Manchester-3

[The96er]

Does anyone know what's currently being built on stand 209?

As per the answer in #3160 response, it's a 'Vertical Circulation Core' !! - no further details were given by the poster. I'm still none the wiser myself as to what it's for.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

As per the answer in #3160 response, it's a 'Vertical Circulation Core' !! - no further details were given by the poster. I'm still none the wiser myself as to what it's for.

In very simple words its a glorified staircase!!

[MANFAN]

My understanding is that initially T1 (terminal building) will be "mothballed".
Following that the other areas will continue/be developed.
Once ready to do something with T1 the layout/connection plan can be finalised and built.

It’s my understanding that the T1 main structure will be mothballed for a specific amount of time in the long run and then finally demolished.

However, I don’t believe a final decision has been made on Piers B & C.
Suggestions and/or rumours ref Pier B are that it will form part of T3…as there is access between T3 and Pier B.

Pier C will be used as remote parking but passengers will use T2 for boarding and stairs will be used at the aircraft.

[TURIN]

As per the answer in #3160 response, it's a 'Vertical Circulation Core' !! - no further details were given by the poster. I'm still none the wiser myself as to what it's for.
According this one at Stansted it's a lift shaft too. Who knew?

https://www.magproperty.co.uk/post/vertical-circulation-core-vcc-progresses-advanced-stages-london-stansted-airport/

[Mr Mac]

Well a first for me as in T3 not been here since last BA flight in around 2009. On a hop to Dublin then onto Germany later tonight. Has not changed much though a tad tired if anything I would say.

Cheers

Mr Mac

[Seljuk]

EZY will base a 22nd aircraft next summer
https://marketingstockport.co.uk/news/easyjet-announce-expansion-of-operations-from-manchester-airport/

[TURIN]

Not sure if this has been posted but apparently Eurowings are restarting Stuttgart fights next year.

[chaps1954]

and increasing Dusseldorf just incase that wasn`t added

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Also a rumour of Hamburg.

[CabinCrewe]

Egyptair going 6/wk with 6th weekly flight op by A321. Must be doing ok.

[Manchester Exile]

I see that the "new" T2 has been officially recognised for the high quality of its architecture. I haven't seen the new terminal myself, but this good publicity could be another step in resetting the reputation of Ringway. After the highly publicised (and completely merited) criticisms of the passenger experience over the last few years, the airport needed to make improvements.

[Rutan16]

I see that the "new" T2 has been officially recognised for the high quality of its architecture. I haven't seen the new terminal myself, but this good publicity could be another step in resetting the reputation of Ringway. After the highly publicised (and completely merited) criticisms of the passenger experience over the last few years, the airport needed to make improvements.

More award of the facilities inside than the architecture externally to be honest however still a worthy recognition of the project delivered largely on schedule and to cost (caveat some cost engineering on the way) unlike other airport related terminals (Looking at you Berlin )

[Navpi]

Do we know the capacity across the airport when all WIP is complete ?
I'm sure 45m per annum was mentioned but that was assuming we would increase stand capacity not lose it.

[Rutan16]

Some and all of the target growth of some years ago was predicated on aircraft size growth ( some happening 737NG to Max and 320NG densified and fewer props and the like).

In the case of the original T2 and indeed T3 the design principles were predicated on short door to kerb and rapid turn round times thereby increasing stand utilisation.

Changed border requirements as a result of “B” and security issues around liquids and perceived terrorist threats has completely disrupted those very dynamics.

Indeed I think the terminal capacity has already been reduced from a notional 55 million downwards

[laviation]

As you say, I do think a big chunk of future growth will come through aircraft types rather than new routes - in specific, our 4 largest carriers are inducting bigger types - Jet2 taking the first 321 NEOs this summer as well as more lsd A330s, EasyJet & Ryanair ordering the 321neo and MAX 10 by the ton respectively, and TUI expecting MAX 10.

This will add up

[TURIN]

I see that the "new" T2 has been officially recognised for the high quality of its architecture. I haven't seen the new terminal myself, but this good publicity could be another step in resetting the reputation of Ringway. After the highly publicised (and completely merited) criticisms of the passenger experience over the last few years, the airport needed to make improvements.
Where is this recognition you speak of? The RNIB?

[horatio_b]

Well at least it will have one of the original chandeliers:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/four-grand-venetian-chandeliers-graced-27192932

[Mayfield62]

Having travelled through the new Terminal 2 three times since July, I have to agree with TURIN. I looks cheap, lino floors and no travelators! A lot of the long haul park at the furthest end which makes for a long trek through something that feels like a mix of a council office and a hospital corridor!

[Mr Mac]

I have to say I am not a regular user of T2, but on one of my in frequent visits I noted shortly after opening that it was rather uninspired and indeed seemed to be short of places to sit and indeed toilet facilities from the queues outside. Externally it looks like a municipal bus station and is not much different from Liverpool in that regard.
The last time I went through talking to a sales person on a perfume concession she said the place was already falling to pieces with failing Air Conditioning / Lifts / Lighting etc. etc. I have not been back through there since July.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[Mayfield62]

At least Liverpool has carpet and nice tiling. Indeed, at Manchester T2, they have created more stands and corridors but not enlarged the waiting area or created more seating.

[UnderASouthernSky]

At least Liverpool has carpet and nice tiling. Indeed, at Manchester T2, they have created more stands and corridors but not enlarged the waiting area or created more seating.

Isn't that because only half of T2 (including airside lounge, retail etc) has been completed to date and the other half won't be refurbished until 2025?

[chaps1954]

Correct quite a way to being finished and a large area is not in use yet

[MANFAN]

Isn't that because only half of T2 (including airside lounge, retail etc) has been completed to date and the other half won't be refurbished until 2025?

That is correct. And it has been rumoured that T2 legacy will open in phases after each area is refurbished.
The 2nd pier is due to open somewhere around Q2 of 2025.

Going forward I expect T3 will use Pier B as it’s already connected to T1 anyway and there aren’t enough stands presently at T3 for all Ryanair aircraft to park overnight.

[Mr Mac]

Chaps 1954
It would be good to know when it will be complete as it does seem to be having a very long build program indeed almost Berlinesque in some regards.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[MANFAN]

Chaps 1954
It would be good to know when it will be complete as it does seem to be having a very long build program indeed almost Berlinesque in some regards.

Cheers
Mr Mac

Summer 2025 has been the publicly announced completion date set for a long time.
This was always a 10 year programme (2015-2025). Phase 2 if I remember rightly didn’t start until March this year and also includes the dual taxiway work, all of this due to for completion during summer 2025, which is certainly not long away, given how quick this year seems to have gone!

[Danny G]

Just got back from a 14 day trip to CUN and was pleasently surprised by the efficency of T2. It took 20 mins from getting dropped off to sitting in the departure lounge. Yes its still a bit of a patchwork especially if you are departing from the older gates (we departed and arriced at 204) but I can see the potential.
Coming back this morning was also efficent. we had a 5 min delay to get onto stand (not unusual I know) but once there we cleared a reasonably busy immigration hall in about 10 mins and our luggage was already on the belt.
One thing to note on the downside though, the signage to terminal 2 collections at the arrivals west carpark is poor and neds looking at.

[rkenyon]

Having travelled through the new Terminal 2 three times since July, I have to agree with TURIN. I looks cheap, lino floors and no travelators! A lot of the long haul park at the furthest end which makes for a long trek through something that feels like a mix of a council office and a hospital corridor!

There are travelators out to the new pier that you mentioned. You must have seen them if you went there?

[Navpi]

With only ALIA to show thus far for 2024 re long haul it crossed my mind whether CW might go after some of his former route development team at LGW who seem to be having a stellar period.

Air India, Air China, China Eastern, Saudia, Lufthansa, Delta, Ethiopian Airlines, Air Mauritius and just last week, China Southern.

These seem to be the result of hard work and graft rather than sitting back and waiting for LHR overspill.

"We need to identify key carriers for our market, have initial conversations, understand cultural requirements and expectations, appreciate and work with the needs and capacity of the airport and our operations, have more conversations – and this is all before we’re even close to signing on the dotted line."

Cedit Stephanie Wear, vice President Aviation Development Team Gatwick.

As CW is ex LGW might there be an opportunity to go after this lady ?

[SWBKCB]

How many of those would take LHR slots instead if they could get them?

[OzzyOzBorn]

I think we need to give our own routes team some credit. They've had one hand tied behind their back, yet they've still secured an additional based aircraft from each of Ryanair, EasyJet (plus continued shift to larger types), and possibly Jet2. Virgin Atlantic is restoring LAS. For new carriers, we're looking at Luxair, Royal Jordanian, Southwind. Eurowings is adding two routes and Corendon one new Greek route to HER. Hainan, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific (subject to aircraft availability), EgyptAir, Ethiopian are amongst carriers stepping up frequency. There may be more, and there is still time for meaningful 2024 announcements to come.

MAN has lagged in some areas of rebuilding business, notably Transatlantic and England & Scotland domestic (post-FlyBe).

However, where there has been shortfalls, it isn't clear that the routes team should shoulder the blame for these. The previous CEO kept the routes team on furlough for far too long (in my view). During that time, they couldn't contribute at all ... the chance to secure new business from Transavia and Vueling (how many others?) was forfeited. Also, whilst they were away, enquiries were directed by default to a management figure not accustomed to nurturing relationships with airlines, and the grapevine suggests that some carriers were extremely affronted by the reception they received from MAN at that time. Some would suggest that Edinburgh Airport has much to thank this one less-than-diplomatic individual (and his/her budget) for?

MAN's routes team didn't cause the alleged damage, but it falls to them to pick up the pieces and restore relationships where noses have been put out of joint. We can't blame them if this process takes time. However, they MUST ensure that every enquiry receives at least a courteous and enthusiastic reply. It is alleged that one carrier which recently announced a new schedule at Liverpool had first enquired at MAN and received no response. That can never be allowed to happen. Measures must be put in place to prevent any recurrence of that alleged lapse.

Next, MAN's growth in terms of new services and carriers is also at the mercy of terminal capacity. Terminal 3 in particular is at bursting point, and MAG's previous CEO resolutely refused any meaningful investment to address that. Ryanair - along with EasyJet, the two carriers best placed to drive growth at MAN - find themselves with little physical space in which to expand. And this problem was absolutely foreseen. It has been discussed on this very forum for years now. T3 STILL has domestic flights squeezed in there. They should have been shifted to T2 long ago, and failure to do so has already cost MAN heavily in terms of forfeited interline business which has since defaulted to competing airports (probably permanently). Suggestions to open up access from T3 to Pier B to allow Ryanair overflow have been ignored to date. For as long as Ryanair and EasyJet in particular remain strangled by capacity constraints, MAN will be unable to fulfil it's latent growth potential to the extent that business-demand warrants.

But there has been a changing of the guard. Ken O' Toole (a former MAN CEO, and one with an intimatte understanding of the needs of Ryanair and similar) now heads the group. And at MAN specifically we have Chris W who came from LGW with a glowing CV. I think that most would agree that he has made an excellent start at MAN, particularly with his initial focus on improving the passenger experience. Terminal capacity needs to be his focus now. The roadmap to full reopening of legacy T2 is known. But T3 requires urgent intensive care - it is set to lose two further aircraft stands to the new security hall extension. Plans need to be put in place to make best use of the T1 stands post-closure of the terminal core. I would personally advocate for Pier B to be wholly fed from T3 via the southern front corridor, and for Pier C to receive a physical covered link to T2 (unless a so far unannounced new pier is planned over it's footprint). A substantial apron extension on the campus should also be high on the agenda to ensure future capacity resilience.

Finally, I have to mention that which must go unspoken on here. Since the discussion some months ago when it was suggested that MAG had received a "knuckle rap" over the group policy towards whole-plane cargo flights at MAN, it appears from the outside that nothing has changed. MAN has not handled one single widebodied freighter since then, barring those DHL B77F's which pitched up for maintenance work with STS. To my knowledge, MAN has still got no Hi-Lo capability on campus (the busiest airport in Europe which cannot offer this?), and unless anyone can advise differently, it does not appear that any handling agent has been tasked with restoring capability on this. Attention to this issue is sorely needed, and MAG must be prepared to share the initial cost burden with said handling agent partner.

So, as we head into 2024, I suggest that we need to BACK our routes team, not bash them. Where the reality has fallen short of expectation, the issue(s) seem to lie principally with other departments within MAG. Give the routes team a generous budget and an unequivocal mandate to pursue new business. Conduct a charm-offensive tour (featuring CW himself) around prospective Transatlantic partners as a priority. Work with Loganair and others to restore with urgency routes to SOU and EXT in particular. Perhaps SEN too: that route failed due to over-ambitious scheduling and consequent high volume of EU/UK261claims, not due to lack of latent demand. Given contemporary rail issues (set to continue) and the recent axing of HS2, enhanced air capacity from MAN to the London area is sorely needed (and we can't expect more slots at LHR/LGW/LCY for this). Re-approach Air Baltic, who bafflingly launched MAN-RIX in the midst of covid, only to withdraw flights at exactly the time we were all allowed to travel again. And chase up Greek carrier Sky Express, spending a small fortune on TV advertising in a region where they have no product to offer. There are plenty of leads out there for an enthusiastic team to be going after!

My verdict on 2023: a lot more good than bad. T2 in particular is providing a good passenger experience, minor (fixable) cosmetic issues notwithstanding. So far so good, but plenty to focus on in the year to come.

[SWBKCB]

How much impact do airports have on where airlines chose to fly to? Clearly they need to be able to offer the physical capacity, but have LGW done an outstanding job or are they just the next cab on a rack for those how can't get into/afford LHR? Have EDI done a better job than MAN or have currency fluctuations done more?

Clearly good communications are essential in any business but surely market fundamentals have a bigger impact than any oiling of the wheels by a route development team.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I agree completely. These issues are complex and multi-dimensional. Both airports and airlines are at the mercy of geopolitical events and global economics. But airports do have their role to play within that matrix. And MAN must resource and empower their representatives to produce optimal results.

[TartinTon]

How much impact do airports have on where airlines chose to fly to? Clearly they need to be able to offer the physical capacity, but have LGW done an outstanding job or are they just the next cab on a rack for those how can't get into/afford LHR? Have EDI done a better job than MAN or have currency fluctuations done more?

Clearly good communications are essential in any business but surely market fundamentals have a bigger impact than any oiling of the wheels by a route development team.

How long's a piece of string? Depends on the airport, the route being discussed, how desperate the airport is etc etc. I've seen deals stretching into 7 figures over a 3-5 year period for particularly desperate airports. MAN/EDI would be much less and normally some sort of discount on per passenger departure rates/parking/landing fees etc normally weighted to the first couple of years of operation to mitigate the risk to the airline. The airport will still make money from car parking/duty free/general airport fees etc so it's no great sacrifice for them in the short term if there's a real possibility of a long-term route.

[laviation]

How much impact do airports have on where airlines chose to fly to? Clearly they need to be able to offer the physical capacity, but have LGW done an outstanding job or are they just the next cab on a rack for those how can't get into/afford LHR? Have EDI done a better job than MAN or have currency fluctuations done more?

Clearly good communications are essential in any business but surely market fundamentals have a bigger impact than any oiling of the wheels by a route development team.


One key word can be used to describe EDI’s recent success in getting routes - incentives. I remember hearing one story in which MAN was going to get a fairly significant (& sought after) carrier for 2024, but we were pipped to it by EDI at the eleventh hour who have the big Visit Scotland fund.

Of course, this may just be rumour, but it is fact that they have seen lots of ’’new route success” through incentives - just look at Hainan. I am subscribed to a Patreon page that aggregates a lot of US data, safe to say that MAN is usually up near the top of ‘potential international routes’ from some of these airports - unfortunately the data can’t be shared - but it does prove that demand is not the issue. The US carriers will be back once the GBP/USD further corrects and the A321s start rolling in.

Not necessarily an issue of EDI beating MAN or vice versa. EDI vs MAN is the wrong comparison imho. EDI is much more reliant on inbound US traffic. A better comparison would be made with somewhere like Düsseldorf - non hub, fairly large city, mostly outbound traffic. If we compare MAN to these sort of cities, suddenly we look great. I do suppose that DUS does not have a based long haul carrier - from this point the best comparison in terms of ‘status’ - ignoring inbound/outbound traffic, would probably be Barcelona - not a proper hub for the national carrier but still served in some form, US carriers (pre 2020, MAN did have all three like BCN currently)

The issue as I say at the moment is exchange rates for US carriers, aircraft shortages / hub ‘pecking order’ for Aer Lingus and Virgin (DUB & LHR respectively). On a positive note, it seems the ‘relationships’ issue with a couple of certain carriers has been sorted, or wasn’t really an issue in the first place.

[Navpi]

As a city there are 8m potential passengers within our footprint , for comparison Ireland as a whole has a population of just 5m , but look at the number of American flights today, 18, is the disparity really so wide that they are ALL Irish disapora ?

Manchester once chimed it was the largest gateway outside London, it now seems to be squeezed all ends up.

Even discounting passengers within the MAN footprint who might conceivably use Liverpool or LBA to connect LH using EI, LH or KL , Manchester is still a massive economic bloc reflected in some part going East but now transparent going west. That said even these figures are skewed as most ME carriers are possibly filling the PIA gap.

Yes i appreciate some say the worth of Route Development teams is negligible, clearly as LA AVIATION suggests when you are up against government incentives it's a hard road but surely they have some worth, the lady at LGW seems to think so.

My gripe is the fact that w24 offers just 3% growth at Manchester, this at a time when STN is the fastest growing airport in London, Heathrows figures are absolutely rocketing, Gatwick has 7 new long haul for 24 already , Dublins US connections are growing year on year with capacity, frequency and new routes. Edinburgh is already up to seven daily US routes next summer. LH is driving much of this.

Our contribution is ALIA and "relatively" minor tweaks elsewhere.

Even if route development did not exist surely our figures should move in tandem with similar size airports ?

We have been slower coming out of Covid and now seem to be falling behind in the general upturn which all other similar size airports are benefitting.

Some may point to T2 and capacity /apron /slot constraints, is that not an excuse, these should have been factored in by previous management to ensure flexibility was built in , those who made these decsions have seemingly now been spirited away.

You can't say no to customers 2 years on the bounce then expect them to come crawling back when it suits your agenda especially if they have been welcomed with open arms elsewhere.

What is the point in a shiny new terminal if you have lost 2/3 years growth ?

[BristolexFlyer]

As a city there are 8m potential passengers within our footprint , for comparison Ireland as a whole has a population of just 5m , but look at the number of American flights today, 18, is the disparity really so wide that they are ALL Irish disapora ?

