“SPD_travels
Was told this morning that Ryanair and easyjet have been offered exclusive use if T1 at manchester with no landing fees for 4 years, plus Easyjet seriously considering exiting there liverpool base. T1 will become solely a low frills terminal and T2 will become home to the rest”

It’s not often that commercial terms being offered are leaked into public domain, as in the tweet above.
not being from the aviation industry, my questions arising would be:
- is this a potential distortion of the market by virtue of scale?
- is it in the long term public interest?
- do such changes fall to the CAA to rule on?

Does this point to a consolidation in the industry, with a smaller number of large airports surviving post Covid?

Could also perhaps prove an interesting precedent for MAG owned STN then.

That quote is incorrectly attributed to S.P.D. Travels. It was a comment directed to him by someone else on twitter.

I'm not disputing the fact that Liverpool should of course have been the primary destination, that is not in doubt.

Well done Liverpool who grasped the opportunity readily and by all accounts provided excellent customer service.
We should not forget that they will have put themselves in prime position to handle more of these flights moving forward.

But an approach was made to Manchester who seemingly made no attempt to look at what might be done to handle this flight.

So in effect are we are saying Manchester has scant regard for its employees or taxpayers who provided a substantial bail out a few months ago, and is now incapable of handling a pure freight flight ever again. Its preposterous for an airport of this size centred in the heart of the industrial North.

Is Manchester the only airport in the UK with a no freight notam ?

Even accepting that the main freight hub is EMA this seems farcical.

Ps Merry Christmas skipness one Foxtrot or is that S1E

Do FedEx and ASL still not operate most nights?

They do but it's pretty meagre for an airport supposedly pushing the Northern gateway mantra.

"20m customers within 2 hours is a pr puff piece that Manchester continually push"

Not apparently if its important cargo however!

Cargo operations area bit difficult at present with all the taxiway works and shortage of stands

Right, so it's alright for Liverpool's important cargo to go to Manchester, but not for Manchester's important cargo to go to the Midlands?

As has been pointed out previously, cargo isn't that bothered...

Which NOTAM is this? The only current NOTAM I can find which mentions cargo a/c is A3792 on aerodrome hours which states that the terminal restrictions don't impact cargo flts

Surely MAN should have refused to accept the diverted Antonov from last week???

Acceptance of the AN124 was to be greatly applauded, this was an operational diversion however, no freight was off loaded, it is therefore superfluous to this argument.
ATC, ops, fire did however came together in a brilliant "can do" attitude that was so prevalent in the 80s and 90s.

I have worked in the logistics sector for many years and in particular airfreight at Manchester, Leeds/Bradford and Heathrow. I echo the previous comments that freight doesn't care where it lands. In my younger days at Manchester in the mid 70's onwards we had freigters every night to Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Zurich etc, all now gone replaced by trailers to said airports.

The vast majority of cargo arriving/leaving by air at Manchester is carried in the belly of cargo aircraft, so it could well be argued (current situation permitted) that increasing passenger flights is the driving growth for cargo at Manchester not the occasional ad-hoc charter. For scheduled freigters, there are other airports best suited to handle them in the group and that makes economic sense for MAG.

Car industry freight generally does care where it lands. To go the expense of bypassing their normal supply chain routes generally means that the parts or materials in question are urgently required. There is no point flying them somewhere they can’t be offloaded and on their way to the factory quickly.

It really does, you know. Well, the importers who are responsible for it do anyway. I refer you to the recent storm of discussion in the freight publication 'The Loadstar' in which shippers are up in arms at news that their containers have been landed at Liverpool 2 rather than Felixstowe or Thames Gateway where they were expected (there is currently a congestion issue at SE ports). They've even been given deadlines to collect their containers from Liverpool and return the empties, yet there is an industry-wide shortage of trucks available to do this work. And the cost for this falls to the importers, not to the shipping company. Rows too about 'in time for Christmas' freight backlogged at Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge etc. due to the same issue. The notion that 'freight doesn't mind where it goes' is exposed by this as the myth it always was. Those contemporary examples relate to sea freight, but the principle applies generally. That issue sourcing trucking capacity affects air cargo distribution too.

Yes, it is true that the vast majority of flown freight at MAN is shipped in the cargo holds of passenger aircraft. That is not in dispute. But this reality is not the result of market forces. This is a situation which has evolved by design. It is the inevitable consequence of a long-term policy pursued by MAG to switch-sell cargo leads specifically intended for MAN to other airports in the group. The same cargo liaison team answers all cargo enquiries for MAN/EMA/STN - the MAG website shows the same contact details for all three airports. A cynic might suggest that they have deliberately run down cargo handling capability at MAN in support of this policy by presiding over essential freight-handling equipment being relocated to alternative sites. Now the message is that MAN can't handle this cargo because we don't have [insert name of missing equipment] available. MAN used to routinely handle multiple B747F's per week. Now the message seems to be that they can't. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy that MAN can't handle pure freighters, because that outcome has been engineered by a decade of planned neglect.

