MANCHESTER - 9

[spannersatcx]

In fairness it's not all about the airport, if an airline such as Cathay Pacific chooses to operate into 1 UK airport there's an onus and responsibility on them to have a resiliance plan should they be unable to land at LHR. From all the stories we hear everytime there's an issue at LHR it appears to me that the pilot ends up flying around the UK asking for somewhere to land, they should have a pre-determined plan and agreement with an airport and a handling agent at said airport for such an occourance. Not picking on Cathay by the way just using them as an example.
The alternate is MAN and is filed in the flt plan. They have engineering/cargo/handling agents in place, that's why it's an alternate.

There are stands that can take the 748, so that shouldn't be a problem, the airport even changed the taxi ways and roads to accommodate it and tie down points specifically for the -8.

[rutankrd]

No, I'm afraid there wont be.
Regretfully agree with you.

Mobilising COBRA is always reactive and after the event.

UK business is hopelessly slow at planning and implementation of disaster recovery - always has been seen a cost and burden !

We complain about EU directives however all are created by business input -
German and other EU companies may take time to reply however many UK businesses just by stand .

Sorry going off topic.

[rutankrd]

The alternate is MAN and is filed in the flt plan. They have engineering/cargo/handling agents in place, that's why it's an alternate.

That is very much the point CX38 should never have been declined !

Others maybe so but not this.

The flight could have been off loaded and off on its way.

Having been declined I am surprised it went to Stansted rather than Amsterdam through.

[PIK3141]

I am puzzled by this. If one understands CX38 or whatever has MAN declared as the Alternate in its flight plan, and that is a stored flight plan used everyday CX38 flies, and if they have a contract in place with MAN to handle that flight as and when diverted, then how can it be turned away on the basis posted here ? Has MAN informed CX and every other airline that MAN cannot be a designated Alternate ? Has MAN informed CX and every other airline that has a contract in place to handle diversions that it will not honour that contract ?

[LiamNCL]

BA used LBA & NCL for some LHR diverts - certainly not normally considered.

we do actually see a fair few of BA heavys , During bad snow a few year ago we had 2x 744 2x 777 and a 767 in at once IIRC. Part of the reason BA flew their 787 here during training was also to get ground crew familiar with the aircraft such as Newcastle being one of their diversion airports according to the pilot.

Still it was poor from MAN last night

[Flightmech]

I'd certainly be pissed if I was the captain of CX38 with MAN as my flight-planned ALTN, the runway was open and I was refused. Shocking.

[Bagso]

Little point AA/CX/AC etc putting MAN down as an alternate in future OR am I missing something ?

[National Solution]

Other threads are discussing why it is so important that Heathrow becomes a larger hub airport, presumably with lower usage at the other airports. However, these other airports need to have the capacity to cope with Heathrow diversions. Do the the passengers from these smaller airports have to pay for the excess capability? Is the alternative solution to reduce the dependency on one particular airport so that there flexibility across the UK? If not, then this situation will happen.

[chinapattern]

While this has provoked some interesting conversation about the whys and wherefores I think its important to remember that people have lost their lives in these storms and there are thousands out there who are suffering a hell of a lot more than a few disgruntled pilots; yes its inconvenience but it's not as if their livelehoods are at stake.

[Skipness One Echo]

Other threads are discussing why it is so important that Heathrow becomes a larger hub airport, presumably with lower usage at the other airports. However, these other airports need to have the capacity to cope with Heathrow diversions. Do the the passengers from these smaller airports have to pay for the excess capability? Is the alternative solution to reduce the dependency on one particular airport so that there flexibility across the UK? If not, then this situation will happen.
A National Solution is required, I agree. Britiain has one hub airport. There is no mechanism for another airport to compliment a hub, it defies the meaning of the word. Daft ideas like "Heathwick" or using an airport over the horizon at Northolt in some way. The market would segment as putting it simply, people need to get from A to B (connecting via C) with as little hassle as possible.
Airports already do have the capabilty to cope with diversions from LHR, they were much more common in days past, what airports choose to do now is deny them on the ground of hassle. It's not about "dependency" or "flexibility" as any attempt to restrain LHR just bleeds traffic away to AMS/FRA/CDG et al. We already have too many regional airports. Belfast loses to Dublin as it lacks an airport with critical capacity and profitability. Teesside is dying, Plymouth has gone, Newquay is in freefall, Prestwick and Cardiff were nationalised to prevent closure. Manchester ceased to be the strategic gateway for the region when LBA and LPL exploded on the back of the loco bubble and we can all see the lack of infrastructure investment as a result. (* cough Gate 12 for an A380????)

So yeah we need a national strategy, competition and the free market create bubbles that burst and if you don't keep an eye on things the country gets damaged. Just understand that it's not about a fair divvying up of passenger traffic amongst the regions of the UK, in market terms it's about maintaining competitiveness of our national hub at LHR, allowing UK domestic connectivity in there with runway three and giving people an excuse to support UK jobs rather than continental ones. ( #notinukiphonest)

The reason MAN can't cope is becasue all the staff that used to deal with this had their terms and conditions eroded year on year to the point that they pay peanuts and so people will not go the extra mile for no reward for Servisair, Swissport or Menzies in the same way they once did for BMI, BA or anyone else who had in house people ready to help.

[Ringwayman]

Sometimes it's just a case of "bad timing" when aircraft has a need to divert.

I would suggest that a Friday evening/nighttime when plans by relevant handling agencies have been drawn up to have a certain amount of staff covering the expected flights with a lots of stands being occupied by aircraft having completed their flying duties for the day is likely to lead to a "no go" situation.

Have we soon forgotten about the TG 747, SQ A380 and AC A330 that all diverted in between 0700 and 0730 on 28th October? The relevant handling agencies I would imagine should still have a "normal" peak period shift on hand to cope with extra aircraft.

Other "smaller" airports, for want of a better phrase, may have the same number of staff on duty as MAN but as a result of perhaps having fewer aircraft on the ground or expected to arrive, could well be in a better position to handle extra flights.

[National Solution]

Skipness, I see that you are clear why you think Heathrow needs to expand. You still haven't explained why the other smaller airports have to increase their cost base in order to ensure that Heathrow has adequate diversions. Or who pays for that excess capability.

[Skipness One Echo]

Who says they need to increase their cost base? In all honesty, how much money would it cost me as a passenger if they did? Diversions are not handled for free, they pay landing fees, ATC fees and parking fees and all the rest of it. The major cost is to the diverting airline. A well run airport can make money from this misfortune, a pared to the bone operation misses the opportunity.

There is no need for any smaller airport to make any infrastructure changes to handle LHR diversions. MAN, PIK and a few others are Code F and can handle the largest aircraft, the rest can be accepted where there's space.

[easyflyer83]

Whilst what you say Re: handling agents may be true in part, there were a number of staff at one handling agent who did go the extra mile and who did work very long shifts in order to accept some of the diverts.

[Bagso]

But why ARE these issues specific to Manchester ?

On more occasions than not when Manchester is called upon to assist there seems to be issues, not all the time as was pointed out with Thai etc but lets be clear it's more often than not.

Do aircraft ever get turned away from Stansted, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Prestwick, Dublin or even Robin Hood ?

Maybe they do, if we have anybody behind the lines at these airports maybe they can compare notes ?

AND comparisons certaibly in terms of staffing can be made, after all it's only about scale !

Birmingham not exactly flush with parking and stands, my understanding is that like Manchester most gates are full first thing in the morning with based aircraft, no problems that I am aware of other than some miscommunication with the TAP. So how was staffing, offload, coaches, hotels etc organised down there ?

Liverpool had a number of EZY, again any issues with parking, staffing manning etc ?

Read many times that Leeds apparently is always full overnight, all stands full with based aircraft parked on taxiways, they still managed to squeeze in a couple of BA.

And what of the stand out Robin Hood ! 5 flights a day at best, My goodness it must be one man and his dog handling stuff over there.

It's in the middle of nowhere but they still managed to accept 4 Wizz and and an EZY late sametime as us on a Friday night... how ?

I'm baffled !

[LAX_LHR]

But why ARE these issues specific to Manchester ?

On more occasions than not when Manchester is called upon to assist there seems to be issues, not all the time as was pointed out with Thai etc but lets be clear it's more often than not


And this has been my argument in the past.

Im not arguing that staff levels are low, and they are paid peanuts etc, that argument has been done to death already. We cannot have hoards of staff waiting around 'just in case', however, why does MAN seem to suffer more than others?

As I have said in the past, BHX has a very similar airline demographic to MAN, so should have a similar staff to flight ratio. That seems to accept anything and everything.

DSA has the bare bones staff due to traffic levels, still managed to offload 5 aircraft and send them back on their way within 1 hour of landing.

LBA is pretty much full overnight, still accepted 2 BA Airbus.

NCL, not the largest airport in the UK space wise, but still managed to take 2 larger aircraft than MAN could manage.

STN, I will assume is now going to be similar to MAN staff wise now they are the same company, still managed to take in double digit figure diverts from LHR/LGW and LCY.

So, why is MAN so unable to accept the same ratio of diverts that other similar or smaller airports are able to, why is this issue seemingly unique to MAN and what can be done, either attitude or physical change wise to alter this now pretty awful reputation it has not just on forums but with some airlines too?

[nigel osborne]

LAX-LHR.

Re " BHX has a very similar airline demographic to MAN, so should have a similar staff to flight ratio. That seems to accept anything and everything".

Seems recently the general rule for diversions now is BHX can accept two 77W/A330/747, up to five B767 size types, and numerous 737/A320 ,all at the same time, so they do have a limit of sorts.

These are the figures Ive heard recently from ground ops, but may well alter. They have had up to 5 wide bodies divert at the same few winters back, and the record was 5 B747s and 2 other WB many years ago though.

Do MAN not have a similar plan on what they can accept, might save some confusion ?

Nigel

[The96er]

In the case of BA when disruption is expected in LHR, they do inquire with the stations that handle BA on a daily basis what their ability is likely to be if asked to handle diverts. A report has to be submitted to BA which includes information like staffing levels, hotel availability, Stand availability, De-icing capability, coaching availability and equipment availability. In terms of stand availability, the airport stated that up to 5x narrowbodies and 2 x widebody a/c could be accepted although only one widebody could be accepted by the handling agent due to only having one set of widebody steps on station, hence there being pics on the internet with the BA 767 with steps attached and the AA 767 without steps attached.

[Suzeman]

Seems recently the general rule for diversions now is BHX can accept two 77W/A330/747, up to five B767 size types, and numerous 737/A320 ,all at the same time, so they do have a limit of sorts.

Do MAN not have a similar plan on what they can accept, might save some confusion ?

Certainly used to do that in days gone by - can't remember the numbers now but it got the ball rolling and later diversion requests were considered on an individual basis. If I remember correctly there was an airport-wide diversion plan which was updated every September or thereabouts. And of course the "diversion control", an airport wide co-ordination team was brought into play with this type of event.

Looking at what has been reported here over the events of Friday, I'm presuming none of this happens now. It would seem that there were a lot of inconsistencies in messages being sent out if what is reported on here is true. That's not good.

And as has been reported, there no longer seems to be an incentive of any kind to go the extra mile to sort things out. Sad but there you go. :(

[LAX_LHR]

In terms of stand availability, the airport stated that up to 5x narrowbodies
and 2 x widebody a/c could be accepted although only one widebody could be accepted by the handling agent due to only having one set of widebody steps on station, hence there being pics on the internet with the BA 767 with steps attached and the AA 767 without steps attached


Menzies have been asked to provide at least 3 sets from April onwards due to the expansion of the AA contract (US Airways flights) and one set as a spare. Apparently menzies have assured this will be in place.

[Ringwayman]

The Winter Ops manual does contain this in 14.2:

"In order to protect our normal schedule of flights, Airfield Operations will closely monitor the operational capability of UK Airports and determine the number of parking stands available for diversionary aircraft. This assessment will be made at intervals of not less than 12 hours between the months of November and March inclusive.
The ADM will set an “inbound diversion cap” and notify ATC of any capacity limitations. The “cap” is intended to identify the number of inbound aircraft which can be accepted without impacting upon stand allocations plans associated with our normal schedule of flights. In the event of a mass diversion scenario, the ADM and TDM will activate Diversion Control in the CMC.
...
In the event of significant disruption at Manchester Airport and limited availability of parking stands, a decision may be taken not to accept inbound diversions. Requests from Manchester Airport airline customers to accept inbound diversions and extra flights will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the CMC, subject to the provision of a Ground Handling service."

ADM= Airfield Duty Manager
TDM = Terminal Duty Manager
CMC = Crisis Management Centre

[crewmeal]

On a lighter note the Daily Mail reported that some passengers on the Moscow flight had been tossed off, sorry tossed around like a paper plane!

Jets forced to send mayday emergencies because they were 'running out of fuel' over London | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560557/Jets-forced-send-mayday-emergencies-running-fuel-London.html)

[bermudatriangle]

Just arrived at T3 travelling with a suitcase for a change, only to find that a baggage cart now has to be paid for.
what's that all about ? how petty to charge for a trolley. another slide down the scale of major world airports.
more like a supermarket experience. surely Manchester can do better !

[LAX_LHR]

Ive seen plenty of airports charge for a trolley, including LAX, so MAN is not alone.

More to the point, when people are willing to pay less and less for flights, and airlines such as Ryanair willing to pay less to use the airport too, I wonder how people expect a business, to which MAN is, to make money (or in the philosophy of wanting to pay less do people expect an airport is purely a service to cater to their every whim, and not in fact there to make money for future regeneration, to which MAN is planning at this moment in time?)

[Mouser]

No we expect to get get f--cked left right and centre, when we travel, to pay for future regeneration.

[bar none]

The baggage cart only costs a pound.
Last week my taxi did not turn up so I had to drive to the airport and park in the short stay. Sat lunchtime until Sun evening cost a cool £72.
I only wanted to park, not buy the multi storey!

[Navpi]

Mouser - shows a lack of class resorting to the F word (by implication), when criticising an event, issue or topic.

We are all grown up and I can swear like a trooper but do we need to see it here...?

[Bagso]

http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/170267780-im-sun-lover-get-me-out-here-manchester-airport-enjoy-record-passengers-post:{

Shame that every new destination was mentioned except the most important - Riyadh !

[North West]

Most important to whom exactly ? You seem very keen on a trip to Saudi but I'm not convinced the populous of GM at large will be heading there in a hurry. I doubt the revenue it generates for the airport will be anything other than a rounding error compared to Car parking and retail revenues generated by Ryanair and Easyjet

[Bagso]

Based on your assessment NorthWest I don't know why Saudia are even bothering.

[Ian Brooks]

I would expect a lot of high value pax and cargo so will be of great value

Ian

[RoyHudd]

I disagree. Saudi have got their "sums" wrong and will pull out again soon. Their slave trade from India, Pakistan and Egypt routes through gulf states or direct, not through Manchester.

Granted freight might be an earner, as Saudi Arabia has no manufacturing base worth its salt. Outside of Hajj time, few people fly between Riyadh/Jeddah and Manchester. Why would they?

[Ian Brooks]

Business at BAe Warton for a start plus large ammounts of cargo, if they were worried about they wern`t going to get loads they would have put the A320
on

Ian

[BasilBush]

Re Saudia, although Hajj is time-specific, the Umrah pilgrimage can be undertaken at any time of year. Hopefully this will give Saudia a reasonable year-round demand, if they can sort out the sales channels.

As for freight, isn't this likely to be heavily outbound, with lots of fresh air being imported to MAN?

[Skipness One Echo]

Large amounts of cargo won't fit on an A320, especially one flying all that way. Since the outound market is likely almost zero, with the high volume / low price taken by the existing ME3, it is a bit of an odd one. However it's an arm of the Medievalist state, so it's not as if they need it to make money.

[Bagso]

....All the more reason to maximise every opportunity to promote it:?
I don't necessarily disagree with any of the comments but when putting out a press release I see little point mentioning services that to a greater or lessor extent are a nailed on success when a route of this nature would need every amount of publicity it can get for the reasons mentioned.

As with the diversion policy we seem to be striving for failure rather than succes !

[750XL]

Don't forget that Saudi also offer some fairly decent connections at good prices, and their on board service isn't too bad either (Shame the same can't be said for RUH/JED :sad:).

There's a lot of high value cargo being shipped from BAe Warton on a weekly basis and we've had a few 744F charters for it in the past year. I'm sure the route announcement was very much a political one, though!

