MANCHESTER - 9

[Scottie Dog]

Indeed I well remember the farewell party that British Airways gave to Gil when he left to become the CEO. It was held at what is now the Crowne Plaza, but could well have still been the Excelsior in those days. A lot of the people present wore t-shirts with "would you trust this man to run your airport' plus a photo of Gil imprinted on them.

At the time I did think that he would be too pro-British Airways, but my doubts were soon dispelled.

As others have said Sir Gil, as he was to become, was a man of many gentle qualities and yet such a strong personality. The airport has not been the same since his retirement.

I also remember Gordon Sweetapple as another CEO who was always approachable and would have time to talk.

[philbky]

Today's viewing park is a direct result of Gordon Sweetapple's belief that generating interest in aviation leads to an increase both in people working in the industry and in using the services of the airport. In 1978 I approached Gordon to see if the old brick works site, long used as an unofficial spotters meeting place, could be developed as an official visitor site. He thought the idea had merit and, after overcoming many obstacles, eventually the site was opened. The current facility has expanded and continued the idea but has fallen into the hands of the bean counters with excessive charges and it has the problem of facing into the sun.

The way Gordon took the idea on board was typical of his enthusiasm, something that Gil also had. The teams those two men built around themselves were not only professional but included many people, a great number of whom were enthusiasts, who believed that the purpose of an airport was to create profit through providing air services. It seems that the purpose of MAG today is to generate a profit from a range of sectors, just one of which, and not necessarily the most important, is the provision of air services to the people of Manchester and the airport's catchment area.

[TSR2]

It seems that the purpose of MAG today is to generate a profit from a range of sectors, just one of which, and not necessarily the most important, is the provision of air services to the people of Manchester and the airport's catchment area.

Yes I fully agree but unfortunately that is the direction aviation is heading in these times of airlines wanting the cheapest possible charges.

[ETOPS]

Wonder if there's been some confusion over numbers in this news article.

Virgin's Little Red is a big success at airport (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/more-250000-passengers-flown-virgin-6146174#comments)

Having used this service a few times I've never seen more than 30 pax. Quick bit of maths shows how many seats are on offer so do they mean total number of passengers over the whole route structure?

[Skipness One Echo]

airlines wanting the cheapest possible charges.
actually it's customers, us, including me. We all say when asked we'd pay more for better service but don't follow through.
Mr Thompson, who became director of short haul and new venture performance in March, admits it was a big step for the company to launch Little Red.

He said: “When we launched it it was something new and different for Virgin Atlantic, for us to go into the domestic routes after 30 years of long haul.
Worrying that he doesn't know his own company has had four short haul operations before! Corporate memory being so short is repsonsible for making the same mistakes again.... (Virgin Atlantic Viscounts to Maastricht, CityJet franchise with 146s, and of course Virgin Sun, not forgetting South East European A320 operation to Athens which later came in house.)

do they mean total number of passengers over the whole route structure?
No, there's no correaltion between profit and loss or passenger numbers and a press release. They exist in different departments and arguably different worlds. Virgin Red will need 1-2 years to bed down properly, and I am sure if they are serious about it, they'll do well. I am looking forward to trying it later in the year.

[Mr A Tis]

Spot on Skipness, corporate memory loss. Ironic that Virgin leased Three A320s-+ an A321 the very type they are leasing now from Aer Lingus ( A320). Operated May 1999 to October 2001 based at Gatwick & Manchester. Used for short haul holiday flights, but could have also been used as domestic connections if the short haul operation had any plan. I would guess it was an expensive operation to set up & then wind down in just over two years.

[righthandrule]

New Jet2 routes for 2014:

Jersey (3x weekly)
Vienna (3x weekly)
Bergerac (2x weekly)

[MKY661]

New Jet2 routes for 2014:

Jersey (3x weekly)
Vienna (3x weekly)
Bergerac (2x weekly)

Nice :) I think lots of people are going to be happy about the Vienna route :)

[hammerb32]

Vienna's a great shout, great city and long overdue from outside of the capital.

[LAX_LHR]

Finally! A link to Vienna from outside London is LONG overdue.

[GEB74]

Vienna may well see a fair few business passengers aboard with a Mon / Wed / Fri schedule. Not far from Vienna airport to Bratislava either.....
Good call by Jet2

[Bagso]

How Government Works !

Interesting that although the Davies Commission does not report until after the next election, Sir Howard Davies himself has decided to report the findings already, presumably a bit of softening up to be done on the "greens".

In effect as we should have all predicted its more runways in the South East, and there is of course only one player in town so that will be Heathrow.

I think we "might" however have assumed the usual sop to "The regionals" and that Davies would have indicated that

"they s/b used to max capacity...blah blah blah".

Infact what he has said which may just come as a bit of a bombshell to MAG, is that point to point long haul travel is not environmentally friendly therefore its best if we deter these flights (see APD which is already doing a good job) and focus one 100% on a mega hub down South.

The carbon footprint of said expansion will be more than made up by deterring expansion elsewhere at these non-hubs.

I assume Manchester to be a non hub, so nowt down there then !

But wait, this comes in the same week that there has been a proposal by the Chinese to invest £650m in the somewhat ambitiously named "Airport City" project, infact Mr Osbourne is off to China this week end for a photo opportunity.

"Airport City tends to imply that you need an airport presumably with a long haul network so what now......

Whilst MAG have not exactly set the world on fire by attracting more long haul Manchester does at least have something to build on ....

Although clearly not if the Commission has its way !

[Mr A Tis]

Well done Jet2 for launching Vienna next year (also from LBA & NCL), should appeal to some business passengers too if marketed well.

Just got Seville now on my short haul wish list ! A great winter city break that offers Seville, Jerez & Cadiz- three city breaks in one. From the UK there are only 2 services to Seville - RYR from Stansted & easy from Gatwick.

Seville is a big tourist hot spot, just not from the UK. Summers a bit hot, but a great winter destination for Jet2, Monarch or easy when they wind down their Med ops for the winter.

[Skipness One Echo]

Although clearly not if the Commission has its way !
I think the commission is a political animal to give "independent" cover to a very difficult political decision. i.e. Annoying thr rich and influential millionaires in Richmond and Chelsea and giving more jobs to poor non-skilled people at the same time as pilots other aviation professionals. It's financial necessity versus the son of a billionaire in the lovely Zac Goldsmith, and that's before you get to BoJo's magic floating airport built "elsewhere". CRIPES!

What's the thought on the non stop China route? It's all centrally planned to be fair but any of the Chinese airlines would be a huge boost given Cathay have seemingly lost interest.

[TSR2]

Just got Seville now on my short haul wish list

Yes, I have to agree. Quite surprising that Seville is not served from any northern airport. Ryanair did operate to Seville from Liverpool before being chopped.

[Logohu]

Infact what he has said which may just come as a bit of a bombshell to MAG, is that point to point long haul travel is not environmentally friendly therefore its best if we deter these flights (see APD which is already doing a good job) and focus one 100% on a mega hub down South.

Most of MAN's longhaul is point to hub, eg CO to EWR/IAD, AA to ORD/JFK, DL to ATL, SQ to SIN,the MEB3 to DXB/AUH/DOH. Even the TCX routes to Florida and Caribbean destinations are becoming mini-hub to point next year (rather than point to point) when the deal with Condor and Flybe starts. A lot of the shorthaul legacy flying is point to hub as well.

So I don't think MAG need to worry too much about what the Davies Commission recommends, unless of course they recommend something completely dumb like increasing APD from the regions and/or reducing it from LHR. Airlines will fly where they can make money, not where a Govt appointed committee or an airport lobby group think they should fly to, and all the indications are that that most of the current longhaul offerings from MAN are doing well enough to justify their existence.

And of course anything the Commission recommends will not even be considered by the Government until at least 2015 after the next election. Then there will be the usual debating, pandering and compromising to the various lobby groups / nimbys, and general dithering around before any decision is made, which even if it goes the way of extra runways at LHR will still take years to build. If the next Government is another coalition it may take even longer to make a decision, or be shelved altogether !!

In the meantime, what do airlines who want to grow their presence in the UK in the next few years actually do once the few remaining slots at LHR are all used up ? Yes some will upgrade to larger aircraft at LHR to make more out of the slots they already have, but depending on the airline and routes involved it may not always be economic for them to do that. So some will look elsewhere to increase their UK presence - LGW or STN only give them an increased presence in the SE corner, as neither airport is properly connected by air or land to the rest of th UK. And to an extent airlines who set themselves up at LGW/STN often end up competing with their own flights at LHR, with LHR still taking most of the front end passengers, leaving their LGW/STN flights running at a loss.

MAN on the other hand with its excellent surface transport, central location, and dual runways (and to a lesser extent BHX), is still in a favourable position to pick up additional airlines and routes over the next few years simply because LHR is already close to full and will take years to further expand. Perhaps this was the thinking at Egyptair, TAP and others when they started MAN, the rumoured Saudia flights, and the airline that closed LGW in favour of MAN (Qatar I think ?) ?? These are the airlines MAN should be courting, as well as looking after their existing and growing clients by making sure the terminal and parking space at MAN is available to cater for them all at the times they want to fly. The terminals are now bursting at the seams at certain times of the day, as are the parking bays.

As for direct China flights, I still think HKG would be a better route from MAN as it opens up the most onward connections into China and other Far East / Australasian points. But given the lack of interest so far from CX and no other viable based airline at HKG, then a service to CAN, SHA, or PEK might just work if served by a carrier based at one of those hubs. I can't see this happening though until one of these airlines achieves critical mass at LHR, they are still not yet even daily to LHR in some cases.

[j636]

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/935F8EFF4C077B5E80257BF8003DBECB/$File/September+13.pdf

[Betablockeruk]

New Rouge service to Toronto from 26 Jun 14

5 per week.

Credit Airline Route ? Worldwide Airline Route Updates (http://airlineroute.net/)


2 routes in 2 days!

[nigel osborne]

Re Air Canada,

Yes a great announcement late June to middle Sept so a high summer season only to start with ?

Wondering if Air Transat had been expecting this..as 1st Canadian Affair S14 brochure through my door had MAN-YYZ down as half A330s and half A310s.

The latest one that came yesterday has them as down as all A310s now ?

Nigel

[PhilW1981]

Any word on the extended trial of the extended runway 2 opening hours?

[Mr A Tis]

I guess it's good news to see Air Canada back after a 6 year gap, but to be honest, it would be great to see Montreal operated by one of them (TSC or AC)rather than duplicating the route.

BOAC flew daily Montreal 40 years ago !!

Unfortunately for me, it's either London Airways or KLM for Montreal.

[Curious Pax]

Had a look at the Air Canada website for the Rouge MAN flights, and they are on there and bookable. Surprisingly for an alleged discount brand round trips are all north of £1000, with some £1600. Granted I didn't exhaustively go through the whole 4 month period of the operation, but this was June/July so not in the school holidays. If they can fill an aircraft at those prices they will do very well!

[TSR2]

Blooming heck, that's old news.

[Betablockeruk]

I'm amazed it took so long to get into the public domain!

Naked drunk easyJet passenger Tasered at Manchester Airport - watch incredible video of his runway rant - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/naked-drunk-easyjet-passenger-tasered-6159584)

How did 'they' stop all the mobile images/videos getting out?

[Mr A Tis]

I guess the AC Rouge won't last long. Cheapest return £995 or you could book AC/BA via LHR & fly on full service AC ex LHR for only £22 more each way.
Begs the question what's the point of Rouge when it's fares are similar to the mainline carrier?

[ETOPS]

Looks like my questioning the "250,000" pax on MAN-LHR Little Red has found resonance in the Independent...

Virgin domestic flights a disaster (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/virgin-domestic-flights-a-disaster-as-passengers-stick-with-nofrills-rivals-8872505.html)

I was pretty sure the loads on MAN-LHR couldn't be anywhere near 250,000 and so it seems - between 250 and 300,000 system wide according to their own figures.

