Manchester-3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that was my understanding too of a slot booking system for appointments between airports and airlines, although I wasn't sure if that was done in advance. I expect Route Development teams also make use of informal chats outside the more formal proceedings. It may also be a useful forum and through networking to keep an eye on what the competition are doing..
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 169 Likes
on
104 Posts
Bumpy ride into Manchester on Baby Bus this afternoon from Munich , and bloody nightmare getting home due to basic maintenance on UK motorways ie clean the bloody drainage channels rather than let It spill all over the carriage way. Large G&T at home now 👍
Cheers
Mr Mac
Cheers
Mr Mac
Totally agree about drainage, there is a grid near us that I don`t think has been cleared for a couple years and as soon as it rains the water pours down the foot path
In general drains are rarely cleared and just aloud to block with leaves and silt
In general drains are rarely cleared and just aloud to block with leaves and silt
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extensive holding due to single runway in use. e.g. SIA51 holding for 35 minutes from 0855 due to the change at 0900 to using only 23R. Why not use the southern runway? The change to 0630-1100 only takes place on 29/10/23 according to TAS site. Is this some sort of planning requirement, intransigence or incompetence?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Danunder
Age: 49
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extensive holding due to single runway in use. e.g. SIA51 holding for 35 minutes from 0855 due to the change at 0900 to using only 23R. Why not use the southern runway? The change to 0630-1100 only takes place on 29/10/23 according to TAS site. Is this some sort of planning requirement, intransigence or incompetence?
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Where ever I am
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather definitely could have been a contributing factor:
EGCC 250850Z VRB02KT 0350 R23R/1300D FG BKN001 03/03 Q0997
EGCC 250820Z VRB02KT 0600 R23R/0550N FG BKN002 03/03 Q0997
EGCC 250750Z 21002KT 0100 R23R/0250N FG BKN001 02/02 Q0997
EGCC 250720Z 16003KT 130V200 9999 0450S R23R/0900U BCFG SCT001 02/02 Q0997 TEMPO 0400 FG BKN001
EGCC 250650Z VRB01KT 9999 R23R/1000U PRFG NSC 02/02 Q0997
EGCC 250620Z VRB02KT 9999 MIFG NSC 02/02 Q0998 TEMPO 4000 BR
EGCC 250550Z VRB01KT 9999 MIFG NSC 03/03 Q0998 TEMPO 4000 BR
EGCC 250850Z VRB02KT 0350 R23R/1300D FG BKN001 03/03 Q0997
EGCC 250820Z VRB02KT 0600 R23R/0550N FG BKN002 03/03 Q0997
EGCC 250750Z 21002KT 0100 R23R/0250N FG BKN001 02/02 Q0997
EGCC 250720Z 16003KT 130V200 9999 0450S R23R/0900U BCFG SCT001 02/02 Q0997 TEMPO 0400 FG BKN001
EGCC 250650Z VRB01KT 9999 R23R/1000U PRFG NSC 02/02 Q0997
EGCC 250620Z VRB02KT 9999 MIFG NSC 02/02 Q0998 TEMPO 4000 BR
EGCC 250550Z VRB01KT 9999 MIFG NSC 03/03 Q0998 TEMPO 4000 BR
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EYs newest 787-10 A6-BMJ seems to be dedicated to the AUH-MAN route. I was on it last week coming back from Abu Dhabi and it has operated solely on the MAN run since it was brought into service by EY.
Funny how this seems to happen. QR sent the same 777 for a while did they not?
Funny how this seems to happen. QR sent the same 777 for a while did they not?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Support our runway runners and walkers! 
The Manchester Airport Community will be taking part in a Runway Run in support of MAG's three charity partners:
@magic_breakfast , @childrensociety and Medcare. Runners and walkers will be tackling a 5km run and a 2km walk on the second runway with the help of various teams across the Airport.
