Manchester-3

[ATNotts]

Pot calling the kettle black here. You're putting an awfull lot of credence in puff pieces. Do you really think cargo cares if it arrives in a pure freighters or as underbelly freight?

MAN was fourth biggest in the UK in terms of air freight volumes in 2022 - not too shabby.
You could easily get the impression that for a few its 'all about the reggies'.

To be 4th in cargo tonnage, behind presumably LHR, STN and EMA is just about where you might expect MAN to land.

[SWBKCB]

All freight/baggage handling/airbridge driving was carried out solely by the airport in house handling.


When I worked for Servisair back in the day we had to operate the hi-lo's for belly cargo etc, it wasn't Manchester Corporation

[42psi]

Pot calling the kettle black here. You're putting an awfull lot of credence in puff pieces. Do you really think cargo cares if it arrives in a pure freighters or as underbelly freight?

MAN was fourth biggest in the UK in terms of air freight volumes in 2022 - not too shabby.


Exactly that.

[42psi]

When I worked for Servisair back in the day we had to operate the hi-lo's for belly cargo etc, it wasn't Manchester Corporation


Not until after the handling was opened up you didn't!

In fact even after that Servisair started by only doing the ramp handling in T2, T1 continued with the Servisair airlines being sub-contracted to Ringway Handling.

After a while Servisair took their T1 contracts in house and did it all themselves.

But only a few years later they again withdrew back to T2 after agreeing a working partnership with RHSL (Ringway Handling). The deal was that RHSL would sub contract the pax handling etc to Servisair across both T1 and T2 and Servisair would sub it's T1 ramp handling to RHSL.

At that point RHSL had started winning contracts for whole handling in its own right, but without a dispatch/passenger handling section it needed to sub that part of the work.

That stumbled along for a few years before again breaking down.

In between RHSL explored partnerships with with others, for a while it had a deal with Manchester Handling to provide the dispatch/pax services but little of commercial value came from it.

At one point RHSL had dabbled with providing it's own dispatch/front of house and pushbacks but couldn't really reach the volumes to make it viable. After that the board of RHSL would never allow it to develop in that direction again.

RHSL did however get back into pushbacks.

[SWBKCB]

Not until after the handling was opened up you didn't!



Early 80's? Well before T2. Pretty sure we did. It stood out because otherwise we couldn't touch bags - we were just about tolerated taking strollers from the gate to the aircraft. Distinctly remember having to muscle Laker A.300 containers into/out of the hold cos their **** computer/laser system expected containers to be 'square'. By contrast the DC-10 system was a dream.

[chaps1954]

Don`t forget aircraft change as does flight number AC909 and A330 until end of September so pretty much same as previous years as it is
holiday flight not business one

[laviation]

Don`t forget aircraft change as does flight number AC909 and A330 until end of September so pretty much same as previous years as it is
holiday flight not business one
I assume Air Canada will commit to year round services once their A321XLRs start coming
Their cabins will only be 8% premium - perfect for the MAN market

[eggc]

Why ?

The divisions are legally differing and competing businesses and MAG Group is a global business - Operating under GB, EU and WTO rules, various financial regulators and subject to relevant “trust” considerations including those in the USA !

Collusion falls under similar regulations covering cartel type practices - As per my earlier post being in breech of these rules can lead to very very significant fiduciary sanctions via relevant agencies and licensing authorities.

Because it's like going in to Asda wanting brand A which they have not got and Asda not being allowed to offer brand B because ir's upto the customer to figure out a solutrion themselves. I stick with it's utterly bonkers to think an enquiry MAG gets they cannot offer a MAG solution.

[DomyDom]

FedEx back from end of October is a start, at least. BFS-MAN-CDG, 737-300F. Operated during silly o'clock, IIRC 0130a/0530d
is it daily? Thanks in advance.

[laviation]

is it daily? Thanks in advance.
Four weekly

[ICEHOUSES]

is it daily? Thanks in advance.
Is this permanent or temporary for the peak season ?

[ATNotts]

Is this permanent or temporary for the peak season ?
Summer is low season for the package industry!

[laviation]

One thing I noticed when taking a little look at the ACL report
Norse's daily slot pair is not present during the last couple weeks of season (mid to late March)
Could it potentially be a winter seasonal BGI they're targeting? They will launch daily LGW-BGI from 29OCT2023.. so not out of the picture

[OzzyOzBorn]

This discussion has moved on apace since I was last available to contribute. However, I would like to follow up on some points raised.

With regards to freight one of the things to consider is logistically the UK is not that big and the distance from EMA to MAN is not that great a distance and there is a large logistical park adjacent to EMA which is growing. Maybe the decision has been taken to make EMA the freight hub.

People are looking at cargo from a MAN only perspective, not MAG wide. MAG don't need cargo at MAN as they have a superb facility in a perfect location at EMA. It's no more complicated than that and if I ran MAG it would make perfect sense to keeping sending cargo to its dedicated cargo hub. Makes perfect sense for the business...but less so for MAN fans & spotters.

Others have commented on this, notably Rutan16 who astutely highlighted the legal implications.

My own impression is that these quoted comments summarise MAG's take on the situation very well. Those of us who oppose MAG's policy on cargo at Manchester do understand the logic behind their thinking, we just don't agree with it. There are good reasons for this.

Taking a step back, we must realise that Manchester Airport serves as a privately-run utility. Regulatory oversight is routinely required in such situations, as utility companies must strike a very fine balance to address the conflict of interest which naturally arises between optimising the company bottom line and providing an acceptable level of service to users. Companies will not get it right every time, but they must at least demonstrate the spirit of appropriately addressing the balance between maximising profits and providing a decent quality of service. They need to be seen to get it right more often than not.

Regrettably, during the approximately twelve years or so of Mr Cornish's tenure, it has become abundantly clear that MAG profits come first absolutely, and the interests of Manchester Airport's users and catchment area trail in a very sorry second place. Whilst "sweating the assets" is commendable up to a point, there are occasions when discretionary investment makes good business sense. The impression given by Mr Cornish's record is that investment will only be signed off when absolutely unavoidable ... and I do include the TP project in that, because the time-expired structure which is T1 must be either reconstructed or replaced. Spending nothing there is not an option. However, T2's redevelopment has been done on the tightest possible budget with value engineering taken to extremes. Sometimes producing unanticipated consequences. Beyond this, plans to expand T3 ahead of Ryanair's planned expansion curve were vetoed; T1 and T3 have received only cosmetic improvements for a decade or so despite handling 50%+ of passenger throughput at MAN over that period. Whenever the question arises of discretionary investment for the benefit of the region versus maximising MAG profits, the latter appears to have been prioritised every time on Mr Cornish's watch.

The cargo situation at Manchester Airport has arguably been the most egregious example of this. In order to optimise MAG's investment in upgraded cargo facilities at EMA and STN, a "scorched earth" policy has been pursued against this area of business at MAN. You can see MAG's logic: no further investment required for cargo at MAN (duplicated costs from their perspective), a leg-up for building cargo profits at their preferred centres elsewhere, an obvious profit boost to MAG's bottom line. Yes, we get it. We understand the group business logic. BUT ... this brings us back to that utility business dilemma and monopoly provider power. This policy very clearly disadvantages Manchester Airport specifically, it's users, and businesses in it's catchment to the benefit of MAG profits. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that it is an abuse of a monopoly position, and this is why regulators take note. Who can argue that Manchester City Region has benefitted from this policy in terms of competitiveness, employment, skills, connectivity, service to local business or economic growth? It is blatantly detrimental to the area (but, yes, great for MAG profits). From the region's perspective, the right balance has NOT been struck here, and reports of 'slapped knuckles' by the regulator seem unsurprising. It therefore becomes paramount that MAG is seen to address this situation with serious intent. It would be too easy to pay lip service to welcoming back cargo flights, whilst allowing lack of basic equipment on campus to produce their desired outcomes by default anyway. If the regulator is to be satisfied that MAN is taking this seriously, then MAG needs to be seen to equip the airport to handle cargo flights (and to train staff to use the equipment). This can be done either directly or in liaison with willing handling agencies. Because we know from previous cases that when a regulator feels the need to intervene for a second time, the penalty extends far beyond 'slapped knuckles'. That would not be in the interests of MAG's bottom line, it's shareholders ... or it's reputation.

You could easily get the impression that for a few its 'all about the reggies'.

To be 4th in cargo tonnage, behind presumably LHR, STN and EMA is just about where you might expect MAN to land.

SIGH. Where to begin?

Freight Stats MAN 2007: 165,366 Tonnes
Freight Stats MAN 2023: 64,082 Tonnes [MAT to May 2023]

Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2007: 37 (of which 25 widebody)
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2023 : 0 (yes, that number is ZERO).

Being fourth placed in some notional league table is irrelevant. Those numbers are lamentable. To suggest that those who call for action to redress this 100,000 Tonne deficit in freight throughput are only interested in "reggies" is childish.

However, to be clear, I have no time for those who abuse planespotters. I passed my initial interview leading to a long and rewarding career in commercial aviation based on knowledge drawn from childhood planespotting. And once on the inside, I quickly learned that most of my colleagues had too! Anyway, AT Notts, I'm pretty sure I bought afew books compiled by you on such topics back in the day!!! Or am I thinking of a different AT in the Midlands?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Shed wrote : Whenever the question arises of discretionary investment for the benefit of the region versus maximising MAG profits, the latter appears to have been prioritised every time on Mr Cornish's watch.
If a wide body cargo flight ends up at EMA or STN, the revenue flows to MAG, which unless I am terribly confused, finds it's way back to the region eventually? There's nothing new to add here.

Quick question mind, I can remember my first visit in 1991 where BA and Servisair had their own steps etc, but was loading also done by handlers or by the airport? Tugs were BA and Servisair blue respectively. Not sure if Manchester Handling had branded equipment.

[Rutan16]

This discussion has moved on apace since I was last available to contribute. However, I would like to follow up on some points raised.





Others have commented on this, notably Rutan16 who astutely highlighted the legal implications.

My own impression is that these quoted comments summarise MAG's take on the situation very well. Those of us who oppose MAG's policy on cargo at Manchester do understand the logic behind their thinking, we just don't agree with it. There are good reasons for this.

Taking a step back, we must realise that Manchester Airport serves as a privately-run utility. Regulatory oversight is routinely required in such situations, as utility companies must strike a very fine balance to address the conflict of interest which naturally arises between optimising the company bottom line and providing an acceptable level of service to users. Companies will not get it right every time, but they must at least demonstrate the spirit of appropriately addressing the balance between maximising profits and providing a decent quality of service. They need to be seen to get it right more often than not.

Regrettably, during the approximately twelve years or so of Mr Cornish's tenure, it has become abundantly clear that MAG profits come first absolutely, and the interests of Manchester Airport's users and catchment area trail in a very sorry second place. Whilst "sweating the assets" is commendable up to a point, there are occasions when discretionary investment makes good business sense. The impression given by Mr Cornish's record is that investment will only be signed off when absolutely unavoidable ... and I do include the TP project in that, because the time-expired structure which is T1 must be either reconstructed or replaced. Spending nothing there is not an option. However, T2's redevelopment has been done on the tightest possible budget with value engineering taken to extremes. Sometimes producing unanticipated consequences. Beyond this, plans to expand T3 ahead of Ryanair's planned expansion curve were vetoed; T1 and T3 have received only cosmetic improvements for a decade or so despite handling 50%+ of passenger throughput at MAN over that period. Whenever the question arises of discretionary investment for the benefit of the region versus maximising MAG profits, the latter appears to have been prioritised every time on Mr Cornish's watch.

The cargo situation at Manchester Airport has arguably been the most egregious example of this. In order to optimise MAG's investment in upgraded cargo facilities at EMA and STN, a "scorched earth" policy has been pursued against this area of business at MAN. You can see MAG's logic: no further investment required for cargo at MAN (duplicated costs from their perspective), a leg-up for building cargo profits at their preferred centres elsewhere, an obvious profit boost to MAG's bottom line. Yes, we get it. We understand the group business logic. BUT ... this brings us back to that utility business dilemma and monopoly provider power. This policy very clearly disadvantages Manchester Airport specifically, it's users, and businesses in it's catchment to the benefit of MAG profits. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that it is an abuse of a monopoly position, and this is why regulators take note. Who can argue that Manchester City Region has benefitted from this policy in terms of competitiveness, employment, skills, connectivity, service to local business or economic growth? It is blatantly detrimental to the area (but, yes, great for MAG profits). From the region's perspective, the right balance has NOT been struck here, and reports of 'slapped knuckles' by the regulator seem unsurprising. It therefore becomes paramount that MAG is seen to address this situation with serious intent. It would be too easy to pay lip service to welcoming back cargo flights, whilst allowing lack of basic equipment on campus to produce their desired outcomes by default anyway. If the regulator is to be satisfied that MAN is taking this seriously, then MAG needs to be seen to equip the airport to handle cargo flights (and to train staff to use the equipment). This can be done either directly or in liaison with willing handling agencies. Because we know from previous cases that when a regulator feels the need to intervene for a second time, the penalty extends far beyond 'slapped knuckles'. That would not be in the interests of MAG's bottom line, it's shareholders ... or it's reputation.



SIGH. Where to begin?

Freight Stats MAN 2007: 165,366 Tonnes
Freight Stats MAN 2023: 64,082 Tonnes [MAT to May 2023]

Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2007: 37 (of which 25 widebody)
Weekly Scheduled Cargo Flights 2023 : 0 (yes, that number is ZERO).

Being fourth placed in some notional league table is irrelevant. Those numbers are lamentable. To suggest that those who call for action to redress this 100,000 Tonne deficit in freight throughput are only interested in "reggies" is childish.

However, to be clear, I have no time for those who abuse planespotters. I passed my initial interview leading to a long and rewarding career in commercial aviation based on knowledge drawn from childhood planespotting. And once on the inside, I quickly learned that most of my colleagues had too! Anyway, AT Notts, I'm pretty sure I bought afew books compiled by you on such topics back in the day!!! Or am I thinking of a different AT in the Midlands?


Specifically addressing the potential conflict of interests between parent business and that of a significant operating division.

MAG is allegedly acting as a mini cartel at the expense of competition between divisions and indeed impacting wider competition in a specified market place.

Indeed there “may” even have been conversations with the premier operator in this space - If that were the case massive anti -competitive behaviour is/has taken place - i don't has any specific evidence of this, however the wide air cargo business has been implicated in running cartels on a number occasions and on a global scale recently.

Its fundamentally an example as to why market regulators exist and indeed need to exist.

Summarising of the situation and addressing of the legalities PLUS 1000% if up votes were a thing .

[ICEHOUSES]

Shed wrote :
If a wide body cargo flight ends up at EMA or STN, the revenue flows to MAG, which unless I am terribly confused, finds it's way back to the region eventually? There's nothing new to add here.

