MANCHESTER - 9

[nigel osborne]

MANFOD.

I don't understand where all your wide bodied stands have gone at MAN..ok you have a couple of TOM 787, but similar number of TCX and MON A330s as few years ago. MON A300s gone (1 now at BHX) A few extra sched 330/77W .

However you used to get SQ,QF,SAA,Cathay,BA 747s and lots of other widebodies ,and still be able to handle 15-20 widebodied diverts ?

I really do not know about the staff in Brum. However BHX seems to have a totally different approach to diverts than a few years ago, when they would turn them away.

BHX sees them now as a revenue stream now, and will accept as many as it can get in.

Suppose the fact that its closer to LHR than MAN may help some as if they have to get passengers off and bus them to London we are 90 miles nearer ?.

Nigel

[LAX_LHR]

I don't understand where all your wide bodied stands have gone at MAN..ok you have a couple of TOM 787, but similar number of TCX and MON A330s as few years ago. MON A300s gone (1 now at BHX) A few extra sched 330/77W


MAN probably has more regularly scheduled wide bodies now than it ever has, even if the tail variety has gone. Next summer is going to be even busier for wide-bodies and new flights, yet they are going to re-take the remotes for car parking again! (Another debate completely)

In terms of stands, the Jet2 parked up probably took up 7-is remote stands, we had a Saudi B747F that stayed longer than it should have, a Nas Air A320 was taking up one of the large aircraft remote stands awaiting its delivery flight today and the usual overnighting aircraft were already in.
That combined, with the diverts having no departure times, MAN had to keep its normal gates free for the morning rush, when SQ/EK/EY/DL/US and the likes were due. The Virgin A340 and BA B777 are still in MAN, so was a wise decision to leave stands free. There are not really any taxiways that could be used as parking as they only ones that could be closed without impacting the scheduled operation too much are the ones between 23L and 23R, and bussing across a live runway would probably leave the H&S brigade with a mild coronary!

[MANFOD]

"a Nas Air A320 was taking up one of the large aircraft remote stands"

LAX-LHR & NIGEL
Thanks for your input again.

Years ago in this sort of situation, keeping a narrow body a/c occupying a w/b stand wouldn't have happened. Someone would have ensured it was moved. These days, there doesn't seem to be the staff or the will to do it, not to mention the question of cost and who pays.

Nigel, BHX seems happy to make money from the occasions when diversions occur. MAN prefers get assured income from car parking on an ongoing basis.
As an enthusiast I know which I would prefer. I believe no fewer than 12 aircraft stands are used for cars in the summer but we've got 5 of them back for the winter apparently. Can't remember how many of the 12 or the 5 are wide body capable.

"and still be able to handle 15-20 widebodied diverts ?"
Just looked through some old records, and on Sat. 8 Feb 1992, we accepted 22 wide bodied diversions between approx. 06.30 and 11.00. Fair to say we were pretty full! I think that morning was a record for w/b on the ground but stand to be corrected.

[nigel osborne]

Thanks LAX-LHR,MANFOD.

Take it you get all your stands back when this new surface car park is finished ?

Heres to a great 2014 at MAN and BHX.

Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

Have the stands that were car parking been returned to airside? Which ones?

[MANFOD]

Skipness, Only 5 of the 12 as far as I know, and just for the winter.

I think it's 71-74 and 85 possibly.
217-219 and the 4 stands in the 240s/250s remain car park.

Whether we'll get them back if and when the proposed new car park is ready, who knows.

We seem to manage this last summer without 12 stands, but problems could arise if there are major delays to the first wave of departures due ATC, bad weather, strikes etc. and the arrivals rush starts. I gather there isn't a lot of margin, and it doesn't exactly give a signal for growth ambitions as nobody appears to know of any immediate plans for terminal expansion either. If EZY or RYR do want to grow steadily at MAN, some infrastructure development may be required.

[Mr A Tis]

Is there any reason why the long term sitters couldn't be towed to park on 23L?
It's been used before for parked aircraft.
No need to coach pax across from there, just move the ones not scheduled to go anywhere.

[LAX_LHR]

According to another forum, Ryanair 8 based units in the internal systems and at least 3 new routes for Summer 2014.

Given the schedules allow for 6, I cant see 8 based coming to fruition as there would have to be some pretty hefty increases and a few new route. There was an allowance for 7 units a few weeks ago but 8, hmmm. Wouldnt want to be in the T3 rush if 8 do happen.

[viscount702]

I have seen the post. However I like you would think 7 may be possible but 8 I have my doubts about.

[MANFOD]

Ryanair

3 new routes were mentioned but it didn't specifically say only 3.
There could also be increased frequencies on some existing routes and perhaps less services with non-based a/c, so I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of 8 based a/c.

If it's right, there are serious questions though as to how T3 will cope, both in the terminal and for stands.

[MKY661]

It has been confirmed that US Airways are to move to Terminal 3. Date unknown at the time :)

[LAX_LHR]

The Dalaman tourism board have said in a local (to Dalaman) newspaper article that Turkish Airlines will next year begin direct, year round flights between Dalaman and Manchester. Other UK points, particularly Gatwick, may follow later.

Apparently a strong case had been put forward for the flights.

[rutankrd]

Turkish Airlines will next year begin direct, year round flights between Dalaman and Manchester

But that will assuredly have utter crap yield.

You think those going to the shanty town on the side of a mountain (Hisaronu) will pay a premium ?

That said if it also turns out as a through flight down to Ercan/Tymvou that may help some for sure !

[Skipness One Echo]

Anyone know what the number of international to international connecting passengers is at MAN? Per day, month or whatever we have?

Thanks!

[BasilBush]

I'm not sure that the free CAA data gives the numbers for Int-Int connections. Table 1 of the summary of the 2012 survey (see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/81/2012CAAPaxSurveyReport.pdf) shows that an estimated 262,000 of MAN's departing pax in 2012 were making connections to an International destination. And 167,000 were making connections to a a Domestic destination.

Presumably the number of pax connecting Int-Int would be substantially less than the 262,000, as I imagine that a lot of these pax are connecting off Domestic flights (eg FlyBe).

Not a complete answer by any means but I hope it helps.

[viscount702]

FR

I don't know if FR will base more than 6 aircraft at MAN in Summer 2014. 8 has been suggested recently and some new destination but nothing showing yet on the Web timetable. What I have detected are changes over the summer which I believe are new and have only shown up in the last week and are not things FR have done in the past from MAN.

ie
extra CFU in August
reduction to CRL in Mid summer.
time changes during the summer.that is the Thursday BLQ which is non based comes in at the same time all summer but departs back at different times meaning the aircraft could do a flight to somewhere else in between ie TUF or somewhere else.

I have only checked a few flights but will wait to see if there are new destinations before doing an update.

[LAX_LHR]

Ryanair:

The schedules at one point were showing enough early starts to warrant a 7th base, and if the new routes to Zadar, Oporto and Skavsta come to fruition, as well as Tours and Katowice, then there will be plenty for the 7th based to be getting on with. Its not beyond the realms of possibility for the 7th based to be added in the next 2-3 months for a decent selling period, and give how much the schedules have been tinkered with in the last 2 weeks alone, its obvious Ryanair have a far from complete summer schedule.

I do have my reservations about 8 based aircraft, not only because the Ryanair fleet next summer is fairly stretched, but T3 next summer has the potential to be an absolute nightmare. Not only potentially 2 more based Ryanairs, but, more non-based Ryanair movements, US airways joining the rush hour fun (The US746/747 B757 to Charlotte is on the ground for 5 hours no less!!) and possible extra based flybe to cover flights to destinations from MAN that are no longer a base.

I for one will be avoiding any travel that takes me through Terminal 3 next year, it doesn't sound like it will be fun at all.

[Skipness One Echo]

The reason I asked about intl-intl is there's yet another impediment to progress from A to B with biometric facial scans and staffed desks preventing access to domestic gates. Aside from a few Oneworld Finnair to AA connections, who is all this for?

I used to love the Manchester domestic pier, it was a haven of peace once. The US B757 wil be towed off stand surely, can 56-58 take a B757 or are they going to need a long journey?

[seahawks]

Stands 56-58 max size b738/a320

[BasilBush]

Skipness, I thought that might be the reason for your question. I suspect the number of such connections is tiny, and certainly not worth the extra screening process that all T3 pax now have to go through.

[Bagso]

Condor Versus Thomas Cook.

Good news / Bad news.

Very odd but the Condor website now shows a wide range of Flybe connections via Manchester to the various destinations on the Thomas Cook long haul network.

Eg Aberdeen, Belfast , Exeter, Glasgow, Edinburgh, IOM, Southampton

BUT try as I might I cannot find same connectivity on the Thomas Cook website, which is probably thee more obvious website that potential UK passengers might use.

ideas on a postcard anybody ?

[viscount702]

The Thomas Cook website is now total cr** as I posted a little while back.

[j636]

MAN managed 1 divert tonight were asked for 1 or 2 more but no joy.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

But they did take 3 DUB diversions this morning; DAL176, UAL23 and EY45.

[Ian Brooks]

Yes a B763, B752 and B773 plus the B772 of Austrian in for a lick of paint

Ian

[jubilee]

Also this morning from Dublin,

Emirates, Turkish on approach now.
J

[euromanxdude]

Plus a flybe dash LGW-IOM diverted into MAN due to wx

[LAX_LHR]

Manchester-Dublin now seeing the following confirmed on GDS:

Aer Lingus: 5 daily every day

Ryanair up to 5 daily on certain days

[LAX_LHR]

Ryanair to Katowice has now made it into bookable GDS in Summer 2014 on Wednesday and Sunday (out at 1530 back 2110).

Still no sign of Tours, however.

[Skipness One Echo]

I suspect the number of such connections is tiny, and certainly not worth the extra screening process that all T3 pax now have to go through.
Exactly right, Finnair are in Terminal One so any Oneworld connections demand a terminal change (!) Does Manchester offer a Flight Connections facility like LHR/LGW without clearing customs?

[Bagso]

ALL

Is there anybody on here with a firm grasp of airport/airline route operations ?

Given their pre disposition to sensible discussion Skippy/ Suzeman/ LAX come to mind.

I'm curious if you were head of Marketing how would you go about maximising publicisity for the new SAUDIA service out of Manchester.

In the teeth of better connections / frequency / and even aircraft type if we include A380 and with competition fierce re MEBs, how would an airline with much narrower USPs than the opposition best go about publicising such a route ?

In terms of Press Release there must be considerable opportunities to mine ?

Regional Chambers Of Commerce in both Countries
Expat Community
Trade Forums
Religious Forums (Pilgrim visits to Mecca MUST surely provide opportunities?
Freight Agents
Major exporters to the target destination eg BAe
Travel Agencies
MAG website
Airline Route Portals
etc

Where might those tasked with making the route more widely known target resources to maximise publicity and in what format ?

Also should MAG leave this entirely to the airline as has been mentioned in some quarters or simply leave them, the airline to sink or swim ?

Ps Skippy, I will fall on my sword re that BA747 !

[BasilBush]

Bagso, I have heard that MAG has separate marketing teams responsible for low-cost airlines and full-service carriers. The head of the LCC team is regarded as very competent. The head of the full-service team is, I understand, not so highly regarded. I am being diplomatic here, with due respect to the fact that it is the season of goodwill.

So Bagso, I am afraid that you do indeed have a point.

[LAX_LHR]

Whilst advertising never hurts an airline, and most are in need of at least a press release, I doubt Saudia will be desperate to get the message out on al levels.

Tickets for them are usually sold through independent travel agents (like those you find on the curry mile), and potential 'business' seats may have already been informed via emails. Also the main driver for this route is cargo, and as long as that keeps coming then the route should be reasonably safe.

Any extra exposure may well be just bonus material to them, but I don't expect much advertising of the Jeddah route.

[DomyDom]

rutankrd,

There are some resorts e.g. Kalkan, Turunc Bay, Sulimeye etc. in the Dalaman catchment area that attract some pretty high end tourists. Exclusive Escapes used to offer a Business Class option to Dalaman on a chartered BMI airbus from Manchester. This option ceased when BMI stopped operating, however when I used the service Business Class was full. In fact they still apologise for not offering the Business Class service from MAN unlike STN due to aircraft availability. Also it may be some time since you visited Dalaman airport but frommemeory the new terminal was pretty state of the art. They also have a dedicated VIP terminal for Business Class passengers. From experience I think that Turkish Airlines would have little difficulty filling a flight including with premium pax.

Hope this helps , DomyDom

[Suzeman]

LAX is quite right that seats will be sold mostly to the ethnic markets via independent agents. PIA once scheduled an extra 747 into MAN at 48 hours notice and it was full when it went out! That's how it works.

Sure there will have been other contacts too using some of the channels you mentioned.

[Ringwayman]

SV put out releases some months before their Toronto and Madrid services commenced. It's just odd that you can see their cargo manager quoted in an interview about "Manchester will start in April" when there's no information on their website / social media pages... and with us being a secondary market and "handicapped" by the "London departures only" mentality for such services, might it not be prudent to stick a line or two acknowledging the existence of these services? How many seats have actually been sold so far or are they really more interested in getting the cargo hold full and any passengers carried will be considered a bonus?

[Bagso]

Perish the thought that somebody ....please anybody (?), at a certain airport spots the start date and says to hell with it and suggests deluging the media with a Press Release or 2 in January !

Whilst YES it is down to the airline, "any port in a storm" comes to mind !

But given your last missive maybe best we should not get our hopes up Lord Basil !

Ps A Preemptive strike of the gong before the New Years Queens honours are released your Lordship!

Actually on a theme of awards maybe there should be one for "Supreme Inactivity in the face of Overwhelming Common Sense".

[Bagso]

........the management may be forgiven for wondering if they might have spent a little more time and effort tub thumping the case for the ‘home’ airport at Manchester, which already has two runways, oodles of spare capacity and the sort of traffic mix that many other airport operators can only dream of !


.............the Commission failed to honour its own remit of taking a “UK-wide perspective,” and “focusing disproportionately on the southeast, further entrenching the dominance of the southeast economy to the detriment of the growth of the rest of the UK.



Perish the thought !

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

[LAX_LHR]

Manchester's PR section is a little bit strange. A tale of 2 routes.

Ryanair to Bolgna and Saudia to Jeddah. Both start April 1st.

Ryanair to Bologna has had a few PR releases, and appears in the 'new routes' section of the MAN website. It does not appear in the timetable yet.

Saudia to Jeddah, no PR release as such yet, does not appear in the 'new routes' section but does appear in the timetable section.

Any chance someone at MAN could join all the dots together to make 2 coherent sets of information?

[Mr A Tis]

I wonder if anyone has been able to book on Air Canada Rouge short season flight?
I've tried. Booking direct with AC website, shows flights available-but rejects payment.
Going via agents like expedia, ebookers, STA etc only route me via LHR, CDG or BRU & when specifically asked for flights from MAN with AC, shows as no flights available - which of course is incorrect.

[rutankrd]

Try the Rouge portal.

Here

Air Canada Rouge (http://www.aircanada.com/rouge)

Or you know what pick up that thing called phone and speak to a human !

Air Canada Reservations

Tel.: 0871 220 1111 (Calls cost 10p per minute plus network extras)
Fax: +44 208 750 8495
Mon. - Fri.: 08:00 - 18:00
Sat.: 08:00 - 16:00
Sun.: 07:00 - 15:00

These organic blobs tend/try to be helpful and have access to a variety of fares I do believe.

They can even take a credit/debit card number and e-mailing address

[Mr A Tis]

Thanks for your advice, guess what, Ive already tried your approach thanks.

I've tried the human approach - routed to a call centre, On a noisy dreadful line, I would guess in India. Who offered to book for me- but with fares £400 more than the on line fare.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Try the Rouge portal.

Here

Air Canada Rouge


If you'd tried to yourself before your slightly barbed post, you would have discovered the Rouge portal takes you straight back to the Air Canada portal for all reservations, and as Mr A Tis has already said:

I've tried. Booking direct with AC website, shows flights available-but rejects payment.

[Fairdealfrank]

........the management may be forgiven for wondering if they might have spent a little more time and effort tub thumping the case for the ‘home’ airport at Manchester, which already has two runways, oodles of spare capacity and the sort of traffic mix that many other airport operators can only dream of !


.............the Commission failed to honour its own remit of taking a “UK-wide perspective,” and “focusing disproportionately on the southeast, further entrenching the dominance of the southeast economy to the detriment of the growth of the rest of the UK.




Where exactly are the capacity constraints at Ringway?! There's nothing there for Davies to look at. Ditto Stansted and Elmdon.

Bear in mind that Ringway, unlike Heathrow, has already doubled its rwy capacity.

The only constraints at Ringway (apart from one or two restrictive bi-laterals) is a belief that carriers can't make sufficient money there. Persuading them otherwise is not the job of the Commission.

The Commission has, rightly, concentrated on the part of the UK that has severe rwy capacity problems. All it needs to do now is recommend 2 more rwys at Heathrow and its "job done".


I wonder if anyone has been able to book on Air Canada Rouge short season flight?
I've tried. Booking direct with AC website, shows flights available-but rejects payment.
Going via agents like expedia, ebookers, STA etc only route me via LHR, CDG or BRU & when specifically asked for flights from MAN with AC, shows as no flights available - which of course is incorrect.



Thanks for your advice, guess what, Ive already tried your approach thanks.

I've tried the human approach - routed to a call centre, On a noisy dreadful line, I would guess in India. Who offered to book for me- but with fares £400 more than the on line fare. In the end I have given up & will not be booking on Rouge. Its 100% hopeless.


In these circumstances it's best to do it the old-fashioned way: use the services of a specialist travel agent.

[Bagso]

FairDealFrank

Those quotes I highlighted are from "within" the CAPA analysis, quite a well respected organisation, one which hosted IAG CEO last month !

I think the comments they are making is why call it a UK wide review if its all about same London and the same old vested interests running the show ?

As for using a "specialist travel agency" ?

Well lets listen in to the mindset of what Mr and Mrs Nicebutdim, might do ?

Having feasted on the last of the Turkey thoughts turn to holidays !

A) Hey nothing on TV, shall we look at holidays ?

B) Yes why not, I fancy Canada, how about Toronto, have a look on the net, we live near Manchester, its a big airport so maybe there are some flights from there, I know you can fly to London and even Spain and some places in Europe.

A) look i'll put in Manchester - Toronto low cost,
wow so many flight options, Ryanair must be here somewhere, ah hang on look you can fly with Air France, they are good, I think, and that Lufthansa

A)are they German ?

B).....oh look even better, British Airways, now they fly all over the World from Manchester.

A) that's odd says it's 1 stop Via FRA, wonder what that means and this one says Via BRU

B) flight times are about 14 hours dear, is that OK?

A) hmmm not sure, I know lets pop into that nice travel agency on the high street tomorrow and compare prices.

Next day

A) Hello we want to book a low cost flight to Toronto and fly from Manchester
B) ah sorry no flights from there, but you can fly from London ?
A) oh do we
B) yes i'm afraid so, been doing this for 25 years, now let me have a look for you........


Fiction...maybe but a darn site nearer the truth !

[Skipness One Echo]

has already doubled its rwy capacity.
They upped the capacity but it's not been doubled as far as I know. The runways are too close together and Runway 2 has no full length taxiway.
btw the Air Canada Rouge loco is, pretty far from cheap!!!

[Ian Brooks]

Parallel taxiway only needed if you land on 23L or takeoff 05R otherwise not
needed, yes runways are close but when sequenced by atc is quite high useage, problems occur when there is lowviz but that happens everywhere

Ian

[roverman]

MAN's close parallel runways give you in effect 1.5 runways, not twice the single runway capacity. This is due the need to facilitate crossing of 05L/23R, and the SIDs which mostly follow the same initial routing off 23L. It certainly can't be compared to LHR's wider-spaced runways which can achieve more or less double the single-runway throughput. MAN is also constrained by the northside taxiways which are still set out around the old three-runway WW2 layout.

