MANCHESTER - 9

[ATNotts]

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 Schengen signatory or not.

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

You are so right! Unfortunately since our elected representatives take their policy lead from the Daily Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph rather than from any common sense analysis nothing's going to change any time soon.

[Skipness One Echo]

HMG has the power to deny EU Citizens entry as Gert Wilders can testify to.
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Dutch MP refused entry to Britain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7885918.stm)

[NJJ99]

LN-KGL

I respect your right to reply on the LHR-LGW thing. Now it would appear, as you also state, that public transport in "many other locations in the UK" is inadequate too? - and here's me thinking that you just disliked MAN? May be you should lay off the espresso's when visiting the, UK?

You do paint an awesome picture of your homeland, funny that. Nothing ever runs correctly in Britain, bloody useless bunch!

Late SK4609 & early EK17, ALL MAN's doing!

[LN-KGL]

NJJ99, I suggest you read my reply to an other post on this forum - even you may be surprised of what I write here: http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/199606-gloucestershire-4.html

[pallan]

airlineroute just posted on twitter that BOTH of Etihad's daily services will now be 777-300's, not just 1 daily from 02JUN14

[easyflyer83]

MAN has room for improvement, make not mistake about it but it is not as profound as some would have us believe. Recently flown to SYD and there you have to pay for luggage trolleys too and also pay to pay extra to enter the airport by public transport. Get a grip.

As for the Europe and back in a day argument, it's a very romantic view of business travel. Very few business travellers (white collar and blue collar) actually make day visits to Europe. Full stop.

[rutankrd]

As for the Europe and back in a day argument, it's a very romantic view of business travel. Very few business travellers (white collar and blue collar) actually make day visits to Europe. Full stop.

This is so true !

I also laugh when one reads elsewhere that some "usually Americans" want to work taxi fly overnight across world go straight to another desk/presentation finish taxi back to airport and fly off again .
Its madness !

Most of my international visits include an element of dining when deals are actually closed and you can't do that in a few hours !

[rutankrd]

MAN has room for improvement

Again many of the issues are not of the airports making but rather political dictates made on high and imposed without reference to existing infrastructure.

Isolation of arriving and departing passengers within piers - Totally unnecessary being one of them.

Visible increases at border and as said before checking of all Eu/EEA passport/id cards - Pointless waste of resources.

Land side road access restrictions largely knee-jerk political we have to be seen to do something action after the GLA incident.

As for the car hire issue at Manchester its certainly an annoyance however not unique to Manchester - Plenty other places have you go collect at distant parking lots

The railway service and Manchester Piccadilly issue i have some sympathy with LN-KGL on.

The MSJ &A line (Platform 13/14) was never intended for through regional and indeed intercity traffic volumes it currently receives whilst many of the terminal platforms are under utilised.
Adding to the station confusion the need for reversals and crossings of Yorkshire bound/arriving train services.
These historically routed through Victoria and will do again in the future

All this should be eased with the Northern Hub project and the curve over at Salford.

Ex Airport through the service frequency and range of direct services remains pretty extensive.

"Things can only get better"

[rutankrd]

Hi Skip

HMG has the power to deny EU Citizens entry as Gert Wilders can testify to.

Are yes a certain white haired loud mouth Dutch fascist - Named and excluded as a potential risk to public safety - using terrorism powers developed to prevent certain Irish persons entering the mainland.

Looks a bit like our own cities buffoon and once my own MP lordy !

I think he should be encouraged to come to the UK meet with other fringe lunatics such Farage and highlight what UKIP really is.

But this is for another forum really.

[LAX_LHR]

airlineroute just posted on twitter that BOTH of Etihad's daily services will now be 777-300's, not just 1 daily from 02JUN14


It seems the EY15/16 reverts back to an A330-200 on Friday 19th September, unless more dates get loaded past this point later on.

[GrahamK]

LAX_LHR, it reverts back to an A330 for 2 weeks and then back to a 77W.

Qatar sending in a 788 tomorrow morning iso the usual A330

[LAX_LHR]

LAX_LHR, it reverts back to an A330 for 2 weeks and then back to a 77W.

So it does. I seemed to skip a lot of October after seeing the downgrade and went into November where the timetable reverts back to this winters offering.

[MKY661]

Just thought I would give this info for new flights. Air Canada Rouge will be T1, Flynas will be T2 :)

[Fairdealfrank]

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 !


Don't forget France and the Benelux countries. They're still on "Hitler" time (for those who don't know: these four countries were forced onto central Europe time (GMT+1) during the occupation in World War 2), who knows why they're still on it.

The Spanish government is allegedly considering finally reverting to GMT.

[Aksai Oiler]

They may be considering, but the current Francoistic government is Madrid will never change to anything which could be considered to be British Time (i.e. GMT) :}

[justanotherloser]

"Are yes a certain white haired loud mouth Dutch fascist - Named and excluded as a potential risk to public safety - using terrorism powers developed to prevent certain Irish persons entering the mainland"

Hmm, I didnt realise the UK government had the power to stop Irish citizens entering continental Europe.... ;-)

"I also laugh when one reads elsewhere that some "usually Americans" want to work taxi fly overnight across world go straight to another desk/presentation finish taxi back to airport and fly off again .
Its madness !

Agreed. A.net Myth.

[kieb92]

Summer 2014 schedule is out and makes for very interesting reading especially the routes from Thomas Cook and Thomson, some new destinations which have not been announced yet? Genoa being one of them.

Airport Coordination Limited - Reports/Statistics - Manchester Airport (http://www.acl-uk.org/reportsStatistics.aspx?id=98&subjectId=45)

[LAX_LHR]

Genoa is a series of cruise flights for P&O.

[kieb92]

This is the Genoa schedule for all UK airports:

TCX 2356 A321 THOMAS COOK UK MAN-GOA ETA GOA 0905
TOM 4338 B752 THOMSON UK LGW-GOA ETA GOA 0920
TOM 2376 B752 THOMSON UK MAN-GOA ETA GOA 0940
TOM 2392 B752 THOMSON UK MAN-GOA ETA GOA 0950
TOM 2354 B752 THOMSON UK MAN-GOA ETA GOA 1000
TOM 7384 B752 THOMSON UK BHX-GOA ETA GOA 1020
TCX 1436 B753 THOMAS COOK UK LGW-GOA ETA GOA 1045
TCX 3246 A321 THOMAS COOK UK GLA-GOA ETA GOA 1700

4 Genoa flights every Wednesday from MAN.

Also Monastir listed as a new destination for TCX? This is addition to Enfidha? And Venice too.

For Monarch also, Malta is mentioned as a new destination although can't find any times etc

[LAX_LHR]

There seems to be a few articles on the interweb that Lufthansa will increase Manchester capacity by 11% this summer compared to last, however, I honestly can't see where this 11% comes from as MUC seems to be 2xA320 and 1xA319 per day and Frankfurt 2xA321, 1xA320 and 1xA319 per day on most weeks. This is almost identical to last summer.

Given they gave up Stuttgart and handed Hamburg and Dusseldorf to Germanwings (also worth noting DUS is down from 4 per day to 3 per day), where this 11% increase manifests its self from, I have no idea as one would assume that to counter the reductions and come out with 11% increase on the other side, there would be quite a noticeable increase in flights/capacity somewhere, but I just don't see it.

For 11% increase I would have expected all 4 FRA flights to be A321's and MUC all A320's at the very least.

Very confused.

[LAX_LHR]

Manchester airport online timetable has SV123/124 as 4 weekly, extra flight on Saturdays apparently.

Can find no trace of this flight on any GDS, so will be interesting to see if this is a winter increase added early or an error (my money is on the latter, however)

[LN-KGL]

LAX_LHR, if you look at the seat count on seatguru.com and compare them with what Lufthansa's own pages says, there is a difference. For the A319 seatguru specify 122 seats and Lufthansa official states 138 seats - and this difference is 13% higher at Lufthansa. The differences are less for the A320 and A321, but we may well have found the 11% increased capacity.

Source: Lufthansa ® Germany - Seat maps and technical details of our fleets (http://www.lufthansa.com/de/en/Seat-maps)

[viscount702]

LAX_LHR, if you look at the seat count on seatguru.com and compare them with what Lufthansa's own pages says, there is a difference. For the A319 seatguru specify 122 seats and Lufthansa official states 138 seats - and this difference is 13% higher at Lufthansa. The differences are less for the A320 and A321, but we may well have found the 11% increased capacity.

Source: Lufthansa ® Germany - Seat maps and technical details of our fleets (http://www.lufthansa.com/de/en/Seat-maps)

Sorry I don't see that is relevant.

LH say the 319 is a 138 seat aircraft because it has 138 seats. But it clearly shows that in the first 6 rows the middle seat isn't used making it a 126 (not 122) seat aircraft. Therefore unless business is being dropped from MAN that that will not account for the 11% increase.

[LN-KGL]

24 rows with 6 seats equals to 144 seats, not 138 viscount702

[Bagso]

If SAUDIA is an extra flight that would indeed be good news.

MAG Marketing did suggest they would go full tilt marketing visits to The Holy Cities this to communities throughout the North Midlands, Yorkshire and the NWest.:D

[viscount702]

24 rows with 6 seats equals to 144 seats, not 138 viscount702

In fact I misread the LH chart for the 319.

There are 25 rows in total of 6 seats = 150.

There are 6 rows in business where the middle seat isn't used =12l ess

Therefore total available 138 as per LH chart and presumably this hasn't changed recently to give the 11% increase.

The LH seat chart shows 6 rows of business class.

seatguru.com states the configuration can change and shows 8 rows of business class which is said to be the maximum and gives a seating capacity of 134. Why therefore seatguru.com says 122 is odd.

[LN-KGL]

Try again Viscount702, see if you can find seat row 13

[viscount702]

Try again Viscount702, see if you can find seat row 13

In fact I can't find row 17 either. Fell into that trap.

Therefore 23 rows in total giving 138 seats on the plane.

LH seat plan shows 6 rows of business giving total seats of 126.

seatguru.com shows the maximum of 8 rows of business giving total seats of 122.

This still wouldn't account for the increase.

If they cut out business completely that would come nearer the figure but I don't think they would do this. Therefore we can't see where this increase is coming from at least not yet. Probably an error by whoever wrote the article.

[Mr A Tis]

The seat plans are "guides" not gospel.
From my experience in Lufty A319/320/321 Business class is variable to demand by simply moving the curtain divider.
I've had anything from 3 rows to 10 rows allocated to business class.

[doublesix]

A good friend of mine who owns his own coach business, posted on social media last night that he was busy taking passengers to local hotels after a Frankfurt to Cuba flight had been diverted into Manchester on Full Emergency. I can't seem to find any details, anyone know anything?

[Ringwayman]

Flybe operating extra Milan flights from mid-May to mid-September on Wednesdays and Saturdays according to their timetable.

[Ian Brooks]

Yes it was the DE196 operated by a Thomas cook B767 and departed mid afternoon from memory but may have been earlier

Ian

[LAX_LHR]

Well, at long last Saudia re-start Manchester flights tomorrow, and judging by GDS booked loads and their prices, they have had no issues finding punters to fill those B777's!

[Betablockeruk]

New Saudia flight to Jeddah today.

Took SQ306 (388) and BA188 (772) as diverts, even though football traffic also due or on stand.

Business booming at Air Livery.


Something to shout about?

[LAX_LHR]

Got plenty to shout about this year.

5 new long haul routes with increases on 2-3 other long haul routes, plenty of short haul increases, at least 6 new based aircraft and lots of development around the airport and hopefully soon directly on airport too.

Plenty of other airports would kill to be in this position.

[Betablockeruk]

Now we're out of the April Fools window....

Cathay Pacific in for the long-haul | Aspire Aviation (http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/04/01/cathay-pacific-in-for-long-haul/)

Cathay Pacific to launch daily 777-300ER flight to Zurich in Dec 2014
Manchester 4 times weekly 77W flight to launch in January 2015


Quite a bit of detail this time around.

[LAX_LHR]

Interesting. I wonder if there is any truth to the article.

Could use the B777 to bed the service in, and then switch to A350 when they arrive.

Daily to Zurich seems a little high to me though

[opnot]

double six
condor acft, hydraulic problem en route , diverted in for repair , pax in hotels for night , departed next day

[Ringwayman]

There is an article out and about saying "SV planning to increase frequency at the end of the year."

[LAX_LHR]

There is an article out and about saying "SV planning to increase frequency
at the end of the year."


Well as noted earlier the MAN timetable is showing SV123/124 as 4 weekly on Tue, Thu, Sat and Sun.

[Skipness One Echo]

Daily to Zurich seems a little high to me though
Very high yielding market, and a former CX destination to boot, main issue was STAR dominance.

[LAX_LHR]

Im not doubting Zurich's yield capability, its just, its obviously seen as a marginal route as Zurich has also been in the CX game of 'maybe, maybe', so to go straight in at daily seemed a little high. I would have expected something like the 4 weekly MAN flights.

The question is though, will the MAN cargo flights continue? I suppose they may carry outsized cargo to MAN to justify the B747's, and keeping the 3 weekly Cargo could effectively be MAN's form of daily CX flights. (3/4 split)

[LAX_LHR]

Also I wonder if by Jan 2015 MAN will finally have a stand ready for the CX (seen as the last 3 times CX has tried to divert to MAN they have been turned away, twice pax B777's and 1 B747-8F). :E

Ill get me coat...

[Skipness One Echo]

so to go straight in at daily seemed a little high
You're not seen as serious at less than daily as it's the people down the front they're chasing and they demand a flight when they want to fly, not when the airlines prefers. They're going up against Swiss so a major player with home advantage and frequent flyer loyalty, no half measures methinks.
At MAN, there's no home carrier on the route and they have an existing connection loyalty with BA over LHR they can tap. Less risk, but ZRH does I imagine, have the higher reward. Or possibly not?

[rutankrd]

Waiting for comments from Spanners please !

Frankly January 2015 seems far to early for the resumption and where are the available frames ?

I do know they have outstanding 77Ws but don't know their delivery scheduled.

One would also presume use of the three class models and right now they numbers a sum total of just 9 aircraft. 4 of which currently fly the off peak Heathrow service 1 each to Vancouver and Toronto plus 2 to New York.
So almost certainly looks to need a upgrade elsewhere to accommodate Manchester.
Certainly possible.

I want to believe this is true and i've written elsewhere the justifications for the viability along with others after a US correspondent questioned Manchester .

[spannersatcx]

I can positively state that the article is wrong and there will be NO CX pax flt launch in January 2015.

No info on ZRH.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

I'll take Spanner's word on CX, only to say an article also appeared in Business Traveller, so someone has pulled a quite credible April Fool.


Cathay Pacific expands in Europe - Business Traveller (http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/100388/cathay-pacific-expands-in-europe)

[LAX_LHR]

I too would normally take Spanners word as gospel on matters CX related, but this time there is more to these rumours.

Im not sure where spanners works exactly (London or Manchester), but according to the Hammersmith office, CX are not happy about the articles for some reason and for one of the first times since ive been asking about rumours regarding MAN, would neither confirm or deny them.

Like i say, spanners is probably right as usual but there is something afoot, even if its laying the groundwork for flights for when the A350 arrives.

If the article was an april fool, it was a rather elaborate and detailed one!

[viscount702]

I can positively state that the article is wrong and there will be NO CX pax flt launch in January 2015.

I too would trust what Spanners says and I am sure he is right.

His statement would of course be correct if the Flights launched in March and not January.

There is no smoke without fire and I am thinking something is a foot but what and I can imagine CX are not happy if Aspire jumped the gun. We will see.

[LAX_LHR]

Well, we have these CX rumours all the time, but never anything attributed to a source.

Aspire do a lot of work for CX and like I say, Hammersmith office let slip that the upper ranks of CX are not happy this article was released, so, there may be something to it this time.

Apparently there is a lot of murmurings that CX want a 6th daily LHR but cannot get it, which is why MAN may now finally be about to have its moment.

As you say, no smoke without fire and im 50/50 on this one, its likely to b a no, were used to it from CX, but, theres definitely something afoot this time.

[Bagso]

5 new long haul routes with increases on 2-3 other long haul routes, plenty of short haul increases, at least 6 new based aircraft and lots of development around the airport and hopefully soon directly on airport too.

