T2(Phase 1) at LHR which I think was somewhat bigger and complicated was done in half the time. If MAN got anything like T2 I am sure we would be delighted and we live in hope.


Yes I have been recently as I now live within the catchment area and have to listen to Andrew Harrison at least twice a week on the BBC News. However the last time I flew through STN was over 40 years ago so can't speak directly from experience from a PAX point of view but I did make a stop there 6 years ago.. I nonetheless think that even landside
STN has advantages over T1 T2 and T3 at MAN. STN is far superior airside.


Don't get me wrong I am a huge MAN supporter and have flown more times from there than anywhere else. I also get so frustrated with the London Centric nature of this Country. I was born in London and spent over half of my working life living and working there but grew up in Stockport and spent many hours at MAN in the 1960s.

I would love MAN to grow in the way we all hope. However I feel that to do that well we must get the infrastructure right which at present it isn't for an airport of its size. Airside needs major work. Some of it was promised some years back but it wasn't done. Others cant be done until Pier C and part at least of A have gone. Unlike others I don't feel a full length taxiway for R2 is really required as there would be little gain. What I would prefer is the Dubai set up which would mean better use and increased capacity,

However the PAX don't see the airside they only see landside and the terminals.The TP is to be welcomed but it falls short of what ideally is needed. I also feel that it could be cut back or paused at each phase very quickly.

STN was a distraction for MAG and to the detriment of MAN and may continue to be so because of the "London" tag. The TP should have been in hand a few years ago but because of the STN distraction and the need to keep the Australians happy who lets face it were only interested because of STN it didn't come forward quick enough.

Stand Capacity at MAN is dire and you can't get expansion without the capacity. The TP is conflicting on the number of extra stands. The Planning application says only 1 extra. That I think means 1 more over what there is already on the ground and those already consented to but not yet built and takes account of those lost from Pier C but not A which is more long term. That I think could be up to an extra 20 overall but that is some years off and we really need them now.

LAX_LHR I know you have posted elsewhere on the start dates for new and increased services but I think a number of those are yet to be confirmed. TAP still seems to be 11 per week at present.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about STN being superior airside, as, I am sticking firmly to my experiences which were far from enjoyable. Even the current T2 knocks the 'new' STN experience out of the park. It may have been designed as a superior facility, and, up until a few years ago, I Would have agreed that STN was the better port, however, that story has, for me and many others on review sites, changed quite considerably in the last 12 months.

Andrew Harrison may be 'bigging up' the 'new' STN in local media, but, that's his job. He's hardly going to say anything negative.

In terms of new flights, some are yet to be confirmed publicly (there are only 5 in that list you mention that are 'unconfirmed'), however, there are confirmations as such in the form of either direct quotes from the airlines/official spokespersons (Pegasus and TAP), media campaigns (air blue), tickets for sale via 3rd parties (Shaheen) or known by many just not confirmed in public yet (air China).

There are also some new routes not mentioned in my list, but, they will come in time....

MAN T2 is ok at the moment. T1 and T3 are hellholes

T3 isn't great at all, but T1 is ok until you get to the piers.

I suppose it's all elementary now given T1 is going to be knocked down. I just hope T3 gets given a makeover too.

Value for money
 

Whilst making comparisons with Heathrow it would only be fair to compare also the fees levied. If the airlines, and ultimately their passengers, are willing to pay airport charges in the order of Heathrow's £33-£42 per departing passenger then we might expect to see equivalent terminal and airside infrastructure. As it stands Manchester's charges are 20% to, at most, 35% of those, and that is before Heathrow reviews its charges to fund the development of Runway 3 (if it goes ahead).

Both airport's schedule of fees and charges are openly available on the internet.

Viscount 702
I have to agree with LAX-LHR, T3 has largely been a hole since BA pulled out of the North, T2 is poorly designed and is plainly just shabby with extremely poor lounges to boot. T1 is not that bad with some reasonable lounges, indeed the EK one is one of my favourite's on the network. The retail offering appears OK for those who require to shop (not one of my requirement's I have to say.) As for Stansted last time I was through 10 months ago it looked akin to T2 Manchester, just a little grotty and tired. It has to be hoped that the redevelopment at Man is a little more inspiring internally, than that which is currently on offer in T2.


