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

Manchester-3

Old 27th Dec 2020, 17:49
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,928
Post #201...

Quote..."In truth the 260M for MAG will cover the gap in local authority finances caused by non-payment of dividends for the next couple of years"...

Would anyone care to explain !?

The local authorities themselves put the money in to shore up MAG due to the pandemic & Government failure to develop an Airport/Aviation strategy so is it suggested that the local authorities put the money in then immediately look to take it back then out in the form of dividend?...Cos that ain`t gonna happen... BTW it was made clear at the time of the inward investment that it was for the 3 airports including STN/EMA & not just Manchester Airport.
southside bobby is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 17:59
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,091
After the cheap jibes about 'spotters', we've had some sensible comments but I do commend the well articulated arguments by navpi, ozzi and Sioltach even if you don't agree with them.

Andrew H52 makes a valid point on the very high proportion of non-freight carrying flights but I would suggest that in a normal summer his 12 flights, mainly long haul carrying cargo in the belly hold, is on the low side even just for inbounds. Then there are the outbound loads.

I can actually understand MAG's policy in normal circumstances of concentrating freight at EMA or STN given MAN's constraints on slots and stands at busy times. However, I do think there should be flexibility to adapt that policy in the sort of situation that has prevailed for the last 9 months when I suspect J-I-T will have applied at times. I don't pretend to know the finances of acquiring or renting the necessary equipment for the airport or handling agent, or moving equipment from another airport, but with the number of passenger flights being relatively low, including those long haul flights that would normally carry cargo below, one would have thought there would be some money to be made from handling pure freight flights.

MANFOD is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 18:24
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 42
Posts: 615
There isn't really a huge amount of money to be made from freight other than specialist stuff. Plus it's very difficult finding a profitable PtP route and you need a handling agent willing to take the contract on.. It's not as simple as just sticking a 74F in and offloading it. Don't think AHK was particularly profitable for all concerned, you end up in a situation where as a GHA you are only getting handling fees which aren't much now considering most freight agents use ERTS.
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 18:50
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 1,928
MAN slot constrained?...How so with 2 R/W`s...

STN is/was slot constrained but seem to have no problem handing many wide body freighters that MAN appear to anguish about here.
southside bobby is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 20:35
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,091
Well, two comments on that. Firstly, I did say at busy times. Secondly, slots can be constrained by terminal or stand capacity, not just runway slots. Terminal capacity is not applicable to freighters but apron and stand occupation for longer durations can be, particularly with the TP work going on.

But as I mentioned, perhaps flexibility during the covid crisis might have been an option but the airport presumably assessed financially it wasn't worth it. It's sad in my opinion for the reasons given by others, but it doesn't look as if a change of policy is likely.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 21:29
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 201
OK. I note the frustration from some that the cargo debate has resurfaced again. I did think that a natural hiatus had been reached, and was prepared to leave it there. But new points have been raised by others and so I address them. However, I am puzzled by any suggestion that this debate is one person using multiple identities. That simply isn't so. I actually do know who several of the participants in the discussion are and I'm not aware of any of those posting here under multiple ID's. As for myself, I've made around 170 PPRuNe posts in just over three years all under a single pseudonym. Not overly prolific. There is no agenda to deceive with assorted aliases, so any assumption to the contrary is mistaken. No other names in use by me.

seahawks. I don't recognise you by username. But what I'm about to tell you may surprise - and not in any good way. The poster who did raise the cargo issue with such passion back in April (PPE flights) was indeed a name familiar to fourth floor alumni. That username has abruptly disappeared, but for the worst of reasons. We refer to a good friend taken far before his proper time. Maybe you joined us at the socially-distanced kerbside guard of honour lining his road as the funeral cortege drove by back in July. Funeral itself was family only, in accordance with covid restrictions. Otherwise there would have been hundreds there. I'm sure you will now recognise the person of whom we speak, but if not you can PM me. Either way, he and I agreed on many airport matters and disagreed on afew - but always remained best of friends throughout. And I would remind others here that it is an admirable quality to be able to debate earnestly with mutually respected friends and colleagues without falling out with them over differing opinions. In real life, I never came across anyone who had a bad word for our late colleague. He wanted Manchester Airport to be the best that it could be and I'm totally onboard with him on that.

