Check these regularly :) I post these every day :):
Manchester Airport Based Airliners | North West Air News

Connectivity depends on critical mass, BA has it, LH has it, EK/QR/EY AF have it, KL has it however VS doesn't come close and VS/DL is still not there. Do you deny the UK should even have a hub Bagso? I assume you mean you'd prefer KLM to leave MAN-AMS on fiddling little narrow bodies and set up a point to point MAN long haul operation with spare MD11s? Or am I misunderstanding?

And don't forget the only based light aircraft PA-28 G-BCCF.

MKY661

Thanks, very interesting - a labour of love though?

So I make that around 72 airliners based of which 16 are wide bodies

Thomson has most planes based at 14

Oh, one mistake I think - you mention nine based TCX planes but the numbers add up to 10.

MKY661.

Yes, thanks for that. The number does vary slightly from day-to-day but 70-75 seems to be the range based on your figures.

A few of those a/c won't of course be on the ground overnight as they arrive back from long haul flying early morning - VS and some TCX and TOM.

On the other hand, there are some night-stoppers which off the top of my head are:
LH x 2
KLM
BA x 2
LR

Perhaps someone could confirm the number of parking stands (pier attached)
and remote stands excluding the car park. There are I think 12 remote stands not currently in use for a/c but which I believe are due to be returned for their intended purpose.

I make it about 60 pier stands and currently about 30 remote, not counting any stands that allow double parking for smaller a/c. The airfield certainly looks pretty full at 06.00 in the summer.

Also to add, there is a based FedEx B757-200F and Air Contractors ATR72.

Ryanair Summer Schedule

Welcome to Ryanair!

Two new routes "already announced" is pretty dismal stuff.

On the plus side it was announced immediately on the airport twitter feed

I tend to agree Bagso if that is Ryanair's final offering. They do sometimes announce new destinations later but I assume the current schedule can be achieved with the same 7 based a/c plus quite a few services with non-based. Bremen still showing no flights so how does 37 destinations for s15 compare with this year?

Let's see what happens with Easyjet over the next few weeks as currently they just seem to have loaded existing summer destinations and frequencies (plus Madeira from Feb), and those only for April/May 2015.

Ryanair Comparison - UK Bases Summer '15 - As Envisaged at 09-09-2014

STN 1132 deps pw; 134 routes ("10% increase")
MAN 204 deps pw; 37 routes
EDI 130 deps pw; 32 routes
LPL 122 deps pw; 32 routes
BRS 113 deps pw; 28 routes
BHX 91 deps pw; 21 routes
GLA 57 deps pw; 9 routes
PIK 44 deps pw; 16 routes

Further info awaited: EMA 36 routes advised in earlier press release, number of deps pw TBA. Info awaited for LBA, LTN, BOH etc.

MAN's share of the pie doesn't look too bad viewed in this context. Of course, additions may still follow as new aircraft deliveries are finally starting up again after a lengthy pause. STN's increase would presumably require additional based units. And bases on the continent will be bidding for new aircraft too.

This seems a pretty good offering (at MAN) for me. Further growth would be nice, but given the aircraft delivery situation I will regard any further additions as a very welcome bonus.

LS

Just checked the current position for S15.

JER is definitely gone no longer in menus.

CDG and EGC were in the earlier S15 release but now gone.

TLS is now showing at 2pw down 2 on last year.

FCO,HER, BCN showing 1 less flight each than earlier release.

FAO up 4 to same as last year.

PMI up 2 but still 4 down from last year.

PSA up 1 to same as last year.

ACE up 1 but still 1 down from last year.

Indeed MAN is now by some margin FR's second largest UK base after STN. One does have to think if there is some sort of deal between FR and the entire MAG portfolio of airports as I believe this is followed by EMA in 3rd (certainly through summer schedules) and of course they are the dominant carrier in BOH as well.


As it stands with based aircraft:


LPL seems to lose 1 through much of next summer except in August when it's the same as this year.


...Same goes for BHX.


PIK is down 1 but compensated by GLA base (and more than compensated in terms of weekly flights).


EDI is the same as this year but an increase in flights, just like MAN.


