EasyJet didn't actually set up a base at MAN. They gained one overnight by virtue of taking over GB Airways which had an established operation at MAN.

Interesting. Are you able to advise a timescale for this proposed expansion? Thanks.

Well, this conversation has moved on apace since I last checked in. Healthy debate on here is good to see. I can't comment on the implications of bilateral treaty restrictions or lack of them ... I'll leave that to those more familiar with the situation. But returning to the United Airlines discussion, I would make a couple of points. Exchange rates have indeed favoured US travellers bound for Europe in the post-covid era, and carriers have allocated resources accordingly. However, the notion that this should preclude any consideration of restoring service to MAN is moot. UK-domiciled travellers are still flying - just at a reduced volume than was previously the case. Likewise business travel - it is down, not gone completely. MAN does also suit those US-domiciled VFR passengers with roots in the North of England. That combination still adds up to a significant pool of customers. Less than pre-covid, yes, but since available seat capacity between MAN and the USA was down by 50-60% versus S19 during S23, that reduction in latent demand is more than accounted for. MAN does not need to be United's top performer in Europe. It just needs to be comfortably esconced amidst the top 38 ... and I contend that it will be, given a chance. The routes team need to be all over that, promoting the case for MAN and reminding UAL execs of their historic route performance which they can readily verify inhouse. If there is truth in the suggestion that a rift has developed between MAG and United execs over some unfortunate past conversations, it is up to MAG to offer an olive branch now and smooth things over. A sales tour of the US carriers featuring Mr Woodroofe would be an excellent idea at this juncture. If United (for one) do return, that will be a financial win-win for both parties.

On the parallel discussion concerning Jet2 ops, it will be illuminating to examine their capacity proposals for MAN S24 versus MAN S23 once the delayed ACL report emerges. I'm expecting little ambition from TUI - anything beyond 'as you were' will be a bonus; Ryanair's proposed numbers will be fascinating - just how boxed in are they at T3 now? EasyJet will make for interesting reading too. I sincerely hope that MAG is not telling any of these carriers that additional based units cannot be accommodated in the numbers requested. 🤞

Have Jet2 not competely saturated MAN if they stick to their business model ? There are only so many bucket & spade / city break destinations and surely they cover most of them now ? Increased frequency could be an option to eat up new based aircraft, but LPL could win more market share for them in the NW...which bothers Jet2 more than how many aircraft they base at MAN.

As far TA, MAN's demand as we know is mainly UK originating for leisure purposes, but the USA in now expensive for Brits so maybe even that sector is suffereing somewhat, however I see more potential chasing UK carriers for expansion over US legacy airlines. Jet2 jumps off the page but they seem content at the minute not doing it, but add to that VS and EIUK and here is where our future lies IMO. They just fit MAN better than US carriers.

OzzyOzBorn said : "EasyJet didn't actually set up a base at MAN. They gained one overnight by virtue of taking over GB Airways which had an established operation at MAN."

From which small beginning they self evidently SET UP A LARGE BASE.

If MAN transatlantic was a low hanging fruit, why haven't MAG made a deal with Norse? They're the perfect replacement for Thomas Cooks non daily point to point leisure operation? Are MAG holding them off in the hope of a returning US legacy?

I’m not sure that all is well at Norse, recently appointed external consultants.

Re Jet2, it’s probably worth pointing out that introducing Liverpool flights will also allow them to stop EZY/RYR having completely free rein to expand there. A Jet2 fleet on the tarmac at Liverpool, especially if they expand as rapidly as they have at other bases, will reduce the options the other 2 have to eat into their M62 corridor traffic.

Well, yes. Thankfully so. But what is your point? I haven't disputed this in any way.

There is an issue of scale. Thomas Cook had a based fleet of up to seven A330's plying the Atlantic each day from MAN. The entire Norse fleet of B789's is only ten strong, and these are spoken for by the existing route network. However, MAN clearly is 'on the radar' from Norse's perspective, as they applied for sufficient slots to operate a daily service in the recent past. Of course, internal challenges within the airline may influence outcomes first.

It was believed Norse had planned to launch JFK in S24, however this info was many months ago (around June time) - seems very unlikely now as I am led to believe slots not held in S24

FedEx
 

I hate to raise this contentious topic (for MAN anyway) again, but has this service commenced yet or has the start been delayed, as I haven’t seen any mention of it?
I get the impression from reading the trade press that FedEx appear to be consolidating their operations at the moment, so could this account for any delay if that is the case?

FedEx handed back their W23 slots, now aiming for S24.

Thanks for the update, hopefully they are in a position to start the service then.