Manchester once chimed it was the largest gateway outside London, it now seems to be squeezed all ends up.

Even discounting passengers within the MAN footprint who might conceivably use Liverpool or LBA to connect LH using EI, LH or KL , Manchester is still a massive economic bloc reflected in some part going East but now transparent going west. That said even these figures are skewed as most ME carriers are possibly filling the PIA gap.

Yes i appreciate some say the worth of Route Development teams is negligible, clearly as LA AVIATION suggests when you are up against government incentives it's a hard road but surely they have some worth, the lady at LGW seems to think so.

My gripe is the fact that w24 offers just 3% growth at Manchester, this at a time when STN is the fastest growing airport in London, Heathrows figures are absolutely rocketing, Gatwick has 7 new long haul for 24 already , Dublins US connections are growing year on year with capacity, frequency and new routes. Edinburgh is already up to seven daily US routes next summer. LH is driving much of this.

Our contribution is ALIA and "relatively" minor tweaks elsewhere.

Even if route development did not exist surely our figures should move in tandem with similar size airports ?

We have been slower coming out of Covid and now seem to be falling behind in the general upturn which all other similar size airports are benefitting.

Some may point to T2 and capacity /apron /slot constraints, is that not an excuse, these should have been factored in by previous management to ensure flexibility was built in , those who made these decsions have seemingly now been spirited away.

You can't say no to customers 2 years on the bounce then expect them to come crawling back when it suits your agenda especially if they have been welcomed with open arms elsewhere.

What is the point in a shiny new terminal if you have lost 2/3 years growth ?

Royal Jordanian hasn’t been known as ALIA since 1986.

thanks

BristolexFlyer

[laviation]

We may still see Bangkok , Mumbai , Shanghai yet for next summer if all goes well.

[Rutan16]

Royal Jordanian hasn’t been known as ALIA since 1986.

thanks

BristolexFlyer

The official name and that registered at IATA and at companies house for UK activities remains ALIA- The Royal Jordanian Airline :hmm:

[BristolexFlyer]

The official name and that registered at IATA and at a companies house for UK activities remains ALIA- The Royal Jordanian Airline :hmm:

Fair point, but it’s not their public brand. I mean we don’t refer to Tui as Britannia for example.

Thanks

BristolexFlyer

[Rutan16]

We may still see Bangkok , Mumbai , Shanghai yet for next summer if all goes well.

I only see Shanghai among those right now through whether with China Eastern or Juneyao don’t know.

Bangkok just continues on that wish list of the last two decades imho

India we need to see the colour of the eyes for a legitimate operator - SpiceJet aren’t it and Air India priorities seem to remain focused on flying Microsoft Azure kiddies round the world to look after your business servers and call centres

Navi Dublin does have a head start with a legacy hub carrier come national carrier and alliance partner supporting the more price conscious over Heathrow.

A healthy I am Irish honest ( ninety twelve generational or no ) and Irish Tourist marketing the destination, Edinburgh likewise ( Visit Scotland) Barcelona sun and a massive cruise embarkation point the Americans do like a Butlins on sea type vacation. Oh and again a presence of a IAG carrier or two to boot.

Rightly the nearest and comparable airport to Manchester is indeed Dusseldorf . Both having seen their North Atlantic flights depleted by collapse of large tertiary carriers namely Air Berlin and Thomas Cook UK .

Both these markets share a prevalence of external with much softer inbound traffic flows.

Going back to Edinburgh there is some underlying evidence that particular market is close to saturated and indeed softening so it’s not all rosy. Delta and Air Canada reducing frequencies or even season shortening cutting out the shoulder season completely.

All that said Manchester sales remain high(er) to key markets including New York, Orlando and Atlanta throughout the year with significantly lower seasonal seesawing .

I do expect some growth in this market from 2025 but not before.

[laviation]

Air India are slowly elevating up towards the standard of the likes of Singapore, Emirates etc under the new management. To say a service is inevitable would be an understatement. They’ve been close to launching a couple of times in the last 18 months.


It is believed that Virgin may launch one or both of BOM/DEL, perhaps the first one in W24 and the second in S25.

[SWBKCB]

Bangkok just continues on that wish list of the last two decades imho



TWO decades?!

[Rutan16]

Fair point, but it’s not their public brand. I mean we don’t refer to Tui as Britannia for example.

Thanks

BristolexFlyer

Some do for a purely nostalgic reason and feelings.
Some still call Manchester Ringway, Liverpool,Speke , Leeds Yeadon or even Bristol Lulgate in a warm and cuddly way.

[Rutan16]

Was being a little conservative sorry wasn’t really rethinking 20th century :bored:

That said there were occasions in that prior life time when there were actual connections on a Tristar and later one way on a 747 !

[chaps1954]

The last 3 months have been the busiest ever and looks as December will be as well, when you go into Manchester the city is full of Middle and Far east yet US has never been a strong market except for UK going west which is no where near as strong as it was due it being so costly once you are out there and I certainly have no interest in going now

[MANFOD]

Some interesting posts and good points on a complex subject. Just picking up on a couple of points other than the efficiency or otherwise of MAN's Route Development team.
From Ozzy:
"Terminal capacity needs to be his focus now. The roadmap to full reopening of legacy T2 is known. But T3 requires urgent intensive care - it is set to lose two further aircraft stands to the new security hall extension. Plans need to be put in place to make best use of the T1 stands post-closure of the terminal core".
And from Navpi: -
"Some may point to T2 and capacity /apron /slot constraints, is that not an excuse, these should have been factored in by previous management to ensure flexibility was built in , those who made these decisions have seemingly now been spirited away."

I agree that terminal capacity is a crucial issue as regards T3, but isn’t it also linked to runway capacity for the first departure wave and especially to available aircraft parking space? If, say, Ryanair indicated to the airport it wanted to base an additional 4 a/c at MAN in S25, it could perhaps obtain some slots before 06.00 (night quota permitting) or after 07.30. That might be acceptable but could the airfield accommodate an extra 4 a/c overnight? The principle of a/c being parked remote and moved onto stand as the first of the early departures leave is fine provided there are enough remote stands. Whether that is the case is far from clear. Conflicting views have been expressed on here previously and we don't appear to have a definitive answer of what the situation will be when the TP is complete from the airport itself.

MAN’s footprint, as discussed a while back, is heavily restricted by its boundaries, with very little, if any, room for expansion, even if environmental issues were ignored. Within those boundaries, there are only a few possibilities it seems to me of creating more apron & parking space, and none of them very likely, at least in the short to medium term: -

- The RVP area, which is a significant visitor attraction and presumably produces a useful revenue stream.

- The maintenance hangars which provide jobs and house important engineering facilities.

- If the T1 building were knocked down along with the MSCP and the road lay-out modified. Apart from cost, this would likely mean significant disruption while the work was done.

It doesn’t help if, as I understand it, MAG has sold off bits of its limited land resources commercially.

Some will recall that a decade ago – or was it longer – there was a plan (was there a model in Olympic House?) to expand T3 by closing Ringway Road and extending the pier round the corner plus some remote stands. Others may remember more specific details. This was found to be too expensive because of the costs involved in moving utilities for example.

We’re not privy to the specific reasons why Jet 2 elected to open a 4 a/c base at LPL rather than further develop MAN. While it may have been purely a financial equation in terms of market expansion and penetration despite the costs involved in setting up a new base, it’s an obvious question whether availability of better slots at LPL and capacity issues at MAN were also factors.

As for 2024, depending on the exact final passenger stats for 2023, it looks to me as if MAN would need growth of approx. 6.5% to 7% to achieve a record year of 30m, which is probably a stretch too far, but 29m and a bit certainly should be, subject to the usual caveats of outside events.
I don't see larger narrow-bodied aircraft by itself being sufficient to provide decent longer term growth. I gather easyjet will be operating more flights next summer with away based aircraft as well as an extra based machine, which again is a contributor. Nevertheless, the questions raised about capacity - terminal, apron, parking stands and runway at peak periods need addressing by management.. Hopefully, that is being done, and who knows, perhaps tentative plans are already in place but under wraps!.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Thoughts on stand availability and resilience:

- There are sufficient stands on the airfield to accommodate the current based fleet, but more will be needed for future resilience if growth is the objective. Given lead times for planning and construction, action on this is needed now.

- A number of stands are unavailable for use at any given time due to construction work on the airfield. We can expect this to continue for a considerable period to come.

- MAN's remote stands are fine for T2 ops, but very poorly located for T3 ops. A Ryanair aircraft parked up on the West Apron faces a long and challenging tow to any T3 stand. This is labour intensive, wasteful and risks incurring delays.

- The alternative to towing T3 aircraft over from the West Apron is bussing. Ryanair hate that, and the distances implied are long in MAN's case.

- T3-based aircraft parked on the West Apron will generate a disproportionate number of conflicts with regular taxying traffic when towed, particularly during easterly ops. And those aircraft will generally need to be towed across for use during peak periods.

- Even revisiting the decade-old plan to expand T3 which was vetoed by Cornish would be very challenging now; investment into new multi-storey car parks on that footprint has been made since then. And car parks are a big earner for MAG.

[tictack67]

Going back to Edinburgh there is some underlying evidence that particular market is close to softening so it’s not all rosy. Delta and Air Canada reducing frequencies or even season shortening cutting out the shoulder season completely.



Meanwhile at Edinburgh next Summer Westjet will have a total of 14 flights a week to Toronto, Calgary and Halifax
.
Jetblue to start 7 weekly to JFK

[laviation]

Reading in to this and despite saying that MAN V EDI is the wrong comparison to make, I have aggregated a rough estimate of the peak season summer schedule to the NAFTA countries. If there are any mistakes please do inform me

MAN vs EDI - transatlantic @ peak

Canada:

YYZ - MAN 14x 787/A330 | EDI 7x 787, 7x B38M
YYC - EDI 4x 787
YHZ - EDI 3x B38M

total - MAN 14 WB, EDI 11 WB, 10 NB

USA:

ATL - MAN 7x A333, EDI 7x 763
JFK - MAN 14x A333/A35K, EDI 7x 763, 7x A321
BOS - EDI 5x 763
IAD - EDI 7x 752
ORD - EDI 7x 752
EWR - EDI 14x 752
LAS - MAN 3x A35K
IAH - MAN 5x A359
MCO - MAN 19x A35K/A333, EDI 2x A35K
MLB - MAN 4x 787

Total - MAN 49 WB, EDI 21 WB / 35 NB (56)

Mexico:

CUN - MAN 6x 787

MAN will see a rough average of 63 weekly departures at summer peak. All widebodies

EDI will see a rough average of 32 WB, 45 NB weekly departures for a total of 77

All in all MAN still beats EDI transatlantic wise despite being at a low point. This is just the peak week too - with the exception of some capacity to Toronto & the 3 weekly LAS, it’s all year round while EDI is heavily seasonal.

MAN will regain its big lead once the US carriers return.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

MAN will regain its big lead once the US carriers return.
That's what GLA said too. And PIK before them. BHX is still waiting, as are BRS and NCL. There's no God given right, someone's gotta close the deal.
You'll all drive yourselves barmy going through life coveting your neighbours goods/wives/US legacy services. This idea that MAN will regain "it's rightful place over time" isn't the best.....
You guys need Norse IMHO. Point to point access at a decent price point, just like Thomas Cook used to do daily from a UK point of sale. American are happy to (and are strongly encouraged to) feed BA over LHR. Delta cut their costs by helping Virgin build out MAN, so I'd bet jetBlue or United on the NEO. I think the peak glory days of multiple US legacies per day may be gone though.

[laviation]

I can see your point absolutely. Other airports have been through this before - but especially in the cases of GLA and BHX they were during periods of consolidation - to EDI and LHR specifically.

For BHX, they (and the other regional airports bar MAN) lost United because practically they reviewed most of their 757 TATL routes, and it was ‘upgauge or chop’.

For MAN, I feel different to be honest - B6, UA, AA have come particularly close to adding/re-adding MAN since COVID. UA was almost a dead cert for 2023 but this is now an XLR resumption. It is believed that B6 were to start in 2024 - AA are waiting on A321s, they have signalled their intent to return with slot requests in S21 and S22 being open for the public . Delta will return if/whenever EI or B6 launch BOS, they love a game of retaliation.

I absolutely agree with your point on Norse. IMHO they will be the catalyst needed to kickstart some actual restoration. The intent is there from most carriers, but the commitment is hard to secure. I’m not saying necessarily we’ll return to the levels of the TCX heyday, but the fact that MAN still beats EDI at a high/low point for both airports does suggest that the ratio will swing back in MAN’s favour. The fact that EDI, MAN & LHR are equidistant from each other will be of benefit. GLA, BHX, BRS have lost out because of proximity.

[tictack67]

This has turned into a right wankfest.

It's not a competition Manchester beating Edinburgh, but if you wish to view it that way 36% of wide body movements are to Orlando/MLB. Manchester has 8 North America routes, Edinburgh 10.

There is no route development fund in Scotland and has not been for several years.
any Marketing assistance from "visit Scotland" would or should be available from Visit England and if not why not

[laviation]

It's not a competition Manchester beating Edinburgh,


Exactly - as I’ve said twice now!

[Rutan16]

I think Lavistions points do hold some value particularly the core New York and Atlanta routes in capacity over frequency YEAR ROUND and associated market dynamics viewed from a point of sale ( UK perspective)

As for a competition there is certainly some at play both Airport operators are having to pitch to the same customers (airlines not individual organic blobs) and their associated assets.

Visit Scotland has a significant funding and global team dedicated to the Sale of Edinburgh Castle, tartan, golf, Nessie, The Highlands, Shortbread and Whisky and also jumping on the Hogwarts bandwagon It’s an enticing offering for a relatively short holiday for many a vacation starved American.

Problem is the target market is fickle and recidivist visits are not at all guaranteed. Another shiny thing will be round the corner soon enough.

As for Visit England well we all know they only care about London and day trips to Shakespeare land via a marketing opportunity at Bicester !

Going to point out there is evidently some softening in the underlining Edinburgh market . Delta and Air Canada both reducing or canning the shoulder season and frequencies.

No disrespect to Edinburgh however I would not expect much further growth beyond 2024 here.

Now as for Manchester the days of Thomas Cook sure there isn’t a replacement for them anytime soon in the UK marketplace it’s similar in Dusseldorf with the loss of Air Berlin and the shift of much of Condor operations and the Lufthansa JFK to Frankfurt .

Caveat Manchester actually has done rather better than Dusseldorf in retaining core routes namely New York and Atlanta post Covid .Indeed Virgin recommenced New York the very day restrictions were lifted !

Although I expressed concerns about the UK US air transport agreement a little while ago and others satisfied those concerns I do expect 2025 to see at least two new services from Manchester and one on a US carrier to resume.

Disappointments in the immediacy is not securing JetBlue through.

As for Norse not sure I have an opinion on them one way or another to be honest

[tictack67]

I think Lavistions points do hold some value particularly the core New York and Atlanta routes in capacity over frequency YEAR ROUND and associated market dynamics viewed from a point of sale ( UK perspective)

As for a competition there is certainly some at play both Airport operators are having to pitch to the same customers (airlines not individual organic blobs) and their associated assets.

Visit Scotland has a significant funding and global team dedicated to the Sale of Edinburgh Castle, tartan, golf, Nessie, The Highlands, Shortbread and Whisky and also jumping on the Hogwarts bandwagon It’s an enticing offering for a relatively short holiday for many a vacation starved American.

Problem is the target market is fickle and recidivist visits are not at all guaranteed. Another shiny thing will be round the corner soon enough.

As for Visit England well we all know they only care about London and day trips to Shakespeare land via a marketing opportunity at Bicester !

Going to point out there is evidently some softening in the underlining Edinburgh market . Delta and Air Canada both reducing or canning the shoulder season and frequencies.

No disrespect to Edinburgh however I would not expect much further growth beyond 2024 here.

Now as for Manchester the days of Thomas Cook sure there isn’t a replacement for them anytime soon in the UK marketplace it’s similar in Dusseldorf with the loss of Air Berlin and the shift of much of Condor operations and the Lufthansa JFK to Frankfurt .

Caveat Manchester actually has done rather better than Dusseldorf in retaining core routes namely New York and Atlanta post Covid .Indeed Virgin recommenced New York the very day restrictions were lifted !

Although I expressed concerns about the UK US air transport agreement a little while ago and others satisfied those concerns I do expect 2025 to see at least two new services from Manchester and one on a US carrier to resume.

Disappointments in the immediacy is not securing JetBlue through.

As for Norse not sure I have an opinion on them one way or another to be honest

No disrespect, all Sounds like just excuses and blaming a successful Marketing team at Edi for Manchester Airport PLC failures with a side of good old fashioned envy

[ATNotts]

No disrespect, all Sounds like just excuses and blaming a successful Marketing team at Edi for Manchester Airport PLC failures with a side of good old fashioned envy
No, the fact is that 'Visit England' is more correctly known as Visit London whereas Scotland with its own tourist promotion organisation does a far better job of promoting the whole nation. EDI has succeeded since Edinburgh became a 'proper' capital city with a raised international profile which has put Glasgow very much in its shadow.

MAN relies very much on UK originating PAX for T/A services and the USA is no longer to economical destination it once was.

[laviation]

No disrespect, all Sounds like just excuses and blaming a successful Marketing team at Edi for Manchester Airport PLC failures with a side of good old fashioned envy

Nobody is doubting EDIs success, but do you seriously think incentives don’t play a massive role at EDI? Look at Hainan for example. The loads were crap this summer, Visit Scotland go to Beijing and suddenly they’ve doubled the frequency for next year?

The alleged “MAN airport PLC” failures are well documented here, nobody is blaming EDI for anything, from what I can see it’s simply an in depth comparison of the two airports :rolleyes:

[Rutan16]

No disrespect, all Sounds like just excuses and blaming a successful Marketing team at Edi for Manchester Airport PLC failures with a side of good old fashioned envy

Not at all did you read what was written Visit Scotland and Edinburgh have done a fantastic job and highly creditable , I have no animosity whatsoever.

The only thing I said were that there is an underlying softening of demand right now in forward bookings and that the market “may” be already over supplied in some aspects.

Can I be critical of MAG efforts in the last 18 months , as with Navi, Laviation and others yes there are questions to answer in that respect .

[tictack67]

Not at all did you read what was written Visit Scotland and Edinburgh have done a fantastic job and highly creditable , I have no animosity whatsoever.

The only thing I said were that there is an underlying softening of demand right now in forward bookings and that the market “may” be already over supplied in some aspects.

Can I be critical of MAG efforts in the last 18 months , as with Navi, Laviation and others yes there are questions to answer in that respect .

what are you basing your "softening of demand in forward bookings" on other than anecdotal evidence, when new routes are being announced.

