Manchester-3

[Manair6]

MAG have plenty of spaces identified for future apron expansion, when it’s required - some of which may happen in the not too distant future. They certainly haven’t sold off land that is earmarked for future apron space. Land that has been sold off was in areas that would never realistically be apron as they are inaccessible from the current apron/taxiways.

[Curious Pax]

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.

Whilst I don’t disagree with your sentiments, a reality check is that globally pretty much every large company with shareholders has been behaving that way for at least the last 40 years!

[ATNotts]

Whilst I don’t disagree with your sentiments, a reality check is that globally pretty much every large company with shareholders has been behaving that way for at least the last 40 years!
Absolutely! That is a good arguement for never putting national infrastructure in the hands private "for profit" businesses. That ship, certainly in UK, has sailed.

[SWBKCB]

Manchester Airport Group is majority owned by local authorities, who should have at least half an eye on the local economy.

[MANFOD]

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. .

Thank you roverman for a very articulate post. While I've some sympathy with those critical of MAN turning its back on pure freight business, I'm more concerned if, by disposing of land, the airport has boxed itself further into a corner regarding potential expansion of its core business, which I regard as flying passengers on behalf of the airlines into and out of Manchester. (not forgetting cargo in the belly of aircraft!).
For those of us that may not be totally clear, can you define which land has been sold or leased? Is it all to the east of the A538 Altincham-Wilmslow Rd, or partly to the west where warehouses have already been built?
I appreciate that while work continues on the TP, certain parking stands and taxiways will be closed, but there has always been a degree of confusion as to whether, when the project is complete, MAN will be able to accommodate more aircraft (especially overnight) than it did previously. The TP was promoted to emphasise modernisation, upgrade etc rather than expansion, probably to allay the fears of some of the local community.
MAN relies heavily, since it saw the light on the impact of lo-cost airlines, on the business provided by easyjet, ryaniar and Jet 2, (whilst not ignoring the contribution of TUI, legacy carriers and a decent array of long haul routes). There have been reports in the past that ryanair has not been able to increase its based fleet at MAN to the extent it wanted, although it's pleasing to read that each of those 3 airlines are basing an extra unit this summer. In the case of ryanair, I imagine capacity constraints at T3 is also a factor. Ryanair has reacted by using a decent proportion of flights with away based aircraft, and I understand easyjet is also increasing such flights this summer. Slightly larger narrow-bodied a/c will also help.
So, is MAN really hemmed in by its limited space which MAG in its wisdom has reduced further, or could ingenuity create additional parking stands necessary at peak periods?

[GavinC]

the apron to the northwest corner providing access to Pier 1 at T2 and the new remotes is additional. If all of T1 become remotes then those stands are the additional relative to before the TP. That assumes that Pier 2 and whatever happens where Pier 3 is planned and masterplan images show rotation of the stands, are not less than was before.

But, if parts of T1 are to be demolished, and Pier C is committed to be demolished as part of the planning for TP, then those stands would be lost at least for a period of time until replacements are built.

Overall, i would have thought that there will be a slight / very slight increase in stands over the next 2-3 years as all of this work finishes. And, i know that the TP will be 'finished' in 2025 but i'm assuming changes around T1 after that when i say that. Rightly or wrongly!

[MANFOD]

MAG have plenty of spaces identified for future apron expansion, when it’s required - some of which may happen in the not too distant future. They certainly haven’t sold off land that is earmarked for future apron space. Land that has been sold off was in areas that would never realistically be apron as they are inaccessible from the current apron/taxiways.

Apologies Manair6, I missed your post before responding to roverman. If what you say is correct, then my concern is partially alleviated. However, I'm intrigued by the statement I've highlighted.
Are you thinking of the space around T1 for example or somewhere else on the airfield?

[Rutan16]

Manchester Airport Group is majority owned by local authorities, who should have at least half an eye on the local economy.

Complete at arms length of the local councils these days with two primary divisons “Holdings” and “Investments ” with several other smaller instruments .

The councils have no input day to day or even annually of significance in the structure, operations or indeed investment or infrastructure processes.

Right now they aren’t even getting the dividends as the Group continues to focus on strengthening the balance sheet post COVID..

They do have nearly £600 million of cash reserves and a credit rating of BBB so have a foundation to move forwards as a group with some further structural changes in the next few years

With steady growth at both Manchester and Stansted returns to dividend payments could be expected around 2026

At the right price the international division “might” have some facilities for acquisitions but where idk.

[roverman]

In response to some of the points and questions which my previous post has generated.

MAG sold off most of the cargo area in 2020/21 to Columbia Threadneedle, a real estate company. Have a look at the website linked below, it shows the area in question. In master planning terms this is where you might think to relocate some core facilities such as transit sheds, maintenance hangars, GA etc from their existing locations in order to free up sites which are better located for new aprons - i.e. closer to the runways and served by existing taxiways. MAG kept a strip comprising the existing transit sheds, which was assumed to be developed as future aprons, but I was never clear as to how this new apron would be accessed by aircraft, except by deleting the existing stands 67-72. No nett gain.

Big swathes of land have been lost to Airport City in exactly the areas you imagine would be reserved for core use in any long term major expansion plan. The loss of land to Airport City North in part drove the development of the new T2 multi storey car park right alongside the new terminal extension. This is surely where you would imagine a future expansion to the building and/or the apron might have gone. Airport City West (Global Logistics) has taken a site which could be a future terminal, aprons, cargo centre, or a rail hub with an extension of the existing line westwards. The A538 need not be an obstacle to getting aircraft over there. Regrading of the road and/or a taxiway bridge like Schipol would take care of that. Out to the east of T3 there is land but it has repeatedly failed business cases using MAG's model of ROI. Lots of underground services to relocate, plus other opportunity costs of replacing lost revenue streams. It is the same all over the estate. Can't go to the south because of land ownership, green belt, SSSI issues. Can't go north due to existing urbanisation and land sold off to Airport City. Going west some limited land is available at the transit sheds, but no detailed plans were in existence as to how any new aprons would integrate into the existing taxiway network and affect aircraft ground movement. Going east - limited and very expensive in terms of development cost against revenue driven. MAN is as much 'boxed in' by MAG's business model as it is by the physical constraints.

Existing estate — World Freight Terminal (https://www.worldfreightterminal.com/existing-estate)
Welcome to Airport City Manchester | Airport City Manchester (https://www.airportcity.co.uk/)

[viscount702]

Aren't stands 67 to 72 going anyway as part of the dual taxiway

[Manair6]

Apologies Manair6, I missed your post before responding to roverman. If what you say is correct, then my concern is partially alleviated. However, I'm intrigued by the statement I've highlighted.
Are you thinking of the space around T1 for example or somewhere else on the airfield?