[LN-KGL]

You can also add to that the second runway can't be used parts of the day due to a noise agreement the neighbor community. It doesn't stop with that, there is also the single line operation in to and out from Terminal 2 and the back side of Terminal 1 Pier C. This isn't a large problem during the winter season, but come summer with the double amount of passengers being pressed through the terminals then MAN got a problem. FlightStats monthly on time reports this summer was really bad reading for MAN, and only some Moscow airports and Istanbul showed poorer performance than MAN.

[BasilBush]

Yes, but even if you only regard it as half a runway it has substantially increased MAN's capacity at an affordable cost.

I can't help thinking that LGW and STN should have focused on similarly incremental development, rather than persisting with multi-billion pound schemes that their airline customers will never be prepared to pay for.

[LAX_LHR]

Fair play to you LN-KGL. No matter the subject you are determined to get a point across that MAN has appalling punctuality. Seems to be your specialist subject.

[LN-KGL]

Am I not true LAX-LHR? The FlightStats reports may offer both an explanation and also hope for better times. In November only 64.0% of the flights departing from MAN was on-time (on-time = before schedule to 15 minutes after schedule) and this month MAN ended up on 31st place among the 35 largest European airports. Best airport in November was Hamburg (HAM) with a punctuality of 90.7%. MAN had 23.7% of its departures in the "late" bracket (more than 15 minutes and less than 30 minutes). I would say a very large share of these "late" could easily have been moved inside the "on-time" bracket had all parties and facilities at MAN performed as they should do. I don't want to point at any single source to this low performance, but clearly every party at MAN has to improve to make MAN more attractive for its customers (passengers and airlines).

[BasilBush]

LN-KGL makes a fair point. Speaking personally I have given up taking the morning Swiss flight out of MAN to ZRH as the handler always fails to turn the inbound flight round in anything like the scheduled 35/40 mins. It's rare for the flight to leave under 30 mins late, which makes connections through ZRH very risky.

[TSR2]

Surely it's the arrival time at destination that matters most to passengers.

Personally never experienced any significant 'late' departure from Manchester that was the result of anyone other than the airline.
In fact, I remember a Captain delaying departure of a Virgin flight from Orlando by 1 hour due to strong winds, and still had to hold at Manchester as the earliest arrival time was 6am (according to the Captain) and that was 1hour 20mins early.

[North West]

........the management may be forgiven for wondering if they might have spent a little more time and effort tub thumping the case for the ‘home’ airport at Manchester, which already has two runways, oodles of spare capacity and the sort of traffic mix that many other airport operators can only dream of !


I'm still not clear what case they should have made. The capacity is in place so the only angle I think they could have looked to play is to persuade Davies to investigate options to artificially distort the market. This is not an attractive option as far as the 'home airport' is concerned because MAN has more to loose from market distortion than it stands to gain. I'm pretty sure it's in the "don't even go there" box which means there's not a lot else left to say to Mr Davies in respect of MAN.

[Suzeman]

You can also add to that the second runway can't be used parts of the day due to a noise agreement the neighbor community

Incorrect LN-KGL. As a professional analyst (or so I believe?) I would have thought you would have gone to the bother of checking a few facts first as I did in a few minutes....:ugh:

The runway can be used all the time during the day if necessary. The agreement is not to use it at night (2200-0600) unless the original runway is closed for planned maintenance (in which case the airport must advertise this fact well in advance in the local press) or in a tactical emergency situation eg a disabled aircraft on 05L/23R

Here's the statement from the Environmental Plan

We operate both runways during the day, with landings on one and departures on the other. Where possible, aircraft land over Stockport and take off over Cheshire. During periods of easterly winds and some air traffic
control conditions, this can be reversed. We will be reviewing how more flexible use of the runways might reduce disturbance to local residents. However, we will not use Runway 2 between 2200 and 0600 unless
Runway 1 is unsafe to use or is closed for repairs..

And from the runway data sheet on the website
Opening hours
Manchester Airport has operated on a 24-hour basis since the 1950s. Planning
permission for Runway 2 (23L/05R) permits use of both runways between the hours of 0600 - 2200. At night between the hours of 2200 - 0600 we usually* revert to single runway operations based on Runway 1 (23R/05L).

In practice we only operate both runways when we require the capacity to meet the high airline/public demand to arrive and depart aircraft. At present we use both runways in the morning and then again in the later afternoon and evening. We return to single runway operations based upon Runway 1 (23R/05L)* at other times.

Predicted growth over coming years will require greater use of dual runway
operations and so the hours of operation will change.
*(Exceptions would be during emergency or planned maintenance).

So the airport chooses not to use the second runway during certain hours when capacity does not demand it. This has the benefit of minimising the environmental effects of the runway so demonstrating its good neighbour policy It also means that NATS employ less controllers than if the runway was open all daytime hours - saving on the contract price.

The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here
Airport Coordination Limited - Reports/Statistics - Manchester Airport (http://www.acl-uk.org/reportsStatistics.aspx?id=98&subjectId=45)

And here's this summer's upcoming capacity declaration

http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/MAN%20Capacity%20Declaration%20Summer%202014.pdf

Hope this wealth of information does not mean you will have to re-analyse everything :E

As mentioned by the airport the hours will be extended again as traffic builds up. If the opening hours are significantly extended, this will require careful planning and advance notice to ensure that sufficient validated controllers are available.

FlightStats monthly on time reports this summer was really bad reading for MAN
Where can we find this? What is the source of their information?

And did it tell you what were the causes of delay such as used by Eurocontrol?
ATC Capacity, Weather, Special Event,ATC Staffing, Aerodrome Capacity,ATC Routeings, Accident / Incident,De-Icing, Equipment non-ATC
or by IATA?
http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/official-documents/facts-and-figures/coda-reports/standard-iata-delay-codes-ahm730.pdf

I think we should be told.

Fair Deal Frank

As has already been pointed out to you, the Commission has failed to look at issues with a UK wide perspective - see their terms of reference below taken from here
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/membership-and-terms-of-reference-of-the-airports-commission

The commission’s terms of reference will be as follows:

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

It should maintain a UK-wide perspective, taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.

It should engage openly with interested parties and members of the public, providing opportunities to submit evidence and proposals and to set out views relevant to its work.

It should seek to engage with a range of stakeholders, including with local and devolved government as well as the opposition, to build consensus in support of its approach and recommendations.


Whilst the emphasis quite rightly was on the South East, there is nothing in there to help regional airports take some of the strain so that regional passengers have an option of not travelling to London. This would allow the current limited capacity in the SE, and in particular at LHR, to be used by those who really need it pending the appearance of more capacity which is certainly needed. Any contribution that regional airports could make were barely mentioned - better access and that was about it. Differential APD was dismissed (no doubt under pressure from our local MP that nice Mr Gideon Osborne..) and the opportunity to sort out the bilateral issues which still do exist was missed.

Anyway, at the end of it all, I reckon sweet FA will happen and the UK will slip further behind.

[LN-KGL]

MAN punctuality 2013:
January 56.9% http://flightstats.sightworks.net/documents/On-time-Performance-Reports/FlightStats-On-time-Performance-Report---January-2013.pdf
February 59.5% http://flightstats.sightworks.net/documents/On-time-Performance-Reports/FlightStats-On-time-Report---February-2013.pdf
March 55.4% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/FlightStats-On-time-AirlineAirport-Performance-Report-March-2013.pdf
April 58.5% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FlightStats-On-time-Airline-Airport-Performance-Report-April-2013.pdf
May 53.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FlightStats-Airline-and-Airport-On-time-Performance-Report-May-2013.pdf
June 43.7% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FlightStats-On-time-Report-June-2013-.pdf
July 46.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/FlightStats-On-time-Report-July-2013-.pdf
August 52.3% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FlightStats-On-time-Report-August-2013.pdf
September 50.7% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/FlightStats-On-time-Report-September-2013-7.pdf
October 59.9% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/FlightStats-On-time-Report-October-2013-1.pdf
November 64.0% http://cms.flightstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FlightStats-On-time-Report-November-2013-2.pdf

[Ringwayman]

Let's see what the CAA says for January 2013 with these "early to up to 15 minutes late" stats:


EDI 85.54%
GLA 84.55%
LCY 82.64%
STN 79.30%
BHX 77.70%
LGW 76.45%
LTN 75.57%
MAN 73.08%
NCL 72.67%
LHR 70.97%


Not brilliant but nowhere near how bad as flightstats portrays. It couldn't be that flightstats doesn't include ALL airlines unlike the CAA? If they don't, why should we give any credence to them

[Bagso]

The POINT Fair Deal Frank is don't call it a UK wide enquiry if it doesn't actually include ...er The UK !

As Suzeman points out it is not that long ago that the last Government White paper suggested Manchester as a gateway international airport, my God in this review you would be forgiven for thinking Manchester even exists !

Notional increases in pax throughput disguise the real damage APD is doing, at least in 2014 we can all catch a high frequency shuttle to Dublin as well as Heathrow if we want to get to the USA.

Bilateral issues conveniently swept under the carpet, one incidentally not quite as large as the one which will end up hiding the review as a whole !

[LN-KGL]

Ringwayman, FlightStats airport part only include departures and charter flights/other non-scheduled are excluded. In other words, if you look at both the CAA numbers and FlightStats together - the only conclusion I can draw from this is: a large share of flights in to MAN are on schedule, but many of these ends up between 15 and 30 minutes late on departure.

[Fairdealfrank]

They upped the capacity but it's not been doubled as far as I know. The runways are too close together and Runway 2 has no full length taxiway.
btw the Air Canada Rouge loco is, pretty far from cheap!!!
　
　
　

MAN's close parallel runways give you in effect 1.5 runways, not twice the single runway capacity. This is due the need to facilitate crossing of 05L/23R, and the SIDs which mostly follow the same initial routing off 23L. It certainly can't be compared to LHR's wider-spaced runways which can achieve more or less double the single-runway throughput. MAN is also constrained by the northside taxiways which are still set out around the old three-runway WW2 layout.
　
　
　
Yes, but even if you only regard it as half a runway it has substantially increased MAN's capacity at an affordable cost.

I can't help thinking that LGW and STN should have focused on similarly incremental development, rather than persisting with multi-billion pound schemes that their airline customers will never be prepared to pay for. 　
　

So the airport chooses not to use the second runway during certain hours when capacity does not demand it. This has the benefit of minimising the environmental effects of the runway so demonstrating its good neighbour policy It also means that NATS employ less controllers than if the runway was open all daytime hours - saving on the contract price.

The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here




No matter how it is spun, it cannot be suggested that Ringway is operating anywhere near capacity, so it is hardly going to be a priority for extra rwys. Pretty obvious really.

If carriers can be convinced that there is money to be made at Ringway, they will be there. Would love to see it, but this is not the job of the Commission.

So what should the Commission to do? It can't recommend that the government directs carriers to operate to/from Ringway instead of Heathrow. Pax, and therefore carriers, want to use Heathrow.

Directing carriers and routes away from Heathrow was tried in the 1970s and 1980s when Heathrow was declared "full". At that time Gatwick was the recipient airport under the so-called "second force" policy, with longhaul routes from West Africa and South America (and others) transferred from Heathrow to Gatwick and from BOAC to BUA later BCAL. The end result was the failure of BCAL.

Are we seriously suggesting that the Commission recommends the government to do a U-turn on its free market, open skies and private sector-run aviation industry, and revive the "second force" policy and base it on Ringway this time?

Under our system, it is not possible to artificially create Heathrow levels of connectivity and premium business at other UK airports. That being the case, what exactly is Davies supposed to have done with reference to Ringway?

Given the remit, clearly, the decision to concentrate on Heathrow and Gatwick was correct. The key words in its terms of reference are "hub", "additional" and "capacity".

[Fairdealfrank]

They upped the capacity but it's not been doubled as far as I know. The runways are too close together and Runway 2 has no full length taxiway.
btw the Air Canada Rouge loco is, pretty far from cheap!!!
　
　
　

MAN's close parallel runways give you in effect 1.5 runways, not twice the single runway capacity. This is due the need to facilitate crossing of 05L/23R, and the SIDs which mostly follow the same initial routing off 23L. It certainly can't be compared to LHR's wider-spaced runways which can achieve more or less double the single-runway throughput. MAN is also constrained by the northside taxiways which are still set out around the old three-runway WW2 layout.
　
　
　
Yes, but even if you only regard it as half a runway it has substantially increased MAN's capacity at an affordable cost.

I can't help thinking that LGW and STN should have focused on similarly incremental development, rather than persisting with multi-billion pound schemes that their airline customers will never be prepared to pay for. 　
　

So the airport chooses not to use the second runway during certain hours when capacity does not demand it. This has the benefit of minimising the environmental effects of the runway so demonstrating its good neighbour policy It also means that NATS employ less controllers than if the runway was open all daytime hours - saving on the contract price.

The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here



No matter how it is spun, it cannot be suggested that Ringway is operating anywhere near capacity, so it is hardly going to be a priority for extra rwys. Pretty obvious really.

If carriers can be convinced that there is money to be made at Ringway, they will be there. Would love to see it, but this is not the job of the Commission.

So what should the Commission to do? It can't recommend that the government directs carriers to operate to/from Ringway to relieve Heathrow overcrowding. Pax, and therefore carriers, want to use Heathrow.

Directing carriers and routes away from Heathrow was tried in the 1970s and 1980s when Heathrow was declared "full". At that time Gatwick was the recipient airport under the so-called "second force" policy, with longhaul routes from West Africa and South America (and others) transferred from Heathrow to Gatwick and from BOAC to BUA later BCAL. The end result was the failure of BCAL. Virgin survived because it was able to transfer to Heathrow.

Are we seriously suggesting that the Commission recommends the government to do a U-turn on its free market, open skies and private sector-run aviation industry, and revive the "second force" policy and base it on Ringway this time?

Under our system, it is not possible to artificially create Heathrow levels of connectivity and premium business at other UK airports. That being the case, what exactly is Davies supposed to have recommended with reference to Ringway?

Given the remit, clearly, the decision to concentrate on Heathrow and Gatwick was correct. The key words in its terms of reference are "hub", "additional" and "capacity".

[Bagso]

If the report was termed " A Review Of Capacity Contraints in the South East" you would have a point Frank, BUT it wasn't Or did I miss something ?

Certainly I was given the impression in respect of the submissions it was a route and branch review of UK wide airport policy !

Why on earth were hearings held in Manchester ?

Why did those collecting evidence provide submissions about the viability of Tokyo and Hong Kong flights in respect of flights from Manchester, why was so much time spent on this ?

Why was the subject of bilaterals discussed, by a number of MPs who raised this no fewer than 3 or 4 times, it its not an issue why was it mentioned.

Why was the introduction of US preclearance at Manchester as a way of stimulating growth discussed ?

None of these ended up anywhere near the report !

As you say Frank Government can only provide a framework in which airlines operate, they cannot dictate policy, there could and should however have been a bit more creativity in this regard.

Manchester is at the epicentre of the UK surrounded by the UKs 5 largest cities, it has thee best road and rail connections , it has better connectivity to the rest of the UK in terms of domestic air feed than LHR and LGW and as pointed out has capacity, if this was Germany they would come up with a methodology to capitalise on those benefits because they think differently, I defy anybody to suggest otherwise, sadly we don't, same old mindset, same old thinking ! Once again Manchester was lumped in as a irrelevance, a meaningless "regional airport", that in essence was the gist of the report.

To a certain degree those that initially pressed the case on behalf Manchester are equally culpable, as soon as the STN deal went through the arguments that the CAPA analysts have remarked on completely vanished, it was as though Manchester never existed. The tiller was swung toward Essex but the boat sank !

BUT lets be clear Nobody "Up North" Is suggesting that traffic is forced away from London far from it I have long since argued London needs I airport , 5 runways, but what we have now is nothing short of shambolic, 5 major airports all vying for the same airspace and all around the M25. 1 new runway will not solve the problems that this has created.

Given the complete bind that airport policy is now in I thought there would have been some really creative thinking in this report on how better to try and manage the situation.

In this respect it was an utter and abject failure.

[LAX_LHR]

Ringwayman, FlightStats airport part only include departures and charter
flights/other non-scheduled are excluded. In other words, if you look at both
the CAA numbers and FlightStats together - the only conclusion I can draw from this is: a large share of flights in to MAN are on schedule, but many of these ends up between 15 and 30 minutes late on departure.


But the very simple point is that the CAA gives a much better spectrum for the OTP stat, you yourself have admitted that flightstats does not give the full picture, not that it ever stops you trying to paint MAN in such a gloomy light whenever possible.

The simple fact is, the majority of MAN's 'bad punctuality' comes on the 1-15 minute category. I, and no doubt the vast majority of passengers could not care less if a flight leaves within this time frame. In the grand scheme of things 15 minutes is nothing, and aircraft can usually make up the time en route.

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

In other new, airlineroute is reporting TAP MAN-LIS is 12 weekly this summer, but, I can still only find 11 weekly loaded. Saturday was initially loaded as double daily to make the 12 weekly but as of yet has not been re-loaded if this is where the 12th weekly flight will be.

[Skipness One Echo]

surrounded by the UKs 5 largest cities, it has thee best road and rail connections , it has better connectivity to the rest of the UK in terms of domestic air feed than LHR and LGW and as pointed out has capacity, if this was Germany they would come up with a methodology to capitalise on those benefits because they think differently, I defy anybody to suggest otherwise,
All excellent points and I won't argue. The German state is not nearly as skewed to one over inflated rich mans property bubble however. Manchester suffers only in it's proximity to London which means it is often overlooked. In terms of US Pre-clearance, it would only make sense in having it in Terminal 2 with American moving back over, this is why they don't have it at LHR as US flights depart from numerous terminals.

Manchester is at the epicentre of the UK
This bit's misleading.....

In terms of delays, the taxiway layout remains decidely sub optimal, especially in terms of getting to and from T2, coupled with the fact that on departures, too much of the traffic is going the same way to make the most use of runway capacity.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

To be fair, Fairdealfrank, I have not seen any contributor on PPRuNe argue that those representing the interests of MAN should have argued for additional runway(s) here or for air services to be forcibly relocated from London to this airport. Such issues never arose and I doubt that any here would seriously advocate them.

What thread contributors have advocated is greater use of the carrot (not use of the stick). Measures such as the rewriting of restrictive bilaterals which 'force' airlines to avoid considering MAN, the introduction of US departure pre-clearance at MAN, and a rethink of the APD regime which disadvantages MAN (and the UK generally) in favour of overseas competitors such as DUB, MXP, BRU and AMS. I'm sure many here would have appreciated some visible lobbying in favour of measures such as these by MAG.

Having said all that, I don't think that any here have argued against the provision of additional runway capacity in the SE which is sorely needed. Whether or not that is ultimately provided is an issue for the politicians, but that is a different debate altogether. What we are keen to see up here is the removal of barriers which inhibit MAN's innate growth potential within its own market, and hence its ability to contribute fully to the national capacity solution. Unfortunately, from the outside, it was difficult to perceive any significant lobbying in favour of such measures by MAG and other interested parties which could have influenced the debate.

[ACCMan]

Neither FlightStats or the CAA provide a true on-time performance figure. As has been mentioned FlightStats do not have 100% data coverage of all flights. The CAA's data is also flawed as they use a fixed average taxi time (8 mins at MAN) to calculate an assumed departure time.

We all know there is a mass of taxi time variance between say T3 and 23R and the far end of T2 to 05L. The CAA ia aware of this, however their defence is this that this is the only way they can collate data from all UK airfields to a common standard. This is why their published data for any large airport (LHR/LGW/MAN/STN etc) will always be inaccurate.

For the record, true OTP for MAN in Nov was 86.7% and for the calender year of 2013 - 81.4%.

Someone mentioned about MAN-ZRH. Yes this is one of the worst performing city pairs, however it is nothing to do with MAN. Operational runway restrictions at ZRH create significant destination ATFM delay for which there is no avoidance.

[hammerb32]

The problem with much of what is being suggested is that you will create an uneven playing field, the owners of LHR will legally challenge any move to do things like reducing APD outside of London, not having access to US pre-clearence, when they challenge they will win without doubt.

