MANCHESTER - 9 [Archive] - Page 18

Skipness One Echo

9th Oct 2014, 12:37

LAX LHR is a very reliable source for information. :O
Nah he just spends his days surfing GDS to be the first to post. This is the guy who argued blind American would be operating MAN-CLT in 2015 as there would be no need to consolidate post merger and that DL would be starting MAN-DTW imminently.
LAX_LHR said :
Im assuming MAN are waiting for the optimal time to jointly announce the new Hainan route. Its definitely confirmed, as they have appointed a ticket agent and station manager at MAN, and, the Vice CEO good as announced the Manchester route was due to start 'next year', back on Sept 4th when the launched the Paris-Xi'an route.
Hainan remains as a WIP as Air China have put in the legwork and the politics is a little messy around who gets this one. So by "definitely confirmed" read not bookable, no press release and no start date announced in the same year Cathay are stepping back into HKG-MAN. I suspect Air China will want to gatecrash this party as they are very close to CX even though they are in different alliances, however time will tell.
http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/668082-china-hainan-in-the-frame-for-beijing-service.html
But despite the Chancellor's statement, the airport has insisted no agreement is yet in place.So Hainan have authority existing obstacles to someone else flying the route were over stated in terms of misunderstood bilateral issues.

j636

9th Oct 2014, 12:42

Skipness One Echo

Don't stir the pot to much.....

Skipness One Echo

9th Oct 2014, 12:51

It's OK I'm on his blocked list, but my feeling is this one will drag on for a bit, although I think MAN-PEK will be a good addition and quite soon. It's the "who" I wonder about.

BasilBush

9th Oct 2014, 16:31

In relation to CLT, there's quite a lot of coverage in the US press about the merged AA/US downscaling the Charlotte hub, so I would imagine that the chances of the MAN-CLT service resuming next year are close to zero.

Even in 2014 it looked as though it was struggling to achieve yield, judging by the fact that it was usually wide open for redemption bookings in both classes.

LAX_LHR

9th Oct 2014, 16:43

Hi I'm a manchester spotter and was curious to know about If anyone has heard further roumors of hainan starting up at manchester.:ok:
Thanks in advance!

Its been brought forward from June to May according to GDS and it has just been leaked in China as someone posted a picture of the internal Hainan res system, with Manchester 4 weekly from May in there. The fact cargo is being sold should tell you all you need to know.

Why the passenger side of the operation is not being announced yet is anyones guess.

Interestingly, they also intend to launch LHR daily from June. That will be all of the bilateral quota used up again.

Bagso

9th Oct 2014, 18:19

"That will be all of the bilateral quota used up again."

Interesting when I queried the increase 1 month back i'm sure Ringwayman said " absolute bags of capacity" with the new bilateral ?

May be a leap of faith but would an airline actually enter a market knowing there is no scope to increase service IF it were successful ?

Thanks to Lax for clarification on Hainan, I for one enjoy the postings of LAX which are at least normally "Positive".

Ps ...Do we have any analysts on here who just occasionally might be able to add some positive postings of their own ?

sarah19981

9th Oct 2014, 18:51

Hi lax_LHR I'm glad you and others replied to me. Just received a picture of someone giving a bouquet of flowers to a load of chinese fellers. I think we may get a announcement by next week or in about 2weeks. The person who sent the picture is a chinese fellor I know who works for hainan in Beijing!!!
Glad to see us securing anouther chinese flight!

Will this make a effect on cathay pacific with Hong Kong? :D

Skipness One Echo

10th Oct 2014, 00:25

Bagso if you feel the need to be "positive" find yourself a church, don't mix up faith and analysis, they're apples and pears. I am sure you enjoyed the postings of Egyptair doing well just as much but reality will bite you on the arse.

What clarification did I miss? Is it bookable yet? Um no. Cargo bookings = trucking. As to LHR with Hainan, I assume that with CA doubling capacity on LHR-PEK, Hainan are starting too? #really?

eggc

10th Oct 2014, 06:15

Nicked this from a a.net, take a look for the full post...

Hianan new routes 2015

1. HGH-LAX, APRIL, B787-8, 3X/2X
2. PEK-MAN, MAY, A330-200, 4X
3. PEK-YMQ (Montreal), JUNE, B787-9, 4X in summer / 3X in winter
4. PEK-AKL, JUNE, A330-200, 4-5X
5. NKG-SFO, JUNE, A330-200, 2-3X
6. PEK-JFK, JUNE, B787-8, 2X/7X
7. PEK-LONDON, JUNE, A330-200, D
8. PEK-TLV, SEPTEMBER, A330-200, 3X
9. PEK-CAN-NBO, SEPTEMBER, A330-200, 2X

Maybe London does not actually mean LHR, MAG's STN possibly ??

Hainan Airlines' New Routes In 2015 — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6200616/)

Betablockeruk

10th Oct 2014, 07:49

Just drove past one of these in Manchester.......

New adverts released - Taking Britain Further - Your Heathrow (http://your.heathrow.com/new-adverts-release-taking-britain/)

Think I'll go and post my 'MCFC Champions' poster in Liverpool city centre for a similar reaction.

MANFOD

10th Oct 2014, 08:03

"Just drove past one of these in Manchester.......

New adverts released - Taking Britain Further - Your Heathrow"

Dare one ask is it easily removable or capable of being desecrated?

I await my admonishment from Skippy for entertaining such a terrible thought about our superb and only UK hub.

Of course, MAN has been known to advertise in the Midlands, Yorkshire and Liverpool. Perhaps they ought to give the SE a try (tongue in cheek?).

chinapattern

10th Oct 2014, 08:07

As to LHR with Hainan, I assume that with CA doubling capacity on LHR-PEK, Hainan are starting too? #really?

Unless something has changed Hainan wouldn't be able to launch PEK-LHR as there is already one Chinese airline flying the route; assuming Air China have pulled LGW it's more probable Hainan will go there. Either way, going from 0 to 2 UK points in the space of a month is quite a bold move.

Logohu

10th Oct 2014, 08:22

Either way, going from 0 to 2 UK points in the space of a month is quite a bold move.

You can say that again, certainly worked well for Flynas .... not :ok:

Great news for MAN if/when it happens, but I think I'll wait for an official media release from either Hainan or the airport before I open that celebratory can of John Smiths ;)

Skipness One Echo

10th Oct 2014, 10:26

Of course, MAN has been known to advertise in the Midlands, Yorkshire and Liverpool. Perhaps they ought to give the SE a try (tongue in cheek?).
Of course they should it's really common. It's why T5 at LHR has a huge Air Canada advert extolling STAR Alliance at T2 right in the face of BA.

Mr A Tis

10th Oct 2014, 19:20

Ethiopian to launch Addis Ababa - Dublin - Los Angeles from June 2015.. Who says Dublin not chipping away at UK ??
Is APD a factor in route choices? Would have been a great coup for Manchester.
So, what's Dublin got to offer that Manchester doesn't on a route like this?

LAX_LHR

10th Oct 2014, 19:23

Fairdealfrank

10th Oct 2014, 22:01

So, what's Dublin got to offer that Manchester doesn't on a route like this?

Pre Clearance.

Due to the topography of Addis, plane has to stop en-route to LAX. May as well get the passengers cleared at DUB while the plane gets juiced up.

That way, Ethiopian has the right to use domestic gates at the lax end.
Indeed. Same principle as BA's LCY-SNN-JFK route: it has to stop anyway (refuelling and longer rwy) so may as well use the pre-clearance facility.

Makes sense, and, surprisingly, only 9 mi. longer than a direct great circle route (according to great circle mapper).

Great Circle Mapper (http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=add-lax%2C+add-dub-lax&RANGE=&PATH-COLOR=&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=)

TURIN

11th Oct 2014, 10:20

Don't worry. With all the Ebola hysteria the flight won't last long.

Una Due Tfc

11th Oct 2014, 11:08

And with the higher humidity in the 787, the virus may have a longer lifespan :}

North West

11th Oct 2014, 13:15

So, what's Dublin got to offer that Manchester doesn't on a route like this?

A traffic profile that is representative of the fact Ireland is a sovereign state, Dublin is the political and commercial capital and, according to the 2010 census in the US, about 38 million people in the states claim Irish ancestry.

Result - a more balanced two way passenger flow with a greater premium mix.

Of course, the tax and pre-clearance is a further advantage too.

Skipness One Echo

11th Oct 2014, 16:55

Mr A Tis

11th Oct 2014, 21:59

Nice to see the Virgin B787-900 drop in early evening tonight on the way back to Gatwick after a days crew training around the UK. Shame the BA 787 skipped MAN when they recently did sector training.

Fairdealfrank

12th Oct 2014, 14:44

I would imagine, though happy to be wrong, this would be ADD-(DUB)-LAX with anyone boarding in Ireland as an added bonus. Remember Kuwait fly KWI-LHR-JFK though don't register much in the UK-US market. Beyond a point in a press release and a dot on the map, I would be surprised if it added much to the Ireland US point to point market.
AI used to do BOM-LHR-JFK with full traffic rights from the 1960s until a few years ago (and unlike KW, booze is served).

Though it's hard to believe now, AI was a top-notch carrier back in the day. It was a popular and soughtafter carrier from the start as it had a unique selling point of being different from the run of the mill TATL carriers at a time when fares were all the same and set by IATA.

Regretably AI later became crap and the advantage was squandered. Traffic levels dropped off and the LHR-JFK section of the route was abandoned.

Much depends on how well ET market and promote the route, whether they can offer competitive fares and attract premium pax, and whether they can grab a share of the cargo business. Failing that, pre-clearance will have to be the factor that attracts sufficient ADD-LAX pax.

Bagso

12th Oct 2014, 17:55

"don't mix up faith and analysis,"

My Goodness Skippy, that is a bit rich !

Selective analysis comes to mind every time you make a post :ok:

When it comes to faith, your evangelical support of Heathrow is laudable, the problem is you consistently provide a raft of forensic evaluation in relation to Manchester whilst being highly selective when it comes to a fuller evaluation down South.

There seems to be an awful lot of “build and be damned” rhetoric, based on looking backwards when infact what you should be doing is actually looking forward !

What about other factors, these seem to be conveniently ignored in your arguments?

What of the monumental increases of passenger flows to other mega hubs from secondary airports in both UK and indeed the EEC.

Is LHR the still the airport of choice, West maybe but East ?

What about "trends" and the impact of possible even larger super Hubs at Istanbul and Dubai. These may well impact our "new" direct routes Hong Kong , China etc BUT will they not effect LHR as well ?

What about capacity constraints in the South East that will be imposed by a 3 runway at Heathrow, this will actually decrease overall movements in the South East that is a fact put forward by NATS, where does the other traffic go ?

The impact of ALL such factors deserves discussion, a sense of balance using your aviation background would just occasionally benefit the debate !

LAX_LHR

12th Oct 2014, 17:56

Nice Chinese freighter due tomorrow night.

Yantzee River Express B747F arrives at 2300, departs at 0100.

First visit of this company to the UK I believe.

Mr A Tis

12th Oct 2014, 18:09

Co-incidently, Yangtze River are part of the HNA Group...same as Hanain airlines...

sarah19981

12th Oct 2014, 18:17

j636

12th Oct 2014, 21:47

So CLT closure is finally confirmed only BCN of the 4 survives. Notice AA give ORD a rest until 16 April and not 29 March as previously planned.

Skipness One Echo

13th Oct 2014, 10:43

When it comes to faith, your evangelical support of Heathrow is laudable, the problem is you consistently provide a raft of forensic evaluation in relation to Manchester whilst being highly selective when it comes to a fuller evaluation down South.
For example? If you can quote where I have unfair by all means give an example, you might be right, but I can't comment until you give me one. btw I am a supporter of British aviation having one hub airport and that happens to be LHR, it's a necessary evil, not my favourite team.
There seems to be an awful lot of “build and be damned” rhetoric, based on looking backwards when infact what you should be doing is actually looking forward !
How many new runways have been built in the places the market wants? Terminals? In the period since 1980? If that was build and be damned it passed me by....
What of the monumental increases of passenger flows to other mega hubs from secondary airports in both UK and indeed the EEC.
What of it? It has made getting from A to B going East a one stop option rather than a two stop one, however for world cities on a one stop basis from MAN, using LHR is still an option. The skewed competitive nature and the regimes supporting the ME3 are a discussion for another time.
Is LHR the still the airport of choice, West maybe but East ?
Not "the" but still one of many like AMS with KLM, FRA with LH, ZRH with LX, CDG with AF. This is competitve nature of market economics.
What about "trends" and the impact of possible even larger super Hubs at Istanbul and Dubai. These may well impact our "new" direct routes Hong Kong , China etc BUT will they not effect LHR as well ?
Yes, they will.
What about capacity constraints in the South East that will be imposed by a 3 runway at Heathrow, this will actually decrease overall movements in the South East that is a fact put forward by NATS, where does the other traffic go ?
NATS have already run the simulations and whilst there will be changes, it's not going to be closing Gatwick or forcing stacks for Luton or Stansted unless you know something they missed.
The impact of ALL such factors deserves discussion, a sense of balance using your aviation background would just occasionally benefit the debate !
Yup maybe, but not on here. In other news, MAN-CLT isn't coming back next year as American look to synergise benefits with the US merger. As predicted sadly, but an opportunity to stop fannying about with loyal customers using MAN-ORD or is that extended suspension a clue where ORD might be headed in favour of focussing on PHL and JFK?

LAX_LHR

13th Oct 2014, 10:58

Don't know if anybody has realised but this airline is part of the HNA Group (Hainan). Brilliant for manchester as cargo is needed from china directly coming to manchester. But I reckon This has got something to do with Hainan airlines!

As far as I know, its a movement of livestock to Hohhot. They happen every few years, previous flights were run by China Southern.

chinapattern

13th Oct 2014, 11:17

So CLT closure is finally confirmed only BCN of the 4 survives. Notice AA give ORD a rest until 16 April and not 29 March as previously planned.

I don't think many expected CLT to return; the news of ORD is surprising though given this new date will be after the Easter break.

LAX_LHR

13th Oct 2014, 11:34

Its a shame MAN didn't keep the CLT route, it was actually getting some good numbers after a slower start.

The good thing is, MAN trans Atlantic capacity is still up for Summer 2015 versus this year.

We have lost Charlotte, and a suspension until April on Chicago.

However,

we have an increase on capacity to Atlanta, an extra 10 weekly flights to JFK, including 3 weekly on an A330, as well as 2 weekly to Miami.

There are also increases on Air Canada to Toronto, Thomson increases a few Caribbean routes and Puerta Vallarta. Thomas Cook also increases a few of their other TATL routes too.

This is not including the Thomas Cook Los Angeles and Providence routes, which, as well as appearing in the TCX website, but also now being advertised on the local radio stations as routes from Manchester.

So, not all doom and gloom!

