MANCHESTER - 9

[nigel osborne]

Ringwayman/ LAX-LHR

Thanks for the update,

So there is absolutely nothing stopping a Chinese carrier flying to MAN if they really wanted too then, since 2007 ?

Nigel

[Bagso]

As promised here is the analysis on China and how it might affect Manchester OR not as the case may be.

Chinese airlines focus on domestic growth while international expansion remains the poor cousin | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/chinese-airlines-focus-on-domestic-growth-while-international-expansion-remains-the-poor-cousin-136899)

It seems odd that there is a lot of speculation about trade delegations, goodwill visits etc to China by MAG BUT less focus on other areas of marketing which could make a massive difference immediately.

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

You have to be a pretty savvy and jump through hoops to find long haul direct flights from Manchester on some of the price comparison web sites, in fact I am amazed anybody ever finds some of our direct Manchester services.

With the default always being governed understandably by price sensitivity Manchester passengers tend to be channelled via other hubs eg Dublin, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt I would have thought MAG would do well to campaign to get these portals to DEFAULT first and foremost to the "Manchester Direct Service" followed by lowest price !

It's a contentious issue, do you offer passengers the direct flight OR channel them via another hub with a what in some cases can result in considerable layover delays.

Whatever the choice I am sure many of these unsuspecting passengers have a clue what they are booking !

Bottom line, there is little point having the FlyLocal campaign if you cannot identify or find a Manchester service if it's effectively buried, maybe MAG would be well advised to alert the travelling public and possibly raise this as an issue or discussion point ? I am sure it would resonate with some consumer groups.

[Bagso]

Gatwick and Heathrow only 'real' options for expansion - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10474755/Gatwick-and-Heathrow-only-real-options-for-expansion.html)


er LGW is nearer Paris than most UK cities !

[LAX_LHR]

So there is absolutely nothing stopping a Chinese carrier flying to MAN if
they really wanted too then, since 2007


In theory, not that I know of.

Like I say, Air China have held the rights to 7 weekly MAN-PEK flights since 2007, and according to the CAAC request, they intended to use them from 2009 onwards.

The UK side could be the only issue. There are currently 4 'unused' slots, but that is not to say another carrier has already got those slots but not yet using them.

[110Cornets]

China Data

Ticket numbers from MIDT for year to date:

Destination China..Manchester outsells Birmingham 2.5 to 1

Destination Hong Kong..Manchester outsells Birmingham 4.2 to 1

[mickyman]

.....are those Chinese a bit thick then ?

MM

[MKY661]

Noticed that AA54/55 has been Downgraded back to a 757. I though it was staying a 767 throughout the winter? :)

[roverman]

It was a 767 today, and remains so until December 12th, I understand. Then it's a 757 for the rest of winter before returning to 767 for summer 2014.

Perhaps yesterday's 757 was due to the Thanksgiving holiday?

[Betablockeruk]

Always thought the 767 was on AA54/55 to save the 757 losing the Jetstream battle and having to stop at Gander for a top up.

[Fairdealfrank]

As promised here is the analysis on China and how it might affect Manchester OR not as the case may be.

Chinese airlines focus on domestic growth while international expansion remains the poor cousin | CAPA - Centre for Aviation (http://apicdn.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fairlines-airports-routes%2F493949-manchester-9-a-76.html&out=http%3A%2F%2Fcentreforaviation.com%2Fanalysis%2Fchinese-airlines-focus-on-domestic-growth-while-international-expansion-remains-the-poor-cousin-136899&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fairlines-airports-routes-85%2F)

It seems odd that there is a lot of speculation about trade delegations, goodwill visits etc to China by MAG BUT less focus on other areas of marketing which could make a massive difference immediately.




Looks like China is following the USA/Canada/Russia/India pattern: large countries, long distances, increasing mobility, hence the need for a massive domestic aviation sector.




(http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fairlines-airports-routes%2F493949-manchester-9-a-76.html%23post8179426&v=1&libId=9111f5af-950c-4d06-b2ee-846156c51e08&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapicdn.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3 Dgo%26key%3D1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d%26loc%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Fairlines-airports-routes%252F493949-manchester-9-a-76.html%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%252Ff inance%252Fnewsbysector%252Ftransport%252F10474755%252FGatwi ck-and-Heathrow-only-real-options-for-expansion.html%26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252 Fnewreply.php%253Fdo%253Dpostreply%2526amp%253Bt%253D493949&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostre ply%26t%3D493949&title=MANCHESTER%20-%209%20-%20Page%2076%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums%23post8179426&txt=Gatwick%20and%20Heathrow%20only%20'real'%20options%20for %20expansion%20-%20Telegraph&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13857542824218)Gatwick and Heathrow only 'real' options for expansion - Telegraph (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fairlines-airports-routes%2F493949-manchester-9-a-76.html%23post8179426&v=1&libId=9111f5af-950c-4d06-b2ee-846156c51e08&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapicdn.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3 Dgo%26key%3D1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d%26loc%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Fairlines-airports-routes%252F493949-manchester-9-a-76.html%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%252Ff inance%252Fnewsbysector%252Ftransport%252F10474755%252FGatwi ck-and-Heathrow-only-real-options-for-expansion.html%26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252 Fnewreply.php%253Fdo%253Dpostreply%2526amp%253Bt%253D493949&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostre ply%26t%3D493949&title=MANCHESTER%20-%209%20-%20Page%2076%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums%23post8179426&txt=Gatwick%20and%20Heathrow%20only%20'real'%20options%20for %20expansion%20-%20Telegraph&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13857542824218)

(http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fairlines-airports-routes%2F493949-manchester-9-a-76.html%23post8179426&v=1&libId=9111f5af-950c-4d06-b2ee-846156c51e08&out=http%3A%2F%2Fapicdn.viglink.com%2Fapi%2Fclick%3Fformat%3 Dgo%26key%3D1e857e7500cdd32403f752206c297a3d%26loc%3Dhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252Fairlines-airports-routes%252F493949-manchester-9-a-76.html%26out%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%252Ff inance%252Fnewsbysector%252Ftransport%252F10474755%252FGatwi ck-and-Heathrow-only-real-options-for-expansion.html%26ref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.pprune.org%252 Fnewreply.php%253Fdo%253Dpostreply%2526amp%253Bt%253D493949&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostre ply%26t%3D493949&title=MANCHESTER%20-%209%20-%20Page%2076%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums%23post8179426&txt=Gatwick%20and%20Heathrow%20only%20'real'%20options%20for %20expansion%20-%20Telegraph&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13857542824218)

Stewart Wingate is correct in one sense, but he implies its "either/or" whereas in reality both are required: 2 more rwys at Heathrow NOW and 1 more at Gatwick at some time after 2019.

Given his analysis, he's also right in suggesting that waiting 2 more years for the Commission's final verdict is pointless.



er LGW is nearer Paris than most UK cities !


True, that's why Heathrow is the priority, it's the UK hub and it's accessible. On the other hand, what Gatwick does, it does well. Would expect that Gatwick's expansion will be at Stansted's expense.



Like I say, Air China have held the rights to 7 weekly MAN-PEK flights since 2007, and according to the CAAC request, they intended to use them from 2009 onwards.

The UK side could be the only issue. There are currently 4 'unused' slots, but that is not to say another carrier has already got those slots but not yet using them.

Suspect that as soon as Air China becomes convinced that there's money to be made, it will be there on the Ringway-Peking route. Maybe the world recession/slowdown delayed the proposed 2009 start?

[Skipness One Echo]

Quick question chaps ( and chappesses ! )

What's the routing for the following, google and MAN website disagree.

PK709 xyz-MAN-JFK
PK711 xyz-MAN-JFK

Is it Lahore or Karachi? Thanks!

[LAX_LHR]

PK709 is a terminating LHE-MAN-LHE flight.

The JFK flights seem to be:

Mondays:
PK711 LHE-MAN-JFK

Tuesdays:
PK721 KHI-LHE-MAN-JFK

Fridays:
PK711 LHE-MAN-JFK

Hope this helps.

[Skipness One Echo]

Awesome thanks !

[GrahamK]

I thought the JFK flights were now going via SNN?

[Ringwayman]

no, still through MAN for the time being. Today's PK711 due at 1104.

[johnnychips]

Can you buy tickets for these flights between MAN and JFK?

[LAX_LHR]

Can you buy tickets for these flights between MAN and JFK?


You used to be able to, but, now you cannot. You can however, book the Pakistan-MAN sectors on the flights.

Also, the MAN-JFK routing is pretty useless, as its only 1 way. Great if you are travel savvy and come back on say AA, but, not so great if you want PK both ways.

[johnnychips]

So are the flights half-empty between MAN and JFK, or does nobody get off? Is it really a refuelling stop? And do favourable jetstreams negate the need for this in the other direction?

Pardon my ignorance, but this is very interesting.

[Ringwayman]

No non-stop flights allowed by the States between Pakistan and any American airport due to perceived lack of an appropriate level of security screening at Pakistani airports. Going the other way it's no problem.

[LAX_LHR]

By all accounts the flights are quite full on the Pakistan-JFK sector, and very few people use the PAK-MAN sectors.

The flight can be done non-stop as its a B777-200LR, however the Americans insist that an extra security search is done, and PK chose MAN for this.

The flight operates JFK-PAK non-stop on the way back, and the Pakistan-Canada route, which also used to stop at MAN, are now direct both ways, as the Canadians do not require extra checks.

[johnnychips]

Thanks a lot. So do the passengers have to get off for the extra search; and is the luggage also rechecked?

[LAX_LHR]

Thanks a lot. So do the passengers have to get off for the extra search; and
is the luggage also rechecked?


The passengers get off and get re-screened but I'm genuinely unsure if the luggage gets re-checked. Maybe someone else can confirm?

[Fairdealfrank]

The flight can be done non-stop as its a B777-200LR, however the Americans insist that an extra security search is done, and PK chose MAN for this.

In some respects, you can't blame them!

The flight operates JFK-PAK non-stop on the way back, and the Pakistan-Canada route, which also used to stop at MAN, are now direct both ways, as the Canadians do not require extra checks.

Would be a long old flight nonstop, 15-16 hours westbound?
A bit like BOM-JFK-BOM on AI, is that still going?


Thanks a lot. So do the passengers have to get off for the extra search; and is the luggage also rechecked?




The passengers get off and get re-screened but I'm genuinely unsure if the luggage gets re-checked. Maybe someone else can confirm?


Since pax have to disembark and be rescreened anyway, a stop over at DUB or SNN would have advantages: USA pre-clearance. Perhaps PK uses MAN because it's already established there.

[LAX_LHR]

Since pax have to disembark and be rescreened anyway, a stop over at DUB or SNN would have advantages: USA pre-clearance. Perhaps PK uses MAN because it's already established there.


Yes it ideally does not matter where the stop is, and a move to SNN was touted a few months ago, but nothing ever came of it.

[LAX_LHR]

Does anybody know why the UA flight from Washington swaps its flight numbers around on some days?

On Sat, Sun and Mon, the flight operates UA100 IAD-MAN, then 101 MAN-IAD.

On Tue, Wed and Fri, the flight operates as UA101 IAD-MAN and UA100 MAN-IAD.

Seems a little odd and doesn't seem to be a reason as to why it happens?

[chaps2011]

that could be fun if one delayed by a day as there could be flights going in opposite direction with same flight number

Chaps

[j636]

that could be fun if one delayed by a day as there could be flights going in opposite direction with same flight number

Chaps


If a flight is delayed and rescheduled airlines always use the number 2 in front of the flight number.

[chaps2011]

sorry I was being a bit tongue in cheekhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

[spannersatcx]

Quote:
Chaps
If a flight is delayed and rescheduled airlines always use the number 2 in front of the flight number.

No they don't, we use a D so cx250 becomes cx250D

[Skipness One Echo]

There's no hard and fast rule, BA append a 'Y' to the end of the delayed flight number but the callsign is often just in the BAW9000 range.

[LAX_LHR]

Many airlines use different ways of running delayed flights.

BA runs the flight as a BA9*** number, Emirates either runs the flight with a D or 8, for example EK018D or EK8018.

My original question remains unanswered however, which is why the UA100/101 swaps over on some days.

