Manchester-2

[commit aviation]

Long day - misunderstood Vickers post. :ugh:

[SCFC1EP]

very limited 1 flight to Gran Canaria, 1 flight to Lanzarote 26/12/20 27/12/20 and return flight following week
plus additional Madrid flight

[spannersatcx]

I see the pick up and drop off charges have gone up!

[Mr A Tis]

Sounds a bit daft re the increased drop off charge, £5 for 5 minutes.
Given the so few passengers, they are not going to gain much other than bad PR.
Surely, it would be cheaper to close the JP1 free drop off & the cost of all the shuttle buses running near empty & allow free drop off at T1- at least for now.

[Navpi]

Sounds a bit daft re the increased drop off charge, £5 for 5 minutes.
Given the so few passengers, they are not going to gain much other than bad PR.
Surely, it would be cheaper to close the JP1 free drop off & the cost of all the shuttle buses running near empty & allow free drop off at T1- at least for now.
------------------‐----------

If your jaw has dropped on this, wait till you hear about the incoming storm re the RAM Cargo 767 which ended up going to Liverpool. Apparently the approach to Manchester was lost due to red tape ?

Red Tape ? What red tape would that be , telling a customer who has a desperate demand to use an airport on his doorstep he really should be using one in the Midlands.

Is this switch selling at work again ?

Why is Manchester turning its nose up at revenue whilst firing staff at the sametime.

ill bet EMA and Doncaster cannot believe their luck in having such a benevolent airport happy to point business destined for Manchester towards their respective runways and in this specific case, now Liverpool. They welcomed the flight with open arms and have now probably guaranteed this customer uses them again on repeat business.

Turning business away whilst laying off staff suggests the MAG CARGO MANAGER needs a degree of retraining.

Time for our new CEO and Charlie Cornish to bang heads together.

It was unacceptable turning away PPE flights earlier in the year and remains so with general cargo.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Time for our new CEO and Charlie Cornish to bang heads together.
This is a really good post with some well argued points, well said bagso ! You can surely amend the "East Anglia" handle now?

Would be interesting to see in BA /IAG revenue systems what searches would be put through to those flights? (vs eg via LHR with BA or AA or via DUB)
Agreed, be curious to see how this pans out. Good that Aer Lingus have moved fast on this.

[zfw]

Latest ACL just come through. S21

Aer Lingus 4x based A/C 3X A321LR AND 1X A330 Destinations TBA.

Air Baltic 4 x weekly RIX

Air Canada 31st May to 17 Oct A330

American short season 4th Jun to 8th Sep B787 8

Easyjet from 19 to 21 based A/C.

Hainan Canx for S21

Jet 2 25 x based A/C Jer new route.

Oman Air Canx S21.

Ryanair from 12 x based to 17 x

Saudi from 5x to 7x a week

TUI 18 x based

Virgin 5 x based A/C all A330 No LAS or LAX.

Westjet YHZ Canx S 21.

Z

[The96er]

------------------‐----------

If your jaw has dropped on this, wait till you hear about the incoming storm re the RAM Cargo 767 which ended up going to Liverpool. Apparently the approach to Manchester was lost due to red tape ?

Red Tape ? What red tape would that be , telling a customer who has a desperate demand to use an airport on his doorstep he really should be using one in the Midlands.

Is this switch selling at work again ?

Why is Manchester turning its nose up at revenue whilst firing staff at the sametime.

ill bet EMA and Doncaster cannot believe their luck in having such a benevolent airport happy to point business destined for Manchester towards their respective runways and in this specific case, now Liverpool. They welcomed the flight with open arms and have now probably guaranteed this customer uses them again on repeat business.

Turning business away whilst laying off staff suggests the MAG CARGO MANAGER needs a degree of retraining.

Time for our new CEO and Charlie Cornish to bang heads together.

It was unacceptable turning away PPE flights earlier in the year and remains so with general cargo.

This would have been a Handling agent decision and not a MAG decision. MAG cannot force Handling agents to handle an aircraft. This has been pointed out to you many times now that MAG do not do aircraft handling.

[Suzeman]

Latest ACL just come through. S21
Z

Interesting Tweet here from SPD travels this afternoon

https://twitter.com/SPD_travels/status/1328331116646981634

Good job they won't be cargo flights....:E

[allan1987]

Slots been made Public

Slots are on Microsoft Power BI

Biggest Change is
Aer Lingus 4 based Aircraft 1 A330 and 3 a321LR

Also that Flybe have 632 slots

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMmU0Y2Y1YWQtZjFjOC00MzUzLWE5M2YtMDkxNDIzODhhY zdjIiwidCI6ImJhNzNmYjViLWM1ZWUtNGNiNy04NzFjLWU4YjI0NWQwYjY3Y iJ9&pageName=ReportSection

[Navpi]

The handlers didn't refuse it, they were more than happy to to handle, why wouldn't they, with jobs on the line.

I'd call in a Watergate journalist to establish the truth if i were you.....

[The96er]

The handlers didn't refuse it, they were more than happy to to handle, why wouldn't they, with jobs on the line.

I'd call in a Watergate journalist to establish the truth if i were you.....

Navpi, I’ve no idea why you keep banging the ‘cargo’ drum at MAN, but it’s been explained multiple times the reasons why. You clearly have no idea on the internal workings and decision processes at MAN and how the handling system works.

[VickersVicount]

Wizz- flood market with cheap bucket and spaders or classical eastern european? There can only be so much before saturation on some of these likely routes. What about a curveball Domestic route to LGW or a dip into Transatlantic?
They may of course not even take the slots up, but all these new deliveries need to go somewhere. Would have thought they would have grown and max’d LGW before branching out.

[mariofly12]

Wizz- flood market with cheap bucket and spaders or classical eastern european? There can only be so much before saturation on some of these likely routes. What about a curveball Domestic route to LGW or a dip into Transatlantic?
They may of course not even take the slots up, but all these new deliveries need to go somewhere. Would have thought they would have grown and max’d LGW before branching out.
Well they are trying to get more slots at LGW and grow there...As they said before they...dream of a 20-odd fleet there...

[davidjohnson6]

What are the plans with reopening terminals beyond T1 after the 2nd of December, assuming the formal lockdown is ended ?

[GrahamK]

The handlers didn't refuse it, they were more than happy to to handle, why wouldn't they, with jobs on the line.

I'd call in a Watergate journalist to establish the truth if i were you.....

That the flight was always going to Liverpool? Dropping off car parts ?

[barry lloyd]

That the flight was always going to Liverpool? Dropping off car parts ?

...to a factory which almost overlooks the airport. Now does that make sense?

[SWBKCB]

...to a factory which almost overlooks the airport. Now does that make sense?

Sounds like "a customer who has a desperate demand to use an airport on his doorstep"

[zfw]

What are the plans with reopening terminals beyond T1 after the 2nd of December, assuming the formal lockdown is ended ?

Depends on traffic, at the moment no plans to open T3 if it remains at these levels.

[BACsuperVC10]

Sounds like "a customer who has a desperate demand to use an airport on his doorstep"

It makes sense that it flew to Liverpool with the Automotive factories on the doorstep.

