Manchester-3
It's stretching it to say the issues were insurmountable for the A380 gates, it's more of a cost benefit analysis.
GLA added infrastructure to a 1994 build pier.
MAN added infrastructure to a 1960s build pier.
LGW added the infrastructure to a 1988 build pier.
If they'd wanted to add an A380 gate, then down the end of the new Pier 1 would have been relatively straightforward, if not a little more expensive on a 2020 new build. But if the plan was to add them onto the next phase then it's all fair IMHO.
GLA added infrastructure to a 1994 build pier.
MAN added infrastructure to a 1960s build pier.
LGW added the infrastructure to a 1988 build pier.
If they'd wanted to add an A380 gate, then down the end of the new Pier 1 would have been relatively straightforward, if not a little more expensive on a 2020 new build. But if the plan was to add them onto the next phase then it's all fair IMHO.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've hit upon it. The plan was to include A380 gates as part of the next phase (opening 2022) at Pier 3, and latterly reviewed to be Pier 2. That's the point at which I bowed out. Of course since then we've had the world turned on its head by Covid, so who knows. We've also seen the end of the A380 programme which makes accommodating this unique aircraft type all the more marginal in a cost-benefit analysis.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think thats unreasonable to have 1 gate and to compromise the hundreds of Narrowbody, Regional Jets and Turboprops that operate at MAN for 3 daily A380s? With this kind of demand only one or two gates make sense and the current A380 user has their own lounge at T1, so I can see why it was not a priority. I can't quite see from the pictures online, can the A380 be boarded from M2L and U1L at the same time at MAN? It looks like the angles might not work, but that might be the photos I have seen. It might not be such a big issue, its all Economy on the lower deck, which I hadn't realised. Even in the two-class version Business is a the rear of the upper deck, so the big seats never have to glimpse the masses trudging through their cabin. It looks like EK have configured the aircraft to suit airport layouts, rather than a more conventional layout like SQ and BA chose.
Is there any thoughts at present on the T1/T3 situation? As I understand it T3 itself is closed, but some of the gate area are used for Domestic flights? In truth I do think the Check-In, Security and Concourse areas of T3 have seen better days and (were) quite short of space for the number of FR 737s that used it, but the gate areas are pretty acceptable.
Is there any thoughts at present on the T1/T3 situation? As I understand it T3 itself is closed, but some of the gate area are used for Domestic flights? In truth I do think the Check-In, Security and Concourse areas of T3 have seen better days and (were) quite short of space for the number of FR 737s that used it, but the gate areas are pretty acceptable.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the A380 at MAN is boarded/de-boarded via L1 on the lower deck and L2 on the upper deck (please correct me if necessary).
Yes, T3 is closed so no access to check in, security or immigration. However, Loganair, Eastern, Blue Islands and BA are using various T3 stands. On arrival passengers are directed to the T3 domestic arrivals baggage hall and exit T3 arrivals.
Some Ryanair arrivals & departures are used but the passengers are bussed to & from the aircraft from T1.
My personal opinion is that T3 check in areas are better than the cramped T1…but could do with a little spruce up.
Security is a nightmare like T1, once you have more than 2/3 Ryanair flights and only a few lanes open it’s chaotic! So the staffing levels need sorting out first to ensure adequate lanes are staffed at the peak times!
The immigration in T3 has to be the worst experience due to the small size for the number of flights & passengers it handles! I don’t know if there is an option to extend but something needs to be done urgently! Baggage reclaim is ok but again needs some TLC.
The gate areas are ok to be fair, decent enough seating at most gates and less cramped than most T1 gates!
When they finally reopen T3 it’ll probably ideal for Ryanair given their growing expansion and the fact most other airlines will be in T2 by then.
Yes, T3 is closed so no access to check in, security or immigration. However, Loganair, Eastern, Blue Islands and BA are using various T3 stands. On arrival passengers are directed to the T3 domestic arrivals baggage hall and exit T3 arrivals.
Some Ryanair arrivals & departures are used but the passengers are bussed to & from the aircraft from T1.
My personal opinion is that T3 check in areas are better than the cramped T1…but could do with a little spruce up.
Security is a nightmare like T1, once you have more than 2/3 Ryanair flights and only a few lanes open it’s chaotic! So the staffing levels need sorting out first to ensure adequate lanes are staffed at the peak times!
