Manchester-3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN has historically done well as a super-spoke, attracting many prime legacy carriers to include the city on their networks, in some cases being the only UK destination besides London Heathrow. I think there lies the future. Much as I would like to see a true anchor airline with some manner of hub operation, it doesn't seem likely. Growing the portfolio of legacy flag carriers, with frequent direct services into the respective hubs, is MAN's best bet. It's a good one, too, spreading the risk around when things go pear-shaped in particular geo-political/economic zones. .
What's a "NONE" shuttle?
There's a degree of wishing for higher end legacy carries BUT the incredible growth in European air travel that the locos brought was hitherto unseen and unexpected. I remember when Ryanair introduced 6 x ex BY B737-200s and THAT was a big step up, this was around the same GB Airways flew 2 other ex BY B737s on behalf of easyJet to Scotland. No one expected what happened next, least of all MAG and BA. So they could turn their noses up and watch LPL and LBA grow as the old BA high cost model withered away, or they could change focus and become a home for a huge volume of locos. There was no other realistic choice. It does mean, as M'OL once said he'd pay for "no Taj Mahal terminals" and as such, you can only build what's going to have a realistic ROI. That's not always the shop window to the world we would all like, see also EDI!
The new Air India (Vistara as was) are on a major growth trajectory, so you'd hope there's a deal to be done there.
There's a degree of wishing for higher end legacy carries BUT the incredible growth in European air travel that the locos brought was hitherto unseen and unexpected. I remember when Ryanair introduced 6 x ex BY B737-200s and THAT was a big step up, this was around the same GB Airways flew 2 other ex BY B737s on behalf of easyJet to Scotland. No one expected what happened next, least of all MAG and BA. So they could turn their noses up and watch LPL and LBA grow as the old BA high cost model withered away, or they could change focus and become a home for a huge volume of locos. There was no other realistic choice. It does mean, as M'OL once said he'd pay for "no Taj Mahal terminals" and as such, you can only build what's going to have a realistic ROI. That's not always the shop window to the world we would all like, see also EDI!
The new Air India (Vistara as was) are on a major growth trajectory, so you'd hope there's a deal to be done there.
There is some angst towards the LCC’s and people are right to correct the post that suggested that MAG went after the LCC’s. On the contrary, they came fairly late to the party.
In reality, the LCC’s and Legacies do particlarly well co-existing in MAN. There are even city pairs where they go head to head. In essence, the LCC’s typically grow the market on those routes. There are also many destinations that wouldn’t otherwise have been served. Take BIO, OPO, GOA for instance. Even BER, FCO, MAD and ATH have had patchy service in the past.
In the past you had full service/legacy and your IT operators with a very clear differentiation. Today, that line is not as defined but we have more destinations than we would ever have had in the past.
In reality, the LCC’s and Legacies do particlarly well co-existing in MAN. There are even city pairs where they go head to head. In essence, the LCC’s typically grow the market on those routes. There are also many destinations that wouldn’t otherwise have been served. Take BIO, OPO, GOA for instance. Even BER, FCO, MAD and ATH have had patchy service in the past.
In the past you had full service/legacy and your IT operators with a very clear differentiation. Today, that line is not as defined but we have more destinations than we would ever have had in the past.
There appears to be an unspoken assumption in this fast-moving conversation that locos are "not as good" as legacy flag carriers. Somehow second-rate. That demarcation has been blurred for a very long time now. Cabin service is 'buy on board' for most European short-haul flights; where service is included you may get a small beaker of water and a biscuit if you are lucky. Seating layouts are generally identical. Luggage arrangements too. Note too that carriers such as Ryanair and EasyJet score very highly on punctuality versus most legacy carriers. Their short-haul networks are more comprehensive. And the new non-reclining thin seats beat those thick reclining knee-crushers any day for me. Bring them on.
I do not consider carriers such as EasyJet and Ryanair to be a second-rate option from MAN's perspective. They're the ideal partners to grow MAN's route portfolio and bring in customer volume. The main issue lies not with those carriers, but with (ex-CEO) Mr Cornish's draconian no-spend policy which has left them hemmed in at T1 / T3 with insufficient space to expand to their full potential. T3 capacity desperately needs sorting out; T1 is slated to close with carriers moving over to T2. Jet2 and TUI are vital to MAN's success also, but their business is more tailored to the demands of the package holiday market. It disappoints me to read comments which seem to disparage our four anchor short-haul carriers; they're actually doing a fantastic job. I just hope that MAG will now invest to support them fully with targeted infrastructure investment, enabling these operators to achieve their full growth potential at MAN.