Well said, all the more reason why there should be more political support for Manchester especially when we continue to get idiotic statements from local MPs

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/11/graham-brady-mp-its-time-to-let-britain-fly.htm

I refer to this gem which was referred to me in a reply from Mr Brady when I suggested that given the big push of long haul from Manchester he would do well to support his "LOCAL" airport instead of pushing London !

Graham Brady is the local Tory MP for Sale and also chairman of the 1922 committee who will be responsible for electing the next Tory leader when Mr Cameron steps down.

Whilst "George C" never misses a photo opportunity other local Tories seems ambivalent , I am also puzzled by the stance of Labour ?

Given that Manchester is slapbang in Labour territory why on earth would Milliband not grasp the opportunity to suggest expansion "in the North" based on this evidence ....... even "IF" it were for purely political reasons !

Come to think of it has he ever actually been up here ?

I do wonder if MAG actually brief MPs on what's happening at Manchester as the airport appears to have a somewhat lack lustre profile in political circles.

They really should be shouting about these developments to both MPs and indeed my arch nemesis Mr Davies !

It's all very well presenting your response to Davies to a bunch of plane spotters but I cannot help thinking they should be targeting opinion makers !

[Fairdealfrank]

Given that Manchester is slapbang in Labour territory why on earth would Milliband not grasp the opportunity to suggest expansion "in the North" based on this evidence ....... even "IF" it were for purely political reasons !


Since Blair's leadership Labour is the party of the metropolitan elite and the party of war, as well demonstrated by the policies of New Labour, and nothing changed with Brown and won't with Miliband. Labour treats its traditional supporters with contempt in the belief that they have nowhere else to go.

[philbky]

As an ex-pat Mancunian who many years ago was intimately involved in promoting Manchester as a destination as well as being involved on a group looking at how the airport could develop, during Gil Thompson's time, the debates on here regarding Manchester sometimes amuse and often annoy me.

Having just almost completed a round the world trip (currently in Houston) I've been through 12 airports in seven countries, nine of which I've never used before and, added to over 50 years experience of air travel around the world, the trip has highlighted certain points people make regarding the downsides of Manchester.

Let's look at ground transportation. The options at Manchester are as good as many major airports. The adverse comments regarding the new hire car centre are a nonsense. At Los Angeles I had to wait 30 minutes on Saturday for a Hertz bus for an 11 minute trip to the airport lot. At Houston, which I visit twice a year, you can wait 20 minutes for the bus to connect to the international terminal from the car hire centre.

Trains at Manchester may get held outside the station but you have a choice of destinations outweighing most rail linked airport stations which often only offer a premium price service.
Take Sydney. The relatively new airport service also serves suburbs either side of the airport. The fare to, say, Town Hall from the two suburbs immediately adjacent to either side is $3.80, from the domestic terminal is $16.40, from the international terminal is $17.20. This "airport access" fee obviously puts off tens of thousands of passengers and many airlines wishing to serve Sydney. The hotel shuttle buses can take well over an hour from downtown in rush hours and the road network is average.

There are complaints about the border and security checks at Manchester. Let's stay with Sydney where outbound to New Zealand, checking in at 07.30, the Air NewZealand check in is a zoo followed by 40 minutes to get through security.

Inbound, let's look at Auckland. New Zealand has a population of just over 4 million, about 1.75 million live in Auckland's land transport catchment area. The airport is smaller than Manchester. Arriving mid afternoon from Sydney, from parking at the gate to walking into the arrivals hall to meet relatives took 75 minutes. Why, well too few immigration officers, New Zealand's stringent bio security regime and the fact that Auckland has no fewer than 3 Emirates A380s arriving pretty much together. I'll come back to them later.

Los Angeles immigration had just 3 officers handling international passengers at terminal 2 to handle 300 odd Air New Zealand passengers and two flights from Mexico last Friday. 85 minutes to get through, fairly typical of US international gateways. Most regular travellers are used to long lines at both security and immigration around the world. It's the once or twice a year traveller that complains, or those who just want to moan about their home airport. That, of course, doesn't put off the 600 or so pax per day who fly into Rarotonga every day and put up with up to two hour immigration lines with no air conditioning in tropical heat.

Back to Auckland and those A380s. What are they doing there every day? They come from Dubai having called at Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane respectively. They are by no means full. There are no problems with handling them all together on the ramp, they do increase the lines at immigration but this is accepted as they are bringing in visitors and give the city a much needed connection over Dubai to compete with the home carrier.

They were enticed to Auckland by a lady born in Denton Manchester, during her time as Chairman of the Airport Authority. The benefit to Emirates comes from being able to offer Europe three daily flights to New Zealand, something no-one else offers.

She also has gained a daily B787 China Southern flight to Guangzhou, not the most natural
Chinese destination as other areas of China are more relevant to the country.

Perhaps Manchester Airport should try to entice my "can do" cousin back home to do a job for them!

The fact is, folks, that Manchester is no worse and in many respects much better than many airports around the world. What it currently lacks is another Gil Thompson and a team who are "aviation to make money minded" rather than the accountants who think shops and car parking are the fast route to big profits.

It would also help if the UK wasn't so London centric but as long as Dave and his friends from Eton and their like are in power there's little hope of that.

[easyflyer83]

I agree entirely about MAN's transport links. I too was in SYD a couple of weeks ago and thought about the criticism of MAN when I read you had to pay an access few to arrive at the airport by train.

As for being 'aviation to make money" rather than shops etc, I think we all need to accept that airlines simply don't pay as much as they used to. These days we're not just talking about the LCC's screwing an airport over but in fact all airlines pay less now than they ever used to. The result being that the airport has no choice to supplement aeronautical revenue with ancillaries such as retail.

[philbky]

My point about shops etc. is that, whilst of course other revenue streams have to replace falling revenues from carriers, other airports seem to manage to grow such revenue by serving passengers on a growing number of SUSTAINABLE services.

Looking at the range of "come and gone" services at Manchester over the last ten, let alone 25 years, even allowing for economic and politic upheavals, the airport seems to have suffered from a merry go round of services coming and going or being reduced in capacity and much has been said here about the lack of drive by management in obtaining and keeping services.

[Curious Pax]

Surely most airports are like that, apart from Heathrow to some extent, who due to the nature of the beast lose relatively few. Take another well performing airport, Amsterdam. A glance back to a few days spent there in 2005 - gone now are Lithuanian, Fly Air, Malev, Sky Europe, Ethiopian, Air Canada, Armavia, Air Moldova, Iranair, Pulkovo, JAL, Smartwings, Macedonian to name but a few. The skyline at Gatwick is dramatically different to 15 years ago, etc etc.

Don't forget that as well as economic and political changes influencing the changing nature of services to particular cities, immigrant/emigrant demographics also plays a part. The number of people heading to/from Canada in the 70s/80s was packed with people visiting relatives. As the generations move on, and those ties are loosened that number falls away.

[LN-KGL]

It's great to have a working public transport system to and from an airport, but it needs to be used.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23931688/Graphs/CAA_Survey/CAA_Survey_2012_Private_transport_vs_leisure_and_residens.jp g


The graph above shows results for the airports that participated in the 2012 UK CAA Passenger Survey and there is a very clear correlation between the UK residens share and private transport use. With such a high private transport share among local residents at MAN, I suspect it must be an attitude problem. The share number of cars may hinder any further development of the airport (no more free space for parking). Or is it an attitude problem? Why does all airports outside the South East region in this survey have a private transport share of 80% or more? Could it be that the public transport system at MAN (and the five other airports) is that bad and isn't an option to the car?

[LAX_LHR]

Could it be that the public transport system at MAN (and the five other
airports) is that bad and isn't an option to the car?


If the public transport is considered as 'bad' at Manchester with such frequency and variety of transports, which is only set to improve with an extra heavy rail platform and metrolink, then transport at other airports must be appalling!

May be down to number of people who drive too? London has a high dependency on its public transport (just look at what happens when the tube goes wrong), because I assume people do not 'need' to drive there (I didn't learn to drive while I lived in London due to transport but did learn when I moved to Cheshire).
I 'need' to drive now as the public transport in my local area is bad, so, while people can take a tube/train/bus to the immediate London airports, the poor public transport in my local area is poor and gets me no where near an airport.

The transport for intra-Manchester and immediate large towns is excellent, second to none in my opinion, but to get to the smaller towns which fall in the catchment is a bit trickier.

[rutankrd]

The graph above shows results for the airports that participated in the 2012 UK CAA Passenger Survey and there is a very clear correlation between the UK residens share and private transport use. With such a high private transport share among local residents at MAN, I suspect it must be an attitude problem. The share number of cars may hinder any further development of the airport (no more free space for parking). Or is it an attitude problem? Why does all airports outside the South East region in this survey have a private transport share of 80% or more? Could it be that the public transport system at MAN (and the five other airports) is that bad and isn't an option to the car?

Could be attributed to several things including the facts that beyond the Greater London area all UK public transport bus services are deregulated resulting a costly, disjointed and irregular offerings.

With regards to rail in particular the majority of users are likely regional with limited to no local patronage.
This has also been observed around Heathrow.

Manchester also as you have stated has a very high proportion of annual leisure oriented flyers.

These are actually likely to prefer a private hire taxi to use of public transport even where available.
For a typical family this can be cost effective and convenient.

Then there is a simple issue of inertia prevalent with car users . Its outside the door and requires little in the way of forethought or planning.

[easyflyer83]

philbky, MAN has a hell of a lot of sustainable routes that have operated for years. Sure, there has been losses but there have been strong performances on many of our services. 12 years ago who would have imagined we would have upto 7 daily services by the ME3, with one carrier operating 3 of them with nothing smaller than a 77W and one rotation being an A380. We still have one of AA's (reportedly) best performing European routes and continue to served well by Lufthansa and other European majors.


Charter wise, MAN has weathered the decline of the market but is still the main, or one of the main bases, for TOM and TCX. LCC's meanwhile, are doing well. Sure, there has been a bit of chopping and changing from Easyjet but they have launched and sustained routes that MAN needed, notably ATH and SXF.


I think you're wrong in saying that MAN has failed to launch and keep sustainable services. Some would say MAN punches above it's weight and does incredibly well.


p.s does anyone know why my 'quote' button doesn't work?

[j636]

p.s does anyone know why my 'quote' button doesn't work? You need to "switch editor mode" - top right corner icon. Have to do it every time you post using Internet Explorer.

[tophat27dt]

Does anybody know the reason why a Qatar B777 en route Doha to Montreal declared an emergency over Ireland and diverted into Manchester? Eerily enough, a BA A380 did the same thing into LHR one hour later.

[GrahamK]

Medical emergency I believe, due out in abou 10 mins or so

[LAX_LHR]

Eerily enough, a BA A380 did the same thing into LHR one hour later


The BA was actually over the North West at the time of its emergency squawk, just as the Qatar was landing at MAN.

[LAX_LHR]

The CX plot thickens.

Apparently Manchester and Zurich were talked about at a recent banquet held by the CX CEO in Hong Kong, although participants were asked not to divulge information.

This combined with several news sources picking up on the news and numerous sources almost certain this could be announced as early as next week.

Flights will be a 3 class B77W, 4 times a week and direct to compete on 1 stop connections to mainland China and Australia (and apparently BA is well behind the venture to claw back some pax lost to the QF/EK alliance)

Time will tell, but these CX rumours are far, far stronger than ones that have circulated since 2005 and the failed launch of that year.

[ManofMan]

Just spoke with my long standing associate in CX City and he seems to confirm what Spanners says....Manchester will not be getting a service in Jan 2015.

[LAX_LHR]

Manchester will not be getting a service in Jan 2015


You are right in that it may not be exactly Jan 2015.... :ok:

But it may not be far off, as the only piece of info I can glean regarding the CEO lunch was that he did state 'Zurich and Manchester will be announced this year'.

When it comes to sources, I don't think they get any better than the CEO himself?

[easyflyer83]

Absolutely. I think it's been too widely reported for it not to be true. I think those saying "CX will not launch MAN Jan 2015" are probably having a bit of tongue in cheek fun. I.e the info is correct apart from the date.

[Ringwayman]

Flybe says after going to 7 core bases form 13, MAN is the heart of the backbone for them. 20% connecting passengers for them.


We wait to see what that means as new routes are to be announced though other airports seem to have had a bit of a head start?

[LAX_LHR]

CX295 HKG 0100 MAN 0700 M-W-F-S B777-300ER
CX294 MAN 1200 HKG 0655 M-W-F-S B777-300ER

Schedule effective 08-12-14

Appeared briefly in GDS but cant find it again now. Also friends in Hong Kong airport saying this appearing in systems there too. Zurich apparently appearing from January 10th. Make of that what you will

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

An early December launch would be ideal to catch the Christmas / New Year demand. Fingers crossed for that rather than January 2015 or beyond.

[Skipness One Echo]

So Terminal 3 looks like it's going to be busy if CX end up with their Oneworld partners! A summer of AA's ORD/JFK/PHL/CLT with a CX B77W in the mix might be....busy? Back to T2 perhaps? Still reckon American would be better suited to T2 as well.

[LAX_LHR]

CX will use T2

[LAX_LHR]

Also worth noting Turkish have upgraded to an all A321 schedule this summer.

[MANFOD]

re CX:

Is my memory playing tricks as usual or was it suggested (by Spanners?) that an a/c allocated for MAN not all that long ago was then switched for a 5th daily at LHR when slots became available? Is it not conceivable that if CX want a 6th daily there, slots may miraculously appear and MAN may lose out again?
However I take the point that BA/CX may be keen to capture some of the pax being lost from this region to EK/QF and carriers via other hubs.

On the flight details that appeared temporarily in GDS, I would have thought CX 294 would be the outbound flight from MAN and CX 295 the inbound. Aren't the odd numbers the arrivals into LHR or is it not consistent in Europe?

Some nice diversions this morning. 2 x VS, EY and QR.

[MANFOD]

Interesting that Sunday morning will have a number of wide body a/c that don't operate on Saturday.

SV & flynas are both Sunday; QR has a Sunday morning flight, and if CX comes off with the schedule mentioned, that will be Sunday and not Saturday. And 3 of the 4 flights would be T2 by the looks of it.

That's assuming both Jeddah flights continue into next winter of course.

[Ian Brooks]

Sunday is a big day for business travel so they can be ready for Monday morning.

Ian

[spannersatcx]

CX flts ex HKG are odd numbers return are even. If a flt leaves HKG 0035 on a Saturday it arrives in the UK on a Saturday not a Sunday.

If CX can get a 6th slot at LHR they will use it.

Ever heard of Chinese whispers? They tend to grow into something completely different to what was actually said!

[LAX_LHR]

And likewise sometimes staff are not fully kept in the loop.......

When the CEO himself has said MAN and ZRH will be announced this year at a banquet, I dont see how that is a chinese whisper to be honest, nor explain why flights briefly appeared in GDs and HKG airport systems.

Or is someone, in fact, a lot of different people playing a long winded and elaborate prank that goes all the way to the top of CX?

[philbky]

Easyflier83,
Sorry for the delayed reply, I'm travelling at present and missed your reply. I am well aware that Manchester has a lot of services which have been sustained over many years. I'm also well aware that a large number of services to key cities have been lost, for many reasons, over the years. Mumbai, Delhi, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Sydney, Kuala Lumpur, Cape Town, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Boston and Los Angeles to name a few have all come and gone for all sorts of reasons. Management since the mid 1990s seems to have had a fixation with certain parts, though not all, of the infrastructure and with trying to establish links to a number of cities, few of which have been achieved or, if achieved, sustained, rather than taking a much broader brush approach.

The influence of the Gulf States airlines with their dominance in providing connections to a vast range of destinations is a curate's egg in terms of the development of services to the Far East, Australia and South Africa.

Manchester has, in the nearly sixty years I've been following its fortunes, suffered from many problems, not least the blocking of routes by the national airlines from the 1950s through the late 1980s, government disinterest in anything north of Watford and nimbyism in the immediate area from people opposed to development who deliberately moved close to an established airport, use it regularly, but complain about noise and pollution.

The last thing it needs on top is a laissez faire approach to marketing and the development of services.

[spannersatcx]

Don't worry I'm in the loop:ok:

You know CX is a very astute airline and will feed tit bits to test the water and see what the reactions are, like 'things being in the system' then suddenly not being there!

[LAX_LHR]

So if you are in the loop then whats your opinion of the CEO's comments?

Its nothing personal but for obvious reasons i hope this is the one and only time you can be proven wrong. I know that sounds harsh but CX is long overdue at MAN and there just seems to be far too much info from completely seperate sources to just be your standard run of the mill rumour?

