Manchester-3
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: GB
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I noticed when taking a little look at the ACL report
Norse's daily slot pair is not present during the last couple weeks of season (mid to late March)
Could it potentially be a winter seasonal BGI they're targeting? They will launch daily LGW-BGI from 29OCT2023.. so not out of the picture
Norse's daily slot pair is not present during the last couple weeks of season (mid to late March)
Could it potentially be a winter seasonal BGI they're targeting? They will launch daily LGW-BGI from 29OCT2023.. so not out of the picture
This discussion has moved on apace since I was last available to contribute. However, I would like to follow up on some points raised.
Others have commented on this, notably Rutan16 who astutely highlighted the legal implications.
My own impression is that these quoted comments summarise MAG's take on the situation very well. Those of us who oppose MAG's policy on cargo at Manchester do understand the logic behind their thinking, we just don't agree with it. There are good reasons for this.
Taking a step back, we must realise that Manchester Airport serves as a privately-run utility. Regulatory oversight is routinely required in such situations, as utility companies must strike a very fine balance to address the conflict of interest which naturally arises between optimising the company bottom line and providing an acceptable level of service to users. Companies will not get it right every time, but they must at least demonstrate the spirit of appropriately addressing the balance between maximising profits and providing a decent quality of service. They need to be seen to get it right more often than not.
Regrettably, during the approximately twelve years or so of Mr Cornish's tenure, it has become abundantly clear that MAG profits come first absolutely, and the interests of Manchester Airport's users and catchment area trail in a very sorry second place. Whilst "sweating the assets" is commendable up to a point, there are occasions when discretionary investment makes good business sense. The impression given by Mr Cornish's record is that investment will only be signed off when absolutely unavoidable ... and I do include the TP project in that, because the time-expired structure which is T1 must be either reconstructed or replaced. Spending nothing there is not an option. However, T2's redevelopment has been done on the tightest possible budget with value engineering taken to extremes. Sometimes producing unanticipated consequences. Beyond this, plans to expand T3 ahead of Ryanair's planned expansion curve were vetoed; T1 and T3 have received only cosmetic improvements for a decade or so despite handling 50%+ of passenger throughput at MAN over that period. Whenever the question arises of discretionary investment for the benefit of the region versus maximising MAG profits, the latter appears to have been prioritised every time on Mr Cornish's watch.
The cargo situation at Manchester Airport has arguably been the most egregious example of this. In order to optimise MAG's investment in upgraded cargo facilities at EMA and STN, a "scorched earth" policy has been pursued against this area of business at MAN. You can see MAG's logic: no further investment required for cargo at MAN (duplicated costs from their perspective), a leg-up for building cargo profits at their preferred centres elsewhere, an obvious profit boost to MAG's bottom line. Yes, we get it. We understand the group business logic. BUT ... this brings us back to that utility business dilemma and monopoly provider power. This policy very clearly disadvantages Manchester Airport specifically, it's users, and businesses in it's catchment to the benefit of MAG profits. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that it is an abuse of a monopoly position, and this is why regulators take note. Who can argue that Manchester City Region has benefitted from this policy in terms of competitiveness, employment, skills, connectivity, service to local business or economic growth? It is blatantly detrimental to the area (but, yes, great for MAG profits). From the region's perspective, the right balance has NOT been struck here, and reports of 'slapped knuckles' by the regulator seem unsurprising. It therefore becomes paramount that MAG is seen to address this situation with serious intent. It would be too easy to pay lip service to welcoming back cargo flights, whilst allowing lack of basic equipment on campus to produce their desired outcomes by default anyway. If the regulator is to be satisfied that MAN is taking this seriously, then MAG needs to be seen to equip the airport to handle cargo flights (and to train staff to use the equipment). This can be done either directly or in liaison with willing handling agencies. Because we know from previous cases that when a regulator feels the need to intervene for a second time, the penalty extends far beyond 'slapped knuckles'. That would not be in the interests of MAG's bottom line, it's shareholders ... or it's reputation.
SIGH. Where to begin?