Not sure how you can think MAN is the best connected airport in terms of road and rail in the UK, I would suggest it's one of the worst, it's not on a mainline rail route, not connected to a major motorway, for me it's a right pain to get to and a last resort.

The report for states the obvious, LHR is the main UK gateway, a third runway is a must and there is no viable alternative to this. There is a ton of capacity at MAN, there is a ton at BHX, no airline is thinking of making meaningful use of this in terms of relieving the pressure at LHR. Without a commercial will or want to use it there is little any white paper or government initiative can do. The real headline is how LHR has managed to reach 99% capacity and there is still no plan to do anything concrete about it.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

hammerb32 -

Not on a major motorway? What is that running alongside the Western perimeter? Not on a mainline railroute? Did you miss the rail hub located between the terminals which is the start-point for services through Manchester to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Newcastle (via Leeds, York), Blackpool, Liverpool, Southport, Cleethorpes (via Sheffield), and southwards to Crewe and beyond?

Could it be that you are posting with an agenda? Don't confuse your obvious dislike of MAN with the facts.

[Crazy Voyager]

Can someone give me a history lesson?

London is the main international/long-haul hub of the UK, has an attempt been made by an airline to establish a longhaul operation outside of London? What happened with that? I have heard that BA used to have a lot of MAN activity, why was that cancelled?

The point I'm trying to make is that if there is capacity at MAN, why is it not a longhaul hub? Flybe seem to use MAN as a hub but this is for domestic and shorthaul traffic, when it comes to longhaul carriers instead use feeders. I doubt it's coincidence that BA, KLM, LH, SN etc all have an early morning flight going out to their main longhaul hubs.

If all the capacity is available, at an airport that supposedly has cheap handling costs and is in a good geographic location, why is it not used as a longhaul hub? Has it ever been attempted?

[hammerb32]

Shed, the M56 is not a major motorway, it's connected to the M6 and M60 so in essence is connected to 1 major motorway and 1 overgrown ring road. As for the rail hub, how many services to these places you mention run with no changes? I have no dis-like for MAN, just have a dis-like of getting to it, having worked in Stretford for a year I'm pretty well versed in the commute.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

"Not sure how you can think MAN is the best connected airport in terms of road and rail in the UK, I would suggest it's one of the worst, it's not on a mainline rail route, not connected to a major motorway, for me it's a right pain to get to and a last resort."

Has to be the stupidest comment I've ever read, we only have the M60, M56, Train line, Metrolink, and a well served bus station, you utter clown.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Erm … ALL the rail destinations mentioned require no changes from Manchester Airport. As for the motorway, once you have entered it via one of Manchester Airport's two designated junctions (one cargo, one pax terminals) you can drive to most regions of Britain without exiting the motorway network. You seem to be less 'well versed' than you think!

By the way, I inadvertently missed out rail services to Barrow-in-Furness and the Lake District from my earlier list.

[North West]

The commissions view on APD 'congestion charging' in respect of MAN was as follows

The analysis suggested that a congestion charge would result in an overall increase in the number of flights out of regional airports. As Figure 4.6 shows, Birmingham, Luton and Stansted would be the main beneficiaries of this policy. Manchester would not benefit to the same extent, as newly energised regional competitors would draw traffic away from it.

A fact well understood and appreciated by the management at MAG, less so on here on seems. Any move to distort the market via APD is a bad thing for MAN because it relies disproportinatly on traffic coming in from outside of its core catchment area. The moment you start saying, let's create a framework to "encourage" 3 or 4 of the LHR - JFK services to move to MAN then in parallel you open up the opportunity for Blackpool or Liverpool or Leeds or Doncaster to say, we should have 20 of the weekly PMI flights or whatever. Dull as they may be to the fans of exotic tail fins and long haul destinations on the screens, the weekly exodus to the likes of PMI is where the money is. Filling these flights with folks from outside of GM is what fills the car parks and generates hotel nights and it's big business. The biggest threat to MAN's profitability is customers from outside of GM using their own airports instead of Ringway. You shouldn't be surprised at all that the management kept very quiet indeed about the subject. Same reason the management at BRS had on coronary when proposals for different rates of APD in CWL were mentioned.

As for the bilateral thing, is it really a big issue anymore. Why are the airlines not chomping at the bit on this one if it is preventing money to be made ?

[rutankrd]

Shed, the M56 is not a major motorway, it's connected to the M6 and M60 so in essence is connected to 1 major motorway and 1 overgrown ring road. As for the rail hub, how many services to these places you mention run with no changes? I have no dis-like for MAN, just have a dis-like of getting to it, having worked in Stretford for a year I'm pretty well versed in the commute.

As to the rail question ALL are single train services , now admittedly platform 13/14 at Piccadilly are over crowded and thats a long standing issue but not of the airports making and is addressed as part of the Northern Hub railway programme.

And tell me its less of a mare on the M42 - Yeah right !

As for the general issue like many particularly Fred of Middlesex they are missing the point re LHR . Almost all the Manchester contributors acknowledge the need for the third runway however what we also want is a levelled playing field -those pesky bi-laterals dealt with such that Manchester (and others) can actually meet their local demands and growth potential

As for BA and historical regional operations i think there is more than enough written from both sides of the argument if you care to read and research -Again remember the effects also decimated that other airport in Birmingham.

Right now Manchester handles more than 20 million pa to more than 140 scheduled destinations in Europe/North America/Caribbean/North Africa/MiddleEast/Pakistan and Singapore with freight services to Hong Kong -this is a serious airport .

Added to which known annual boardings to Hong Kong are in excess of 140,000 and mainland China a further 127,000 and rising.
In the case of the China there are cities with similar and indeed fewer boardings (Boston USA) winning new flights where the bi-latterals allow.

On the case of Hong Kong well questions remain of why CX continue to add LHR capacity at the expense of Manchester.

[rutankrd]

A fact well understood and appreciated by the management at MAG, less so on here on seems. Any move to distort the market via APD is a bad thing for MAN because it relies disproportinatly on traffic coming in from outside of its core catchment area. The moment you start saying, let's create a framework to "encourage" 3 or 4 of the LHR - JFK services to move to MAN then in parallel you open up the opportunity for Blackpool or Liverpool or Leeds or Doncaster to say, we should have 20 of the weekly PMI flights or whatever. Dull as they may be to the fans of exotic tail fins and long haul destinations on the screens, the weekly exodus to the likes of PMI is where the money is. Filling these flights with folks from outside of GM is what fills the car parks and generates hotel nights and it's big business. The biggest threat to MAN's profitability is customers from outside of GM using their own airports instead of Ringway. You shouldn't be surprised at all that the management kept very quiet indeed about the subject. Same reason the management at BRS had on coronary when proposals for different rates of APD in CWL were mentioned.

Some salient points there for sure particularly re flexible fares operators and the competing regional airports.

MAG operations HAVE already been effecting to the tune and loss of potentially 3.5m+ boardings when they thought flexible fares operations beneath them whilst continuing to court BA !

They are not going to do that again over variable taxes.

I don't think APD will ever disappear however as with most taxes the negative impact does wain relatively quickly as it simply becomes a normal cost of business.
What is certain however is the very high rates on the longer hauls has adversely impacted the viability of regional operations far more than those from LHR where something in the region 35-38% pay nought !

I disagree with you that bi-latterals today have limited impact. They continue to have a large impact in those emerging economies UK PLC are targeting as part of the manufactured exporting lead economic rebalancing process.

[All names taken]

Interesting discussion.
But I would like to ask a specific question about the bi-laterals, about which I think a lot of hot air is spouted.
These were a problem in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had to intervene personally to allow flights to MAN by SQ and AA - which still operate to this day. The world of bi-lateral restrictions has moved on dramatically since those days.
The Question:
Can anyone provide a single example of an airline that wants to operate to Manchester (or any other airport outside London) that is being prevented from doing so by a 'bi-lateral' ??

[rutankrd]

Interesting discussion.
But I would like to ask a specific question about the bi-laterals, about which I think a lot of hot air is spouted.
These were a problem in the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had to intervene personally to allow flights to MAN by SQ and AA - which still operate to this day. The world of bi-lateral restrictions has moved on dramatically since those days.
The Question:
Can anyone provide a single example of an airline that wants to operate to Manchester (or any other airport outside London) that is being prevented from doing so by a 'bi-lateral' ??

We don't know however we do know that Cathay were scotched by the bilateral and complaints from bmi because of restrictions on UK-Russia services.

We also know that the limits on the current UK-Sino bilateral are impeding growth potential including in the London market !

True the number of markets now fully open is exponentially larger than the heady days of 1970 and 80s.

Canada/USA/EU/UAE/Morocco/Israel - all liberated and all served.

Russia renegotiated (After spat between Transaero and Easy) and now served.

I have to add i believe MAG (Well Manchester Airport) is actually well placed to see continued growth across all sectors if the UK economy actually performs anywhere near some analysts expectations.

There remains potential within the short haul arena , further/restoration of some Caribbean services and a certainty of something to China.
I also expect a resumption of Mombasa at some point.

Concerns remain India just what does MAG have to do to get someone to Delhi/Mumbai

As for Sub Sahara Africa and South America well UK PLC just struggles to do business in these areas period.

You will note i haven't mentioned the USA because frankly the market is absolutely saturated and actually distorted beyond belief out of LHR.

[All names taken]

The proposed CX via Moscow is a bit of a red herring tbh.
CX have previously run pax services to MAN and therefore already have the rights as of course do their existing regular freighters.
Had they really wanted to run from HKG to MAN at that time, they would have re-routed elsewhere other than Moscow. However they didn't.

Ultimately the answer to the MAN/HKG/CX conundrum can be found by re-arranging the following two words : World / One

[rutankrd]

Ultimately the answer to the MAN/HKG/CX conundrum can be found by re-arranging the following two words : World / One

That is a sacred cow you CAN NOT mention Oneairline (World) the influence of Watership Down or Compass House in any debate what ever :ok:

For fear of being impaled as a heretic ::(

[All names taken]

Haha, that's why I was careful not to do so :)

[spannersatcx]

The proposed CX via Moscow is a bit of a red herring tbh.
CX have previously run pax services to MAN and therefore already have the rights as of course do their existing regular freighters.
Had they really wanted to run from HKG to MAN at that time, they would have re-routed elsewhere other than Moscow. However they didn't.

Ultimately the answer to the MAN/HKG/CX conundrum can be found by re-arranging the following two words : World / One

HKG-DME-MAN was all set ready to go, things were in place then a month before it was due to start BMI objected and killed it.

It's not about HKG-MAN rites it is HKG-UK, as there are 5 pax flts to LHR and numerous freighter services to the UK, a viable alternative could not be found, or available slots to the UK. HKG-MAN would die within a year it had to tag with somewhere else and DME was the preferred option. We now have an a/c sat at DME for almost 12 hours everyday.

The reason you don't have a CX pax flt to MAN at the moment lay with BMI.

When the 350's start coming then there may be a CX pax flt to MAN and not before.

[All names taken]

So, like I said, if that flight had been about HKG-MAN a way would have been found. The fact that the HKG-DME went ahead anyway shows what CX's prime motivation was in that case (and nothing wrong with that by the way).
And without stating the obvious, since there is no BMi to object anymore, why is the plane sat on the ground in Moscow if MAN is such a prize?

As an infrequent flyer to HKG, I couldn't have imagined going via DME anyway.
A 1-stop flight is a 1-stop flight - may as well go on the A380 all the way with Emirates. Takes a bit longer but boy is it so much better than CX.

In order for that to change to the point of viability, CX would need to offer a non-stop and as you say that isn't going to happen for a while yet.

[Skipness One Echo]

That is a sacred cow you CAN NOT mention Oneairline (World) the influence of Watership Down or Compass House in any debate what ever
They're not exactly close allies, if Cathay thought they could make a go of MAN without the BA codeshare over LHR they'd stomp on BA's interests without a second thought. The lack of MAN service is a CX issue, not a BA one.

When the 350's start coming then there may be a CX pax flt to MAN and not before.
Why not launch ASAP with a B77W? Or an A340. Remind me, with five daily B77Ws on HKG-LHR, does the treaty not allow a HKG-MAN direct?

[nigel osborne]

TAP news;

Sorry if this has been covered before.. MAN-Lisbon has a slight increase from 11 to 12 weekly from July this year, reported today.

Nigel

[eggc]

Does nobody else think the dominance of the ME3 at MAN is a factor in how hard MAN finds it to attract CX/MH etc etc ? They really do have MAN sewn up with their very regular one stop services to anywhere going East. DXB will soon be the biggest destination from MAN, and that's before a 2nd daily A380, or 4th daily service from EK, or upgrades from the other 2. Why would anyone bother ??

[rutankrd]

They're not exactly close allies, if Cathay thought they could make a go of MAN without the BA codeshare over LHR they'd stomp on BA's interests without a second thought. The lack of MAN service is a CX issue, not a BA one.

I did say the last attempt was blocked after a complaint by bmi raised against the UK-Russia bilateral and also confirmed by our own CX spokes person one spanners !

As for a direct non stop absolutely allowed however spanner asserts the 77w is to much aircraft -Its certainly the case the majority are rather premium heavy even the 3 class frames of which there are only nine have almost 80 premium seats !

The 343 remains far more suited with just 26 premium across most of the dwindling fleet.

The 359 fleet will by double that of the 343 and will likely have similar premium cabins 25-35 may also have a Y+ will have far superior operating costs performance and a very handy cargo uplift.

As spanners asserts it may make the direct non stop HKG-MAN a viable consideration yet we have at least 15 more months to wait.

[rutankrd]

Does nobody else think the dominance of the ME3 at MAN is a factor in how hard MAN finds it to attract CX/MH etc etc

Of cause they have an influence - They have taken the initiative based on the geographic positioning high frequencies a competitive range of offerings - From True First Class Suites on the 388 to basic steerage at the back of high density 77Ws (EK and EY)
By the way they are not always the cheapest by any means.

However their combined effects have mainly been to damage opportunities from the Sub-continent and Australian markets.

We have answers for CX i suppose whilst the loss of KL really was inevitable as MAS are a hopeless money loosing sink- Its said they can't even make a profit on 2 daily 388s from LHR .

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

So … let me get this right. Some contributors on here - and allegedly some within MAG management - believe that our excessive APD burden should be retained because adjusting or scrapping it may sway market share in favour of other airports. Well, I've really heard it all now!

APD has been retained in the UK even as other countries including (our competitors) Ireland and the Netherlands have scrapped equivalent taxes having belatedly recognised the destruction wrought upon their aviation and tourism sectors. I contend that APD costs Great Britain more in lost trade and tourism than it brings in to the exchequer. It is a regressive tax imposed in response to flawed ideological mythology rather than economic common sense. I have always opposed its imposition and campaigned for its total abolition (though I'm not naive enough to expect any early success on that front). This idea that Manchester Airport should support the retention of APD because removing it *may* increase business at other airports slightly more than at MAN itself defies belief. Of course APD removal would increase business across the board … that is the point! The whole country would benefit, not just airports. If the MAG hierarchy is genuinely rooting for the retention of APD then I must truly despair for their sanity … but then again, these are the folks who thought massively overpaying for STN was a great idea.

Now of course I do fully understand why APD is a wonderful idea. It allows 600 or so clueless MP's to demonstrate "green credentials" to an electorate cowed by eco-extremist propoganda. Even as a crew of Global Warming Alarmists are rescued from the record-breaking Antarctic ice which they went to prove isn't actually there, we are reliably informed by the media that flatulent cows and overfilled kettles are killing the planet. And aviation … ye gods … don't even mention that evil destroyer of all things wonderful … the carbon-based lifeforms will spontaneously combust with rage! Ooops … did I mention carbon? That hideously evil element which is essential to all plant life? Sorry about that.

In fact, maybe we should lobby to keep APD. Maybe we should triple it. That should stifle growth at EMA, BHX and LPL. Which is a good thing … isn't it??? If MAG has fallen for this line of reasoning, can they please employ somebody with a brain … B42L8!!!

[North West]

So … let me get this right. Some contributors on here - and allegedly some within MAG management - believe that our excessive APD burden should be retained because adjusting or scrapping it may sway market share in favour of other airports. Well, I've really heard it all now!

Err no, you've haven't got it right. The point being made is that MAN is unwilling to campaign for differential levels of APD (or any other congestion charge mechanism) because of the risk to the business it presents. If APD was levied at a lower rate at MAN vs LHR it is highly likely there would be lower rates at, say, LPL vs MAN.

I'm pretty sure everyone in the business is in favour of a APD being removed across the board, but it is not as if there haven't been numerous campaigns from within the industry on this point - all of which have failed.

[rutankrd]

So … let me get this right. Some contributors on here - and allegedly some within MAG management - believe that our excessive APD burden should be retained because adjusting or scrapping it may sway market share in favour of other airports. Well, I've really heard it all now!

Shed if you are referring to me you have read me all wrong.

I would sooner it didn't exist and yes its has caused some damage.

Again what I said was that I would not and don't belief MAG would support a variable rate mechanism that may have unintended consequences to their bottom line.

Remember Manchester retains a small but important long haul network has been courting the LCCs and continues to support a significant range of IT services.

With a variable rate that IT and LCC business could well be lost if smaller regionals gain a benefit - Bristol has also realised this in relation to Cardiff.

UK PLC needs to reconsider the whole mechanism , however like I said and it's a truism punitive taxes tend to have a waining negative effect over time as they really do become a normal cost of doing business.

Again i'd sooner it not exist and certainly not at the levels being applied to long haul and premium travel.

Right now through what UK political party exists willing to change this -NONE

[spannersatcx]

There are simply not enough 777's to go around, although we are still getting deliveries, another one last month, they are replacing the 744's which are being scrapped.

You will see a CX 744 pax a/c on the 5th, unfortunately the flt out will be its last, being broken up. The 340, I'm lead to believe, was looked at, however the operating costs made it too expensive to operate to MAN.

If Air New Zealand had not given the 5th LHR-HKG slot to CX then it would of been highly likely that it would of been used to MAN, however CX will not look a gift horse in the mouth, win/win as far as they are concerned.

I think we've been here before and are going over old stuff. You'll just have to wait until the 350 enters service, and hope that what they say materialises!

[Skipness One Echo]

So if CX so chose, they could begin HKG-MAN asap? If the three class non F B77W is too premium heavy why not use an A343? Not sure, and I am not denying the point just trying to understand it, why it would be uneconomic.

Paid for aeroplane, of an identical type that VS prefer over the A346 to LAX/HKG/PVG when they can get away with it. If Cathay need a new generation of aeroplane before they'll re-open MAN-HKG, then the business case can't be that strong, in their view. Which seems odd given the size of the market.

I agree about EK/EY/QR squeezing others out, that's been evident for a while now.

[Fairdealfrank]

　

If the report was termed " A Review Of Capacity Contraints in the South East" you would have a point Frank, BUT it wasn't Or did I miss something ?

Certainly I was given the impression in respect of the submissions it was a route and branch review of UK wide airport policy !

Why on earth were hearings held in Manchester ?

Why did those collecting evidence provide submissions about the viability of Tokyo and Hong Kong flights in respect of flights from Manchester, why was so much time spent on this ?


Of course would be good to see direct/non-stop flights to/from Tokyo and Hong Kong, (and others) but Davies cannot magic these out of thin air. It’s for negotiations between Ringway and the airlines concerned, and if the bi-laterals are restrictive, the relevant governments.

Why was the subject of bilaterals discussed, by a number of MPs who raised this no fewer than 3 or 4 times, it its not an issue why was it mentioned.

Bilaterals are reciprocal. Generally the UK govt. favours less restrictive arrangements, even if the other country gets far more access to UK airports. Look at the deal with the UAE, for example, or the deal with the Netherlands (pre-EU open skies). The govt. is not an obstacle to increased routes to/from Ringway.

But if dealing with an overseas govt. that doesn‘t favour fewer restrictions, then restrictions will remain, irrespective of what the Commission says or thinks.

Why was the introduction of US preclearance at Manchester as a way of stimulating growth discussed ?

An excellent idea, obviously, and certainly more do-able than at Heathrow, but again, a matter for Ringway managers and the US govt. Are they prepared to pay?

