Manchester-3

[Rutan16]

Originally Posted by Navpi

If they WANTED to they could have done it 1, 2, years ago?

What will change now ?

New metal is really for expansion at LHR, why take a chance on Manchester when the critical mass at LHR means every new route is a winner ?

Its a nice wish list but any airline operating ex MAN would have to have a pretty compelling case to expand up here if there true homebase is elsewhere

VIR seem to be simply shuffling the pack. Vegas is however of course welcome. There SHOULD be a market.

Even talk of EI Imay be misplaced with the two A330.

Is that due to a genuine desire to grow the MAN profile or the cap at DUB ?

There is a caveat that the recent netflix series Fool Me Once which is the number 1 drama in 2024 on that platform has just passed 37m views worldwide.

Its filmed at Arley Hall , Cheshire. Is there not a case for some VisitBritain US Downtonesque promotion.....to haul in those Americans?

Again new metal is neutral NOT for any significant expansion at all with current confirmed orders .

By spring 2025 a net increase of 1 A339 and a restoration to the prior COVID fleet of high density capacity in the case of the 350-1000.

[TURIN]

Originally Posted by Sioltach Dubh Glas

Is that 10 return flights per week!

I assume you mean 5 return per week equals 10??

Back to the same as it was pre covid.

[Bbtengineer]

Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot

If you want daily MAN-ATL in winter then you need a smaller aircraft, a Delta B763 or an A321N in future. Not an option with Virgin.
Navpi says : "LHR is circa 120, LA is now "hourly" !"
If you continue to frame your own success in tems of another you will go mad, LHR is far enough away to make connecting there a pain and the BA option is awful. LHR-LAX is only 12 daily reflecting the entertainment industry :
AA x 3 BA x 3
VS x 3 DL x1
UA x2
No comparison with MAN, DUB is a fairer proxy.

It’s interesting to me the assumption here that what they need is smaller aircraft and so what they don’t need is more passengers.

Is there any way to adopt a less defeatist way of thinking?

[chaps1954]

It`s not a defeatist attitude either 5 days week A330 or 7 days a week with a smaller aircraft whixh actually would be more pax.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by Bbtengineer

It’s interesting to me the assumption here that what they need is smaller aircraft and so what they don’t need is more passengers.

Is there any way to adopt a less defeatist way of thinking?

If you want high end business traffic then daily reliability is a huge benefit. 4-5 days a week is fine for leisure and volume but you're competing with business travellers addicted to BA Exec Club redemptions and points and not offering them the best option to switch to flying direct to the US from MAN.

[ATNotts]

Isn't it really all about whether the airline wants high revenue passengers, in which case the daily service at business friendly times is the answer, or if volume leisure traffic is the goal then lower frequency is acceptable. The clever (supposedly) people within the business's financial department probably know, or believe they know how much front end traffic they could attract operating daily in the low season and made their decisions based on that assumption.

[Navpi]

Interesting article in The Times today where passenger throughput is discussed at 40m 45m, 50m

I'm struggling to see what changes could be achieved to get anywhere near those figures.

We are talking a 50% increase on the current 29m to achieve 45m.

Are we relying on 200 seaters becoming 300 on every flight ?

The runway configuration can't really be tweaked and whilst CW would want to see the utilisation he had at LGW I fear he may struggle.

Worth saying that LGW has 200+ stands, as well nearly double that of Manchester.

Its been repeated ad nauseum MAN is totally boxed in.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by ATNotts

Isn't it really all about whether the airline wants high revenue passengers, in which case the daily service at business friendly times is the answer, or if volume leisure traffic is the goal then lower frequency is acceptable. The clever (supposedly) people within the business's financial department probably know, or believe they know how much front end traffic they could attract operating daily in the low season and made their decisions based on that assumption.

Yup, exactly that. Some routes fill from the front, some from the back, clever airlines manage both. Look at BA's LGW config and VS' leisure A350. Thomas Cook made West Coast work as it was manly P2P leisure and frequency was secondary. American proved the point that a reliable as clockwork daily service to a US hub on a right sized aircraft would attract business traffic via ORD, but that was a much less competitive world and well before they got into bed with BA. Maybe what's on offer is actually fine for the current market and demand and as I get older I need to look back less fondly?

[JerseyAero]

[QUOTE=Navpi;11597030]Interesting article in The Times today where passenger throughput is discussed at 40m 45m, 50m, I'm struggling to see what changes could be achieved to get anywhere near those figures.

This report claims that MAG has scaled back its target growth due to the cancellation of HS2 North but still aiming at 50M - fully agree that it is difficult to see where the extra capacity is coming from with the current TP plans.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...on-13-02-2024/

[Domino2885]

If they want to reach 50 mppa where is the extra space and capacity going to come from? Most articles and plans have T2 at 25 million. That means the capacity of the 2 terminals would have to be 25 million each. The figures aren't adding up and there seems to be no information forthcoming from MAN themselves.

