The airport company cannot announce anything until they negotiated with all the companies involved be it airlines, handing agents etc etc on the tempory moves and permenant moves later on which will take many months, then the plans have to go to the council planners etc and then they can announce what is happening.

Ian

The Good The Bad and the downright Ugly !

What sensational postings from Mr Philbky in the last few days, great passion and hard evidence of how we have ended up with a completely kackhanded UK airports policy in 2015 ! One which (sorry) I "thought" SHD was supposed to address "albeit as a part of the runway capacity debate in the SE " ?

And at this point "play the music" !

The "Arch Supporters" of Manchester will no doubt be circling....

"here we go again, Davies, HS2, Heathrow",

Well can I throw out a genuine question, if you have no interest why are you actually here ?

You profess to be supportive of Manchester , really ?

From where I am stood this appears to be a completely false premise.
You have not the slight interest in subjects which will influence its future

Whats the claim again "we need to get back to talking about . . . "

Well what exactly ? Please, please tell us !

The contributions from these naysayers are meagre in number, and when they do appear they are embellished with criticism of the poster, why not devote some of this hot air to creativity of thought !

If you took the time to actually read the postings the repetition as you describe it is based not on regurgitating the same old but invariably addresses "new information", this weeks Tfl report demonstrating a trebling of potential costs to the taxpayer posted on the Heathrow refers !

So as Shed suggests there is a "block option", I suggest you use it with a flourish !

MAN terminal redevelopments
 

There is also the small matter of the shareholders needing to see a strong business case a for a return on the considerable investment required. This takes time and the studies are no doubt on-going as more detail of the proposals is worked up.

The debate on the terminals and use of the apron has in the past drifted into the same "when will they, why don't they, they will be" area of speculation as the Hainan debate.

MAG is between a rock and a hard place. The current resurgence in pax numbers and the way airline alliances and mergers have come about mean that the use of both terminal and apron space has had to be reactive rather than planned. Add to that the demands of security, the legacy of the drive to convert airports into shopping malls in the last two decades and the eventual admission of the LoCos and we have seen a well organised and at times under utilised facility of thirty odd years ago turned into what at times can only be described as a mess.

New buildings don't just appear and the timing of announcements has to take into account a vast range of considerations from raising finance, through working with the statuary authorities, discussions with the airlines on the impact of the work in progress to the possible reaction of the NIMBYS and the environmentalists.

There is no doubt the will is there but, unlike in many other countries, major projects in the UK can't and don't just happen and the timing of announcements and what is said is subject to a great deal of discussion and fine tuning.

In the meantime, there are many airports in major cities around the world as bad and worse than MAN. Rio's international area can see hour long queues for security and immigration in the evening and even since new gate areas were built for the World Cup and Olympics, the food options are very poor. Auckland's bioscreening for inbound passengers is a nightmare when the three Emirates A380s arrive every afternoon in close order.
JFK has arrogant TSA staff and massive departure queues of aircraft every evening. Sitting on an aircraft on the ground for up to an hour waiting for your turn on the runway is just as bad as having to wait in any type of line. LAX terminals are vastly different one to another and ground transfer to car rental or hotels can be a nightmare. Terminal E outbound at IAH has massive queues most late afternoons as the European flights check in and the food and drink facilities airside at the gates are both limited and expensive ($15 for a pint of domestic beer and an orange juice).
Inbound, Terminal E transportation centre is a covered, smelly, hot hell hole with no real order to the system for hotel and car rental buses. There are dozens of other examples.

Just be patient and hold any comments until we see what is proposed.

In the absence of Little Red, Star Alliance are happy to book connections to LHR with BA.
Not just United, many Air Canada fares via BA shuttle to LHR undercut their own Direct Rouge service, presumably to fill up all those 777 & 767s they operate from LHR.

The Manchester Rouge service to YYZ not only goes head to head with Air Transat but also their parent company via London. I just wished they (Rouge)had gone for Montreal from MAN where there is no direct service-unlike 40 years ago when BOAC provided a service.