[eye2eye5]

“SPD_travels (https://mobile.twitter.com/SPD_travels)
Was told this morning that Ryanair and easyjet have been offered exclusive use if T1 at manchester with no landing fees for 4 years, plus Easyjet seriously considering exiting there liverpool base. T1 will become solely a low frills terminal and T2 will become home to the rest”

It’s not often that commercial terms being offered are leaked into public domain, as in the tweet above.
not being from the aviation industry, my questions arising would be:
- is this a potential distortion of the market by virtue of scale?
- is it in the long term public interest?
- do such changes fall to the CAA to rule on?

Does this point to a consolidation in the industry, with a smaller number of large airports surviving post Covid?

[southside bobby]

Could also perhaps prove an interesting precedent for MAG owned STN then.

[MANFOD]

“SPD_travels (https://mobile.twitter.com/SPD_travels)
Was told this morning that Ryanair and easyjet have been offered exclusive use if T1 at manchester with no landing fees for 4 years, plus Easyjet seriously considering exiting there liverpool base. T1 will become solely a low frills terminal and T2 will become home to the rest”

It’s not often that commercial terms being offered are leaked into public domain, as in the tweet above.
not being from the aviation industry, my questions arising would be:
- is this a potential distortion of the market by virtue of scale?
- is it in the long term public interest?
- do such changes fall to the CAA to rule on?

Does this point to a consolidation in the industry, with a smaller number of large airports surviving post Covid?

That quote is incorrectly attributed to S.P.D. Travels. It was a comment directed to him by someone else on twitter.

[Navpi]

Sounds like "a customer who has a desperate demand to use an airport on his doorstep"

I'm not disputing the fact that Liverpool should of course have been the primary destination, that is not in doubt.

Well done Liverpool who grasped the opportunity readily and by all accounts provided excellent customer service.
We should not forget that they will have put themselves in prime position to handle more of these flights moving forward.

But an approach was made to Manchester who seemingly made no attempt to look at what might be done to handle this flight.

So in effect are we are saying Manchester has scant regard for its employees or taxpayers who provided a substantial bail out a few months ago, and is now incapable of handling a pure freight flight ever again. Its preposterous for an airport of this size centred in the heart of the industrial North.

Is Manchester the only airport in the UK with a no freight notam ?

Even accepting that the main freight hub is EMA this seems farcical.

Ps Merry Christmas skipness one Foxtrot or is that S1E

[SWBKCB]

In effect we are saying Manchester is incapable of handling a pure freight flight ever again. That's farcical.

Do FedEx and ASL still not operate most nights?

[Navpi]

Do FedEx and ASL still not operate most nights?

They do but it's pretty meagre for an airport supposedly pushing the Northern gateway mantra.

"20m customers within 2 hours is a pr puff piece that Manchester continually push"

Not apparently if its important cargo however!

[chaps1954]

Cargo operations area bit difficult at present with all the taxiway works and shortage of stands

[SWBKCB]

Right, so it's alright for Liverpool's important cargo to go to Manchester, but not for Manchester's important cargo to go to the Midlands?

As has been pointed out previously, cargo isn't that bothered...

Is Manchester the only airport in the UK with a no freight notam ?

Which NOTAM is this? The only current NOTAM I can find which mentions cargo a/c is A3792 on aerodrome hours which states that the terminal restrictions don't impact cargo flts

[GrahamK]

Surely MAN should have refused to accept the diverted Antonov from last week???

[Navpi]

Acceptance of the AN124 was to be greatly applauded, this was an operational diversion however, no freight was off loaded, it is therefore superfluous to this argument.
ATC, ops, fire did however came together in a brilliant "can do" attitude that was so prevalent in the 80s and 90s.

[pwalhx]

I have worked in the logistics sector for many years and in particular airfreight at Manchester, Leeds/Bradford and Heathrow. I echo the previous comments that freight doesn't care where it lands. In my younger days at Manchester in the mid 70's onwards we had freigters every night to Dublin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Zurich etc, all now gone replaced by trailers to said airports.

The vast majority of cargo arriving/leaving by air at Manchester is carried in the belly of cargo aircraft, so it could well be argued (current situation permitted) that increasing passenger flights is the driving growth for cargo at Manchester not the occasional ad-hoc charter. For scheduled freigters, there are other airports best suited to handle them in the group and that makes economic sense for MAG.

[AndrewH52]

Car industry freight generally does care where it lands. To go the expense of bypassing their normal supply chain routes generally means that the parts or materials in question are urgently required. There is no point flying them somewhere they can’t be offloaded and on their way to the factory quickly.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I echo the previous comments that freight doesn't care where it lands.

It really does, you know. Well, the importers who are responsible for it do anyway. I refer you to the recent storm of discussion in the freight publication 'The Loadstar' in which shippers are up in arms at news that their containers have been landed at Liverpool 2 rather than Felixstowe or Thames Gateway where they were expected (there is currently a congestion issue at SE ports). They've even been given deadlines to collect their containers from Liverpool and return the empties, yet there is an industry-wide shortage of trucks available to do this work. And the cost for this falls to the importers, not to the shipping company. Rows too about 'in time for Christmas' freight backlogged at Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge etc. due to the same issue. The notion that 'freight doesn't mind where it goes' is exposed by this as the myth it always was. Those contemporary examples relate to sea freight, but the principle applies generally. That issue sourcing trucking capacity affects air cargo distribution too.

The vast majority of cargo arriving/leaving by air at Manchester is carried in the belly of cargo aircraft, so it could well be argued (current situation permitted) that increasing passenger flights is the driving growth for cargo at Manchester not the occasional ad-hoc charter. For scheduled freigters, there are other airports best suited to handle them in the group and that makes economic sense for MAG.

Yes, it is true that the vast majority of flown freight at MAN is shipped in the cargo holds of passenger aircraft. That is not in dispute. But this reality is not the result of market forces. This is a situation which has evolved by design. It is the inevitable consequence of a long-term policy pursued by MAG to switch-sell cargo leads specifically intended for MAN to other airports in the group. The same cargo liaison team answers all cargo enquiries for MAN/EMA/STN - the MAG website shows the same contact details for all three airports. A cynic might suggest that they have deliberately run down cargo handling capability at MAN in support of this policy by presiding over essential freight-handling equipment being relocated to alternative sites. Now the message is that MAN can't handle this cargo because we don't have [insert name of missing equipment] available. MAN used to routinely handle multiple B747F's per week. Now the message seems to be that they can't. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy that MAN can't handle pure freighters, because that outcome has been engineered by a decade of planned neglect.

It is very encouraging that the new management team at MAN appears to be making real constructive efforts to attract back air passenger business ("progressive" initiatives put forward by MAN, according to a recent quote attributed to Michael O' Leary). There are early signs that lamentable past instances of the airport turning away requests for additional based units by carriers such as Ryanair and EasyJet are being replaced by initiatives to accommodate all such capacity as based carriers can be incentivised to commit. Rumours of approaching Wizz for a base too. All good progress, to be applauded if confirmed. Kudos for this.