[jubilee]

Skippy,

Aircraft being flown by Saudi to Manchester is B77L
J

[rutankrd]

Aircraft being flown by Saudi to Manchester is B77L

JUBILEE

You do realise that's just an internal Saudia code for their three class (Yes includes a First offering) 777's

The aircraft are nothing other than standard 777-268ER models and in the range HZ-AKA to HZ-AKK (excluding HZ-AKF) and have been deployed on European services for nearly 15 years.

Don't confuse them with the more typical use of the code for the 777LR
version !

[Skipness One Echo]

There's a lot of high value cargo being shipped from BAe Warton on a weekly basis
Ahh thanks Juilee, couple with this then, it does make some sense.

[jubilee]

Rutankrd,

Thanks for the info.

J.

[LAX_LHR]

Austrian Airlines will run the weekly Saturday Innsbruck on behalf of Inghams this summer instead of flybe.

Will be an A319 and the inghams site should be updated soon, as it still shows as BE999/999 on both flights but GDS shows as operated by Austrian.

[LAX_LHR]

Jet2 seem to have increased the number of New York Christmas shopping charters to New York from MAN next winter. AFAIK we had 2 this winter, but there are 4 next winter.

Outbound dates of 30th Oct, 13th and 27th November and finally 11th December.

[Bagso]

Manchester hub of UK tech boom

Scott Fletcher says Manchester has become the hub of the UK?s high-tech boom - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/scott-fletcher-says-manchester-become-6708460)

Can only help growth at Manchester....Hopefully !

[Bagso]

hmmm interesting.

Have they "tagged" Jeddah onto the Riyadh route, it looks like it !


Saudia increases belly capacity to Manchester, Los Angeles | Air Cargo World (http://www.aircargoworld.com/Air-Cargo-World-News/2014/02/saudia-increases-belly-capacity-manchester-los-angeles/6292)

[LAX_LHR]

Hi Bagso,

There doesn't appear to be an obvious tag on in the timetable, however as so many RUH-JED sectors use the B777, it is possible the same aircraft that arrives from MAN could go on to RUH and vice versa.

[Ringwayman]

This ought to be indirectly good news for the route:
"DEFENCE group BAE Systems said it has settled a pricing dispute with Saudi Arabia for Typhoon aircraft."

[LAX_LHR]

I've just had the following quote in an internal email today. It comes as part of a 'competition watch' email, and does not credit where the source came from:

Wu Xiaoming, manager of Air China's office in Britain, says the airline is likely to launch direct flights to Manchester, which would be a return to the city after running cargo flights there previously. China to Manchester has a market of roughly 245,000 passengers per anum.

Apart from a small sub-headline, this is all it said.

[Skipness One Echo]

and does not credit where the source came from:
British Airports Eye the Chinese Market (http://www.wcarn.com/cache/news/20/20694.html)
August 2012 apparently.

[LAX_LHR]

Thanks skip,

It seems rather late to catch up with that quote, the competition email is usually quite up to date. Also the internal one made no mention of Edinburgh.

Oh well, seems we can go back to 'as you were'.

[Bagso]

One for you Lax

Read a press release re cargo showing Riyadh but then Jeddah as part of new SAUDIA route which I thought was odd.

Also strange that it was not mentioned in the MAN press release which I also referenced.

Assumed Jeddah was an extension, however I thought I would check prices and looked on Skyscanner (random portal) no flight to Riyadh on April 1st

....was about to castigate them so checked on Saudia booking engine.

SV124 is now definitely non stop Jeddah...NOT Riyadh !

I have tried to provide the link but could not too long. see Saudia Booking

Is this good news or bad which is the better option ?

Explains why no mention of them on MAN PR !

Possibly reaction to FlyNas ?

[LAX_LHR]

Hi Bagso,

As far as I know, the Saudia route was always down to operate to Jeddah, apart from a few erroneous quotes in press releases, I have not seen anything to suggest the route was ever going to go direct to Riyadh.

[viscount702]

Always Jeddah' Riyadh was never mentioned for the route starting in April.

[Bagso]

No probs, yes I was looking at some old press releases.

On a theme which has the better onward connections ?

I know Flynas are talking Riyadh, but given "possible" limitations in the market with SAUDIA what could Flynas bring to the table ?

[Ringwayman]

Clicking on the new routes section on MAN's website you can see these side-menus:

"Fly Manchester - Go West"

and

"Fly Manchester -Head East"

Jeddah is listed there, even if it's not mentioned as a new route. Surprisingly (or worryingly!) Singapore isn't listed.

Good to see that Egyptair is bookable for summer flights again on their website.

[Ringwayman]

Hopefully I'm not the only one who has noticed these slightly contradictory statesments regarding a China link.

From Skipness's linked article

"Mike Carrivick, chief executive of the Board of Airline Representatives, a trade association for airlines that do business in Britain. Carrivick says cities such as Birmingham and Manchester probably do not have enough passengers to fill the type of aircraft that can fly to China nonstop. There are few long-haul aircraft that would fly from Britain to China nonstop carrying only 100 people, he says. "

and LAX-LHR's internal e-mail

"China to Manchester has a market of roughly 245,000 passengers per annum. "

If the market is as large as that (and why would the Air China manager get this wrong!), then it means an average of (drum roll please!).... 671 passengers per day. 335 there, 336 back. Not quite "100 people" is it?

If those pearls of wisdom are being told to various airlines regarding the regional UK market by analysts, is it any wonder why so many are reluctant to venture a service.

[Bagso]

One might be forgiven for thinking it was a lobby group with only London in mind.

Did I just say that, perish the thought !

"Make sure your views are heard",

is one of the gems on the web site, I must send them a Christmas card next time they bat for Manchester.

How odd that if you check the web site you cannot actually get a list of members !

There are some sponsored links listed, (cough) I wonder why they are there !

He is on twitter, if you want some sport !

I commend you to challenge him with some facts, the responses are breathtaking, but you may get more enlightenment by staring for 10 minutes at a tub of lard !

Sadly "up North" we are rudderless, bereft, there are not enough
personalities or groups powerful enough to grab the media by the balls and shout our corner !

Our MPs are bordering on useless, the local media are more interested in Coronation St as a news item and as for major business in the NW...... deafening !

The China Forum (er, remember them ) should have responded but can you hear them, "shush be quiet they are out there ....somewhere !"

To be fair I still reckon our best bet is HK, but we certainly don't need pompous ill educuated comments by faceless self confessed analysts of a highly dubious background preaching to us !

Butt out brother :mad:!

[LAX_LHR]

If the market is as large as that (and why would the Air China manager get
this wrong!), then it means an average of (drum roll please!).... 671 passengers per day. 335 there, 336 back. Not quite "100 people" is it?


There is an few issue with this however:

-335 each way is based on splitting the market over all of the China destinations this 245,000 per year covers. Therefore, you have to fight up against carriers already offering 1 stop to the various other Chinese cities and then brings your average load down.

MAN-PEK-PVG would be competing with MAN-DXB/DOH/LHR/CDG/MUC/ETC-PVG so to gain a decent cabin load on the initial MAN-PEK sector could need a fairly hefty price decrease and then the yield on such a long route comes into question.

Yield wise, MAN is the ideal candidate for a tag-on, and then if this is the case, unless MAN is the intermediate stop (such as LIS-MAN-PEK), you are effectively the poor cousin of intra-China connections as you already have the disadvantage of being 2 stop over those carriers offering 1 stop to the larger Chinese cities.

Anyway, all of these arguments could be irrelevant as I have been told that my initial post about the email is actually not based on the August 2013 quote, but a more recent one from January 21st 2014 and thus the different wording (I went back and asked why the quote was so old). Again I cannot seem to locate this new source.

As for the people who say China links cannot be sustained in the regions, well, while the economics may not be known and in this case they may well be right (why else would there be no MAN-HKG/PEK route despite the obvious pax pool), there has been a practice in the industry for years that airports north of London cannot support long haul apparently.
The funniest moment was when I had the chance to meet one of these analysts who share this mentality last year, and he was completely taken aback that Emirates and Singapore Airlines flew a first class cabin out of Manchester. Knew nothing about it and told 'Well, that will never work'. 'Has been working for 3 years now' was my response. Silence followed. Way to show your knowledge!

[TURIN]

I know Flynas are talking Riyadh, but given "possible" limitations in the market with SAUDIA what could Flynas bring to the table ?

A couple of wetleased Portuguese A330s from what I hear. :)

[Skipness One Echo]

Isn't the First Class on Singapore a result of being twinned with Munich? It would be interesting to see the MAN/MUC split by class. It is a little surprising that EK offer First, more so in the sense that who in the name of God in this day and age pays for long haul F out of their own pocket? It's a dying, though far from dead commodity. It's interesting that none of the North Atlantic carriers nor Qatar or Etihad have offered a F cabin, which is, I think, the future. However Emirates are clearly onto something with the disposable income high value brigade....

Can MAN sustain a service to China? I would say yes, however that might best be Hong Kong for connectivity rather than the mainland. It remains a mystery why Cathay is alway "soon". If Air China can afford to run a thrice weekly Gatwick service, perhaps couple the other four days to MAN, the A330-200 is the right size for an entry level service.

[Suzeman]

"Mike Carrivick, chief executive of the Board of Airline Representatives, a trade association for airlines that do business in Britain. Carrivick says cities such as Birmingham and Manchester probably do not have enough passengers to fill the type of aircraft that can fly to China nonstop. There are few long-haul aircraft that would fly from Britain to China nonstop carrying only 100 people, he says. "

Very old quote as this Mike Carrivick character from Bagso's accurately described London lobby group BARUK, retired in October 2012

Carrivick retires from BAR UK | News | Travel Trade Gazette (http://www.ttgdigital.com/news/carrivick-retires-from-bar-uk/4683709.article)

Time to move forwards

[LAX_LHR]

I know Flynas are talking Riyadh, but given "possible" limitations in the
market with SAUDIA what could Flynas bring to the table?


Well, one thing flynas may not be able to bring is passengers, given their website appears to have been down for the last 3 days as 'domain expired'. Could just be my computer though.....

[Fairdealfrank]

MAN-PEK-PVG would be competing with MAN-DXB/DOH/LHR/CDG/MUC/ETC-PVG so to gain a decent cabin load on the initial MAN-PEK sector could need a fairly hefty price decrease and then the yield on such a long route comes into question.


Via DXB (or DOH) is one hell of a long way round, almost 1,500 mi. longer than via LHR. Via HEL is almost 200 mi. shorter than LHR. Maybe AMS and FRA and HEL should be on the list. Needs to be a lot cheaper for the extra 1,500 mi., else it's a triumph of marketing.

Great Circle Mapper (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=man-dxb-pvg%2Cman-lhr-pvg%2Cman-hel-pvg%0D%0A+%0D%0A&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE)=





Yield wise, MAN is the ideal candidate for a tag-on, and then if this is the case, unless MAN is the intermediate stop (such as LIS-MAN-PEK), you are effectively the poor cousin of intra-China connections as you already have the disadvantage of being 2 stop over those carriers offering 1 stop to the larger Chinese cities.


Do you mean a MAN as a "tag-on" such as SIN-MUC-MAN?

Again it's a question of fares, LIS-MAN-PEK on a Chinese carrier as opposed to LIS-(change at) LHR, AMS, CDG or FRA-PEK on BA, KL, AF or LH respectively.



Can MAN sustain a service to China? I would say yes, however that might best be Hong Kong for connectivity rather than the mainland. It remains a mystery why Cathay is alway "soon". If Air China can afford to run a thrice weekly Gatwick service, perhaps couple the other four days to MAN, the A330-200 is the right size for an entry level service.


It all depends on how succesful the initiatives to improve trade and business links between the two countries turns out to be. We need to grow links with up and coming countries, and diversify.

We cannot rely on the majority of trade links being with the eurozone, it is unsustainable in the long term and has major problems which will not be resolved any time soon. The UK has to diversify its trade links and China is a reasonable place to start.

Certainly agree that HKG is probably the best place to start with, but it has to be Chinese carrier, as BA (apart from HKG with CX) or VS do not have the network of transfer opportunities at the China end, both within in China and beyond. At the UK end, BA and VS funnel transfers pax through LHR.

For example, a Chinese carrier could also offer flights "down under" with one change of aircraft, and/or the possibilities of a stopover somewhere different. China is introducing visa on arrival for short stays so this will become increasingly easier. For HKG, visas are not needed.

The carrier that takes on the route would determine whether the destination in China is HKG, PVG, PEK or CAN.

[Bagso]

Just going back to lobby groups there is one voice which has achieved a modicum of success re Manchester and that is IPPR (North) and guy called
Ed Cox.

Ed Cox > Director, IPPR North :: IPPR (http://www.ippr.org/staff-profiles/58/571/ed-cox)

For anybody interested this is his bio.

Quite why on earth MAG have not co-opted him on to speak on behalf of Manchester is a complete mystery.

He lives in Manchester and is a polished media performer with an excellent grasp of issues "In the North" and more importantly Manchester Airport, most importantly he is well connected within the BBC, Newspaper industry etc

It would seem an ideal fit !

----------------------------

And yes good to see the airport marketing machine seems to have swung into action:ok: Much improved website and hopefully some partnered adverting with airlines using MAN.

Having lost out with Stansted "maybe" account management are refocusing on MAN ?

Another "esteemed" forum is indicating good loads on Egyptair, must confess trawling the ticket portals Egyptair are appear at a high frequency offering cheap connections via Cairo !

[LAX_LHR]

Maybe AMS and FRA and HEL should be on the list


I just put /ETC at the end of my list as lets face it, no matter how long the journey, the lust of 1 stop options is quite extensive, and even more so if some brave soul tries to make their own routing, such as MAN-VIE on Jet2 and then VIE-PEK on Air China.


Via HEL is almost 200 mi. shorter than LHR


The connections to China and Japan is the only reason Finnair serve Manchester at all.


Do you mean a MAN as a "tag-on" such as SIN-MUC-MAN?

Again it's a question of fares


Yes I do mean like that and the whole point I was eluding to was indeed about fares and Yield.....

[Una Due Tfc]

There was speculation of China Southern launching a service to DUB a month or 2 back with an A332. Our Tanaiste (deputy prime minister) was visiting and it was all over the media that the service was an aim of theirs. DUB-MAN-PVG maybe?

[LAX_LHR]

Would China Southern not launch Guangzhou and not Shanghai?

[Una Due Tfc]

Maybe it wasn't Southern ( I thought it was though!)

[LAX_LHR]

Wasvit China Eastern? They operate from Shaghai.I think? Southern hubs at Guangzhou and Air China at Beijing.

[Una Due Tfc]

I think you are right, we don't see any Chinese carriers in Irish airspace so I get mixed up, my sincerest apologies for my inaccuracies. A Dublin-Manchester-Shanghai route though, feasible?

[LAX_LHR]

No worries,

PVG-MAN-DUB is certainly feasible if a carrier was looking for a tag route, however MAN's best chance at a China route would be by far and away Hong Kong. Not only because its the biggest unserved market from MAN by a long country mile, but Cathay Pacific already send freighters to MAN and keep saying they will open MAN-HKG when the A350's arrive.

The next biggest route is Beijing and Air China have now publicly said they are looking into opening MAN flights.

[Bagso]

Ringwayman

If those pearls of wisdom are being told to various airlines regarding the regional UK market by analysts, is it any wonder why so many are reluctant to venture a service.

This is so true, the fixation with LHR is beyond belief matched only by a total absence of creativity in the Davies Commission review.

It's a view shared in the media as again these so called analysts keep spouting on about LHR though various sympathetic outlets, The Telegraph and The Spectator leading the charge.

At least previous Aviation Policy Reviews included Manchester albeit maybe scraping in on the last page, but at least we managed a mention. This time it was almost as if they were afraid to mention us in case it provided the oxygen of publicity.

I agree that a 3rw is required, somehow it will now have to be shoehorned into LHR, lords knows how they will do it re infrastructure , but that is another argument.

My angle is more about safety and the need to alleviate the substantial holding over London, BUT if another runway is built it throws up many issues that Davies simply failed or chose not to address.

It increases slots by over 50%, there seems an automatic presumption that they will be filled ?

With a such a deluge the value will drop like a stone, a major issue for LHR based airlines where these slots appear on the balance sheet.

Whilst some observers suggest a phased distribution over a number of years to address this can you really see HAL spending billions and having a runway running half empty , not a chance ?

It immediately negates the need for the existence of LGW, I suspect HAL will almost certainly go after this business aggressively, but that is simply moving pieces on a chess board.

The Davies commission remit was to look at UK Airport Policy but seemingly this simply meant the ability of regional airports to connect at LHR isolating a review of other options as if they were of little consequence or simply didn't exist.

Why were our MPs so subservient in not challenging this at the beginning ?

Again Manchester was lumped in with the also rans !

As LAX indicated these analysts do not seem to have a clue what goes on North of Watford.