The Air canada shorter season is due to aircraft availability, which is ehy we saw an Omni 767 last year on he Manchester route

[Navpi]

For info, the reference to VisitEngland is well placed.

I referenced VisitBritain and it's polarised view of the UK a few months ago.

If you check LinkedIn so often workshops and external promotions seems to promote Heathrow as the be all and end all (which of course it is).

Nobody can compete with 120 flights a day from the US or 30 flghts a day from China but the galling thing from the Norths point of view is the fact that Manchester is actually the 3rd most popular destination for US visitors. That is from VisitBritains own statistical analysis, sadly the correlation between visitors and flights is now completely out of kilter and will never be rectified. I suspect its unbreakable.

For "International visitors" to England as Rutan says, V.B. look through the prism of London, Shakespeare Country and Bicester Outlet village.

There "virtual" move to Birmingham may enhance that offering. Good luck to Birmingham if it does.

I say virtual as under a FOI request to the cabinet office they confirmed they were judge , jury and executioner in moving there HQ to Birmingham as part of Goves levelling up agenda. Some government depts have moved North but not V. B. who somehow managed to swerve the fate of other departments who ended up in Newport, Manchester, and Darlington.

Incidentally that vacuum in Whitehall has been filled 3x over. Despite the propaganda in moving civil servants "up North", there are now more civil servants in London than there were pre Covid. The void has been well filled.

I digress, the Visit Britain move was performed using Hacker protocols of setting up a committee to then convene an internal committee based on personel from the department that then decided the best place to relocate re levelling up was 'er Birmingham!

Zero input from the regions.

Birmingham was selected based on unknown internal criteria , it also meant that the current London based staff who formed the committee can no doubt enjoy a mix of working from home and of course commuting , they declined to answer if the commute was subsidised by the taxpayer.

[Rutan16]

what are you basing your "softening of demand in forward bookings" on other than anecdotal evidence, when new routes are being announced.

The Air canada shorter season is due to aircraft availability, which is ehy we saw an Omni 767 last year on he Manchester route

Air Canada have a history of cutting the shoulder season on seasonally operated services such as those to Manchester and Edinburgh . Believe the aircraft shortages argument if you like , however hard revenue or lower than projected bookings counts every time

Now certainly Westjet may have had an impact not denying that .

However the Delta cuts are a much more significant indicator of the underlying trend .

The none appearance of American and United not extending the season on Washington or indeed Chicago anytime soon .

Again I stress the evidence of a softening is right there .

Do I think any routes are under threat right now for 2024 summer no . Do I think there is consolidation down the line yes I do .
Especially Chicago, its no longer a Hub for anyone not United or American today .
The feed gotta be pretty marginal.

[tictack67]

Where HS2 in its new plan will open on 2029 meaning BHX to LON will be 52 mins. (mind you they promised that to Manchester, East Midlands Leeds and Scotland after it was funded)

[tictack67]

United not extending the season on Washington or indeed Chicago anytime soon


except United is starting Washington a month early in April 24, was originally May '24

source https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-to-resume-seasonal-washington-edinburgh-service-in-april-2024/

anyway, Ill leave it there before you have too many sherries and start making unfortunate comments.

Good day

[Navpi]

Do the Brummies think HS2 will be good or bad for BHX?

Surely If you live in Birmingham but can be at Heathrow in not much more than hour with almost hourly frequencies everywhere and no doubt cheaper fares doesnt BHX become well a bit redundant?

[tictack67]

I think HS2 will be a poison chalice for BHX. If you can be at Heathrow in not much more than hour with almost hourly frequencies everywhere and no doubt cheaper fares doesnt BHX become a bit redundant?

​​​​​​In terms of air travel yes, however one of the reasons dkr H2 was to provide affordable houses for workers in London, with a 52 min commute

[tartan 201]

Air Canada have a history of cutting the shoulder season on seasonally operated services such as those to Manchester and Edinburgh . Believe the aircraft shortages argument if you like , however hard revenue or lower than projected bookings counts every time

Now certainly Westjet may have had an impact not denying that .

However the Delta cuts are a much more significant indicator of the underlying trend .

The none appearance of American and United not extending the season on Washington or indeed Chicago anytime soon .

Again I stress the evidence of a softening is right there .

Do I think any routes are under threat right now for 2024 summer no . Do I think there is consolidation down the line yes I do .
Especially Chicago, its no longer a Hub for anyone not United or American today .
The feed gotta be pretty marginal.Delta are suspending JFK from early January to late March. Air Canada are suspending Toronto from early January until early May. That restart date is about a month earlier than they restarted it in S23 and they intend using a larger aircraft (787-9 as opposed to the -8 used in S23). United are restarting IAD about a month earlier than in S23 and DL are continuing ATL for about a month longer than in S23.

So based on the above, there's obviously some evidence of softening TATL demand in the January to April period and it's worth recalling these (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/637162-edinburgh-4-a-57.html#post11423315)sensible comments from the time the DL cut was announced. But the April to October period looks ok, albeit there's still time for things to change.

[Rutan16]

I think HS2 will be a poison chalice for BHX. If you can be at Heathrow in not much more than hour with almost hourly frequencies everywhere and no doubt cheaper fares doesnt BHX become a bit redundant?

Correct analysis .

HS2 southern end only benefit the capital right now, and whilst Rishi takes “ credit” for the cancellation of the northern section right now as with everything it’s a half truth. The financial hole is the loss of 35% of the original funding no longer available for the EU development budgets .

BTW some of my colleagues are working today in Birmingham and Ruislip pouring tonnes and tonnes of concrete into ventilation shafts on the HS2 project.

[ATNotts]

Correct analysis .

HS2 southern end only benefit the capital right now, and whilst Rishi takes “ credit” for the cancellation of the northern section right now as with everything it’s a half truth. The financial hole is the loss of 35% of the original funding no longer available for the EU development budgets .

BTW some of my colleagues are working today in Birmingham and Ruislip pouring tonnes and tonnes of concrete into ventilation shafts on the HS2 project.
You're probably right, though if the transit system from HS2 to BHX is done right (there's an enormous if) then the journey from North London could be pretty similar to getting to LHR.

But then the whole point of HS2 is now to feed the monster that is London.

[Rutan16]

Delta are suspending JFK from early January to late March. Air Canada are suspending Toronto from early January until early May. That restart date is about a month earlier than they restarted it in S23 and they intend using a larger aircraft (787-9 as opposed to the -8 used in S23). United are restarting IAD about a month earlier than in S23 and DL are continuing ATL for about a month longer than in S23.

So based on the above, there's obviously some evidence of softening TATL demand in the January to April period and it's worth recalling these (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/637162-edinburgh-4-a-57.html#post11423315)sensible comments from the time the DL cut was announced. But the April to October period looks ok, albeit there's still time for things to change.

You see what you did there and what I said softening in the shoulder season acknowledged.

Whilst Manchester maintains year round to New York ( with two differing carriers) Atlanta and indeed Toronto .

Noted United resuming Washington a little earlier .

[TURIN]

There is a separate BHX forum some where. All this talk of US flights is confusing us old codgers.
PS. The reason we are not seeing further wide body expansion at MAN is because there's no where to put them until Pier B is finished.

[BHX5DME]

Where HS2 in its new plan will open on 2029 meaning BHX to LON will be 52 mins. (mind you they promised that to Manchester, East Midlands Leeds and Scotland after it was funded)
BHX - LON will be as fast as 37 minutes and BHX are saying in a press release that BHX will effectively sit in London Transports Zone 5 with that quick travel time from BHX to Central London,

[Rutan16]

BHX - LON will be as fast as 37 minutes and BHX are saying in a press release that BHX will effectively sit in London Transports Zone 5 with that quick travel time from BHX to Central London,

That target will be missed as the line speed and proposed equipment is now 300 kilometres per hour and not the original target .

Equipment will need to be classic compatible ( thats narrower in plain speak) and the dynamic forces are poorer with weight distribution penalties and pendulum swings, than are achievable with the wider captive designs which push those forces beyond the axle and downwards for added adhesion.

Further the fares will negate much of the potential benefits especially if we look at those on the only other highspeed network into Kent . The premium over the conventional network is ridiculous today !

Overall I am supportive of HS2 indeed the entire line to Manchester but the current plan is an abject failure.

[zed3]

I cannot remember (!) is the HS2 line going via Heathrow... with a stop?

[TartinTon]

I cannot remember (!) is the HS2 line going via Heathrow... with a stop?

No, it doesn't touch LHR as a very quick google search would tell you. It would still take you a minimum of 2 hours plus to get from BHX to LHR by train/tube but as this is the MAN thread it's not really relevant for here!!

[Rutan16]

I cannot remember (!) is the HS2 line going via Heathrow... with a stop?

You will change to the Elizabeth line at Old Oak Common - indeed for several years , thats going to as close at you get to Central London on ANY service !

Its a massive rail junction and maintenance depot in West Acton just north of Wormwood Scrubs where the line passes the Great Western -Paddington and several freight only lines .
Through with usual lack of connected thinking the North London and Orbital London (London Overground) passes under 700ms to the southern end of the junction yet will not connect for passengers services whatsoever.

Another element of the fiasco we currently have.

I think we can park current HS2 proposals here and for a few years in relation to Manchester and until we do have a change of government and sight of a developed and deliverable national transport policy.

[chaps1954]

Don`t expect anything from Labour as they have no idea what to do.

[laviation]

HS3 is what is needed.

[kriskross]

Cannot see the point of any HS unless it goes to Scotland where a shorter journey would really benefit.

[EKBromsgrove]

Do the Brummies think HS2 will be good or bad for BHX?

Surely If you live in Birmingham but can be at Heathrow in not much more than hour with almost hourly frequencies everywhere and no doubt cheaper fares doesnt BHX become well a bit redundant?

It will be positive for the city overall, increasing demand for air connectivity. There will no doubt be some leakage of this to Heathrow - who knows the extent of this leakage. BHX will be busier than it is today though.

[Rutan16]

It will be positive for the city overall, increasing demand for air connectivity. There will no doubt be some leakage of this to Heathrow - who knows the extent of this leakage. BHX will be busier than it is today though.

How exactly the train will speed through the potential catchments such as Oxfordshire , Northants and Warwickshire, adds zero zilch to Birminghams potential .

[EKBromsgrove]

How exactly the train will speed through the potential catchments such as Oxfordshire , Northants and Warwickshire, adds zero zilch to Birminghams potential .

To be clear - as a city or an airport?

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

I'm sorry if I come across as pedantic, but could this thread please return to the subject title of "Manchester".

Thank you and every best wish to all for the New Year.

[MARK9263]

Agree....A very tedious thread drift

[Navpi]

I'm sorry if I come across as pedantic, but could this thread please return to the subject title of "Manchester".

Thank you and every best wish to all for the New Year.

Yes apologies, my fault i posted here as there are usually more Brummies on the Manchester thread than Birmingham.

I'll shall retreat to the naughty step.

[Navpi]

Do we actually know why T1 is now being mothballed when originally the plan was demolition of of pier C and a refurb to make one large global terminal ?

When was that decision made ?

The original 45m forecast capacity must now be in doubt ?

[TheSpiddalKid]

Do we actually know why T1 is now being mothballed when originally the plan was demolition of of pier C and a refurb to make one large global terminal ?

When was that decision made ?

The original 45m forecast capacity must now be in doubt ?

A core reason I have seen on another forum was that the numbers weren't justified in the short term to develop the T1 site. Then the costs associated with demolition owing to how much essential infrastructure is routed through T1 makes it uneconomic to consider until there is justification to redevelop the site. The better option in the short term is to mothball it until there is a need to develop T2 further.

[Manair6]

The plan was never to retain or refurbish T1 in any form- the entire purpose of the transformation programme is to replace T1 which is outdated, this is stated in the original planning application submitted in 2015.

The whole of T2 once finished will have a higher passenger capacity than the original T2 + T1 combined being capable of handling up to 35 million pax per annum alone.

T3 remains open for Ryanair, topping up MAN’s capacity over and above T2.

The stands on B pier will be split between some being walked from T3 and the rest being remote, C pier will also become remote stands.

Other than that there is no use for the site of T1 presently so it doesn’t make sense to spend a significant amount on demolition for a site that’s not going to be used anyway - similar to LHR T1 which is also mothballed.

[Asturias56]

Don`t expect anything from Labour as they have no idea what to do.


as opposed to the current incumbents????

[chaps1954]

Well we know the Torries are crap at moment but don`t expect anything else from Labour or Libs

[Rutan16]

Well we know the Torries are crap at moment but don`t expect anything else from Labour or Libs

A stable administration with intent to deliver through will be restrained by the very many minefields deliberately planted .

Main goals must be restoring confidence in the delivery of health care ( btw I don’t mind some private provision provided free at the point of use is maintained) . Correctly financing regional government councils and social care . And developing a proper industrial and indeed financial policy.

And a deliverable housing strategy, not a scatter gun approach to market will provide .

And a return to constructive foreign policies and co-operating with partners .

First term work .

[eye2eye5]

Well said Rutan. I’m in full agreement. Maybe also much toning down of the current confrontational rhetoric which permeates virtually everything at present. As I have seen posted elsewhere, it isn’t a football match, there don’t have to be winners and losers. Note: that mentality was evident upthread when discussing MAN vs EDI.

[Navpi]

Re T1

"The plan was never to retain or refurbish T1 in any form- the entire purpose of the transformation programme is to replace T1 which is outdated, this is stated in the original planning application submitted in 2015".

It most certainly WAS -see MEN MAG press statement below
--------------------------------------------------------
"The next of those milestones is arguably the most significant - the extension of Terminal Two, creating a so-called “super terminal” that will be 160% bigger than it is today and larger than Heathrow T5".

The terminal will become Manchester Airport’s new centre of gravity, giving us the ability to handle up to 45m passengers a year.

SOURCE !!!
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/opinion-andrew-cowan-manchester-airport-16072190 (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/opinion-andrew-cowan-manchester-airport-16072190)
-----------------------------------------------

The plan was most definitely to connect T2 to T1 to form a SUPER TERMINAL.

What is going on here !

Why are we accepting this T2 redevelopment without scrutiny?

Was this a vanity project which is now a shadow of the original proposal and quite frankly is falling well short ?

When did we accept meekly that we "may be losing nearly 30% capacity" without a by or leave?

This has somehow morphed into a watered-down down T2 and an empty carbuncle slap bang between T2 and T3.

And lets not blame the C Word, the trends at every other airport in the UK are rocketing.

In 2024 MAN is looking at 3% growth we are still light years from pre C figures.

It's abysmal.

STN is looking at 43m capacity.....!!!!!

Is MAN still at 45m capacity ?

Anyone know ?

[Curious Pax]

I think you have misunderstood what the article meant by “superterminal”. The 160% increase in size is about the extension to T2, not combining it with T1. T1 isn’t mentioned in the article at all.

[AircraftOperations]

I think you have misunderstood what the article meant by “superterminal”. The 160% increase in size is about the extension to T2, not combining it with T1. T1 isn’t mentioned in the article at all.

And linking to or using T1 stands/gates (as someone has recently mentioned) isn't the same as using the T1 terminal space too.
Such construction programmes morph over time and planned outcomes can change due to many reasons. However, I'd be very surprised if an airport's principal customers - the airlines - are not closely involved with requirements and monitoring progress, if not forcing/agreeing change at certain times. After all, they will be the ones using it.

[Navpi]

I think you have misunderstood what the article meant by “superterminal”. The 160% increase in size is about the extension to T2, not combining it with T1. T1 isn’t mentioned in the article at all.


It was merely an example of the implication of a grand plan to make one large terminal.

Yes I appreciate plans can and do change but the inference back in 2012-2015 with images etc of T1 was of one large super terminal. There was little talk that T1 would be mothballed.

I cannot believe that we are going to be left with what will effectively be an empty shell slap bang between T2 and T3.

All the "naysayers" on here are moaning how poor and basic the new T2 is , well IF it's that poor and basic it shouldn't take much to bring T1 up to its standard should it ?

Whilst there will be an airside corridor built between T2 and T3 i also cannot see how this will encourage transfer activity between the two unless that as a concept has been written off given it will primarily be handed over to RYR.

Sorry I still think this has turned into a mess.

[chaps1954]

Navpi sorry just cannot agree with you no way can you call T2 a mess.One of the main problems is building costs have rocketed in last couple of years and yes Covid has had a huge effect
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.

[MANFOD]

Navpi sorry just cannot agree with you no way can you call T2 a mess.One of the main problems is building costs have rocketed in last couple of years and yes Covid has had a huge effect
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.

I rather think navpi was referring to the overall concept of what MAN will finish up with than commenting on the internal look of T2.

The problem for us mere mortals who are not in the 'know' is that we are unsure whether MAN/MAG management have a clear vision of what they want MAN, its terminals and airfield to look like in say 10 years time if it is to handle up to 45m passengers. It's the proverbial chicken and egg in terms of major capital projects - invest too early (if the funds are available) - and it looks extravagant waste if the economy slips and expected growth doesn't materialise; but delay too long and the airport is short of capacity and risks losing potential new business to competitors. Some may argue that is happening to a limited extent.

As regards T1, it's a pity if mothballing an asset for an extended period takes up valuable space at an airport whose footprint, as previously mentioned, is already restricted by land boundaries and other factors.

[TartinTon]

Navpi sorry just cannot agree with you no way can you call T2 a mess.One of the main problems is building costs have rocketed in last couple of years and yes Covid has had a huge effect
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.

I couldn'tdisagree more about LTN being a mess, I can only assume that you haven't been through there recently. I used the airport for the first time in 4 years just a few weeks ago and was, quite frankly, amazed at the change since my previous visit which was horrendous.

I found security quick and painless, the walk to the gate not overly onerous. Arrival was the usual very quick process (domestic flight) where it was less than 10 minutes from gate to walking out the terminal.

[Flightrider]

I'd agree - have used Luton a few times over the last year even though it's far from my regular airports and on all occasions, it's been absolutely fine. One of the better ones.

The plan to mothball T1 at Manchester is driven pretty much entirely by the new DFT security rules and the cost of upgrading T1 security to meet the new standards - not to mention the increase in staffing that you need for teh new procedures as well. If you're going to decommission it at some point anyway, it makes absolute sense not to spend millions and millions on an upgrade to a facility which will be in use only for a year or two at most. You put as much throughput as possible through T2, turn T3 into a more lo-co facility and leave T1 exactly where it is, although there is the possibility of using some of the T1 pier stands which are connected through T3.