Freight Stats MAN 2007: 165,366 Tonnes
Freight Stats MAN 2023: 64,082 Tonnes [MAT to May 2023]
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2007: 37 (of which 25 widebody)
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2023 : 0 (yes, that number is ZERO).
Being fourth placed in some notional league table is irrelevant. Those numbers are lamentable. To suggest that those who call for action to redress this 100,000 Tonne deficit in freight throughput are only interested in "reggies" is childish.
However, to be clear, I have no time for those who abuse planespotters. I passed my initial interview leading to a long and rewarding career in commercial aviation based on knowledge drawn from childhood planespotting. And once on the inside, I quickly learned that most of my colleagues had too! Anyway, AT Notts, I'm pretty sure I bought afew books compiled by you on such topics back in the day!!! Or am I thinking of a different AT in the Midlands?
With regards to freight one of the things to consider is logistically the UK is not that big and the distance from EMA to MAN is not that great a distance and there is a large logistical park adjacent to EMA which is growing. Maybe the decision has been taken to make EMA the freight hub.
People are looking at cargo from a MAN only perspective, not MAG wide. MAG don't need cargo at MAN as they have a superb facility in a perfect location at EMA. It's no more complicated than that and if I ran MAG it would make perfect sense to keeping sending cargo to its dedicated cargo hub. Makes perfect sense for the business...but less so for MAN fans & spotters.
My own impression is that these quoted comments summarise MAG's take on the situation very well. Those of us who oppose MAG's policy on cargo at Manchester do understand the logic behind their thinking, we just don't agree with it. There are good reasons for this.
Taking a step back, we must realise that Manchester Airport serves as a privately-run utility. Regulatory oversight is routinely required in such situations, as utility companies must strike a very fine balance to address the conflict of interest which naturally arises between optimising the company bottom line and providing an acceptable level of service to users. Companies will not get it right every time, but they must at least demonstrate the spirit of appropriately addressing the balance between maximising profits and providing a decent quality of service. They need to be seen to get it right more often than not.
Regrettably, during the approximately twelve years or so of Mr Cornish's tenure, it has become abundantly clear that MAG profits come first absolutely, and the interests of Manchester Airport's users and catchment area trail in a very sorry second place. Whilst "sweating the assets" is commendable up to a point, there are occasions when discretionary investment makes good business sense. The impression given by Mr Cornish's record is that investment will only be signed off when absolutely unavoidable ... and I do include the TP project in that, because the time-expired structure which is T1 must be either reconstructed or replaced. Spending nothing there is not an option. However, T2's redevelopment has been done on the tightest possible budget with value engineering taken to extremes. Sometimes producing unanticipated consequences. Beyond this, plans to expand T3 ahead of Ryanair's planned expansion curve were vetoed; T1 and T3 have received only cosmetic improvements for a decade or so despite handling 50%+ of passenger throughput at MAN over that period. Whenever the question arises of discretionary investment for the benefit of the region versus maximising MAG profits, the latter appears to have been prioritised every time on Mr Cornish's watch.
The cargo situation at Manchester Airport has arguably been the most egregious example of this. In order to optimise MAG's investment in upgraded cargo facilities at EMA and STN, a "scorched earth" policy has been pursued against this area of business at MAN. You can see MAG's logic: no further investment required for cargo at MAN (duplicated costs from their perspective), a leg-up for building cargo profits at their preferred centres elsewhere, an obvious profit boost to MAG's bottom line. Yes, we get it. We understand the group business logic. BUT ... this brings us back to that utility business dilemma and monopoly provider power. This policy very clearly disadvantages Manchester Airport specifically, it's users, and businesses in it's catchment to the benefit of MAG profits. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that it is an abuse of a monopoly position, and this is why regulators take note. Who can argue that Manchester City Region has benefitted from this policy in terms of competitiveness, employment, skills, connectivity, service to local business or economic growth? It is blatantly detrimental to the area (but, yes, great for MAG profits). From the region's perspective, the right balance has NOT been struck here, and reports of 'slapped knuckles' by the regulator seem unsurprising. It therefore becomes paramount that MAG is seen to address this situation with serious intent. It would be too easy to pay lip service to welcoming back cargo flights, whilst allowing lack of basic equipment on campus to produce their desired outcomes by default anyway. If the regulator is to be satisfied that MAN is taking this seriously, then MAG needs to be seen to equip the airport to handle cargo flights (and to train staff to use the equipment). This can be done either directly or in liaison with willing handling agencies. Because we know from previous cases that when a regulator feels the need to intervene for a second time, the penalty extends far beyond 'slapped knuckles'. That would not be in the interests of MAG's bottom line, it's shareholders ... or it's reputation.