But if MAN is to finally leave behind its industry tag as "the airport which likes to say NO!!!" once and for all, then there is much more work to be done. Cargo leads - YES! Aircraft parking (when this can be accommodated) - YES! Prospective new hangar tenants offering high quality employment to the region - YES! Training approaches at quiet times - YES! Diversions - YES! Executive traffic - YES! Unfortunately, the default answer at MAN is far too often NO! Sometimes the answer genuinely does have to be 'No', but at MAN it can often appear to be a case of a default 'NO!' before the underlying question is even considered.

Many Manchester veterans reflect with fondness upon the management team around in the Gil Thompson era when the airport was the 'CAN DO' poster-child of aviation in the UK. How acutely those positive attitudes are needed now. But the (alleged) recent default 'NO!' response to the RAM B767F inquiry - allegedly before handling agents were even approached - suggests that MAN's complacent ultra-negativity towards certain "too difficult for us" market sectors is alive and well. For this culture to change, perhaps some old fossils need to be booted right out of their comfort zone of complacent idleness.

I suggest that in the current challenging market environment, any MAG executive who is still issuing default 'NO!' answers to all new business leads should be summoned for a chat with Ms Smart to explain why they shouldn't be part of the next headcount cull.

Time to see a return to the sorely-missed culture of 'CAN DO' at MAN.

[zfw]

End of an era. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJEtlxdn3jI

[Yeehaw22]

Good to see they've got a top pro team in to do it :ooh:​​​​​​

The hse would have a field day.......

[chaps1954]

No problem that is how it is done,go to Lasham or Kemble or the many place in US

[Yeehaw22]

No problem that is how it is done,go to Lasham or Kemble or the many place in US

What having half a wing section just cut off and landing right at the base of the mewp? And the highly extended forklift/telehandler forcing against it?

Even the dodgiest of scrappers would have had that section supported rather than just letting it go.

[chaps1954]

Go on you tube plenty of videos, hacking tail off or cutting 747 in half and just let them fall to ground

[CWL757]

What having half a wing section just cut off and landing right at the base of the mewp? And the highly extended forklift/telehandler forcing against it?

Even the dodgiest of scrappers would have had that section supported rather than just letting it go.
​​​​​​That's how nearly every scrapyard does it. If anything that was quite a neat chop. As mentioned above, YouTube is filled with video's of the exact same thing happening.

[MAN777]

Surely letting chunks of metal fall uncontrolled risks splintering the very expensive concrete apron surface ?

[Yeehaw22]

​​​​​​That's how nearly every scrapyard does it. If anything that was quite a neat chop.

No it doesn't. Yes there are many methods that would leave a rougher cut but they wouldn't be done with personnel on the wing and access equipment close by. And as mentioned potential damage to the apron. The more normal approach with manual cutting like that would be to have it slung with a crane.

Am more surprised at the airport authority allowing it done in that way considering they are among the most strict airports I've been airside at for airside safety rules.

​​​​

[chaps1954]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDxJAO__6t8

[brian_dromey]

Why is this one being scrapped at MAN? Was this the aircraft under maintenance at the time of the TCX collapse? I know it's not the youngest frame out there, but it seems odd that the aircraft would have missing parts and/or documentation that would prevent it being flown away for dismantling? Ultimately I guess it was cheaper to cut it up in-situ than return it to some sort of flyable condition?

[zfw]

Why is this one being scrapped at MAN? Was this the aircraft under maintenance at the time of the TCX collapse? I know it's not the youngest frame out there, but it seems odd that the aircraft would have missing parts and/or documentation that would prevent it being flown away for dismantling? Ultimately I guess it was cheaper to cut it up in-situ than return it to some sort of flyable condition?
All 3 of the original Airtours ones are being scrapped Brian, GMLJL,GMDBD,GOMYT, they have underfloor toilets so it makes them non standard for most airlines coupled with that they are more than 20 years old. It would have taken to much money to recertify them to flying condition having stood around since Setember last year.

[irishlad06]

No it doesn't. Yes there are many methods that would leave a rougher cut but they wouldn't be done with personnel on the wing and access equipment close by. And as mentioned potential damage to the apron. The more normal approach with manual cutting like that would be to have it slung with a crane.

Am more surprised at the airport authority allowing it done in that way considering they are among the most strict airports I've been airside at for airside safety rules.

​​​​

the breaking up of the aircraft is being completed in the old Thomas cook hangar apron - not on the main airside apron. It is actually all Landside.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Anyone know who the Thomas Cook hangar is going to? This was originally built for BA then went to FLS? Is that about right?

[The96er]

Anyone know who the Thomas Cook hangar is going to? This was originally built for BA then went to FLS? Is that about right?

The TCX hangar was originally built for, I believe FFV aerotech (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). The old 'BA' hangar, of similar design, but about 1/3rd size sits to the south of the TCX hangar. Last I heard was that Dublin Aerospace were looking at the TCX hangar, but this was pre-pandemic and not heard anything since March. The old BA hangar, latterly used by Air Livery is due for demolision at somepoint.

[MAN777]

THG were briefing the media they were going to base their own freighters at MAN, one of the CGI photos showed an aircraft in front of a large hangar !

[SWBKCB]

THG were briefing the media they were going to base their own freighters at MAN, one of the CGI photos showed an aircraft in front of a large hangar !

THG - weren't they meant to be up and running by now?

[roverman]

The TCX hangar was originally built for, I believe FFV aerotech (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). The old 'BA' hangar, of similar design, but about 1/3rd size sits to the south of the TCX hangar. Last I heard was that Dublin Aerospace were looking at the TCX hangar, but this was pre-pandemic and not heard anything since March. The old BA hangar, latterly used by Air Livery is due for demolision at somepoint.


Almost right, 96er, the hangar was originally opened as Qualitair in 1989 but not long after the name changed as you say, to FFV Aerotech. I think it was a merger or re-branding thing.

[eggc]

Not seen this on this thread and borrowed from a post on BHX thread by nwoody2001

Manchester - the ACL Slot report has been release and shown the following airline have applied for the following:

= Aer LIngus - a 4 a/c base operating long haul routes to the USA (1x A330 and 3x A321LR)
= Wizz Air - a 4 a/c base operating across europe (4x A321s)
= Ryanair - increase their base at MAN by adding an additional 5x a/c to their existing base

Not mentioned above is the proposed increase for S21 by EZY by 4 a/c at MAN.

Obviously regularly slots are returned, but with rumour of some of the deals offered to the likes of RYR and EZY by MAG, links now with WIZZ surfacing and rumours of EZY pulling LPL...is MAN aggresively going for LPL to replace to some what has been lost ?

To be honest under current circumstances does it really make sense to EZY and RYR to have bases 30 miles apart ? If Wizz did open MAN would same apply to them ?

Is this possibly something we'll repeatedly see across Europe as airlines consolidate thier positions until things return to at least something like normal ?

Is there significant cause for LPL to be very worried ?