It is very encouraging that the new management team at MAN appears to be making real constructive efforts to attract back air passenger business ("progressive" initiatives put forward by MAN, according to a recent quote attributed to Michael O' Leary). There are early signs that lamentable past instances of the airport turning away requests for additional based units by carriers such as Ryanair and EasyJet are being replaced by initiatives to accommodate all such capacity as based carriers can be incentivised to commit. Rumours of approaching Wizz for a base too. All good progress, to be applauded if confirmed. Kudos for this.

But if MAN is to finally leave behind its industry tag as "the airport which likes to say NO!!!" once and for all, then there is much more work to be done. Cargo leads - YES! Aircraft parking (when this can be accommodated) - YES! Prospective new hangar tenants offering high quality employment to the region - YES! Training approaches at quiet times - YES! Diversions - YES! Executive traffic - YES! Unfortunately, the default answer at MAN is far too often NO! Sometimes the answer genuinely does have to be 'No', but at MAN it can often appear to be a case of a default 'NO!' before the underlying question is even considered.

Many Manchester veterans reflect with fondness upon the management team around in the Gil Thompson era when the airport was the 'CAN DO' poster-child of aviation in the UK. How acutely those positive attitudes are needed now. But the (alleged) recent default 'NO!' response to the RAM B767F inquiry - allegedly before handling agents were even approached - suggests that MAN's complacent ultra-negativity towards certain "too difficult for us" market sectors is alive and well. For this culture to change, perhaps some old fossils need to be booted right out of their comfort zone of complacent idleness.

I suggest that in the current challenging market environment, any MAG executive who is still issuing default 'NO!' answers to all new business leads should be summoned for a chat with Ms Smart to explain why they shouldn't be part of the next headcount cull.

Time to see a return to the sorely-missed culture of 'CAN DO' at MAN.

End of an era.

Good to see they've got a top pro team in to do it :ooh:​​​​​​

The hse would have a field day.......

No problem that is how it is done,go to Lasham or Kemble or the many place in US

What having half a wing section just cut off and landing right at the base of the mewp? And the highly extended forklift/telehandler forcing against it?

Even the dodgiest of scrappers would have had that section supported rather than just letting it go.

Go on you tube plenty of videos, hacking tail off or cutting 747 in half and just let them fall to ground

​​​​​​That's how nearly every scrapyard does it. If anything that was quite a neat chop. As mentioned above, YouTube is filled with video's of the exact same thing happening.

Surely letting chunks of metal fall uncontrolled risks splintering the very expensive concrete apron surface ?

No it doesn't. Yes there are many methods that would leave a rougher cut but they wouldn't be done with personnel on the wing and access equipment close by. And as mentioned potential damage to the apron. The more normal approach with manual cutting like that would be to have it slung with a crane.

Am more surprised at the airport authority allowing it done in that way considering they are among the most strict airports I've been airside at for airside safety rules.

​​​​

Why is this one being scrapped at MAN? Was this the aircraft under maintenance at the time of the TCX collapse? I know it's not the youngest frame out there, but it seems odd that the aircraft would have missing parts and/or documentation that would prevent it being flown away for dismantling? Ultimately I guess it was cheaper to cut it up in-situ than return it to some sort of flyable condition?

All 3 of the original Airtours ones are being scrapped Brian, GMLJL,GMDBD,GOMYT, they have underfloor toilets so it makes them non standard for most airlines coupled with that they are more than 20 years old. It would have taken to much money to recertify them to flying condition having stood around since Setember last year.

the breaking up of the aircraft is being completed in the old Thomas cook hangar apron - not on the main airside apron. It is actually all Landside.

Anyone know who the Thomas Cook hangar is going to? This was originally built for BA then went to FLS? Is that about right?

The TCX hangar was originally built for, I believe FFV aerotech (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). The old 'BA' hangar, of similar design, but about 1/3rd size sits to the south of the TCX hangar. Last I heard was that Dublin Aerospace were looking at the TCX hangar, but this was pre-pandemic and not heard anything since March. The old BA hangar, latterly used by Air Livery is due for demolision at somepoint.

THG were briefing the media they were going to base their own freighters at MAN, one of the CGI photos showed an aircraft in front of a large hangar !

THG - weren't they meant to be up and running by now?

Almost right, 96er, the hangar was originally opened as Qualitair in 1989 but not long after the name changed as you say, to FFV Aerotech. I think it was a merger or re-branding thing.

Not seen this on this thread and borrowed from a post on BHX thread by nwoody2001

Manchester - the ACL Slot report has been release and shown the following airline have applied for the following:

= Aer LIngus - a 4 a/c base operating long haul routes to the USA (1x A330 and 3x A321LR)
= Wizz Air - a 4 a/c base operating across europe (4x A321s)
= Ryanair - increase their base at MAN by adding an additional 5x a/c to their existing base

Not mentioned above is the proposed increase for S21 by EZY by 4 a/c at MAN.