Regards
Mr Mac

DECEMBER PAX.

Now posted on the airport web site:

http://mag-umbraco-media-live.s3.ama...ember-2015.pdf

I expect charter flights in Dec. will have been affected by SSH for one.

Including transit, 23,207,650 pax for the year, up 5.23%. And the signs for 2016 even better.

Freight for the year 103,922 tons, an increase of 10.3%.

LAX_LHR. Any hints as to whether these announcements of new routes not previously mentioned will be mainly long haul, short haul, or a mix? I guess the ones already semi-official are long haul.

I totally agree.I wasn't suggesting we could complete with LHR. I was talking about the time for the rebuild though which is half that proposed for MAN.

Also I don't think T2 at LHR is plush by any means but it has space and is or was a pleasure to use and is functional.

I would seem that I was wrong on STN landside and will bow to those who have used it recently. Airside is a different matter.

Don't forget that LHR had just opened T5, and so were able to clear T2 out and crack on. MAN is forced into a much more piecemeal approach due to a lot less wiggle room.

MAN takes lots of flak on here for its alleged poor infrastructure planning. But just a moment ... MAN is the one and only UK airport of size which had the foresight and vision to build an additional full-length runway when the going was good. The result is that MAN does not have a runway capacity problem today, and slot capacity looks ample for the foreseeable future. That is an enviable position to be in. Some very good management decisions led up to that. If we're doling out criticism for the terminals then it is only fair to give full credit for the runway initiative. Terminal upgrades are far, far easier to plan and implement than a new runway.

Ah, but does it? You haven't seen the final version of the TP. Actually, neither have I. For good reason. Many of the designers have only just been awarded contracts for their roles. What we have seen so far are outline plans which will evolve dramatically between now and final completion.

I have sympathy with this point of view and confess to being unenthusiastic when news of the acquisition was first announced. However, that is water under the bridge and STN is now an integral part of the group. One thing that I must say is that in the light of recent estimates of the cost of constructing new runways at LHR/LGW, it is clear that MAG picked up STN for peanuts by comparison. As an asset, STN must now be valued multiples higher than the sum initially paid by MAG. That gives an enviable level of financial security to the group.

I agree that STN can sometimes appear to be a management distraction from MAN. Some executives split their time between the sites. There are some conflicts of interest too as demonstrated by the recent situation which has seen a major cargo airline choosing between two airports represented by the same marketing executive. And he is based at STN. Having said that, I don't believe that MAG will neglect MAN in favour of STN. They see the numbers, they speak with the airlines, they know the potential of (by far) the largest airport in the North. MAN has a client-base which is far more varied and lucrative than that at a Ryanair-dominated no-frills gateway which happens to be close to London. I'm not playing down STN ... it is a major airport with a bright future. But the same is true of MAN as well and MAG understands that. As for the Australians, rest assured that Manchester (as a city) enjoys very high recognition dunnunda. If MAN continues to yield healthy profits and dividends they'll be happy with their investment decision.

Yes, but that is the initial planning application to get the project underway. As alluded to earlier, much of the TP hasn't been designed yet. There is alot more to follow between now and ten years hence. I had the opportunity to ask one of the senior executives involved in the project about this. Will the TP provide sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth? "Of course. It wouldn't be worth our while undertaking this otherwise!"

I note that the FlyBe 6x weekly CWL-MAN rumour has now made it to the Cardiff and FlyBe threads on this forum ...

So is the MAN-CWL-MAN rumours true then ? When will they be announced if true ?

Not sure I agree with you entirely on that one Shed

The only interface with the existing operation when R2 was constructed was the crossing points on R1. Otherwise it was just one big builders compound where the contractor could phase things as they wanted to for the most efficient construction schedule.

However, the most difficult phase of the runway development was the work required to get to the stage where the planning permission was granted. Work started in 1989, an application was made in 1993, the Inquiry was in 1995, permission was granted in 1997 and operations commenced in 2001.