[Invicta DC4]

I thought there was a "rule" that all eastbound transatlantic flights had to have odd flight numbers and westbound even flight numbers.

[viscount702]

Does anybody know why the UA flight from Washington swaps its flight numbers around on some days?

On Sat, Sun and Mon, the flight operates UA100 IAD-MAN, then 101 MAN-IAD.

On Tue, Wed and Fri, the flight operates as UA101 IAD-MAN and UA100 MAN-IAD.

Seems a little odd and doesn't seem to be a reason as to why it happens?

I have just checked on the UA website and all eastbound flights show up as 100 and westbound 101. That is both in the timetable section and booking engine from now up until just before Christmas.

On a separate note is JED still showing in the preview of GDS as still nothing announced afaik.

[LAX_LHR]

Taken off Amadeus public portal.

This is Monday 6th Jan:

http://uk.bestfares.amadeus.net/v679212/images/air/UA.pngUnited – Flights 101
8h 25mTake-offMon 12:00MAN Manchester, ENG, United Kingdom LandingMon 15:25IAD Washington, DC, United States Boeing 757-200 (Narrow-body Jet) | 8h 25m

This is Wednesday 8th Jan:

http://uk.bestfares.amadeus.net/v679212/images/air/UA.png United – Flights 100 8h 20mTake-offWed 12:00MAN Manchester, ENG, United Kingdom LandingWed 15:20IAD Washington, DC, United States Boeing 757-200 (Narrow-body Jet) | 8h 20m

Both same direction, yet the flight numbers have swapped.

In terms of Saudia, still in GDS, apparently all ground contracts have been signed, so not sure what the delay in announcing the flight is.

[viscount702]

Just checked UA website for dates near the ones quoted by you

Outbound MAN-IAD 5/1/2014 UA101

Return IAD-MAN 12/1/2014 a week later UA101

Weird. Would one of connections be able to assist

[All names taken]

LAX_LHR

Off the top of my head I've taken the IAD flight 5 or 6 times since it started, it's always been UA100 Eastbound and UA101 Westbound.
Glitch in the system???

On the JED....what are the proposed days of operation and the timings currently on view; just mentioned it to a friend last night who goes out there quite a bit and he was interested (if it's a non-stop that is).

[LAX_LHR]

Hi all-names.

Im aware of the current UA flight numbers, however its from January that these flight number swaps happen, and is appearing on many platforms.

In terms of Saudia:

SV198 JED 0425 MAN 0815
SV199 MAN 1010 JED 1935

Wed, Fri, Sun B777-200

This has been in the system for a while now, so not sure what is happening with it. GDS does not normally display slot requests, so I know its not just that.

[All names taken]

Thanks for that, I'll pass the info on.
Attractive departure times from MAN

[Bagso]

Given their previous track record I doubt the MAG marketing know SAUDIA are even starting.

Great news in terms of Manchester cementing it's position as largest retail city outside London, certainly good for short haul inbound market.

The city has a diverse retail mix and thriving events calendar which has grown in size and stature year on year, according to The Heart of Manchester BID. - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/city-diverse-retail-mix-thriving-6343829)

Less than good news David Cameron driving round China in his London Centric Black Cab, (follows on from his US visit where trumpeted "Visit Britain..in er a London Bus).

Yes THEY are made by the Chinese but c'mon how about arriving in a Range Rover made on Merseyside, Rolls Royce/ Bentley made in Crew OR a JCB from Uttoxeter BOTH plants only an hour from Manchester.

[LAX_LHR]

Yes THEY are made by the Chinese but c'mon how about arriving in a Range
Rover made on Merseyside


All the news reports I saw through the day were promoting Range Rover and the fact something like 100,000 had just been sold to the Chinese?

[All names taken]

Whilst waiting for my luggage in T1 last week, I noticed on the belt info screen that a flight from 'Domodedevo' had arrived. This is the regular EZY scheduled flight from Moscow.
Whilst I and no doubt other seasoned travelers will know that this is Moscow's show-piece airport, how many others do?
Surely it would be better to display 'Moscow DME' on the boards so that the other few hundred captive audience - waiting for their bags- would think 'Oh I didn't know there were flights to Moscow from here....interesting' Instead of thinking 'Domodedevo? WTF is that? Can't even pronounce it.'

A huge marketing opportunity lost as well as confusion for local taxi drivers who will be looking in vain for a flight from Moscow that they are meeting.

The airport management really does need to get a grip. Maybe because we all expect low fares, the airport company can only afford to hire idiots these days.
Pay peanuts......

[LAX_LHR]

But whats even stranger is the fact recent football charters to/from Moscow actually displayed Moscow!

[Betablockeruk]

Raised the whole Moscow thing with their PR people. No response.....

I did question whether there are also confused Muscovites looking at the Moscow dep board asking "where is this Ringway?"

[mytravela330]

Only Bentley cars are made in crewe now... Rolls Royce are built near Oxford. Bentlry owned by VW and Rolls owned by BMW...

[GrahamK]

Good ole German engineering! :ok::ouch:

[Navpi]

I also know somebody in Manchester who emailed MAG Marketing re Moscow board also a deafening silence !

Route Development is I believe an internal dept BUT marketing which includes Facebook, Twitter , Website etc is I believe outsourced !

Not sure if this includes the boards.

Sadly as long as the passenger figures keep going up the management seem to go into self congratulatory mode completely missing the fact that they may be going up simply because the economy has improved, and people have more money in their pocket, precious little to do with the airports own marketing performance.

Have PM you BetablockerUK

[LAX_LHR]

M-ABEU arriving as FR01 tomorrow at 09:15, departing 13:20 with a certain M O'L on board. Lets hope he is bringing some good news with him. Bucharest would be nice.

[Bagso]

M-ABEU arriving as FR01 tomorrow at 09:15, departing 13:20 with a certain M O'L on board. Lets hope he is bringing some good news with him. Bucharest would be nice.

Compared to the mega expansion in the South East with EZY and Norge at LGW and RYR at STN, a dozen based 737s all operating NEW unserved routes would be good !

[LAX_LHR]

Aer Lingus Regional have increased SNN-MAN to 3 daily (excluding sat which is 2 daily).

Extra flights begin in April.

[spannersatcx]

For those interested, the first CX -8F is planned into MAN on 19th Dec. :ok:

[LAX_LHR]

Thanks for the info spanners. Lets hope it turns up this time.

[spannersatcx]

It will, they say, then 1 or 2 every week from then on!

[Ringwayman]

Routesonline has an article on Birmingham trying to attract a Chinese link. But it also gives these are the bi-directional traffic flow between the UK and China for origin + destination passengers in 2012

LHR 808231 pax = 67.6% market
MAN 145812 pax = 12.2% market
BHX 58988 pax = 4.8% market
LGW 44805 pax = 3.8% market
EDI 38816 pax = 3.3% market

For MAN, it's 399.48 passengers per day or 199.74 one-way. Almost enough for an A330 or 787 one would say, with the ability to haul some cargo as well to bolster a route.

[LAX_LHR]

And its worth noting that the table does not include Hong Kong, which at last count accounted for something like 136,000 MAN-XXX-HKG passengers alone.

[LAX_LHR]

American Airlines will upgrade MAN-ORD to a B767-300 2 months early, on 1st April instead of June 5th for 2014.

[North West]

For MAN, it's 399.48 passengers per day or 199.74 one-way. Almost enough for an A330 or 787 one would say, with the ability to haul some cargo as well to bolster a route.

Only if the operator would be able to capture a 100% market share of the available market which is unlikely. You don't say with which existing carriers the 400 per day are travelling with but presumably the market will be scattered across a wide range of hub feeds out of MAN. With the economics of hubs being what they are, then you'd have to assume they'd have a considerable seat cost advantage over a Chinese operator offering a single route into MAN. That's before you add in the fact that there would be enough margin in the front end yields to allow any existing carriers to cut prices from the get go to kill off the chances of anyone getting a foothold into the attractive part of the market. Lot of choice going East via the legacies and the MEB3 which makes it a tough ask. No surprise really that there is virtually nothing direct any further East of the gulf, the Pakistan market aside.

[All names taken]

Interesting statistic.
That means, if my mental maths are correct that MAN has more of the UK-China market than BHX, LGW and EDI combined.

I''m nor surprised really: Manchester has a huge Chinese community, noticeable even if you walk around town.
The trouble with this statistic though in attempting to justify a route to 'China' is that the definition renders itself useless, as China is such a big place.

A route to, say, Beijing would inevitably capture only a tiny piece of that overall market.
Stats on point to point travel would be more interesting but would probably 'prove' that it's not commercially viable, except of course HKG.

On that basis, the next several UK-China routes would be to LHR, unless something extraordinary happens.

[nigel osborne]

All Names Taken,

Yes your bang on here, and agree LHR will probably get more flights first.

If you go to Warwick Castle or Stratford, there are swarms of Chinese tourists, so does that mean for that reason BHX will get flights..no, for the same reasons you state.

BA alone want 7 more Chinese routes out of LHR.

Nigel

[MKY661]

Rumours going Round that US Airways are moving to Terminal 3? Anyone know anything?

[LAX_LHR]

Rumours going Round that US Airways are moving to Terminal 3? Anyone know anything?


Well, that's going to go down like a lead balloon. T3 cannot handle an extra A330 and B757 Trans Atlantic flight in the morning peak.

The only way the new AA can fit together is to either move AA to T1 or T2, or move another T3 operator out to fit in the US Airways flights.

There was a plan in 2010 to merge T1 and T3, if US Airways is intent on moving, as well as any additional growth Ryanair may bring, this plan may now be needed more than ever.

[Betablockeruk]

T3 cannot handle an extra A330 and B757 Trans Atlantic flight in the morning peak.

Is it even physically possible to gate a A330, 767 and 2 757 on T3 at the same time?

[chaps2011]

Didn`t it used to when bmi had A330s plus BA B767 and BA B757s

Chaps

[j636]

I'm sure both US and AA will want to be together and that's the reason behind moving so moving AA out I expect defeats the purpose of US moving.

[The96er]

I believe the provisional plan is for the US PHL A330 to use St44, AA ORD 767 to use st55, AA JFK 757 to use st54 and the US CLT 757 to use st49. However, with 44 in use, this precludes the simultaneous use 44L and 44R currently used by Flybe. Either way, something has to give.

[rutankrd]

Lot of choice going East via the legacies and the MEB3 which makes it a tough ask.

Those are identified boardings and only a part of a gamut of matrices employed in route development as a starting point.

If you only looked at this number ignored contained and future potential other industrial and leisure indicators, socio economic trends (that may indicate yield potential) political leverage and just little entrepreneurial risk taking no new route would ever commence anywhere !

An interesting static worth considering is that Hainan has announced PEK-BOS on a 2012 boarding figure of just 127,418 for ALL of China from Logan.

Air China are operating to Geneva on boardings of 85,000 for ALL of China in 2011 !

Presee a useful matrix but only a jigsaw corner piece:ok:

[Mr A Tis]

...and with Gatwick showing only a measly 3.8% of the China market, makes it look even odder that Air China have announced the resumption of LGW-PEK from next March. This has been suspended since last October.
On the face of it, you would have thought Manchester with 3 times the market might have got the service for which Air China already hold the rights for.

Air China to resume flights from Gatwick (http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=s~T_mdT_Y!&w_id=9454&news_id=2009006)

[viscount702]

EZY

I have just been checking the current timetable position.

As was reported previously the Monday and Wednesday DME had been dropped.

The replacements are ATH on Monday and SKG on Wednesday. Also on Wednesday the afternoon MLA has now moved to the morning and some other timings altered.

The previous timetable did not show a Thursday MLA like this year. This has now been reinstated. These latest changes make full use of the 8 based aircraft

[LAX_LHR]

Lufthansa must be having some good loads of late.

The past 2 days, most FRA/MUC flights have been on the A321.

[LAX_LHR]

Ill try and see if I can find a public link but according to an email I recieved today, Air China have re-applied for 4 weekly MAN-PEK flights with the rights for onward flights to another EU destination (unspecified in the email). The slots are for winter 2014.

I say re-applied as they previously held the rights for 7 weekly MAN-PEK flights.