You could easily get the impression that for a few its 'all about the reggies'.
To be 4th in cargo tonnage, behind presumably LHR, STN and EMA is just about where you might expect MAN to land.
To be 4th in cargo tonnage, behind presumably LHR, STN and EMA is just about where you might expect MAN to land.
Freight Stats MAN 2007: 165,366 Tonnes
Freight Stats MAN 2023: 64,082 Tonnes [MAT to May 2023]
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2007: 37 (of which 25 widebody)
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2023 : 0 (yes, that number is ZERO).
Being fourth placed in some notional league table is irrelevant. Those numbers are lamentable. To suggest that those who call for action to redress this 100,000 Tonne deficit in freight throughput are only interested in "reggies" is childish.
However, to be clear, I have no time for those who abuse planespotters. I passed my initial interview leading to a long and rewarding career in commercial aviation based on knowledge drawn from childhood planespotting. And once on the inside, I quickly learned that most of my colleagues had too! Anyway, AT Notts, I'm pretty sure I bought afew books compiled by you on such topics back in the day!!! Or am I thinking of a different AT in the Midlands?
Shed wrote :
If a wide body cargo flight ends up at EMA or STN, the revenue flows to MAG, which unless I am terribly confused, finds it's way back to the region eventually? There's nothing new to add here.
Quick question mind, I can remember my first visit in 1991 where BA and Servisair had their own steps etc, but was loading also done by handlers or by the airport? Tugs were BA and Servisair blue respectively. Not sure if Manchester Handling had branded equipment.
Whenever the question arises of discretionary investment for the benefit of the region versus maximising MAG profits, the latter appears to have been prioritised every time on Mr Cornish's watch.
Quick question mind, I can remember my first visit in 1991 where BA and Servisair had their own steps etc, but was loading also done by handlers or by the airport? Tugs were BA and Servisair blue respectively. Not sure if Manchester Handling had branded equipment.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This discussion has moved on apace since I was last available to contribute. However, I would like to follow up on some points raised.
Others have commented on this, notably Rutan16 who astutely highlighted the legal implications.
My own impression is that these quoted comments summarise MAG's take on the situation very well. Those of us who oppose MAG's policy on cargo at Manchester do understand the logic behind their thinking, we just don't agree with it. There are good reasons for this.
Taking a step back, we must realise that Manchester Airport serves as a privately-run utility. Regulatory oversight is routinely required in such situations, as utility companies must strike a very fine balance to address the conflict of interest which naturally arises between optimising the company bottom line and providing an acceptable level of service to users. Companies will not get it right every time, but they must at least demonstrate the spirit of appropriately addressing the balance between maximising profits and providing a decent quality of service. They need to be seen to get it right more often than not.
Regrettably, during the approximately twelve years or so of Mr Cornish's tenure, it has become abundantly clear that MAG profits come first absolutely, and the interests of Manchester Airport's users and catchment area trail in a very sorry second place. Whilst "sweating the assets" is commendable up to a point, there are occasions when discretionary investment makes good business sense. The impression given by Mr Cornish's record is that investment will only be signed off when absolutely unavoidable ... and I do include the TP project in that, because the time-expired structure which is T1 must be either reconstructed or replaced. Spending nothing there is not an option. However, T2's redevelopment has been done on the tightest possible budget with value engineering taken to extremes. Sometimes producing unanticipated consequences. Beyond this, plans to expand T3 ahead of Ryanair's planned expansion curve were vetoed; T1 and T3 have received only cosmetic improvements for a decade or so despite handling 50%+ of passenger throughput at MAN over that period. Whenever the question arises of discretionary investment for the benefit of the region versus maximising MAG profits, the latter appears to have been prioritised every time on Mr Cornish's watch.
