Won't happen. Thailand is very low yielding and is adequately covered by Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Oman and Turkish.

Marella Cruises 'the new name for Thomson Cruises' and their cruise ship the Marella Discovery will be based on the island of Langkawi not from Kuala Lumpur. The port for Kuala Lumpur is Port Kelang which is about an hours drive from the capital which is inland.

Flights from TUI are being offered from Manchester to Langkawi as a fly cruise program but I don't see where Kuala Lumpur fits into this.

If that reason is accrurate it begs the question: why do TG fly to Europe at all let alone so many routes?

Dobbo Dobbo.
A rather unworldly question.
Sufficient thought & analysis will be your answer.

Can't book the TOM flights standalone. Shame really

I'm not sure you've quite picked up my point...

Dobbo Dobbo..I think I did..
TG is not a commercial reality as we perceive the description.
Other factors/factions are at play when it comes to the long haul network.

Ah! Gotcha!

The new pier coming along well:

http://i63.tinypic.com/eu0pom.jpg

Forgive my ignorance but, the concrete towers, are they to do with the jetbridges, or something else?

Yes, they are air bridge connections similar to what the silver 'pods' are on T2.

The towers featured here are going to be similar to those at the end of the satellite piers of LHR T5 in that they stretch out from the pier.

Thank you! :ok:

Drive past the site every morning on the commute, it's fun watching the pier grow!

Iberia Express
 

Looking at the 2018 summer schedule from Man to Mad I see that three times a week an Iberia Express aircraft is scheduled to arrive at Man at 1015. It doesn`t depart until 1750.

Has anybody any idea what it does in the meantime?

Lax Lon, over to you

From what I can see:

Tue/Thu: a1715 d1805
Sun: a1015 d1050

The old days of operation in Wed/Sat still showing but will be deleted in due course.

Hope that helps.

Full impact off the direct China flights from MAN now all over the news.

For example here:
https://www.insidermedia.com/insider...ights-revealed

This link is interesting:

http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com/sit...nnectivity.pdf

As noted somewhere else, slip of the tongue, mistake or other. There is a trade event in Shanghai soon, maybe supposed to be announced then?

Either you misread or the summary has been amended...now reads “Having secured transport links between Manchester and Beijing and Hong Kong, Manchester China Forum seek further links with other cities in China, including Shanghai and Guangzhou”...

It's definitely been amended and wasn't misread. I also saw the initial text and assumed it was more likely to have been a slip of the tongue than an indication of an imminent announcement.

I'm not even sure whether Air China still hold the rights for MAN-PVG.

Definately amended, the text copied was a direct copy and paste, so not an error on my part.

It was amended. Seemed odd at the time, so no biggie.

For the second morning in 10 days, MAN is the only major UK airport to be affected by fog (I think BFS & GLA had a little fog much earlier).

Is MAN more restricted in movements than some other airports - LGW for example - when in LVPs; and if so, is that due to airfield lay-out or taxiway maintenance at a particular time? On occasions, FR24 shows 1 inbound on finals and a second having only just left the hold, suggesting huge gaps. Actually, this morning between 07.30 and 08.00, there were usually 3 on approach but more recently it dropped to 2 again with 5 or 6 in the stacks. I appreciate there are outbounds to get away, but just wondered if MAN was abnormally restricted in LVP conditions.

The London airfields had fog the other day, it`s just luck of the draw

And that luck seems to have changed over the years. Back in the 60s/70's/80s, it wasn't too unusual for MAN to be one of the few airports not affected by fog when airports in the south and elsewhere were. A generality I know, but then if the direction of a gentle wind or drift was between NW and South East i.e. say NE or E; we tended to escape. S, SW or W tended to be a problem due to the Bollin valley. Nowadays, the wind direction seems irrelevant.

The forecasting of fog doesn't seem great these days either. A week last Friday, fog only appeared in the metars trend at about 05.00 that morning. The previous evening's TAFS had not predicted fog. Likewise the TAFS at 17.00 yesterday only gave a 30% Prob of 1400m in MIFG. I'm sure the airport and airlines would appreciate something more accurate, unless there are special factors which make MAN particularly difficult to forecast.

Fortunately most aircraft can now land in quite thick fog but the long holding delays can cause problems,especially if not originally expected.

http://www.cityam.com/275294/lord-adonis-warns-stalling-heathrow-expansion-means-airport/amp

I "think" Manchester might beg to differ given meteoric long haul expansion in last 3 years.

The Monarch slots have now been returned to ACL, and will not form part of the appeal by KPMG.

This is due to MAN (MAG) making a submission to the high court to release the slots, thus they are not being contested any further.

Hopefully we should see the slots being used up soon, as said, MAG would not have made a submission to get its slots handed back if they didn't have any need to do so, it means airlines must be willing to use them.