BRS gains an aircraft but that doesn't really equate to any increase in flights as it stands.


STN, despite the strong growth, to my knowledge is actually a few aircraft down with more flying done from aircraft based overseas. I would almost guarantee new routes between now and April for STN though so could balance out.


BOH, EMA, LBA and LTN still to come. They are not looking too bad at all for the UK next year considering its early days. Let's hope MAN and the UK as a whole does see further aircraft being based here now that the new deliveries are coming in.

Shed, taken in isolation within the MAN operation, your figures on Ryanair do show that MAN has fared remarkably well since the relaunch of the airline's base here. Over 200 weekly departures in s2015 is significant and welcome.

However, I think some of us are looking at what happens with Ryanair and Easyjet next year in the context of what is almost certainly happening with MON with less destinations and frequencies and, in all probability, at least 2 less based a/c. The information posted by Viscount 702 on Jet2 is also a concern in that while this second version of their schedule is probably no worse overall in the number of weekly departures than the first release, the latter certainly meant a decrease on this summer. It is still possible that more flights will be introduced but as things stand, two of MAN's main customers may be doing less business than this summer.

Put in this context, I would be hoping that Ryanair and Easyjet might expand, not just to compensate for the reduction in the two airlines mentioned, but sufficiently to help MAN grow overall. Of course, there's TOM and TCX and while we know the latter is doing some new things, I'm not clear how their total schedules compare with this year. Then there's long haul with legacy carriers where the position is not finalised, but CX to HK and DL to JFK will be a boost but with question marks over Egyptair and US to Charlotte. (and if Skip is to be believed, AA to JFK).

It's still early days. A lot can happen before the final situation for summer is known and there may be other things in the pipeline that if they come to pass will enable MAN to continue its growth of the last 2 years. And it could be argued that the quality and mix of MAN's portfolio of destinations and airlines is just as important as passenger numbers; speaking of which, it would be nice to see some August figures.

Ryanair
 

FR at STN, please see my posting on the Liverpool thread. The Ryanair rep has stated that there are 5 based aircraft for summer 2015 and that passenger volumes are expected to fall by 50k as a result of the transfer of Shannon to MAN. I think he is likely to know what he is talking about.

In theory, yes, but if Scotland votes “yes” all bets are off.

When that law was drafted no one anticipated a potential constitutional crisis within the fixed-term. The beauty of an unwritten constitution is flexibility: a one clause bill repealing that stupid piece of legislation could be passed in a day.

Apart from anything else, it’s in the long term interests of both the Conservative and Labour parties do so. Expediency is a wonderful thing.






Good question, Bagso, my guess would be that this was because VS duplicated existing well-established routes that already have high levels of frequency.

Trading under a rather silly and unhelpful name couldn’t have helped.

Connectivity depends on critical mass, BA has it, LH has it, EK/QR/EY AF have it, KL has it however VS doesn't come close and VS/DL is still not there. Do you deny the UK should even have a hub Bagso? I assume you mean you'd prefer KLM to leave MAN-AMS on fiddling little narrow bodies and set up a point to point MAN long haul operation with spare MD11s? Or am I misunderstanding?

Well my response was to a slightly different question posed by FFD so unsure what narrow bodies to AMS has to do with it , but as you ask Skip.

Lets be clear my interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North in that order, I see Manchester Airport as key to that. I hope therefore those who are charged with running its operation over their tenure do their damnedest to secure new routes and of course retain them.

How you view that performance is difficult to quantify with no based airline, and located 200 miles from one of thee largest hubs in the World, you could argue it still does brilliantly well.

It currently also has to put up with a torrent of media output focused on London and its airport expansion.

As a slight aside no finer example than the constant outpouring of support from @Telegraph who even this week ran the headline in their business column

" 6 out of 10 MPs support expansion at Heathrow,

This utterly misleading headline suggested a vast majority of our MPs support this, quite frankly its utter BULL@@@@

When you read the detail only 140 MPs were actually questioned , the 6 out of 10 figure relates to them.

how about an equally misleading line therefore ...

40% of MPs reject Heathrow ?