The cargo situation at Manchester Airport has arguably been the most egregious example of this. In order to optimise MAG's investment in upgraded cargo facilities at EMA and STN, a "scorched earth" policy has been pursued against this area of business at MAN. You can see MAG's logic: no further investment required for cargo at MAN (duplicated costs from their perspective), a leg-up for building cargo profits at their preferred centres elsewhere, an obvious profit boost to MAG's bottom line. Yes, we get it. We understand the group business logic. BUT ... this brings us back to that utility business dilemma and monopoly provider power. This policy very clearly disadvantages Manchester Airport specifically, it's users, and businesses in it's catchment to the benefit of MAG profits. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that it is an abuse of a monopoly position, and this is why regulators take note. Who can argue that Manchester City Region has benefitted from this policy in terms of competitiveness, employment, skills, connectivity, service to local business or economic growth? It is blatantly detrimental to the area (but, yes, great for MAG profits). From the region's perspective, the right balance has NOT been struck here, and reports of 'slapped knuckles' by the regulator seem unsurprising. It therefore becomes paramount that MAG is seen to address this situation with serious intent. It would be too easy to pay lip service to welcoming back cargo flights, whilst allowing lack of basic equipment on campus to produce their desired outcomes by default anyway. If the regulator is to be satisfied that MAN is taking this seriously, then MAG needs to be seen to equip the airport to handle cargo flights (and to train staff to use the equipment). This can be done either directly or in liaison with willing handling agencies. Because we know from previous cases that when a regulator feels the need to intervene for a second time, the penalty extends far beyond 'slapped knuckles'. That would not be in the interests of MAG's bottom line, it's shareholders ... or it's reputation.
SIGH. Where to begin?
Freight Stats MAN 2007: 165,366 Tonnes
Freight Stats MAN 2023: 64,082 Tonnes [MAT to May 2023]
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2007: 37 (of which 25 widebody)
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2023 : 0 (yes, that number is ZERO).
Being fourth placed in some notional league table is irrelevant. Those numbers are lamentable. To suggest that those who call for action to redress this 100,000 Tonne deficit in freight throughput are only interested in "reggies" is childish.
However, to be clear, I have no time for those who abuse planespotters. I passed my initial interview leading to a long and rewarding career in commercial aviation based on knowledge drawn from childhood planespotting. And once on the inside, I quickly learned that most of my colleagues had too! Anyway, AT Notts, I'm pretty sure I bought afew books compiled by you on such topics back in the day!!! Or am I thinking of a different AT in the Midlands?
Others have commented on this, notably Rutan16 who astutely highlighted the legal implications.
My own impression is that these quoted comments summarise MAG's take on the situation very well. Those of us who oppose MAG's policy on cargo at Manchester do understand the logic behind their thinking, we just don't agree with it. There are good reasons for this.
Taking a step back, we must realise that Manchester Airport serves as a privately-run utility. Regulatory oversight is routinely required in such situations, as utility companies must strike a very fine balance to address the conflict of interest which naturally arises between optimising the company bottom line and providing an acceptable level of service to users. Companies will not get it right every time, but they must at least demonstrate the spirit of appropriately addressing the balance between maximising profits and providing a decent quality of service. They need to be seen to get it right more often than not.
