Manchester-3
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean the principle is there and the airport doesn’t have to just accept “Hardly anybody will be doing connections between T3 & T2. T3 will be Ryanair and they don't connect with anybody - including themselves. “
There must be other airports in a similar position.
It can’t be beyond the whit of man to pull together a consortium and spend a few million each on creating and promoting a service.
Or can it?
There must be other airports in a similar position.
It can’t be beyond the whit of man to pull together a consortium and spend a few million each on creating and promoting a service.
Or can it?
Manchester does not have a based network carrier of any significance (closest is Aer Lingus and they do offer connections off of Belfast today)
Self connect at your own risk , however can you suggest from where to where?
The potential domestic feed and network has been devastated since the Flybe collapse without any sign of a replacement anytime soon.
Fact is Manchester is primarily a super spoke and a massive one for all three alliances today - To Europe, Northern Africa including Egypt and Ethiopia Middle East and selected Asian markets.
The US prime entry points of New York and Atlanta ( and limited Houston) and Canada - All these take traffic from the region to the leading hubs in vast numbers ( without the need for feed into Manchester today )
And then you have the flexible fares carriers serving European and select North African markets all again with generally local traffic - whilst some might self connect from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man it’s not in significant numbers to justify expensive and dedicated facilities imho.
Why do you actually want connections over Manchester in any numbers especially international to international. Why import others Carbon emissions?
Manchester does not have a based network carrier of any significance (closest is Aer Lingus and they do offer connections off of Belfast today)
Self connect at your own risk , however can you suggest from where to where?
The potential domestic feed and network has been devastated since the Flybe collapse without any sign of a replacement anytime soon.
Fact is Manchester is primarily a super spoke and a massive one for all three alliances today - To Europe, Northern Africa including Egypt and Ethiopia Middle East and selected Asian markets.
The US prime entry points of New York and Atlanta ( and limited Houston) and Canada - All these take traffic from the region to the leading hubs in vast numbers ( without the need for feed into Manchester today )
And then you have the flexible fares carriers serving European and select North African markets all again with generally local traffic - whilst some might self connect from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man it’s not in significant numbers to justify expensive and dedicated facilities imho.
Manchester does not have a based network carrier of any significance (closest is Aer Lingus and they do offer connections off of Belfast today)
Self connect at your own risk , however can you suggest from where to where?
The potential domestic feed and network has been devastated since the Flybe collapse without any sign of a replacement anytime soon.
Fact is Manchester is primarily a super spoke and a massive one for all three alliances today - To Europe, Northern Africa including Egypt and Ethiopia Middle East and selected Asian markets.
The US prime entry points of New York and Atlanta ( and limited Houston) and Canada - All these take traffic from the region to the leading hubs in vast numbers ( without the need for feed into Manchester today )
And then you have the flexible fares carriers serving European and select North African markets all again with generally local traffic - whilst some might self connect from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man it’s not in significant numbers to justify expensive and dedicated facilities imho.
It’s an airport.
If they don’t believe in air transport, they’re in the wrong business.
Last edited by Bbtengineer; 6th Feb 2024 at 00:05.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brexit - The UK -border controls no longer make a transit into the Schengen zone competitive - trade lost including via our main hub down south - Heathrow has seen a drop in transit traffic as % of just under 5% . ULH traffic is seeing more route by passing Europe entirely.
Again I demonstrated the local dynamics at Manchester - The operation is devoid of the ingredients necessary to distill a significant hub style operation.
And i think you might have MAG and any other operators raison d’etre somewhat confused . They care only in making a profit on investment and infrastructure through they prefer local passengers which are captive and support their franchisees .
BTW I’d have loved BA to remain (now 18 years past) and developed out a hub of sorts however thats long gone. Refer a certain Irish gentlemen on that .
Again i ask what and where do you consider viable and significant traffic flows might come from ?
Last edited by Rutan16; 3rd Feb 2024 at 00:09.
Things to consider Climate Change - This will see Carbon trading and costs increasing to the businesses and I’d rather those go elsewhere not on the UK PLC spreadsheet indeed all large corporations are required to develop carbon reduction plans and strategies
Brexit - The UK -border controls no longer make a transit into the Schengen zone competitive - trade lost including via our main hub down south - Heathrow has seen a drop in transit traffic as % of just under 5% . ULH traffic is seeing more route by passing Europe entirely.
Again I demonstrated the local dynamics at Manchester - The operation is devoid of the ingredients necessary to distill a significant hub style operation.
And i think you might have MAG and any other operators raison d’etre somewhat confused . They care only in making a profit on investment and infrastructure through they prefer local passengers which are captive and support their franchisees .
BTW I’d have loved BA to remain (now 18 years past) and developed out a hub of sorts however thats long gone. Refer a certain Irish gentlemen on that .