The existing transit sheds next to the apron will go in the not too distant future for apron extension. And the Westgate airfield access point will be relocated south to provide a small apron on its current site.

Longer term there are opportunities to re-align Runger Lane closer to the M56 to provide apron expansion, expansion of T3 apron over the midstay car park (finally!), and the T1 footprint, including the multi storey area, post demolition.

This is before even looking at the area to the south west of the Runway Visitor Park.

[Manair6]

Aren't stands 67 to 72 going anyway as part of the dual taxiway

Yes, therefore new stands on transit shed site would replace these however this would result in a net gain in stands as the Pier 2 configuration once complete provides more stands on that footprint than previously.

[roverman]

Manair6 - it all depends on what marker in time we are using as the datum for stands gained vs lost, i.e. nett. The west gate and proposed transit shed aprons replace (roughly) stands 63-72 which were built between 1980 and 2005. Therefore no nett gain against that period. I haven't seen the numbers on the Pier 2 development but the nett gain can't be great. What we do get is a better fit of stands than we had previously - i.e. taking account of present and future aircraft characteristics rather than those designed for 20th Century fleets. That is a plus. Those other areas you mention such as near the viewing park, which are currently car parks, have been in the masterplan for a long time. As long as MAG draws so heavily on car park revenues to turn a profit and pay dividends, the business case for constructing aprons on these sites never stacks up. Diverting Runger Lane was always being kicked in to the long grass on cost grounds and the loss of car park revenue. Also, MAG is bound by planning consents dating back to the original T2 (1993) to re-model junction 6 of the M56 and construct another link road to junction 5 when a certain level of passenger traffic is reached (I can't recall the number). This would be extremely expensive and I wonder how that would affect the whole financial case for expansion. Perhaps things are changing in that regard?

[SCFC1EP]

Manchester has taken at leat 14 diversios today from Dublin/Glasgow/Leeds/Heathrow/Stansted

Mainly Ryanair/Easyjet/Jet2 flights but we have had a Qatar B777 grom LHR this evening and a KLM from LBA

All this talk of no room for additional aircraft , i do believe alot of flights were all for fuel then depart, but neverless there's still room in the inn to accomodate extra flights, these aircraft still needed stands on remote whilst here.

[OltonPete]

Manchester has taken at leat 14 diversios today from Dublin/Glasgow/Leeds/Heathrow/Stansted

Mainly Ryanair/Easyjet/Jet2 flights but we have had a Qatar B777 grom LHR this evening and a KLM from LBA

All this talk of no room for additional aircraft , i do believe alot of flights were all for fuel then depart, but neverless there's still room in the inn to accomodate extra flights, these aircraft still needed stands on remote whilst here.

A couple have been 7700's, the Glasgow Jet2 earlier and the easy EDI-FUE which is on finals now, so little choice with those two. I don't think I have seen so many 7700's today and so many short-haul diverting to the continent,

Pete

[Navpi]

Hats off to Manchester Airport and the ground handlers yesterday. The airport that normally throws out a NO DIV notice or gives a sense of reluctance to handle anything that is not scheduled really threw down the red carpet.

In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.

No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?

[MAN777]

Was the UAE C17 a divert ? That’s parked on a taxiway between the runways !

[UnderASouthernSky]

Hats off to Manchester Airport and the ground handlers yesterday. The airport that normally throws out a NO DIV notice or gives a sense of reluctance to handle anything that is not scheduled really threw down the red carpet.

In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.

No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?

CW is not CEO. He is MAN's MD.
Ken O' Toole replaced Charlie Cornish as MAG's CEO.

[Navpi]

CW is not CEO. He is MAN's MD.
Ken O' Toole replaced Charlie Cornish as MAG's CEO.

CW and KOT are running the operation. That's all that matters.

[42psi]

Hats off to Manchester Airport and the ground handlers yesterday. The airport that normally throws out a NO DIV notice or gives a sense of reluctance to handle anything that is not scheduled really threw down the red carpet.

In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.

No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?


Non standard use of stands/closed stands by parking not using normal centre lines, stopping short etc. Works OK if only for a temporary short period but wouldn't over an extended period.
That coupled with MAN actually losing a few due diversions and cancelling overnight planned taxiway works meant it "just" worked. The various works going on sometimes overnight can compromise ability to take diverts. You can occasionally have an empty stand but no way to get there.

Despite what's often discussed on here that's actually the normal approach/consideration, colloquially referred to as "smart parking" (for longer term parking that refers to nose to tail overlapping aircraft). Still having somewhere to put the early morning arrivals has to be accommodated.

[JerseyAero]

Was the UAE C17 a divert ? That’s parked on a taxiway between the runways !
Yes believed to have diverted into MAN due high winds and parked on one of the taxiways/holding points leading to runway 23L.

[Dannyboy39]

A couple have been 7700's, the Glasgow Jet2 earlier and the easy EDI-FUE which is on finals now, so little choice with those two. I don't think I have seen so many 7700's today and so many short-haul diverting to the continent,

Pete
Controversial point on this forum, but it felt like some of the departures yesterday were bordering on the ridiculous. Ie those flights that ended up trying to get to Dublin with very similar conditions and ending up in the continent. They should’ve been cancelled. Hindsight wonderful thing of course.

[chaps1954]

There was a difference Manchester was very lucky in that the winds were right down the runway with very little turbulence and only gusting in mid 30 knts most for the time where as Dub still has a runway with very similar heading it seemed very turbuent

[DJL88]

Does anyone know why Aer Lingus (G-EIDY) is off to Bordeaux today? Flying to JFK on Friday and wondering if we may encounter some issues.

Thanks,
DJL

[azz767]

Does anyone know why Aer Lingus (G-EIDY) is off to Bordeaux today? Flying to JFK on Friday and wondering if we may encounter some issues.

Thanks,
DJL

I would imagine maintenance of some sort. EI-DUZ has been flown over yesterday from DUB to cover it whilst it’s there

[DJL88]

Great, thanks for the info.

[The96er]

Does anyone know why Aer Lingus (G-EIDY) is off to Bordeaux today? Flying to JFK on Friday and wondering if we may encounter some issues.

Thanks,
DJL

G-EIDY went in for its C check. Once complete, G-EILA will replace it in BOD. EI-DUZ will therefore cover on a dry lease for a month.

