path' are doing rather nicely with their cargo business right now.

So someone understands. I wonder who?

NOTE: BTW, You may have spotted that my comments refer to 'MAG Cargo'. I recognise that this is probably not the division's formal title (though it may be?). But it is important to differentiate. My criticism is specific to cargo, because IMO their strategy has been shown up as a complete disaster (sorry, apologists!). It would benefit from a major restructuring led by a consultant drawn from outside 'MAGthink'. My negative comments do not extend across MAG in general, as many departments have been doing an outstanding job and deserve all due accolades for what they have achieved. Cargo is the 'problem child', and my view is that it merits a total rethink. The mistakes have been 'found out'. The truth machine says -85.9%. Fact, not opinion.

[MAN777]

ATNotts
WOW thats quite a reply, thanks for spending time to thoroughly explain your views.

I think its obvious that the big drop in freight carried is because the underbody freight didnt fly because the flights were grounded. The figure is no shock to anybody and the addition of a few daily 747Fs would make little difference to the figures.

As soon as the flights start up the tonnage will rise again.👍

You sound like an office based stats man to me ?

Have you ever actually been airside during a dedicated 747F turnaround ? If you had you would know its not just a case of parking an aircraft for an hour. The dedicated ground equipment and staffing levels required are very different from a passenger flight. Also the staging areas for freight on freight off require a lot of concrete. Establishing all this for a few movements a day is not cost effective, if it was profitable MAG would have continued to support freighter OPs at MAN

MAG is simply keeping its house in order matching trimmed assets to supply most profitable return, it will be interesting to see how the proposed THG operation pans out.

[chaps1954]

On Alpha % site comments made that a number of flights have been rurned away due stand stortage which I can believe as
apparently upto 114 aircraft have been parked up and listening to all the juggling Virgin have had with aircraft.