MANCHESTER - 7
 

Manchester to Ban Shuttles ?

Apparently Maplc are so upset at losing their UK based long haul network they have been having discussions about massive retaliation !

Rumours suggest that a high level meeting took place last week whereby they have looked at the legality and therefore the possibility of withdrawing landing rights to both BA and BMI shuttles thereby causing a hammer blow to both airlines profitability given the large volumes of traffic carried on both routes into Heathrow. The belief is that they could cause a groundswell of opinion that might make BA and BMI reverse their decision. No-one however it seems, is quite sure at this stage whether this could be enforced !

The more general view is that it is simply posturing in order to bring the centralisation of ALL British based airlines into Heathrow to the knowledge of the travelling public, business MPs, and the media ,at a time when a decision about another runway at LHR is due to be made.

Clearly something is in the wind as they have looked at the serious possibility that the airlines would retaliate themselves and tfr service to Liverpool and also the impact and adverse publicity of the travelling public whose travel plans would be thrown into chaos.

The airport disputes BA and BMIs own figures suggesting that yields are poor and are incensed.

They believe that Lufthansa might change their mind if there was a sufficient groundswell of opinion against them.

It would certainly be a bold step given MANplcs previous p***poor performance in marketing, spin etc.

BUT If it were true would it not be counter productive given MANplc own profitability ?

Does anybody know whether this is actually enforceable ?

Also do we know the total number of figures for pax carried on both routes and the impact this might have on both airlines Balance Sheet and indeed
Manchester !

I would have thought that the move to ban shuttles would be illegal under EU law which allows for the free movement of persons within the union. If Manchester Airport singled out BA and BMI then surely they should take similar actions against KLM, Air France and Lufthansa "shuttles" which provide the same service at Manchester as the London services linking in the the airline's main hubs.

It would nice to see BA back at Liverpool though :)

These so called "shuttles" are, in reality, domestic scheduled air services. No different to (say) BMIBaby flights to Belfast or Eastern Airlines to Stansted. I think MA Plc would have a hard time justifying such action in court.......

Manchester to ban Shuttles
 

Some of the more legislation proficient members will advise, but the law regarding free movement of EU citizens concerns the unhindered access to EU states for nationals of another EU member state - rather than modes of transport.

MAplc are not obliged to take the traffic as this is a commercial concern, only the law of contracts applies here?

It could be criticised as a bit childish though in pulling up the drawbridge in this way, as it will force the poor travelling public to find another way to get to London as the big UK airlines won't be coming back regardless of MAplcs brinkmanship (assuming it is serious).

As was pointed out, the loss of the shuttles can only benefit other Euro hubs. Hmmm, but then again, BA/BD justified their tactical withdrawal by saying the MAN originating traffic wasn't profitable - so it couldn't be a real loss to them then if the travellers are routed via CDG/FRA/AMS could it?

BA has long siphoned off the business traveller via LHR (both those which could have originated via MAN and overseas customers going to MAN) rather than aim for a developing a robust regional service. Perhaps someone in the know can supply figures of London business transit pax with a point of origin that made MAN more convenient?

So in conclusion - ban the shuttles? Yes MAN will lose pax nd revenue - but it might deflect to other EU mainland airports, strengthen US operators yields or attract other operators.

Ryanair operate a tit-for-tat strategy and it hasn't hurt them. So give it a go MAN. Kick BA/BD in the bal-ance sheet.:E

Hahahahahaha!!! That's one of the funniest posts I've read in ages!!!

They cannot stop anyone flying intra EU under the EU treaty.

It would be funny to see them try!

Wonder if this idea might have come from Sir Richard, as it would have a wonderful effect on Virgin Trains passenger numbers?

As for Ametyst dreams of seeing BA back at Liverpool, he has two hopes........

Bob and No.

What network would that be exactly?

Could MAN make it awkward for said airlines to operate,e.g. ground handling delays, ****e stands, move slot times, although am I right in assuming that slots are set in stone.

bmi have never operated shuttle services, they may operate high frequency services on some routes but never shuttles.
The shuttle was a brand name used by BA when they operated their walkon/off domestic trunk services, but that stopped many years ago.

Now here this.
 

Gonzo.He speekith with a potential professional interest.. If they can legally retaliate against Airlines that pack up and Go , let them. - This would mean a new era of stability of service levels and less profits for Airline shareholders.