[eye2eye5]

It’s a really good question and maybe the follow on would be:
- would the regulator ( CAA) feel that it’s in the public interest?
- if so, will there be further consolidation in the North, maybe loss of DSA, HUY, EMA freight only?
- NCL to be decimated by EDI?
- would the regulator then add controls to car parking charges, max time from chocks to baggage on carousel (customer metrics in a monopolistic airport environment) etc?

Perhaps post Covid there will be major structural changes, but perhaps with less choice there needs to be more regulation.

[AndrewH52]

I think the EZY/RYR ‘no fees’ rumour is adolescent mischief making. It would surely be against competition law both in terms of aggressively targeting a competitor causing it to experience financial loss, but also because it would be giving two airlines unfair subsidies compared to any other existing operator at Manchester flying to the same destination.

As for WZZ, it is actually WUK that has applied for slots and IF they were to set up a base it would presumably be yet more bucket and spade routes as with Luton and Doncaster. In any event, it may well just be a negotiating tactic to extract better terms from Liverpool.

Time, as ever, will reveal all.

[MARK 101]

Not seen this on this thread and borrowed from a post on BHX thread by nwoody2001

Manchester - the ACL Slot report has been release and shown the following airline have applied for the following:

= Aer LIngus - a 4 a/c base operating long haul routes to the USA (1x A330 and 3x A321LR)
= Wizz Air - a 4 a/c base operating across europe (4x A321s)
= Ryanair - increase their base at MAN by adding an additional 5x a/c to their existing base

Not mentioned above is the proposed increase for S21 by EZY by 4 a/c at MAN.

Obviously regularly slots are returned, but with rumour of some of the deals offered to the likes of RYR and EZY by MAG, links now with WIZZ surfacing and rumours of EZY pulling LPL...is MAN aggresively going for LPL to replace to some what has been lost ?

To be honest under current circumstances does it really make sense to EZY and RYR to have bases 30 miles apart ? If Wizz did open MAN would same apply to them ?

Is this possibly something we'll repeatedly see across Europe as airlines consolidate thier positions until things return to at least something like normal ?

Is there significant cause for LPL to be very worried ?
Have felt all along that Covid would reset Aviation back a few years. Think the airlines will be looking for deals and also where they can make higher returns. I believe the big airports MAN and LHR especially will be where the first growth will be. Actually believe the more regional airports will take longer to recover

[chaps1954]

Yes I agree Mark101 I think we may well see 2 or 3 airports go to the wall or drop out of the airline market

Ian

[OzzyOzBorn]

It’s a really good question and maybe the follow on would be:
- would the regulator ( CAA) feel that it’s in the public interest?
- if so, will there be further consolidation in the North, maybe loss of DSA, HUY, EMA freight only?
- NCL to be decimated by EDI?
- would the regulator then add controls to car parking charges, max time from chocks to baggage on carousel (customer metrics in a monopolistic airport environment) etc?

This really comes down to whether you want to live in a free-market economy or a command economy. In a free-market economy, businesses are free to compete with each other for customers. In a command economy, state officials dictate outcomes. I'm a free-market advocate myself, though I note the arguments in favour of both systems. Our airports are generally free to compete with each other for business, and this process has generally produced good outcomes for the travelling public. Liverpool has done well in competing for the attentions of Ryanair, EasyJet, Wizz and Blue Air. They also won a promise of business from Adria Airways over the Manchester option ... though that carrier failed before anything came of it. No complaints from MAN about "unfair competition" in any of these instances, though when it is MAN which looks to have the upper hand, cries of 'foul' come flying out of Merseyside. No, the free market works both ways. None of the parties should have their hands tied in bidding for business.

And indeed, this process is not just about the winners. Ryanair has done well out of playing off MAN / LPL / LBA against each other. EasyJet has played off MAN and LPL. And, as cited upthread, Wizz has form for flirting with an unserved airport to secure better terms at their preferred base of choice. Could this be happening again? We don't know, but it remains a possibility. If they end up choosing to expand at LPL / DSA, MAN will have to accept that: it is a competitive free market outcome. But the reverse is also true.

Whatever your ambitions for your preferred local airport may be, it is a fact that this process of competing for business results in lower fares for consumers. And that is what the competition authorities like to see. MAN is doing nothing wrong in competing for business with neighbouring airports. And, conversely, neither are they in bidding against MAN.

And as for the airlines: they've never needed improved terms from suppliers more than they do now.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

No matter which side of the Mersey you may be from - Manchester is technically on the South bank - can I commend the above post for its analysis of the present situation and the clear way in which the options open to both airlines and airports are explored.

2021 will be a year that none of us will have experienced before - both physically and, I do believe, emotionally. It will be as if a world war has been raging, and indeed in many ways it has been. All I can hope for is that I, together with all those on this site, survive and are once again able to enjoy, in due course, the ability to travel from an airport that is within our reach - without having to travel down to the Big Smoke.

Stay safe and, if temporarily on furlough or unemployed, I trust that there will be a positive outlook on life.

[MAN777]

Hi

I think Manchester is actually on the north bank.
The Mersey starts in Stockport, and skirts a smallish portion of South Greater Manchester. Manchester and the vast majority of GM is north of the Mersey👍

Sioltach Dubh Glas , 22nd Nov 2020 13:49
No matter which side of the Mersey you may be from - Manchester is technically on the South bank - can I commend the above post for its analysis of the present situation and the clear way in which the options open to both airlines and airports are explored.

[zfw]

Not seen this on this thread and borrowed from a post on BHX thread by nwoody2001

Manchester - the ACL Slot report has been release and shown the following airline have applied for the following:

= Aer LIngus - a 4 a/c base operating long haul routes to the USA (1x A330 and 3x A321LR)
= Wizz Air - a 4 a/c base operating across europe (4x A321s)
= Ryanair - increase their base at MAN by adding an additional 5x a/c to their existing base

Not mentioned above is the proposed increase for S21 by EZY by 4 a/c at MAN.

Obviously regularly slots are returned, but with rumour of some of the deals offered to the likes of RYR and EZY by MAG, links now with WIZZ surfacing and rumours of EZY pulling LPL...is MAN aggresively going for LPL to replace to some what has been lost ?

To be honest under current circumstances does it really make sense to EZY and RYR to have bases 30 miles apart ? If Wizz did open MAN would same apply to them ?

Is this possibly something we'll repeatedly see across Europe as airlines consolidate thier positions until things return to at least something like normal ?

Is there significant cause for LPL to be very worried ?

Mentioned from the 16th Nov?

[chaps1954]

Mentioned from the 16th Nov?
Airport is south of Mersey as once river leaves Stockport it heads towards Chorlton before heading to westwards, its the Bolllin that runs along west side of airfield under 05 end

[eye2eye5]

Thank you Ozzy. I was rather drawing on my experience in banking. It is the norm there to routinely ask clients of competitors for their business and there are no barriers to customers moving from one bank to another. In the name of competition however, RBS has been instructed to reduce its market share of business accounts and customers are actively encouraged - and incentivised - to move elsewhere.
The pool of business customers in the UK is vast and the risk to any one bank of losing a few customers is small.
However, airlines are certainly moving in the direction forecast by MOL a couple of years ago and are consolidating to a small core which between them will hold great market power. When I posed my earlier question about regulation, I should have indicated that my interest was around the potential for the market to be distorted by both a small number of airlines and a small number of airports. Given the high number of recent failures, perhaps a reduction in choice is inevitable.....as long as it isn’t on the back of retrenchment to the Big Smoke as alluded to above.