Quick question mind, I can remember my first visit in 1991 where BA and Servisair had their own steps etc, but was loading also done by handlers or by the airport? Tugs were BA and Servisair blue respectively. Not sure if Manchester Handling had branded equipment.
I believe most baggage handling in 91 was done by Ringway handling subsidiary of MAG, before terminal 2 was opened in 93, I recall MH had branded equipment, I stand to be corrected though if wrong.

[42psi]

MAG is allegedly acting as a mini cartel at the expense of competition between divisions and indeed impacting wider competition in a specified market place.
.

Apart from the comments being made in this thread, where are these allegations and what is the source?

I'm not aware of any complaint having being made, or under investigation, or any claim having being made by any competitor or other interested party.

The only time MAG group has been involved with any CMA investigation/warning (since the one which resulted in diversification of handling services at MAN) was from the CAA in 2016 relating to car parking charges at EMA between 2007 and 2012.
This was case Ref CA 98-001.
While the case was proven, the various factors considered by the CAA resulted in a penalty of £0.

LHR was also subject to a similar investigation and fined £1.6 million for the same activity.

To me that suggests MAG group tends to act with probity in relation to it's regulatory obligations generally.

[Navpi]

So with no case to answer the narrative of the argument changes to accusations of being a reggie spotter !!!

I assume you have introduced that possibly
sneeringly ?

Is that not a somewhat arrogant approach ?

ATN what sparked your interest in aviation?

Is it not being somewhat disingenuous to plane spotters and setting the bar low in terms in terms of arguing a point?

But i guess when you have been sat down, and are in a cul de sac in terms of factual debate you have no option but to try and change the playlist.

For the record i have no written mechanism to record serials, have visited Manchester Airport twice since Christmas and last bought a Civil Aircraft Markings book in 1978. A visit to Ringway in 1972 did spark a lifelong interest in aviation however, nothing wrong with that.

In terms of freight my interest here is purely as an end customer having experienced delays on delivery which in my opinion could have been reduced considerably if capacity where appropriate was placed where demand exists.

As for the quotes i referenced being puff pieces, i beg to differ when you look at the CVs of those making the pronouncements.

They all originate from the same basic premise that Manchester Airport is as much about imports/exports as it is passengers. If you were to say to all those who attended that launch that freight throughput is down 50% via an artificial diversion of pure freight enquiries to other airport including no doubt some outside the group i suspect the overwhelming view would be one of astonishment.

[chaps1954]

Maybe barking up wrong tree but wasn`t Manchester Handling a subsidery of Gatwick Handing

[42psi]

Maybe barking up wrong tree but wasn`t Manchester Handling a subsidery of Gatwick Handing

You are correct, Gatwick Handling shareholders also included Delta, not sure who the rest were (possibly Dan Air?).

When Aer Lingus started the fifth freedom flights at Manchester it took a shareholding in Manchester Handling.

A while later this shareholding was expanded. Manchester Handling had been making losses each year which the existing shareholders were reluctant to cover. Aer Lingus injected the funds to cover this in return for a 51% holding

[Rutan16]

Right now my considered view is that the MAG parent approach has generally delivered overall.

However, remains potentially counter to natural, ethical and civil and criminal judicial regulations.

Specifically that referred to previously.

Example conversation

Airline operations and route development teams at ABC Corp and in say Megaland have identified that Manchester (and the wider North of England) as being potentially lucrative market for their import and export businesses.

They visit the Manchester Airport web site , contact the Manchester Airport development team and make an enquiry and issue a RFI based on the information provided.

Specifically that Manchester Airport are a major player in cargo, having the ability and handling facilities to process multiple tens indeed hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cargo and as advertised.

Only to find that by an act of omission (inability to deliver those advertised services – the NO HiLo or other similar equipment onsite) having been committed.

They then are redirected to alternative Group services in breech of competition and GPRS rules.

This is at the very least false advertised and a breech of trading standards but much much worse its potentially a criminal act within the Fraud Act 2006 “advertising and obtaining services dishonestly” – by omission (knowingly or otherwise)

The later carries unlimited fines and potentially up to 10 years custodial sentence for any and all officers of the business upon conviction

What’s known is that the regulators have issued notices to operators that there are concerns of collusion and relevant breeches for which the potential exists for more damaging investigations.

We can also assume the notice contains informative concerns sufficient for remedial action on operational issues.

We can assume that right now NO further investigations are scheduled subject audit and review by those businesses in receipt of the said

[eggc]

Does MAG actually advertise word for word that it has HiLo equipment and specify that it can take any a/c type ? If it doesnt then you will find all you mention very hard to stick as MAN does handle significant amounts of cargo so their words are not false nor misleading. It's not even like that it is MAN's responsibility to have such equipment, that would be handling agents.

[42psi]

As for the quotes i referenced being puff pieces, i beg to differ when you look at the CVs of those making the pronouncements.

They all originate from the same basic premise that Manchester Airport is as much about imports/exports as it is passengers. If you were to say to all those who attended that launch that freight throughput is down 50% via an artificial diversion of pure freight enquiries to other airport including no doubt some outside the group i suspect the overwhelming view would be one of astonishment.

Please don't take this as a criticism of your contribution.

I wouldn't probably have used the phrase "puff pieces" but I'm afraid I do agree with the sentiment.
​​​​​​
Public pronouncements by MAG are not just intended for the public!
They are also for the consumption of the shareholders and investors.

The investors want returns, not just from flying activities. They expect MAG to leverage all it's assets to create economic activity. A good example of this has been the development taking place in the surrounding areas over the few years. Some of this has nothing at all to do with flying passengers, freight or ancillary activity.

All of those statements are just a list of feel good encouraging pieces designed to basically say "aren't we doing well, keep investing in us, we have a plan, we're good at making money, investing in us is a sure fire winner, the geographical area can support a lot more than we're exploiting at the moment, if you're a local politician take note - if you support us in decisions you're area/region benefits "

Believe me, shareholders and board members probably need more" stroking" and assurances (as well as exemplary investment returns) than any other group.

Those same investors may also be involved in the surrounding business activities so want to see MAG doing things which will grow or support that.

[Rutan16]

You are correct, Gatwick Handling shareholders also included Delta, not sure who the rest were (possibly Dan Air?).

When Aer Lingus started the fifth freedom flights at Manchester it took a shareholding in Manchester Handling.

A while later this shareholding was expanded. Manchester Handling had been making losses each year which the existing shareholders were reluctant to cover. Aer Lingus injected the funds to cover this in return for a 51% holding 42psi your incite to some of
the history and minutiae of the strata and changes
within the airport handling is appreciated.

As for Gatwick Handling Dan Air and Laker were the founders if i remember correctly

You’re comments of the wider activities of MAG Group and their Australian partners is what alluded to as other activities.

[Rutan16]

does mag actually advertise word for word that it has hilo equipment and specify that it can take any a/c type ? If it doesnt then you will find all you mention very hard to stick as man does handle significant amounts of cargo so their words are not false nor misleading. It's not even like that it is man's responsibility to have such equipment, that would be handling agents.

that is the act of omission right there

In advertising a service any service it is the business offering the service responsibility to ensure subcontractors franchise partners and suppliers also have that ability to deliver.

Omission is NOT a defence no it’s evidence for a claim in and of itself

Such claims are the very essence of many civil cases in particular and indeed much of the case law and prescience is based upon these sorts of actions

Again my own opinion is MAG Group has been pretty successful across the three airport divisions however there are areas of criticism indeed potential legal issues that’s have been highlighted here

[eggc]

Let me get this right in the context of our business...we manufacture / distribute uniform for the aviation sector. We advertise that we print logos and we use a brand new technology called DTF, but we do not do Screenprinting. So by advertinsing we print logos but not specifically saying we do not screenprint that some might want is false advertisng ? In that case I doubt there is a compamy in the country that doesnt fall foul of this in some respect and I am about to take SkyBet to court if correct as they never mentioned in their adverts they dont take bets on naked fly fishing events ;)

[Asturias56]

"Companies will not get it right every time, but they must at least demonstrate the spirit of appropriately addressing the balance between maximising profits and providing a decent quality of service. They need to be seen to get it right more often than not."

Well good luck with that - look at the Water companies, the electric companies etc - even LHR or Man Utd- they takeout as much of the profit as they can - there is zero effective oversite and never any legal action

This suits the City of London etc but is a major reason why nothing works anymore in the UK

[Navpi]

Does MAG actually advertise word for word that it has HiLo equipment and specify that it can take any a/c type ? If it doesnt then you will find all you mention very hard to stick as MAN does handle significant amounts of cargo so their words are not false nor misleading. It's not even like that it is MAN's responsibility to have such equipment, that would be handling agents.
Unfortunately this is pretty damming.

Manchester Airport’s constantly expanding cargo community comprises some of the world’s leading freight and logistics businesses. Our cargo facility, the World Freight Terminal, is a community of more than 1,000 professionals managing freight-only aircraft as well as consignments that arrive or depart in the holds of passenger aircraft.

[SWBKCB]

No it isn't, it actually supports "eggc's" point. It doesn't say they can handle all sorts of freight or all types of aircraft. Not all freight-only a/c are wide-bodies, or are you implying there is some sort of restriction on all freight-only a/c?

[Navpi]

No it isn't, it actually supports "eggc's" point. It doesn't say they can handle all sorts of freight or all types of aircraft. Not all freight-only a/c are wide-bodies, or are you implying there is some sort of restriction on all freight-only a/c?

Well unless I'm blind it says they "manage freight only aircraft" ?

What am i missing.

Our cargo facility, the World Freight Terminal, is a community of more than 1,000 professionals managing freight-only aircraft as well as consignments that arrive or depart in the holds of passenger aircraft.

[Navpi]

42psi your incite to some of
the history and minutiae of the strata and changes
within the airport handling is appreciated.

As for Gatwick Handling Dan Air and Laker were the founders if i remember correctly

You’re comments of the wider activities of MAG Group and their Australian partners is what alluded to as other activities.

I thought Manchester Handling started operations in 1985 ? Wasn't that about 14 years after the last Aer Lingus 5th freedom service operated or was there a 2nd incarnation?

I recall Cornelius Clark in a meeting with Gil Thompson as a lead mover who had Irish connections, possibly EI.

[42psi]

I thought Manchester Handling started operations in 1985 ? Wasn't that about 14 years after the last Aer Lingus 5th freedom service operated.


Nope, Manchester Handling under the name GH Manchester were in full swing by the time the Aer Lingus fifth freedom flights started (again) 1988.

[OzzyOzBorn]

If a wide body cargo flight ends up at EMA or STN, the revenue flows to MAG, which unless I am terribly confused, finds it's way back to the region eventually? There's nothing new to add here.


You're being disingenuous here, Skip. So dividends accrue to the shareholders. Who knew? But that isn't the point.

The MAG cargo policy implications for MAN include

- Lost potential employment opportunities on the campus
- Those lost employees and their dependents don't contribute to the local economy
- The city region's skill base is negatively impacted
- Fewer openings for school-leavers etc.
- The airport's offer to customers is devalued
- Freight forwarding via MAN is rendered sub-optimal
- The economic engine of the region is wilfully undermined
- Potential customers are let down
- Established MAN carriers are unable to supplement their regular services with whole plane freight operations
- Manchester Airport is less than the best version of what it could be

And that's just for starters.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Afew words of reassurance for lfc84 and BHX5DME.

I passed through T1 security at 07:00 this morning. No delays. Calm atmosphere. Friendly, helpful staff. Busy in the departure lounge, but found seating fine. Queues in the retail and F&B outlets well under control.

I passed through T3 arrivals at 21:50 this evening. Not a busy time, but straight through all formalities at walking pace. Soon out by the kerbside.

One really can't ask for more than that. Chris Woodroofe is doing a good job on this stuff.

And before you write me off as a 'happy clapper' re all things Manchester Airport, you'd better take a read of my comments on the cargo situation (above).

But credit where it is due. The user experience was flawless today.

[Navpi]

I'm glad someone has identified this key point.

"supplement their regular services with whole plane freight operations".

I too have wondered how much freight is being lost which could supplement and indeed in some cases "support" scheduled pax operations ? I wonder even if MAG know ?

It's a point MAG have possibly missed a trick on in not accepting whole plane charters.

[chaps1954]

Thing is though if it goes to EMA or STN it is still coming to same group, The authority know they are short of space for a couple of years whilst building work is going on so to save an embrarrasing
position of not having a stand for pax aircraft stop freight only, there have been similar positions at Gatwick and Heathrow over the years

[eggc]

...just to get away from Cargo even for a short while...if I said what airline has threated for the longest time to grace MAN who would you say ? Obviosuly you'll all say THAI :)

Well I've just seen a new route map of theirs that has a dotted line to MAN with "launching soon" - now in a world where anything and everything can be photoshopped I went straight to THAI website for confirmation and it is not the same route map and MAN isnt there.

So has anyone heard anything on THAI at all recently ?

[UnderASouthernSky]

One really can't ask for more than that. Chris Woodruffe is doing a good job on this stuff.



People really seem to struggle getting the MD's name right, for some reason.

[Rutan16]

EGGC.

No you are not committing an act of omission here.
The fact you offer a differed specification to traditional screen printing is quite legitimate, through you might want to check your legacy company literature and media; there is always the classic “reserve the right comment” available when selling goods in particular, services can be more nuanced..

Fundamentally to reduce the risk of falling fowl its the prime reason larger corporations have campaigns vetted by their legal teams and that they constantly have their web and social media content checked and updated all the time.

Final word on this is that Manchester Airport need to update their Cargo Website to reflect reality NOW imho.

As some said its well over decade old .

[eggc]

Thanks Rutan. I thoroughly agree with you that the MAG site needs to be brought upto date and 100% accurate...you would expect nothing less really from an orgainisation of MAG's size.

[Rutan16]

Thing is though if it goes to EMA or STN it is still coming to same group, The authority know they are short of space for a couple of years whilst building work is going on so to save an embrarrasing
position of not having a stand for pax aircraft stop freight only, there have been similar positions at Gatwick and Heathrow over the years

Again Manchester Airport can’t share or offer an alternative (within Group) when in receipt of a direct RFI. They must decline it .

Almost all RFI and tenders incorporate specific none collusion clauses that are legally binding.

Its really quite simple

[OzzyOzBorn]

Thing is though if it goes to EMA or STN it is still coming to same group, The authority know they are short of space for a couple of years whilst building work is going on so to save an embrarrasing
position of not having a stand for pax aircraft stop freight only, there have been similar positions at Gatwick and Heathrow over the years

chaps1954 - I could write a detailed response to this, but better to refer you to post 2702 re space rather than annoy readers with repetition. And post 2784 addresses your first point on where the money goes. Post 2764 also refers.