Obviously could mean nothing as slots are requested and unused all the time, but its progress!

[eggc]

onward to DUB maybe ?

[LAX_LHR]

onward to DUB maybe ?


Genuinely doesn't say. I know DUB and ZRH are mooted to get Air China flights so could be either of them at a guess. Also the paragraph was quite vague, it didn't say if the EU tag would start at the same time or if it was applying for the rights as a 'future proofing exercise', if you catch my drift.

[Skipness One Echo]

Obviously could mean nothing as slots are requested and unused all the time, but its progress!
Slots are indeed requested all the time and most are not taken up. However what most people will take away from what you just said is Air China are launching PEK-MAN-DUB !

Slot requests are part and parcel of keeping options open for route planning until someone higher up decides where to place the asset (aircraft).

[LAX_LHR]

However what most people will take away from what you just said is Air China are launching PEK-MAN-DUB


Actually PEK-MAN-DUB-ZRH, but, in all seriousness, whilst Air China have previously held rights to MAN-PEK, they have never formally applied for slots at either end, so, lets hope they are a 'only apply to follow through' airline.

In other news, Cathay's slots for the B747-800 have now been cleared in Frankfurt, so as well as Spanner's tip off, looking likely MAN will finally see the -800.

[roverman]

A story is circulating that Cathay's first -8F will arrive into MAN from SNN on the 19th. Strange routing.

[OltonPete]

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

Click on the above link then on November to open the PDF

Schedule International pax up 9.5% or 84000 but what a whopping percentage figure for the IT decrease - 28%. I suppose we will have to wait and see how other airports fared although only Gatwick is really in Manchester's league.

Rolling year 20,775,049

Freight up as well.

I apologise if these have been posted as they have been out a few days.

Pete

[Bagso]

1.02% increase ?

A Manchester Airport spokesman said: “The official numbers confirm the upward trend in passenger numbers we’ve witnessed here at Manchester over the last year. It’s come from across the airline network with growth from blah blah blah.......

[North West]

So you're suggesting a 1% increase is not in fact an increase ?

[spannersatcx]

There were going to be 2 -8's that day 1 to SNN and 1 to MAN. I can't remember which 1 was going where after that, but the 2 flts have been amalgamated and there is now 1 flt going SYD-HKG-DXB-SNN-MAN-FRA-AMS-DXB-HKG :eek:

[LAX_LHR]

SYD-HKG-DXB-SNN-MAN-FRA-AMS-DXB-HKG


Good old fashioned milk run there. Any reason for the SNN visit, not normally a CX cargo destination?

[spannersatcx]

Horses I believe.

[LAX_LHR]

Horses I believe.


Wow if they are heading for DXB or HKG they are in for one tough and long journey!

[Una Due Tfc]

Most of the Sheikhs have their horses trained/bred in Ireland, hence the DXB-SNN route. Quite a common occurence to have live horses in from that part of the world to DUB/SNN

[LN-KGL]

Back to the November growth. I prefer to look at the changes in terminal passengers for obvious reasons and the main reason is that you are not dependent on what two Indian sub-continent airlines do or don't do (using MAN for transits to the US). The terminal passenger growth was 1.4% and certainly it's a growth but also it's the month with the lowest percentage growth in 2013. But before I continue, let's look at two graphs showing what has happened in 2013.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23931688/Graphs/Manchester/DTP_2013_01-11.jpg


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23931688/Graphs/Manchester/DTPG_2013_01-11.jpg


Let me first start by explaining the use of colours. Blue columns represent the Winter season and obviously the green for the Summer season. I've also converted the monthy passenger numbers to daily passenger numbers that will make it easier compare the different months.


If we start with the first graph, the columns form a curve that is very similar to what happened in 2010 at MAN (except for April and May - 2010 has the Icelandic ash), and this curve is pointier than what happened in both 2011 and 2012. Why it's pointier you clearly see if look at the second graph. The ratio between daily passengers in the Summer season compared with the Winter season has this year been 1.6:1, while the same ration for growth has been 2.8:1. Had it not been for the move of the Easter from 2012 in April to 2013 in March, this ration difference for growth had been much larger. But then we also have two events in 2012 that 2013 didn't have: The Queen's Diamond Jubilee and the London Olympics. This may explain the May and August 2013 extra growth compared with 2012. If we only look at the difference between the October and November growth the November growth equals to 2 daily Ryanair return flights (with their usual cabin factor) while the October growth equals to 12 daily Ryanair return flights.


All in all, it looks like two speed operation between Winter and Summer at MAN has been more accentuated this year. And this may also continue in to December with a low growth number?

[LAX_LHR]

Misleading headline of the day award goes to....

The UK hasn't had a new runway in 60 years - that could soon change - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10501891/The-UK-hasnt-had-a-new-runway-in-60-years-that-could-soon-change.html)

''The UK hasn't had a new runway in 60 years''.

[Ringwayman]

Couple of aircraft upgrades it seems tomorrow - United operating a 767-400 to Newark and American a 767-300 to Chicago. Heavy bookings or forecast strong headwinds?

Also had the 1st visit of Lufthansa 777F today... delayed arrival into daylight hours = happy photographers.

Also appeared to be a few more Santa charters than yesterday and today than there normally is. Perhaps the December passengers numbers may be a little bit better than we may expect?

[CabinCrewe]

would imagine American upgrades are weather related. Weather in States is a mess..

[LAX_LHR]

The aircraft upgrades are due to increased loads on both decks (cargo and passengers).

Seems to be a slightly higher than usual number of pre-Christmas travellers this year. Lufthansa, Air France and Swiss operating a fair few A321's on FRA/MUC/CDG/ZRH, Brussels Airlines seem to have sent quite a few A319/A320 in and apparently tomorrow is not the last time we will see some extra USA widebodies.

[LAX_LHR]

Just been informed the UA80/81 has been upgraded to the B767-400 tomorrow due to high BizFirst sales. Cargo and loads in the other cabins are also healthy.

B757-200 holds 16 in J, however 19 seats sold on tonight's EWR-MAN flight, and 23 booked in J for the MAN-EWR flight.

[Bagso]

.....but bad news re EZY Moscow, Manchester really should be able to hold on to this.

As ever with Manchester 2 steps forward, 1 step back !

[LAX_LHR]

A lot will be down to brand awareness.

Easyjet is well known here, but maybe not so much for the Moscow-ites? The LGW route has the benefit of having a Transaero codeshare to boost awareness, Manchester does not. With the cost of visa's, and the fact there are some pretty affluent Russians now, I would hazard a guess that a lot of the route works on DME-MAN-DME rather than MAN-DME-MAN.

Maybe now easyjet have demonstrated a market, and the fact they now sponsor a well known sporting establishment, maybe one for Aeroflot to look into. They still hold rights to serve MAN after all!

[Suzeman]

As ever with Manchester 2 steps forward, 1 step back !

C'mon Bagso; It's the season to be cheerful :)

It's better than 1 step forward and 2 back like it was a few years ago...

[GayFriendly]

Have to agree Suzeman, MAN has taken lots of steps forward for 2014 - AC Rouge and US Charlotte flights for a start plus the TCX/BE co-operation, VIE with Jet2 and others I am sure I've forgotten! And you are back through the 20 million barrier for the rolling 12 months. I bet you will get Moscow back in time.


Come down here to BHX if you want to see 1 step forward 2 back - an airport that opens a runway extension in 2014 but has of yet failed to attract a single carrier or destination as a result - unless Biman turn up........

[LN-KGL]

Can't be high prices that scare Mancunians from flying to Moscow - a return ticket with 20 kg checked in bag and best seats in house (exit row) you'll get from £113. I think it's more the hassle to get a visa to Russia that put people off, and it's much easier to take a trip to sunnier Spain.

[All names taken]

Could someone be a bit more specific please.
I thought MAN-DME was being reduced to 2 pw. The implication here is that it's being cut completely. Have I missed something?

Having been to Moscow on a number of occasions on business I fail to see the attraction as a tourist, in fact I would say it's a good place to avoid unless you have to go. Awful place. St.P on the other hand is much more interesting.

Anecdotal I know, but the trip I mentioned a few posts back.......stood by the belt at T1 watching the 'Domodedevo' flight's bags going round, the vast majority of punters 'appeared' to be young Russians with huge suitcases.

'British Suits', I reckon will still use the well trodden paths through AMS and FRA... for their FF points if nothing else.

[LAX_LHR]

I thought MAN-DME was being reduced to 2 pw. The implication here is that it's being cut completely. Have I missed something?

No being cut to 2 per week. I think the wrong end of the stick has been handled somewhere.

[viscount702]

For tourists LED would be far better than DME.

And yes someone here seems to to have got the wrong end of the stick. At the moment DME is showing twice per week all summer. There is however at least from my end a problem on the EZY booking engine in that in the three week view Sundays don't show and that is for all destinations

[Bagso]

C'mon Bagso; It's the season to be cheerful ;)

Now come on Suzeman you know my cup is always half empty.

It as after all only 9 weeks since MAG issued a press releases suggesting that the Moscow route specifically was part of a "magnificent summer"!

If it WAS such a roaring success why is it being pulled ?

Given brand image if EZY cannot make it work I doubt anybody else could !

Rouge, SAUDIA brilliant but if the success of the route depends on a bit of solitary fanfare in the Manchester evening news, they will quickly follow this route down the pan !

The problem is that route development to places like Hong Kong, Tokyo show high leakage via other hubs making a direct route "appear" plausible in any presentation.

BUT how would potential passengers find these flights ?

If you simply put in say Low Cost airfare Manchester - Toronto, unless you are as savvy as the readers on here you will STILL end up be punted via Air France, Lufthansa, KLM etc AND those carriers will of course still be chasing passengers even if a directs service starts.

To compound the problem even DIRECT doesn't necessarily mean non stop on some portals.

I think MAN is in a difficult position, its not in the Heathrow, Gatwick league, both being the somewhat natural default exit/entry point for a fair % of long haul ex UK, but neither is it in the same position as places like Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle etc where no long haul network exists.

Yes it does very well, my frustration is that it could do so much better BUT you do have to have other fundamentals in place that tell punters about what's on offer.

Little point having a generic message of Fly Manchester if the person booking the flight cannot find it.

Manchester's has unique ability to do the difficult bit and attract a wave of long haul airlines, only to then lose a few of them a year or two down the line, that HAS to change !

Going back to Moscow I had an email from Transaero when EZY started suggesting they recognised Manchester as thee most important City/gateway outside London but bilateral agreements prevented them from access to Manchester !

[LAX_LHR]

Bagso,

Just to re-iterate, Moscow is not being pulled, its being reduced. Thankfully 2 very different terms as it means the route continues to be served.

[Bagso]

true Lax...BUT 2 a week, is it worth it really ?

[All names taken]

BAGSO

Look it was your post that convinced me that the route had been pulled ie no more MAN-DME.
However thanks to others here, I now know that it is not.

How many people skimming the site and read your post now mistakenly believe there is no more MAN-MOW???

There's no point you complaining about negative or poor marketing / publicity if you yourself go on a public open website to spread mis-truths about an airline pulling a route when they are not.

Can you not see the irony of your last post? :rolleyes:

[Bagso]

All Names Taken

LOOK , Congratulations on the most imbecilic posting of the year !

I may Or not agree with some of postings made on here but I do at least give every person making the posting the generosity of reading their postings in full.

How on earth can you make rational comments if you only half read postings ?

[insuindi]

FlyBE has started adjusting their schedule for summer 2014, so far noticed the return of the Saturday MAN-HAJ-MAN rotation.

Re Easyjet: It appears 1/7 DME-MAN for most of summer.

[LAX_LHR]

true Lax...BUT 2 a week, is it worth it really ?


Ah the typical half glass empty nothing good happening posting as usual.

Yes, lets just can all routes that are 1 to 2 weekly, like you say, whats the point.

Tunisair Tunis, Nouvelair Djerba, many of the Caribbean routes, quite a few Ryanair routes are low frequency, Easyjet to Bastia, Belavia to Minsk, Adria to Ljubniana to name a few.

Lets just cut the lot, no point to them according to Bagso.


