Lockdown ends tomorrow and there is no obvious news of T2 or T3 reopening. Are we likely to see T2 + T3 remain closed until maybe the end of March 2021 ?
Are non-food retail units in T1 reopening tomorrow ?

Just for info, tomorrows EK17 (Wed 2nd Dec) is showing as an A380.
Nice to see one back.

Mr A Tis
Came back from Far East on one into Europe via DXB. Good to fly in them again, and the bar is open ;) Mr Williams from your neck of the woods will be pleased about that too !

6 A380 a week from tomorrow plus 4 777, the slow recovery has started, Aurigny ATR today

DP

There were (and still is) many rumours about T2X opening in February, but I don’t know when the testing with “passengers” and staff is due to take place...

T1/T3 ideal for our LCC’s, but please move the legacy airlines over to T2.
I’ve been using T1 recently for the 5.55am KLM flight and it’s not been on time departing once! I don’t know what T3 check in areas are like these days but T1 is completely inadequate. Not to mention the tired and dated Piers B & C!
EZY regularly use pier C gates 23/25/27 shouldn’t be a problem for them, but KL/AF/LH they should be in the new T2X.

I'm perplexed. Why? easyJet is a big MAN customer and operates far more flights and brings more customers to the airport than KLM. My point being that you don't just treat one of your biggest customers with contempt because you perceive they deserve/want a lower customer experience. By the same token, KLM etc might not want to move to terminal 2 yet for whatever reason. Instead, as an airport, you work with the carriers to best match their needs and requirements. Pre-pandemic, Eurowings moved to T2 and easyJet takes pride of place at the new BER terminal.

AF/KL were pencilled in for T2 for Apr 2020. Obviously, things have happened since then, but expect them to move probably for summer21 schedule. AF were only in T3 due to the joint CDG operation with BE and vis a vis KL were required to follow AF due to a common check-in system. Now BE are no more, it makes sense to move to T2. On another note, EI were due to move to T3 with the start of BHD ops and be more aligned with the other IAG operation but did not happen for whatever reason. The proposed new transatlantic ops by EI I believe are to be operated from T1 so unlikely you’ll see a joint IAG ops under one terminal anytime soon.

Yes, I remember AF/KL moving over to T3 from T2 about 6 years ago when AF canned its night stopper and codeshared on BE. Before that of course, the two used to co-exist in T1 prior to them becoming part of the AFKL group.

My point is though is some seem to like to assume that LCC's can just be told where they are being handled at an airport and will simply accept that. Thats not to say that one of those airlines might settle for the older or more basic terminal if it suits its operational needs but in case of FR & EZY at MAN (and LS too) they are the airports biggest customers. They provide the critical mass and the large numbers of passengers which airports ultimately draw money from directly these days. Those airlines are much sought after by airports right across Europe and as such, they can be demanding customers.

You appear to be interpreting the situation as an attack on the integrity of EasyJet as a company. But nobody is suggesting doing anything without their explicit consent. The rumour which has gone around (which may or may not be true) featured the suggestion that EasyJet and Ryanair would be offered exclusive use of T1/T3 (possibly plus Wizz?) with no landing charges for four years. [Or is it actually departure charges at MAN?]. If that were to be true, then it is an outstandingly generous offer which EasyJet would be very wise to consider at a time when money is so tight. And it wouldn't even involve any upheaval: T1 is their home at MAN already (and it works just fine). I've not seen any hint that EasyJet would "be forced to settle for" anything which doesn't meet their expressed approval. But under the terms suggested by the rumour doing the rounds, perhaps a move to T2 would not be accompanied by the attractive financial concession attached to staying put in T1?

If EasyJet prefers to be seen as a prestige carrier and wishes to prioritise this over keeping fixed costs as low as possible, then that is their call. But I would suggest that their recent announcement re baggage policy aligns them firmly alongside Ryanair and Wizzair in the budget no-frills niche. My guess is that they would go with low costs, but maybe you know better? Either way, their MAN operation will do just fine in the familiar T1 environment. Plenty of retail, plenty of catering options, and whilst no showpiece an acceptably functional environment for the task at hand. It works.