[Mr Mac]

Well I still use T1, and indeed prefer it to T2, and I have little faith that the development will be on schedule, and unless there is some serious improvements in the QA/QC on the delivery side that it will be fit for purpose.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[dave59]

It's the proverbial chicken and egg in terms of major capital projects - invest too early (if the funds are available) - and it looks extravagant waste if the economy slips and expected growth doesn't materialise; but delay too long and the airport is short of capacity and risks losing potential new business to competitors,

It looks an extravagant waste? Just when was the last time MAG were actually ahead of the demand curve in infrastructure provision at Manchester?

[MANFOD]

It looks an extravagant waste? Just when was the last time MAG were actually ahead of the demand curve in infrastructure provision at Manchester?

I wasn't saying they have been, but was merely suggesting in general terms that decisions as to when to embark on major infrastructure projects is not always straightforward.
If a project can be done in stages with the flexibility to adjust plans and timing as it progresses, that can be an advantage. This would seem to be what MAN has tried to achieve with the TP, although whether the decision to postpone.Pier 3 on T2 for example with the reduction in contact stands is the right one is certainly open to debate.

[dave59]

Yes the aversion to contact gate provision is a Manchester favourite whereby they either don't work, get partially or wholly dismantled, or as you say taken out of the design completely - something passengers certainly would not choose in this rainy windswept part of the world even if some of the airlines are happy with it. Your point is valid regarding flexibility and timing of major projects, but if in practice this means almost constant works, unreliability, terminal swapping of airlines, de-scoping, and general penny pinching leading to grouchy passengers and airlines who would prefer to go elsewhere then it can only happen when there is at least some slack in the system.

[Navpi]

I still don't see how you can have a supposed global hub if T2 is a mile from T3 ?

[SWBKCB]

I still don't see how you can have a supposed global hub if T2 is a mile from T3 ?

How does it work at other global hubs?

[Rutan16]

How does it work at other global hubs?

What Manchester Airport needs is an airside bus and gate service between the (currently three) terminals running at 10 minute frequencies . It’s hardly a massive investment in the scheme of things . Indeed busing gates already exist do they not . This also needs to be replicated land side between T3 /Bus and Train Station and T2 again not a truly massive expenditure nor revolutionary is it ?

[Manair6]

What Manchester Airport needs is an airside bus and gate service between the (currently three) terminals running at 10 minute frequencies . It’s hardly a massive investment in the scheme of things . Indeed busing gates already exist do they not . This also needs to be replicated land side between T3 /Bus and Train Station and T2 again not a truly massive expenditure nor revolutionary is it ?

There is an airside inter terminal transfer bus running every 10 minutes for connecting passengers.

[easyflyer83]

I still don't see how you can have a supposed global hub if T2 is a mile from T3 ?

Tbf, BCN and MXP are two just off the top of my head. And, if T3 is going to be exclusively Ryanair, I see little need for it to be physically connected.

That said, T1 needs to go and the site redeveloped and repurposed.

[Navpi]

Tbf, BCN and MXP are two just off the top of my head. And, if T3 is going to be exclusively Ryanair, I see little need for it to be physically connected.

That said, T1 needs to go and the site redeveloped and repurposed.


"if T3 is going to be exclusively Ryanair, I see little need for it to be physically connected".

Tell me you are JOKING !

I'm unsure what proportion of MAN throughput RYR represents but disconnecting millions of passengers from your global connectivity seems to me to be a madness.

I'm stunned we need all these connections bringing together not decapitatation!

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

I still don't see how you can have a supposed global hub if T2 is a mile from T3 ?
Ryanair won't pay for any bells and whistles like connecting to other carriers. Hence they would, I imagine, rightly push back against any additional costs in connecting T3. I don't think you can even connect to FR arriving into DUB T2 and they're literally connected airside as FR won't pay for it. And that's fair IMHO. If you're serious about connectivity, I cannot think of a major airport that does well in doing so without an anchor carrier, operating a network hub and spoke system. It's really a pre-requisite, and BA are not gonna do it and no one else has a hub and spoke operation worth mentioning in the UK.
So point to point or spoke to hub it is, and I think they'll have to build accordingly.


That said, does anyone have some stats on volume of pax connecting between terminals at MAN? There'll be a few connecting to long haul on seperate tickets I have no doubt? That would give insight on whether a frequent bus makes sense?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Domestic is still in T3 at present. Once that moves to T2, MAG may rethink the bussing operation?

[easyflyer83]

"if T3 is going to be exclusively Ryanair, I see little need for it to be physically connected".

Tell me you are JOKING !

I'm unsure what proportion of MAN throughput RYR represents but disconnecting millions of passengers from your global connectivity seems to me to be a madness.

I'm stunned we need all these connections bringing together not decapitatation!

In an ideal world, yes, having one terminal would be preferential but we have to be pragmatic about some things.

Yes, people do self connect and Ryanair passengers probably do too. However, that is still a comparatively small number. For 99% of passengers, having the Ryanair operation separate to the rest of the airport is not a problem as they are point to point passengers.

Would we be having this conversation if T3 was a BA mini hub? I would hazard a guess not.

In reality, having T3 separate is not a big issue and even less so as a one carrier non interlining carrier. Furthermore, T3 isn’t moving further from T2 either.

The situation is no different than LHR T5 and T4 that are a distance away from T2 & T3….. and BA still have split ops between T5 & T3.

MXP has two terminals much further away, one of which is a single carrier terminal. BCN’s two terminals are also miles away. By comparison, T2 & T3 at MAN are relatively close to each other.

Absolutely, there should be some type of landslide connection between the two terminals, whether that be a redeveloped skylink or a simple bus.

And yes, T1 should be demolished and repurposed/redeveloped so it’s doesn’t become an eyesore.

[Navpi]

I'm sure I read they are building a corridor T2 to T3.

[MANFOD]

I'm sure I read they are building a corridor T2 to T3.
That was in the original plan I'm pretty sure. The problem is it's not always clear what has changed and what has not.

Has it actually been confirmed by MAN for example that T3's sole user will be ryanair?
I think I read that space has been allocated for a full domestic facility in T2 with airside transfers domestic to international and vice versa.
This was probably a comment on here, but I don't recall whether it was based on a statement from MAN.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Maybe somebody could try to get an answer at the next Airport Consultative Committee meeting. This is due to be held on 19th January.

[Navpi]

MANFOD

A domestic transfer facility would be welcomed although we still had FlyBe when plans were laid for the "Super terminal" back in 2012, certainly all the graphics showed T2 extending to T1 but with pier C removed so the implication was all one integrated terminal.

This of itself was all connected to Airport City when we were in bed with China. That seems to have developed into Warehouse City.

That is a part of the problem things can flex over time not least given the total disintegration of domestic feed and the US market re TCX, and the C word.

So where does MAN now sit 10 -15 years on ?

In the early naughties we had a strategic review, it would be good to evaluate where MAN now sees itself with the new CEO because as SKIP says over that time it has morphed more and more into a spoke rather than the vision which was a direct to direct hub.

Was it ever thus ?

Our based long haul carriers used to talk a good talk but always revert to expansion in their home bases of LHR and DUB. It was less than 12 months ago that an EI spokesman was absolutely gushing about the MAN base.... so gushing infact that in 2023 they have added massive capacity, frequency and new routes out of 'er Dublin !!!!

Likewise remember VIR who had big plans...... ?

Virgin Atlantic plots Manchester hub following Thomas Cook collapse | Travel Weekly (http://travelweekly.co.uk/articles/347521/virgin-atlantic-plots-manchester-hub-following-thomas-cook-collapse)

.....but who now also have amnesia and add frequency and new routes ex LHR everytime a new frame arrives.

So much for LA which WAS apparently carrying more pax from MAN 85% load than quote VIRs average load of 80%.

10 years back MAN saw itself as thee only show in town outside London trumpeting itself with the oft used byline .....

"18m people within 2 hours" you couldn't move as every PR spokesman for MAN trotted out the same line.

... but times have changed dramatically. Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham have seen an explosion of lo cost pax in BHXs case long haul too.

Freight which was forecast to hit 240,000 was shifted to EMA. We just about have the 40,000 but not the 200k.

Our bullish main big hitters in terms of management moved to STN leaving us with a management team light years away from Gil Thompsons vision.

in the same way that CW has torn through and improved the customer service offering it would be nice to know where he now sees MAN now in terms of route structure ?

201 destinations is now down to circa 150.

If that 85% loading was true re LA why is nobody on the route ? The £/$ surely cannot have such a disproportionate effect that it has totally erased the whole market ?

Why can JetBlue not see opportunities eg BOS, you would think a narrow body to that market with their connectivity would be a nailed on winner.

India is now one of the largest economies in the world. According to earnest voices on LinkedIn Manchester has the largest investment outside London so why are the two not connected, its unfathomable ?

In some respects its as though airlines now have collective amnesia when it comes to MAN expansion.

Can they not get slots, is there no room, have charges been ramped up ?

Yes the MEBs are doing well but is this more to do with the airlines themselves and indeed capitalising on the abscence of PIA than initiatives from MAN themselves in terms of route development?

Don't get me wrong MAN does "OK" but is OK still good enough with pax figures rocketing at LHR, DUB and EDI ?

Even BHX is back to pre pandemic levels.

[rkenyon]

plans were laid for the "Super terminal" back in 2012, certainly all the graphics showed T2 extending to T1 but with pier C removed so the implication was all one integrated terminal.


You keep saying this, but it's not true. The plan was always to close T1 once T2 was fully open. T2 was originally planned with 3 piers, but that's been reduced to 2 - but there is still the option to build a 3rd in the future.

[Mayfield62]

I think Manchester took itss eye off the ball. Rather than developing into a hub and getting an a anchor carrier like BA it was mire concerned about what Liverpool and Leeds-Bradford were doing. They then went to chase the lo-cost market to stymie growth at LPL & LBA rather than lay on its own strengths of becoming a long-haul hub for the North of England. Manchester were unable to juggle the different market sectors.

Manchester should have taken a leaf out of Munich's book by concentrating on legacy carriers , the large Inclusive Tour market, and then a smattering of lo-cost. Alas, it is too late. Manchester will have the throughput but not the status it needs to be a hub airport.

[Curious Pax]

I think Manchester took itss eye off the ball. Rather than developing into a hub and getting an a anchor carrier like BA it was mire concerned about what Liverpool and Leeds-Bradford were doing. They then went to chase the lo-cost market to stymie growth at LPL & LBA rather than lay on its own strengths of becoming a long-haul hub for the North of England. Manchester were unable to juggle the different market sectors.

Manchester should have taken a leaf out of Munich's book by concentrating on legacy carriers , the large Inclusive Tour market, and then a smattering of lo-cost. Alas, it is too late. Manchester will have the throughput but not the status it needs to be a hub airport.

What you say they should have done is exactly what they did do, which most people now acknowledge was flawed. They built T3 for BA, and discouraged lo costs, which is why Liverpool flourished as Easyjet and Ryanair went there instead. BA then retreated to London and sold their regional ops to Flybe…

[Navpi]

You keep saying this, but it's not true. The plan was always to close T1 once T2 was fully open. T2 was originally planned with 3 piers, but that's been reduced to 2 - but there is still the option to build a 3rd in the future.

OK clumsy wording , will rephrase .

T2 would be demolished and comnected to an "improved" T3.

My assumption was an expanded T3 to fill in the gap ?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-airport-expansion-plan-security-9370929

[Navpi]

I think Manchester took itss eye off the ball. Rather than developing into a hub and getting an a anchor carrier like BA it was mire concerned about what Liverpool and Leeds-Bradford were doing. They then went to chase the lo-cost market to stymie growth at LPL & LBA rather than lay on its own strengths of becoming a long-haul hub for the North of England. Manchester were unable to juggle the different market sectors.

Manchester should have taken a leaf out of Munich's book by concentrating on legacy carriers , the large Inclusive Tour market, and then a smattering of lo-cost. Alas, it is too late. Manchester will have the throughput but not the status it needs to be a hub airport.

Certainly a case of the grandees in Manchester Town Hall saying one thing and the airport doing something else.

We had all the back slapping at the launch of T2 part 2 last year, re global connectivity when in truth are we not a glorified lo cost terminal with a "sprinkling" of long haul.

[Manair6]

I think it’s wrong to say Manchester is focussed on low cost and only has a ‘sprinkling of long haul’

We have nearly every major European legacy carrier:

Lufthansa
TAP
Swiss
Austrian
Brussels
KLM
Air France
Iberia
British Airways
Icelandair
Turkish
Aegean
Luxair
Aer Lingus
Finnair

In terms of long haul we have significant volumes from:

Emirates
Etihad
Aer Lingus
Air Canada
Air Transat
Virgin Atlantic
Birman
Cathay Pacific
Ethiopian
Gulf Air
Kuwait
Hainan
Qatar
Saudia
TUI
Singapore
Egyptair
Royal Jordanian

A not insignificant amount of passengers are connecting through MAN to/from short to long haul through alliance partners or other codeshare agreements, so whilst we don’t have a hub carrier we have significant presence from each of the alliances.

[laviation]

You have Virgin who still aim to make MAN a network hub ?

BA Euroflyer base touted to compliment EUK operation ?

[SWBKCB]

Rather than developing into a hub and getting an a anchor carrier like BA

You have Virgin who still aim to make MAN a network hub ?

BA Euroflyer base touted to compliment EUK operation ?

I wouldn't be basing major capital expenditure on the likelihood of those coming off.

[laviation]

Virgin network hub would not require many routes. DEL/BOM and maybe a couple more eastbound would check off this ‘promise’ for them.

[GulfTraveller]

I think Manchester took itss eye off the ball. Rather than developing into a hub and getting an a anchor carrier like BA it was mire concerned about what Liverpool and Leeds-Bradford were doing. They then went to chase the lo-cost market to stymie growth at LPL & LBA rather than lay on its own strengths of becoming a long-haul hub for the North of England. Manchester were unable to juggle the different market sectors.

Manchester should have taken a leaf out of Munich's book by concentrating on legacy carriers , the large Inclusive Tour market, and then a smattering of lo-cost. Alas, it is too late. Manchester will have the throughput but not the status it needs to be a hub airport.


I do not think this is correct. Once BA retreated from the provinces, there was nothing any airport could do to persuade them to return. MAN embraced low cost reasonably early, but maintained a healthy balance with legacy carriers. It was BHX, hanging on to the hope of a BA return and increased legacy flights which most suffered and is only now recovering from that strategy.

Today MAN probably has the best balance between the two sectors of any UK airport. They serve profitably many destinations which BA would never have served.

I really doubt that MAN ever tried to chase off competition at LPL or LBA. There was no need as these airports are not comparable in terms of size or catchment. The main issue is the lack of a UK airline which would consider a hub and spoke operation at MAN, or any other UK airport.

[Navpi]

https://ilovemanchester.com/time-out-manchester-top-ten-of-best-places-to-visit-in-the-uk

......just not on a direct flight from the US on a US airline.

[SWBKCB]

And not on a direct flight from the US at all to Bristol, Hull, Newcastle, Belfast - all higher than Manchester's 10th place. Not sure of the revelance of this random domestic puff piece?

[Mr Mac]

Napping / Mayfield
Well two things really.

Firstly if you are travelling on business to India you don’t ever change planes at an Indian airport if you can avoid it, hence those travelling there all use the ME3 to avoid that transfer and do the Dubai / Doha /AD two step. Done this so many times with many others, ok if you are just going to Mumbai or Delhi but going elsewhere use ME3. Also to be honest I would use ME3 over Virgin or any Indian carrier.

As for LA from the North of the UK I would suggest , but without evidence I admit, that there is a limited call for the route from the business community in the North, which leaves, tourism, which outbound will currently be limited due to the value of Stirling v Dollar, and inbound due to poor marketing of the area in the US.

I don’t see those routes having any growth potential until the Stirling v Dollar rate improves and as for the Indian route I would say it maybe able to support a x3 weekly service not daily though to Delhi / Mumbai but I am not sure.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[Rutan16]

Napping / Mayfield
Well two things really.

Firstly if you are travelling on business to India you don’t ever change planes at an Indian airport if you can avoid it, hence those travelling there all use the ME3 to avoid that transfer and do the Dubai / Doha /AD two step. Done this so many times with many others, ok if you are just going to Mumbai or Delhi but going elsewhere use ME3. Also to be honest I would use ME3 over Virgin or any Indian carrier.

As for LA from the North of the UK I would suggest , but without evidence I admit, that there is a limited call for the route from the business community in the North, which leaves, tourism, which outbound will currently be limited due to the value of Stirling v Dollar, and inbound due to poor marketing of the area in the US.

I don’t see those routes having any growth potential until the Stirling v Dollar rate improves and as for the Indian route I would say it maybe able to support a x3 weekly service not daily though to Delhi / Mumbai but I am not sure.

Cheers
Mr Mac

Los Angeles and Manchester have media computing and higher education programs that will generate some up front , however most currently use the “NONE” shuttle and Oneworld carriers onwards.

As for India I here what you say , it’s certainly a difficult one the gauge effectively with potentially only Air India or Virgin realistically. The various second rate Indian carries are A hopeless and B consistently on the edge of collapse .

From a perspective of onward travel with reference to core VFR in the Punjabi, Kashmiri and Sikh communities Delhi gotta be a better option than Mumbai imho.

[roverman]

MAN has historically done well as a super-spoke, attracting many prime legacy carriers to include the city on their networks, in some cases being the only UK destination besides London Heathrow. I think there lies the future. Much as I would like to see a true anchor airline with some manner of hub operation, it doesn't seem likely. Growing the portfolio of legacy flag carriers, with frequent direct services into the respective hubs, is MAN's best bet. It's a good one, too, spreading the risk around when things go pear-shaped in particular geo-political/economic zones. .

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

What's a "NONE" shuttle?
There's a degree of wishing for higher end legacy carries BUT the incredible growth in European air travel that the locos brought was hitherto unseen and unexpected. I remember when Ryanair introduced 6 x ex BY B737-200s and THAT was a big step up, this was around the same GB Airways flew 2 other ex BY B737s on behalf of easyJet to Scotland. No one expected what happened next, least of all MAG and BA. So they could turn their noses up and watch LPL and LBA grow as the old BA high cost model withered away, or they could change focus and become a home for a huge volume of locos. There was no other realistic choice. It does mean, as M'OL once said he'd pay for "no Taj Mahal terminals" and as such, you can only build what's going to have a realistic ROI. That's not always the shop window to the world we would all like, see also EDI!

The new Air India (Vistara as was) are on a major growth trajectory, so you'd hope there's a deal to be done there.

[easyflyer83]

There is some angst towards the LCC’s and people are right to correct the post that suggested that MAG went after the LCC’s. On the contrary, they came fairly late to the party.