I still hope the Rouge season this year is successful, but the handling needs to be substantially better than last year.
I'm connecting west Canada soon- all the Transat premium seats are sold out so, I am also being routed via BA to LHR to pick up AC from there.

Montreal has never had the pull that Toronto has due to being more a french speaking area

Always plenty on PPRuNe who know how to spend other people's money!

I know some will preach "free market" and it's airlines who set fares which MAN can do nothing about, but you do have to wonder whether MAN is competing on a level playing field. At times, fares on United's flights from MAN do seem astronomically high which suggests the demand is there.

It is disappointing that UA haven't upgraded a/c to EWR. When I asked the question at their stand at the Manchester Travel Show in January, I got the inevitable answer that they would like to when suitable equipment was available.
Someone suggested the fact they hadn't returned to double daily or larger a/c was very 'telling' (and I must admit it was a surprise when United decided to start a NCL, a route previously announced by AA but then cancelled before it started). However, I don't think it tells us that the reason is due to lack of demand in view of the following:

Some figures reported about 18 months ago (I think by MAN) showed that the most under-served route from MAN was New York.

AA have actually decided to upgrade their JFK flight, albeit to an ageing B767.
More capacity for pax, including the enhanced J class, and cargo.

Delta obviously believe there is demand and that they can make money, as they start JFK shortly.

The high fares already referred to, which I hope is because the demand is there for the direct service and is not simply a device to get passengers to fill up those LHR seats irrespective of the impact on the MAN flights.

And thanks to some excellent posts recently by several contributors.

A fair point. I think we can accept that the planning, discussions with airlines and handling agents, financing arrangements and shareholder approval for a major overhaul / rebuild of terminals takes time, but it would be interesting to know when this process started, bearing in mind MAN's recovery back to growth started 2 or 3 years ago now.

Nevertheless, given that we must be talking several years before anything substantial is built, (and presumably it will be a staged project which can be added to as demand warrants), I feel it is legitimate to ask whether some further measures could be implemented in the meantime. In this context, it did seem strange that at the time MAN was back in growth mode, the airport decided to convert some a/c stands to car parking. To be fair, some steps have been taken such as the new security channels at ground level in T1. But if MAN is to continue to fulfill its ambitions for growth in the interim the indications are that some more temporary improvements will be necessary.

Manfod
i was told that the parking was the only option for a couple of years
which is slowly sorting it`s self out as new options come on line i: e the new 9000 space car park near Styal Rd in Heald Green

Ian

On parking I thought the new 9000 space car park was now fully operational. If so why are they still using the apron for parking. Bring the stands back into use they are needed.

On the terminals we were led to believe that there would be an announcement early this year. Nothing so far. More worrying is the fact that the plans which have been leaked on here and elsewhere are all different. What do you believe.

Mr Cornish said recently if I remember correct that we wouldn't recognise the airport in five years. This implies something is to be done but what and when. It is a bit like Hainan. Mind you he could have been talking about Airport City not the Airport itself

I also recollect that planning permission for the T2 extension already exists because is was gained at the time of the original building with a view to extending when needed which would seem to be now. So provided extending T2 as originally envisaged doesn't interfere with other proposals why not start with this.

There are already signs that expansion by Ryanair etc maybe held back due lack of stands if so it is important that something is done soon.


MAG have been distracted by STN. I think they still are as they see that as the main airport in the Group close to London with plenty of room for expansion and a far better layout into which to expand. Also I believe that on PAX STN will become No 3 again within 2years and that will mean more time will be spent on STN rather than MAN even despite what Davies said.

Mr Cornish said over a year ago that STN would have a China link in about 18 months. I am not sure it will happen but that is the way they are thinking and working.

If MAN doesn't do something about the Terminals and taxiways soon airlines may well start moving away and passengers decline and provided STN keeps growing they (MAG as a business won't care).