MANFOD

13th Oct 2014, 13:33

I actually agree LAX - It's not all doom and gloom. But the introduction of TCX to more US routes does raise some questions to which we don't currently know the answers.

From MAN's perspective, it is essential that new services like TCX to JFK and MIA primarily generates new business - those pax that wouldn't otherwise fly the route, or at least not from MAN - rather than simply redistribute existing traffic. There is evidence that some of MAN's TATL services to the US are somewhat fragile - the biggest cut-backs in winter that I can remember, together with reductions in pax numbers in peak summer this year, particularly on ORD and PHL. ATL was significantly down also due to less capacity but LFs stayed reasonable and we have more capacity next summer. I'm led to believe that AA to ORD does not get the consistently high LFs in J class that it once enjoyed. It will be interesting to see how PHL fares in s2015 when there is no CLT. As LAX states, the latter did have some decent loads, including in the small J class cabin.

MAN has affirmed in the recent past that JFK is its most underserved route so if this is the case, then the new TCX flights should be a boost, even allowing for the new DL service.

MIA is a fair bit further south than MCO in Florida but will the new flights affect VS to MCO, or for that matter VS to ATL, or even US to PHL? Being only 2 x weekly, there is a fair chance that any redistribution will be thinly spread anyway against daily flights of the other operators. We wait and see.

However, there is a separate argument about the value of TCX flights against those of legacy carriers. Presumably TCX could be used to connect with Cruise Ships but, unlike AA, they can't realistically expect to gain business going on to South America. Essentially though, TCX is O & D, although of course there is some opportunity of connecting pax at the MAN end with flybe.

More flights to the Caribbean and Canada are definitely welcome.

The objective for MAN surely is to achieve real growth overall and without losing existing important carriers.

sarah19981

13th Oct 2014, 17:59

Thanks Lax_LHR! Any news on how the Cathay pacific flights are selling? As Chinese New Year celebrations after this flights starts start in china.?
Regards sarah:ugh:

spannersatcx

14th Oct 2014, 12:20

Thanks Lax_LHR! Any news on how the Cathay pacific flights are selling? As Chinese New Year celebrations after this flights starts start in china.?
Regards sarah:ugh:
Flts are selling very well, some already fully sold, xmas day full I believe!
CNY normally Feb/March time.

LAX_LHR

14th Oct 2014, 12:27

A spanners says,

Flights selling well, yield is well in line with expectations, and, discussions for daily flights are already taking place, but, thus far, aircraft availability is holding that back.

Bagso

14th Oct 2014, 17:20

I understand Manfods point, on the face of it yes lax is 100% correct its all good news, pax up 5%, 5 or 6 new routes next year, what on earth is the problem ?

Well on the US front leisure pax will I'm sure use the new TCX US services BUT business most certainly will not and quite frankly these should be an as well as, not an instead of, for an airport that has such high aspirations peddled by the marketeers within Airport City !

I notice to that the increase is being put down to #flymanchester, again....

Of course that helps and I for one keep banging on about getting the message out, there is life outside London. On that basis i can hardly complain but just maybe a general improvement in the economy might have more than a lot to do with such increases ! The hysteria in the media and Government re ebola seemingly ONLY affecting pax coming through LHR LGW and Eurostar is a sad but factual analysis of the none recognition of airports outside the South East !

On the theme of Airport City the initial marketing suggested this would be the largest building site in the UK, is it me or have they put all the spades away ?

To the South DHL and the access road appears complete but all the diggers appear to have packed up and gone home.

BasilBush

14th Oct 2014, 18:27

Don't play the martyr card on the Ebola measures, Bagso. The initial focus on LHR, LGW and Eurostar is a risk-based assessment, calculating that this will cover nearly 90% of all travellers from affected areas. The assumption is that it could well be rolled out to other points of entry as early as next week.

Ebola is a major world tragedy and it isn't really fair to use it as an example of north/South bias.

I agree with you however on the issue of Airport City being oversold. But it's early days yet.

roverman

14th Oct 2014, 21:24

Remember, Remember the Third of November. That'll Be The Day when you can begin travelling to MAN on 750v DC as the new airport Metrolink line opens to regular public service even earlier than previously notified. This is an amazing achievement by Transport for Greater Manchester and their contractor MPT. There will be a 12-minute frequency on the service, making a timetable unnecessary.

MAN now really is one of the best-integrated and most accessible airports in the UK, if not THE best.

LAX_LHR

14th Oct 2014, 21:30

Considering the original estimate for the tram line was 2016, the fact it is opening on the 3rd November is nothing but impressive.

Well done to all involved!

Mr A Tis

15th Oct 2014, 06:53

Bagso is so going to love this one, only LHR can save us :

Heathrow - Press releases - Only Heathrow can connect North and Western Lancashire businesses to emerging markets (http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Only-Heathrow-can-connect-North-and-Western-Lancashire-businesses-to-emerging-markets-a05.aspx)

AldiAl

15th Oct 2014, 08:27

Yup...Bagso will be reaching for the heart pills now!

I've never seen anything like it. I sincerely hope MAG have a great deal to say about this arrogance.

The message is there for all to see. This is a clear warning too about what HS2 would do TO us rather than FOR us up here in the north.

The press release just emphasises all we suspected.

Bagso

15th Oct 2014, 08:54

Clearly the #flymanchester hasn't reached the Lancashire Chambers Of Commerce !

All names taken

15th Oct 2014, 09:01

Wait a minute.
That article / press release.....
Quote: Heathrow is now the largest port in the UK in terms of freight handled End Quote
Really?
Wouldn't that be Felixstowe?

Bagso

15th Oct 2014, 09:22

Basil

Rest assured I was NOT trying trivialise Ebola or indeed turn it into a North South argument but in any other country the message would be rammed home that ALL border entry points regardless of geography, should be under the same critetia not a select few.

As you state 90% of traffic is coming through LHR LGW Eurostar so therefore 10% might permutate through other points of entry, shall we say it again ....that's 10% !

The Government and headline writers should have made it clear that ALL entry points need rigourous evaluation NOW !

Suggesting three specific points have checks introduced now whilst we get our act together on the others suggests a somewhat more relaxed approach !

It's a discussion I had over coffer with one of the NWESTs senior medics , it was he who raised this point, he shook his head in despair, there again what does he know.

North West

15th Oct 2014, 09:30

re the LHR campaign, this really is no different to the campaign that we used here in the 90s to promote R2. "Only Manchester Can Save The North" wasn't the strap line, but it might as well have been. There's oodles of runway capacity in the North and to persuade the public that digging up the Cheshire countryside was necessary meant the case needed to be made that capacity in Liverpool and Leeds wasn't the right sort of capacity or in the right place. This is no different to the LHR campaign of today.

Like all campaigns, there's an element of truth and an element of marketing. It was true in the 90s to say that certain markets and routes would only work from MAN in the North just as it's true to say today that on a national level there are routes that are only commercially viable form LHR.

It's also true to say that the economic value of a UK route into LHR is significant at the 'regional end' of the route. MAN-LHR is a large contributor of GVA in the North West because of it's premium mix and use by overseas visitors. The same thing is emerging on LBA-LHR too. But what about Liverpool, Teesside, Blackpool etc - they are effectively denied access. Is that useful for attracting inward investment and stimulating their economies ?

To me at least, it's not an 'either / or' question. Northern cities should have fast and regular access into LHR, either by air or rail. This will contribute to economic activity and over time increase the propensity to fly across the North of England. MAN will benefit from a more prosperous and economically active North as a result.

North West

15th Oct 2014, 09:35

Rest assured I was NOT trying trivialise Ebola or indeed turn it into a North South argument but in any other country the message would be rammed home that ALL border entry points regardless of geography, should be under the same critetia not a select few.

As you state 90% of traffic is coming through LHR LGW Eurostar so therefore 10% might permutate through other points of entry, shall we say it again ....that's 10% !

Well the US is "any other country" and I thought they had applied screening to 5 airports that receive 94% of travellers from West Africa. I would have thought that 6% of traffic into the US is a considerably larger number of people in absolute terms than 10% of traffic into the UK. Maybe not. The principle is the same though, is it not ?

GavinC

15th Oct 2014, 10:57

On the theme of Airport City the initial marketing suggested this would be the largest building site in the UK, is it me or have they put all the spades away ?

My understanding is that the new car park at the end of Ringway Rd needs to open allowing the car parks on the Airport City site to close. We'll then see a period of road and utility works (further to the works on Ringway Rd that have already happened) to create the basic infrastructure to support the buildings. Then we'll see the buildings start to rise.

It will be a slow process....

Shed-on-a-Pole

15th Oct 2014, 14:13

Nothing to see here. LHR spokesman talks up London Heathrow.

However, Mr Matt Gorman, if LHR is considered so crucial to Lancashire businesses maybe you could have a word with that airline which regularly cancels our connecting Shuttles to/from the place. You know, the company which gets our foreign competitors to their meetings on time but leaves Lancashire business travellers stranded. You know the one. Thanks for that.

Of course, if Lancashire business travellers book an airline via a hub which doesn't have the MAN flight at the top of their 'cancel' list, maybe they'd actually get to the meeting on time as well!

Now … where are MY heart pills!

LAX_LHR

15th Oct 2014, 15:54

On the subject of 'MAN vs London, I have found out whats holding up Hainan. Stansted.

Basically, MAG used a 'double airport' incentive, whereby it was a lower, flat rate for Hainan to serve both MAN/STN.

It seems on the surface, everything is ready to go, but, it now seems that for the London flights, LGW were not prepared to give in so easy, and thus some last minute negotiations are needed.

Apparently the MAN flights are safe and STN has still got the edge over LGW, however, MAG are really interested in 'doing the double', hence the wait.

Seems like some peoples fears are being realised (ei MAN flights going through, then MAG dangling STN in front of the airlines too)

North West

15th Oct 2014, 16:28

Seems like some peoples fears are being realised (ei MAN flights going through, then MAG dangling STN in front of the airlines too)

If this is your opinion, then one assumes you have completely discounted the theory that the attractiveness of a UK deal to serve two airports was what brought them to MAG in the first place. Something you might want to explore with your sources in more detail.

North West

15th Oct 2014, 16:33

Of course, if Lancashire business travellers book an airline via a hub which doesn't have the MAN flight at the top of their 'cancel' list, maybe they'd actually get to the meeting on time as well!

Now … where are MY heart pills!

% of flights to / from hub destinations ex-MAN delayed more than 30 minutes (FY2013)

3.4 OSLO (GARDERMOEN)
3.5 STOCKHOLM (ARLANDA)
5.1 SINGAPORE
5.5 AMSTERDAM
5.8 COPENHAGEN
5.9 FRANKFURT MAIN
5.9 MUNICH
7.2 PARIS (CHARLES DE GAULLE)
8.2 ISTANBUL
8.9 WASHINGTON (DULLES)
9.5 ABU DHABI INTERNATIONAL
9.9 DOHA
12.8 HEATHROW
12.8 NEW YORK (NEWARK)
13.0 ZURICH
13.6 NEW YORK (JF KENNEDY)
15.6 CHICAGO (O'HARE)
16.4 PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL
18.8 DUBAI

LAX_LHR

15th Oct 2014, 16:35

If this is your opinion, then one assumes you have completely discounted the theory that the attractiveness of a UK deal to serve two airports was what brought them to MAG in the first place. Something you might want to explore with your sources in more detail

Its not necessarily my opinion, but, its not exactly a great position for MAN as a standalone unit to be waiting on STN. Would it have been a lot smoother had MAG not brought STN, its all speculation and we will never know.

My comment was purely aimed at the fact this is the first time MAN has 'relied' on another airport to get its flight also. Nothing more.

MANFOD

15th Oct 2014, 16:40

I think you will find that MAN has been talking to Hainan for a few years, i.e before STN came on the MAG scene. My guess is that STN were brought to the table fairly late, perhaps only when the new bilateral was agreed, but I wonder whether LGW were already in contention for the London flights which is perhaps what LAX is suggesting.

Bagso

15th Oct 2014, 16:58

Seems like some peoples fears are being realised (ie MAN flights going through, then MAG dangling STN in front of the airlines too)

Dangling ? .....I could think of another term. It won't be dangling it will be incentivising on behalf of the greater good of the Group is that what they call it Skip ?

If they are doing this with Hainan it is almost 100% certain that the same type of thing is happening with other airlines.

What kind of market do we now operate ?

"buy one (Manchester) get one (Stansted) free".

Personally, (only my opinion) I'm appalled, although i'm sure Skippy will immediately suggest that's how business operates, i'm sure it is and no doubt our local shareholders will not give a damn who operates where as long as they get their nice slice of that lucrative divi'.

On a commercial level yes, of course I'm sure it all makes complete and perfect sense, but sorry I make no apologies.

STN might contribute to economies of scale blah, blah, blah but it contributes not one iota of worth to the options for the travelling public in the North Of England although I am sure the present management would provide P+Ls and a Balance Sheet that will tell a different story.

As Jim Royal might say

"Stansted ? ............................My ****"

MANFOD

15th Oct 2014, 17:05

I would have thought from an overall commercial and geographical standpoint, LGW would be more attractive to Hainan than STN. And in any case, would they simply be waiting for slots at LHR, or is that airport not available to them under the bilateral?

Shed-on-a-Pole

15th Oct 2014, 17:19

I would be deeply concerned if Hainan's incentives for operating ex-MAN were directly linked to a clause requiring the continuation of services ex-STN. A new long-haul service is a high risk undertaking at any airport including MAN and failure is always a possibility (see: FlyNas). However, STN in particular has a dismal record in sustaining long-haul schedules. This is largely due to the airport's proximity to the competing offerings ex-LHR (and to a lesser extent LGW). In STN's case the LHR factor has not gone away which would make a Hainan service there particularly high risk IMO. And that begs the question: if Hainan Airlines eventually chose to withdraw from STN, would they forfeit a linked package of incentives supporting their operation ex-MAN? I sincerely hope that this conundrum is never allowed to arise.

If MAG can attract Hainan Airlines to STN on its own merits, fair play to them. But please keep the terms of the MAN arrangements non-dependent on the airline sustaining its presence at STN.

nigel osborne

15th Oct 2014, 17:31

Hasn't it been tried more than once, long haul full fare airlines from STN just haven't worked ?.

Whether there is the demand for extra sched flights to Beijing from the south is also debatable.

Looking at the CAA stats LHR-Beijing have trodden water in recent months, up about 1% last month for example.

Add to this Air China chopping the 1st class from its LHR flights , can Hainan make a profit from STN.

If MAG bought STN to build on long haul full fare they may be disappointed ?

Nigel

LAX_LHR

15th Oct 2014, 17:32

And in any case, would they simply be waiting for slots at LHR, or is that airport not available to them under the bilateral?

Hainan are not permitted to serve LHR under the '1 airline per route' rule imposed on the Chinese carriers.

This also means that one Hainan starts MAN, that's it, we won't be able to deal with Air China or the likes on Beijing.