None of these ended up anywhere near the report !

Perhaps because none of these addresses the problem of lack of capacity (which is at Heathrow). Extra routes/destinations at Ringway are clearly desirable, but it would not mean fewer at Heathrow. It is not “other/or”.

It really is not a difficult concept to understand.

As you say Frank Government can only provide a framework in which airlines operate, they cannot dictate policy, there could and should however have been a bit more creativity in this regard.

Manchester is at the epicentre of the UK surrounded by the UKs 5 largest cities, it has thee best road and rail connections , it has better connectivity to the rest of the UK in terms of domestic air feed than LHR and LGW and as pointed out has capacity, if this was Germany they would come up with a methodology to capitalise on those benefits because they think differently, I defy anybody to suggest otherwise, sadly we don't, same old mindset, same old thinking !

Yes, Ringway has better connectivity to the rest of the UK in terms of domestic air feed, this is because Ringway has plenty of capacity and Heathrow is full.

Once again Manchester was lumped in as a irrelevance, a meaningless "regional airport", that in essence was the gist of the report.

No it’s not. Ringway is an important part of UK aviation infrastructure, but it is not full to capacity and bursting at the seems.


To a certain degree those that initially pressed the case on behalf Manchester are equally culpable, as soon as the STN deal went through the arguments that the CAPA analysts have remarked on completely vanished, it was as though Manchester never existed. The tiller was swung toward Essex but the boat sank !


If that was the only or main reason for buying Stansted than some fouled up big time!

There is no case, more routes/destinations at Ringway is unrelated to the issue of capacity constraints at Heathrow.


BUT lets be clear Nobody "Up North" Is suggesting that traffic is forced away from London far from it I have long since argued London needs I airport , 5 runways, but what we have now is nothing short of shambolic, 5 major airports all vying for the same airspace and all around the M25.



Agreed, but at Heathrow, not on the estuary. Traffic forced out of Heathrow goes to "the usual suspects": Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris.


1 new runway will not solve the problems that this has created.


Correct, but two more rwys in the right place (Heathrow) will help a great deal.

Given the complete bind that airport policy is now in I thought there would have been some really creative thinking in this report on how better to try and manage the situation.

In this respect it was an utter and abject failure.


There is a limit to what they can recommend, in the real world, it had to be Heathrow expansion.

[Fairdealfrank]

What thread contributors have advocated is greater use of the carrot (not use of the stick). Measures such as the rewriting of restrictive bilaterals which 'force' airlines to avoid considering MAN, the introduction of US departure pre-clearance at MAN, and a rethink of the APD regime which disadvantages MAN (and the UK generally) in favour of overseas competitors such as DUB, MXP, BRU and AMS. I'm sure many here would have appreciated some visible lobbying in favour of measures such as these by MAG.

Agreed, but how is any of this within the remit of the Commission? How does any of this address lack of capacity at Heathrow (which is the issue)?

At the risk of being repititive and boring, what will attract services to Ringway is a belief by carriers that there is sufficient premium business, that there is sufficient connectivity, and that there is sufficient money to be made. It is as simple as that.
　

What we are keen to see up here is the removal of barriers which inhibit MAN's innate growth potential within its own market, and hence its ability to contribute fully to the national capacity solution.

Apart from those mentioned above, What exactly are the barriers?There is not a national capacity problem. It is specific to Heathrow.


The report for states the obvious, LHR is the main UK gateway, a third runway is a must and there is no viable alternative to this. There is a ton of capacity at MAN, there is a ton at BHX, no airline is thinking of making meaningful use of this in terms of relieving the pressure at LHR. Without a commercial will or want to use it there is little any white paper or government initiative can do. The real headline is how LHR has managed to reach 99% capacity and there is still no plan to do anything concrete about it.

Exactly. Nicely and very concisely put!


As for the general issue like many particularly Fred of Middlesex they are missing the point re LHR . Almost all the Manchester contributors acknowledge the need for the third runway however what we also want is a levelled playing field -those pesky bi-laterals dealt with such that Manchester (and others) can actually meet their local demands and growth potential

Do you mean Frank of Middlesex? If so, let me explain once again.

To state that capacity problems are concentrated at Heathrow is a statement of the “bleeding obvious”, it is not a denigration of Ringway. To suggest this is disingenuous.


Right now Manchester handles more than 20 million pa to more than 140 scheduled destinations in Europe/North America/Caribbean/North Africa/MiddleEast/Pakistan and Singapore with freight services to Hong Kong -this is a serious airport .
Added to which known annual boardings to Hong Kong are in excess of 140,000 and mainland China a further 127,000 and rising.
In the case of the China there are cities with similar and indeed fewer boardings (Boston USA) winning new flights where the bi-latterals allow.



Yes, of course it is! have stated this many times. Ringway, and other UK airports, can “meet their local demands and growth potential”, and are not hampered by operating at 99% capacity, and therefore not the top priority for Davies.

Also, as mentioned above, the government does what it can to liberalise bilaterals, but if the other governments concerned won’t “play ball”, there is little that can be done, because of the reciprocal nature of these.


On the case of Hong Kong well questions remain of why CX continue to add LHR capacity at the expense of Manchester.

Still think that carriers need to be persuaded that there is money to be made. EK, EY and QR (among others) have been persuaded, can other carriers not be?
　
Please re-read the post.
　

I disagree with you that bi-latterals today have limited impact. They continue to have a large impact in those emerging economies UK PLC are targeting as part of the manufactured exporting lead economic rebalancing process.


That may be the case, but (as mentioned above), the UK government favours liberal bilaterals. However, if other governments concerned won’t “play ball”, there is little that can be done. However it is not an issue for the Commission.


Concerns remain India just what does MAG have to do to get someone to Delhi/Mumbai



The UK-India bilateral was liberalised back in 2005 and that resulted in up to 6 carriers on Heathrow-Bombay route since then. There are now 4 carriers on the route. Liberalising bilaterals is not always the answer.

What is keeping India off the Ringway direct-routes map is possibly the fact that 10 cities in India are accessible from Ringway (with a connection at Dubai) on EK.


APD has been retained in the UK even as other countries including (our competitors) Ireland and the Netherlands have scrapped equivalent taxes having belatedly recognised the destruction wrought upon their aviation and tourism sectors. I contend that APD costs Great Britain more in lost trade and tourism than it brings in to the exchequer. It is a regressive tax imposed in response to flawed ideological mythology rather than economic common sense. I have always opposed its imposition and campaigned for its total abolition (though I'm not naive enough to expect any early success on that front).

Well said! If it cannot be scrapped yet, a reduction back to it’s original (1992/3?) level would help.

[Bagso]

Just a small observation re APD, it is not across the board.

At all UK regional airports (except Belfast), almost every single passenger will pay APD because they are domestic to international passengers or vice versa. There is very little international to international transit traffic.

I cannot recall the exact figure but at Heathrow at least 30% and it may be higher are International to International passengers, unless they call in for a burger at McDonalds whilst in transit to another gate these passengers do not pay a penny to the UK exchequer !

In effect at Manchester 20m pax save for a minuscule number of transit passengers pay full APD !

By comparison at Heathrow somewhere in the order of 20m+pax actually avoid it altogether !

As an aside Manchester would appear to be a highly efficient tax generator for Gideon would it not ?


On a theme I accept the argument that these transit passengers contribute to routes that might otherwise be unsuccessful and enhance connectivity BUT have we gone too far in terms of providing such a high frequency on some routes ?

Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?

Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?

Some of the European destinations have 30 minute and hourly services, total overkill in terms of duplication, some of these airlines are even in alliances so they are killing each other !

Would it really hurt that much to have larger aircraft flights over a slightly longer timescale ?

Would it make Heathrow that less competitive ?

This mornings Independent is floating an idea again by Howard Davies that in order to minimise stacking over The Home Counties, planes arriving before or after their allotted slot will face heavy fines, cannot wait to see how on earth that will work........ having said that slightly less planes and higher capacity would surely make some sense ?

In terms of coming full circle it leads me onto another other gem that totally escaped scrutiny in the Howard Davies Report, this being the premise that more direct international long haul routes from regional airports would ultimately be environmentally damaging, this bizarre observation was based on the fact that the commission felt higher load factor could be achieved out of London due to the higher propensity of people in the Home Counties to travel and the lure of London. The main loser here would of course be Manchester, quite why MAG , local media and our local MPs remained mute is a mystery ?

This incredible dare I say baffling piece of logic also omitted to explain how passengers from "The regions" might get to Heathrow or any commentary on the economic effect on the absence such services.

Unless they actually walk down there in a loin cloth surely they going to catch either a shuttle or go by car, is this not worse than a single direct flight from say Manchester ?


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

The problem re bi laterals is not one of access !

If an airline (foreign) wants to operate to Manchester, my understanding is that in the main they can, BUT this is the issue.

The UK airline BA or VS will want demand reciprocal / equal rights, BUT and this is the killer they ALWAYS demand these from Heathrow because they have no interest in Manchester.

The bilaterals are negotiated on a UK wide basis not on an airport by airport basis which is what is required...at least from the Manchester perspective.

No airline is going to operate to a secondary airport like Manchester whilst allowing their competitor to operate from the Capital...thus the status quo is maintained !

THAT is the problem !

The MEBs fill their flights so are happy to allow extra from LHR if that is what BA/VS desire ...other airlines especially the Chinese less so !

[GavinC]

In relation to ground accessibility:

Rail - connections to the North are excellent with stoppers and direct services from Central Manchester and much beyond - Leeds, Edinburgh etc. effectively, Trans Pennine Express tries to terminate all services at MAN (MIA in rail station code). The 3rd platform helped with this and now there is the 4th platform under construction. The Northern Hub will also provide 2 extra through platforms at Picc and in the short term, the Chord, allowing Leeds trains to run through Victoria, Ox Rd, Picc and on to MIA. This removes the crossing movement currently made across the throat of Picc by Leeds-Picc-MIA trains.

From the south the rail connectivity is poor though. We need Services from directly south of MAN to attract people currently travelling from BHX and potentially from the West Midlands who are currently flying from LHR where we have the same flight.

Tram - eastern part of Wythenshawe loop under construction which will mainly serve staff/passengers from there plus Sale / Trafford. Completing the Western part of the Loop will aid connectivity.

Road - M56 connects to M60 and then over the Pennines and there are easy connections to the North and West. Again, South is an issue with routes going via the congested A556 to the M6.

Airport City and A6MARR (A6 - Manchester Airport Relief Road) will drastically change the road network around the airport over the next few years making it easier to access from the immediate East and reducing congesting / simplifying the network nearest to the airport (and let's face it, it needed simplifying!)

Bus/coach - many stopping services including to the South!

Overall - connectivity to West, North, East is good and improving. Connectivity to South is not as we would want it with no immediate signs of this changing.

[BasilBush]

Frank - the points you make are all absolutely valid and correct. I also agree with you that there is a tendency for people to complain bitterly about absolutely everything without actually specifying what they would like Davies et al to do!

However, you are wrong in saying that the Davies Commission's interim report was solely restricted to the issue of runway capacity in the London area. It had a wider remit, namely:

The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
●● its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and,
●● its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long-term options.

The UK's 'Global hub status' was explicitly considered through a national prism, as opposed to just focussing on the south-east. Measures to improve national (not just London) connectivity were explicitly addressed by the Commission.

Equally the Commission had an entire work stream focused on making best use of existing runway capacity, with its own set of deadlines for submissions etc. Again the Commission stressed that this was to address all parts of the UK.

It is in relation to both of these points that Bagso has a valid point. Whereas the Commission spent a lot of time on discussing these issues (and MAG and others spent a lot of time and money writing detailed submissions at the Commission's request) its interim report tends to deal with them in a rather superficial way. The differential APD issue is a case in point, where only one scenario is modelled and the details of the methodology are extremely opaque. And the climate change argument against differential APD is frankly bizarre - taken to its logical conclusion it would imply that all regional flying should cease and we should all be forced to fly on full A380s or B787s out of London.

So I think that MAG and other regional airports do have some grounds for disappointment that the Commission's interim report - which was supposed to focus on such issues - didn't do what it said on the tin.

Of course you are right that the meat of the Commission's work from now on is concerned with the nationally-crucial issue of London runway capacity (and I agree with you that LHR is the only viable option). But that is not an excuse for the Commission neglecting its wider remit to find ways of enhancing overall UK connectivity and to make best use of existing runway capacity throughout the UK. And it is in precisely that context that issues such as differential APD and restrictive bilaterals were considered by the Commission, even if (in my opinion) in a rather superficial way.

[Skipness One Echo]

Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?

Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?
It's not about "acceptable" as I think your point is that it's in some way unfair to other airports. Remember it's mainly BA that has the large proportion of connections out of LHR, Cathay don't want the A380 or the B747-8I so they use five B77Ws per day. NYC-LON is a virtuous circle where success breed success where frequency is key to success. It's not every 35 minutes during the day, there's an evening window for departures where BA offer a flight every half hour or so. There's hours and hours of no flights though. American only have three evening and one daylight service. Delta have a whole three flights and no daylight offering.

Only CDG, AMS or FRA would benefit if you attack this. MAN has lost BA in favour of American then lost Delta completely in this market. The old Continental service to Newark has dropped from twice daily seasonal on favour of a EWR / IAD split. The key point here is that MAN-NYC is in no important way, linked to LON-NYC. Capacity on one impacts capacity,or *opportunity* on the other in no way. Anyone flying MAN-LHR-NYC needs, how can I put this? A slap?

[anothertyke]

Seems to me Bagso you hanker after some sort of planners world in which the frequencies and destinations are set by spotty youth in the CAA. However good an idea that is, it ain't going to happen. We believe in the market round here and if that means 30 min headways to New York, so be it. But take heart.

Let's say there's going to be 2 to 3% growth in air travel. So it will double in 30 years. Combine that with Dreamliners, A350s etc and the number of long haul routes from MAN will increase. In turn that will enable a better 'weak hub' to be developed.

The sad thing is that unless things change, the long haul growth will mostly be foreign airlines serving their strong hubs. If BA and VS don't see a market to foreign hubs from MAN I'm afraid that's life.

Is MAN really in a very different situation than Lyon, Rome, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Bordeaux, Seville etc? I doubt it.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Is MAN really in a very different situation than Lyon, Rome, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Bordeaux, Seville etc? I doubt it.

Hmm, where is Alitalia's main base and hub?

[eggc]

Little difference between Hamburg and Stuttgart maybe, ohhh, except maybe MAN is bigger possibly yet LH finds it possible for a base at both !

[LN-KGL]

I think I need to correct Bagso a bit. It's only around half the international bound passengers at MAN that payed APD - departing passengers, not arriving passengers. This equals to 8.68 million international passengers that payed APD in 2012. Domestic passengers usually all payed APD except passengers arriving where the flight in to MAN is the last leg on an international flight with a transfer inside UK (in most cases at LHR). In 2012 MAN had 2.29 million domestic passengers, but since no open sources give out these transfer exception it is only possible to say it was close to 2 million.

Now to LHR. All passengers that start their journey inside the UK have to pay APD. Transfer passengers at LHR that don't start inside the UK naturally don't pay. If you count inviduals transfering at LHR it is half of the transfer passenger number. In other words it was just below 60 million individuals going through LHR in 2012, and over 25 million of these payed APD.

[BasilBush]

LH have announced a retreat to their key hubs of FRA and MUC (with a smaller operation at DUS). Other airports to be left to Germanwings.

And you can't really compare the UK with Germany, which has historically been a federal collection of largely independent states. We may not like the dominance of London in the UK, but it is a fact.

The argument that 'if LH can do it in Germany then why can't BA do it in the UK' is misguided, I'm afraid.

[Sir George Cayley]

If the stress of operating Heathrow at 98% of capacity requires the building of two new runways, what percentage of capacity will the target be once built?

SGC

[Bagso]

Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?


Just to clarify I wasn't in any way advocating transfer of traffic to Manchester (not actually sure I said that but heyho), I was simply suggesting that given the criticality of the situation at LHR this might have been something that the commission looked at.

I'm all for the free market but given that LHR is burdened with an inability to serve "new markets" reducing frequency marginally on some routes might assist...

Stand corrected LN

[Fairdealfrank]

　
　

Is it by way of example acceptable to have 10 flights a day from say Hong Kong (see CX/ and BA) when you could operate 6 which by definition are all full ?

Is it really necessary to have a flight to New York every 35minutes ?

Some of the European destinations have 30 minute and hourly services, total overkill in terms of duplication, some of these airlines are even in alliances so they are killing each other !

Would it really hurt that much to have larger aircraft flights over a slightly longer timescale ?

Would it make Heathrow that less competitive ?

Business demands it, and pays for it accordingly, and this makes Heathrow extremely attractive to business travellers and carriers alike. They say that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.


This incredible dare I say baffling piece of logic also omitted to explain how passengers from "The regions" might get to Heathrow or any commentary on the economic effect on the absence such services.


Heathrow expansion makes air links from other parts of the UK possible once again.
　
　

FairDealFrank
Frank - the points you make are all absolutely valid and correct. I also agree with you that there is a tendency for people to complain bitterly about absolutely everything without actually specifying what they would like Davies et al to do!

However, you are wrong in saying that the Davies Commission's interim report was solely restricted to the issue of runway capacity in the London area. It had a wider remit, namely:

The Commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
●● its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and,
●● its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years – consistent with credible long-term options.

The UK's 'Global hub status' was explicitly considered through a national prism, as opposed to just focussing on the south-east. Measures to improve national (not just London) connectivity were explicitly addressed by the Commission.


You are right, but the “the UK’s global hub status” means Heathrow.

The wording is altered for political reasons because the Conservative part of the govt now realises it's mistake in cancelling LHR expansion in 2010 and needs to find a way out, without chasing the Libdems out of the coalition.

Also, the govt is running scared of a tiny, mostly rich, vocal minority, and/or a small number of "eco-warriors", none of which live anywhere near the airport.

Hence a device for kicking the issue into the long grass, with a report date after the election.

It's classic "Yes Minister"!

Where has there been rwy capacity problems for several years? Heathrow.
Where is there rwy capacity problems now? Heathrow.
Where will there be rwy capacity problems in the next 5 years? Heathrow.
Anywhere else? Possibly Gatwick.
Anywhere else? No.

Maybe that's why the Commission concentrated on LHR and LGW?



And the climate change argument against differential APD is frankly bizarre - taken to its logical conclusion it would imply that all regional flying should cease and we should all be forced to fly on full A380s or B787s out of London.


Even more bizarre is that by opposing Heathrow expansion the "climate change lobby" are unconcerned with the levels of pollution caused by queues to take off and stacking before landing. By wishing to undermine Heathrow’s hub status, they appear to be promoting more point to point flying, perhaps unwittingly because they do not understand the issues. They cannot seriously believe that aviation activity will caese!



Hmm, where is Alitalia's main base and hub?


Rome?


And you can't really compare the UK with Germany, which has historically been a federal collection of largely independent states. We may not like the dominance of London in the UK, but it is a fact.
The argument that 'if LH can do it in Germany then why can't BA do it in the UK' is misguided, I'm afraid.


Indeed, France is a much better comparison, equate MAN to LYS rather than MUC.

[CabinCrewe]

I don't think Alitalia or Rome for that matter are great examples for comparison, that would just be a lot of "blueshamu" ;)

[eggc]

LYS...your not serious surely ! LYS handles 8m per year, less than half that of MAN. In 2011 MAN was 21st busiest airport in Europe with 19m pax, although we know that is now in excess of 20m. LYS was 54th !

MAN is no MUC admittedly, but it is equal at least to DUS, from which LH finds it quite easy to operate a sizable SH and small LH operation.

I would bracket MAN with DUB, BRU, VIE, CPH, OSL etc etc, but LYS...come off it !

If the more service were offered from MAN for those north of Birmingham how many millions of passengers would not be forced to treck to LHR, which in turn would free up slots with reduction of shuttles needed and frequency on LH certain routes. MAN has a role to play, yet anyone South of Watford cannot see it, and what is more frustrating is little extra infrastructure would be required as its mostly already in place i.e. an under utilised 2nd runway, 3 terminals etc.