Obviously regularly slots are returned, but with rumour of some of the deals offered to the likes of RYR and EZY by MAG, links now with WIZZ surfacing and rumours of EZY pulling LPL...is MAN aggresively going for LPL to replace to some what has been lost ?

To be honest under current circumstances does it really make sense to EZY and RYR to have bases 30 miles apart ? If Wizz did open MAN would same apply to them ?

Is this possibly something we'll repeatedly see across Europe as airlines consolidate thier positions until things return to at least something like normal ?

Is there significant cause for LPL to be very worried ?

It’s a really good question and maybe the follow on would be:
- would the regulator ( CAA) feel that it’s in the public interest?
- if so, will there be further consolidation in the North, maybe loss of DSA, HUY, EMA freight only?
- NCL to be decimated by EDI?
- would the regulator then add controls to car parking charges, max time from chocks to baggage on carousel (customer metrics in a monopolistic airport environment) etc?

Perhaps post Covid there will be major structural changes, but perhaps with less choice there needs to be more regulation.

I think the EZY/RYR ‘no fees’ rumour is adolescent mischief making. It would surely be against competition law both in terms of aggressively targeting a competitor causing it to experience financial loss, but also because it would be giving two airlines unfair subsidies compared to any other existing operator at Manchester flying to the same destination.

As for WZZ, it is actually WUK that has applied for slots and IF they were to set up a base it would presumably be yet more bucket and spade routes as with Luton and Doncaster. In any event, it may well just be a negotiating tactic to extract better terms from Liverpool.

Time, as ever, will reveal all.

Have felt all along that Covid would reset Aviation back a few years. Think the airlines will be looking for deals and also where they can make higher returns. I believe the big airports MAN and LHR especially will be where the first growth will be. Actually believe the more regional airports will take longer to recover

Yes I agree Mark101 I think we may well see 2 or 3 airports go to the wall or drop out of the airline market

Ian

This really comes down to whether you want to live in a free-market economy or a command economy. In a free-market economy, businesses are free to compete with each other for customers. In a command economy, state officials dictate outcomes. I'm a free-market advocate myself, though I note the arguments in favour of both systems. Our airports are generally free to compete with each other for business, and this process has generally produced good outcomes for the travelling public. Liverpool has done well in competing for the attentions of Ryanair, EasyJet, Wizz and Blue Air. They also won a promise of business from Adria Airways over the Manchester option ... though that carrier failed before anything came of it. No complaints from MAN about "unfair competition" in any of these instances, though when it is MAN which looks to have the upper hand, cries of 'foul' come flying out of Merseyside. No, the free market works both ways. None of the parties should have their hands tied in bidding for business.

And indeed, this process is not just about the winners. Ryanair has done well out of playing off MAN / LPL / LBA against each other. EasyJet has played off MAN and LPL. And, as cited upthread, Wizz has form for flirting with an unserved airport to secure better terms at their preferred base of choice. Could this be happening again? We don't know, but it remains a possibility. If they end up choosing to expand at LPL / DSA, MAN will have to accept that: it is a competitive free market outcome. But the reverse is also true.

Whatever your ambitions for your preferred local airport may be, it is a fact that this process of competing for business results in lower fares for consumers. And that is what the competition authorities like to see. MAN is doing nothing wrong in competing for business with neighbouring airports. And, conversely, neither are they in bidding against MAN.

And as for the airlines: they've never needed improved terms from suppliers more than they do now.

No matter which side of the Mersey you may be from - Manchester is technically on the South bank - can I commend the above post for its analysis of the present situation and the clear way in which the options open to both airlines and airports are explored.

2021 will be a year that none of us will have experienced before - both physically and, I do believe, emotionally. It will be as if a world war has been raging, and indeed in many ways it has been. All I can hope for is that I, together with all those on this site, survive and are once again able to enjoy, in due course, the ability to travel from an airport that is within our reach - without having to travel down to the Big Smoke.

Stay safe and, if temporarily on furlough or unemployed, I trust that there will be a positive outlook on life.

Hi

I think Manchester is actually on the north bank.
The Mersey starts in Stockport, and skirts a smallish portion of South Greater Manchester. Manchester and the vast majority of GM is north of the Mersey👍

Sioltach Dubh Glas , 22nd Nov 2020 13:49
No matter which side of the Mersey you may be from - Manchester is technically on the South bank - can I commend the above post for its analysis of the present situation and the clear way in which the options open to both airlines and airports are explored.

Mentioned from the 16th Nov?

Airport is south of Mersey as once river leaves Stockport it heads towards Chorlton before heading to westwards, its the Bolllin that runs along west side of airfield under 05 end