Am I the person you had in mind when you spoke of "posting with an agenda"? If so, you are quite right. My agenda is the pursuit of positive outcomes for the region generally and Greater Manchester in particular. I want to see a thriving airport supporting thousands of skilled jobs, an upgraded and reinvigorated NW rail network, an expanded Metrolink and seamless coordinated bus and coach network with fully-integrated ticketing. I want to see investment in education and upskilling across the region. I want to see a technology and media sector thriving in the region. World class sports, venues, facilities. I make no apology for urging all those with a role in delivering these things to strive for the best outcomes they can achieve. Positive progress is a good thing. Manchester Airport ticks many boxes in this respect, and where it does so I openly applaud them. But there are shortcomings in a couple of specific areas of the business, and I do urge improvement in these. Though I realise the risk I take by doing so on here. When praising MAG one is called out as a happy clapper / cheerleader; when criticising one is denounced as a "[freight] troll". I have experience on both sides of that divide (dependent on topic), so I'm used to being hit with both forms of abuse! :-)

But yes, MAG's agenda does differ from mine in one essential respect. Their primary agenda is to maximise profit to their group bottom line - the interests of the region are secondary to this in the view of MAG executives. My agenda flips this: I welcome a healthy and profitable MAG, but not at the expense of short-changing their wider responsibilities to the NW regional economy. So I do understand their view. I just happen to disagree with certain elements of it, as do some other regular posters on here. I don't for one moment expect MAG policy to be even remotely influenced by debates on public forums, but that doesn't mean that exchange of ideas should be dismissed by self-appointed objectors on here. It is far better to (respectfully) join a discussion than to post little digs and tell other participants to get lost.

Once again, I didn't start the cargo discussion originally, and I didn't resurrect it more recently. I have responded to others and joined in. I'm prepared to contribute again if new points are raised. If not, the ground is covered. But let's all try to keep it civilised.

Happy New Year from me to all contributors here whether you agree with my points or not. And RIP to the great friend who really did raise the cargo discussion back in April. One who contributed to the success of MAN throughout his career and worked tirelessly for the best interests of the airport throughout his years based at MAN.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 21:32
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 62
Posts: 607
Ex Cargo Clown

In that case EMA is presumably losing money and a drain on MAG resources.
Navpi is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 22:34
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 74
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what Ex Cargo Clown wrote?
He didn’t say cargo was a massive loss maker and drain on resources, he said there’s not a huge amount of money to be made.

In that respect you also have to consider volumes. STN and EMA both have huge amounts of freight-only traffic from the big operators; DHL, FedEx and UPS. Plus main deck capacity from the likes of Asiana, Cargolux and Qatar etc. Both airports together handed 5 times the amount as Manchester in 2019, and have the volume of freight traffic and spare capacity to make it worthwhile and profitable. The majority of Manchester’s fright traffic has been belly capacity on passenger flights in recent years... modern aircraft such as the A330/350 and B777/787 have so much belly capacity for cargo that the need for dedicated freighter service is much reduced in all but the largest markets.

To put it in perspective, here are the CAA stats for freight traffic for 2019. I’m only reproducing airports handling over 15 000T of freight, figure underneath each tonnage is percentage change vs previous year.