Regrettably, during the approximately twelve years or so of Mr Cornish's tenure, it has become abundantly clear that MAG profits come first absolutely, and the interests of Manchester Airport's users and catchment area trail in a very sorry second place. Whilst "sweating the assets" is commendable up to a point, there are occasions when discretionary investment makes good business sense. The impression given by Mr Cornish's record is that investment will only be signed off when absolutely unavoidable ... and I do include the TP project in that, because the time-expired structure which is T1 must be either reconstructed or replaced. Spending nothing there is not an option. However, T2's redevelopment has been done on the tightest possible budget with value engineering taken to extremes. Sometimes producing unanticipated consequences. Beyond this, plans to expand T3 ahead of Ryanair's planned expansion curve were vetoed; T1 and T3 have received only cosmetic improvements for a decade or so despite handling 50%+ of passenger throughput at MAN over that period. Whenever the question arises of discretionary investment for the benefit of the region versus maximising MAG profits, the latter appears to have been prioritised every time on Mr Cornish's watch.
The cargo situation at Manchester Airport has arguably been the most egregious example of this. In order to optimise MAG's investment in upgraded cargo facilities at EMA and STN, a "scorched earth" policy has been pursued against this area of business at MAN. You can see MAG's logic: no further investment required for cargo at MAN (duplicated costs from their perspective), a leg-up for building cargo profits at their preferred centres elsewhere, an obvious profit boost to MAG's bottom line. Yes, we get it. We understand the group business logic. BUT ... this brings us back to that utility business dilemma and monopoly provider power. This policy very clearly disadvantages Manchester Airport specifically, it's users, and businesses in it's catchment to the benefit of MAG profits. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that it is an abuse of a monopoly position, and this is why regulators take note. Who can argue that Manchester City Region has benefitted from this policy in terms of competitiveness, employment, skills, connectivity, service to local business or economic growth? It is blatantly detrimental to the area (but, yes, great for MAG profits). From the region's perspective, the right balance has NOT been struck here, and reports of 'slapped knuckles' by the regulator seem unsurprising. It therefore becomes paramount that MAG is seen to address this situation with serious intent. It would be too easy to pay lip service to welcoming back cargo flights, whilst allowing lack of basic equipment on campus to produce their desired outcomes by default anyway. If the regulator is to be satisfied that MAN is taking this seriously, then MAG needs to be seen to equip the airport to handle cargo flights (and to train staff to use the equipment). This can be done either directly or in liaison with willing handling agencies. Because we know from previous cases that when a regulator feels the need to intervene for a second time, the penalty extends far beyond 'slapped knuckles'. That would not be in the interests of MAG's bottom line, it's shareholders ... or it's reputation.
SIGH. Where to begin?
Freight Stats MAN 2007: 165,366 Tonnes
Freight Stats MAN 2023: 64,082 Tonnes [MAT to May 2023]
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2007: 37 (of which 25 widebody)
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2023 : 0 (yes, that number is ZERO).
Being fourth placed in some notional league table is irrelevant. Those numbers are lamentable. To suggest that those who call for action to redress this 100,000 Tonne deficit in freight throughput are only interested in "reggies" is childish.
However, to be clear, I have no time for those who abuse planespotters. I passed my initial interview leading to a long and rewarding career in commercial aviation based on knowledge drawn from childhood planespotting. And once on the inside, I quickly learned that most of my colleagues had too! Anyway, AT Notts, I'm pretty sure I bought afew books compiled by you on such topics back in the day!!! Or am I thinking of a different AT in the Midlands?
Specifically addressing the potential conflict of interests between parent business and that of a significant operating division.
MAG is allegedly acting as a mini cartel at the expense of competition between divisions and indeed impacting wider competition in a specified market place.
Indeed there “may” even have been conversations with the premier operator in this space - If that were the case massive anti -competitive behaviour is/has taken place - i don't has any specific evidence of this, however the wide air cargo business has been implicated in running cartels on a number occasions and on a global scale recently.
Its fundamentally an example as to why market regulators exist and indeed need to exist.
Summarising of the situation and addressing of the legalities PLUS 1000% if up votes were a thing .
Last edited by Rutan16; 19th Jun 2023 at 05:34.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ortac
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed wrote :
If a wide body cargo flight ends up at EMA or STN, the revenue flows to MAG, which unless I am terribly confused, finds it's way back to the region eventually? There's nothing new to add here.