In reality, the LCC’s and Legacies do particlarly well co-existing in MAN. There are even city pairs where they go head to head. In essence, the LCC’s typically grow the market on those routes. There are also many destinations that wouldn’t otherwise have been served. Take BIO, OPO, GOA for instance. Even BER, FCO, MAD and ATH have had patchy service in the past.

In the past you had full service/legacy and your IT operators with a very clear differentiation. Today, that line is not as defined but we have more destinations than we would ever have had in the past.

[OzzyOzBorn]

There appears to be an unspoken assumption in this fast-moving conversation that locos are "not as good" as legacy flag carriers. Somehow second-rate. That demarcation has been blurred for a very long time now. Cabin service is 'buy on board' for most European short-haul flights; where service is included you may get a small beaker of water and a biscuit if you are lucky. Seating layouts are generally identical. Luggage arrangements too. Note too that carriers such as Ryanair and EasyJet score very highly on punctuality versus most legacy carriers. Their short-haul networks are more comprehensive. And the new non-reclining thin seats beat those thick reclining knee-crushers any day for me. Bring them on.

I do not consider carriers such as EasyJet and Ryanair to be a second-rate option from MAN's perspective. They're the ideal partners to grow MAN's route portfolio and bring in customer volume. The main issue lies not with those carriers, but with (ex-CEO) Mr Cornish's draconian no-spend policy which has left them hemmed in at T1 / T3 with insufficient space to expand to their full potential. T3 capacity desperately needs sorting out; T1 is slated to close with carriers moving over to T2. Jet2 and TUI are vital to MAN's success also, but their business is more tailored to the demands of the package holiday market. It disappoints me to read comments which seem to disparage our four anchor short-haul carriers; they're actually doing a fantastic job. I just hope that MAG will now invest to support them fully with targeted infrastructure investment, enabling these operators to achieve their full growth potential at MAN.

New T2 is a wonderful asset for MAN to have. The passenger experience is absolutely fine. Regular folks love the choice of retail and F&B options. Some of us on these forums notice every scuff-mark and broken lavatory door, but the public at large simply see a decent experience when using T2. CW has successfully seen off the post-covid blues with staffing resilience having been built up. And improved technology is on the way, further enabling reduced hassle and queueing times at security and immigration. The issues we forumers pick up on re T2 are predominantly cosmetic (and easily fixable). Bare walls can be adorned. Scuffed flooring can be resurfaced. Lack of travelators on the arrivals corridors look like the main oversight to me, but likewise at airports such as BCN and CPH in their new extensions. Perhaps airport operators have lost faith in perennially unreliable travelator technology?

MAG's most pressing challenge at MAN is to ensure resilience and capacity for future growth. New T2 essentially replaces life-expired T1 infrastructure and legacy T2; I don't see much room for enhanced growth in there. The reality is that if MAN does want business to grow, management need to be doing their utmost to support additional capacity offers from EasyJet and Ryanair. Folks on here get hung up on attracting new tails - yes, I like to see those too - but your fundamental growth comes from additional BASED B38M's and A20N's. For understandable reasons in the current economic climate, MAG is committing to new infrastructure investment in digestable chunks ... hence we're not seeing disclosure of some new grand masterplan. But the plans are there behind closed doors. I hope that they include expansion of T3 (annexing Pier B?) and a near-term apron extension at scale. For me, these have become a more urgent priority than adding a third pier on T2. Decimated cargo capability still needs open-heart surgery too (there - I said it!!!).

Don't get too despondent. There are alot of positives to appreciate at MAN. The airport's portfolio remains by far the best in regional UK, and this is the only non-London airport introducing a large-scale new terminal. We all want to see more success as we roll on into 2024, but don't forget to acknowledge what we've already got. It's the worst except for all the others! Happy New Year everyone ...

[EI-BUD]

Some excellent comments above. These projects take so long, by the time they are completed so much will have changed. Just take the last 4 years. MAG needs to develop an infrastructure that removes all barriers to connectivity between terminals and allows for flexibility for airline change. I'd be opposed to allocating a terminal to one airline. For one thing that airline will want preferential treatment and lower costs. Ideally U2, FR, and LS would on an equal footing. Even TUI. Given the scale of each of their operations.

Connections are important between all airlines and most connections will be with LCCs involved and that is only set to grow. So barriers to connections like separate terminals are not a good thing. This is an opportunity even in the absence of a hub airline like BA used to be at the airport.

Manchester is somewhat different to many other airports. While it has a huge local catchment, it is hugely dependent on the leisure market and locally originating passengers. So while the catchment is large, the airport is hugely dependent on its local clients. US flights as an example see very low volumes in % terms of US originating passengers. Same for say TUI and Jet2, hugely MAN area originating passengers. Ryanair with its pricing strategy will help hugely to drive volume from away bases into MAN, especially in winter when demand is lower and they aim to fill the plane at all costs.

High leisure market dependency, strong VFR, reduced business travel, locally dependent market, all mean an impact on what price people will pay. Equally, the spending power of the average customer in the demographic is much lower than say London/ South of England. These factors impact the attractiveness of say Virgin adding new LH routes, especially where there are scarce resources i.e. aircraft. They'll deploy them to more attractive markets where average price is stronger. The US network will grow in time as awareness of Manchester increases, and as business travel slowly returns.

​​​​​​

[Rutan16]

What's a "NONE" shuttle?
There's a degree of wishing for higher end legacy carries BUT the incredible growth in European air travel that the locos brought was hitherto unseen and unexpected. I remember when Ryanair introduced 6 x ex BY B737-200s and THAT was a big step up, this was around the same GB Airways flew 2 other ex BY B737s on behalf of easyJet to Scotland. No one expected what happened next, least of all MAG and BA. So they could turn their noses up and watch LPL and LBA grow as the old BA high cost model withered away, or they could change focus and become a home for a huge volume of locos. There was no other realistic choice. It does mean, as M'OL once said he'd pay for "no Taj Mahal terminals" and as such, you can only build what's going to have a realistic ROI. That's not always the shop window to the world we would all like, see also EDI!

The new Air India (Vistara as was) are on a major growth trajectory, so you'd hope there's a deal to be done there.

Skip can’t disagree with any of that to be honest 👍🏼

As for my cryptic comment re BA domestic link to Heathrow you know full well what I inferred
The only remnant of a high frequency turn up and go operation is the use of Shuttle as a call sign. It’s a conventional schedules service booking required stupid expensive point to point and not even a clock face operation

[DP.]

OK clumsy wording , will rephrase .

T2 would be demolished and comnected to an "improved" T3.

My assumption was an expanded T3 to fill in the gap ?

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-airport-expansion-plan-security-9370929

I think the key issue is that you have made various assumptions of your own accord, and then you are getting angry because they haven't been realised - but they were never backed up by what the airport and the plan actually said.

As that article from 2015 states, the plan in the medium-term was always to demolish the main T1 building as the completed T2 would provide sufficient capacity. It was always likely that some of the T1 piers may remain for a period, although in exactly what configuaration is less clear. The renders shown in that article are early ones from the masterplanning stages, which invariably change once the scheme design actually starts to cost up the budget required to deliver it. Some of the later renders showed what appeared to be a physical link between T2 and T1 (and would then presumably carry on into T3). That can be achieved without maintaining the bulk of the main T1 building.

What would happen to the site of the T1 building once it was closed and demolished was never part of the Transformation Programme. At a minimum, that was a decade away from the commencement of the programme, and so it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to be including that in the programme (which was already a significant piece of work) when so much can change in that time. I'd imagine there are some masterplan documents in a room in Olympic House somewhere for development post-2025, but as far as I'm aware, that's not something that has ever been publicly released.

[Navpi]

I think the key issue is that you have made various assumptions of your own accord, and then you are getting angry because they haven't been realised - but they were never backed up by what the airport and the plan actually said.

As that article from 2015 states, the plan in the medium-term was always to demolish the main T1 building as the completed T2 would provide sufficient capacity. It was always likely that some of the T1 piers may remain for a period, although in exactly what configuaration is less clear. The renders shown in that article are early ones from the masterplanning stages, which invariably change once the scheme design actually starts to cost up the budget required to deliver it. Some of the later renders showed what appeared to be a physical link between T2 and T1 (and would then presumably carry on into T3). That can be achieved without maintaining the bulk of the main T1 building.

What would happen to the site of the T1 building once it was closed and demolished was never part of the Transformation Programme. At a minimum, that was a decade away from the commencement of the programme, and so it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to be including that in the programme (which was already a significant piece of work) when so much can change in that time. I'd imagine there are some masterplan documents in a room in Olympic House somewhere for development post-2025, but as far as I'm aware, that's not something that has ever been publicly released.

Many thanks for the clarification, these are more observations than any angry intent.

My curiosity is more about "the gap" between T2 and T3 and how the two will connect.

Had we kept T1 that would not be an issue but if its mothballed there still has to be a connecting corridor between the two. If it's to be demolished then likewise.

I assumed demolition would leave us a massive apron to make up for shortages where we are hemmed in on the perimeter.

I guess at the end of the day MAG don't need to divulge anything , but it's such a large gap it would be nice to know what the strategy will be.

[rkenyon]

My curiosity is more about "the gap" between T2 and T3 and how the two will connect.


Hardly anybody will be doing connections between T3 & T2. T3 will be Ryanair and they don't connect with anybody - including themselves. More or less everybody arriving at T3 will need to go through immigration / baggage collection / transfer to T2 / re-check baggage / re-clear security.

You may get the odd person that is hand baggage only wanting to transfer from Ryanair to another airline on separate tickets, but they will be few and far between.

[ian_h1]

Hardly anybody will be doing connections between T3 & T2. T3 will be Ryanair and they don't connect with anybody - including themselves. More or less everybody arriving at T3 will need to go through immigration / baggage collection / transfer to T2 / re-check baggage / re-clear security.

You may get the odd person that is hand baggage only wanting to transfer from Ryanair to another airline on separate tickets, but they will be few and far between.

The key is flexibility and maximising what we have got. Having the gate areas of what is now T2 & T3 linked gives maximum flexibility.

Ryanair have already trialled connections at a handful of airports on through tickets in the Eurowings, Vueling, Norwegian model and this *could* be an opportunity, in any event OTA's like dohop, booking.com and Kiwi regularly sell 2 tickets to self connect backed by their own guarantee so MCT opens up more opportunities. Easyjet have Worldwide by EasyJet and many of our LH carriers are partners so it can only be logistics that have prevented MAN being involved thus far.

FlyBe were building a good product of connecting their communities via MAN to the world and if we want to see EIUK and VS make a go of LH (as well as the visiting carriers) then some sort of connection product can help to remove that reliance on local catchment - we have the infrastructure to really push the connections by offering Air/Rail tickets to many destinations if we wanted (but lets focus on the bread and butter first). LoCo's do give the network spread to help feed our LH services.

In the fullness of time i suspect we will see the link but a temporary structure to provide the link or even continued bussing may be what we see for some time.

Losing Pier C does mean T2 has scope for further expansion, Pier B can be easily re-linked to T3 (as in the Tipperary lounge days).

I think we are more likely to see the Pier B works in the medium term as current T3 is problematic both landside and airside and there is an opportunity to expand the footprint of T3 into current T1 relatively cheaply to help improve this, after that who knows - we may well see T1 demolished at some point but it wont be until there is a plan for the land In the same way we wont see a further pier on T2 on the pier C footprint until there is demand in the coming 18 - 24 months there have been changes definitely but I'm sure the overall vision remains even if some of the details are still be announced / decided.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The only remnant of a high frequency turn up and go operation is the use of Shuttle as a call sign. It’s a conventional schedules service booking required stupid expensive point to point and not even a clock face operation
Oh good point, yes it's increasingly painful. Biggest fall from grace on the whole surviving BA network, it's depressing using it if you have any memory of how far they've fallen.

I suspect during COVID the debt levels carried by MAG and similar airports has grown somewhat, hence "nice to have" bells and whistles to connect a wholly Ryanair T3 to anyone else in T2 are not going to be a priority. Sadly, there's just not the business case. As to flybe, well they did connect MAN well but that was before business travel tanked and anyone taking a UK domestic flight was demonised to be a wilful murderer of Polar Bears...... I only 1/2 jest on that one!
So that old world probably isn't coming back anytime soon. As to who would feed Virgin, well Skyteam's KLM and Air France have vast options of their own at CDG/AMS and also feed VS/DL over LHR as an overflow , but I guess it makes some kind of sense to offer connections, but it's not going to be a game changer. The Virgin BOM/DEL-USA scissors hub option is a good idea on paper, but also competes with the same idea out of LHR, so how many times can you divide that up?

Aer Lingus UK really ought to be point to point because otherwise mainline Aer Lingus in Dublin will be looking to hold onto feeding their own existing hub. For me it's about not cannibalising existing options and keeping focus on what works well rather than scrabbling to an ambition that's really tough without a based network carrier. LGW hasn't got one either, BA barely connect to long haul outside the Disney express from GLA. No shame there, just a fast growing business finding a new niche.

For MAN, who will be their modern day Thomas Cook for long haul?

[DomyDom]

Happy New Year everyone.

I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this will still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.

[Navpi]

Well big thanks to MAG who "may" have been reading our debate.

New "airfield" image of T1 including what looks like a new pier minus airbridges off T2, odd however that its in the same place as pier C.

Is it a lo cost pier or a bus station ?

Fill it with bars and retail whilst punters wait for travel to remotes ?

This has just been issued.

https://bit.ly/3l4FvWI

[Rutan16]

Oh good point, yes it's increasingly painful. Biggest fall from grace on the whole surviving BA network, it's depressing using it if you have any memory of how far they've fallen.

I suspect during COVID the debt levels carried by MAG and similar airports has grown somewhat, hence "nice to have" bells and whistles to connect a wholly Ryanair T3 to anyone else in T2 are not going to be a priority. Sadly, there's just not the business case. As to flybe, well they did connect MAN well but that was before business travel tanked and anyone taking a UK domestic flight was demonised to be a wilful murderer of Polar Bears...... I only 1/2 jest on that one!
So that old world probably isn't coming back anytime soon. As to who would feed Virgin, well Skyteam's KLM and Air France have vast options of their own at CDG/AMS and also feed VS/DL over LHR as an overflow , but I guess it makes some kind of sense to offer connections, but it's not going to be a game changer. The Virgin BOM/DEL-USA scissors hub option is a good idea on paper, but also competes with the same idea out of LHR, so how many times can you divide that up?

Aer Lingus UK really ought to be point to point because otherwise mainline Aer Lingus in Dublin will be looking to hold onto feeding their own existing hub. For me it's about not cannibalising existing options and keeping focus on what works well rather than scrabbling to an ambition that's really tough without a based network carrier. LGW hasn't got one either, BA barely connect to long haul outside the Disney express from GLA. No shame there, just a fast growing business finding a new niche.

For MAN, who will be their modern day Thomas Cook for long haul?

Sadly there is no one in the UK market capable of filling the TCX boots at Manchester and Gatwick anytime soon or even into the midterm

The only carrier that « may » have requisite data ain’t now allowed to operate in the UK market for reasons .

[The96er]

I think there’s a dawning realisation that the addition of just one additional pier will be wholly insufficient to replace the capacity of T1. There’s no way that the entire based EZY/JET2/Tui summer operation will fit in the new T2 as planned and I’m pretty certain that the likes of EZY will not settle for a predominantly bussing operation.

The plans I’ve heard for Domestic arrivals into T2, which if confirmed, the airlines would not accept. Expect T3 to remain as a Domestic facility and T1 to continue for the foreseeable if I were a betting man.

[Navpi]

I'm not convinced it's an aircraft pier. Notice there is no yellow taxiway signage and why not throw a model of an aircraft on there ?

It's all very intriguing.

[The96er]

Pier C has also recently had brand new Aircraft Electrical units fitted. Not a small expense if the terminal is due for closure.

[SWBKCB]

Happy New Year everyone.

I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this wil still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.

Being discussed here - doubt anything is settled for 2025 yet.

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/656534-aero-maleth-diversion.html

[OzzyOzBorn]

Just a thought, but the greyed out oblong areas on the site of T1 multi-storey and Pier C could simply be an artistic device to denote that the actual form of what will end up there either isn't yet finalised or isn't ready to be disclosed to the public? We have seen a similar technique used in earlier renderings.

[Wycombe]

Happy New Year everyone.

I'm thinking of booking a Caribbean cruise for 2025 and it would involve using a charted service to get out to the Carribean. I usually like to travel Premium Economy when travelling across the pond so I'm hoping this wil still be possible. Does anyone have any knowledge or experience of what type of services or operators that have recently provided a charter service for P&O from MAN. Thank you in advance.

I just done a Carribean fly-cruise with P&O, albeit from LGW.

If arrangements are the same as for this year, the majority of flights from LGW and MAN will be on Tui 787's that have a Premium Economy cabin (it was almost empty on our outbound flight). This year, for reasons that have been much-debated and rumoured, P&O brought in (somewhat late-in-the-day) Maleth-Aero with an A332 based at each of MAN and LGW to operate some of the flights to BGI and ANU (where the 2 ships based in the Carribean this winter turn-around).

This move has caused some disatisfaction, as some people who had booked Premium Econ flights had their bookings moved to these flights, which don't have a PE cabin. The Maleth aircraft also don't have IFE (whereas the Tui 787's do). There have also been some big delays to some of the Maleth flights (their flight back to MAN from our cruise incurred a 12-hour delay) and there has been the diversion to BDA referred to above and covered in a separate thread (although the CAT encounter could have happened to any airline).

P&O passenger forums are full of negative feedback about these issues and the use of Maleth (there is some positive aswell, but it's in the minority). Who knows whether they will be used again, but if I was a betting man I would say not (it seems to have been a short-notice arrangement in any case). Tui have been used for many years, so that seems less likely to change. Some pax also find themselves on scheduled flights (there were a small number on our cruise who flew VS to/from LHR).

[LFC22]

For me, that picture still generates more questions than answers. The huge space of nothingness between T1 and T2 Pier B is strange to look at, I'm guessing another pier will be added there before long. 2030? We can also see the corridor connecting to Pier C, would expect announcement of that at some point.

Would be great if the greyed-out area where the multi-storey lies is also converted into an extension of T2. But as other have mentioned, it's one for the future as there's no telling if there's a requirement for it yet.

[GavinC]

Well big thanks to MAG who "may" have been reading our debate.

New "airfield" image of T1 including what looks like a new pier minus airbridges off T2, odd however that its in the same place as pier C.

Is it a lo cost pier or a bus station ?

Fill it with bars and retail whilst punters wait for travel to remotes ?

