Liverpool
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We know about LPL in the past not being able to the sustain a link with London, living in the shadow of MAN ,all that said, now it has and will have a higher profile and as said before given a descent product it will be used, just to waffle on for a moment, LPL goes head to head with MAN on 11 routes LPL comes out on top in 8 of these , so we could given a chance make a go of it.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm now on leave
But the last "Figures" that I saw was that Manch was2.3% up on 2001
as to 2002, it's about 7%.
Tht's without the "Football"
[These are "Traffic" not Pax figures] any corrections gratefully accepted
Good Luck to Speke, but having worked there, I [in all honesty] do not hold out much hope for a "London" service
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
But the last "Figures" that I saw was that Manch was2.3% up on 2001
as to 2002, it's about 7%.Tht's without the "Football"
[These are "Traffic" not Pax figures] any corrections gratefully accepted
Good Luck to Speke, but having worked there, I [in all honesty] do not hold out much hope for a "London" service
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiglet, here are the MAN figures for your perusal. One note first though. Figures around March/April can be be misleading due to the fact that the busy Easter period moves from year to year.
Comparing 2002 Annual Figures to 2001 Annual Figures
Passengers (terminal) -2.5%
Passengers (incl transit) -2.7%
Comparing March 2003 to March 2002
Passengers (terminal) -8%
Passengers (incl transit) -8.3%
Passengers (terminal)
Annual 2001 19,111,432
Annual 2002 18,640,127
MAT April 2002 to March 2003 18,612,320
Passengers (incl transit)
Annual 2001 19,556,779
Annual 2002 19,037,880
MAT April 2002 to March 2003 18,993,217
BTW, don't suppose your boosting LPL's figures whilst on leave by any chance
Comparing 2002 Annual Figures to 2001 Annual Figures
Passengers (terminal) -2.5%
Passengers (incl transit) -2.7%
Comparing March 2003 to March 2002
Passengers (terminal) -8%
Passengers (incl transit) -8.3%
Passengers (terminal)
Annual 2001 19,111,432
Annual 2002 18,640,127
MAT April 2002 to March 2003 18,612,320
Passengers (incl transit)
Annual 2001 19,556,779
Annual 2002 19,037,880
MAT April 2002 to March 2003 18,993,217
BTW, don't suppose your boosting LPL's figures whilst on leave by any chance
Last edited by dwlpl; 8th Jun 2003 at 05:59.
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how the news that RYR were commencing EGNH - EGSS was received at Liverpool?
Considering that RYR have said a few times in the past that EGGP was to be their main "hub" in the North West I have to say I was rather surprised at the announcement, being a big supporter of Liverpool JL's ongoing growth myself.
I cannot understand why the custom base appears not to be present for a EGGP - London service. Whilst Euroceltic weren't the most reliable of operators (somewhat of an understatement I believe?) I believe that their loadings for said route were decent enough?
Considering that RYR have said a few times in the past that EGGP was to be their main "hub" in the North West I have to say I was rather surprised at the announcement, being a big supporter of Liverpool JL's ongoing growth myself.
I cannot understand why the custom base appears not to be present for a EGGP - London service. Whilst Euroceltic weren't the most reliable of operators (somewhat of an understatement I believe?) I believe that their loadings for said route were decent enough?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mouser, a big welcome to Cork if you decide to come over. Okay, it might be raining for a bit when you are here but Cork people are generally good hearted and the Liverpool football team are very well got in Cork.
Mark D, it occured to me too that Jetmagic ORK-LPL and then LPL-LCY-LPL and back to Cork would work quite nicely. However, I think Jetmagic would have to change their schedule a bit to get it going. Nice idea, though.
Mark D, it occured to me too that Jetmagic ORK-LPL and then LPL-LCY-LPL and back to Cork would work quite nicely. However, I think Jetmagic would have to change their schedule a bit to get it going. Nice idea, though.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northants
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dwpl
A very selective use of figures. Jan, Feb and April 2003 showed an increase in passengers over 2002. March was down because Easter was in March 2002 and April 2003. Your rolling annual figure was therefore chosen to show MAN in the worst light.
On a more mature note, instead of "mine's bigger than your's", the population of the Northwest is big enough to support two if not three successful airports. The success of MAN and LPL (and maybe BLK, in the future) is good for the whole of the whole of the Northwest: just as the Commonwealth Games were and the European City of Culture will be.
Incidentally, as a Mancunian, I too cannot understand why LPL cannot support a London service.
A very selective use of figures. Jan, Feb and April 2003 showed an increase in passengers over 2002. March was down because Easter was in March 2002 and April 2003. Your rolling annual figure was therefore chosen to show MAN in the worst light.
On a more mature note, instead of "mine's bigger than your's", the population of the Northwest is big enough to support two if not three successful airports. The success of MAN and LPL (and maybe BLK, in the future) is good for the whole of the whole of the Northwest: just as the Commonwealth Games were and the European City of Culture will be.
Incidentally, as a Mancunian, I too cannot understand why LPL cannot support a London service.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sisyphus1965
I did point out that it is difficult to judge March/April stats because Easter 'moves' every year. I have the figures for the first four months of this year and I will leave up to you to judge whether they are as expected or not. Note though the April 2003 figure is provisional.
Monthly Figures
January 02 1045380
January 03 1094018
February 02 1077321
February 03 1105844
March 02 1317773
March 03 1209997
April 02 1263171
April 03 1300352
Easter - March/April Combined
2002 2580944
2003 2510349
MAT
to April 2002 18886182
to April 2003 18651225
I did point out that it is difficult to judge March/April stats because Easter 'moves' every year. I have the figures for the first four months of this year and I will leave up to you to judge whether they are as expected or not. Note though the April 2003 figure is provisional.