[OzzyOzBorn]

People really seem to struggle getting the MD's name right, for some reason.

Thanks for spotting this. It was a long day! Duly edited and corrected.

[HOVIS]

...just to get away from Cargo even for a short while...if I said what airline has threated for the longest time to grace MAN who would you say ? Obviosuly you'll all say THAI :)

Well I've just seen a new route map of theirs that has a dotted line to MAN with "launching soon" - now in a world where anything and everything can be photoshopped I went straight to THAI website for confirmation and it is not the same route map and MAN isnt there.

So has anyone heard anything on THAI at all recently ?
A delegation toured the airport and visited various stakeholders in 2019, or was 18, I forget. Nothing came of it... Again.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

You're being disingenuous here, Skip. So dividends accrue to the shareholders. Who knew? But that isn't the point.

The MAG cargo policy implications for MAN include

- Lost potential employment opportunities on the campus
- Those lost employees and their dependents don't contribute to the local economy
- The city region's skill base is negatively impacted
- Fewer openings for school-leavers etc.
- The airport's offer to customers is devalued
- Freight forwarding via MAN is rendered sub-optimal
- The economic engine of the region is wilfully undermined
- Potential customers are let down
- Established MAN carriers are unable to supplement their regular services with whole plane freight operations
- Manchester Airport is less than the best version of what it could be

And that's just for starters.
Good Lord man can you for once understand the power of brevity and a succint arguement? You think Cathay and Singapore need to send a main deck freighter to MAN? If they had a pressing need would they not already be at EMA? Cos cargo's not that fussed how it gets there. Nor are either MAN carrier at STN. You seriously think if either airline had a need they'd be saying "Manchester Airport or not at all!"

There's no reasoning with someone that claims with a straight face that MAG are wilfully letting down the economic engine of the region. As if senior staff have THAT on their KPIs.

[spannersatcx]

CX only sends 2 a week freighters to LHR at present, as unless it's oversized or dangerous it all goes in the belly of the 5 or 6 pax flts per day. I was at MAN when CX/LD & KA all had daily 747F, alas those days are long gone.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Good Lord man can you for once understand the power of brevity and a succint arguement?

Well I see that your gloves are off, so I'll be blunt too. If you didn't disingenuously pretend that you don't understand the basics, I wouldn't need to spell them out to you in fine detail.

​​​​​​​ You think Cathay and Singapore need to send a main deck freighter to MAN?

Where has this come from? I never mentioned these two.

​​​​​​​ You seriously think if either airline had a need they'd be saying "Manchester Airport or not at all!"

Putting words in my mouth again. I have suggested no such thing. Speaking generally, a carrier will usually accept a second choice if it's preferred option is unavailable. That doesn't mean that option one wouldn't have better served their business needs (or those of their end customers).

​​​​​​​ There's no reasoning with someone that claims with a straight face that MAG are wilfully letting down the economic engine of the region.

2007 = 165,366 Tonnes handled; 2023 = 64082 Tonnes. Enquiries being turned away or switch-sold?

Those are damning statistics which absolutely impact the economic engine of the region for the reasons itemised in post 2784. I stand by every word I wrote about this. MAG have prioritised the bottom line of their business over providing an acceptable level of cargo service to this region.

[Navpi]

...just to get away from Cargo even for a short while...if I said what airline has threated for the longest time to grace MAN who would you say ? Obviosuly you'll all say THAI :)

Well I've just seen a new route map of theirs that has a dotted line to MAN with "launching soon" - now in a world where anything and everything can be photoshopped I went straight to THAI website for confirmation and it is not the same route map and MAN isnt there.

So has anyone heard anything on THAI at all recently ?

I am pretty sure THAI 1st surfaced in the eighties alongside perennial dissapointees Olympic.

[bobradamus]

Cargo is the most emotive subject. OFFICIALLY.

[Navpi]

Good Lord man can you for once understand the power of brevity and a succint arguement? You think Cathay and Singapore need to send a main deck freighter to MAN? If they had a pressing need would they not already be at EMA? Cos cargo's not that fussed how it gets there. Nor are either MAN carrier at STN. You seriously think if either airline had a need they'd be saying "Manchester Airport or not at all!"

There's no reasoning with someone that claims with a straight face that MAG are wilfully letting down the economic engine of the region. As if senior staff have THAT on their KPIs.

Well this is truly bizarre !

Where have you plucked Cathay and Singapore from ?

Lets at least talk facts rather than using our imagination to make things up and interweave these into the conversation.

You have randomly introduced two airlines plucked seemingly out of thin air which nobody has referenced at any point in the discussion ?

What's worse is the fact you then fantasise even more by making 2 or 3 further statements, as if you are responding to a recipients line of questions. This despite the fact they never made the observations to which you yourself refer in the first place !

Unfortunately its a trait which seems to be embedded in your DNA.

As for your observation......

There's no reasoning with someone that claims with a straight face that MAG are wilfully letting down the economic engine of the region

Shall we drop Andy Burnham, Henri Murison, Sheona Southern, Joe Manning et al a line and see what they think?

I'm pretty convinced the movers and shakers that referenced Manchester Airport as a Global Hub (see earlier quotes) know more about this subject than you, and would be aghast if you suggested inquiries to the airport about operating pure freight flights were met with a blanket "NO" coupled to a decision to go elsewhere, which as a minimum adds many hours and in some cases days to the process.

On what planet is that economically competitive???

Any airline operative making such an enquiry would i suspect be incredulous if they were told to go to another airport, based on no space, no staff and no equipment when there is a perception of a perfectly adequate international airport at the epicentre of the Northern supply chain, not 80+ miles and hours/ days outside its catchment area.

At any level its inconceivable to expect manufacturing and distribution companies in the North to willingly accept such delays and hinders the North's ability to compete competitively with no major freight hub at its centre.

I'm pretty sure that Manchester Airports perceived status and standing as a major international hub is being questioned given such a massive economic hole in its operational armoury.

To me such flights are as fundamental as an approach by an airline to operate pax flights.

And can we knock this issue of having no stand space 24/7 firmly on the head , slots are controlled by ACL, yes of course there are choke points as with any airport, notably 6am to 8am and possibly certain times in Winter where more aircraft are parked, but is still lots of opportunities, and as for agents not being able to meet criteria maybe a review on minimum service levels is required ?

[UnderASouthernSky]

Well this is truly bizarre !

Where have you plucked Cathay and Singapore from ?

Lets at least talk facts rather than using our imagination to make things up and interweave these into the conversation.

You have randomly introduced two airlines plucked seemingly out of thin air which nobody has referenced at any point in the discussion ?

What's worse is the fact you then fantasise even more by making 2 or 3 further statements, as if you are responding to a recipients line of questions. This despite the fact they never made the observations to which you yourself refer in the first place !

Unfortunately its a trait which seems to be embedded in your DNA.

As for your observation......

There's no reasoning with someone that claims with a straight face that MAG are wilfully letting down the economic engine of the region

Shall we drop Andy Burnham, Henri Murison, Sheona Southern, Joe Manning et al a line and see what they think?

I'm pretty convinced the movers and shakers that referenced Manchester Airport as a Global Hub (see earlier quotes) know more about this subject than you, and would be aghast if you suggested inquiries to the airport about operating pure freight flights were met with a blanket "NO" coupled to a decision to go elsewhere, which as a minimum adds many hours and in some cases days to the process.

On what planet is that economically competitive???

Any airline operative making such an enquiry would i suspect be incredulous if they were told to go to another airport, based on no space, no staff and no equipment when there is a perception of a perfectly adequate international airport at the epicentre of the Northern supply chain, not 80+ miles and hours/ days outside its catchment area.

At any level its inconceivable to expect manufacturing and distribution companies in the North to willingly accept such delays and hinders the North's ability to compete competitively with no major freight hub at its centre.

I'm pretty sure that Manchester Airports perceived status and standing as a major international hub is being questioned given such a massive economic hole in its operational armoury.

To me such flights are as fundamental as an approach by an airline to operate pax flights.

And can we knock this issue of having no stand space 24/7 firmly on the head , slots are controlled by ACL, yes of course there are choke points as with any airport, notably 6am to 8am and possibly certain times in Winter where more aircraft are parked, but is still lots of opportunities, and as for agents not being able to meet criteria maybe a review on minimum service levels is required ?

Where is it confirmed that it is the airport which is turning business away? Surely MAG cannot make a handling agent accept the flights - whether they have suitable equipment or not.

[HOVIS]

Well this is truly bizarre !

Where have you plucked Cathay and Singapore from ?

Lets at least talk facts rather than using our imagination to make things up and interweave these into the conversation.

You have randomly introduced two airlines plucked seemingly out of thin air which nobody has referenced at any point in the discussion ?

What's worse is the fact you then fantasise even more by making 2 or 3 further statements, as if you are responding to a recipients line of questions. This despite the fact they never made the observations to which you yourself refer in the first place !

Unfortunately its a trait which seems to be embedded in your DNA.

As for your observation......

There's no reasoning with someone that claims with a straight face that MAG are wilfully letting down the economic engine of the region

Shall we drop Andy Burnham, Henri Murison, Sheona Southern, Joe Manning et al a line and see what they think?

I'm pretty convinced the movers and shakers that referenced Manchester Airport as a Global Hub (see earlier quotes) know more about this subject than you, and would be aghast if you suggested inquiries to the airport about operating pure freight flights were met with a blanket "NO" coupled to a decision to go elsewhere, which as a minimum adds many hours and in some cases days to the process.

On what planet is that economically competitive???

Any airline operative making such an enquiry would i suspect be incredulous if they were told to go to another airport, based on no space, no staff and no equipment when there is a perception of a perfectly adequate international airport at the epicentre of the Northern supply chain, not 80+ miles and hours/ days outside its catchment area.

At any level its inconceivable to expect manufacturing and distribution companies in the North to willingly accept such delays and hinders the North's ability to compete competitively with no major freight hub at its centre.

I'm pretty sure that Manchester Airports perceived status and standing as a major international hub is being questioned given such a massive economic hole in its operational armoury.

To me such flights are as fundamental as an approach by an airline to operate pax flights.

And can we knock this issue of having no stand space 24/7 firmly on the head , slots are controlled by ACL, yes of course there are choke points as with any airport, notably 6am to 8am and possibly certain times in Winter where more aircraft are parked, but is still lots of opportunities, and as for agents not being able to meet criteria maybe a review on minimum service levels is required ?
Sorry my friend but when you make statements that start with 'I'm pretty sure that...' I know you're guessing.
Also, the airport is full. Just ask the various airlines how many towing operations they have to perform and how many aircraft have to depart from remote stands. Day and night. Yes, cargo ops would be nice and lucrative but at the moment there just isn't the Space.

[OzzyOzBorn]

No, Manchester Airport is NOT full. And nor was it full back in the year to end of September 2019 when it handled 35,504 more flights and 3.6 million more passengers than in the 12 months to end of May 2023. Yes, there are some stands out of service. But the same applied back then too. Some stands have been lost since then, but at least 24 new ones have been opened as well.

Increased use of remote stands and towing does not mean that an airport is full. It means that servicing remote stands is a larger proposition than before. I can understand why handling agents dislike remote stands, but they're an integral part of most major airports nowadays. And you're going to have to learn to live with use of remotes even more than now. MAG's most recent PR refers to the latest new pier as the "final" part of the TP, which suggests two piers in total rather than the originally envisaged four. So there will be remote stands on the footprint of the two piers not constructed, and according to plans announced, Piers B and C stands will need to be serviced as remotes from 2025 when T1 core closes. Fortunately, MAN already has an impressive fleet of cobi which can be seen grazing in their compound just to the North of Pier 1. They just need to ensure that there are plenty of drivers employed and appropriately rostered to operate them.

Increased incidence of towing on the apron reflects demand for contact stands. It is understandable that airlines wish to maximise use of these. But this does NOT indicate that all the remotes are simultaneously occupied. There ARE vacant remote stands, and these are what whole-plane cargo aircraft would be assigned to use on every conceivable occasion. There is ample space for that.

[SWBKCB]

Sorry my friend but when you make statements that start with 'I'm pretty sure that...' I know you're guessing.
Also, the airport is full. Just ask the various airlines how many towing operations they have to perform and how many aircraft have to depart from remote stands. Day and night. Yes, cargo ops would be nice and lucrative but at the moment there just isn't the space.

A great deal of supposition in the argument e.g. the decline in freighters over the years takes no account of the development of the integrators and their use of hub and spoke.

And this idea that East Midlands is in the back end of beyond. How does the rest of the country survive?

[GrahamK]

All this talk of Manchester serving the North. Doesn't it actually need to be in the North to serve it? More like the Midlands. Newcastle and Teesside are true northern England airports.:E

[chaps1954]

It is, its classed as Northwest England and is the most northerly on the west coast

[GrahamK]

It is, its classed as Northwest England and is the most northerly on the west coast
Carlisle and Barrow are further north 🤪

[SWBKCB]

It is, its classed as Northwest England and is the most northerly on the west coast

An airport on the outskirts of Stoke? Everybody knows the north starts just above York. :ok:

Being serious, all this talk of MAN letting down 'the North' and the region does seem very Manchester-centric.

[GrahamK]

On a positive note however, through check in and security.in under 10 mins on Sunday morning. Staff were still grumpy, but a vast improvement on the 2 hours I experienced last year

[OzzyOzBorn]

Being serious, all this talk of MAN letting down 'the North' and the region does seem very Manchester-centric.

I'm puzzled by this grievance. Surely discussing cargo policy at Manchester Airport must be Manchester-centric by default? And this discussion is taking place on the Manchester Airport thread. The appropriate place for such a debate.

Referring to "the region" does not troll any other region. And the only reference to "the North" in recent posts is a direct quote from the airport's own PR literature. What term would you use in place of "the region" ... I can't think of anything more apt. And Manchester Airport's economic reach encompasses a population far exceeding that of Scotland (where significant cargo handling capability exists), so discussion of the issue on this thread is entirely legitimate.

I think it is clear that those debating cargo here are not doing so in the spirit of trolling airports further north.

[SWBKCB]

#2749

Manchester Airport is first and foremost the Global Gateway for the North, that has to include pure freight, therefore there has to be a way to square this circle to the benefit of all parties, agents MAG, and business.

#2801

Any airline operative making such an enquiry would i suspect be incredulous if they were told to go to another airport, based on no space, no staff and no equipment when there is a perception of a perfectly adequate international airport at the epicentre of the Northern supply chain, not 80+ miles and hours/ days outside its catchment area.

At any level its inconceivable to expect manufacturing and distribution companies in the North to willingly accept such delays and hinders the North's ability to compete competitively with no major freight hub at its centre.

