DUS - ORD via MAN?
 

Rinwayman,

The problem is you can't compare the German market with the UK market. The UK is a non-federal country, where as a consequence, the world begins and ends in London.

Not so Germany, Each state has a main city, - Nordrheinwestfalen has Düsseldorf, Bavaria Munich; Niedersachsen Hannover, Hessen has Frankfurt; Baden Würtemburg has Stuttgart. The state governments all demand decent air services, so there are many more direct services from what you would call "secondary airports" than there are say, from airports in France, the UK or Italy which are very centralised politically.

As far as routing a Düssedorf transatlantic via a UK airport, I don't believe the German travelling public would wear it, when in the time it takes to transit a UK airport would be only a few minutes less than taking the ICE train to Frankfurt, then flying direct!

Bagso

Having poured scorn on your thread opener,I find myself
after having read your last post#39,to be much more
satisfied with your effort.

Even though it still appears that this idea might just of
been 'invented' by yourself,the construction is much better
and is of more interest.

The premiss of your first post is so illegal/idiotic that to even
contemplate it made me wonder about the management skill
level at MAplc - however thinking of some of their decisions
over the last decade perhaps you may have a point!

MM

TartinTon, which EU treaty is that then?
 

That's strange, never heard of that one myself. Certainly there is a treaty backed by a directive that bans governments from restricting intra-union travel. MAG is not a government. If the Manchester Airports Group wants to refuse a particular customer that is their domain. If the Dept for Transport in the UK decided to ban any travel between London and Manchester we would have a problem.

Please don't comment on laws you don't understand, EU laws don't ban transport companies from withdrawing intra-EU services of any kind. By your logic if SNCF withdrew service from Paris to Lyon they would be in breach of EU regulations.

They don't need grounds if they actually wanted to do it. It's a commercial decision governed only by contract. Commercially viable? That's a whole other matter.

DAr19...if MAG wanted to ban BA/BMI for a reason then they probably could. However, since the legitimacy of such an action would be against the EUs restraint of trade rules it seems unlikely that MAG have deep enough pockets to fund the court case and subsequent compensation claim.

Since 1993 the EU has operated as a free market for travel so an airport cannot ban travel between 2 airports unless there is a genuine reason.

Not really sure what you're babbling about with your SNCF example as you're talking about something completely different.

Bit less time in the sun, my old son.

No what you were saying was that if MAN refused to serve BA it would be in breach of the free travel agreements which apply only to governments. There are probably other restrictions in terms of commercial law but the particular rules you mentioned with regard to intra-union travel don't apply to that situation, simply because they aren't restricting intra-EU travel (because they don't have the power to do that). I hope I'm being clear I have a tendency to talk around the issue. Put simply, companies can't be reprimanded under free travel agreements, EU commercial law is another matter of which I have zero knowledge.

Like I said, I was under the impression you were speaking of free travel agreements which ban any restriction of EU travel by goverments rather than free trade agreements. I hope you see my misunderstanding.

Are you a teacher, mickyman?

Whatever your profession, it should be possible to offer an alternative point of view without being so patronising. Please let's not turn this valuable resource into just yet another internet forum.

(I guess you're not a teacher, though, or you would know that the correct grammatical construction is might have, not might of. And you might have spelt premise correctly.)

I dont think any of us on here are qualified enough to know the legalities of such a move. One thing for sure is that MAG will, as too will the Airlines involved.

My view is this, if this story is even true, is just a public sympathy generating exercise with the intention of putting pressure of BA / BMI to reverse their decisions. MAG might be barking loud but I doubt it would bite.

I would imagine, that even if there had been meetings between BA, BD & MAG it is more likely to be about moving them out of T3, the new lo co terminal.

Most of the pax going to LHR ex-MAN are transiting. Pretty sure Willie Walsh said it was in the region of 75%.

Thanks eggc for the info - I knew about the EWR and MIA services; will have to think of alternate xxx-MAN-ORD; those with historical books about MAN may have recognised my favoured routing as part of a route that actually happened with Lufthansa.

The best prospect for a domininant British airline offering long-haul ex-MAN would have to have a sufficient number in the based fleet that it could be run as a stand-alone sub-fleet in a conifiguration that might be more appropriate for ops here (just J + Y classes with no Y+ class to be seen). This is where VS 787s might be useful - perhaps as many as 5 based operating the existing VS programme (including the soon to be dropped St Lucia link), tagging in the leisure routes of BD, and add in the likes of JFK with some destinations such as BOM, HKG and JNB. Otherwise, MAN is going to at the whim of airlines that will fly here only if they are serving other destinations that can also support J and Y class operations.