Is it legal - I doubt It - but great if MAN try.

CAT III

They must be very p*ssed off to even discuss such things.

MAN are obvioulsy now trying to offer BA & BMI the commitment they have both shown to have for MAN.

Although, it must be around 3 miliion pax p.a. fly between MAN - London, which would be a huge loss of revenue for MAN. I can't help thinking that sometimes sour grapes cuts noses off and that can be counter productive !

Of that 3 million lost pax how many would just route through Europe with KLM and AIR FRANCE for example.

I know this is a rumour site but Im wondering
why no-one has questioned Bagso as to his
sources/references.He could be a spotty
teenager who gets a thrill out of people
actually taking him on!
Some people it seems dont have the capacity
to question anything on here and immediately
take up the baton and run.

I have read over the last few weeks, numorous
posts exposing peoples annoyance with airlines
decisions over routes etc - which is all very
understandable - but is it possible to have
some uninvented info - ie facts!

There are so many ways in which this thread is
wrong and I think that Bagso should appologise
for his starting it.

MM

Maybe MAN expects a little more from BA & BMI, seeing as they are our national carriers. Inlight of the recent vote of confidence shown in MAN by BA & BMI, MAN probably would prefer to connect peeps thru FRA/CDG & AMS rather than line coffers of the 2 UK carriers, that MAN feels wee'd in its bed !

Petty, but understandable.

Maybe if Manchester Airport Group spent more time, effort and money on providing passengers with an airport and not a shopping mall, maybe more passengers and airlines would be inclined to use Manchester?

I know shops are needed to make money to reinvest, but surely start with the basics?

1. Leaking roofs - walking down Pier B, not one rainy day goes by without seeing at least one bucket catching leaks from the roof. The record is 7 buckets in a stretch of no more than 50m

2. Moving walkways - Has anyone ever seen any of these all working? MAG claim that they are 2 years ols and they can't get the replacement parts for them. So why not rip them out and put new ones in?!

3. Continual building work of new shops - the other week, they had so intelligently blocked off an area of the departure lounge for 'commercial redevelopment' that there was only a 2m wide gap through which ALL passengers trying to get to the gate had to pass.

4. Total lack of sufficient seating - yes, I know they don't like passengers sitting down as it means they are not shopping, but there is only so much aimless wansdering that can be done.

5. P**s poor aircraft facilities. Go to most places in Europe, there is laser guided equipemt to position the aircraft on stand. Manchester provide a mirror. Which fogs up.

MAG wouldn't dare ban the BA shuttles as they are a major link to the Long Haul services out of Heathrow at Gatwick. Lose the shuttles and lose a massive number of passengers from the NW who want to get on these services.

CATIII-NDB

Leaving insults aside, it's a genuine question. How many UK based long haul flights a day out of EGCC were there?

As far as MAG are concerned more than there will be come April 09 !

I wonder could MAG play the eco card as part of their "rumoured" case to scrap flights to LHR.

Reply
 

Thank you Gonzo - It was not an insult, ( I remembered the context of your prev postings on PPRUNE) - What about Virgin ? and the Hols flights (all year round). I wish I could give an exact figure. It does matter in economic terms. - In the light of the current economic situation, a pull out by any airline is going to cost jobs. - Every thing is becoming "London Centric" and there is a cost. The thread my be a deliberate leg pull - Lets see if the gaps in MAN's Long Haul are filled by US /European / Asian Carriers.
I know this is just hearsay, but look at the response to the BA and now BMI cessation - The Idea that a "Shuttle blocker" is even being talked about, shows the depth of the reaction.

CAT III

If MAPLC are really keen to exact revenge on BA/BMI then surely the best way for them to do this would be to offer well-timed slots at a discounted price to the likes of Cathay, United, Delta et al to that pax are no longer relying upon BA and BMI for longhauls through Heathrow. Ensure that facitities are up to standard and keep the prices for airlines to operate out of MAN competative in the long-term.

Steve

Sharpclassic

How many people from the Manchester area have NO choice, but to fly via LHR or LGW.
Try to book a package deal to the far east and all you get is flights via London, even if the flights are available from Manchester.:ugh:
I refuse to be told to fly via London and now book my flights direct with the airline from Manchester.

E.F.

LHR Flights
 

Well I know I was tired, but I didn't think I'd slept through to April 1st until I read this thread.