[Bagso]

"If we do not add more capacity in the South East we will lose traffic to AMS, CDG etc".

Davies Commission

All these airlines opening up services to MAN are clearly deluding themselves ........

re Gil Thompson I appreciate the younger viewers probably deride the Old Gits who frequent this column but via history, comparisons have to be made, back in the 80s 90s, we had somebody shouting our corner, manipulating the media ,and kicking at the door of London Centricism and the Department of Transport, today that is matched by .....................................silence.

Manchester Airport is a vehicle to make money, it executes that very well, but what has been lost is a tool of Mancunian pride !

MAG was self congratulatory re STN but hang on, should they not save a Guinness or two for the real work horse !

Occasionally this pride rears its head with HS2, as MPs join the gravy train to pronounce what a magnificent project this is, they all clamber over their shoulders to see what everybody else is saying/doing !

BUT Manchester Airport is the here and NOW, not some fantasy project that will cost £Trillions !

There "appears" to be a momentum led by the airlines to look NORTH, with Davies due to report next year can somebody please grasp the nettle or Davies by the throat and suggest that if he looked at the evidence there are "also" options outside the M25 !

"up here chaps ...wave everybody, yes that's us North of Watford"

[MANFOD]

Spanners, when you say "test the water and see what the reactions are", are you suggesting MAN may be being used as a pawn to get those cherished extra slots at LHR? I hope that is not the case but nothing would surprise me nowadays in aviation.

[Skipness One Echo]

All these airlines opening up services to MAN are clearly deluding themselves ........
Soap box again?
Alliance mechanics mean exactly that, LHR (BA) competes with EK (DXB), EY (AUH), AMS(KL), CDG(AF) and FRA(LH) as gateways to the world, large intercontinental hubs with fortress legacies as members of one alliance or government backed arm of the state.

Look at Cathay, Heathrow is a gold mine for them ( in their top 3 I believe?), feeding MAN-LHR-HKG keeps that profit margin high, although I argue we're well beyond where MAN deserves it's own metal. There's a national interest in expanding our one and only hub airport, it baffles me how people are so blind to what the businesses they depend on are asking for. You must understand that however much Emirates supports MAN, they run five A380s through LHR and would like more! Let's not rob Peter to pay Paul please?

[Fairdealfrank]

On the flight details that appeared temporarily in GDS, I would have thought CX 294 would be the outbound flight from MAN and CX 295 the inbound. Aren't the odd numbers the arrivals into LHR or is it not consistent in Europe?


It's a matter for the carrier AFAIK, the difference is usually dependent on whether travel is to the carrier's hub airport or from it.




"If we do not add more capacity in the South East we will lose traffic to AMS, CDG etc".


Already happening, with KL leading the field feeding its Schiphol hub from more than twice as many UK airports as BA is feeding its Heathrow hub.



There "appears" to be a momentum led by the airlines to look NORTH, with Davies due to report next year can somebody please grasp the nettle or Davies by the throat and suggest that if he looked at the evidence there are "also" options outside the M25 !


No matter how it's dressed up, the Davies Commission is effectively tasked to deal with the capacity crunch at Heathrow.

It is not the role of the Commission to make the business case for long haul flights to/from Ringway. That's for the Manchester business communities, local governments, and others to do. If there is a case to make, and there almost certainly is, this means flights to Ringway for its own sake, not as a Heathrow substitute.

As for Davies, the only realistic option "outside the M25" is to have Heathrow extended enough to fit in 2 more parallel rwys.



"up here chaps ...wave everybody, yes that's us North of Watford"


Think that should be "North of Watford GAP", the M1 services that is the traditional changeover from South to Midlands, not Watford, Herts.

That would be silly considering that three of the many "London" airports are north of Watford: Luton, Oxford and Stansted.

[philbky]

The original expression was North of Watford. Sometime in the 1970s this became transformed into North of Watford Gap, as the southern commuter belt expanded northwards. The change is as irritating to some of us old codgers as the oft quoted, by so called educated media types, Robin Reliant!

[Mr A Tis]

I travel business class MAN-HKG & usually pay about £2,000 give or take the odd hundred, using either Swiss, Lufthansa, Qatar or Emirates. (With EK in terms of service & facilities being the best & LH best in terms of speed of journey).
However if CX were to return to MAN the time saving would be great, but the cheapest J class fares would be about £3,400.
I'm not sure how many canny Northerners would pay a 70% premium to go non stop.
It may be more cost effective in economy & of course the 777 would have great cargo capacity to help make it pay.

[North West]

Manchester has, in the nearly sixty years I've been following its fortunes, suffered from many problems, not least the blocking of routes by the national airlines from the 1950s through the late 1980s, government disinterest in anything north of Watford and nimbyism in the immediate area from people opposed to development who deliberately moved close to an established airport, use it regularly, but complain about noise and pollution.

The last thing it needs on top is a laissez faire approach to marketing and the development of services.

Except of course traffic is growing and deals have been struck with airlines like Ryanair, Easy, Jet2 to name but a few with frameworks to support further growth (subject of course to the prevailing economic circumstances). That's hardly 'laissez faire'.

I think too many of here are slightly obsessed with "direct long-haul" services as if this is the be all and end all of the airport. Personally I don't think it ever has been and I can't see any scenario, even in the medium term, where it would be.

All of the demographic analysis on MAN and data on why people are travelling through the airport makes it very clear that it is a bigger version of UK regional airports like BHX and very different indeed to LHR. So the scale of MAN, because it effectively serves a larger number of urban centres, gives it an advantage - i.e. more MEB3 services than BHX or GLA for example. This scale will allow it to open up some niche opportunities like Saudi or HK for example and the airport team have a good idea what these opportunities are. They are realists too and chasing lost causes that will only ever deliver low volume and revenue even if they came off is not what you'd expect them to do.

[LAX_LHR]

I think too many of here are slightly obsessed with "direct long-haul" services as if this is the be all and end all of the airport. Personally I don't think it ever has been and I can't see any scenario, even in the medium term, where it would be.


I think 'obsession' is a little harsh. Most talk on these boards regarding long haul comes on the back of rumours, or, the odd one or 2 routes that we think *could* be served, such as Beijing.

The latest talk on here regarding has been about Cathay Pacific who are rumoured from several very good sources to be launching MAN flights, which rightly allows us to get excited as its got the potential to be a good route and finally gets a scheduled link to China into the regions.

Ive certainly seen little talk that it is the 'be all and end all', but, when we are in the rather blessed position whereby nearly all the major capitals and cities of Europe are served from MAN that are realistically going to be served, then why not set aspirations for long haul (personally the only realistic links missing are Bucharest, St. Petersburg, Stuttgart, Lyon (summer), Marseille and Oporto, with routes underserved being Madrid and Vienna).

At least its realistic long haul, and not Brazil, Peru and Timbuktoo we expect:E

[philbky]

The deals with the LoCos are a belated reactive acceptance of the facts of life. Manchester did not want the likes of Ryanair etc. and only became a LoCo airport after a volte face when it was not only losing market share to Liverpool, Leeds and even Blackpool, but due to economic factors and 9/11 was losing long haul as well.

There is no obsession with long haul direct services. Any business that is going to survive and expand must constantly be on the lookout for new opportunities to serve its market. In terms of its catchment area and the businesses it serves, long haul services must be the growth area for Manchester and aggressive marketing both ways, to the airlines who can provide the services and the businesses which will provide the passengers and freight should be the most important area of marketing. It should also be aggressive in its defence of its existing business. The links that have been lost over the last decade and a half would, in terms of both business and prestige, have been a series of major set backs to most businesses.

Unfortunately MAG seems to have lost its focus with regard to Manchester, becoming more interested in everything from Stansted to building a business park and everything in between. From a shareholder's and accountants's point of view this makes great sense. From the point of view of the potential passenger, it makes much less.

In effect the LoCo phenomenon and the complete change of heart, under duress, has been a life saver for Manchester as, if the LoCos went tomorrow, what would be left?

The seemingly constant focus on China and Hong Kong makes a great deal of sense but seems to dominate to the exclusion of other markets and has not yet provide one bookable seat.

The days when Manchester Airport was an entity to serve Manchester and its hinterland first and foremost are long gone. I'm not convinced that today's mega operation offers any advance in route development terms on what pertained under Gordon Sweetapple who had a very limited marketing budget and massive constraints imposed by government.

[pwalhx]

The constant focus on China appears not to have hindered new routes to Charlotte, Toronto and Jeddah, which if my geography serves me right are not in China

[rutankrd]

Noticed this evening the Dusseldorf flight is operated by Lufthansa Cityline Canadair 700 rather than usual Eurowings 900.

Is this regular or a one off ?

Ask because it's a capacity cut compounded by reduced frequency !

And thought those 700s were planned to leave the group soon

[easyflyer83]

I think what North West means is that some (not all) on boards like this obsess over long haul legacy and sometimes overlook or underestimate the benefit the loco's are bringing to MAN. Sure, there's not as much glamour in the ALC's and your PMI's (though the loco's do operate many city's too) but they are MAN's bread and butter and they do account for a large proportion of the airports passengers.

That said, MAN has always done extremely well in attracting long haul routes and long may that continue. We mustn't forget however that whilst having US To Charlotte is great and will add to MAN's success, the impact is modest compared to a based aircraft from one of the loco's. The way some contributors talk, you wouldn't think that.

[Skipness One Echo]

Also over time the long haul program settles down, Delta has gone back to only Atlanta and American is unlikely to serve JFK/ORD/PHL/CLT in 2015 I suspect.

[eggc]

Led to believe SV are seeing excellent loads, with an upgrade to a 773 this morning, other future flights fully booked, and more 773's planned. Not surprising to hear rumours of a daily service from next year.

[philbky]

You need to explain the logic of your suspicions Skipness.

[LAX_LHR]

American is unlikely to serve JFK/ORD/PHL/CLT in 2015 I suspect


On the contrary.

PHL will stay A332 due to cargo alone.

JFK will stay as good connection bank down the eastern seaboard with good O&D to New York (AA210/211 had average load factor of 92% in summer with a fair few days booked out).

CLT will stay due to good connections to the mid west states, and strongly hinted it will rotate with MIA in the winter/CLT in the summer.

ORD will stay as it has some O&D as well as strong connections to the west coast. Again a good performer, with the fact it has run continuously for over 25 years and one of just 4 winter ORD-Europe routes a testament to this.

[Skipness One Echo]

You know this for a fact or is this your opinion? Not much point in merging if there's no synergies! Come on guys, when you're not fighting the other guy for his premium fliers and market share you move the aircraft to maximise yield which means American will be asking "Do we need all four hubs serving or is there duplication?" Also given the B757s are going with no replacement, anything which won't fill a B763 gets what exactly?

Given MAN-CLT has zero track record and you're not on the board of American, let's not be counting chickens yet. Aircraft will be used to maximum effect to compliment each other, not compete as the current set up does. Something is likely to give, Delta right sized, Continental / United swapped a EWR for a IAD (yet went three daily at EDI), no one knows what the post merger American will do at MAN, but on past experience, expect some consolidation.

Forgive me if I mention the emporer's lack of clothes.

[LAX_LHR]

You know this for a fact or is this your opinion?


CLT as you say is unproven yet, but, lets give it a chance before we write it off. .

Ive seen the figures for JFK/ORD and they are very positive. I have not seen PHL but what I do know is that cargo is a very big money earner on this route, hence why it sees the A330 versus a B757 or 2.

Not much point in merging if there's no synergies! Come on guys, when you're not fighting the other guy for his premium fliers and market share you move the aircraft to maximise yield which means American will be asking "Do we need all four hubs serving or is there duplication?"

You mention this, but then:


Continental / United swapped a EWR for a IAD


How do you know the new AA is not 'spreading its bets' in the same way. UA did this to free up slots at 1 airport. If the passenger demand and yield is there, why clog up 1 hub with 4 flights, instead of running to various hubs, where they could be the right number of crews, aircraft etc.
JFK/PHL are the only 2 hubs where there is a realistic chance over overlapping, with ORD/CLT being in their own areas. JFK is notorious for its delays, so the PHL flights are the perfect way of relieving pressure.

Yes, time could go on and 4 hubs is too much, but how about we let AA decide what is too much, hey?

Judging by past comments, MAN has surprised you before, particularly regarding the middle easterns, and wondering if its getting all too much. Yet, just this year Etihad is again almost doubling capacity, Saudia seems to be filling out its flights (even having to put on a B77W and still not enough seats) and the Emirates flights going out quite full in all 3 classes.
What is to say MAN will not surprise you again?

[Skipness One Echo]

What figures are you seeing? Loads I assume.
No view of costs, revenue or yield, p2p or connecting? We both know there are people well above our pay grade who will crunch those numbers and decide if moving a B763 into the market vacated by B757s is a smarter move than adding capacity into one of the other hubs. It's not about "clogging up space", it's about making most efficient use of your assets.
There are some tough decisions to be made out of who wins and who loses across American at DFW, JFK, MIA, ORD and US at PHL,CLT and PHX and we won't know for a while yet.

With the B772 losing First class it may be an opportunity to upgauge ORD and drop one route from CLT/PHL, and that's not really a bad thing all in. That way American is hubbing through a maximum of three gateways rather than spreading itself over four. The p2p on Charlotte won't be anywhere near a Chicago or New York.

[philbky]

As LAX-LHR says, MAN has surprised Skipness in the past. His gloomy prognostications regarding Manchester's services have something of the dead hand of the type of accountant/banker who looks not at cost benefit analysis but at the bottom line alone. That attitude has killed many a promising business, including a number of airlines, when instant profit hasn't materialised.

Sound business is built on choice, service, building a customer base, generating loyalty and consistency at a competitive price rather than launching a product in a new market expecting instant take up, and large returns from minimal costs.

An interesting thought. EU deregulation and the removal of the constant BA and its forebears' objection to overseas airlines operating direct from MAN was accompanied by the rise of the implant travel agent, an easy target for airlines to flood with discounts to fill business class seats on often not the most convenient route, to the joy of company accountants and the annoyance of the passenger who has to toe the company line, even if this means getting up hours earlier than necessary, making inconvenient changes, often with changes of terminal, and getting home often a full day later than a direct service would allow.

I speak from experience and also know from having lived half my life in, and a large percentage of my business life promoting, the area that there is a great deal of business traffic potential for many routes if the airlines did not heavily discount business fares over London from provincial airports to help fill the cabins London is reputed to fill on its own.

[LAX_LHR]

What figures are you seeing? Loads I assume.
No view of costs, revenue or yield, p2p or connecting


Yes, yes, yes and yes. I work for BA, which has a JV with AA and therefore a lot of information sharing as the profits and costs are shared. As I said, due to that I have seen the figures for JFK/ORD but not PHL and obviously not CLT.

[Skipness One Echo]

That attitude has killed many a promising business, including a number of airlines, when instant profit hasn't materialised.
Dead hand? Instant profit? Most airlines fail in the first six months due to a lack of "instant profit". The bottom line pays the bills as one bad season can kill most airlines, Chapter 11 mega carriers excepted. I am not being gloomy, go back and read what I said. There's a sensible opportunity to consolidate without impacting much on customer choice and still cut costs and increase revenue. Apologies for not singing from the fan boy hymn sheet but a four daily 2015 might happen but for 2016 it's not sensible in this market.

One spoke to four hubs on three aircraft types with two of them served by a fleet being fast track retired? Surely a B772 to PHL/ORD each would make more sense? What was AA planning for JFK once the B757s go?

[Bagso]

Philby I hope your not suggesting Heathrow is being propped up by provincial airports as total UK demand is funneled into the South East, my God you will give Skip a heart attack.

[philbky]

Only to the same extent that he consistently denies the possibility that there is a chance for direct and consistent long haul from provincial airports. In other words, yes.

[Skipness One Echo]

No I don't, that's garbage. Try and find a link where I actually say that.
MAN does really well, BHX stalled where it is, GLA likewise, EDI powers ahead as the city becomes more independent minded and NCL is unlikely. BFS is constrained by DUB and BHX/LGW likewise with LHR and BRs lost out entirely as the same aeroplane made more money flying that little bit further up the M4.
Please don't misrepresent what I am saying, I am a firm supporter of MAN adding to it's long haul tally. My comments ref Cathay back a page or two should confirm that, I can also see Air China (or similar) in the next year or so.