[anothertyke]

.... and Manchester region is 20th largest city region in W Europe. It's population and income per head that drive these things plus a remoteness factor. Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki probably overperform relative to more central locations of equivalent size and status. Also there must be a capital city effect which is why my suggestion of Rome was silly. Naples or Turin would have been better comparators from Italy.

[rutankrd]

To me the numbers and cross section of traffic types place Manchester Dusseldorf Dublin and Barcelona in the same category -Secondary Major Regional Airport.

All have similar range and mix of Schedules to the Alliance Hubs and other important business cities.

Frequent TALC connections to all major East Coast Alliance hubs

Strong presence of ME3 carriers offering one stop services to Asia/Australia/Dog legs to Africa.

Schedules serving culturally significant local migrant populations _ Manchester-Pakistan/North Africa, Dublin-Boston/Chicago, Barcelona - South America Dusseldorf - Russia/CIS and Turkey.

Huge outbound seasonal tourist travel (Inbound in case of Barcelona !)

At a push i would add Palma to the group through highly seasonal and perhaps Milan Malpensa.

What makes Manchester I little unique is that all the others retain significant services and route networks from Their National Carrier (albeit in the form of a flexible fares subsidiaries at Barcelona and LH increasing use of the Germanwings brand out of Dusseldorf !)

[eggc]

It is more than just the Manchester area when we are talking about airport capacity in the UK. MAN could serve the entire north of England...a huge area with many major cities, and much industry / leisure. MAN could elleviate much traffic for LHR, if only BA could see past the M25 and serve the entire country as a national carrier should, instead it (and LHR owners) just keeps harping on about growing LHR that nobody else really wants !

[Suzeman]

Quote:
Why was the introduction of US preclearance at Manchester as a way of stimulating growth discussed ?

An excellent idea, obviously, and certainly more do-able than at Heathrow, but again, a matter for Ringway managers and the US govt. Are they prepared to pay?


Incorrect FDF. US pre-clearance requires a UK legislation change to allow the US Authorities to have rights within the UK. So the UK Government has to be involved. See below

UK government backs US security checks at UK airports (http://www.airport-world.com/component/k2/item/2468-uk-government-backs-us-security-checks-at-uk-airports)

The UK government's new Aviation Policy Framework states: “The Government believes that introducing US pre-clearance at the UK airports could offer significant passenger benefits and improve the overall end-to-end journey experience for passengers flying from the UK to the US, whilst at the same time maintaining passenger security and a secure border, which are shared US and UK priorities.

“The decision on whether to operate such facilities at airports overseas ultimately rests with the US authorities.

“Accordingly, the Government will consider, with the US authorities and interested stakeholders in the UK, the feasibility of such facilities being made available in the UK, including the practical and legal issues that would need to be addressed.”

And that's before you have to decide where to put it as you will only get one at your airport because of the US costs...so all US flights have to go from the same terminal if they are to use the facility. In a multi-terminal airport this is an interesting capacity issue to solve and could make a less efficient use of airport capacity than at present :cool:

As far as bilaterals are concerned Bagso wrote

The problem re bi laterals is not one of access !

If an airline (foreign) wants to operate to Manchester, my understanding is that in the main they can, BUT this is the issue.

The UK airline BA or VS will want demand reciprocal / equal rights, BUT and this is the killer they ALWAYS demand these from Heathrow because they have no interest in Manchester.

The bilaterals are negotiated on a UK wide basis not on an airport by airport basis which is what is required...at least from the Manchester perspective.

No airline is going to operate to a secondary airport like Manchester whilst allowing their competitor to operate from the Capital...thus the status quo is maintained !

THAT is the problem !

The MEBs fill their flights so are happy to allow extra from LHR if that is what BA/VS desire ...other airlines especially the Chinese less so !

This is how it goes;

Bilaterals are negotiated on the basis of balanced benefits for both sides. So long haul foreign airline A applies for a flight from its main base to a UK regional airport as it is not covered in the current bilateral agreement. Especially if it sees it as a threat, a long haul British carrier will then demand reciprocal rights from LHR but probably to the foreign carrier's main base knowing that this will immediately put a spanner in the works. (To be fair, however, if they really want something to a secondary airport in that foreign country a deal may well be done.)

Foreign government rejects this as unbalanced and says you can have regional rights to our country. UK airline lobbies UK Govt to hold out for what they originally wanted. And a whole raft of other things may well intervene such as doing aviation business issues and relationships with that country in general. The Government will take other UK parties views into account before it takes its decision. The airlines have a very long-standing relationship with the Government so it is necessary for the UK regional airport to be involved in all the discussions and bilateral negotiations to ensure that they are not being shafted. Sometimes the negotiation stalls, the status quo is retained and the UK airlines have stopped the foreign carrier serving UK regional airports which may well have been the object of the exercise all along.

In addition, say an airline is looking at its route planning options and has a couple of new destinations fighting it out for use of an additional aircraft. If the economics of both routes are roughly the same, other elements will come into the process. All other things being equal, the destination where difficulties are likely to be encountered in getting the rights will lose to that where the rights already exist or there are less difficulties perceived.

Mr FDF, in your recent posts you have singularly failed to acknowledge despite myself, Shed and others pointing it out, that nowhere on here has anyone suggested any direction of traffic away from LHR or the SE, argued against the requirement for additional capacity in the SE or even lobbied for another runway at Ringway. What we are saying is that an opportunity has been missed, bearing in mind that one of the terms of reference for the Commission was
It should maintain a UK-wide perspective, taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.

for regional airports to do their bit to serve their own markets better.

You said Extra routes/destinations at Ringway are clearly desirable, but it would not mean fewer at Heathrow.

Absolutely so and I don't think anyone has suggested that either. However what it would mean is that myself and my great unwashed cousins from north of Watford would have more options available from our local airports.

So if a number of us then chose to go on a direct route instead of via LHR that would immediately free some seats up to/from London on those flights which would then be used by others. This would help you in the SE in the short term to make sure the limited capacity is used better for your market by reducing the proportion of UK regional passengers using SE airports. Numbers would be small admittedly, but it would be a help to your local airport which I believe is called LHR?

As you yourself have said, the report timetable was the classic Sir Humphrey tactics to kick it into the long grass until after the election. After that - heaven knows if anything will happen. And even if it does, significant additional capacity will be years away, so as demand grows in the short term, you have to make the best of what you've got.

So you down there need all the help you can get to enable the SE Airports serve their expanding market; regional airports can do a bit to help by taking some regional passengers out of your system and you can then replace them with others from the expanding SE market. I would therefore suggest you should be supporting our annoyance that Davies has failed to address these regional issues in any depth in his report especially as he was charged with looking at a UK-wide perspective.

Remember as someone once said "Every little bit helps" :ok:

[rutankrd]

Suzeman - well put and in total agreement with those perspectives.

Discussion and actually figures have been discussed in another place

Around 20m are international-international transfers at LHR and already behind other EU Hubs however on the other hand and the reason for the high yields London by itself is a magnitude the largest market in Europe period.

The current constraints may actually be advantageous to the major customer BA in maintaining and improving yield and revenue potential.

Their mite means they (BA) can secure more capacity as needed and have been doing so through a rolling programme of acquisitions for several years.

Sudden and massive increases in capacity would weaken that very investment and perhaps the answers why the Irish gentlemen at IAG is so ambivalent !

I think however this should be the final words on the Manchester thread regarding this.

Continue on the Heathrow or BA threads if you must.

Let face reality the report and continued inaction are with us for at least another 20 months with a spring election in 2015 summer recess and finally new parliament after September 2015.

Even after that we have no idea if or when the commission/select committees will be given time or what priority the new government will place on these issues - Very long grass pretty much.

[Skipness One Echo]

my great unwashed cousins from north of Watford would have more options available from our local airports. Please don't do that, it's not helpful. You mean long haul I assume? Everyone does, it's the glamour....

What specific bilaterals need the most urgent review for MAN to benefit. I am assuming China? EU-US is open skies, the ME3 have much of the traffic going the other way sewn up. Can we manage four more?
1) China
2)
3)
4)
5)

[rutankrd]

Nigeria
Kenya
Thailand
Sri Lanka

One out their
North Korea - Lets face it AirKoryo has visited Manchester more frequently than any other UK airport !

[Skipness One Echo]

I wonder if Thailand is too much geared towards low(er) yielding leisure and sewn up with Emirates already?
BA struggles to fill a B772 out of LHR against TG with two daily B744 / A346s. Not sure TG would even think about MAN sadly, but I like the way you're thinking.
Can someone share the MAN-Kenya or Nigeria numbers if they have 'em?

What makes Manchester I little unique is that all the others retain significant services and route networks from Their National Carrier (albeit in the form of a flexible fares subsidiaries at Barcelona and LH increasing use of the Germanwings brand out of Dusseldorf !)

You contradicted yourself there a little bit. Lufthansa and Iberia are actually following what BA did years ago and selling off loss making regional routes to loco competitors or subsidiaries. The BA routes out of MAN are in the main better served, cheaper and more frequent now the old flag carrier mentality has gone. There's nothing wrong with being a regional powerhouse, nothing at all.

[LAX_LHR]

Not sure TG would even think about MAN sadly


Thai have said for years they would like to serve Manchester, most recently last year , saying they would come to MAN if they needed more UK capacity as they cannot get more slots at LHR. Im sure someone will be able to find the press release.
Alas they have been all talk no action thus far.

Can someone share the MAN-Kenya or Nigeria numbers if they have 'em?

Kenyan is another airline that has threatened to serve MAN in the past, the last plan being a B767 via AMS.

Lagos/Abuja is not an issue bilateral wise as far as I know, as the last time the Nigerians kicked up a fuss about not being allowed more LHR slots they complained that 'they had only been offered flights at Manchester which was not acceptable to them'. Again there is a press release buried somewhere in the internet for clarification.

Sri Lanka

I believe this was another bilateral amended recently, with the UK allowing Sri Lankan 14* slots to be used at LHR/LGW/MAN.

*again clarification on number needed. It was between 14-16 but cannot remember.

[Ringwayman]

Im sure someone will be able to find the press release.

Thai and MAN possibility form August 2013 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/thai-airways-to-add-london-to-a380-route-when-next-planes-arrive.html)

"London might even be able to support four daily frequencies if the aircraft deployed including smaller Boeing 777 planes, Kitchathorn said. A service to Manchester is another option. "

For Sri Lanka, all that I've found is this from 2011 (http://businesstoday.lk/article.php?article=3107) where we find "Sri Lanka has a vast number of bilateral agreements of which SriLankan Airlines is the only user, for instance, take the bilateral to the United Kingdom where the airlines of each country are permitted to operate 14 flights each. SriLankan currently operates 13, and very soon will operate 14." There is a line on a CAPA article saying they can increase from 14 to 21 to service Canada 7 times weekly ex London with no source quoted for that increase.

[Suzeman]

Here's the last lot of bilateral talks scheduled that I could find on the DfT website

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245720/possible-bilateral-air-services-talks.pdf

Not much going on, but ones I would hope that MAN would want to put their oar in with Dft on Bahrain, China, Hong Kong, India, Saudi, Russia, Tunisia and Turkey at least. No sign of Japan which at one stage was one of the most difficult ones - possibly now negotiated with the EU?

Of course we don't know what the issues are for each country

If you've never seen a bilateral agreement, here's a nice open one between the UK and Trinidad and Tobago with 5th freedoms available. Route schedule at Annex 1 and involves points in the UK rather than specific airports - this is normal nowadays.

But also notice all the other articles covering issues that may need to be discussed which can occasionally provide show stoppers to an agreement

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8031/8031.pdf

And here's an EU one with Indonesia - trouble is you have to know what each individual countries agreements were that are incorporated into Annex 1 and 2

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:264:0002:0011:EN:PDF

And here is the exchange of notes which sorted the Russian issue out for MAN. No sign of what the issues were though
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229625/8597.pdf

Quote:
my great unwashed cousins from north of Watford would have more options available from our local airports.
Please don't do that, it's not helpful.

Not intended to cause offence Skippy, but as you will probably aware from being darn London, some locals down there regard anyone coming from north of Watford as coming from another world....

[Skipness One Echo]

Not intended to cause offence Skippy, but as you will probably aware from being darn London, some locals down there regard anyone coming from north of Watford as coming from another world....
Speaking as a Scot, that's not really true, and it's perpetuated by Northerners and Scots who love playing the underdog. :)
London's way too international to care frankly nowadays. OK so we have a number of bilaterals, the missing bit is some realism. I actually do not think there is any realistic profitable route from MAN with the exception maybe of China that's prevented by a bilateral treaty. IS there really anything else major that's likely in the medium term? I ask as a genuine supporter of the airport btw

[LAX_LHR]

IS there really anything else major that's likely in the medium term? I
ask as a genuine supporter of the airport btw


Realistic long haul in the short to medium term:

Beijing with Hainan or Air China
Phuket with Thomson (1 weekly at most)
1-2 more trans-Atlantic routes with the TCX/DE combination
Miami with American (as a Charlotte summer/Miami winter combination)
Hong Kong with Cathay and the A350
Biman Bangladesh are supposedly coming back!
AC Rouge going year round eventually
Saudia increase to 5-7 weekly (already talks weekly)
the MEB3 continue their growth as ever.

[All names taken]

Well quite.
I asked on here a few days ago whether there were any airlines wanting to serve Manchester or any other non-London airport that were currently prevented from doing so by bi-laterals.
No responses on that.
Probably because there aren't any.

It's mainly about the business case.
'Bi-laterals' are used as an all too easy excuse for failure or to kick something off in to the long grass.

[rutankrd]

You contradicted yourself there a little bit. Lufthansa and Iberia are actually following what BA did years ago and selling off loss making regional routes to loco competitors or subsidiaries. The BA routes out of MAN are in the main better served, cheaper and more frequent now the old flag carrier mentality has gone.

Skip - I get your point however I am going hold off on judgement of the Germanwings experiment for a while yet. One thing LH have done is ensure the brand remains visibly a Lufthansa product - If that disappears any time soon I think I might be more worried.

Vueling well its true that they have supplanted IB at Barca' and whilst now an IAG owned brand I will give you that many of their customers aren't necessarily fully aware of the links with IB/BA - That said IB continue to place their code directly on most VY services.

The Vueling brand already has a bigger presence in the UK regions than IB at Cardiff and Edinburgh does it not ?
I would not be surprised to see them operating a MAN-BCN service at some point.

LAX-LHR Whilst I have no evidence i would not be surprised if AA try a Dallas service again after all they and their Oneworld partners are really promoting and driving this as their primary hub aren't they?

I would also add Mombasa as a quasi charter return.

And as the economy expands those India Ocean points might return Male/Seychelles and/or Mauritius - Admittedly the ME3 have that market right now.

Other that I could see in the future include Aeroflot RAM or Air Arabia, Tarom and perhaps return of Cyprus if they survive.

[Fairdealfrank]

LYS...your not serious surely ! LYS handles 8m per year, less than half that of MAN. In 2011 MAN was 21st busiest airport in Europe with 19m pax, although we know that is now in excess of 20m. LYS was 54th !
MAN is no MUC admittedly, but it is equal at least to DUS, from which LH finds it quite easy to operate a sizable SH and small LH operation.

I would bracket MAN with DUB, BRU, VIE, CPH, OSL etc etc, but LYS...come off it !



Was equating MAN with LYS in the sense that Lyon is an important city sufficiently far away from the capital just like Manchester is in the UK. The fact that MAN has more than twice the pax traffic of LYS is a testament to its success. Sorry not to make it clear.

In terms of pax traffic alone, yes, the above is obviously correct. However, DUB, BRU, VIE, CPH, OSL are all capital cities and the busiest airports in their countries. MAN (and LYS) are neither.


If the more service were offered from MAN for those north of Birmingham how many millions of passengers would not be forced to treck to LHR, which in turn would free up slots with reduction of shuttles needed and frequency on LH certain routes. MAN has a role to play, yet anyone South of Watford cannot see it, and what is more frustrating is little extra infrastructure would be required as its mostly already in place i.e. an under utilised 2nd runway, 3 terminals etc.


Of course MAN has a role to play, and would love it to have a larger role than at present. Have never suggested otherwise. But this cannot be magiced out of nowhere, even by the Commission.

MAN used to have more non-stop/direct longhaul routes before. The question to ask is why are these carriers no longer there?


It is more than just the Manchester area when we are talking about airport capacity in the UK. MAN could serve the entire north of England...a huge area with many major cities, and much industry / leisure. MAN could elleviate much traffic for LHR, if only BA could see past the M25 and serve the entire country as a national carrier should, instead it (and LHR owners) just keeps harping on about growing LHR that nobody else really wants !

Indeed, it could, but why does it not? It’s not just to do with carriers preferring LHR because that has always been the case, after all, LHR is the world's third busiest airport (pax numbers) for Pete's sake! This was the case even when there was more longhaul at MAN than now.

It’s nothing to do with BA’s inability to “see past the M25” . To suggest that no one wants LHR expansion and that Heathrow expansion would be detrimental to Ringway is to completely miss the point.

Since 1977, when LHR was declared “full” by the government, there has been no rwy expansion there. Over the same period time, MAN has lost a series of longhaul non-stop/direct flights, despite adding terminals and a rwy.

Don’t make this into another north-south divide.


Incorrect FDF. US pre-clearance requires a UK legislation change to allow the US Authorities to have rights within the UK. So the UK Government has to be involved.


Stand corrected, but as you state, the UK govt is supportive, is the USA govt as well?


Absolutely so and I don't think anyone has suggested that either. However what it would mean is that myself and my great unwashed cousins from north of Watford would have more options available from our local airports.


Have never stated that this should not happen, in fact have stated on several occasions that it would be beneficial.

Please do not misrepresent my comments.

Am questioning just one thing: in a climate of deregulation, increasing open skies and liberalisation, privatisation and market forces in aviation, how can the government or the commision force carriers to MAN or any other airport?

Am stating the obvious: in the prevailing operating climate in aviation (market forces), commercial considerations will determine whether there are more longhaul flights to/from MAN. Carriers have to be able to make money in these endeavours.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?


So if a number of us then chose to go on a direct route instead of via LHR that would immediately free some seats up to/from London on those flights which would then be used by others. This would help you in the SE in the short term to make sure the limited capacity is used better for your market by reducing the proportion of UK regional passengers using SE airports. Numbers would be small admittedly, but it would be a help to your local airport which I believe is called LHR?



Would love to see it. There, have stated it yet again.

It’s chicken and egg. Insufficient direct longhaul availability at MAN means changing planes at LHR, (AMS, DXB and others as well).

But would sufficient numbers, including critical business/first class pax, use direct services if they were available?

Yes, my local airport is indeed LHR, ….. and?


So you down there need all the help you can get to enable the SE Airports serve their expanding market; regional airports can do a bit to help by taking some regional passengers out of your system and you can then replace them with others from the expanding SE market. I would therefore suggest you should be supporting our annoyance that Davies has failed to address these regional issues in any depth in his report especially as he was charged with looking at a UK-wide perspective.


This is not disputed, but it’s not “either/or“. Would suggest that we need both: LHR expansion and more traffic using other major UK airports: MAN, BHX, GLA, etc.. we know how to do the first, how do we do the second, given that carriers have to be able to make money in these endeavours?



What specific bilaterals need the most urgent review for MAN to benefit. I am assuming China? EU-US is open skies, the ME3 have much of the traffic going the other way sewn up. Can we manage four more?
1) China
2)
3)
4)
5)




Nigeria
Kenya
Thailand
Sri Lanka




One out their
North Korea - Lets face it AirKoryo has visited Manchester more frequently than any other UK airport !

　

I wonder if Thailand is too much geared towards low(er) yielding leisure and sewn up with Emirates already?
BA struggles to fill a B772 out of LHR against TG with two daily B744 / A346s. Not sure TG would even think about MAN sadly, but I like the way you're thinking.



So do I!!