The immigration in T3 has to be the worst experience due to the small size for the number of flights & passengers it handles! I don’t know if there is an option to extend but something needs to be done urgently! Baggage reclaim is ok but again needs some TLC.
The gate areas are ok to be fair, decent enough seating at most gates and less cramped than most T1 gates!
When they finally reopen T3 it’ll probably ideal for Ryanair given their growing expansion and the fact most other airlines will be in T2 by then.
Domestic and CTA traffic alone would not come close to justifying the capacity represented by T3, even supplemented by Oneworld's very modest international throughput. And it is unlikely that affected carriers would welcome split-terminal operations either. Meanwhile, if Ryanair were to increase to 19 based units for S22 as envisaged, they would certainly require at least a significant proportion of T3 capacity. There would not be sufficient room for them in T1 based on 2019 levels of demand across all carriers. However, rumoured suggestions that MAG is contemplating T1/T3 as a single combined operation would offer a helpful solution.
T3 suffers the further disadvantage that it is poorly-located for domestic passengers needing to interline via other terminals. And those customers currently ending up outside the T3 main entrance face a substantial hike to T2 with no travellators available and no inter-terminal shuttle bus in operation. That is just too much. The sooner domestic traffic can be accommodated in T2 the better.
T3 suffers the further disadvantage that it is poorly-located for domestic passengers needing to interline via other terminals. And those customers currently ending up outside the T3 main entrance face a substantial hike to T2 with no travellators available and no inter-terminal shuttle bus in operation. That is just too much. The sooner domestic traffic can be accommodated in T2 the better.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rutan16
why would this be? And what would FR and easyJet do with their flights to non-CTA destinations?
T3 did/does have some good lounge options, it was more the security and concourse areas that are unable to cope. Given that domestic airlines and Ryanair didn’t need large numbers of check-in desks prior to COVID I had wondered if reducing the size of the check-in hall and putting security there would have been a solution. With the post-COVID paperwork I’m not sure thats a good idea. Check-In seems to be the rate limiting phase at the moment.
T3 would suit a self-contained Ryanair or easyJet operation quite well and is fairly close to the original vision of T3 as a Domestic + BA operation. This might sound insane, but if MAN do think of using T1 & T3 as one facility could the Security and Lounges in T3 be used as some sort of PremiAir wing option? It might work quite well with small numbers of passengers who pay for a quicker/easier option than the main T1. We know how much MAG loves to monetise any opportunity.
why would this be? And what would FR and easyJet do with their flights to non-CTA destinations?
T3 did/does have some good lounge options, it was more the security and concourse areas that are unable to cope. Given that domestic airlines and Ryanair didn’t need large numbers of check-in desks prior to COVID I had wondered if reducing the size of the check-in hall and putting security there would have been a solution. With the post-COVID paperwork I’m not sure thats a good idea. Check-In seems to be the rate limiting phase at the moment.
T3 would suit a self-contained Ryanair or easyJet operation quite well and is fairly close to the original vision of T3 as a Domestic + BA operation. This might sound insane, but if MAN do think of using T1 & T3 as one facility could the Security and Lounges in T3 be used as some sort of PremiAir wing option? It might work quite well with small numbers of passengers who pay for a quicker/easier option than the main T1. We know how much MAG loves to monetise any opportunity.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re combining work be least worst scenario .
Its just a partition wall anyway.
Ozzy the presence of Ryanair IS the fundamental issue; too many peaks and troughs through at terminal designed (prior the the eastern extension) for a quite different purpose.
The core building infrastructure that is T3 (BA and originally T1a Domestic) is simply not of a size nor ergonomically designed with a four wave 19 aircraft 189 seat operation in mind.
As for split operation what would you be talking about here?
Towing aircraft from one pier to another happens thousands of times round the world
Indeed bussing happens right now at this very airport !
Oh and as many carriers sub contract ground handling what differences does it matter whether at 46 11, or 206 to the crew to be honest .
Its just a partition wall anyway.
Ozzy the presence of Ryanair IS the fundamental issue; too many peaks and troughs through at terminal designed (prior the the eastern extension) for a quite different purpose.
The core building infrastructure that is T3 (BA and originally T1a Domestic) is simply not of a size nor ergonomically designed with a four wave 19 aircraft 189 seat operation in mind.