What I can't see is American serving four hubs from MAN when they can make more money operating 2/3 with larger equipment. Indeed the new B77Ws are displacing B772s to make this a reality soon as they are having First removed and could replace the B763 to ORD. Newer product, larger aircraft and potentially more throughput on a B772 / A333 / B763 on ORD/PHL/JFK as the new American cross fleets with former US.

[MANFOD]

Even as a MAN fan, I have to say I think Skip makes a fair point about the 4 AA hubs and equipment type.

While I can see come consolidation on those destinations, hopefully with some larger a/c, I do wonder if alternative hubs which provide different / wider connecting opportunities might be a possibility. I suppose Miami with connections to S America and the Caribbean, plus potential cruise business, is the obvious candidate.

At a meeting I attended last year, I was quite surprised to learn from a senior executive of MAG that MAN's most underserved destination, despite existing services, was New York, presumably due in part to a higher proportion of O & D traffic. This was taking into account passengers within our catchment area who bypassed MAN to fly from LHR or via other airports, as well as pax flying from MAN but not on our non-stop flights. If AA pulled off JFK (but kept PHL), a single B757 by UAL would surely be inadequate, although they might be tempted to go 2 x daily again (at the expense of IAD? - I hope not) like EDI or introduce a larger a/c. Their J class, albeit with only 16 seats, seems to do well and when I've checked I've not found any significant discounting of fares.

The other destinations which have been tried before are Dallas and Boston. The latter is more O & D although MAN, while not a hub, does I understand get a modest number of transfer pax for US flights including some from mainland Europe. However, Dublin may prove a more attractive transfer option for pax heading for Boston from airports without a direct service.

[LAX_LHR]

B772 / A333 / B763 on ORD/PHL/JFK as the new American cross fleets with
former US


I agree that these 3 destinations will continue, and I do agree that CLT is the unknown link, but, I had heard plans that AA were to run a B757 to CLT in the summer, and a B763 to MIA in the winter.

The point I was trying to labour earlier was that the main hubs of JFK/ORD/PHL were strong hubs that would continue, and words internally are that CLT will continue at least next summer. Nobody knows what will happen summer 2016. In a 50/50 chance scenario there could be expansion just as well as there could be contraction.

If I am considered to be a fanboy for my views then so be it.

[All names taken]

MANFOD
To quote you:
'I suppose Miami with connections to S America and the Caribbean, plus potential cruise business, is the obvious candidate.'

AA/Miami is often assumed to be the best way to connect to the Caribbean and South America, but it isn't.

Delta's growing network out of Atlanta to this region places it streets ahead right now by all the measures that matter to me:

AA vs Delta = Delta just have a much better TATL product. Service seems to matter. AA frankly offers a pretty naff, indifferent product and service.

Miami Airport vs Atlanta Airport = Atlanta is a very well run, pleasant and efficient airport / Miami Airport at times feels like the gateway to hell.

The overall transfer experience = Delta/Atlanta wins hands down. On many transfers you get to check your bag thru to final destination unlike Miami. Border and security at ATL are both well staffed, courteous and efficient - all the things they aren't at Miami.

Given we already have Delta to Atlanta (Business Class of 36 and pretty rammed when I'm on it) we're pretty well served I would say.

[Bagso]

It is a fair point Skip BUT would any of us have given SAUDIA a prayer six months back ?

Even the most passionate dare say deluded supporters of MAN (me included), would have thought no chance !

I'm sure you would, at the time, have justifiably quoted the squeeze from the MEBs, lack of connectivity, lack of branding et al, I would have agreed , BUT lo and behold there is already talk of expanded frequency to 4 a week, poss daily according to LAX and larger aircraft are already being used !

...and what if LHR does not get its RWs where then ?

Is it not better to focus on a secondary UK airport no matter how flaky you consider its credentials ?

Countries want to do business with London and indeed the UK plc !

I don't necessarily buy into this idea that everybody will migrate to Amsterdam, Paris etc if airlines cannot get into LHR, some will, but surely others will look at other opportunities, we are trading nation and countries will look for opportunities, if that mean flying 200 miles North to access a market ...they will !

Manchester connects 18 UK domestic points LHR now only12, it is equidistant to Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford and indeed Liverpool by car, if you want to bring wealth to the North is there not therefore an argument that MAN is as vital as LHR for UK trade or does that not count ?

What's the point in serving LHR "The Hub" if that hub does not then connect the rest of the UK and you cannot get to the City where you are doing business ?

[LAX_LHR]

poss daily according to LAX


It was actually another poster who stated daily Saudia, Ive only pointed out the 4th weekly (Saturday) flight that has appeared in the MAN timetable.

[Skipness One Echo]

Good argument bagso, point taken but MAN is measurably not as vital to the UK economy as LHR, that's a metric that should be clear. MAN should be the powerhouse of the greater region, pulling in as it always has traffic from Scotland and surrounding regions.
However that potential is massively limited without the critical mass of a based hub carrier, like LH has at MUC. For reasons covered ad nauseaum, that's....unlikely! So it's about criticality of scale, and realistically, that's unachievable as things stand. MAN is a critical spoke on many hubs but what UKPLC needs is an onshore hub as part of the national transport strategy. * pauses for laughter all round to stop

And yeah, Saudia, interesting one, fair play!

And again, I do not consider MAN to have flaky credentials, it's the airlines that are not considering it for the role you propose, not me.
Are Virgin expanding into MAN-JFK/EWR? BA rebuilding a hub? No, as sadly, nowadays, they can't beat the competition. Though I suspect BA could run a B788 on MAN-JFK if they actually did have a non LHR biased JV with AA.

MAN doesn't connect all those domestic destinations, it's customer airlines do, and until you get a seamless connection/brand/alliance experience, you cannot maximise out that potential. However that sounds like BA Connect and that didn't work too well. However it will be tried again I am sure and good luck to who ever cracks it.

[rutankrd]

At a meeting I attended last year, I was quite surprised to learn from a senior executive of MAG that MAN's most underserved destination, despite existing services, was New York, presumably due in part to a higher proportion of O & D traffic. This was taking into account passengers within our catchment area who bypassed MAN to fly from LHR or via other airports, as well as pax flying from MAN but not on our non-stop flights. If AA pulled off JFK (but kept PHL), a single B757 by UAL would surely be inadequate, although they might be tempted to go 2 x daily again (at the expense of IAD? - I hope not) like EDI or introduce a larger a/c. Their J class, albeit with only 16 seats, seems to do well and when I've checked I've not found any significant discounting of fares.

There is a major league market distortion of the UK-NYC market up to 28 flights a day from the South East corner and many with rather large wide bodies 744 and 77W . This is to appease a certain market dynamic however it means a massive over capacity in the back of the bus.
This excess in steerage is dumped via the myriad of internet resellers at stupid fares.

I have to say through I agree with Skips assessment of the AA/US merger something gotta give in the North East Seaboard and would be surprised to see Charlotte return in future years.
Given the current drive to develop the international status of Fortress DFW I kinda think a return here with short cruise/winter season Miami would make more sense -however what do I know.

[LAX_LHR]

MAN doesn't connect all those domestic destinations, it's customer airlines do, and until you get a seamless connection/brand/alliance experience, you cannot maximise out that potential. However that sounds like BA Connect and that didn't work too well. However it will be tried again I am sure and good luck to who ever cracks it


Flybe is trying this again, and has done so for about 18 months.

It has the seamless domestic operation (I assume its seamless as flybe have said 20% of its MAN passengers are connecting and I have not heard of any horror stories).

It also connects onto Etihad and Air France flights and no doubt some others too.

Yes, its not LHR or BA level of hubbing, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Fairdealfrank]

...and what if LHR does not get its RWs where then ?


AMS, CDG, FRA.



Is it not better to focus on a secondary UK airport no matter how flaky you consider its credentials ?

Countries want to do business with London and indeed the UK plc !

Indeed it is, but it doesn't always work that way. Is there enough premium business and cargo to support direct long haul flights? If not, carriers will funnel pax thru their hubs.


I don't necessarily buy into this idea that everybody will migrate to Amsterdam, Paris etc if airlines cannot get into LHR, some will, but surely others will look at other opportunities, we are trading nation and countries will look for opportunities, if that mean flying 200 miles North to access a market ...they will !


You should, because that is what happens, as the LGW boys will tell you.

Under normal circumstances, no one would fly to MAN if their final destination is in the South. They will travel via their chosen carrier's hub and then take a connecting flight to their final UK destination. Why do you think that 20+ UK airports are connected to AMS?

If we didn't have this stupid unresolved capacity crunch at LHR, it would also be connected to 20+ UK airports.


Manchester connects 18 UK domestic points LHR now only12, it is equidistant to Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford and indeed Liverpool by car, if you want to bring wealth to the North is there not therefore an argument that MAN is as vital as LHR for UK trade or does that not count ?


No, it's worse than that: LHR is connected to just 7 UK airports: ABZ, BHD, EDI, GLA, LBA, MAN and NCL.

Yes, of course there is an argument, and would love to see it happen, but you cannot force or direct carriers to go MAN. The conditions for them to be able to make money on the route have to be there. Is it?


What's the point in serving LHR "The Hub" if that hub does not then connect the rest of the UK and you cannot get to the City where you are doing business ?


Because LHR generates more premium business then the rest of the UK airports put together. This premium business requires frequency which LHR provides. In fact the overall number of destinations at LHR is reduced to provide that level of frequency.

With the exception of some thinner routes, LHR also provides a wealth of connections that other UK airports cannot (except on non-trunk UK domestic routes where it's needed).

[philbky]

OK so perhaps I was a bit harsh on Skip but, going back to his point re the now American flights from the eastern seaboard destinations, I'd be interested to know how the potential market has changed in the case of each city pair just because one airline has taken over another.

Both company's sales/marketing/operations departments will have made their assessments of the potential for each route and in all but the case of CLT will have factual information.

Given the distances between the US cities involved and the markets they serve and, though US travellers are used to connecting flights, most travellers in those markets would prefer direct flights, if only to save time, hassle and potential delays.

What may happen, if the airline bean counters wish it so, is that the direct flights will be priced out by fare manipulation making a flight from to MAN, with a change of flight over any other of the gateways significantly cheaper than the direct flight. Fellow bean counters, who care little about travel hassles, many of whom have never seen a map since their last geography class in school and even then weren't paying attention, would then immediately issue edicts to their company staff to take the cheaper route.

This might well happen with fare manipulation over JFK where the BA/AA frequency is such that there is constant pressure to fill seats and success between MAN and any eastern seaboard gateway works to the detriment of the Heathrow service, and we all know BA has no interest in MAN.

[philbky]

Fair deal frank, you are right, London does provide airlines with the bulk of premium fare passengers but let's analyse why.

1. Historically the BOAC/BEA/BA monopoly as government run airlines badly skewed the way people travelled by only offering a few direct long haul and a slightly greater number of medium haul services from provincial airports whilst, by means of pool arrangements and bitterly opposing development of routes by other airlines, they stymied route development which would have occurred naturally. Thus it became accepted that, with few exceptions, one HAD to fly over London. Nowadays people are looking to their local airports or Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt and even Dubai to avoid London.

2. There is has been a very definite skew to marketing the UK by various agencies over the decades to bring people in by London then, in the case of tourists, send them round the milk run (London, Oxford, Stratford, Edinburgh, York and back to London). In the years I sat on various boards and agencies trying to bat for Manchester I, along with the likes of Birmingham, Glasgow etc., was banging my head against a brick wall. Visits in the 1980s to BTA offices abroad found literature on other areas of the UK away from the milk run gathering dust, unopened, in storerooms and reporting the facts back to BTA HQ was pointless. Again this has changed but the air links to cater for the change in tourism have not kept up and people are funnelled through London regardless.

3. There is still an attitude in airlines that people who travel on business are, in the main, based in the Home Counties. Again, the figures belie this. The problem is that implant and other travel agencies are pressured by big discounts to fly people from the provinces over London because seats on services that have been influenced to serve London by decades of the implementation of items one and two have to be filled.

The creaking infrastructure of airports in the South East and the poor service in terms of direct flights from the rest of the UK is regularly put down to potentially poor premium passenger loads from provincial airports. Not every provincial airport on a small island could offer the sort of loads any given route would need but a more balanced air transport policy over the years, with two or three provincial airports being allowed a bigger share of the cake, would not have the UK in the situation it is now in where, once again, London HAS to have more runways whilst there is capacity and potential elsewhere if only nearly seventy years of London centric thinking could be turned around,

[Mr A Tis]

Still quoted by some is the myth that MAN can't support Premium pax. I can only speak from my experience in using Business class on EK, QR,DL, LX & LH. When I have been on them,they have always been full. Frequently the J class fares ex MAN have been higher than LHR. Sure I can't quote actual yield but all those carriers are commited to Manchester for a reason.

[rutankrd]

Still quoted by some is the myth that MAN can't support Premium pax. I can only speak from my experience in using Business class on EK, QR,DL, LX & LH. When I have been on them,they have always been full. Frequently the J class fares ex MAN have been higher than LHR. Sure I can't quote actual yield but all those carriers are committed to Manchester for a reason.


As I and other have said Manchester major problem preventing it crossing the rubicon lies in not having benefit of a resident network/legacy carrier.

The question remains Why it that ?

Where is the Northern entrepreneur able to identify that demand and convert it into a viable long term business ?

One things for sure a few having moved south have found all that is shiny isn't necessarily gold !

There are remarkable few airports anywhere that handle 20+ million pa without a single major resident player - That is a conundrum in itself.
The only other EU airport comparable might well be Palma !

And sure Manchester has known abilities to create premium demand and drive cargo as well.

Hey much of the valuable cargo demand is outbound unlike London and that being real economic benefit to UK PLC !

Still we continue to see railway line economics rule and a magnitude more service between LON-NYC than many a local bus service !

[Skipness One Echo]

The existing network carrier inherited a cost base that made anything outside of Heathrow a loser. Compare BA's costs with, for example, let me think, Qatar. Now we all love their shiny aircraft, product and network but they don't exactly treat their people well. For BA to compete it had to smash it's own staff's terms and conditions and outsourse a lot of loyal and hard working people. That's a lot of destruction of jobs and lives to get to where they are now, and that's still not making a particularly decent margin.

Lufthansa is stepping away for German Wings, Air France retreated to Paris, Iberia pulled back to Madrid and KLM re-trenched at AMS. If we want to fly in Europe at loco prices we can't expect a business with network carrier costs to work at MAN as they have no feed, whereas the other guy, AF/KLM/LX/TP/LH is feeding their hub at the other end.

We rejoice at low fares, but we ignore the price on (our own) people's salaries and careers whilst lauding certain sandy companies who treat their staff in a way 90% of us would, quite rightly, not tolerate. What flybe is doing is interesting but remains tinkering at the edges of what's possible, although how to bring it to fruition is beyond me in the current marketplace.

[ATNotts]

Lufthansa is stepping away for German Wings, Air France retreated to Paris, Iberia pulled back to Madrid and KLM re-trenched at AMS. If we want to fly in Europe at loco prices we can't expect a business with network carrier costs to work at MAN as they have no feed, whereas the other guy, AF/KLM/LX/TP/LH is feeding their hub at the other end

I'm afraid that some of that is not accurate. German Wings is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lufthansa, and LH continues to offer the routes it has handed to German Wings via Lufthansa.com, although under 4U flight codes, and interline remains possible on through the 4U/LH network. Air France have always been Paris-centric - France operates in a similar way to that in which the UK does. KLM only ever had one base - AMS, the Netherlands really is too small to have more than one major airport - though I expect that Maastricht airport fans might dispute that.

The UK is plenty big enough to operate the "German model" - but it is it's politics and the unfair amount of government money (the olympics, national footie stadium, millennium dome, cross rail etc etc) that get poured into the southeast that precludes proper growth and a balanced economy in the aviation sector, and wider economy here in UK.

And, Manchester airport fans (and those of BHX, NCL, GLA) it will in all probability remain so. (from some who doesn't live in London - thank the Lord!).

[LNIDA]

Well the Germans may yet do Manchester a favour! the delay in opening Berlin's new airport means that Norwegian are having to re think the planned basing of two aircraft at Berlin latter this year and it's looking increasingly likely that they could now go to Manchester instead, bringing forward the planned second base by at least 6 months from 2015 to late 2014.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

do Manchester a favour!

I doubt that very much personally. I suspect they would just add more duplication of already existing routes to Spain and the Canaries, so nothing new to "favour" MAN at all.