Surely the J2 LPL ops is to stifle any RYR / EZY expansion aspirations?. Back in the day Britannia /Thomson had a reasonable IT programme ex Liverpool serviced by W pattern Manchester based aircraft. TUI have certainly lost their way.
On the other topic, my gut instinct is that MAG are happy to aspire to greater bucket and spade flights as they are easier targets for all the duty free, bars, restaurants and car park ancillary revenue. Hence the lack of interest in repairs to infrastructure (fix walkways by taking them out) bus station falling into disrepair as are other parts of the airport, part of the Charlie Cornish tight reign on spending. T2 TP scaled back in facilities, freight discouraged, lots of things appear to have moved into the too difficult box, I guess ambitious route development is parked there too. They are relying on growth from Ryanair,J2 and easyjet IMHO.

I do hope not. They've got Ryanair thoroughly boxed in with Cornish having vetoed spending on T3 expansion early in his 12-13 year tenure, and nothing added there since. EasyJet may add a 22nd aircraft for S24 (up from 21) ... fingers crossed. Jet2 split-terminal ops till end of S24 and setting up a competing base down the road. TUI in the deep-freeze. I actually think that the business driven by these carriers really is very valuable to MAN, and isn't always afforded the respect it deserves by those outside the business. But I fear for meaningful expansion from this sector in the medium term ... MAG MUST do something about T3 capacity for starters (ideally feed Pier B from it IMHO), and then bring new T2 capacity online ASAP. It is unfortunate that the ACL report for S24 has been delayed. The percentage comparisons for these four carriers S23 v S24 will make for illuminating reading. Fingers tightly crossed they surprise to the upside, but I wouldn't place a bet on that.

I would place the need for an apron extension on the airport campus and expansion of T3 as higher priorities than further work on T2 once the current phase is completed. The former should be constructed to provide resilience for the next decade of growth; the latter is required right now!

What are the rumours regarding T1? I understand that T1 is due to close in 2025 once the T2 transformation is complete, but is there some other plan being considered?

T1 to be demolished and T2 extended towards T3. But that was last month's plan. This month it could be completely different

The original plan and sketches circa 2012 -2014 showed T2 morthing INTO T1. The 747 pier was removed but the two T1 piers were retained to make one huge terminal.

Fast forward 10 years and the last plans i saw showed T1 as as an empty shell. We can't even demolish it as there would then be further constraints on parking stands during that process.

It's a conundrum how the airport expands (other then replacing small aircraft with bigger ones) without additional stands, and where the space for these stands comes from. Sure there are gaps between waves, but there are reasons why those gaps exist.

Ive wondered about this also. And I also spoke to a good friends dad who used to be ATC at MAN and asked him, here were his thoughts.

The immediate issue at the moment is the A380 which needs stand 12 for the 3 daily flights, yes there are remote A380 stands but that is not sustainable long term to have 3 daily A380’s on remote. So you would assume/hope that the second pier being built will have A380 capable gates (or at least one). If that is the case, EK can move to T2 and that leaves EZY plus a few EI that use pier B consistently. EI it makes sense to move to T2 anyway with EUK. And EZY can park remote, they only use contact at T1 for the first wave. This leaves the opportunity to demolish pier B initially, which immediately frees up apron space for multiple remote stands. With its proximity to T3 many would be ideal for RYR.

However the real big issue as my friends dad said is pier C as it creates a cul de sac. In an ideal world you’d get rid of pier C and create another row/rows of stands coming out of T2, with space for a pier to be built in future if deemed necessary. Let’s look at who uses pier C. Most star carriers (SN aside), EY, GF, FI and some Turkish charter airlines. Most if not all would ideally like contact stands, so how would this impact T2? Well, the new pier would take some of the slack and the far side of pier A could accommodate them but it would mean more remote parking for the likes of BY and LS, which would they be happy with or bothered about? (I don’t know the answer to this question) If so do you want to be hacking off two of your biggest based airlines?

As my friends dad said, the big issue is Pier C both in terms of its location and the airlines that use it. But the quick win to free up space and therefore flexibility is pier B once EK are moved.

it was an interesting take and being former ATC he obviously knows his stuff. His opinion was that a mistake was initially made going for a pier structure at T2 rather than a satellite structure, but that’s another argument in itself.

The thing is he may have been a controller but has he degree in the building industry because what someone thinks wil be good idea might not be possible
or cost effective in the bulding or design industry

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...curity-9370929

"T1 to be demolished " was the line.

But not anymore.

I don't think easyJet would accept fully remote parking just like that! Why should they? They're a better customer to MAN than BA. Why should Ryanair get on stand parking and easyJet have to bus everyone?