Will the slots be filled ? The main remit of the commission seemed to be enhancing domestic connectivity and servicing new routes/destinations to use the favourite term "keep us competitive"!

I would contest a few more long hauls ex Manchester unburdened by bilateral constraints would do the same would it not OR does that not count ?


With the combination of Emirates, ETIHAD and Qatar dominating airports in the UK (and now Dublin) it could be argued that in terms of domestic connectivity the Commission are reviewing something long since passed !

Of course there will be some tinkering but will there actually be the massive expansion that everyone assumes will happen ?

Many routes seem to have peaked already in terms of frequency so is building a 3rw using a sledge hammer to crack a nut ?

Look at domestic points not served, the commission implied these will suddenly reappear, er I doubt it !

Anyone looking at the Newquay thread will be aware that there is simply no desire from the main operator BA to reconnect with all domestic points that have been slashed previously and yet according to the Commission and so called analysts this remained one of the main arguments for expansion ! If anything domestic connectivity is falling.

In terms of destinations Manchester actually has better connectivity (18) than LHR (12) or LGW (12) so if that was a plank of the argument why was it ignored ?


The list of unnerved routes that could be met by a 3rw is on the HAL website, I won't list them here but they hardly jump out, again I hardly think there is the appetite from BA to address these.

None of these issues were raised by Davies nor challenged by MAG who sadly seemed bedazzled by events in Essex.

[Una Due Tfc]

LHR does need RWY #3, the gap is widening between it and AMS, FRA and CDG, those are it's current competitors. MAN is operating below capacity runway wise (what's capacity like terminal wise?). Traffic is the same as Dublin despite having far better capacity with 2 parallel runways as opposed to 2 intersecting runways that are only both used for a couple of hours in the mornings when winds allow in DUB.

A huge amount of Gatwick's traffic is only there because they can't get into LHR, so runway #3 at LHR would do huge damage to them.

Do you think MAN should be set up as the U.K. #2 airport and become LHR's main domestic competitor BAGSO? i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you btw, just genuinely curious.

If LHR doesn't get runway #3, the UK as a whole will lose out financially, there is already a huge bleed of PAX to AMS from the UK regions heading east.

[fjencl]

Hi,

Does anybody know what routes the small planet 737 will be doing from Manchester airport this summer, and what holiday companies are using them.
???

[Logohu]

Bagso

The main remit of the Davies Commission was a review of UK Airport Capacity, and not UK Aviation Policy as such. It would be extremely difficult for them to conclude there is a shortage of airport capacity outside the SE corner - if anything in most of the UK there are probably too many airports competing for the same business, and losing large piles of money as a result. Just look at the sad state of airports like Teesside and Doncaster Sheffield, to name but two.

Even at MAN it would have been difficult for Davies to conclude there is a shortage of capacity, with Runway 2 still not required for large swathes of the day. Yes the terminals are a bit squeezy at certain times of the day, and the shortage of parking stands and taxiways has been well discussed on here, but these are things MAG could do something about themselves if they opened their eyes and got their collective finger out. It doesn't need some Government appointed quango to recommend they do it.

MAN should be very grateful for the foresight and determination shown in the eighties to get the second runway built, effectively setting themselves up with sufficient capacity for whatever the next 30-40 years throws at them.

I don't agree with some of what the Davies Commission has stated, but it has at least correctly identified that the area which has a shortage of Airport capacity is the SE corner, and recommended a few options to deal with it. Perhaps during their deliberations they have noticed how well MAN and some of the other regional airports have done in attracting new full service and low cost airlines over the last twenty years, looked at how much airport capacity is still available for the future, and concluded there is no pressing airport capacity problem here that needs fixing.

Personally I don't think MAN needs to be too concerned whether LHR gets 3 runways and 6 terminals, or 6 runways and 10 terminals. I have no issue with LHR gaining the additional capacity it needs. The days when everyone like me from "up north" had to traipse up and down the M1/M6, or take a risk that the infamous shuttle would actually connect, are now long gone. There are plenty of better options available now, and by the time the first bit of new concrete is available at LHR there will be a whole lot more options from the UK regions too. If I'm travelling the 9000 miles home to MAN, I really can't be arsed changing planes again just 180 miles short of where I actually want to go - no matter how good the LHR T5 experience is now supposed to be. The success of the MEB3 and others at MAN proves a lot of other people feel the same way.

I agree with you that the additional slots created by a third runway at LHR are unlikely to be consumed by multiple daily flights to Newquay and the like. The airlines themselves will find more profitable opportunities than that.

I do share your frustration at times with the apparent apathy of the UK Government towards encouraging the development of aviation across the UK as a whole. I also think airports like DUB and AMS are a far bigger threat to MAN's catchment area over the next twenty years than the threat of an expanded LHR.

I have my doubts about the ability or even appetite MAG themselves have to actively pursue and encourage airlines to try new routes at MAN. By anyones standard MAG run a very profitable operation, but you wouldn't think it when you look at some of the infrastructure at MAN. Having the second runway gives them a great asset for the future, but if they want to fill the runways with aircraft they need to start improving the terminals, taxiways and parking availability (and I mean for aircraft not just cars).

Yes the list of new routes for 2014 is quite impressive by any standard, but I just wonder how many of those were the result of MAG's marketing efforts, and how many have just fallen into MAN's lap as a result of the efforts of airlines and others ??

[Bagso]

Some very interesting points

Do you think MAN should be set up as the U.K. #2 airport and become LHR's main domestic competitor BAGSO? i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you btw, just genuinely curious.


No I think that ship has long since sailed.... I doubt it was ever an option anyway, and without a national airline it is non existent.

BUT I am interested in maximising opportunities and debating how best that can be achieved.

If LHR doesn't get runway #3, the UK as a whole will lose out financially, there is already a huge bleed of PAX to AMS from the UK regions heading east.


Is this not a contradiction and precisely part of the argument that Davies should have fully examined ?

If there is already a feed to Eg AMS would it necessarily revive based on another runway ?

And as has been pointed out who will put the planes on ?

LBA down from 4 to 3, MAN losing last Shuttle, Virgin Red reducing as well.

QR are heading to EDI in Summer will that effect EDI - LHR.

TK expanding as well !

EK etc are ramping up DUB that has severely reduced DUB-LHR services already !

OK its a mute point are they cutting in order to use the slots more productively OR is there simply not the demand anymore ?

If its the latter that surely undermines a highly substantial part of the argument about UK domestic connectivity.

Are they basing decisions on the wrong evidence, it would seem so if they keep talking about UK connectivity!

AND is UK Plc actually suffering because of lack of flights from the regions to LHR, I don't buy it !

BTW If Davies was not going to include MAN in the debate was it not somewhat pompous to conclude that "long haul flights from the regions were environmentally damaging because the chances of filling these flights was lower than from LHR". Is that a comment on capacity OR is it straying into aviation policy ?

I just think the report was flaky to say the least leaving many questions unanswered, "industry experts" seem to be focusing on the bit they like without addressing the bits they don't !

And yes Logohu I agree 100%, I think some of the backslapping in respect of these routes is more down to our natural location and the airlines than an epiphany in MAG marketing !

[Hangar6]

QR not in DUB yet but EY and EK plus TK expanding ex DUB
LH doing fine but DUB LHR is growing not decreasing

DUB growing as TATL hub 19 daily flights this summer to North America
MAN should aim for pre clearance ? For USA bound pax both UK and others ?

MAN might need to up their game a tad ?

[LAX_LHR]

DUB growing as TATL hub 19 daily flights this summer to North America
MAN should aim for pre clearance ? For USA bound pax both UK and others ?

MAN might need to up their game a tad ?


How exactly can MAN up its game against DUB?

Pre-Clearance is a government thing. MAN can lobby but has no authority to implement on its own.

DUB also has the advantage of being the capital with a home based airline.

For a UK regional with no home based flag carrier, I think MAN gives DUB more than a run for its money.

MAN has more passengers overall, and has up to 14 daily flights to North America (not including charter and Im assuming by North America you mean USA/Canada) so only 5 behind DUB despite its advantages.

In terms of MEB3, Emirates interested in putting on 2nd A380, I have on good authority Etihad will go 3 daily next winter, Turkish is 2 daily and has applied for slots on a 3rd daily IST as well as a press release stating that they will serve MAN-DLM, Qatar still at 10 weekly but I suspect EDI may have got the 4 weekly flights we could have had to get back to 2 daily. MAN also has Singapore airlines daily, Egyptair 5 weekly, NAS air 2 weekly and Saudia 3 weekly going east.....

[Suzeman]

Bagso

Your chance to find out what is going on at a TAS meeting coming up shortly.

TAS Socials (http://www.tasmanchester.co.uk/TAS_Socials.html)


Monday 17th March 2014 – Tim Haskins, Corporate Affairs Director – MAG
Subject: The UK Aviation Capacity Debate – Part 2
Following on from the interim recommendations of the Airports Commission headed by Sir Howard Davies which are to be published in December 2013, Tim will discuss the options presented and their possible impact on the Manchester Airport Group.

[Una Due Tfc]

Dub will never compete with MAN to the middle and far east because of the huge number of people from that region living in the UK. The number of Pakistanis and Indians living in Ireland is miniscule in comparison. A result of colonialism.

BUT make no mistake DUB is targeting MAN,BHX,GLA,EDI etc for trans Atlantic pax. The pre-clearance is a dream. I've used it several times in the last few years aswell as flying to other parts of Europe then the US, the time saving at immigration in the states is astounding. 25% of EI's t/a pax originate from other parts of Europe that morning westbound. Early morning EI/EIR flights to the UK are set up to deliberately target these people

[Fairdealfrank]

This is so true, the fixation with LHR is beyond belief matched only by a total absence of creativity in the Davies Commission review.

It's a view shared in the media as again these so called analysts keep spouting on about LHR though various sympathetic outlets, The Telegraph and The Spectator leading the charge.


Disagree, the “fixation” with LHR is because that’s where the capacity constraints exist all day every day, quite uniquely amongst UK airports.

MAN already doubled its potential rwy capacity some years ago. LHR needs to follow suit and quickly.


I agree that a 3rw is required, somehow it will now have to be shoehorned into LHR, lords knows how they will do it re infrastructure , but that is another argument.


It will have to go north of the existing airport and also use open land across the M25, and it and other roads will need to be diverted and/or tunnelised.

Having gone through the time and expense of the infrastructure changes, a fourth parallel rwy will also be needed in that location, sooner or later, rather than to the south west.


It increases slots by over 50%, there seems an automatic presumption that they will be filled ?


Trust me they’ll be filled, not all on day one obviously, but expect an initial surge, as a “catch-up”, then a gradual increase over the years.


With a such a deluge the value will drop like a stone, a major issue for LHR based airlines where these slots appear on the balance sheet.


That’s the idea, get rid of the secondary slot market that puts LHR at such a disadvantage, and make the playing field with its competitors (AMS, CDG, FRA) more level. It’s not an issue for the UK economy or the Davies Commission if slot ownership appear on carriers' balance sheets.


It immediately negates the need for the existence of LGW, I suspect HAL will almost certainly go after this business aggressively, but that is simply moving pieces on a chess board.


Not at all, there will always be a need for such a diversified airport like LGW. It would reduce the immediate the need for another rwy there.


Of course there will be some tinkering but will there actually be the massive expansion that everyone assumes will happen ?

Many routes seem to have peaked already in terms of frequency so is building a 3rw using a sledge hammer to crack a nut ?

Look at domestic points not served, the commission implied these will suddenly reappear, er I doubt it !


A LHR third rwy is not only about domestic connectivity, although that is part of the story because it would allow the return of thin routes from smaller airports (some possibly on PSO arrangements).

Despite the ME3 and others, domestic connectivity is vitally important and is needed to feed the new thinner longhaul routes that the UK lacks and needs; to help regeneration in some regions; to assist the export drive; to encourage inward investment to areas other than in the southeast; and to ressurect struggling local airports.

That doesn’t mean that we do not need more longhaul routes out of MAN, we need both, and the more the better! But it is not an issue for Davies.


Anyone looking at the Newquay thread will be aware that there is simply no desire from the main operator BA to reconnect with all domestic points that have been slashed previously and yet according to the Commission and so called analysts this remained one of the main arguments for expansion ! If anything domestic connectivity is falling.



BA would not be on any of the thin domestic routes that may become available with a third rwy, it doesn’t have aircraft small enough. There are other UK airlines who could fulfill this, possibly in association with BA and/or VS.

A huge amount of Gatwick's traffic is only there because they can't get into LHR, so runway #3 at LHR would do huge damage to them.

Yes, BA longhaul and VS and carriers in the “waiting room” would almost certainly shift to an expanded LHR. Some carriers could probably be at both LHR and LGW (in the same way as BA goes to both ORY and CDG, HND and NRT, and JFK and EWR).

It is also likely that carriers would shift to LGW from LTN and STN, and the holiday companies would stay at LGW. Think there would be more damage to LTN and STN than LGW, which would also be saved the immediate expense of building a second rwy.

If LHR doesn't get runway #3, the UK as a whole will lose out financially, there is already a huge bleed of PAX to AMS from the UK regions heading east.


Indeed, a third/fourth rwy at LHR does not adversely affect MAN.


The main remit of the Davies Commission was a review of UK Airport Capacity, and not UK Aviation Policy as such. It would be extremely difficult for them to conclude there is a shortage of airport capacity outside the SE corner - if anything in most of the UK there are probably too many airports competing for the same business, and losing large piles of money as a result. Just look at the sad state of airports like Teesside and Doncaster Sheffield, to name but two.


Exactly, and the smaller struggling airports would be helped by having a link to LHR.



BTW If Davies was not going to include MAN in the debate was it not somewhat pompous to conclude that "long haul flights from the regions were environmentally damaging because the chances of filling these flights was lower than from LHR". Is that a comment on capacity OR is it straying into aviation policy ?


Sounds a bit like aviation policy, the rwy capacity issue does not apply to MAN.

[LAX_LHR]

BUT make no mistake DUB is targeting MAN,BHX,GLA,EDI etc for trans Atlantic pax


DUB certainly is doing that, moreso for GLA/EDI/BHX and maybe its a testament to the large numbers flying MAN trans-Atlantic that its own direct services still manage to hold their own, even without pre-clearance.

[Bagso]

Some great imagery of the locality on the SAUDIA web site, looks like Manhattan !

...although nothing shouts Manchester more than the number 52 from Media City to Piccadilly in the foreground !

[Ian Brooks]

Yes that photo looks really good Bagso and even the weather played ball

Ian

[Skipness One Echo]

LBA down from 4 to 3, MAN losing last Shuttle, Virgin Red reducing as well. QR are heading to EDI in Summer will that effect EDI - LHR.
QR in EDI is more likely to dent EK's growth at GLA slightly, I am reasonably confident the EDI shuttle will be OK.... LBA-LHR is arguably a slot sitter, the fourth daily certainly is, the service is right sizing. BA have pulled back again at MAN by dumping LGW, the clue is no one picked it up. Hence the market appears to have waned, however at LHR, BA still need to feed long haul, the Shuttle would appear to be safe. The flexibility, regularity and ball crunching fares of all business class Landor are gone.
If Etihad (wow, I can actually say the name again, whatever happened?) do go three daily, then I wonder exactly how anyone is making money? I know EK do well but what about Qatar and Etihad? Does it even matter or are they just arms of the oil rich state capacity dumping and empire building? It's impressive what black gold can do, wish we had some in the UK. Waiiiiit a minute!

There's no sense in getting into a DUB/MAN willy waving contest as Ireland has stronger links with the US and MAN lacks political backing at a high level. In terms of US legacies though, MAN does well but DUB has the edge. With the ME3, there's a political drive to serve MAN as well, especially with Etihad sponsoring Manchester Rovers Boy's Club. It's a marketing strategy to increase brand recognition globally as well as bring a degree of respectability.

[LAX_LHR]

Skipness

If shale gas drilling does take hold in the UK, I do wonder if the fact the majority of focus thus far being in the North West could help boost MAN traffic, given airports near energy centres around the world seem to do quite well (Houston, Lagos, the middle east just off the top of my head)

I'm not expecting a hub or anything like that, but, possibly more flights between shale areas and the head offices? Quadrilla is French for the HQ and the American mid-west is a shale area for starters.....

[Una Due Tfc]

The only reason Etihad sponsor Manchester Boys Club is because the "owner" of Etihad happens to be the brother of the owner of Manchester City and wanted to find a way around the financial fair play rules in football. The only profitable carier from that region is Emirates

[Logohu]

As Skipness points out, the reason BA maintained MAN-LGW for so long after they acquired Dan Air back in the 80s was to feed their longhaul routes out of LGW.