[LAX_LHR]

Given the strong rumours that came to nothing last year and the fact Norwegian have actually shrunk at MAN (and in the North west with the ending of CPH-LPL), I now have a hard time believing a base will be announced this year.

[Facelookbovvered]

Interesting!! a pal of mine at Jet2 in Manchester mentioned this a week or so back, I thought it unlikely given the competition at MAN but then again I thought their LGW base was a leap of faith too far, but traveling through Gatter's the other day I was surprised how many of their aircraft were in and out.

[roverman]

I hope my headline got your attention!:) No, we're not trying to steal BHX's thunder, MAN's runways are long enough already. But what seems to have gone un-noticed on this forum is the extension to MAN's dual-runway operating hours effective 1st May.

MAN will operate dual-runway between 0630-1030 & 1300-2000 Local Time M-F, with an afternoon dual-runway period 1300-1600 on Sat. This is a significant increase on the present arrangement and is primarily targeted at reducing air holding of the returning wave of based short haul aircraft, though it will have other benefits generally to On Time Performance. Extended dual-runway hours were trialled last Autumn, with a proven reduction in air holding, especially at DAYNE. Good news for MAN's airline customers, good news for MAN's passengers, and good news for the environment.

[rutankrd]

LHR-LAX in another place I see you have reported that FlyNas may be looking at transiting Manchester to JFK/ORD effective 2015.

Thats a big step for a regional flexible fares operator isn't it.

Do they even have traffic rights to the US and can they get fifth freedom ?

Certainly seem to be taking on Saudia in every possible market and wonder if the MAN-JED service can withstand upwards of double figure weekly frequency !

[dave59]

Extended dual-runway hours were trialled last Autumn, with a proven reduction in air holding, especially at DAYNE. Good news for MAN's airline customers, good news for MAN's passengers, and good news for the environment

Did the result of that trial take everyone at MAG by surprise?

[air pig]

Always surprised me that EK did not try for DXB-MAN-JFK, round robin route.

[Bagso]

My goodness I thought I was stood in solitude behind the MAN barricade !

Try this, suppose Tesco, Asda, etc were running the UK air industry would we really have a preposterous situation where you jump in the car travel 20 miles to Manchester, but then find the fare is 25% dearer to New York by picking up "another" flight which will operate in completely the wrong direction .....than the one that common sense suggests you should take, which actually flies you direct ?

What a bloody ludicrous farcical state of affairs !

Is there nobody in Government with the wit of man to unpick this ?

Skip mentioned the "Emperors new clothes " in an analogy with another comment, my goodness if this isn't "ENC syndrome" I don't know what is !

And then as was mentioned we also have the internet resellers who pass off DIRECT as an hours flying time East in order to travel 8 hours ....wait for it West !

Have you seriously ever heard anything like it in your life ?

Does any other business or industry work in such a kackhanded way ?

Our leaders in the transport industry are presiding over an utter unmitigated shambles of a system which goes completely unchallenged and serves only the same old vested interests !

[Fairdealfrank]

What is actually wanted at MAN? Is it a BA or VS long haul network? Is it a BA or VS short haul network? Is it non-UK carriers feeding their hubs? Is it some sort of government intervention?

We hear a lot about the industry being LHR-centric, and indeed it is, in common with most of Europe where the industry is national hub-centric.

The first two won't happen, BA can no longer make money on this, so nor would VS. It's probably because of the no-frills operators, but they only do point-to-point. The third is therefore the best option, following the example of EK, EY, TK and QR.

Any carrier wanting to do nonstop direct longhaul ex-MAN has to go up against these 4, who have the advantage of incumbancy.

As mentioned above, MAN does rather well with over 20 million pax/year and no major airline hub. Maybe it could do better, would love to see it doing better.


Well the Germans may yet do Manchester a favour! the delay in opening Berlin's new airport means that Norwegian are having to re think the planned basing of two aircraft at Berlin latter this year and it's looking increasingly likely that they could now go to Manchester instead, bringing forward the planned second base by at least 6 months from 2015 to late 2014.


Not quite a delay in opening the airport. The airport is up and running and has been for many years, it is SXF. What is allegedly happening is expansion at SXF to take the TXL traffic because there is not much room to expand at TXL. In reality, SXF is getting a new and much bigger terminal, a second rwy, and an unnecessary new name.


Is there nobody in Government with the wit of man to unpick this ?


That's deregulation for you. The government is no friend of the aviation industry, LHR expansion and APD are two good examples of several.

But it has allowed something for MAN that it won't at LHR, that is to double the number of parallel rwys.



And then as was mentioned we also have the internet resellers who pass off DIRECT as an hours flying time East in order to travel 8 hours ....wait for it West !

Have you ever seriously ever heard anything like it in your life ?

Does any other business work like this ?


Yes, it happens all the time. Its the way it works with hub and spoke operations.

With the exception of MLE and CMB, almost every destination from UK airports is a "dog-leg"/long way round when travelled via AUH, DOH, DXB or IST, yet many pax do travel this way without batting an eyelid.

If you think this is wrong, check on great circle mapper!

[Skipness One Echo]

Is there nobody in Government with the wit of man to unpick this ?
Tis a free market mate, there's nothing stopping anyone having a go at what you suggest. Connections are an uber complex affair with many people flying to places like DUB/CDG/AMS from the UK to save hundreds on flying xyz-LHR-USA as if LHR-USA wasn't already cheap enough (not always!). Converesly one of the more expensive ways I found to get to DXB was to fly Emirates who for less money could fly me a whole lot further than the sandpit. It's the way the global business works where you pay a premium to fly from A to B on a point to point basis. The US based airlines serving MAN are more expensive because they can be, likewise Virgin's prices on GLA-MCO are ball crunching in comparison to LGW as the lack of capacity means they can charge silly money as parents with young kids visiting the House of Mouse want the shortests possible trip.
Indeed Scottish holidaymakers used to pay a major mark up over MAN based flights to the costas as the limited capacity in comparison keeps the price nice and high, It was claimed at the time it was because more fuel was needed to fly that little bit further! Yeah....

[philbky]

In the 1970s and 1980s all inclusive holidays from MAN to the Med could be as much as 25% more than from Luton or Gatwick depending on the season and timing.

Also I had an aunt who regularly flew Wardair to Canada. She quickly learned that it was cheaper to fly from Gatwick than from MAN (and face it, Wardair did very well ex MAN) but was most annoyed to find one time when she had had to visit her daughter in Croydon before heading to Toronto, that the cheaper flight from Gatwick stopped at MAN on the way and, when she tried to change her return booking to get off at MAN they wanted to charge her the difference between the two fares plus a handling charge.

Airline fares are mad. I' m on the last leg of a round the world trip. The booking from LHR back to Gatwick was originally for eleven sectors Qantas added two more by cancelling the Alice Springs to Cairns and rerouting us, business class via Sydney and Brisbane. The original routing was Heathrow, Hong Kong, Singapore, Melbourne, Alice Springs, Cairns, Sydney, Auckland, Rarotonga, back to Auckland, Los Angeles and, after a road trip across the US, Orlando to Gatwick. The cost, departing in early February in economy was £2,200 inc all taxes, full travel/medical insurance at double rates as I'm over 65 and an Australian visa. If I had added the Shannon Heathrow one way sector which cost me £60 to buy online it would have added another £120 as I'm terminating the trip in London.

A cousin flew out to Auckland and back over Singapore, no stops permitted. Cost to him, also in economy, £895. Where is the logic?

[Bagso]

I was thinking more of other industries "FDF" not other airlines !

Asda, Tesco, Aldi etc go to the market, they analyse where demand is and meet that by placing a method of delivery convenient to what the customer wants !

OK I fully appreciate that whilst feasible you cannot run services from say New York - Norwich or Inverness - Dubai BUT if you are having a review /discussion about strategy then looking at where passengers reside and where they wish to fly to/from would not be unreasonable.

Quoting MAGs own figures 50% of the population is within 2 hours of MAN, OK various factors skew that, there are of course other airports offering alternatives, LBA, LIV, EMA etc and the population that is within MANs catchment area is completely different in terms of spend, affluence etc to London so it is far from a true analogy BUT it is still massive market and MAN is at its core !

I agree Governments have little influence of dictating where passengers fly BUT I still maintain that it should have been part of the Davies remit to look more at the dynamics of the market especially with regard pricing and how that market can be distorted !

In any other industry "direct point of sale" results in a lower price, within the airline industry it doesn't !

[LAX_LHR]

A usually very reliable poster on things jet2 on another forum states Jet2 will add another aircraft to MAN in 2015, add routes to Valencia, Malta, Antalya, Madrid and kefalonia and lease an A330 for trunk routes at MAN. Frequencies will also be increased on routes, including Toulouse which is being cut from LBA.

3 very surprising additions there. Madrid and Valencia going directly head on with Ryanair, and using an A330 on trunk routes. Will be interesting to see how they pan out.

Madrid is underserved from MAN, so, if Jet2 get a morning flight in, they could do well. However, history seems to show Jet2 prefer to run beach flights in the morning, then cities in the afternoon, so would not be surprised if the flights mirrored Ryanairs, just in opposite directions due to where the aircraft are based. VLC-MAN not exactly the biggest city pair so that one could be tough. Malta already quite well served, so could this be the final straw for Air Malta? Antalya and Kefalonia should do well.

[Heathrow Harry]

altho' 50% of the population may live within 2 hours of MAN how many of those people even know there is an airport there, never mind the range of flights?

I'll bet more people travel from Leeds to LHR than MAN

partly it is due to poor trans pennine links but also the total lack of advertising as to what is available

also I'd expect that flights from Manchester and Birmingham to (say) the USA would be cheaper - but when I look the savings seem to be minimal over LHR

[rutankrd]

also I'd expect that flights from Manchester and Birmingham to (say) the USA would be cheaper - but when I look the savings seem to be minimal over LHR

Why on earth would you think that ?

The basket of fares from Manchester to the US is and always has been higher than those from London.

In olden days scheduled price were based on ex London plus miles basis to everywhere.

Today the matrix differs and yet the basket remains.

As constantly pointed out there is way to much capacity in the back of the bus out of London and this is dumped at a level simply unmatchable even with an added on shuttle element !

The market dynamic of Hub and Spoke necessitate competitive fares over the hub

28 daily flights between just one city pair specifically corrupts the whole market place.

No your premise is very wrong.

[rutankrd]

altho' 50% of the population may live within 2 hours of MAN how many of those people even know there is an airport there, never mind the range of flights?
I'll bet more people travel from Leeds to LHR than MAN

I'll deal last first , you would be hard put to find anyone not aware of Manchester Airport - in fact i'd say the populous think it bigger that it is.
Doubt more travel from Leeds to LHR than Manchester, especially the annual holiday trade - All the popular Sun and Sand routes Heathrow isn't in the same league here !

When it comes to Summer sun you'd be surprised how far people travel to Manchester for their holiday flight.
Southern Scotland and Bristol not unheard of.
I know some one in Brentwood ! thats traveled to Manchester to fly to Vegas not typical through !

Leakage inevitable on the longer haul as many irregular and VFR travellers simply visit the internet resellers and pick those cheap deals, however certain ethic groups actually still value the services of those ol' fashioned things called what were they?

Are yes the travel agent and let me tell you the likes of Saudia, PIA and Emirates certainly still value those customers . Plenty of them go via Manchester !

[Suzeman]

But what seems to have gone un-noticed on this forum is the extension to MAN's dual-runway operating hours effective 1st May.

Excellent news Roverman :ok:

Long overdue since the movement profile at MAN changed. It will reduce that pesky DAYNE holding around lunchtime as you say and also offer additional slots should anyone need them.

I presume the Sunday hours remain as now and the Saturday morning dual runway period remains?

[viscount702]

http://uk.sitestat.com/manairport/magworld/s?man..AD2013-2014RUNWAYOPERATINGHOURS(SUMMER2014).pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.nsf/alldocs/F5848B0B3ED0F19880257CA8005FF8CD/%24File/AD2013-2014RUNWAYOPERATINGHOURS%28SUMMER2014%29.pdf

Link to the Airside Directive above if it works.

[North West]

This is very true about the breadth of the catchment for holiday flights. Of course, it's exactly the same market forces at play in this market as at Heathrow with New York. MAN has the scale and the frequency which results in cheap fares which in turn attracts price sensitive customers that are prepared to trade convenience for cost. I'm sure the Hull based "bagso" could write passionately about the ridiculousness of having to drive 2 hours west to then fly east to Greece or Cyprus when they have a perfectly good airport in Humberside that can serve this market. Why isn't the government interfering in this appalling state of affairs. Answer: because it's market forces and in an industry with a catalogue of failures and consolidation, wafer thin margins and extreme sensitivity to geo-political events there is little the govt could do to address these issues which doesn't fall into market interference or anti-competitiveness.

I go back it my point of a few days ago which is that this debate is fuelled in the main by departure board snobbery. The ongoing belief that MAN is disadvantaged by the absence of more flights to New York or wherever and all the time ignoring the success that the same principles of market consolidation has brought. It must be obvious that an airport handling 20m passengers is punching well above its weight in attracting people from under the noses of many competing airports, but the fact seems ignored by some because the successes are to holiday destinations in the med. Don't holiday routes to the med need handling, air crew, front of house staff ? Don't they provide income streams to fund investment and pay dividends to the local authorities?

So why are we ready and willing to advocate putting all of this at risk by suggesting the government steps in to review mechanisms to manipulate the market. It's a move that might, possibly, lead to a few more flights to a few more "exotic" destinations but that would almost certainly lead to a reduction in overall throughput, a reduction in revenue and a strengthening of local airports in Yorkshire, Liverpool etc. I think most MAN fans are united in the view that while we want regional airports to succeed, we don't want the neighbours growing at the expense of MAN

[MANFOD]

Last summer, Sunday lunchtime / early afternoon was very busy with arrivals so R2 opening at 13.00 would be very useful.
Edit: I see from Viscount's link that R2 only opens 16.00 on Sundays which is a pity.

Just had a quick look at easyjet winter schedules for 2014/15. Nothing new as far as I can see and I suspect one or two frequencies may have been trimmed, although Basel has a 5th weekly in Feb and there may be an extra Belfast a week. I gather a couple of routes are being switched from STN to LTN per another thread so I hope it's not a sign of cooling relations with MAG. Whether the winter schedule for next year requires the same number of based a/c as this winter I'll leave others cleverer than me to determine, but in the past new routes in winter led to extra based a/c the following summer. Having stuck at 8 based a/c for s2014, it would be disappointing if that remained the case for s2015, given expansion this year by RYR and Jet2.

[Suzeman]

http://uk.sitestat.com/manairport/ma...MER2014%29.pdf

Link to the Airside Directive above if it works.

Thanks Viscount - the link worked

[Bagso]

To be fair NorthWest quoting Humberside is somewhat misleading, the catchment is non-existent and they barely have any flights full stop, so there is nothing to compare, in that regard potential passengers will turn to next best option be that MAN or EMA.

Would you not agree there has to be at least a baseline model to start with ?

Humberside simply does not have that. Manchester does !

MAN has flights to the USA so clearly has demand but cannot grow those markets due to what is a completely skewed set of circumstances. If they are at risk because of the volume of half empty planes at LHR well only my view but something is well amiss.

Why isn't the government interfering in this appalling state of affairs.


Why are we ready and willing to advocate putting all of this at risk by suggesting the government steps in to review mechanisms to manipulate the market.

Those are misquotes of epic proportions, BUT what about a scenario where say Emirates want to operate daily Ex MAN to the USA clearly it would be based on perceived demand, would that chime with your idea of letting "market forces" dictate route development ?

or

if say a UK based airline who do not operate to that market from MAN cried foul and went running to the Government would that be construed as "Government interference" ?

Think we all know the answer to that !

With regard to departure board snobbery LHR is up there as the largest holiday airport in the UK, it might be under a veil of scheduled service but there are many millions who use LHR for long haul holidays !

[LAX_LHR]

Just noticed Ryanair are running Madrid at 5 weekly in June (ex Tue and Thu) and 6 weekly (ex Sat) in July.

I have to say, the new website and timetable function makes it much easier to work out flight frequency.

Also Rutankrd, you have a PM.

[LAX_LHR]

Just noticed there is an A320 on the LH3434 DUS-MAN-DUS flight tonight. Don't think Ive ever noticed anything larger than the CRJ900 on that route before.