Bagso

15th Oct 2014, 17:37

One other point to ponder !

What would members of the Chinese Forum think if there were some linkage ?

Was this not an exclusive membership of Mancunian business, not aware there were any members based in Essex.

Fairdealfrank

15th Oct 2014, 18:26

LHR Press release

Bagso is so going to love this one, only LHR can save us :

Heathrow - Press releases - Only Heathrow can connect North and Western Lancashire businesses to emerging markets
Norman Tenray of the North and Western Lancashire Chamber of Commerce is correct. The fact is that some cities can support longhaul routes to several UK cities (e.g. New York), others to just one (e.g. Sao Paulo) and that one will be Heathrow. Some can support two (e.g Singapore and Hong Kong soon) and the two will usually be Heathrow and Ringway.

Obviously the majority of cities will only link to one UK airport, particularly in the BRIC countries and the other up-and-coming countries with which the UK needs to develop new trade links.

So yes, irrespective of the amount of longhaul routes that can be brought to Ringway (and the more the better obviously), links to Heathrow will always be needed. Think Mr Tenray was rightly hinting that flights between Speke and Heathrow would also be beneficial to Lancashire.

No need for heart pills, it's not either/or.

Wait a minute.
That article / press release.....
Quote: Heathrow is now the largest port in the UK in terms of freight handled End Quote
Really?
Wouldn't that be Felixstowe?
AFAIK, it's Heathrow followed by Dover.

re the LHR campaign, this really is no different to the campaign that we used here in the 90s to promote R2. "Only Manchester Can Save The North" wasn't the strap line, but it might as well have been. There's oodles of runway capacity in the North and to persuade the public that digging up the Cheshire countryside was necessary meant the case needed to be made that capacity in Liverpool and Leeds wasn't the right sort of capacity or in the right place. This is no different to the LHR campaign of today.

Like all campaigns, there's an element of truth and an element of marketing. It was true in the 90s to say that certain markets and routes would only work from MAN in the North just as it's true to say today that on a national level there are routes that are only commercially viable form LHR.
Exactly.

It's also true to say that the economic value of a UK route into LHR is significant at the 'regional end' of the route. MAN-LHR is a large contributor of GVA in the North West because of it's premium mix and use by overseas visitors. The same thing is emerging on LBA-LHR too. But what about Liverpool, Teesside, Blackpool etc - they are effectively denied access. Is that useful for attracting inward investment and stimulating their economies ?
Yes, have stated this many times, for smaller airports that are struggling to survive, a Heathrow link could make the difference. Clearly it can't happen under the present circumstances.

To me at least, it's not an 'either / or' question. Northern cities should have fast and regular access into LHR, either by air or rail. This will contribute to economic activity and over time increase the propensity to fly across the North of England. MAN will benefit from a more prosperous and economically active North as a result.
Would say "by air AND rail", rather than "by air OR rail". Reastically, Heathrow will never be connected to large parts of the rail network, access via London (or on very slow trains with a change at Reading) will be needed and that is very inconvenient.

Hasn't it been tried more than once, long haul full fare airlines from STN just haven't worked ?.

Whether there is the demand for extra sched flights to Beijing from the south is also debatable.

Looking at the CAA stats LHR-Beijing have trodden water in recent months, up about 1% last month for example.

Add to this Air China chopping the 1st class from its LHR flights , can Hainan make a profit from STN.

If MAG bought STN to build on long haul full fare they may be disappointed ?

Nigel

Think that Stansted is a red herring (unless we're talking cargo only). It's Ringway and/or Heathrow, and as mentioned above, there's already over-capacity on Heathrow-Peking, so why would anyone consider Stansted-Peking?

FRatSTN

15th Oct 2014, 18:27

Why all the negativity about the possible Hainan Airlines MAN/STN deal?

I don't think it's going to endanger MAN in any way. They could just as easily axe MAN if it didn't work for them. If there's a financial deal or package for Hainan to use both MAN and STN then that will help secure them at both airports for a longer term future. That is only going to be beneficial to the MAG group and indeed for Hainan Airlines.

Please also remember that STN has and still is seeing quite a few changes since it was released from "the dead hands of the BAA monopoly" as MOL quite nicely puts it (who's airline just as an extra point is now also the largest at MAN). Also, in fairness to STN, much of it's long-haul operations were operated by carriers who went bust at the start of the economic crisis.

It's not that there's not enough demand for long-haul from STN believe me! No airline under BAA's monopoly whereby competition was restricted with LHR could make STN profitable. Maybe the new ownership might just solve that issue.

Of course nothing is confirmed yet, but if they do announce MAN and STN flights, that is in no way a threat or of any disappointment to MAN.

Shed-on-a-Pole

15th Oct 2014, 18:38

I note your views, FRatSTN. And I have acknowledged that long-haul services can fail at MAN too. If STN does secure Hainan, good luck to them. But NO linked (co-dependent) incentive packages, please. I stand by every word I wrote in post #4323

viscount702

15th Oct 2014, 18:40

If STN is the reason for the delay on Beijing it will be a bit off if STN gets daily and MAN 4 pw.

Also I received an email from MAN this morning advertising flights to Beijing not on Hainan Airlines but AF via CDG.

andy mach 1

15th Oct 2014, 18:55

I know its going slightly off topic:

But according the the draft figures for 2012(latest I found) from the DFT the busiest UK port is Immingham/Grimsby with 60.1 million tonnes. Comparable data from the CAA for 2012 show Heathrow as 1.46 million tonnes. The DFT only shows the top 10 ports with Felixtowe as 7th 26.3 million tonnes and Dover 9th with 22.9 million tonnes.

So I think the figures are incomparable as they completely different types of ports. Do we class Drax power station as a port? Handled/burned approx 7.6 million tonnes in 2012

BasilBush

15th Oct 2014, 19:08

Heathrow's selective use of statistics is based on a ranking by value of cargo handled. From memory Heathrow has been top on that basis for decades. It would have been helpful if that was made clear in the article!

Obviously only high value (or time sensitive) cargo goes by air.

airhumberside

15th Oct 2014, 19:48

This also means that one Hainan starts MAN, that's it, we won't be able to deal with Air China or the likes on Beijing.
Air China (and I think only Air China) have received exemptions from that policy in the past

EDIT - link covering the subject http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/chinese-airlines-pioneer-new-international-strategies-jvs-to-overcome-internal-limitations-156522

sarah19981

15th Oct 2014, 19:51

So with all this tension with hainan when do we realisticly think there will be a announcement made as it's starting in May?
I do feel quite confussed!

EI-BUD

16th Oct 2014, 01:22

Reading comments here about a new service ex man and STN by Hainan, suggest that if STN doesn't work the man route could be jeopardised in some way. It's important to remember that the airline will operate on a commercial basis, Ie if STN doesn't work, MAG won't want to lose the route ex MAN etc etc. the airline will be in a strong position opposite mag.

It seems perfectly logical that mag would want to develop STN and if an incentive including MAN can be the vehicle then why not.

Lack of connectivity at stn with non low cost carriers makes it challenging for long haul carriers. Equally looking at BA's recent foray into london chengdu shows how difficult it is to develop and sustain new long haul routes, and that from a key hub. BA cite other challenges such as visas etc as factors. So it's not straight forward by any means.

Bagso

16th Oct 2014, 05:56

Manchester-China Forum appoints executive director - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/manchester-china-forum-appoints-executive-director-4034320)

Setting up this group was specifically about Manchester NOT Stansted.

See paragraph by Charlie Cornish.

What on earth do MAGs partners think ?

As I mentioned earlier there was no mention of Stansted !

This group was instrumental in getting negotiations underway to have the UK China bilateral amended in the first place ! Pressure was put on Government and to his credit the Chancellor did at least also get involved to assist.

A positive outcome came about weeks ago, we have now lost 2 months of potential advance bookings and now there is a suggestion it's because STN has some how been shoe horned into the negotiations !

ANO if true how on earth do they end up with a daily service ?

Logohu

16th Oct 2014, 06:38

Taking the optimistic view, one would hope that the appointment of such an experienced and (presumably) expensive executive is another indication of an impending direct service from MAN to China.

Otherwise it's a bit like employing a manager for a grocery shop that has no groceries to sell.

Curious Pax

16th Oct 2014, 08:27

Seems to me like rational thinking has gone out of the window at the first mention of the dreaded "S" word!

Based on what LAX has said, MAN and Hainan were at the handshake stage for MAN flights, suggesting that both sides believe that a profitable service is viable. Someone has then heard Hainan were looking at LGW in addition to MAN. 'Hold on' they said, 'if you send those flights to STN instead of LGW we can improve the deal we have already agreed even further'. 'That interests us' said Hainan, 'we'll have some negotiating to do to sort out permissions for the STN end, so we'll hold off announcing the MAN flights until we know if STN is going ahead. Bigger headlines if we can announce 2 destinations at the same time. It's 7 months before we plan to launch MAN, so hanging on for a few weeks isn't going to make significant difference'.

If the announcement hasn't happened by the end of the year (which would still give 5 months ahead of the start date) then I might start to get concerned, but 7 months? Get real!

Further down the line if the profitability of either route isn't working out as well as they hoped, then I'm sure Hainan would use the fact that increasing airport charges if they dropped one of STN or MAN would place the other one in jeopardy as a negotiating point.

To my mind the biggest potential fly in the ointment is if Air China decide they want the MAN-PEK route for themselves, and Chinese politics dictates that their wishes supercede Hainan's wishes.

MANFOD

16th Oct 2014, 08:47

Curious Pax, your scenario is a very reasonable one. What does occur to me is what happens if Hainan decide on LGW after all? Would they be prepared to keep to the original MAN deal (without STN), or press MAG to accept the terms they could have had with MAN plus STN? I suppose it could depend on how the 'double' package was structured and whether the same charges applied to both airports or whether the 'discount' favoured STN more strongly.

commit aviation

16th Oct 2014, 13:32

Is it possible the STN route isn't passengers at all but cargo?? I know the director for cargo is out that way drumming up business at the present time. Perhaps someone is putting 2 & 2 together & coming up with 5 (....& quite possibly that someone is me!!!) ;-)

Bagso

18th Oct 2014, 10:24

Skipness One Echo

18th Oct 2014, 11:32

North West

18th Oct 2014, 13:40

Given that Virgin have just axed various "trunk" routes to Heathow where does that leave the domestic connectivity debate ?

That unless you have the appropriate level of scale to feed and de-feed the hub, it doesn't work. Little Red were attracting point to point passengers at relatively low yield and competing in part with their own point to point service on the railway

Do we assume that this connectivity has to be introduced by BA ?

They have the scale, so naturally. Or an affiliate they could partner with to offer code-share agreements. Similar to Stobart / Aer Lingus or bmi regional / Lufthansa

Are they going to invest in a short haul fleet on what to me appears to be a punt ?

They have a short-haul fleet. There are lots of short-haul routes in and out of LHR. If there were greater access into LHR then the opportunities to consider partnerships with airlines with smaller a/c become more viable both for the UK domestic market and access from smaller mainland Europe markets.

rutankrd

18th Oct 2014, 14:23

Quote:
Given that Virgin have just axed various "trunk" routes to Heathow where does that leave the domestic connectivity debate ?
That unless you have the appropriate level of scale to feed and de-feed the hub, it doesn't work. Little Red were attracting point to point passengers at relatively low yield and competing in part with their own point to point service on the railway

Oft quoted and just plain wrong the Virgin franchises have nothing in common let alone the fact that the rail franchise is largely in the hands of Stagecoach whilst the airline Delta.

You think a UK based bus company and the worlds biggest airline oh part time oil refining company talk really ?

Do we assume that this connectivity has to be introduced by BA ?
They have the scale, so naturally. Or an affiliate they could partner with to offer code-share agreements. Similar to Stobart / Are Lingus or bmi regional / Lufthansa

I think the Irish gentleman at the top table of IAG rather thinks poorly of franchising- He closed down those on home turf some years ago.

Quote:
Are they going to invest in a short haul fleet on what to me appears to be a punt ?
They have a short-haul fleet. There are lots of short-haul routes in and out of LHR. If there were greater access into LHR then the opportunities to consider partnerships with airlines with smaller a/c become more viable both for the UK domestic market and access from smaller mainland Europe markets.

Fundamentally this is probably the real sticking point for many of the neo-liberal economists in the right of the Tory party - Specifically such investment might be seen as a subsidy toward BA/IAG and not true market lead competition.

Many of those neo-libs pretty much control the party and the Tory's couldn't give toss about loss of transfer passengers so long as they can get to/from New York twice an hour !

kjsharg

19th Oct 2014, 12:42

Hi all,

Hows Cathay looking for the loads as it starts soon?

They still looking at increasing frequency?

kieb92

19th Oct 2014, 15:35

According to Jethros, Jet2 to lease an A330-300 from Air Asia X and to be MAN based for Summer 2015

nigel osborne

19th Oct 2014, 20:13

FRASTN.

Re your "It's not that there's not enough demand for long-haul from STN believe me!"

Absolutely !

The problem and its a major one, is that STN has been unable to get business travellers to travel to STN in large numbers for the long haul full fare airlines.

Just ask American Airlines for one, who tried it twice !

Not sure how you change that unless the UK Govt forces those airlines out of LHR into STN.

Nigel

nigel osborne

19th Oct 2014, 20:19

Folks,

Whats the plans for the Jet 2 A333, will it replace MON to Florida and do Med flights for Cosmos ??

Nigel

Fairdealfrank

20th Oct 2014, 02:27

I have no issue with Heathrow attempting to market their services in the NWest, its no different to MAG advertising on the London Underground, I do however see it as something of a failure of communication on MAGs part that this organisation seemingly sees Heathrow as the natural entry/exit point for the UK.
It is the natural entry/exit point for the UK to/from countries that can only support one route to the UK, if there are more, then other UK airports come into the equation, usually starting with Ringway.

FairDealFrank

Always enjoy your posts and you are clearly as passionate a supporter of Heathrow as I am with regard Manchester !
Thank you Bagso, but in fairness, am a supporter of all UK airports, including Ringway. Want to see the aviation industry prosper and really don't see it as either/or. Also believe that Heathrow expansion is critical for the UK, good for all UK airports, and it doesn't harm Gatwick.

There is a constant theme of connectivity to the regions which LHR also champion in there adverts.

Given that Virgin have just axed various "trunk" routes to Heathow where does that leave the domestic connectivity debate ?
Clearly this is needed, it is ludicrous that only 7 UK airports are linked to Heathrow.

As for VS, think it's a pity that it hasn't worked, but it wasn't widely advertised or promoted. My impression is that VS's heart wasn't really in it (VS did not take up the full allocation of slots) and it was a case of going through the motions to deny something to BA: another 9 slot pairs.

Do we assume that this connectivity has to be introduced by BA ?