I quite enjoyed my trips with them but how long can they keep going?

[j636]

Air Canada like all airlines release new flights at very high prices, nothing new but reasons for it can be that early bird bookers will pay the price and when they reduce proves it looks good to the customer.

I expect Little Red will run for 3 years if they were to scrap flights now they would have very high penalties to pay Aer Lingus for early exit.

[Fairdealfrank]

The branding "Little Red" may be the problem. What exactly does it mean?
It implies a completely different carrier.

Branding these routes as "Virgin Atlantic" would have been a better strategy, especially as a proportion of the pax. are transferring to other VS flights.

[Skipness One Echo]

They are branded Virgin Atlantic, it's on giant letters on all four aircraft. I don't think branding is the problem, indeed Little Red is a decent enough moniker. We all knew Shuttle was BA domestic and Diamond Service was Midland, Virgin's prblems here go much deeper.
In other news, the bearded billionaire is off into tax exile. He's selling the London home and moving to his own wee private island full time. If this allows VS to be more focussed commercially then it might be a turning point.

[nigel osborne]

Mr A TIS

Agree re Air Canada Rouge how can they justify these prices with a 30" seat pitch.

Think Id rather fly from LHR on normal Air Canada with a better seat pitch, at least I'd be able to walk after a long flight !

Nigel

[Bagso]

Mr Branson has moved to the British Virgin Isles according to The Times.

"Sir Richard also said that he spends most of his time starting not for profit ventures, the income from which is donated to charity."

Maybe Little Red is the initial template ?

[110Cornets]

Deep breaths everybody!

As j636 said a few replies ago, AC have not yet released their fares for summer 2014 from Manchester.

The prices you're seeing right now are up to £500-600 more expensive than the fares they were selling for Summer 2013,

I'd expect much better deals to be released in the next couple of months.

[JackRalston]

Some of you might have already seen today...

94% have voted in favor of strike (50%+ turnout). Urgent meeting called by Swissport with Unite Union for talks on Wednesday.

Unite baggage handlers and check-in staff who work for Swissport at Manchester Airport vote for strike action - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/unite-baggage-handlers-check-in-staff-6184784)

[nigel osborne]

Jackralston.

Virtually all UK strike votes lead to settlements before it starts so you would expect one here too.So nothing to worry about yet.

Now if the firemen at the airport walked out with no negotiations planned that would be a different matter.

Nigel

[Suzeman]

Now if the firemen at the airport walked out with no negotiations planned that would be a different matter.

As used to happen at MAN with monotonous regularity in the 80s.

One year the fire service, the next the baggage handlers (only one in those days). All TGWU and neither would cross the other's picket lines....

[Bagso]

Some seismic media coverage of Airport City and the Chinese investment over the last few days, still catching up but really impressive.

Nice touch from the BBC suggesting (and confirming) that it will be largest infrastructure investment since The Olympics !

[AndyH52]

Nice touch but as often happens with the BBC not entirely accurate. For starters Airport City isn't even an infrastructure development its a property development and as such wouldn't even make it into the top 20 schemes in the UK in terms of value (the Nine Elms development on the South Bank of the Thames is top of that list with a value of over £13.4 billion).

[LAX_LHR]

According to a Sheffield councellor and the newspaper sheffield star (strange sources), Saudia have confirmed an April start for their 3 weekly Jeddah flights.

[mickyman]

LAX_LHR

We will see if the Sheffield councellor and newspaper are right...Surprised you cannot confirm.

MM

[LAX_LHR]

Well no I cannot confirm, as I don't work for Saudia and can only report things like GDS entries and press releases.

Seems to be more to suggest they will start rather than not, however.

[LAX_LHR]

Jet2 to Vienna seems to be selling well.

Fares start at £80 on all dates and many already over £100.

Wonder if its caused Austrian to sit up and take note.

[MKY661]

Looks like Norwegian might be opening a base here next summer as they have said there is to be a second UK base and there are reports that MAN-AGP was bookable :)

[LAX_LHR]

SAS are to increase MAN-OSL from 5 weekly to daily from March 2014.

Wonder if there is any coincidence that Norwegian are rumoured to open a MAN base which would no doubt lead to an increase of the OSL route, the first route Norwegian operated this time around at MAN?

[viscount702]

LAX_LHR

I think Oslo by SAS is already daily ex Saturday.

[LN-KGL]

Dx26 viscount702, not Dx6

[viscount702]

As LAX_LHR originally said I thought SAS to Oslo was only five a week namely Dx26. Nonetheless having checked the SAS timetable it shows it operating on Tuesday as well as the Airport one (not that the Airport timetable can be relied upon.)

[LAX_LHR]

Viscount.

It seems a tuesday flight has been added and operating on sas website. Not sure when that came in as it was definately 5 weekly ex tue/sat until recently.

None the less good to see the increases.

[viscount702]

It was a surprised to see it 6 a week because as you say it was last time I looked only 5. Nonetheless is it going to 7 a week as you say and if you know are the timings similar.

[LAX_LHR]

Viscount.

Yes timings are similar and already bookable on all platforms.

[LAX_LHR]

Swiss have cut one of the 3 daily flights for the winter season. Its back bookable for the summer season however (at the time of posting anyway).

[nigeljh]

I am slightly puzzled, maybe someone can enlighten me.
If Norway is not a member of the EU how can a non EU carrier open
bases in the UK .?
PS this is my first post, having read about the proposed service from
LGW to USA and now possibly MAN-AGP
Thanks

[Ringwayman]

Flights to Charlotte start 23rd May using US Airways 757. "book" the seat. US746/747

[LAX_LHR]

Absolutely fantastic news.

Its great to see some growth across the atlantic again. Also 5 hours on the ground should build up the change purse charge wise for MAG.

So far:

Air Canada to Toronto
Virgin upgauge back to the B747 on all flights
US to Charlotte

There are strong rumours United to Newark will be on the B767-300 next year too, and as usual the B767-300 back on the AA54/55 will begin in May (uploaded soon).

[Ringwayman]

The only down side is that it's going to be hard to convince anyone outside the industry that APD is harming route development.

[LAX_LHR]

Well to be honest the stubborness over the APD means its likely to be here for a while.

In that time I would rather see growth and new routes rather than sit and wait for something that may never happen.

So, with Saudia supposedly starting in April, 3 new longhaul routes in the summer 2014 basket is not to be sniffed at!

[j636]

Good news about CLT and MAN isn't the only route. BCN, LIS and BRU also gain flights. MAN and LIS lowest capacity out of the 4.

[spannersatcx]

Virgin upgauge back to the B747 on all flights

only trouble is there is a reduction in flts down from 14 to 10.

[LAX_LHR]

J636.

The B757 is still welcome, and I would rather give a new route the chance to work and grow rather than use say, the A330, be too much capacity to fill and then subsiquently fail.

Spanners, which VS flights are cut next summer? Looking at GDS and VS site it still shows MCO at 11 per week, BGI at 1 and LAS at 2?

[GrahamK]

1 hour 10 mins from landing to getting bags at an empty T2 yesterday evening. Nice flight on MON A332 though despite a knackered seat.

[TURIN]

WTF does "Upgauge" mean? :rolleyes::ugh:

[LAX_LHR]

Oh give it a rest turin.

[Sholto Douglas]

TURIN

I don't know where you have read "upgauge", however it is sometimes used as a means of explaining a change of aircraft type on a route. For example if US airways were to offer a through flight Manchester to La Guardia via Charlotte with a single flight number, but a change of aircraft type at Charlotte then that would be an 'upgauge'.

The nearest comparison for this Americanism would be a change of train from a narrow gauge to standard gauge track.

Does that help?

[BDLBOS]

LAX_LHR. This is an open forum, if somebody wants to make a prick of themselves, then I don't think you can stop them. Keep posting the interesting stuff, don't really care what Turin doesn't understand.

Oh, and we use the slang word Upgauge in my industry too, we refer to this as Ultrasonic English.

[BasilBush]

Turin

I don't blame you for asking what upgauge means. Our industry is full of jargon, and those of us who are too familiar with it (and I class myself in that category) probably need to get out more.

In this context, upgauge simply means replacing one aircraft type with another of higher capacity. In this case replacing an A330 with a 744. Downgauge would be the reverse.

At the risk of being excessively pedantic, what Sholto is talking about is actually "change of gauge". Some carriers (normally US ones) sometimes market a service under the same flight number even when there is a stop en-route involving a change of aircraft. A bit tricksy really.

[Bagso]

....with Rouge, Saudia, and now US Air....plus massive investment by the Chinese in Manchester, it appears to be a massive vote of confidence in NWest.

[chaps2011]

yes with all these offices in the offing will create a large number of high value paxhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

chaps

[kieb92]

Great news about US Airways.

Just a quick question about Transavia France. I remember reading a post a few months ago about a base for them at Manchester. Any further news about whether this is true or indeed any dates/times/routes?

Also with regards to TCX/Condor at Manchester for Summer 2014, any updates or news with regards to possible new routes or based aircraft?

Thomas Cook Airlines to turn Manchester, Frankfurt into longhaul hubs - ch-aviation.ch (http://www.ch-aviation.ch/portal/news/21014-thomas-cook-airlines-to-turn-manchester-frankfurt-into-longhaul-hubs#disqus_thread)

Thanks.

[LAX_LHR]

The Transavia base was an error in the GDS systems where a number of Thomson flights with the B737-800 were showing as Transavia France flights.

The condor base is still happening with a based B757-300 and flights are bookable across all platforms including Thomas Cook and Condor site. Can't remember all routes but Kos, Fuerteventura and Palma are 3 routes.

[spannersatcx]

J636.

The B757 is still welcome, and I would rather give a new route the chance to work and grow rather than use say, the A330, be too much capacity to fill and then subsiquently fail.

Spanners, which VS flights are cut next summer? Looking at GDS and VS site it still shows MCO at 11 per week, BGI at 1 and LAS at 2?

sorry thought you meant this winter.

[Bagso]

How would a member of the public actually find the rouge flights?

They seem to be buried with the aircanada marketing which is great IF they are being marketed under same. Seems confusing.
____________________________________________

Re saudia I find it incredible and exasperating that it takes lobbying from sheffield based MPs councillors to assist in gaining a new routes from Manchester 45mins away. All power to them.

...where are all the nwest based MPs and why are they not batting for Manchester with same veracity.

[Betablockeruk]

Re saudia I find it incredible and exasperating that it takes lobbying from sheffield based MPs councillors to assist in gaining a new routes from Manchester 45mins away. All power to them.

Seriously doubt that the political element was the major factor in the reintroduction of the flight - Councillors are never shy from claiming full responsibility, even if they just wrote a letter!

Cynically speaking from experience.

[Bagso]

Given the explosion of new services at Manchester why oh why were MAG not more vociferous in terms of supporting Manchester at The Davies commission.

Re MAG i don't get the unequivocal strategic support of Stansted compared to the lukewarm support of Manchester.

Where were they expecting growth to come from down there, is it really airlines at Lhr or lgw?

Utter reliance on RYR seems folly and and the recent deal smacks of desperation , and in truth contradicts the implication given at the enquiry that STN could become a major long haul hub.

Have they in effect played their hand ?

Which airline CEO in their right mind is likely to contemplate for more than a few seconds diluting service at Heathrow in order to move to Fortress Ryanair, Essex ?

What is in MAGs thinking or indeed the Australian backers that suggested an avalanche from elsewhere?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

If you are flying an aircraft into Manchester Airport tomorrow morning (23rd), be sure to plan for a comfortable amount of holding fuel. Between 05:30 - 11:30Z there are sixteen additional inbound ATM's listed in association with European football matches. There may also be executive traffic (I haven't seen a list for these). A full regular flight schedule is expected as well, and the weather forecast is for heavy rain and a brisk wind. If you don't fancy an unplanned refuelling pitstop at LPL, EMA, LBA etc ... make some allowances.

Happy Flying! SHED.