[MAN777]

Cathay to launch Manchester-Hong Kong route | News | Travel Trade Gazette (http://www.ttgdigital.com/cathay-to-launch-manchester-hong-kong-route/4691088.article?)

Manchester Airport secures Hong Kong flights deal with Cathay Pacific - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/manchester-airport-secures-hong-kong-6941957?)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/airport-manchester-hongkong-idUSL6N0N13LZ20140409?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews&rpc=401

[canberra97]

Excellent news for Manchester airport in finally securing there dream of a direct flight to China and well done Cathay Pacific for finally putting everyone out of their misory and announcing this new direct flight to Hong Kong.:ok:

[kieb92]

Times for new Cathay Pacific service. Due to start 08th December 2014

CX357 HKG-MAN 0100 0620 M,T,TH,SA
CX358 MAN-HKG 1200 0755+1 M,T,TH,SA

And also Lufthansa have upgraded DLH3434 from a CRJ900 to an A320 on certain days throughout this summer. Could be part of the growth outlined for Lufthansa from MAN this summer as previously mentioned?

[spannersatcx]

Good news indeed.:ok: See I said it wouldn't be January!!!:rolleyes:

[kieb92]

From airlineroute:

Cathay Pacific Resumes Manchester Service from Dec 2014 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2014/04/10/cx-man-dec14/)

[Bagso]

Cathay

Brilliant news.

This is ITV take

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/2014-04-10/new-route-to-hong-kong-announced-from-manchester-airport/

If we needed a Chinese route this was most definitely it !

Lets hope fares are SAME as those from LHR, + bags of time to market the service !

B777ER .....Good for cargo ?

[LN-KGL]

A return ticket to HKG from MAN starts at £626 and with that is £28 cheaper than from LHR.

[roverman]

And so they're back, a poorly kept secret but notable in that it is significantly earlier than most commentators were predicting. The route couldn't wait for the perfect aircraft to come into the fleet in 2016. I wonder if this has implications for the CX freighter service ex-MAN?

Along with Saudia here's another major carrier who understands the value of MAN's enormous catchment, one which cannot be covered adequately just by services from Heathrow.

[LN-KGL]

I guess Emirates now don't need to think about upgrading one of their 77W to A380. And roverman, catchment is one thing - if locals will/can travel is another thing. The surveys the lasts years clearly shows the majority of the growth at MAN has been among the foreign residents, not local UK residents.

[MANFOD]

Splendid news, and it's great when a story / rumour turns out to be on the mark.

I see the flight operates Saturday, not Sunday, and is on the ground for over 5 hours. We might even have to get all our a/c parking stands back next winter.

What will be important is how much new traffic it generates for MAN compared to passengers simply switching from other carriers. 4 x weekly, while not ideal for the business person, is not bad.

It will also be interesting to see how SQ react, if at all. Might they be tempted to go non-stop but less than daily, stick with the Munich stop, or simply decide to pull the MAN sector? It would be great to see both SQ and CX on the ground together again after all this time.

Charlie Cornish is reported as saying they are still close to securing a Beijing flight as well. That would be a coup.

[Sholto Douglas]

LAX_LHR - congrats on the CX advance notification.
Spannersatcx - well done on maintaining company confidentiality. Not always an easy thing to do when news is waiting to break.

[LAX_LHR]

It is great news that this service has finally been announced, there is one thing that worries me, however. Flights will be using T3 according to all the GDS systems and the CX website.

That terminal is just going to be heaving, and I do think that the experience could put people off. The only saving grace is the timings. Arriving at 0620 means it gets in before the 3 AA flights, and leaving at 1200 means it avoids the low cost scrums and the AA flights again.

As there is a 5h40 ground time, Im assuming the aircraft will be towed to a remote stand?

[Ian Brooks]

Makes you wonder if they will push forward the expansion plans

Ian

[All names taken]

This whole T3 thing is becoming a joke.
There are two full size terminals that could swallow a 77W whole without batting an eyelid. Instead they try to squeeze it into an already crowded mini terminal that was designed for domestic and some local BA stuff.

It's also rammed with Ryanair passengers.
I absolutely hate going through T3 and try to avoid airlines that use it.

[LAX_LHR]

All names taken,

I agree with you. CX has always used T2, even as recently as 2010 when they ran the extra flights after LHR was snow closed for days.

Why MAG, or even CX themselves, have decided to ram themselves into T2 is a mystery.

The only thing I can think of is that at 0620, T2 is usually packed out with the Monarch, Thomson and any early arriving TATL flights (The UA IAD flight arrives at 0535 and the 1st VS B747 gets in about 7am for example), so maybe it wasn't available?

[eggc]

Very much doubt it has anything to do with availability of T2, more them wanting to be with other One World Airlines. The timings may mean though that both arriving and departing CX passengers may miss the busiest times in T3 though, and as someone mentioned earlier the a/c will probably be moved remote for a few hours ?

[comet 4b623PW]

Most Oneworld carriers use T3.

Also easy connections to flybe domestic network

[LAX_LHR]

Wow, just looked at GDS availability for MAN-HKG an vv, seats seem to be disappearing fast! Pretty much all reward allocation* in J has gone for Dec-Feb already (about 4 seats each way per day) *those using FF points, and quite a few rev fares gone already.

Seems a few people have wanted this route to come online!

[spannersatcx]

Wasn't easy keeping it quiet, we've known since January, it is a little earlier than the planned release of the 'official' news, most likely due to the many rumours floating about on the internet.

I guess the success will be down to sales and marketing, price it correctly and I see no reason why it should not be successfull!

4 days a week is a good start, depending on the success will determine whether the flts will increase to daily, more and more 777's arriving over the next couple of years and then the 350 coming into service, too early to tell.

I would suspect that the arrival will be before 6, the 251 leaving HKG gets in around 0430 so 0530 would be my guess. No info on the terminal as yet.

Freighters, I think will remain the same in the first instance until more is known.

Flt number is a bit strange, but is subject to change, until now all European flts start with a 2, the 3's go to China.

[Skipness One Echo]

All names taken is spot on with his views on the current T3 design. It's really not fit for long haul.

@ LAX_LHR did I not say it would be T3? :)
MAG announced their terminal reshuffle to try and bring alliances together which is fine in theory but in practice it's a mish mash. T3 is now further bottlenecked by the domestic pier and ex BMI area being secure for domestic travellers only meaning space to find a quiet corner is now further constrained. I agree T2 would make way more sense as the alliance synergies are fairly small at a non hub for Oneworld. Indeed trying to create a hub at T3 has just undermined the customer experience for domestic travellers who now need biometric photos taken and verified, all to drive more customers through retail.

Awesome news though !

[Bagso]

Interesting comment at the CAPA summit this morning from Irish Transport Minister !

DUBLIN is a secondary European transit hub we intend to take a very liberal view on 5th freedoms ......

Is DUB going after Eithad / Emirates US traffic ?

I would suggest Manchester is quickly falling into that category !

[eggc]

I cant see where T3 is mentioned anywhere ? Only asking as I have just been advised there is no gate capable of taking a 77W on T3 !

[Skipness One Echo]

44 was the B744 gate, it's reconfigurable.

[LAX_LHR]

CX website states T3. If you click the MAN flight number in the booking process it gives more flight info inc terminals:


12:00 Mon 08 Dec 2014
Manchester, Manchester International (MAN), United Kingdom
Terminal 3

[roverman]

CX will not use T3.

[spannersatcx]

That may be because LHR is T3, we shall see.

[LAX_LHR]

Maybe the CX website shows T3 as a default due to the BA shuttle codeshare, but is 100% showing as T3 at this moment in time.

[LGWAlan]

Also confirmed as T3 in Amadeus

[kjsharg]

Says on Manchester airport website T2 and wikipedia.

surely T3 wont be able to cope with the demand of a 777, these isnt many food outlets or bars.

T2 would be the sensible choice.

if they want to get t3 as one world terminal theyll have to move finnair and qatar over too!

Cant wait til this starts!

[Bagso]

Beijing

...according to update on the M E N a service to Beijing is sealed, flights apparently ready to launch with small caveat ...

"subject to alteration of Bi lateral agreement" !

Hand up who wants some "Government Interference" !

Yah or nay ?

[adfly]

If they moved FR out would there be room for all of the oneworld carriers in T3?

[MANFOD]

Bagso, re Beijing
"subject to alteration of Bi lateral agreement"!

If the market was as free as some on here affirm, and contend that is why airlines want to fly to LHR and not MAN, there wouldn't be a bi-lateral to alter.

Now here's a scenario: Chinese airline wants to fly to MAN but British airline demands extra flights to LHR in return. Nothing new there. British airline then complains there are no slots at LHR to operate the flights. Does it have to create slots for additional flights to China by reallocating existing slots and reducing frequency elsewhere, or does the lack of slots mean our DfT don't approve a new bi-lateral? In other words, where bi-laterals still exist, do capacity constraints at LHR facilitate direct flights to MAN, or in a strange way make it more difficult?

[The96er]

If they moved FR out would there be room for all of the oneworld carriers in T3?

That would help, but then, where would RYR operate from. Plus, you're not really comparing like for like as RYR operate all narrow body 737-800's where-as, if you threw in CX, AY an QR along with US and AA then the problem becomes a lack of widebody space.

[All names taken]

The amount of transferring pax from CX to other One World flights will be the square root of zero - think about it. As a previous poster has pointed out both Qatar and Finnair both use T1.
It makes no difference which terminal CX use.....as long as it's not T3.

Imagine 300 bleary-eyed pax de-planing at 06.00 and ending up at the toytown Border post they have in T3. Tempers will fray, curses will fly and vows will be made never to use MAN or CX again. I've heard it all.

The last time I got caught, I too vowed to avoid T3 airlines and by and large I've managed to do that as a conscious travel policy.

[MANFOD]

I gather Border Control at T3 is deficient because of stories of what happens when several packed RYR a/c arrive at similar times. Have we any hard evidence recently as to how it copes if the 2 AA flights arrive close together in a morning which could involve 300 passengers or even slightly more?

[j636]

Great news about Hong Kong, hopefully it will do well.

Interesting comment at the CAPA summit this morning from Irish Transport Minister !

DUBLIN is a secondary European transit hub we intend to take a very liberal view on 5th freedoms ......

Is DUB going after Eithad / Emirates US traffic ?

I would suggest Manchester is quickly falling into that category !

Open to correction, MAN is only processing around 150k transit pax per year hardly a lot to be a hub.

Most middle east carriers are going to try non stop whereever possible so is there really mcuh scope to target these carriers?

[LAX_LHR]

...according to update on the M E N a service to Beijing is sealed, flights
apparently ready to launch with small caveat ...

"subject to alteration of Bi lateral agreement" !


The airline in Question is Air China.

They have an A330-200 ready to run the flight, they have flight numbers and times applied ready for a Manchester flight, and now they are meeting with the Chinese and UK authorities to run a flight, applying off their own back for an addendum to the bilateral agreement to run flights to Manchester. They are apparently 'frustrated' at the slow progress being made in changing the bilateral agreement as a whole. The addendum they are applying for is for Manchester only, and will have to apply separately again if they wish to serve another UK point on top of MAN/LHR/LGW.

By all accounts, and this comes from a very trusted friend, the process is costing Air China some fair whack of money so there is no doubt they are serious about starting flights.

Whether Manchester can sustain such a large level of flights going east will be another question, but, if we only have to rely on the inbound numbers, there are certainly enough potential people to use the flights.

[MANFOD]

LAX_LHR

Thanks for your updates on CX and also the China situation.

Do you know if the amendment to the bi-lateral that is being sought by Air China
is just to add Manchester within the current quota of flights, or does it involve an increase in the total number of flights permitted between China and the UK?

[LAX_LHR]

The addendum Air China are applying for is for extra flights on the current bilateral for Manchester only. Flights will not be transferrable to any other UK airport.

[Skipness One Echo]

Government interference with a good strategic payback as this undoubtedly would be, of course! Win-win for the region and the wider country.

[LAX_LHR]

I have been critical of MAN's advertising in the past, but seems they aim to change the tide with the CX launch.

Its already plastered over social media with its own 'hashtag' of #manchester2hongkong (someone will have to explain what this hash-tagging does as Im clueless about social media), its already in the 'new routes' section on the MAN site, as well as the MAN homepage.

Also I have seen a quote from MAN PR:

'This is one of the most important route launches Manchester has seen in a long time. We have 8 months to get as much information and awareness out there as we can regarding the route, and if that means we need to go for all four corners of the globe and shout about it, then that's what we need to do'.

[roverman]

And so we await further news on the choice of Terminal for CX MAN-HKG services, and indeed for any prospective service to elsewhere in China. Ideally, alliances would be co-located within the same terminal, but that gets difficult as airports reach capacity, as happened at LHR during the on-going terminal redevelopments. Some carriers there had services using more than one terminal (BA still do). MAN now faces such issues. T3 has very limited wide-body stand availability unless and until it is extended. T2 would seem to be the best fit for CX. Let's wait and see. T1 and T2 have no domestic capability, T2 is a distance from T1/T3. T2 has few short-haul flag carrier services and so any feed to long-haul there must rely on a good inter-terminal transfer product. For an airport with such passenger volume and number of long-haul destinations (relatively speaking), and such an excellent range of domestic flights, MAN underperforms on transfer traffic. Improving the transfer product must now be a priority if MAN is to capitalise on its growth towards a critical mass where the connecting possibilities fuel further growth in destinations and frequency.

A 'critical spoke' is how Skipness 1E describes MAN. Indeed, that is now assured. However, I believe that given the right transfer product a mini-hub (sub-hub?) is achievable, even without a major based carrier. Life is always interesting and full of opportunity at this unique airport.

[Bagso]

I have been critical of MAN's advertising in the past, but seems they aim to change the tide with the CX launch.

So have I, on an evangelical scale.

Today utterly BRILLIANT....a tsunami of social media+ ! :ok:

Reuters, BBC, ITV, M.E.N and all briefed in early hours so was ready to roll from dawn and did not get lost in clutter of new news

Superbly executed !

More please...every route, every launch, every time !

[andy mach 1]

There was even an interview with a MAG rep on 5 Live - Wake up to Money this morning about the return of CX. Also raised was prospect of further long haul flights. The response of "Discussions are ongoing" especially with reference to an additional Chinese destination.

[Mr Mac]

At last that's one route I can do with out the DXB shuffle. However I know what CX is like having used them in the Far East recently, and they better up there game as its not been a great time for me in Business class. I well appreciate the fervour of the airport supporters on this thread but CX is not what it was.


Regards
MrMac

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Even PM David Cameron endorsed MAN's Cathay Pacific announcement in his speech made today whilst launching the Conservative Party European election manifesto at Manchester Airport. I wonder if anybody present nudged him to 'politically interfere' in the bilateral limiting Air China whilst we're at it? Anyway, can't fault the publicity drive by MAG in support of CX this time.

Unfortunately, the subsequent MEN report describes the new CX operation as 'Manchester's first direct link to the Far East'. I think that the long-established Singapore Airlines service deserves a little more recognition than that after many years of uninterrupted operation … even if it does call at MUC en route. I hope that SQ do not feel unappreciated at MAN as they see their 'prodigal son' rival lauded throughout the media and their own daily service not even meriting acknowledgment of its existence. We don't want to gain one and lose one!

All round, an excellent day for MAN. But remember not to overlook those loyal carriers which have never let us down whilst we promote the wares of the newcomers.

[Ian Smitham]

BAGSO, Sir,

New on here as a member so first chance I have had to speak to you.

2 years ago I got pushed into going to New York from Manchester where I live. Really did not fancy the "big apple"

Got prices and, in round figures, Continental were cheapest.

Did a bit of research and found that going to Amsterdam to New York and then back to Paris and Man was around £200 per person cheaper.

Yes it extends the flights and link up times, but, to be honest I would pay to be delayed at AMS and on the way back a pint or two at 6am in Paris was a great end to an enjoyable trip.

But, it does not make sense as your posting highlights.

[newscaster]

PIA might be going daily to MAN, can anyone confirm this?

[Bagso]

Welcome aboard Mr Smitham

I agree, on a personal level "if" it was £200 cheaper I would do exactly the same no matter what my loyalty is to Mancunia and ManAirport.

My argument is and has always been about the formulae.

Most tickets are sold via the ticketing portals, they work for the most part on price sensitivity, it is an undisputed fact that that they are loaded against Manchester as they are biased towards the major hubs.