Are they going to invest in a short haul fleet on what to me appears to be a punt ?
Would have said not, apart from INV or JER perhaps. BA doesn't have small enough planes for the thin routes. Think it would be a job for smaller carriers, BD reg, BE, or T3 perhaps, with some sort of through-ticketing/code-sharing arrangements with BA, VS, and/or other carriers.

They seem lukewarm with regards to RW3 anyway as their market share generally will reduce considerably, what we have we hold might be the mantra, so who exactly picks up that mantle, FlyBe or a new entrant ? No, BA are not lukewarm to another rwy, it need more slots. BA also need its flights to be able to arrive/depart on time, and not to waste fuel and time queing to take off and stacking to land.

If/when(?) another rwy opens the airport goes from operating at 99% capactity to 67% at a stroke. This means free slots for all, incuding BA and VS, and for as many other carriers that want them.

Would expect to see a U2 presence (taking on BA) and the likes of BD reg, BE, or T3 on the thinner routes.

And what of these "unserved regions"

Liverpool - KLM connected a "Global hub" 3 times day recently , the service last barely 18 months.

Teeside - Do you go head to head with KLM ? Given that the cost base does not support charters, it does beg the question as to the long term viability of even this route, so would LHR be dooable ?

Humberside - Again do you go head to head with KLM ?
Heathrow Airport Ltd. appear to believe so.

MPs from up and down the country want their areas connected, and these votes would be necessary to get any legislation through. BA, VS and others need the feed for their long haul flights.

From Heathrow Airport Ltd. publication “Connecting Regions”:

“A third runway will allow more flights to destinations such as Exeter, Liverpool, Newquay, Jersey, Inverness, Isle of Man and Humberside will give regional passengers more choice over routes and fares.”

Page 14 of the Heathrow Airport Ltd. publication “Taking Britain Further” shows a map of existing and possible future domestic connections. The latter includes CWL, EXT, HUY, INV, JER, LPL, NQY.

The first list includes IOM, the map CWL, the other airports are on both the list and the map.

Have to admit, wasn't expecting HUY to be on the list, nor CWL on the map, and surprised not to see GCI, MME and NWI.

One thing Heathrow could offer pax at small regional airports over and above connections to the world is a link to London (important in our centralised country) and to the many businesses located in the Thames Valley. Being able to offer all of these would make thin routes viable.

Your thoughts ?
Hope you like them!

Fairdealfrank

20th Oct 2014, 02:48

Domestic connectivity could be ring fenced with x% of new slots allocated to new unserved destinations. Remember how well INV-LHR did for Dan Air even though it was a stand alone? So INV, JER, GCI, IOM could all support a LHR link but at the cost of some LGW/STN connections. It would allow connectivity to the world without the troop around the M25. It can be done, there just needs a pricing policy to support it as part of the agreement to expand LHR.
Yes, LGW and STN would lose some links.

I doubt LPL, BHX or NQY could make the case but it depends how supportive any government wants to be outside the craziness of the London bubble.
BHX-LHR was a BD route back in the day, probably not coming back. As for the other two, Heathrow Airport Ltd. appear to believe so. If there is a PSO for NQY at that time, imagine that would shift to LHR, ditto DND.

That unless you have the appropriate level of scale to feed and de-feed the hub, it doesn't work. Little Red were attracting point to point passengers at relatively low yield and competing in part with their own point to point service on the railway
VS failed to do what BD had done: a deal with the star Alliance for connections.

I think the Irish gentleman at the top table of IAG rather thinks poorly of franchising- He closed down those on home turf some years ago.
Things change, collaboration doesn't have to be franchising.

Fundamentally this is probably the real sticking point for many of the neo-liberal economists in the right of the Tory party - Specifically such investment might be seen as a subsidy toward BA/IAG and not true market lead competition.
More likely to be interfering EU busy-bodies poking their unwanted noses in.

Regretably we're unlikely to have left the EU if and when a third LHR rwy opens.

Both are unlikely in most of our lifetimes.

kieb92

20th Oct 2014, 07:56

Mahan Air have just announced 3 weekly Tehran to Gatwick using A310/A340. I wonder if Manchester would be reconsidered?

Aviator ? Aviator signs contract with Mahan Air (http://www.aviator.eu/aviator-signs-contract-with-mahan-air/)

ATNotts

20th Oct 2014, 08:39

Mahan Air have just announced 3 weekly Tehran to Gatwick using A310/A340. I wonder if Manchester would be reconsidered?

More likely BHX, if they wanted more than one UK arrival point, given that they served it successfully for some time, until international politics intervened - again.

My guess however is that having apparently gained usable slots at LGW, they're more likely to concentrate on the London market that move north this time. in fact reading the very short release from Aviator that would appear to be the plan; LGW with first diversion option being BHX - though why they should put this into the release seems a little strange to me - any they planning diversions?

TURIN

20th Oct 2014, 09:27

With the demise of Little Red, does anyone here know whether BA will be increasing MAN-LHR flights to compensate?

LN-KGL

20th Oct 2014, 11:10

Not likely if the loads were like the Little Red I flew with from MAN to LHR in late July 2013 (16 paying souls on board).

cornishsimon

20th Oct 2014, 11:31

Might see an overall increase in BA seats I suppose by scheduling more A320/321 instead of 319s.

cs

TURIN

20th Oct 2014, 13:05

I just wondered if the early morning flights were carrying good loads BA may need an extra nightstopper.

The96er

20th Oct 2014, 14:25

I just wondered if the early morning flights were carrying good loads BA may need an extra nightstopper.

There are planned to be 2 BA nightstoppers per night for the Winter schedule except Friday nights and then from 24th Nov onwards on Mondays and Tuesdays, there will be 3 night stoppers. Summer 2015 schedule has not been finalized yet.

Bagso

20th Oct 2014, 18:06

Talking of Shuttles BA have canx 10% of all Heathrow Arrivals tomorrow.....

Tonight's quiz. ..which flights will be cancelled ?

MANFOD

20th Oct 2014, 18:48

I assume it's the forecast strong winds that have caused BA to cancel flights.

When that wind swings round to North Westerly, I see potential big problems for MAN if gusts reach 30-45 mph for R23 even if it's dry by then.

BHX is better placed with R33, and what happens at LHR on 27s will depend on any windsheer, how strong the gusts are etc. Likely to affect rate of arrivals though I imagine.

All if the forecast proves accurate of course.

Bagso

21st Oct 2014, 07:15

The 1325 and 1520 shuttles canx today following a specific request from Heathrow Airport and NATs to cancel 10% of all Heathrow flights.

Scrolling down the arrivals at LHR (as at 0800) it seems specific to BA, as the largest operator no other flights (Other than LH strike are affected).

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

Not sure BMI Regional will be feeding LHR anytime soon !

http://www.incentivetravel.co.uk/news/airportairline/22874-heathrow-too-slow-local-the-way-to-go-says-bmi-regional

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

and finally The China Forum presents some major opportunities for Chinese investors in Manchester !

https://bdaily.co.uk/entrepreneurship/21-10-2014/greater-manchester-delegation-launches-investment-portfolio-in-china/

Fantastic BUT if it is nailed on without specifics, why not be much more positive and say

"..and soon there WILL be direct flights to Beijing as well Hong Kong "

Gavin

With reference your comments and the China Forum above, my concern is that the Manchester Forum was partially part of the driving force in terms of this agenda for amending the UK - China bi lateral, I agree "if" there is an opportunity to include STN then MAG will no doubt grasp the opportunity BUT it still introduces a degree of risk, something that would not have occurred if the MAN route was ringfenced.

So is It ?

Given the lack of announcement negotiations do indeed appear to be MAG versus X as opposed to Manchester versus X.

If the charges for MAN are "XYZ" what happens if an airline now chooses to play one off against the other?

I assume charges at MAN are set at a commercial level, is this the case at STN given it has no long haul network ?

Will charges at STN be discretionary in light of this or is the CAA ruling still in force ?

Could this not put MAG in same position as the BAA with one airport being seen to effectively cross subsidize another ?
Not sure what the position is now on this one

I sincerely hope that everytime there is a potential new entrant to Manchester or a proposed route expansion we are not going to have STN hang onto Manchester's shirt tail although I suspect we will !

sarah19981

21st Oct 2014, 18:52

I guess the loads are brillant for cathay pacific for the first 2 months with flights coming into manchester overbooked on the first week. Let's see what cathay does now?

Also any further news on hainan to finish this jigsaw of before a announcement??. Also I inboxed them on Facebook this morning and there reply was " thank you for reaching out to us, but we do not have any further developments with the flights to manchester. We know the same as publicly known, also you will surely be one of our special inbox requesters for a direct message from us once we can start offering flights to manchester- Beijing"

Now I didn't mension beijing but ok...
Seems there's deffinetly something holding a announcement back! :rolleyes:

VickersVicount

21st Oct 2014, 20:41

...I think youre reading too much into a call centre social media operator comments. Did you expect them to suggest Chengdu instead of Beijing ?

sarah19981

21st Oct 2014, 20:49

No but they gave it away!

BasilBush

21st Oct 2014, 23:21

Bagso

Charges at STN are no longer regulated by CAA - it was removed from price control in April and is now in the same situation as MAN. So it can charge what it chooses, subject to compliance with general competition law (which obviously applies to any airport).

As for any 'cross subsidy' I really don't think this arises. Both airports are highly profitable so I don't think there can be any suggestion of cross subsidy.

Fairdealfrank

21st Oct 2014, 23:31

Not sure BMI Regional will be feeding LHR anytime soon !
Clearly not under present circumstances, it was only suggested as a possibility with another rwy. With expansion, everything changes.

kieb92

22nd Oct 2014, 09:43

Manchester Airport Winter 2014 summary has been released. W14 looking better than W13.

Main points:

- DL still down as 764
- Sunair increasing Gothenburg and Billund
- Some SAS decreases
- SN Brussels all A319
- Thomson - New winter to Kuusamo and general increase to most winter destinations

Most other points have been previously reported:

http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/MAN%20Start%20of%20Season%20W14.pdf

MANFlyer

22nd Oct 2014, 10:41

Flights selling well, yield is well in line with expectations, and, discussions for daily flights are already taking place, but, thus far, aircraft availability is holding that back.

Wow, no wonder you've got a fan club on here LAX_LHR. When you are now at the stage where you are trying to make it look like you've got access so deep inside an international airline based 6000 miles away that you know what their yield is, on a route that hasn't even started yet, then that really is impressive. :rolleyes:

Give it a rest for gods sake, you're making yourself look very silly.

spannersatcx

22nd Oct 2014, 13:10

And remember bookings don't always mean a sale!

LAX_LHR

22nd Oct 2014, 15:52

Wow MANflyer,

Did it take you the whole 8 days to come up with that post?

And to think you called me silly.
Wierdo.

sarah19981

22nd Oct 2014, 17:35

I totally agree with lax_lhr!
Man flyers just picking for a fight!

Skipness One Echo

22nd Oct 2014, 17:56

Disagree, LAX_LHR spends his days trawling GDS and pretending he knows more than he does. If you think this guy knows anything about confidential and commercially sensitive yield data for a Hong Kong based airline then think again.

Isn't it a little "wierd" to state you know yield data for Cathay when you don't? This guy has little credibility when he overstates his "insider" knowledge in such a ludicrous manner.

BasilBush

22nd Oct 2014, 18:10

Yes, Skip. And advance sales often conflict with good yields, if an airline has to bulk sell to tour operators (etc) so as to guarantee good loads.

I was surprised that although last nights US734 PHL-MAN had only one seat free in the front, the average age must have been close to 70. Apart from me and (possibly) another couple of business types, it seemed that most of the pax were grey panthers on organised trips. Even my (late booked) ticket was well under half what BA wanted to charge me.

Good luck to Cathay - and I think they will thrive - but let's not get carried away just yet.

PPRuNe Pop

23rd Oct 2014, 05:19

Cut the snide please.

PPP

Betablockeruk

23rd Oct 2014, 10:59

Chinese airline bids to boost UK-Beijing connections - Business Traveller (http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/100967/china-airline-bids-to-boost-beijing-connections)

Nothing to see here. Move along.

:zzz:

MANFOD

23rd Oct 2014, 11:28

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

Well, yes and no. We had been led to believe the London service would be LGW or STN and MAG were pushing for a double deal with the latter. If Hainan have put LHR in the frame, it does seem likely that application would be refused. One would hope the MAN application would be dealt with separately and Hainan would move to plan B for London without any impact on the MAN service. But who knows.

chinapattern

23rd Oct 2014, 11:50

All I'd add is that when has an airline entering the UK market for the first time successfully launched flights other than from a London airport before branching out?

BasilBush

23rd Oct 2014, 12:05

I'm not clear on what basis an application to use LHR would be refused, subject of course to the overall cap on UK/China frequencies. Of course they would need to source slots, but a determined airline can usually pick them up. And who knows whether Delta/VS have found a use for all of Little Red's MAN-LHR slots, which are VS's own (ie not remedy slots) and which become available from the Summer 2015 season. Maybe VS will need to find a home for some of the slots (by selling or leasing).

MANFOD

23rd Oct 2014, 12:32

Regarding an application by Hainan to serve LHR, this is what was said in that article.

"According to The Centre for Aviation, the odds are stacked against a Heathrow service, due to slot issues. Moreover, there may well be further difficulties in securing the rights to compete against Air China and the other incumbent, British Airways".

Perhaps I should have said 'could' rather than 'likely' to be refused.

BasilBush

23rd Oct 2014, 13:42

Thanks MANFOD. Perhaps they were referring to internal Chinese politics, which I imagine are impenetrable. We shall see, anyway.

LAX_LHR

24th Oct 2014, 04:26

Air Canada mainline seem to be taking over the rouge route at MAN. AC1930 from 2nd Oct 2015 is no longer showing 'operated by rouge', and the loaded seat maps show AC mainline B767 seat maps.

EDI/DUB checked for comparison to see if its a website blip (ei fares/aircraft not fully loaded as so far in advance), and dates checked show their flights as 'operated by rouge' into Oct on the website.

StoneyBridge Radar

24th Oct 2014, 11:56

Air Canada mainline seem to be taking over the rouge route at MAN. AC1930 from 2nd Oct 2015 is no longer showing 'operated by rouge', and the loaded seat maps show AC mainline B767 seat maps.

If you try to process a reservation, it shows J class zeroed out.

If you select W class instead and then seat availability, it offers you rows 1 - 4 as 2x2x2 seating, which of course is not the mainline config for J, which is 1x1x1 herringbone.

j636

24th Oct 2014, 12:20

They had mainline and rouge showing for July for a time until they changed.

If they had any interest in MAN they would of not waited until rouge happened to launch MAN.

Skipness One Echo

24th Oct 2014, 12:59

If they had any interest in MAN they would of not waited until rouge happened to launch MAN.
Re-launch surely?
Bear in mind Air Canada served MAN from 1986 before going latterly seasonal and dropping the route at the end of summer 2007. They know the market quite well and aside from a one time loss making attempt in the mid 90s to use YYZ as a hub to connect to the US up against the big boys, they operated 5 x Daily with GLA in winter, it's been a leisure focussed route.