Banning LHR flights is entirely impractical, so if there is any truth at all in this proposal I hope it is no more than a PR stunt. With flights to LHR unavailable, the majority of passengers using those services would be lost to MAN completely. Some would reroute via other hubs, yes, but many others would use surface transport to London instead (and I would expect an upsurge in alternative rail/coach/limo services if this market was abandoned by MAplc). Many passengers using LHR flights are actually traveling into (and not beyond) London anyway. They would in most cases be lost completely; customers choose their London gateway based upon which part of the city they wish to visit (LCY and STN are not great for West London etc.). And Gatwick is great for Brighton and the South Coast! Or perhaps they suggest banning LGW flights too - they are currently operated by British Airways?

As another poster has said, this idea smacks of cutting off the nose to spite the face. If MAplc are genuinely considering this, then step back quickly - these are tough times as it is. Such a plan has the makings of the biggest howler since MA refused to negotiate with no-frills carriers some ten years ago. "It takes two to tango," said one no-frills boss back then. MAN has never recovered from the hubris-laden idiocy of the era when MAplc's marketing department shunned the no-frills carriers; its been a sad effort at catch-up ever since. So no more picking and choosing which carriers you would like to exclude right now, please. MAN needs all the traffic it can get, and the region will suffer economically if we don't back our existing business partners 100%.

As an aside, if MAplc were to seek some sort of "retaliation" against BMI, would there not be the small matter of counter-retaliation regarding upto five based BMI Baby B733's and the BMI Regional operation? Or is there bad news coming from them too under the new ownership? Just a thought ...

Let's all be careful what we wish for. My own earlier posting regarding BA Shuttles was a plea to BA to return to the values of good service and reliability which they once offered. I want an enhanced service which I can trust, not a withdrawn one. Perhaps MAplc and BA could put that on their agendas in place of "retaliation." An empty airport won't help any of us.

SHED.

E.F.

What's your point?

Shed on a Pole expressed my point perfectly. If there are no direct Long Haul services from MAN, people will have to find their way to airports from where they CAN get these Long Haul flights. Whether they chose to drive/train to Heathrow or fly to AMS/CDG, they will do so.

By cutting the BA shuttle flights, MAG will be driving BA customers out of their beloved shops in the terminals and into trains and car to LHR or LGW.

...or get them flying on anyone else but BA/BMI, and there are lots of other options ex MAN - AF/KL/LH/QR/EK/SQ/AA/DL/TK to name a few who can provide as many connections as LHR.

Not may northern folk are that loyal to BA, and wont mind connecting elsewhere should it be more convienient than the train / car to London to get on the UK carriers...so maybe not so many air passengers would be actually be lost, and the carriers that remain at MAN would gain reward in extra revenue by filling all their seats, at BA/BMI's expense. As someone said in a previous post that would be a serious body blow to BMI, but more so BA.

You would be surprised eggc, a lot of Northern folk are very loyal to BA!

3 Million passengers on the Shuttles from Manchester? Half it and take some off again. In 2007 a total of 1,383,380 (1,558,884 in 2006) scheduled passengers travelled between Manchester and London (Gatwick and Heathrow). The figure for 2008 is expected to decrease further finishing at about 1,250,000 at the year end for both routes. So the two routes will have lost 300,00 passengers since January 2006

Dear Turkeys - Don't Vote for an Early Christmas!
 

Fellow PPRUNERS,

Let's all stick with the real world here. I'm sure some folks would dearly love the joy of shouting "Shove your flights!" to BA and BMI ... for about a day. Oh, the relief of all that anger and frustration. But then there would just be the small matters of reality and consequences to deal with.

If MAplc were to "retaliate" against BMI, what that actually means today is hacking off their new owners Lufthansa (a key Manchester partner) and by extension souring relations with Star Alliance. BMI Group itself remains a large operator at MAN (for now) even stripped of the long-hauls. The Star Alliance group of companies is one of MAN's best remaining avenues for successful growth going forward; how great an idea would it be declare hostilities against them now? Even BA/Oneworld still have some presence at MAN which the airport would be well advised to nurture. Short-term revenge measures will scupper any prospects for long-term business development with these partners in the future.