[North West]

Given the explosion of new services at Manchester why oh why were MAG not more vociferous in terms of supporting Manchester at The Davies commission.

Re MAG i don't get the unequivocal strategic support of Stansted compared to the lukewarm support of Manchester.

They paid £1.5 billion for access to the world's busiest city airport system by passenger traffic. A few months later an opportunity comes along to contribute to a govt led commission on capacity in that airport system and you 'don't get' why they talked more about Stansted in this discussion.

Probably the clue here is that Stansted is part of the London city airport system (135 million passengers each year) and Manchester (20 million) is not.

[Bagso]

Theoretically I agree..but you are being selective.

I repeat who is going to move to an airport dominated by the largest loco in the World?

And if MAG were so confident in the demand why give away so much in low cost fees.

By all means enlighten us as to what the catalyst will be that will make a raft of airlines movet there.

[LAX_LHR]

According to ACL slots:

-Freebird have full winter series of flights to Antalya at 2 per week
-Germania run a series of cruise charters to Bergen and Tromso.
-EK21/22 reverts to 2 class B77W for increase of seats

Nothing else noteworthy to report.

[GEB74]

LAX-LHR
The EK21/22 is already quite often a 2 class sub.
I've just received notification of an involuntary downgrade to J on a 21 rotation in early NOV. Outbound 22 later this week still showing as 3 class......(wonder if it will stay that way)

Emirates really do need to look at introducing a sub-fleet of 777-300ER's with say just 4 F seats, instead of the 8 private suites or 12 lie flats for flights where there is some F demand, but not enough to fill the existing options.
The 17/18 and 19/20 flights are often full in F, but the 21/22 with its much more limited connectivity is often near on empty in F.

[PhilW1981]

Will be very disappointed if EK21/22 is downgraded to a 2 class as this is my preferred flight in both directions and the occasional op up to F or use of miles to upgrade is nice.

[Fairdealfrank]

Given the explosion of new services at Manchester why oh why were MAG not more vociferous in terms of supporting Manchester at The Davies commission.

Re MAG i don't get the unequivocal strategic support of Stansted compared to the lukewarm support of Manchester.



Probably the clue here is that Stansted is part of the London city airport system (135 million passengers each year) and Manchester (20 million) is not.


Or to put it another way, because the lack of capacity that the Airports Commission is loking at is in the southeast, not the northwest.

[LAX_LHR]

Will be very disappointed if EK21/22 is downgraded to a 2 class as this is my
preferred flight in both directions and the occasional op up to F or use of
miles to upgrade is nice.


Flights on GDS and Emirates website still show 3 class service on all flights. It is only the ACL slot co-ordinator showing the use of a 2 class aircraft. There may well be sporadic uses of the 2 class aircraft however.

[Skipness One Echo]

Hey all, can someone sense check this for me? I have PIA only operating twice weekly transatlantic, westbound only on PK711 KHI-LHE-MAN-JFK on Sat and PK721 KHI-LHE-MAN-JFK on Tue.
Is that all the transit stops nowadays?

Thanks!

[GrahamK]

Skip, i thought all tx was going tgrough SNN now??

[chaps2011]

It appears not as they still appear at Manchester some days but only one way

chaps

[LAX_LHR]

That is all the transit nowdays.

Toronto operates direct both ways as it does not need the additional security check.

The plan to move the JFK flights to Shannon has been scrapped for the time being and the stop remains at MAN.

Apparently the LHE/KHI-MAN-JFK flights will switch to the B77W again for the summer.

[Bagso]

Your missing the points chaps.

I am simply saying as did the esteemed analysts at CAPA that it seems odd to so vociferously argue the case of one airport over another when you own both. By all means support STN but not totally at the expense of Manchester....

[Bagso]

And as far the new Transport Minister lumping us in with Southend...words fail me !

[compton3bravo]

Don´t worry Bagso at least Southend have a decent football team!;):)

[Skipness One Echo]

Thanks all!

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

At a meeting of the planning committee at Manchester Town Hall this afternoon, Manchester City Council awarded planning permission for the construction of a 9000 space car park consuming a large area of working farmland in Moss Nook. The vote was 8 - 5 in favour of MAG's application. For those familiar with the area, the fields concerned are bounded by Ringway Road, Shadow Moss Road, Trenchard Drive, Styal Road and Simonsway.

As one would expect, local residents are deeply unhappy about the decision. They have been reasonable throughout, acknowledging Manchester Airport's need for car parks, but urging a solution in the form of a deep 'n high multi-storey car park built as part of the Airport City project. Most residents close to the airport are not mindless NIMBY's; many work at the airport, almost all were aware of what an expanding airport means. Quite afew are aviation enthusiasts. Many were supportive of terminal expansions, the second runway and more recently the Airport City project. The big difference in this case is that there was always a viable alternative to concreting over vast tracts of farmland: building large capacity centrally located multi-storeys. They can build them pretty deep these days as well as high. Sadly, such suggestions are inadmissable at a planning hearing where only the application submitted can be discussed.

In the context of financing a major international airport, the funds required for constructing a multi-storey car park (over and above the cost of the green-field project) is modest. Perhaps MAG really doesn't have enough money ... we all remember the 'bargain' price tag for Stansted!

MAG has secured a modest financial saving by opting to concrete over neighbouring farmland rather than building a multi-storey car park at Airport City. But there is a price beyond the pure financial. Any credibility MAG has built up in portraying itself as an environmentally responsible green enterprise is irrevocably blown away. Any suggestion to the contrary will be the subject of raucous ridicule for years to come. And as for their 'Good Neighbour Policy' ... wow, they'll have to chuck millions around if they ever want that brought back from the dead. Stitching up hundreds of their near neighbours and destroying years of "green" credentials come with a financial price tag too.

Well done, MAG. With the Stansted debacle and now this you're really on a tear!

[TSR2]

I don't suppose there is any Right of Appeal against the majority decision.

[ZOOKER]

And yet the old 'Air Parks' site next to Handforth Dean still remains derelict.
I always thought it odd that all the computer-generated images of 'Airport City' show no staff parking provision. Now we know why.

[SWBKCB]

Shed - if they are taking all of that area that will be some car park. Your right, not the way to make friends.

And the Tatton used to be such a nice place to watch the planes go by...

[MAN777]

Shed

Have you flown into MAN recently ? Any perceptions that there was a desire to keep green space on the airfield boundary was blown away years ago, just look at the car park on the old joes field site as an example(opposite the Airport pub).

I have spent many a pleasant hour watching aircraft & scabby looking sheep eating Jet A1 contaminated grass at this new car park location, yes its quaint but hardly a green lung in the area.

If it helps to keep cars off the west apron in the future then it gets my vote as well.:ok:

[LAX_LHR]

Another transatlantic route likely to be announced for 2014.

Unsure exactly when it will be announced but October 2014 will be the start date. The carrier in question has operated this route before but now has the resources to make the route work better this time.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

MAN777 - A centrally located multi-storey built as part of Airport City would also keep cars off the West Apron. That is the plan which gets my vote. And yes, the South Side car park is not a favourite with nearby residents, but it is only one-third the size of the new one just approved. BTW, those sheep look pretty fattened and contented to me. Not a scabby one amongst them!

[Ringwayman]

Given the launch date and it having been operated before, it can only be AA to Miami. Frequency may the debating point as I remember it pitching in as a daily service but in the last season of operation, it was operating 3 weekly. Perhaps 5 weekly could the initial call, but I don't think it will be a year-round operation.

[Crazy Voyager]

Do you know in more detail where this would be? My first reaction is that having a multi-storey in those fields might cause issues with obstacle clearance as the approach for 23R passes just over there (if I am thinking of the right fields).

[ZOOKER]

I don't think the Moss Nook site would be multi-story Crazy, the site is large enough to accommodate that number of cars at ground-level.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Clarification: The residents proposed a multi-storey car park option integral to the Airport City project which is located to the North of the Terminal One complex. There is no suggestion of constructing a multi-storey underneath the flightpath. That would surely be in breach of safety regulations.

[MAN777]

Shed

I am obviously more discerning about my sheep !!:)

[MAN777]

New Atlantic service

How about Bangladesh, they have been here before and are getting some more B777s

[Crazy Voyager]

Ah, that makes more sense. Well I can't deny the place obviously needs more parking (considering they even too away stands to use as parking lots). I suppose though I can now look forward to having even more roadworks to pass on my way to work once the tram is done. But I suppose that's life...

[Bagso]

Sadly I think there was a certain inevitability about expanding East.

It does allow the car park in front of a Bewleys to be turned in to an apron allowing parking around the back of a T3 as per original plans.

Also heard staff west is moving to the new staff east. Does this mean that the apron could then be extended West?

Is it possible that with the go ahead of airport city there's a realisation that you need a fully functioning airport as the catalyst !

Staff east is 9000 cars how does that compare to the two current locations.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

The airport spokesperson at the planning hearing confirmed that the new 9000 space car park would be used for long-stay car parking. This issue was a hot topic throughout the planning process, as it was argued that cars staying for afew hours only generate far more road congestion and environmental impact than those parking up for a week at a time. MAG also argued that they were trying to encourage customers to park up their own vehicles for the duration of their trips because drop-offs / pick-ups generate twice as many car journeys on the road. If it turns out that the car park is utilised for something other than long-stay, questions will be asked.

[MKY661]

Maybe it would be the new T1 & T3 Long Stay? Cause the image with the Airport city shows the current one replaced with the Terminal 3 Expansion :)

[ZOOKER]

Long-stay, short-stay or staff, whatever. The plan to store more than 250,000 litres of mixed petrol/diesel in a 'public safety zone', (i.e. the 05L clearway) is not a good scheme. If anything were to hit this site, (e.g. an item detached during a gear-retraction sequence), the resulting chain-reaction would probably be spectacular and un-stoppable.

[LAX_LHR]

The plan to store more than 250,000 litres of mixed petrol/diesel in a 'public safety zone', (i.e. the 05L clearway) is not a good scheme. If anything were to hit this site, (e.g. an item detached during a gear-retraction sequence), the resulting chain-reaction would probably be spectacular and un-stoppable.

Why should MAN present such an issue ahead of other airports.

Such car parks right under the flightpath in 'clearways' exist at Heathrow (27R) and a petrol station under 27L (lets not forget the captain of BA38 who thought he would hit hatton cross).

Gatwick has a car park under 26L, and probably plenty of other cases around the world.

[MAN777]

The RESA for the 05L runway end is within the airport boundary, any aircraft in difficulty has a railway cutting to cross, a row of terrace houses and dozens of landing light supports to get through before it got anywhere near the car park.

Everything an airport does has to be risk assessed so I am pretty sure its been passed as acceptable. Also within 1/2 a mile it becomes a densely populated suburb of Stockport. To my knowledge there has never been any incidents of aircraft or parts ending up in this area (apart from the Viscount which hit the houses on Shadow Moss Road years ago. So how many thousands of movements is that ?

Absolutely minimal risk.

[Skipness One Echo]

and a petrol station under 27L
Which would absolutely not be allowed nowadays. There's a lot of interesting work going on around runway overruns and clear areas, thinking of the TAM A320 that went off the runway a few years back.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

MAN777 -

"there has never been any incidents ... apart from the Viscount"

Well that is alright then. That Viscount crash killed all 15 passengers, all 5 crew and two local residents on the ground (Mrs Wilding and her son). Don't you think it is rather tasteless to glibly dismiss this tragedy? And the densely populated suburbs of Stockport which you refer to have an even larger tragedy of their own to reminisce about (the BMA crash).

Absolutely minimal risk? Come and say that face-to-face with some of the older residents who experienced the Shadow Moss crash first hand. A little more sensitivity, please.

And let's not accept complacency just because those two crashes occurred many years ago. In more recent times we have seen serious accidents close to the runways of at least three major UK airports: BMA B734 at EMA, Korean Cargo B747 at STN, BAW B772 at LHR. Plenty more examples of less serious incidents too. Accidents can and do happen; we must not be dismissive of the possibility. [I have not referenced the British Airtours MAN crash here because its circumstances render it unsuitable for the purposes of this comparison].