Thai have said for years they would like to serve Manchester, most recently last year , saying they would come to MAN if they needed more UK capacity as they cannot get more slots at LHR. Im sure someone will be able to find the press release.
Alas they have been all talk no action thus far.
Kenyan is another airline that has threatened to serve MAN in the past, the last plan being a B767 via AMS.

Lagos/Abuja is not an issue bilateral wise as far as I know, as the last time the Nigerians kicked up a fuss about not being allowed more LHR slots they complained that 'they had only been offered flights at Manchester which was not acceptable to them'. Again there is a press release buried somewhere in the internet for clarification.



This exactly the sort of thinking we need! It means that they believe that there is money to be made on the route.

Any other carriers on the same lines?



I actually do not think there is any realistic profitable route from MAN with the exception maybe of China that's prevented by a bilateral treaty. IS there really anything else major that's likely in the medium term? I ask as a genuine supporter of the airport btw


If correct, that is the obstacle to more routes to/from Ringway. It’s nothing to do with Heathrow expansion.


Realistic long haul in the short to medium term:

Beijing with Hainan or Air China
Phuket with Thomson (1 weekly at most)
1-2 more trans-Atlantic routes with the TCX/DE combination
Miami with American (as a Charlotte summer/Miami winter combination)
Hong Kong with Cathay and the A350
Biman Bangladesh are supposedly coming back!
AC Rouge going year round eventually
Saudia increase to 5-7 weekly (already talks weekly)


Would really love to see it, but again it’s nothing to do with Heathrow expansion.



Well quite.
I asked on here a few days ago whether there were any airlines wanting to serve Manchester or any other non-London airport that were currently prevented from doing so by bi-laterals.
No responses on that.
Probably because there aren't any.

It's mainly about the business case.
'Bi-laterals' are used as an all too easy excuse for failure or to kick something off in to the long grass.


Exactly right.

[LAX_LHR]

Would really love to see it, but again it’s nothing to do with Heathrow expansion.

I was just listing possible routes, Im not really getting involved in the LHR expansion debate as I think personally while the report may have been about UK expansion, there was only going to be one point of concern, Heathrow.

In terms of Manchester, it seems to do what it does well and will continue to do so in the future, more than likely continue on its path if LHR expands or not.

[Mr A Tis]

Sadly the whole slot system at LHR really distorts the market. With such a high value on the slots, they are held onto like the Holy Grail.
When you look at some of the longhaul loads at LHR, they can be dire.Airlines would rather fly into LHR at a loss than lose their slots.

This is what distorts the Manchester market. Despite really good loads on the majority of longhaul ex MAN it's an uphill battle. Pundits often site "yield" at MAN as the problem. However, my experience of J class with Swiss, Lufthansa, Qatar, Emirates, Etihad etc, is that they are full or overbooked most days. Becasue premium seats are in demand at MAN, they are often more expensive than LHR/LGW. Again cheaper from LHR because they really do need to fill their multiple frequencies.

So, the reason they want you to shuttle to LHR is not because, they couldn't make money from Manchester -but they need you to support their often "struggling" LHR operation.

Not forgetting of course, if you're not a savvy traveler & book via Expedia, e-bookers or similar online agents, you will be most likely directed to their "prefered" flights via LON.
I've struggled to book Air Canada Rouge ex MAN -not one online agent offered me available MAN flights-even though they were quicker, more convenient & cheaper than via another hub.I even had problems booking direct with Air Canada !

Unfortunately, there is no prospect of any change in the near future. The position for most airlines is like Thai - if they can't get another LHR slot & fear loss of market share, they might consider MAN-as a definite maybe possibility.

[LAX_LHR]

Not confirmed yet but Air Blue are pulling Manchester flights in April.

They are in dire straits at the moment. The 2 A340's are apparently being handed back to the lessor by the end of January, and ISB-MAN will be run via SAW on an A320 to fulfil a contract with MAN and avoid a penalty charge.

I suppose any hopes of UK expansion are well and truly gone now....

[viscount702]

Just been checking the TCX website.

It would appear that ANU will finish next May 2014 not to return in the Winter

BGI continues through summer on Thursday calling at UVF on the way out.

The second BGI returns in November calling at Tobago. This also seems to be TCX metal rather than DE

[nigel osborne]

Viscount702.

Thought Thomas Cook were building a long haul hub at MAN being fed by Fly Be.

So expected an increase in long haul .Were their press releases just spin then or are they still planning extra routes/capacity. ?

Nigel

[Skipness One Echo]

This is what distorts the Manchester market. Despite really good loads on the majority of longhaul ex MAN it's an uphill battle.
I'm calling misleading on that. The days when LHR was holding back MAN are over, there's squat diddly holding back MAN long haul from making a go if it, see the recent discussion on bi-laterals that's once we got into some detail showed the often talked about problems were overstated.
Thai are full of c***, they have car-crash fleet planning, parked expensive A345s they're still paying for, A380s for some reason and much like Malaysian, seem to lose money flying twice daily to LHR. Market share isn't the problem stopping them launching MAN-BKK, it's Emirates and loyal and savvy clientele. Booking MAN-YYZ on Rouge is not LHR's fault, it's Air Canada's split personality, like QANTAS/ Jetstar, these loco spin offs are hard to make work, especially when lead in fares from MAN with Rouge are more expensive than Air Canada mainline over LHR. Go figure!
So, the reason they want you to shuttle to LHR is not because, they couldn't make money from Manchester -but they need you to support their often "struggling" LHR operation.
Who's the target here? BA? AC? Struggling LHR? Oh for the love of....

So in all seriousness, what's your practical solution here? Outlaw AC connection pax over MAN-LHR-Canada or insist VS open up MAN-JFK as their own LHR operation is struggling? Odd how some non-LHR fixated airline hasn't moved into address this surely? Unless it's not actually an opportunity at all.
For most commercial minded airlines, there's no point in hanging onto LHR slots if you can't make money there. If they could make more money flying out of MAN, they'd sell up LHR and move North, not everyone is clinging onto them for prestige like the old school African and Far East carriers used to.

[kieb92]

Been looking at TCX:

Looks to be a lot of reductions in flights for next summer. They also seem to be realigning times to fit with Condor as a lot of flights depart at 5am! Does anybody know the based aircraft for Summer 2014?

flythomascook | Search Flights (http://www.flythomascook.com/)

[viscount702]

Thought Thomas Cook were building a long haul hub at MAN being fed by Fly Be.

So expected an increase in long haul .Were their press releases just spin then or are they still planning extra routes/capacity. ?Nigel

As I mentioned in an earlier post it is difficult to see what TCX are up to.

TAB was supposed to be a DE route but LAX_LHR posted that he could see it run on TCX metal which now appears to be the case.

Yes they were to increase long haul with feed from BE. It doesn't seem to have panned out in the way put out in the press releases at least not so far. There is feed from BE but not as extensive as we all thought.
I would like to think otherwise but I think there has been a rethink and the proposals to follow the DE model as was the idea seems to have stalled in my view at least for the time being.

LAX_LHR may have more info.

[Mr A Tis]

Well Skippy, I think you need a good dose of Cammomile tea.
I'm not advocating any "solution", merely putting a point of view.
A point of view I can only speak from my own personal experiences.
I've flown on enough B744s & B777s out of LHR two thirds empty & also flown many times in "J" from MAN at a substantially higher price than flying from LHR.
I'm not talking about a "struggling" LHR but some airlines "struggling" to fill their multiple schedules.
I don't have any answers, merely an opinion that the current slot system distorts the market.
I'm more than happy for you to hold a different view.

[LAX_LHR]

LAX_LHR may have more info.


I am unsure of what exactly is happening with the whole TCX/DE 'merger' thing.

There are some cases where clear forward strides are being made, such as the codeshare arrangement, the BE 'hub' connections, a few long haul routes and lastly the basing of a Condor B757 at MAN this summer.

Then there are the signs that all is not so straight forward, such as looking for a route FTP to link long haul points such as DUB-CUN, the fact that despite them saying MAN will be the future 'hub going west', they are still launching routes such as FRA-MSP (Im not saying MAN-MSP would be more viable but if they are still opening these routes then what role is MAN supposed to take exactly).

Its just not a simple situation at all.

[Ringwayman]

2013 passenger number:

Overall terminal: 20,697,626 = up 5.22%
including transit 20,843,977 = up 5.05%

Freight = 97,243 tonnes = down 1.23%

[Skipness One Echo]

I've flown on enough B744s & B777s out of LHR two thirds empty & also flown many times in "J" from MAN at a substantially higher price than flying from LHR.
I'm not talking about a "struggling" LHR but some airlines "struggling" to fill their multiple schedules.
Any routing MAN-xyz is meant to me more expensive than MAN-LHR-xyz, that's the crazy world of airline revenue management. It's not a LHR/MAN thing more a global spoke to hub behaviour. I may be assuming wrongly here, that you mean BA-US when you say multiple schedules, the only thing I would say is that's the market the real money is on for them, so it seems to even out.

[BHX5DME]

Good figures but still behind 2004 when 21,249,841 pax were handled.

Still better than Lyon !

[FRatSTN]

Initially was just two special Champions League flights for Barcelona V Man City on 12th and 13th March, but Ryanair will start a new route to Barcelona El Prat operating daily from Sunday 30th March 2014.

Schedule:
FR7542, dep. Manchester 06:55, arr. Barcelona 10:20, Daily
FR7543, dep. Barcelona 10:55, arr. Manchester 12:20, Daily

Girona and Reus still remain, both at 3x weekly.

[MKY661]

I still remember the days when Monarch were the only ones to do Barcelona :) It looks like it has become more popular :)

[LAX_LHR]

Do we know when the route will be made bookable FRatSTN?

Also, these timings indicate a 7th based aircraft unless a lot of re-jigging takes place, if it is aircraft 7 it could also mean the rumoured Zadar and Oporto are still possible.

[Mr A Tis]

MKY661, I remember when Iberia were the only operator to El Prat. It was always full, inc business. That was on the DC9, then MD80 then A320. However IB is one of those airlines that can't make money even with a full aircraft.
Monarch has been great, but the recent winter cutbacks have made it less business friendly. The summer prices have shot up to being about 30% more expensive than flying with Lufthansa or KLM on many occassions.
It's a shame the Ryanair is going to be also a morning flight. An evening rotation would allow more flexibilityon travel to/from BCN.
Should give ZB a run for their money though.

[viscount702]

FR

Earlier timetable releases put GRO up from 7 per week last last to 10 this year.
If as reported GRO goes to 3 per week then there won't be a net increase in flights but a switch of 7 GRO to BCN. Nonetheless nothing is that simple as not all GRO were on based aircraft and in fact 6 of the proposed 10 were on non based.

Despite what may or may not be showing in some GDS systems KTW and the increase in DUB flights are not showing on FR web timetable and we still don't know about TUF are Zadar.

Therefore it still seems a case of watch this space but nothing at present definitely indicates more than 6 based aircraft

[nigel osborne]

Viscount702.

Perhaps the bottom line is then that if Thomas Cook are not increasing their long haul fleet they cannot increase MAN without cutting back on LGW or Germany ?

Nigel

[TURIN]

Any routing MAN-xyz is meant to me more expensive than MAN-LHR-xyz, that's the crazy world of airline revenue management. It's not a LHR/MAN thing more a global spoke to hub behaviour.

What do you mean by that Skip? I genuinely do not understand why it's "meant to" be more expensive.

I can see why the operating costs 'may' be more expensive than at a main base. crew accomadation etc. But 'meant'?

[Skipness One Echo]

In long haul, you pay a premium for a non stop service.
There are many savvy people who fly LHR-Europe.
Get off plane. Re-board same plane.
Fly Europe-LHR-Long haul.
Repeat on return, you can save hundreds on the London fare if you book long haul from AMS/BRU/CDG, even factoring in a LHR-Europe return fare. Two tickets so bags need to be collected and re-checked.
Many of those juicy long haul deals from the regions via KLM are at fare levels the native Dutch will never see.....

One of the most comparably expensive places Emirates fly to is.....Dubai.LHR-DXB-DOH for example is usually cheaper than LHR-DXB.

[MANFOD]

Ryanair
"Therefore it still seems a case of watch this space but nothing at present definitely indicates more than 6 based aircraft"

I'm reluctantly beginning to think you may be right Viscount and we will finish up with just 6, the same as last summer. Still, watch this space as you say.

[750XL]

If we are to go above 6 aircraft, where are they all going to park :bored:

[Bagso]

The Flybe / Thomas Cook link up is a total conundrum.

As stated previously if you go on the Condor web site all the links are in place to hub thru Manchester, they just don't exist on the Thomas Cook web site.

I noticed that Tranaero are launching a number of flights to various European destinations, i'm just curious how can they codeshare out of Gatwick but not Manchester?

[getonittt]

If they could make more money flying out of MAN, they'd sell up LHR and move North, not everyone is clinging onto them for prestige like the old school African and Far East carriers used to.

Thats the thing though isn't it. A route out of the regions HAS to pay , it is scrutinzed and picked over, how much Business class, how much cargo how many wearing pink jumpers blah blah blah , and yet i commented on the LHR thread that the new Philippine airlines service to manila carried an avarage load of just 70 people during the month of november and this is a 5 times weekly 777-300. That is just one i looked at i'm sure there are lots more. I know PAL are not in an alliance but as most know other airlines will fly half empty out of LHR to just to fulfil the HUB commitment. To create a ' mini hub' at MAN would not be the answer, you would just create the same problem . More point to point would work , no doubt, BUT the alliances want you to fly from LHR to try and fill all the over capacity there. I think that is what skipness was implying when he said MAN-xyz meant to be more expensive than MAN-LHR-xyz.

[anothertyke]

I wonder what the evidence is. Just out interest I put in three random dates in Jan Mar and June American MAN-JFK economy. Direct was £30, £70 and £140 cheaper return respectively than the cheapest via LHR. How sure are you that direct is usually more expensive?

[hammerb32]

Anothertyke,

Not sure it's every really possible to produce evidence other than searching the websites. I've just looked at United flights to Newark for the month of May, all but 4 flights are more expensive from MAN then LHR, the 4 flights that aren't are the 4 Sunday flights where flights from LHR are £27 higher. On all other days however direct flights from MAN and BHX are more expensive and at points way more expensive than direct from LHR.

[anothertyke]

Agree that it's tiring on the fingers to generate evidence.

I was responding to the claims above that MAN direct is usually more expensive than MAN via a hub. On a small sample of American to ORD and JFK and Delta to ATL I've convinced myself that proposition is not true for any of the cases I looked at. The Delta fare via AMS is pretty consistently £15 more than direct. The American differential seems to jump around quite a bit as I said above.

Your point is different.I only looked at a couple of the comparison you were making but in those cases the American fares out of MAN and LHR direct to JFK seemed pretty close together. I didn't get the impression American were pushing traffic towards the hub at this end.

[LAX_LHR]

Etihad has released its top 10 routes for 2013.

Manchester comes in at 6th, which I find pretty impressive when you consider how many routes it serves. Likely to stay at 6th as the extra capacity from the B77W From June onwards is unlikely to surpass Paris.

Routes News - Etihad reveals top 10 busiest routes (http://www.routes-news.com/news/1-news/2288-etihad-reveals-top-10-busiest-routes)

[Skipness One Echo]

When I worked at Expedia for a number of years,that was always the case with the idea behind the pricing. AA MAN-JFK in winter can be cheap as chips due to very low points in seasonal demand not being cross-subsidised by enough people paying silly fares up the front.

[rutankrd]

Not sure it's every really possible to produce evidence other than searching the websites. I've just looked at United flights to Newark for the month of May, all but 4 flights are more expensive from MAN then LHR, the 4 flights that aren't are the 4 Sunday flights where flights from LHR are £27 higher. On all other days however direct flights from MAN and BHX are more expensive and at points way more expensive than direct from LHR.

In principle Skip is correct based on a basket of fares and history going back to the old IATA coded zonal system.

Regional fares for long haul were calculated to London with an add-on for a direct regional departure even if sector wise the regional services were shorter !

Now whats further interesting is the direct fares (ex tax) for the basket of fares from London and particularly fully flexible and premium rates are among the highest anywhere !

However on a number of those what could be call railroad routes such as the New York run from LHR we see way way to much capacity in the back of the bus so to speak and with the need to accommodate those fully flexible and premium holders switching rites and the demands for frequency oh and the bribes of rewards lounge access sandwich and tipples (Think i repeated this in another place in this cross forum debate !)- This Y capacity needs managing - Direct sold fares are set a market rate (A margin higher than regionals in some instances) whilst a significant portion of the capacity is dumped and sold via Agents and those Website comparison sites( Who make money via click through )

Its also a case those dumped tickets are priced such that you make own way to LHR

The thing is the xyz-LHR-JFK (or similar) pricing really is designed to favour just about anywhere other than the domestic market . xyz could be say Rome where premium fares via LHR are frequently many hundred less the offered for those of us in the UK !

Its all designed to support the Hub concept but is it fair especially to the UK customer probably not.

And does it effect to viability of regional long haul certainly.

[LAX_LHR]

I wonder if Vueling are about to launch a permanent MAN-BCN flight?

They have 2 charters for the Champions league, and all other dates other than the 2 footie dates are blacked out to show there are no flights on the website.

All dates, other than the entire month of March that is. Also, the home page keeps saying 'Manchester-Barcelona from 29.99 from March', yet no such fares or dates seem to be available to book. Maybe the website is not fully updated yet?

I wonder if Ryanair are launching MAN-BCN on a rumour that Vueling were about to do the same? Or could just be a glitch?

[darren1]

Where did the Zadar rumour come from? Would this be in addition to or replacing the LPL service?

[chinapattern]

I wonder if Vueling are about to launch a permanent MAN-BCN flight?


Would that not just be overkill with x4 carriers operating MAN-BCN? Look what happened with MAN-MAD.

[kieb92]

I could see Vueling starting BCN-MAN as I feel that BCN is still underserved from MAN as such a major city for business and holiday too. It would also be a based BCN aircraft so could potentially operate at earlier times like they have just done at Gatwick with the flight arriving from BCN at 8am and a second daily at 5pm. I could also see them expanding at MAN from other bases, Rome, Florence, Seville....

I hope they do add further flights other than the charters planned.

[LAX_LHR]

4 carriers could be a very slight overkill but Vueling have the potential* to make a better go of the flights by offering connections via the BCN hub.

*I say potential but Iberia had that potential on MAN-MAD but flopped.

The website however, my just be a glitch due to the football flights, but it was odd the way all the dates in march were highlighted?

[rutankrd]

Vueling may well be the brand within the IAG group best suited to some limited services.

As I said a few threads back they have a regional presence at Cardiff and Edinburgh already plus London and Manchester would be ideal for the centre of the country.

I think Barcelona ideal -It worked for IB for many many years and would carry an IB code for onward connections including Madrid.

There other stations (outside Spain) Amsterdam Paris and Italy could also carry some interest.

I suppose it's a wait and see situation and right now IAG renewed interests in the regions seems to be based around Edinburgh !

[MAN-OPS]

Ryanair are showing routes to

OPO, NYO and BLQ this summer

[MANFOD]

MAN-OPS, where are they showing these routes?

I can't see OPO and NYO on their web site timetable so do you mean they are slots applied for, or showing on GDS or where?

Not saying they won't operate them, but slots have a hand-back deadline date which I believe is only at the end of this month.

Bologna has been officially announced and the schedules are known.

[GavinC]

I wonder what the chances are of MAN seeing an EY 787 or 380 in 2014 as EY is scheduled to start taking delivery of these. One would hope that being 6th on the list of busiest routes would give us a chance although perhaps more likely a cascaded 777 to replace the 330 when a busier route gets the 380?

[LAX_LHR]

787 could replace the A330 but not the 777 as it would be a drop in capacity. Whilst it may be a way down the line, MAN is a future A380 station, and is as good as confirmed internally by all accounts.

[rutankrd]

I wonder what the chances are of MAN seeing an EY 787 or 380 in 2014 as EY is scheduled to start taking delivery of these. One would hope that being 6th on the list of busiest routes would give us a chance although perhaps more likely a cascaded 777 to replace the 330 when a busier route gets the 380?

Not chance anytime soon.