London Heathrow
1 587 486T
-7%

East Midlands
335 948T
+/-0%

London Stansted
224 139T
-1%

London Gatwick
110 358T
-2%

Manchester
108 382T
-5%

London Luton
35 761T
+37%

Birmingham
29 866T
-11%

Belfast International
25 095T
-9%

Edinburgh
19 410T
-5%

Doncaster
17 647T
+148%

So take away points from the above data are as follows;
  • Freight volumes at STN and EMA are huge in comparison to MAN. And most of theirs is dedicated freight service rather than passenger belly capacity. They have the economies of scale to handle these flights.
  • Freight across the board was generally declining in volume. A lot of airlines have been in the process of ending their dedicated freighter operations because of depressed yields resulting from increased belly capacity.
  • Doncaster are clearly going after this market as they have a large and very quiet airfield, with TUI and Wizz Air being the only significant operators
  • Manchester have been more keen on passenger capacity, and the huge freight potential in the holds of those flights
  • In the biggest recession aviation has ever seen, no company is going to invest huge sums in equipment and staff training to handle the odd one-off ad hoc freighter flight. It would be the handling agent that would bear that cost. The airport wouldn’t get much other than the landing fee. What would be in it for either Swissport/Menzies Cargo or the Airport? Everyone in aviation is trying to minimise cash burn at the moment. Any spending must be justified for return on investment.
  • It’s irrational to expect that Manchester and its handling agents should attempt to handle dedicated freighters at all costs.
  • It’s irrational to assume that all such capacity is desperate to use Manchester, and would only utilise Doncaster or East Midlands (or any other UK airport) because Manchester didn’t want the business.

The truth is Manchester didn’t have the space to handle dedicated freighters on any scale pre-COVID, nor the demand. Now things have changed, it’s not worth the handling agents throwing huge investment at a sector to gain a bit of incremental revenue. If Etihad wanted to operate a daily 777F to Manchester for the next 3 years and were willing to place a contract with a handling agent accordingly I’m sure you’d see a different answer.

Last edited by Downwind_Left; 27th Dec 2020 at 23:33. Reason: [SP]
Downwind_Left is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 23:06
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 1,914
what a lot of fuss about (essentially) nothing
CabinCrewe is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2020, 23:48
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 201
Did you glean this opinion from all the handling agency staff who have been made redundant?
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 07:38
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 60
Posts: 868
Some snow at MAN this morning meant Virgin went to LHR and Qatar to BHX
BHX5DME is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 14:03
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 60
Posts: 868
Turkish to AYT / DLM now bookable both daily 14:30 & 12:00

Great news for Manchester

BHX5DME is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 15:49
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northern skyport
Posts: 101
Which Airline? Sun Express?
bar none is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 15:58
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Where ever I am
Posts: 29
If you're referring to the new Turkish flights then, as stated, they are by Turkish Airlines and not Sun Express.

​​
Sioltach Dubh Glas is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 17:22
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 131
Turkish flights are not bookable on their website yet. The AYT flight will probably be Sun Express which is a joint venture with Turkish Airlines. Twice a week from 26th March going up to 4 weekly from 30th May. Happy to be proved wrong with a link to a reliable source.
Playamar2 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 17:26
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 686
The message to the Handling agents is that they will be Turkish Airlines.
The96er is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 19:44
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 60
Posts: 868
They are both bookable on Google Flights on Turkish Airlines
BHX5DME is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2020, 21:00
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 872
AFAIK, Sun Express will also operate to MAN in S2021

Info from Sean M @SeanM1997 twitter who seems to be a reliable source

Sun Express - Antalya to Manchester. Flights start 26 March 2021

XQ594 AYT 1425-1725 MAN (Mon & Fri)
XQ595 MAN 1820-0055+1 AYT (Mon & Fri)
Wednesday and Sunday flights added from 30 May 2021
Suzeman is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2020, 09:34
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,282
MAN SNOCLO last couple of hours (still closed). Fortunately not many movements scheduled. 2 Divs to LPL & 1 to BHX so far, with KLM & Etihad giving pax an extended tour of Blackburn.

Last edited by Mr A Tis; 29th Dec 2020 at 10:03.
Mr A Tis is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2020, 10:04
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,099
Originally Posted by CabinCrewe View Post
what a lot of fuss about (essentially) nothing
Best comment for about a week!


Did you glean this opinion from all the handling agency staff who have been made redundant?
I genuinely have the utmost sympathy for those many thousands who have either lost their jobs or been furloughed for the last year or so (I'm one of them by the way). However, how many staff have lost their jobs at MAN as a direct result of a cut in CARGO ONLY flights? Genuine question, honestly, FedEx is the only one that springs to mind and they are still operating into MAN. Are there others?

Merry Christmas to everyone and lets hope for a prosperous new Year.

From what I can see, it is the massive cuts in scheduled and charter flights that has ruined this industry, not a lack of cargo flights.
TURIN is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.