Getting planning permission for a terminal should be a lot easier - just look at LHR. The planning Inquiry for R2 at MAN was around 100 working days; I seem to remember the MAN T2 Inquiry was a couple of days.

If you are building a new terminal on a new site such as T2 at MAN, again it will be mostly a contained building site during construction. AFAIK the new T2 at LHR was also effectively one big building site which was isolated from the rest of the operation for most of the construction period as all the T2 traffic had been decanted elsewhere

But as soon as you start working on a terminal upgrade, you are working in an operational area and therefore you have to maintain access to enough areas to ensure that passenger operations can continue. In order to do this the plan has to be split into many phases which takes longer and costs more. The MAN TP is like this because unlike LHR there is much less scope for decanting and this will be a major challenge to ensure that the demand can be handled all the time. We know the rough sequence of events but as Shed posted there is a lot of detail yet to come out and as the design progresses we may see some changes.

This addresses Viscount's point about the different timescales for the MAN TP and LHR T2 and has already been pointed out by Shed.

Suzeman - I agree with you entirely on this. I phrased my point badly. My intention was to convey that it is a much tougher task to get a new runway approved than is the case for a terminal. Construction challenges are another matter as you correctly point out.

Interesting to see the rumours about Cardiff. The train takes a long time to get there and is often not a proper long distance train either so this could take up some point-point demand along with presumably a lot of opportunities to connect onto Flybe services further north and onto Code Shares.

CARDIFF

As regards p2p traffic, the problem is it's only forecast to be 6 x weekly - presumably Mon-Fri plus 1 at weekend.

An early arrival in MAN at say 08.00 (replacing the Bournemouth slot?) is fine for business in Manchester or connecting with their own flybe flights or transfers to other carriers including long haul to the US or to EK for example. But at what time do they operate the return? I guess late afternoon or evening provides the better options for business pax and inward transfers from domestic or other flights, including the ME3. Not much use though for transfers from the US.

Just to add, while such timings would enable a day trip for pax from Cardiff to MAN, it wouldn't work in the opposite direction. It's probably reasonable though, given the transfer possibilities, to assume that the main flow would be Cardiff originating.

Indeed! it's ridiculous and it's holding the country back.

Do we know how advance bookings are re Hainan?

_________________________________________________

Has there been any official announcement by MAG of the new PR guru from Heathrow?

Seems very odd not to make some capital from this. Apologies if I missed it but not seem anything by MAG themselves on social media or the more usual MEN !

Bold statement
 

I'm not convinced....

Of course there is capacity for new services. Large parts of the day, the place is like a ghost town with only one runway needed.
Where the capacity is constrained is during the morning peak and for the overnight parking of aeroplanes - that's all.

It's a classic operation of based aircraft in waves, there are indeed parts of the day when Teminal 2 can actually sit empty of docked aircraft.

Large growth opportunity is there for non based easyJet, Ryanair, Vueling, Wizz and so forth IMHO.

I agree Skip, although Ryanair already has a significant proportion of their MAN flights with non-based a/c.

Personally, I think it's a pity MAN have missed out on Wizzair, given that the airport is not all that strong in Eastern Europe with destinations such as Bucharest and Vilnius not served as well as other potential cities in Poland. However, with the airline firmly established at LPL, the situation seems unlikely to change in the near future.

Please ask yourselves why those gates are empty at off peak times. MAN/airlines growth and profit comes from peak time travel. If it cannot offer gates at peak times, then people and airlines have LPL and LBA.

That is just PR bull from MAG. The airport is growing because there is increased demand, MAG are employing its because of SE having no spare capacity and look we do which is not at all correct.

Yes room for some off peak growth but as said people want to travel at peak times then the airport must cater for thst if you dont then you lose new business and possible damage grwoth of existing.