Man Ba-bmi
 

All the posts suggesting that MAN is about to 'throw its toys out of the pram', 'draw up the drawbridge' etc are, although well intended, are pipe-dreams.

Whilst airports are commercial businesses, and on the face of it, free to choose who they trade with, are regulated by international, European and national legislation.

The cornerstone of international aviation is the 1944 Chicago Convention. Article 15 sets out that 'Every airport ... which is open to public use shall be open to uniform conditions'. This Article was intended to allow the development of international aviation, although was amended for US/UK traffic by Bermuda 2.

In Europe, clearly there is EU Restraint of Trade legislation.

In the UK, MAN operates under a CAA Public Use Licence. This requires that 'the aerodrome must be available to all persons (users) permitted to use it on equal terms and conditions.'

In short, as an international airport, MAN would not be able to restrict access to particular carriers. Why would it look to close access to BA/BMI and then see the routes disappear to LPL? More likely, promote through its marketing activity, the alternatives to LHR. And that's what they've started to do, and expect to see more.

MANs strategy re: SHuttles and LO-CO
 

SHUTTLES -
I do not believe for one moment than MAN will attempt to ban, block or disrupt the existing air links to London, for all the well-argued reasons in this thread.

LOCOs-

Shed-on-a Pole. I think most of your posts are spot-on, but regarding MAN's strategy on Lo-cos, consider this:

In the mid-nineties as Lo-Co's began to emerge, MAN had healthy traffic growth, an enviable schedule of direct flights into most major EU cities by the primary flag-carriers, a strong BA base, a decent spread of long-haul schedules with big name carriers, and a large charter operation with the big names in the IT business. Furthermore, the airport had consistently made a profit, despite price regulation introduced in 1991 by the Monopolies & Mergers report.

Does it not seem a reasoned business decision then, to avoid risking this position by opening the doors to LoCos? At that time there was no guarantee that these carriers would survive, they were not offering any destinations which weren't already served by other carriers out of MAN, and at the fees they expected to pay, there would be no profit for the airport. Does that make business sense?

The fact than MANs traffic has now suffered from erosion by LOCos, amongst other factors, does not make the 1990's position wrong. LoCos have been spectacularly successful, so far. But those others airports which welcomed in LoCos - LPL, LBA, EMA, LTN, had very little to lose at the time - it was a no-brainer. However MAN was in a unique position.
Liverpool has only just turned in a meagre profit after 10 years of EZY and RYR. MAN has to make an operating profit to survive, unlike Peel who are a real-estate outfit for whom airports add value to the portfolio - different business model entirely.

How long the LoCO boom will continue is not yet clear. In the longer term I feel that the UK is too small to support all these fragmented operations we're seeing right now, and the novelty of getting pissed in Prague drys up. What has just happened at CVT may be the start of the retrenchment back to the traditional centres of flight operations. Let's see what happens in the next five years.

Absolutely spot on roverman.

I remember a presentation in the late 90's given by John Spooner (MD at the time) who made a very strong case that MAN would continue to develop the international scheduled and charter services whilst EMA (owned by MAPLC) would develop lo-co services for the very reasons you site.

John Spooner did say that, but for clarity, he didn't join MAPLC from EMA until some time mid-2000. Before then, he was only MD of EMA and BOH and thus not interested in, nor paid to speak about, MAN.

Once again, btw, I raise my hat to Shed's excellent posts. It worries me that it's happened again :O

Is it April the 1st already?
 

In the UK the government, via the CAA, grants each airport a Public Use Licence to operate. It is a requirement of the issuance of that Licence, that the airport is available to all users without hindrance. The fact that the aircraft owner (I'm thinking of GA aviation here) can be priced out, by any airport authority, is for another debate. I have not seen the Licence for some years, but it is a requirement that a copy has to be on public display as a statement of UK Government Law.


It is for this very reason that GA light aircraft can not be banned from MAN, as officers of MAplc wanted in the mid-1990s, when R2 was under discussion; the resident GA community and business aircraft users threatened to invoke their Licence Right to Access, as what the airport authority was proposing would have been discrimination against a sector of aviation. Should the government withdraw Licence approval, then all flying activities would have to cease forthwith, leaving only the feathered variety flying.