Quick question mind, I can remember my first visit in 1991 where BA and Servisair had their own steps etc, but was loading also done by handlers or by the airport? Tugs were BA and Servisair blue respectively. Not sure if Manchester Handling had branded equipment.
If a wide body cargo flight ends up at EMA or STN, the revenue flows to MAG, which unless I am terribly confused, finds it's way back to the region eventually? There's nothing new to add here.
Quick question mind, I can remember my first visit in 1991 where BA and Servisair had their own steps etc, but was loading also done by handlers or by the airport? Tugs were BA and Servisair blue respectively. Not sure if Manchester Handling had branded equipment.
I'm not aware of any complaint having being made, or under investigation, or any claim having being made by any competitor or other interested party.
The only time MAG group has been involved with any CMA investigation/warning (since the one which resulted in diversification of handling services at MAN) was from the CAA in 2016 relating to car parking charges at EMA between 2007 and 2012.
This was case Ref CA 98-001.
While the case was proven, the various factors considered by the CAA resulted in a penalty of £0.
LHR was also subject to a similar investigation and fined £1.6 million for the same activity.
To me that suggests MAG group tends to act with probity in relation to it's regulatory obligations generally.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So with no case to answer the narrative of the argument changes to accusations of being a reggie spotter !!!
I assume you have introduced that possibly
sneeringly ?
Is that not a somewhat arrogant approach ?
ATN what sparked your interest in aviation?
Is it not being somewhat disingenuous to plane spotters and setting the bar low in terms in terms of arguing a point?
But i guess when you have been sat down, and are in a cul de sac in terms of factual debate you have no option but to try and change the playlist.
For the record i have no written mechanism to record serials, have visited Manchester Airport twice since Christmas and last bought a Civil Aircraft Markings book in 1978. A visit to Ringway in 1972 did spark a lifelong interest in aviation however, nothing wrong with that.
In terms of freight my interest here is purely as an end customer having experienced delays on delivery which in my opinion could have been reduced considerably if capacity where appropriate was placed where demand exists.
As for the quotes i referenced being puff pieces, i beg to differ when you look at the CVs of those making the pronouncements.
They all originate from the same basic premise that Manchester Airport is as much about imports/exports as it is passengers. If you were to say to all those who attended that launch that freight throughput is down 50% via an artificial diversion of pure freight enquiries to other airport including no doubt some outside the group i suspect the overwhelming view would be one of astonishment.
I assume you have introduced that possibly
sneeringly ?
Is that not a somewhat arrogant approach ?
ATN what sparked your interest in aviation?
Is it not being somewhat disingenuous to plane spotters and setting the bar low in terms in terms of arguing a point?
But i guess when you have been sat down, and are in a cul de sac in terms of factual debate you have no option but to try and change the playlist.
For the record i have no written mechanism to record serials, have visited Manchester Airport twice since Christmas and last bought a Civil Aircraft Markings book in 1978. A visit to Ringway in 1972 did spark a lifelong interest in aviation however, nothing wrong with that.
In terms of freight my interest here is purely as an end customer having experienced delays on delivery which in my opinion could have been reduced considerably if capacity where appropriate was placed where demand exists.
As for the quotes i referenced being puff pieces, i beg to differ when you look at the CVs of those making the pronouncements.
They all originate from the same basic premise that Manchester Airport is as much about imports/exports as it is passengers. If you were to say to all those who attended that launch that freight throughput is down 50% via an artificial diversion of pure freight enquiries to other airport including no doubt some outside the group i suspect the overwhelming view would be one of astonishment.
Last edited by Navpi; 19th Jun 2023 at 07:45.
When Aer Lingus started the fifth freedom flights at Manchester it took a shareholding in Manchester Handling.
A while later this shareholding was expanded. Manchester Handling had been making losses each year which the existing shareholders were reluctant to cover. Aer Lingus injected the funds to cover this in return for a 51% holding
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Act of Omission
Right now my considered view is that the MAG parent approach has generally delivered overall.
However, remains potentially counter to natural, ethical and civil and criminal judicial regulations.