By the way, there is no row of houses between the end of 05L and the proposed car park site. There used to be, but they were demolished some years ago to comply with ICAO requirements. They had been built before the airport as we recognise it today was a consideration. Meanwhile, approach lighting supports are specifically designed to be frangible. They do not constitute a meaningful physical barrier to an aircraft in motion.

[LAX_LHR]

Shed,

What was so insensitive about MAN777's comment?

I found it a legitimate example that out of thousands upon thousands of movements, there has only been that 1 incident that occurred within the last very few seconds of landing at MAN.

At the end of the day, an air crash is not going to be pretty wherever it happens. As you rightly point out, a minute or 2 earlier and the aircraft will come down on Stockport. What's worse for fatalities, a housing estate or a car park? Given this too has happened at MAN, should a large swathe of housing under the final approach at MAN be wiped 'just incase'? Without wishing to sound distasteful, an air crash into a field is still likely to cause a he'll of an explosion, 9000 cars or not, an explosion of any scale can be catastrophic.

As I've pointed out, there are many cases of car parks amongst the landing lights of airports, LHR and LGW are UK examples, San Diego even has a multi storey plonked at the end of its runway!

As others have said, I'm sure all the H&S bodies have taken all into account, and in the UK's very stringent H&S world, I'm sure it was checked and double checked.

[TURIN]

The plan to store more than 250,000 litres of mixed petrol/diesel in a 'public safety zone', (i.e. the 05L clearway) is not a good scheme. If anything were to hit this site, (e.g. an item detached during a gear-retraction sequence), the resulting chain-reaction would probably be spectacular and un-stoppable.

I think someone has been watching too many Hollywood blockbusters. Cars don't just blow up when things hit them, the roads would be littered with the evidence.



Viscount Crash.
Bit of an over reaction there Shed. The 'risk' was the subject matter, not the relevance of a tragedy.

Be well.

[MAN777]

Shed

I wasnt trying to dismiss any previous accidents, I was just talking probability.

Also can I ask that you take a look on google earth and check out the extended runway centreline. You will note exactly what I described. OK the exact centreline might just be offset from the gable end but only by a few yards. The houses are easily within the wingspan of the average airliner.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

LAX_LHR ... Nowhere do I suggest 'wiping' large swathes of existing housing from anywhere. Where did that idea come from? However, that doesn't make it a great idea to stick high-density car parking on fields in the undershoot of an intensively used runway (which is a different issue altogether). The issue here is not whether it is better to impact onto housing or parked cars, but whether it is better to impact onto densely parked cars or open farmland in the event of an accident. As you say, I'm sure H&S boxes have been ticked, but expedient saving on construction costs is clearly triumphant over real-world safety precautions in this instance. And certainly no consideration has been given to environmental consequences. A large multi-storey car park integrated with Airport City would not have cost mega-bucks in the context of major airport expenditure.

MAN777 ... I accept your comment that you were not being dismissive. No personal offence is intended. One factual correction though: the block of houses which was aligned with the runway threshold was demolished relatively recently. The first block of remaining houses to the east of Shadow Moss Road is offset to the right of the approach (with the runway threshold at your back). They are certainly close to the runway but not in line with it.

Speaking generally (not to anybody in particular), the mindset that boxes have been ticked so we can all be complacent now is not commensurate with the safety culture that a major airport deserves. Yes, there have been thousands upon thousands of safe movements at MAN. But it only takes one slip to break that cycle so there is no room for complacency if we want our good run to continue. The safety record needs to be proactively earned by implementing best practice, not entrusted to chance and casino odds. We should not work down to the lowest common denominator in this industry (well airport XXX has a car park in a dodgy spot so it must be OK for us too).

[LAX_LHR]

Nowhere do I suggest 'wiping' large swathes of existing housing from
anywhere. Where did that idea come from


I know you didn't suggest that. My point stemmed from the fact that if an incident were to happen, whether it be over Shadowmoss or Stockport, its going to happen in an uncontrollable event, and there is only so much space you can 'keep clear' for that just in case situation. Just as an incident at shadowmoss was cited, an incident at Stockport has also been cited so, should we just stop at car parks under the approach lights being built, or should we go the full hog and keep a full 10 miles under final approach clear for that 'just in case' moment too?


As you say, I'm sure H&S boxes have been ticked, but expedient saving on
construction costs is clearly triumphant over real-world safety precautions in this instance


So by this statement, are you saying that the car park is unsafe? Im genuinely unsure as in one breath you state you are sure H&S has been met, but then state no thought given for real world precautions in another breath?


But it only takes one slip to break that cycle so there is no room for
complacency if we want our good run to continue


Huh? A crash is a crash. It is a dark cloud that hangs over an airport regardless of what it takes out on the ground?

Look, you obviously feel very strongly that this car park is somehow unsafe and that some sort of 'carmageddon' will ensue in a crash. You talk about 'real world' situations but the real world situation is that the proverbial will hit the fan regardless of where an airliner crashes. Fields or cars, I would not like to be on any airliner that crashes (obviously) and I can honestly say that I do not feel any worry knowing I am landing over a car park.

At the end of the day, if you feel strongly that green space has been lost, that is one argument, but, Im not sure where this fear of aircraft crashing into cars has stemmed from. As pointed out, car parks in these locations is a practice taken at many airports and it all seems to run smoothly elsewhere, and with only 1 incident of an aircraft landing short at MAN, then I think the residents of South Manchester have no more need to worry than they usually do.....

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

LAX_LHR ... We must agree to differ. A multi-storey car park located in a development such as Airport City which is not under the approach is clearly safer than a surface car park development in the undershoot of the final approach to a busy runway. None of us want to dwell upon the possibility of an aircraft accident occurring, but the survival odds are much better if the point of contact with the ground is green pasture land rather than a high density car park. This proposed car park undoubtedly satisfies the letter of the law (as it must), but it is a significantly less safe option than the viable alternative which objectors put forward for consideration. The difference between the two is that a multi-storey costs more money to construct.

I could continue onto the invisible costs of environmental destruction and the cost of writing off the 'Good Neighbour' legacy, but these are additional factors which have been discussed earlier in the thread and there is no point going around in circles.

As for you comment that "Huh? A crash is a crash" ... well, I'm amazed that someone in the industry could glibly come out with this. There are all manner of innovations which have been introduced to improve the "survivability" of aircraft accidents. This is very much a holy grail within the industry and rightly so. The surface upon which an impact occurs is a significant factor in aircraft accident survivability. With the benefits of a robust safety culture being applied, aircraft accidents can be considerably less bad than the worst case scenario. Eroding that safety margin away in the name of expediency and (relatively) modest cost savings is not the way to go.

I have never mentioned "carmaggedon" ... that colourful word is your own. I am not into Hollywood theatrics when discussing a safety case. However, it is certainly reasonable to point out the survivability of one surface versus another in a discussion of this nature. I do not argue that an aircraft accident *will* happen, but I acknowledge that it *could*. The aviation industry must always be mindful of accident prevention and mitigation. The lessons learned and innovations applied from accident investigations worldwide have saved thousands of lives. It is wise to value the contribution made by a robust safety culture and not just sidestep it when convenient to save afew pounds on construction costs. And remember, aviation safety best practices are derived from worldwide data, so "it's never happened before at Manchester" doesn't really cut it in this context.

By the way, I did not initiate the discussion on the safety aspect of Manchester's 9000 space car park application. Read my post #1340 on this thread and you will note that I introduced the car park news with a quite different discussion emphasis. However, I have since seen contributors here dismissing safety concerns raised by other posters. That, to me, is something worthy of a rebuttal posting. We must never allow our complacency to shunt aside the safety culture which is so vital to this industry. It is deserving of our attention and respect.

Best to all. SHED.

[LAX_LHR]

It does indeed seem we will have to 'agree to disagree' as I just cannot even begin to understand why you view this development as unsafe.

At the end of the day if you are p**sed iff that green space is now going to be concrete, then fine, thats an argument in itself (although prime development land next to a growing airport, I must ask did you honestly think it would remain 'green' for long?).

However this whole 'car park danger' in the clear zone to me is making a kountain out of a molehill and blown way out of proportion in reality.

[Mr A Tis]

Aside from incorporating a new multi storey within airport city, the airport own & operate many car parks around the airport. Almost any of these could be converted into multi storey parks.
The advantages of doing this are three fold, 1) less environmental damage concreting over green fields, 2) remaining a good neighbour to local residents & 3) retain a safer clear area under the flight path.

The airport appears to have chosen the cheapest & most disruptive option.
The residents have seen the airport grow & unlike Heathrow, have movements H24, then they got the train,now the trams will soon be thundering past their houses & now a 9,000 space car park on their doorstep. It was an avoidable decision, when there are clearly alternatives available with no detriment to the airport expansion.

[Bagso]

I wonder if this not so much the cheapest decision (hmmmm) as opposed to the quickest ...?

By building at "Staff East" you could effectively move the surface car park behind T3 pretty quickly this would allow construction of a new apron round the back of T3.

"IF" it was large enough to accommodate the capacity of staff west as well as the current T2 apron parking it would allow them to reoccupy the space for aircraft as well as provide a possible extension of the T2 apron Westwards
assuming this does not conflict with the boundary of airport city?

Much as MAG are trying to promote expansion in Essex maybe their is a gnawing dare I say reluctant realisation that they NEED to look after the airport that was the catalyst to buy STN in the first place !

[StoneyBridge Radar]

I find it ironic on the various web forums that some of the very same voices who were so vocally supportive of runway 2 and dismissive of the fears of the residents' of Mobberley and Knutsford are now the ones so vociferously opposed to the loss of one far less significant plot of green land with a few manky sheep on it that just happens this time to be in their own back yard.

Geographical NIMBYism at its very best.

[Mr A Tis]

Hmmmmm fair point..........oh hang on, you can't build double decker runways....but I'm sure Ive seen multi storey car parks, that uses space more efficiently. Anyway, they are doing it now....so maybe let sleeping car parks lie.

[Bagso]

To be fair the residents of Mobberley and Knutsford have the single nuisance of aircraft......

If you live near the Tatton,

you have the planes

the train,

the new A6 relief road which will be a dual carrieway......

the metrolink

and now a 24 hour car park

...I think I would move !

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Stoneybridge -

Permit me to address the point you raise, as I suspect that I may be amongst those you note as being supportive of some airport development projects and opposed to others (well, one other). In a nutshell, this is a consequence of assessing each project on its own merits. There is no "one size fits all" formula for evaluating the very varied developments which Manchester Airport wishes to pursue. And it is not a matter of inconsistency or disloyalty to take a different stance when evaluating multiple individual developments which are very varied in nature.

Firstly, let me explain my own position with respect to 'Runway 2' [23L/05R]. Those who know me could confirm that I am very directly affected by aircraft movements using this runway, arguably at least as much as anybody anywhere in the vicinity of the airport. I knew well that this would be the case when I joined and actively supported campaigning by the 'Runway 2 Support Group'. And if I had my time over again, I wouldn't change a thing. Even recalling the night when a landing aircraft on 23L (during 23R maintenance) whipped a bunch of tiles off my roof!

The reason that I supported the R2 development is because the economic case for it was compelling. Whilst the project to this day remains widely misunderstood by the public (and some on here) because it is not fully utilised 24/7, the fact is that R2 has brought huge economic benefits to the region. Airlines primarily require scarce peak time slots to enable services which dovetail with the 9 to 5 standard business day. And companies which base aircraft at the airport - for all market segments - require access to runway capacity at peak times as well as during the shoulder and off-peak periods. R2 has enabled this demand to be satisfied, and the effects in terms of employment and economic value to the North West is clearly evident. Confident that this would be the dividend of the R2 investment, I strongly supported it from the outset despite personally being very directly affected by aircraft using it. So perhaps you would have to call me an 'OKIMBY' on this one because R2 is certainly 'IMBY'! Well, 'IMFY' anyway!

