MANCHESTER 1
 

PPRuNe Pop wrote

Follow the guidelines and you can't go wrong!

To start off the news, Air Canada Rouge seems to be bookable all the way into November 2015 (as far in advance as you can go at present).

Its still 5 weekly into Nov too, and by comparason, EDI, the other UK rouge route, is only bookable until 16th Oct.

By going into Nov thus far, MAN certainly has the potential to be year round for rouge!

Anyone have any ideas what flybe will look like for summer15 at MAN once the final schedules have been released ?

I believe the 9th Easyjet aircraft has been confirmed as an A320 but have the 3 further routes below actually been confirmed:

Split
Santiago de Compostela
Paris CDG

Also elsewhere it has been mooted that Ryanair wish to up their based aircraft to 10 for next summer, does this have any foundation in fact?

Thanks.

Re Ryanair, I think the same poster suggested there would definitely be 8 based a/c next summer, which would be one more than this year, but wondered whether capacity constraints at T3 might be an issue. Maybe the extra immigration desks and e-passport machines to be installed are in response to proposed expansion by Ryanair.

An additional 3 based FR aircraft is unlikely given the constraints on the fleet which will be similar to this year even with new aircraft. It could happen over school holidays but unlikely for full season.

Last I heard they were going to continue parking the AA widebodies on T1 next summer, and bus them over to T3 (in return for AA paying less fees). That would give a 2 stands for Ryanair, but, can T3 as a whole cope? Probably not.

CX
 

Loads in all classes "excellent", in some cases full, well into new year. Cargo doing very well too apparently. Looking good for CX @ MAN. Will not be long before this is daily IMO.

T3
 

I hate to sound like a snob, but SURELY AA long haul passengers deserve a better deal than being parked on T1 and bussed to T3 in order to accommodate Ryanair "cheap as chips" passengers. It sounds like the economics of the madhouse.

Many Turkish Airlines flights over the Christmas/New Year period are using the A330, including 2-5th Jan which is double daily A330 operation.

Why not just move AA back to T2.....being co-located with BA is an ideal over a practicality any day of the week. There are actually people who prefer using MAN-LHR-USA to fly on a B777 rather than the ancient product on the MAN offering, bussing will only drive that minority into a bigger one. Virgin tried bussing at T2, it's a classic false economy.

Speaking of Air Canada Rouge, is it launching early as was exclusively er....reported or not?

Btw "Manchester 1". Seriously? A typo for ten surely, my OCD is going mental.

MEN Article - Airports Policy Latest
 

Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese has slammed "desperate" solicitations by LHR to persuade Manchester Chamber of Commerce to organise an event garnering support for expansion at LHR. He puts a forceful case for greater use of MAN instead, and suggests asking London Chamber of Commerce to host an event promoting Manchester Airport! Meanwhile, MP Graham Stringer comes out in support of LHR expansion and claims that [MAN CEO] Charlie Cornish's stance on the topic is "a mistake".

Plenty of fireworks and colourful quotes in the full article to be found on the MEN website.

I see that the new PPRuNe MAN thread has already notched up 1348 views in under 11 hours so far. We can't be all bad! Hopefully, the site advertisers will be pleased.

Would imagine that Blackley and Broughton MP, Graham Stringer, is taking the wider view.

As a member of the Transport Select Committee he must have seen reams of paperwork, heard hours of evidence, and interviewed many in the aviation industry so can be expected to have a reasonable grasp of the issues.

Maybe he should be listened to?

The Transport Select Committee came out in favour of Heathrow expansion long before the Airports Commission was set up and the issue kicked into the long grass.

It was said on the last thread it was to be named MANCHETSTER - 1 by the mods :ok:

FDF "As a member of the Transport Select Committee he must have seen reams of paperwork, heard hours of evidence, and interviewed many in the aviation industry so can be expected to have a reasonable grasp of the issues". (apologies for not managing proper quote)

A fair point, but what's disappointing is that Mr Stringer, in criticising Charlie Cornish, appeared not to take the opportunity of stating that expansion at LHR needn't be at the expense of MAN which can grow in its own right, if he believes that to be the case. If that isn't his view, then coming from a Manchester MP, it is a little worrying.

The other aspect though is that if all the MPs on the Select Committee signed up to the report (even if there were any dissenters), it would be difficult for Stringer to change his tune now. At least with STN out of the equation, MAN is making its view heard.

T2??:confused:

As in the terminal built expressely for long haul wide bodies.

Nope, you've lost me skippy. How will that help BA(oneworld) customers?

It won't that's my point. The hassle of being co-located in T3 with Oneworld partners who supply a handful of daily connnections and mean other passengers have additional screenings for domestic flights is outweighed by the benefits of AA moving (back) to a proper long haul facility. They're going to bus AA passengers to T1? Outwith hubs and focus cities, of which MAN is neither for this Alliance, co-location often sees little benefit.

Erm, I think they're only using T1 while the taxiway repairs are carried out.