Specifically that referred to previously.
Example conversation
Airline operations and route development teams at ABC Corp and in say Megaland have identified that Manchester (and the wider North of England) as being potentially lucrative market for their import and export businesses.
They visit the Manchester Airport web site , contact the Manchester Airport development team and make an enquiry and issue a RFI based on the information provided.
Specifically that Manchester Airport are a major player in cargo, having the ability and handling facilities to process multiple tens indeed hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cargo and as advertised.
Only to find that by an act of omission (inability to deliver those advertised services – the NO HiLo or other similar equipment onsite) having been committed.
They then are redirected to alternative Group services in breech of competition and GPRS rules.
This is at the very least false advertised and a breech of trading standards but much much worse its potentially a criminal act within the Fraud Act 2006 “advertising and obtaining services dishonestly” – by omission (knowingly or otherwise)
The later carries unlimited fines and potentially up to 10 years custodial sentence for any and all officers of the business upon conviction
What’s known is that the regulators have issued notices to operators that there are concerns of collusion and relevant breeches for which the potential exists for more damaging investigations.
We can also assume the notice contains informative concerns sufficient for remedial action on operational issues.
We can assume that right now NO further investigations are scheduled subject audit and review by those businesses in receipt of the said
However, remains potentially counter to natural, ethical and civil and criminal judicial regulations.
Specifically that referred to previously.
Example conversation
Airline operations and route development teams at ABC Corp and in say Megaland have identified that Manchester (and the wider North of England) as being potentially lucrative market for their import and export businesses.
They visit the Manchester Airport web site , contact the Manchester Airport development team and make an enquiry and issue a RFI based on the information provided.
Specifically that Manchester Airport are a major player in cargo, having the ability and handling facilities to process multiple tens indeed hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cargo and as advertised.
Only to find that by an act of omission (inability to deliver those advertised services – the NO HiLo or other similar equipment onsite) having been committed.
They then are redirected to alternative Group services in breech of competition and GPRS rules.
This is at the very least false advertised and a breech of trading standards but much much worse its potentially a criminal act within the Fraud Act 2006 “advertising and obtaining services dishonestly” – by omission (knowingly or otherwise)
The later carries unlimited fines and potentially up to 10 years custodial sentence for any and all officers of the business upon conviction
What’s known is that the regulators have issued notices to operators that there are concerns of collusion and relevant breeches for which the potential exists for more damaging investigations.
We can also assume the notice contains informative concerns sufficient for remedial action on operational issues.
We can assume that right now NO further investigations are scheduled subject audit and review by those businesses in receipt of the said
Last edited by Rutan16; 19th Jun 2023 at 08:21.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does MAG actually advertise word for word that it has HiLo equipment and specify that it can take any a/c type ? If it doesnt then you will find all you mention very hard to stick as MAN does handle significant amounts of cargo so their words are not false nor misleading. It's not even like that it is MAN's responsibility to have such equipment, that would be handling agents.
As for the quotes i referenced being puff pieces, i beg to differ when you look at the CVs of those making the pronouncements.
They all originate from the same basic premise that Manchester Airport is as much about imports/exports as it is passengers. If you were to say to all those who attended that launch that freight throughput is down 50% via an artificial diversion of pure freight enquiries to other airport including no doubt some outside the group i suspect the overwhelming view would be one of astonishment.
I wouldn't probably have used the phrase "puff pieces" but I'm afraid I do agree with the sentiment.
Public pronouncements by MAG are not just intended for the public!
They are also for the consumption of the shareholders and investors.
The investors want returns, not just from flying activities. They expect MAG to leverage all it's assets to create economic activity. A good example of this has been the development taking place in the surrounding areas over the few years. Some of this has nothing at all to do with flying passengers, freight or ancillary activity.
All of those statements are just a list of feel good encouraging pieces designed to basically say "aren't we doing well, keep investing in us, we have a plan, we're good at making money, investing in us is a sure fire winner, the geographical area can support a lot more than we're exploiting at the moment, if you're a local politician take note - if you support us in decisions you're area/region benefits "
Believe me, shareholders and board members probably need more" stroking" and assurances (as well as exemplary investment returns) than any other group.