Furthermore, I have strongly supported terminal expansions as required during all the years of my residency in this area. Yes, they are 'IMBY', and yes, they add to congestion on the roads hereabouts etc, etc. But the economic payoff to the region vastly outweighs the downside in each of these cases. If MAG can secure funding to extend T2 and T3, and / or rebuild / modernise T1, they will have my full support in their endeavours. (Whether they would actually prefer to throw their investment kitty at STN is another matter). These terminals are very much 'IMBY', especially the long-term proposals for extending T3. So I guess this makes me an 'OKIMBY' on terminal expansion as well.

The Metrolink extension also runs nearby and the current works are a short distance from my property. However, I have supported this project because construction works are temporary and the long-term benefits of this amenity will be a big positive for years to come. I support increased use of public transport, and initiatives to persuade users of Manchester Airport to avail themselves of it. I myself expect to become a regular user of the airport tram route, as indeed I am a regular user of several of the existing lines. So I'm an 'OKIMBY' on this development too.

A major by-pass [SEMMMS] which will link Manchester Airport with points east is also working its way through the planning process. As the project passes very close to my property, I have received solicitations from law firms to sign up for a compensation suit against the developers. I have not taken them up on their offer, as I believe that the by-pass will be a huge enhancement to the area once completed. The disruption of the construction phase will be worthwhile in the long run. The economic benefits to the wider region are again clearly evident. Believing this, I consider it disingenuous to profiteer from compensation which may become available because of the project's 'detrimental effects'. So you'd better put me down on the 'OKIMBY' list for this one as well.

I am also fully supportive of developments including Airport City (major economic boost for the region) which is just about close enough to pass as 'IMBY'. Extensions to the cargo village are perhaps a little distant to qualify as 'IMBY', but I support this expansion also. Taxiway upgrade initiatives are fine by me too. Oh, and I regard HS2 as a good thing as well!

So what is the big difference when it comes down to the 9000 space car park development on working farmland? Well, firstly, there is a very viable and significantly preferable alternative which would achieve the same outcome. I refer to the proposal for 'Deep 'n High' multi-storey car parking provision constructed in association with the 'Airport City' project. Will the farmland car park proposal create more employment than centrally located multi-storey(s)? Will it be more beneficial to passengers? Will it deliver a huge economic benefit to the North West region? Will whatever benefits the project does deliver enhance the NW over and above the multi-storey alternative? I put it to you that the answer to all these questions is a resounding 'NO'.

The negative aspects of the car park proposal have been widely discussed in earlier posts here, but they can be summarised in terms of environmental damage, significant loss of local amenity, loss of 'green lung' land, erosion of safety margins, loss of trust and historic cooperation with the airport's neighbouring residential community.

Broadly speaking, the communities at the Heald Green / Wythenshawe end of the runways have been supportive of the airport on their doorstep. There are exceptions of course, as there would be in any community, but it is fair to say that many around here are fine with aircraft activity and its essential supporting infrastructure. Many airport workers and aircraft enthusiasts live locally. However, it is quite unfair to expect this community to meekly welcome just any development the airport wants to pursue, regardless of the specifics of the application. The 9000 space car park plan fails the 'good sense test' on so many levels (apologies for the pun). The economic case for it as opposed to a central multi-storey alternative is not only not compelling ... it just isn't there at all!

So it is quite unfair to accuse the airport's neighbours of "geographical NIMBYism at its very best". The opposite is true. This is very selective and very well reasoned NIMBYism against a specific project which spectacularly fails the smell test. Manchester Airport is in fact very fortunate to have enjoyed such a supportive community to the east of its boundary. I wonder if the airport's current management team have any appreciation of the long-term goodwill they have written off with this recent decision? I suppose not, but they may find they have prodded a hornets' nest this time. The local community has vocal and angry opponents prepared to organise now. They feel betrayed. Every development the airport pursues from this point on will face much tougher opposition going forward.

And that saddens me. It didn't have to be like this. The residents have lost all confidence in the management team now running Manchester Airport. The goodwill - taken for granted for so long - is exhausted.

By the way Stoneybridge, you're another one calling out our "manky" sheep. Are you a vet? Is there a whole bunch of vets reading this board? Those sheep are perfectly healthy. Nowt wrong with 'em. I bet they'd taste great with a nice dash of mint sauce.

SHED.

[mickyman]

I thought they only had one 'use' for sheep in Wythenshawe !!

MM :-)

[ZOOKER]

A very good post Shed.
Has anyone considered the security element of this site? It is remote from the airport's GMP headquarters, and, although it will doubtless be be well fenced and covered by a plethora of CCTV cameras, is adjacent to what is, unfortunately, one of the area's 'crime-hotspots'. Not an ideal place to put upwards of £27,000,000 of personal property.

[ZOOKER]

Also, everyone these days is red hot on reducing CO2, including Local councils, MAG and NATS. The small "green-lung" present on this site today does its bit, (albeit small), to offset the inevitable CO2 generated by the 'environmentally-friendly' airport's operation. This car-park development will do the opposite.

[LN-KGL]

If you think of carbon foootprint ZOOKER, then you need to look in to move people over to public transport. Close to 16 million passengers at MAN used private transport to/from the airport according to the CAA 2012 survey. In addition to this you have the MAN workers carbon footprint from their daily private commute.

If we look at only the passenger CO2 emmision from their private transport, we are talking many 10,000s on tonnes CO2 - so let's start calculate. The survey says the average travel group size at MAN is 2.1 passengers, so let us say they come together to the airport. An average car today emits around 200 g CO2 per km. A low estimate of how far the passengers are traveling to get to the airport would be 30 km (based on the same survey), but let's use it for this calculation.
16 million passengers / 2.1 passengers x 30 km x 200 g CO2 per km = 45,714 tonnes CO2
If we so convert this to jetfuel, this equals to 18.1 million litres or if we think of aircraft this equals to filling 56 empty Airbus A380 to the rim with jetfuel (fuel capacity for an Airbus A380 is 323,546 litres).

This is a low estimate since the same survey also say a share are driven to the airport (wave off) and then we are talking double distance. The wave off share is around 8%. Had MAN had the same public transport share as another MAG airport, STN, the CO2 emission from private passenger transport been 57.9% of what it was in 2012. That would have saved a lot of green area around MAN - and the sheep could have continued to eat the grass north of the Ringway Road.

[Fairdealfrank]

To be fair the residents of Mobberley and Knutsford have the single nuisance of aircraft......

If you live near the Tatton,

you have the planes

the train,

the new A6 relief road which will be a dual carrieway......

the metrolink

and now a 24 hour car park

...I think I would move !


.....and HS2 if Boy George gets his way, and it's his constituency!




The reason that I supported the R2 development is because the economic case for it was compelling. Whilst the project to this day remains widely misunderstood by the public (and some on here) because it is not fully utilised 24/7, the fact is that R2 has brought huge economic benefits to the region.


Indeed it has and rwys 3 and 4 at LHR will do the same for the UK.



Broadly speaking, the communities at the Heald Green / Wythenshawe end of the runways have been supportive of the airport on their doorstep.


This generally the case, it's the same at LHR. The vocal anti-airport expansion minority tend to live miles away.

[MANFlyer]

.... it can only be AA to Miami....

or BOS or even, heaven forbid, a return to DFW.

We used to use the DFW service for a pleasant way to get to South Houston / Galveston / Texas City area for a contract down there at the time. The contrast of an AA 767 to an American Eagle puddle jumper was 'fun' but at least it took us into Hobby Airport at Houston rather than George Bush.

[TCX69]

SQ322 388 9V-SKN diverting to MAN
TG910 744 HS-TGF diverting to MAN
AC856 333 C-GHLM diverting to MAN

[GavinC]

For what it's worth I think that the new 9,000 space car park is very sensible planning by MAG. It simultaneously allows for the closure of the temporary car parks on Airport City and, if required, the closure and re-location of current parking on the T2 apron and on what will become (hopefully) the T3 apron. This means that the airport has felxibility in terms of growth of air movements which is what we all want.

Whilst I understand people pointing to Airport City as a location for long-term parking in the form of a mulit-story, I think the lead-in time is simply too long. Any car park here would be at the back of the development, allowing for higher end uses to be closer to the airport buildings. As such, it would be accessed via the new 'loop' road which is yet to start construction and would require the closure of the existing car parking on Airport City to even start. Going down this route could therefore put more pressure on available parking spaces when we want the apron clear of them.

In terms of how this fits in with the overall parking 'vision' for the airport, I know that MAG are looking are extending all of the Terminals directly linked parking via new multi-story car parks. At T2 this would be an obvious extension of the existing car park, at T3 an extension to the north and at T1 and new carpark in the area between the existing car park and The Station. This will presumably allow for the existing car park to be redeveloped either as a new car park or, more likely, as additional terminal facilities.

At Airport City i'm sure we will see multi-story's to support that development but I really do think this planned and approved 9,000 space car park is the right way to go.

[All names taken]

I tend to agree with you Gavin.
Although the last I heard (from someone who should know), the huge space between the current T1 and the railway station was a contender for relocating T1 when the time comes rather than just a car park.
Thinking about it, that makes sense too.
They could build most of the new T1 whilst keeping the existing T1 operational for much of the build period.

[nigel osborne]

Thanks everyone I think I know everything about surface car parks in Manchester now .

Any news on actual airport terminal developments, extensions to piers that sort of thing, as MAN is growing so well at present don't they need these soon ?

Nigel

[chaps2011]

Hi Nigel
In my opion I would say yes as T3 is very full at times and T3 likewise
T2 is funny in that at times it is full and then nothing at at all.
Parking over the wintertime is interesting to say the least as the useage of aircraft
comes down dramatically with Jet2, Thomson, Thomas Cook and Monarch
having several aircraft each not flying.

chaps

[MKY661]

Any news on actual airport terminal developments, extensions to piers that sort of thing, as MAN is growing so well at present don't they need these soon ?

I remember back in the day there were plans for a Satellite Pier For T2 but not sure if this will go ahead. I also think MAN Needs more space as MAN on my FSX Is Full Capacity at the moment excluding Remote Stands >D

I highly doubt it but do any of you think that in the future there will be a fourth terminal at the airport? :)

[All names taken]

T3 easterly extension already has plans drawn up
T2 westerly extension was always envisaged in the original build - the easiest of all the extensions but hasn't happened - this would be a long way from the runways.
T1 re-build (it's half a century old now) inefficient layout, bad design causes airfield / taxiway issues.

Been told by someone who knows but either he was being coy or decisions on timing / sequencing have not been taken yet.

If I was a betting man I would say the T3 extension first but current plans require the closing of what's left of the old Ringway Road as it approaches the eastern end of T3. In order to do that a new distributor road would need to be built from near the Airport Hotel pub to the existing roundabout near the on-site hotels between T1 and T3. It would cut through and remove existing surface car parking as would the additional aircraft apron.
If the management use Cost Benefit Analysis I would reckon this would be a development that works sooner rather than later.

Whatever happens this 9000 space car park provides the breathing space to enable further activity in and around the terminals..

[MKY661]

I Believe This Was also Part of the Final Plan:
http://www.aedas.com/Content/images/pageimages/Manchester-Airport-Terminal-1-Manchester-UK.jpg

[nigel osborne]

All names taken, chap2011, mky661

Thanks all for your thoughts and info, it looks very bright for the future at MAN at present.

We just have the runway extension and huge new MAEL hangar which opens next week to talk about at BHX at the moment.:bored:

Best wishes

Nigel

[SWBKCB]

bit of a spat on the Prestwick thread about how long PIK has been desribed as Glasgow Prestwick, and a link has been posted to a 1958 BOAC timetable which refers to it as Glasgow (Prestwick)

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttima...58/ba58-03.jpg

So what goes up the cry, but it is interesting (and new to me) that the Transatlantic service came from Manchester/Liverpool and departed temporarily from Burtonwood Airport(!). Check-in was at either the Manchester Air Terminal or the Patten Arms Hotel, Bank Quay Station, Warrington.