Again if I remember correctly a few years ago Taxiway Alpha was going to be rebuilt on a new alignment to improve things but I believe it was shelved and patched up again because of distraction on STN. Also two years ago R1 was completely renewed so why do they still keep closing it for months for maintenance.

It all seems to be do the minimum rather than do what is really needed.

Terminal expansion
 

What reduction in parking was the Metrolink expansion predicated on?

Im pretty sure that the 5 stands turned to car parking last year are still part of the apron this year.

4 were put back into use and the other used for equipment and are still in use this summer as far as I know.

There are a number of others which are still used for car parking which I understood would be put back to stands when the new 9000 space carpark was fully open which I think it is now.

Parking
 

I don't think they are in use. My brother works on the apron and he mentioned the parking to me last week.

hmm!

1 - the majority of bookings are via airlines websites now days and as said no LHR connections offered with UA.

2 - Don't buy the merger excuse, UA have found 752 (2 for DUB, 1 NCL, 1 EDI, 1 SNN) plus 2 B764 for VCE/FCO to name a few for this summer and in recent summers....I agree about the larger aircraft however it's not the route of the problem at MAN.

3 - I knew the EDI comment would ruffle a few feathers! Yes a lot arrive via ground however an new routes with UA, AA and AC in recent years have changed it. If couldn't possible explain my reasons for saying EDI is better, would be here all day! :rolleyes:


Will be interesting to see how long DL stick with JFK and if it becomes year round or upgraded to B763. If they exit MAN again then it may explain a lot and why perhaps UA have not restored EWR capacity.

On a more general point are MAG is active discussions with these carriers and making MAN a destination of choice for them to expand into by offering the competitive fees like competitors? or are they solely focused on East routes?

Out of the carriers serving the NYC market, CO, and now UA have tended to be the most leisure orientated for MAN. They acknowledged it as much themselves.

They'll quite happily route that kind of non-FF customer through FRA or MUC.

I don't believe they see any immediate requirement to upguage or get people down to LHR via another alliance as much as, say AC, just to get their FFs on UA metal if the 80 and 101 happen to be full, as they regard current 2 x 757 capacity as matching demand.

I wonder if they'll suffer the most from the arrival of Thomas Cook though.

Don't rely on rumours on here or sound bite remarks, you say it yourself-it is like the Hainan situation, but only because everybody is too impatient. When something can be announced, it will be. Airlines will not move away unless passenger numbers decline. They are interested in seat generated revenue, not the experience landside. Manchester still relies heavily on home based traffic. Are you seriously saying that the passenger base will elect to commute to BHX, NCL LPL or Heathrow? The terminal experience is transitory, though it may be a pain for regular flyers, but then train commuters have to put up with poor condition twice a day but few opt for other methods to get to and from work. The stand problem is different but look outside the micro world of Manchester. Delays getting onto stand is a worldwide phenomenon. I've been sat on a 747 at T5 for 40 mins waiting for a stand, and that's on BA at their own terminal. There are many other examples.

As far as runway and other work is concerned no company does unnecessary work. If the work needs doing, it needs doing.
Finally Stansted. MAG owns Stansted but it operates as a separate entity. You seem to think the airport, the groups major asset, is in danger of being neglected. I certainly don't see it that way.

Ian Brooks, As they say, "If you say it often enough, you actually believe it". The debate should be what will be first LHR Runway 3 or MAN doing something about the terminals.

Philbky. I think doing the comparison game between MAN and the worse airports you have been to, is not productive. If you start that then you end up the same, look at the best and aim high.

BDLBOS I`m not talking into anything but I very much doubt I will see R3
completed

Parking
 

And just to answer my own question posed earlier, the Metrolink expansion business case never expected any impact on passenger travel:it was anticipated that they would continue to use heavy rail. It was anticipated, however, that airport workers would start to use Metrolink instead of cars. If we are looking for parking capacity, therefore, we should be looking to reduce staff parking (cue howls of anguish).