This has just been issued.

https://bit.ly/3l4FvWI

This just links me to the 'Your new T2' page on the website. I don't see any new images. Am i missing something?!?

[ian_h1]

For me, that picture still generates more questions than answers. The huge space of nothingness between T1 and T2 Pier B is strange to look at, I'm guessing another pier will be added there before long. 2030? We can also see the corridor connecting to Pier C, would expect announcement of that at some point.

Would be great if the greyed-out area where the multi-storey lies is also converted into an extension of T2. But as other have mentioned, it's one for the future as there's no telling if there's a requirement for it yet.

Assuming we agree that the end game is a single integrated terminal to bring more flexibility then the addition of a new pier (s) are surely just a matter of time.

We know T3 landside is problematic due to its layout so short / medium term we are likely to see part of T1 morph into an enlarged and remodelled T3.

Longer terms could we see a further expansion of the T2 footprint to continue the pier layout like in the images here or, could we see the current T1 area becoming the new T3 with a new structure to allow the remodelling / mothballing / closure of some / all of the T3 landside but retaining gates and airside areas.

Whatever happens there is certainly more to come ............



https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/512x285/man_tp_post_t1_incl_t3__5dd9f00a546521da8541df47601b2d56e2b6 b274.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/512x285/man_tp_post_t1__72b7071c2f9985fc298edad4f3fc71e1a003c11b.jpg

[Mr Mac]

ianH1
That is a long way to that last pier on your plan, and will be an extremely busy extended corridor at certain times.
I hope there is some plan to have some form of moving quickly down it. If we are talking travelators than they will need to be large, and crucially for Manchester well maintained. The latter is not in my experience something this airport is good at in my long experience of using it.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[ian_h1]

ianH1
That is a long way to that last pier on your plan, and will be an extremely busy extended corridor at certain times.
I hope there is some plan to have some form of moving quickly down it. If we are talking travelators than they will need to be large, and crucially for Manchester well maintained. The latter is not in my experience something this airport is good at in my long experience of using it.

Cheers
Mr Mac

Thats the worry isn't it that whatever is decided today falls into rack and ruin the minute it starts to need maintenance.

I think we might see a T2 West and T3/1 East style arrangement with 2 checkin / arrival areas but otherwise linked

[DomyDom]

I just done a Carribean fly-cruise with P&O, albeit from LGW.

If arrangements are the same as for this year, the majority of flights from LGW and MAN will be on Tui 787's that have a Premium Economy cabin (it was almost empty on our outbound flight). This year, for reasons that have been much-debated and rumoured, P&O brought in (somewhat late-in-the-day) Maleth-Aero with an A332 based at each of MAN and LGW to operate some of the flights to BGI and ANU (where the 2 ships based in the Carribean this winter turn-around).

This move has caused some disatisfaction, as some people who had booked Premium Econ flights had their bookings moved to these flights, which don't have a PE cabin. The Maleth aircraft also don't have IFE (whereas the Tui 787's do). There have also been some big delays to some of the Maleth flights (their flight back to MAN from our cruise incurred a 12-hour delay) and there has been the diversion to BDA referred to above and covered in a separate thread (although the CAT encounter could have happened to any airline).

P&O passenger forums are full of negative feedback about these issues and the use of Maleth (there is some positive aswell, but it's in the minority). Who knows whether they will be used again, but if I was a betting man I would say not (it seems to have been a short-notice arrangement in any case). Tui have been used for many years, so that seems less likely to change. Some pax also find themselves on scheduled flights (there were a small number on our cruise who flew VS to/from LHR).

Thank you and others for your feedback.

[laviation]

There are rumours of them using a proper full service carrier for next year, as Maleth have been shocking.

[Navpi]

Bit left field but following on from Rutans comments about VisitBritain.

The top streaming box set on Netflix in the US is Fool Me Once.

The author has been on CBS, ABC, NY Times interviews etc.

This is filmed in Cheshire and includes Arley Hall described as Downton Abbeyesque on US TV and numerous locations around Manchester, Cheshire etc.

I am sure VB would be gushing if it was Kent, Hampshire etc.

Its a pity all the stakeholders are so pee poor and fragmented in pulling together all the required threads to promote these locations . Man Airport, The airlines, US Travel Agency's, VisitEngland etc.

[ian_h1]

Bit left field but following on from Rutans comments about VisitBritain.

The top streaming box set on Netflix in the US is Fool Me Once.

The author has been on CBS, ABC, NY Times interviews etc.

This is filmed in Cheshire and includes Arley Hall described as Downton Abbeyesque on US TV and numerous locations around Manchester, Cheshire etc.

I am sure VB would be gushing if it was Kent, Hampshire etc.

Its a pity all the stakeholders are so pee poor and fragmented in pulling together all the required threads to promote these locations . Man Airport, The airlines, US Travel Agency's, VisitEngland etc.

Marketing Manchester would have been all over this in the Drew Stokes days, sadly 14 years of austerity and they are now just a shell of their previous selves - thats not to say there isnt the opportunity for more to be done at GCA level with some incentive funding from MAG

[Navpi]

I think the problem is the fragmented approach outside London both in terms of tourism and Investment.

In London you have a large region already with Cambridge, Oxford, Blenhiem, Woburn etc on the periphery. They have an over arching umbrella, in all spheres, London is London with Heathrow seen very much in a default position as the gateway to the UK and promoted as such in Government and the media etc

In the North you have various Investment bodies within an hour and in some cases a few miles apart all desperate for monies.... and don't mention the tourist offering !

For VisitLondon see Marketing Manchester, Visit Liverpool Visit Yorkshire plus Visit Cumbria and N Wales tourist boards.

It's a shambolic approach. Do the various tourist sites, hoteliers, coach companies, airports talk to each other about a seamless offering ?

There is no central organisation as all the neighbours are squabbling with each other.

Naturally when you also throw airports in the mix Liverpool wants its tourist inflows to use Speke and Yorkshire to use LBA and rightly so. The long haul offering of Manchester then also gets muddy. Should LH visitors to Liverpool or Leeds hop on KLM or Aer Lingus ?

MAN once had aspirations as The Long Haul Gateway To The North.... but nearly all eg American inflows are polarised and now begin and end on coach tours seemingly starting at LHR.

One only has to look at vacations in the UK advertised on US Sites.

Heathrow 3 nights London
Cambridge
York
Liverpool
Blenhiem
Heathrow

Practically every tour is now shaped that way !

Its a shame given the 000s who visit N Wales Castles Chester, Lake District etc

The opportunities that can be offered by one organising representative of London is 50x that of the North who can only offer what are relatively bite size chunks.

How can The North galvanise its offering without each region falling out with each other ?

The emphasis here is on inflows a market totally neglected as there seems to be an acceptance that the only market ex Manchester is outbound only.

[Asturias56]

"One only has to look at vacations in the UK advertised on US Sites.

Heathrow 3 nights London
Cambridge
York
Liverpool
Blenhiem
Heathrow"


Its honestly amazing that they get to York & Liverpool - 20 years ago they never got north of Stratford upon Avon

N England doesn't feature in most Americans views of England I'm afarid

[roverman]

I've just booked MAN-JFK-MAN on Aer Lingus, outbound in late April returning mid-May. A good deal at £490pp including checked bag. I had a little trouble convincing my partner that going on Aer Lingus did not involve a change of plane in Dublin. Indeed when you search MAN-NYC a number of options come up via DUB. I am pleased to say that for once it was cheaper to fly direct! But it makes me wonder whether there is a consumer-perception that an 'Irish' airline flying from the UK to USA is not a direct service, which may be losing some market share. I'm pleased that we have this option, and some competition for Virgin, but why could BA not have set up the lower-cost subsidiary instead of Aer Lingus, to fly the MAN services for IAG using the more familiar (in the UK/USA) BA branding?

[ATNotts]

Navpi,

You hit the nail firmly on the head. We need regional tourism bodies with enough clout to get themselves heard equally with London.

The first thing to do would be to shift Visit England, or whatever they call it this week, well outside London and rather than relocate the execs recruit a team that doesn't hanker for London. Then there is the question of where to relocate to. You'd say Manchester, I would say a Midlands city. Probably somewhere in 'The North' would be preferable, perhaps Leeds or Sheffield?

So far as regional tourism organisations are concerned we need a proper regionalised set up rather than parochial cities and counties all competing with each other. So Northwest. Northeast, Midlands. Southwest etc.

Sorry, well off the topic of MAN but the subject is worthy of discussion almost anywhere outside London so Manchester is as good a place as any!

[SWBKCB]

Visit Britain/England's move to Birmingham has been discussed earlier on this thread

https://www.localgov.co.uk/VisitBritain-HQ-moves-to-Birmingham/56574

[Navpi]

Navpi,

You hit the nail firmly on the head. We need regional tourism bodies with enough clout to get themselves heard equally with London.

The first thing to do would be to shift Visit England, or whatever they call it this week, well outside London and rather than relocate the execs recruit a team that doesn't hanker for London. Then there is the question of where to relocate to. You'd say Manchester, I would say a Midlands city. Probably somewhere in 'The North' would be preferable, perhaps Leeds or Sheffield?

So far as regional tourism organisations are concerned we need a proper regionalised set up rather than parochial cities and counties all competing with each other. So Northwest. Northeast, Midlands. Southwest etc.

Sorry, well off the topic of MAN but the subject is worthy of discussion almost anywhere outside London so Manchester is as good a place as any!

You got your wish ATN, as SWB states they are moving to Birmingham however when is a move not a move ?

There is a very strong suspicion that the team at VisitBritain were not wholeheartedly behind leaving their roots in London so chose Birmingham to pay lip service.

As "levelling up" narrative at Government level it meets criteria , box ticked, but enables them to work from home but maybe "pop up" to the Birmingham office 2x a week.

Not sure that embraces the strategic change that was required ?

And like ATN i would have been happy to see it relocated to ANYWHERE in the North not necessarily Manchester
York , Liverpool, Chester or even Cumbria !

Does a Birmingham move see them looking North to Chatsworth, North Wales, Chester York and Yorkshire, The Lake District etc or does their vision remain looking back South to The Cotswolds, Oxford, Bicester Outlet Village, across to Cambridge then back to London?

We shall see....

For what its worth here is a position on the
VisitBritain website.

------------------------------------------------
Location and Ways of Working We follow the principle of “Locate for your Day”, which means that we expect people to use their own judgment to decide the best place to work to meet the needs of the business. The majority of our roles can be performed predominantly remotely, however we are not a fully remote organisation as we recognise the importance of face-to-face connection, so you will be expected to spend some time in the office. We have a small office in London and growth plans for a Birmingham office from April 2024, therefore ideally, you must be commutable to Birmingham, and be willing and able to travel as when required at your own cost.

[ATNotts]

Navpi,

Depressing. All they're doing is shifting the HQ as far north than they dare to save the poor people in London having to make the choice of moving to the 'frozen north' or leaving the business. Exactly why we are both keen of a HQ rather further north so that people less wedded to London might begin to take over the reins.

Still it ticks the 'levelling up' box.

[Navpi]

Navpi,

Depressing. All they're doing is shifting the HQ as far north than they dare to save the poor people in London having to make the choice of moving to the 'frozen north' or leaving the business. Exactly why we are both keen of a HQ rather further north so that people less wedded to London might begin to take over the reins.

Still it ticks the 'levelling up' box.

Maybe we are just sceptical...... perish the thought !

[TURIN]

I've just booked MAN-JFK-MAN on Aer Lingus, outbound in late April returning mid-May. A good deal at £490pp including checked bag. I had a little trouble convincing my partner that going on Aer Lingus did not involve a change of plane in Dublin. Indeed when you search MAN-NYC a number of options come up via DUB. I am pleased to say that for once it was cheaper to fly direct! But it makes me wonder whether there is a consumer-perception that an 'Irish' airline flying from the UK to USA is not a direct service, which may be losing some market share. I'm pleased that we have this option, and some competition for Virgin, but why could BA not have set up the lower-cost subsidiary instead of Aer Lingus, to fly the MAN services for IAG using the more familiar (in the UK/USA) BA branding?
I believe the plan originally was to base several BA 777-200s at MAN. I think it changed because Aer Lingus had spare aircraft.

[Navpi]

And not on a direct flight from the US at all to Bristol, Hull, Newcastle, Belfast - all higher than Manchester's 10th place. Not sure of the revelance of this random domestic puff piece?

Well Bristol, Hull, Newcastle, Belfast, don't feature here infact no other English city gets a mention !"

Manchester’s inclusion in the global list places it alongside destinations including Singapore, Paris, Brisbane, and Vienna, and is the only destination in England to be included in the list of 52 locations".

https://ilovemanchester.com/best-places-to-visit-2024-new-york-times

[Una Due Tfc]

I believe the plan originally was to base several BA 777-200s at MAN. I think it changed because Aer Lingus had spare aircraft.

That was certainly part of it due to Ireland’s longer lasting and more strict lockdowns during COVID, but it was also due EI having a lower cost base and the 321s offer incredible flexibility and low risk to build a route. 6 XLRs are due to join within the next 18 months or so, we’ll see if that results in any MAN expansion.

[The96er]

That was certainly part of it due to Ireland’s longer lasting and more strict lockdowns during COVID, but it was also due EI having a lower cost base and the 321s offer incredible flexibility and low risk to build a route. 6 XLRs are due to join within the next 18 months or so, we’ll see if that results in any MAN expansion.

Any extra a/c will not be until 2025. I’m led to believe that the additional aircraft will be another x2 A330 likely from Iberia.

[MANFOD]

Well Bristol, Hull, Newcastle, Belfast, don't feature here infact no other English city gets a mention !"

Manchester’s inclusion in the global list places it alongside destinations including Singapore, Paris, Brisbane, and Vienna, and is the only destination in England to be included in the list of 52 locations".

https://ilovemanchester.com/best-places-to-visit-2024-new-york-times

Excellent response Navpi. There does seem to be an impression that certain posters on here have an agenda, not just against the airport but the city as well.
As for the US carriers, I still live in hope we'll see one of them at MAN in the not too distant future.

[CabinCrewe]

BA 3 class premium heavy 777s at MAN? Mmm, not seeing it.

[chaps1954]

Are the LGW 772 3 class as that is what I understood would be the ones

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Are the LGW 772 3 class as that is what I understood would be the ones
12 dedicated LGW fleet, 6 each from GE and Rolls Royce with 336/332 seats respectively, 3 class, no First. But BA aren't going to make money in the regions, they just don't know how.
These aircraft are all 10 across in Economy.
Aer Lingus UK A330s for comparison C30Y287 = 317 with the A321Ns at C16Y168 = 184
Virgin A333 C31W48Y185 = 264 and A35K Leisure Config C16W56Y325 = 397 (Jumbo-ish!)

[TURIN]

BA 3 class premium heavy 777s at MAN? Mmm, not seeing it.
It was the 'densified' LGW Fleet type apparently.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Skip - I presume that you mean the A35K (A350-1041) for Virgin Atlantic?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Skip - I presume that you mean the A35K (A350-1041) for Virgin Atlantic?
Amended!

[eggc]

Busiest December on record with 2m pax handled during the month and pleasingly 99% of which passed through security in 15 mins or less. For comparison sake LPL is reporting 94% through security in 15mins handling less 18% of the pax MAN did. Too much MAN bashing on here at times so some credit where credit is due...IMO.

[easyflyer83]

I was told by someone who works at EI U.K. that their jobs were long term though not necessarily under the EI brand. Make of that what you will.

I’ve always seen EI at MAN as being an IAG experiment without the bad publicity should the BA brand being seen to pull out of the regions again.

[eggc]

The talk of BA was a potential replacement for Maleth cruise flights only. Not sure if it will be BA, but somebody will replace them next year as their aircraft have not been received well by pax.

[Navpi]

Not sure if reprentative but interestingly BA fare LHR JFK is over £132 cheaper from LHR than same dates 1st week July than EI Ex Manchester to JFK.

Is that to make up for lack of premium ?

It seems a nice hike ?

[The96er]

Not sure if reprentative but interestingly BA fare LHR JFK is over £132 cheaper from LHR than same dates 1st week July than EI Ex Manchester to JFK.

Is that to make up for lack of premium ?

It seems a nice hike ?

There’s a huge amount of capacity ex-LHR that can be dumped on the market at low rates. The EI JFK is routinely seeing 90% plus load factors. Supply and demand.

[MANFOD]

Quoting Navpi: -
Not sure if representative but interestingly BA fare LHR JFK is over £132 cheaper from LHR than same dates 1st week July than EI Ex Manchester to JFK.
Is that to make up for lack of premium ?
It seems a nice hike .

It used to be said that because airlines flying across the pond from LHR, (I'm thinking BA in particular), were able to attract plenty of people up front at premium fares, they were happy to discount economy prices to help fill up seats at the back. Whether that was direct by the airlines or through other booking agents, and whether it still holds, I don't know. Maybe Skip can tell us.
Of course, if demand is strong on a particular day from MAN, that will be reflected in the EI price.

[easyflyer83]

Quoting Navpi: -
Not sure if representative but interestingly BA fare LHR JFK is over £132 cheaper from LHR than same dates 1st week July than EI Ex Manchester to JFK.
Is that to make up for lack of premium ?
It seems a nice hike .

It used to be said that because airlines flying across the pond from LHR, (I'm thinking BA in particular), were able to attract plenty of people up front at premium fares, they were happy to discount economy prices to help fill up seats at the back. Whether that was direct by the airlines or through other booking agents, and whether it still holds, I don't know. Maybe Skip can tell us.
Of course, if demand is strong on a particular day from MAN, that will be reflected in the EI price.

The economics of long haul means that, very broadly speaking, that is what happens across the board. It’s why even long haul low cost has to have some sort of ‘premium’ product to make ends meet.

[Navpi]

It would certainly be interesting to see the proportion of US pax in 2023 versus relative to movements. And have some actuality of load factors ex LHR.

[Una Due Tfc]

Very generally in Long Haul, but on the North Atlantic in particular, premium cabins and belly freight are where the profit is, economy class pax are there for ballast and to pay the fuel bill. Once the premium cabins are full, the economy fares can be sold quite low when needed. This is a big reason why low-cost long-haul has failed time and again on the NAT. There is a market for the package holiday and house of mouse market, but people are increasingly happy to book it all themselves and save money vs the all inclusive packages in recent years.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Any extra a/c will not be until 2025. I’m led to believe that the additional aircraft will be another x2 A330 likely from Iberia.

​​​​​​​ I was told by someone who works at EI U.K. that their jobs were long term though not necessarily under the EI brand. Make of that what you will.


Hmmm ... Could these two quotes open up the possibility that IAG will switch their MAN Transatlantic branding to the LEVEL operation??? 2 + 2 = 5???