Over time many of those longhaul routes were moved from LGW to LHR (West Africa, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and others). The remaining BA longhaul routes at LGW are now beach destinations, and many of them are now accessible direct from MAN on Virgin, Thomson, Thomas Cook and Monarch.

So the reason for MAN-LGW no longer exists. The recession, cost increases and APD were the final nail in its coffin.

[LAX_LHR]

With the ME3, there's a political drive to serve MAN as well, especially with Etihad sponsoring Manchester Rovers Boy's Club. It's a marketing strategy to increase brand recognition globally as well as bring a degree of respectability

While I don't support Man City, I don't see why that level of investment in a multi billion pound industry should be nullified by calling it a boys club. Quite frankly if Manchester is the recipient of such large investment, by means of flight, call centres, stadiums, academies and the likes, then call it what you want, you wont hear me complaining, in fact, let them bring in more.

Also, if serving Manchester is mainly political, then I suppose politics is also forcing those now millions of passengers to fly those 3 airlines between MAN and various points, instead of transporting fresh air back and two? Nothing at all to do with the large ethnic populations in the North West and UK from the sub-continent and far east?

The only profitable carier from that region is Emirates

I thought Etihad had now made a profit?

[Bagso]

Why on earth knock one of thee best investors in Manchester in years ?

Have you actually seen the build work in East Manchester around the Etihad?

Oh for similar enthusiasm at Manchester which is possibly what we could have had if MAG had jumped in with ADI.

Let's keep it sensible!

See below re Etihad profits

BBC News - Etihad Airways sees profits triple (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21319270)

[Una Due Tfc]

Didn't mean to knock anybody per se Bagso, I don't even like football! I always thought the only ME carrier that even published it's books was Emirates specifically because they are the only ones making any money

[LAX_LHR]

I always thought the only ME carrier that even published it's books was
Emirates specifically because they are the only ones making any money


Etihad apparently made its first profit in 2011 and been in profit since. For an airline that started in 2003 and has built a large network, that's not a bad feat (granted some things may be subsidised, but he ho).

[RoyHudd]

LH Cargo MD-11 went round off 23R this fine morning. Hardly newsworthy, I know, but anyone know the reason for this. (Might settle a bet)

[kieb92]

Lufthansa Cargo MD11F went around due to an unstable approach and long flare according to ATC.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

LH Cargo MD-11 went round off 23R this fine morning. Hardly newsworthy, I know, but anyone know the reason for this. (Might settle a bet)

An intentional ploy to distract you from the meandering centrelines and various potholes, thus removing an opportunity for you to have a moan. :p

Job well done I'd say. :ok:

:E

[roverman]

MD11Fs had a bad habit of performing cartwheels after an unstable flare. Good call by the LH crew.

[Curious Pax]

Saw the LH MD11 do a go around while walking the dogs on the southside. Was a good demonstration of how late a go around can be achieved – not 100% sure his mainwheels touched the tarmac, but they got very close if they didn’t. Looked like the usual smooth non-event that these things normally are - especially as the wind seemed fairly benign at the time. However as Roverman points out, erring on the side of caution is probably the best approach (pardon the pun!).

[Scottie Dog]

From the MAGWORLD website:

"A six-week programme of night work to construct pavement widening fillets to Taxiways Bravo and Charlie. Working Sunday to Thursday nights only, the work will involve the overnight closure of some local taxiways and other airfield facilities.....The construction of five pavement widening fillets to Code F characteristics at various points along the course of Taxiway Charlie and on Taxiway Bravo towards its junction with Taxiway Delta."

The work will take place between 2nd March and 10th April, subject to weather.

Glad to see that the airport is investing more money on the airfield.

[LAX_LHR]

Glad to see that the airport is investing more money on the airfield.


And there could be a significant airport construction announcement in the next few months. All I can say is no more tatty looking piers in T1!

In other news,

Libyan Arab are have currently suspended EU ops due to an incident where the Nouvelair Tunisie aircraft lost comms on approach to LHR. There doesn't seem to be a timescale as to when LHR/MAN will be brought back online.

Cathay Pacific cargo look to be running a further reduced schedule this summer, with many weeks having just 1 weekly flight on Mondays. Depressing to think this route used to run at 8 weekly and now struggles to maintain 3 weekly.
One does have to wonder if the cargo market will ever pick up again at MAN. I know the recession hit and all that, but to think we used to have Jett8, Great wall, Air China, Cathay pacific, China airlines, fedex MD11's and Jade cargo were on the cusp of starting.

Now we just have 4 weekly Lufthansa, up to 3 weekly Cathay and a B757/ATR combo on fedex flights. There seems to be a strong rumour that DHL will be running a regular B767 through MAN (let out of the bag at a bigwigs dinner conference a few weeks ago), but apart from that, its pretty quiet on the cargo apron!

[MClayton]

Hopefully with the new developments the cargo situation will improve

[The96er]

And there could be a significant airport construction announcement in the next few months. All I can say is no more tatty looking piers in T1!

A new tin of Dulux then !

[All names taken]

ooooooooooooo k

Let the games begin.
LAXLHR and Easyflyer, you have probably seen / heard the same as I have.
Pretty much nails all the complaints about past its sell by date T1, airside connectivity and the airfield all in one go. If they can finance it.

Just don't understand why they are keeping it all under wraps. It would seem to me that it just lets the 'conspiracy theorists / they're trying to hide the truth from us paranoids' have a field day.
All good infrastructure projects (which this undeniably is) should have a healthy public debate surrounding it.

[MANFOD]

Re. Development.

Without giving away more than you feel able, can any of you say how long the project is expected to take and what disruption / parking stand limitation might be involved in the meantime?

Sounds as if it could be a very interesting development though.

[easyflyer83]

It's discussed a lot on the Manchester forum, Transport sub section of skyscrapercity

[LAX_LHR]

If they can finance it


They have recently secured £450 million for the build but need more.


Just don't understand why they are keeping it all under wraps. It would seem
to me that it just lets the 'conspiracy theorists / they're trying to hide the
truth from us paranoids' have a field day.


They already have several other large construction projects on the go, so, they are staggering the announcements and build times, otherwise the building works could be a little overwhelming.

[MANFOD]

Easyflyer83. Thanks for that reference. It took me a while to locate the topic but an interesting new web site for me. Never too old to learn!

[All names taken]

£450m? From what I understand they will need double that.

But still, what's so overwhelming about a new surface car park and a metro line and the distinctly underwhelming, not actually that much happening Airport City. I went through the airport yesterday - not a single crane on the skyline and very little disruption to speak of through roadworks etc.

These new proposals are simply about the airport bringing itself into the 21st century well within the core boundaries.
What is their problem with getting more stakeholders involved?

When it leaks out anyway - which it surely will - it will only make them look stupid. Imagine the local rags 'The plans they didn't want you to see' They'll have lost before they begin.
But then as others here have stated vociferously, MAN/MAG are tres tres poor at marketing and communication.

[Bagso]

The main remit of the Davies Commission was a review of UK Airport Capacity, and not UK Aviation Policy as such. It would be extremely difficult for them to conclude there is a shortage of airport capacity outside the SE corner

In actual fact the terms of reference as laid out by Louise Ellman MP were;

1.What should be the objectives of Government policy on aviation?

2.How should we make the best use of existing aviation capacity?

3.What constraints are there on increasing UK aviation capacity?

4.Do we need a step-change in UK aviation capacity? Why?

Whilst 3 and 4 DO refer to capacity constraints in the SE, points 1 and 2 refer to general aviation policy do they not, it seem however that they have been totally lost in the fog of debate on LHR et al !

It could be argued that the Manchester Airport Home Team (as opposed to the Manchester Airport Stansted Away Team), believed at least initially that it WAS very much about policy ! There was much discussion before the committee about London based airlines dominating policy, APD, bilateral and the subsequent impact on Manchester !

However the attendance of the HOME team at the hearings in relation to Manchester and the submission of both written and verbal evidence has proved to be a complete and utter waste of time and energy...at least thus far !

IF it was all about London why bother .....

I would also question what possible value there was having one of the debates in Manchester if the terms of reference related very specifically to a debate about capacity ?

If anything Manchester is now in a worst place politically as at least under the last review it was considered to be a "gateway airport" (although it is questionable as to what that ever meant ).

In this review its position was relegated to merely another "regional" coupled to a pretty damming statement from Davies

"long haul from the regions should be totally dismissed as it is highly damaging to the environment because there is less chance of filling these planes".

...this comment is crucial because it only really effects Manchester and that is where most regional long haul emanates !

Far from looking at options to maximise regional airport growth this comment effectively put a line through it, its the very reason one Northern MP who read the report was so apoplectic, he like me believed Davies failed spectacularly in his remit !

Personally I think MAG also got caught out with a somewhat confused strategy, its turned into a bit of pigs breakfast , they got themselves in a complete bind in terms of what that actual strategy was for both the HOME and subsequently the AWAY team.

Initially much focus was indeed on Manchester (and dare I suggest it UK Aviation Policy) until that is the purchase of Stansted went through, the Manchester contribution stalled and then diminished so quickly you could be forgiven for thinking it was ever part of the initial debate !

Stansted was anointed but things went ary and Davies kicked the option out.

I wonder with a Manchester Airport Terminal revamp being discussed we are seeing another handbrake turn in policy ?

Have MAG considered the implications of Davies and possibly seeing that options at STN are not as rosy as first thought are relooking at Manchester, certainly expansion down there would appear to be linked inexorably to the aspirations of Ryanair ?

Quite what the spokesman for MAG will say at the TAS meeting will be very interesting.

I suspect the evidence that was put before Davies initially re APD and those bilats etc and formed the rump of the MAG submission re MAN will be dusted down and regurgitated to a no doubt receptive audience !

The other MAG evidence re Stansted will I suspect be "how shall we say" quietly dropped.

Suzeman many thanks for the link I have PM'd you.

[LAX_LHR]

£450m? From what I understand they will need double that.

From various share sales and money left in from the sell off pot when they brought STN. They need about 1.2 billion for all demolition, remedial work, compensation, construction etc.

But still, what's so overwhelming about a new surface car park and a metro line and the distinctly underwhelming, not actually that much happening Airport City. I went through the airport yesterday - not a single crane on the skyline and very little disruption to speak of through roadworks etc.

Just because you can not see it doesn't mean nothing is happening. There is also the logistics hub and the airfield repairs which should begin 'visually' soon. All the construction work at the moment is around land clearance and drainage. Rome wasn't built in a day.

When it leaks out anyway - which it surely will - it will only make them look stupid. Imagine the local rags 'The plans they didn't want you to see' They'll have lost before they begin

I think you are being slightly over dramatic there. Its not public yet because its still to be finalised and going through an airline consultation before public plans are made. Its nothing to do with 'hiding' things, its because the method, timescale and type of construction could change drastically between the plan now and the final plan. Again, Rome wasn't built in a day, and patience is needed.

[All names taken]

£1.2bn doesn't surprise me.

I'm not suggesting 'nothing' is going on. But there are no Airport City lettings yet so not much will happen until then. The other bit of Airport City, the logistics hub, is a few warehouses down by J6 of the M56. No big deal. Most casual observers won't even associate them with MAG.

And no I don't think I'm being over dramatic. I'm just suggesting that's what happens when newspapers get their hands on a story. They will - rightly in my opinion - ask why such an important project is discussed with airline partners before a breath of it is whispered to the locals. They are being naive in thinking that it won't be leaked anyway - and then they are on the back foot.

Furthermore, whilst I understand that MANMAG sees airlines as its customers and not passengers, they would be a little short-sighted in not consulting us too before they nail down their plans.
After all the airlines are only there because of us passengers.

Anyway, on the face of it, it all looks like a massive upgrade to the facilities. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised to see it all realised in the next 10 years though.

[easyflyer83]

Lets be fair, from what I have read the plans are still in their infancy and no actual hard decisions have been made yet. In any major business there will be evaluations, tentative plans and discussions etc etc......it doesn't all get blerted out in a blow by blow account.

[LAX_LHR]

I'm not suggesting 'nothing' is going on. But there are no Airport City
lettings yet so not much will happen until then


Well at the moment a few business have been moved into the 'voyager' building under the guise of airport city, so, maybe they will move to other offices once they start getting built. I know Etihad want their own custom made office. Again, just because something is not public doesn't mean its not happening.



The other bit of Airport City, the logistics hub, is a few warehouses down by
J6 of the M56. No big deal. Most casual observers won't even associate them with MAG.


Well, its your opinion what a 'big deal' constitutes, but personally I think the largest construction project in the UK since the Olympics is rather a big deal. It may well just be 'a few warehouses', but its doesn't alter the fact that it still requires a large amount of construction and makes them no less important in the fabric of where MAG are about to push MAN into. The logistics hub already has a very well known tenant moving in (albeit moving from Trafford), but, judging by the gala dinner that was recently held, its already going to be a catalyst for new services at the airport. That itself cannot be seen as 'no big deal'. With the cargo market at MAN the shape it is, ANY new tenants/construction that helps boost it can only be seen as a good thing, surely?

And no I don't think I'm being over dramatic. I'm just suggesting that's what happens when newspapers get their hands on a story. They will - rightly in my opinion - ask why such an important project is discussed with airline partners before a breath of it is whispered to the locals. They are being naive in thinking that it won't be leaked anyway - and then they are on the back foot.

Firstly, why shouldn't they discuss it with the airlines first. Surely if you are developing something as big as MAN is, why wouldn't you consult your primary customers first into what would make the best environment for them? Without the airlines, there would be no public customers so anything that either brings new airlines in or keeps existing airlines here/expanding has got to be discussed first? Like I say, its not being made public yet as the plans are far from final. Why risk p*ssing off the local populous with ideas that may not make the final drawing board?
Furthermore, all this 'discussing with the public first', When was the last time a planning application was put in before the architect has drawn up the final plans, as Im not aware of many instances. Yes there can be those funky little renders in the media, but those renders in the initial phases rarely look like the finished product, but, when MAN want to get this right first time, such renders would be naive.

Furthermore, whilst I understand that MANMAG sees airlines as its customers and not passengers, they would be a little short-sighted in not consulting us too before they nail down their plans. After all the airlines are only there because of us passengers.

And passengers are only there because of the airlines. As said above, don't have the airlines on side, then the customer base goes with them. I have said already, you are entitled to your opinion but I whole heartedly agree with the approach MAN are taking with this one. Get it right, get in tune with your primary customer, then shout it from the rooftops.

[Skipness One Echo]

before a breath of it is whispered to the locals
How does upgrading exisiting infrastructure impact most locals?
A rebuild of Terminal 1 won't change a fig of any external view or experience.
Genuine question.

[Curious Pax]

The other bit of Airport City, the logistics hub, is a few warehouses down by J6 of the M56. No big deal. Most casual observers won't even associate them with MAG.


If you go to the Living Near The Airport part of the airport website this document (http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/3211346C1E12CABE80257364002E9571/$File/Manchester+Airport+World+Logisitics+Hub+-First+construction+phase.pdf) shows what they are building. Work is progressing there at the moment - looks like they are putting down drainage etc at the moment. Going to be fun and games around there when they put that roundabout on the A538. On the plus side once done it ought to make turning right out of Sunbank Lane when coming from The Romper or the Viewing Park easier than it is now. It looks like there has been a change of plan around there - on previous diagrams I thought that they were planning on rerouting the A538 to the west, but as that would run right through the middle of the new buildings I guess that won't be happening now.

Accessed from the same page is also a PDF (http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/3211346C1E12CABE80257364002E9571/$File/Area+B+Car+Park+-Annotated+Plan+January+2014.pdf)showing the new car parking to be built on the 23R final approach. Interesting that they are putting a small spotters car park in the SW corner, though it only looks to have space for about 2 cars judging by the size!

[AndyH52]

LAX_LHR, I'm interested by what measures you are defining Airport City as the largest construction project in the UK? Value, floorspace, marketing hot air?

[BasilBush]

Lax_lhr

I assume the £450m you refer to is the amount recently raised from the MAG bond issue. If so, this was simply a refinancing of existing debt (see quote below), and is therefore not available for new investment at MAN or STN. Also there is no cash left over from the share sales as this was used to fund the equity portion of the Stansted investment. But that's not to say that MAG can't raise additional finance, for example by issuing more bonds.



MAG lands in the bond market
Manchester Airport Group inaugurated its new £5bn debt programme with a 20-year bond issue, refinancing half of the term loan it used during its acquisition of London Stansted airport last year. This deal establishes it in the capital markets, and gives it the flexibility of funding options other UK corporates enjoy.