As for split operation what would you be talking about here?
Towing aircraft from one pier to another happens thousands of times round the world
Indeed bussing happens right now at this very airport !
Oh and as many carriers sub contract ground handling what differences does it matter whether at 46 11, or 206 to the crew to be honest .
Last edited by Rutan16; 20th Nov 2021 at 21:23.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EZY/RYR in their many guises would continue to use T1 and/or T2 for EU/Magreb/Egypt/Israel and Red Sea operations
"it was more the security and concourse areas that are unable to cope" - THIS is the issue ! it can't be resolved within the core of the available infrastructure - T3 doesn't function !
"it was more the security and concourse areas that are unable to cope" - THIS is the issue ! it can't be resolved within the core of the available infrastructure - T3 doesn't function !
[
Ryanair is indeed the issue. BUT ... they can't be discussed as an inconvenience / afterthought. They're on course to establish themselves as by far MAN's largest carrier by passenger throughput. It's not just the based fleet; they schedule a substantial number of visits by overseas-based aircraft as well, and these appear between the waves of MAN-based units. They usually fly full or close to full (C-19 excepted) - upto 195 seats per movement. As we emerge from C-19, Ryanair is the ONLY carrier which has returned to anything close to full strength at MAN. They're dominant, and it makes sense for them to push home a slot and terminal access land-grab whilst the going is good (from their perspective). Building up capacity in this dire market won't come without financial pain ... it is a big investment for the future, when additional grandfathered slots at attractive times will reap rewards for the long-term. Further to this, FlyBe 2.0 still holds the original FlyBe slot portfolio at MAN, along with access to scarce T3 capacity. Their slot horde is significantly larger than that of TUI, a major based carrier. If they genuinely plan to use all those slots, good luck to them. But does anyone really expect that? If not, Ryanair is the company best placed to benefit. And MAN would be very wise to accommodate them. Especially as Ryanair is simultaneously MAG's core partner at STN and a substantial passenger operation at EMA.
Your premise puts ONEWORLD first. They're a valued customer at MAN, but their ops are way, way behind Ryanair and EasyJet in importance. BA Mainline operates a Shuttle to LHR. A320 family aircraft around six times per day. Sun-Air operates BA-branded J328's on a niche programme to Scandinavia (currently C-19 suspended). BA Cityflyer holds historic slots for a weekend leisure programme in S22, but may not return in reality. American has exited MAN, and any return looks like a single daily short-season operation at best. Iberia Express is less than daily to MAD. Vueling is upto ten flights per week to BCN, and recently shunned MAN in choosing six British Isles airports to link with ORY. Finnair's normal (non-covid) schedule is upto two flights per day. That leaves Qatar, Cathay and RAM (suspended) who would probably have no wish to use T3 anyway. So ONEWORLD - whilst valued at MAN - is well down the list in volume terms. RYANAIR IS NUMBER ONE, providing multiples of the capacity ONEWORLD does. They need to be front and centre of MAN's thinking.
In T3 and T1, MAG must plan their operations first and foremost around the requirements of Ryanair and EasyJet (TUI and Jet2 are T2 operators). The relatively small Oneworld operation should not in any way be prioritised over them. Personally, I have long advocated merging T1 and T3 at the earliest opportunity. It is indeed just a dividing wall, and an integrated security and immigration system can't come soon enough. This would allow for the Ryanair based fleet to overspill on to some traditional T1 stands where needed, and the flexibility would be a positive for EasyJet too. This would also offer MAN the breathing room to allocate sufficient slots and gates to accommodate Ryanair's full proposed programme for S22, which is difficult to do whilst a significant proportion of T3 is set aside for FlyBe 2.0 ops which may never materialise.
In the longer term, I would advocate using combined T1/T3 as a dedicated LCC terminal with Ryanair and EasyJet the core users. Potentially Wizz too if erstwhile proposals for an initial 4-unit base ever come to fruition. Some of the walking distances to gates from legacy T1 security would be longer than we've been accustomed to, but no more so than at airports such as DUB, AMS and CDG. BA-branded ops would be far better served by relocating to T2 ASAP, and the smaller programmes of IBS, VLG and FIN could easily be moved over as well. QTR and CPA are in T2 already. RAM has not resumed MAN ops, but there is no logic in them being allocated T3 should they return. Aer Lingus Transatlantic schedules which codeshare with BA also operate from T2 already.