Unless they did not want or expect to pay for them as they would have had to with KPMG.

MAN wouldn't have had to pay for them, the airlines would have (if there was any financial value attached to them)

Leave it to the LHR thread, eh Bagso?

There’s a really good book in TAS showing diversions at MAN over the years! Highly recommended.

LAX LHR...
Absolutely..That`s what I was replying to & picking up on.
The airlines would have had pay if KPMG owned the slots & do airlines need to,want to or expect to at MAN so I was postering maybe MAN/MAG itself headed this off for the financial benefit of MAN airline users.

But that's the point I'm making.

It would have been down to the airlines to fight this out if they really wanted the slots, not MAG.

MAG must have seen a business case for interviening in the court ruling, just like a business case has to be found for any financial outgoing, so, there must be airlines waiting in the wings to use those slots for that business case to have been present.

MAG wouldn't have spent time and money on this out of the goodness of their own heart, as they could have very easily just sat back (like the other airports involved did) and just wait for the scenario to be played out.

Absolutely agree Skip. And some of us are old enough to remember those diversion days back to the 70s & 80s. Could have been the 60s too if I'd caught the aviation hobby at a younger age!

They will have a preffered law firm on call, but I very much doubt MAG has teams of lawyers say round twiddling their thumbs waiting to write letters every now and then.

My opinion is that they wanted to prevent the situation where a single airline is the dominant player at the airport. If any of the top 5 airlines had bought the monarch slots they would have been significantly larger than the next.

LAX LHR...
Okay okay...regard the MAN slots issue another way.
The first question would be...have any airline/operator in any period of MAN`s history paid £££££ for their slots @ MAN?.
If the answer is no which I think is the answer then why would say EZY give a pile of £££ now to KPMG for a slot whilst lining up behind it would be another EZY flight for which the slot was free..ie obtained originally from the slot co-ordination pool.
You may be right that airlines may require those slots at some stage but the ignominy for MAN of KPMG just holding unused slots until such time as they could coerce money from airlines is worthy of MAN "fighting" to return to the common pool.
BTW what puzzles me is why with 2 R/W`s is MAN slotted & restricted it must be no where near any R/W capacity?.

sptraveller wrote..."I do think it`s a little bit too easy to overestimate the significance of that decision"....which less understated than my previous is actually a spot on observation.
Asked too was "if you have additional information you are free to share,please do so".

Parking capacity at peak times is the issue

Not sure that is a problem at moment with 9 spare stands available with Monarch demise

Well to answer this, there is another question: if there is no financial value to the slots in terms of cold hard cash for the airlines, why would there be for MAN?

In terms of why would Easyjet pay for a slot now when another was free, it's a rhetorical question a bit like why would someone pay £500 for an airline ticket when another passenger may have only paid £50 for theirs?

The simple fact is, MAN would not have dragged itself through what could have turned out to be a lengthy court process for the sheer craic of it. Even if the slots did end up being of monetary value to Monarch, that's not for MAG to worry about per se, if the airlines wanted them that much, they would pay for them. If no one wanted to pay for them, the value would have been decreased on a sliding scale by KPMG no doubt, which yes, would have taken time but they would have eventually come back into the 'free' fold. This then brings back to the original question, why did MAN want them freed up for 2018 so quickly?

I am unable to portray/pursue the logic much further I`m afraid LAX LHR either you choose not to regard what does appear to be the reality of the slot situation @ MAN or an attempt or two to counter or challenge your own assumptions of MAG`s commercial reasoning & actions is not understood.
But just one last view,could it just be airlines do not wish to PAY for slots @ MAN simples & MAN wish to have the slots in the common pool as always & re used & not controlled & unused & strong armed by an airline receiver,in this case KPMG.
Please feel free to educate the forum whenever a first slot does change hands for hard cash @ MAN.
It`s nothing personal concerning MAN (it is part of the fold) but it must be a long way from slot selling between incumbents.

MANFOD,

If I remember correctly, arrival spacing of between 10 and 15 miles are often common during LVPs. Later on this month, an 18 week duration H24 closure of TWY Alpha between A2 and A3, is, I believe, is due to come into operation. Associated with this is the closure of link AF and RET AE, for the period. This will mean the SW and of TWY A will become an isolated 'turning-loop', which will necessitate 'backtracking' by a/c which fail to vacate at Link 'B'/RET BD.

When 05L is in use, backtracking will also be required for those a/c unable to depart from Link B, (TORA 2036m).

The fog-forecasting became less accurate decades ago, with the closure of the EGCC regional met office, and it's relocation, initially to Daw Bank, and subsequently to Exeter.

Also, the met observations are now made by ATC staff, using the SAMOS system. The dedicated Met Office observers moved out about 10-15 years ago, if I remember correctly?