I think the point S1E is trying to make is why have longhaul, shorthaul, lowcost and domestic all shoehorned into a space which was originally designed to be just a domestic terminal (only later morphing into domestic/shorthaul). It kind of all worked until Ryanair came back on the scene in large numbers. The perceived benefits for the customer of having BA and AA co-located in T3 are surely being negated by having the AA aircraft parked over at T1, and the congestion inside T3 once they get there ?

So instead of inconveniencing ALL AA passengers with a bus transfer between T1 and T3, why not encourage AA to move back into T2 which is better designed for handling longhaul flights, and set up a proper transfer bus service between T2 and T3 just for the minority of AA passengers who are actually making a connection ?

Having all USA flights back in T2 might also be helpful in future if US pre-clearance from UK airports ever becomes an option.

Hope you'll forgive a brief pax-related question.

It's been a while since I've connected through MAN, but this may soon change. If I arrive at T3 on Ryanair from Ireland, and am leaving again on KLM to AMS (T3 also), and have only hand baggage, is there an airside transfer route, or do I have to go landside and back in through security?

Thanks.

Some good points are being made but let's not forget that "most" pax couldn't really care less if they have to be bussed to an aircraft.

There's no airside route for ryr pax but you'll be out of there in 20 seconds flat anyway

It isn't, and it can: MAN can and should grow in its own right, another rwy at LHR has no bearing on this.


Unless there are plans to house all Oneworld carriers in one terminal (unlikely), this would make sense.

Indeed, is this on the cards?

It is not acceptable for long haul passengers to be bused especially when there is a very simple solution. If AA go along with this for cheaper fees it says a lot about them as they would not tolerate at many other European airports. In fact they are prepared to pay more to get the service levels they require. Is there any difference between T2 and T3 (only being in 1 and 3) as I can't imagine why AA wouldn't move back if asked.

This goes back to the problem of airport facilities and then MAN are trying to attract all these big carriers.

Perfectly fine to pack any of the budget airline passengers onto buses.

Many would say that AA product at MAN is bad enough and adding this can only do more harm. I mean would MAG offer Emirates the same deal and do we think EK would accept it. Not a chance.

FDF - Indeed, is this on the cards?

I'm not aware of any immediate plans, however according to media reports the possibility of pre-clearance from UK airports was discussed by US and UK officials just recently. Apologies I don't know how to post a link, but the below from September is an example of reporting at the time.

US security checks could be based at British airports - Telegraph

Having US flights departing from multiple terminals could be a disadvantage, I don't know what the requirements would be ? But if it was to happen then of course MAN would not be the only UK airport with US flights currently leaving from more than one terminal.

I agree with j636. Passenger surveys generally show that bussing is one of the most disliked elements of the airport process. And I'm surprised that AA tolerate it - bussing is virtually unknown at most US airports - again reflecting the fact that US pax simply won't put up with it. MAG really ought to get their act together on T3 - the real problem is not AA but FR. FR would be much better served in T1, using non-airbridge gates that facilitate boarding via front and rear steps. Quite why MAG put some FR flights on airbridge-equipped stands in T3 and then banish an AA flight to a T1 stand beats me.

Bussing is loathed by the people needed to turn a profit on a year round schedule, the ones who fly down the pointy end and who would happily connect via BA over LHR to fly on a refurbished B772 or a new B77W both of which have a superior hard product on board and also, in the lounge. Unless those key players are shown some TLC, they won't be loyal.

Easyflyer

Most people don't care about being bussed? Are you kidding?

I used to travel through MUC quite a lot transferring east until the balance of flights started using remote stands - goodbye MUC, similarly Zurich when they were re-building the pier - goodbye ZRH.
One simple reason - if you're traveling up front, you're first on the bus, get crushed by everyone else and are then one of the last off the bus.
Also you get swung violently all over the airport whilst standing - you know what happens when even one idiot stands up as the aircraft is pulling on to stand - it's as if the entire safety of the aircraft has been compromised - but it's ok to stand on a bus which is going faster and making more aggressive moves.

As for AA, I have already made a mental note to continue to avoid them - that has been too difficult in recent times - their very presence in T3 is enough (although the lounge is better than Delta's or UA). The AA product out of the regions is 15 years out of date - and expensive for what it is.
My T/A ranking of US carriers out of MAN
1. DL
2. UA
3. AA/US

I stand by what I say. I agree, some of your business class pax might not be thrilled but if you do a straw poll of people departing on that 757/767, the majority would not really care.

As someone who has worked for a couple of 'legacies' and low cost, it is very, very rare that you get complaints about bussing provided it is handled efficiently. And trust me, the crew get all the complaints. The low cost carrier however, as a business, doesn't like bussing generally speaking which is probably why Ryanair hasn't been shipped onto a T1 stand. Plus their aircraft, in the summer at least, don't spend 3 hours on the ground.

The AA product ex MAN isn't great, that I agree in, and good luck to those who connect via LHR, I know I would if I ever fly AA-I tend to only fly them domestically. But to suggest they'd connect through LHR due to a 5 minute bussing experience at MAN is pretty ridiculous.