I think it’s a shame they don’t consolidate the IAG operation in terminal 2, IF they can solve the arrival process for CTA flights. I assume, boldly, that T2 has a proper arrival route for CTA which doesn’t involve the bloody bus. The amount of times it takes longer to get from the aircraft out of the customs hall than the actual flight from dublin is ridiculous.

t3 is at capacity already and the departure lounges are unpleasant at the best of times never mind when it’s busy.

with the potential EI USA operation I think a wholesale move to t2 next summer would make a lot more sense for the IAG group.

businessair75

I was using EZY as a prime example of how T1 is adequate enough for their operation and even an extended operation. At the same time, as air travel eventually gets busier, other airlines should be transferred to T2 (and T2X) to ensure there is enough space for our LCC's to operate in T1/T3 or potential as one large terminal.
EZY I'm sure are more than happy to continue using Pier B and some of the gates on Pier C, with being closer to the runways...the only downside for me personally is that stupid layout due to it's age which we know dates back to the times when arriving and departing passengers could mix.

I heard the T1 car park has already past it's expired life span, in that case Pier B has far exceeded it's, but unfortunately for the passenger, I can't see any changes until overall T2X and it's Piers are complete.

Are there any plans anywhere (I’m just interested) as what exactly T2X is?

cumbrianboy

BA have previously asked for a move to T2 along with American Airlines, however, the airport at the time refused due to there being no suitable domestic arrival facilities. IAG's aim going forward at other airports is a common Executive lounge used by all IAG airlines and partner airlines. This would, I assume have to be constructed before any move to T2.

Slots for the EI operation are now showing with flight numbers and times (No destinations yet) in the airport systems. x2 A321neo and x1 A330, however, I have on good authority that EI have asked for pricing from suppliers based on using x2 A330 and x 1 A321neo due to availibility of the neo a/c and the lack of range for one of the proposed routes (suggesting ORD).

Lancaster Bomber
Handy for the BA direct Costa Rica flight at last, though BA not what they were but better than a change in Miami.

I see CX A350 is on its way in for Friday morning.
Is this just a one off - or a resumption of a limited service?

It is for students returning home and there are several but hopefully it is getting closer to a resumption of services

MAN-OTP
 

Ryanair announce Manchester - Bucharest 3 x weekly from March 2021.:D

A long awaited European destination. I've never really understood why we didn't have it previously. Also great news as it looks like things are starting to look up again at MAN.

Apologies if this was picked up previously.

DomyDon Hi it was mentioned before but no harm in reminding people

DomyDom

I'm going to be a horrible nerd here, but wasn't there a brief scheduled service by TAROM BAC 1-11 back in the 80s / 90s? Also perhaps a few charters for skiing in the Carpathian mountains. But aside from that it's good to have another EU capital on the departure boards, hopefully for good.

I know a new US-UK air services agreement was signed recently, but haven't seen anything about what is included. EI must be confident on regulatory approval.

I heard that it could possibly be 2 x A330
and 1 x A321neo now.

Numbers and types agree with what I have seen. 2 A321 + 1 A330

EI took two new A333s this year and retired 1 A332, and are taking 4 new LRs in 2021 so this MAN expansion is well within the capabilities of the fleet without affecting their existing ops elsewhere. Interesting to watch. If it is only to be 2 LRs in MAN then the aircraft and crews could rotate with the SNN based crews and frames on the ground in BOS and JFK and thus save on ferrying costs between MAN and Irish bases if desired. Since there's no LRs currently due to operate between Ireland and ORD (2 x A333 operate ORD from DUB per day on summer schedule) my guess is that would be the one to suffer.

4 flights in Dec and 4 in Jan for students mostly. Don't expect CX to return with any frequency any time soon, suspended indefinately, maybe some adhoc flights in 2021 but that's about it.

Not aware overly specific info however if I was to make a call it will be just x2 aircraft, possibly both A330 as suggested above to fly JFK and MCO only.

What I did hear on the grapevine BOS was never planned to be daily operation so unless EI have crunched the numbers and come up with something different and think it can work.

Well DUB JFK is double daily on 333 and DUB MCO is 6 x weekly so again option of swapping over crews or airframes on the ground in the States.

Again not an area I know much about but this would have to be under a UK AOC and swaps would depend how they can operate under UK AOC.