[Una Due Tfc]

EI A330s get their heavy maintenance done in Bordeaux.

[BenSpeck]

May be a slight change of subject, but was just wondering if anyone has read the 2016 land use plan for manchester airport? Only asking as I've seen stats like movement per hour and how they are going to make the most our of the two runways with the construction of extra taxiways including one which could run parrell to 23l-05r. I understand its an old report and probably has changed so was wondering if anyone had any info they could add to this. Also mentions 55 mppa but when looking at capacity now says t2 will only be 25 million. Just seems to be a few confusing figures out at the moment.
Cheers anyway, Ben

[Domino2885]

Has anyone heard any more about the potential to go to 76 movements per hour? Or is it being capped at 60?

[DomyDom]

A bit more info on the new 3 weekly Manchester-Amman route launched by Royal Jordanian from March. I must admit I'm surprised there was no announcement in local media e.g. the MEN. It feels like unless there is bad news about the airport it doesn't get published. I still think MAN could have shouted out about this a bit more however. Surely another ME carrier launching routes out of MAN is good news is it not?

Good to see a new carrier to another interesting destination.

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2023/12/12/royal-jordanian-announces-routes-to-london-stansted-and-manchester/

[eggc]

MAN are about to make a big fuss of Hainan going daily, we'll see how much we see of it in the press...

[Navpi]

Indeed I agree about peepoor PR. As soon as a service or route increase is announced it should be max' exposure at both airports!

Why do they always wait until the day a service starts and why is the emphasis seemingly focused on the MEN ?
Have they not heard of advance bookings ?

Why do they always focus on the Manchester outbound leg.

Why not promote Manchester in Arabic in Amman and Jordan etc ?

[laviation]

IIRC Royal Jordanian did have adverts on trams, whether they’re still there I have no clue .

They have also applied for 787 ops beginning April 1, according to SPD-Travels on X.

[Navpi]

IIRC Royal Jordanian did have adverts on trams, whether they’re still there I have no clue .

They have also applied for 787 ops beginning April 1, according to SPD-Travels on X.


Absolutely brilliant from Royal Jordanian!
why is it not matched by MAG ?

Ps 787 amazing!

[TURIN]

Seems an odd time to launch flights to Jordan.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/jordan-travel-advisory-israel-b2479352.html

[Doors to...]

The route has been well publicised on various platforms, more to come.

[Doors to...]

If RJ have applied to operate a B787 service then bookings are obviously doing well, and of course MAN is not the outbound leg, but is in fact the return sector.

[Stockportcounty]

Indeed I agree about peepoor PR. As soon as a service or route increase is announced it should be max' exposure at both airports!

Why do they always wait until the day a service starts and why is the emphasis seemingly focused on the MEN ?
Have they not heard of advance bookings ?

Why do they always focus on the Manchester outbound leg.

Why not promote Manchester in Arabic in Amman and Jordan etc ?


Is the inbound a ferry ?

[Doors to...]

Is the inbound a ferry ?
No reason why it should be.

[Stockportcounty]

No reason why it should be.

Thought as much, 😉.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Is the inbound a ferry ?
No I think they're coming by air. ISTBC

[DomyDom]

Is the inbound a ferry ?
Why would it be? What a peculiar post 😏

[Navpi]

Yes the publicity by RJ has been absolutely on point.

3 months in advance and across numerous platforms.

My point was about MAGs publicity surrounding the route not RJ.

[Navpi]

Two cities 30 miles apart is pretty incredible in the annual TimeOut survey of world cities

But maybe there is a singular failure to capitalise in terms of passenger's using both airports ?

https://www.timeout.com/things-to-do/best-cities-in-the-world

[Manair6]

Yes the publicity by RJ has been absolutely on point.

3 months in advance and across numerous platforms.

My point was about MAGs publicity surrounding the route not RJ.

It’s likely that the local publicity has been arranged and paid for by MAG on behalf of RJ.

[Navpi]

The slogan "the airport that likes to say no is fast becoming a distant memory".

[Mr A Tis]

Cargolux 747 freighter just diverted in (Luxembourg to Prestwick) will be interesting to see how they handle a 747 freighter.

[Rutan16]

Cargolux 747 freighter just diverted in (Luxembourg to Prestwick) will be interesting to see how they handle a 747 freighter.

Presume they park it up , admin invoice fees, refuel if required ( subject to proforma payment if no local contract) file flight plan and wait weather improvement before continuing on .

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

No problem if a fuel & go which it appeared to have planned at PIK.

[Navpi]

Presume they park it up , admin invoice fees, refuel if required ( subject to proforma payment if no local contract) file flight plan and wait weather improvement before continuing on .

I'm sure I read somewhere that the regular Cargolux freight is bound for the N West.

Academic with a diversion but interesting nonetheless.

...and it was westbound.

[MAN777]

The Cargolux flight didn't go back to PIK it departed to Seattle about 5.30 pm so on the ground for quite a while.

[UnderASouthernSky]

No problem if a fuel & go which it appeared to have planned at PIK.

How heavily loaded out of LUX would it have to be to require a top up at PIK on a flight to West Coast USA? Unless it couldn't uplift required trip fuel at LUX for some reason, or was needing to offload cargo in the UK anyway.

[Bbtengineer]

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.

MAN has a huge network.

Ryanair’s demands seem to be constraining connectivity and an outcome of that is a passenger can only book what’s visible in a GDS and that limits their ability to connect at MAN.

Look, Ryanair may not want to offer the connection, but that doesn’t mean a passenger wouldn’t want to use it.

It seems to me there is little the airport can do about O&D, the traffic is either there or it isn’t.

A big problem here is that a huge amount of connectivity is available that just isn’t advertised.

Is there anything the airport can do to encourage a GDS to offer the self connect?

Can they do anything else?

If the airport could both provide the connectivity more conveniently, and advertise it, then it wouldn’t matter nearly so much what Ryanair will pay for.

[SWBKCB]

A private terminal at Manchester Airport closed and mothballed since the coronavirus pandemic is poised to open again in the summer, the Manchester Evening News understands. The 'PremiAir' terminal - which offers added luxury to passengers on participating airlines - opened in January, 2020, but was forced to close months later due to the onset of Covid. The Manchester Evening News understands a date in early September has been penciled in for the re-opening, with tickets likely to go on sale months in advance of the planned date.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/luxury-premiair-terminal-manchester-airport-28550779

[Navpi]

MAN has a huge network.

Ryanair’s demands seem to be constraining connectivity and an outcome of that is a passenger can only book what’s visible in a GDS and that limits their ability to connect at MAN.