New T2 is a wonderful asset for MAN to have. The passenger experience is absolutely fine. Regular folks love the choice of retail and F&B options. Some of us on these forums notice every scuff-mark and broken lavatory door, but the public at large simply see a decent experience when using T2. CW has successfully seen off the post-covid blues with staffing resilience having been built up. And improved technology is on the way, further enabling reduced hassle and queueing times at security and immigration. The issues we forumers pick up on re T2 are predominantly cosmetic (and easily fixable). Bare walls can be adorned. Scuffed flooring can be resurfaced. Lack of travelators on the arrivals corridors look like the main oversight to me, but likewise at airports such as BCN and CPH in their new extensions. Perhaps airport operators have lost faith in perennially unreliable travelator technology?
MAG's most pressing challenge at MAN is to ensure resilience and capacity for future growth. New T2 essentially replaces life-expired T1 infrastructure and legacy T2; I don't see much room for enhanced growth in there. The reality is that if MAN does want business to grow, management need to be doing their utmost to support additional capacity offers from EasyJet and Ryanair. Folks on here get hung up on attracting new tails - yes, I like to see those too - but your fundamental growth comes from additional BASED B38M's and A20N's. For understandable reasons in the current economic climate, MAG is committing to new infrastructure investment in digestable chunks ... hence we're not seeing disclosure of some new grand masterplan. But the plans are there behind closed doors. I hope that they include expansion of T3 (annexing Pier B?) and a near-term apron extension at scale. For me, these have become a more urgent priority than adding a third pier on T2. Decimated cargo capability still needs open-heart surgery too (there - I said it!!!).
Don't get too despondent. There are alot of positives to appreciate at MAN. The airport's portfolio remains by far the best in regional UK, and this is the only non-London airport introducing a large-scale new terminal. We all want to see more success as we roll on into 2024, but don't forget to acknowledge what we've already got. It's the worst except for all the others! Happy New Year everyone ...
I do not consider carriers such as EasyJet and Ryanair to be a second-rate option from MAN's perspective. They're the ideal partners to grow MAN's route portfolio and bring in customer volume. The main issue lies not with those carriers, but with (ex-CEO) Mr Cornish's draconian no-spend policy which has left them hemmed in at T1 / T3 with insufficient space to expand to their full potential. T3 capacity desperately needs sorting out; T1 is slated to close with carriers moving over to T2. Jet2 and TUI are vital to MAN's success also, but their business is more tailored to the demands of the package holiday market. It disappoints me to read comments which seem to disparage our four anchor short-haul carriers; they're actually doing a fantastic job. I just hope that MAG will now invest to support them fully with targeted infrastructure investment, enabling these operators to achieve their full growth potential at MAN.
New T2 is a wonderful asset for MAN to have. The passenger experience is absolutely fine. Regular folks love the choice of retail and F&B options. Some of us on these forums notice every scuff-mark and broken lavatory door, but the public at large simply see a decent experience when using T2. CW has successfully seen off the post-covid blues with staffing resilience having been built up. And improved technology is on the way, further enabling reduced hassle and queueing times at security and immigration. The issues we forumers pick up on re T2 are predominantly cosmetic (and easily fixable). Bare walls can be adorned. Scuffed flooring can be resurfaced. Lack of travelators on the arrivals corridors look like the main oversight to me, but likewise at airports such as BCN and CPH in their new extensions. Perhaps airport operators have lost faith in perennially unreliable travelator technology?
MAG's most pressing challenge at MAN is to ensure resilience and capacity for future growth. New T2 essentially replaces life-expired T1 infrastructure and legacy T2; I don't see much room for enhanced growth in there. The reality is that if MAN does want business to grow, management need to be doing their utmost to support additional capacity offers from EasyJet and Ryanair. Folks on here get hung up on attracting new tails - yes, I like to see those too - but your fundamental growth comes from additional BASED B38M's and A20N's. For understandable reasons in the current economic climate, MAG is committing to new infrastructure investment in digestable chunks ... hence we're not seeing disclosure of some new grand masterplan. But the plans are there behind closed doors. I hope that they include expansion of T3 (annexing Pier B?) and a near-term apron extension at scale. For me, these have become a more urgent priority than adding a third pier on T2. Decimated cargo capability still needs open-heart surgery too (there - I said it!!!).