Those same investors may also be involved in the surrounding business activities so want to see MAG doing things which will grow or support that.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct, Gatwick Handling shareholders also included Delta, not sure who the rest were (possibly Dan Air?).
When Aer Lingus started the fifth freedom flights at Manchester it took a shareholding in Manchester Handling.
A while later this shareholding was expanded. Manchester Handling had been making losses each year which the existing shareholders were reluctant to cover. Aer Lingus injected the funds to cover this in return for a 51% holding
When Aer Lingus started the fifth freedom flights at Manchester it took a shareholding in Manchester Handling.
A while later this shareholding was expanded. Manchester Handling had been making losses each year which the existing shareholders were reluctant to cover. Aer Lingus injected the funds to cover this in return for a 51% holding
the history and minutiae of the strata and changes
within the airport handling is appreciated.
As for Gatwick Handling Dan Air and Laker were the founders if i remember correctly
You’re comments of the wider activities of MAG Group and their Australian partners is what alluded to as other activities.
Last edited by Rutan16; 19th Jun 2023 at 08:26.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does mag actually advertise word for word that it has hilo equipment and specify that it can take any a/c type ? If it doesnt then you will find all you mention very hard to stick as man does handle significant amounts of cargo so their words are not false nor misleading. It's not even like that it is man's responsibility to have such equipment, that would be handling agents.
In advertising a service any service it is the business offering the service responsibility to ensure subcontractors franchise partners and suppliers also have that ability to deliver.
Omission is NOT a defence no it’s evidence for a claim in and of itself
Such claims are the very essence of many civil cases in particular and indeed much of the case law and prescience is based upon these sorts of actions
Again my own opinion is MAG Group has been pretty successful across the three airport divisions however there are areas of criticism indeed potential legal issues that’s have been highlighted here
Last edited by Rutan16; 19th Jun 2023 at 08:39.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me get this right in the context of our business...we manufacture / distribute uniform for the aviation sector. We advertise that we print logos and we use a brand new technology called DTF, but we do not do Screenprinting. So by advertinsing we print logos but not specifically saying we do not screenprint that some might want is false advertisng ? In that case I doubt there is a compamy in the country that doesnt fall foul of this in some respect and I am about to take SkyBet to court if correct as they never mentioned in their adverts they dont take bets on naked fly fishing events 
Last edited by eggc; 19th Jun 2023 at 11:24.
"Companies will not get it right every time, but they must at least demonstrate the spirit of appropriately addressing the balance between maximising profits and providing a decent quality of service. They need to be seen to get it right more often than not."
Well good luck with that - look at the Water companies, the electric companies etc - even LHR or Man Utd- they takeout as much of the profit as they can - there is zero effective oversite and never any legal action
This suits the City of London etc but is a major reason why nothing works anymore in the UK
Well good luck with that - look at the Water companies, the electric companies etc - even LHR or Man Utd- they takeout as much of the profit as they can - there is zero effective oversite and never any legal action
This suits the City of London etc but is a major reason why nothing works anymore in the UK
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does MAG actually advertise word for word that it has HiLo equipment and specify that it can take any a/c type ? If it doesnt then you will find all you mention very hard to stick as MAN does handle significant amounts of cargo so their words are not false nor misleading. It's not even like that it is MAN's responsibility to have such equipment, that would be handling agents.
Manchester Airport’s constantly expanding cargo community comprises some of the world’s leading freight and logistics businesses. Our cargo facility, the World Freight Terminal, is a community of more than 1,000 professionals managing freight-only aircraft as well as consignments that arrive or depart in the holds of passenger aircraft.
Last edited by Navpi; 19th Jun 2023 at 17:24.
No it isn't, it actually supports "eggc's" point. It doesn't say they can handle all sorts of freight or all types of aircraft. Not all freight-only a/c are wide-bodies, or are you implying there is some sort of restriction on all freight-only a/c?