You can understand how the confusion arose... :ok:​​​​​​​

[HOVIS]

Do any of you people actually work at MAN? I do, I know it's full because I see it with my own eyes. If an aircraft that arrives at 7am has to be towed to a remote stand, and then towed back again to make a lunch time departure, just to clear a contact stand for another operator to do the same, it's full!
I remember the days when we had a dozen 747s turning around every day, only one had to be towed remote (QANTAS).

[OzzyOzBorn]

You can understand how the confusion arose...

Based on that, I understand that you must be the most sensitive soul on here, and that takes some doing! You've found the airport PR piece which I mentioned already and just ONE other (innocuous) example.

​​​​​​​ I do, I know it's full because I see it with my own eyes. If an aircraft that arrives at 7am has to be towed to a remote stand, and then towed back again to make a lunch time departure, just to clear a contact stand for another operator to do the same, it's full!

No, it isn't. The stats don't lie. Your observation demonstrates that contact stands - specifically those which accommodate widebody aircraft - are fully-subscribed at peak times. That is entirely different from the airport as a whole being full to capacity. There are available remote stands even at peak times, and great swathes of vacant stands off-peak. Cargo flights use remotes, and can be allocated slots to suit, as happens with many of the regular passenger operations too.

[SWBKCB]

Based on that, I understand that you must be the most sensitive soul on here, and that takes some doing! You've found the airport PR piece which I mentioned already and just ONE other (innocuous) example.

Just the first two I found, and they are comments from contributors not airport PR. :ok:

[Navpi]

Do any of you people actually work at MAN? I do, I know it's full because I see it with my own eyes. If an aircraft that arrives at 7am has to be towed to a remote stand, and then towed back again to make a lunch time departure, just to clear a contact stand for another operator to do the same, it's full!
I remember the days when we had a dozen 747s turning around every day, only one had to be towed remote (QANTAS).

"Do any of you people actually work at MAN? I do"

What do you ?

Its always interesting to get a forensic view from inside the fence, although one presumes from what you have said it's back office and not apron operations.

Best utilisation of stands goes on at all airports does it not? That same stand could be used 2 or 3 times.

Do you honestly expect an aircraft just lay in situ for 12hours ?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Just the first two I found, and they are comments from contributors not airport PR. :ok:

Enough on this sideshow. We're discussing Manchester Airport on the Manchester Airport thread. If that upsets you, this is not the forum for you.

[SWBKCB]

Not looking to upset anybody, just pointing out some of the holes in the arguement, that's all. If that's a problem, maybe this isn't the forum for you?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Manchester Airport PR referencing 'the North' is a hole in the argument? Right, if you say so. Suggest you take it up with MAG. Good luck!

[laviation]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/696x818/75e0bd30_03bf_4f88_98d6_ca114fa682b5_b32ad329466fc176834e0f4 fe610f741a22929d4.jpeg
MAN catchment, according to MAG..

[Navpi]

Not looking to upset anybody, just pointing out some of the holes in the arguement, that's all. If that's a problem, maybe this isn't the forum for you?

Given you seem to be perpetually depressed about Manchester i would have thought it might be your goodself that might avoid it ?

Is there anything about Man Airport that actually excites you ?

[SWBKCB]

Given you seem to be perpetually depressed about Manchester i would have thought it might be your goodself that might avoid it ?

Is there anything about Man Airport that actually excites you ?

What are you on about?

[Senior Pilot]

Enough sideshow squabbling thank you.

Stay on topic or leave the Forum: your choice.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Where has this come from? I never mentioned these two.
Established MAN carriers are unable to supplement their regular services with whole plane freight operations.
OK so you meant Emirates SkyCaro and Qatar Cargo I guess? There's only a handful of passenger carriers who are "established MAN carriers unable to supplement those regular services". I assumed you meant CX and SQ, who did you mean?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Sorry, Skip! I completely understand the fishing expedition, but when I am shown privileged information in confidence, I respect that confidence. As I said when you asked earlier, I won't be listing airline names on here.

But I will leave you with two relevant quotes. The first from a notice on the old office wall:

"Never ASSUME. It makes an ASS of U and ME!"

And finally, a Simon Cowell special: "Well I wasn't expecting THAT!!!"

[Navpi]

OK so you meant Emirates SkyCaro and Qatar Cargo I guess? There's only a handful of passenger carriers who are "established MAN carriers unable to supplement those regular services". I assumed you meant CX and SQ, who did you mean?

Why the focus on "current" established carriers ?
i know for a fact we have scheduled pure cargo flights operating into the UK who would switch their loads into Manchester at the drop of a hat if Manchester Airport and the handling agents had the willingness to assist as the freight they are carrying is inbound to companies within the Manchester Airport catchment area.

The irony is that those boardings if switched to Manchester would make a significant difference to say a scheduled US carrier if they themselves decided to operate into Manchester with passenger flights.

The map posted earlier of what the airport management perceive as the Manchester Airport catchment area is pretty damming. Look at the size and the number of large cities within the footprint, it is one of the largest economic blocks in Europe, and yet despite this it is on effect a massive "no go area" for pure frieght.

We have totally lost visibilty in viability.

[The96er]

Day 7 of nothing but the same tripe that comes up at least 3 times a year ! Move on people.

[Navpi]

Day 7 of nothing but the same tripe that comes up at least 3 times a year ! Move on people.

Why is it tripe ?

Rest assured, a no-go area for pure frieght covering such a massive area is hardly tripe.

I'm not here to entertain you. Feel free to make your own contributions on this subject or other subjects affecting Man Airport.

[Balair]

If it’s a “no-go area for freight” how come FedEx are being “allowed” to commence flights to BFS and CDG from October?

[laviation]

Flew through T2 to Houston yesterday.. the whole experience was flawless. Singapore Airlines exemplary, nice to see the work on Pier 2 finally begin. The one qualm I had was the 1903. You could mistake it for one of the BA Galleries at T5 it was rammed. The solution to this is the Clubhouse which could then be used by Skyteam passengers !

[OzzyOzBorn]

If it’s a “no-go area for freight” how come FedEx are being “allowed” to commence flights to BFS and CDG from October?

It is alleged that MAG have had their "knuckles slapped" by a regulatory authority concerning their policy towards dealing with cargo flights within the group. As a result of this, Manchester Airport needs to be seen to be welcoming towards cargo enquiries which prefer to use MAN specifically. FedEx look like coming back to MAN; word is they never really wanted to leave. A number of other carriers are known to have enquired too. However, some speculate that MAG risks provoking a deeper interest from regulators, because if all the handling agents on the site keep saying they can't handle freight flights due to lack of basic equipment and staff, then the airport appears to get the outcome they really want anyway, whilst paying lip service to welcoming back whole-plane cargo business. That is a summary of the issue under discussion. If you're interested, there is a lot more detailed discussion across postings covering the past few days.

[SWBKCB]

Wasn't it mentioned up thread that FedEx previously were self-handling?

[OzzyOzBorn]

It was. Maybe that's why they appear to be coming back whilst others aren't having much luck so far? But I can't confirm their handling arrangements.

[HOVIS]

I'm on the ramp.
I know what I see.
Some of the observation on this thread though.... Utter bowlarks!

[MKY661]

Etihad moving back to T1 this Tuesday, 27th June. T2 must be getting busy!

[laviation]

One would wishfully think they are bringing the A380 as no second daily flight !

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Etihad moving back to T1 this Tuesday, 27th June. T2 must be getting busy!
When did they move to T2? Missed that.

[laviation]

When did they move to T2? Missed that.
Think it was when T2X first opened 2021

[Stockportcounty]

I'm on the ramp.
I know what I see.
Some of the observation on this thread though.... Utter bowlarks!


😂😂

Hove,,, it’s written in the Stats.

Leave em to it. Some know the reality.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Don't conflate temporary reduced availability of widebody-capable contact stands with the airport being completely full. Two very different things. Plenty of vacant remote stands.

[Navpi]

I'm on the ramp.
I know what I see.
Some of the observation on this thread though.... Utter bowlarks!

You do seem to be a bit anti Manchester HOVIS.

[SWBKCB]

Or just the realistic appraisal of somebody with the first hand experience of working there?

[OzzyOzBorn]

There's afew on here with that.

[ImPlaneCrazy]

Anyone know why the Emirates A380s aren't using contact stands today? I can only imagine the nightmare it is bussing 600+ people over to the remote stands?

[azz767]

Anyone know why the Emirates A380s aren't using contact stands today? I can only imagine the nightmare it is bussing 600+ people over to the remote stands?

can only assume there’s an issue with gate 12 which is the only A380 compatible contact gate.

[SWBKCB]

More than 2,000 workers are to receive a pay rise of up to 17% over two years after a deal was agreed between a union and an airport's operators.

Staff working in security, operations, firefighting, traffic and car parking at Manchester Airport will also receive a lump sum worth up to 9.6% and pension benefits, the Unite union said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-66045407

[HOVIS]

You do seem to be a bit anti Manchester HOVIS.
Not anti Manchester. Just sick to death of reading essays written by armchair enthusiasts that have no clue how an airport works.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Whilst I myself have never worked at an airport I am aware that at least one of the other forum posters has worked at Manchester and not, before you say it, as a cleaner. I believe he held quite a high position at the airport.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Several of the regular contributors to this forum have (or still do) hold positions at MAN in a variety of roles.

[Navpi]

And a few have had face to face discussions with former senior management, so maybe have a glimmer of how an airport works.

[HOVIS]

can only assume there’s an issue with gate 12 which is the only A380 compatible contact gate.
I heard it was because they need the space. They can move several Easyjet 320s through Gate 12 or one 380.

[The96er]

I heard it was because they need the space. They can move several Easyjet 320s through Gate 12 or one 380.

EK have priority for the stand. I remember once when an EZY went tech on stand 12 and couldn’t be moved due to a hydraulic steering issue causing the EK A380 to go remote. The fallout from that event was akin to a major international incident !

[HOVIS]

Well, I don't know then. All I will say is there were Easyjet 320s using those stands yesterday while the EK was on remote.

[chaps1954]

People have been asking the same question on several forums and the same answer is work on airbridge making it unuseable for the day or so

[easyflyer83]

The easy’s use steps on stand 12. Disembarking an A380 on 12 with steps is very difficult. The work was on the airbridges.

As EK funded the stand when they introduced the 380 to DXB-MAN, they do get priority there.

[Navpi]

Air Canada service suffering technical problems yet again.

Would they offer this level of appaling service out of Heathrow?

No.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Air Canada service suffering technical problems yet again.
Would they offer this level of appaling service out of Heathrow?
No.
They often do bagso, they're stuffed for crews apparently. In the case of MAN-YYZ, they covered the route with a leased OMNI B767 which has now gone tech, they don't have the crews to offer service themselves this year. 2 more A330s just came on board alongside a new B787-9 with one more to come. Hopefully next year will be better.

[JerseyAero]

They often do bagso, they're stuffed for crews apparently. In the case of MAN-YYZ, they covered the route with a leased OMNI B767 which has now gone tech, they don't have the crews to offer service themselves this year. 2 more A330s just came on board alongside a new B787-9 with one more to come. Hopefully next year will be better.

It is not great is it ? The Omni B767 also went tech last week prompting the arrival later in the day of an AC B772.

Most passengers booking their trip to YYZ//return probably don't realise when they hand over the payment for their fare that will be travelling on an ageing aircraft normally used to carry military personnel !

[HOVIS]

I thought the Omni 767 was only for the first 6 weeks this summer.

[laviation]

A long time ago, far far away,, Air Canada planned a daily 787 for this summer 😂

[chaps1954]

16th July is change day AC909 A333

Ian

[GrahamK]

A long time ago, far far away,, Air Canada planned a daily 787 for this summer 😂
Sent it to EDI instead innit :E

[sportzbar]

A long time ago, far far away,, Air Canada planned a daily 787 for this summer 😂
And I had planned this flight to Las Vegas in Business Class to Las Vegas as a treat for my parents 70th birthday celebrations. Oh how glad am I that I didn't book it last year.....

[Mr A Tis]

I've travelled numerous times over the years from MAN to YYZ with Air Canada & their previous Rouge variant. Every year the experience just gets worse. After last year, I wouldn't use them again. In all honesty, I really do not know why they bother- the season is incredibly short, the reliability is poor, my experiences with AC within YYZ have been dire. Looking at the service this year with multiple delays and cancellations, people from YYZ being routed to Paris, Copenhagen & Dublin to get back to Manchester, I'm glad I already decided to give this route a swerve this year.

[tokyostich]

I have heard a rumour that EZY is thinking of starting Cape Verde from MAN. Has anyone heard anything about it and is there any truth to it? I'm disappointed with their schedule to be honest, they used to fly to many city break destinations, but over the last few years a lot of services have been vastly reduced (BER, HAM, KRK, SOF, TIV, BOD, NCE..) or completely chopped (GOA, OLB, AQJ, BUD...). Instead they're more and more focusing on beach holidays, over winter daily flights to Egypt, on some days over summer they have 3 daily flights to DLM and 2 daily to AYT, expanding more and more into cheaper all-inclusive beach destinations (HRG, SSH, AYT, DLM, NBE), moving away from West Europe, not even having daily flights to FAO, and just about 1 daily flight to AGP, which I find crazy. Ryanair is vastly expanding into city breaks and shows there is demand, even Jet2 expanding into city breaks, but easyJet doesn't seem interested for some reason. Interestingly they did introduce IST, which was a nice addition, not even operating it from LON, and they've recently announced AEY from LGW, hopefully MAN follows it too.

[pabely]

The reason is Easyjet Holidays. Their focus is to book the whole holiday, citybreaks people tend to book the hotel through someone else and the flight is just an add on so could be with anyone.

[EI-BUD]

I have heard a rumour that EZY is thinking of starting Cape Verde from MAN. Has anyone heard anything about it and is there any truth to it? I'm disappointed with their schedule to be honest, they used to fly to many city break destinations, but over the last few years a lot of services have been vastly reduced (BER, HAM, KRK, SOF, TIV, BOD, NCE..) or completely chopped (GOA, OLB, AQJ, BUD...). Instead they're more and more focusing on beach holidays, over winter daily flights to Egypt, on some days over summer they have 3 daily flights to DLM and 2 daily to AYT, expanding more and more into cheaper all-inclusive beach destinations (HRG, SSH, AYT, DLM, NBE), moving away from West Europe, not even having daily flights to FAO, and just about 1 daily flight to AGP, which I find crazy. Ryanair is vastly expanding into city breaks and shows there is demand, even Jet2 expanding into city breaks, but easyJet doesn't seem interested for some reason. Interestingly they did introduce IST, which was a nice addition, not even operating it from LON, and they've recently announced AEY from LGW, hopefully MAN follows it too.