If so, I hope that those two prospective A330's from the Iberia stable come to supplement G-EIDY and G-EILA and not to replace them.

[The96er]

Hmmm ... Could these two quotes open up the possibility that IAG will switch their MAN Transatlantic branding to the LEVEL operation??? 2 + 2 = 5???

If so, I hope that those two prospective A330's from the Iberia stable come to supplement G-EIDY and G-EILA and not to replace them.

They will be in addition.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Thanks. Good to know.

[EI-BUD]

Can't think why IAG would want to create a new airline LEVEL UK for example, when Aer Lingus is getting established as a player on long haul at Manchester. Makes zero sense financially or operationally.

[laviation]

I think the most likely eventuality if the base were ever to 'change hands' would be to BA. Apparently it could've been LEVEL UK initially, but that has long passed.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Can't think why IAG would want to create a new airline LEVEL UK for example, when Aer Lingus is getting established as a player on long haul at Manchester. Makes zero sense financially or operationally.

My thoughts on this were not prompted by any *desire* to lose Aer Lingus UK from a MAN perspective, but rather by increasing pressure from DUB interests in focusing scarce EI assets there. As we know, MAN would love to get it's hands on some of EI's new A21N's, but inevitably DUB has first dibs on new aircraft deliveries. MAN will always depend on DUB's fleet surplus - availability of which may dwindle in more buoyant economic times. Arguably, it already has. MAN lost it's third EIUK aircraft (G-EIRH) to DUB repatriation in 2023, and seemingly can't source any more EI frames for 2024. MAN can support more aircraft than EI is able to provide. Level has a management structure and A330 experience in place. The suggestion that ex-Iberia A330's could be headed to MAN just raised the LEVEL brand as a potential option, as IB could be better placed than EI to cascade down surplus A330's on behalf of the wider IAG stable.

[TURIN]

My thoughts on this were not prompted by any *desire* to lose Aer Lingus UK from a MAN perspective, but rather by increasing pressure from DUB interests in focusing scarce EI assets there. As we know, MAN would love to get it's hands on some of EI's new A21N's, but inevitably DUB has first dibs on new aircraft deliveries. MAN will always depend on DUB's fleet surplus - availability of which may dwindle in more buoyant economic times. Arguably, it already has. MAN lost it's third EIUK aircraft (G-EIRH) to DUB repatriation in 2023, and seemingly can't source any more EI frames for 2024. MAN can support more aircraft than EI is able to provide. Level has a management structure and A330 experience in place. The suggestion that ex-Iberia A330's could be headed to MAN just raised the LEVEL brand as a potential option, as IB could be better placed than EI to cascade down surplus A330's on behalf of the wider IAG stable.
Where did you get the idea that MAN would want A21Ns? On what routes?
MAN can support more A330s? Says who?

I know you guys like to speculate, but really you are way off.

[roverman]

Worth watching this video blog covering a customer experience through T2. This chap from Nottinghamshire normally flies from Heathrow but chose this time to travel to JFK with Virgin ex-MAN. He's never used MAN before and is totally blown away by the experience. Just shows how MAN is turning the corner with the new T2, the security improvements and modern facilities it offers.

I FLEW Virgin Atlantic ECONOMY Classic. WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS? TRAVEL DAY - MANCHESTER to NEW YORK! (youtube.com)

[Navpi]

https://mediacentre.manchesterairport.co.uk/manchester-airport-records-busiest-december-on-record/

[Navpi]

Where did you get the idea that MAN would want A21Ns? On what routes?
MAN can support more A330s? Says who?

I know you guys like to speculate, but really you are way off.

Aer Lingus seem to know a wee bit more than any of us and perhaps more pertinently you, with regard there own operations ?

See below

Is actuality not where we draw comfort in regard to speculation, ie FACTS ?

Maybe you can you enlighten us regarding your own bleak prognosis and a source to confirm we are "way off" ?
If you don't have one its not really worth engaging in serious debate ?

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/aer-lingus-uk-posted-5m-profit-as-manchester-routes-took-off/a1631337068.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%27ve%20made%20huge%20in ,Irish%20Independent%20earlier%20this%20year

‐‐-------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile......

https://mediacentre.manchesterairport.co.uk/manchester-airport-records-busiest-december-on-record/

Between now and then, though, we have a whole host of new announcements and developments for people to look forward to; from exciting new routes .........

[OzzyOzBorn]

Where did you get the idea that MAN would want A21Ns? On what routes?
MAN can support more A330s? Says who?

I know you guys like to speculate, but really you are way off.

If you want me to take this post seriously, then you will need to engage in a more constructive and respectful manner. I will debate historic passenger flow data, market conditions, future travel trends, geopolitical and global economic factors with you if you like. 30+ years experience analysing airline data, traffic flows (and much more) really helps with that sort of thing. However, if your level is "says who?", "you are way off" and "you guys like to speculate" then I'll just leave you to it, thanks.

If I'm "way off", maybe you can post facts and data to demonstrate why that is so. Go right ahead.

[Downwind_Left]

The fact is airlines have assets. Aircraft. They choose where those very expensive assets will make the most money for their bottom line.

It isn’t that Aer Lingus for example want a new 321NX in DUB for pride, or anything other than to them that’s where it will deliver the greatest financial returns.

Or that BA don’t care about Manchester. The Atlantic JV with BA/EI/IB/AY means they pay a share of the costs. And take a share of the revenue of the EIUK operation. And if it becomes prudent to put a LGW config 777 in I’m sure that would happen if the business case supported it.

Similarly post COVID Virgin consolidated their London network at LHR. They have to sweat their assets. They have to operate every LHR slot, and also one presumes they make more money out of doing so, same as the IAG case.

No airline board sits and says we “need” to fly Manchester to anywhere because there is demand. If using the same asset (aircraft) to add a 15th daily LHR-JFK would make more money, or taking over a 3rd daily LHR-ATL for your owner would make more money.. that’s what you do.

The recent Edinburgh boom is primarily driven by inbound tourism.

Manchesters historically strong Trans Atlantic network was driven by outbound tourism. The days of 777s and MD-11s to ORD, ATL and EWR were not full of inbound tourists. Whatever you think the local tourist boards can do, they can’t force customer behaviour. On a whistle stop tour of the UK, the Manchester region can’t compete with Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London, or Edinburgh Castle. Putting the Visit Britain HQ on the threshold of 23R at Manchester wouldn’t change that.

In short, anything that doesn’t go Manchester’s way isn’t a slight on Manchester, but a business doing what business does to maximise return on investment.

About me; I’m Northern. Manchester was my base airport for many years. I’d love to see expansion. But I feel people need to see the wider picture. From the airlines perspective…they’re about maximising profit

[TURIN]

If you want me to take this post seriously, then you will need to engage in a more constructive and respectful manner. I will debate historic passenger flow data, market conditions, future travel trends, geopolitical and global economic factors with you if you like. 30+ years experience analysing airline data, traffic flows (and much more) really helps with that sort of thing. However, if your level is "says who?", "you are way off" and "you guys like to speculate" then I'll just leave you to it, thanks.

If I'm "way off", maybe you can post facts and data to demonstrate why that is so. Go right ahead.
I'm not really bothered if you take it seriously or not. I would just like to know on what routes EIUK is going to use an (checks notes) A21N?

You want facts. OK, If the MAN transatlantic traffic is so lucrative, where are AA, United, Delta? What happened to BIMAN's transit service through MAN to the US? Even Emirates have given up on that idea.
I come to this thread to keep up on news at my local airport not to read a thousand word thesis speculating on what you or anyone else wants.
For what it's worth, 40+ years in the airline business.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Downwind Left - I agree with your points. This is exactly why Aer Lingus assets are preferred at DUB (and Virgin at LHR) rather than MAN. And also why the Iberia A330 fleet may represent a more promising source of additional IAG aircraft than Aer Lingus for the MAN operation in the future.

I think most on here are quite realistic about the reduced Transatlantic outbound market post-covid, with exchange rates a major factor. However, there is a strong argument that the extent of the capacity reduction now seen is overdone. Demand on MAN Transatlantic is not about to recover to Summer 2019 levels, but that doesn't mean that present capacity is adequate pitched so far below those levels.

[OzzyOzBorn]

TURIN - Since you ask, BOSTON was the leading route touted for Aer Lingus A21N service from MAN. The aircraft seems ideally suited to that market.

American, United and Delta tailored their post-covid T/A schedules to suit the US outbound leisure market for three reasons: 1) the USD-GBP exchange rate strongly favoured US domiciled customers; 2) the Biden regime maintained strict covid restrictions on UK travellers for many months after the UK had opened up to travellers from the US; 3) Reduced demand for business travel post-covid. MAN Transatlantic is predominantly an outbound market. Delta consider themselves to be represented at MAN through their partner Virgin Atlantic.

Biman and Emirates ... UK airports are disadvantaged in competing for transit services due to UK DfT rules which require all passengers to disembark and go through a full security screening. The economics of SIN-MAN-IAH mean that SIA is prepared to run their through-service in spite of this, but it is a headwind to the appeal of the operation.

Finally, why the unpleasant and aggressive tone to your posts? Where is the need for that? If you don't like the content on here, nobody is forcing you to read it. It isn't all about you.

[Navpi]

I'm not really bothered if you take it seriously or not. I would just like to know on what routes EIUK is going to use an (checks notes) A21N?

You want facts. OK, If the MAN transatlantic traffic is so lucrative, where are AA, United, Delta? What happened to BIMAN's transit service through MAN to the US? Even Emirates have given up on that idea.
I come to this thread to keep up on news at my local airport not to read a thousand word thesis speculating on what you or anyone else wants.
For what it's worth, 40+ years in the airline business.

This forum has always been about opinions, analysis and reasoned debate, why not just go and read The Aviation Society if you want news announcements?

[Navpi]

The fact is airlines have assets. Aircraft. They choose where those very expensive assets will make the most money for their bottom line.

It isn’t that Aer Lingus for example want a new 321NX in DUB for pride, or anything other than to them that’s where it will deliver the greatest financial returns.

Or that BA don’t care about Manchester. The Atlantic JV with BA/EI/IB/AY means they pay a share of the costs. And take a share of the revenue of the EIUK operation. And if it becomes prudent to put a LGW config 777 in I’m sure that would happen if the business case supported it.

Similarly post COVID Virgin consolidated their London network at LHR. They have to sweat their assets. They have to operate every LHR slot, and also one presumes they make more money out of doing so, same as the IAG case.

No airline board sits and says we “need” to fly Manchester to anywhere because there is demand. If using the same asset (aircraft) to add a 15th daily LHR-JFK would make more money, or taking over a 3rd daily LHR-ATL for your owner would make more money.. that’s what you do.

The recent Edinburgh boom is primarily driven by inbound tourism.

Manchesters historically strong Trans Atlantic network was driven by outbound tourism. The days of 777s and MD-11s to ORD, ATL and EWR were not full of inbound tourists. Whatever you think the local tourist boards can do, they can’t force customer behaviour. On a whistle stop tour of the UK, the Manchester region can’t compete with Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London, or Edinburgh Castle. Putting the Visit Britain HQ on the threshold of 23R at Manchester wouldn’t change that.

In short, anything that doesn’t go Manchester’s way isn’t a slight on Manchester, but a business doing what business does to maximise return on investment.

About me; I’m Northern. Manchester was my base airport for many years. I’d love to see expansion. But I feel people need to see the wider picture. From the airlines perspective…they’re about maximising profit

A first class and articulate post.

Yes difficult to stomach hard facts but its reasoned analysis which is accurate and difficult to argue against.

[comet 4b623PW]

A first class and articulate post.

Yes difficult to stomach hard facts but its reasoned analysis which is accurate and difficult to argue against.


Is there any data as to the cost of having to few direct flights to say North America, out in the public domain.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Quoting Navpi: -
Not sure if representative but interestingly BA fare LHR JFK is over £132 cheaper from LHR than same dates 1st week July than EI Ex Manchester to JFK.
Is that to make up for lack of premium ?
It seems a nice hike .

It used to be said that because airlines flying across the pond from LHR, (I'm thinking BA in particular), were able to attract plenty of people up front at premium fares, they were happy to discount economy prices to help fill up seats at the back. Whether that was direct by the airlines or through other booking agents, and whether it still holds, I don't know. Maybe Skip can tell us.
Of course, if demand is strong on a particular day from MAN, that will be reflected in the EI price.
It's one of the rare benefits of the well off traveller or people on expenses going off on a business jolly subsidising something nice for the rest of the population, but it does mean that there's a lot of very good deals on LHR-JFK which has a much wider impact on the ability of other airports to compete. especially against a very attractive price point. One of the consequences of supply and demand is that there's not the same wild demand for premium seats elsewhere so the price point across the other cabins needs to be set higher. But they do still need some of those lower priced travellers to fill the cabins but they've gone via London instead. Similar to why LHR-PER direct commands a premium over UK-DXB-PER.
I think Aer Lingus took a sensible decision to keep their fleet flying by opening MAN, my worry is that with DUB bouncing back, will their heart be in a MAN base on an arms length AOC or will they just simplify it and make the most bang for their buck at home base in Ireland? I would bet that like any business, there's a good argument to move the MAN fleet back to DUB, now whether that's cold numbers or stratetgic focus and politics, we shall see. Hopefully the counter-argument of doing something worthwhile in MAN wins, but it will need supprt, not just something to keep 2 frames busy uintil something else comes along.
Not even sure it's an IAG thing, it's likely a decision for the op-co in Dublin rather than the group. If they have a determination to make it work, then some Iberia A330 frames may be a good use of IAG assets as IB get more A359s. Brand recongnition is often over rated as many use price comparison sites and "Norse" doesn't sound like a London operation but seems to do well out of LGW.

Apologies, I see downwind_left just made a similar post.

[pabloc]

According to 'galley fm' ,EIUK are going to 'source' 2 Qatar 330's , wether thats the 2 Qatar that are in service over in Dublin or 2 more from them ??...

[Una Due Tfc]

Pre-COVID, EI were 1 x daily A330 on DUB-IAD. Post COVID this has become 2 x daily A321 and they’re making more money. As more 321s arrive, other A330s may be displaced. There is indeed talk of yet another pair of ex QR birds joining (there’s 3 already in the fleet). MAN-BOS & MAN-ORD are consistently mentioned on Irish chat boards, albeit on A321s. I remember the original rumours were 2 x A330 and 2 x A321 at the MAN base.

[TURIN]

This forum has always been about opinions, analysis and reasoned debate, why not just go and read The Aviation Society if you want news announcements?
No it hasn't. It used to be full of actual facts, people 'in the know' who actually worked at MAN with first hand experience of operations.
Now it's full of keyboard analysis from wannabee airline CEOs who think they should be running the airport.
Still it makes a change from all the hot air about cargo.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Cargo remains a topical and relevant conversation on here. Since reports emerged last year alleging that MAG had received a knuckle-rap over it's cargo policy at MAN, the airport has still handled NO whole-plane freight flights using a widebodied type, aside from aircraft visiting STS for maintenance work. Nor are there any reports of management moving to restore handling capability for these in conjunction with handling agencies.

Perhaps your best course would be to skip over posts which don't interest you? There may even be a function to put posters you dislike on "ignore".

[SWBKCB]

Any other views on prospective destinations for EI UK. So far only BOS and ORD? What frequency would be expected?.

[Skavenger]

Any other views on prospective destinations for EI UK. So far only BOS and ORD? What frequency would be expected?.

I don’t think Boston is in the mix given the rumour of additional 330s (at the very least , not for year round operation, PHL a better bet then BOS)
if it’s one extra 330 then ORD.
If it’s 2 then ORD + a west coast destination is my bet.

[chaps1954]

Don`t know but would guess at daily as they are both mix leisure and business

[pabloc]

Any other views on prospective destinations for EI UK. So far only BOS and ORD? What frequency would be expected?.
Rumour is LAS , LAX and anther caribbean destination...Please note ,this is a Rumour 👍

[laviation]

My guesses are ORD, LAX, and ANU

[Shamrock350]

Any west coast destination by Aer Lingus would require one of their HGW A333s with a crew rest installed, they’re currently kept busy on LAX and SFO with an A332 doing SEA. Not sure they’d be too eager to dedicate or acquire another one (not easily done) to attempt MAN-LAX right now.

Securing a pair of second hand A333s from QR or even IB seems more likely and would allow for the likes of ORD or another Caribbean destination quite easily. Only problem would be the cabin, the last ex-QR birds Aer Lingus received were well below standard and the process of refitting them has been slow to say the least.

[goldeneye]

Any west coast destination by Aer Lingus would require one of their HGW A333s with a crew rest installed, they’re currently kept busy on LAX and SFO with an A332 doing SEA. Not sure they’d be too eager to dedicate or acquire another one (not easily done) to attempt MAN-LAX right now.

What’s the reason for needing a HGW 333?
TCX used 332’s when they operated the route, and EI have used the 332 on DUB-SFO previously.

[Una Due Tfc]

There’s 6 West Coast capable A330s in the EI fleet, 4 x HGW A333s (EI-GAJ, GCF, EIN & EIM) and 2 x A332s (EI-DAA & DUO). These are the only airframes with flight crew rest pod (which can be retrofitted to the A330) and underfloor cabin crew rest pod (which can only be installed at airframe manufacture). These 6 airframes currently operate LAX, SFO & SEA from DUB (the -300s are scheduled to operate LAX & SFO, with the -200s on SEA). The issue is because the total outbound, turnaround and return takes over 24 hours on some of these even without delays, it takes more than 3 airframes to serve these routes. They also need periodic grounding for TLC like any airframe and for efficiency reasons after they land from the West Coast they’ll often do a late ORD/BOS/JFK rotation from DUB.

For EI to operate MAN-LAX/SFO, they’ll need to source one or more additional GE A330s with the underfloor cc rest pod. HGW A330s in this combination are like hens teeth (I’d be surprised if IB were willing to let theirs go so soon). QR used their A330s on medium haul and none of the 3 sourced by EI so far have rest facilities/pods. EI have made no secret that they want to standardise the A330 fleet to -300s. Currently there’s 5 different A330 floor plans in the fleet which is an unnecessary complication when it comes to airframe scheduling or last minute airframe changes when flights are regularly sold out in summer.

MAN-BOS &/or ORD on 321s seems most likely in 2025 at least initially. The first XLR (EI-XLR) is due in Q3 this year and is due to take over DUB-MSP from an A330. The second XLR is due in Q4, with the remaining 4 due in Q1/Q2 2025. Thats a lot of potential for MAN.