Briefly addressing your other objections, I have no issue with bussing where required (and never implied that). Terminal stands are preferred, but bussing is necessary to enable efficient use of resources at times. However, any notion you have that towing aircraft to and from T3 on a regular basis would be a workable long-term solution is absolutely wrong. This would frequently conflict with taxiway traffic flows, causing a major logistical headache and constant delays. An element of towing is inevitable (ideally during the night), but it must never be considered a go-to solution for regular daytime turnarounds. If in doubt, ask LHR.
Ryanair is indeed the issue. BUT ... they can't be discussed as an inconvenience / afterthought. They're on course to establish themselves as by far MAN's largest carrier by passenger throughput. It's not just the based fleet; they schedule a substantial number of visits by overseas-based aircraft as well, and these appear between the waves of MAN-based units. They usually fly full or close to full (C-19 excepted) - upto 195 seats per movement. As we emerge from C-19, Ryanair is the ONLY carrier which has returned to anything close to full strength at MAN. They're dominant, and it makes sense for them to push home a slot and terminal access land-grab whilst the going is good (from their perspective). Building up capacity in this dire market won't come without financial pain ... it is a big investment for the future, when additional grandfathered slots at attractive times will reap rewards for the long-term. Further to this, FlyBe 2.0 still holds the original FlyBe slot portfolio at MAN, along with access to scarce T3 capacity. Their slot horde is significantly larger than that of TUI, a major based carrier. If they genuinely plan to use all those slots, good luck to them. But does anyone really expect that? If not, Ryanair is the company best placed to benefit. And MAN would be very wise to accommodate them. Especially as Ryanair is simultaneously MAG's core partner at STN and a substantial passenger operation at EMA.
Your premise puts ONEWORLD first. They're a valued customer at MAN, but their ops are way, way behind Ryanair and EasyJet in importance. BA Mainline operates a Shuttle to LHR. A320 family aircraft around six times per day. Sun-Air operates BA-branded J328's on a niche programme to Scandinavia (currently C-19 suspended). BA Cityflyer holds historic slots for a weekend leisure programme in S22, but may not return in reality. American has exited MAN, and any return looks like a single daily short-season operation at best. Iberia Express is less than daily to MAD. Vueling is upto ten flights per week to BCN, and recently shunned MAN in choosing six British Isles airports to link with ORY. Finnair's normal (non-covid) schedule is upto two flights per day. That leaves Qatar, Cathay and RAM (suspended) who would probably have no wish to use T3 anyway. So ONEWORLD - whilst valued at MAN - is well down the list in volume terms. RYANAIR IS NUMBER ONE, providing multiples of the capacity ONEWORLD does. They need to be front and centre of MAN's thinking.
In T3 and T1, MAG must plan their operations first and foremost around the requirements of Ryanair and EasyJet (TUI and Jet2 are T2 operators). The relatively small Oneworld operation should not in any way be prioritised over them. Personally, I have long advocated merging T1 and T3 at the earliest opportunity. It is indeed just a dividing wall, and an integrated security and immigration system can't come soon enough. This would allow for the Ryanair based fleet to overspill on to some traditional T1 stands where needed, and the flexibility would be a positive for EasyJet too. This would also offer MAN the breathing room to allocate sufficient slots and gates to accommodate Ryanair's full proposed programme for S22, which is difficult to do whilst a significant proportion of T3 is set aside for FlyBe 2.0 ops which may never materialise.
In the longer term, I would advocate using combined T1/T3 as a dedicated LCC terminal with Ryanair and EasyJet the core users. Potentially Wizz too if erstwhile proposals for an initial 4-unit base ever come to fruition. Some of the walking distances to gates from legacy T1 security would be longer than we've been accustomed to, but no more so than at airports such as DUB, AMS and CDG. BA-branded ops would be far better served by relocating to T2 ASAP, and the smaller programmes of IBS, VLG and FIN could easily be moved over as well. QTR and CPA are in T2 already. RAM has not resumed MAN ops, but there is no logic in them being allocated T3 should they return. Aer Lingus Transatlantic schedules which codeshare with BA also operate from T2 already.