I'm not against a hub airport but please lets base the conclusion on a "thorough decision making process" and also have a fair playing field and not this blind faith that it has to be LHR just because its there .....

And certainly not a decision made by the imbeciles on the Airport Commission or the MPS who will then vote on this poor research.

"We have to compete , no new runways have been built in since WW2",

That was another line trotted out this week, hang on, did you not have your chance with Stansted or did i miss that one, a huge white elephant fortunately saved only by the coincidence of a locost revolution, there was an opportunity then, but nobody turned up, they are still try now, all to no avail !
Right airport Wrong location !

For what its worth "a hub" should have been been built in my view out towards the M40 corridor somewhere near the old USAF airfield at Croughton. A large 4 runway airport, where there is room to expand, where the current workforce can get to etc.

But they didn't.....the opportunity in my view was lost. So sorry no I don't believe this desperate attempt and that is what it is to expand LHR is the answer, its in totally the wrong place , the infastructure won't support the airport, another runway to the North merely tinkers at the edges , but like the bankers before them we have consultants , etc all rubbing their hands with glee at the £000,000s to be made, if its the wrong decision well the devil take the high road.

Its a mess, that cannot be unraveled but lets not make a bigger one !

So we are where we are like it or lump it !

On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it. I'm sure you will argue again maybe its false demand based on an inability to get into LHR, maybe it is, I would argue that we have significant capacity in TheNorth that will support a sizeable amount of demand that originates up here.

It has to go somewhere and whilst it may not be the complete answer I would much prefer airlines such as ;

USAir
Rouge
SAUDIA
Cathay
Thomas Cook
Delta
Hainian etc

.... come to Manchester, which is the actuality, than to have somebody preach if we don't do this or don't do that they will go somewhere in Europe.

I use Flightradar24.com to find the based airliners information every night :) I know there are some night stoppers as well but I don't include these as they are pretty much all gone by early in the morning :)

I often make these by accident haha. Cheers for that :)

I would include this one but there is lack of information on where it goes.

I never planned to add these but this has been asked a lot so I am considering it. Moves around quite a bit though :)

You should see my flight sim at this time :) It's really full. I really feel like MAN needs an expansion. If the proposed satellite Terminal for T2 and the Pier extension for T3 will come, then I think it would make a big difference to this :)

Yup and as has been explained to you on multiple occasions, it will connect overseas shafting British jobs (in London and the posh South East BOOOOOOOOOO!). STN was a huge mistake because the market did not want it, the BAA was told that, the market wanted LHR. Indeed the market continues to choose LHR over LGW for hub connections almost every time. You keep assuming that LHR being full means poeple wanting to come to the UK will fly locally and direct. Some will, however many more will use overseas hubs like Dubai, Doha (lovely country, they hate gays and non muslims, huge supporters of ISIS but oooosh they fly to MAN twice daily on a state sponsored airline, feel the love for the shiny Boeings / Airbuses), Abu Dhabi, or in Europe, better frequencies and connections are available overseas at FRA/CDG/AMS/ZRH/HEL etc.

MAN's long haul portfolio is bouncing back but it's not growing dramatically in the way you seem to think it ought to as LHR remains constrained and has done so since intial closure to new entrants in 1977.

And as is blatantly clear, the rest of the country can go and hang so long as your local area is blessed? And you wonder why a national integrated transport policy is so hard to manage?

They will come to MAN, but via a European gateway, exporting the jobs to Europe and benefiting Lufthansa, Swiss, Air France / KLM etc. Is that so hard to understand?

#bettertogether :)

Well, in the context of stand usage, these 2 aircraft do occupy stands all day at Manchester, and certainly spend more time at MAN than most other based units.

Manchester Airport soaring towards having its busiest year ever - Manchester Evening News

8.2% growth in August!

Skipness - The gridlock in the SE airports system is unfortunate, and whilst we can debate the numerous factors which have contributed to the evolution of that situation, I think it is safe to conclude that MAN is not to blame! I wholeheartedly agree that LHR needs additional runway capacity, but for whatever reason it is not there and is not going to be there any time soon. So we are where we are and this is the framework we must plan around going forward.