Don't get too despondent. There are alot of positives to appreciate at MAN. The airport's portfolio remains by far the best in regional UK, and this is the only non-London airport introducing a large-scale new terminal. We all want to see more success as we roll on into 2024, but don't forget to acknowledge what we've already got. It's the worst except for all the others! Happy New Year everyone ...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some excellent comments above. These projects take so long, by the time they are completed so much will have changed. Just take the last 4 years. MAG needs to develop an infrastructure that removes all barriers to connectivity between terminals and allows for flexibility for airline change. I'd be opposed to allocating a terminal to one airline. For one thing that airline will want preferential treatment and lower costs. Ideally U2, FR, and LS would on an equal footing. Even TUI. Given the scale of each of their operations.
Connections are important between all airlines and most connections will be with LCCs involved and that is only set to grow. So barriers to connections like separate terminals are not a good thing. This is an opportunity even in the absence of a hub airline like BA used to be at the airport.
Manchester is somewhat different to many other airports. While it has a huge local catchment, it is hugely dependent on the leisure market and locally originating passengers. So while the catchment is large, the airport is hugely dependent on its local clients. US flights as an example see very low volumes in % terms of US originating passengers. Same for say TUI and Jet2, hugely MAN area originating passengers. Ryanair with its pricing strategy will help hugely to drive volume from away bases into MAN, especially in winter when demand is lower and they aim to fill the plane at all costs.
High leisure market dependency, strong VFR, reduced business travel, locally dependent market, all mean an impact on what price people will pay. Equally, the spending power of the average customer in the demographic is much lower than say London/ South of England. These factors impact the attractiveness of say Virgin adding new LH routes, especially where there are scarce resources i.e. aircraft. They'll deploy them to more attractive markets where average price is stronger. The US network will grow in time as awareness of Manchester increases, and as business travel slowly returns.
Connections are important between all airlines and most connections will be with LCCs involved and that is only set to grow. So barriers to connections like separate terminals are not a good thing. This is an opportunity even in the absence of a hub airline like BA used to be at the airport.
Manchester is somewhat different to many other airports. While it has a huge local catchment, it is hugely dependent on the leisure market and locally originating passengers. So while the catchment is large, the airport is hugely dependent on its local clients. US flights as an example see very low volumes in % terms of US originating passengers. Same for say TUI and Jet2, hugely MAN area originating passengers. Ryanair with its pricing strategy will help hugely to drive volume from away bases into MAN, especially in winter when demand is lower and they aim to fill the plane at all costs.
High leisure market dependency, strong VFR, reduced business travel, locally dependent market, all mean an impact on what price people will pay. Equally, the spending power of the average customer in the demographic is much lower than say London/ South of England. These factors impact the attractiveness of say Virgin adding new LH routes, especially where there are scarce resources i.e. aircraft. They'll deploy them to more attractive markets where average price is stronger. The US network will grow in time as awareness of Manchester increases, and as business travel slowly returns.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's a "NONE" shuttle?
There's a degree of wishing for higher end legacy carries BUT the incredible growth in European air travel that the locos brought was hitherto unseen and unexpected. I remember when Ryanair introduced 6 x ex BY B737-200s and THAT was a big step up, this was around the same GB Airways flew 2 other ex BY B737s on behalf of easyJet to Scotland. No one expected what happened next, least of all MAG and BA. So they could turn their noses up and watch LPL and LBA grow as the old BA high cost model withered away, or they could change focus and become a home for a huge volume of locos. There was no other realistic choice. It does mean, as M'OL once said he'd pay for "no Taj Mahal terminals" and as such, you can only build what's going to have a realistic ROI. That's not always the shop window to the world we would all like, see also EDI!
The new Air India (Vistara as was) are on a major growth trajectory, so you'd hope there's a deal to be done there.
There's a degree of wishing for higher end legacy carries BUT the incredible growth in European air travel that the locos brought was hitherto unseen and unexpected. I remember when Ryanair introduced 6 x ex BY B737-200s and THAT was a big step up, this was around the same GB Airways flew 2 other ex BY B737s on behalf of easyJet to Scotland. No one expected what happened next, least of all MAG and BA. So they could turn their noses up and watch LPL and LBA grow as the old BA high cost model withered away, or they could change focus and become a home for a huge volume of locos. There was no other realistic choice. It does mean, as M'OL once said he'd pay for "no Taj Mahal terminals" and as such, you can only build what's going to have a realistic ROI. That's not always the shop window to the world we would all like, see also EDI!
The new Air India (Vistara as was) are on a major growth trajectory, so you'd hope there's a deal to be done there.