The Manchester Airport Community will be taking part in a Runway Run in support of MAG's three charity partners: @magic_breakfast , @childrensociety and Medcare. Runners and walkers will be tackling a 5km run and a 2km walk on the second runway with the help of various teams across the Airport.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some bits recently posted by SPD travels that I have not seen mentioned on here...
Saudia looking to add Jeddah twice weekly, meaning they'll have a daily flight to MAN ( 5 x RUH 2 x JED ).
Also Hianan's Beijing hopefully daily next summer.
Saudia looking to add Jeddah twice weekly, meaning they'll have a daily flight to MAN ( 5 x RUH 2 x JED ).
Also Hianan's Beijing hopefully daily next summer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it currently 5 x weekly to JED? They have operated to Riyadh before, I think that is what you mean, i.e. 2x weekly to RUH in addition to the 5 per week to JED. I believe they are carrying traffic connecting on to Pakistan whilst there is no direct service.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airside Transfer T2 to T3 Domestic
Is it no longer possible to access the main departures area in T3 after transferring from T2, for an onward domestic flight? I was a bit surprised when the staff member scanning boarding passes for transfer passengers said that it would be "better to stay" in T2 until nearer boarding time, since there is "not much there" (at T3). I asked if it was possible to go to the Escape Lounge in T3 after taking the bus and was told it was not. Staying in T2 caused much confusion among the Escape Lounge staff there. I can't be the first to have done this, surely.
Sure enough, when I did eventually take the bus to T3, I was dropped directly at the ground-level gates (147) with pretty much no facilities, other than a vending machine and toilets. The only way out of there seemed to be a route to Arrivals. Strange setup and not how I remember it from the last time I did this in 2020.
Sure enough, when I did eventually take the bus to T3, I was dropped directly at the ground-level gates (147) with pretty much no facilities, other than a vending machine and toilets. The only way out of there seemed to be a route to Arrivals. Strange setup and not how I remember it from the last time I did this in 2020.
Earlier today, a friend drew my attention to a posting made on another well-known aviation forum concerning the current outlook for route development at MAN. The comments made therein are quite disturbing if true. I can't repost the message on here for reasons of copyright, but I will refer to the gist of what is alleged. The poster concerned has a solid track record of accuracy and appears to be well-connected. Of course, there is a good chance that the contributor is a regular on here as well, though I can't be sure of that. Perhaps he / she would like to comment if they are on here?
The comments are made across two postings addressing readers on an Edinburgh Airport thread. In the first, EDI is applauded for doing a "cracking job" in attracting new carriers, but the writer goes on to contrast this with MAN where he wishes he could say the same. According to the contributor, the team at MAN have "p****d off" a LOT of carriers, and several of these are Transatlantic operators. Challenged about this, a second post follows. In it, he alleges that there has been a major breakdown in the relationship between MAN and United Airlines, and the same can be said for Westjet. It is also suggested that MAN has been uncompetitive / unrealistic on prospective fees.
So ... what can we take away from this? Firstly, based on past track record, I do think that the poster is credible. On the two airlines mentioned, United Airlines operated a very successful MAN-EWR programme (inherited from Continental) over many years. They were expected back post-covid but show no signs of reappearing. However, they are expanding elsewhere in Europe - a record total of 38 European destinations will be served by the carrier in S24, a major expansion. Given that a UAL Senior VP made a speech lauding the success of their Manchester operation shortly before covid, it is alarming that MAN can't now make their 'Top 38', even against the backdrop of US point-of-sale advantage at the present time. Moving on to Westjet, they had actually announced a MAN-Halifax scheduled service launching in S2020; this was understandably scuppered by covid. However, they have just announced new services to EDI and LGW. No mention of MAN in the conversation.
So what do we know that could explain some of the background to this?