Yes, people want to get up at 4am for a 6am departure - not! This is first wave to suit the airlines :) maximising aircraft flying hours and nothing wrong with that. However first wave departures of a non MAN based aircraft gets to use MAN at an off peak time, so it's dependent on the airline from which end they want to serve MAN-xyz. In terms of leisure, the customer follows the carrier whereas in time sensitive business travel, the carrier must follow the customer.
Ask yourself how many people demand a 6am departure on the first day of their holiday needing an overnight airport hotel stop. Again, this is often carrier driven rather than customer focussed.

Note it says MAG airports, not just Manchester..

And look at the histograms from the Summer Season 2015 ACL report here to see where the spare capacity is by runway and terminal. There was quite a bit as you can see although probably a bit less for 2016 where the scheduling is still work in progress, so the report will not be available for a few months. But please be convinced there is plenty f spare capacity for a lot of the day

http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File...n%20Report.pdf

SKP1F is quite correct in what he says in the previous post. And MAN is encouraging airlines to operate in the off peak by means of modulated charging ie discounts for operating in off peak periods

http://mag-umbraco-media-live.s3.ama...march-2016.pdf

Not sure who the tweet is aimed at though; perhaps this is aimed at Bagso to show him they haven't gone to sleep - quite...:). Any airline will know full well what is going on without this, so it is presumably part of a "strategy??" aimed at those outside the industry. Or is that asking too much?

And here's the STN capacity report but any discussion about that should be taken over to that thread

http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/STN_S15_SOS.pdf

Suzeman, thanks for those links.

What was good news for MAN was that actual pax numbers increased over the summer of 2015 by significantly more than the 0.4% / 1.3% increase in seats available shown in the ACL report compared to the start and end of s2014. I assume this would partly be due to higher LFs, but would it also arise from say the use of larger a/c than originally planned or were some new services which started part way through the summer (e.g Austrian and Iberia) perhaps not included in the original slots and schedules?

It will be interesting to see what the ACL report reveals for the start of summer 2016.

There's a lot of construction work going on to the East of T2 by the Beijing Construction Engineering Group, running along Area 7 car park and into Long Stay 2 and Staff West.

Anyone know what they're doing? Just curious :ok:

750XL
The works @ west of T2 is a new gas main and ancillary ducting. Noticed today work has begun at the east end of T2 also.

Reservations should theoretically open for Air China any day now "if" it's still going ahead !

Whilst the PR spin of "spare capacity" might well be over egged some of us are at least pleased they are saying something, anything... although the telemetry once again seems somewhat adhoc with this reference appearing in The BusinessDesk but completely bypassing their usual 1st choice i.e. their good buddies at the business pages of the M E N (...at least thus far).

It illustrates the random adhoc nature of the output, hopefully something that Adam Jupp and Graeme Elliott will address. That said I cannot help thinking the latters appointment might have more to do with selling the image of our vibrantly ugly sister down in Essex as a London Airport, than promotion of the Manchester Airport within the Republic of Mancunia and its wider catchment. We shall see !

As far as I am concerned Manchester and Stansted are most definitely NOT bosom buddies although (and it chokes me to say this ), given the eye-watering cost of proposed new tarmac in the SE I can at least begrudgingly concede it was a not unreasonable buy.

Both however remain in very direct competition with each other, GT managed to cap STN expansion in the 80s fearing yet another London Airport would swallow up even more UK capacity. I share that view today.

Others may argue that both are different markets, maybe they are BUT airlines with spare aircraft will only allocate them once and personally I want that expansion here not in agricultural Essex.

Much to the chagrin I suspect of our mates in Wollongong all the long haul increases in route structure, capacity and frequency have in the last 2 years somewhat stubbornly manifested themselves at Manchester, this has been supported by a good mix of increase in short haul with a variety of airlines.

And therein lies the rub. STN dominated as it is by RYR would I'm sure have been the "preferred" choice" for the type of expansion that MAN is seeing however the significant recovery in pax number there is almost all based on the whim of one airline. A blessing but ultimately also a curse !

There is a danger that the capacity cap that GT imposed with now be breached. With MAG pushing for expansion, its more than possible that Graeme Elliott has been brought in to oversee the PR push for that expansion rather than one with a Mancunian agenda.