Monthly Figures
January 02 1045380
January 03 1094018
February 02 1077321
February 03 1105844
March 02 1317773
March 03 1209997
April 02 1263171
April 03 1300352
Easter - March/April Combined
2002 2580944
2003 2510349
MAT
to April 2002 18886182
to April 2003 18651225
Last edited by dwlpl; 9th Jun 2003 at 11:25.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
niteflite01
I do not think it is a case of the customer base not being there, the problem is actually running a economically viable service. Reading between the lines the reason easyjet dropped the Luton service was they could actually make more money by utilising the aircraft on other routes. The Euroceltic service suffered from poor publicity and as you have pointed out, was not exactly the most reliable service.
MAN has the advantage that BA and BMI are feeding passengers into LHR and LGW for onward connections on their own and alliance networks, rather than just being a 'London' service, that LPL has had. easyjet would not get that many people transitting through Luton onto their network as most of the routes are already duplicated from Liverpool anyway, and if you are getting a connection at LHR or LGW, the transfer time is such that you may as well drive, get the train/coach in the first place.
I do not think it is a case of the customer base not being there, the problem is actually running a economically viable service. Reading between the lines the reason easyjet dropped the Luton service was they could actually make more money by utilising the aircraft on other routes. The Euroceltic service suffered from poor publicity and as you have pointed out, was not exactly the most reliable service.
MAN has the advantage that BA and BMI are feeding passengers into LHR and LGW for onward connections on their own and alliance networks, rather than just being a 'London' service, that LPL has had. easyjet would not get that many people transitting through Luton onto their network as most of the routes are already duplicated from Liverpool anyway, and if you are getting a connection at LHR or LGW, the transfer time is such that you may as well drive, get the train/coach in the first place.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hooligan Bill,
You have listed the reasons as to why various services have failed and the arguments put are nearer the real reasons why than anyone has got to before on this forum.
Speaking personally I would have like the easy connection to Luton to be still in place as I would have used it to fly (because of no LPL/GLA flight) to Scotland in late July. Looks like I will have to go vis BFS a stay the night instead.
You have listed the reasons as to why various services have failed and the arguments put are nearer the real reasons why than anyone has got to before on this forum.
Speaking personally I would have like the easy connection to Luton to be still in place as I would have used it to fly (because of no LPL/GLA flight) to Scotland in late July. Looks like I will have to go vis BFS a stay the night instead.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HB,
Wot about VLM? Manch to LondonCity, average 60%. Peaks, it's 100%. No interline, just a Chuffin' good product
.
Same Airline, "similar route"....but substitute the 'Pool for Manch. Was pulled off PDQ
Why?
Also BMA did not have a "Feeder" service at the time the DC9s were pulled.
EZY to EGKK, why not?
Being a BOF, Iwas working at EGGP on the inaugural BMA "Service"...1st trip [about]7 pax Memory is rather hazy.
2nd trip 50% load The Mayor, entourage, and "Press"
.It went downhill from there
The "Answer" If I knew, I'd start my own airline on that route
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Wot about VLM? Manch to LondonCity, average 60%. Peaks, it's 100%. No interline, just a Chuffin' good product
.Same Airline, "similar route"....but substitute the 'Pool for Manch. Was pulled off PDQ
Why?Also BMA did not have a "Feeder" service at the time the DC9s were pulled.
EZY to EGKK, why not?
Being a BOF, Iwas working at EGGP on the inaugural BMA "Service"...1st trip [about]7 pax Memory is rather hazy.
2nd trip 50% load
The Mayor, entourage, and "Press".It went downhill from thereThe "Answer" If I knew, I'd start my own airline on that route
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory BMA and EZY both used the same reason for stopping LPL/London services. The reason given was that aircraft could be used to greater effect (ie make more money) flying elsewhere.
Back to the thread. I think LPL would like easyJet to Gatwick or Ryanair to Stansted. Maybe they will, eventually get both!
Back to the thread. I think LPL would like easyJet to Gatwick or Ryanair to Stansted. Maybe they will, eventually get both!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that VLM are to increase their MAN-LCY (London City) service from the present 5 flights per
day to 7, and this will be further increased to 9 next May. So they must be doing something right.
And to think they couldn't make a success of a LPL - LCY.
day to 7, and this will be further increased to 9 next May. So they must be doing something right.
And to think they couldn't make a success of a LPL - LCY.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiglet,
If you do discover it, let us know and I'll join you, because I am sure there is money to be made.
The "Answer" If I knew, I'd start my own airline on that route
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
may or may not
Danny_R wrote: "LPL may be in talks"
Or then again, may not. EZY may move their LPL operation to MAN, or they may not. LPL may get a London service, or they may not.
As I see it, the only way UK provincial airports will get a fair shake is if the UK government adopts, either a 'Use-it-or-lose-it' policy for domestic routes, or they make provincial connections a priority as opposed to profiteering by airlines, at the expense of the British provincial travelling public.
But then Blair's is the government that ignored the majority of it's electorate by taking his country into an American led war. The same government that gave the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier contract to France. So fat chance they will consider the travelling public in the British provinces. But then again, I may be wrong.
Or then again, may not. EZY may move their LPL operation to MAN, or they may not. LPL may get a London service, or they may not.
As I see it, the only way UK provincial airports will get a fair shake is if the UK government adopts, either a 'Use-it-or-lose-it' policy for domestic routes, or they make provincial connections a priority as opposed to profiteering by airlines, at the expense of the British provincial travelling public.
But then Blair's is the government that ignored the majority of it's electorate by taking his country into an American led war. The same government that gave the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier contract to France. So fat chance they will consider the travelling public in the British provinces. But then again, I may be wrong.