In the new Air Canada world, that's always going to be Rouge.

j636

24th Oct 2014, 14:07

Re-launch surely?
Bare in mind Air Canada served MAN from 1986 before going latterly seasonal and dropping the route at the end of summer 2007. They know the market quite well and aside from a one time loss making attempt in the mid 90s to use YYZ as a hub to connect to the US up against the big boys, they operated 5 x Daily with GLA in winter, it's been a leisure focussed route.

In the new Air Canada world, that's always going to be Rouge.

Yeah re launch forgot about that... :ok:

StoneyBridge Radar

24th Oct 2014, 19:46

Bare in mind Air Canada served MAN from 1986

...which in its previous incarnation was a Canadian Airlines route, which itself was previously CP Air...

Some history to the route, but a classic declining VFR market.

On a side note, the bears were not bare, but bearing in mind the sentence quoted, I'm sure you meant bear and not bare.. :cool:

BasilBush

24th Oct 2014, 19:53

Any idea what happened to today's AA211? Looks like it isn't expected to depart until midday tomorrow (Saturday).

TURIN

24th Oct 2014, 19:58

Went tech. Engine problem, awaiting spares.

BasilBush

24th Oct 2014, 20:02

Thanks Turin.

Ian Brooks

24th Oct 2014, 22:34

At one point we had Canadian/cp Air and Air Canada operating

Skipness One Echo

25th Oct 2014, 00:01

Not quite right with the timeline. Air Canada launched MAN in 1986 long before the merger with Canadian. Both served MAN-YYZ until CP pulles out, around the time they got LHR access. (Am I misremembering that timing?)
Air Transat and Worldways also competed in that same space alongside Canada 3000.

I had the right "bear" to start with and changed it. My bad.

sarah19981

25th Oct 2014, 11:46

Hainan Airlines eyes ambitious 2015 with wishlist for nine new long-haul routes | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/hainan-airlines-eyes-ambitious-2015-with-wishlist-for-nine-new-long-haul-routes-191664)

I found this so interesting the fact that they are scared of cathay pacific with being scared of going into competition with them!
Also never knew that they had to open another route in uk for heathrow (if it was to be successfully opened!):ugh:

MANFOD

25th Oct 2014, 12:51

Yes, interesting view by CAPA on the 2 UK route applications:

"It is exceptionally difficult to see Hainan awarded the right to fly Beijing-London Heathrow. The route is important for Air China and Hainan may not be able to receive authority unless it opens another "trade-off" route that China has identified as a strategic priority. Further, Hainan would need to obtain London Heathrow slots.

It is difficult but not impossible to see a Manchester service."

The report goes on to talk about CX starting at MAN, onward connections to Australia and premium demand.

Matters appear to have got rather complicated since our Chancellor jumped the gun with his comments! Still, ever hopeful.

Ringwayman

25th Oct 2014, 18:09

MAN-HKG in excess of 100,000 passengers

MAN-other China in excess of 100,000 passengers

No reason to suppose that we can't have both routes operating successfully?

Both served MAN-YYZ until CP pulles out, around the time they got LHR access. (Am I misremembering that timing?)

CP altered MAN to operate 3 or 4 weekly as YYZ-LHR-MAN service (CDN90/91).

LAX_LHR

25th Oct 2014, 19:41

Its worth noting the CAPA article is by no means affiliated to Hainan, and is just expanding on already reported info with its own opinion. Therefore, just because they say 'its difficult to see a MAN flight', does not mean that view is shared by the airline.

Its also worth noting that Hainan have not applied for LHR slots. The table of 'future routes' by Hainan, being quoted by various sources lists purely 'London', to which STN and LGW were the 2 airports vying for the service (Richard Maslen of routes picked up on HU looking at STN a few months ago in fact). LHR was purely a translation error by someone on a.net (to which they corrected to say just 'London'), but for some reason LHR seems to have been continued to be broadcast.

ICEHOUSES

25th Oct 2014, 21:39

Canadian operated YYZ services cp82/83 1990 through to 1995 I think, 763 equipment, declining market as previous poster said.

Bagso

26th Oct 2014, 10:20

Does anybody know how the car parking issue will work with reference to Airport City ?

When they start in earnest his will swallow up a substantial amount of land currently used for parking, clearly you can't start digging until you resolve this dilemma. Cannot see the new car park at The Tatton Arms taking all this capacity but maybe others know different.

Ian Brooks

26th Oct 2014, 10:39

The new car park nr Tatton Arms is for 9000 cars so is large

Ian

Bagso

26th Oct 2014, 12:08

Many thanks. I just wondered if that capacity would swallow all the existing other car parks which will be bullt on plus the T2 apron ?

If it does I assume they will start to empty. No evidence yet and as far as I could see on last vist the Tatton park is fully open.

Just surprised they have not emptied all the others by now.

seahawks

26th Oct 2014, 15:09

Some stands returning to service at the end of this week. 72, 73 and those opposite iirc.

GavinC

26th Oct 2014, 19:25

I think the idea of the 9000 spaces is that it can replace pretty much all the existing if and when that is needed for Airport City / Terminal redevelopment / Apron etc....

Bagso

27th Oct 2014, 17:19

Good luck to NCL and their NYC service !

Now, how do they go about announcing a new service ?

Scatter gun, fragmented, haphazard ?

No, simple basic textbook stuff, well delivered and hitting target audience !

Website updated instantly !
not 3 days later
3 week later
OR 3 months later But within 3 hours of the formal announcement !

see Website
Fly direct to New York with United Airlines - Newcastle Airport (http://www.newcastleairport.com/newyork)

Was Twitter forgotten, no, in unison, with PR was not just sent to the "Newcastle Daily Bugle " but also the audience at the OTHER END - USA Today

Twitter link from USA Today by 1130
United to launch route from Newark to Newcastle, England (http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/10/27/united-to-launch-route-from-newark-to-newcastle-england/18001719/)

"hang on they are in marketing they must have missed off something, maybe facebook?

https://www.facebook.com/nclairport

That is how to do it, an immediate, swift, passionate, creative tsunami of publicity !

ALL media channels covered in a uniform manner
PR in UK And the USA, not just a local regional newspaper
AND blow me, all this same day the service is announced allowing maximum opportunity for bookings.

Now lets compare what they do at a major international.....

please note message was cut due to exhaustive use of profanities

Bagso

27th Oct 2014, 17:49

and whilst i'm in rant Mode

Posters Promoting Heathrow Airport Snubbed In Birmingham

Consider how a local Chamber Of Commerce reacted to the Heathrow posters appearing all over the Midlands...versus those appearing in the Manchester catchment area !

Jerry Blackett, from the Chamber of Commerce, told Heart "I'm not having that, I'm not having them coming here pretending we love Heathrow."

Some on here would say misguided but at least there is an ounce of passion !

Not saying he is right OR wrong, simply an observation from two differing regional viewpoints !

Ringwayman

27th Oct 2014, 19:31

Good luck to NCL and their NYC service !

Now, how do they go about announcing a new service ?

Scatter gun, fragmented, haphazard ?

No, simple basic textbook stuff, well delivered and hitting target audience !

Website updated instantly !
not 3 days later
3 week later
OR 3 months later But within 3 hours of the formal announcement !

So.. perhaps I should not have googled "Cathay Pacific Manchester Hong Kong".

Route announced 9th April.

On MAN website at 1709, on the Cathay website on 10th April. Bunch of newspapers from the Evening News through to the Guardian through to the FT all carry the story 10th April. Publicised through the travel industry 10th April from Buying Business Travel to Travel Trade Gazette.

In the South China Morning Post 10th April. Whether Chinese language papers carried the story I've not checked.

ITV report 10th April.

Twitter feed active from 1am 10th April as a retweeet of the Evening News report.

Can't spot the facebook post but think that's more down to how facebook displays items.

Certainly looks like a haphazard, fragmented and scattergun approach to the reporting of that new route, doesn't it. :rolleyes:
___

Of course the other thing note is that NCL has precisely 1 long-haul route at the moment. So are you actually surprised that they've burst into activity? It's not as if UA will be competing with EK whereas here, we did have the brouhaha regarding "1st direct service to Asia" when SQ may have felt a little neglected?

Bagso

27th Oct 2014, 22:10

Ringwayman

Highly selective if i may say, my goodness if only CX was indeed the template for EVERY route I would kneel and beg forgiveness at The Mancunian Temple Of Airline Marketing ", sadly it's very much the exception to the rule !

That is what is so utterly utterly frustrating, if it can be done for CX why on earth can it not be done for all the other routes AND may I say repeated on an ongoing basis.

The love does not have to be specific to one airline, absolutely no reason it cannot be shared across the board in a timely manner !

Has SQ had much of a mention since the CX announcement, if not why not ?

The airport "can" dare I say "should" be a major conduit to attract passengers working in unison with the airlines !

You could argue that the euphoria witnessed by the 1st NCL NYC route is comparable to our MAN HK is it not ?

.....hence the impetus !

Can you honestly recall the same ambition, and coverage on any other route ?

Washington ?

Charlotte ? Ok it's gone BUT they did not know this at the time.

Keflavik ?
Cairo ?
Riyadh ?

And what of Thomas Cook, and their various new US destinations for 2015 ?

What about short haul second TAP or THY ?

We often get a fleeting mention of a route at point of inception ...and er that's it ?

sorry #Epicfail The noise is deafening !

Fairdealfrank

27th Oct 2014, 22:23

Of course the other thing note is that NCL has precisely 1 long-haul route at the moment. So are you actually surprised that they've burst into activity? It's not as if UA will be competing with EK whereas here, we did have the brouhaha regarding "1st direct service to Asia" when SQ may have felt a little neglected?

Maybe it should have been "1st nonstop direct service to Asia" that way it would have been accurate and not neglected SQ.

MANFOD

27th Oct 2014, 23:03

Ah, but "first non-stop service to Asia" wouldn't have been correct either. SQ flew non-stop on a B772 for several years, as my wife and I experienced in 2005.

LN-KGL

27th Oct 2014, 23:35

Far East or South East Asia would be the correct expression. Asia starts on the east side of the Bosporus Strait (one part of Istanbul is in Europe and the other part is in Asia). Then you may add PIA, the MEB3 and Saudi to the list of airlines with direct flights from MAN to Asia (TK will not be on that list since IST lays on the European side of the Bosporus Strait).

Bagso

28th Oct 2014, 07:40

Well if we are playing "Top Trumps" .

My notes suggest 1st Asia service was actually British Airways in 1984 to Bangkok NOT Hong Kong !

From memory CX were sniffing and as I recall it was a pre-emptive strike to kill their enthusiasm.

Patchy was not the word.

Who could possibly forget BA021 L1011 via Munich Dubai Bangkok. Then HK. (assume you could fly to BKK unless it was a fuel stop , but not sure)

It then became a B747 via LHR which went via Delhi one day and Bombay the next staggering on until early nineties.

CX eventually came onto the route in 1989 CX289 operating one stop via FRA....

Yes two airlines to Hong Kong

It did for the BA service by about 1991 .......I think !

MANFOD

28th Oct 2014, 08:26

While in nostalgic mood, didn't SQ operate one-stop via India for a short period?

As for AI, did they fly non-stop, and was it with an A310? I know they had flown to BHX with a B707, a flight that occasionally diverted to MAN.

Anyway, let's hope CX are here for the long term. I seem to recall the previous service was pulled at the time of a pilots' strike but that may not have been the reason for their going.

I take LN-KGL's point. Asia needs to be more clearly defined as it's a huge continent.

As regards media coverage of new routes, I think Bagso's general point is valid and CX was rather more the exception than the rule in terms of wider advertising. It has been suggested previously on here before that it's really an airline's responsibility to advertise its services and there is obviously an issue for the airport if there is already a carrier on a route. However, I don't see why the airport shouldn't seek maximum coverage for a brand new route - SV to Jeddah and MS to Cairo were probably fair examples when more could have been done, (and could still be done, especially if MS returns) maybe in conjunction with the airline.

BDLBOS

28th Oct 2014, 08:56

Thanks Bagso for the heads up, did not hear about the new link for NCL. It is a good job you troll the global airports for news releases, and inform us how good they are against MAN. I must say that they are doing a pretty good job marketing MAN here in Asia/Pacific. At every airport I went to in the last 2 1/2 weeks there was always a MAN sign next to the bathroom entrance. That includes SIN, MEL, AKL, PER, KUL, TPE, HKG, WUH, PEK and ICN, promotion is alive and kicking over here ;)

BDLBOS

28th Oct 2014, 09:03

SQ ran the 744 SIN-BOM-MAN two times per week around 1993. The Mumbai stop was not pleasant.

MANFOD

28th Oct 2014, 09:22

BDLBOS. "there was always a MAN sign next to the bathroom entrance"

LOL. Very good, and I hate to admit it but I started to read a second time before light dawned. Only half awake, obviously.

HH6702

28th Oct 2014, 11:24

Hi

NCL has been asking for a service to New York for years and since they nearly got it last time with American I think the airport are making sure that the whole of the Northeast hears about the new United flights.

Bagso

28th Oct 2014, 12:09

When is a station near an airport, not actually near an airport,
when a 6 lane motorway decapitates it from the actual terminals !

This is how the HS2 station will look apparently.......

Image shows how proposed HS2 station at Manchester Airport will look - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/image-shows-how-proposed-hs2-8008660?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+menews+(Manchester+Evening+News+-+RSS+Feed))

Still no word on a branch line into the Airport OR Airport City maybe its one of those "minor details" that will be resolved later ?

Personally I would prefer an HS3 station in a proper location" that would potentially bring passengers in from MAGs perceived catchment area .... !

..than an HS2 station that potentially could take them to London and Heathrow in just over an hour !

If this is the plan it makes Manchester Airport somewhat redundant does it not ?

For the life of me I still have no understanding of the benefits of HS2 !

LAX_LHR

28th Oct 2014, 12:16

Bagso,

Apart from in a tunnel under the airport, with a below ground station, that would add millions to the cost, where exactly do you propose the station goes?

This station is on the proposed line to Manchester, to put it in the heart of the airport site would either not be possible without my above point (airport city, terminals etc lie in the way), or, would hesitate a detour of the line which then negates the point of HS2.

I genuinely see nothing wrong with the location of the station. A set of people movers, or, even a transit system of some kind, like BHX or the underground trains at LHR T5 would suffice.

I honestly see no reason to complain on this topic, a HS2 station was never going to be directly on site and I would rather MAN is served by a station than none at all.

MANFlyer

28th Oct 2014, 12:49

Did it take you the whole 8 days to come up with that post?

About 30 seconds, actually. You don't think I read this board on a daily basis, do you ?. You can probably count on one hand the number that do that...