Not heard of this before (admittedly it was before I was born), but what was all that about?

[chaps2011]

I think it was to do with runway length but when the new generation of prop aicraft came out in 50`s the then Ringway had not been extended ( I think 1957
when runway was extended to 7000ft) i:e DC-7 and Stratocruiser and the various
versions of Connies
Have a look at a copy of First and Foremost the first 50years by RA Schofield
published in 1978. Just checked you can still get it on Amazon a very good read if you are into airfield history

Chaps

[Suzeman]

Quote:
To be fair the residents of Mobberley and Knutsford have the single nuisance of aircraft......

If you live near the Tatton,

you have the planes

the train,

the new A6 relief road which will be a dual carrieway......

the metrolink

and now a 24 hour car park

...I think I would move !

.....and HS2 if Boy George gets his way, and it's his constituency![/QUOTE]



FDF

Please get a grip of the airport layout before posting things like this

HS2 will go nowhere near the Tatton (which is about 1 mile EAST of the Terminal area) whilst HS will be about 1 mile WEST of the main terminal area

MKY 661
[QUOTE]I Believe This Was also Part of the Final Plan:

Which part of what final plan please?

[Ringwayman]

chaps, it was only BOAC that forsook Manchester in favour of Burtonwood in wintertime. Sabena carried on as normal. The problem BOAC determined was braking on a wet runway.

[chaps2011]

Ringwayman
Yes you have reminded me about that, bit before my time to be honest

Chaps

[MKY661]

Which part of what final plan please?

I thought they were supposed to Rebuild Pier B and Put two Levels in Pier C in the Long Term :)

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Suzeman - Fairdealfrank's slip-up is quite understandable if he is not local to the area. George Osborne's constituency is called "Tatton"; what our postings refer to as "(The) Tatton" relates to the pub of that name in the location you state. HS2 is planned to transit the Tatton Constituency as opposed to the vicinity of the Tatton Arms PH. Whilst your clarification of the facts for the benefit of non-locals is a good idea, the wording of your rebuke to FDF [Location: Middlesex] appears harsh.

[GavinC]

I think there are actually pictures and pdf's out there somewhere for the T2 extension, Pier B (as above) and T3 Pier extension which also illustrates the changes to the road network.

Some of the Airport City images show the T3 extension if I remember rightly and also a link between T1 and T2 although I've never seen a 'proper' drawing of this.

My view is that we will see the 9,000 space car park lead to the T3 apron expansion car park going then the apron expansion and then the pier expansion hopefully all in quick succession.

[AldiAl]

One new service we won't be seeing after all. They've just filed for bankruptcy!

AldiAl.

[LAX_LHR]

Ah well cant win them all.

The route was a strange one anyway. The flight was 2 weekly but you could only book the inbound on one flight and only the outbound on another.

[MKY661]

I thought the Route Was Selling Well too :(

[LAX_LHR]

Have the loads on the Brussels Airlines flights shot up lately? Notice an A319 is being used on a lot of flights (including tonight) and an A320 just arrived now. Certainly a step up from the usual Dash-8/Avro combination.

[LN-KGL]

Looking at MAN-BRU for September, I would say it's the opposite (-14% in September) LAX_LHR. Earlier months shows the same trend (-13% in August, -17% in July, -24% in June, -21% in May, -8% in April).

[LAX_LHR]

But you need to take into account flybe ending their own flights in thise figures LN-KGL.

Also past trends does not mean these past few days have sold well for SN.

[easyflyer83]

Were there not any SN canx yesterday that could explain the A320 today? The 319 does occasionally appear but is the jump in capacity that great when compared to the RJ?

[All names taken]

I have flown to Brussels 3 or 4 times a year for a number of years now.
More recently I've changed my allegiance to Charleroi and Ryanair, it's vastly cheaper and the flights are at business friendly times too.

Ironically the last time I flew MAN-BRU a year or so ago, it was on an A319 on the late evening flight, it was only half full.
In my experience, one off equipment upgrades are not always indicators of full planes, it could be just for operational reasons.

[Curious Pax]

I think the night stopper changed to a 319 with the winter timetable. Last winter also saw a switch to more Airbus flights, so assume it is largely planned.

[LBIA]

Etihad Airways is to upgrade one of its twice daily Manchester to Abu Dhabi service's from Airbus A330-200 to a Boeing 777-300ER during the busy Christmas period

Etihad boosts capacity out of Manchester for Christmas flights | News | Breaking Travel News (http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/etihad-boosts-capacity-out-of-manchester-for-christmas-flights/)

[116d]

Ironically the last time I flew MAN-BRU a year or so ago, it was on an A319 on the late evening flight, it was only half full.
In my experience, one off equipment upgrades are not always indicators of full planes, it could be just for operational reasons.

When I flew MAN-BRU back in April, it was about 40-50% full and this was the mid-morning flight on a Friday. Two days later, I flew with Ryanair CRL-MAN on the Sunday evening flight and it was nearly full.

For what it's worth, I paid about £80 for the SN flight and about £20 for the FR flight.

[LAX_LHR]

It seems CX is going to have another go of sending the B747-800 to MAN.

CX2067 HKG-DEL-FRA B74N WED 2/4/14-29/10/14
CX2068 FRA-MAN-HKG B74N WED 2/4/14-29/10/14

Should be in MAN 20:25 until 22:40

[Bagso]

Should be in MAN 2025 until 2240

Is that hours and minutes or the year..?

[LAX_LHR]

Obviously hours. I know airlines like to plan ahead with their schedules but not that far.....

[spannersatcx]

It seems CX is going to have another go of sending the B747-800 to MAN.

CX2067 HKG-DEL-FRA B74N WED 2/4/14-29/10/14
CX2068 FRA-MAN-HKG B74N WED 2/4/14-29/10/14

Should be in MAN 20:25 until 22:40

They'll be here a lot sooner than that and 2 or 3 times a week, well that's the plan anyway! :D

[787luton]

Manchester seems to have been affiliated with some strange news recently, like the two strippers yesterday, :hmm:hopefully something new about the Chinese investment will take the limelight away from the more shady news stories!:rolleyes:

[nigel osborne]

Bagso,

well I thought it was funny anyway :)

Be nice to have some 747-8s in MAN.

Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

Another new long haul route in the bag for 2014. This time Condor to Tobago:

WTM 2013: New flight from Manchester to Tobago announced (http://m.travelweekly.co.uk/Article.aspx?cat=news&id=45894)

It says Condor but its likely to be TCX. If it is actually Condor then I wonder if a based B767 is on the way and more routes?

So, with Saudia conformed but awaiting schedules, and AA very likely to be starting Miami next winter (already seen a preliminary schedule), that's 5 new long haul routes so far. Not bad!

[TSR2]

that's 5 new long haul routes so far. Not bad!



I assume that includes US Airways to Charlotte, North Carolina.

[LAX_LHR]

1) US Airways to Charlotte
2) AC Rouge to Toronto
3) Condor to Tobago
4) Saudia to Jeddah (confirmed in several places but not yet bookable)
5) AA to Miami (not confirmed but saw a schedule with numbers A88/89)

Then other long haul growth is Etihad using B777 over Christmas and Thomas Cook continuing Antigua/Barbados into the summer (new this winter).

[OltonPete]

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/67799E3565A23A4780257C19003FD11B/$File/October+13.pdf

Another good month

20 762 033 is the rolling year figure up 5.52 (including transits)

Freight up in October as well

Pete

or

Manchester Airport : Traffic Statistics (http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/TrafficStatisticsArchive) and select October

[LAX_LHR]

Some more good news.

MAN-LIS on TAP is now bookable at 12 weekly from April 2014, up from 10 weekly.

TP329 is daily
TP323 is 5 weekly Mon, Thu, Fri, Sat and Sun.

It seems to be a mix of pretty much any aircraft they can get their hands on although seems to be far more airbus than F100.

[LAX_LHR]

Another day another new route.

Easyjet 2 weekly to Catania (Wed and Sun). Now bookable on their site.

Getting some good coverage in Italy now.

[AndyH52]

Any ideas as to what has been dropped / cut back to accommodate Catania?

[airadio]

Getting another aircraft:ok:

[Dct_Mopas]

May be no cut backs or new aircraft. The EZY routes out of MAN are sometimes operated as a W pattern from other bases to free up based aircraft. These have included GVA & SXF using LPL aircraft.

[LAX_LHR]

Ryanair have Nice for sale on 2 dates in March again for the property convention, just like last year.

I wonder if there could be an award for the lowest frequency route out of Manchester (twice yearly). Title previously held by Qantas for their yearly BKK/SYD flight which has not operated this year.

[LAX_LHR]

The Cancun tourist board has stated that they are in final advance talks with Virgin Atlantic to open MAN-CUN.

This came at the travel trade fair where they also announced TCX will be serving DUB-CUN.

[Ringwayman]

Found online articles which give the idea of a 5 weekly service to Cancun with 300 seats?! Surely that would far too much capacity and an implication of an A330 being based when I thought they were pretty much to be located at LHR next year.

[LAX_LHR]

I think the article means 5 weekly flights to all destinations (eg MAN 2 weekly, DUB 1 weekly etc).

However, the article you mention is quite interesting that it states:


Jesus Almaguer Salazar , director of the Convention and Visitors
Bureau (CVB ) , reported that after some negotiations with airlines such as
British Airways , Virgin Atlantic , Condor and Thomas Cook , achieved the
opening of five new weekly flights from Manchester , Finland, Sweden, Poland , Italy and Dublin to Cancun , from the first half of 2014 .


This to me looks like the route is confirmed? We know TCX is for DUB, Condor is likely a TCX tie up for UK/DUB routes, so that could mean Virgin MAN-CUN is a done deal? (unless it is just poor translation but DUB is confirmed after all).

Also the 2 based B747 are fully used in summer (11 weekly MCO, 1 weekly BGI and 2 weekly LAS, so either CUN comes at the expense of another flight, or a new part based aircraft (perhaps 2 weekly MAN-CUN, 2 weekly GLA-MCO and 3 new LGW flights on 1 aircraft?)

[viscount702]

I thought TCX were to concentrate long haul on FRA and MAN. Why are they doing DUB-CUN

[Ringwayman]

this is the article in Spanish (http://www.el-periodico.com.mx/noticias/amarran-5-vuelos-mas-desde-europa/)

"Por lo que a mediados del año entrante, se estarían anunciando el inicio cinco vuelos nuevos directos a la semanal cada uno con capacidad para 300 personas aproximadamente"

which approximates to:

"As far as middle of next year, they would be announcing the start five new direct flights weekly to each with approximately 300 seats. "

With the "each" referring to the destinations you've quoted. Makes much better sense if talking of a combined 5 flights per week!

[LAX_LHR]

I thought TCX were to concentrate long haul on FRA and MAN. Why are they
doing DUB-CUN


They opened a referral programme whereby airports could bid for flights and TCX/Condor would consider them as W patterns from existing long haul bases.

They are also apparently opening a new long haul base from Cologne so it seems the hub idea isn't quite as defined as they initially said.

[viscount702]

None of this seems to make sense to me.

TCX are doing 4x weekly to CUN next year already. It seems DUB is going to happen but what is the logic for this. As to VS I know this was muted some time back along with other flights from MAN but the reverse happened and there is/was a small cut back. Virgin holidays might want to open holidays to Mexico from MAN but it seems to be going against the current view of VS

[LAX_LHR]

As to VS I know this was muted some time back along with other flights from
MAN but the reverse happened and there is/was a small cut back


Due to the seasonality of LAS from MAN, it could be that they will operate CUN in the winter in the place of LAS, as I cannot see another based aircraft.


It seems DUB is going to happen but what is the logic for this


Maybe due to the free airport fees, no travel tax and no flybe feed (which is how they are operating the MAN hub), it paid for them to open a direct route?