[eye2eye5]

On a more positive note:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/22/manchester-airports-group-offers-prize-for-first-zero-carbon-commercial-flight?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[BACsuperVC10]

This really comes down to whether you want to live in a free-market economy or a command economy. In a free-market economy, businesses are free to compete with each other for customers. In a command economy, state officials dictate outcomes. I'm a free-market advocate myself, though I note the arguments in favour of both systems. Our airports are generally free to compete with each other for business, and this process has generally produced good outcomes for the travelling public. Liverpool has done well in competing for the attentions of Ryanair, EasyJet, Wizz and Blue Air. They also won a promise of business from Adria Airways over the Manchester option ... though that carrier failed before anything came of it. No complaints from MAN about "unfair competition" in any of these instances, though when it is MAN which looks to have the upper hand, cries of 'foul' come flying out of Merseyside. No, the free market works both ways. None of the parties should have their hands tied in bidding for business.

And indeed, this process is not just about the winners. Ryanair has done well out of playing off MAN / LPL / LBA against each other. EasyJet has played off MAN and LPL. And, as cited upthread, Wizz has form for flirting with an unserved airport to secure better terms at their preferred base of choice. Could this be happening again? We don't know, but it remains a possibility. If they end up choosing to expand at LPL / DSA, MAN will have to accept that: it is a competitive free market outcome. But the reverse is also true.

Whatever your ambitions for your preferred local airport may be, it is a fact that this process of competing for business results in lower fares for consumers. And that is what the competition authorities like to see. MAN is doing nothing wrong in competing for business with neighbouring airports. And, conversely, neither are they in bidding against MAN.

And as for the airlines: they've never needed improved terms from suppliers more than they do now.

Liverpool Airport were bases for Easyjet and Ryanair prior to them arriving at Manchester so those airlines were not attracted away from Manchester indeed neither have expanded greatly at Liverpool since that happened. I very much doubt Liverpool Airports management ever expected Adria to begin their proposed operations considering their financial situation, of course we are not privy to negotiations but I cant really imagine why Liverpool Airport would go after an airline in such dire shape. Wizz and Blue have only ever operated from Liverpool and of course they will have to offer them attractive rates but there will be a limit to what an airport the size of Liverpool can offer compared to its much large neighbour same for LBA which as far as I know also hasn't attracted any business from Manchester airline wise, with Jet2 growing very slowly if at all there.
If Manchesters financial dominance allows them to offer much lower rates than Liverpool and indeed any other northern airport, I'm not sure how this can be considered a benefit to the region as a whole or passenger.

We are basically left with less choice and a growing monopoly at one airport not to mention job losses. I don't accept the lower fares argument , weather you fly from Liverpool or Manchester or Leeds they are all competing and would have to therefore offer attractive fares otherwise many passengers would just use Manchester if the fare from there was so much less.

If Liverpool looses its main carriers to Manchester due to anti-competitive pricing, I fear for Liverpool Airports future, which I believe to be highly detrimental for the travelling public and the loss of a northwest asset.

[eggc]

VC10...if you were a boss at EZY looking to make considerable savings, in light of the current situation, would you say it is sensible to have bases 30 miles apart, with the duplications of costs that creates, to essentially serve the same catchment area ?

As for you point on competition...multiple airports serving a route has an effect obviously, but so does multiple airlines serving the same route from just one airport - which is what we will see at MAN with LS, EZY, RYR and maybe Wizz UK. If in worst case scenario the all switch to MAN (highly unlikely) then we wouldn't see mass price rises. Worst I can see from a pax point of view is a few may have to travel a smidgen further. The bleak side is the effect on LPL, but as many have said above this type of thing was always going to happen, and already is...just look at what LGW has lost for one example.

[Navpi]

Consolidation at one base would appear to be nailed on.
it's a new world compared to 12 months ago.

EZY will be obligated to make best choices for its shareholders, 2 bases 30 miles apart is a nonsense in this climate when airlines are fighting for survival.

It might be unpalatable but going bust is worse !!!

[SWBKCB]

What significant duplicated costs are there?

[eggc]

Staff in all posts except flight / cabin crew. Probably some offices etc aswell. I'd say that today every penny counts to every airline - all will be looking for savings wherever possible.

[BACsuperVC10]

VC10...if you were a boss at EZY looking to make considerable savings, in light of the current situation, would you say it is sensible to have bases 30 miles apart, with the duplications of costs that creates, to essentially serve the same catchment area ?

As for you point on competition...multiple airports serving a route has an effect obviously, but so does multiple airlines serving the same route from just one airport - which is what we will see at MAN with LS, EZY, RYR and maybe Wizz UK. If in worst case scenario the all switch to MAN (highly unlikely) then we wouldn't see mass price rises. Worst I can see from a pax point of view is a few may have to travel a smidgen further. The bleak side is the effect on LPL, but as many have said above this type of thing was always going to happen, and already is...just look at what LGW has lost for one example.

It is slightly more than a smidgen, if I leave my office at Seaforth to get to Manchester Airport for a flight after work, I will need to allow two hours to do that to allow for possible hold ups, plus check in. As far as I'm concerned it bad news for Liverpool Airport and the 5M who chose to use it and Liverpool City Region in particular and the NW in general. With respect to considerable cost savings, this can only be from very low fees to squeeze Liverpool out.

[PDXCWL45]

It is slightly more than a smidgen, if I leave my office at Seaforth to get to Manchester Airport for a flight after work, I will need to allow two hours to do that to allow for possible hold ups, plus check in. As far as I'm concerned it bad news for Liverpool Airport and the 5M who chose to use it and Liverpool City Region in particular and the NW in general. With respect to considerable cost savings, this can only be from very low fees to squeeze Liverpool out.
I think we also need to remember as well. There'd be quite a lot of job losses and a detrimental effect to the local economy if Liverpool were to lose even just it's Easyjet base.

[eggc]

Don't think anybody on here is urging that PDXCWL45, just asking the question if you were EZY would you think the overlapping bases could be more cost effective. I have little doubt from an EZY point of view consolidation would be the cheaper option.

[SWBKCB]

Staff in all posts except flight / cabin crew. Probably some offices etc aswell. I'd say that today every penny counts to every airline - all will be looking for savings wherever possible.

My understanding is that EZY crews are largely self-administering and there are very few if any staff or offices on site at airports. If you do consolidate, you surrendering market to your competitors who can offer more choice. You also lose the adavantage of playing operators off against each other.

[BACsuperVC10]

I think we also need to remember as well. There'd be quite a lot of job losses and a detrimental effect to the local economy if Liverpool were to lose even just it's Easyjet base.

in particular in bound tourism which once we get out of Covid is significant, having no air services to Liverpool would have a massive effect on this.