PLEASE STICK TO FACTS and then we can have a sensible debate. The bulk of the premium rate business traveller bookings are done by travel departments and travel agents and they are offered excellent prices over LHR. Even leisure travellers are savvy enough to look at alternatives either on the net or using travel agents.

The merger and use of equipment is not an excuse. I spend a fair amount of time in Houston and from talking to a good number of people in management plus reading the trade press I know that the merged company is trying maintain and increase its international presence with an ageing 757/767 fleet for thinner routes or those where range is required but a 777/747 isn't. Hold capacity to South America is very important to the new company as is deeper penetration in Europe against a strong Delta after the Northwest merger and a strong American with the benefit of the US long haul fleet on board. You obviously have no idea just how the conjunction of the merger and the 787 delays have disrupted what were Continental's plans. Anyway, that apart, the fact remains they need to fill aircraft ex LHR and are buying seats on BA as well as their pax, as I stated previously.

I'm not getting into a subjective debate about the merits of Edinburgh and Manchester as destinations. I just rely on the figures.

Why do you suppose DL may exit?. Their UK -US flights are under review to maximise the value of their involvement in Virgin. Delta have not pulled off the Atlanta route. They have upgraded the equipment and increased the capacity, it just flies as a code share. The colours on the fuselage don't matter as long as the service is acceptable and a profit is made. We also do not know the financial arrangement between the companies on this or any other service they decide to rejig.

There is no evidence that MAN is sitting on its hands with regard to westbound services. There is equally no evidence it isn't. That airport is a business and whilst it may offer announcements, sound bites and hints, its discussions, discounts and other terms are commercially sensitive. People on here may speculate, say what they would do and complain but from experience of international bidding and negotiation to bring people as opposed to aircraft to destinations, inc Manchester, the work that is needed is long term, constant and has more fits and starts than you would ever believe especially, and we have to deal with the facts, when there is over capacity two hundred miles away.

Why combine a debate about HAL's plans for LHR with that about the terminals at MAN. MAN could build the most palatial terminal with sumptuous lounges for every pax or any other comfort and attraction but in the end the HAL proposal will stand or fail whatever happens at MAN and a go ahead will severely affect all regional airports.

As for " the comparison game" as you put it, who said those are the worst airports I have been to? They most certainly are not. They are examples of major city airports which also have their faults, some worse than others. I was comparing the current situation at MAN with their current situation, often unknown or overlooked by critics of MAN, not quoting them as examples to be emulated. I thought that was obvious.

Delta to JFK is already planned to be year round and bookable as such, so not sure why some are questioning if it will become year round?

Because you said exactly the same about Air Canada Rouge pretending you knew more than you do? #eartothedoor :) @Delta fleet planning obv

As for Delta, I am going to disagree here as they no longer serve MAN-ATL as they have passed it to VS, much like KLM didn't serve the UK regions for years when AirUK flew the bulk of UK-AMS. A code share is not the same thing to many frequent fliers. The hard product on the VS A333 has had very poor feedback in comparison to their A346 and B787-9 but the drop in operating costs may well mitigate this completely. It's looking like a good year for VS (long haul) from MAN.

The new 9000-space car park off Ringway Road / Styal Road is only partially operational at this point. The aim is to have it fully open in around three weeks from now, in time for May. It remains to be seen whether any further apron stands will be released back to airside use, as MAG has a rolling plan to withdraw some original parking areas earmarked for 'Airport City' development.

Moving on to Transatlantic services. Remote observers often have a false idea of the amount of leverage airport operators can apply in their dealings with airlines. In the case of a long-haul service, the proportion of the overall cost represented by use of an airport at one end of the route is relatively small. An airport company can provide good service, a supportive attitude and an amenable fees regime. But the truth is that even if they accommodated the airline completely free of charge, this would not represent a substantial percentage reduction in the overall cost of operating a long-haul route. And of course, airports cannot let airlines operate for nothing (except perhaps for an introductory period). They are businesses which need to cover their costs as a minimum and hopefully enjoy a margin of profit on top. In reality, the airline companies hold the aces; the airports try to keep them sweet. There is little the airport operator can do to force the agenda in negotiations with an established airline.