And to think you called me silly. Wierdo.

Oh the irony. :p Lost, of course....

While in nostalgic mood, didn't SQ operate one-stop via India for a short period?

SQ ran the 744 SIN-BOM-MAN two times per week around 1993. The Mumbai stop was not pleasant.

Indeed. Twice a week in BOM and also BRU and ZRH.

That stop in BOM, which unfortunately my regular Sunday night SIN-MAN did, was a real PITA. Having said that, due to a fault on my IFE screen on SIN-BOM (which they unsurprisignly couldn't fix in BOM) I got my first, and to this day still only, op-up from Y straight to F on the BOM-MAN leg. :ok:

Bagso

28th Oct 2014, 13:24

A set of people movers, or, even a transit system of some kind, like BHX or the underground trains at LHR T5 would suffice.

That is exactly my point it s/b in the planning and the costings NOW !

"a transit system of some kind", "underground trains"

all a bit vague and a tad wooly? .. and all sounding fiendishly expensive !

If we are talking of an integrated transportation policy surely some type of system should have already been thought about that actually gets you to the airport rather than to a field with a motorway betwixt ?

AND given the grandiose announcement of HS3 where does that fit ?

I would have thought fast links not just between Cities but to the airport would also be a key part of the process ?

I'm not questioning the investment, quite frankly it's about bloody time just the somewhat muddled planning !

LAX_LHR

28th Oct 2014, 13:58

Bagso,

You claim a transit system would be fiendishly expensive, but, diverting the line, which, like I say, for the direction it approaches would need a long diversion, or tunnel, would be vastly more expensive, and also, negates the benefit of HS2 for Manchester itself?

Manflyer,

I don't know who you are, or, why you have suddenly decided to attack me personally, but, kindly Foxtrot Oscar, as I'm not interested in anything you have to say.

BDLBOS

28th Oct 2014, 22:13

The HS2 line looks pretty good to me. TPE has a shuttle bus that works very well and a much greater distance. What they could also do is add check in at the station, then even easier.

LAX_LHR

28th Oct 2014, 22:45

MAN also had check in desks at the station. I'm not sure whether there were issues, or, the airlines were not keen, but, it just didn't last long. I think Travel City direct were the only users.

Fairdealfrank

28th Oct 2014, 23:38

Ah, but "first non-stop service to Asia" wouldn't have been correct either. SQ flew non-stop on a B772 for several years, as my wife and I experienced in 2005.
Good point, maybe it should be "new non-stop service to Asia".

Far East or South East Asia would be the correct expression. Asia starts on the east side of the Bosporus Strait (one part of Istanbul is in Europe and the other part is in Asia). Then you may add PIA, the MEB3 and Saudi to the list of airlines with direct flights from MAN to Asia (TK will not be on that list since IST lays on the European side of the Bosporus Strait).
It's larely a matter of perceptions and marketing, most people would not regard the "Middle East" as "Asia".

Things change, Asia appears to have moved east and south. These days there is an area called "Africa and the Middle East" part of which used to be classed as Asia, and the Subcontinent (India and neighbours, sometimes called "South Asia"), before you get to "Asia", and "Asia" now extends south to include Australia and New Zealand.

Go figure (as they say in the USA).

Hard to believe but true, is it continental drift?

LN-KGL

29th Oct 2014, 06:34

The continents are not drifting Fairdealfrank; it's more the language that is drifting much because of lack of knowledge. The use of Near East, Middle East and Far East make sense only if you live in Western Europe, but still Far East in Indonesian is Timur Jauh - a direct translation from the colonial power language and since Indonesia was a Dutch colony you find the same expression in the Dutch language: Verre Oosten.

Bagso

29th Oct 2014, 10:54

LAX

You say you would prefer to have the station than not but where is the business case.

What benefits does the HS2 station bring re MAN ?

I still query what the future would hold for Man Airports and its ultimate existence.

Why not just have one large mega hub LHR ?

IF you can get to Manchester Airport for a holiday or business trip then you can get to the HS2 station !

If expansion goes ahead which im sure it will there are already plans to divert HS2 to Heathrow !

Given range of destinations, frequency and discounted prices why would you then settle for limited choice from Manchester when you could hop on at the new station and be in LHR in little over an

MANFOD

29th Oct 2014, 12:22

Scotland?s Airports call for Devolution of Air Passenger Duty :: Routesonline (http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/245160/scotlands-airports-call-for-devolution-of-air-passenger-duty/)

No surprise there then. What would be a concern is if, as part of the devolved powers deal, they get their wish and to what extent it would impact on MAN

TSR2

29th Oct 2014, 15:31

is if, as part of the devolved powers deal, they get their wish and to what extent it would impact on MAN

I would think the greatest impact would be on Newcastle.

MANFOD

29th Oct 2014, 15:32

If HS2 were diverted to include LHR then I think Bagso has a point and in terms of air travel MAN would not benefit. Would the situation be any different though from what it is now with the BA shuttles? I'm not sure. Whether it gains some pax may well depend on where it's intended the HS2 trains would stop en route from London.

In some ways, the obvious use for an Airport station would be for business and other users from leafy Cheshire, and possibly North Wales, who could travel to London centre without having to go into Manchester to catch HS2. As it seems the advent of HS2 would lead to less ordinary fast trains from Stockport, Wilmslow and Macclesfield, a station south of Manchester would be needed. Whether that justifies the particular route for HS2 and a station at the Airport is more debatable.

Fairdealfrank

29th Oct 2014, 23:29

As it seems the advent of HS2 would lead to less ordinary fast trains from Stockport, Wilmslow and Macclesfield, a station south of Manchester would be needed. Whether that justifies the particular route for HS2 and a station at the Airport is more debatable.
Those stations are on the WCML, not HS2. They are completely separate railways, so why would this be the case?

The government tells us that HS2 is, allegedly, about increasing capacity. That does not mean reducing capacity on the WCML. One would expect that Stockport, Wilmslow and Macclesfield would retain their existing services.

If this is not the case, then something is horribly wrong, and the deal is not as good for the North as some are suggesting.

Suzeman

29th Oct 2014, 23:56

Those stations are on the WCML, not HS2. They are completely separate railways, so why would this be the case?

The government tells us that HS2 is, allegedly, about increasing capacity. That does not mean reducing capacity on the WCML. One would expect that Stockport, Wilmslow and Macclesfield would retain their existing services.

If this is not the case, then something is horribly wrong, and the deal is not as good for the North as some are suggesting.

You need to read the HS2 report and you would see that under proposed operating patterns the number of classic trains (ie non HS2) from Manchester to London would be reduced to 1 / hour as demand for them reduced.

Don't forget that one of the rationales for HS2 is to get some of the existing trains off the congested WCML southern section to free up capacity there for additional services from places south of Brum into London .

So the Manchester Airport station would act as a parkway station for some areas of North Cheshire and South Manchester to access HS2 services as well as providing access to the Airport and Airport City. Of course Higgins is now proposing an HS2 station at Crewe which may reduce some of this demand.

It will be the airport's call whether the station is built as the finance for it will mostly be done locally be

BDLBOS

30th Oct 2014, 03:24

I do not understand your constant negativity Bagso. The HS2 is also an opportunity for MAN, stop looking at it in your doom and gloom specs. What MAN needs to do is ensure it is an excellent transit hub for the planes and trains, which includes HS2. LHR is not an easy airport to navigate, although I do admit that I have never used T5, but that is a matter between me and BA. I always use MAN myself where I can as it is easier than LHR to get through and out. If I use SQ for instance, I will arrive into MAN and depart out of LHR, purely because of the later flights, 380, and I can get home sooner, my company is based in the Midlands. I have used MAN for years in this manner, from USA and Asia. HS2 makes it easier for me to keep using MAN. Now that is a positive for you.

Bagso

30th Oct 2014, 08:57

BDLBOS

I do not understand your constant negativity Bagso

Negative ?

Negative far from it, the developments going on re Airport and indeed Manchester / Salford are exceptional, by a country mile we have the fastest growing Airport AND indeed City outside London.

Infact infrastructure development in The City seems to be fast outstripping developments at the Airport, at last count we had 6 Scrapers underway, it is booming

Rejoice :D Is that positive enough ?

That is not to say we have to be complacent !

It will be a sad day if we cannot query that the Tweeters are "tweeting" about everything but actual route promotion, Or that cars are STILL parked where we would hope aircraft s/b OR query the fact that work on Airport City does not on the face of it appear to be making as much progress as we had liked, especially when a number of initial press releases suggested it would be the largest construction site in the UK after the Olympics.

I have said before Manchester is not owned by the people that manage it, but whilst in their tenure they are up for scrutiny !

Regarding HS2 and the station I just want somebody to outline by bullet points what it will mean !

This discussion has at least teased out that funding to get the access to the Airport itself will "apparently" come from local bodies, did we know that before , what will that cost, are there comparisons we can take from other airports, will it effect investment elsewhere ?

Rather than being led by headline makers and the froth of "its great" or "its fantastic for region" etc lets just outline clearly AND in detail the benefits !

Faster Trains to London
Extra Capacity
Construction Jobs

Brilliant .....BUT how does this in practical terms actually benefit the airport ?

MANFOD

30th Oct 2014, 09:08

"So the Manchester Airport station would act as a parkway station for some areas of North Cheshire and South Manchester to access HS2 services as well as providing access to the Airport and Airport City. Of course Higgins is now proposing an HS2 station at Crewe which may reduce some of this demand.

It will be the airport's call whether the station is built as the finance for it will mostly be done locally"

Good point Suzeman about the possible impact of a new HS2 station at Crewe although I'm not clear on how classic trains, including local services, would link into HS2 for connections.

I think you're right about the financing of an airport station too.

If the HS2 station concept does move ahead, it will be interesting to see the method of transportation proposed for transfers to the terminals, which would be a not insignificant extra cost. The other aspect that might have a bearing is that MAN are allegedly planning a complete redevelopment of T1/T3 which would move the new terminal closer to the existing Station as I understand it and presumably would mean a major redesign of road lay-out. Mind you, the expected time scales are very different and terminal development will hopefully be happening some years ahead of any HS2 station.

Shed-on-a-Pole

30th Oct 2014, 16:10

A number of active discussion topics on here at the moment, so here goes:

HS2: Whilst the big PR selling point relating to HS2 concerns much faster passenger journey times, this is not the main benefit from the point of view of the rail industry. Capacity is the prize. The current WCML operation is the rail equivalent of today's LHR. If line capacity was available, the WCML would already be handling far more services per day than is currently possible. There is already an identified need for substantial increases in intra-regional and commuter services along the line which simply can't be contemplated based upon capacity as it exists today. And then there is freight: the rail freight industry would love significantly increased access to the line. The advent of HS2 will take the bulk of inter-city passenger demand off the WCML, but be assured that the WCML won't be left under-utilised. The reallocation of paths on the existing WCML is the true unappreciated prize of the HS2 project. This process would be an immense boost to the economy.

Remember too that HS2 is not designed around the needs of Manchester Airport. MAN must fit in with the needs of HS2, not the other way around. It is a big positive that the HS2 planners have agreed to the concept of having a Manchester Airport stop on the line at all - it will slow down overall journey times. It is up to MAG to seize that opportunity and make it work. Yes, it would be brilliant to have a co-located single station for all Manchester Airport services. Sadly, that does not appear to be possible at a realistic cost. MAN must make the best of the deal on offer.

AIRPORT CITY: The apparent inactivity on the Airport City site is all part of the plan. Heavy work on the 9000 space car park adjacent to Ringway Road is scheduled for completion in mid-November. Some minor work will continue on site beyond then (painting bays, signage type stuff), but the heavy plant is expected to leave the site at that point. The car park has been constructed in phases … a good portion of it is already in use. Once the full site is available, MAG will commence preparation work on land which is currently active car park but which is designated to form part of the future Airport City site. This will initially involve installation of drainage, utilities etc. The Airport City project has not been forgotten or abandoned. It just has to await the availability of the alternative car parks before the next visible phase of work can advance.

More comments to follow in a seperate posting.

Ian Brooks

30th Oct 2014, 16:30

Shed

yes can confirm what you are saying about car park, lots of car park are open but still quite a lot going on on Styal Rd side but does look to
coming to an end

Ian

Suzeman

30th Oct 2014, 17:08

Or that cars are STILL parked where we would hope aircraft s/b

Not as of tomorrow - stands re-open as stands :ok:

http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.nsf/alldocs/7F544D4F21DBE99680257D660050AB30/$File/ad332014rerturnofstands72to74and85to86toservice.pdf

MANFOD

30th Oct 2014, 17:19

5 stands being returned for aircraft use is good news but let's not forget that there are still 7 stands being used for car parking, which were 217-219 and four east facing remote stands in the 240's and 250's as I recall. Hopefully they too will be returned at some stage in the not too distant future.

viscount702

30th Oct 2014, 17:20

Not as of tomorrow - stands re-open as stands :ok:

http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.nsf/alldocs/7F544D4F21DBE99680257D660050AB30/$File/ad332014rerturnofstands72to74and85to86toservice.pdf

Unfortunately only 4 stands but each has left centre and right.

Without knowing how many of the 9000 are now available for use it does surprise me that on the basis of the various posts here and elsewhere little reduction in parking at the existing car parks and apron seems to have happened except as mentioned above.

Fairdealfrank

30th Oct 2014, 17:52

In some ways, the obvious use for an Airport station would be for business and other users from leafy Cheshire, and possibly North Wales, who could travel to London centre without having to go into Manchester to catch HS2.
Interesting comment, so those who say that HS2 won't suck even more economic activity to London are being economical with the truth?

As it seems the advent of HS2 would lead to less ordinary fast trains from Stockport, Wilmslow and Macclesfield, a station south of Manchester would be needed. Whether that justifies the particular route for HS2 and a station at the Airport is more debatable.
Why is this the case, this it would lose Manchester-London pax, but Stockport/Wilmslow/Macclesfield traffic still need access to points south as does Stoke traffic. If these pax have to faff around getting to a parkway at Ringway or to Crewe, then the journey is no quicker on HS2 and the advantage is lost. Also, don't forget pax ex-Stockport/Wilmslow/Macclesfield and Stoke headed for Rugby, Milton Keynes, Watford, etc..

Don't forget that one of the rationales for HS2 is to get some of the existing trains off the congested WCML southern section to free up capacity there for additional services from places south of Brum into London .

The current WCML operation is the rail equivalent of today's LHR. If line capacity was available, the WCML would already be handling far more services per day than is currently possible. There is already an identified need for substantial increases in intra-regional and commuter services along the line which simply can't be contemplated based upon capacity as it exists today. And then there is freight: the rail freight industry would love significantly increased access to the line. The advent of HS2 will take the bulk of inter-city passenger demand off the WCML, but be assured that the WCML won't be left under-utilised.
One of the original ideas was that trains on the classic lines that happen to be non-stop south of Crewe, Stafford or Stoke would join the HS2 line near Lichfield. That is how paths are freed up on the congested part of the WCML between Rugby and London.