Look, Ryanair may not want to offer the connection, but that doesn’t mean a passenger wouldn’t want to use it.

It seems to me there is little the airport can do about O&D, the traffic is either there or it isn’t.

A big problem here is that a huge amount of connectivity is available that just isn’t advertised.

Is there anything the airport can do to encourage a GDS to offer the self connect?

Can they do anything else?

If the airport could both provide the connectivity more conveniently, and advertise it, then it wouldn’t matter nearly so much what Ryanair will pay for.

LGW i believe had a self connect website.

[Rutan16]

LGW i believe had a self connect website.

Worldwide by Easyjet is a service that offers connections at designated airports _ think its Gatwick , Milan and Paris

[easyflyer83]

Worldwide by Easyjet is a service that offers connections at designated airports _ think its Gatwick , Milan and Paris

There are some ‘one booking’ self connections available through MAN too.

[SealinkBF]

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/luxury-premiair-terminal-manchester-airport-28550779

Read about this on Head For Points, apparently it is a fantastic service. With a limo to the plane!

[Bbtengineer]

There are some ‘one booking’ self connections available through MAN too.

You mean the principle is there and the airport doesn’t have to just accept “Hardly anybody will be doing connections between T3 & T2. T3 will be Ryanair and they don't connect with anybody - including themselves. “

There must be other airports in a similar position.

It can’t be beyond the whit of man to pull together a consortium and spend a few million each on creating and promoting such a service.

Or can it?

[Rutan16]

You mean the principle is there and the airport doesn’t have to just accept “Hardly anybody will be doing connections between T3 & T2. T3 will be Ryanair and they don't connect with anybody - including themselves. “

There must be other airports in a similar position.

It can’t be beyond the whit of man to pull together a consortium and spend a few million each on creating and promoting a service.

Or can it?

Why do you actually want connections over Manchester in any numbers especially international to international. Why import others Carbon emissions?

Manchester does not have a based network carrier of any significance (closest is Aer Lingus and they do offer connections off of Belfast today)

Self connect at your own risk , however can you suggest from where to where?

The potential domestic feed and network has been devastated since the Flybe collapse without any sign of a replacement anytime soon.

Fact is Manchester is primarily a super spoke and a massive one for all three alliances today - To Europe, Northern Africa including Egypt and Ethiopia Middle East and selected Asian markets.
The US prime entry points of New York and Atlanta ( and limited Houston) and Canada - All these take traffic from the region to the leading hubs in vast numbers ( without the need for feed into Manchester today )

And then you have the flexible fares carriers serving European and select North African markets all again with generally local traffic - whilst some might self connect from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man it’s not in significant numbers to justify expensive and dedicated facilities imho.

[Bbtengineer]

Why do you actually want connections over Manchester in any numbers especially international to international. Why import others Carbon emissions?

Manchester does not have a based network carrier of any significance (closest is Aer Lingus and they do offer connections off of Belfast today)

Self connect at your own risk , however can you suggest from where to where?

The potential domestic feed and network has been devastated since the Flybe collapse without any sign of a replacement anytime soon.

Fact is Manchester is primarily a super spoke and a massive one for all three alliances today - To Europe, Northern Africa including Egypt and Ethiopia Middle East and selected Asian markets.
The US prime entry points of New York and Atlanta ( and limited Houston) and Canada - All these take traffic from the region to the leading hubs in vast numbers ( without the need for feed into Manchester today )

And then you have the flexible fares carriers serving European and select North African markets all again with generally local traffic - whilst some might self connect from Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man it’s not in significant numbers to justify expensive and dedicated facilities imho.

You lost me at “Why import others Carbon emissions?”

It’s an airport.

If they don’t believe in air transport, they’re in the wrong business.

[TURIN]

You lost me at “Why import others Carbon emissions?”

It’s an airport.

If they don’t believe in air transport, they’re in the wrong business.
Where's the 'like' button.

[Rutan16]

You lost me at “Why import others Carbon emissions?”

It’s an airport.

If they don’t believe in air transport, they’re in the wrong business.

Things to consider Climate Change - This will see Carbon trading and costs increasing to the businesses and I’d rather those go elsewhere not on the UK PLC spreadsheet indeed all large corporations are required to develop carbon reduction plans and strategies
Brexit - The UK -border controls no longer make a transit into the Schengen zone competitive - trade lost including via our main hub down south - Heathrow has seen a drop in transit traffic as % of just under 5% . ULH traffic is seeing more route by passing Europe entirely.

Again I demonstrated the local dynamics at Manchester - The operation is devoid of the ingredients necessary to distill a significant hub style operation.

And i think you might have MAG and any other operators raison d’etre somewhat confused . They care only in making a profit on investment and infrastructure through they prefer local passengers which are captive and support their franchisees .

BTW I’d have loved BA to remain (now 18 years past) and developed out a hub of sorts however thats long gone. Refer a certain Irish gentlemen on that .

Again i ask what and where do you consider viable and significant traffic flows might come from ?

[Bbtengineer]

Things to consider Climate Change - This will see Carbon trading and costs increasing to the businesses and I’d rather those go elsewhere not on the UK PLC spreadsheet indeed all large corporations are required to develop carbon reduction plans and strategies
Brexit - The UK -border controls no longer make a transit into the Schengen zone competitive - trade lost including via our main hub down south - Heathrow has seen a drop in transit traffic as % of just under 5% . ULH traffic is seeing more route by passing Europe entirely.

Again I demonstrated the local dynamics at Manchester - The operation is devoid of the ingredients necessary to distill a significant hub style operation.

And i think you might have MAG and any other operators raison d’etre somewhat confused . They care only in making a profit on investment and infrastructure through they prefer local passengers which are captive and support their franchisees .

BTW I’d have loved BA to remain (now 18 years past) and developed out a hub of sorts however thats long gone. Refer a certain Irish gentlemen on that .

They prefer local passengers? Really? They actually care where they’re from?

They make more money every time somebody says “Y’allright ahh kid”?

Interesting. Didn’t know that.

[Rutan16]

They prefer local passengers? Really? They actually care where they’re from?

They make more money every time somebody says “Y’allright ahh kid”?

Interesting. Didn’t know that.

Yes they prefer captive passengers -Thats those checking in or passing passport control on arrival (Thats ALL UK and Foreign) however fact is the profiles of Manchester are predominantly UK passport holders .
MAG design the facilities to capture them in the retail franchise partners where they also take a cut .