Brexit - The UK -border controls no longer make a transit into the Schengen zone competitive - trade lost including via our main hub down south - Heathrow has seen a drop in transit traffic as % of just under 5% . ULH traffic is seeing more route by passing Europe entirely.
Again I demonstrated the local dynamics at Manchester - The operation is devoid of the ingredients necessary to distill a significant hub style operation.
And i think you might have MAG and any other operators raison d’etre somewhat confused . They care only in making a profit on investment and infrastructure through they prefer local passengers which are captive and support their franchisees .
BTW I’d have loved BA to remain (now 18 years past) and developed out a hub of sorts however thats long gone. Refer a certain Irish gentlemen on that .
They make more money every time somebody says “Y’allright ahh kid”?
Interesting. Didn’t know that.
Last edited by Bbtengineer; 6th Feb 2024 at 00:04.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAG design the facilities to capture them in the retail franchise partners where they also take a cut .
BTW in direct relation to your question and credit to Scottiedog in 2023 there were 35073 passengers noticeably in transit in the entire year (96 a day) almost certainly down to the Singapore flights . Now there may also be hidden self connects sure enough - But you see the issue - its a tiny number - Compare that to Dublin with a hub carrier they have nearly a million in transit !
Yes they prefer captive passengers \9Thats those checking in or passing passport control on arrival (That ALL UK and Foreign) however fact is the profiles of Manchester are predominantly UK passport holders
BTW in direct relation to your question and credit to Scottiedog in 2023 there were 35073 passengers noticeably in transit in the entire year (96 a day) almost certainly down to the Singapore flights . Now there may also be hidden self connects sure enough - But you see the issue - it’s a tiny number - Compare that to Dublin with a hub carrier they have nearly a million in transit !
BTW in direct relation to your question and credit to Scottiedog in 2023 there were 35073 passengers noticeably in transit in the entire year (96 a day) almost certainly down to the Singapore flights . Now there may also be hidden self connects sure enough - But you see the issue - it’s a tiny number - Compare that to Dublin with a hub carrier they have nearly a million in transit !
I was suggesting that finding new ways of advertising and supporting self connection between non-interlining carriers could be a useful mitigant for all of that.
I still think that’s worthy of discussion even given your reservations.
Last edited by Bbtengineer; 3rd Feb 2024 at 02:24.
Yes they prefer captive passengers -Thats those checking in or passing passport control on arrival (Thats ALL UK and Foreign) however fact is the profiles of Manchester are predominantly UK passport holders .
MAG design the facilities to capture them in the retail franchise partners where they also take a cut .
BTW in direct relation to your question and credit to Scottiedog in 2023 there were 35073 passengers noticeably in transit in the entire year (96 a day) almost certainly down to the Singapore flights . Now there may also be hidden self connects sure enough - But you see the issue - its a tiny number - Compare that to Dublin with a hub carrier they have nearly a million in transit !
MAG design the facilities to capture them in the retail franchise partners where they also take a cut .
BTW in direct relation to your question and credit to Scottiedog in 2023 there were 35073 passengers noticeably in transit in the entire year (96 a day) almost certainly down to the Singapore flights . Now there may also be hidden self connects sure enough - But you see the issue - its a tiny number - Compare that to Dublin with a hub carrier they have nearly a million in transit !
It matters not a jot.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the meantime the TP moves on at pace...Manchester Airport marks one year on from the start of the final phase of its £1.3bn transformation
All sectors, including aviation have to do their bit. Nobody (apart from Thunberg and the extremists groups) are after banning aviation, though personally I would make sure business aviation were treated commensurate to the disproportionate amount of environmental damage it does relative to commercial air transport.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is this. If every sector (road transport, marine, power generation etc) takes that same line then the crisis will develop to a point where we reach tipping point in short order.
All sectors, including aviation have to do their bit. Nobody (apart from Thunberg and the extremists groups) are after banning aviation, though personally I would make sure business aviation were treated commensurate to the disproportionate amount of environmental damage it does relative to commercial air transport.
All sectors, including aviation have to do their bit. Nobody (apart from Thunberg and the extremists groups) are after banning aviation, though personally I would make sure business aviation were treated commensurate to the disproportionate amount of environmental damage it does relative to commercial air transport.
Some of those technologies have marked impacts on the way we all do business , and NOT getting involved ( as many towards the right of domestic politics currently lean) may find they have missed many opportunities at the alter of oil and gas corporations and their current vested interests.
Sure enough they ain’t working for the little guy/gal !
Sort of also agree that the frequent flyers , the associated bribes so called “awards” to fly via hubs may need some reconsideration in the not to distant future ( May be unpalatable for some ) .Those implied extra miles travelled may need to have a tariff not the current tax advantage!
Travel may need to become just a little more expensive again; especially discretionary imho- whilst businesses have already found out that much of the expensive travel budgets are and were largely unnecessary.