Re Easyjet: It appears 1/7 DME-MAN for most of summer


Its 2 weekly there seems to be a glitch at the moment where Sundays flights are not showing in some portals.

[LN-KGL]

You will find all the Sunday departures if you go from 3 week view to 3 day view on the easyJet website. At least I would have reacted if someone told me it is only six days in a week.

[Mr A Tis]

The last time I flew Lufthansa to Munich a couple of years ago, it was on a half empty A319.
I've just made a return trip MAN-MUC-MAN on A321s, about 10 empty seats outbound & the return 100% full (inc the front bit), so i should think LH are pretty pleased with MAN.

Also worth mentioning for those that are critical of handling at MAN. I also recently sat on an E195 of Lufthansa City Line at Munich, fully pax loaded on schedule- only to have to wait 30 minutes before a crew could be found to load bags on to it.

[viscount702]

You will find all the Sunday departures if you go from 3 week view to 3 day view on the easyJet website. At least I would have reacted if someone told me it is only six days in a week.

Agreed but you will find that if a flight only operates once a week ie BIA depending what day you enter you can find that the site returns no flights because it falls outside +/- 3 days

[All names taken]

BAGSO

In reply, I'll simply refer you to your own words, rather than hurl personal insults.

You wrote: .....but bad news re EZY Moscow, Manchester really should be able to hold on to this.

You also wrote: .....If it WAS such a roaring success why is it being pulled ?

Marketing, about which you complain so much, is the art of conveying clear positive messages from the supplier to the end-user.
You really can't see the irony can you?

[LAX_LHR]

Yesterdays United B767 had to be downgraded back to a B757 due to the weather and very late running of the inbound aircraft.

The good news is, it would seem my friend was right about further upgrades, as UA81 has just left EWR and is a B767-400, with AA54 also being a B767-300 again.

[MKY661]

Does anyone know what Terminal Air Canada Rouge will be using when they start operations? Or is it still to be confirmed? :)

[eggc]

Listening to Key 103 today and I am sick of hearing MAN/EZY joint adverts purely for the Moscow service..they are on every ad break, so they are at least trying to increase awareness of the flight.

[eggc]

Delta 64 looking to be switched from 330 to 764 for S14.

[rutankrd]

Delta 64 looking to be switched from 330 to 764 for S14.

No should be a 76W (thats back to a 300 series)

And the reason is that the Atlanta 332s are being redeployed to Seattle to operate Shanghai and Hong Kong where their performance and range is advantageous.

The 332 European appearances in 2014 seem to be restricted to Paris services and a single Amsterdam - Twin Cities rotation.

[LAX_LHR]

So, Manchester yesterday refused 3 diverts (BA B744, SQ B77W and CX B77W), due to lack of staff. (yes this argument again)

Cathay Pacific in particular was interesting, ops at CX apparently spending 30 minutes on the phone to MAN asking to take the CX257 HKG-LHR flight, but point blank refused.

Now, the reason for the refusals is written above, so, my question is, why does this problem seem unique to MAN in particular, yet other airports seem not to make such an issue of this?

Lets look at it this way:

Liverpool. An airport totally reliant on low cost carriers, therefore, one would assume it means the handling staff would be based on the prices the low cost carriers are willing to pay and therefore not much slack to accept extra flights at short notice. Do they have a reputation for refusing flights? No. Do they have horror stories of passengers left stranded on aircraft for hours at a time? No. Therefore presumably, they cope well with the diverts.

Birmingham. A similar traffic structure to MAN albeit on a smaller scale. One would then assume the staffing levels would be at a similar ratio to that of MAN. Do they refuse many diverts? No. Horror stories of passengers left stranded on aircraft for hours? No. Therefore, are we to presume they cope well with diverts? Yes.

Gatwick. Busiest single runway airport in the world. They still managed to accept 3 widebody diverts. 2 of its biggest customers are low cost airlines (easyjet and Norwegian). Do they cope? Yes.

So, why oh why is MAN quite a unique scenario whereby staffing levels are at such a minimum, that the thought of accommodating 3 extra flights for a fuel divert, seems to send the place into a tailspin?

At the end of the day, new routes are not only born on the obvious market demographics, but also on airline relationships. Cathay Pacific for example have stated they wish to serve MAN with pax aircraft in 2016. Do you think the fact that handling a B777 of theirs seemed to fill MAN with dread to the point of refusal will sit well in their eyes? No. Will they question if MAN can cope with a 3-4 weekly service? Probably, after this fiasco.

Come on MAN/Suppliers, sort it out! I know it doesn't pay to have hoardes of staff sat around 'just in case', but, running the place on a shoestring to the point 3 extra flights would cause chaos is just pathetic and looks very poor to outside observers!

[mickyman]

LAX_LHR

CX from Manchester in 2016.....whats your exact source for this please - seems a bit vague 'CX'?

MM

[spannersatcx]

lack of staff in what department, CX have Engineering and Cargo staff at MAN so its not them, they also use servisair for cargo flts, so it's not them? Is it therefore marshallers/ops people, fuellers, can't see how that should be a problem. So where is the staff shortage as I really don't understand where it could be? :ugh:

Really doesn't bode well for CX pax flts in the future, because they will not forget! :=

[spannersatcx]

LAX_LHR

CX from Manchester in 2016.....whats your exact source for this please - seems a bit vague 'CX'?

MM
When the A350 comes on line, MAN is pencilled in for them to operate there, although that could (will) change.

[Skipness One Echo]

So, Manchester yesterday refused 3 diverts
Gossip aside was this an airfield ops perspective or a nominated handler refusal? Handlers have cut staff to the bone with no give in the system. The days of Speedbird Manchester handling a swathe of BA bound heavies with on site staff are a past era. It may well be that accepting a Cathay B77W with no extra staff to cover would have cost them money in late off block fines from existing customers. That's the reality.

[crewmeal]

Birmingham. A similar traffic structure to MAN albeit on a smaller scale. One would then assume the staffing levels would be at a similar ratio to that of MAN. Do they refuse many diverts? No. Horror stories of passengers left stranded on aircraft for hours? No. Therefore, are we to presume they cope well with diverts? Yes.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe BHX refused a SQ flight last winter on the grounds that there were too many FR kites parked up for the duration and therefore no room. I also believe all the staff would have coped if there was enough room.

[eggc]

Is it not sensible not to have spare staff sat around just incase the odd divert turns up ?

It seems to make perfect sense to me as long as all involved have the staff they need to handle MAN's own traffic.

[mickyman]

Spannersatcx

'Pencilled in' as in maybe/perhaps/possibly.....hmmmm !!

MM

[LAX_LHR]

One for mickyman:

Cathay eyes new European and North American points with A350-900 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cathay-eyes-new-european-and-north-american-points-with-a350-900-379290/)


Some of the European destinations that could open up for the Oneworld
alliance member include Berlin (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Berlin%20Tegel.html), Dusseldorf (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Dusseldorf%20International.html), Manchester, and Madrid (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Madrid%20Barajas.html),
says Slosar. Together with the new points in North America, these will allow
Cathay to offer non-stop services to Hong Kong and then connections to points in Asia.

[nigel osborne]

LAX-LHR

Can answer your point about BHX,

yesterday the BA 744 from Delhi went straight in to BHX and was turned around,and back to LHR splash and dash in less than 2 hours.

The BA 767 from Madrid went straight onto a remote and passengers disembarked and it flew back to LHR today A PIA 777 diverted in to and again no issues ..all very smooth operation.

You are right though BHX won't turn anything away now. A complete turn around from when MAN would take loads and BHX turned stuff away few years back, puzzling.

Nigel

[The96er]

So, Manchester yesterday refused 3 diverts (BA B744, SQ B77W and CX B77W), due to lack of staff.

MAN did not refuse the BA that went to BHX. BA Ops made several calls to Menzies during the day, one in the very early hrs informing that the A380 HKG and 2 x747's would be diverting - none of which materialized. No call was made regarding the aircraft that went into BHX. Menzies were open to accepting what ever turned up. As to their ability to handle them is another matter !

[LAX_LHR]

the96er,
Im not sure what happened then as Waterside definitely rang up to MAN about the Delhi, as it was made quite early on before the flight was anywhere near London?

[Curious Pax]

Is it not sensible not to have spare staff sat around just incase the odd divert turns up ?

It seems to make perfect sense to me as long as all involved have the staff they need to handle MAN's own traffic.

Not if said staff want paying! As others have said, the airlines have driven costs down so much that there is less than no slack for handling agents to offer 'nice to haves'. A good example is the fact that I got what I thought at the time was a cheap MAN-FRA in 1988 for about £110. 25 years later I baulk at paying that much for the same trip! Fuel costs and crew costs have gone up a lot since those days, so the savings need to come from somewhere.

I suspect that the reason that MAN handling agents are less able to take diversions is that although quiet in winter, it is not as quiet as some of the other regional airports mentioned. Thus BHX may have 2 handling staff on duty (I'm assuming there is a minimum level regardless of flights) but no flights for 3 hours, while MAN also has 2 staff but a flight every hour. Add in a bit of managerial caution wanting to avoid penalties for mishandling their own flights, and it makes perfect sense for the MAN handler to decline diversions in that situation, while BHX accept them.

I'm sure if SQ, CX etc were prepared to pay a MAN handling agent to have some people on standby in case a diversion was necessary then a solution would be found, but I can't really seeing that happening.

The final point is that in the old days it took less weather to trigger diversions, and so as well as the cost angle, the likely frequency of diversions also made it more worthwhile to have staff available just in case, as the odds of using them, and getting the extra income from unscheduled visitors was much higher. Weather such as LHR had the other day would have caused 75%+ flights to divert, rather than the handful that did. A beancounter would be more likely to pay for standby staff if the odds were that 200 aircraft would divert to MAN over the course of a winter rather than the 10 that would probably happen now.

[chaps2011]

Curious pax
What an excellent post, I totally agree as things have changed since the 70s and 80s

Chaps

[mathers_wales_uk]

Would also like to state that Cardiff is another airfield that copes well with diverts.

I have to agree with the posts above that staff are not being paid to sit around just in case something happens as it would simply cost too much. Also when the airfield is quiet there will tend to be less staff on-site to deal with it.

I have seen at Cardiff that dealing with several widebodied diversions is not a huge issue.

[MANFOD]

Curious Pax, I agree the situation regarding the number of a/c that have to divert from the London airports has changed significantly from the 70s, 80s, and even the 90s. I also take your point about minimum staff numbers having to be maintained at smaller regional airports that may therefore have more opportunity to accept diversions. However, that still leaves several questions unresolved:

I agree that BHX, less than half the size of MAN in terms of pax numbers, may have similar staffing levels - although I suspect less handling agent companies. However, LGW is twice the size of MAN, had its own problems on Wednesday afternoon with delayed flights, very poor visibility with slow arrival rates and a/c having to hold before starting approaches. Yet it was happy to accept the SQ and CX diversions.

Mid-afternoon Wednesday is hardly a hive of activity at MAN for arrivals or departures. Was there really no slack in the system or a can-do approach that would have allowed those two important airlines to MAN to have diverted here when they wanted to?

On Monday, 28th October, MAN accepted a SQ A380, a TG B747 and an AC A330 at a busy time in the morning. Why was it possible then but apparently out of the question on Wednesday?

Maybe as suggested elsewhere, it depends on which manager / supervisor is on duty and who answers the phone when diversion requests are received. Is that really a satisfactory situation?

Whatever logical reasons can be offered, there is a perception that on some occasions (not always), Manchester Airport does not put itself out to offer a a service to airlines having to divert - in this case two of its own rather important customers.

[The Fulcrum]

Wonder what the shareholders would make of this - if they ever found out ?

[chaps2011]

MANFOD
The difference was we were still on summer schedules and staffing also a lot more parking available during summer as many aircraft are parked up for several days a week plus football charters

Chaps

[Skipness One Echo]

On Monday, 28th October, MAN accepted a SQ A380, a TG B747 and an AC A330 at a busy time in the morning. Why was it possible then but apparently out of the question on Wednesday?

Who makes the decision? Is it the airport? Would the airport say yes if the handing agents can't cover? Unlikely. Three or four heavy diversions are of no interest to shareholders.

These are questions best left to Menzies, Servisair and Swissport surely?