[eggc]

in particular in bound tourism which once we get out of Covid is significant, having no air services to Liverpool would have a massive effect on this.

MAN is 30 miles away, which is hardly putting the Merseyside / North Wales ares out of reach. Economic issues (job losses etc) are valid comments, MAN being too far for tourists to get to aforementioned areas isn't really.

[BACsuperVC10]

MAN is 30 miles away, which is hardly putting the Merseyside / North Wales ares out of reach. Economic issues (job losses etc) are valid comments, MAN being too far for tourists to get to aforementioned areas isn't really.
Not so, city break visitors are not looking to add extra travel time to Liverpool city centre, the 30 miles away sounds close , but it doesn't translate in travel time. Anyway maybe it wont happen as you said.

[PDXCWL45]

Not so, city break visitors are not looking to add extra travel time to Liverpool city centre, the 30 miles away sounds close , but it doesn't translate in travel time. Anyway maybe it wont happen as you said.
Also people looking for city breaks might not necessarily know the airports are close together. They might Google city breaks for Liverpool see not many flight options and look at other destinations.

[BACsuperVC10]

Also people looking for city breaks might not necessarily know the airports are close together. They might Google city breaks for Liverpool see not many flight options and look at other destinations.

This is a concern.

[Mr A Tis]

If "they" wanted to consolidate at Manchester- there is always the compromise of operating W pattern flights from MAN or overseas based aircraft into Liverpool.

On the subject of discounts to easyJet & Ryanair I'm sure Jet 2 & TUI would have something to say about that. I doubt it would be feasible to maintain an airport the size of Manchester without income from landing fees. There is a limit of how much you can rip people off with drop off charges and how much Duty Free you can flog, often at a higher price than regular discount shops.

[commit aviation]

Whilst I suspect this pandemic has a way to run yet, EZY took a position fairly early on with long term cost efficiencies by closing bases as STN, SEN and NCL. It would appear they have looked at the near term future as best as anyone can and put measures in place to reduce overheads - they are currently anticipating operating at around 20% normal traffic levels over winter.
Any "sweeteners" from airports may see the traffic return quicker in those places next spring but I get the impression EZY are battening down the hatches now whilst planning for the longer term in the remaining bases. It is always possible that the situation could take a turn for the worse over the winter and they would then need to revisit the base situation again but for now, I personally don't think this will happen.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Liverpool Airport were bases for Easyjet and Ryanair prior to them arriving at Manchester so those airlines were not attracted away from Manchester indeed neither have expanded greatly at Liverpool since that happened. I very much doubt Liverpool Airports management ever expected Adria to begin their proposed operations considering their financial situation, of course we are not privy to negotiations but I cant really imagine why Liverpool Airport would go after an airline in such dire shape. Wizz and Blue have only ever operated from Liverpool and of course they will have to offer them attractive rates but there will be a limit to what an airport the size of Liverpool can offer compared to its much large neighbour same for LBA which as far as I know also hasn't attracted any business from Manchester airline wise, with Jet2 growing very slowly if at all there.
If Manchesters financial dominance allows them to offer much lower rates than Liverpool and indeed any other northern airport, I'm not sure how this can be considered a benefit to the region as a whole or passenger.

We are basically left with less choice and a growing monopoly at one airport not to mention job losses. I don't accept the lower fares argument , weather you fly from Liverpool or Manchester or Leeds they are all competing and would have to therefore offer attractive fares otherwise many passengers would just use Manchester if the fare from there was so much less.

If Liverpool looses its main carriers to Manchester due to anti-competitive pricing, I fear for Liverpool Airports future, which I believe to be highly detrimental for the travelling public and the loss of a northwest asset.

A number of points raised here. Firstly, I have made no assertions concerning which airline operated from which airport first. It seems irrelevant to the points I addressed in my earlier post. Indeed, LPL was absolutely dominant in the no-frills sector for many years, so they have shown that they are able to compete very effectively in this space without an artificial 'leg-up' from a regulating authority. LPL continued to do well in the no-frills sector right up until C-19 brought the entire market grinding to a halt. With reference to my earlier post, the point I made was that EZY and RYR did play their MAN and LPL bases off against each other over a number of years and presumably benefitted from doing so in the form of more competitive terms which they could pass along to their customers. Wizz - whilst never to date operating from MAN - has also used the mechanism of seeking alternative offers to keep terms competitive. I expect that Blue Air routinely does likewise. And fair enough; that is how the business works. Similarly, those airlines which have selected MAN as their primary operating base will also periodically sound out alternatives to keep their terms as competitive as possible. MAN has in the past lost CSA, Air India and Bangladesh Biman (first time around) to this process, and Adria had expressed intent to do likewise. Primera Air also selected BHX as their main base ahead of MAN, and Monarch Airlines reduced their MAN presence in favour of expanding at BHX instead. MAN doesn't automatically win every battle. And BTW, I doubt that LPL would have enjoyed privileged access to Adria's accounts at the time of that bid. They were business worth pursuing when they were pitched. This competitive bidding process is healthy for airlines and their customers, and from the perspective of airports it works both ways. LPL (and others) can (and do) gain at MAN's expense as well as the other way around.

You may recall that afew years ago Ryanair abruptly pulled all its schedules ex-MAN with the exception of the Dublin service in a dispute over "rip-off fees". So MAN certainly wasn't using any "anti-competitive pricing" powers to gain advantage over the thriving LPL base at that point. And Ryanair's return to MAN post-dispute came with higher charges attached ... I don't know what the LPL fees were but it does seem that Ryanair was paying more to use MAN. So again, the evidence suggests that MAN has not used its size to undercut LPL on price in the past. On the contrary, it has leveraged its attractive business proposition to charge more than smaller airports do.

The situation vis-a-vis LBA is different again. The reason that Jet2 stopped growing much there was that they had effectively bulked out the airport in terms of overnight aircraft parking capacity. Pre-COVID, LBA was operating pretty much to the capacity its fixed infrastructure could tolerate, so no adverse effects from neighbouring airports inhibiting the action there. We don't know how the market will respond post-C19, but beyond it's 2019 throughput, LBA growth is primarily dependent on increasing terminal and aircraft parking capacity on site. Certainly, MAN was not eating their lunch back then. Note too that LBA actually DID attract a Ryanair base AFTER that carrier was an established based operator at MAN.

Your assertion of MAN operating on a monopolistic basis doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pre-COVID, LPL was scoring around five million pax per annum which is pretty healthy going. LBA, as mentioned, was restrained by the limitations of their infrastructure but operating broadly to capacity. DSA was doing fine, and has offset the recent loss of it's FlyBe operation with a two-ship Wizz base (alongside their existing TUI business). That would put them on course for record passenger throughput once C-19 is behind us. EMA is most notably a cargo hub, though it does have a healthy sideline in passenger airline business which appeared to be ticking along nicely pre-virus. Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, BHX can point to its fair share of wins in the perennial battle for business with MAN.