Briefly addressing your other objections, I have no issue with bussing where required (and never implied that). Terminal stands are preferred, but bussing is necessary to enable efficient use of resources at times. However, any notion you have that towing aircraft to and from T3 on a regular basis would be a workable long-term solution is absolutely wrong. This would frequently conflict with taxiway traffic flows, causing a major logistical headache and constant delays. An element of towing is inevitable (ideally during the night), but it must never be considered a go-to solution for regular daytime turnarounds. If in doubt, ask LHR.
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Where ever I am
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always with Ozzyozborn's responses he has placed another very well thought out and argued (I'm not saying you are arguing), response.
Last edited by Sioltach Dubh Glas; 20th Nov 2021 at 19:14.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am far from devaluing Ryanair for MAG Group they are THE major client , what I am saying is that T3 at Manchester is simply unsuited to their, yes vast operations and what's more MAG and Ryanair know it ! For Ryanair the practical purpose of T3 is runway proximity; they couldn't care less about the terminal infrastructure to be honest.
RYR/EZY in their many guises are massive for MAG a magnitude more so than BA Regional alone ever were . However returning to T3 - BA/AY/IB/CX/QR/AT and possibly AA along with CTA flights and domestics just seem to work and yes a few RYR and EZY CTA/domestic would fill the gap.
EZY seem happy at T1 . Many more carriers will move to T2 and the planned expansion must happen and Ryanair can use T1 along with EZY.
BTW we aren't far apart or even reading a different hymn book .
I think we both agree that T3 infrastructure doesn't work today and cramming a quart into pint pot amplifies the terminals design and foot print constraints .
As for towing again happens at just about every airport inconvenient perhaps but so be it - I think your hint is MAN ground handlers might object to a bit of ACTUAL work , the same bodies that find diversions and adhoc operations rather more than a chore . Now that's not guys on the field ( far too lean) more rather middle management oh and under bidding on contracts.
As for Vueiling and Orly well I think the market to Paris is well covered with EZY/AF and even Ryanair into Beauvais right now.
Going on to FlyBe2 concentrating on BHX would make more economic sense rather the returning to the mirroring of twin hubs - That crippled them and BA Regional before them . Flying Scotland/Belfast and Southampton to Europe via both Manchester and Birmingham just didn't work !
Choose one, consolidate and if possible dominate as a boutique carrier .
RYR/EZY in their many guises are massive for MAG a magnitude more so than BA Regional alone ever were . However returning to T3 - BA/AY/IB/CX/QR/AT and possibly AA along with CTA flights and domestics just seem to work and yes a few RYR and EZY CTA/domestic would fill the gap.
EZY seem happy at T1 . Many more carriers will move to T2 and the planned expansion must happen and Ryanair can use T1 along with EZY.
BTW we aren't far apart or even reading a different hymn book .
I think we both agree that T3 infrastructure doesn't work today and cramming a quart into pint pot amplifies the terminals design and foot print constraints .
As for towing again happens at just about every airport inconvenient perhaps but so be it - I think your hint is MAN ground handlers might object to a bit of ACTUAL work , the same bodies that find diversions and adhoc operations rather more than a chore . Now that's not guys on the field ( far too lean) more rather middle management oh and under bidding on contracts.
As for Vueiling and Orly well I think the market to Paris is well covered with EZY/AF and even Ryanair into Beauvais right now.
Going on to FlyBe2 concentrating on BHX would make more economic sense rather the returning to the mirroring of twin hubs - That crippled them and BA Regional before them . Flying Scotland/Belfast and Southampton to Europe via both Manchester and Birmingham just didn't work !
Choose one, consolidate and if possible dominate as a boutique carrier .
Last edited by Rutan16; 21st Nov 2021 at 13:37.
I concur with many of your points, but for me the optimal solution is to operate T1/T3 as a single integrated unit, rather than jumping through hoops to force T3 to work in it's present form. I suspect that trying to juggle carriers as you suggest would really annoy Cathay Pacific and Qatar Airways, which whilst being Oneworld members have negligible interline business with BA at MAN. Iberia, Finnair and RAM have little reason to be alongside the Shuttle either. MAN doesn't function as a hub for Oneworld carriers. They wouldn't shun interline business, but it simply doesn't tend to connect over MAN in any volume for this alliance. On the other side of the equation, I suspect that Ryanair would be absolutely livid if told they were being shifted out of a reopened T3 against their will. Let me guess: a significant number of based units would be on their way to new homes PDQ. Ryanair don't mess about when an airport operator hacks them off. They see themselves as the primary T3 incumbent - they love it there - and if evicted to accommodate a relatively small competing operation at MAN, one would certainly expect them to kick off bigtime. And under the circumstances you propose, I wouldn't blame them. Best not prod that particular hornets' nest!