As for my cryptic comment re BA domestic link to Heathrow you know full well what I inferred
The only remnant of a high frequency turn up and go operation is the use of Shuttle as a call sign. It’s a conventional schedules service booking required stupid expensive point to point and not even a clock face operation
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK clumsy wording , will rephrase .
T2 would be demolished and comnected to an "improved" T3.
My assumption was an expanded T3 to fill in the gap ?
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...curity-9370929
T2 would be demolished and comnected to an "improved" T3.
My assumption was an expanded T3 to fill in the gap ?
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...curity-9370929
As that article from 2015 states, the plan in the medium-term was always to demolish the main T1 building as the completed T2 would provide sufficient capacity. It was always likely that some of the T1 piers may remain for a period, although in exactly what configuaration is less clear. The renders shown in that article are early ones from the masterplanning stages, which invariably change once the scheme design actually starts to cost up the budget required to deliver it. Some of the later renders showed what appeared to be a physical link between T2 and T1 (and would then presumably carry on into T3). That can be achieved without maintaining the bulk of the main T1 building.
What would happen to the site of the T1 building once it was closed and demolished was never part of the Transformation Programme. At a minimum, that was a decade away from the commencement of the programme, and so it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to be including that in the programme (which was already a significant piece of work) when so much can change in that time. I'd imagine there are some masterplan documents in a room in Olympic House somewhere for development post-2025, but as far as I'm aware, that's not something that has ever been publicly released.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the key issue is that you have made various assumptions of your own accord, and then you are getting angry because they haven't been realised - but they were never backed up by what the airport and the plan actually said.
As that article from 2015 states, the plan in the medium-term was always to demolish the main T1 building as the completed T2 would provide sufficient capacity. It was always likely that some of the T1 piers may remain for a period, although in exactly what configuaration is less clear. The renders shown in that article are early ones from the masterplanning stages, which invariably change once the scheme design actually starts to cost up the budget required to deliver it. Some of the later renders showed what appeared to be a physical link between T2 and T1 (and would then presumably carry on into T3). That can be achieved without maintaining the bulk of the main T1 building.
What would happen to the site of the T1 building once it was closed and demolished was never part of the Transformation Programme. At a minimum, that was a decade away from the commencement of the programme, and so it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to be including that in the programme (which was already a significant piece of work) when so much can change in that time. I'd imagine there are some masterplan documents in a room in Olympic House somewhere for development post-2025, but as far as I'm aware, that's not something that has ever been publicly released.
As that article from 2015 states, the plan in the medium-term was always to demolish the main T1 building as the completed T2 would provide sufficient capacity. It was always likely that some of the T1 piers may remain for a period, although in exactly what configuaration is less clear. The renders shown in that article are early ones from the masterplanning stages, which invariably change once the scheme design actually starts to cost up the budget required to deliver it. Some of the later renders showed what appeared to be a physical link between T2 and T1 (and would then presumably carry on into T3). That can be achieved without maintaining the bulk of the main T1 building.
What would happen to the site of the T1 building once it was closed and demolished was never part of the Transformation Programme. At a minimum, that was a decade away from the commencement of the programme, and so it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to be including that in the programme (which was already a significant piece of work) when so much can change in that time. I'd imagine there are some masterplan documents in a room in Olympic House somewhere for development post-2025, but as far as I'm aware, that's not something that has ever been publicly released.
My curiosity is more about "the gap" between T2 and T3 and how the two will connect.
Had we kept T1 that would not be an issue but if its mothballed there still has to be a connecting corridor between the two. If it's to be demolished then likewise.
I assumed demolition would leave us a massive apron to make up for shortages where we are hemmed in on the perimeter.
I guess at the end of the day MAG don't need to divulge anything , but it's such a large gap it would be nice to know what the strategy will be.
Last edited by Navpi; 4th Jan 2024 at 05:49.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may get the odd person that is hand baggage only wanting to transfer from Ryanair to another airline on separate tickets, but they will be few and far between.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly anybody will be doing connections between T3 & T2. T3 will be Ryanair and they don't connect with anybody - including themselves. More or less everybody arriving at T3 will need to go through immigration / baggage collection / transfer to T2 / re-check baggage / re-clear security.
You may get the odd person that is hand baggage only wanting to transfer from Ryanair to another airline on separate tickets, but they will be few and far between.
You may get the odd person that is hand baggage only wanting to transfer from Ryanair to another airline on separate tickets, but they will be few and far between.