So there is no evidence of any genuine issue with the existing system of airports competitively pitching for airline business. All local airports can boast their share of successes. MAN has never run away with 100% of the pie, and I don't anticipate anything close to that transpiring, notwithstanding that first-level airports tend to be the focus of consolidation in an immediate post-recession market environment. We may see an element of that playing out, but it does not constitute anti-competitive behaviour by the beneficiary airport. MAN is not state-backed ... it needs to make money, and all it's business pitches must allow for a worthwhile return to the bottom line, no matter how bids are structured. They've got an expensive new terminal extension to pay off.

The recent round of alarmism from some LPL advocates is without merit. The current system of airports competing for business from a range of carriers is working just fine. And the ultimate winners from this process are the fare-paying passengers.

[Curious Pax]

It won’t go down well with my friends further down the Mersey, but I would suggest that the renaissance that came when EZY and RYR took off there was actually because of Manchester. It’s well known that Manchester management at the time were pretty dismissive of the low cost carriers, preferring to court full service airlines. If they hadn’t done that, and had encouraged EZY and RYR as they do now, then it’s not unrealistic to suggest that both airlines would have come to MAN and not served Liverpool, which would have made things extremely difficult or even fatal for them.

[lplsprog]

True that Manchester management were anti LCC and that EZY went to LPL instead however I think that FR were instructed by the Irish Government to use LPL to protect Aer Lingus at that time. FR eventually went back but have fell out with MAN a few times and and have moved flights at the whim of MOL. Now MAN has bags of space with the opening of T2 extension and are hoping to tempt W6 from LPL as well. Could be interesting in the next few months.

[SWBKCB]

I think that FR were instructed by the Irish Government to use LPL to protect Aer Lingus at that time

Sounds like an interesting conversation.... :ok:

[BACsuperVC10]

True that Manchester management were anti LCC and that EZY went to LPL instead however I think that FR were instructed by the Irish Government to use LPL to protect Aer Lingus at that time. FR eventually went back but have fell out with MAN a few times and and have moved flights at the whim of MOL. Now MAN has bags of space with the opening of T2 extension and are hoping to tempt W6 from LPL as well. Could be interesting in the next few months.

Rod Hill who was the CEO at LPL at the time was the man who got Easyjet to look at a north of England base. They started with Amsterdam and Nice.

[BACsuperVC10]

True that Manchester management were anti LCC and that EZY went to LPL instead however I think that FR were instructed by the Irish Government to use LPL to protect Aer Lingus at that time. FR eventually went back but have fell out with MAN a few times and and have moved flights at the whim of MOL. Now MAN has bags of space with the opening of T2 extension and are hoping to tempt W6 from LPL as well. Could be interesting in the next few months.

Yes that was what happened at the time Aer Lingus were told to stop flying to Liverpool by the Irish Government in favour of Ryanair, and vice versa at Manchester.

[southside bobby]

...& yes way back in the day a similar arrangement existed at STN too on the direction of the Irish Government re EIN & RYR.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Hey MAG! Opportunity knocks ... if you're quick, agile and up for a challenge!!!

Dig out that plan you shelved around five years ago. Blow off the dust. The one which would have resulted in the T3 pier being extended to the east, allowing for afew more gates to accommodate based Ryanair B738's. Back then, you discovered that a number of utility and fibre cable trunk routes were routed under Old Ringway Road, and these would have to be rerouted at your expense to allow the build to proceed. So you dropped the extension plan on cost grounds - and, lo and behold - you subsequently had to turn away Ryanair's request to base an additional five B738's at MAN because T3 was bulked out. Quelle surprise! And that was certainly detrimental to the economy of this region. Was it three extra EasyJet's you couldn't fit in T1 as well? Tragic.

Well, now Santa is coming to town and he is bearing gifts. £4Bn available for projects in the North which offer "clear benefit to the region" and which can be delivered during the lifetime of this government (three years?).

You can borrow this letter template which I've prepared for you if you like. Save time!

Dear Rishi (me old cock-sparrow),

We know you've chucked us under the bus so far during this covid pandemic-thingie. But maybe you could glance in our direction now? Time you showed us some love, pal!!! [**Remember to sound very Northern so those Westminster civil servant types take note of your inherent regionalness and oikish charm**].

We've got this ace cool plan to extend out our T3 Pier to the east so we can accommodate additional European air services for the economic benefit of our region (brill for post-Brexit trading links 'n' all). Unfortunately, there is a bunch of utility cables under the site we need which meant we couldn't make the numbers work for our shareholders, even though that expansion would have greatly benefitted the region's economy. We subsequently had to refuse an additional five based Ryanair B738's due to lack of space in T3. And EasyJet Airbi in T1 'cos we'd not expanded there either. So hows about we sit down tomorrow and talk about paying for our T3 pier extension with dough from your £4Bn 'levelling-up' war-chest? We can deliver within three years - honest! - and we'll certainly be needing the extra stands by then with C-19 well in the rear-view mirror. And here's the best bit: Ryanair don't even want fancy gates with business lounges and artworks. They want low cost functional ones which do the job effectively. So they're actually quite cheap to build if we could just shift those darned utility cables out of the way? Howzabout it, Guv? Maybe chuck in an extra twenty quid for some harp stickers (the new ones with enhanced kn*ckers) and a bit of blue and gold paint?

Oh, and if you could spare afew bob to help us complete T2 Pier 2 which we've had to freeze that would be really great as well. The planes will all be back in three years and we can't afford to build anything for them right now. No dosh coming in and all that.

Cheers, Pal!

Lots of Luv and Sloppy Kisses,

Cheerful Charlie, ('New Broom') Can-Do Kaz and all your mates the MAG Massif.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know it makes sense. How could Rishi refuse?

And let's be honest here. We all know that there were long term hopes to replace T1 & 3 with a new T2-style replacement eventually. But that idea is an absolute dead duck now following what Covid has wrought. So what we really need to do (in a hurry) is knock T1 and T3 together into a single terminal. Then knock down T1 car park and extend the existing complex to the North with a new mega-security area for fast and efficient processing of passengers. Lots of baggage drops, QR-code readers and a big arrivals area with zillions of egates. Then we buy a bunch of orange, blue / gold, pink / purple paint and ... wizzo ... we got ourselves an awesome quick-turnaround cheap and cheerful no-frills mega terminal for three well known carriers to bulk out? What's not to love?

Then we concentrate all the long-haul, business travel and upmarket leisure stuff in our new T2 interchange with a super-efficient transfers lounge and great facilities. Compact parking area measured up for Dashes and ATR's. Domestic arrivals channel. Dedicated areas for Oneworld, Star Alliance and SkyTeam. Jet2 Zone. TUI Zone. Virgin Zone (airline variety). Every other misfit zone. Private lounges. Top-end retail. The works! A fantastic amenity for the North. Demonstrable benefit to the economy. Deliverable within the lifetime of this government. If you cast aside MAN's favourite word ... "NO!!!"

Text Rishi now. Ask for some dosh. Blow the dust off the T3 pier extension plan. Buy some shovels. Get to work. You've got three years to get it done. Tick tock ...