[Navpi]

[QUOTE=JerseyAero;11597186]

Originally Posted by Navpi

Interesting article in The Times today where passenger throughput is discussed at 40m 45m, 50m, I'm struggling to see what changes could be achieved to get anywhere near those figures.

This report claims that MAG has scaled back its target growth due to the cancellation of HS2 North but still aiming at 50M - fully agree that it is difficult to see where the extra capacity is coming from with the current TP plans.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...on-13-02-2024/

I'm struggling re 35m let alone 50m.

CW was very bullush last year suggesting that if LGW can do 48m on a single runway, why not Manchester with two !!!!

[chaps1954]

Manchester is only a bit short of 30 Million so 35 M should be no problem as movements wise July 2005 was 22555 compared with July 2023 18147 so plenty to play with, aircraft in general are larger

[OzzyOzBorn]

Runway capacity should not be a problem - although peak periods will be fully subscribed as one would expect. But terminal capacity and apron space presents a much sterner challenge. Expansion, in addition to ongoing new-for-old replacement, is needed.

[Bbtengineer]

Originally Posted by ATNotts

Isn't it really all about whether the airline wants high revenue passengers, in which case the daily service at business friendly times is the answer, or if volume leisure traffic is the goal then lower frequency is acceptable. The clever (supposedly) people within the business's financial department probably know, or believe they know how much front end traffic they could attract operating daily in the low season and made their decisions based on that assumption.

I guess I’m trying to challenge this thought process.

That it’s all and only about what the airline wants. That the airport can do nothing.

Turning this on its head, the airline frankly doesn’t care where the passengers came from, just that they did.

I will again ask why Warsaw is advertised as a connection point NYC to PEK but Manchester isn’t.

It’s not because the “connection” cannot be done, it’s because nobody even considers it because it isn’t advertised.

That’s marketing, not airline operations.

This has to be ripe for disruption.

[azz767]

Originally Posted by chaps1954

Manchester is only a bit short of 30 Million so 35 M should be no problem as movements wise July 2005 was 22555 compared with July 2023 18147 so plenty to play with, aircraft in general are larger

Movements is all well and good but are all those seats being filled? In 2005 in the charter market alone there was Thomson, first choice, monarch, Thomas cook, my travel, excel and more. Long haul there was US carriers, PIA etc. and you would assume the majority were all full every flight. Now, EZY, RYR and Jet2 can take off not full but because of the add ins they charge can make their money on a 70% full flight.

[easyflyer83]

Originally Posted by azz767

Movements is all well and good but are all those seats being filled? In 2005 in the charter market alone there was Thomson, first choice, monarch, Thomas cook, my travel, excel and more. Long haul there was US carriers, PIA etc. and you would assume the majority were all full every flight. Now, EZY, RYR and Jet2 can take off not full but because of the add ins they charge can make their money on a 70% full flight.

Typically, the LCC model commands a higher load factor than 70%. Margins are tight.

[GulfTraveller]

30 million, I assume, is passenger numbers, not movements.

As far as LCCs are concerned, easyflyer83 is quite right. They work on a ‘L/F active, yield passive’ basis. So L/Fs are very important to them.

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by easyflyer83

Typically, the LCC model commands a higher load factor than 70%. Margins are tight.

RYR have average load factors across their system around 90%

https://investor.ryanair.com/traffic/

[Navpi]

Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn

Runway capacity should not be a problem - although peak periods will be fully subscribed as one would expect. But terminal capacity and apron space presents a much sterner challenge. Expansion, in addition to ongoing new-for-old replacement, is needed.

Indeed CW came from LGW. Ok single runway ops but 200+ stands.

Did no-one in MAG think about the implications of surrounding the airport with car parks ?

[MANFOD]

QUOTE=Navpi;11598374]Indeed CW came from LGW. Ok single runway ops but 200+ stands.

Did no-one in MAG think about the implications of surrounding the airport with car parks ?[/QUOTE]
And didn't they sell off some land for non-aviation related use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn
Runway capacity should not be a problem - although peak periods will be fully subscribed as one would expect. But terminal capacity and apron space presents a much sterner challenge. Expansion, in addition to ongoing new-for-old replacement, is needed.((/quote)

If runway slots are full subscribed at peak periods, isn't the challenge to attract airlines and flights at the quieter times of the day, which presumably would be with non-based a/c for the LCCs or foreign carriers? Based airlines, even if there was room for a couple more a/c for overnight parking, wouldn't want them idle until a runway slot was available after say 09.00, would they, if it caused issues for the rest of the day's scheduling?.
But I agree with Ozzy; the more immediate problem is apron space and terminal capacity.
Incidentally, is there any scope for increasing the max. number of movements when DRO in force?