I think you've answered your own question. 'Ryanair' is vastly expanding. Ryanair are the cost leader, Jet2 are differentiated with their strong holiday product. Hence, easyJet has little to help differentiate itself . . Hence, easyJet are seeing out routes that Ryanair don't serve or unlikely to do so, or slot constrained. You can hardly expect them to fight a battle for small returns ...

[laviation]

It’s also been rumoured Jet2 have been looking at Cape Verde for 2024.

[LBAflyer22]

It’s also been rumoured Jet2 have been looking at Cape Verde for 2024.

Brave mentioning this again ....

[JerseyAero]

THG have sold the hangar they acquired at MAN.- will be interesting to see what happens to it now, hopefully it will get used for the purpose it was built for!

https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/lcn-capital-buys-manchester-airport-hangar/

[chaps1954]

Pity the photo is of the wrong hangar as that is the STS building, the correct one is the ex Air Livery hangar at bottom of picture to the right of the Jet2 hangar.

[Mr Mac]

Bumpy ride into Manchester this morning with LH though typical LH plant it hard when on the keyboard.

A colleague went into Heathrow and said that was also rough. Apparently Big Jet TV was out filming them.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[MANFAN]

Bumpy ride into Manchester this morning with LH though typical LH plant it hard when on the keyboard.

A colleague went into Heathrow and said that was also rough. Apparently Big Jet TV was out filming them.

Cheers
Mr Mac

I was on level 13 at the T1 MSCP this morning between 10-12, so if you were on board either of the two Lufthansa flights landing during that time I agree it looked bumpy!

[Mr Mac]

Manfan
Yes on the Munich flight and it was 🙂

Cheers
Mr Mac

[RMC]

I suspect Norse will be bust way before they ever get around to burning through yet more cash on Manchester - Providence.

Take a look at the loads, hitting close to 90%. Cargo building up (which is why Norse will never use narrow body. Made a profit last month (and all subsequent Summer months will be the same). Some good Winter routes planned from LGW. Much more cautious than Norwegian. The game changer was getting on Expedia recently. Cheapest flights to all destinations (almost without exception).

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

With transatlantic traffic favouring US origin over UK due to the exchange rate and Z0 being the UK carrier there's a slight disadvantage IMHO. I think even Norwegian long haul managed an operating profit in peak summer, I wouldn't read too much into that, but I agree that MAN presents an opportunity to be siezed as they are underserved in comparison to recent years. A 'W' GLA operation tied with MAN might even work as surely there's a deal to be done with AGS given the flight of long haul to EDI.

[HOVIS]

THG have sold the hangar they acquired at MAN.- will be interesting to see what happens to it now, hopefully it will get used for the purpose it was built for!

https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/lcn-capital-buys-manchester-airport-hangar/
Rumour is that it will be demolished.
Another rumour is that Jet2 want to expand their capacity so who knows?

[RMC]

With transatlantic traffic favouring US origin over UK due to the exchange rate and Z0 being the UK carrier there's a slight disadvantage IMHO. I think even Norwegian long haul managed an operating profit in peak summer, I wouldn't read too much into that, but I agree that MAN presents an opportunity to be siezed as they are underserved in comparison to recent years. A 'W' GLA operation tied with MAN might even work as surely there's a deal to be done with AGS given the flight of long haul to EDI.
The key differences are that Norse have turned a profit within 12 months of their first flight. They secured their 15 X 787s during COVID on a deal which just would not be remotely attainable these days. We have four 787s coming back from a lease agreement next year. The main problem will be getting enough pilots with British licences and the right to live and work in the UK. So if anyone wants a great company culture, nice commuter friendly roster (I am sitting in the US sunshine for a couple of days, looking forward to similar in Jamaica over the Winter) then get your applications in.

[TheFiddler]

The key differences are that Norse have turned a profit within 12 months of their first flight. They secured their 15 X 787s during COVID on a deal which just would not be remotely attainable these days. We have four 787s coming back from a lease agreement next year. The main problem will be getting enough pilots with British licences and the right to live and work in the UK. So if anyone wants a great company culture, nice commuter friendly roster (I am sitting in the US sunshine for a couple of days, looking forward to similar in Jamaica over the Winter) then get your applications in.

And Norse's / Norweigan's track record to pilots over the last 4 years is...

[Navpi]

Can anyone clarify where this rule about having to off load transit pax has originated.

UK, USA, EU ?

Suggestion is BIMAN are looking to come back from Istanbul. They tried a year ago but switched to IST when they realised that they had the off load issue.

This also applies SIA, is Singapore Changi security so bad it needs to be be double checked at Manchester. Nope. ... Or that of Houston flying in the opposite direction?

Completly nonsensical.

[The96er]

Can anyone clarify where this rule about having to off load transit pax has originated.

UK, USA, EU ?

Suggestion is BIMAN are looking to come back from Istanbul. They tried a year ago but switched to IST when they realised that they had the off load issue.

This also applies SIA, is Singapore Changi security so bad it needs to be be double checked at Manchester. Nope. ... Or that of Houston flying in the opposite direction?

Completly nonsensical.

Quite simply, the U.K authorities will not recognise the Security arrangements of any other nation.

[42psi]

When Aer Lingus operated the fifth freedom transit flights through Manchester from 1988 the transit passengers remained on board the aircraft.
At that time there was no requirement for pax or bags to be re-screened.
That applied to flights in either direction.

[Sotonsean]

When Aer Lingus operated the fifth freedom transit flights through Manchester from 1988 the transit passengers remained on board the aircraft.
At that time there was no requirement for pax or bags to be re-screened.
That applied to flights in either direction.

That was 35 years ago 😳

Times have certainly changed since 1988. Just think of 9/11 and other events and the reasons behind the changes.

To compare 1988 with 2023 is ridiculous.

[Navpi]

Quite simply, the U.K authorities will not recognise the Security arrangements of any other nation.

What not not even the USA or Singapore?
Absolutely bonkers.

The passengers are already ON-BOARD, and have been for 3, 4 thousand plus miles, so I'm somewhat baffled as to where this has orginated and how leaving passengers on the aircraft poses a security risk to the UK, oh hang on... the only security risk is actually allowing passengers off !

There are a number of airlines who wish to transit through Manchester so is this not a case of civil servants in Whitehall sticking the boot in ?

[Mayfield62]

It has always been the case that the UK re-screens all passengers arriving from non-uk destinations. It has certainly happened for the last 20 years at Heathrow, even from Ireland.

[ATNotts]

What not not even the USA or Singapore?
Absolutely bonkers.

The passengers are already ON-BOARD, and have been for 3, 4 thousand plus miles, so I'm somewhat baffled as to where this has orginated and how leaving passengers on the aircraft poses a security risk to the UK, oh hang on... the only security risk is actually allowing passengers off !

There are a number of airlines who wish to transit through Manchester so is this not a case of civil servants in Whitehall sticking the boot in ?
It's another example of 'British superiority' where 'Johnny Foreigner' is deemed incapable; well that and probably a typical UK 'belt and braces' approach.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Rumour is that it will be demolished.
Another rumour is that Jet2 want to expand their capacity so who knows?

Well they are in the process of demolishing the last of the WW2 hangars next to Wilmslow Old Road...

[scrapy]

Think it was brought in as a result of Lockerbie where neither passengers nor hold luggage were re-screened at Heathrow.

Does hold luggage also get re-screened in the UK?

[Rutan16]

What not not even the USA or Singapore?
Absolutely bonkers.

The passengers are already ON-BOARD, and have been for 3, 4 thousand plus miles, so I'm somewhat baffled as to where this has orginated and how leaving passengers on the aircraft poses a security risk to the UK, oh hang on... the only security risk is actually allowing passengers off !

There are a number of airlines who wish to transit through Manchester so is this not a case of civil servants in Whitehall sticking the boot in ?

There is another consequence an agreement with the US that allows certain CAT 2 country carriers to use the Eire UK and Spain as aircraft carriers as it were to rescan to FAA/TSA standards . It was used by PIA for some years prior to the EU excluding them on safety grounds.

And yes Navi it is an entirely UK directive as applied. And even prior to B was a consequence of remaining out side of Schengen yes we had control of our external frontier and that of those transiting the wet and windy isles

[42psi]

That was 35 years ago 😳

Times have certainly changed since 1988. Just think of 9/11 and other events and the reasons behind the changes.

To compare 1988 with 2023 is ridiculous.

You've jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I made no comparison, simply stated that when the EI transit flights operated no rescreening was required.
The question had been raised as to when the requirement was introduced, off the top of my head I'm not sure.

Lockerbie happened in December 1988, the EI flights continued for many years after that.

[Navpi]

Thanks for all your replies. So in effect this outdated legacy has evolved from the Pan Am flight originating outside the UK landing at Heathrow then being destroyed over Lockerbie.

As was said it was 35 years ago ! Have we not moved on ?

Presumably it was introduced as ATN suggests on the basis that back in the day Heathrow had better security screening than where the flights originated but surely in 2023 it is a pointless exercise, there are common security standards that makes such a requirement completely outdated.

In the case of Manchester there a number of airlines are looking to use Manchester as a transit stop ,
ETHIOPIAN (Dublin)
EMIRATES (Athens)
BIMAN (Istanbul)
AIR CANADA (Heathrow)
SIA (Manchester) more routes

It makes it completely uncompetitive. Is this not a slight of hand by Whitehall to keep Manchester in its box ?

My understanding is that BIMAN wished to offer their transit flights at Manchester but took exception to this rule suggesting it was totally discriminatory and so switched to Istanbul.

I'm amazed SIA have not taken the same view. Is Singapore Changi so bad passengers have to be re screened at Manchester? i don't think so.

In this current age of equality and diversity this smacks of borderline rascim and a "we know best attitude".

By any standard it is preposterous!

[SWBKCB]

From reading the responses, I don't think anybody knows for sure! My recollection was that it was an American requirement to ensure that aircraft arriving in the US had been screened to an acceptable standard but as you say, that doesn't make a lot of sense for Singapore

[Mayfield62]

I think somebody is getting paranoid. Why is Whitehall using this policy to keep Manchester in its box?

The policy could be seen as being equally as detrimental to Stansted, Gatwick, Birmingham, Edinburgh etc

Singapore already does flights beyond Manchester, and Biman Bangladesh used too. In recent years, Air India used to transit through Birmingham to Toronto.

Ethiopian also use Dublin for US pre-clearance which is something that cannot be done using a UK airport.

[42psi]

Personally I don't think Lockerbie was the motivator as at a guess it must have been around late-mid/late 1990s before the EI transits stopped.

Nor was it down to the first Gulf war.

Both those events were 1981/1988.

We certainly got tightened up hold baggage accountability as a result of Lockerbie but that didn't prevent transit flights.

I can recall sitting at a meeting in Olympic House (along with various representatives from Airport/Airlines/Agents) with a senior civil servant from the DOT.,
Very dapper chap sporting a Robin Day style bright polka dot bow tie!

He happily announced to assembled minions "that the minister required" (that turned out to be a favourite expression) that baggage for departing passengers could only be loaded onto the aircraft once the passenger passed through the gate and boarded the aircraft.

From that you might rightly conclude that those making the rules have little concept of reality.

If I was very cynical I might have thought it was to protect Big Airways. After all that's what brought about the previous stop to EI transit flights a long time prior to that.

[42psi]

As for the US influence, possibly but that would only impact something going to the US.

By the by, the UK Can quite happily have the same sort of pre-clearence as Dublin etc.

The issue (as I understand it) is that US require that while the passengers are being processed they are in a segregated and controlled area in which US laws apply and US authorities have control.

The UK as a matter of principle will not "surrender sovereignty" in this way so it's no chance.

[VickersVicount]

The UK as a matter of principle will not "surrender sovereignty" in this way so it's no chance.
The EDI enthusiasts think its a done deal for them and so might be worth their comment? The running costs alone seem significant and apparently is a commitment year round rather than peak summer seasonality.

[42psi]

The EDI enthusiasts think its a done deal for them and so might be worth their comment? The running costs alone seem significant and apparently is a commitment year round rather than peak summer seasonality.

Indeed, that would be interesting as once it happens at any UK airport the argument against it dissolves.

Pre-clearence would be a strong selling point for any UK regional airport. It might even give an advantage if Heathrow found its infrastructure made it a problem there.....

[HOVIS]

Biman used to operate a transiting 777, passengers stayed on board, however the aircraft also operated through LHR so it's possible because everyone had to disembark there anyway they didn't have to at MAN. Pretty sure that was post 2001.

[HOVIS]

In this current age of equality and diversity this smacks of borderline rascim and a "we know best attitude".




By any standard the above comment is preposterous!

​​​​​​​Fixed it for you.

[Mayfield62]

The main sticking point on US pre-clearance in the UK is that the US authorities want some of the staff to be armed and the UK will not allow that at UK airports.

[UnderASouthernSky]

Thanks for all your replies. So in effect this outdated legacy has evolved from the Pan Am flight originating outside the UK landing at Heathrow then being destroyed over Lockerbie.

As was said it was 35 years ago ! Have we not moved on ?

Presumably it was introduced as ATN suggests on the basis that back in the day Heathrow had better security screening than where the flights originated but surely in 2023 it is a pointless exercise, there are common security standards that makes such a requirement completely outdated.

In the case of Manchester there a number of airlines are looking to use Manchester as a transit stop ,
ETHIOPIAN (Dublin)
EMIRATES (Athens)
BIMAN (Istanbul)
AIR CANADA (Heathrow)
SIA (Manchester) more routes

It makes it completely uncompetitive. Is this not a slight of hand by Whitehall to keep Manchester in its box ?

My understanding is that BIMAN wished to offer their transit flights at Manchester but took exception to this rule suggesting it was totally discriminatory and so switched to Istanbul.

I'm amazed SIA have not taken the same view. Is Singapore Changi so bad passengers have to be re screened at Manchester? i don't think so.

In this current age of equality and diversity this smacks of borderline rascim and a "we know best attitude".

By any standard it is preposterous!

Whilst SQ transiting pax might have to be rescreened at MAN, doesn't it also take on 5th freedom pax to IAH - in which case there is some commercial benefit vs. a simple tech stop.

[Mayfield62]

Yes they do and yes the commercial benefits outweigh the inconvenience.

Prior to Covid, I flew from London City to New York JFYoon the British Airways Airbus A318. The aircraft made a tech stop at Shannon for fuel. We all got off the aircraft with all our hand luggage, we had to go through security again, and then US pre-clearance.

The passengers on the Ethiopian flights through Dublin have to do the same thing.

[Una Due Tfc]

The passengers on the Ethiopian flights through Dublin have to do the same thing.

The pax on the Ethiopian flights in DUB do not deplane. They do not use US pre-clearance. The aircraft taxi to remote stands, are refuelled, serviced, there's a crew change and off they go.