IFR 2019 8 February to 14 February 2014

[ETOPS]

And here it is - the new Pier B :D

Well - lasts years plan anyway....


http://www.aedas.com/Content/images/pageimages/Manchester-Airport-Terminal-1-Manchester-UK.jpg

[viscount702]

Thats years old

[anothertyke]

Bagso : Louise Ellman as Chair of the Transport Select Committee may have interpreted the Commission's ToR in that way. However the central para of the ToR as announced by Patrick McLoughlin on 7 Nov 2012 is

' The Commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK's position as Europe's most important aviation hub, and it will identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short,medium and long run.'

[All names taken]

ETOPS

As Viscount has said that image is old and has been ditched. Consign it to the 'what may have been but is not' file.
The new 'plans' such as they are at the moment don't include a Pier B as such.

[All names taken]

what measures you are defining Airport City as the largest construction project in the UK

Well it clearly isn't the size of Crossrail for instance or, I would have thought LHR T2. Others too I would guess.
Just marketing hype probably.

I terms of capital value, I'm not even convinced if it's the biggest construction project in Manchester at the moment - there's Carrington Power Station at around £500m for instance. Airport City won't all be built at once but in phases - so a series of smaller projects.

[LAX_LHR]

Well Ive obviously fallen for the marketing hype but its still a huge project.

Its just a shame all the discussion so far has been on technicalities rather than the project itself and how it will benefit the area/public.

[LAX_LHR]

Just as a side note, drove past the airport this morning as im in the area, and construction has definatly started on the the logistics hub. One would have to be blind to not notice that amount of earthworks taking place next to a main road.

[Curious Pax]

Just as a side note, drove past the airport this morning as im in the area, and construction has definatly started on the the logistics hub. One would have to be blind to not notice that amount of earthworks taking place next to a main road.

As noted in my post yesterday!

[ETOPS]

All names taken


Consign it to the 'what may have been but is not' file.


I know - I was posting ironically :ugh:

[Ian Brooks]

I think this is the article about airport city stating most significant since
Olympics
Global Airport Cities 2013 - Airport City: The UK?s ?most significant development project since the Olympics? (http://www.globalairportcities.com/page.cfm/action=library/libID=1/libEntryID=1267/listID=14)

ian

[BasilBush]

Lax_Lhr

Re your post on cargo flights the following article from the South China Morning Post provides some background to Cathay's wider problems and the general malaise of the sector

Cathay Pacific Airways plans to keep part of its freighter fleet in the hangar this year amid a protracted slump in the cargo market.

The airline's cargo tonnage fell 1.4 per cent year on year last month, following a 5 per cent drop in December. Cathay, the second-largest air-cargo operator behind Emirates SkyCargo, saw growth in shipments in only two of the past 12 months.

"Freight rates are under pressure because of overcapacity in the market," James Woodrow, Cathay's cargo director, said yesterday.

The freight business of Hong Kong's biggest airline has been hit by overcapacity in the market, compounded by weak demand in the United States and Europe since last year. Recovery in demand this year would hinge on the strength of the US economy, Woodrow said.

Cathay took five of its 26 freighters out of service last year. It also agreed to sell six Boeing 747-400 freighters to Boeing, with the aircraft leaving the fleet between now and 2016.

Aside from overcapacity in the industry, the scattering of the production lines on the mainland for Apple's iPhones and iPads has added to Cathay's woes.

"In the past, we could wait here for the products to be trucked down from the production lines in the Pearl River Delta … now we have to fly to new production centres in Chongqing and Zhengzhou," Woodrow said.

Chief executive John Slosar said about 50 per cent of the carrier's cargo tonnage was transshipments from the mainland.

The airline's share of the market in carrying technology products is under pressure as the competition in inland cities is much fiercer than that in its home base.

Hong Kong airport handled 2.4 per cent more cargo at 4.12 million tonnes last year while the volume carried by Cathay dropped 1.5 per cent.

To improve efficiency in handling transshipments, the carrier built its own cargo terminal in Hong Kong. The HK$5.9 billion facility, which marks its first anniversary this week, has been in full operation since October. With 1,800 workers, it has handled 600,000 tonnes of cargo over the past year.

"The Cathay Pacific Cargo Terminal is established to add simplicity and flexibility to meet customers' increasingly demanding needs," said Algernon Yau, the chief executive of Cathay Pacific Services.

[Keyvon]

Jet2 has announced yet another new ski destination out of Manchester. A new winter-only service to Turin (Italy) is now on sale. Flights to be operated effective from 20 December, on Saturdays.

[MANFOD]

Reverting to the possible plans for the whole scale redevelopment of T1.
If I understand what is said is being proposed, T1 would effectively rebuilt in the space between the present location and the railway station.

It had been mooted previously that T1 and T3 would be re-joined at some stage; but subject to road lay-outs, car parks etc. wouldn't the new site for T1 put it further away from T3? Under these latest rumoured plans, what would be the future of the present T3?

Comment was made about discussions with the airlines and the importance of not losing business during the re-development which may be hard to win back.
If a redevelopment on this scale were to go ahead costing in excess of £1billion, I wonder what increased charges the airport would want/need to impose on the airlines and agents to help get a return on the investment, as well obviously as hoping for significant expansion of traffic. As far as I know, MAN is no longer restricted on pricing in the same way LHR is.

Finally, in terms of such a project if it happens, what sort of time scale are we talking about - 5 - 10 years?

[MANFOD]

Davies Commission

One for you Bagso. You've evidently read Davies in some detail, which is more than I have.

Was Davies really so dismissive of long haul services from regional airports on environmental grounds? And was this in the context just of O&D routes or also including point-to-hub, which is what MAN mainly does? I'm not sure what percentage of pax to EWR or JFK are connecting there, but they may be destinations that do have a fair proportion of O & D, along with Orlando and Toronto, but I suspect they are not the norm.

If this was his view, I hope Davies wasn't conned into thinking, or assumed, that such flights from MAN are usually less than half full with no pax up front, whereas flights from LHR must be full because the airport is all but at capacity in movements. And if he did make such a claim, I would like to think MAN
responded in strong terms to such an assertion. Do we know if they have?
Certainly a question for the speaker at TAS in a couple of weeks.

As to 'environmental grounds', as others have already questioned, how will more flights from regional airports to LHR to support the hub help the environment.

[GavinC]

As I understand it, the area between T1 multi-storey and The Station will become a new multi-storey car park with the existing T1 and the existing T1 multi-storey becoming an enlarged T1 linked with T3.


I haven't seen plan myself but I would guess that the new car park will be built then the old one demolished. That area would become a new check-in and maybe security allowing for a much larger lounge area in the space currently occupied by the current lounge, security and check-in.


Could be wrong though!


Gavin.

[MKY661]

I thought the plans were to Built a satellite Terminal for Terminal 2 and an extension to the Pier in Terminal 3 and then Move all the carriers who use Terminal 1 to other terminals. Then demolish Piers B and C and rebuild them.

I don't see why the Main section (Check-In, Baggage Hall, Shopping Area) would be demolished if it was only refurbished about 3-5 years ago. I understand with the Piers though, they didn't get refurbished, well apart from the removal of the carpet in Pier B.

[BasilBush]

Manfod

Davies wasn't critical of regional long haul as such. His comments on environmental issues were in the context of measures to encourage greater use of regional airports through policy levers such as differential APD. His number crunchers indicated that such policy levers would increase the numbers of long haul pax at regional airports, with a similar reduction at Heathrow (and Gatwick). However, the spreading of pax across airports would result in an increase in the numbers of flights (ie a reduction in average loads), presumably through the use of smaller aircraft at regional airports (not just Manchester, of course). Therefore, emissions per pax might be expected to rise.

It seems a pretty weak argument to me, as you could turn the argument around to say that there should be no long haul flights at all from regional airports and that we should all fly on full A380s from London...

Interestingly, the Davies analysis suggested that MAN would not the main beneficiary of such policy levers, with smaller regional airports getting the bulk of the increase in pax. However, his methodology is not at all clear, and I would question his conclusions in this respect.

[Bagso]

MANFOD

I will try and find the actual quotes, it wasn't in the final report I don't think but certainly mentioned by either Hansard Or in some of the other briefings.

Mr Brush is exactly correct although Davies in my view made some comments which were much more robust to the point of being highly disparaging, it is THAT which should have been challenged !

I sometimes think he was heavily influenced by BA and VS and simply regurgitated their comments.

They have no interest in business routes Ex MAN so naturally are not exactly going to wave the flag for any destinations outside London.

I did see one media launch which I think was for The London Chamber of Commerce a highly receptive audience of course, here he stressed the need for more runways given the 98% load factors being achieved !

This is what is highly worrying because it is of course complete drivel, he seems to have been advised that because slots are at 98% that translates to loads of a similar figure.

It is a strand of the review which I find perplexing. Infact every single time there is an incident or reference to a Heathrow flight the load factor appears appalling.

I know Skippy will quote CAA figs and correct me here but is galling when you hear details of such paltry loads I assumed that THIS is what Davies was going to try and FIX in order to make best use of available capacity.

The 777 that crashed short 152 pax
The A319 that made an emergency landing 75 pax on board
Last week we had an incident with a PIA 777, that had less than 60 passengers on it !

When "Airport Live" was on last year some of the boarding figures were appalling, Kate Humble enthused on one occasion about the passengers who would be jetting off in style to Jo Burg on an A340.... how many was it now 90 ?

Clearly this is not the full picture and I concede I am being highly selective BUT is that not the type of area that Davies should have looked at in detail ?

Is it not equally damaging to the environment to have half empty planes operating IN/OUT of LHR OR have we created a completely false situation where slots are operated simply because they appear on the balance as a tangible and highly prised asset. In effect it doesn't mean a fig what the load factor is as these are disguised by the intrinsic VALUE of the slot on the balance sheet AND do we need to build another RW simply to equalise that value ! Again where is the scrutiny ?

Back to Davies, he basically he stated that "flights from regional airports were highly detrimental to the environment and basically should be discouraged". That is not Mancunian spin btw !

It is somewhat at odds with his remit of "exploring ALL avenues in terms of providing UK airport capacity to meet demand, including best use of regional airports".

It would be interesting to see what the MAG spokesperson does actually say in respect of response to Davies because most of the arguments they put forward were in support of their stance on Stansted NOT Manchester.

Would highlighting inadequacies of the MAN strategy get us anywhere at a meeting of "local spotters" anyway, well probably not !

AND what is he actually going to say, ironically it is 12 months to the day since the STN deal went through....... precisely the moment when submissions by MAG relating to MAN fell off a cliff, disappearing almost without trace.

[BasilBush]

Bagso

I think you are being a bit too selective in quoting low loads at Heathrow. In fact the average load factor at Heathrow in 2013 was 76.4%, according to the airport's owners. As a year-round figure it's difficult to see this increasing much for reasons that Skipness and other airline types will be familiar with. Seasonality will always reduce annual LFs, with peak summer load factors in the mid-80s.

In relation to slot values, few airlines include these on their balance sheets - BA don't, for example. The airlines that do tend to be the more desperate ones, eager to shore up an otherwise dodgy balance sheet. FlyBe include them on the balance sheet, and I think that bmi used to do so - need I say more?

[North West]

Clearly this is not the full picture and I concede I am being highly selective BUT is that not the type of area that Davies should have looked at in detail ?

Of course you are being highly selective and in doing so you continue to undermine your whole argument.

Go and read some airline investor presentations such as the IAG one released this week. Get to grips with the differences between ASK and RASK and the importance of cabin mix, network connectivity etc etc etc. Airline's fly routes and carry the commercial risk so it's worth the effort to get to grips with their economics

Surely a preferable approach than barking at every passing car and blaming everyone from the council, MAG, Davies, MPs, airline comparison price sites, BA and "that London" because an airline route network that exists primarily in your own head isn't being operated.

[Bagso]

"Airline network in your own head"

"Barking at every passing car"

What on earth are you rambling on about this time North West.

Rather than immediately following my tag lines every sinlge time with inept comments please feel free to occasionally have a sensible discussion.

If you don't like the comments fine , no problem at all but then why not challenge, respond or argue them in a grown up manner ?

This is yet another occasion when all you seem to do is hang on to my coat tail, try just once to come up with some creative comments of your own!

[anothertyke]

A couple of points.

1. Bagso writes as if Davies has reported. But actually he's halfway through. He's decided in his Interim Report that the UK needs more capacity and the place where it needs it is London and SE. Not many people have come out and said 'no,wrong, a full-on regional solution is available and credible'. Now he has to work out what the relative strength of the three options he put forward is. All those will have to be related to a base case in which even more has to be squeezed out of the toothpaste tube. This is where the question of what would happen at MAN, BHX and STN with LHR and LGW full up is really relevant --especially as there must still be a fair chance that's what we'll end up with.

2. Materiality is a big issue.Suppose that the market was opened at MAN and BHX in the way Mr Stringer was proposing. How much difference would that make? What routes and volumes would start up and succeed which currently have not? Is that difference likely to be material to the case for LHR3 or LGW2? My guess is it's within the margins of error of the traffic forecasts for Heathrow. National and international GDP per head, population and ticket price trends are what really drive demand. Supply will follow if the market is there.

[LN-KGL]

So that we don't compare apples and pears, let's look at the differences between LHR's and MAN's scheduled terminal passenger numbers and to make a more complete picture let's also throw in LGW and STN. The latest month CAA has completed is December 2013, and from these reports it's very easy to find the average passenger per flight.
LHR = 159 passengers per flight
LGW = 133 passengers per flight
STN = 140 passengers per flight
MAN = 118 passengers per flight

If we translate this in to cabin factors in a BA Airbus A321 European versionwith 182 seats, these are the numbers we end up with.
LHR = 87.2%
LGW = 73.1%
STN = 76.9%
MAN = 64.7%

If we use Basilbush's average cabin factor, I have estimated the average aircraft to have around 214 seats - 25 seats more than in a Ryanair B738 and indentical to the number of seats in the brand new BA B788.

The highs and lows at MAN are much more season related than the three other airport we here looked at even though this was only for scheduled flights. Have we added the charter flights too in to the equation the difference had been even larger. With only scheduled flight the peak in August showed in 2013 the average flight at MAN to have 132 passengers (11% more than in December) while at LHR the average increased with 6% to 169 passengers per flight. If we use the Basilbush CF to eastimate the average sized aircraft at MAN we end up with an aircraft with 163 seats. Since we have LCCs at MAN and not at LHR I guess the average cabin factor at MAN will be higher than at LHR an hence the average aircraft will have less than 163 seats.

More to come later.

[BasilBush]

LN-KGL

One factor to bear in mind is that, at LHR, long-haul seat factors have generally been higher than those for short-haul. So in comparing LHR with other airports you do have to make an allowance for differences in traffic mix.

Of course you are right to point out that LCC seat factors will generally be higher than for legacy carriers, which will tend to offset this.

It just goes to show that comparing seat factors across airports can be hazardous, and that there is a danger in comparing apples with pears. Heathrow's hub status might be expected to result in a slight lowering of seat factors, particularly on short-haul, given the critical importance of frequency at a hub with a high proportion of business traffic. Conversely, an airport with a predominantly leisure traffic base (especially one with a lot of LCC traffic) might be expected to have high seat factors due to limited frequencies and lower average yields.

[All names taken]

A fair point Basil
Having been an occasional LHR pax (but more likely to originate MAN) I have observed that when I fly long haul the flight is full, short haul not so.
As an example, I was on a Lufthansa flight to MUC last year when I was one of 33 pax on board an A320 (OK it was a Sunday morning).

[Fairdealfrank]

This is where the question of what would happen at MAN, BHX and STN with LHR and LGW full up is really relevant --especially as there must still be a fair chance that's what we'll end up with.


Indeed, but don't forget AMS, CDG, FRA. With LHR is full, carriers that can't get enough slots there do not necessarily end up in the waiting room at LGW. Some do, others go to LHR's competitor airports. Most carriers flying to BHX and MAN tend to be at LHR already.

[Bagso]

Sir Howard's’ brief was not to decide on whether there is a need for additional runways in southeast England and if so, where; but rather to decide on a policy for the entire country. In other words, if there really is an absolute need for a ‘national hub airport’, where should it be with regard to the nation as a whole, not just the bit down in the bottom right hand corner.

the management (MAG) may be forgiven for wondering if they might have spent a little more time and effort tub thumping the case for the ‘home’ airport at Manchester, which already has two runways, oodles of spare capacity and the sort of traffic mix that many other airport operators can only dream of, and that of East Midlands airport, which is one of the most significant for cargo in the entire country but which barely rated a mention in MAG’s submission.