I would also argue that they do not always give the same weight to time savings as they do price, so you have to hunt down the direct element. Because some are run by certain airlines they can also be quite frankly misleading as they give the impression there is no direct flight

It is not a problem that effects other UK "provincial airports" as they simply don't have the range of long haul destinations that Manchester has so jumping on a LH from BHX or a KL from Leeds works fine for them.

You could also argue that MAN pax benefit like the LBA/BHX pax do from what appears to a subsidy if you fly to a destination where there is no direct service.

BUT my interest is purely in the success of the MAN long haul network so on that basis I am happy to argue that it discriminates and has done for sometime against our very specific long haul services.

It appears the status quo may be crumbling but if it is maintained you never break out of the cycle !

There are those who will argue vehemently that this is how the market works, so tough !

I would contest that no other industry would work like that !

How you solve it is another Q !

I am not a tree hugger far from it BUT there is something utterly barmy (and whilst I am wearing my loincloth), dare I suggest environmentally damaging about a system where it is dearer to fly via an airport 200 or 600 miles away than fly direct !

It becomes even more ludicrous when in the case of US flights to New York , you then fly back over Manchester 3 hours later, especially if you are in economy and are sat there isolated in solitary splendour !

There simply has to be a cost involved so how on earth can it possibly be cheaper ?

[LAX_LHR]

Newscaster,

PIA are pulling LBA and capacity on MAN-ISB is way down on previous years, so its possible, but one could argue that the middle eastern carriers, including low cost flynas from next month means the market is pretty much sealed up now?

[MANFOD]

"Did someone forget SIA whilst briefing the press?"

Shed, am I right in thinking it was only in the report of Cameron's comments that this mistake occurred? If so, it may well be that Cameron was wrongly briefed by a civil servant - would that surprise you - after all SIA did have rather a fight against bureaucracy getting a flight to Manchester in the first place all those years ago! Of course, it could be he was misquoted, but either way somebody didn't do their homework.

It remains to be seen what happens with the Singapore service but let's hope we retain what has been, as you rightly say, a very loyal customer after 28 years of operation.

Anyway, congrats to MAN for securing the HK route and for ensuring it received due publicity.

[Bagso]

Not sure about the PM but the M E N Business Editor Adam Jupp also suggested it in his video presentation !

...I corrected him within an hour of issue!

"If" the PM also quoted that HK was the first far eastern link it sadly does suggest to me a mistake in a circulated PR brief, media types and spin doctors are unlikely to go too far off piste.

Must confess my only point of criticism re marketing (there had to be one), if we can do this for Hong Kong why not some of the other services ?

You wont necessarily get the media agencies on board as per other new destinations as they simply don't have the same kudos of this new service, BUT you can use Facebook, Twitter Google+ to good effect and it only costs time !

SAUDIA is a revelation BUT barely seen any publicity !
USAir ?
Rouge ?
FlyNas ...a bit
Egyptair none to speak of !

and of course what of some of the short haul that may need a leg up ?

MAGs twitter following alone is 100K plus, with an RT multiplier its millions !

OK some may say SAUDIA doesn't need it ....YES it does !

Nothing to stop MAG inviting some of the senior faith leaders across the North Midlands NWest and South Yorkshire to publicise the service to potential visitors to Mecca / Medina etc

There are also numerous Business and Ex Pat forums as well !

Historically Manchester will always be in the shadow of LHR so they have to use everything in the armoury to maximise every route, airline, frequency passenger etc.

Having gained these services MAG need to make damn sure we hang on to them !

Last week I saw a conversation where they went big on LittleRed ...yet again !

When quizzed that this simply drains customers to London to the detriment of our direct flights, precisely what Charlie Cornish has eluded to, they argued that they supported ALL Manchester's customers ...hmmmm !

[LAX_LHR]

Given the rumours of a 4th daily EK flight, the fact DXB-MAN-JFK and other USA tag-ons were strongly hinted in the past, and now the fact the Italians have ruled that EK's DXB-MXP-JFK cannot be operated after April 1st 2015, I wonder if the idea of the MAN transit could be back on the table?

Im not suggesting its rumoured, but, one for thought.

[nigel osborne]

Crikey 4 a day with all the increases in capacity to the region recently.. I'll raise you one.... 5 a day all with A380s :)


Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

Nigel,

It sounds crazy, but, with MAN having 7 confirmed new long haul routes, 1 more almost confirmed in the wings, increases on 5 others including Etihad almost doubling capacity, you can be certain Emirates are far from finished at MAN.

4 daily is no surprise, its been hinted by Emirates before, and Im lead to believe the Milan-JFK route was very close to being routed through MAN anyway, Milan just pipped us to the post.

[rutankrd]

Given the rumours of a 4th daily EK flight, the fact DXB-MAN-JFK and other USA tag-ons were strongly hinted in the past, and now the fact the Italians have ruled that EK's DXB-MXP-JFK cannot be operated after April 1st 2015, I wonder if the idea of the MAN transit could be back on the table?

Im not suggesting its rumoured, but, one for thought.

Having read a little about the case this evening , what strike me and it may have some implications if held on appeal is that the EU-US open skys treaties appear to have ignored or even excluded the notion of Fifth and Seventh freedoms for none EU carriers other than those grand fathered from prior nation state treaties.

If that is the case then no EU nation state can currently authorise new fifth freedom services for none EU/EEA or US carriers between the EU and the USA

Serious omission if held up on appeal and Emirates are likely going to be hit with a substantial fine/damage claim on any profit made whilst operating illegally.

This would be certain effect Bimans application for Birmingham-JFK and possibly ongoing FlyNas aspirations beyond Manchester.May also effect Norwegian as a none EU carrier and be a part of the reasoning behind the shadow Irish business.

If however the issue is more prosaic and a technical issue such as forgetting to define carriage limitations as usually deemed necessary under fifth freedom we are in a different situation.

In that case Emirate may reconsider the operational transit base and Manchester could be in the frame or perhaps Dublin.

The question remains can they replace capacity at Milan with two daily terminators probably.

Would they consider a further direct non-stop JFK service certainly

[LAX_LHR]

Delta have upgraded ATL-MAN to A330-200 from 28th October 2014. Confirmed in delta booking engine.

[viscount702]

Been reported elsewhere that CLT will finish at the beginning of September rather than the end. Could this be for the reasons discussed previously ie too many AA Hubs.

[nigel osborne]

LAX-LHR

Arr understand now "Just pipped us too it" and there was me thinking you were from London and neutral :)

Seriously though, good for MAN, turning out to be a very successful year for them already, especially long haul with all the new routes and expansion.

I do think something has to give though in the gulf area,time will tell.

Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

Seriously though, good for MAN, turning out to be a very successful year for them already, especially long haul with all the new routes and expansion.


Id say! 7 new long haul routes in 1 year, an 8th very very close to being confirmed and increases on 7 other long haul routes, I really do struggle to remember such a large increase in long haul in such a short space of time.

[Bagso]

Possibly incorrect but I am sure the Emirates CEO sure originates from Manchester (?) which may go some way to his understanding of the market.

He mentioned a massive under untapped market to the USA from the North of England as long ago as 2 years back in a media interview.

Seemingly however it appears it isn't just UK Government protectionism (Raised by Davies Commission I may add), that may come into play, but also EEC rules !

Will be interesting to see how Flynas do re Saudi , advance bookings anybody ?

(and indeed US) ...if they get rights ?

[Mr Mac]

Bagso
Tim Clark was born in Dutch Antilles so quite away from Manchester, although he may have come back here later as he studied in London. As for Dubai- Man - JFK, I was on the lunchtime EK inbound last Wednesday and was talking to crew about this possibility which they actually mentioned to me in passing. Sounds great, and the Mrs Mac even more pleased, as she does a US trip once a month on a US carrier to the East Coast, and would gladly swop to EK.
Regards
Mr mac

[Logohu]

It is Sir Maurice Flanagan who hails from the Manchester area. He had a long career with Emirates and was Executive Vice Chairman until his retirement just last year. He led the VIP and media group on board the first A380 to MAN in 2010.

[BDS10]

I think people are mixing the facts. The CEO is Tim Clark who is Dutch and , ironically, lives in Birmingham.

[BDS10]

I think people are mixing the facts. Tim Clark is the CEO and is Dutch. Ironically, he lives in Birmingham and has done for a number of years

[Suzeman]

Possibly incorrect but I am sure the Emirates CEO sure originates from Manchester (?) which may go some way to his understanding of the market.

It is Sir Maurice Flanagan who hails from the Manchester area. He had a long career with Emirates and was Executive Vice Chairman until his retirement just last year. He led the VIP and media group on board the first A380 to MAN in 2010.

Quite correct logohu

It was rumoured that EK started Manchester all those years ago so he could get home from time to time. :ok: Great bloke, very approachable and did a great job getting through all the politics to build EK into what they are today.

[Tight Seat]

The rumour I've heard is DXB-MAN-MCO. Seems EK may think they could just take all of VS premium passengers. Only BBQ talk mind you ......

[Mr A Tis]

So many obstacles for EK to overcome, but it's never stopped them before.
If I were them, I'd go for their thinner routes & to places not served from MAN- Like Boston and/or Montreal.
Like many, I would chose EK over most US carriers anyday.

[Seljuk22]

EK might get problems with traffic rights on MXP-JFK. This could be moved to MAN, some say...

[LN-KGL]

I presume it's not the Italians that are the problem creators, then Emirates will have the same problem at MAN - protectionist Americans.

[LAX_LHR]

EK might get problems with traffic rights on MXP-JFK. This could be moved to MAN, some say


Ive also heard the same, and due to the frustration it has caused EK, as sign of protest they will not wait until April 2015 to move it either.....

Time will tell, but as said earlier, Emirates have not been shy in their boasts that they hold 5th freedoms to the USA and MAN would be the likely beneficiary of those 5th freedoms.

[adfly]

The US carriers don't like the thought of outside competition, especially when it offers a much better product than they do (which isn't hard, although they are slowly improving). I'd imagine they will continue to kick up a fuss if EK flew MAN-US rather than MXP-US much like they have with DY/DU starting LGW-US later this year.

[eggc]

LN-KGL, I believe it is indeed the Italians causing the fuss, there was a court case there not so long back that resulted in the news the route would have to end, protecting Alitalia seems more what has happened..

[LN-KGL]

It's a seriours problem these days - protectionism is on the rise, and it is always justified with protecting vital national interests.

[LNIDA]

The Americans can't have it both ways, they want to sell lots of T7's & B787, but don't want them flying back to the USA, having said that EK are a serious threat to what is left of Europe's flag carriers, Lufthansa & Air France KLM are living in a world that no longer exists & IAG must be praying that LHR doesn't get another runway.

[adfly]

LINIDA - I think IAG are coping better than the other european carriers against the MEB3. WW has not complained about them in quite the same way as a number of other european airlines have, neither has he chosen to complain about Norwegian Long Haul but I guess for the time being BA has the strongest transatlantic network of anyone from one hub.

WW's complaining is focussed almost solely on the Government dithering around about LHR getting a new runway if at all. If/when LHR does I think this would be an advantage to BA more than anyone as they will be able to expand and strengthen their hub there, and provide more feed for their important transatlantic routes and even some of their up and coming eastbound routes.

[pwalhx]

There is a long history or airlines having 5th freedom rights from the UK to New York, Kuwait, Bangladesh, PIA immediately come to mind and I am pretty sure without digging there have been plenty of others, I am not sure it would be such a problem that some would indicate.

[eggc]

As I posted above, it wasn't the US that kicked up about the MXP-JFK flight, it was the Italians.

Sure if EK wanted to fly MAN-USA then that would be fine. MAN-Canada would be different though as they are non to keen on letting them get a foothold in the Canadian market.

[nigel osborne]

LAX-LHR,

Am hearing that US Air are ending Charlotte slightly earlier than planned is that correct..they are an odd airline ?

Nigel

[Ian Brooks]

Remember Nigel US Air are part of the American group now or will be
in stages like Continental/United so there will bve a lot of changes
within and Charlotte may well end being a hub, i can see American
changing the Charlotte flight to a Miami one as it has a lot more going for it

Ian

[Skipness One Echo]

LNIDA that's scaremongering with stilts. Emirates have a fortress hub in Dubai which they increasingly fly to the US direct with, anything else is tinkering around the edges. Your claim that IAG are afraid of LHR expansion is so far off the mark as to be fanciful. If EK did launch MAN-NYC, they might knock one of the US carriers off the route and screw ongoing connectivity for MAN pax in doing so. Result!!! Er not.

Careful what you wish for methinks.

[nigel osborne]

Ian,

Yes take it a return to Miami as didn't AA do it to MAN before ?

Nigel

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Given the present scenario I don't think we need to be at all careful about wishing for a carrier such as EK on MAN-NYC. Bring them on. MAN currently offers just two flights per day to NYC, and those operated by B752. Not exactly overkill, and this thread has already mentioned the high fares which have resulted from this capacity squeeze. MAN has successfully supported far more capacity on routes to NYC in the past; a share of the seats on an additional B77W would be entirely within the ballpark of what the route has supported previously. Existing operators on MAN-NYC have had plenty of time and opportunity to upgrade their offerings but have elected not to do so (probably because of their own capacity dumping at LHR). If someone comes to take their cake away at this point, the US carriers would have only themselves to blame.

[LNIDA]

LHR slot shortage has distorted competition in the UK for decades, bmi was run into the ground by inept management and an owner who knew the real value of the airline rested on its access to LHR not the number of passengers it carried or profitability

A four runway solution at LHR unconstrained by slot restrictions would result in lots of new entrants to the transatlantic market that BA dominates. Prices would fall, yes of course brand BA would do well, but BA cost base is well above EKs

It is the airlines and pilot groups in the US that are up in arm about foreign carriers and that is protectionism pure and simple, not stilts, thankfully so far the DOT has seen through this.

Lets see how they handle the Norwegian route application ?

Re EK fortress, well true enough, but your not suggesting we fly there to fly to the US, its the threat to Europe-USA routes

Manchester is interesting, it seems that it might be on the threshold of a break through on long haul, but its still a do it your self hub and that as you know only to well is what Norwegian are after at LGW rightly or wrongly ??:ok:

[anothertyke]

Re MAN as a do it yourself hub, I have read that in Milan the airport effectively provides the interconnection facility and presumably covers the risk of one leg running late/cancelling. Given there is really no hub operator at MAN, that seems an attractive model to group the connecting traffic to several long haul operators. Can anyone say how it works in Milan?

[MANFOD]

If EK could get rights via MAN to the US, I have mixed feelings as to what would be the most suitable destination.

On the one hand, MAN produced data showing that NY was their most underserved route, but this included leakage i.e. pax from the catchment area not using MAN at all to get to NY. Personally, I feel the present 2 x B757s under values the route but it's anyone's guess how AA & UA would react if EK were to start. There again, EK would be attracting almost entirely O & D traffic due to the lack of connectivity, but there would be potential for attracting pax that don't currently use MAN.

There's a certain attraction in a secondary city route such as Boston, but would there be enough demand and yield for one of EK's large a/c?

Is it conceivable that EK might consider BHX as a UK transit point, providing a third flight for Dubai - BHX and extra capacity for BHX to New York? I doubt it myself, but you never know.

Perhaps transit to the US through MAN won't happen anyway (apart from PIA)
but an interesting scenario if it does.

[Skipness One Echo]

In terms of offerings of the US carriers, US A332s are brand new, United also use B752s out of LHR, American also use B763s and until recently B752s as well. The main issue is the US carriers are now investing again in the hard product. AA's B77W has been a game changer for them. However the B772s are being refurbished and I suspect MAN may see them as US/AA come together. Emirates would be point to point in the US, nothing more. Indeed MAN actially is fertile territory for Norwegian Long Haul, certainly is NYC is underserved on p2p as the US majors continue to connect via EWR and JFK.

There's also the ex BMI routes to the Caribbean as well? Fertile route for a young spunky Nordic upstart with Thai cabin crews, US flight deck and registered in er....Ireland? Did I get that right? I mean there's a whole lot of those pesky overheads trampled on right off the bat! :) And LNIDA, Norwegian are union busting and tramping on terms and condtions, cutting corners and creating paper companies in low regulation countries to try and get a cost base to undercut existing carriers. Pure and simple, excuse me while I don't clap. All of the much vaunted cheapness is off the back of not paying the market for people in the markets you, sorry, "they", serve.

If Emirates can serve the route from DXB without stopping in XYZ, that's what tends to happen.