P.S. - just noted that Higher Archie has now posted along similar lines.

P.P.S. - Shed: well written posts, esp # 485 on Manchester-6.

So how come GA has all but gone from LHR, could a Tomahawk insist on using the place ? If the Owner of said Tomahawk insisted, LHR would have to accept using this right of access law ?


Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.

"....Having poured scorn on your thread opener,I find myself
after having read your last post#39,to be much more
satisfied with your effort.

Even though it still appears that this idea might just of
been 'invented' by yourself,the construction is much better
and is of more interest "


many thanks mickyman....

...why on earth I would invent such a bizarre story quite frankly beggars belief, i felt it was an interesting "take" on a major story and believing it might just be of interest to fellow ppruners passed it on in good faith as indeed other readers do, I did qualify the post by suggesting that it might be merely spin. If you reread the original piece I was simply asking the question as to whether it was enforceable and if it was, what was the likely impact
commercially ?

My second post simply speculated on why such a story "might" have legs ?

.....however your consent to my contribution is by definition, both an honour and dare I say a privilege, may all of us on this forum bow our heads, kneel and prostitute ourselves to your greater understanding, I trust Christmas will bring you its traditional mix of good food and violent stomach cramp

ps Micheal SWS ...it appears we are not worthy !

I saw a PA-31 yesterday landing on 27L at Heathrow. Slots are really pricey, as are charges. No in their right mind would want to use it for real GA. The light stuff that gets in is often medical or crew taxis.

Annnnyyyywaaaayyyy........

On to something else that isnt going to happen:

Has anyone seen an air syhlet aircraft yet? its due into MAN this month and as of yet, i still aint seen an aircraft in their colours? Pushing it a bit fine arnt they?

Bagso

There you go again..............

Why do you presume that I am a Christian !!

MM

Single engine aircraft are banned at LHR.

But they let BA 777 Gliders in:)

I read on another rumour site (so it must be true!) that PK are considering their future at MAN, and possibly relocating to the LBA . Anyone else heard this, or should I go grad a pinch of salt or two ?

PIA
 

eggc

I have seen that post as well and to say that individual is hit and miss
would be an understatement. I am sure it has been repeated from his/her
place of work in good faith but that is as good as it gets.

The rumour seems to have started after the announcement of BMI
pulling their long-haul ops from Manchester and a post by what could
be best described as a credible source (as much as anything is credible from that site) claiming that one other operator was reviewing four routes
from it's home base and their Manchester service was one of those four.

The poster did not give any other hint as to who it may be but clearly stated that nothing had been decided.

2+2 = 5?

Pete

PIA
 

A PIA relocation to LBA, is in my opinion, unlikely, unless they are prepared for a major reduction in capacity.

MAN has field availability that is quite superior to LBA, easilly able to take B777's. 2 runways @ 3,048m, 3,198 on request and RFF Cat 9, Cat 10 on request. In comparison, LBA offer 2,250m (TORA 2,113m (14) and 2,190m (32). RFF Cat7, 8-9 on request. MAN offers Cat 3 ILS on 23R and 05R.

The LBA field will give serious performance (pax and freight load) on B777 ops. A300's can operate, probably at the margins of economically, B777's cant.

I seriously doubt that LBA has any potential whatsoever to take the PIA MAN hub, and that they won't follow BA / BMI to LHR. LBA may however take some additional A300 ops.

Try getting a 77W to JFK with a full load from LBA.

If you could...you'd make a fortune at RR.

Er...77W has an exclusive GE offering.

PIA don't fly A300s and the B777 is a more powerful beast.
The real question is whether they are interested in maintaining the US routes ex MAN as with the 77L they no longer need the stop.
Air India has just pulled BHX-YYZ as well. We shall see.

Exactly. If you could prove to Boeing that you could get a fully loaded 77W off the LBA runway with a new series of RR engines I am sure they would reconsider their position with GE!

Anyway, I would be surprised if LBA got MAN's services to Pakistan. I don't know what the passenger figures are from MAN-Pakistan but surely they can hold A310s at least from both MAN and LBA.

Also, EK operate the 77W non-stop from DXB to JFK, can PIA not do the same with theirs or is the few '000 mile difference too big a difference?