BTW in direct relation to your question and credit to Scottiedog in 2023 there were 35073 passengers noticeably in transit in the entire year (96 a day) almost certainly down to the Singapore flights . Now there may also be hidden self connects sure enough - But you see the issue - its a tiny number - Compare that to Dublin with a hub carrier they have nearly a million in transit !

[Bbtengineer]

Yes they prefer captive passengers \9Thats those checking in or passing passport control on arrival (That ALL UK and Foreign) however fact is the profiles of Manchester are predominantly UK passport holders

BTW in direct relation to your question and credit to Scottiedog in 2023 there were 35073 passengers noticeably in transit in the entire year (96 a day) almost certainly down to the Singapore flights . Now there may also be hidden self connects sure enough - But you see the issue - it’s a tiny number - Compare that to Dublin with a hub carrier they have nearly a million in transit !

I accept that Manchester lacks a significant hub carrier and has modest connection numbers today.

I was suggesting that finding new ways of advertising and supporting self connection between non-interlining carriers could be a useful mitigant for all of that.

I still think that’s worthy of discussion even given your reservations.

[AircraftOperations]

Yes they prefer captive passengers -Thats those checking in or passing passport control on arrival (Thats ALL UK and Foreign) however fact is the profiles of Manchester are predominantly UK passport holders .
MAG design the facilities to capture them in the retail franchise partners where they also take a cut .

BTW in direct relation to your question and credit to Scottiedog in 2023 there were 35073 passengers noticeably in transit in the entire year (96 a day) almost certainly down to the Singapore flights . Now there may also be hidden self connects sure enough - But you see the issue - its a tiny number - Compare that to Dublin with a hub carrier they have nearly a million in transit !

Transit or transfer? Singapore offers transit and transfer at MAN I believe

[TURIN]

Things to consider Climate Change - This will see Carbon trading and costs increasing to the businesses and I’d rather those go elsewhere not on the UK PLC spreadsheet indeed all large corporations are required..... Etc.
I do wish people would stop using climate change to beat up aviation. Globally it accounts for about 3% of CO2 emissions. The UK alone, less than 0.1%.
It matters not a jot.

[andymartin]

I do wish people would stop using climate change to beat up aviation. Globally it accounts for about 3% of CO2 emissions. The UK alone, less than 0.1%.
It matters not a jot.

Exactly! Climate emergency is the biggest con ever forced on the British public, and of course a lot of people and businesses are making a lot of money on the pointless quest to net zero

[Doors to...]

In the meantime the TP moves on at pace...Manchester Airport marks one year on from the start of the final phase of its £1.3bn transformation (https://mediacentre.manchesterairport.co.uk/manchester-airport-marks-one-year-on-from-the-start-of-the-final-phase-of-its-13bn-transformation/)

[ATNotts]

I do wish people would stop using climate change to beat up aviation. Globally it accounts for about 3% of CO2 emissions. The UK alone, less than 0.1%.
It matters not a jot.
The problem is this. If every sector (road transport, marine, power generation etc) takes that same line then the crisis will develop to a point where we reach tipping point in short order.

All sectors, including aviation have to do their bit. Nobody (apart from Thunberg and the extremists groups) are after banning aviation, though personally I would make sure business aviation were treated commensurate to the disproportionate amount of environmental damage it does relative to commercial air transport.

[Rutan16]

The problem is this. If every sector (road transport, marine, power generation etc) takes that same line then the crisis will develop to a point where we reach tipping point in short order.

All sectors, including aviation have to do their bit. Nobody (apart from Thunberg and the extremists groups) are after banning aviation, though personally I would make sure business aviation were treated commensurate to the disproportionate amount of environmental damage it does relative to commercial air transport.

Agreed and ignoring the potential crisis (real or fictional) combined with wider changing economic measures, newer technologies and earning models is akin to Luddism ( Manchester in particular needs to revisit its history perhaps)

Some of those technologies have marked impacts on the way we all do business , and NOT getting involved ( as many towards the right of domestic politics currently lean) may find they have missed many opportunities at the alter of oil and gas corporations and their current vested interests.

Sure enough they ain’t working for the little guy/gal !

Sort of also agree that the frequent flyers , the associated bribes so called “awards” to fly via hubs may need some reconsideration in the not to distant future ( May be unpalatable for some ) .Those implied extra miles travelled may need to have a tariff not the current tax advantage!

Travel may need to become just a little more expensive again; especially discretionary imho- whilst businesses have already found out that much of the expensive travel budgets are and were largely unnecessary.
Queue the relatively slow recovery in those sectors (caveat a few extraordinary flows -namely Microsoft kiddies from India to look after your company servers for a 20% saving in your wage bill)

Note Sunak has done nothing to reduce this trade in migration flows as it serve his own and family interests.

Do these sound like rants from just stop oil maybe at the fringes . however again just to be clear we are at the beginning of a massive change in the economic models from those of the twentieth century.

BTW I am far from anti- migration , a supporter of restored FOM at the earliest opportunity , and that we have a fully functioning home office and vetting policies for those entering the country .

Now back to aviation , the colour of uniforms, that microwave meal and if Reus/Gerona or Barcelona gets you to Sitges or Salou the quicker.

[eye2eye5]

Exactly! Climate emergency is the biggest con ever forced on the British public, and of course a lot of people and businesses are making a lot of money on the pointless quest to net zero
You forgot to add that is your opinion, rather than accepted fact. Many will not agree with you.

[TURIN]

Exactly! Climate emergency is the biggest con ever forced on the British public, and of course a lot of people and businesses are making a lot of money on the pointless quest to net zero
Well, no! That's not what I said. It is most definitely a thing, but target the right industries and culprits, just taxing an easy target like commercial air travel is ridiculous.
Also, to add to some of the other comments, surface transport, heavy industry and power generation contribute massively to pollution and CO2. Those are the industries that need to sort themselves out first. Halving the number of flights worldwide would only reduce CO2 by 1.5%. Whereas a 10% reduction in emissions from power generation, heavy industry and surface transport would make a huge difference.
Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

You forgot to add that is your opinion, rather than accepted fact. Many will not agree with you.

Shipping is way worse than aviation but cannot be taxes directly to the consumer.
If there was a real crisis you wouldn't be allowed to fly. We grounded aviation for a serious short term viral infection, but somehow this existential threat can be managed by more taxation? Outside of Ireland (well played!) and a few others, most of the west runs a serious spending deficit that needs more and more money. The Thames froze in winter under Henry VIII and Roman Britain was positively balmy compared to today. Climate change has always been with us, it's dynamic with no benchmark. As an analyst, the wilful misuse of "hottest day ever on record" (again) makes my blood boil. By all means care for the environment but you are being taken for mugs by those who treat you like free range tax drones.