Queue the relatively slow recovery in those sectors (caveat a few extraordinary flows -namely Microsoft kiddies from India to look after your company servers for a 20% saving in your wage bill)
Note Sunak has done nothing to reduce this trade in migration flows as it serve his own and family interests.
Do these sound like rants from just stop oil maybe at the fringes . however again just to be clear we are at the beginning of a massive change in the economic models from those of the twentieth century.
BTW I am far from anti- migration , a supporter of restored FOM at the earliest opportunity , and that we have a fully functioning home office and vetting policies for those entering the country .
Now back to aviation , the colour of uniforms, that microwave meal and if Reus/Gerona or Barcelona gets you to Sitges or Salou the quicker.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West UK
Age: 69
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You forgot to add that is your opinion, rather than accepted fact. Many will not agree with you.
Also, to add to some of the other comments, surface transport, heavy industry and power generation contribute massively to pollution and CO2. Those are the industries that need to sort themselves out first. Halving the number of flights worldwide would only reduce CO2 by 1.5%. Whereas a 10% reduction in emissions from power generation, heavy industry and surface transport would make a huge difference.
Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind.
If there was a real crisis you wouldn't be allowed to fly. We grounded aviation for a serious short term viral infection, but somehow this existential threat can be managed by more taxation? Outside of Ireland (well played!) and a few others, most of the west runs a serious spending deficit that needs more and more money. The Thames froze in winter under Henry VIII and Roman Britain was positively balmy compared to today. Climate change has always been with us, it's dynamic with no benchmark. As an analyst, the wilful misuse of "hottest day ever on record" (again) makes my blood boil. By all means care for the environment but you are being taken for mugs by those who treat you like free range tax drones.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, no! That's not what I said. It is most definitely a thing, but target the right industries and culprits, just taxing an easy target like commercial air travel is ridiculous.
Also, to add to some of the other comments, surface transport, heavy industry and power generation contribute massively to pollution and CO2. Those are the industries that need to sort themselves out first. Halving the number of flights worldwide would only reduce CO2 by 1.5%. Whereas a 10% reduction in emissions from power generation, heavy industry and surface transport would make a huge difference.
Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind.
Also, to add to some of the other comments, surface transport, heavy industry and power generation contribute massively to pollution and CO2. Those are the industries that need to sort themselves out first. Halving the number of flights worldwide would only reduce CO2 by 1.5%. Whereas a 10% reduction in emissions from power generation, heavy industry and surface transport would make a huge difference.
Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind.
We may also have to revisit those colossal maritime container ships and specifically how they are fuelled to mitigate the millions of tonnes of pollutants left in their wake
There have been leaps with modern sails and it may be necessary to consider civil nuclear power at some point ; caveat potential security !
Regrettably mothballing of Port Talbot reflects those changes and real humans are laid off as a result. That why the economic models of work (hourly paid) must and indeed will change.
Wind farms (less so wave barriers- that technology simply fails to deliver on not only kilowatts hours produced but introduces environmental concerns of it own) a little of the answer however if the UK needs to produce electricity in the volumes expected we certainly need to revisit nuclear power and soon.
I think we and others made a massive mistake in the 90s on this front - Of course natural gas was cheap and in abundance (locally); the power stations relatively simple and inexpensive to build and compared to coal a magnitude cleaner.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shipping is way worse than aviation but cannot be taxes directly to the consumer.
If there was a real crisis you wouldn't be allowed to fly. We grounded aviation for a serious short term viral infection, but somehow this existential threat can be managed by more taxation? Outside of Ireland (well played!) and a few others, most of the west runs a serious spending deficit that needs more and more money. The Thames froze in winter under Henry VIII and Roman Britain was positively balmy compared to today. Climate change has always been with us, it's dynamic with no benchmark. As an analyst, the wilful misuse of "hottest day ever on record" (again) makes my blood boil. By all means care for the environment but you are being taken for mugs by those who treat you like free range tax drones.
If there was a real crisis you wouldn't be allowed to fly. We grounded aviation for a serious short term viral infection, but somehow this existential threat can be managed by more taxation? Outside of Ireland (well played!) and a few others, most of the west runs a serious spending deficit that needs more and more money. The Thames froze in winter under Henry VIII and Roman Britain was positively balmy compared to today. Climate change has always been with us, it's dynamic with no benchmark. As an analyst, the wilful misuse of "hottest day ever on record" (again) makes my blood boil. By all means care for the environment but you are being taken for mugs by those who treat you like free range tax drones.
As for use of taxation to modify behaviours true in and of itself a blunt instrument however its pretty effective !
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West UK
Age: 69
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way off subject now, but I would like to see some form of taxation on AI programmes to compensate for loss of income from those displaced by it. At present, it’s a one way street for those corporations who own it. Undoubtedly there are numerous potential aviation applications.