Whilst MAN has no chance of telling UAL/AAL/DAL what to do, they must at least retain cordial relations to maintain the status quo. Beyond that, they can of course woo potential new operators. Perhaps the Thomas Cook initiative is evidence of movement in that direction. And I hate to move into the realms of 'Hainan-style' speculation, but a fifth-freedom operation with an Asian carrier continuing westbound cannot be ruled out. QTR/SIA/UAE have all been the subject of recent speculation relating to this. Certainly, if an incumbent carrier is keeping margins high by strangling available capacity on a core route, the interest of an enterprising competitor could be drawn.

Skipness - Thankyou for your response. My earlier question to you can be summarised as follows: At what price point (both in direct costs and considering additional expense required for external supporting infrastructure) do you believe that LHR R3 becomes too prohibitively expensive to pursue? There has to be a number above which alternative options, however sub-optimal operationally, become the only sensible course of action from a financial perspective.

Skip, you might have been wise to check the Delta web site, which currently does indeed show flights to JFK from MAN bookable next November and January for dates I looked at.

Oh dear, I see through MANFODs quote, skip still hung up on trying to get to me despite him being on ignore for months now. Seriously, move on man, its just patheticly sad now!

Like Manfod has said, if he had just taken 10 seconds to look at the delta, virgin or practically any 3rd party site he would have seen the flight is year round.

Instead, comes out with a smart arse comment and looks the fool.

Dont regret him being on ignore one bit....

Yes while still trying to maintain such presence they can find the aircraft to restore other routes at the same time and I believe at the announcement of some of them was strong demand for direct flights and not connections. If United have a line of 787's delivered tomorrow they wouldn't put one into MAN.

Fair enough but EDI is ahead of MAN on that list!

I'm with Skipness One Echo general view on ATL, you don't give such a route up within good reason and then resume a route which was dropped a few years ago. Yes things have changed/improved but I can't see DL being around for the long haul.

No evidence but we hear enough spoof about China and not a thing about the US.

Apologies my mistake but winter is a long way off being confirmed as demonstrated last year by AA/UA. Was it year round when announced of changed when they brought start forward,

Did a few scams of AA direct and via LHR and LHR is 100-200 more per passenger...

Skipness, so you think Delta have abandoned a route with good loads and a clientele and history going back over 30 years and let it go to an inferior product. The average passenger down the back may see it that way but those using and paying for the more expensive seats know that the Delta product on the route has been struggling and the equipment was, to be polite, elderly. The 333 is modern, well equipped and the Virgin product, though I would be the first to admit varies route by route and is much more ordinary than it was 20 to 30 years ago, is still of a good standard on the North Atlantic non holiday fleet.

This isn't an abandonment or just passing to an airline in an alliance, this is part of the restructuring of Virgin on the one hand and Delta's presence on the Atlantic. There is nothing to stop Delta handing their slots on routes from any where in the EU to Virgin.

Willie Walsh in 2012 stated that Virgin would only last five years at most and Delta would not allow the Virgin brand to continue and dilute the Delta brand.

It seems to me that the change on the Atlanta route is indicative of a thinking in Atlanta HQ which is determined to use the assets of the company to the best effect. The flight numbers on Virgin routes to the US are in the 4xxx series in the Delta flight list which indicate the flights are operated by a company partly or wholly owned by Delta. Other code shares by alliance or code share partners are in the range 7xxx, 8xxx or 9xxx.

I would not put further VS/DL changes out of court and, in the light of a conversation I had with the CEO of Comair at a time when DL owned just 20% of the stock and was flying under its own colours with its own and DL Connection flight numbers on the same flights, I would suggest DL will have laid down some pretty stringent ground rules to keep its customers happy.

In the long term it may well be that Virgin will become wholly owned or branded as a Delta product. This cannot happen under current EU rules but airlines, including BA continue to push hard for the rules to be changed and if the UK leaves the EU...........