[Rutan16]

Well, no! That's not what I said. It is most definitely a thing, but target the right industries and culprits, just taxing an easy target like commercial air travel is ridiculous.
Also, to add to some of the other comments, surface transport, heavy industry and power generation contribute massively to pollution and CO2. Those are the industries that need to sort themselves out first. Halving the number of flights worldwide would only reduce CO2 by 1.5%. Whereas a 10% reduction in emissions from power generation, heavy industry and surface transport would make a huge difference.
Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind.

Yes Turin there are indeed massive structural changes necessary , particularly heavy industry and energy production.

We may also have to revisit those colossal maritime container ships and specifically how they are fuelled to mitigate the millions of tonnes of pollutants left in their wake

There have been leaps with modern sails and it may be necessary to consider civil nuclear power at some point ; caveat potential security !

Regrettably mothballing of Port Talbot reflects those changes and real humans are laid off as a result. That why the economic models of work (hourly paid) must and indeed will change.

Wind farms (less so wave barriers- that technology simply fails to deliver on not only kilowatts hours produced but introduces environmental concerns of it own) a little of the answer however if the UK needs to produce electricity in the volumes expected we certainly need to revisit nuclear power and soon.

I think we and others made a massive mistake in the 90s on this front - Of course natural gas was cheap and in abundance (locally); the power stations relatively simple and inexpensive to build and compared to coal a magnitude cleaner.

[Rutan16]

Shipping is way worse than aviation but cannot be taxes directly to the consumer.
If there was a real crisis you wouldn't be allowed to fly. We grounded aviation for a serious short term viral infection, but somehow this existential threat can be managed by more taxation? Outside of Ireland (well played!) and a few others, most of the west runs a serious spending deficit that needs more and more money. The Thames froze in winter under Henry VIII and Roman Britain was positively balmy compared to today. Climate change has always been with us, it's dynamic with no benchmark. As an analyst, the wilful misuse of "hottest day ever on record" (again) makes my blood boil. By all means care for the environment but you are being taken for mugs by those who treat you like free range tax drones.

I suggest the issue you are raising toward the end of your comments is more one of message delivery and indeed media coverage (especially in the UK where a very few control that message and are often rather too close to the fossil industries)

As for use of taxation to modify behaviours true in and of itself a blunt instrument however its pretty effective !

[eye2eye5]

Way off subject now, but I would like to see some form of taxation on AI programmes to compensate for loss of income from those displaced by it. At present, it’s a one way street for those corporations who own it. Undoubtedly there are numerous potential aviation applications.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Since Earth acquired an atmosphere, climate has never been a constant. It is, by default, a variable. Humankind cannot stop it; our species must instead adapt to it, as we have throughout our existence.
Over the last 20,000 years, global sea level has risen by 400ft. Just 5 - 8 inches of that has occurred since 1900, which encompasses the vast majority of anthropogenic influence on the total.
20,000 years ago, (what we now call) England was connected to continental Europe from Norfolk to Cornwall. The last vestiges of the landbridge became submerged around 8,200 years ago.
7,000 years ago, Mega Lake Chad was believed to be the largest freshwater lake on the planet at 131,400 square miles and upto 520 feet in depth. Today we call this area "The Sahara Desert." Did humankind cause this change?
Just note how short these timescales are. We're not talking anything close to the 65 million years since the great dinosaur extinction. 7,000 years is around 150 human lifespans, given an average age of 47 years.

Whilst those who are fully committed to the secular-religious cult which now promotes so-called "climate emergency" will never admit it, human contribution to climate variation is extremely marginal. Whatever we do, how ever much we spend, humankind CANNOT meaningfully influence the natural and enduring processes of climate. We are King Knut, shouting at the tide to turn back. What we can do is adapt to those new conditions presented by natural change. And don't forget, not all consequences of climate change are bad - there are advantages and disadvantages - though some would have us forbidden to utter that truth. I strongly endorse the proposals of Bjorn Lomborg to mitigate (not prevent - we can't do that) the effects of climate change in a practical and constructive way. We should be motivated to tackle pollution, but not through fantasy and threat.

I have long advocated for leading figures in the aviation industry (and others) to call out the absolute fear-porn climate BS promoted by extremist interests. Why are we allowing our industries and way of life be persecuted by climate zealots who cherry-pick favourable data and ostracise expert academics who speak the truth? Farmers on the continent are finally showing the red card to their crackpot politicians. Good on them. The sooner the airline industry has the b***s to speak afew home truths as well, the better. Surely we have some well-respected execs who dare speak up for common sense?

Stand up for the GOOD that international travel brings! Support the environment through scientific advance, not luddite bans. The movement cap currently enforced at DUB and the recently-attempted version at AMS are lunacy. The zealots backing these will never be satisfied ... they always want more. Flight-shaming and random flying bans will proliferate if not opposed. We in the industry MUST stand up for common sense.

Sorry that this post is less than Manchester-specific, but this airport is in the firing line as much as any other.

[Rutan16]

Adaptions mean making changes in the way we do things and run our economies.

Continuing on the 20th century oil based methodologies is NOT an option .

Now do we still require crude and will we in 2050 yes however burning it in a billion little explosions probably need to change climate emergency or not .
Polymers will long be necessary and are so useful sure enough.

The carbon is just one of the pollutants ( possibly from a human perspective and heath the least concerning ) but still that’s the reality.

And it’s hardly a cult it’s a demonstrable theory and humans sure can and will make some adaptations in the processes .

I am rather optimistic that the world for my grand children and niece will be somewhat better than today and that aviation and travel will remain in some form .

Am am not suggesting people stop travelling and that we stop cultural exchanges ( that’s for others in the case of GB and their actions some year ago)

[OzzyOzBorn]

Adaptions mean making changes in the way we do things and run our economies.

No. This sentence encapsulates the narrative which assumes that changes in human activity can make a meaningful difference to long-term climate processes. Just look at that context I presented. 400ft sea-level rise in just 20,000 years. Due to natural processes, not our activity. We can all go back to living in caves if we want; the climate will still do what it is going to do. What I meant by 'adapt' was to adjust to new agricultural growing cycles (improved here in the UK), adjust to changing landscapes, take advantage of those areas where conditions are improved and help out those regions which need it.

​​​​​​​ The carbon is just one of the pollutants ( possibly from a human perspective and heath the least concerning ) but still that’s the reality.