Given this environment, I see no problem with MAN securing such business as it can. In reality, there is virtually no requirement for Londoners to travel north to commence their air travel so they are not inconvenienced in that respect. However, many residents of the North have for years had little choice but to make their journeys to long-haul destinations via LHR, and I have no problem with MAG and other agencies working with overseas carriers to reverse that trend.

Where I must strongly take issue with you concerns the implicit criticism of northern customers supporting overseas carriers operating from MAN rather than religiously patronising BA and its dreadful unreliable transfer hub. I have no objection to BA operating in whatever manner it chooses - it is a commercial business with tough choices to make and I respect that. If that means MAN is just a spoke for afew A319s daily to LHR so be it. But the key word there is CHOICE … BA make a strategic choice which best serves their business. Fine. But here is the bit which is NOT fine … the condemnation of northern travellers who in consequence make a choice to support those carriers which best serve their own travel needs. Their choice is valid too. They have a right to choose too. They do NOT owe LHR a living. And they certainly don't owe loyalty to BA, an airline which offers the bare minimum in serving them. BA and its apologists cannot have their cake and eat it too.

I remind you (once again) that Emirates and Etihad are both large employers in the NW. Etihad and its Abu Dhabi partners are also enormous investors in Greater Manchester specifically. The NW operations of these two carriers alone contribute significant taxes to the UK exchequer (who can then spend it all on Crossrail, London Olympics Villages etc. as they choose). Your objections to the political climate in Qatar have merit, BUT … if we choose to fly only with carriers domiciled in nations with saintly politicians I'm afraid we're all doomed to stay on the ground! Sociopathic megalomania and questionable moral judgment is a universal job-requirement for successful politicians.

MAN is fully justified in attracting whatever carriers it can and the NW public are right to support the services offered as a result. Their only obligation is to best serve their own travel needs. BA is most welcome to commit more resources up here (we don't "hate" them), but we all know they won't. Well, thats absolutely fine - its just business. But that means that we up here will continue flying with QTR, UAE, ETD, KLM, AFR, DLH, DAL, AAL, UAL and all the others, and BAW supporters have NO moral grounds to condemn us for that. We support UK jobs at Manchester Airport by so doing; we support businesses which prosper in the NW hinterland based on this connectivity. We support the UK tax revenue which arises in consequence of this economic activity. And we are proud to do so. Manchester workers pay their taxes into the same pot as London workers. Those who suggest that tolerating the LHR transfer experience is something we should all patriotically endure for the benefit of UK jobs are talking pure hogwash. Sorry.

And now, changing topic entirely. MANFOD - I share your concerns regarding potential retrenchment by carriers such as Monarch and Jet2. I agree that it would be nice to see RYR / EZY expansion filling the void. I suspect that RYR / EZY would like to take up the slack too, but aircraft availability limits expansion options in the short-term so we must be patient a while longer. In the case of Monarch in particular, we are facing not only the possibility of fewer based frames but also the impact of MAN having been home to many of their larger types in the past. A 'double whammy' in the short term, but better to take that pain now rather than see an airline not secure financial viability for the future. Better a leaner, fitter Monarch for the long term than a non-downsized financial black-hole Monarch till the money runs out. Good luck to all affected.

Shed - Amen to that excellent post.

Skip, you've mentioned twice now that LHR has been closed to new entrants since 1977. I'm puzzled by this as how come those cheeky Chinese carriers are now operating, not to mention a few airlines from the Middle East for example?

Isn't it true that when airlines fold or give up slots, those slots become available and slots are traded? Haven't BA effectively cut out some domestic routes and juggled slot pairs to enable them to expand long haul services? Yes, LHR may be constrained overall but there has been scope within the system to allow new airlines to fly and existing carriers to swap less profitable services for more lucrative routes. The number of new services started from LHR in recent years is remarkable considering it's 'full'.

Personally, I prefer to see MAN grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North rather than simply rely on extra traffic because LHR is 'full', which may prove only a temporary benefit as LGW has found.

Basil, thanks for the link to the August traffic report in the M.E.N.