[eggc]

Of course they are SOE, and the airlines know that. These divert rejections would have little negative effect on MAN's reputation itself, and if an airline wanted, or did not want, to fly to MAN in the future (thinking CX pax) then their choice would be an economic one, not one based on, or even influenced by, if the airport refused a diversion or two.

[BDLBOS]

MAN's reputation is getting pretty hammered. Two of the best carriers in the world want to send 2 x 777, but an International Airport like MAN cannot handle them in their quiet period. I think the MAN Management actually need to sort this, they can no longer hide behind the handlers, parking and all the other excuses. The Airport is looking unreliable and headed further into unreliability, with all these friggin excuses. There is a solution, just needs someone at the top to sort. Sadly, Management at MAN has been poor for so long, we all just accept the mediocre. I know the people who work there want to see it go places, they just need the driver.

[chaps2011]

Perhaps this is why MAN didn`t want divs
taken of BHX forum
From a Birmingham perspective the most damaging part of this article is the assertion that the passengers were told by the captain that they had to stay on board as Birmingham was overwhelmed by the number of diverted flights and immigration and customs could not cope. With the number of diverted flights totalling three this may or may not be true but for some of us who have suffered with lengthy waits at the hands of immigration at Birmingham it certainly has the ring of authenticity about it.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=8205795) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8205795&noquote=1)

[nigel osborne]

Chaps 2011

Re your post;

"Perhaps this is why MAN didn`t want divs
taken of BHX forum
From a Birmingham perspective the most damaging part of this article is the assertion that the passengers were told by the captain that they had to stay on board as Birmingham was overwhelmed by the number of diverted flights and immigration and customs could not cope. With the number of diverted flights totalling three this may or may not be true but for some of us who have suffered with lengthy waits at the hands of immigration at Birmingham it certainly has the ring of authenticity about it."

Naughty naughty lol:=

You fail to mention this was an written by the Daily Mail reporter.

The reality of this diverted flight was that BA could not decide on whether to splash and dash it or offload passengers, thats what caused the delay into the terminal, was listening to pilot-ops conversations on it on my scanner.Nothing at all to do with BHX or other diverted flights.

Apologies for putting this on the MAN thread but the record needed setting straight..don't believe everything printed in the Daily Mail :ok:

Nigel

[chaps2011]

OK Nigel and you mean you don`t lol! but it was just really to point out that
it`s not only MAN that gets stick.
It seems to me now that everything is cut back to bare bones as it is where I work
and that is not airport related which is just about OK on a good day but as soon
as something not standard happens everybody is in the preverbial or slated for
not accepting it


Chaps

[RoyHudd]

2 ILS runways, plenty of remote stands, competent ATC. And yet Manchester Airport proves itself inadequate yet again. Best revert to Ringway Airfield, the place is not up to an International label.

Blame their hopeless owners and management.

[chaps2011]

Roy Hudd hope you have you the facts right before making comments like that

Remember only a couple of B773 stands available on remote parking and if
they were already in use that pretty well means end game

Chaps

[nigel osborne]

Chaps 2011.

Yes agree think all the airports including MAN and BHX are cut to the bone. BHX main problem at present is that we have 9 stored Ryan Air 737s blocking out a lot of our remotes.

There was no room for any more divs after the ones we took. The day before we did take 12 ,including an LH from LHR and 8 Ryan Air from STN..where they parked them, no idea ?

I am sure that Manchester will sort things out and go back to being a main wide bodied div airport again.

Although as someone else said ,far fewer divert now than a few years ago, and most that morning were able to hold for over an hour in the London stacks,where a few years ago they would have diverted after 30-45 mins.

Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

BHX main problem at present is that we have 9 stored Ryan Air 737s blocking out a lot of our remotes.
Assuming they're not parking for free, is that really a problem? No one is going to be weighing a "no" to a diversion ages ago when weighing up a decision to start a new route, come on guys let's be realisitic. Diversions are nice for enthusiasts and a massive pain for everyone else.

Passengers, crews and aircraft all in the wrong place with the potential for coaching for all and hotels requiered. To be honest, that's a hassle a handling agent will not welcome on any given day. It's easier for a third party handler to refuse a diversion than in house staff. There are of course, no in-house staff nowadays in UK handling outside the major bases of BA and Jet2. (Anyone think of more? )

[chaps2011]

Always have problems with widebody now as so much based stuff parked during
week in winter

chaps

[nigel osborne]

Skipness.

Yes that is the problem, paying a very nominal parking fee ,as BHX are worried they might pull winter routes if they didn't agree to FR demands .. honest !

Nigel

[hammerb32]

It's a tactic employed by BHX to get a level of commitment from airlines, worked very well over the years. After 9/11 a number of BA 767s were parked up at BHX and they stuck around for..... oh.

[Mr A Tis]

Fortunately Roy, the commercial departments of the likes of QR, EY, EK, LX, LH, SQ, DL, AA, UA, US etc don't agree with you.
I have had some pretty naff experiences around the world, from Fort Lauderdale, Atlanta, Frankfurt to Munich.
Last week sat on an EMB195 Lufthansa City Line at Munich. Loaded & ready on schedule, except a 30 minute wait because no crew were available to load bags. This delay caused us to be caught up in a snow storm, resulting in another 30 minute delay for snow sweeping, followed by another 30 minute delay for de-icing.
Crap can happen anywhere, but the majority of my flights start or end at Manchester & speaking from my own experiences, by and large hassle free.
We don't know the reasons why the diversions were refused & if it is as bad as Roy portrays Manchester, why on earth would they request to come in the first place?

[BDLBOS]

Guys, this is not a race/competition to see who has had the worse experience at which airport. Have some humdingers myself, but the point is that MAN refused two major carriers and 77W. All I am hearing is excuse after excuse for being mediocre, nobody is saying what is the solution, or how do we become the Airport of choice for new services and Diversions. The no can do attitude seems to be rife at MAN, moral needs improving and there are many ways to do it, given the opportunity.

[SWBKCB]

Handling of diversions? Mountains and Molehills spring to mind... :suspect:

[LAX_LHR]

Etihad have upgraded the EY21/22 to the B777-300ER permanently from 1st July 2014.

It is now bookable online in all platforms.

[RoyHudd]

Yawn...explain to the non-pilots again....

A tis old chap, the expert decision on diversion combines fuel remaining, weather at alternate (and 1/2 others), landing distance/performance on available r/w's, notams, tech status of aircraft, ground handling and expected speed of turn-round, repatriation of inbound pax from diversion to destination, engineering support at alternate, number of other diversions heading to alternates, , effect of diversion options on FTL's, and feedback even from CC on the state of play with sick pax.

We don't pick a diversion field at the end of a long-haul flight because someone on prune doesn't like Manchester. But experience of the place's awkwardness in accepting diversions comes into play when quick decisions aloft are needed. As a passenger, why don't you wind your neck in? You don't understand the issues. Stick at being SLF.

MAN is not a competent international airfield in many ways, as agreed by many who operate into many fields in the UK and overseas.I would look quickly at EGNX or EGSS coming off a long-haul, maybe EGBB. If I had a choice that is...and if not, then MAN we're coming in. (Mayday if necessary).

[Bagso]

Why are comments in having a "no can do attitude" re diversions met with such universal applause when comments in respect of peepoor performance in other areas regarded as having ones glass half full.

[MANFOD]

RoyHudd

I'm not sure whether MAN should be concerned or relieved that they would only be your 4th choice for a long haul diversion. Perhaps you find it surprising therefore that for CX and SQ last Wednesday afternoon MAN was their first choice. More's the pity that MAN felt they couldn't accept them, but fortunately LGW did despite their fog and holding delays.

BHX could only take 3 wide body diversions that afternoon but accepted 12 narrow body flights the previous morning including 8 Ryanair. I guess it's reassuring to pilots that some airports are responsive and accommodating when those situations arise.

[chaps2011]

A thought! if the airport authority does not want to put aircraft on gated stands and therefore needs diversions on remote areas were the 2+ B777 stands actually available at the time of request if not where are they expected to put them?
You only have to stand on the Multi storey carpark to see that midweek in winter
there are an awful lot of aircraft on the remote stands and if Air Livery/Monarch/TCX are doing a change over for hangars, stands are used at a
rapid rate and need to be flexible ie: 2 Lufthansa A340 last week which did not
work to schedule
I hope that is clear

Chaps

[anothertyke]

Bagso--hear hear. Security queues going out and baggage hall coming back would be my issues in an airport I give decent marks to.

Question-- is there a diversion capacity issue generally? Suppose there is a sudden fog event at LHR and LGW at 0700 tomorrow morning. Can MAN really say --we've only got room for three wide bodies? What actually happens and who pays? Sorry for naive question.

[chaps2011]

If an aircraft get into a dangerous situation of course it would be accepted and the concequence sorted out after.

Chaps

[Mr A Tis]

I think most people (except Roy) got my point, that even the super efficient Germans can't always run an Oktoberfest in their own beer tent.

As for diversions, save for emergencies, As Roy now agrees with me, pilots have little say. Its the commercial / ops departments that decide.

Indeed,it's the commercial departments that decide if an airport is fit for their needs. If the airline thinks the airport is not fit or suitable, then it has the choice not to serve it. However, it looks like Roy's airline are basing more aircraft at MAN than LGW.
It would be more productive to express your dissatisfaction through your airline management than venting out on Pprune.

As I stated before, we do not know why the diversions were refused on that day. MAN has very recently accepted wide bodied diversions, including A380s.

[LAX_LHR]

Permanent upgrade to the B777-300ER on EY21/22 brought forward to 1st June.

[Curious Pax]

The Etihad website reflects the 1st June start date for the 777. Shows no availability for first class, so presume they will be using the 2 class version rather than the 3-class. I couldn't see any indication of whether it would be the older 28C/384Y or newer 40C/340Y version of 2-class.

[rutankrd]

I couldn't see any indication of whether it would be the older 28C/384Y or newer 40C/340Y version of 2-class.

The six 3 class currently only operate to Sydney/Melbourne/Heathrow and JFK

The 2 club heavies do Chicago and Bangkok mainly

The remaining frames go everywhere else such as Dublin -Its most likely one of these C28Y384 an extra 140 in steerage !

[LAX_LHR]

Looking at the seat plans, rutankrd is correct and is the 28/384 2 class aircraft.

Looks like enough capacity increase to see us until mid-late 2015 anyway, unless C class suddenly has an upsurge in sales.

Looks like our A330 is starting one of the many new destinations that Etihad have announced next year (likely to be Perth as the other A330-200 route is Rome but that's not until 15th July)

[Bagso]

I wonder if MAG are now regretting their foray in Essex ?

I would not be suprised if the Aussie investors walk away given their only interest was seeing STN develop into a major hub.

During the intitial evidence gathering Manchester benefitted from some good publicity but as soon as they bought STN interest from senior management warned dramatically , it was as if though they had been "got at", almost to the point where contributions were nonexistent.

[LAX_LHR]

2 new routes from Ryanair that will be uploaded soon:

Bologna 3 weekly on Tue, Thu and Sat
Zadar 2 weekly on Mon and Fri

Both from April 2014.

Also hearing rumours of Bucharest, but can only find the above 2 in GDS at the moment.

[MANFOD]

LAX-LHR

Thanks for the info.
Are those 2 new Ryanair routes with based a/c do you know, and what is GDS showing for MAN-DUB at present? The web timetable as of yesterday was only showing 17 x weekly.

[LAX_LHR]

Hi MANFOD,

The GDS is showing for DUB:

6 daily EI/EIR (3 each)
5 daily FR M--TFS- and 4 daily Tue and 6 daily Sun, but that may change.

Bologna at the moment seems to indicate away based but that may change. Zadar is MAN based.

Also worth noting at this moment in time, GDS is showing a requirement for 7 based aircraft on 4 days a week. However with the STN deal, LPL loosing 1 aircraft, BRS gaining 2 and some new bases inc rumoured AMS, where this 7th based aircraft is coming from (if used) is a mystery.

[southside bobby]

Bagso.....I fear you are not a strategic thinker...:= Regards,The Southside

[Skipness One Echo]

I fear you are not a strategic thinker... Regards,The Southside
He's not a strategic investor, I think that would be more accurate.His thinking's not too far off the truth here.