The reallocation of paths on the existing WCML is the true unappreciated prize of the HS2 project. This process would be an immense boost to the economy.
Indeed, that's why there will not be a reduction of capacity on the WCML.

Would a Ringway HS2 station suck airline pax from MAN to LHR?

That is $60 question. Can't see that those who currently fly MAN-LHR (on BA and VS (for now)) would bother because they are checked at MAN to the final destination. Taking the HS2 would mean lugging baggage and a change of trains at Old Oak. Why have the hassle?

On the other hand, would a Ringway HS2 station suck airline pax from BHX to MAN bearing in mind that there are no BHX-MAN flights?

pwalhx

30th Oct 2014, 18:09

I have completely misunderstood HS2 I thought its purpose was to allow people from down South to get up North easier.

Shed-on-a-Pole

30th Oct 2014, 18:22

And on to the T1/T3 issues.

We have all heard the rumour that a major re-development of the T1/T3 complex is in the offing. There are also suggestions that a major re-development of T2 will be seen first. Either of these projects would be very welcome news. But of course, we all have to speculate on this topic as MAG is keeping the plans in-house until they are good and ready to reveal their proposals to the public. I'm sure we all understand the reasons for this.

However, in the absence of reliable facts we are left to speculate. And one topic I must return to is timescale. Because if the T1/T3 re-development is not imminent then there are certain issues which really need to be addressed in the near term. One of these is how to provide for continued expansion by Ryanair in T3. Growth does not come easily in today's economic climate; MAG must work hard to attract and retain every opportunity for new business. Right now, in my opinion, Ryanair and EasyJet are the most likely sources of significant near-term growth in passenger throughput.

Ryanair currently has seven based B737-800's at MAN T3. There is also a healthy quota of flights visiting MAN from other Ryanair bases.

Some months ago, we discussed on PPRuNe the possibility of upgrading stands 56, 57 and 58 to a standard capable of supporting regular operations by a further three Ryanair B738's. In practice, this would mean connecting these stands to the airport fuel system and providing passenger access to the stands without the need for bus transfers. I suggest that a system of demarcated safe walkways with 'bus-shelter-style' cover linking to T3 around stand 55 would suffice. Whilst this arrangement (similar to the landside walking route currently linking T1 with T3) need not be expensive to construct, installing underground fuel pipelines to the stands probably would be. And hence the suggestion in earlier discussions on this topic that future plans for T1/T3 redevelopment may make near-term investment in 56/57/58 uneconomic.

Only MAG knows the timescale for any redevelopment plans which would affect the utility of 56, 57 & 58. Only they can assess the economic return on investment in those stands at this stage, as only they know whether those stands will even exist afew years from now. But here is the point: if MAG wants expansion from Ryanair - business which the airport sorely needs - reliable availability of those three stands will be key until any T3 redevelopment is completed and online. I'm never keen on taking the "I told you so!" line, but I was deeply impressed by my own accuracy in analysing the problems associated with these stands in our earlier discussions when I actually used stand 57 on Monday.

The flight selected for this honour was FR3234 / RYR24QV to Eindhoven on Monday 27 October. The aircraft rostered for the flight turned out to be Ryanair's newest steed, the factory-fresh B738 EI-FEH delivered to the airline just ten days earlier. This aircraft is fitted with the familiar Ryanair 'banana' interior but looked very smart and well-suited to its role.

The flight had a scheduled departure time of 13:50. Passengers were bussed in batches from gate 52 out to stand 57. This operation proceeded smoothly and all passengers were aboard and seated in good time to meet the STD of 13:50. Everything looked set. Then came the captain's cabin address: unfortunately, this stand is one of the few on the airport which is not connected to the airport's underground fuel supply. We are waiting for a tanker to arrive! And how we waited.

Bear in mind that the tanker was not requested at the STD of 13:50; the request was made some time prior to that. The Shell tanker finally rolled up at 14:55, STD+65 minutes. Refuelling complete, it left the stand at 15:05, STD+75 minutes. RYR24QV pushed back at 15:09, STD+79 minutes. I had already been seated aboard the aircraft for well over 90 minutes by the time it pushed back.

The entire delay … a very lengthy one by Ryanair standards … was attributable to the inability to refuel on stand 57 and the consequent wait for the tanker to attend. Naturally, I overheard many agitated comments from fellow-passengers, invariably blaming "the Ryanair experience" for their plight. It didn't occur to them to consider Shell's role in the episode, or indeed the inadequacy of stand 57 for handling passenger flights by any airline. Right now 56, 57 & 58 are only really suited to remote parking of idle aircraft, and ideally these should then be towed to another gate prior to a passenger flight.

Now, my point here is not to bash MAG, Shell or Ryanair. I'm not interested in apportioning blame for events on the day. The Shell tanker itself no doubt had to honour other commitments prior to refuelling EI-FEH. In the minutes before this Ryanair flight departed, there were four ad-hoc executive departures (1 x G5, 1 x GLEX, 1 x C56X, 1 x P180); no doubt some of these required the attentions of the lone tanker also. That means a queue.

But the real point is this. That Ryanair flight pushed back 79 minutes late purely because it used stand 57. A clear demonstration, if it was needed, that 56, 57 & 58 are wholly inadequate for servicing active passenger flights even of the no-frills variety. Investment in or replacement of these three stands (as part of a larger redevelopment programme) is urgently required.

Ryanair is a company which MAG needs to woo and keep happy across the whole group at STN, EMA and BOH as well as at MAN itself. They are one of the few channels for significant growth with a high degree of confidence. But if the company is to be persuaded to expand beyond seven frames at MAN, T3 gate capacity must be found to accommodate those aircraft. 56, 57 & 58 are the obvious candidates to accommodate this growth going forward, but right now they are nowhere near fit for purpose. A 79 minute delay for refuelling in servicing flights planned for 25 minute turnarounds is simply unworkable.

Memo to MAG: Only you know the proposed timescale for T1/T3 redevelopment. But if completion is more than 5 years away, you should invest in fuel connections for these three stands right now. If the timescale is shorter, you should consider underwriting a short-term remedy, such as paying Shell to base an extra tanker specifically to service operations from 56, 57 and 58 until redevelopment is complete. Costly yes, but short-term pain for long-term gain applies in this case. Ryanair is one of MAN's best growth prospects. Make sure you can fully accommodate their needs now, not just when the T1/T3 redevelopment is completed some years hence. Those three stands are an asset waiting to happen. But right now they're a liability.

Have Ryanair been on the phone about Monday's Eindhoven flight? I bet somebody got an earfull!

BTW, for those interested, arrival back at MAN T3 aboard Wednesday's FR3235 / RYR45PW [ EI-EKC ] was impeccably handled. Steps quickly in place, no immigration queues, through the whole arrival process within 5 minutes of disembarkation. Full marks for that.

Bagso

30th Oct 2014, 19:30

And for completness what the pax count?

Ps havnt seen this NEW route publicised but hey why bother when you can gabble on about lipstick "now available in T1 T2 and t3"

750XL

30th Oct 2014, 20:43

Ian Brooks

30th Oct 2014, 21:36

Are Shell the only company now?

Bagso

30th Oct 2014, 22:12

No fuelling cover 2300 0500...deary , deary me

Sorry to be negative, my goodness we do run a tight ship !

Una Due Tfc

30th Oct 2014, 22:26

750XL

30th Oct 2014, 22:37

It's been like this the past two winters.

The two fuelling companies at MAN are North Air (BP/Q8) and ASIG (Shell). Neither have night cover

sarah19981

30th Oct 2014, 23:11

Hi folks,
All seemed to have gone quite with hainan.. Has anyone heard any further news with what is actually going on as I personally feel they are going to make a announcement just out of the blue...

LAX_LHR

30th Oct 2014, 23:42

Why is there no night cover for fuel when there are scheduled movements between those times. Do contracts to provide services mean nothing these days? Neglectful at best Id say

750XL

30th Oct 2014, 23:48

What scheduled movements are there during the winter between 2300-0500?

LAX_LHR

31st Oct 2014, 00:26

Freight. There are some metroliners, fedex and im sure there is a late night/early am lufthansa cargo.

MANFOD

31st Oct 2014, 08:12

Shed, many thanks for your usual excellent posts, although your experience of the first Ryanair flight to Eindhoven made for sober reading. A couple of questions if I may: Bagso has already asked about pax loads on your two flights which would be of interest to some of us. Secondly, can we assume that no terminal 3 attached stand, suitable for a B738, was available? It didn't strike me as a time of day that would be particularly busy unless there is a wave of RYR flights.

I also agree that EZY and RYR are potentially the two airlines which are likely to provide MAN with significant growth. So far there is little indication of this happening next summer, although RYR will have the new flights to Eindhoven and Shannon, while EZY just has Madeira which starts in February. Of course, it's still early days and things (hopefully) may change. Limited availability of a/c may be the issue for the latter but not the former, while the lack of overnight space at MAN,as has been said before, would suggest growth may have to come in the immediate future from flights originating from other bases.

It may or may not be significant but I see that Ryanair has chosen LTN rather than STN for its twice daily service from its new base at CPH, which given that airline's heavy focus on STN is something of a surprise. Was CPH one of the routes that Easyjet switched from STN to LTN fairly recently?

As regards the lack of fuel facilities between 23.00 and 05.00, I'm afraid I'm not clear what's being said. Is it just the lack of a tanker for those stands that don't have access to the direct fuel supply, or is it lack of staff to do any refuelling? In the case of the AA90 that was going to divert and then was turned away, didn't they find a suitable stand - the original reason for refusal - but then told the pilot there would be a long wait for fuel rather than no fuel? Anyway, I think you'll find that MAN and the handling agents are reluctant to accept any diversions during the night, be it for lack of fuel, stands or staff.

750XL

31st Oct 2014, 12:00

Freight. There are some metroliners, fedex and im sure there is a late night/early am lufthansa cargo.

The metroliner animal testing flights are on an ad-hoc basis rather than scheduled though I think?

I'd imagine if there is a scheduled movement fuelling cover will be provided, but with no scheduled movements, they'll be nobody.

LAX_LHR

31st Oct 2014, 12:07

As long as the scheduled flights are catered for, that sounds much better than nothing at all.

I'm not fussed about divert cover, frankly, there is not much traffic over Manchester between 2300-0500 that would require MAN, so, the chances of diverts are slim anyway.

Like I say, my main concern was the 'scheduled' movements, as, I'm sure one of the LH8165 flights departs at 0450, the FedEx ATR departs between those hours too, and some the metroliners now try to use MAN in the dead of night whenever they can due to the nature of the flights.

Jet 4.54609

31st Oct 2014, 18:50

I am sure the reason that there is no fuel cover between 0500-2300 is the fact that their are no customers requesting fuel services during these times. I am sure that you would not pay your money for a service that you did not utilise and the same is true for the airlines.

Shed-on-a-Pole

31st Oct 2014, 19:15

Bagso / Manfod - Whilst awaiting our departure call near gate 52 I overheard the MAN-EIN POB given as 160. This included 6 crew and 5 babies. I would estimate the load factor on the homeward EIN-MAN leg at around 70-75%. In both cases Dutch speakers seemed to outnumber Brits. Perhaps the route has higher awareness in Holland. I noted afew Dutch Man United fans on the MAN-EIN sector following the Man Utd v Chelsea match the previous day. Several 'van Persie' replica shirts were in evidence; there is also the Dutch link at managerial level now.

On Manfod's second question regarding stand availability, I never had a vantage point which offered a comprehensive overview of stand utilisation. At the terminal gate the large airbridge structures either side obstruct lateral views. And once aboard the aircraft I was seated on the starboard side which offered great views of landing traffic on 23R but not of Terminal 3 itself. The terminal was buzzing, however, with security working flat out to manage the queues.

Aboard both Ryanair sectors I was fortunate to get 3 seats to myself. As seats are now allocated in advance I can no longer blame my natural charm, good looks and wild stare for this. I couldn't even blame those fine aftershaves / colognes available from the not-duty-free trolley. I find that the most effective ones are 'Eau de Sweaty Footballer' from Laboratoire Gargoyle in Salford and 'Essence de Flatulent Boyband' by Maison Simone de Ceauelle. You can buy a 5ml bottle of each and still get change from 100 Euro. Always apply copiously for best results. But keep the zit cream handy for later on. Works for me. Happy travels!

Cheers, SHED.

AldiAl

2nd Nov 2014, 07:15

The 11th of this month sees the slot conference, which I think is in Prague
this time.

No doubt a few snippets will be leaking out afterwards, so let's hope we
have some nice surprises.

Fingers crossed.

sarah19981

2nd Nov 2014, 10:01

Do we think we will see anything come out from hainan or not?
Hopefully we should see some new service down here

west lakes

2nd Nov 2014, 10:51

I got back to MAN today and the walk from the jet to security was not good.

Now you see I always thought (found) that you go through security on departure to check you are not carrying prohibited items onto a flight.

On arrival I've always found that you go through immigration & customs both arms of the UK government and outside the control of the airports!

So which was it?

mad_jock

2nd Nov 2014, 12:11

well you would think so but in these days of mixing inbound and outbound pax depending where the pax have come from they rescreen before entry into the terminal inbound and out bound.

LAX_LHR

2nd Nov 2014, 15:24

Now confirmed on AA.com, AA will run a B763 on the JFK run from 28th March.

Makes up for the lost CLT capacity, and means AA runs a fully widebody only service next summer (as it seems the B757 is an issue for some).

Great news.

Ernest Lanc's

2nd Nov 2014, 15:35

On arrival I've always found that you go through immigration & customs
both arms of the UK government and outside the control of the airports!

So which was it?

West Lakes,

It was as usual a nightmare arriving in MAN with Jet2.

Parked a long walk from security and the wait to clear security (incoming) at MAN was above the 25 minutes estimated.

Flying out was fine, arriving was bad. Worse when I went to Lanzarote from MAN, when the wait at baggage reclaim was over 2 hours.

This time getting through security was that long, the bags was waiting for us,

Have only used Liverpool once and it took 50 mins to clear security despite the
airport being very quiet.

I am talking on arrival at MAN TSR2 - never had any problem at Liverpool.

All names taken

2nd Nov 2014, 15:47

Ernest

I think I'd quit now if I were you.
You've been rumbled by West Lakes and it's seems clear that you have an agenda.

There is no security on arriving at MAN or LPL (or the former BLK).

I suspect you are referring to Border Control.
If so, this is not within the gift of the authorities at Manchester Airport to fix, as it is a (ahem) service provided by the Border Force, as they now call themselves.
If you have issues with mobility, as I suspect you may have, try getting extra assistance on arrival at MAN. I know someone who did this recently after a car crash on holiday....excellent service and straight to the front of the queue:ok:

MANFOD

2nd Nov 2014, 15:59

Good News indeed LAX. It will be nice to have a wide body on the New York route by one of the US carriers. I don't suppose DL or UA will follow suit but you never know.