Near the end of that article there is a link to another Ryanair story which originally included an alleged quote indicating many of the airline's new planes on order would be based at MAN over the next 5 years. I nearly choked in disbelief and I see that paragraph has now been deleted. The 300,000 extra pax a year mentioned appears to relate to the new Eindhoven and Shannon services.

It sounds a lot, but a based 738 with 189 seats doing. say. a fairly modest 18 rotations a week with a few longer sectors for 50 weeks provides 340,000 seats. On the other hand, a 763 daily service to the States has less than half that, but both are extremely important.

MANFOD - my own view is that FR and EZY are the best bets by far for future growth in the LCC sector. They have massive presence Europe-wide and can attract business at both ends of the route.

If growth by FR and EZY is at the expense of Monarch and Jet2 then so be it. Monarch are in some trouble, and I really can't see that Jet2's strategy of relying on availability of ancient aircraft is a sustainable one for the long term. The history of airlines in the UK is littered with the carcasses of airlines that started in that way before eventually having to move on to new aircraft and then going belly up.

MAN has suffered in recent years from its misguided decision to freeze out FR and EZY in the first place, and then having to pick up the pieces by going after second tier carriers such as bmibaby and (dare I say it) Jet2.

Better to go with the market leaders, even if it's a few years later than it should have been. Let's focus on growing FR and EZY, and clawing back more of the traffic that was lost to LPL and elsewhere.

Better to go with the market leaders, even if it's a few years later than it should have been. Let's focus on growing FR and EZY, and clawing back more of the traffic that was lost to LPL and elsewhere.


Basically what you are saying here is lets force routes from LPL and LBA to MAN and sod the extra people who will have to travel from Liverpool and Leeds

Vinnym - no, if those who live in the catchment areas of LPL and LBA can support flights from their local airports then great.

But if you look at the CAA stats there are a lot of people who live close to MAN but who fly from LPL because a wider range of LCC destinations have historically been available there. That's not really a sensible situation, and one that only arose because previous management at MAN turned up its nose at the likes of FR and EZY.

I would suggest that there are a lot more people from the LPL and LBA catchments areas who travel to MAN than vice versa, just seems that some people want all traffic to go through MAN and never mind if people are forced to travel and clog up out already manic motorways

Yes, you're right of course. Unfortunately it's a fact of life in the air transport business that size matters. Big airports have a gravitational effect that does tend to squeeze out the smaller ones. But that's airline economics.

What I was getting at was the 800,000 annual pax whose ground origin was in the Gtr Manchester area but who used LPL, in the last CAA survey (dates from 2010 unfortunately). Not to mention the 350,000 from Yorkshire and Humberside who used LPL and who, by rights, ought to be using LBA or DSA or EMA or MAN before driving all the way to LPL. And there's also chunky numbers from the West Midlands and East Midlands regions using LPL.

It just goes to show how much of a first mover advantage LPL gained against the stodgier airports, in realising the potential of the LCCs. However, this was at considerable financial cost and it now seems that the only way is down for LPL. And it's interesting to see the quote in the MEN article about promoting MAN's LCC links in markets such as Merseyside, St Helens, Warrington and Wigan, well into "enemy territory".

I'll try and respond without reference to the introduction of emotive language or is there a need to respond in this manner as your arguments fail to hold water ?

Quote:
On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it. Some will, however many more will use overseas hubs like Dubai, Doha (lovely country, they hate gays and non muslims, huge supporters of ISIS but oooosh they fly to MAN twice daily on a state sponsored airline.


As suggested, banning airlines on the basis of values would leave not only Manchester bereft but also LHR. It might not sit well, it might be unpalatable but if you are unable to base argument on business decisions please lets not start introducing moral arguments.

Quote:
MAN's long haul portfolio is bouncing back but it's not growing dramatically in the way you seem to think it ought to as LHR remains constrained and has done so since initial closure to new entrants in 1977.


CONSTRAINED since 1977, are you actually being serious ?

Good grief, LHR was doing circa 27 million passengers in 1977 !

Its only trebled to 70+m since then, as for new entrants, I haven't got time to list them ......

Quote:
Lets be clear my interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North in that order, And as is blatantly clear, the rest of the country can go and hang so long as your local area is blessed? And you wonder why a national integrated transport policy is so hard to manage?