Regards,
The Skippy

er no....on second thoughts.....

[FRatSTN]

What's GDS?

[LAX_LHR]

GDS is global distribution system. Its what airlines use for schedules, check in, ticket sales etc and comes through forms of different companies such as Sabre and Amadeus.

[LAX_LHR]

Link to the Ryanair BLQ-MAN news:

Routes News - Ryanair announces two new Bologna links (http://www.routes-news.com/news/1-news/2252-ryanair-announces-two-new-bologna-links)

[MANFOD]

LAX-LHR

The Ryanair timetable is currently showing nothing for BIQ & TUF, although BVA & BZR of the French routes are loaded.

Similarly, the Polish routes are showing except for KTW.

It may be these 3 routes are being dropped to be replaced by the destinations you mention. Interesting though if some days require 7 a/c as things stand.

[FRatSTN]

They haven't done BIQ since S12. Strangely though it still remains in the drop down menu but only when you edit a search. It's not selectable on the homepage and is not on the route map.


TUF and KTW however I'm not sure but BRS is missing a few Polish routes including KTW. Also a lot of airports now only going to KRK twice weekly. Maybe some reductions in Poland??


Still no sign of Zadar, but Bologna and also a new route to Barcelona (El Prat) now on the Ryanair website. Zadar not on sale from Liverpool or East Midlands so still quite possible to be added to Manchester?

[LAX_LHR]

Im wondering if indeed MAN is to get 7 based aircraft then.

There are already a few increases on existing based routes, with BLQ and now BCN added (although we don't know frequency or if its a BCN based aircraft). ZAD has appeared in Chroma at MAN and strong rumours of OTP.

Im pleasantly surprised given the growth of other airports and with LPL loosing an aircraft I was unsure if MAN was to remain stagnant. Maybe the STN deal gave MAN the nod too?

[nigel osborne]

LAX-LHR.

Ryan Air have lots of form for announcing new routes and just dropping others so we will have to see if this is a net gain or not for MAN.

Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

Nigel,

At the moment 2014 at MAN seems to be about 24 flights up compared to Summer 2013, that's without the BCN and ZAD routes, and without the DUB increases which are highly likely to be DUB based.

Like I say there is a requirement for 7 based on the current timetable compared to 6 based last year, with away based flights also up.

[viscount702]

In fact I have noticed some reductions in frequencies and also some increases for a number of FR routes recently in fact since I updated the timetable on 6 December.

At the moment there seems to be a net reduction. Briefly but not fully checked
WMI -1
RYG -1
BVA -1
CRL -1
GRO -3
FAO -1
ALC -1

There are increase to

BUD up 1
MJV up 1

[FRatSTN]

I hope Ryanair continue to grow strongly at Manchester for a long time to come. It would be great if it could get something like 10 or 12 a/c in the future.


It really does seem now that obviously Stansted, followed by Manchester alongside East Midlands stick out as the main Ryanair bases in the UK and generally nowadays have seen the most growth. Regardless of what some people might think, I don't think it's a co-incidence they are all MAG owned airports. Ryanair and MAG are working very well together.


I suppose it could be an argument of too many eggs in one basket. Maybe Ryanair are growing mostly at the MAG airports so that they are less likely to want to upset them again like they did in 2009/10 at Manchester.


Edit: Also just wanted to suggest that it's quite possible one aircraft from Liverpool will switch to Manchester since it seems Manchester will have 7 and Liverpool only 5 next year (they had 6 each this summer but MAN had a lot more W's).

[Bagso]

Well Mr Bobby please enlighten us with your own strategic thinking !

Did the Australian investors really buy into this deal on the dream of Stansted becoming a mega 4 runway inter continental hub.......

Or the somewhat less exciting and certainly less profitable prospect of being stuck with a single aggressive lo cost operator, a fact likely to scare off any prospect of major expansion by other airlines and something which seems to have totally bypassed MAGs thinking.

But what now?

If the Australian's pull the plug will this damage the core product in the portfolio, Manchester?

[LAX_LHR]

Viscount,

I still have RYG at 4 per week just like it always has.

Just to check on 2013 (I have no idea), but including the DUB increases, BLQ at 3 weekly and Zadar at 2 weekly, I have 186 departures. If KTW and TUF get uploaded then 190 departures for mid-week in August.

Like I say, no idea how that compares to Summer 2013, but Mon,Thu, Fri and Sat seem to indicate 7 based aircraft according to schedules in GDS.

[BasilBush]

Bagso/Bobby

The Australians did indeed buy into MAG on the assumption that Stansted will stay a single-runway airport. And that Gatwick would get a second runway, which is the worst case for Stansted.

It's always been virtually impossible to make a second Stansted runway stack up financially, given its high cost and the unwillingness of Stansted's airlines to pay higher airport charges. Although I'm sure that MAG are annoyed that Stansted didn't get onto the Davies short list, this probably reflects political embarrassment rather than any real expectation that a second runway could be a realistic and financially viable option.

[HOODED]

A second runway at STN was never going to make the short list. STN is nowhere near runway capacity at present so why build another when both LGW/LHR are?

[Sir George Cayley]

MAG bought Humberside and Bournemouth so their decision making process must be in question.

SGC

[viscount702]

I still have RYG at 4 per week just like it always has.

Just to check on 2013 (I have no idea), but including the DUB increases, BLQ at 3 weekly and Zadar at 2 weekly, I have 186 departures. If KTW and TUF get uploaded then 190 departures for mid-week in August.

Like I say, no idea how that compares to Summer 2013, but Mon,Thu, Fri and Sat seem to indicate 7 based aircraft according to schedules in GDS.

The reduction to RYG was reported by someone else on another site.I am in the process of checking the timetable as available on the Web to see what the changes are but can confirm RYG remains at 4 per week. There clearly have been reductions to some destinations which have shown up on the timetable since 6 December but also some increases but discounting new routes and yet to be up loaded routes there is a net reduction since I previously checked on 6 December..

Also there have been a number of swaps between based and non based aircraft so it is currently difficult to say whether or not the based aircraft will remain the same. I will comment when I have completed the checks

[peppo_8787]

Which GDS Ryanair use? And also, you can see it?

[LAX_LHR]

Bologna now loaded onto Ryanair site and uses a MAN based aircraft in the afternoon/evening.

Barcelona still not loaded.

[viscount702]

LAX_LHR

Bologna now loaded onto Ryanair site and uses a MAN based aircraft in the afternoon/evening.

Barcelona still not loaded.

BLQ will on Thursday be a non based aircraft.
Having checked the timetable I think the based aircraft will remain at 6.

The DUB increases are not loaded on web timetable as yet but the vast majority of these flights are on non based.

We don't know if KTW and TUF are returning for S14 but even if they do then these even with BCN and ZADAR will not provide sufficient new flights for and extra based aircraft. In fact bearing in mind the comments on this and other sites FR are cutting flights everywhere for S14 because of the lack of aircraft. therefore for the above reasons I think 6 will remain the number of based frames.

[LAX_LHR]

Aer Lingus Regional will increase ORK-MAN to 3 daily next summer.

So, with SNN at 3 daily, ORK 3 daily and DUB proposed at 6 daily, not a bad offering from EI/EIr next year.

[FRatSTN]

No I think it's quite possible FR could go to 7 based a/c. Since Liverpool is the only one in the UK which seems to have been reduced and schedules for Manchester support an extra a/c, my bet is that in this case there is simply one a/c switching from Liverpool to Manchester.


The UK generally seems to have escaped most of the cuts due to the shortage of a/c which of course seems very promising for us. It's mainly across Spain, Germany and Scandinavia where most of the cuts seem to be occurring, and of course the closure of the Maastricht base.


Ireland, Italy and the UK should be the main growers next year for FR, possibly Belgium too with the new Zaventem base.

[LAX_LHR]

As viscount the schedules have been re-shuffled to just about fit 6 aircraft, however there is still Friday that requires 7 based according to GDS, but a lot will depend if KTW/BIQ come back, and what the yet to be released BCN flights look like.

Of course, these 2 new routes (BLQ/BCN) may not be our only 2 routes, and if more routes/frequency increases are planned, then a 7th could well be on the cards (particularly Zadar which is in Chroma as MAN based yet not a sniff on the Ryanair site yet, interestingly it has been removed from the LPL section of new routes on Ryanair site.)

It still has not been officially confirmed/reported where the LPL based aircraft is going, and with potentially 5 routes still to be added at MAN, its not over until the fat lady sings, as they say. (I say 5, as while it is more likely the DUB based aircraft be used for the extra DUB flights, it is not impossible that a few MAN based flights could be added too)

[LAX_LHR]

Barcelona BCN is only going to be 2 flights, on 13th and 13th March. Flights are football related, its a shame as I personally think Barcelona is slightly underserved from MAN.

Vueling will also run BCN-MAN on 19th Feb and 13th March.

[Bagso]

If SAUDIA is a runner and I suspect according to LAX it is, would it not benefit from an announcement NOW !

Either by the airline or indeed MAG who do share a modicum of interest ?

[MANFOD]

I seem to recall that when the new services by US / AC Rouge were announced, MAN's Commercial Director said there were more announcements (plural) to come.

It was assumed at the time that one would be SV and there was a suggestion that another might be AA to Miami from next winter. A couple of announcements before Christmas would have been nice but it's looking doubtful now. Any updates on here from those more informed than me would be appreciated.

[LAX_LHR]

Im not sure what is holding Saudia up, but rest assured it is still going ahead, all the ground contracts such as handling, hotels, transport etc are in place.

Air India and Air Blue at BHX came in with around a months forward sales (the latter having issues but was nothing to do with forward sales), so not in worrying territory yet.

[MANFOD]

Thanks LAX-LHR as always. I guess some of these carriers work to their own rather strange timetables for announcing new routes and putting tickets on sale.

Any further hints about AA to Miami or anything else in the pipeline?

[LAX_LHR]

AA to MIA still highly rumoured, however W14 will not fully go on sale for some time yet.

In terms of other long haul, the only rumours going round at the moment are the EK19/20 going A380, and Air China have re-applied for 4 weekly MAN-PEK from next year.

Most growth for next year will come from short haul, apart from what has already been announced/rumoured.

[eggc]

CPX's "Hong Kong Trader" 748 has just arrived at MAN for the first time :ok:

[Suzeman]

MAG bought Humberside and Bournemouth so their decision making process must be in question.

SGC

Humberside was a long time ago.

Bournemouth came as part of the deal with National Express when EMA was acquired. May not have too much passenger potential but the land-bank available for development was and still is rather valuable.....

[LAX_LHR]

I wonder how long Biman intend to stay this time:

We will also return to Manchester, our third destination in the UK

So, after apparently BHX offering a better deal, and a larger market according to Biman, not only have they gone back to MAN anyway, but they could also potentially be about to offer more seats from MAN given MAN could potentially be a non-stop flight, and get 100% of the capacity whereas BHX flights are shared with JFK. Talk about a U-turn! And this is the airline Paul Kehoe is accrediting publicity to the runway extension.

Biman Bangladesh Adds Long-Haul Route to Birmingham and New York :: Routesonline (http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/231872/biman-bangladesh-adds-long-haul-route-to-birmingham-and-new-york/#.UrMkbriLoDk.twitter)

[LAX_LHR]

Manchester Airport welcomes Hong Kong freighter service | Air Cargo World News (http://www.aircargoworld.com/Air-Cargo-News/2013/12/manchester-airport-welcomes-hong-kong-freighter-service/1916421)

I believe Manchester on Wednesdays is the only place in the UK you can see a B747-800 and A380 on the ground together. A small yet nerdish accolade, but, one non the less.

[viscount702]

LAX_LHR

Can you check what FR are doing on DUB in GDS because rather that the expected increase in flights the Web timetable is showing they being reduced to two or three flights a day from June.

PS BHX also seems to be reducing

[KelvinD]

LAX LHR; And here's the proof! Ship Photos, Container ships, tankers, cruise ships, bulkers, tugs etc (http://kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=14283)

[Bagso]

Interesting comments from a "Cabinet spokesman",no less.