Visitor numbers to the respective CITIES in 2013 from abroad:

Edinburgh: Holidays 838000; Business 134000; VFR 275000; Study and Miscellaneous 57000 Total 1334000
Manchester: Holidays 222000; Business 336000; VFR 248000; Study and Miscellaneous 182000 Total 988000
Whilst the gross figures for Edinburgh are higher the value in terms of spend is tilting towards Manchester more than the bald figures show as business visitors spend between 50% and 75% more than holiday makers per diem and study visits are usually long term.

But we aren't talking about raw visitors, the bulk of which arrive in Edinburgh by road or rail. Look up the airport passenger figures. Manchester serves a far bigger and more populous hinterland.

Re your comment about the UA 787s, I beg your pardon, I didn't realise you were privy to UA's fleet planning. Of course that is pure speculation on your part to bulk out your argument. United have 65 787s of all types on order of which they currently have 17. These are being used on selected routes in the US to Europe and the Pacific. They also have 46 more on option/letter of intent. In addition they have A350s in the pipeline and are seriously considering the A321LR. Which type and how frequently they would replace the Europe serving 757s with is not known and in the interim they are using what they have to build and maintain presence. As I said before they are happy to fill LHR empty seats with MAN pax, LHR presence being vital, and maintain a presence at MAN. If and when they fill all their seats out of LHR without transfers from MAN and the demand from MAN is under served they will look at either bigger equipment or more flights.

What I would like to see
 

1. Let LHR get on with its own market. Focus on developing new and re-instating routes from MAN
2. Focus on Northern Hub, using devolved transport powers to max.
3. Abolish HS2, it has no benefit to us; capacity on West Coast is plentiful can be increased at peak times with less first class, perhaps something between std/1st, longer platforms/trains.
4. Use HS2 money on improving existing terminals at MAN and its infrastructure.
5. Use HS2 money on northern rail & road improvements.
6. US pre-clearance is a good idea

ps its just my opinion

AFAIK, the full 9000 space area has only opened in the last few days and the entrance on Shadow Moss Road has been opened up. Prior to this some of the area was not available I think.

On the issue of terminal developments and what may happen (or not), someone has mentioned shareholder approval is required. This of course would be the first major infrastructure development with "external" shareholders, which may well change the way capital expenditure is evaluated. And it also would be the first major development since MAG acquired STN, where a large stash of money has recently been invested, so that would also have to be factored into the equation.

Any investment will also have to be looked at in the context of the aviation picture in the UK as a whole including - sorry to mention it - the outcome of our friend Davies's deliberations.:ooh: And of course, what will be the composition of the next UK Government and their views on aviation and airport policy?

We'll wait to see what happens next. And someone could open a book on whether we hear about the terminals or Hainan first. :E

I apologise, had you said "bookable" rather than "planned" I would have had a look. Your past track record had just tarished my opinion of you. Btw how are bookings on MAN-CLT you argued blind would be back this summer? Yeah.....

This is Delta's 2nd or 3rd go at JFK? The hard product on the B763 was a lil aged but the fleet is being refreshed, the aircraft with the three windows blocked behind door one have been refurbed. #geek

Not sure three daily to NYC is a good idea over the winter but time will tell, I suspect someone will blink. AA have only recently swapped ORD for JFK in terms of seasonal suspension, I think with US coming on board, ORD will be even less loved for long haul.

Im not ure if Skips last post is again aimed at me, but if so, little hard to take seriously a guy that cannot grasp the basic concept of being on ignore.


He is literally wasting his time.

Skip, I'm afraid you are digging a bigger hole for yourself. See the words I've put in bold print from LAX's original post.

Continuing to take cheap, sarcastic digs at a fellow poster who you know won't respond, (even if your intention is to try and provoke him to do so), isn't contributing in any meaningful way to the thread in my opinion. You're better than that and provide good debating points at times even if some of us don't always agree with you.