They don't have 5th freedom and only stop Westbound. They used to have 5th freedom on ADD-DUB-LAX-ADD, but even then they didn't use US pre-clearance. That was the only flight where pax deplaned between legs. Doesn't happen anymore.

The daily Kuwaiti flight to JFK was forced to stop in SNN westbound each day for approximately a year pre COVID as the US were unhappy with the security screening in Kuwait. Pax were offloaded, went through pre-clearance, then the aircraft continued to Kennedy.

[GulfTraveller]

One of the reasons for compulsory deplaning is an immigation scam which became popular about ten years ago. Asylum seekers would swap seats during a layover with facilitators who had legitimate visas and who left the aircraft at the stop. I recall it became a big problem on one BA route in the Middle East.

Preclearance at Edinburgh seems very unlikely. It is a service provided not in order to advantage an airport or airline, but to reduce the burden on Immigration in US and to prevent ‘undesirables’ from getting to US soil. If 75% of EDI’s US traffic is US passport holders, it makes it a bit pointless, particularly in winter months. US passport holders may find it convenient but that is not the point of preclearance.

[Flightrider]

This isn’t unique to Manchester so whomever is on the “it’s discrimination” line should give that up straight off. The UK DFT has a certain set of “More Stringent Measures” which mandate re-screening of any passenger who has arrived in the UK from overseas before boarding another flight either domestically or internationally. It doesn’t matter where they have arrived from - this rule applies.

It is a major brake on the UK being used for any transit flights. A handful of operators choose to do it, but there can be no doubt that this limitation deters countless others at a variety of UK airports. Note that Air India, Kuwait and others all stopped using Heathrow as a transit point some years ago after this came into force.

[42psi]

It would be interesting to know exactly when DFT changed their rules.
I'm left wondering if 9/11 was the event that changed things.
That's certainly nearer the change on transit flights rules than either Lockerbie or Gulf War.

[OzzyOzBorn]

More to the point, is there any prospect of an initiative from UK airport operators to get this archaic restrictive throwback reviewed and rescinded? There is no justification for this nonsense to continue. Of course, this would imply Whitehall mandarins actually doing something sensible, and I know that is a very big ask.

Back in the day, MAN had routes such as LUX-MAN-DUB (Luxair) and LIN-MAN-DUB (Alitalia). Such routes are essentially impossible to run now. Double-drops were once a sensible solution for certain carriers; they could be again if dumb bureaucrats stepped out of the way.

[SWBKCB]

Are such double drop routes common elsewhere in Europe?

[HOVIS]

"archaic, restrictive" 😁 😁 😁 😁 😁

​​​​​​Dear oh dear is 20 years considered archaic now?

[Flightrider]

More to the point, is there any prospect of an initiative from UK airport operators to get this archaic restrictive throwback reviewed and rescinded? There is no justification for this nonsense to continue.

Good luck with that one. I think you'll find the airports' trade body has been privately lobbying on this for years. DFT will simply say that all security measures are continually re-assessed in light of threat levels and any change will be implemented only if and when the external threat environment supports such a change being made. The UK additional measures remain in place and given that we [rightly] don't have access to the threat information which led to those measures being introduced and then retained thereafter, it's fighting a losing battle.

The commercial impact across several airports must be immense - would Emirates do Dubai-Glasgow-JFK, would Kuwait do Kuwait-MAN-Chicago and would Turkish Airlines do Istanbul-BHX-Boston - who knows? However, safety and security should never take priority over commercial requirements and so for as long as these rules are deemed necessary by the UK Government, who are we to challenge them from a position of relative ignorance?

[OzzyOzBorn]

who are we to challenge them from a position of relative ignorance?

We are not ignorant. But DfT bureaucrats frequently appear to be. [Don't even get me started on Grayling, the DfT, and the Platforms 15 & 16 debacle which really sums them up - those in the Manchester area will know what I mean]. We should not be overly respectful towards those who seemingly **** up at every available opportunity. It IS upto the public to hold them to account.

Security checks at Singapore Changi are world class. Security checks at Houston Intercontinental are world class. Likewise at many other primary gateway airports. There could be an 'approved' list, with vetting and ongoing inspections coordinated by a recognised international body such as ICAO. In fact, doesn't this happen already?

If you are a terrorist with ill-intentions and you (somehow) manage to evade detection at one of those major gateways, do you sit obediently for many hours on your first intercontinental flight - risk being caught by security at the intermediate stopover airport - and then do your misdeeds on the flight's second leg? This makes no sense whatsoever. We're just strangling business opportunities with mindless red tape, perpetuated by a bureaucracy with zero tolerance for constructive engagement or common sense.

Threat levels determine the need for robust security checks at the airport of initial departure. NOT at some interim stopover airport where passengers with ill-intent have already had many hours of flight to make their mischief. All logic has been left at the door on this one.

​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​Dear oh dear is 20 years considered archaic now?

Context matters. Given that the first scheduled passenger flight took place just 109 years ago - and air travel didn't achieve mass-market scale until much later - YES. This is still a young industry.

[HOVIS]

May I ask, do you or have you, ever worked for MI5 the CIA or any one of a number of security organisations that have access to intelligence and on going security threats that the average man in the street will have zero knowledge of?
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.

[Navpi]

May I ask, do you or have you, ever worked for MI5 the CIA or any one of a number of security organisations that have access to intelligence and on going security threats that the average man in the street will have zero knowledge of?
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.

Well YOU certainly said it there !

As has been said, I'm struggling as to how this can possibly makes us any safer. It makes not one iota of difference.

Using this logic why not force every aircraft entering UK airspace to land so we can re screen everyone ?

[OzzyOzBorn]

May I ask, do you or have you, ever worked for MI5 the CIA or any one of a number of security organisations that have access to intelligence and on going security threats that the average man in the street will have zero knowledge of?
If the answer, as I suspect, is no, then you really are talking from a point of complete ignorance. Just like the rest of us.

I don't need to have worked for a security agency. Intelligence from MI5, the CIA and the like must be taken seriously to prevent bad actors from boarding a flight at their point of initial departure. We know this. Once they're aboard the aircraft it is too late.

The concerns you highlight are the ones which justify robust security checks at the airport of initial boarding. Security is of vital importance - I'm not downplaying that and never will - but it must be applied at the departure airport. Duplication of those checks at an interim stopover which those passengers have already flown their first sector aboard to reach are redundant and superfluous.

[Asturias56]

Problem is you're never certain about every airport - Sure Singapore or Israel are top class - but every Greek Airport? Or Latin America??

The effort of having to continually weed out various passengers would be enormous - its just too hard to do effectively day in day ouit

and no-one wants to be the poor sod who let someone through and an aircraft is destroyed

[Navpi]

Problem is you're never certain about every airport - Sure Singapore or Israel are top class - but every Greek Airport? Or Latin America??

The effort of having to continually weed out various passengers would be enormous - its just too hard to do effectively day in day ouit

and no-one wants to be the poor sod who let someone through and an aircraft is destroyed
Can you clarify .?

I'm a wee bit lost on the point you are making we don't have any transit stops from Greece or Latin America?

We do however have them from Singapore , this policy gives the impression we feel security measures at Changi are sub standard.

It could not be further from the truth.

[Flightrider]

Unless there is a significant change of heart by the UK Government, the risk factors here were deemed sufficiently high as to require additional measures to be put in place. Using examples from the past, you can't today operate services from Toronto to Belfast and then onwards to Cardiff without re-screening pax at Belfast even if the only pax on the Belfast-Cardiff leg are a proportion of those who originally boarded at Toronto. I don't have sufficient information (and nor should I have, to be fair) about the threat levels and risks which had led to those additional measures being put in place to be able to say that they either are warranted or are arcane nonsense, as you suggest. All that can be said is that those whom we trust every day to take such decisions deem that this isn't happening, and we have no choice but to accept their assessment.

Oh - and edit to add - there is a long-running difference of opinion between the EU, UK and USA about the security process in the USA. It's not appropriate to go into details on an open forum, but arrivals from the USA transitting through UK airports and departing onwards would be at the upper end of the risk scale.

[SWBKCB]

We do however have them from Singapore , this policy gives the impression we feel security measures at Changi are sub standard.

It could not be further from the truth.

How are you assessing that? How often do you review it? What do you do if you find issues in your review? How many other airports are you assessing? Many reasons why having a common approach for all airports makes sense.

[Navpi]

How are you assessing that? How often do you review it? What do you do if you find issues in your review? How many other airports are you assessing? Many reasons why having a common approach for all airports makes sense.

Maybe we should align with the EU where this nonsense does not exist.

It's completely and utterly pointless exercise.

Do passengers from Houston to Singapore actually get off as well. Must confess i assumed it was just one way.

Do Air Canada passengers Toronto Mumbai deplane ?

[SWBKCB]

So we aren't sure how it works or why we need it so we should just scrap it? Doesn't sound like evidence based decision making.

[ATNotts]

Maybe we should align with the EU where this nonsense does not

Of course the UK should, but 'British Exceptionalism' is probably in play, along with current political dogma.

[OzzyOzBorn]

The daft rule applies across the board in the UK. Shortly before the covid downturn, I flew Dubrovnik - Birmingham - Manchester with Freebird Europe.

Guess what? We all had to get off at BHX, go out through arrivals, join the lengthy security queue in the departures building (PIA B77W pax in the mix), go through the full security thing AGAIN ... and then get back to the aircraft. They told us we had an hour to do all this. Inevitably, it took much longer. Especially for me, as the gate staff couldn't find the transit boarding pass with my name on as we disembarked the aircraft. I was given a hand-written one about ten minutes after everyone else had set off. The whole thing is an absolute nonsense, of course.

But seriously, if a bad actor was intent on mischief, would they sit there quietly on the three hour DBV - BHX leg, risk getting caught at BHX security (if somehow not detected at DBV), and then do their worst on a 15 minute BHX - MAN hop?

Only a BRITISH DfT official could come up with a system so utterly ludicrous. Knowing what they've done to railways outside the SE as well, I can only despair at the level of talent evident in the DfT.

[RMC]

And Norse's / Norweigan's track record to pilots over the last 4 years is...

Norwegian, majorly anti union, screwed pilots during covid whilst management paid themselves massive bonuses.

Norse, only flying for just over a year. Pro union (positively encourages union membership) with close to 100% in the UK AOC. Long haul only operation with 15 aircraft vs Norwegian’s combined L/H and short haul operation with over ten times as many aircraft. Spoken to the founder on many occasions and would not treat people the way Norwegian did. These are a few of the dozens of differences, and, whilst there are many irrelevant overlaps, (eg using ex Norwegian aircraft, these are leased through a different company on a vastly superior contract). We could discuss every apparent overlap in detail but they are covered elsewhere. Norse’s fundamental culture, growth and people strategies are at different ends of the spectrum. If you want to believe Norse is Norwegian 2.0 that is up to you. Those who join will understand they are not.Time will tell.

[YorkshirePud]

Just wading in on the discussion about transiting and screening… In 2009 I flew with Excel Airways FUE-LGW-MAN, we stayed onboard at LGW and arrived in MAN as international pax.

Besides the point but I do recall chaos in FUE as there was a flight to MAN, another to LGW and a third to LGW and MAN all scheduled to depart at the same time, all the MAN pax on our flight were flummoxed when they found out we were stopping en route.

[Navpi]

It's actually an affront to other countries security arrangements!

[HOVIS]

It's actually an affront to other countries security arrangements!
The USA don't seem to mind.

[SWBKCB]

It's actually an affront to other countries security arrangements!

So going back to my earlier unanswered questions - how would you work it? How are you assessing other countries security arrangements or do you just take them on trust? How often do you review them? What do you do if you find issues in your review? How many other countries/airports are you assessing?

[OzzyOzBorn]

So going back to my earlier unanswered questions - how would you work it? How are you assessing other countries security arrangements or do you just take them on trust? How often do you review them? What do you do if you find issues in your review? How many other countries/airports are you assessing?

Security checks at Singapore Changi are world class. Security checks at Houston Intercontinental are world class. Likewise at many other primary gateway airports. There could be an 'approved' list, with vetting and ongoing inspections coordinated by a recognised international body such as ICAO. In fact, doesn't this happen already?


You haven't been paying attention ... your question was not unanswered. :)​​​​​​​

[Navpi]

National tourism agency Visit Britain (https://www.visitbritain.com/en) and Visit England (https://www.visitengland.com/) has announced that it has selected Birmingham (https://www.birminghamworld.uk/your-birmingham/birmingham) as the location for its new headquarters from April 2024.

The body – which raises Britain’s profile worldwide to develop the country’s visitor economy – picked Birmingham thanks to its strong international and UK transport links and availability of local talent.

'Er Hang on has there been a bidding process for this?
Who decided on this move ,was it independent or did they themseleves choose the location ?

I would have thought Liverpool, Leeds, Chester, York and even Manchester with its airport would all have been a more appropriate location?

Manchester Airport is of course sandwiched between all these cities nestled betwixt the tourist hotspots of;
The Lake District
Peak District
Yorkshire Dales
North Wales Castles

I'm really struggling to understand why they chose Birmingham unless it allows civil servants to continue to live in London with a paid daily commute by the taxpayer?

As for local talent thee largest University campus in Europe is actually in Manchester hence why a tsunami of high tech companies have shifted their back end processes there and why the largest GCHQ hub outside Cheltenham is located in the city, so not sure that stacks!

National tourism agency Visit Britain and Visit England has announced that it has selected Birmingham as the location for its new headquarters from April 2024. The body – which raises Britain’s profile worldwide to develop the country’s visitor economy – picked Birmingham thanks to its strong international and UK transport links and availability of local talent.

[SWBKCB]

You haven't been paying attention ... your question was not unanswered. :)

Do ICAO undertake checks or provide policy/standards that they expect members to follow?

And on a seperate point, why the excitement over where Visit England are to be based, and whats the relevance to the Manchester Airport thread? Surely anywhere outside London is an improvement!

[Navpi]

Do ICAO undertake checks or provide policy/standards that they expect members to follow?

And on a seperate point, why the excitement over where Visit England are to be based, and whats the relevance to the Manchester Airport thread? Surely anywhere outside London is an improvement!

Well i would say it's highly relevant personally, lets not kid ourselves this has more to do with a commute than a relocation !

It has nothing to do with regional stakeholders be they individuals or groups, such as tourism professionals, public authorities, the press and other media who can actually influence the tourism industry and activities at a particular tourist destination.....

....it has everything to do with civil servants being able to stay living in London and being able to commute to Birmingham on a daily basis. That is why a number of other government departments have chosen Birmingham.
The heads and senior managers simply commute.

In effect it's paying lip service. It matters as far as Visit England is concerned as this was an ideal opportunity to change the narrative, personnel actually based in the regions are more likely to promote those regions.