Whilst MAN has been understandably expressing delight at the impressive resurgence of passenger numbers this year, this may be disguising an underlying malaise. Almost all the growth relates to pre-existing services being restored in the post-covid environment. Only ONE new carrier joined the roster this year, this being EgyptAir (itself a returnee from earlier years). Looking forward to S24, we have two new scheduled carriers in prospect so far in the shape of Luxair and Southwind Airlines (Türkiye). It is early days, so there is still time for others to announce. But we must note that competing airports have enjoyed a flood of transformational announcements already, and MAN appears to have been left at the altar.
I always stress the importance of the main based carriers in driving traffic growth at MAN. Looking at Ryanair, they have 16 based B738/B38M at a T3 which offers 16 B738/B38M-capable stands. Under the recently-ended tenure of Mr Cornish, there were no completed initiatives I can recall to expand the capacity of T3 ... a most unfortunate oversight in my view ... and Ryanair now appears boxed-in. Some growth at the margins may be possible, but without a radical (and early) solution, their continued growth at MAN faces strangulation. I have suggested unlocking the access from T3 core to the stands on Pier B, but there appears to be no appetite from MAG to make this happen. EasyJet is expected to move across from T1 to T2 upon the completion of construction work there. They were on 21 based A320-family aircraft for S24; it is unclear to me how many more they can add looking ahead should they wish to do so. Meanwhile, Jet2 recently announced a new four aircraft base (rising to five) down the road at LPL; one cannot presume stellar expansion from them at MAN in the light of this. Jet2 is currently operating a split-terminal operation between T1 and T2 across Summer months; after S24 they will consolidate ops in T2. TUI does not appear to be in 'growth mode' generally at the present time, so I would expect broadly "as you were" from them in any case. Virgin Atlantic is set to restore Las Vegas for S24, another pre-covid regular reappearing at last. However, Virgin's programme remains a shadow of the pre-covid equivalent, even with massive Thomas Cook competition removed from the market. Of course, fleet reductions and the imperative to safeguard LHR-slots contribute to this. Finally, but not least, Aer Lingus UK. They appear set to remain at two based A333 - quite the disappointment in reality, as a third aircraft to open up a new Transatlantic route was looking very likely until quite recently.
We will learn more about the intentions of these six based carriers when the S24 ACL report is finally made public. I would like to see that these carriers are not being involuntarily constrained by lack of capacity provision in the two older terminals.
So, moving on to prospective 'new entrant' carriers (or apparent lack of them). Why is MAN underperforming expectations so badly? What do we know?
- Under the notoriously frugal Mr Cornish, MAN left its route development team on furlough long after competing airports had brought theirs back. I believe that this directly cost MAN potential new business from Vueling and/or Transavia to ORY at the time. Since then, other airports have announced a string of big wins. MAN hasn't.
- During the furlough period, enquiries to MAN defaulted to managers inexperienced in maintaining relationships with customer airlines. There are rumours that noses were put out of joint by some less-than-diplomatic exchanges. I can't verify the truth of these rumours one way or the other, but the very suggestion of this is worrying.
- MAN's incumbent route development supremo left for a new job in India. It is understandable that his replacement needs to be afforded time to make himself known and to build relationships with MAN's airline partners, but the pressure is on to deliver some big wins (beyond restoring pre-covid frequencies) too. Is his department empowered to offer competitive financial packages and new business incentives? If not, that needs to be addressed with urgency.
- We know that executives can point to the devastating impact of covid on the business. It will take time to recover. But we must keep in mind that competing airports faced those exact same challenges. And they're announcing big wins.
- I even heard one rumour that an airline which has recently announced a new scheduled service at a competing airport contacted MAN first and didn't receive any response. If there is any truth in that, the matter must be investigated from the very top and measures put in place to ensure that this can NEVER recur. Courtesy costs nothing, and every legitimate enquiry should receive at least a friendly and positive acknowledgment.