Returning to the question of flights to New York from MAN, apart from excess demand during busy periods which may be diverted to fill seats from LHR, it would be interesting to know also how many savvy cost conscious travellers may be choosing to fly via DUB or KEF at the expense of MAN's direct services. A friend is planning to go to Seattle later this year by Icelandair simply because of the fares.

MANFOD,


Skips the one looking the fool for continuing a tirade which won't be recprocated, and, lets face it, not exactly full of accurate info himself.


At the end of the day, info I am told is posted by myself here in good faith. People can choose to do what they will with anything I post.


Is it 100% accurate 100% of the time? well, no, and I have never claimed it to be. In terms of some info, I can only go off what I see/am told. Look at Montenegro Airlines. Several press releases that MAN and LYS would be new routes this year. LYS became bookable, MAN did not. My fault for that? No.


Air Canada rouge. It was bookable until 7th November at one stage, and, on emailing the airline directly, they told me that if the route was bookable year round, it would be available year round. Agaon, my fault for the backtrack? No.


At least I post info which can, in most instances, be helpful to others, instead of just being an argumentative twerp worried about which BA livery has a crest on it or if the Qatar A330 has 2 anti collision lights on the top.


Thats all I have to say about him. Any other posts aimed at me from him to which I can garner the jist via other posters quotes, will now just be reported to the mods, and, frankly, at least others are no seeing him for the annoyance he is.

Skipness - At this point, I think the board may benefit all round if we concentrate our minds on more constructive grounds for discussion. May I invite you to put this unfortunate Delta JFK misstep behind you and instead concentrate your mind on the question I put to you in the final paragraph of post #1552.

Time for something a little lighter for our bank holiday musings. So permit me to run a special Easter Sunday parable by you. Afew years ago you recall visiting Manchester and feeling hungry. You remember buying a great sandwich with all the trimmings for £1.72. Your friends at the bank tell you that the same sandwich bought there today today would cost you £2.53.

Now you find yourself in London, and this time you're even hungrier than you were back in Manchester. That sandwich would be the perfect remedy. But there is a problem. The shop in London tells you that the same sandwich there will cost you around £200.00, although that price-tag seems to increase by the week. And even worse, the sandwich can only be sold on a supporting foil tray. 'Trays for London' tell you that they reckon this will cost you another £200.00.

Fortunately, those nice guys at the council tell you that they'll get their ratepayers to stump up £100.00 towards the cost of the tray. They will divert the funds from the more deprived peripheral areas of the borough which everyone seems to have forgotten about. So the cost to you will be £300.00 and the council will stump up £100.00 for a total of £400.00. But you are really hungry. And that sandwich would really satisfy a pressing need. And all your mates in Europe are getting nice sandwiches already.

You are told there is a chippy midway between London and Brighton. They'd do you a pack of chips for just £80.00. But you think their chips are greasy and wouldn't satisfy your hunger the same. It's all so frustrating. Your friend in Istanbul is buying an entire banquet for £80.00.

You know that sandwich is the one you really, really want. You've had two of them there already and they're yummy. The greasy chips near Brighton are alot cheaper (though still relatively expensive). And you don't fancy them anyway.

So what do you do? Do you buy the £400.00 sandwich? Or the £80.00 greasy chips? Or do you say: "Hang on a minute. None of this is even close to being worth the money! Let's keep the money and spend it on something much, much better for the same price."

So ... back to reality. Manchester's 23L/05R was delivered for £172M, or £253M in today's money. LHR R3, we are told, is facing costs of upto £40,000M if the latest TfL estimates are taken into account. So I ask you: what is the price-point at which you say: "LHR R3 is operationally desirable, but at this price I just have to face reality and say NO WAY!"

I'll accept an answer to the nearest Billion! ;-)

OK Shed wonderful!

Ian

How much LHR R3 is has what to do with Manchester exactly ? And why take half a page to ask what you asked in the last two lines !!

The sly personal jibes going on here, and the repetitive nonsense about LHR, is more than boring...IMO.