MAN needs to woo the remaining big players in our great industry. Groups such as Star Alliance must have the assurance that MAplc is a competent and professional partner upon which they can rely for support of their business. Then we may see growth initiatives in the future when economic conditions improve. If MAplc were now to make the mistake of throwing tantrums with their customers, years of goodwill and respect for the airport amongst airline professionals would be forfeited. I assure you that if MAplc chose to take on the Alliances in an adversarial stance, the airport would not emerge a long-term winner. MAN needs their business.

MAN has never fully recovered from the calamity ten years ago when they considered themselves too grand to work with no-frills carriers. If these rumours about London flight bans have any truth to them, then a mistake of similar magnitude is brewing now.

To the industry professionals: stop and THINK. To those who seek "retaliation": be careful what you wish for - you might get it. To the "chuck 'em out" cheerleaders: grow up - alot of good folks livelihoods are sacrificed based on crusades like this.

How about some constructive thinking instead? Lufthansa-backed BMI has decided that the A332's are needed at LHR. Sad, but tough. It's happened. But Lufthansa also own Swiss and a large slice of Brussels Airlines. Perhaps MAplc should make a case for a BRU-MAN-ORD service, or a ZRH-MAN-LAS service in the future? If Lufthansa buy into SAS, further opportunities could be proposed. Impress Lufthansa and Star Alliance with positive ideas for mutual benefit, not a knife in the back.

Cheers, SHED.

What possible grounds could there be to refuse to let BA/BMI route pax via their hubs, but permit AF/KL/LH to do the same? Absolutely none. The proposal is completely illegal and will never happen.

OK this has to stop. It's time to be grown up and get some perspective. I don't think for a moment there is substantial truth in the original post of throwing the toys from the pram. However all this talk of BMI Shuttles and BA and BMI being "national carriers" simply shows how little posters know of the airline business.
I genuinely think this thread has gone a little bit mental, in that some people show signs of having a greviance driven agenda.
It's just comedy now to suggest that we're going to have a Northern uprising. Really silly post.

Incidentally is there a single legacy carrier in Europe who does long haul routing like this? Do the Belgians and the Swiss somehow not mind having to stop on the way but God forbid Mancunians change at Heathrow?

I can fly MAN-AMS-JKF or MAN-CDG-JFK cheaper than MAN-JFK with BA.
bb

Skipness -

Your question is a reasonable one. The regulatory environment which would permit this kind of operation is relatively new. I suggested a route such as ZRH-MAN-LAS to illustrate a service which may not be considered attractive or viable from either city in isolation. I am sure that the Swiss would not appreciate calling in at MAN on the way to JFK, for example, but en route to Las Vegas the alternative is likely to be no service at all. Note that I did not suggest making a case for FRA-MAN-JFK ! With respect to the BRU example, I accept that the airport would likely support more than one daily frequency; the example shows how an additional service can be accommodated to the benefit of both cities and the airline operator alike.

My point is that applying the grey matter to potentially positive solutions is better than calls for retaliation and bans on certain carriers. I don't want to see a "grievance driven agenda" any more than you.

Cheers, SHED.

Yes lateral thinking is a good plan in these tough days. Even LHR is not immune as NWA are suspending SEA-LHR, the third open skies route to fall after DEN-LHR on United and LHR-LAX on Air France.

Ls S09
 

LS will base 4x752s and 2x733s at MAN this summer - confirmed.

Skipness can I ask you a question?

On the Manchester 6 thread more than once you said if the BA route to JFK was viable why hadn't BMI or Virgin stepped in to operate.

Then when it was suggested on the BMI thread that VS may take over the LAS service when BD leave, you say they dont have the aircraft available.

Isnt that contradictory? Or have I missed something?

JFK needs a daily service with a good business offering.
LAS is a leisure route, and is operated from LGW by the same "beach fleet" of B747-400s that operate the current MAN-MCO and BGI. So MAN-LAS would be a good fit for the current model, not sure if the B744 is too big though. I don't see it as daily though. The LAS market is there and has no competition.

JFK is a different animal, up against CO and DL they'd have to run daily. The 744 is I think too big, as is the A346 which leave the A343.

Virgin actually said they'd fly GLA-JFK if BA ever left. ( Virgin say a lot ). Until the 787s arrive, they are focused on LHR. Hope that makes sense.

Does LH operate to ORD ex-DUS? If they don't I wonder how feasible it would be for a DUS-MAN-ORD run with 1 less local DUS-MAN service. Two secondary markets linked to a hub, with the prospect of delinking them in the future.