Not interested in the politics but this is precisely why I feel Manchester "could" and "should" have argued their case more vehemently.

BBC News - London draining life out of rest of country - Vince Cable (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25444981)

Of course the difference Government spokesman make in terms of soundbites rather than changes in actual policy (eg APD) may be marginal BUT if you never shout nobody will ever hear you !

In the initial part of the Howard enquiry MAN had good PR but sadly this ebbed away and ultimately sank without trace after the purchase of STN.

Even NWest MPs who in my view threw in some pretty loaded questions must have been staggered at the total inability by MAG spokesmen to capitalise !

My God they even held part of the enquiry IN Manchester itself !

The question has to be asked why did they throw in the towel ?

see recent CAPA analysis

Forget the gloss MAG may put on this, they have now been left with an airport they "thought" was going to be shoe in for a major hub, although again how actual Government policy would turn this into reality remains a mystery.

And anybody who thinks that the Australian investors bought into this deal based on the single courtship with RYR is deluding themselves.

With little movement at STN other than the juggernaut that is RYR but three long haul airlines committing to MAN you do wonder if they themselves might feel they backed the wrong horse missing a golden opportunity to exploit further ?

[johnnychips]

Not interested in the politics but this is precisely why I feel Manchester "could" and "should" have argued their case more vehemently.

You could and should argue as loud as you like, but that does not alter the fact that there were and are many reasons why Stansted was and is not the solution to future capacity issues. There have been so many cogent and informative posts on this forum arguing that.

If MAG were putting all their eggs into the basket of buying Stansted just for this one expectation, I'd be very surprised. (And sorry for the confused metaphor, but you know what I mean).

[110Cornets]

Saudia's now showing in the GDS - well in Sabre at least.

SV 123 JEDMAN 0330 0815 77L 247
SV 124 MANJED 1200 2000 77L 247
01APR - 19OCT

[Betablockeruk]

Saudia's now showing in the GDS - well in Sabre at least.


and bookable on Saudia website.

I know it's early and the coffee has yet to kick in, but it seems business 'value' fares are a lot cheaper than via LHR. Surely not? ;)

[LAX_LHR]

Thanks for the new times. They now appear across all platforms, but interestingly the old ones for SV198/199 are still in 'preview'. Obviously now, it appears some form of mistake.

Flights will operate from T2 and is yet another First class cabin being flown into Manchester.

[LAX_LHR]

Germania will once again base an aircraft at MAN to run the Olympic holidays flights to Greece:

Heraklion:

Friday out 1755 in 0320
Tuesday out 1700 in 0225

Corfu:

Monday out 1600 in 2350

Kos:

Saturday out 1720 in 0250

Rhodes:

Wednesday out 1720 out 0350

Zante:

Sunday out 2330 in 0800

Obviously a lot still to be added (like daylight sectors), but a start.

[Skipness One Echo]

Flights will operate from T2 and is yet another First class cabin being flown into Manchester.
Are they using High or Low F B772s?
Oddly enough the new B77W we're seeing more often at LHR don't have F at all.

[LAX_LHR]

Looking at the seat plans, its 24F 38J and 170Y.

Obviously no way in hell that F cabin will be filled, but there we go.

[BasilBush]

Johnnychips, you are absolutely right about why Stansted didn't make it to the Davies short list. I'm always impressed by Bagso's passion for MAN - which is shared by many - but I thinks the facts speak for themselves.

I think there are three questions which were critical for MAN/MAG in relation to Davies.

1. Could expansion of regional airports (esp MAN) remove the need for new runway capacity in the London area?

Davies is clear on this one. Although there is a perception that the London airports are cluttered up with pax from the UK regions making connections, the actual numbers are quite small - a few millions. Even if all of these chose to fly from their local airport, either direct or via a different hub, it would be a drop in the ocean of London airport throughput. It might delay the need for a new runway by one or (at most) two years, but this is irrelevant in the context of the timescales being considered by Davies.

2. Leaving that aside, what more could be done to increase the usage of regional airports?

I think that MAG has reason to be a bit disappointed with Davies here. Davies dismisses such ideas as differential APD, tweaks to bilaterals etc, in a fairly high-handed way. MAG should challenge Davies on these and other points. But it doesn't really affect the fundamental point of the Davies report, namely that more runway capacity is needed in the London area.

3. Accepting that new runway capacity is needed in the London area, should STN have been on the short list?

The basic problem is the shortness of Davies's short list. He decided to have only two realistic options (LHR & LGW), and to consider further a new site on the Isle of Grain. That being the case, it is not surprising that STN failed to make the cut. Firstly, it was inevitable that LHR would be on the short list. While it has big problems in terms of its environmental impact (and politics), only government can ultimately weigh up the balance between those factors and the national interest. And with only one more real slot on the short list, LGW has a much stronger case than STN, in terms of its existing utilisation and strength of its airline mix, catchment area etc. STN's only advantage was the possibility that it might ultimately develop into a 4/5 runway hub, replacing LHR as the capital's key airport. But here Davies thought that Isle of Grain was a better bet for such a hub, partly because a STN hub would require a big reduction in the scale of LTN, thereby offsetting some of the capacity gain. So STN lost out on both grounds.

No doubt if Davies had added another airport to its short list then STN would have been the obvious bet. But I imagine that Davies wanted as short a list as possible, to justify the work of his commission.

And although MAG is no doubt embarrassed politically by the 'snub', it really has no impact on STN for the foreseeable future. No responsible owner (especially MAG's new Australian shareholders) could conceivably have proceeded with a second runway at STN in the face of a very uncertain financial return.

[LAX_LHR]

Maybe of interest to some, a list of confirmed new routes for 2014:

Condor:

Fuerteventura, Palma, Ibiza, Kos, Zante and Rhodes begin April/May.
Tobago begins 29th March on Sundays with B767/W

Monarch:

Hurgarda, Naples, Enfidha and Agadir begin April/May. Based aircraft increases to 12?

US Airways:

Charlotte begins 23rd May

Air Canada Rouge:

Toronto begins 26th June

TAP Portugal:

Lisbon increases to 11 weekly (there was a 12th weekly on Saturdays that seems to have disappeared)

Aegean:

Increase Athens to 3 weekly and increase season starting April instead of June.

Saudia:

Begin 3 weekly Jeddah on 1st April

Etihad:

Upgrade EY21/22 to B777-300ER from 1st June. EY15/16 remains A330-200.

Jet2:

Begin Vienna 3 weekly, Bergerac 2 weekly, Fuerteventura 2 weekly and Jersey 3 weekly from April. Many increases across other flights. Based aircraft increases to 15.

Ryanair:

Begin Bologna at 3 weekly. Many other schedule changed based aircraft remain at 6.

Easyjet:

Begin Catania at 2 weekly from May, Lyon continues as new route from W13. Based aircraft remains at 8.

Germania:

Return with a based A320. Schedules still being worked upon.

American Airlines:

Upgrade Chicago to B767-300 in April rather than June of previous years

Cathay Pacific:

Introduce the B747-800 on most flights.

Aer Lingus/regional

Shannon and Cork increased to 3 daily, Dublin increased to 6 daily on mix of EI/EIr.

Lufthansa Cargo:

B777F used on Tue/Sun, MD11 used Mon/Wed

[viscount702]

LAX_LHR

Thanks for that

Couple of points.

Tobago. Does this run from March? I recently looked on the TCX website( which I now find is hopeless) There is no mention except by very devious means it will take you to the condor site but even they don't show it at present.

Also LS have been reducing a number of there frequencies recently one for example is BUD is down now to 5 per week. It was 6 earlier and 7 this year

[LAX_LHR]

Hi Viscount.

Just to bring you up to speed as I have only just noticed your Ryanair Dublin question.

GDS is showing 5 daily every day except Tue and Thu which are 4 daily for Dublin.

In terms of Tobago, its showing as 1 weekly from 29th October on Sundays with B767-300 and 'operated by Condor', though I suspect it will eventually turn out to be operated by a MAN based A330 as that amount of positioning will certainly dent route profitability.

Also, as there is still some time to go, I will expect to see much more schedule tweaking from all of the MAN based operators.

In terms of GDS preview, I'm learning now to take it with a pinch of salt after SV198/199 actually turned out to be SV123/124 on 2 different days out of the 3 published!

[Fairdealfrank]

Three points:

(1) If Vince thinks that about London, then stop whinging and do something about it. As a Libdem in a senior position in government (very rare indeed, unlikely to be repeated), he has had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

(2) MAN is not operating at 99% capacity and has the same number of rwys as LHR, not exactly a problem there. Davis has concentrated on LHR and LGW because LHR is full and LGW will be soon. LHR needed to double its rwy capacity years ago, MAN already has.

(3) Apart from a handful of restricive bilateral agreements, there are no impediments to carriers wishing to operate to/from MAN or any other UK airport. If they can make money, they will be there. It as simple as that.

[viscount702]

Hi Viscount.

Just to bring you up to speed as I have only just noticed your Ryanair Dublin question.

GDS is showing 5 daily every day except Tue and Thu which are 4 daily for Dublin.

In terms of Tobago, its showing as 1 weekly from 29th October on Sundays with B767-300 and 'operated by Condor', though I suspect it will eventually turn out to be operated by a MAN based A330 as that amount of positioning will certainly dent route profitability.

Also, as there is still some time to go, I will expect to see much more schedule tweaking from all of the MAN based operators.

In terms of GDS preview, I'm learning now to take it with a pinch of salt after SV198/199 actually turned out to be SV123/124 on 2 different days out of the 3 published!

Again thanks for that LAX_LHR

I take your point about GDS. The systems available to you give any indication not available to others but that does not guarantee anything but do keep posting what comes up.

LS in past years have published a timetable and then overtime reduced frequencies so nothing new there. Disappointing though but posts still suggest 15 or 16 units ( with spares) although I can't on previous frequencies come up with more than 13.

The lastest TCX website for flights is now appalling . All it seems to do is list in Bold and fancy pictures the flights operating for the current and next season only you can't browse as you used to be able to do.

On FR posts elsewhere think as I do now that TUF and KTW have now gone-time will tell. Dublin is odd and picked up by others as reducing rather than increasing. Also the EI site doesn't show the Regional flights to Dublin or the increase to Cork. Not good for selling seats.

However as you say more changes are no doubt in the pipeline across the board.

[LAX_LHR]

I think TUF has now gone full stop but Katowice may turn out to be a winter destination, as there are a few seasonal routes at MAN.
What MAN has been lucky with is the usual 'Ryanair Shuffle' with destinations, in which today MAN destination list, barring additions and the odd drop, looks broadly similar to the destination list Ryanair opened their base with.

In terms of EIr, I would imagine the extra flights will be added after the Christmas break now. The 6 daily Dublin flights were loaded a few months ago, but then the EIr flights seemed to drop off again.

Lastly, I agree the new Thomas Cook flights site is awful, very hard to navigate and I cannot see that one lasting long. In fact I would go as far to say the Thomas Cook flights and Condor ones could eventually be merged, as seen as there is a whole host of sharing resources going on now. It directs you to Condor for a lot of flights ex-MAN now anyway, in line with the condor base and codeshare.

[Bagso]

I think most on here would agree the last 3 or 4 postings have been excellent !

Excellent rundown by Lax (as ever) for 2014.

I do want to make it clear I have never suggested MAN as a replacement for LHR, but given the chaotic , shambolic way in which this issue is has been handled I do think there was an opportunity to capitalise.

Given the evidence placed before him the options seem limited unless RW3 is a given and he is merely paying lip service to the other options.

There seems to be some blindingly obvious facts which missed which tend to undermine the whole premise of what he has come up with.

(join me behind the barricades Basil )

[LAX_LHR]

And for balanced debate, a list of routes/frequencies not continuing in 2014:

bmi regional:

Drop Antwerp, Lyon and Edinburgh

Easyjet:

Moscow down to 2 weekly from March. There are bound to be other decreases to accommodate growth on other routes.