Nice in theory, but as things stand it would be nigh on impossible with Jet2, easyjet and TCX in T1, as well as some short haul legacy carriers plus EK and EY. Even allowing for some remote parking it's already tight first thing in a morning in the summer, not to mention the queues for security that have been reported at times. Trying to accommodate 7 or 8 RYR a/c would be a non-starter unless there was a lot of shuffling of other airlines.

It just emphasises the fact that, apart from terminal capacity, immigration and security aspects, MAN is not flush with parking stands at peak times, and highlights the issues caused by its strongly fluctuating traffic flow.

Well I'd suggest that MAN is about to reap the reward for failing to invest in terminal capacity in recent years.
All well and good saying that T3 is not suitable for the AA operation - it clearly isn't - but what are the alternatives?

T1 is totally rammed in the peak morning as MANFOD Has pointed out. FULL.

T2 there are no parking spaces now in the morning peak. Add in the soon to start CX777 and the increases by SV both arriving at THAT time of the morning, where would you put 2x AA 767s and an A330?

Premium pax are not going to tolerate being bussed from and to their aircraft - they'll choose alternatives and that will hurt AA's yield.

Why would AA agree to receive an inferior service so that RYR can access contact stands and put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to DL and UA?
Madness.

Skipness - I admire your continuing loyal advocacy of the LHR transfer experience, but you are again pointing out only the upside … the superior cabins on the AAL B777 fleet. Let me remind you of the rest. The MAN-originating passenger must first take a domestic shuttle to LHR, a service with an elevated risk of cancellation whenever the slightest problem affects runway usage rates down there. If they're lucky on that count, disembarkation sees them join the queue for the famously slow and surly LHR security search experience, which takes no account of the fact they've just alighted from a flight already security screened to the highest standards. If they intended mischief, they've just passed up their chance! Negotiate all this and there just remains the small matter of transferring T5 to T3. Might that involve a bus, I wonder? Then they can enjoy use of a lounge if they've got any minutes left to spare.

If everything goes to plan and they reach the gate in time, they can then enjoy the slightly better cabin aboard the B777. Which is crewed by staff trained to exactly the same standard as those crewing AAL55 and AAL211. Well, they are the same people after all.

Alternatively, they could just book AAL54/55 or AAL210/211. No transfer at LHR required. Significantly quicker journey. One security search instead of two. Maybe 5 minutes on an airport bus (it's a tough life). I just hope that these pointy-end jetsetters who choose the stressful detour instead aren't entrusted with any really important decisions during the course of their work!

Bussing
 

This discussion on bussing is very interesting and is one which does seem to engender harsh criticism.

From a personal point of view i travel frequently to Faro (probably in excess of more than 400 times over the years) on quasi-business agendas. For many years i flew with Monarch and was quite happy to do so but what did bug me was that it was always a bus to the terminal. Now, being on a tight schedule, this used to add at least 30 minutes to the time in passing through customs/arrivals etc.

Now, i try and travel with Ryanair. No bus, parking close to the terminal and after a brisk short walk i can be through in about six - seven minutes.

Bussing is very much a no-no. For anyone travelling where time is important, it is a no-brainer.

Never been bussed with Monarch before at MAN (though known other people have done), but I used to be bussed with them a lot at AGP.

Its clearly a false economy saying passengers will opt for a LHR transfer over bussing to a stand.

For the sake if 5-10 minutes, you are going to waste around 3 hours transferring and backtracking.

Also, if AA at LHR is your option, to get from T5 to T3, you need to get, erm..... A bus.

I was 'bussed' at Washington and will be 'bussed' at Southampton (even though I could dash to the terminal a lot quicker). The 'bussing' at Frankfurt was great as a ramp tour!

'Bussing' is not exclusive to Manchester.

The term buzzin' is exclusive to the residents of Manchester though :\

People are people, this is what happens. If the hard product is better elsewhere, snobbery kicks in. The T3 experience is poor, the demographic is no longer BA on business but Ryanair on holiday and the points chasers and front end money has a certain mindeset. Also, if one is connecting T5/T3, they still get to use the Admirals Club and fly on a newer and more compfortable hard product. MAN-ORD-MIA vs MAN-LHR-MIA, MAN-ORD-LAX vs MAN-LHR-LAX. Surely we can all recall how the BA183 / BA1503 was the poor relation to the LHR product on offer. There was and remains a cache of people who make that choice, regardless of whether local supporters agree with them.

Hardly, I am suggesting MAN and AA get their act together and offer a comparable product at MAN. My point is you guys are competing with the LHR transfer experience with the B763s we've all seen since they were delivered from 1988 onwards now from a terminal built for Dash 8s and Embraers. Raise your game would be the message, I think AA have lost interest at MAN, the US merger might be a kick up the backside they need.

Oooh Skipness - Use of the put-down "local supporters" again. And another oversight in failing to acknowledge the glaring inadequacies of the LHR transfer experience. We must have touched a nerve! The points made in my 12:15 posting #34 clearly make me a "local supporter" as opposed to a rational traveller. :-)