PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)
-   -   Manchester-2 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/599775-manchester-2-a.html)

eye2eye5 18th Nov 2020 07:54

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?

southside bobby 18th Nov 2020 08:29

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

MANFOD 18th Nov 2020 08:58


Originally Posted by eye2eye5 (Post 10929265)
ďSPD_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 restĒ

Itís 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?

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

Navpi 18th Nov 2020 10:05


Originally Posted by SWBKCB (Post 10928525)
Sounds like "a customer who has a desperate demand to use an airport on his doorstep"

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



SWBKCB 18th Nov 2020 10:15


In effect we are saying Manchester is incapable of handling a pure freight flight ever again. That's farcical.
Do FedEx and ASL still not operate most nights?

Navpi 18th Nov 2020 10:45


Originally Posted by SWBKCB (Post 10929385)
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!

chaps1954 18th Nov 2020 10:58

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

SWBKCB 18th Nov 2020 11:06

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...


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

GrahamK 18th Nov 2020 11:16

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

Navpi 18th Nov 2020 11:32

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.





pwalhx 18th Nov 2020 12:49

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.

AndrewH52 18th Nov 2020 15:48

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 canít be offloaded and on their way to the factory quickly.

OzzyOzBorn 18th Nov 2020 16:56


I echo the previous comments that freight doesn't care where it lands.
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.


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.
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.

zfw 19th Nov 2020 10:28

End of an era.

Yeehaw22 19th Nov 2020 12:23

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

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

chaps1954 19th Nov 2020 12:31

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

Yeehaw22 19th Nov 2020 22:19


Originally Posted by chaps1954 (Post 10930238)
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.

chaps1954 19th Nov 2020 23:21

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

CWL757 19th Nov 2020 23:28


Originally Posted by Yeehaw22 (Post 10930566)
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.

​​​​​​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.

MAN777 20th Nov 2020 06:52

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:45.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.