[Una Due Tfc]

Ireland isn't "less regulated" per se. Norwegian got an Irish AOC for 2 reasons

1: Openskies (Norway not in EU)

2: Taxation. Corporate tax rate is 12.5% in Ireland.

They were looking at applying for a UK AOC too, but the Irish tax rate swung it for them. Same reason over 50% of leased aircraft in the world belong to lessors based in Ireland.

[LNIDA]

[QUOTE]There's also the ex BMI routes to the Caribbean as well? Fertile route for a young spunky Nordic upstart with Thai cabin crews, US flight deck and registered in er....Ireland? Did I get that right? I mean there's a whole lot of those pesky overheads trampled on right off the bat! And LNIDA, Norwegian are union busting and tramping on terms and condtions, cutting corners and creating paper companies in low regulation countries to try and get a cost base to undercut existing carriers. Pure and simple, excuse me while I don't clap. All of the much vaunted cheapness is off the back of not paying the market for people in the markets you, sorry, "they", serve./QUOTE]

That's a rather less objective response than your normal very high standard Skippy:=

Norwegian are not union busting, NASPA are in detailed talks over the Helsinki base and BALPA are at work on LGW.

Cutting corners? no idea what your talking about? Norwegian provide crew meals, sick pay,standby pay, holiday pay, uniforms, training, the aircraft are factory fresh.

Paper companies? there are 40 people now based in Ireland....they fly to Bangkok what is wrong with Thai crew, they have US crew based in the US, Monarch do the heavy maintenance over there in sunny BHX

Yes MAN is ideal point to point long haul territory for Norwegian, but they need a local presence beyond the Nordic routes first, actually they need the route licences for LGW USA first and that is not a given

[LN-KGL]

There are more reasons than those two Una Due Tfc. One other reason is overflying rights through Russian airspace. Today all overflying rights in the bilateral agreement between Russia and Scandinavia are assigned to SAS, and Norwegian is not allowed to fly over Russian territory. On the Asian flights Norwegian because of this have to fly between 10% and 15% extra distance (after the unrest over the Crimean Peninsula more distance had to be added).

Again Skipness, you seems to be misinformed about the crew on board the Norwegian Dreamliners:
Cabin crew: Thai, Americans and Nordic (we may at later stage see British and Spanish cabin crew).
Pilots: Europeans (they all need JAA license and passport from one of the EEA countries). The 787 chief pilot comes from Skåne/Scania, Sweden and has previously flown with Korean Air, EVA Airways, FlyMe ...

[Skipness One Echo]

Yes OK I suspect I have been a little harsh. I am going to try and catch a B787 from LGW to Stockholm this summer and back on the B73H perhaps. However Ireland is a flag of convenience I believe....

However I do honestly think Norwegian could carve out a very nice little point to point niche from MAN on long haul with a proper margin. That would make much more sense than hubbing at LGW to feed the New York run from London. (Well to me, but many carrier has been dazzled by London-New York). BMI had great loyalty, service and reviews at MAN then shot themselves repeatedly in the foot by hacking off those very same loyal customers.

[LNIDA]

No problem your emotions obviously got the better of you following nostalgic Monarch flight!!!:{

[Bagso]

5th Freedoms MAGs submission to Davies Commission

The current fifth freedom policy (the presumption in favour of granting fifth freedom rights to UK regional airports), whilst helpful, also requires reciprocal access for UK airlines. Regional airports, such as Manchester, rely on overseas airlines to maximise regional long haul connectivity.

UK airlines have consolidated their international connections at London Heathrow. As they have vested interests in their own services from London, they have in part used this to protect their own parochial interest, at the expense of new services from the regions. An example of this being the Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Manchester via Moscow in 2006, which was successfully challenged by BMI on account of the Manchester—Moscow leg, and was ultimately withdrawn. In this case, the Russian authorities were willing to grant the necessary rights to Cathay Pacific to operate the Manchester—Moscow route on a code share with a Russian airline. UK airlines, including bmi, objected to the UK DfT agreeing to this because it did not benefit UK airlines. In other words, UK airlines do not want to serve the regions internationally on a point to point basis, but do not want their overseas competitors to do so either. This has been to the detriment of UK connectivity.

Furthermore, international airlines make decisions on which markets to investigate on the basis of how likely they are to secure the flying rights, and how difficult they perceive the process would be to achieve them. We are meeting airlines that are looking to serve the UK on routes to the US, but they perceive the process of being granted these rights by the UK Government to be too difficult based on UK airline objections. UK airlines don’t fly their own scheduled services direct from the regions to key cities in the States or other long haul destinations as their interests are to direct passengers through their London hub, and so the regions suffer in terms of providing connectivity and choice for local people.

This is something that will not be changed, even with the proposal for open skies at UK regions in the Draft Aviation policy framework, which states that although reciprocal access for UK airlines will not be required, each application will be taken on a case by case basis and may not be granted for reasons such as state aid. However, airlines in receipt of state aid already operate to and from the UK. It lacks consistency therefore to restrict fifth freedom rights on this basis, a restriction which would not be in the best interests of passengers or in the interests of rebalancing the UK economy and making best use of existing capacity.

[MANFOD]

Bagso, thanks for that. I know you have studied Davies in some detail.
Do you happen to know whether MAN argued the point verbally at any of the hearings or was the written submission made later?

[LN-KGL]

Today is the 14th and MAN still hasn't released the monthly traffic report for March. What can we expect with no Easter peak in March this year? Both STN and LHR showed a negative growth in March while ABZ, EDI, GLA and SOU showed a clear growth between 4% and 8%.

[MANFOD]

LN-KGL, I suspect MAN will be in negative territory. Perhaps they didn't want to dilute the good news about CX - who knows.

The late posting of stats. on the web site happened once last year as I recall.
Wasn't July only loaded after August?

[Curious Pax]

It sounds crazy, but, with MAN having 7 confirmed new long haul routes, 1 more almost confirmed in the wings

Struggling to list all 7. I've got:
FlyNas
Saudi
Cathay
Rouge
US Airways (CLT)
Thomas Cook (Tobago)

Which is the 7th?

[rutankrd]

Which is the 7th?

An under the radar weekly flight by Thomson to Puerta Vallarta on the Mexican Pacific coastline I understand

[LAX_LHR]

An under the radar weekly flight by Thomson to Puerta Vallarta on the Mexican Pacific coastline I understand


Correct. Its a route that was announced quite a while ago and admittedly I had forgot about until recently.

[nigel osborne]

MANFOD

Airlines to New York surely gear their flights to the required demand and yield.

For example at BHX the EWR 757 is 93% full between late spring, summer, autumn. Yet they have cut 2 days out this year in Feb,and retained 6 days only in March, presumably for low yield.

Therefore the issue with EK possibly doing a through flight to New York from BHX probably wouldn't work in those winter months.

Therefore its ok for MAN to say New York is under served,yet surely US airlines would put a larger plane on the route if the demand/yield justified it. As it stands one can assume that their larger planes are on more profitable routes ?



Nigel

[Bagso]

Mr MANFOD

Not sure, we are going back a bit now, I don't recall it being a huge part of the submission and certainly not verbal (if at all). Others may recall ?

It was certainly raised 2 or 3 times in the latter stage by Graham Stringer MP who may of course have retained briefing papers from the earlier hearings, but by then MAG had bought STN so the force of argument to develop MAN from MAG had gone somewhat off piste !

Six months in and it and it became totally non-existent, presumably as MAG assumed STN would be in the box seat and did not wish the previous argument supporting Manchester to divert attention.

It was therefore left to the MPs who probably thought if MAG cannot argue the point why should we, although credit Mr Stringer he at least did keep plugging away and did forcefully argue that it was a major point totally dismissed by Davies.

I am sure there is a line in one of his interim reports that suggest it significantly harms UK interests... hang on make that London interests !

Had they known what they know now and given news of last few days I wonder if the MAG submissions group may have played a different strategy !

On a general point re EK I am not sure on the effect that a service would have on our scheds.

I am sure I read a CAA report 2003 on 5th freedoms (PIA) that suggested circa 75% of Newark traffic is actually pure connecting , it is old data but even with a 10% margin for error based on todays figures a point to point service would surely stimulate demand rather than taking it away from other operators.

A lot of the analytical research work quoted by armchair analysts on here regarding MAN always seems to suggest a finite market size with airlines taking market share from each other on our "own" routes.

How about a more positive note with a suggestion that MAN claws back traffic in a 100 mile radius that might that otherwise would jumped in the car/train to use London Or of course take the RYR approach and create demand when non existed ?

I'm in Sheds shed, as far as Emirates is concerned. I am inclined to think everything EK touch seems to turn to Gold, any service would be daily, and coupled to a 777/380 it would provide the level of "certainty" that you get from using LHR !

What the US operators do from from MAN compared to LHR is pee poor in context .... 757 ops are pretty meagre fayre in my book and this tinkering of 5 a week etc in Winter does not help.There must also have been a degree of brand loyalty to certain airlines which has now also been swallowed up !

If US airlines are falling over themselves to lose money from LHR I really don't see why should Manchester be penalised with lack of service or higher fares ?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Dear MAG PR Team,

Now I realise that you probably don't post on a public forum like PPRuNe. Contractual restrictions and all that. Well, fair enough. But Hey … you do check in on us regularly to read what we're all saying about you, don't you? Yes, of course you do! And I am so pleased that you do, because I have some ABSOLUTELY AWESOME NEWS to break to you! Have you got a Magnum of Champagne handy? Well put it on ice now, because I promise you this news is so good you will have to celebrate it immediately!

Well, I won't keep you in suspense any longer. Tomorrow morning at approximately 07:50 local time, a large, shiny Boeing 777-300ER will land at Manchester Airport with its eyecatching gold cheatline glistening brightly in the dawn sunshine! That aircraft will be linking the Far East directly with Manchester Airport (with a short stop at Munich en route). Well, we did say 'direct' as opposed to 'non-stop'. And then at around 09:10 local time, that same Boeing 777-300ER will depart Manchester Airport en route directly to the Far East again.

But the good news has only just begun. Because every day thereafter … and I mean DAILY, 7 DAYS PER WEEK until further notice, exactly the same thing will happen! Now is that great news or what? I think its AWESOME!!! But, I hear you ask, will this service be a boon to North-West exporters? Yes, it will! The Boeing 777 has great cargo uplift capability! Will it support jobs across the region? Indeed it will … you can count on it! Will it be a massive plus for North-West travellers bound for the Far East (and beyond to Australia and New Zealand). Too right it will!!!

So break out that Champagne and celebrate! This is AWESOME news for Manchester Airport!

Now I realise you must be very puzzled, so I'll put you out of your misery now. Hey, I'm such a tease! Yes, the inbound flight number is SQ328 and the outbound number is SQ327. DAILY. DIRECT TO THE FAR EAST!!! It's all true. Go and check. It is even showing on the 'arrivals' page of the Manchester Airport website! Awesome or what? Go on, swig some more Champagne!

Oh, by the way, about the launch date of this direct scheduled service to the Far East. It was actually around TWENTY EIGHT YEARS AGO. Yes, that is correct. SINGAPORE AIRLINES HAS OPERATED DIRECT FLIGHTS BETWEEN MANCHESTER AIRPORT AND THE FAR EAST FOR APPROXIMATELY 28 YEARS!!! No pullouts, no interruptions, ever reliable. Through the good times and the tough times. They've never let us down. They've watched dozens of other airlines come and go. They've watched other long-haul carriers succeed and fail at Manchester. But SIA are still here. Still doing a great job.

But, Manchester Airport PR Team, you break out the Champagne and celebrate this amazing coup for Manchester Airport. BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW A THING ABOUT IT, DID YOU???

Last week, the PM himself was briefed that 'prodigal son' Cathay Pacific Airways will in December launch "Manchester's first direct service to the Far East". And also last week, the Manchester Evening News published two articles asserting the same. Now I know that at least two regulars on this board subsequently contacted MEN Business Editor Adam Jupp to point out this error. Yet today, April 14th, the MEN Business section has published a third article which refers to the forthcoming Cathay service as Manchester's first direct link to the Far East. I guess they mean apart from the one which has been running uninterrupted for 28 years already, operated by Manchester's longest established long haul carrier. Maybe the journos had a heavy weekend. Such things have been known to happen.

Now here's the thing when you hire a PR type. Yes, it is important that they are warm, smiley, and look great representing MAG at industry gatherings in their finest glad rags. And it is really helpful if they can string sentences together coherently and work wonders with shorthand. But there is another essential: it really helps to know a bit about the subject you're there to promote. And if you don't know the subject, don't be afraid to ask someone who does. I assure you, there are personnel at Manchester Airport who are aware that Singapore Airlines serves this airport. Just ask around!

Of course, some mistakes are understandable. Everybody makes 'em. For example, that stuff about EasyJet's service from Manchester to Moscow being the first ever scheduled service between the two cities. We'll overlook that one, because Aeroflot's SU249/250 schedule ended many years ago. But to completely overlook an EXISTING daily scheduled long-haul service when briefing the media and even the Prime Minister himself … well, that is just beyond dumb. And the MEN is still pushing out this incorrect line days later. How bad is that? For goodness sake, MAG, spread the message yes … we've all been pestering you to do that … but PLEASE GET IT RIGHT! And if you don't, at least correct the error quickly.

So this is where we are now. Your lack of awareness of Manchester's longest-serving, most loyal long-haul carrier has seriously undermined their standing in the region's consciousness. You apparently didn't know that the Singapore Airlines daily flight existed. Now, you have the Business Editor of the MEN pushing the same misinformation three times in the last week alone. You have done damage here, and you need to put it right. Manchester Airport's ability to retain existing scheduled services has been found somewhat wanting in the past. I suspect that the PR Department having no clue about what long-haul services we already have (let alone promoting them) is a big part of that problem. Let's buck things up a bit. Go home and have a good study of Manchester's existing portfolio of carriers and services. And when you are about to compile a press release, do a bit of homework first. Why not tap the knowledge of afew of the old-timers? Have we ever had a service to Moscow before? Do we have a scheduled service direct to the Far East already? It isn't difficult to find out these things.

Now, about SINGAPORE AIRLINES. I think you owe them one BIG APOLOGY. So grab that Magnum of Champagne I told you to put on ice and take it down to Singapore Airlines' Manchester office. Then, open it and share it with them. And sit and chat with them for an hour. Learn just how valuable their daily service is to this region. Then, to reaffirm your appreciation of their contribution to Manchester Airport's success, why don't you buy one of those giant chocolate Easter Eggs and inscribe it: "To Singapore Airlines. In Grateful Recognition of 28 Years Uninterrupted Direct Scheduled Service Between Manchester and The Far East. Lots of Love and Sloppy Kisses!!! From MAG." Send a photo of the presentation for inclusion in the 'Manchester Evening News'. And maybe you could plan a joint publicity campaign with SIA through your media outlets, Faceplant, Twotter and the like (PPRuNe software converts the real names to read 'PPRuNe'). A goodwill gesture, and a nice bit of damage limitation.

Because if you don't show existing carriers such as SIA a bit of love and appreciation (beginning by knowing they exist), there is a competitor airport down the road anxious to fill its newly extended runway. Ideally with a new direct service to the Far East. I can think of one such which would do them very nicely. And if the Business Editor of the Birmingham Evening Mail was told about it, I'm sure he wouldn't have forgotten the details three days later, either.

Get moving, MAG PR. You've got bridges to rebuild!!!

PS. The headline was written in capitals. I wonder why the PPRuNe software has converted it to lower-case lettering?

[MANFOD]

Shed, an absolute classic. I trust a copy has winged its way to the MAN department in question.

There is just 1 possible worrying scenario that I mention with trepidation. Just supposing SQ were to pull their MAN service at the end of this summer, before CX starts to HK in December and that MAN know this. (Of course, the press release and M.E.N articles would still be wrong as CX wouldn't be the first direct flights to the Far East - MH as well as SQ). A terrible thought, and it has to be said that the SQ timetable still shows the flights via Munich through next winter. Indeed, the hope would be that the CX service may even prompt SQ to fly non-stop again from MAN as they did for a number of years.

Edit: If people had done their homework they might also have learned how determined SQ were to get MAN flights 28 years ago. Some of us remember those 1 page adverts in the British Press - "We want to fly to Manchester but the government won't let us". Rumour has it that Mrs Thatcher wasn't best pleased and told her Minister and Civil Servants to sort it.