The afternoon flight permanently moves to a two class 77W with 412 seats in June whilst the morning flight continues to be operated with a two class 332 with 262 seats = that equates to 48 J and 626 Y per day.

I would expect the next move from Etihad to be a third flight with another 332 at some point.

The 380 not a chance.

The 789 remains about 20 months out from regular timetabling - Depending on whether they can configured with two or three class will determine if Manchester sees them at some point.

A similar question was posed elsewhere about Qatar again their 788 pose a net reduction of over 50 seats compared to current 333/332 mix.
Again their 77W in two class provides the most likely upgrade rather than the Dreamliner.

For both Qatar and Etihad the big question remains do they believe the can market a First product from Manchester -If so both have options however almost all end up reducing Y capacity !

LAX-LHR that final point bears reference to the 388 as it would introduce a First Product and anyway lets face it MAG needs to build another contact gate before another user arrives.

[TURIN]

More chance of seeing a Qatar 787 from what I hear.;)

Soon. :ok:

[Skipness One Echo]

I am sure MAN will see Etihad flying the A380 sooner rather than later. Etihad, does not have the same commercial remit as Emirates, who take decisions on a more conventional basis. Etihad is an old fashioned flag carrier in the orginal sense of the meaning, the sponsorship of Man City is part and parcel of a national strategy. The company is as much an arm of state policy as an airline. It's no accident and certainly not entirely commercially driven that all three of the ME3 have a *major* focus on the UK.

Or maybe they're just a normal airline? Noooooo

[rutankrd]

More chance of seeing a Qatar 787 from what I hear.

Soon.
So Turin you say Qatar not only reduce frequency but now contemplate capacity reduction as well ?

Perhaps the curse of Oneairline (World) strikes again

[Logohu]

Etihad so far only have 10 A380s on firm order, and have already announced the routes they will initially fly - to SYD, MEL, JFK and LHR. That's a lot of flying, and will soak up most if not all of those 10 frames currently on order. So I would be surprised if MAN sees a regular A380 for a few years yet until they get towards the end of those 10 aircraft deliveries, or perhaps even when the next batch start arriving should they order some more. In the meantime more likely I would expect to see more 77Ws replacing A332s, or perhaps a third daily flight, before an A380.

For Qatar yes the 787 is slightly smaller than the A332, but if they used it to increase the number of flights to MAN (eg to restore the double daily we saw just a few years ago) rather than just a one for one swap, then capacity could be maintained or even increased. I don't think Qatar are as likely to be pushed around by oneworld that much.

[rutankrd]

Etihad so far only have 10 A380s on firm order, and have already announced the routes they will initially fly - to SYD, MEL, JFK and LHR. That's a lot of flying, and will soak up most if not all of those 10 frames currently on order. So I would be surprised if MAN sees a regular A380 for a few years yet until they get towards the end of those 10 aircraft deliveries, or perhaps even when the next batch start arriving should they order some more. In the meantime more likely I would expect to see more 77Ws replacing A332s, or perhaps a third daily flight, before an A380.

For Qatar yes the 787 is slightly smaller than the A332, but if they used it to increase the number of flights to MAN (eg to restore the double daily we saw just a few years ago) rather than just a one for one swap, then capacity could be maintained or even increased. I don't think Qatar are as likely to be pushed around by oneworld that much.

Point one re the Etihad 388 agree with your summarisation based on those routes along with two daily into LHR as extensions of the Australia services and a daily JFK thats 8 frames covered - I would expect the other priority route to be Paris plus one spare - Done and dusted.

Point two - Qatar have allocated the UK 2014 growth to another market right now.
I would agree that at some point likely Summer 2015 to service will return to double daily and just perhaps one on a 788 by then.
However I believe QTR may be waiting to move a mile or so North East before returning to capacity growth on the existing network.
The current airport really is a dump and hopelessly inadequate as primarily transit point- I am positive QTR loose repeat business !

Still I expect them to introduce a 77W before the Dreamliner on a regular basis.

[kieb92]

Lufthansa A330-300 diverting in to MAN. On approach now. Was going from Munich-JFK as DLH410. D-AIKR

[Bagso]

I sometimes think we have agent provocateurs working at Manchester !

I have just been looking at the Complete Destination List on the airport web site, a relatively recent but welcome innovation.

Choose say Moscow a route that needs some TLC !

You are presented initially with a link which suggests EZY offering a direct flight T1 , excellent ...BUT try actually booking it using the book now option.

Instead of being redirected to the EZY web site which believe me would actually give you what you want.....

you are taken back to what appears to be the airports own booking engine, the problem here and not to put to fine a point on it, it is a complete crock, unfit for purpose.

Choose a date when you know EZY fly direct and instead of offering you that flight you are routed out via Zurich and back via Frankfurt.

Choose say Atlanta and that will route you via Chicago

Choose Chicago and THAT routes you via Dublin.

and so it goes on. It is almost impossible to book a direct service.

You might be forgiven for thinking we have any direct flights at all, every time you choose a route where we have regular daily service it will point you at a hub somewhere else.

If you do have the temerity to tick the DIRECT tab,

ie "I want a direct flight from Manchester"

Well the web page loses all the input you have put in !

Words fail me !

[j636]

I have just looked and selected ORD and it offers via DUB and direct. Don't see what the issue is.

[Bagso]

The issue is why bother encouraging any airline to offer the convenience and time saving of direct flights at all ?

I'm clearly missing the point.

If say you have a fledging direct service to Moscow why on earth would you not want to promote it above and beyond flying to another point in Europe.

I thought the whole point of getting from point A to Point B was at least to have some sort of choice of getting to it in the shortest time.

[MANFOD]

I agree Bagso. The direct / non-stop flight should surely appear first with alternatives via another point to follow. Unless of course, it's based on lowest fare first, which as we know may give a different result depending on the booking engine being used.

[Bagso]

Could not agree more with "low price option" MANFOD and whilst I feel this really works against Manchester at least I can see why sites like OPODO, Skyscanner etc operate the way they do. Hubs are king !

BUT given the airport is in the business of self promotion, surely it's OWN branded web site should as you say give some level of priority to flying with the direct option offered first and price second ?

If that is not the case they may as well save some money and fire off the route development team ?

Radical, well not really after all you can get pretty much anywhere via somewhere else, so if you are not going to totally support a direct route once its up and running , especially one that that another dept has possibly worked hard for why on earth bother in the first place ?

Offer a web site that shows Journey time AND then lowest price with journey time the 1st option so punters default to this first.

Also show dates either side of the date entered so if the customer has a degree of flexibility they can at least see options either side of the one input. This would capture more potential pax at Manchester where there might not be a daily service.

The airports own system has in my view just not been thought through, senior board spokesmen say a lot about attracting new carriers presumably on "new routes", seemingly unaware they are presiding over an in-house system that does the exact opposite !

OK most punters might use other options to find tickets (Seeing the mix might be interesting if anybody has the split ?), but however marginal tickets booked on this site might be, lets not use it to send punters needlessly around Europe and potentially to other competitor airports.

[kieb92]

Looking at TCX schedules for next summer. I think they could be about to announce a few new destinations from Manchester. One of them, new Djerba flight on Sunday operated by TCX:

Depart:
Manchester
11 May 2014 at 06:00 hrs
TCX 2402
Arrive:
Djerba
11 May 2014 at 09:30 hrs

Depart:
Djerba
18 May 2014 at 10:30 hrs
TCX 2403
Arrive:
Manchester
18 May 2014 at 14:20 hrs

They also have a new Wednesday flight to Mytilene operated also by TCX.

There is certainly room for further expansion and routes.

[MKY661]

Depart:
Manchester
11 May 2014 at 06:00 hrs
TCX 2402
Arrive:
Djerba
11 May 2014 at 09:30 hrs

Depart:
Djerba
18 May 2014 at 10:30 hrs
TCX 2403
Arrive:
Manchester
18 May 2014 at 14:20 hrs

Wonder if this will have an Effect on the Nouvelair flight :)

[LAX_LHR]

The above flight will replace nouvelair.

[kieb92]

Rumours of a United upgrade for the Newark flight to a 767-300 for this summer. Anyone have any more definite news/information?

Also Delta are reducing Dublin to 1 daily JFK flight from 2 daily last summer. Could we see a return of DL154/155 to JFK now that Delta have a spare aircraft?

[EI-A330-300]

Delta were never 2 daily at DUB, only add extra 3 weekly peak season and never usually added until March.


With some A330 leaving ATL such as the DUB and MAN summer service that leaves 2 B767 to be found to replace that so they may not even add the extra DUB rotations as a result.

[TURIN]

So Turin you say Qatar not only reduce frequency but now contemplate capacity reduction as well ?

Perhaps the curse of Oneairline (World) strikes again

No further frequency reductions as far as I know.

I think the capacity of the A330 may be required elsewhere. The 787 has to be used somewhere, they bought a shed load of em. :E

[LAX_LHR]

It seems Cyprus Airways is considering a return to Manchester:


Heathrow is one of the most expensive airports in the world. We are losing
money there, so we are exploring the possibility of shifting some flights to
another airport”, he said, adding that CY is considering additional flights to
Manchester to accommodate students


CY to sell Heathrow timeslot despite pilots? protest | Cyprus Mail (http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/01/10/cy-to-sell-heathrow-timeslot-despite-pilots-protest/)

[Bagso]

Good news re Cyprus, especially as hopefully the economy over there has recovered...a bit !

When I read the slot swap I must confess to be being wee bit concerned thinking they (QR) might infact reduce MAN for LHR with this addition, do they have lots of frames ?

Lets hope they stick.

Do we know what the mix of slots they gain is ?

Lets hope route development chase down but they look elsewhere !

As an aside does anybody know the most popular END destinations and ratios based on the combination of MEBs Ex Manchester ?

I am pretty sure Hong Kong was most popular on Emirates and even think I read somewhere that Perth (somewhat oddly) was well up there.

With regards HK (and I hasten to add it's only a fag packet calculation), but if its 25% per day on EK that would equate to a reasonable load on a direct service assuming all other things were equal, fares, frequency, yield etc.
(not sure Cathay could sell 1st like EK do). Suspect they could fill back end but not front.

Having said that I am as evangelical about Cathay as others on here, give me another EK or ETIHAD any day!

Extra frequency and a pretty much guaranteed seat filler !

Better the devil you know.

Would be an interesting discussion point however !

[MANFOD]

"With regards HK (and I hasten to add it's only a fag packet calculation), but if its 25% per day on EK that would equate to a reasonable load on a direct service assuming all other things were equal, fares, frequency, yield etc. "

Some years ago, I was told that the destination with most connecting pax on EK from MAN was Bangkok. Whether that is still the case, I don't know.

The potential for CX of course has to take into account passengers hubbing through Europe and not least LHR. However, it's a valid point to question the extent to which MEB3 would be affected if CX restart flights from MAN.

[LAX_LHR]

Last Air Blue flight will be Sunday 16th March. A320 via Istanbul SAW from 17th January.

[kieb92]

Shame about Airblue. Perhaps they should have considered an A330 rather than an A340, may have suited the route better. Could we see any increases from PIA when Airblue goes?

Also I remember reading somewhere about a 747-200 flight from Pakistan to MAN over the summer. I guess this was a non-starter.

[kieb92]

There was rumours of Norwegian Air Shuttle having a base at MAN for this summer and having read the following link, looks like they secured charter contracts for summer 2014. One of the contracts is from TUI UK with contracts to cover the transportation of passengers from the United Kingdom and Scandinavia to Spain, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy and Cyprus during the Summer 2014 season. Could we still see a base for them over summer like the Germania seasonal base we currently have?

Norwegian secures charter contracts worth $73mn - ch-aviation.ch (http://www.ch-aviation.ch/portal/news/24250-norwegian-secures-charter-contracts-worth-73mn)

[Ametyst1]

The Norwegian/TUI deal only covers flights from Gatwick in the UK.

[kieb92]

Thought it might do. Seems Gatwick is where Norwegian wish to expand in the UK

[LAX_LHR]

Apparently Flynas have applied to serve 2 weekly Riyadh-Manchester 'from summer 2014'. They say they have enjoyed great success with the Etihad codeshare and are seeing potential to serve the route. They will also launch LGW this summer too.

[AldiAl]

Crikey! Nice to see another new carrier but I do hope it's not another overkill


situation like on some other routes we've seen in the past... before they


even launch! Oh well, best of luck to both and great if they both succeed.


Maybe they're aiming at a different type of traveller. I'd be interested to hear


what others think.

[kieb92]

Saudia will fly from Jeddah so shouldn't be overkill if they plan to fly from Riyadh. Currently they mainly have A320's but did read a rumour about them purchasing A330's for this summer so I presume these will be used on the route.

[AldiAl]

Ah! Didn't twig that. Well in that case hopefully it's Happy Days!
Drinks all round then....only joking!

[LAX_LHR]

For those who bemoan the lack of advertising from MAN, the Saudia route to Jeddah has at last been announced:

Arabian Aerospace - Saudia Airlines return to UK's Manchester Airport with direct Jeddah route (http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/article.php?section=route-planning-and-tourism&article=saudia-airlines-return-to-uk-s-manchester-airport-with-direct-jeddah-route&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[GavinC]

and it's on the MAN Facebook feed too.

[Cymmon]

Cebu Pacific via Middle East to Manchester, upset PAL on the London service?

Lovely highest density A330's in service.....:ugh:

[LAX_LHR]

Cebu Pacific at Manchester? I highly doubt it.

[Bagso]

For those who bemoan the lack of advertising from MAN, the Saudia route to Jeddah has at last been announced:

Appeared on Twitter and the Timetable as well :)

...although it doesn't appear on the airports own

Destination List

OR

Complete Destination List yet !

First law of marketing is a holistic approach ensuring ALL channels where a customer "might look" are covered prior to issuing a press release "as one", (never send a customer down a cu de sac).

Still think MAG "could" issue their own PR in English AND Arabic.

Doesn't need to cost anything in time or energy, in not much more than an hour and using social media its possible to reach a massive potential market, bags of free opportunities on various business, travel, religious outlets.

I do appreciate it is a SAUDI press release not one issued by the airport ...otherwise well done, up and running ! :ok:

[LAX_LHR]

...although it doesn't appear on the airports own

Destination
List

OR

Complete Destination List


But realistically how many customers could be 'lost' through not being in those 2 lists? Its on the timetable, its on the saudia website, its on GDS, its covered by at least 13 press releases now (according to google news anyway) and no doubt being offered in the independent travel agents that specialise in Umra/Asian travel. Even as an supporter of MAN, I do not look at the 2 lists you quote. But then I suppose some will always expect more.



That said I do appreciate it is a SAUDI press release not one issued by the
airport ...otherwise 7/10 well done


I struggle to think the last time the airport released a new route story. All the ones I can remember have been issued by other news sources/airlines with the airport add a quote to them.

In other news, the Orbest flights to Lanzarote for Summer 2014 now carry both Orbest and Evelop Air flight numbers.

[Bagso]

I struggle to think the last time the airport released a new route story. All the ones I can remember have been issued by other news sources/airlines with the airport add a quote to them.

Couldn't agree more !

They advertised for a Press/Marketing officer about 12 months ago who could write incisive, creative, imaginative PR !

I wait with bated breath !

[kieb92]

Not too sure why Germanwings dropped the Stuttgart route judging by this article.

Routes News - Love thy neighbour? (http://www.routes-news.com/airports/12-airport-profiles/2278-love-thy-neighbour)

"These carriers offer coverage within Europe, although the airport says there is demand on the unserved routes of Madrid, Manchester, Nice and Stockholm, as well as the Baltic States and Scandinavia."

Not sure who could step in to fill this route?

[LAX_LHR]

It is a mystery why the route was pulled given the passenger figures were strong and a historic route.

Whilst I appriciate flybe are having restructuring issues but given they fly BHX-STR and ournumbers were always stronger, they may be a candidate?

[kieb92]

It is a strange one but Flybe could make it work. Germanwings may reinstate the route once they have also restructured themselves folowing the transfer of some Lufthansa short haul routes. Did LH use to operate the route with CRJ900's?

[kieb92]

It also appears that Flybe will not be doing any charter flights from any UK airport during summer 2014 as part of restructuring. Seems rather odd to me as I can imagine they increased utilisation on quieter weekends. However it appears they will be getting rid of 2 E195's for this summer. I know from MAN last year they did Almeria, Olbia and Cagliari so not sure if these are planned to operated by another airline for this summer. BA Cityflyer? Anything in summer 2014 schedules?

[getonittt]

but given they fly BHX-STR and ournumbers were always stronger, they may be a candidate?

LAX-LHR . Don't assume := . According to the CAA stats for 2011 & 2012 BHX had more pax than MAN. It would also not be wise to compare like for like as it is not all about pax figures . Birmingham has always had strong links with Germany and STR-BHX is a niche route having been a continual link since the days of Birmingham European. I think a DHC-8 with flybe business pricing is different to a GWI A319.

[LAX_LHR]

LAX-LHR . Don't assume := . According to the CAA stats for 2011 & 2012 BHX had more pax than MAN. It would also not be wise to compare like for like as it is not all about pax figures

Well I will apologise for that bit as I could have sworn I had seen the MAN figures were higher, but obviously not. Maybe the 2 daily business friendly times versus the daily CRJ or 5 weekly A319 it finished with helped.

Birmingham has always had strong links with Germany and
STR-BHX is a niche route having been a continual link since the days of
Birmingham European

Not that this is the competition you seem to be making it, but so has MAN. STR has been served by Lufthansa for years before Germanwings took over and the MAN-Germany market is as strong, possibly stronger than BHX given the number of routes that are or have been served, more frequency on most routes and larger equipment on the core routes of FRA/MUC/DUS.

[LAX_LHR]

The CAA seems to be starting to publish the punctuality stats for 2013.

Manchester came in at a fairly respectable 81% for the 'early to 15 minutes late' bracket, ahead of LTN/LHR/LGW so far, but not all airports have been published.

However, I do wonder how long it will take LN-KGL to appear and state how the CAA, with all data cannot possibly be right as 'flightstats, with half the data missing says it is one of the worst in Europe'. :ugh:

[getonittt]

I think the one thing we can agree on is that the retreating of mainline DLH to the 2 core german hubs has done direct links from regional UK to Regional Germany no favours.

[rutankrd]

Birmingham has always had strong links with Germany and STR-BHX is a niche route having been a continual link since the days of Birmingham European

Its the auto industries that sustains BHX-STR and yes its had a more consistent connection over thirty years than the on/off Manchester route.

Frankly and I do't like saying it but LPL-STR would probably work better from the North West what with Vauxhall and a host of suppliers and the Chemical companies just down the road in Runcorn many working with BASF in Stuttgart and other similar companies

[kieb92]

Here we go, new Ryanair routes:

Bologna, Fuertaventura, Gran Canaria, Barcelona

Ryanair Opens 4 Manchester Routes In 2014 (http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-opens-4-manchester-routes-in-2014)

No mention of Zadar

[Ian Brooks]

rutankrd
BASF is in Manchester as well at Handforth

Ian

[newscaster]

Saudia already have the A330s in their fleet since atleast three years.

Air Blue are said to be operating the last flight to UK on 19 January according to their website and call center.

[LAX_LHR]

Frankly and I do't like saying it but LPL-STR would probably work better from
the North West what with Vauxhall and a host of suppliers and the Chemical
companies just down the road in Runcorn many working with BASF in Stuttgart and other similar companies


Rutankrd

Father in law works for one of the Chemical companies in Runcorn and lives in Cheshire, as does everyone else with regular travel in their job description. They prefer to use MAN due to choice and price and its just as quick for them to get to MAN from home. Works the other way too where there are more connection opportunities into MAN from places like China and Brazil and the hotels they are put up in are in the Cheshire/Manchester area.

KLM actually sent his work a questionnaire of preferred airport back when the LPL flight was running, as a lot of them are card holders for KLM/AF, 94.8% replied Manchester. I wonder if the story could be similar at other Runcorn plants as not long after the LPL flight was pulled. Surely no coincidence?