Out of interest, is MAN-ORD back to a B767 again next summer?

LAX_LHR

2nd Nov 2014, 16:15

ORD is confirmed as B767 along with JFK.

PHL continues on A332.

I wouldn't put it past UA to put a B767 (300 or 400) on the MAN-EWR flight, but, DL is only jut re-starting on JFK, so the B757 will likely suit them well.

comet 4b623PW

2nd Nov 2014, 16:45

I would have preferred to see a second Boeing 757 service say three times a week with a later arrival time into Ringway which would have given more flexibility to business class passenger's. Frequency needs to be built up on the New York route, rather than just up gauging the aircraft.

pwalhx

2nd Nov 2014, 16:46

I think you will find Ernest that you are required to remove glasses for a passport photo anyway, although I stand to be corrected.

As has been said before you do indeed seem to have an agenda about Manchester. However having been to over 200 airports in my time I have to say there are very few that do not require walking, I do not think Manchester is any worse than most.

As has also been pointed out the 'Border Force' is nothing to do with the airport it is an agency of the UK Government, if there were delays it is their staffing issue not the airports.

If you do indeed have a mobility problem it is no issue to arrange assistance.

LAX_LHR

2nd Nov 2014, 16:51

Frequency needs to be built up on the New York route, rather than just up gauging the aircraft

MAN-NYC is now back up to 4 times a day on some days, which is as good as it has been for years.

MAN now has
1 B757 per day to JFK
1 B767 per day to JFK
1 B757 per day to Newark
1 A330 3 times per week to JFK.

There is also a 3 weekly 1 way B777 per week with PIA too if it takes your fancy?

Its also been a while since we had scheduled widebodies to JFK, and now there are 2 different flights to choose from on there.

Aside from an upgrade from United, I suspect this is as good as it gets for the foreseeable.

Ernest Lanc's

2nd Nov 2014, 18:09

pwalhx

I think you will find Ernest that you are required to remove glasses for a
passport photo anyway, although I stand to be corrected.

You need to remove glasses when having your passport photo taken. That is because frames can hide part of an eye and glare from the flash.

This year was the first time I have ever been asked to remove my glasses when going through 'Border Force' on arrival.

As has been said before you do indeed seem to have an agenda about
Manchester. However having been to over 200 airports in my time I have to say
there are very few that do not require walking, I do not think Manchester is any
worse than most.

I agree - I have never had a complaint about MAN departing, it's on arrivals I have had problems. First a long walk at 1am to security and baggage reclaim - them with a taxi waiting over two hours to get my baggage. 2 years ago or thereabouts.

This time a long walk to security (Border Force) and a long queue with a notice to expect a delay of 25 minutes and that was optimistic.

As has also been pointed out the 'Border Force' is nothing to do with the
airport it is an agency of the UK Government, if there were delays it is their
staffing issue not the airports.

Exactly - My sole point being this could not happen at Blackpool or even Liverpool, not the same volume of PAX.

I don't have an issue with MAN as such, it surely can't be disputed that BLK was easier to use.

TSR2

2nd Nov 2014, 18:13

I think you will find Ernest that you are required to remove glasses for a passport photo anyway, although I stand to be corrected.

Not true. Glasses may be worn but frames must not obscure eyes.

pwalhx

2nd Nov 2014, 18:34

Taken from Passport Office guidance to photographers

Customers who wear glasses should remove them to ensure that an accurate biometric can be obtained. Glasses can often show reflection or glare from flash, and the frames can obscure facial features. While this may mean that their passport photo does not show them as they usually appear, their photo will still be a good likeness.

Customers with a visual impairment should also follow this guidance. Dark, tinted or mirrored glasses must be removed - otherwise a biometric cannot be captured.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/passport-photos-guide-for-photographers/guidance-for-photographers

Suzeman

2nd Nov 2014, 19:01

Now, my point here is not to bash MAG, Shell or Ryanair. I'm not interested in apportioning blame for events on the day. The Shell tanker itself no doubt had to honour other commitments prior to refuelling EI-FEH. In the minutes before this Ryanair flight departed, there were four ad-hoc executive departures (1 x G5, 1 x GLEX, 1 x C56X, 1 x P180); no doubt some of these required the attentions of the lone tanker also. That means a queue.

But the real point is this. That Ryanair flight pushed back 79 minutes late purely because it used stand 57. A clear demonstration, if it was needed, that 56, 57 & 58 are wholly inadequate for servicing active passenger flights even of the no-frills variety. Investment in or replacement of these three stands (as part of a larger redevelopment programme) is urgently required.

Shed

Regarding your post about your RYR flight to EIN, you say that you had a re-fueling delay because your flight required the Shell tanker to come along as 57 has no hydrant re-fueling. However if you had been on a hydrant re-fueled stand, do you know that you would have been refueled on time? I have no knowledge of the actual situation, but it is possible that a staff shortage at Shell meant that there would have been delays for all their flights whether they required a bowser or a hydrant dispenser.

Does anyone know whether this was the case on the day in question? And have Shell only got one bowser?

If the Airport had a Collaborative Decision Making system in operation, some of these issues could have been highlighted at an earlier stage as Shell would have been able to predict their resource requirements a few hours ahead based on the real time air traffic schedule. In this case they may have been able to re-allocate resources to minimise or eliminate the delay.

I find that the most effective ones are 'Eau de Sweaty Footballer' from Laboratoire Gargoyle in Salford and 'Essence de Flatulent Boyband' by Maison Simone de Ceauelle.

Prefer the second myself; seems to work a treat on all forms of public transport :ok: :ok:

TSR2

2nd Nov 2014, 19:30

Thanks for the update. Obviously the requirements have changed since I got my passport.

EDIT:
From www.gov.uk/photos-for-passports

'With eyes wide open and free from reflection or glare from glasses'

Ernest Lanc's

2nd Nov 2014, 21:28

Thanks for the update. Obviously the requirements have changed since I got my
passport.

I got my last passport in 2006. I got my application knocked back three times because of the photo.

I rang I think it was Liverpool at the time, and they 'advised' me to remove my glasses and that passed my application.

However in 9 years I have aged and the chap at MAN looked at my photo and then me, and asked me to take off my glasses. they he let me through. First time that has happened.

silverknapper

2nd Nov 2014, 21:47

So you're complaining that Border Force at Manchester are too thorough now :ugh::ugh:

Go try Liverpool on a busy night. Arriving or departing. I position a lot as part of my job. Have been through there well over a hundred times. And last year I vowed never again. Low cost airport from the minute you turn off the boulevard to the minute you get your bags on the return. Disgusting.

lfc84

3rd Nov 2014, 07:35

Landing at MAN T3 on Ryanair from Rome recently it took 30 minutes once we were at the gate to get to landside. Big queue for passport control and I only had hand luggage.

kieb92

3rd Nov 2014, 08:59

According to another forum, Air Austral are to send in F-ONOU B773 for repaint at Air Livery. Arrival 17 Nov 18:00 and departs 26 Nov 15:30.

LAX_LHR

3rd Nov 2014, 10:51

AA are now using the B767-300 on the JFK run this winter on an ad-hoc basis. This morning was a B767, and a few dates over the next few months are also booked in. This is in advance of a full summer upgrade.

Turkish Airlines are to use the A330 on selected flights over the winter, including 3rd and 4th Jan which sees the A330 used on both daily flights.

Lufthansa Cargo seems to be down to 1 weekly Mondays MD11 this month. Its gradually wound down from 4 weekly, so, I wonder if this service is now on borrowed time. Sad to see MAN's pure cargo flights dwindle down to what will eventually be a daily B757 and daily ATR72 from FedEx.

LN-KGL

3rd Nov 2014, 11:44

MAN is one of the UK airports I have flown the most to/from. There has certainly been made changes to the airports over the years - and far from all changes has been to the better. Many of my flights to MAN has been with SAS and it has been very noticable the changes of the quality the ground handler deliver (currently Swissport). I've also flown to/from 43 other UK airports, included BLK. Every airport have their pros and cons. I have my favorite airports/terminals for domestic flights and for international flights and some of them are a pure joy to visit. I will agree with BKS Air Transport - size counts and smaller airports shows a friendlier touch. But there is geographical differences too - unfortunately for the North West, none of its airports are among my favorites.

Armodeen

3rd Nov 2014, 21:02

Wasn't there a big mess caused by this when an AA 777 diverting from Heathrow was told MAN wouldn't take him, then they would, and when he was on finals was told there was no fuel available so he went to DUB instead earlier this year?

Sort of. I was listening to their convo on the scanner that night, the AA 777 repeatedly asked for MAN and was denied every time with ATC telling them that MAN had nobody to handle their pax nor any fuel available. Even when the crew came back asking to nightstop they were still told the pax would have to sit on the plane for hours before being disembarked, basically. They were then offered DSA (which didn't work out due to the fire category of the B772), they asked for PIK instead however eventually were offered DUB instead, which they accepted.

Quite a mess all told, they really wanted to come to MAN.

kieb92

4th Nov 2014, 08:56

British Airways A380 diverting to MAN now as BAW282 from Los Angeles. G-XLEF. First visit of BA A380 to MAN. MAN arrival boards due 10.15!!

ramondicarrera

4th Nov 2014, 10:42

I believe the footballer Michael Owen is onboard the A380. He has just tweeted that he wants to get off at Manchester as this is his ultimate destination. Been told that he must stay onboard to travel to Heathrow in order to travel back to Manchester!

nigel osborne

4th Nov 2014, 11:24

What was the issue with LHR,wind perhaps ??

Nigel

pwalhx

4th Nov 2014, 11:46

I see Vueling has announced flights to Belfast, is there a possibility we may hear soon about a summer service from them next year in Manchester?

BHX5DME

4th Nov 2014, 12:20

Vueling press release on their website announcing BHX-BCN

No mention of MAN

LAX_LHR

4th Nov 2014, 12:50

Unfortunately, a rare BHX win over MAN regarding Vueling.

The route to BHX was due to be the MAN route, but BHX offered a better deal.

Seems with a lot of investment to prove its worth, BHX is now coming out fighting for new routes. The battle is about to get interesting.....

MANFOD

4th Nov 2014, 13:12

I seem to recall Air India were lined up for MAN a couple of years ago according to rumours and ended up going to BHX. As long as it doesn't become a habit.

Good to see BA sending their A380 here on diversion. Missed it by 10 minutes as I was on a tram from the airport.

chinapattern

4th Nov 2014, 13:31

Unfortunately, a rare BHX win over MAN regarding Vueling.

Am I missing something? I thought Vueling were launching MAN the end of next month?

eggc

4th Nov 2014, 13:37

Only a short Christmas schedule, is it 3 flights or something ?

An announcement was expected for a scheduled service to follow (aslo LBA was mentioned, which has not been announced either) , which seems to have gone to BHX.

How many airlines fly to BCL from MAN already ?? 3 I think, do we really need 4 ??

MANFOD

4th Nov 2014, 13:58

In terms of BCN, no we don't strictly need it. However, it would also depend on what future growth opportunities Vueling see in the UK and whether, in the event of such further developments from the regions, some routes that would be of interest to MAN may also now go to BHX.

daynehold

4th Nov 2014, 19:14

Sort of. I was listening to their convo on the scanner that night, the AA 777 repeatedly asked for MAN and was denied every time with ATC telling them that MAN had nobody to handle their pax nor any fuel available. Even when the crew came back asking to nightstop they were still told the pax would have to sit on the plane for hours before being disembarked, basically. They were then offered DSA (which didn't work out due to the fire category of the B772), they asked for PIK instead however eventually were offered DUB instead, which they accepted.

Quite a mess all told, they really wanted to come to MAN.

There has to be something seriously wrong with the Manchester Airport Management team and their handling agents. Why turn away business and sour potential relationships. Perhaps I'm living in the past but who remembers the days when at this time of year Manchester would be full of diversions - in Autumn 1976 LHR was down because of fog and Man was full with diversions including TWA & Pan Am 747s, B Cal DC 10s, East African VC10s, various BA planes but to name but a few. Of course those were the days when the likes of Peter Hampson and others managed the airport. Now there is a hissy fit if an airline requests to divert to Man (other than on an emergency) and every excuse in the book is used. I am left wondering whether Manchester is running a business or a select "gentleman's club!!!!!!!! Clearly "VISITORS ARE NOT WELCOME"!

insuindi

4th Nov 2014, 19:24

Arrival from HAM this morning, border queue flooded from the Dubai and Montego Bay arrivals. No e-gates. Took >20mins get through EU queue. Always such an enjoyable experience how this country says Welcome to its visitors.

pwalhx

4th Nov 2014, 20:22

20 minutes to get through immigration how awful, and I complained about 2 hours at Chicago.

kieb92

4th Nov 2014, 20:32

Thomas Cook Expansion

Looking at Thomas Cook schedules it appears they are expanding short haul operations from MAN next summer. They are also basing a leased A320 too presumably from Smartlynx/Avion Express:

- Lanzarote 3-4 weekly - New Tuesday
- Antalya 4-7 weekly - New Tuesday/Wed/Fri
- Hurghada 2-3 weekly - New Saturday
- Larnaca 2-4 weekly - New Monday/Fri
- Enfidha/Monastir 6 weekly
- Sharm el Sheik 2-4 weekly - New Monday/Sat
- Palma Daily - Some Condor although most MAN based A/C
- Santorini 1-2 weekly - New Saturday
- Mahon 3-5 weekly
- Skiathos 1-2 weekly - New Friday
- Corfu 2-3 weekly - New Sunday
- Varna 1 weekly NEW
- Faro 1 weekly NEW

Plus all the new long haul increases to Cancun/Orlando/Las Vegas and new JFK/Miami.

Shaping to be a good year for them. I wonder if some are in response to Monarch ending charter operations?

Dct_Mopas

4th Nov 2014, 20:34

It baffles me why MAN seem to close the e-gates at busy times. Last time I arrived to an hour long wait in the EU queue and enquired why they hadn't opened them. The answer was that too many families were in the queue, not much of an explanation unless I'm missing something.

LAX_LHR

4th Nov 2014, 20:36

The E-gates at T1 are being replaced. At least they were on Monday anyway.

harer92

4th Nov 2014, 20:39

New Greek routes for Summer 2015 - Preveza and Rhodes. (technically not new as they are ex MON, but new-ish as ZB routes none the less)

Preveza - 1xweekly (Sunday)
Rhodes - 1xweekly (Wednesday)

Summer 15 flights now on sale - Monarch (http://www.monarch.co.uk/offers/flights/summer-fifteen)

MANFOD

5th Nov 2014, 07:52

Bagso, you need to clear some of your p.m. messages as you are over the quota.

Excuse posting on here.

Curious Pax

5th Nov 2014, 09:16