[viscount702]

At the moment I see no evidence of MAN being the centre of any long haul destination hub or whatever for TCX/DE. MCO was going to be 6 weekly even daily but is now only 3 per week.
Further the link up with BE seems not to have happened. Go to the TCX/DE websites and with one exception there are no connecting flights. In fact they seem to be pushing more MAN flights through FRA.

Yes we have Tobago from next winter but none of the promised long haul expansion ( at least for westbound flights) for next summer.

[LAX_LHR]

I agree Viscount, the 'hub' plan has thus far been rather underwhelming.

[EI-A330-300]

Maybe due to the free airport fees, no travel tax and no flybe feed (which is how they are operating the MAN hub), it paid for them to open a direct route?

DUB-CUN has being flagged since early 2013, 2012 had 15,000 passengers while passengers for early 2013 numbers were up over 22%. Can't see free fees for a holiday flight being given, reduced but not free. China and Russia are for benefits to Ireland unlike DUB-CUN would be.

TCX currently feed passengers via LGW.

[spannersatcx]

According to the VS station manager Cancun - NO!

[LAX_LHR]

Depends if the station manager knows about the flight or allowed to say. When BA launched ICN we were not allowed to tell even BA staff until just before the press date.

All im saying is MAN-CUN is not beyond the realms of possibility and could be a way of keeping 2 based aircraft busy all year.

[Bagso]

Are there any ticketing portals which actually show

Inverness, Aberdeen, Belfast, Norwich with Flybe via Manchester to say the Caribbean.

...maybe the old plan died with the new Flybe management ?

[LAX_LHR]

Are there any ticketing portals which actually show

Inverness, Aberdeen, Belfast, Norwich with Flybe via Manchester to say the Caribbean.


GDS shows some routings, however some have an overnight stay at MAN.

Ironicly, the routings suggested by the GDS systems give the VS flights from MAN a better flights duration on ABZ(BE)-MAN-MCO. (eg VS 13h 30 flight time, yet TCX routings are 24-29 hours long!)

[LAX_LHR]

Just for reference this is the TCX long haul offering for the 2nd week of August:

Either a few routes still to be expanded or announced, or its actually a very quiet schedule with only Friday seeing all 4 based aircraft being used.

Monday:
TCX108 Montego Bay

Tuesday:
TCX148 Cancun
TCX414 Orlando International

Wednesday:
TCX174 Cayo Coco
TCX162 Cancun
TCX178 Orlando International

Thursday:
TCX816 Barbados via St. Lucia
TCX126 Orlando International

Friday:
TCX352 Varadero
TCX186 Cancun
TCX724 Las Vegas
TCX926 Orlando International

Saturday:
TCX152 Cancun
TCX386 Punta Cana
TCX472 Orlando International

Sunday:
TCX324 Cancun
TCX124 Las Vegas
TCX634 Orlando International

[viscount702]

LAX_LHR

When I was checking the TCX flights previously I was looking Mid July and it would seem there are a number of increases in August

Can I add TCX 244 to HOG on Monday which I think runs all summer.

For May June and part of July there are only three flights per week to MCO. In July it goes to four and in August to Six.

The Saturday CUN only seems to run from August.

Is TAB in GDS as it isn't on the TCX website yet from MAN

[LAX_LHR]

Hi Viscount

Yes there are lots of changes during the summer, for example LAS goes to 3 weekly in Sept.

Is TAB in GDS as it isn't on the TCX website yet from MAN

According to a friend, It is apparently being run off a Condor B767-300 and will be available for sale from mid December, with a November 2014 start date. He did not say if the B767 was based or running off a W pattern.

[viscount702]

LAX_LHR

LAS also runs on Wednesday until 25/6. Yes the TCX timetable does seem to change a lot in the summer at least for the long haul flights.

At the moment it is difficult to see what TCX/DE are trying to achieve. It does seem as though the Hub isn't going to happen next summer as had been hinted in their earlier press releases which is a shame.

Nearer home it is noted that they don't fly to the likes of AGP,ALC and FAO anymore which is a bit surprising.

[MKY661]

Nearer home it is noted that they don't fly to the likes of AGP,ALC and FAO anymore which is a bit surprising.

TCX do MAN-ALC quite often but I think AGP only runs once a week in the winter. Maybe wrong like :)

[viscount702]

Not from next summer

[LAX_LHR]

All AGP/ALC/FAO holidays are sold on Monarch flights.

Certainly starting to seem that rather than a hub operation, operations look significantly cut back next year....

[MKY661]

Not from next summer

Just looked and the last flight appears to be on 29 April :) Unless they do it for Winter 2014/15 :)

[Ringwayman]

The lunchtime Swiss service seems to be reinstated at the weekends from 1st December

[LAX_LHR]

I can only find 3 daily on 1st December itself. Only 2 daily again thereafter.

Maybe added on ad-hoc basis due to increased bookings?

[Ringwayman]

it does appear sporadic looking at the Swiss website; the MAN timetable just gives the impression if it being reinstated for all weekends.

[116d]

All AGP/ALC/FAO holidays are sold on Monarch flights.

Certainly starting to seem that rather than a hub operation, operations look significantly cut back next year....

Bit surprised about MAN-FAO with TCX being cut if true. They used a 763 on Saturdays this summer which suggested to me that the demand was there, or am I reading too much into that?

[chaps2011]

News / Maximize Manchester before developing Stansted, says MP THEBUSINESSDESK.COM (http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/539844-maximize-manchester-before-developing-stansted-says-mp.html?news_section=4148)

THE MP for the constituency that includes Stansted Airport has called for more air traffic to pass through Manchester.

Sir Alan Haselhurst, MP for Uttlesford and a Manchester MP in the early 1970s, believes more should be made of the airport's two runways before Stansted's capacity is extended.

Manchester Airports Group acquired Stansted from BAA for £1.5bn earlier this year and has since advocated building a second runway at Stansted or developing it as a four-runway hub. Manchester handled around 19.7 million passengers last year while Stansted had 17.5 million.

Speaking in a House of Commons debate on aviation strategy at the end of last month, Sir Alan said: "I must declare an interest because Stansted Airport is in my constituency. However, the views that I hold on airports policy were formed when I had the honour to be the Member for Middleton and Prestwich in Greater Manchester.

"I took the view then, in the wake of the study by the Roskill commission, the last great body to study airports policy, that none of the inland sites, whether Cublington, Nuthampstead, Stansted, Willingale or any other, should be developed, and that if we were to have a proper airport system for London, it should be offshore.

"My view was that it would be a mistake to urbanise a large part of the countryside in any of the home counties. I never dreamed that, due to the sad early death of Sir Peter Kirk, a vacancy would occur in the Saffron Walden constituency, which I was chosen to fill. I am therefore not simply saying 'not in my back yard' — I have tried to have a wider perspective on the matter.

"I was close to Manchester for a time, and I saw the potential for the development of Manchester Airport. It has two runways, so why can that potential not be seen? Why not promote that as at least one other gateway into the country? Most air traffic has to do with leisure, and from Manchester not only can the business community be served in that part of the country—going both west to Liverpool and east to Leeds — but there is access to north Wales, the Derbyshire peak district, the Yorkshire dales, Yorkshire moors, the lake district and so on.

"We ought to encourage those who visit this country to see parts of it other than just London and the home counties. That would take some of the pressure off London, without, of course, excusing the need for a proper hub."

He added: "The whole country needs to get some benefit from the people whom we encourage to travel to our country for business or pleasure. We need imagination—that is what I appeal for—and a solution that is worthy of our main city and our country as a whole.”

[AndyH52]

I notice that a NOTAM has been issued advising that due WIP no fuel is available until 05:00 on 15/11/13. Anyone any idea what that work is?

[Dct_Mopas]

Andy,

Just looked at the NOTAM. Fuel is unavailable 22:00 - 05:00 each day until the 15th. Your post read a bit differently and made me think I was going to have a number of interesting days at work.

[AndyH52]

Apologies: missed the timings bit. Question still stands around the nature of the work though?

[Crazy Voyager]

I don't know but the NOTAM has been around for a good 2 weeks or more now I think.

[techair]

The fuel farm has been having a bit of a make over for several months, this is still ongoing, also the reason for the outage.

[JackRalston]

A few people earlier mentioned about a new contract for WFS. There were rumors it was Thomas Cook but I've just been told by a Jet2 pilot that they are going to them from January....must be Jet2 then?

[LAX_LHR]

Jet2 to WFS announced:

WFS Wins Three-Year Contract With Jet2.com At MAN - AviationPros.com (http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/11228994/wfs-wins-three-year-contract-with-jet2com-at-man)

[LAX_LHR]

Ive seen it asked on another forum what the proposed Saudia schedule will be when they launch, this is what is currently viewable in GDS previews:

SV198 JED 0425 MAN 0815
SV199 MAN 1010 JED 1935

Wed, Fri, Sun B777-200.

[j636]

Notice that DY have MAN-OSL taking a break for 2 months between mid June and mid August. More profitable places to send the aircraft during that time of summer?

[LAX_LHR]

Notice that DY have MAN-OSL taking a break for 2 months between mid June and mid August. More profitable places to send the aircraft during that time of summer?


Well Norwegian do rely heavily on football traffic for the North West routes, but, I wonder if the North West isn't providing the yield they were quite hoping for in general.

LPL-CPH has been cut, MAN-OSL has a 2 month break, MAN-ARN has gone down from 5 weekly in its peak to just 2 weekly. The only route to see no cuts is Stavanger, and I wonder if that is down to the lack of competition?

The talk of a base seems to have died a death, and with the MAD/TFS bases just announced, it could have been a perfect opportunity for Norwegian to try non-Scandic routes from MAN/LPL, but it seems to have been overlooked.

Its a shame really as Norwegian is a great airline, but I just wonder if the North West is too competitive for them? I know LGW has a lot of competition, but, it has the added pull of London.

[Bagso]

Re Thomas Cook / Flybe, did they anticipate this hence the reason why as was said it is a tad "underwhelming".

Although highly unlikely but if say a Norwich - US via Manchester route is a service under threat presumably TC are not going to promote?

I'm surprised however that the tie up wasn't all over the Flybe home page, it seemed a golden opportunity to make some money !

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


..would an investment by ETIHAD or EMIRATES assist both parties ?

Example a rebranded Flybe (Emirates UK / ETIHAD UK) would provide tremendous marketing and additional feed from the UKs 3rd tier regional airports to Manchester taking advantage of their three and double daily services respectively .

It would also be much easier to execute Manchester US service as they have pondered in the media !

[getonittt]

You can already buy thru tickets from say BHD or JER using FlyBe and connect to various EK flights from the UK to DXB and beyond .

[Sholto Douglas]

It actually says from 8 to 10 and, if you read that as one-ways then it is only an increase from 4 to 5 per day.

[Ringwayman]

Monarch have signed an agreement with MAG to grow passengers over 3 years for MAN and 5 for EMA.

The MAN base is going from 10 to 11 aircraft next year.

[nigel osborne]

Ringwayman Re Monarch;

MAN needs extra planes to just make up the capacity lost by the A300s going.

Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

Well, by my reckoning MAN will get 3 'new' based aircraft for Summer 2014.

It says based fleet from 10 to 11. So, with 2(?) A300's based here this summer, that means presumably 2xA321 to replace them and then a new based aircraft to bring the total number up. I would also assume the A330 will do some high density work too?

Im sure someone mentioned an A320 based so that GIB can be done on based aircraft, so will based for S14 look like:

1xA330-200
1xB757-200 (charter work) (or is this going this winter too?)
1xA320
8xA321

Current short haul scheduled needs the following based aircraft:

Monday: 10
Tuesday: 9
Wednesday: 7
Thursday, Friday and Saturday: 9
Sunday: 8

So, with 11 based, presumably this means 1x long haul based aircraft, 9 for the scheduled work and 1 for charter work.

Happy to be corrected on any of the above.

[MKY661]

The MAN base is going from 10 to 11 aircraft next year.