[TURIN]

Cargo remains a topical and relevant conversation on here. Since reports emerged last year alleging that MAG had received a knuckle-rap over it's cargo policy at MAN, the airport has still handled NO whole-plane freight flights using a widebodied type, aside from aircraft visiting STS for maintenance work. Nor are there any reports of management moving to restore handling capability for these in conjunction with handling agencies.

Perhaps your best course would be to skip over posts which don't interest you? There may even be a function to put posters you dislike on "ignore".
First, I never said I disliked you or anybody else here, I just happen to disagree with some of the very lengthy (and tedious) pontificating that clogs up this forum.

Secondly. Apologies to everybody for poking the cargo beast again. I shouldnt have mentioned it. 😁

[ATNotts]

Cargo remains a topical and relevant conversation on here. Since reports emerged last year alleging that MAG had received a knuckle-rap over it's cargo policy at MAN, the airport has still handled NO whole-plane freight flights using a widebodied type, aside from aircraft visiting STS for maintenance work. Nor are there any reports of management moving to restore handling capability for these in conjunction with handling agencies.

Perhaps your best course would be to skip over posts which don't interest you? There may even be a function to put posters you dislike on "ignore".
I'll keep it brief. Is it MAN that doesn't want wide body freighters, or the handling agents that won't or can't handle them? Or is it that MAN won't offer the kinds of charges that competitor airports are willing to?

BHX has never been known as particularly pro cargo, but the airport does have a small independent cargo handling agent and the airport does now receive quite regular visits by 747 freighters.

Perhaps the answer for MAN is to find a Blue City style entrepreneur business dedicated to cargo handling?

[OzzyOzBorn]

TURIN - Well you may find my postings 'very lengthy and tedious', but it seems that you read them all anyway. And whether you like them or not, they're always topical to the subject of Manchester Airport, which is what this thread is all about.

Cargo is an intrinsic part of the operation of a major international airport. If MAN is unable to perform to its full potential in that sector, the issue is fair game for discussion. Topics are not posted on the basis of whether 'TURIN' will like this or not. You are, however, at liberty to skip postings which don't interest you.

Meanwhile, I'd rather be 'tedious' than gratuitously unpleasant towards other contributors who post in good faith.

[AircraftOperations]

I'll keep it brief. Is it MAN that doesn't want wide body freighters, or the handling agents that won't or can't handle them? Or is it that MAN won't offer the kinds of charges that competitor airports are willing to?

BHX has never been known as particularly pro cargo, but the airport does have a small independent cargo handling agent and the airport does now receive quite regular visits by 747 freighters.

Perhaps the answer for MAN is to find a Blue City style entrepreneur business dedicated to cargo handling?

What direct revenue does a freighter bring in to an airport operator? Anything other than landing fees?
if so, that's less than passengers who can contribute revenue through retail and car parking too.
If it's a choice between those 2 types of business at a slot constrained airport, you'd have thought passengers would win through in terms of business to chase.

Manchester is also now having to deal with overnight slot restrictions, which doesn’t lend itself to some areas of cargo operations.

[OzzyOzBorn]

If it's a choice between those 2 types of business at a slot constrained airport, you'd have thought passengers would win through in terms of business to chase.

In the 12 months to September 2019, MAN recorded 204,178 movements. In the 12 months to December 2023, that number had fallen to 180,208. There is no slot-crunch at MAN; peak-times are in demand, but that is true of most similar airports which accommodate freighter movements without issue. MAN is not in a position where it must make an either/or choice between cargo or passenger flights. There is scope for both.

What direct revenue does a freighter bring in to an airport operator? Anything other than landing fees?

I can't comment on commercial agreements between MAG and cargo operators, however, they do bring in sufficient income to ensure that MAG is very happy to host them at STN and EMA. Traffic levels are neck-and-neck at STN and MAN, though STN operates with one runway, MAN can call on two. Yet STN enjoys a thriving cargo business. The only reason that cargo throughput has diminished so acutely at MAN is that the previous management team pursued a strategy which ensured that outcome. Whilst it is still early days for the new management team, there is no clear evidence so far that the status quo on cargo flights is about to change. Based handling agencies have relinquished the capability to handle large cargo flights in the face of MAN discouraging them. Unless anyone can update us to the contrary, I see no indication of MAG liaising with based handling agencies to restore that capability.

Finally, one must also keep in mind that artificially redirecting cargo away from MAN costs valuable local employment opportunities. Businesses in the NW also receive a lesser service than could reasonably be provided for them.

[MAN777]

What direct revenue does a freighter bring in to an airport operator? Anything other than landing fees?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the fuelling companies pay a percentage of their earnings to the airport (as all concessions do) concession fees on a full fuel uplift on a cargo 747 is one hell of a lot of £££s.

[TURIN]

TURIN - Well you may find my postings 'very lengthy and tedious', but it seems that you read them all anyway. And whether you like them or not, they're always topical to the subject of Manchester Airport, which is what this thread is all about.

Cargo is an intrinsic part of the operation of a major international airport. If MAN is unable to perform to its full potential in that sector, the issue is fair game for discussion. Topics are not posted on the basis of whether 'TURIN' will like this or not. You are, however, at liberty to skip postings which don't interest you.

Meanwhile, I'd rather be 'tedious' than gratuitously unpleasant towards other contributors who post in good faith.
Believe me I don't read all of your posts.

[Navpi]

What direct revenue does a freighter bring in to an airport operator? Anything other than landing fees?
if so, that's less than passengers who can contribute revenue through retail and car parking too.
If it's a choice between those 2 types of business at a slot constrained airport, you'd have thought passengers would win through in terms of business to chase.

Manchester is also now having to deal with overnight slot restrictions, which doesn’t lend itself to some areas of cargo operations.

Yes stuff the N West supply chain, who cares !

[Stockportcounty]

ATNotts , 16th Jan 2024 22:10
I'll keep it brief. Is it MAN that doesn't want wide body freighters, or the handling agents that won't or can't handle them? Or is it that MAN won't offer the kinds of charges that competitor airports are willing to?

Yes. and some.

[SWBKCB]

ATNotts , 16th Jan 2024 22:10
I'll keep it brief. Is it MAN that doesn't want wide body freighters, or the handling agents that won't or can't handle them? Or is it that MAN won't offer the kinds of charges that competitor airports are willing to?

Yes. and some.

Or is there no demand for widebody freighters into MAN? or should I say insufficient to justify the investment in kit/training etc?

[ATNotts]

Or is there no demand for widebody freighters into MAN? or should I say insufficient to justify the investment in kit/training etc?
Given the region that MAN serves I would say that is highly unlikely.

My gut tells me that the handling agents feel they make their money from passengers and a speculative investment in equipment for wide body freighters may not fit their business plan.

An independent specialist cargo handler may be the solution, whether someone would be prepared to risk their money when apparently MAG aren't on side must be debateable.

The landscape changed when airports began being run by bean counters who's first loyalty are to shareholders and investors, with the regional economic benefit very much a secondary consideration.

[Navpi]

Given the region that MAN serves I would say that is highly unlikely.

My gut tells me that the handling agents feel they make their money from passengers and a speculative investment in equipment for wide body freighters may not fit their business plan.

An independent specialist cargo handler may be the solution, whether someone would be prepared to risk their money when apparently MAG aren't on side must be debateable.

The landscape changed when airports began being run by bean counters who's first loyalty are to shareholders and investors, with the regional economic benefit very much a secondary consideration.


Strategic decison by MAG, ATN. Shifted all freight enquiries to EMA.

[ATNotts]

Strategic decison by MAG, ATN. Shifted all freight enquiries to EMA.
I get that, so far as regular or scheduled cargo ops are concerned, where the carrier is approaching the airport for preferential deals, but that doesn't account for adhoc widebody charters.

I doubt very much, given BHX past ambivalence towards cargo, that the likes of Magma/Air Atlanta or National (or their brokers) got preferential rates from the airport for their 747 cargo flights of which there have been many over the past year or so.

The airport can hardly block cargo flights especially if there's a handling agent that wants to handle them. Slots are issued by ACL and I didn't think airports had much say as regards individual allocations.

I am with you, it does seem pretty ludicrous.

[Mr Mac]

I think one of the issues is that the UK is really not that big and shipping freight by road from EMA to the NW is not a big stretch by any means. There is a lot of freight infrastructure at EMA which helps. I would have thought MAN may get some hold freight but not dedicated freighter other what they already have.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[Rutan16]

Strategic decison by MAG, ATN. Shifted all freight enquiries to EMA.

And that has been ruled illegal and reason for prior knuckle slapping for cross selling

[OzzyOzBorn]

And that has been ruled illegal and reason for prior knuckle slapping for cross selling

Is there no obligation on MAG to demonstrate that they're serious about rectifying this? If they wilfully leave the airport unequipped to handle the aircraft concerned, then they get their way by default. If the regulator needs to revisit this issue, someone might be inviting more than a 'knuckle rap' next time?

Cornish has gone now. The new hierarchy need to be on this and sorting it out.

[SWBKCB]

Is there no obligation on MAG to demonstrate that they're serious about rectifying this? If they wilfully leave the airport unequipped to handle the aircraft concerned, then they get their way by default. If the regulator needs to revisit this issue, someone might be inviting more than a 'knuckle rap' next time?

Cornish has gone now. The new hierarchy need to be on this and sorting it out.

Any link to this decision? To justify the investment I would have thought there would need to be evidence of regular demand for widebody freighter flights, not the possibility of the odd ad hoc charter.

[Navpi]

Given the region that MAN serves I would say that is highly unlikely.

My gut tells me that the handling agents feel they make their money from passengers and a speculative investment in equipment for wide body freighters may not fit their business plan.

An independent specialist cargo handler may be the solution, whether someone would be prepared to risk their money when apparently MAG aren't on side must be debateable.

The landscape changed when airports began being run by bean counters who's first loyalty are to shareholders and investors, with the regional economic benefit very much a secondary consideration.


Strategic decison by MAG, ATN. Shifted all freight enquiries to EMA.

[ATNotts]

Strategic decison by MAG, ATN. Shifted all freight enquiries to EMA.
Yes, you sent that exact response earlier.

Looking at EMA cargo traffic I can't see they have turned many of these deflected enquiries into new business. Traffic remains overwhelmingly the big three integrators plus Bezos' mob.

If I were running MAG I wouldn't be impressed, unless there just weren't any leads worth pursuing.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Why would any serious new business turning their nose up at EMA want to got to MAN badly enough that they'd need to go through hoops getting main deck loading equipment and apply for slots? Boxes don't have a preference and so long as the charging regime isn't wildly misaligned, then what's the business driver?
What serious operator is asking for access to MAN? Or if it's ad-hoc cargo, why bother? LGW doesn't have any, not one. MAN has real issues supporting the existing passenger operation within the existing infrastructure, adding ad-hoc cargo charters into the mix vs. the costs involved isn't worth pursuing. I think what this really comes down to, and I understand this, is a wish to go back to the glory days. Regain MAN's "rightful place" and see Cathay and various Chinese heavy tails all lined up unloading.
Heart over head surely?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Any link to this decision? To justify the investment I would have thought there would need to be evidence of regular demand for widebody freighter flights, not the possibility of the odd ad hoc charter.

I suspect that this is one of those 'chicken and egg' scenarios. In the face of a decade-long "scorched earth" policy against cargo at MAN under the previous management, based handling agents understandably allowed their capability to lapse and moved essential equipment such as Hi-Lo's to other airports. Now they will require reassurance from MAG that they're serious about restoring capability at MAN (and there is no obvious evidence of this being the case). Ideally, MAG should JV with a handling agent partner to support the cost of restoring service availability on the campus.

It was on February 14th last year that Rutan16 highlighted the Reuters report into this issue. In the eleven months since then MAN has not, to my knowledge, either loaded or unloaded a widebodied cargo aircraft. I'm reliably informed that there have been a number of serious enquiries from operators in the meantime. One year on, we really should be seeing positive progress.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Why would any serious new business turning their nose up at EMA want to got to MAN badly enough that they'd need to go through hoops getting main deck loading equipment and apply for slots? Boxes don't have a preference and so long as the charging regime isn't wildly misaligned, then what's the business driver?
What serious operator is asking for access to MAN? Or if it's ad-hoc cargo, why bother? LGW doesn't have any, not one. MAN has real issues supporting the existing passenger operation within the existing infrastructure, adding ad-hoc cargo charters into the mix vs. the costs involved isn't worth pursuing. I think what this really comes down to, and I understand this, is a wish to go back to the glory days. Regain MAN's "rightful place" and see Cathay and various Chinese heavy tails all lined up unloading.
Heart over head surely?

SKIP - Nobody here is daft enough to expect operators last seen around 2008 to come flooding back to MAN. Those "glory days" you refer to do demonstrate that there is a market for a cargo operation at MAN, but any restoration of such would look very different now. It is up to the airport operator and one or more handling agent(s) to get equipment in order; it is not a matter for visiting carriers to "jump through hoops" sourcing equipment.

The difference between former CEO Mr Cornish's outlook and mine is that he viewed MAN purely as a profit centre for the MAG balance sheet. But I would argue that the airport is much more than that ... MAG is the custodian of a vital utility asset which plays an essential role in the economic health of the region. We're talking about employment opportunities and competitive edge for businesses across Greater Manchester and beyond. You can trivialise that to a desire to view "heavy tails" if you want to (and I've no aversion to seeing them if they're on offer!), but we need to address this topic in a grown-up manner. The economic prosperity of this region actually matters to me. By extension, I want MAN to be the best it can be. That aspiration was sometimes at odds with the former CEO's playbook (see T3 extension veto, MAG Property missteps, hangar letting debacles, and more). A utility asset cannot be run for the balance sheet in isolation; there has to be a reasonable element of service obligation to the region in the equation too.

[SWBKCB]

Looking at EMA cargo traffic I can't see they have turned many of these deflected enquiries into new business. Traffic remains overwhelmingly the big three integrators plus Bezos' mob.

Who else is there? Outside of the integrators how many widebody freighters a week do STN and EMA handle? Does it get anywhere near double figures?

[ATNotts]

Who else is there? Outside of the integrators how many widebody freighters a week do STN and EMA handle? Does it get anywhere near double figures?
Looking at STN on FR24 I'd say yes; EMA probably no. Aside the integrators EMA does decent business with F1 cars and paraphanalia in the season, but that is because its a DHL contract but I doubt that even averaged over a year it gets anywhere near double figures per week.

(Just checked FR24, so far today STN has received 4 wide body non integrator freighters, with a couple more potentials to come).

[commit aviation]

I find myself wondering if EMA is really the big issue here.
If MAG didn't own EMA would their approach towards cargo at MAN be any different?

[inOban]

In recent years the logistic hubs which take imported goods, store and then distribute them round the UK have become concentrated in the area between the M1 and the M6. EMA is well located for these hubs, MAN isn't.

[Mr Mac]

In Oban
Totally agree. If you fly over the area it’s like someone has dropped large Lego bricks over the East Midlands when viewed from the air.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[OzzyOzBorn]

Just to be clear, there is zero expectation that MAN would become a HUB for carriers such as DHL, UPS or FedEx. They are firmly entrenched elsewhere with trained staff and vast infrastructure in place. However, MAN could feature as a spoke to a continental hub for operators such as these - FedEx have applied for slots again in recent times, though they haven't yet been taken up. There have been enquiries concerning use of MAN by a number of other cargo operators, none of which have seen the light of day. They have their reasons for requesting MAN. Also, some suggest that Lufthansa Cargo never actually wanted to leave and would be interested in resuming MAN services. Should they wish to do so, that should be enabled.

Note that nobody in this conversation is under the illusion that MAN will compete to be a cargo superhub; that is completely fanciful. But there are operators out there for whom MAN is the right solution, and it is my view that their business should be welcomed.

[roverman]

I do find the cargo discussion, which has been going on for years, a bit like a broken record. I'm a massive MAN-fan, it gave me a career for 40 years and I remember the glory days of main deck cargo. It was fun while it lasted. But we should accept that it is not likely to return and understand why.

The MAG business strategy since the turn of the century has been to maximise shareholder value. You'll still read the right words about 'being an economic engine' etc in the annual reports and press releases but it is money that talks. If main deck cargo made decent money for MAG at Manchester then it would be happening. It doesn't. Building the required apron space on a site with very little real estate would be an opportunity cost as compared with selling it off or leasing it to the likes of Amazon for non-aviation use. That's why all those warehouse have sprung up over on the west side on land once identified for core operational use. MAG has sold off that land for good. The 'economic benefit to the region' argument for flown main-deck cargo is sketchy, as consolidating and transporting cargo to East Midlands, London, or indeed the Continent is not going to deter companies investing or locating in the northwest of England if there are other reasons to be here, such as skills, labour, and a customer base. The transport logistics, even for just-in-time supply chains, work fine with an element of trucking. You could argue that the non-aviation warehouses and distribution give a greater economic benefit to the region than flown cargo.

Someone posed the question here that if MAG didn't have EMA and STN would it change the strategy on main deck cargo? No. Boxes on pallets don't park their cars in the car parks or buy anything in the shops. They are a low yield for MAG. The reason that the integrators are at EMA is because MAG inherited the legacy there from the previous owner. The integrators pay big lease fees and have invested all the money in the infrastructure, they are unlikely to leave and go elsewhere. It makes sense for MAG at EMA because there will never be the passenger throughput which could otherwise use that apron space. STN just has the luxury of space - a massive amount of real estate either on or adjacent to the airfield as compared to MAN. I don't like this state of affairs any more than other commentators here, but I know MAG! We're getting a decent new/refurbished T2 because it will in time pay for itself. As for cargo - the M56 is right alongside.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Thanks, Roverman. You express the MAG case very well ...

The MAG business strategy since the turn of the century has been to maximise shareholder value.

Quite so. Mr Cornish put group profit ahead of the best interests of Manchester Airport far too often in my view. There is a balance to be struck at a utility asset between operator profits and providing the level of service which the customer deserves. I contend that the tenure of Mr C saw that balance skewed way too generously in MAG's favour. Cargo policy is a glaring example of this, but not the only one.

Meanwhile, even if MAN never welcomes a freighter again, if the airport team have backed themselves into a position where there is nowhere to go for apron expansion to ensure future resilience, then that is a lamentable legacy for any executive to have on the CV. However, I'm not suggesting that MAN needs to construct some new dedicated cargo apron; volumes won't justify that. But business which is there for the taking should not be rebuffed. Accommodating Lufthansa Cargo and a nightly FedEx didn't bring the airport grinding to a halt pre-covid when the throughput was higher than it is now by around 24,000 movements per annum.

[TURIN]

Oh lord, forgive me!

[bobradamus]

Oh lord, forgive me!

Never!