Other points: the towing issue is more a problem in terms of aircraft under tow going against the flow of taxying traffic. It's a pain in the proverbials and will be held out of the way with active flights given priority. That implies recurring knock-on delays.
Re Paris: FlyBe was a big player on MAN-CDG. Around four flights per day IIRC, using their larger E175/E195 equipment. They're gone. Air France has increased to a basic 3x daily schedule; EasyJet is active on the route too. But ORY is attractive in it's own right, offering great domestic connections to Regional France. And ORY is also favoured by many headed for southern districts of Paris itself, in the way that LGW is to Sussex etc. I would expect a daily service to do well (C-19 restrictions excepted).
I do think that there is a role for FlyBe 2.0 at MAN, but not a full replication of the legacy network. MAN wasn't their problem. Their Embraer leases were crippling. Their operations in Scandinavia didn't work out. They spread themselves too thin around several niche bases. But going back to basics could work for them. There is a vacancy for 'business day' morning and evening services to key regional cities well-suited to Q400 ops. Both Eastern and Blue Islands have not yet committed to double daily on the routes they have taken. Their reasoning is understandable, but it leaves the door open to a less risk-averse challenger. And a freshly-funded debt-free FlyBe 2.0 could be that. Where FlyBe 2.0 could come unstuck is that their horde of attractive peak-time slots at MAN will be very much in demand if forfeited under 'use it or lose it' rules once they're fully re-instated. Once Ryanair, EasyJet, Jet2 etc. have them, they won't be easily relinquished. So FlyBe 2.0 have a big decision to make re ops at MAN, and they can't dawdle too long.
EDIT: Just an additional thought. Perhaps FlyBe 2.0's owners might have designs on trying to sell off their MAN slots. Jet2 paid a handsome sum for those of the former Thomas Cook operation, though that feels like a world away from the economic environment we know today. I felt really sorry for Jet2 as covid engulfed life as we know it so soon after they won the auction for those slots. But, whilst slot values may be priced very differently post-covid, peak time slots at MAN are far from worthless. Perhaps some or all of them might change hands if the right offer comes along.
Other points: the towing issue is more a problem in terms of aircraft under tow going against the flow of taxying traffic. It's a pain in the proverbials and will be held out of the way with active flights given priority. That implies recurring knock-on delays.
Re Paris: FlyBe was a big player on MAN-CDG. Around four flights per day IIRC, using their larger E175/E195 equipment. They're gone. Air France has increased to a basic 3x daily schedule; EasyJet is active on the route too. But ORY is attractive in it's own right, offering great domestic connections to Regional France. And ORY is also favoured by many headed for southern districts of Paris itself, in the way that LGW is to Sussex etc. I would expect a daily service to do well (C-19 restrictions excepted).
I do think that there is a role for FlyBe 2.0 at MAN, but not a full replication of the legacy network. MAN wasn't their problem. Their Embraer leases were crippling. Their operations in Scandinavia didn't work out. They spread themselves too thin around several niche bases. But going back to basics could work for them. There is a vacancy for 'business day' morning and evening services to key regional cities well-suited to Q400 ops. Both Eastern and Blue Islands have not yet committed to double daily on the routes they have taken. Their reasoning is understandable, but it leaves the door open to a less risk-averse challenger. And a freshly-funded debt-free FlyBe 2.0 could be that. Where FlyBe 2.0 could come unstuck is that their horde of attractive peak-time slots at MAN will be very much in demand if forfeited under 'use it or lose it' rules once they're fully re-instated. Once Ryanair, EasyJet, Jet2 etc. have them, they won't be easily relinquished. So FlyBe 2.0 have a big decision to make re ops at MAN, and they can't dawdle too long.
EDIT: Just an additional thought. Perhaps FlyBe 2.0's owners might have designs on trying to sell off their MAN slots. Jet2 paid a handsome sum for those of the former Thomas Cook operation, though that feels like a world away from the economic environment we know today. I felt really sorry for Jet2 as covid engulfed life as we know it so soon after they won the auction for those slots. But, whilst slot values may be priced very differently post-covid, peak time slots at MAN are far from worthless. Perhaps some or all of them might change hands if the right offer comes along.