Source
The Davies Commission?s Interim Report on UK airports: the big loser remains UK competitiveness | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/the-davies-commissions-interim-report-on-uk-airports-the-big-loser-remains-uk-competitiveness-145530)

It appears there are others who share my Tub Thumping attitude North West ...!

[Skipness One Echo]

Sorry but the hub airport is always going to be in the South East, I am baffled why once again we are linking it to MAN or EMA? If MAN had oodles of capacity, at the wrong times by the way, then it doesn't need Davies to help it. Things are good at MAN, and getting better. New T1 development coming, new US routes starting, Air Canada returning. Bagso it's all bluster really isn't it? I genuinely fail to see what's driving you on this? What's your outcome in your ideal scenario, paint a likely picture?

[All names taken]

Sorry Bagso, this is getting a little tiresome.
Only a fool would say that the problems of runway capacity in the London Area can be solved by more flights at Manchester or anywhere else for that matter.

Also you're wrong in your assertion that EMA is the 'most significant for cargo in the entire country'. LHR is. Why? It's because most cargo is flown below deck on scheduled pax flights. You're getting confused with freight only flights.

[Bagso]

Hang on, what utter rubbish, it WASN'T my assertion !

... that's precisely why I provided the link !

Did anybody bother looking or can you not read ?

I'm simply stating that much wiser commentators than me have come to similar conclusions specifically about the nature of the Davies remit !

It should not just be about the issue of Runway 3 at Lhr !

Please do not misquote me !

[anothertyke]

Well I've read it. As far as I can see it says MAN should have spent more time thumping the tub for its home airport than for STN. CAPA don't begin to make a reasoned case out of that for some sort of max investment at BHX and MAN option.

I'm strongly in favour of building up Manchester over time as the North's hub to the world. At the moment the politicians in Yorkshire are trying to convince themselves that a better more centrally located airport to replace LBA is what Yorkshire needs. What a disaster that would be in terms of diluting the hub!

MAN has a good strong catchment area, plenty of runway capacity, a station and a motorway connection. The intercontinental links have progressively developed with the new routes dominating the occasional setbacks like Boston and Washington. Obviously it lacks a hub operator which is a shame but hey, this is a tough commercial market and BA has shareholders to think about. As the market develops, network and traffic growth will follow. What more do you want which will make a material difference to traffic and capacity requirements in the London airport system?

[LAX_LHR]

Washington is still served.

[Fairdealfrank]

Sorry but the hub airport is always going to be in the South East, I am baffled why once again we are linking it to MAN or EMA?


The hub airport is always going to be in the southeast, and at LHR.



If MAN had oodles of capacity, at the wrong times by the way, then it doesn't need Davies to help it. Things are good at MAN, and getting better. New T1 development coming, new US routes starting, Air Canada returning. Bagso it's all bluster really isn't it? I genuinely fail to see what's driving you on this? What's your outcome in your ideal scenario, paint a likely picture?


Indeed things are good at MAN and getting better.

[LAX_LHR]

Some good and bad news regarding our usually plentiful 'foreign' (or slightly unusual) charter carriers this summer.

Small Planet (P7)

I think someone earlier in the thread asked about Small Planet routes.

For Olympic Holidays, they seem to have a Tuesday Chania, and Friday Corfu. Im not sure where else they are flying.

Germania (ST)

Germania seem to be basing 2 aircraft at Manchester this summer, based on the current schedules.

For example, Tuesday sees ST3595 arrive from HER at 1815, yet ST3616, also a flight to HER, departs at 1700.

There are a few days and few destinations that have this crossover, so will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Thomas Cook (Pegasus, Evelop, Nouvelair and British Airways)

There was due to be a Saturday Pegasus to Antalya, Evelop to Lanzarote, Nouvelair to Djerba and British Airways (citiflyer) to Mahon. All 4 of these flights now seem to have been dropped and replaced with sole TCX flights.

British Airways:

Sartadur Holidays normally use Citiflyer on Saturdays to Cagliari and Sundays to Olbia. Flybe were used part season last year and BA in the latter months, but this year there does not seem to be any option to fly from Manchester on the Sartadur website.

Flybe:

Have dropped all charter flying this summer. Other airports seem to have their flybe replacements publicised now, but Manchester seems to be very hard to track down. Have previously operated to Verona, Innsbruck, Almeria and others, but I can only (partly) find the info on the Innsbruck replacement, as mentioned below.

Austrian Airlines:

I have been reliably informed that Austrian will take over the former flybe charter to Innsbruck, with an A319 and in line with similar take overs of the LBA and BRS routes. Inghams still show flybe as operating, but as BE999 in both directions, but as a non-based flight pattern. Time will tell when Austrian will appear.

Freebird:

Are said to be operating up to 9 weekly flights as last summer, and have been operating Antalya this winter. However in line with the past 2 seasons, I have no idea who these flights are operating for nor find a timetable.

Onur Air:

Running at least 3 weekly flights to Dalaman with 1 continuing to Ercan.

Monday A 1930 D 2030
Saturday A 1125 D 1220 continues to Ercan
Saturday A 1900 D 2000

Tunisair:

Seem to be pullingManchester ops completely. Last summer ran a Saturday Enfidha alongside their TUN ops.

Long winded post but quite a long round up.

[roverman]

MAN-Washington is definitely still served, by United, I'm booked on it in April!

[Mr A Tis]

I guess anothertyke was getting confused with BMI withdrawing the 6 times a week Washington service, but that was 2005 !!!
Washington has been back on with United since May 2012.
The US destinations we have lost are American to Miami, Dallas & Boston. BA to New York, Orlando & Los Angeles.

[anothertyke]

Senior moment re Washington, thanks for putting me right.

[LAX_LHR]

The US destinations we have lost are American to Miami, Dallas & Boston.
BA to New York, Orlando & Los Angeles.


And the good news in that, is that technically, New York and Orlando are not destinations totally lost.
There are still strong suggestions that Miami will be back this winter as a CLT summer MIA winter operation, in a similar fashion to how MIA/BOS used to work.

In other news, the Libyan government have said Manchester and Heathrow routes will resume very soon after the temporary suspension.

[The Royal Family]

SMALL PLANET P7,

Does anyone have any information on Small Planet operations out of MAN this summer 2014. Routes, times etc.
Thanks for your help with this :ok:

[viscount702]

SMALL PLANET P7,

Does anyone have any information on Small Planet operations out of MAN this summer 2014. Routes, times etc.
Thanks for your help with this :ok:

The answer is five posts back

[The Royal Family]

Thanks Viscount 707? But I think the phrase in that posting that's says it all is; Im not sure where else they are flying :ugh:

[LAX_LHR]

Does anyone have any information on Small Planet operations out of MAN this summer 2014. Routes, times etc. Thanks for your help with this :ok:


From what I can find on Small planet:

P70225 MAN 0830 CHQ 1445
P70226 CHQ 1545 MAN 1825

Tuesdays

P70247 MAN 0800 PVK 1340
P70248 PVK 1430 MAN 1625

Thursdays

P70217 MAN 0800 SKG 1340
P70218 SKG 1430 MAN 1815

P70225 MAN 1800 CFU 2330
P70226 CFU 0015 MAN 0150

Fridays

That's all I can find so far, but with 1 B737 based confirmed, there will sure be other flying somewhere, but, may also be W patterns or positioning to other airports for other flights too.

[nigel osborne]

Does MAEL at Manchester, service Fly Be planes there ?

Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

Does MAEL at Manchester, service Fly Be planes there ?


It does but Im sure they still use the old flybe hangar as its just next door and MAEL hangar is usually quite busy.

[nigel osborne]

Thanks for the info LAX-LHR.

Nigel

[North West]

Well I've read it. As far as I can see it says MAN should have spent more time thumping the tub for its home airport than for STN. CAPA don't begin to make a reasoned case out of that for some sort of max investment at BHX and MAN option.

The context was odd too as it implied one minute that MAG was a loser because the STN deal was predicated on getting a 2nd runway and then immediately went on to question whether MAG should have spent more time promoting MAN over the South East !

Anyway, tub thumping is all well and good if there is an economic case to back it up. Let's be blunt, the main players at MAG aren't provincialsts trying to right the North / South divide. They are businessmen looking to maximise return on capital. Bagso seems aghast that they aren't leaping around with unbridled excitement about Saudi when the reality is 3 x weekly to Saudi or 3 x weekly to Spain with Ryanair is barely indistinguishable when you boil it down to revenue for the airport company. I'd argue that £ per passenger, the Ryanair flights will generate more. So, focusing on growth from Ryanair and Easyjet is an eminently easier and more valuable play than busting a gut through political lobby groups in the hope there are many more Saudi's out there. Getting on for 13 years of 2 runway operations and loads of terminal capacity, tells us there aren't. Market interference is an option but the analysis points to there being more to lose than to gain from such a strategy. Manipulating the market to force airline supply to where the demand originates opens to floodgates on the 50% - 60% of MAN's throughput that originates closer to other Northern airports.

And isn't that the key point here really. An airport developed in Gtr Manchester that handles 14m more passengers a year than the Gtr Manchester catchment actually generates. Ok, the tail fins are 737s and A319s and the departure board is Europe, but so what. It's good at what it does. It makes money. It creates jobs. The management and their investors think they can make the same model work in the South East. Why get in such a huff about it ?

[kieb92]

LAX_LHR, having looked at TCX website for August, there does appear to weekly flights for Evelop to GCRR (EVE3421) and Pegasus to LTAI (PC6461) still loaded. Djerba by Nouvelair has been dropped and replaced by TCX as too does BA Cityflyer.

Book cheap flights to Manchester - UK flights | flythomascook (http://book.flythomascook.com/cheap-flights/to-Manchester-UK/)

[The Royal Family]

Many thanks for the Small Planet info LHR-LAX

[LAX_LHR]

I Kieb

The link you provided is much better than the pages I was looking at. The home page is a pain to navigate.

It seems Evelop to Lanzarote is now high season only.

Pegasus is a full season with a flight number change

BA operates Mahon on 17th and 31st Aug only

Travel service operate a Friday Tenerife as QS2139/2140 on 23rd and 30th May. Evelop also operate on 1st June.

Other than that I can only see a smattering of Monarch flight amongst the TCX ones, as well as Condor of Palma, Ibiza, Fuerteventura (which incidentally has condor rising from 1 weekly to 2 weekly and TCX does not operate at all during peak summer), Zante and Kos.

[j636]

Feb Traffic up 2.57% (Includes Transit) 2.94% without. Everyting increased apart from the 21.89% fall in IT.

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/9AB0F1744ACE19F980257C9100514AA2/$File/February14.pdf

[Suzeman]

Everyting increased apart from the 21.89% fall in IT

You forgot about flown freight...13% down. :=

Boring boxes it may be but important revenue for the carriers none the less...

And of course aircraft movements; -4% which bring revenue to the airport from the runway charge..

Any significant events last year and this year to explain any of this?

[roverman]

I saw a statistic recently which showed that average number of seats per movement at MAN has grown from 145 in 2006 to 170 this year. That figure, plus better load factors I suspect, might explain the relative reduction in movements compared to pax throughput.

[LAX_LHR]

And of course aircraft movements; -4% which bring revenue to the airport from the runway charge..

Any significant events last year and this year to explain any of this?


The general trend across many UK airports at the moment is that while aircraft movements have gone down, load factors have gone up. While not great for runway charges, it is good news for routes as it gives airlines more chance to make a decent profit and therefore keep the routes and expand.

[Ian Brooks]

Most domestic flights were by aircraft of 50 seats or less and many European were by EMB-145 or CL65 which are operated by Dash 8

Ian

[Bagso]

MANFOD


...check your PMs :ok:

[LN-KGL]

Well, I think you are struggling with the numbers now Ian Brooks. It was in the older days you saw smaller planes at MAN. Today it's only two domestic destinations left with aircraft which has 50 or less seats, and they are Norwich (Dornier 328 with 31/32 seats) and partly Aberdeen (E135/145 with 37/49 seats). The rest of the scheduled domestic flights are flown with at least a 66 seats Aurigny ATR72 up to 188 seats British Airways A321 to LHR. The average seats occupied per domestic flight at MAN was 66 in February.

[Ian Brooks]

anln-kgl i am not struggling with anything as that is what I have said
routes were with smaller aircraft and now larger aircraft

I have lived in Manchester since 1969 when routes were with BEA and Cambrian with Viscounts but on a very low frequency but then went to
the likes of S330 and S360

Ian

[rutankrd]

LHR-LAX

In other news, the Libyan government have said Manchester and Heathrow routes will resume very soon after the temporary suspension.

Presume Libyan authorities have lifted suspension on Nouvelair as TS-INN is operating to LHR on LN102 right now.

[eggc]

Same a/c operated Libyan flight into MAN yesterday.

[LAX_LHR]

Travel daily media reporting that Pegasus are studying a route from SAW to either MAN, LPL or LBA.

MAN possibly has the edge due to proven and larger market, also Pegasus already serve MAN with a weekly AYT flight.

No doubt LPL and LBA will put up a good fight for an Istanbul link, so will be interesting to see who pulls it off.

[FRatSTN]

MAN possibly has the edge due to proven and larger market, also Pegasus already serve MAN with a weekly AYT flight.
And Pegasus also use Stansted as their London airport so also possibly a link with MAG?

[LAX_LHR]

And Pegasus also use Stansted as their London airport so also possibly a link with MAG?


True. MAN is also the diversion alternate for those STN flights too.

[LAX_LHR]

News reports online stating that flynas to MAN and LGW will be announced this week.

[cornishsimon]

Info on the NQY thread that BE are adding an extra MAN-NQY Saturday rotation for summer 14 using a MAN based a/c.


cs

[kjsharg]

Hi! So rouge has been confirmed for terminal one at Manchester. Does anyone know who have got the handling contracts for these airlines??

Thanks

[kjsharg]

Just been having a browse on fly as website. They have manchester listed and comes up with a direct Jeddah flight from 2nd may 2014, says sold out on all days the flights are on so maybe because its not yet been announced
MAN dep 10:15 arr 18:55
XY26 flight number

At idea what terminal, surely terminal two!

[LAX_LHR]

It does indeed show direct flights on Fri and Sun. Sunday could be an issue as its also quite odd the Manchester online timetable has Saudia dropping its sunday flights in October.

Incidently LGW not listed yet, which I would have thought they would have put up first.

[viscount702]

Also showing a direct flight on Wednesday.

Should we be concerned about the flight going to JED rather than RUH as had been expected.

Once again the MAD comes to mind

[LAX_LHR]

The flynas schedule:

XY25 JED 0355 MAN 0845 A330-300 Wed, Fri and Sun
XY26 MAN 1015 JED 1855 A330-300 Wed, Fri and Sun.

Flights begin 2nd May.

I would have called Saudia's MAN-JED route marginal as it was, now a 2nd carrier and total of 6 weekly flights, I fear all will not end well, certainly from MAN's perspective.

Still no sign of their LGW flights.

[Bagso]

"If there is going to be a London outside London, then it will be Manchester!

Nice quote from Mind The Gap....BBC2

Matched only by the belief based on a national survey that the UK populous believe Manchester is now the most important City outside London.

Can only be good for Manchester Airport if only MAG, Local MPs, The Council etc shared the same mojo !

In other news it's now surfaced via some somewhat secretive briefings that extra capacity at Heathrow will lead to a reduction in movements at every other single airport in the South East. :eek:

Fourth runway at Heathrow ?would block flight paths to other airports? | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/transport/article4028122.ece)

As a strong advocate of further expansion down there for a more realistic 4 runway megahub rather than tinkering with a lukewarm 3, i'm incredulous, I did raise this very same point .....er 2 years ago!

Perish the thought that the Davies Commission were not going to disclose this !

A fundamental point pushed into a draw in Whitehall ?

I doubt Manchester will benefit but it would be nice for Mr Davies to disclose as much information as he was given possible so MPs can make decisions based on facts !

Perhaps Evan Davies rather than the current incumbent could be relied on to present a fuller analysis of UK air transport capacity !

I await a "sensible" interjection from Mr North West whose postings normally follow mine with tedious , make that monotonous regularity

[Fairdealfrank]

In other news it's now surfaced via some somewhat secretive briefings that extra capacity at Heathrow will lead to a reduction in movements at every other single airport in the South East.

As a strong advocate of further expansion down there for a more realistic 4 runway megahub rather than tinkering with a lukewarm 3, i'm incredulous, I did raise this very same point .....er 2 years ago!


Quite right, a 4-rwy megahub at LHR (not in the estuary) is the obvious way to proceed.


Perish the thought that the Davies Commission were not going to disclose this !

A fundamental point pushed into a draw in Whitehall ?

I doubt Manchester will benefit but it would be nice for Mr Davies to disclose as much information as he was given possible so MPs can make decisions based on facts !


Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall.

At least LCY, MSE, SEN and possibly STN wouldn't have to completely close for NATS purposes as would be the case to accomodate a 4-rwy estuary airport.

It may not matter if business and traffic drifts towards a 4-rwy LHR. Also, reductions at other airports would prevent them from becoming full up as is projected for LCY, LGW and LTN.

It would actually bring LHR into line with its peer group airports (AMS, CDG, FRA, MAD) which also have the no-frills, general aviation, charter and holiday company business that is absent at LHR.

The main reason LGW and LTN developed in the 1970s was lack of capacity at LHR (yes, even back then!). It's the only reason that there are so many airports in London.

Take Paris, for example, as the only realistic comparison with London, it has 6 rwys accross 2 airports (4 at CDG, 2 at ORY). London should have been the same (4 at LHR and 2 at LGW). Instead we have a "constellation of airports" (to use the language of Gatwick airport management), with some of the smaller London airports being considerably busier than their Paris equivelants (BVA, LBG, POX, etc.).


Doubt if any of this would adversely affect MAN, it has already doubled its rwy count.



Missed "Mind The Gap", will watch the repeat tomorrow.

[kieb92]

flyNas MAN timetable including LGW

flynas Launches A330 Operation from April 2014 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2014/03/10/xy-330-s14update1/)

Also Saudia to upgrade some flights to a 777-300ER over the summer!

Saudia Plans 777-300ER Manchester Service on Selected Dates July ? Oct 2014 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2014/03/11/sv-man-jul14/)

Going to be a busy route!

[LAX_LHR]

Global Route Program (http://www.flynas.com/en/global-route-program/)

Looking at MAN in the above timetable, either there is an error or the route looks like it could be going to 4 weekly. The timetable seems to list a Thursday MAN-JED but no JED-MAN?

[MANFOD]

How many weekly flights to Jeddah do we really need? I just hope at least one of the carriers can survive on the route.

As Viscount 702 mentioned, we don't want another Madrid, which went from unserved to 3 carriers, and then the threat of being unserved again until Ryanair decided to fly 4 x weekly. Still under-served in my view with EZY carrying more pax from LPL last time I checked.

Nevertheless, some interesting things happening this summer so let's hope the various new routes prosper.

[Bagso]

Could those SAUDIA dates relate to Hadj ? They seem to be more at the back end than summer.

At least nobody can complain about lack of frequency, certainly bags of critical mass !

As MANFOD says hope they survive but more in hope than expectation, unless they know something we don't ?

[kjsharg]

Some diverts at man today, Aer lingus had a flight from dub to bhx diverted to Man
Lufthansa LH952 FRA-BHX diverted to Man
Klm KL1421 AMS-BHX diverted to Man'

Few cancelled too

[LAX_LHR]

Seems BHX is getting 3 charter flights from China Southern on PEK-BHX this summer.

So, despite all the bluster MAN give on being 'really close' to securing a flight, and constant visits by Chinese carriers route development teams, my money is now on BHX getting a China route first. The charter flights could be the perfect catalyst BHX needs to get a regular scheduled flight.

[BHX5DME]

This has been the result of three years planning between BHX China Southern and Chinese travel companies so hopefully it will lead to a scheduled service it was never in doubt in my opinion that BHX would get a service to China

[LAX_LHR]

it was never in doubt in my opinion that BHX would get a service to China


I don't think anyone doubted it, but, from a MAN perspective, the fact it has a larger China market, proven larger long haul market than BHX and a generally higher yielding market than BHX, that MAN would get a scheduled link first.

Cathay has stated MAN is likely to be served from 2016, Air China reps/bigwigs have been to MAN more than 3 times in the past 6 weeks, MAN saying they are in the final stages in a new route and Hanian have also been to MAN numerous times, I honestly expected it to get the scheduled link first. The BHX charters are for a specific purpose so MAN may yet get the first scheduled link, but, BHX does now have a good lead-in with these flights. The only thing I would say is that testing the waters may not be the case, as CZ's main hub is Guangzhou so could be a different market dynamic yet again.

[Bagso]

Manchester may be leaving its calling card BUT it "appears" the Chinese are already checking in !

The Birmingham marketing people s/b congratulated, audacious, not really just a simple, basic masterclass in marketing,
hooked in a large travel agency, hooked in the airline then checked map and said

.....Chester, Liverpool (Home of The Beatles) NWales Castles etc which apparently all be seen on these tours unless the quote "vibrant City Of Birmingham" manages to retain their attention !

Of course it should have been the other way round but thus far Manchester appears mute !

One almost gets the impression that BHX actively went after this rather than the impression that I get with airlines at MAN that we sit back and wait for them to come to us !

I think MAN has focused on trade and specifically the Manchester outbound market completely forgetting the massive number of Chinese wanting to visit our tourist hotspots.

The charter flights could be the perfect catalyst BHX needs to get a regular scheduled flight...how very true !


You cannot see China Southern doing three successful flights bringing pax to "our neck of the woods" BUT then moving to Manchester
and BHX will if they have any sense milk this for all its worth !

This is critical, charter or not, THEY now have first mover advantage, it looks as though China Southern are now out of the picture, it could also mean that other airlines think twice about MAN as it fragments the market, IF BHX secure China Southern surely a new entrant might either be put off another airport 75 miles away OR think twice about its selection criteria.

For novelty value alone BBC etc will be all over this and it will generate even more publicity !

The MEN is salivating over MAN reaching 20m when what they s/b doing is asking how the bloody hell did Birmingham mange to attract "tourists" to its environs ?

whisper it but can somebody tell the members of the China Forum ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Excellent news for BHX! Hope it leads on to permanent scheduled and to/from MAN as well (doesn't matter if it's CAN, HKG, PEK or PVG).

[hammerb32]

The BBC forgot about Birmingham a long time ago Bagso!!

[Skipness One Echo]

You cannot see China Southern doing three successful flights bringing pax to "our neck of the woods" BUT then moving to Manchester
Ohhhhhh where to start.
It's China "let's buy A380s even though we don't have one route for which we need them" Southern, the bargain basement fares specialist to the region flying brand spanking new B787s from LHR. They are not, shall we say, commercially driven. This is a handful of charter flights in peak summer and will have no bearing, zero, squat diiddly nothing on whether Air China decide to launch PEK-MAN. Best not to obsess over this, it's good news for BHX for sure, will it affect MAN? I doubt it.

[Bagso]

Hammer32 . not so, BHX has received massive publicity in relation to Davies !

OK it may not have been positive but because it was up on a pedestal that whilst possibly misplaced it still managed to get a mention almost EVERY time a 3rw at LHR was discussed.

If Manchester had done the same amount of lobbying given its ;

infrastructure for circa 40m already in place,
employment opportunities re Airport City,
location to more major cities,
tremendous connectivity in terms rail/car/air
and of course it already has massive demand with a large number of long haul flights in place (China being an exception).

....it would have been much harder to dismiss.

BHX galvanised support from Midlands media, business and local MPs and fought like a rabid dog

...MAN never even turned up !

[LAX_LHR]

Well, I think some perspective is needed now regarding these BHX China flights.

-This is not a regular scheduled flight, or even a regular scheduled charter flight. They are charters for a specific reason, laid on by a travel agent, which, anyone with a cause can hire a jet for a specific charter, there are even websites that let you do this easily. These are not flights requested by China Southern themselves.

-All evidence suggests that, when it comes to a fully scheduled link, MAN has the advantage on both yield and potential passenger loads, with Air China rumoured from several different sources now too, looking seriously at starting flights soon. Even MAN are now stating they are in the final stages of a direct China route, which is now a different tact from saying 'they hope to secure a route in xxx months'.

-MAN is still in a very good place at the moment, many new routes starting, along with the continuation of last years new routes, not to mention 5 new long haul routes starting in the next few months. For a 'regional' airport, is not a bad place to be. Personally, despite the ultimate goal of a China link, I would rather have 5 scheduled long haul routes, 3 of them being year round, than 3 one-off charters.

A poster on the BHX thread rightly states 'this has ruffled a few feathers'. When a China link is such a sought after goal from 3 airports, it would be impossible to deny there is a little envy in that, and the same would have happened at the BHX end if the shoe was on the other foot.

[chinapattern]

Skipness;

I'm sure if CZ had announced these flights from MAN you would be singing their praises.

LAX-LHR

Have no doubt MAN will get a direct China link. MAN may have greater demand but there is also a lot more competition.

[LAX_LHR]

Have no doubt MAN will get a direct China link

I have no doubt either, particularly Hong Kong, as there is more than enough demand and I don't know about other airlines, but there are a significant and growing number of premium cabin fares routing MAN-LHR-HKG vv on BA, which suggests yield is there too.


MAN may have greater demand but there is also a lot more competition


Success breeds success. There may be more competition but that also means its much easier to get market data for a direct flight. If there are X number of people travelling on a premium ticket on MAN-XXX-China routing, then it may persuade another airline to want a piece of that pie. Sometimes that has been a detriment to MAN (Madrid is the prime example), but there have been times it has been a help too (Qatar and Etihad were initially born off data from Emirates and such, also Charlotte is helped by data of transfers via PHL that could be expanded via another hub.

Therefore, competition can be seen as a help just as much, if not more, than a hindrance.

[jinbo]

What has happen to man arrivals on tele text

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Does Teletext still exist? I think it has been scrapped … yesterday's technology. However, the Manchester Airport website maintains a detailed arrivals and departures reference list covering upto 24 hours ahead.

[Skipness One Echo]

I'm sure if CZ had announced these flights from MAN you would be singing their praises.
I am hardly a MAN fan boy, however my expectation remains MAN has a far stronger business case than BHX which overlaps LHR to a much greater extent. This is a toe in the water but if CZ were looking at BHX it would be from CAN surely, PEK is Air China territory, even with Chinese walls in place.....
See what I did there?

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Yawn, all this doom mongering and wailing about a few charter flights going elsewhere is tiresome. :rolleyes:

They are a series of charter flights, arranged and paid for by a Birmingham tour operator, so there is zero financial risk to CZ. When did you ever see a carrier send in a couple of charter flights as a toe dipping exercise before commencing scheduled service? Never, I wager.

Now, stop this silly crying. :{

MAN is in the strongest position for a China or Honkers route. :ok:

The BHX charters are a distraction which BHX will milk for all their worth (and who wouldn't), and I'm sure those in the echelons of BHX management will be pissing their pants in laughter at the responses being put up on both here and the BHX thread by the usual suspects. ;)

[kieb92]

LAX_LHR, sorry to bring up an old post but do you have any times for Germania this summer or do you know where to find them?


Germania (ST)

Germania seem to be basing 2 aircraft at Manchester this summer, based on the current schedules.

For example, Tuesday sees ST3595 arrive from HER at 1815, yet ST3616, also a flight to HER, departs at 1700.

There are a few days and few destinations that have this crossover, so will be interesting to see how it pans out.

[N707ZS]

Noticed that LS933 757 MAN - SZG returned to MAN after a figure 8 over Doncaster today anyone know what was wrong with it?

[gonetech]

Don't know the reason causing the return but it did land with a little smoke emanating from the undercarriage, probably just hot brakes if it was a bit heavy. The a/c (G-LSAH) continued on to stand after a brief check by the Fire Service.

[MClayton]

I know this is a bit of subject at the moment but could this be hinting of a second daily emirates A380 ??Big rise in passengers travelling to and from UAE and India at Manchester Airport (From Asian Image) (http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/11077290.Big_rise_in_passengers_travelling_to_and_from_UAE_a nd_India_at_Manchester_Airport/?ref=var_0)

I maybe wrong, just curious about it.

[Bagso]

May be wrong but I "think" the Chancellor has just announced tax incentives from regional airports for new routes.......

Anybody catch this ?

[Rob Courtney]

Yes, he mentioned Liverpool but did say "developing airports" Not sure if Manchester will comply:(

[Bagso]

As you were. It's a meagre start up regional airport connectivity fund. MAN does not qualify.

A complete and utter waste of money !

Anybody get to TAS, reference response to Davies Commission ?

[vinnym]

Bet you wouldn't be saying it was a waste of money if MAG had been eligible to get their snout into the funds being made available

[Bagso]

Vinnym

I'll rephrase, "its a waste of time AND a waste of money ".

I listened to the speech, the comment ref this fund was mentioned in a blink with no supporting detail !

It was an attempt at a headline grabber that worked, it got a few "here, heres" from ill informed MPs who don't have a clue.

I am happy to be corrected but the fund as I understand it only currently applies to airports with a throughput of 3m a year.....

Exeter, Inverness Durham Doncaster .....etc

"I am offering more help to Britain's regional airports like Liverpool, Leeds"

"here here guffaw, bloody guffaw"

What utter drivel !

So in effect it appears the scope or cap is being extended to airports where say the throughput is much higher !

Yes , this would then include the like of Liverpool etc its a pot which will if divided equally amongst only a small percentage of the UK regional airports would in effect be spread so thinly its almost transparent ?

The devil is in the detail, the actual budget documents themselves say little more.

Obviously I do realise that civic pride is at stake but the reality is we have too many airports and it would have been better "only in my opinion" to spend the money on a specific project (ideally in the North) in a concentrated manner with a guaranteed return on investment in a place where it WILL make a difference.

Over to Skippy on how much it costs to start a route and the burn rate ...but pretty sure £20m won't go very far

[globetrotter79]

I have a feeling that a chunk of this £10m per year for the next two years may well already be allocated to NQY-LON route..

[LAX_LHR]

Bet you wouldn't be saying it was a waste of money if MAG had been eligible
to get their snout into the funds being made available


I would like to wade in with this and state I also think it is a waste of money (unless its genuine PSO money such as the highlands or NQY-LGW in the face of the rail lines out of action), and my opinion is nothing to do with the fact MAN/MAG are not eligible for the fund.

Firstly,
Airports in the UK are private business'. Why should one airport be favoured over another 'just because it is smaller'. The government wouldn't give Morrisons £10million to give it a boost against Tesco or Asda, so why should say, LPL be given a boost against MAN?
If there was a scenario where say, TAROM were looking at a North West-Bucharest route, where do you think they will go? The airport with the bog standard fees or the one with the shiny pot of money attached? How is that a fair competition?
The one to watch could be Pegasus. They have publicly stated they are looking at a MAN/LPL-SAW route. Could MAN argue an unfair advantage by LPL if it waves the route fund in front of them? Surely all airports should compete based on the resources they have produced themselves, without the added bonus of public money. Yes, this could mean MAN has the advantage of a bigger profit pot, but at least its money they have made themselves and not a public hand out.

Secondly,
Could one argue that a route that requires a fund to get it off the ground likely to be a viable route in the long term? Surely if a route was so obviously needed, it could be started under its own steam?
Look at LPL-CPH. Norwegian got a fund from the CPH end to get it started, and where is the route after March? Oh yes, its gone.

Thirdly,
Without stringent conditions, this fund could be subject to abuse. Lets say Ryanair move MAN-CRL to LPL to get access to the fund as its technically a 'new route'. Firstly, very little, likely none new business is created as you are shifting flights within the same area. Then, Ryanair move the route back to MAN after the incentive period (Ryanair seem to like shifting routes between LPL and MAN). For the North West, what have you achieved after all that, apart from wasting public money on essentially, nothing?

Now, taking the 'of course you are against it as it is possibly detrimental to your preferred airport' hat off, surely the above are valid points, and a scenario that could be repeated in other areas too?

[j636]

LAX

It't as if MAN dosn't already have a twice daily link to IST, does it really need another and woudl it not just dilute the market. Such a route will probaly not work from LPL or LBA even if moeny was thrown at it.

[LAX_LHR]

It't as if MAN dosn't already have a twice daily link to IST, does it really need another and woudl it not just dilute the market. Such a route will probaly not work from LPL or LBA even if moeny was thrown at it


Well its Pegasus themselves who have said they wish to serve the North West, and with TK looking at 3 daily from MAN also, there must still be some wiggle room on the Istanbul market.

[All names taken]

LAXLHR

That's a very good post.
I cannot believe that a Conservative chancellor is even contemplating subsidizing one private business over another. Total market distorting economics of the mad house.

Also I wonder: 'IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?'
One of the scenarios you point out might lead to a test case in the EU Court.
Then we'll all end up wasting even more public money on expensive lawyers.

The best way to create extra business in all regional airports AND create a level playing field is to reduce or eliminate APD for non London airports.
London is different because demand outstrips supply - taxation policy can therefore be an effective tool for constraining demand whilst supply issues are being resolved.
For everywhere else it just crushes growth potential.