I am in favour of reducing pollution in all its forms for the common good. But let's embrace this because it is the right thing to do, not because we are fed a bogus narrative about human activity determining climate outcomes. And carbon is NOT an evil. In fact, it isn't really part of the atmosphere anyway ... carbon dioxide gas is. And it is actually an indispensable essential to all plant life. Remove it from the atmosphere and we're all dead. The fossil record shows that the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 to enable an optimally thriving natural ecosystem is actually slightly higher than the level we currently see. And we're all carbon-based lifeforms.

​​​​​​​ And it’s hardly a cult it’s a demonstrable theory and humans sure can and will make some adaptations in the processes .

It is absolutely a cult. The 'useful idiots' who mindlessly promote 'climate emergency' are embraced by political interests who favour a redistributive model of government. That is politics, not science. Those authoritative scientific voices who speak up are cancelled, defunded and deplatformed, insulted with derogatory labels such as "denier" - a word carefully chosen to imply sympathies with Nazi ideology. They are told that "the science is settled" ... no it isn't ... the political narrative is! Science must always be open to challenge from fresh ideas. Suppression of scientific debate is the real tyranny.

The best path for your grandchildren is to embrace pursuit of truth and free speech in public life. But all means work towards de-polluting our environment, but don't demonise the technologies which have lifted billions globally out of abject poverty. The oil-based economy has delivered life expectancy and prosperity beyond anything seen before. Yes, let's work to replace it with better going forward, but don't pursue an agenda of deeply damaging gesture-politics in the meantime.

Commercial aviation is a potent force for good. So are many other industries which political interest groups strive to demonise. We should not be ashamed to defend them.

[inOban]

I am appalled that there are still people who would agree with previous post.

We've understood how our atmosphere works to maintain our climate for 200 years, The huge fluctuations in the earth's temperature over 4,5 billion years are often largely due to changes in CO2.

Scientists have correctly predicted that the escalating levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels would cause climate change since 1899 at least.
Unfortunately we didn't want to listen so we've now no option but to make more drastic changes.

Anyone who doesn't accept what's happening as man-made needs to explain why our established understanding is wrong. Good luck.

[MAN777]

Can we get back to MAN please and leave this eco discussion somewhere else

[TURIN]

I am appalled that there are still people who would agree with previous post.

We've understood how our atmosphere works to maintain our climate for 200 years, The huge fluctuations in the earth's temperature over 4,5 billion years are often largely due to changes in CO2.

Scientists have correctly predicted that the escalating levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels would cause climate change since 1899 at least.
Unfortunately we didn't want to listen so we've now no option but to make more drastic changes.

Anyone who doesn't accept what's happening as man-made needs to explain why our established understanding is wrong. Good luck.
Finally, someone gets it.

The climate is changing. The climate has always changed, but not at the present rate. That is what is so important right now. It's not a cult, it's not driven by politics or chances. It is driven by the science.
Those of you who think that humans will adapt really need to think. How will non human life adapt? It cannot. That's not how evolution works.
All this belongs in another thread but what it has done is expose those if you who really have no clue what is going on.

[TURIN]

No. This sentence encapsulates the narrative which assumes that changes in human activity can make a meaningful difference to long-term climate processes. Just look at that context I presented. 400ft sea-level rise in just 20,000 years. Due to natural processes, not our activity. We can all go back to living in caves if we want; the climate will still do what it is going to do. What I meant by 'adapt' was to adjust to new agricultural growing cycles (improved here in the UK), adjust to changing landscapes, take advantage of those areas where conditions are improved and help out those regions which need it.



I am in favour of reducing pollution in all its forms for the common good. But let's embrace this because it is the right thing to do, not because we are fed a bogus narrative about human activity determining climate outcomes. And carbon is NOT an evil. In fact, it isn't really part of the atmosphere anyway ... carbon dioxide gas is. And it is actually an indispensable essential to all plant life. Remove it from the atmosphere and we're all dead. The fossil record shows that the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 to enable an optimally thriving natural ecosystem is actually slightly higher than the level we currently see. And we're all carbon-based lifeforms.



It is absolutely a cult. The 'useful idiots' who mindlessly promote 'climate emergency' are embraced by political interests who favour a redistributive model of government. That is politics, not science. Those authoritative scientific voices who speak up are cancelled, defunded and deplatformed, insulted with derogatory labels such as "denier" - a word carefully chosen to imply sympathies with Nazi ideology. They are told that "the science is settled" ... no it isn't ... the political narrative is! Science must always be open to challenge from fresh ideas. Suppression of scientific debate is the real tyranny.

The best path for your grandchildren is to embrace pursuit of truth and free speech in public life. But all means work towards de-polluting our environment, but don't demonise the technologies which have lifted billions globally out of abject poverty. The oil-based economy has delivered life expectancy and prosperity beyond anything seen before. Yes, let's work to replace it with better going forward, but don't pursue an agenda of deeply damaging gesture-politics in the meantime.

Commercial aviation is a potent force for good. So are many other industries which political interest groups strive to demonise. We should not be ashamed to defend them.
Absolute bollocks!

[OzzyOzBorn]

Absolute bollocks!

Since you are reduced to this, I know that my work is done!

​​​​​​​ Anyone who doesn't accept what's happening as man-made needs to explain why our established understanding is wrong. Good luck.

I did. See post 3580.

[bobradamus]

No. This sentence encapsulates the narrative which assumes that changes in human activity can make a meaningful difference to long-term climate processes. Just look at that context I presented. 400ft sea-level rise in just 20,000 years. Due to natural processes, not our activity. We can all go back to living in caves if we want; the climate will still do what it is going to do. What I meant by 'adapt' was to adjust to new agricultural growing cycles (improved here in the UK), adjust to changing landscapes, take advantage of those areas where conditions are improved and help out those regions which need it.



I am in favour of reducing pollution in all its forms for the common good. But let's embrace this because it is the right thing to do, not because we are fed a bogus narrative about human activity determining climate outcomes. And carbon is NOT an evil. In fact, it isn't really part of the atmosphere anyway ... carbon dioxide gas is. And it is actually an indispensable essential to all plant life. Remove it from the atmosphere and we're all dead. The fossil record shows that the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 to enable an optimally thriving natural ecosystem is actually slightly higher than the level we currently see. And we're all carbon-based lifeforms.