They could still face a drawn out challenge in the US for final approval not withstanding the UK-USA agreement and this was referenced in the leaked email.

The agreement for BHD-LHR isn't really clear but Stobart appear to be in the same situation.

EI have approached the Handling agent/service providers for costing based on x2 A330's

Can you just clarify this comment please? Are you saying it's only 2 x A330's now and no A321 for which costs have been requested; or were you pointing out it's now 2 x 330's as opposed to just 1 as indicated by the slot applications, and that your earlier post of 2 x A330's and 1 x A321 still stands.

I'm told still x3 aircraft - x2 A330 / x1 A321. Slots in airport chroma system still showing x2 A321 / x1 A330 though.

Many thanks for that.

According to Twitter, BA want to fly MAN-LGW.

Twitter

Already reported in post #54. But better twice than never.I

But LGW-MAN is supposed to be loss-making and has no feed traffic, trains provide competitive service etc etc and that's why BA made the decision to cut it..Why would they reinstate a loss-making route?

At a high-intensity single-runway operation like LGW (in normal times the world's busiest single-runway commercial airport), less profitable services occupying valuable runway slots gradually get squeezed out in favour of more profitable replacements. That is what happened to the LGW-MAN route which was accounting for a typical eight slots per day, some of these at lucrative peak times. MAN wasn't specifically a 'bad' route - but increasing demand for slots meant that higher profile choices were eventually given priority. But now COVID-19 has changed everything. Suddenly, LGW has been shorn of a significant proportion of its former scheduled programme. Flights are either duplicated by services from LHR, or otherwise not viable to run at their former frequencies. Some carriers are in financial difficulty and have scaled back. Others have moved services over to LHR. Major operators are unlikely to return straight away at their previous scale of operation when business starts to come back. But valuable slots risk being forfeited under 'use it or lose it' rules if they go unused for too long. So it makes sense for a carrier such as BA to 'slot-sit' some of their slot portfolio with short routes which don't cost too much to run and which may bring in some revenue to help offset operating costs in the meantime. LGW-MAN is perfect for this purpose. It may not be a long-term proposition, but whilst it is offered some will find it useful (including me). I'll certainly make use of it if it does become available again, though I appreciate that the slots will likely be redeployed to a more prestigious service when demand returns sufficiently.

Out of interest, Manchester lost its scheduled services to London City for similar reasons. As the popularity of that airport grew, it's scarce peak runway slots became increasingly valuable, and eventually the MAN service gave way to more profitable replacements.

One more thing. The train is not a great option between MAN and LGW. There used to be a through service from Manchester terminating at Brighton, but I don't think that has run for a while now. So that means train from Manchester to Euston, taxi or tube to one of the other London stations, and a second train down to LGW. It is a slow, expensive and cumbersome journey - especially with luggage. Not a competitive option at all. And flights to LGW aren't useful only for flight connections: a decent stretch of the South Coast and South London will be much easier to access from Manchester for as long as the service lasts.

Not quite, MAN-LCY was axed because the West Coast Mainline improvements were complete. VLM's traffic on LCY-MAN/LPL collapsed overnight and both routes were closed soon afterwards. VLM ended up in bed with CityJet but the LCY glory days were behind them as BA got serious, built up BA CityFlyer from the rash mistakes of BACON (boom boom!) and went onto dominate the local market.

Back on topic, Virgin have resumed MAN ops as of yesterday (Sat) with B787-9 G-VOWS off to Bridgetown as VS077.

Virgin and Norwegian have scaled back their ops everywhere including LGW, and I suspect many foreign carriers who operate from both LHR and LGW will concentrate on LHR for a while. New routes / opportunities exist, or at least old opportunities are gone. What is occurring now is the biggest tectonic shift in the industry for decades, possibly ever. Who knows what the new markets will be.

Rail improvements were a factor but not the only one. As I stated, scarce LCY peak-time slots were in demand for more lucrative services. Up until C-19 struck, peak slots at LCY remained a very scarce resource with several potentially viable routes unable to be accommodated.

Isnt this for feeding traffic to EI Manchester operations now LGW has lost so much long haul ?

Now that's what I call "thinking outside of the box". Very interesting thought.