One final suggestion from me. It does appear (based upon gossip and circumstantial evidence coming from several quarters) that MAN has lost it's way with US and Canadian carriers. Well, there aren't very many of those out there, and the same names are likely to lead the field for years to come. So if cack-handed dealings with these carriers during the furlough period has soured relations (as seems plausible), remedial action is urgently needed. I would suggest a full-on charm offensive tour featuring a delegation of senior execs headed by Chris Woodroofe himself flying over to meet with United Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Jetblue, Breeze, Air Canada*, Air Transat* and Westjet specifically, plus any other names considered prospective. * denotes that incumbent carriers should not be overlooked; we need expansion on YYZ and restoration of YVR. Here in Europe, Virgin Atlantic, Aer Lingus UK (and IAG in general?) should be visited, along with Norse Atlantic too. Singapore Airlines (and any other likely fifth-freedom candidate) should not be overlooked. And when visiting United and Westjet (arguably others), take along afew crates of juicy doughnuts and humble pie. Plus an attractive financial offer for new or restored scheduled links.
MAG can't just wait for T2 to fully reopen and expect to click the fingers and see carriers flock back. They must be wooed now. The competition is on the case now. Once established elsewhere, their business will be difficult to win back, and there is a very small field of viable airline partners to operate those key routes which we'd all like to see introduced (or restored) at MAN.
The comments are made across two postings addressing readers on an Edinburgh Airport thread. In the first, EDI is applauded for doing a "cracking job" in attracting new carriers, but the writer goes on to contrast this with MAN where he wishes he could say the same. According to the contributor, the team at MAN have "p****d off" a LOT of carriers, and several of these are Transatlantic operators. Challenged about this, a second post follows. In it, he alleges that there has been a major breakdown in the relationship between MAN and United Airlines, and the same can be said for Westjet. It is also suggested that MAN has been uncompetitive / unrealistic on prospective fees.
So ... what can we take away from this? Firstly, based on past track record, I do think that the poster is credible. On the two airlines mentioned, United Airlines operated a very successful MAN-EWR programme (inherited from Continental) over many years. They were expected back post-covid but show no signs of reappearing. However, they are expanding elsewhere in Europe - a record total of 38 European destinations will be served by the carrier in S24, a major expansion. Given that a UAL Senior VP made a speech lauding the success of their Manchester operation shortly before covid, it is alarming that MAN can't now make their 'Top 38', even against the backdrop of US point-of-sale advantage at the present time. Moving on to Westjet, they had actually announced a MAN-Halifax scheduled service launching in S2020; this was understandably scuppered by covid. However, they have just announced new services to EDI and LGW. No mention of MAN in the conversation.
So what do we know that could explain some of the background to this?
Whilst MAN has been understandably expressing delight at the impressive resurgence of passenger numbers this year, this may be disguising an underlying malaise. Almost all the growth relates to pre-existing services being restored in the post-covid environment. Only ONE new carrier joined the roster this year, this being EgyptAir (itself a returnee from earlier years). Looking forward to S24, we have two new scheduled carriers in prospect so far in the shape of Luxair and Southwind Airlines (Türkiye). It is early days, so there is still time for others to announce. But we must note that competing airports have enjoyed a flood of transformational announcements already, and MAN appears to have been left at the altar.