Looks like MAN is going back to it's original size. It was 11 based aircraft in 2011 :)

[MKY661]

Well, by my reckoning MAN will get 3 'new' based aircraft for Summer 2014.

It says based fleet from 10 to 11. So, with 2(?) A300's based here this summer, that means presumably 2xA321 to replace them and then a new based aircraft to bring the total number up. I would also assume the A330 will do some high density work too?

Im sure someone mentioned an A320 based so that GIB can be done on based aircraft, so will based for S14 look like:

1xA330-200
1xB757-200 (charter work) (or is this going this winter too?)
1xA320
8xA321

Current short haul scheduled needs the following based aircraft:

Monday: 10
Tuesday: 9
Wednesday: 7
Thursday, Friday and Saturday: 9
Sunday: 8

So, with 11 based, presumably this means 1x long haul based aircraft, 9 for the scheduled work and 1 for charter work.

Happy to be corrected on any of the above.

757's still here for another year :) Leave Winter 13/14. As for GIB MON have dropped the W pattern for this route (thank god) so there will be 100% an A320 based here next summer :)

[LAX_LHR]

Also in terms of A300 replacement, what were the frequencies of Dalaman, Tenerife and Palma for summer 2013?

Only reason I ask is that for summer 2014, Dalaman sees 3 flights on Mondays, Tenerife has 3 flights on Tuesdays, and for Palma, it sees 3 flights on Saturdays. I was just wondering if this is the same as S13 or an increase to take into account the loss of the A300 capacity?

[MKY661]

Also in terms of A300 replacement, what were the frequencies of Dalaman, Tenerife and Palma for summer 2013?

Only reason I ask is that for Dalaman, Monday sees 3 flights, Tenerife has 3 flights on Tuesdays, and for, it Palma sees 3 flights on Saturdays. I was just wondering if this is the same as S13 or an increase to take into account the loss of the A300 capacity?

Not sure what they were but non of them I believe were over 2. TFS also had 2 A300's on a Friday this year but both of those down to an A321 and no extra flight added.

[David Sharpe]

I stand to be corrected, but I think that Dalaman was 2 x A300 on a Monday (1 of these only operated for the peak season overnight) Tenerife was 2 x Tuesday services, and Palma did operate 3 x Saturday services, but again, the 3rd frequency only operated for the peak season as an overnight service (I believe that the Saturday morning service was an A330 operation)

[Suzeman]

MAN Oct provisional stats from the CAA

Air Transport Movements 14586 +2%
MAT 160955 Level

Terminal Passengers 1873451 +6.7%
MAT 20590418 +5.7%

MAT Passengers nearly back to 2004 levels; MAT ATM's now back to 1998 levels.....

[Nomoresteerage]

VIRGIN Atlantic will cut one of four daily flights between Manchester and London on its Little Red service next year.

But the airline, which launched the service earlier this year, stressed the move reflected a loss of slots to another carrier rather than poor demand.

Last month The Independent newspaper said the airline was loss-making and flying planes that were only a third full - claims rebutted by Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson.

Virgin told TheBusinessDesk.com bookings are growing monthly but would not give figures ahead of the publication of financial results in the spring.

It has previously said it launched the service to feed its long-haul flights from Heathrow rather than compete with the likes of Ryanair and easyJet. Following the acquisition of BMI by BA's parent IAG in 2012 Virgin was dependent on BA flying its customers to pick up long-haul flights from Heathrow.

In a statement a Virgin Atlantic spokesman said: “From the start of the Summer 2014 season Virgin Atlantic Little Red will operate three daily flights between Manchester and London Heathrow.

"For the first year of Little Red’s operation we were able to operate four daily return flights between Manchester and Heathrow using slots loaned from another carrier. We now have to return those slots to their owner and due to Heathrow operating at almost complete capacity, we have not been able to find other slots to serve a fourth daily service.

"We will continue to provide passengers with a strong alternative for flights between Manchester and Heathrow, with three flights timed to maximise connection opportunities onto our worldwide network. This will include an early morning departure from Manchester and evening return time from Heathrow for the convenience of the Manchester business traveller.”

Little Red also flies from Aberdeen and Edinburgh to Heathrow. These routes are unaffected because Virgin secured the slots through a European Commission ruling following the BMI deal. It said BA must give up 12 landing slots at Heathrow from Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Moscow, Cairo, Riyadh and Nice.


Lifestyle**/**Virgin's Little Red to cut back Manchester flights THEBUSINESSDESK.COM (http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/542869-virgin-s-little-red-to-cut-back-manchester-flights.html)

[LAX_LHR]

Westjet looking into a MAN flight, as they want to link to destinations within reach of their B737's:


Execution will be key, he said. But if WestJet's transatlantic service proves
a success, it may consider adding places like Edinburgh, Manchester, and/or
London, he said


WestJet poses challenge to Rouge (http://www.theprovince.com/travel/WestJet+poses+challenge+Rouge/9184049/story.html)

[Bagso]

Cannot believe this...

Airline easyJet today pledged further investment in its Manchester Airport operations over the next two years. - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/airline-easyjet-today-pledged-further-6320702)

In effect no growth at Manchester for 2 years !

so much for a mega base !

...why did the journalist not challenge the complete contradiction ?

[chaps2011]

what do you expect them to grow with as I think all next years new aircraft are already spoken for at Gatwick etc but are saying we are next in line.
The Flybe sale of slots at LGW came as a great bonus and had to be operated on
as soon as aircraft are available or they would lose them

Chaps

[Bagso]

Chaps2011

er I don't EXPECT anything ....:ugh:

I was commenting on the fact that its apparently fastest growing base in UK, so fast that there are no new routes for 2 years and the lack of questioning from the dumb journalist !

I can point you at a similar headline they put out in 2011 !

[chaps2011]

Bagso
I think it was meant that the existing routes were showing the biggest growth of
any http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Chaps

[LAX_LHR]

so fast that there are no new routes for 2 years


Catania already starting next year and with other bases it doesn't mean there will be no new routes.

[Bagso]

I hope you are right Lax
2 years seems an awfully long time given the bullish statement, or is it a case that every airport they serve gets the same flowery rhetoric.

[LAX_LHR]

Bagso,

I think a slight re-read of the article is needed:


The carrier said it hopes to add to its eight-strong fleet of aircraft by the
end of 2015


Airline easyJet today pledged further investment in its Manchester Airport operations over the next two years

That to me suggests growth between now and the end of 2015, as it states over the next two years, not in two years time. Yes the end of 2015 is now a while away but there is no defined period as to when the growth will come.

[GavinC]

I'm guessing more flights from non-based aircraft and then a new based aircraft to follow. This would allow for both statements to be true.

[All names taken]

Gavin - I'd say that is the correct interpretation.
Bagso - admire your usual enthusiasm but your interpretation is definitely in the 'glass half empty' category this time.

You don't need to base an extra plane to increase services.
In fact it may suit MAN to have out-based aircraft doing services in non-peak hours rather than a couple of new based units ramming up an already creaking peak time infrastructure.

Like it or not EZY's big opportunity this year is LGW, they'd be mad not to take it.

[Ringwayman]

Or the alternative is to take 2 of the routes operating by based aircraft and operate them from the other end e.g. Basel-MAN-Basel & Berlin-MAN-Berlin, so they can then add a couple of routes without having to place an extra aircraft at MAN now.

[LAX_LHR]

DHL has signed up to over 37,000sq ft of space for a new logistics centre.

Given one of the quotes were 'this will enable our customers to send parcels internationally and faster', one would hope a freight route or two could follow the announcement.

Obviously nothing the size of EMA, but 2-3 weekly flights to Leipzig could be a start, and the way freight has been at MAN lately, every little helps. Thanks to EMA its not as if they have to build a relationship from scratch.

[Bagso]

Thanks to EMA its not as if they have to build a relationship from scratch.


Is the relationship not already in place, I may be wrong (usually am) but I thought the LH MD11s that into MAN operate via aerologic was a joint venture with DHL?

By way of scale any idea on size compared to EMA ?

I thought it was about 1/3 size of EMA facility which actually has 18 stands.

Here is the plan for Airport City North in terms of logistics BUT this is planned for Airport City South OR are they the same ?

World Logistics Hub - Airport City Manchester (http://www.airportcity.co.uk/masterplan/world-logistics-hub/#)

[speedtapeking]

Lax, there's rumour of a daily 75 to Leipzig...that's from ema ;)

[viscount702]

Isn't all this years away because I don't think they have yet put a spade in the ground to build the place.

[speedtapeking]

They don't need there own warehouse to start the route plenty of 3rd parties to load a 757.....

[techair]

The contractors have been on site for a few weeks now, the old farm building were cleared and I think the civils have started in the last week or so.

[Suzeman]

but 2-3 weekly flights to Leipzig could be a start,

Neither use nor ornament to have 2-3 weekly flights. If something happens, it needs to be every normal working day at least.

And it is in Airport City South with no direct apron access, so nothing like EMA. Believe it is a replacement of a facility in Trafford Park, although I guess more modern and maybe bigger?

Airport City South, is the new logistics hub adjacent to Manchester Airport’s existing cargo centre and Junction 6 of the M56 Motorway.

Airport City North is the area North of the existing passenger terminals

Diagram here
Masterplan - Airport City Manchester (http://www.airportcity.co.uk/masterplan/)

News - Airport City Manchester (http://www.airportcity.co.uk/news/2013/airport-city-manchester-takes-off-as-dhl-delivers-first-letting)

[Bagso]

Hopefully Manchester are "actively" chasing the possible opportunities here...

WestJet dips a toe in the trans-Atlantic market with Dublin service; any prospective partners there? | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/westjet-dips-a-toe-in-the-trans-atlantic-market-with-dublin-service-any-prospective-partners-there-140087)

[LAX_LHR]

I posted further back that the CEO of westjet has already singled out Edinburgh and Manchester as 2 potential points in the future.

Also, one has to wonder just what MAN has to do to get a China route. Dublin seem confident Air China is about to launch on a market of 40,000 per year.

MAN-HKG alone had 136,000 passengers last year and still not a sniff of a service, let alone what the China market as a whole is worth (if HKG has 136,000 indirect passengers the China market must be 200,000+ per year). Just bizarre they have not managed to secure a flight yet.

[nigel osborne]

LAX-LHR

Re China, its completely irrelevant at the moment..

All 31 agreed slots are taken up to China from the UK.Transport Secretary is to meet his counterpart from China in January to try and get the number increased.

So I don't understand your comments "one has to wonder just what MAN has to do to get a China route":confused::ugh:

Nigel

[RoyHudd]

Very little China freight these days. Why?

[Ringwayman]

Nigel, it's 31 flights per week each for UK and Chinese carriers. I did calculate a month or 2 back that there's roughly 7 flights a week still to be used by Chinese carriers.

[LAX_LHR]

So I don't understand your comments "one has to wonder just what MAN has to do to get a China route"http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif:ugh:


Why the head banging Nigel?

The UK has 4 unused China slots, and Air China have had the rights for up to 7 weekly flights to Manchester from the CAAC since 2007, so, entirely possible for Air China to start the route tomorrow if they so wished.

[Bagso]

There was a comprehensive analysis of why China is such a conundrum on the Plane mad site a few weeks back.

The Chinese Airlines essentially make more money on internal flights so are reluctant to start long haul as they actually lose out.

The gap could of course be filled by EK, Etihad etc BUT the Chinese are very wary that foreign airlines will then take market share which they will not be able to get back down the line if their strategy changes

"...Damned if you do and damned if you don't".

This link may be of interest

Where in the World - The Leader's Blog (http://www.manchester.gov.uk/blog/leadersblog/post/649/where-in-the-world)

PS You cannot connect anybody at PM as the contact form link is dead so if you are thinking of joining to see the article it is impossible to contact them.

I will try and find the link for the PM article here.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

PS You cannot connect anybody at PM as the contact form link is dead so if you are thinking of joining to see the article it is impossible to contact them.

Have been trying for months; was beginning to think it was something personal :}