Last edited by OzzyOzBorn; 20th Nov 2021 at 23:43. Reason: Further thoughts on FlyBe 2.0 slot options.
Where are we getting the notion that Ryanair love being in T3? It has no more than 12 B737 sized contact stands and is shared with BA amongst others. The taxi difference between T1 and T3 is negligible, whereas T1 has way more B737 sized stands. The CX in T3 with a fleet of 189 seaters is sub par for all all concerned in infrastructure built for mainly sub-100 seat aircraft. In BAU, how much bussing do Ryanair do? Stand 57-59 are bussed? Or is it the case that post flybe, it's effectively "theirs" in which case the impact on other airlines is neglible? (looking at you BA GOLD and Silver card holders 
)
I agree on the point about Oneworld connections except there did seem to be quite a few when I used to fly MAN-LHR, that's why the biometrics were extended to T3! Not a connection I ever fancied but it did happen often enough to employ people to police it. They used to sell LHR-MAN-ORD on AA as well as LHR-MAN-HEL on AY.
BTW there's surely quite a growing list of airlines who have been based in all 3 terminals by now, Ryanair being one of them.
)I agree on the point about Oneworld connections except there did seem to be quite a few when I used to fly MAN-LHR, that's why the biometrics were extended to T3! Not a connection I ever fancied but it did happen often enough to employ people to police it. They used to sell LHR-MAN-ORD on AA as well as LHR-MAN-HEL on AY.
BTW there's surely quite a growing list of airlines who have been based in all 3 terminals by now, Ryanair being one of them.
Ryanair is on record as confirming their keenness on T3 due to the short taxi times. According to some reports, when discussions were ventured with Ryanair a couple of years ago to accommodate some of their overflow business in T1 (taking account of plans for additional based units), they refused the offer. They stuck with the maximum that could be accommodated in T3, and the proposed additional units were instead allocated to other airports. T3 does present some deficiencies from a passenger perspective. But Ryanair really do love the place.
Knock through that partition to allow T1/T3 to operate as a single integrated terminal airside and that problem goes away. Get it done, MAG! You know it makes sense.
Knock through that partition to allow T1/T3 to operate as a single integrated terminal airside and that problem goes away. Get it done, MAG! You know it makes sense.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed the facilities desperately need recombining that IS the only effective and indeed relatively economic solution. I believe its was only ever done to placate border authorities when airside of T1 moved north !
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: North of Dorking
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see why Ryanair are keen to keep T3..on our recent departure, with Jet2, from the far side of the T2 extension to the start of the active runway was 20 mins taxi time according to the Captain...
that's the sort of thing that would keep O'Leary awake at night😁
that's the sort of thing that would keep O'Leary awake at night😁
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly would also use an Orly service were it available to get to Nantes (to see my daughter) - The domestic connections within L'Ouest ( T1 and T2) Les connexions sont exceptionnelles! Except for price levels !
The current Ryanair offerings into Nantes certainly aren't a patch on what Flybe were offering !
That said COViD restrictions mean the current Paris - Nantes AF flights all operate from CDG.
The current Ryanair offerings into Nantes certainly aren't a patch on what Flybe were offering !
That said COViD restrictions mean the current Paris - Nantes AF flights all operate from CDG.
Last edited by Rutan16; 21st Nov 2021 at 08:15.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The work round for AF is primarily connections and those do mean CDG sure enough.
Time wise its about the same from Montparnasse to Nantes on a TGV as it is from Manchester - Euston, however more than a hour longer on cheaper classic TER services.
Its about at that 2.30 limit point on TGV services almost four hours on some TER services
Its a sight cheaper per mile than Avanti especially if you buy InOui !
If I use the train and I have from London I'll change at Lille to be honest
Sorry we have diverged a little
Time wise its about the same from Montparnasse to Nantes on a TGV as it is from Manchester - Euston, however more than a hour longer on cheaper classic TER services.
Its about at that 2.30 limit point on TGV services almost four hours on some TER services
Its a sight cheaper per mile than Avanti especially if you buy InOui !
If I use the train and I have from London I'll change at Lille to be honest
Sorry we have diverged a little