Since Earth acquired an atmosphere, climate has never been a constant. It is, by default, a variable. Humankind cannot stop it; our species must instead adapt to it, as we have throughout our existence.
Over the last 20,000 years, global sea level has risen by 400ft. Just 5 - 8 inches of that has occurred since 1900, which encompasses the vast majority of anthropogenic influence on the total.
20,000 years ago, (what we now call) England was connected to continental Europe from Norfolk to Cornwall. The last vestiges of the landbridge became submerged around 8,200 years ago.
7,000 years ago, Mega Lake Chad was believed to be the largest freshwater lake on the planet at 131,400 square miles and upto 520 feet in depth. Today we call this area "The Sahara Desert." Did humankind cause this change?
Just note how short these timescales are. We're not talking anything close to the 65 million years since the great dinosaur extinction. 7,000 years is around 150 human lifespans, given an average age of 47 years.
Whilst those who are fully committed to the secular-religious cult which now promotes so-called "climate emergency" will never admit it, human contribution to climate variation is extremely marginal. Whatever we do, how ever much we spend, humankind CANNOT meaningfully influence the natural and enduring processes of climate. We are King Knut, shouting at the tide to turn back. What we can do is adapt to those new conditions presented by natural change. And don't forget, not all consequences of climate change are bad - there are advantages and disadvantages - though some would have us forbidden to utter that truth. I strongly endorse the proposals of Bjorn Lomborg to mitigate (not prevent - we can't do that) the effects of climate change in a practical and constructive way. We should be motivated to tackle pollution, but not through fantasy and threat.
I have long advocated for leading figures in the aviation industry (and others) to call out the absolute fear-porn climate BS promoted by extremist interests. Why are we allowing our industries and way of life be persecuted by climate zealots who cherry-pick favourable data and ostracise expert academics who speak the truth? Farmers on the continent are finally showing the red card to their crackpot politicians. Good on them. The sooner the airline industry has the b***s to speak afew home truths as well, the better. Surely we have some well-respected execs who dare speak up for common sense?
Stand up for the GOOD that international travel brings! Support the environment through scientific advance, not luddite bans. The movement cap currently enforced at DUB and the recently-attempted version at AMS are lunacy. The zealots backing these will never be satisfied ... they always want more. Flight-shaming and random flying bans will proliferate if not opposed. We in the industry MUST stand up for common sense.
Sorry that this post is less than Manchester-specific, but this airport is in the firing line as much as any other.
Over the last 20,000 years, global sea level has risen by 400ft. Just 5 - 8 inches of that has occurred since 1900, which encompasses the vast majority of anthropogenic influence on the total.
20,000 years ago, (what we now call) England was connected to continental Europe from Norfolk to Cornwall. The last vestiges of the landbridge became submerged around 8,200 years ago.
7,000 years ago, Mega Lake Chad was believed to be the largest freshwater lake on the planet at 131,400 square miles and upto 520 feet in depth. Today we call this area "The Sahara Desert." Did humankind cause this change?
Just note how short these timescales are. We're not talking anything close to the 65 million years since the great dinosaur extinction. 7,000 years is around 150 human lifespans, given an average age of 47 years.
Whilst those who are fully committed to the secular-religious cult which now promotes so-called "climate emergency" will never admit it, human contribution to climate variation is extremely marginal. Whatever we do, how ever much we spend, humankind CANNOT meaningfully influence the natural and enduring processes of climate. We are King Knut, shouting at the tide to turn back. What we can do is adapt to those new conditions presented by natural change. And don't forget, not all consequences of climate change are bad - there are advantages and disadvantages - though some would have us forbidden to utter that truth. I strongly endorse the proposals of Bjorn Lomborg to mitigate (not prevent - we can't do that) the effects of climate change in a practical and constructive way. We should be motivated to tackle pollution, but not through fantasy and threat.
I have long advocated for leading figures in the aviation industry (and others) to call out the absolute fear-porn climate BS promoted by extremist interests. Why are we allowing our industries and way of life be persecuted by climate zealots who cherry-pick favourable data and ostracise expert academics who speak the truth? Farmers on the continent are finally showing the red card to their crackpot politicians. Good on them. The sooner the airline industry has the b***s to speak afew home truths as well, the better. Surely we have some well-respected execs who dare speak up for common sense?
Stand up for the GOOD that international travel brings! Support the environment through scientific advance, not luddite bans. The movement cap currently enforced at DUB and the recently-attempted version at AMS are lunacy. The zealots backing these will never be satisfied ... they always want more. Flight-shaming and random flying bans will proliferate if not opposed. We in the industry MUST stand up for common sense.
Sorry that this post is less than Manchester-specific, but this airport is in the firing line as much as any other.