[Bagso]

read my mind Lax

From Vauxhalls, Ellesmere Port it's 30 mins to both airports, so unless there is a specific reason to use Liverpool it's a no brainer really !

[LAX_LHR]

But as stated in my post, its not necessarily about where the business is located, but the staff. My father in law for example does not have to report to work to travel to an airport, he lives in Cheshire so easier for him to get to Manchester.

When other staff visit his plant, their hotel is in Cheshire so again, easier to use Manchester, despite the plant being in Runcorn.

The story could be repeated in lots of other places and scenarios.

[Mr A Tis]

Don't forget pre Germanwings & Lufthansa - MAN-STR was also served by HLX Express using B737-500s & 700s & when I used them, also had good load. So, MAN-STR goes back a good number of years.

[mytravela330]

When i worked for Menzies and we did the 3 evening HLX flights ( New York Taxis ) all 3 flights had good loads.. it was always good seeing all 3 in and parked together....

[kieb92]

flyNas launch looks to be gaining momentum. Seems to be a done deal:

Leak of the week: flynas looks to launch long-haul operations in 2014 (http://www.anna.aero/2014/01/15/leak-week-flynas-looks-launch-long-haul-operations-2014/)

[LAX_LHR]

After reading an article about flybe and the IOM, it seems MAN gets an increase.

Flights seem to be 32 weekly each way, compared to the current 23 each way.

Mon to Fri sees 5 daily with 2 on Sat and 3 on Sun.

This is compared to 12 weekly (2 daily most days) at BHX and 24 weekly (3 daily most days) at LPL. (LPL now sees highest frequency in the UK for the IOM due to easyjet also on the route)

[lexoncd]

The closure of Astra Zeneca alderley park facility will according to some have an impact on some carriers at manchester. On some flights the number of az cars awaiting their passengers is quite noticeable. Premium traffic too

[Bagso]

The M E N have been suggesting that other companies will take over at AZ HQ, whether they have the kudos of Astra Zeneca is another story !

On a more positive note the this was story that passed us by, the owners of Ronseal are moving the European HQ to Manchester.

Ronseal owner checks into Airport City - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/ronseal-owner-checks-airport-city-6473428)

[kieb92]

Ryanair routes are online:

Barcelona El Prat is daily

Fuerteventura and Gran Canaria both 2 weekly.

Bologna is 3 x weekly

Several other increases on various routes. Indicates probably 7 based aircraft although could even be 8 if Porto, Zadar and Stockholm are announced as rumoured.

[LAX_LHR]

Schedules at the moment definitely indicate 7 based aircraft at this moment in time. This is even without Katowice which is still in the booking menu but no dates loaded.

I think we can kiss Oporto, Stockholm and Zadar goodbye for now as I would imagine they would have been launched with the other 4 routes. Oporto for example is bookable from Liverpool this summer and would imagine a 'thin' route like that would only be served from one or the other.

Its also good to see Madrid increased with a new Saturday flight. I think less than daily on a city the size of Madrid while routes such as Lisbon support 12 weekly is pretty poor so nice to see an increase.

All in all I'm quite impressed with Ryanair growth at the moment. I had worries they could stagnate like they have at BHX (seem to have hit 4 based and no more) or just be using MAN to squeeze ever more money out of Liverpool, but they seem to be growing quite nicely and it doesn't seem to have affected the MAN incumbents given Easyjet, Monarch and Jet have all grown last year and all have new routes starting this year too (Easyjet only 1 route but have publicly stated they will grow more and given how stretched capacity wise they are this year the one route will suit me just fine).

[LAX_LHR]

Ryanair Summer 2014 picture so far:

Ryanair increases for Summer 2014:

Thus far based aircraft from 6 to 7

New routes:

Barcelona BCN Daily (not really an increases as Girona reduced from 10 weekly to 3 weekly to accommodate the new route)

Bologna 3 weekly

Fuerteventura 2 weekly

Gran Canaria 2 weekly

Route increases:

Ibiza 4 weekly > 5 weekly
Lanzarote 3 weekly > 6 weekly
Madrid 4 weekly > 5 weekly
Tenerife 6 weekly > Daily
Malaga 9 weekly > 10 weekly
Dublin 24 weekly > 31 weekly

New flights total: 28

Decreases for 2014 based on 2013:

Warsaw 3 weekly > 2 weekly
Brussels CRL 13 weekly > 12 weekly
Girona 7 weekly > 3 weekly (was due to go 10 weekly as mentioned above but never actually operated at this frequency)
Paris BVA 4 weekly > 3 weekly

Flights lost: 7

Net increase of 21 flights 14 of which equates to the extra based aircraft, and Katowice still to be loaded.

[Bagso]

This is odd, just had a copy of business week, MEN production and there is a full page advert for Easyjet to Moscow !

For a service which is being slashed it seems odd !

Maybe the actual announcement that it was dropping from 4 to 2 was news in itself conveying the fact that we actually have a service ?

[viscount702]

FR

Unfortunately the Saturday MAD is only June.

Normally FR are easy to work out. Not this time.

Flights are chopping and changing between based and non based particularly in August but at other times as well.

Many flights like the MAD only operate for part of the season rather than the whole.

ie on Tuesday the morning PMI swaps from a based to non based for August and the based aircraft goes to TFS instead during August. There are many other similar instances

There are clearly 7 based aircraft and I haven't checked DUB yet. As things stand DUB has more flights up to May and from September but less during high summer at least based on what is showing at present.

C;early an overall increase which is very welcome. I am concerned about BCN though with 3 carriers now. I expect either LS or ZB to make some reductions at some point.

[Jamie2k9]

Q - All in all I'm quite impressed with Ryanair growth at the moment. I had worries they could stagnate like they have at BHX (seem to have hit 4 based and no more) or just be using MAN to squeeze ever more money out of Liverpool, but they seem to be growing quite nicely and it doesn't seem to have affected the MAN incumbents given Easyjet, Monarch and Jet have all grown last year and all have new routes starting this year too (Easyjet only 1 route but have publicly stated they will grow more and given how stretched capacity wise they are this year the one route will suit me just fine).


The money is not being squeezed out of Liverpool, being squeezed much closer to home!

[LAX_LHR]

Care to elaborate Jamie?

Genuinely unsure what you are getting at. MAN has plenty of growth confirmed for 2014, LPL none thus far so really not sure what you are eluding to?

[kieb92]

Air Canada Rouge pushing ahead with expansion and will add 21 aircraft to their fleet from Air Canada by the end of the year:

Air Canada rouge to establish Vancouver, Calgary bases in Spring - ch-aviation.ch (http://www.ch-aviation.ch/portal/news/24883-air-canada-rouge-to-establish-vancouver-calgary-bases-in-spring)

New bases at Vancouver and Calgary. Could we see any further expansion from them to rival Air Transat? Correct me if i'm wrong but is Montreal served from MAN? Potential there for a route if not served.


Also Air China had indicated long haul growth into Europe with new routes to Munich, Vienna and Barcelona (Barcelona served via Vienna). Positive signs that they are still planning expansion into Europe. Lets hope the signs are good for Manchester. Were they rumoured to be starting MAN via Zurich?

[MANFOD]

FR

"Unfortunately the Saturday MAD is only June.
Normally FR are easy to work out. Not this time"

Quite right Viscount. Unless there are further changes, I can only assume it's due to shortage of a/c in the high season and having to juggle a/c to where they can be most profitable.

I see MAN-DUB now has 21 flights weekly in Aug, but jumping to 31 in September. From 3 daily flights to 5 on certain days. When there's 3 flights on a Saturday, the first two are 06.25 and 07.45 with nothing until the last one at 19.30. Very strange. If it is lack of equipment in peak months, I wonder how it will affect them commercially if seats are not available with them but are with EI?

ACE drops from 6 weekly in Aug. to 4 in September, but as you say, there are all sorts of complications.

[rutankrd]

Also Air China had indicated long haul growth into Europe with new routes to Munich, Vienna and Barcelona (Barcelona served via Vienna). Positive signs that they are still planning expansion into Europe. Lets hope the signs are good for Manchester. Were they rumoured to be starting MAN via Zurich?

Repeat of my comments to the same debate elsewhere and i think relevant

So I understand Vienna a bit its a *A regional hub of sorts but Barca' lost its *A cred when Spannair folded and worse still a tag !

Combined with a Shanghai (Not a CA base !) - Munich service !

So heres thing thing hows about a PEK-MAN-DUB viz if the above is seen as viable and initially boardings seen to be weak for one stop services.

We already know Manchester alone has more than 127,000 annual boardings to mainland China and a further 140,000 to Hong Kong ( many going on to the mainland )

We have seen new service launched by Chinese carriers all over the world on similar or lower boarding numbers -Example Boston is recent months.

There really is something keeping the Chinese out of the UK and its almost certainly political in nature.

I read somewhere from an apologist that China- CAAC are primarily targeting domestic growth rather than international - Thinks that's utter rubbish myself what with evidence of new international services from one of the brands (used carefully given the 4 main carriers remain largely state owned !) almost every week.

In other news the Russian Aviation ministry and the UK are said to be working on a deal to allow a second British Carrier into Leningrad/Saint Petersburg with up to 7 weekly slot pairs - An opportunity for EasyJet one presumes.

[LAX_LHR]

It does make me wonder what MAN has to do to get a service to Hong Kong/China. Its deffinately politics stopping a prospective flight. The figures support a flight working for an airline I know for a fact the yield could be there is people swap for the direct flight. Its just beggars belief.


In other news the Russian Aviation ministry and the UK are said to be working on a deal to allow a second British Carrier into Leningrad/Saint Petersburg with up to 7 weekly slot pairs - An opportunity for EasyJet one presumes


There was a press release a few months ago where Easyjet said they already hold the rights to MAN-LED, but wouldn't start until they get the rights to Gatwick too.

[rutankrd]

It does make me wonder what MAN has to do to get a service to Hong Kong/China. Its deffinately politics stopping a prospective flight. The figures support a flight working for an airline I know for a fact the yield could be there is people swap for the direct flight. Its just beggars belief.

I'll be more certain that its Political when the Chinese announce the next French destination in the coming weeks.

Understand either of Lyon/Marseille or Nice could be on the cards.

Something stinks if these get a service and Manchester remains side watered !

Another thing for general interest through LAX_LHR you probably already know
CX are playing the 80% trick at LHR through spring

- Clearly that fifth flight (that might have come to Manchester according to Spanners had the NZ slot not be made available ) has dumped far too many economy seats into that particular market !

Anywhere else and the rotation would have been canned and aircraft redeployed - Hey-oh but the black hole doesn't distort the market does it ? ( the answer is clearly two consecutive letters - anything else and you will be burned at the stake as a heretic) -(Yes copied and pasted so what)

[Skipness One Echo]

Its deffinately politics stopping a prospective flight. The figures support a flight working for an airline I know for a fact the yield could be there is people swap for the direct flight. Its just beggars belief.
What % of the ME3 are ongoing to Hong Kong vs BA/CX over LHR?
It baffles me that Cathay aren't back with an A340-300, they've still got them and they're paid for by now. Do you mean actual politics or airline / alliance politics?
- Clearly that fifth flight (that might have come to Manchester according to Spanners had the NZ slot not be made available ) has dumped far too many economy seats into that particular market !
London is one of Cathay's top five most profitable routes, they had a chance to build capacity and quite rightly went for it. The slots are currently sub optimal but that will change over time, I am not sure adding LHR is in any way related to restoring a MAN service that was dumped years ago. To the conspiracy theorists who suggest a BA/CX conspiracy to feed LHR, the truth is that within Oneworld, Cathay does not do co-operation. They are very reluctant partners and they're no friends of BA, co-operation is only now growing since Qantas got into bed with Emirates.

So to be clear, if Air China wanted to launch MAN-PEK next month, there's no real barrier to them doing so? Remember CX walked away over rights to Moscow, hardly an attractive proposition for anyone on their way to connect at HKG.
but the black hole doesn't distort the market does it ? ( the answer is clearly two consecutive letters - anything else and you will be burned at the stake as a heretic) -(Yes copied and pasted so what)
The demographics and population density are reflected in the market behaviour, you are mixing up cause with effect.

Crediting Brahmjee in another place for these boarding numbers

PEK/VIE - 70,000

PEK/BCN - 52,000

PVG/MUC - 86,000

Makes you want to scream !
I assume they each have seven ME3 flights each say, two with A380s to fill? They have a direct service as the don't have non-commercially driven capacity dumping to the same extent. (QR and EY)

[rutankrd]

Crediting Brahmjee in another place for these boarding numbers

PEK/VIE - 70,000

PEK/BCN - 52,000

PVG/MUC - 86,000

Makes you want to scream !

[LAX_LHR]

What % of the ME3 are ongoing to Hong Kong vs BA/CX over LHR?
It baffles me that Cathay aren't back with an A340-300, they've still got them and they're paid for by now. Do you mean actual politics or airline / alliance politics?


While I haven't got the figures to hand, there were studies done which showed on average, 12-16 J class seats and 164 Y class seats on average per day each way could be filled on MAN-HKG alone, and about 11-13 J and 126 Y per day each way for Beijing. Shanghai was not studied in depth. This was accounting for the fact there are many other routing opportunities via various hubs.

Im convinced that something is at play, as I cannot fathom why such smaller markets seem to be easily gaining China flights but MAN struggles. Even Dublin was hotly tipped to get a direct Air China flight, a market no bigger than 1/5 the size of MAN at this present time!

[rutankrd]

Do you mean actual politics

Very definitely at inter government level.

UK PLC are not greasing the correct palms -and whilst some ViSA conditions have recently been relaxed - We are just not friendly enough for the Chinese nouveau riche, that are flocking to Paris the ski resorts south of Geneva and those rather ornate opera houses of Milan.
Oh and clearly the charm of Barcelona come spring -All on a single an easily obtainable Schengen VISA.
What more they apparently spend rather willingly and then they go home

[rutankrd]

Skipness.

1) Not disputing LHR being a significant profit centre for CX and indeed using the 80% trick emphasises their desire to maintain that by removing excess Y capacity via applying pre-planned non-ops across their timetable (Achievable with a sufficiently large daily slot holding)- Yet retaining a valuable asset

2) Also not disputed that Swire (and possibly Air China in the back ground) are hardly buddies with the Watership down crew.

3) I am not sure if they have a lease or have actually acquired the slot rights from NZ - this would make a difference in the event NZ wanted them back wouldn't it ?

The demographics and population density are reflected in the market behaviour, you are mixing up cause with effect.

Likely yes but still its distorted.

assume they each have seven ME3 flights each say, two with A380s to fill? They have a direct service as the don't have non-commercially driven capacity dumping to the same extent. (QR and EY)

Munich will go two daily 388 EK from spring Etihad use the three class 333 twice daily Qatar twice daily 788 AND they have that fourth carrier from the region Oman 3 weekly.

Barcelona has Qatar and Emirates with Royal Jordanian however not yet Etihad

And Vienna well they have a national airline going East already !

[Skipness One Echo]

Yes good point, and again can I say I do genuinely appreciate the level of debate here. I do wonder how much of that potential pot of MAN-China is already tied up via existing loyalty and reward schemes with Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways.
I think with the commercial (and political,remember Qatar and Etihad are projections of national power and prestige, Emirates too but more balanced and commercial IMHO) focus on the UK, the ME3 have captured market share over their hubs at the expense of direct services, like Cathay.
Also get's odd when you remember Air China and Cathay are in different alliances !

There's some serious market fragmentation now at MAN going East.

I agree the absence of a single European visa like Schengen is a killer, however I think that penny has dropped. The Tories, however much some may disagree do start to pay attention where real money is concerned.

[rutankrd]

Also get's odd when you remember Air China and Cathay are in different alliances

The CAAC are playing a game with the world via the airline industry.Basically three regional brands -One for each Global alliance and a fourth smaller carrier for secondary routes in Hainan.
The competition is an illusion in my honest opinion and China is rather good at such things !

I agree the absence of a single European visa like Schengen is a killer, however I think that penny has dropped. The Tories, however much some may disagree do start to pay attention where real money is concerned.

Whilst the cabinet try to calm their curmudgeonly right-wingers in the benches, react to the rightwing press and worry over UKIP in the shires they seem hamstrung as to what really need to be done at the borders.

Its not turning people away particularly those that want to simply visit these great isles or even earn pay taxes and spend !

[Mr A Tis]

New bases at Vancouver and Calgary. Could we see any further expansion from them to rival Air Transat? Correct me if i'm wrong but is Montreal served from MAN? Potential there for a route if not served

There are no direct services from MAN to Montreal from anybody.
So it's a surprise that AC Rouge have chosen to enter MAN - Toronto in competition with a daily Air Transat service. The Rouge is only for 11 weeks, and only 5 trimes a week. If you use any agent like e-bookers, expedia etc you are most unlikely to be offered a Rouge flight. Booking direct offers fares on par with AC mainline from LHR- so not a "low cost" fare. Although of course a " low cost" airline is not necessarily a "low fare" airline.

Air Canada Rouge expect to have a minimum of 6 B767-300ERs in operation by summer 2014. New B777s & B787s delivered to AC in Spring 2014 will allow more B767s to be moved to Rouge.

To me a Montreal service, which also has good onward connections would have made more sense-especially as a summer seasonal route.
However the MAN-YYZ route is barely advertised & so difficult to book, I'd suggest it might be a pretty flakey operation, but I hope to be proved wrong on that one.

[MANFOD]

"While I haven't got the figures to hand, there were studies done which showed on average, 12-16 J class seats and 164 Y class seats on average per day each way could be filled on MAN-HKG alone, and about 11-13 J and 126 Y per day each way for Beijing. Shanghai was not studied in depth. This was accounting for the fact there are many other routing opportunities via various hubs"

LAX LHR, Are the numbers you mention for Hong Kong & Beijing just relating to LHR, or just BA connecting pax at LHR? I take it from your comment that they don't include MAN pax using other hubs or have I got that wrong?

To a point Skipness raised, it would indeed be interesting to know on average how many pax from MAN use one of the MEB3 carriers to connect to HK (do all 3 fly there?), to assess what the impact might be if CX were to restart a MAN service.

[Centre cities]

Last flights to the UK 22/1/14. As with BHX they do not give much notice do they.

Centre cities

[Betablockeruk]

Fri, 24 Jan 2014
QR023 787-8 Dreamliner
QR024 787-8 Dreamliner

on the QR booking engine.

(if not grounded, again, by then)

[kieb92]

Air Malta to increase flights to MAN from 4 to 5 a week. New flight Sunday morning.

KM138 Arrival MAN 08:15 Depart 09:05

[Sir George Cayley]

Ref Chinese tourist visas, I hear that the Govt are looking at European arrivals from China with Shengen Visas being able to add the UK on with a pay on entry visas to try to make things a bit easier.

SGC

[Bagso]

I'm loathe to quote sources but I'm sure HK was in top 3 of MEBs Ex MAN !

I have mentioned before that CAPA indicated that the Chinese are highly suspicious of opening up routes where BA, AF/KL and LH could muscle in, is this a factor ?

Look at the rumoured destinations the Chinese are looking at, they hardly jump out ?

Maybe that explains Barca, Vienna, Dublin and Munich where competition from national carriers might be less ?

On these routes it puts them up against EI, Austrian and Iberia not exactly heavy hitters !

Presumably they would allow reciprocal rights re Munich with LH BUT it is not the primary gateway so is possibly viewed as less of a threat as Frankfurt ?

On a general note if we had a degree of federalism in the UK we might see a fairer playing field with regards this subject but with our rabble, not a chance. Generally speaking there is no interest in Manchester OR the airport from either side until election time and then come fawning around a gullible NWest public.. within 24 hours, gone again for another 4 years !

In my view a degree of "Mancunianism" would help Manchester Airport no end !

-----------------------------------------------------------
I emailed Air Rouge and indeed MAG indicating that the Toronto flights Ex MAN were totally impossible to find.

To be fair to AC emailed back within 30 minutes and said they would get there Customer service dept to investigate ASAP.

No such urgency from MAG their response was non existent.

I did notice a twitter feed offering a Toronto holiday which I think was thru AC !