Oh ... and if you do a Zoom meeting with Whitehall, be sure to bury that Manchester cargo marketing guy under the floorboards. He will blow the whole game again. Suggest they spend the dosh at Stansted. You've seen his track record. Is he dead already?

[OzzyOzBorn]

P.S. Dear Rishi. Please will you buy us a new Hi-Lo. From that fund. Huge benefit for the North. We promise not to ship it out to Stansted later. Honest! Fingers crossed and hope to die! Love, Chaz and Kaz. :-)

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Manchester cargo guy?? Well he doesn't appear to know where the 'reply' button on emails is - assuming that he receives them.

Sorry.....

[inOban]

If major utilities need to be moved then there is no chance of delivery in 5 years, let alone 3.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Manchester cargo guy?? Well he doesn't appear to know where the 'reply' button on emails is - assuming that he receives them.

Sorry.....

OK, I confess. That bit was a joke. There isn't one. There's just a guy based at EMA who takes MAN's calls and switch-sells them to EMA / STN! :-)

If major utilities need to be moved then there is no chance of delivery in 5 years, let alone 3.

Give me some shovels. I'll get it sorted for 'em.

[Navpi]

If major utilities need to be moved then there is no chance of delivery in 5 years, let alone 3.

I think the original plans suggested three so mr Mr Ozzy is infact correct.

Always liked Paranoid btw........

[inOban]

MAG may have thought 3 years, but had they discussed it with the utility companies, whose workplans have to be agreed with their regulators...?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Yep. But they can blame Gubmint bureaucracy for that inevitable delay. And so keep the dosh. Or risk hacking off the voters at a crucial moment!

[DP.]

And let's be honest here. We all know that there were long term hopes to replace T1 & 3 with a new T2-style replacement eventually. But that idea is an absolute dead duck now following what Covid has wrought. So what we really need to do (in a hurry) is knock T1 and T3 together into a single terminal. Then knock down T1 car park and extend the existing complex to the North with a new mega-security area for fast and efficient processing of passengers. Lots of baggage drops, QR-code readers and a big arrivals area with zillions of egates. Then we buy a bunch of orange, blue / gold, pink / purple paint and ... wizzo ... we got ourselves an awesome quick-turnaround cheap and cheerful no-frills mega terminal for three well known carriers to bulk out? What's not to love?


Even allowing for what has happened to the industry this year - I can't see MAG spending the money to extend T1, when the plan was for it to be mothballed pretty soon after the entirety of the T2 works were complete. The costs of demolishing that car park and rebuilding a new passenger handling structure in its place would be significant, and I can't see that it make financial sense when they've already accepted that T1 needs to go, and that it's likely that terminal capacity is going to be much less of an issue for the foreseeable.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

On the topic of new stands for Ryanair and easyJet based growth, is it not simpler to concrete some off terminal apron and bus? It's far from ideal but it's also pretty common to do so. I mean if you really want more loco, that would seem a decent halfway house. Or is the cost of the bussing being passed onto the airlines who won't pay for an airbridge a deal breaker?

[MANFOD]

It's a fair question Skip, and I'm sure someone can give you a more informed answer than me. However, with the boundary limits, I'm just not sure how much ground is left to concrete over for additional apron parking. I've a feeling there may still be space to the NW of Pier 1 of T2 and beyond the existing remote stands newly completed. With the inevitable staggering of the first wave departure slots, I think before covid, a/c for the later departures of that wave were often brought onto stand after the early flights had gone, rather than busing. But that requires a slick towing operation.

Can't really comment on relative costs and who stands them.

[AndrewH52]

MAG may have thought 3 years, but had they discussed it with the utility companies, whose workplans have to be agreed with their regulators...?

This would be a service diversion, paid for by MAG so not requiring any agreement from the regulator. It would take a while to plan in just because of the nature of the cables to be moved.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Even allowing for what has happened to the industry this year - I can't see MAG spending the money to extend T1, when the plan was for it to be mothballed pretty soon after the entirety of the T2 works were complete. The costs of demolishing that car park and rebuilding a new passenger handling structure in its place would be significant, and I can't see that it make financial sense when they've already accepted that T1 needs to go, and that it's likely that terminal capacity is going to be much less of an issue for the foreseeable.

Your concerns are valid. But if we acknowledge that T1 in particular has had very little spent on it in recent times in expectation that it would be demolished in the not too distant future, then doing nothing cannot remain a viable option for much longer. The envelope has been pushed pretty much to the limit. So if a new-build terminal is off the menu (almost a certainty given the implied costs of that) then a significant refresh / refurb of T1/T3 actually IS itself the cheap option. If that complex has to serve for another 20 years (for example) - a highly likely scenario - and since it has already been neglected for a decade now, some money will have to be spent on it. It can't soldier on for much longer without some well overdue TLC. I'd heard (and stand to be corrected on this) that the original T1 car park will need to come down anyway (structure life-expired?). So that space could be used to extend capability for processing formalities re arriving and departing pax. This also brings significant operational cost savings, as ideally T3 would cease to be serviced as a check-in / arrivals point in its own right. Just one set of facilities needed to service the whole complex as one integrated larger terminal. The extension need not be an expensive showpiece structure. 'Functional' and 'low budget' would tick all the boxes. Ryanair encourages thrift in such developments too. No-frills carriers love that whole 'bus station' vibe.

On the matter of how quickly terminal capacity will be needed, I'd suggest that the return of business will be very uneven across different market sectors. Short-haul no-frills carriers will go for a 'landgrab' strategy, securing valuable peak-time slots where they can and grandfathering them to stake their future. This puts pressure on less flexible legacy competitors as well. They can do this with some confidence too, as previous recessions have shown that people DO still take vacations after a downturn - but they often choose to trade down to a lower budget option for a couple of years. Hence cheapie flights to Spain and Turkey come back much stronger than upmarket offerings to Florida and the Caribbean. Business travel trades down too to a far greater extent than people realise. MAN needs to plan around the likelihood that an increased proportion of its customers will be using no-frills metal in the years to come. And that means that T1/T3 - the likely home of no-frills at MAN - must be tailored to cope with that market shift. Higher footfall, shorter dwell-times airside. It doesn't need to be an architectural showpiece. Cheap and reliable is the requirement. Boxy and functional is fine.

On the topic of new stands for Ryanair and easyJet based growth, is it not simpler to concrete some off terminal apron and bus?

Unfortunately, as MANFOD alludes to, the only land which could reasonably be converted for additional aircraft parking is located on the west side of the airport - much too distant to be a viable option for quick service no-frills turnarounds serviced from T1/T3. And the only land available close to the existing T3 footprint is that same area which has all those utilities routed beneath it. The problem there was never the cost of extending the pier structure itself - it was the cost of rerouting those utilities. And that challenge applies equally whether one were to build a structure or just remote hard stands over that space. So the real choice is stark: pay to reroute the utilities and expand capacity, or accept the existing limitations for the long term. I can't visualise any suitable spare land of sufficient size for aircraft parking adjacent to the T1 footprint.