I suggested my main interest is Manchester, The NWest and The North, it is a complete twist of wording to indicate that I suggested that "the rest the country can hang".

But what of Integrated transport policy, many thanks for introducing that one, a very timely reminder.

Would this be the one that spends £2700 per head of population within the M25, £134 per head in the NWest and wait for it, £5 per head in the North East.

My Goodness, Westminster must think they are are still using "wattle and daub" on Tyneside !

#Allinittogther:ok:

....and please don't throw back that "its the Capital", whilst that level of spend might be justified the disparity most certainly isn't !


Quote:
if we don't do this or don't do that they will go somewhere in Europe.
They will come to MAN, but via a European gateway, exporting the jobs to Europe and benefiting Lufthansa, Swiss, Air France / KLM etc. Is that so hard to understand?


At the end of the day direct flights benefit both the passenger and indeed the airports at either end of the journey. When EK came along that effected BA,AF,KL, etc

When Cathay start that in itself may effect EK, its called business....!

Bagso's point about the disparity in how the country is treated outside of London goes a long way to explain what we are currently seeing in Scotland.

The 1977 closure to new entrants at LHR was rescinded in 1991-92 ish, LHR was full and closed to new traffic for 14 years which is partly why LGW used to have a major long haul operation from CX, NZ, KE, AA, DL, CO etc etc. Point being MAN only grew in local terms as a gateway to the North and Scotland at the expense of GLA/EDI/PIK having nonsensical traffic distribution rules. MAN made gains at regional expense, not national in those years. Partly as a result of overly restrictive bilaterals, AA and SQ had to move mountains to serve MAN.
London has a massively distorting effect but it does rather rake in the taxes and the workers, not sure what's to be done there. Regionalism might make a comeback if, as I hope, Scotland sobers up before the walk of shame......

(Scottish and about to become a foreigner in my own country......)

Bagso LHR has been constrained for years with market forces forcing out regional connectivity in favour of international p2p, 5 x EK A380 to DXB is worth more than 5 x SH6 to GCI. You should look up what constrained means btw. Also, I did not suggest banning anyone, I make the point that perhaps Qatar is not a beacon of liberty, human rights and sexual equality. Hence they're never going to be up there with my favourite businesses.

Btw, what part of the business world employs you Bagso since you're now keen to tell me how business works? Is it social media as per your recent focus perhaps? ;)

Quote

"At the end of the day direct flights benefit both the passenger and indeed the airports at either end of the journey. When EK came along that effected BA,AF,KL, etc"

Bagso, I'm not sure you've picked the best example of a 'direct flight'. Over 80% of EK's pax ex-MAN are making onward connections - similar proportions as EY and QR. There really isn't much difference between a DXB service and one to LHR, FRA, CDG or AMS. They're all ways of funnelling pax through a hub, whether it's BA's hub or EK's or LH's or AF's or whoever's. You still have to change planes somewhere, and although I'm the first to agree that BA's transfer operation at Heathrow is poor, I'd rather transfer there than at FRA, CDG, DXB, AUH or pretty much any US gateway. Not for chauvinistic reasons, just that those airports offer a very grim experience. AMS can be ok but not if you have hold baggage - its misconnect stats are far worse than LHR ever was, but of course KL try to conceal those stats. ZRH and MUC are good, but both LX and LH have reduced their frequencies ex-MAN so they are no longer very practical connecting options.

Arguably the rise of EK, EY etc has put back the development of true 'direct' services from MAN, as it's difficult to compete with the hub and spoke model (especially where those airlines have grown on the back of easy access to capital and very patient shareholders).

But the great thing about MAN is that customers have a genuine choice, with a wide range of point to point services and great frequencies to a lot of hubs. You pays your money and you takes your choice, and I agree that choice should not be based on simple nationalistic reasons.

Agree that it’s bull, probably more than 60% of MPs support Heathrow expansion. Of course it all depends which MPs are asked.

Discount the usual suspects: Caroline Lucas, Zac Goldsmith, Boris (soon), all the Libdems and a handful of Labour and Conservative.