If the PR output does become more widespread and dare I say more consistent and professional it will be interesting to see how the differing messages that both airports offer are couched.

Ps .. that injection of professionalism cannot come quick enough. The recruitment agency must surely have had an inkling that the Concorde suite was far to small for 3000 jobs /applicants !

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....chaos-10729811

DHL Didn't last long ?
 

I understand that the recently axed daytime-stopper DHL freighter, that was rumoured to be re-starting around April time, is now defunct completely, as all slot requests have been cancelled.
The road trucking experience must obviously be preferable to them, and dare I say it, to MA as well, as it frees up an otherwise daily occupied stand, and the freight still earns them revenue through E. Mids !
Being even more mischievous, it also means that perhaps a stand can be kept for car parking !!?? :suspect:
About as useful in attracting freighters as organising a jobs fair - amateurs in a professional world ! :confused:

Tell me about it :ugh:

Got caught up in the traffic coming out of Staff West so the 15 minutes to home took nearly an hour and a half. :eek:

DHL Didn't last long ?

Staggering news !

I fully appreciate the amount of trucked freight contributes to overall attractivess of the airport BUT hang on, this is a custom made facility "on airport", having a service start, which lasts a few weeks, only for that service to reimerge possibly at EMA or worse Stansted. It's bizarre !

Surely a prestigious facility opening as a wider part of Airport City (South) is a major cornerstone of the airport offering ?

That is the crux of it EMA has a huge DHL operation

Re-emerging at EMA is conjecture- they have a number of flights to Leipzig from there already so unlikely to be adding another one as a direct replacement. DHL have taken at least 3 757s out of service in the last few months with only 1 replacement coming in. There are supposed to be 2 more under conversion which would presumably make up the gap, but they haven't been delivered yet.

A more likely scenario is that they managed to work their schedule to operate flights for the busy couple of months up to Christmas, with the help on occasions of the Bulgarian 737s, but now that things are quieter for a while they have moved the capacity. It's always possible that having dipped a toe in the water they've had a rethink, but apart from spotter conspiracy theories I struggle to come up with something the airport may have done that would scare them off, especially with them being such a big MAG group customer.

I was told by various sources flight would definitely be back in april?? They would be using s bigger aircraft to accommodate other areas of northern England. Maybe they are changing the slot??

I appreciate the DHL facility has turned Manchester into an "International Destination", re Air - Road, clearly its a huge positive to have a parcel / frieght service that allows inbound frieght to be processed onsite then migrate across the Northern m-way network.

....however both myself and indeed a few others were of the opinion that such a grand facility would in addition be an "International DEPARTURE point" in its own right using the very same advantages of an inbound facility ?

PS It's a wee bit presumtuous to assume we are all "spotters", speaking personally I have not jotted a number down in 25 years !

But I am interested in Manchester Airport as a catalyst for growth across the wider region. I am reminded that the current management, whilst in temporary situ to maximise shareholder value, also have an obligation to assist as a major lynchpin in supporting the wider economy.

And slot requests can always be re-instated. I would have thought that at the time of day it would operate, it shouldn't be a problem to get what they wanted. At this time of year slots of all sorts are being cancelled and new requests are being made.

We will have to wait and see what happens

RYANAIR

Looking at the timetable for the first week in August 2016, I reckon there are 256 weekly departures by Ryanair, which I think is an increase from about 218 in S2015.

Of those 256, something like 114 are by non-based a/c, or c 45%. DUB accounts for 34 of the non-based (the 17.35 flight appears to be with a based a/c). Nevertheless, even with one or two early arrivals from the likes of DUB and SNN, it must be very helpful to MAN that all the double daily Faro and Malaga services for example operate with non-based a/c, given the constraints of T3. If say only DUB were non-based, at least 12 a/c would be needed meet the rest of the program.

One oddity. Although 8 a/c are required for the first wave of departures on Mon-Thurs (and probably Sun if the 08.00 to Bratislava is a based a/c), I could only find 7 based required on Fri and Sat. Can anyone confirm, and if so, does 1 a/c get moved somewhere else for those 2 days or is it just a gap in the scheduling?