Ryanair have already trialled connections at a handful of airports on through tickets in the Eurowings, Vueling, Norwegian model and this *could* be an opportunity, in any event OTA's like dohop, booking.com and Kiwi regularly sell 2 tickets to self connect backed by their own guarantee so MCT opens up more opportunities. Easyjet have Worldwide by EasyJet and many of our LH carriers are partners so it can only be logistics that have prevented MAN being involved thus far.
FlyBe were building a good product of connecting their communities via MAN to the world and if we want to see EIUK and VS make a go of LH (as well as the visiting carriers) then some sort of connection product can help to remove that reliance on local catchment - we have the infrastructure to really push the connections by offering Air/Rail tickets to many destinations if we wanted (but lets focus on the bread and butter first). LoCo's do give the network spread to help feed our LH services.
In the fullness of time i suspect we will see the link but a temporary structure to provide the link or even continued bussing may be what we see for some time.
Losing Pier C does mean T2 has scope for further expansion, Pier B can be easily re-linked to T3 (as in the Tipperary lounge days).
I think we are more likely to see the Pier B works in the medium term as current T3 is problematic both landside and airside and there is an opportunity to expand the footprint of T3 into current T1 relatively cheaply to help improve this, after that who knows - we may well see T1 demolished at some point but it wont be until there is a plan for the land In the same way we wont see a further pier on T2 on the pier C footprint until there is demand in the coming 18 - 24 months there have been changes definitely but I'm sure the overall vision remains even if some of the details are still be announced / decided.
I suspect during COVID the debt levels carried by MAG and similar airports has grown somewhat, hence "nice to have" bells and whistles to connect a wholly Ryanair T3 to anyone else in T2 are not going to be a priority. Sadly, there's just not the business case. As to flybe, well they did connect MAN well but that was before business travel tanked and anyone taking a UK domestic flight was demonised to be a wilful murderer of Polar Bears...... I only 1/2 jest on that one!
So that old world probably isn't coming back anytime soon. As to who would feed Virgin, well Skyteam's KLM and Air France have vast options of their own at CDG/AMS and also feed VS/DL over LHR as an overflow , but I guess it makes some kind of sense to offer connections, but it's not going to be a game changer. The Virgin BOM/DEL-USA scissors hub option is a good idea on paper, but also competes with the same idea out of LHR, so how many times can you divide that up?
Aer Lingus UK really ought to be point to point because otherwise mainline Aer Lingus in Dublin will be looking to hold onto feeding their own existing hub. For me it's about not cannibalising existing options and keeping focus on what works well rather than scrabbling to an ambition that's really tough without a based network carrier. LGW hasn't got one either, BA barely connect to long haul outside the Disney express from GLA. No shame there, just a fast growing business finding a new niche.
For MAN, who will be their modern day Thomas Cook for long haul?
Last edited by Skipness One Foxtrot; 4th Jan 2024 at 17:02.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stockport
Age: 56
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P&O Charters
Happy New Year everyone.
I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this will still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.
I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this will still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.
Last edited by DomyDom; 5th Jan 2024 at 11:02.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well big thanks to MAG who "may" have been reading our debate.
New "airfield" image of T1 including what looks like a new pier minus airbridges off T2, odd however that its in the same place as pier C.
Is it a lo cost pier or a bus station ?
Fill it with bars and retail whilst punters wait for travel to remotes ?
This has just been issued.
https://bit.ly/3l4FvWI
New "airfield" image of T1 including what looks like a new pier minus airbridges off T2, odd however that its in the same place as pier C.
Is it a lo cost pier or a bus station ?
Fill it with bars and retail whilst punters wait for travel to remotes ?
This has just been issued.
https://bit.ly/3l4FvWI
Last edited by Navpi; 4th Jan 2024 at 18:22.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good point, yes it's increasingly painful. Biggest fall from grace on the whole surviving BA network, it's depressing using it if you have any memory of how far they've fallen.
I suspect during COVID the debt levels carried by MAG and similar airports has grown somewhat, hence "nice to have" bells and whistles to connect a wholly Ryanair T3 to anyone else in T2 are not going to be a priority. Sadly, there's just not the business case. As to flybe, well they did connect MAN well but that was before business travel tanked and anyone taking a UK domestic flight was demonised to be a wilful murderer of Polar Bears...... I only 1/2 jest on that one!
So that old world probably isn't coming back anytime soon. As to who would feed Virgin, well Skyteam's KLM and Air France have vast options of their own at CDG/AMS and also feed VS/DL over LHR as an overflow , but I guess it makes some kind of sense to offer connections, but it's not going to be a game changer. The Virgin BOM/DEL-USA scissors hub option is a good idea on paper, but also competes with the same idea out of LHR, so how many times can you divide that up?