I always stress the importance of the main based carriers in driving traffic growth at MAN. Looking at Ryanair, they have 16 based B738/B38M at a T3 which offers 16 B738/B38M-capable stands. Under the recently-ended tenure of Mr Cornish, there were no completed initiatives I can recall to expand the capacity of T3 ... a most unfortunate oversight in my view ... and Ryanair now appears boxed-in. Some growth at the margins may be possible, but without a radical (and early) solution, their continued growth at MAN faces strangulation. I have suggested unlocking the access from T3 core to the stands on Pier B, but there appears to be no appetite from MAG to make this happen. EasyJet is expected to move across from T1 to T2 upon the completion of construction work there. They were on 21 based A320-family aircraft for S24; it is unclear to me how many more they can add looking ahead should they wish to do so. Meanwhile, Jet2 recently announced a new four aircraft base (rising to five) down the road at LPL; one cannot presume stellar expansion from them at MAN in the light of this. Jet2 is currently operating a split-terminal operation between T1 and T2 across Summer months; after S24 they will consolidate ops in T2. TUI does not appear to be in 'growth mode' generally at the present time, so I would expect broadly "as you were" from them in any case. Virgin Atlantic is set to restore Las Vegas for S24, another pre-covid regular reappearing at last. However, Virgin's programme remains a shadow of the pre-covid equivalent, even with massive Thomas Cook competition removed from the market. Of course, fleet reductions and the imperative to safeguard LHR-slots contribute to this. Finally, but not least, Aer Lingus UK. They appear set to remain at two based A333 - quite the disappointment in reality, as a third aircraft to open up a new Transatlantic route was looking very likely until quite recently.
We will learn more about the intentions of these six based carriers when the S24 ACL report is finally made public. I would like to see that these carriers are not being involuntarily constrained by lack of capacity provision in the two older terminals.
So, moving on to prospective 'new entrant' carriers (or apparent lack of them). Why is MAN underperforming expectations so badly? What do we know?
- Under the notoriously frugal Mr Cornish, MAN left its route development team on furlough long after competing airports had brought theirs back. I believe that this directly cost MAN potential new business from Vueling and/or Transavia to ORY at the time. Since then, other airports have announced a string of big wins. MAN hasn't.
- During the furlough period, enquiries to MAN defaulted to managers inexperienced in maintaining relationships with customer airlines. There are rumours that noses were put out of joint by some less-than-diplomatic exchanges. I can't verify the truth of these rumours one way or the other, but the very suggestion of this is worrying.
- MAN's incumbent route development supremo left for a new job in India. It is understandable that his replacement needs to be afforded time to make himself known and to build relationships with MAN's airline partners, but the pressure is on to deliver some big wins (beyond restoring pre-covid frequencies) too. Is his department empowered to offer competitive financial packages and new business incentives? If not, that needs to be addressed with urgency.
- We know that executives can point to the devastating impact of covid on the business. It will take time to recover. But we must keep in mind that competing airports faced those exact same challenges. And they're announcing big wins.
- I even heard one rumour that an airline which has recently announced a new scheduled service at a competing airport contacted MAN first and didn't receive any response. If there is any truth in that, the matter must be investigated from the very top and measures put in place to ensure that this can NEVER recur. Courtesy costs nothing, and every legitimate enquiry should receive at least a friendly and positive acknowledgment.
One final suggestion from me. It does appear (based upon gossip and circumstantial evidence coming from several quarters) that MAN has lost it's way with US and Canadian carriers. Well, there aren't very many of those out there, and the same names are likely to lead the field for years to come. So if cack-handed dealings with these carriers during the furlough period has soured relations (as seems plausible), remedial action is urgently needed. I would suggest a full-on charm offensive tour featuring a delegation of senior execs headed by Chris Woodroofe himself flying over to meet with United Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Jetblue, Breeze, Air Canada*, Air Transat* and Westjet specifically, plus any other names considered prospective. * denotes that incumbent carriers should not be overlooked; we need expansion on YYZ and restoration of YVR. Here in Europe, Virgin Atlantic, Aer Lingus UK (and IAG in general?) should be visited, along with Norse Atlantic too. Singapore Airlines (and any other likely fifth-freedom candidate) should not be overlooked. And when visiting United and Westjet (arguably others), take along afew crates of juicy doughnuts and humble pie. Plus an attractive financial offer for new or restored scheduled links.
MAG can't just wait for T2 to fully reopen and expect to click the fingers and see carriers flock back. They must be wooed now. The competition is on the case now. Once established elsewhere, their business will be difficult to win back, and there is a very small field of viable airline partners to operate those key routes which we'd all like to see introduced (or restored) at MAN.