Most MPs away from London want the expansion so that their areas can once again be linked to Heathrow to connect to the world, in order to aid inward investment, the export drive and regeneration, and have easy access to the many firms with HQs around Heathrow.



Like all the other remote locations suggested - too far out.




No, carriers that can’t get LHR slots go to AMS, CDG, FRA, the only other airports with sufficient connectivity and premium pax (they create carriers’ profits). Consequently, LHR expansion is no threat to MAN.

Usually it’s MAN and LHR, not MAN instead of LHR, particular with long haul.


The government declared LHR to be “full” in 1977 but it, and subsequent governments, did sweet FA about it. Carriers come and go, but it’s substitution not expansion.





LGW is the LHR "waiting room", MAN isn't. Of course MAN should “grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North”, there’s no question, but to expect it to be at LHR‘s expense is a fool‘s errand.

Both MAN and LHR, as well as other airports, need to be allowed to expand.

Possible new route from Aer Lingus as they expand Belfast City operations:

Trade E-Shots

And this article indicates that Ryanair has expanded flight schedule for 2015 with a couple of increases on popular routes:

Routes News - Ryanair reveals its summer 2015 schedule

At the end of the day direct flights benefit both the passenger and indeed the airports at either end of the journey. When EK came along that effected BA,AF,KL, etc

When Cathay start that in itself may effect EK, its called business....!

Probably poorly written my end Basil point I was trying to make was that BA AF KL fly to hubs but we're then overtaken by events with Emirates etc

Now the same may potentially happen to a smaller degree to part of the MEB traffic bound for ASIA re Cathay with some pax flying thru to Hong Kong and terminating with others using Hong Kong as a hub and connecting at the other end.

That maybe true to a degree for economy pax.
However, I've just booked MAN-HKG Business class with EK (again)
Firstly, the CX flights are not daily so restrictive, EK offer multiple daily connections. EK is over £1K cheaper than CX(as are QR, EY, VS, LX, LH).
CX very competitive for eco pax, but you have to go along way to beat the EK A380- to be honest I prefer a break of journey half way, than being stuck in a tube for 14 continuous hours.
My least favourite transfer hubs are LHR & FRA both equally horrible & chaotic. The easiest is MUC & ZRH- but there is only a 45 minute connection with HKG flights at ZRH. DOH & DXB the best for half way house stop with great business class facilities.

You make an excellent point about the importance of frequency, A Tis. Even a daily service is often not enough for long haul business travellers - an example close to my heart is the AA return flight from ORD which leaves far too early for an afternoon's work in Chicago. As a result I often have to connect through a hub, usually LHR.

That's why the focus can never entirely be on point-to-point direct routes - services via hubs will always have a big role for airports like MAN. And, as you point out, the resulting price competition is good for the consumer, even if it puts pressure on the direct services.

I share your views about ZRH and MUC as good hubs. I'm just dismayed that our services to those hubs have gone backwards in recent times. And I gave up using LX because their ground handler at MAN seems totally incapable of turning the plane round within the schedule, leading to many nail-biting connection issues at ZRH. It's not good for the heart!

Mr A Tis, Interesting that you found EK Business Class £1k cheaper than CX from MAN. I wonder how MAN's J class prices for CX compare with LHR's.

It's probably usual for direct non-stop flights to be more expensive than those involving a hub transfer but I would have thought how successful CX are in selling J class on the new MAN route will have a large bearing on whether the service is ultimately expanded to daily or, at the other extreme, fails. A bit of a chicken and egg situation in that respect. Apart from price, business folk may not use it if it's not daily but CX won't increase frequency until the route proves itself.

I'm sure I read some comments that J class was selling quite well but that was a few weeks ago.

CX J is the same LHR or MAN, it's price is in line with BA.
EK, QR, EY. LX, LH, TK, AY, VS are all (usually) considerably cheaper.
However, frequency is important, with 3 departures a day EK s product is hard to beat.
I agree with Basil re frequency. When DL start the JFK- I hope they offer a different flight time to the others. Otherwise all 3 NYC departures will go at more of less the same time.

Delta to JFK is already confirmed as DL234 dep 1200. This is in contrast to AA who depart at 0930 and TCX at 1010.