Back in the 1980s, BR and SN though it worthwhile to combine service into a BRU-LGW-ATL service, and in the 1990s when BA talked to KL and SN, part of the plan was for MAN to be used for transatlantic.

LH do fly DUS to ORD, MIA & EWR all on 343's.

Just looking at the loads on the BMI longhauls for the last 7 days, i know theres a lot about yields but look at the loads.

There is not one flight that has departed with a figure less than 196 and the top fig is 206, which doesn't seem bad to me on a 218 seater.

Thats an awful lot of people to be travelling on the "shuttles" everyday.

I suspect that AA will benefit greatly on the Ord service and with these figures it will be sold out everyday there appears to be double the pax wishing to travel over the current AA 767 on this route.
Virgin will be looking at the Las/Bgi flights as about 80% of the bags are labelled Virgin holidays.

zfw

Thank you Skipness makes perfect sense.

Virgin Holidays
 

The withdrawl of the BMI long-haul flights (except ORD) has left Virgin Holidays with a problem, as they were a major factor on the services operating in the first place - 80% as quoted by zfw.

It wouldn't surpise me to see a leased aircraft arrive next year to fill the gap. As Skipness said the B744 is too big, and they probably don't have the spare capacity. A few years ago didn't VS operate a MPH B763 on the MCO run for a few months? A leased B763 would do nicely for LAS and the Carribean routes. I remember how hard Virgin Holidays fought the Airline to introduce the MCO flight, so I don't think all is lost yet.

Playamar2

We have got ever so slightly off track here and once again degenerated into a debate about BA !

Surely BA (..and to a lesser extent BMI), cannot be blamed for centralising on Heathrow , it is a cash cow, a simple case of economics and there are now at least a sprinkling of other options to avoid BA if you so wish.

Criticism is however totally justified when one considers the numerous number of licence objections that BA objected to in the 70s,80s, 90s. Whilst it “might” seem ridiculous to be looking that far back, it could be argued that that preventing the free market from operating at that time has led to the dominance of Heathrow now ! We will never know.

If this rumour is true and I suspect as I indicated that it is just spin, it does raise a number of other questions. Is the airport now desparate and belatedly embarking on a new strategy which is more about raising the profile of the debate on a 3rd runway at Heathrow, this would play well into that argument that Manchester maybe more than other airports has much more to lose.

A few years back Manchester saw itself as best placed to exploit the demand for any “additional” expansion of service out the South East, by exploiting both its own demand AND also some of that which that originated in the regions,with changes in aircraft technology and airline strategy we now have seen a remarkable shift, as well as the increase in European feed we now even have regional long haul hubbing from airports such as Bristol to Newark and even Newcastle to Dubai. Who could have predicted that a few years back ?

In effect CO and EK have changed the rules of the game. The re-distribution of market share and the dynamics of the market have changed.

That leaves Manchester with a problem, they invested very heavily in a second runway before these dynamics came into play, at a time when they saw themselves rightly or wrongly as the only major player outside of the South East. When capacity was at some stage almost certainly going to reach saturation Manchester felt that it would finally reach full potential.
There is little doubt therefore that the airport management are very worried indeed, Manchester appears to have suffered more proportionally in the current downturn than other UK airports, but not only have they seen a decline of numbers they are witnessing a major shift of strategy, whereas pax at say Birmingham might ebb and flo based on the economy, the decline of traffic at Manchester is more fundamental. With the introduction of the BMI network they at last saw a major challenge to BAs dominance and an opportunity to partner with an airline that would eventually expand and create a major worldwide network from the North of England, that has now evaporated !

If this rumour is true a ”possible threat” to potentially cut off the 3m pax from Manchester who are currently contributing to demands for additional capacity at Heathrow , “might “in the eyes of the airport management ( and I only say “might”), play well with regional MPS and the media in the same way that forces were mobilised in the 80s, when the airport was fighting for access by SIA and AA and latterly the expansion of Stansted.

Although Virgin's existing aircraft fleet is heavily committed, there would be every possibility of it cutting back MAN/MCO slightly (from 9 per week to 7) and freeing up a couple of days per week to take over MAN/LAS. Although the aircraft may be much larger than bmi's A330, it has to be remembered that Virgin Holidays makes a substantial profit out of the sale of the holiday package as a whole, rather than just the flight out of which bmi had to make a living.