Its crucial, as the impact could be dramatic, was Manchester or indeed Liverpool or Leeds included in this bid process?
i would happily support a relocation to any of those cities.

As Manchester Airport is the gateway airport for a significant number of these tourist hotspots alongside Liverpool Airport and Leeds and is at the epi centre of the largest tourist offering outside London i would have thought an office in a Northern England city was far more appropriate ( and cheaper).

Inbound tourism effects airports so its highly relevant to Manchester Airport given its intercontinental network.

[SWBKCB]

So is this thread now going to feature every investment decision that doesn't end up in Manchester?

[Navpi]

So is this thread now going to feature every investment decision that doesn't end up in Manchester?

I'm pro Manchester Airport and this subject (in my view only) is an area worth discussing and a point worth making, you either agree or disagree, we all get the salty views

That's fine.

It would be splendid however if occasionally you argued points on facts rather than what quite frankly just throwing in miserable opinion pieces with nothing by way of support in terms of data.

It comes across as anti Manchester, anti Manchester Airport, infact anti anyone who has the temerity to support the airport as a driver of the economy in the North.

Cheer up man , it might nerver happen.....

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

This thread continues to get hijacked by two people who were previously banned for exactly that.

[ATNotts]

Navpi,

It is possible and reasonable that government agencies can choose locations other than your beloved Manchester for a national base.

Actually given the London centric nature of the UK we should celebrate any agency leaving London for another location.

I really don't see the relevance to Manchester, or for that matter Birmingham Airports.

[Mayfield62]

This year I have transitted through Brussels, Dublin, Frankfurt, Madrid and Stockholm. Each time I have had to go through security again.

I didn't have to do it at Copenhagen.

[BHX5DME]

Why wouldn’t Visit England choose the UK’s second biggest city ?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Do ICAO undertake checks or provide policy/standards that they expect members to follow?

I'm not sure. That's why I included the question mark in my earlier response on this. Hopefully, if someone knows the answer they will speak up?

​​​​​​​ This year I have transitted through Brussels, Dublin, Frankfurt, Madrid and Stockholm. Each time I have had to go through security again.

I didn't have to do it at Copenhagen.

This is fairly standard and understandable if a change of flight is involved. The anomaly under discussion arises when passengers on the same two-sector flight are obliged to disembark, re-do security, and reboard the same aircraft instead of just remaining aboard during the interim stopover. Everything they have with them will have been security-checked at the airport of initial embarkation.

[Flightrider]

I sincerely hope that those who know the answer won't be posting details of the UK National Aviation Security Programme on an open forum.

This isn't going to change any time soon. I'd give up and move on. Doing some kind of one-sided battle with DFT from an internet forum is completely futile. The UK's policy is what the UK's policy is - there are certain reasons and rationale for it, even though I might not agree with all of them - and it's not especially bright to be initiating a debate on specific details of national airport security policy.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I sincerely hope that those who know the answer won't be posting details of the UK National Aviation Security Programme on an open forum.

That reply comes across as unnecessarily pompous. Nobody has asked for anything of this sort. Enquiring whether ICAO is the recognised authority for coordinating security standards between member states doesn't seem controversial to me. They're heavily involved and trusted in other safety-critical areas of this industry.

​​​​​​​ Doing some kind of one-sided battle with DFT from an internet forum is completely futile.

And we're not doing that either. We're discussing a very specific anomaly which puts UK airports bidding for transit flights at a commercial disadvantage vis-a-vis airports in neighbouring countries where no similar illogical rule is applied. Additional fifth-freedom services could be very beneficial at airports such as MAN and BHX. There is already the Singapore Airlines SIN-MAN-IAH operation, and there are other historical precedents. Others mooted in recent times include Biman rerouting their stopovers from IST to MAN, and Ethiopian combining DUB-MAN-ADD. However, the transit flight disembarkation requirement is a major disincentive for such operations to choose MAN over continental competitors, and that is particularly damaging at an airport which has significant long-haul demand but no home-based hub carrier. It has knock-on effects on the region's economy from an opportunity cost perspective, and it is quite legitimate to discuss lobbying for relaxing that one specific rule which no other country seems to consider necessary to impose. The reasons why it is safe to do so have been discussed upthread.

Nobody here has been asking for online publication of criteria used by UK airport security providers applied to passengers boarding flights at our airports. It would be irresponsible to solicit that, but nobody has. Your outrage is misplaced.

​​​​​​​ it's not especially bright to be initiating a debate on specific details of national airport security policy.

If one very specific rule appears illogical in it's application, then public bodies should not be immune from questioning by those businesses adversely affected. If our institutions are treated as 'untouchable', then beneficial change can never come. They do their best, no doubt, but they don't get everything right. The DfT, in particular, gets a lot wrong. If something can be done better, I fully endorse putting that proposal forward for consideration. In this specific case, a rule which appears superfluous is costing UK regional airports (and our economy) valuable fifth freedom flight opportunities, with no apparent upside in terms of enhanced security. We know that government 'experts' don't get everything right, and we should not allow an unnecessary regulation to disadvantage our economy in a major way without asking the question as to whether it can be changed. Again, nobody is asking for their sensitive security data to be published online. That is a wayward interpretation of this debate.

[Flightrider]

It’s not at all. Unless you understand the risk-based reason which led to this UK measure being in place, you jump to the conclusion that it is misplaced, damaging etc etc. You can’t have a proper debate about the specific risk without the threat assessment, and you don’t go near putting either in the public domain if you are party to them.

It is a completely futile debate here as the debate is far from fully informed. And if you think those at MAG who are fully aware of this issue have been silent on the subject with DFT and HMG, then you’d be mistaken.

[bobradamus]

Emotive topics: Cargo volumes, Transit flights. Feels like we need a third, you know, for completeness. Three always feels better than two…

[OzzyOzBorn]

And if you think those at MAG who are fully aware of this issue have been silent on the subject with DFT and HMG, then you’d be mistaken.

If they're actively attempting to get this issue addressed (we don't need security specifics), then that is all we ask. WE may not need to have the debate, but THEY do. Keep raising the question, because the current policy does come at a heavy economic price with little obvious redress in terms of enhanced passenger safety.

Two weeks ago, I boarded an Ethiopian A359 at GVA bound for MAN. About 24 pax boarded there, all fully security-checked in accordance with Swiss procedures. Aboard the aircraft itself were around 200 through-passengers who remained aboard throughout the stopover. I never felt under any threat from this, as all those pax had undergone similar security checks before initial boarding at ADD. They'd also already completed one long sector without incident. All pax aboard had done one comprehensive security check, completed to international standards at a major airport, to be there. Based on your information, there is something so concerning about this situation that UK authorities would require a full re-screening were this aircraft to stopover in MAN bound, say, for DUB, yet that need is not replicated or recognised by Swiss authorities at GVA.

If you are aware of a valid reason for this, fair enough. We don't need the details. But I hope it is a really good one, because UK regional airports are paying a high price for this apparent over-abundance of caution, as is our economy. Security situations evolve, so if the opportunity to rescind this rule (within the bounds of safety) exists, then it should be taken. Other highly-respected security-conscious jurisdictions haven't applied this rule in the first place, so obviously they interpret the threat level differently. Of course, if there is a specific flaw unique to UK airports which introduces a security threat not present at continental airports (I won't ask), perhaps it would be cost-effective to rectify that issue directly instead, rather than trying to mitigate it on a day-to-day operational basis. A behind-closed-doors cost-benefit analysis should be produced, quantifying the cost of remedying this uniquely UK problem, versus the opportunity cost of discouraging potentially lucrative fifth-freedom air services which could be transformational for regional connectivity.

I do understand and have sympathy with your "not in front of the children" approach on forums such as this, but there is a need for UK airports to keep this issue on the agenda with the appropriate Whitehall officials, away from the public gaze. I'm encouraged by your reassurance that MAG does that.

Emotive topics

Economically significant topics. Entirely appropriate for debate on the Manchester Airport thread. Cargo flights and fifth-freedom services matter in this industry. Many readers here are professionally involved. Nobody is forced to read or engage.

[SWBKCB]

A behind-closed-doors cost-benefit analysis should be produced, quantifying the cost of remedying this uniquely UK problem, versus the opportunity cost of discouraging potentially lucrative fifth-freedom air services which could be transformational for regional connectivity.

I appreciate that you are talking about an investigation, but is the likelihood of fifth-freedom flights really significant? If so, what is the best way of addressing the issue outside of specialist forums like this?

[Flightrider]

This isn't a cost-benefit analysis question. Where it's a security threat and risk-based assessment, cost-benefit doesn't come into it.

[HOVIS]

Good grief, how many times. You are not privy to the information that made this decision necessary.
You do not know what threats, current, historical or perceived are in the minds of UK security policy makers. Just because you can't see a threat it doesn't mean there isn't one. Let it go.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I appreciate that you are talking about an investigation, but is the likelihood of fifth-freedom flights really significant? If so, what is the best way of addressing the issue outside of specialist forums like this?

We know that Bangladesh Biman switched initial plans to route transatlantic transit flights through MAN to IST instead, with the re-screening issue being a major factor in that decision. Likewise, we know that Ethiopian have been unable to progress plans for combining MAN with DUB for the same reason. We know that Luxair, who previously operated LUX-MAN-DUB, restored only LUX-DUB with this being a consideration. Beyond these, we know that other possibilities draw speculation, but only MAG and the companies concerned can assess the likelihood of these realistically coming to pass. What we do know for sure is that an airport with a prosperous and densely-populated catchment area which does not host a based hub-carrier is a prime attraction for business of this sort.

No doubt MAG has the relevant data to hand and can lobby the appropriate agencies without either party divulging security-sensitive / commercially-sensitive information in the public domain. The important thing is that dialogue takes place and that both security implications and value of business forfeited are afforded due consideration in exchanges. It is helpful if political figures are aware of the reality of business opportunities being lost so that an old security rule of questionable value to passenger safety might be left unchanged. The continuation of that rule comes at a high cost. Is it worth it? That is for discussion behind closed doors, but regular dialogue on the issue should be maintained. Nobody wants to compromise safety if a genuine concern is driving this, but the commercial impact must be taken into account too. We can't be keeping a damaging rule in place due to inertia alone. Switzerland don't see the need for it, and they're not complacent about matters of passenger safety. Many other countries likewise.

[HOVIS]

We know that Bangladesh Biman switched initial plans to route transatlantic transit flights through MAN to IST instead, with the re-screening issue being a major factor in that decision. Likewise, we know that Ethiopian have been unable to progress plans for combining MAN with DUB for the same reason. We know that Luxair, who previously operated LUX-MAN-DUB, restored only LUX-DUB with this being a consideration. Beyond these, we know that other possibilities draw speculation, but only MAG and the companies concerned can assess the likelihood of these realistically coming to pass. What we do know for sure......

Hang on.
How do 'we' know all these things? Are they public knowledge?
Apologies if I missed it.

[OzzyOzBorn]

This isn't a cost-benefit analysis question. Where it's a security threat and risk-based assessment, cost-benefit doesn't come into it.

Based on this logic, we could make the case for every passenger departing MAN to be forced to go through the same security process twice before boarding their flights. Surely that would be safer than going through security just once?

We can't just leave security rules to fossilise at great cost, simply because some insist that the subject must never be discussed or debatable decisions revisited.

You do not know what threats, current, historical or perceived are in the minds of UK security policy makers

This isn't about taking shortcuts on security measures. It is about eliminating duplication of the process in the very specific case of a multiple-sector flight at a midpoint airport. Those passengers have been screened already with all those threats taken into account. And they've already flown a sector where they could have done their worst if travelling with ill-intentions. This rule merits constant review because of the cost it imposes on business with no obvious upside.

How do 'we' know all these things? Are they public knowledge?
Apologies if I missed it.

These three have been reported and discussed in the public domain. You must have missed them.

[pabloc]

Emotive topics: Cargo volumes, Transit flights. Feels like we need a third, you know, for completeness. Three always feels better than two…

Terminal 2…always emotive 😉😉

[bobradamus]

terminal 2…always emotive 😉😉
👏🏻👏🏻

[Flightrider]

we could make the case for every passenger departing MAN to be forced to go through the same security process twice before boarding their flights. Surely that would be safer than going through security just once?

You could make that case. But as there's no risk-based rationale for double screening to UK standards then there would be no purpose behind doing so. The issue fundamentally is whether you are content to accept third countries' standards as equivalent to your own in all respects, and that is why the re-screening upon departure from the UK is required for transit operations. And if I were arguing the case to retain the current rules, I'd point to Singapore Airlines SIN-MAN-IAH as an example that the rules aren't a blocker to trade.

[OzzyOzBorn]

And if I were arguing the case to retain the current rules, I'd point to Singapore Airlines SIN-MAN-IAH as an example that the rules aren't a blocker to trade.

As with all commercial decisions, there are multiple factors to consider. In this case the positives outweigh the negatives. On this one, most pax are generally happy to alight to stretch their legs anyway, as both SIA sectors are very long. And from SIA's perspective, demand from the Manchester catchment props up a route which would likely be unviable operated as a standalone. There is no competing service between MAN and Texas, whilst MAN bulks out flights to SIN. But the cost-benefit analysis must be applied to all multi-sector routes affected by the re-screening mandate. In post 2947, I itemised three routes where the decision went the other way. I could throw back at you that these are examples which demonstrate that the rules ARE a blocker to trade. It cuts both ways.

On your point about acceptance of third countries' standards, I have not argued for random acceptance of these. Airports would need to be approved on an individual basis, using standards benchmarked by a recognised agency such as ICAO [see the earlier postings on this to avoid repetition]. The reality is that it would only be necessary to monitor a very limited pool of airports for this purpose; flights of this sort would tend to use major gateway airports with state-of-the-art equipment.

[pwalhx]

It certainly wasnt/isn't just a UK thing I recall flying EVA from LHR to TPE via BKK and having to get off the aircraft and go through security on both legs in BKK. Was pre covid so may have changed since then.

[ezyBoh]

It certainly wasnt/isn't just a UK thing I recall flying EVA from LHR to TPE via BKK and having to get off the aircraft and go through security on both legs in BKK. Was pre covid so may have changed since then.

Yes, same happened with me, seemed to be a standard procedure.

Happened in MUC, ZRH, FRA whilst transferring to LHR.

[Mayfield62]

Luxair do not need to route via Manchester as loads are good enough for the route to operate as a stand alone service.

If Luxair thought Manchester was viable on it's own right I guess it would operating the route. Can Manchester not generate its own traffic to support routes such as Newark, Philadelphia, Dallas, Delhi, Mumbai to name but a few.

[samj]

Why do TUI use 767's and 787's on more short haul out of Manchester compared to Gatwick? Always wondered this. Is Manchester busier for TUI than LGW?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Happened in MUC, ZRH, FRA whilst transferring to LHR.