Alas it's not that Rolls Royce couldn't deliver the engine, it's just that due to the contract with GE giving them exclusivity on the 77W that they're not ALLOWED to even offer one. The same goes for the the 747-8.

GE is a risk sharing partner in both programs.

Is this not something to do with the US authorities not allowing non-stop flights into the USA from Pakistan because of security concerns? This was certainly the case a few years ago. All transit pax on the PK US flights through MAN must clear security at MAN so the Yanks know they are cleared to UK standards which they accept.

Suzeman

Manchester's Own Airline
 

Going back several years ago, I seem to recall in a newspaper interview with a former Chief executive those name I cannot be certain off but it may have been Gil Thompson. In this interview it was mentioned that the airport board had looked into the possibility of setting up it's own presumably Manchester based airline. From what I remember, know reasons were given in the interview as to why the airport board did not pursue this idea any further.

I bring this up because in view of recent airline decisions I wonder weather it may be appropriate to look at the issue again. Would it not be better for the rate payers of Manchester and it's ten boroughs to invest in it's own airline rather than trying to buy all or part of Gatwick.

PIA
 

On the PIA issue: I have been told MAN passengers can buy ticket on MAN-JFK with Pakistan Airlines. Is it true that PIA only stop in MAN eastbound and not westbound?

Man - Anu
 

From a mere SLF observer, are we northerners going to be permanently without a direct route to ANU??? :sad: Have Virgin Holidays (who regularly block booked BD seats ) had anything to say regarding the route?
MAN-ANU-UVF-MAN from VS would surely be viable wouldn't it?

Reference a MAPLC airline, I'll quote Branson here, when he was asked how to make a million in the airline business: "start with £2m".

Perhaps Geoff could stump up the £2m out of his salary, bonuses and local authority inflation-proof pension that he's built up over the last 15 years.

BTW, Rowena got out just in time, eh? Good girl.

BMI ran it for a while and it made so much money they stopped. Oh wait that's the reason they stop flying every route from Manchester.........

That was helpfull now go and finish your shandy......

Can a kind person reconfirm just how many PIA flights go through Manchester and to where both west and eastbound? Thanks.

Was there not a rumour a few months ago on a.net that PIA were keen enough to start a service to Dublin once they sorted out some capacity for a new Barcelona flight? If PIA were really eager to try Dublin I guess it might be relatively easy to take a pair of flights out of Manchester and transfer it over to Dublin and see how it goes?

There is certainly plenty of enthusiasm even amongst the Pakistani community in the Cork and surrounding areas for an Ireland - Pakistan link. I am all up for an Air Blue A321 flight myself to Cork! Got to at least think +ve!

Jet 2 to base another 757 at MAN
 

From UK Airport News

Jet2 has announced that it will base another 229-seat Boeing 757 at Manchester Airport to meet growing demand, in addition to helping ease capacity issues following the demise of XL Airways. It will create 25 new jobs as a result of the expansion.

The budget airline has confirmed that its ninth 757 would be stationed at Manchester Airport.It will be used to increase capacity on its newly launched Dalaman and Sharm el Sheikh routes, which have seen strong sales, as well as filling the void left by the loss of flights from XL Airways, notably on Tenerife and Heraklion services.

Philip Meeson, Jet2.com boss said: ‘At a time when many of our competitors are cutting back services and reducing capacity, we are increasing ours. We are not just taking advantage of gaps left by others, but expanding the capacity on our own popular routes.'

‘For example, since we launched Dalaman in Turkey, sales have been so strong that we are doubling the frequency for this route. Excellent sales and customer demand on our Sharm el Sheikh service have also prompted us to make this route all year round.’

Tom , here's PK's MAN timetable for Nov...

PK701 13:40 17:30 M* T - T F* - Su A310 ISB (*B77W)
PK709 15:00 17:00 - - W - F - - B77W LHE
PK711 09:20 11:20 - - - - - Sa - B772 KHI>JFK
PK712 07:30 09:30 - - - - - - Su B772 JFK>KHI
PK721 10:25 12:20 - - W - - - - B77W KHI>JFK
PK722 07:30 09:30 - - - T - - - B77W JFK>KHI

Unless I've missed owt, or I can't count, then that makes just 11 flights per week. I didnt realise they had reduced so much already...November 2006 they had 24 per week, and I think they may have had more that that at some point.

Seems that you can't count, looks like 11 to me! :}