Aer Lingus UK really ought to be point to point because otherwise mainline Aer Lingus in Dublin will be looking to hold onto feeding their own existing hub. For me it's about not cannibalising existing options and keeping focus on what works well rather than scrabbling to an ambition that's really tough without a based network carrier. LGW hasn't got one either, BA barely connect to long haul outside the Disney express from GLA. No shame there, just a fast growing business finding a new niche.
For MAN, who will be their modern day Thomas Cook for long haul?
I suspect during COVID the debt levels carried by MAG and similar airports has grown somewhat, hence "nice to have" bells and whistles to connect a wholly Ryanair T3 to anyone else in T2 are not going to be a priority. Sadly, there's just not the business case. As to flybe, well they did connect MAN well but that was before business travel tanked and anyone taking a UK domestic flight was demonised to be a wilful murderer of Polar Bears...... I only 1/2 jest on that one!
So that old world probably isn't coming back anytime soon. As to who would feed Virgin, well Skyteam's KLM and Air France have vast options of their own at CDG/AMS and also feed VS/DL over LHR as an overflow , but I guess it makes some kind of sense to offer connections, but it's not going to be a game changer. The Virgin BOM/DEL-USA scissors hub option is a good idea on paper, but also competes with the same idea out of LHR, so how many times can you divide that up?
Aer Lingus UK really ought to be point to point because otherwise mainline Aer Lingus in Dublin will be looking to hold onto feeding their own existing hub. For me it's about not cannibalising existing options and keeping focus on what works well rather than scrabbling to an ambition that's really tough without a based network carrier. LGW hasn't got one either, BA barely connect to long haul outside the Disney express from GLA. No shame there, just a fast growing business finding a new niche.
For MAN, who will be their modern day Thomas Cook for long haul?
The only carrier that « may » have requisite data ain’t now allowed to operate in the UK market for reasons .
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there’s a dawning realisation that the addition of just one additional pier will be wholly insufficient to replace the capacity of T1. There’s no way that the entire based EZY/JET2/Tui summer operation will fit in the new T2 as planned and I’m pretty certain that the likes of EZY will not settle for a predominantly bussing operation.
The plans I’ve heard for Domestic arrivals into T2, which if confirmed, the airlines would not accept. Expect T3 to remain as a Domestic facility and T1 to continue for the foreseeable if I were a betting man.
The plans I’ve heard for Domestic arrivals into T2, which if confirmed, the airlines would not accept. Expect T3 to remain as a Domestic facility and T1 to continue for the foreseeable if I were a betting man.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not convinced it's an aircraft pier. Notice there is no yellow taxiway signage and why not throw a model of an aircraft on there ?
It's all very intriguing.
It's all very intriguing.
Happy New Year everyone.
I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this wil still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.
I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this wil still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...diversion.html
Just a thought, but the greyed out oblong areas on the site of T1 multi-storey and Pier C could simply be an artistic device to denote that the actual form of what will end up there either isn't yet finalised or isn't ready to be disclosed to the public? We have seen a similar technique used in earlier renderings.
Happy New Year everyone.
I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this wil still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.
I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this wil still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.
If arrangements are the same as for this year, the majority of flights from LGW and MAN will be on Tui 787's that have a Premium Economy cabin (it was almost empty on our outbound flight). This year, for reasons that have been much-debated and rumoured, P&O brought in (somewhat late-in-the-day) Maleth-Aero with an A332 based at each of MAN and LGW to operate some of the flights to BGI and ANU (where the 2 ships based in the Carribean this winter turn-around).
This move has caused some disatisfaction, as some people who had booked Premium Econ flights had their bookings moved to these flights, which don't have a PE cabin. The Maleth aircraft also don't have IFE (whereas the Tui 787's do). There have also been some big delays to some of the Maleth flights (their flight back to MAN from our cruise incurred a 12-hour delay) and there has been the diversion to BDA referred to above and covered in a separate thread (although the CAT encounter could have happened to any airline).
P&O passenger forums are full of negative feedback about these issues and the use of Maleth (there is some positive aswell, but it's in the minority). Who knows whether they will be used again, but if I was a betting man I would say not (it seems to have been a short-notice arrangement in any case). Tui have been used for many years, so that seems less likely to change. Some pax also find themselves on scheduled flights (there were a small number on our cruise who flew VS to/from LHR).