Were you changing flights at those hubs, or obliged to get off and reboard the same aircraft operating a through flight? The anomaly we're discussing only relates to the latter scenario.

[OzzyOzBorn]

If Luxair thought Manchester was viable on it's own right I guess it would operating the route.

Luxair was contemplating taking over the route when FlyBe failed, but the timing of their collapse was immediately pre-covid which put the blockers on everything. Now airlines are focused on recovery from the covid era, bringing staff numbers back up to strength and improving resilience. We'll have to see whether they revisit the idea of taking on LUX-MAN as recovery continues. I did fly MAN-LUX-MAN with FlyBe and demand at the time looked healthy; obviously, I have no access to yield data which is the important bit.

[AircraftOperations]

Question: How.much is a transit flight worth to an airport if it has no access to 5th freedoms? Minimal commercial revenue surely. Keeping airline relationships smooth?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Question: How.much is a transit flight worth to an airport if it has no access to 5th freedoms? Minimal commercial revenue surely. Keeping airline relationships smooth?

Arguably so. But the real prize at MAN is through flights which DO have fifth freedom rights. With MAN having no based hub carrier - and especially since the demise of Thomas Cook long-haul - opportunities are there for them.

[Flightrider]

There are potential opportunities at many airports, and so to confine this to MAN is pure hubris. I am sure BHX or GLA would welcome Emirates flying DXB-XXX-NYC just as Hamburg, Milan and Athens have over the years. EDI would be cock-a-hoop with Turkish doing IST-EDI-YYZ, and MAN with Ethiopian doing ADD-MAN-DTW, or whatever examples you wish to choose. UK Government policy recognises this market opportunity which is why outside London, the UK's Air Services Agreements with other countries are to all intents and purposes "Open Skies" and have been for many years.

The security requirements apply equally to all UK airports. So if BA wished to run a single flight KWI-LHR-JFK (as it used to do) then the security re-screening requirement would apply at LHR just as it would to Kuwait Airways flying the same routing or KU flying that routing via Manchester.

Ozzy, this is not going to change any time soon. There are threat-based reasons for the UK's stance. I repeat, it is not going to change any time soon - until or unless the threat-based reasons change or suitable measures can be introduced to mitigate those threats.

I'd suggest that we move on.

[OzzyOzBorn]

There are potential opportunities at many airports, and so to confine this to MAN is pure hubris.

Additional fifth-freedom services could be very beneficial at airports such as MAN and BHX.

Please note the above quote lifted from my post 2940. My answers have consistently referred to the UK. MAN crops up regularly in replies because we are on the MANCHESTER thread!!! Where is the "pure hubris"? I deliberately didn't reference airports in Scotland, because I'm unsure whether they have their own arrangements in place being self-governing up there. But I agree that fifth freedoms are important to them for the same reasons as they are at MAN. In fact, I twice flew EDI-DUB with Hainan Airlines pre-covid.

​​​​​​​ Ozzy, this is not going to change any time soon. There are threat-based reasons for the UK's stance. I repeat, it is not going to change any time soon - until or unless the threat-based reasons change or suitable measures can be introduced to mitigate those threats.

The question then becomes whether there is a need for airports on the continent to align with the UK's way of doing things. If the threat represented by not re-scanning passengers who have already flown their first sector is genuine, then the issue must be a concern at airports such as GVA too. If there are measures which can be introduced to mitigate those threats, they should be examined as a matter of priority and implemented as soon as is practical. The UK is forfeiting valuable business, and it is mainly hitting regional airports serving areas which could benefit disproportionately from such air links.

​​​​​​​ I'd suggest that we move on.

I agree that we've covered most of the ground on this. I'll respond to any follow-up points raised by other contributors or yourself, but will move on in the absence of these.

[Rutan16]

Yes, same happened with me, seemed to be a standard procedure.

Happened in MUC, ZRH, FRA whilst transferring to LHR.

Ozzy isnt talking about transfers enroute- he is talking about SAME PLANE transits

[scrapy]

Ozzy isnt talking about transfers enroute- he is talking about SAME PLANE transits
Surely it's still the same principle, transit passengers have already been screened at their origin. Unless going landside I don't see why the risk is any different for those transferring between aircraft and those staying in their seats. Another issue is that any liquids bought airside at the origin are then confiscated upon transfer.

[UnderASouthernSky]

Surely it's still the same principle, transit passengers have already been screened at their origin. Unless going landside I don't see why the risk is any different for those transferring between aircraft and those staying in their seats. Another issue is that any liquids bought airside at the origin are then confiscated upon transfer.

Transfer is surely more "risky" as you are potentially bringing together passengers from a wide variety of different origins which might have varying levels of security.

[Mayfield62]

I am amazed that Jet2 has not taken over routes formerly operated by Thomas Cook Airlines. Traffic to the Dom Rep, Cuba, Jamaica, Mexico and West Coast USA must be ripe for the picking.

[VickersVicount]

I am amazed that Jet2 has not taken over routes formerly operated by Thomas Cook Airlines. Traffic to the Dom Rep, Cuba, Jamaica, Mexico and West Coast USA must be ripe for the picking.
But perhaps not so ripe if TCX Airlines couldn't be spun off, despite apparent subgroup profits. Long haul leisure is always a bit iffy. I can’t see Jet2 entertaining West Coast USA. Big resort package destinations if they want to risk it…

[CabinCrewe]

wonder what TCX would have done about fleet renewal, as those ex Airtours A330’s were knackered. Maybe followed Condor with A330-900 neos? or some white tail 787s. The rest of the SH fleet needed replaced too.

[Mr Mac]

Jet 2 are a very cautious Yorkshire company, and probably know their market very well, and that market as yet is not long haul travel , to more exotic locations, which is probably how many of their customers would view the locations you mentioned currently.

That is not to say that they will not change, but I think they need more time developing their brand yet.

None of the above is hopefully viewed as patronising, but an honest attempt to look at their current market and where they MAYBE want to go.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[Mayfield62]

Not patronising at all. It just seems to be a logical step now that they are the UK's biggest tour operator.

[Asturias56]

Yeah - and Europe's biggest airline resolutely refuses to do long haul - there's a good reason to stick to what you do best

[samj]

I am amazed that Jet2 has not taken over routes formerly operated by Thomas Cook Airlines. Traffic to the Dom Rep, Cuba, Jamaica, Mexico and West Coast USA must be ripe for the picking.

The traffic to the US this year has been very hit and miss hasn't it? Probably the wrong time to enter the market for sure. Cost of living crisis etc - people just going short haul as it's cheaper?

[pabely]

Mayfield62 Have you been to US recently, no longer a cheap place? Money to be made inbound to UK from US but not the other way - unless Jet2 are going to advertise in US for holidays in UK!

[UnderASouthernSky]

What is suitable bed stock like in these destinations at the moment? If Jet2 can't get that, they won't consider a route.

Big difference to Jet2 between a few packages to New York leading up to Christmas operated on a narrowbody and a longer series of regular 7/10/14 days holidays to 8+ hour away destinations only reachable by a non-company widebody.

[Danny G]

If Jet2 got involved in longhaul then surely Cancun is the starting point for a couple of flights a week. There are plenty of hotels but only 2 carriers (BA and TUI) covering from the UK and only TUI from Manchester. Pipe dream I know but it would be good for the TUI monopoly to be broken.

[Una Due Tfc]

Saw it reported elsewhere that EI's LF for the MAN base was 64% for May. Hopefully that has picked up since.

[waffler]

Very healthy loads now i believe.

[DP.]

Mayfield62 Have you been to US recently, no longer a cheap place? Money to be made inbound to UK from US but not the other way - unless Jet2 are going to advertise in US for holidays in UK!

As someone who has previously regularly holidayed to various parts of the US, this is certainly a major issue for me. We cancelled a trip to the South/Midwest in the spring due to cost of hotels and rental cars - exacerbated at the time by the exchange rate.

I've looked at Las Vegas a few times since the pandemic, and it seems that the days of a relatively cheap luxury stay there are a thing of the past.

As someone said above - if Jet2 decided to dip a toe in the longhaul market, Cancun would certainly appear to be a more obvious option.

[pabely]

They probably will have their spies out looking at how well Virgin Holidays do next year from Manchester. Long Hual.
If things look better then they could always change some of those 321s to 321LR, although 10-11 hours in one of those might not be nice. Ok if you are running a ULCC model you put up with it but that is not the Jet2 Holidays model. 330NEO would be better but with a standby aircraft, as Jet2 would want, that's a big gamble.

[SWBKCB]

although 10-11 hours in one of those might not be nice

Never really understood this - I'd rather be in a narrowbody than stuck in the middle section of a widebody.

[pabely]

Never really understood this - I'd rather be in a narrowbody than stuck in the middle section of a widebody.
I was thinking more like Condor with 2-4-2 which is better than 3-3, especially if you are a family of 4.
Corsair do 3-3-3.
Food / refreshments service doesn't stop the whole flow to toilets as well.

[SWBKCB]

especially if you are a family of 4.

You are implying there that sitting with family is a good thing.... :E

[BA318]

I was thinking more like Condor with 2-4-2 which is better than 3-3, especially if you are a family of 4.
Corsair do 3-3-3.
Food / refreshments service doesn't stop the whole flow to toilets as well.

How do? Service usually happens simultaneously on both aisles. If you need the toilet you’re just as blocked on a widebody as you are on a narrowbody.

[eye2eye5]

Friends had their EI flights to New York cancelled in advance last week. Booked Virgin instead. Doesn’t suggest full flights…….

[pabely]

How do? Service usually happens simultaneously on both aisles. If you need the toilet you’re just as blocked on a widebody as you are on a narrowbody.
But a A330 usually has toilets in the middle as well, on a 321 you don't have that. On a A330 if 4 trollies are out, two starting from front and two from the middle, the majority of pax can get to toilets. On a 321 the same blocks off at least 50% access - unless Jet2 would only go for just front & rear conveniences.

[Shamrock350]

Saw it reported elsewhere that EI's LF for the MAN base was 64% for May. Hopefully that has picked up since.
Averages for the most recent months available and the increases versus the same months last year.

March ‘23 - 67% (+10)
April ‘23 - 72% (+5)
May ‘23 - 64% (+8)

It’s worth noting that May was the first full month of A333 operations on the JFK route, big increase in capacity versus the A321LR. Despite this, it’s a decent improvement versus last year.

Peak summer should see typically strong load factors, especially now they seem to have established themselves. The A333 is far too big for the winter months though but it’s a case of needs must with the A321LR required in Dublin.

If the base sticks around until 2025, the arrival of XLRs in Dublin will provide some much needed narrow body capacity which is where Manchester could see opportunities.

[Rutan16]

Transfer is surely more "risky" as you are potentially bringing together passengers from a wide variety of different origins which might have varying levels of security.

Its exactly the same UK regulation at play passengers entering the UK must be screened at point of boarding to UK standards .

As we are NOT now nor have ever been in the Schengen zone such screening also requires full ID document and VISA checks before boarding - THAT INFORMATION IS SHARED AND SENT TO THE UK BORDER AND IMMIGRATION agency prior to you flying . This is the controversial point . Border force already know who is arriving and when hours before (and have done for decades (indeed since the Irish troubles in the seventies -they even know who is travelling within the CTA on ferries )

Much of the border paraphernalia at the port of arrival is very much for show through other than customs and spot police checks.

Demanding granny’s passport is pretty much pointless nonsense however plays to certain galleries !

[Rutan16]

Transfer is surely more "risky" as you are potentially bringing together passengers from a wide variety of different origins which might have varying levels of security.

I am amazed that Jet2 has not taken over routes formerly operated by Thomas Cook Airlines. Traffic to the Dom Rep, Cuba, Jamaica, Mexico and West Coast USA must be ripe for the picking.

They will need a multi year contract with accommodation suppliers and reasonable enough margins in an exceptionally competitive market dominated by US and Canadian companies .VERY VERY tricky and risky.

That said I suspect they could do a deal with Cuba

[chaps1954]

Friends had their EI flights to New York cancelled in advance last week. Booked Virgin instead. Doesn’t suggest full flights…….
The A330 had to go to Dublin for maintenance and nothing to replace it

[The96er]

Friends had their EI flights to New York cancelled in advance last week. Booked Virgin instead. Doesn’t suggest full flights…….

The aircraft in question suffered an extended stay in the DUB hangar due to needing an unplanned engine change, nothing to do with load factors. The load factor for the JFK is currently at about 85% plus with very healthy cargo loads too.

[eye2eye5]

Thank you for that update. I was working on the fact that they could pick up replacement flights on Virgin as evidence that flights are not full at peak time.

[Una Due Tfc]

The A330 had to go to Dublin for maintenance and nothing to replace it

The last A330 in storage was reactivated in the last fortnight, so there’s now a spare A330 at all times in DUB to cover this type of thing going forward.

[CabinCrewe]

Planned Ethiopian change to 787 for W23 now not happening and remaining A359 via GVA

[The96er]

The last A330 in storage was reactivated in the last fortnight, so there’s now a spare A330 at all times in DUB to cover this type of thing going forward.

The EI and EI UK fleets cannot be substituted for each other as they’re on different AOC and different national registrations.

[eggc]

The EI and EI UK fleets cannot be substituted for each other as they’re on different AOC and different national registrations.

I am 99.99% sure EI registered A330's have flown ex MAN to the US very recently...

[Rutan16]

The EI and EI UK fleets cannot be substituted for each other as they’re on different AOC and different national registrations.

They can on a temporary basis such a substitution under internal lease arrangements ( could be done via internal accounting practices) or rescue basis due to tech issues.

Aer Lingus parent can not operate UK - xyz under own license due to “B” and more specifically the UK leaving the US/EU open sky’s arrangements and EASA ( which we didn’t have too!) however Aer Linus UK can lease in capacity if needed ( there may be a capacity limit set however it’s not illegal to do so temporarily)

EI-DUZ was substituted in for several days in April due to tech issues

[Rutan16]

Delayed and cancelled Green Flight passengers will be routed via Dublin, Heathrow and potentially Helsinki before handing onto Virgin .

[The96er]

Delayed and cancelled Green Flight passengers will be routed via Dublin, Heathrow and potentially Helsinki before handing onto Virgin .

EIUK passengers are routinely rerouted onto VS during times of disruption.

As for using EI mainline A/C, yes, they have used EI reg before, however, this is all planned in advanced and they must use mainline crews. I’m assuming when Una Due Tfc posted regarding the spare aircraft, that the implication is that you could just fly in the spare from DUB and operate by EIUK crews which is not the case.

[DP.]

A friend was affected by a cancellation on the JFK a couple of weeks ago and was rebooked via DUB the following day with a hefty layover, so would assume the VS was full if usual practice is to use them.