[j636]

Well its Pegasus themselves who have said they wish to serve the North West, and with TK looking at 3 daily from MAN also, there must still be some wiggle room on the Istanbul market.

Supose so and it is the other airline in IST.

I still think what would be on offer isn't much and take DY's time at LPL I would be very suprised if they make any profit even with the subsidy. Completly loss making and Pegaus I can't see them doing much better.

Also I wonder: 'IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?'
One of the scenarios you point out might lead to a test case in the EU Court.
Then we'll all end up wasting even more public money on expensive lawyers.

It probaly is illegal, whats the differance between this and the proposals by Scotland which were stopped?

The best way to create extra business in all regional airports AND create a level playing field is to reduce or eliminate APD for non London airports.
London is different because demand outstrips supply - taxation policy can therefore be an effective tool for constraining demand whilst supply issues are being resolved.
For everywhere else it just crushes growth potential.

So all us rich people living or working in London area should be ripped off and pay for the poor regaionl airports to send passengers away ;)

Supply/Demand sholdn't come into it and it would also be classed as illegal under EU rules to drop it outside of London and keep it in London.

[LAX_LHR]

Thank you all names taken.

I too would question the legality of using public funds to subsidise a private business against another.

The one thing I have seen reported is that airports between the 3-5 million bracket, attracting a non-EU route can access the fund in 'exceptional circumstances'.

Now, what exactly is an 'exceptional circumstance'?

Blackmail from an airline stating 'we won't start a route without help', which is pretty much extortion?

If an airline states they will start say, MAN or LPL, using the fund to get a leg up against the competitors fees and make your airport more attractive, which would lead to an unfair competition case?

A route which is 'essential' to the airport, which one could then argue if the route was that 'essential', it should be able to start and run under its own steam and merit?

Clarification of what an 'exceptional circumstance' is, is needed.

The whole thing just doesn't stand up to scrutiny so far, and I agree a blanket reduction on APD for all regional airports, that while costing more money, would have had far better results IMO.

[Bagso]

So all us rich people living or working in London area should be ripped off and pay for the poor regional airports to send passengers away

BUT in reality with reference to APD is that realistically going to happen, I just don't see it personally.

If airline X based in say US has a spare aircraft and they have a slot available to operate into LHR, THAT is where they are going to operate regardless of an APD subsidy elsewhere.

BUT if the same airline has the opportunity of operating to a more marginal destination , say Dublin (No APD) or Manchester (Full APD) and taking all other factors into account it could be that an unrestricted Dublin scores !

Introducing a zero rate will only work where the two competing airports are in a similar market !

My beef is that Manchester is in my view penalised against other European Airports, not London !

Zero APD at Exeter, Southampton, Norwich etc etc is simply not going to make any difference to LHR !

AND yes it might be a back door method to subsidise the Newquay - London, maybe Cameron had his hand twisted by the Lib dems in the West Country.

[All names taken]

J636
You slightly missed my point if you don't mind me saying so.

What I am suggesting is that instead of APD being used as a phoney 'green tax', it could be better used to manage the variability in supply and demand that we have in the UK system.

The demand at London is partially constrained by APD (but not by much I accept) whilst supply side issues are argued about.

Outside London, APD has a disproportionate effect on constraining growth, particularly long haul.

Airlines don't need to be persuaded to come to London - some do it for prestige rather than profit - but they will be deterred from flying elsewhere in the UK if they can deploy their assets in to alternatives with zero APD as opposed to flying in to the teeth of a taxation system that constrains growth and therefore constrains their probability of making a profit.

[LAX_LHR]

Ive heard finnair are looking at using the A319/A320 for the morning flight due to rising demand for flights to China and Japan.

[TURIN]

Would that mean a nightstopper?


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[rutankrd]

Turin quoted Would that mean a nightstopper?

Why ?

The current Finnair (op by Flybe Nordic) services are timed precisely to connect over Helsinki with their late afternoon local time Far Eastern departures wave which included the daily JAL 788 to Tokyo within two/three hours maximum transit time.

The evening flight into Manchester reverses the feeders departing west right after the early afternoon Far East arrivals wave completes.

The three hour time difference and flying times actually makes a viable day return business trip to Helsinki pretty pointless through.

The early morning arrival into Manchester has also carried some transit transfers onto/off of the American Chicago flight as well so it not one way traffic !

[LAX_LHR]

Im not aware of any nightstoppers, just an upgrade from the E-jets

[Ringwayman]

Would be bit of a hike in capacity though. Averaged roughly 66 passengers per flight in February so perhaps it's driven through the needs for a bigger premium cabin?

[LN-KGL]

rutankrd, it's only two hours time difference between HEL and MAN (Belarus is the only European country with three hours time difference to UK).

That the UK has elected to hold on to a different time zone than the main part of Europe will always make it more difficult for day trips to Europe. That UK also is placed close to the outer rim of Europe cause more time has to used for travel and adds to the agony. A one day meeting in Europe for the British almost always include the night before in a hotel at the destination.

There is a third hurdle for UK based business travelers out of MAN - the airport don't have a residing full service carrier. The airlines with based aircraft are LCCs and flying to impotant business destinations aren't part of their core business. Then there are the aircraft from foreign full service carriers staying the night over. They are all flying out in the first morning wave to Europe's large hubs and if you don't terminate at this airports it means lost time due to transfer and extra distance flown to reach your final destination.

For the European business travelers the extra hour is god sent and may make a day trip easier. But also here there a number buts.

The first but: Since MAN is a relative small destinations and many of the foreign carriers need feed in to its hub to fill a MAN flight. Hence it don't fly out with the first morning wave, but more likely in a second wave after the first wave has arrived with the feed.

The second but: MAN has a reputation of not being the best airport to arrive to if you want to get quickly from the aircraft to a destination. To set a time for a meeting in the neighbourhood you need at least two hours after scheduled arrival to reach the meeting in time. If the destination is further afield this adds to the uncertainty with rental cars off site and train service being so and so (Manchester Picadilly is really chaotic).

The third but: With only 17% of the passengers at MAN being international business travelers and only 2 of 5 of these 17% are foreign business travelers, these passengers are far from being the core business for MAN. This is easy to notice being part of this small group. We want to spend as little time as possible at the airport, but at MAN this wish is not granted.

This reply started with HEL and MAN so let me close this with the same theme. Let's suppose there was an residing airline at MAN interested in flying to HEL. Their scheduled departure from MAN would be 07:00 local time. Then their arrival at HEL would be around 11:30 local time (2 hours time difference + 2 hours 30 minutes flying time). The earliest time for meeting in Helsinki city centre would be 12:30 (30 minutes to pass the Schengen border og get luggage + 30 minutes taxi ride to the city centre). Not much business to settle that day. It is much better to take an afternoon flight to HEL, stay the night at a hotel and start fresh the next morning (remember to get up two hours earlier than you usually do).

[MAN777]

LN

Your assumptions over MAN ground transportation are all wrong

Rail very frequent 15-20 minutes to city centre and beyond

Taxis coming out of your ears, traffic pending as little as 20 mins to city centre.

Buses if you must, go over the place and soon trams

Car hire nice new pick up depot.

Airport next to motorway network

What more can an airport do ??

[Mr A Tis]

Finnair used to be MD80s, so the change from E jets to Airbuses is just a reversion of the previous reductions.

[LN-KGL]

The public transport must be great MAN777 since as much as around 15% of the passengers are not using private transport to the airport.

The frequency of trains going in to Piccadilly is alright, but the speed isn't exactly breathtaking with 9 miles covered in between 14 and 22 minutes. The return to MAN from Piccadilly can be a gamble. With an information desk not knowing, staff on the platforms not knowing, information boards not saying anything about the train being on time or not or what platform it will go from, three trains per platform, and as I entered a train pointed out to me I noticed my seat ticket didn't match the one attached to the seat - the one on the seat said York. I did finally find my train. In stead of departing 24 minutes past the hour it was delayed and departed 43 minutes past the hour with me on board. Lucky enough I had many hours to my flight to LHR. I decided to take a taxi from the airport to visit friends at the RVP. I can't say this was a enjoyable ride. The cab driver had wished for a longer trip, ended up with my short and it was not difficult to pick up the bad vibes. I hope my tip learned him something. I did my thing at RVP and had to return to the terminal. I thought I had to test the 200 bus back to the airport. In the bus shed there was a fresh timetable. The scheduled departure passed without a bus showing up. 25 minutes late a bus finally arrived and drove us to the airport. Again I know MAN pretty well - it was still over 90 minutes to my departure with Little Red as I arrived T3 - more than enough time for afternoon tea on the inside, but there was the security check hurdle. 35 minutes queuing there reduced the time for tea to an espresso and an egg and bacon sandwich at Costa.

I've been a regular traveler to MAN for 12 years now. Sadly the changes over the years have not been to the better from a passenger's standpoint and compared with other UK airports (I have 45 other to compare with) MAN has lost ground.

[IB4138]

Car hire nice new pick up depot.

A retrograde step.

Car Hire Village is off airport and requires a free airport bus to get there. It has added considerable time to people's journeys. When wet, windy or both, walking to the buses involves being in the open at both ends of that journey. The facilities at the Car Hire Village do not lend themselves to the weather either. It is not a pleasant experience.

[Mr A Tis]

I'm afraid I have to agree, the car village is not user friendly at all. The trains to/from the airport are frequently delayed or cancelled at the last minute. Lack of real time information & multiple use of platforms at Piccadilly are also an obstacle to the unwary. I recently travelled all the way from Edinburgh to Manchester Airport on time all the way - only to stop about 500M from the Airport platform, where we waited for almost 20 minutes. The station Gents were locked shut, the waiting room overflowing & one poor guy in the cafe trying to serve about 30 customers.
Some buses, esp the 200 are severely affected by the metrolink tram works on Ringway Road.
One can only hope when the tram & station works are completed, some improved service & reliability will ensue.

[Suzeman]

I recently travelled all the way from Edinburgh to Manchester Airport on time all the way - only to stop about 500M from the Airport platform, where we waited for almost 20 minutes.

Perhaps your train stood outside in sympathy with some of the car jams that have built up as a result of the closure of the rail bridge on Outwood Lane :E although after the "interesting" morning last Monday, things have been revised and I'm told the traffic is flowing more freely.

If that was in the last couple of weeks, it's probably because one platform is closed to facilitate the building of the fourth platform. Capacity at the station is always on a knife edge and one little thing causing delay knocks on very quickly. The number of services have been cut to meet this platform capacity restraint but the above still applies. The timetable should return to normal in the first week of April.

[NJJ99]

How do rail networks, cab drivers, bad weather (oh my days) and car villages make MAN a bad experience?
To me, it makes perfect sense for a Car Rental firm to have their base away from the main Airport, if for nothing else but added security? No brainer that one.
Some people seem to have a very distinct problem with MAN? - but all of what I have read is very fragile in their reasoning - a tad pathetic in some cases. MAN must get their weather generating satellite working again! :ugh:

[Logohu]

Well said NJJ. The same people who moan on here about delays caused by the current station expansion and metro construction would still be moaning if those infrastructure developments for the future were not going ahead. Some people just go out of their way to find fault.

And the Car Rental Village always works fine for me. It's far better than the previous arrangement where you had to find your way in a pee stained lift to a series of portacabins scattered across the windswept roof of a multistorey carpark.

The queues for immigration at Changi have been stretching to 30+ minutes on my last few arrivals there. Does that make Changi a bad airport ? I don't think so.

These days no airport of 20m+ passengers can be a perfect experience thanks to stricter security checks and all the other rules and regulations that go with 21st century air travel. In my experience whilst there is always room for improvement MAN is no worse than most comparable size airports, and way better than many I have used. It's got a great choice of destinations and airlines which is what I look for first in an airport, rather than stress about whether I will or won't have time for a coffee in Costa or if the taxi driver might be having a bad day.

[TURIN]

Jeeesus! I only asked if there would be a nightstopping Finnair, I didn't expect a dissertation on the pros and cons of hub and spoke feeder traffic. :ugh:

[BTNH]

that is life! expect the unexpected :ok:

[MANFOD]

Well said logohu.

As for the earlier claim of 2 hours from a/c on stand to city centre for a meeting, it would be a worse case scenario - a pax with bags to collect last off the belt say 1 hour; slow walk to the station 10 minutes; just missed a train and 1 train cancelled so a 20 minute wait (is it 7 or 8 trains an hour into Manchester?) and a 20 minutes ride. What's that, 1 hour 50 minutes? Or is our Norwegian friend adding on a tram ride to St. Peter's Square? And yes, I know, there have been instances where pax have waited longer than an hour for bags late at night but even with a 90 minutes wait, a taxi would get them into the city within 2 hours.

Best case scenario: No hold bags (not unusual for business types)); out of the airport in 15-20 minutes; brisk 5 mins walk to the station; train leaves in 5 minutes; 15 minutes on a fast train; into Piccadilly in 45 minutes.

I'm disappointed that LN-KGL has used a worse case as being typical to support his increasing criticism of MAN. Of course it's got its faults and I've not been slow to criticise the airport at times but let's keep a sense of perspective.

To schedule a meeting in the city centre, without bags to collect, 90 minutes from scheduled arrival should even allow him time for that much cherished coffee first.

[Ian Brooks]

i`ve stopped reading some posts because they are so negative and I beieve we should always be positive in life

Ian

[nigel osborne]

Ian,

Perhaps being a realist is the best option, as there is always good and bad news in life.If only it was just good news !

Nigel

[LN-KGL]

MANFOD, you have to remember I'm one of the odd foreigners arriving at MAN - and for us the first hurdle is queuing in front of UK Border Control.


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Columnist/Columnists/2012/4/28/1335624170466/Passport-control-008.jpg

And with passengers from the arriving EK A380 directly in front of us, showing the passport takes time - long time.


If you are planning an important business meeting, arriving late is not an option.

[MANFOD]

LN-KGL, I would have thought a seasoned traveller like yourself would ensure you caught a flight that didn't arrive just behind our 1 x A380 a day!

I accept there can be delays at Border Control at certain times but then it means less wait for bags if you have them. And of course MAN does not control the staffing for Border / Immigration checks. All they can do is plead for extra staff or sensible rostering.

Out of interest, how much time would you allow for a scheduled meeting in London when landing at LHR or LGW?

[Logohu]

you have to remember I'm one of the odd foreigners arriving at MAN

Agreed :ok:

[rutankrd]

I would argue that given the fact that all passenger lists are supplied to UK border in advance and the fact that ALL EU citizens are legally entitled to enter unhindered (Unless there is a warrant out for them !) the UK Border are acting illogically checking every passport whether we are a Schengan signatory or not.

This is pure right wing politically xenophobia and pandering to the red top papers.

The real work of Borders happens elsewhere.

This is a UK own made problem.

With the level of personnel only random checks should be made on the EU/EEA queues , with focus on Non EU passports and those that require ViSAs.

Granny from Alicante is of NO interest to borders however may be to customs .

The UK frontiers are a mess because of political interference on day to day operations at the highest levels.

[rutankrd]

LN-KGL
rutankrd, it's only two hours time difference between HEL and MAN (Belarus is the only European country with three hours time difference to UK).

Thanks my mistake yes 3+ GMT summer that was my thinking.

Still the points remain and agree with your expanded comments.

We have for a few days a twice yearly national discussion about moving towards the Central European timezones then duly forget and move on !

Actually the one country that does cause a real problem for us business wise is Spain - they should be in the same timezone
Flying to Madrid and onto Badajoz as I regularly do takes me a full working day to complete !

[LN-KGL]

I don't have any business meetings in London MANFOD, but our company has a subsidiary in the south west corner of Hampshire that I visit regularly. The obvious choice for a visit is a direct flight OSL-LHR, but I have had a number of other combinations like OSL-EDI-SOU, OSL-MAN-SOU, OSL-DUS-SOU and OSL-AMS-SOU. From arriving LHR to being parked up outside our facility it takes 3 hours if the M25 is in happy mood (the 4.2 miles can take hours if you have a gas leak in the neighbourhood) and if I allow my self a stop at either Fleet or Winchester Services along M3 for an espresso and a toilet visit. Public transport is really not an option to our Hampshire office as for many other locations in the UK.


At the other end it takes usually 55 minutes for me to get from our office situated at the west end of Oslo to the Non-Schengen gate for the flight to LHR, and that includes time to check in baggage, time to pick up some small presents from the duty free shop for the ladies and 32 minutes on the Airport Express Train. OSL is a building site these days (and will stay so until early 2017), but still the waiting time at the security check is only 4 minutes according the airport website.


For direct flights from OSL to MAN you can't pick and choose - either you are lucky and avoid the ME3s or you hit them big time (late SK4609 and early EK17 is the perfect combination).