Ryanair:

Tours has gone, Katowice gone but may be seasonal. Warsaw down to 2 weekly. As easyjet other decreases are likely

Virgin little red riding hood slot sitting service:

Heathrow down to 3 daily from March

Germanwings:

Stuttgart gone (I really hope another carrier picks this up, always seen high loads and reasonable yield, I fear it was a victim of the re-shuffles that ensued after brought from Lufthansa)

Norwegian:

Stockholm seems to drop from a peak of 5 weekly this year to just 2 weekly next year. Oslo also takes a break for 2 months around July. Id be surprised to see any growth from them next year, the North west seems to have taken a huge hit with LPL-CPH going as well as these decreases.

There may be more but frankly its Friday night and were it not for Antibiotics I would be enjoying a drink or 2 now....

[viscount702]

I am ahead of you

[Bagso]

Revealed: Manchester's top 10 holiday destinatioins from Manchester Airport - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/revealed-manchesters-top-10-holiday-6436280)

Based on these figures next year will see Dubai replace Heathrow as main connecting hub I guess !

really not sure who "flies" to London for shopping , sightseeing etc

[MANFOD]

Viscount. Re LS.

I recall a month or so back someone on here or another site listed the increased frequencies on a significant number of their routes. These, together with the 3 new routes would certainly have meant at least 1 extra based a/c, possibly 2.

If it turns out to be 13 based, is this without a spare a/c, and how does that compare with S2013?

Anyway, thanks to you and LAX-LHR for your input re gains and losses for S2014.

On Easyjet, I'm sure they said the 2 Moscow flights being dropped would be replaced by an extra Athens and another Greek destination (can't remember which).

Norwegian is disappointing, more so in view of the rumour of a base at MAN.

Personally, I still don't think it's yet clear how 2014 will pan out in terms of seat capacity.

[Bagso]

MANFOD The 13 based for RYR is an "aspiration", a year or 5 down the line !

I think we would all be dancing round the Christmas Tree and polishing our baubles if that came to pass in 2014 ! ( As long of course that it was new destinations/increased freq and not duplication)

The EZY destination you are looking for is Thessalonica.

Really frustrating re Moscow at least EZY are giving it a good go re advertising on local radio in Manchester BUT this should have been done 12 months ago in the lead in period, and certainly not now the service is effectively being slashed by 50%.

Joined up thinking comes to mind ?

EZY did say they were after more business routes ex MAN and at 4 a week this was at least dooable, although no doubt most will stick with KL, LH etc.

Unless you are very easy going the times have to fit around the business not the other way round, that said for some maybe delaying or organising visits/appts over the 4 day flight window , coupled of course to the lower cost was a benefit. You would no doubt also waste half a day both back and forth by going via another hub.

My worry is that I don't see it coming back at a reasonable level.

With the su[port we are NOW seeing and had it been successful at 4 it "might" have gone daily which would really have increased critical mass further, a "daily" offers that complete flexibility ......but 4 to 2 makes things more desperate !

2 a week whilst ok for leisure is a waste of time for business, and this at a time when trade with the NWest and across Russia is up 21% (again I appreciate not all of that will be in Moscow of course).

[LAX_LHR]

Is there any particular reason Etihad are operating MAN-DUB-MAN today?

A6-ETI B777 operating EY8021/8022.

Both DUB flights are operating today and the aircraft is only on the ground for about 50 minutes?

[MANFOD]

LAX-LHR

lol. Did I make a typo or just not make it clear?

The 13 based a/c was meant to refer to LS, which Viscount suggested was what was required rather than the 15 mentioned elsewhere. I was trying to establish how this would compare with this summer.

There's also been variations re the MON base with figures of 10 or 12 indicated.
Whether their 4 additional routes and frequency changes require an extra a/c I'm not sure, but what impact on seats available if the B757 and A300 are gone?

I agree Moscow is disappointing. The CAA stats for November showed 3,827 pax. Assuming all flights operated at 4 x weekly, it's a minimum of 32 sectors, (34 if it operates Fri or Sat - I've not checked), so an average load of 113 or 119, not great on an A320, even though November isn't the busiest month.

ps. I'm not sure I'll still be around to see RYR with 13 a/c based!

[LAX_LHR]

MANFOD,

It was Bagso who questioned the units?

[MANFOD]

Quite right LAX-LHR. Apologies to both you and Bagso.

Memo to self - must read name of posters correctly in future.

Oh well, the rest of the comments apply, whoever cares to read them.

[Logohu]

Is there any particular reason Etihad are operating MAN-DUB-MAN today?

A6-ETI B777 operating EY8021/8022.

Perhaps EY had a potentially embarrassing oversale on DUB today and extending the MAN was the best way out of it ? Happens to even the best airlines occasionally.
Must be a busy day in DUB today as Emirates also running a DXB extra EK3161/3162

[j636]

They could of put a 777 on the afternoon dub either but if it is because of over sale it is a little embarrassing considering its busy period of year. Forward planning!

[LAX_LHR]

There may not have been a spare aircraft to operate the flight.

[ManofMan]

The Manchester flight had some late connecting Virgin Australia passengers on board that were bound for Dublin, hence the extra Leg.

[rutankrd]

The Manchester flight had some late connecting Virgin Australia passengers on board that were bound for Dublin, hence the extra Leg.

Now thats quality service !

Going to get scalded however could you ever see BA do such a thing - Thought not !

[LAX_LHR]

Weather playing havoc tonight.
PK775 couldn't get into LBA, started to head to BHX, but BHX out of limit now so heading to MAN and EK37 holding at BHX.

[Skipness One Echo]

Now thats quality service !
Hang on, how did they manage that if it was last minute? The crew would have had to fly AUH-MAN-DUB-MAN surely?
could you ever see BA do such a thing - Thought not !
Certainly not, they're a commercial organisation!

[rutankrd]

Both cities have a 332 and 77W daily service at the moment.

So the crews could may have swapped I suppose.

Further the afternoon Manchester flight normally has a significant lay over so i won't effect the return service.

Don't know for sure but was the Dublin-Manchester simply a positioning flight ?

[LAX_LHR]

The EY positioned DUB-MAN empty.

DUB is daily B77W and 4 weekly A330 and MAN is daily B77W and daily A330.

The DUB flights have been maxed out today so the decision was made to extend the EY21 1 way to DUB. Crew hours would not have been an issue as AUH-MAN is nowhere near the limit of flying time.

[LBIA]

Weather playing havoc tonight.
PK775 couldn't get into LBA, started to head to BHX, but BHX out of limit now so heading to MAN and EK37 holding at BHX

And now his just positioned back into LBA.

[steve platt]

EY positioned a extra crew into Man on Fri afternoon to operate the extra Dub sector. The crew then stayed on the flight and dead headed from Man to Auh.

[OltonPete]

Any problems in handling the diverts last?

The Top Swiss EZS1497 which diverted in last night from BHX was a fuel and go and wheels to wheels was about 2 hours 45 minutes. It was the only divert out of BHX, as the severe weather that went through only lasted about 30 minutes with the Emirates and Air France landing after.

easy were fantastic in the end, as the aircraft although still in BHX now they positioned up a replacement aircraft and crew to operate the outbound but unfortunately GVA was closed by then and the pax got to Lyon at 02.23 (or 03.23 local).



Pete

[Suzeman]

Good summary Mr Basil (post 1709)

I think that MAG has reason to be a bit disappointed with Davies here. Davies dismisses such ideas as differential APD, tweaks to bilaterals etc, in a fairly high-handed way. MAG should challenge Davies on these and other points.

Entirely agree - very high handed indeed and he has been got at by ministers and civil servants running true to form. There was a golden opportunity to let regional airports do their own thing to help relieve some pressure on the SE although the numbers would be small.

Hopefully they will challenge it, but there seems to be no reaction at all to the report on the press releases on theManchester Airport website; only this on the STN site which just refers to STN

Stansted: News releases (http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/mag-response-to-airports-commission-interim-report)

Oh dear, I'm beginning to sound like Bagso :ooh:

[Bagso]

Just made my Christmas Mr Suzeman :)

That's you , me and Mr Brush behind the barricades !

[Mr A Tis]

I hate to mention the topic again, but currently 7 diversions have just landed, a mix of wide / narrow bodies from Gatwick.
If the availability of stands / handling / staff etc is there- then they are accepted. More coming by the look of it too.

[JackRalston]

I have counted 9 diversions into MAN tonight and it is now full, can not take anymore divs. Plenty of EZYs going to LPL now

EDIT: Make that 10, EZY97WB GLA-LGW coming too
EDIT NO.2: Now 11, EZY79VU on its way

[MANFOD]

Given the state of play down south, later affecting EMA, I think MAN would have been highly criticised if it hadn't played its part tonight, whatever the staffing situation. On rare occasions, you have to take a wider perspective of what's happening elsewhere and bite the bullet. After pilots have held for ages and then done a couple of go-arounds, I imagine they don't like to be messed about.

But yes, well done MAN for accepting what you did.

[LAX_LHR]

MAN couldnt really refuse last night (not for lack of trying though), there were just too many aircraft diverting last night so they had to let some in.

[Suzeman]

Well, looks like MAG have taken the 'ump with the Davies Commission about STN

Stansted owner 'to challenge Airports Commission figures' - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2013/12/23/46455/stansted-owner-to-challenge-aiports-commission-figures.html)

Wonder whether the regional airport issues will come up too? Probably not is my guess as it will dilute the challenge.

[MANFOD]

"Wonder whether the regional airport issues will come up too? Probably not is my guess as it will dilute the challenge"

That could well be spot on Suzeman. Rightly or wrongly, MAG evidently decided that the Davies Commission was really about capacity in the SE, not the UK in general, and focused their efforts accordingly. It seems unlikely that will change, at least until any final decision about new runways is made.

As others have said, it was disappointing that having emphasised the importance of the O & D market and not just the hub concept, Davies didn't push harder the case to maximise capacity at airports outside the London area.

[nigel osborne]

Jackralston,

Yes well done MAN, hope that cheers people up .The Austrian A321 was perhaps the best and nice to see a BA 772 going in too.

However being completely biased.. BHX was the star, taking 24 airliners from LHR/LGW/LTN/BRS parking them on remotes and even taxiways.

With more wind due Fri might be a repeat :)

Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

Austrian now send an A321 to MAN every Saturday, and did so last year too, so not that rare here.

(An Austrian B777 is due here on 27th however).

[MANFOD]

Yes Nigel, BHX did very well to accept all those diversions. But what's the secret - where do they find all the staff to handle them?

It was reported elsewhere that MAN had originally said earlier in the day they would only accept 2 wide bodies and 1 narrow body, so we did ok to take 10. Our problem isn't just scarce staff resources but lack of remote stands at times like this, and MAN won't normally use contact stands or taxiways nowadays apparently. Not sure where we parked them all last night.

[rutankrd]

Austrian now send an A321 to MAN every Saturday, and did so last year too, so not that rare here.

Didn't Manchester break an Austrian 321 a few winters back ?

Tail strike remember - in fact 2 years to the day - OE-LBF

[j636]

MANFOD

Given airports like Birmingham and Liverpool etc would probably have less handling staff working with less scheduled flights it's madness how MAN handle operations in general. Diverted aircraft don't expect handling right away while passengers onboard in many cases expect to be waiting given the weather conditions. Most airports would be glad of the extra revenue from diversions and refusals by MAN to use contact stands is beyond belief. It gives a very bad reputation to the airport. Who are they expecting to full these spare stands?

[LAX_LHR]

Didn't Manchester break an Austrian 321 a few winters back ?

Tail strike remember - in fact 2 years to the day - OE-LBF

Yes that's correct. The aircraft was here a week or so before being flown to TLS IIRC.


and MAN won't normally use contact stands or taxiways nowadays apparently. Not sure where we parked them all last night


We had about 13 diverts in during yesterday, and one Thomson was parked on a T2 contact stand and an Easyjet was parked on a remote T2 stand.

Our problem isn't just scarce staff resources but lack of remote stands at times like this

Staffing issues is one thing (is there no forward planning at MAN, after all airlines have been ringing MAN for the past 2 days to keep staff on for this weather which had been forecast).

However, remotes were an issue too. The Jet2 static display team are in full swing, we have a flynas A320 taking up 1 stand, and a Saudi Cargo that was supposed to leave at 2100 didn't until 0530.

[Betablockeruk]

Jet2 static display team

Is this good money? If so, lets have the Ryanair static display team as well.