It is absolutely a cult. The 'useful idiots' who mindlessly promote 'climate emergency' are embraced by political interests who favour a redistributive model of government. That is politics, not science. Those authoritative scientific voices who speak up are cancelled, defunded and deplatformed, insulted with derogatory labels such as "denier" - a word carefully chosen to imply sympathies with Nazi ideology. They are told that "the science is settled" ... no it isn't ... the political narrative is! Science must always be open to challenge from fresh ideas. Suppression of scientific debate is the real tyranny.

The best path for your grandchildren is to embrace pursuit of truth and free speech in public life. But all means work towards de-polluting our environment, but don't demonise the technologies which have lifted billions globally out of abject poverty. The oil-based economy has delivered life expectancy and prosperity beyond anything seen before. Yes, let's work to replace it with better going forward, but don't pursue an agenda of deeply damaging gesture-politics in the meantime.

Commercial aviation is a potent force for good. So are many other industries which political interest groups strive to demonise. We should not be ashamed to defend them.

Wow, just wow. Woefully misleading in more ways than I care to count. At least we agree on the output to do something.. silver linings ‘n all. :eek:

[The96er]

And I thought the endless conversations about freighter aircraft at MAN were awful……

[ATNotts]

Can we get back to MAN please and leave this eco discussion somewhere else
Absolutely agree, but the subject probably deserves its own thread, but not in JB. It directly refers to all three of Airlines, Airports and Routes.

[TURIN]

Since you are reduced to this, I know that my work is done!



I did. See post 3580.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry, I'll rephrase it.
Your opinion is flawed, goes against ALL the science and peer reviewed evidence. In fact your rant consists entirely of lies, half truths and nonsense.
In a nutshell. Utter boll0cks!

[Rutan16]

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, I'll rephrase it.
Your opinion is flawed, goes against ALL the science and peer reviewed evidence. In fact your rant consists entirely of lies, half truths and nonsense.
In a nutshell. Utter boll0cks!

Agreed think that closes things today

[OzzyOzBorn]

Well I don't mean to drag out this discussion, but let's factcheck afew items, since some seem to consider all my points to be b*******.

Global sea-level has risen 400ft over the last 20,000 years. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Did primitive cave-dwellers cause this?
The landbridge which 20,000 years ago connected a line from latter-day East Anglia through Cornwall to the continental European landmass was finally severed around 8,200 years ago. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Did early homosapiens cause this, or was it natural processes?
Mega Lake Chad, 7,000 years ago considered to be the largest freshwater lake on the planet, now part of the Sahara Desert. Easily verifiable - check for yourself. Which human tribe caused this?

The timescales outlined above - 20,000 years or less through to today - are extremely short in geological terms. If we accept that natural climate processes drove these hugely consequential changes, why do some suppose that those processes suddenly halted of their own accord, only to be replaced by Mr and Mrs Smith flying to Mallorca and boiling a kettle? No, those powerful forces remain as much at play as they ever were - you can verify that too.

Another fact: plant life on Earth cannot exist without CO2 in the atmosphere, and we can't exist without plant life. 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere represents a good balance. Easily verifiable again. I'm sure that many of those who glue themselves to roads would happily endorse removing all CO2 from the atmosphere if they could.

Human contribution to climate change is marginal, and we cannot change natural megatrends by embracing nonsensical politically-motivated gestures (eg. movement caps at DUB and AMS). What we can do is adjust to changing conditions, embrace the positive changes (yes, they do exist), mitigate the downsides as best we can. All of this stuff is easily verifiable.

I 100% endorse efforts to eliminate pollution from our environment - because it is the right thing to do. But this must be primarily a technology-led endeavour executed in a sustainable way.

It is interesting that those who dismiss my posts in their entirety as [insert profanity of choice] do not tackle any of the specific points outlined above. I wonder why not?

[rkenyon]

I was suggesting that finding new ways of advertising and supporting self connection between non-interlining carriers could be a useful mitigant for all of that.


Anybody can self-connect at the moment if they are prepared to take the risk of a late / cancelled flight causing them to mis-connect.

How do you suggest MAN could implement a better self-connection scheme? I guess they could charge a premium for an insurance based scheme (they put you up in a hotel and purchase new tickets), but how much extra would that cost per ticket?

[OzzyOzBorn]

I guess they could charge a premium for an insurance based scheme (they put you up in a hotel and purchase new tickets), but how much extra would that cost per ticket?

I made a booking of this sort for transfer via an airport on the continent - I forget which actual trip it was - I paid a supplement of around £12.99 to guarantee the journey. There was no mention of hotel accommodation, but I was given a phone number to call for rebooking if the connection was missed. In the event, all went smoothly. I do know the brand name of the provider, though posting that could be considered a plug for them.

[TURIN]

Well I don't mean to drag out this discussion, but let's factcheck afew items.....

It is interesting that those who dismiss my posts in their entirety as [insert profanity of choice] do not tackle any of the specific points outlined above. I wonder why not?
That's because all you are doing is regurgitating conspiracy theory nonsense from the same old tired sources.
You quote a time line of 20,000 years, and yet what we are actually seeing now is a rapid rise in temperature over a few decades.
Not one person is suggesting we get rid of all CO2 in the atmosphere. Where the hell did you get that idea?
As for your assertions that it's a cult, politically driven. What are you? Qanon's aviation correspondent?
I'll say it again, you are talking a load of spherical organs!

[OzzyOzBorn]

Well TURIN, that's just an angry rant right there. Plenty of name-calling, but nothing of substance for me to respond to. Exactly as before.

By the way, who is Qanon???

[TURIN]

Discussion moved here.... https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/657373-airlines-airports-routes-climate-change.html

Back to cargo ops.

[ManofMan]

One the subject of Cargo ops...can anyone shed any light on what occurred with the plethora of UAE Air Force flights that graced the tarmac, over the last couple of weeks ??? I was informed that following the diversion we accepted of a C-17, they were that impressed that they stopped using EGPK and started using EGCC, next thing you know we were giving McChord a run for its money with visiting C-17's. Last week the chaps from the Middle East were rumoured to have asked about A330's and C-130's using EGCC, as well as the C-17. The system showed a further 8 or so flights, then someone got hold of Barry Scott, and bang they were gone. I have heard plenty of rumours as to whey they switched back to EGPK, but the main one that keeps rearing its head, is that EGCC told them to sling their hook, due to ramp space.

Allegedly.

[OzzyOzBorn]

No, I believe that MAG are in the clear on this one. I heard that they enquired about use of secure warehouse space which was not available. No "sling your hook" messaging.

[Bbtengineer]

Anybody can self-connect at the moment if they are prepared to take the risk of a late / cancelled flight causing them to mis-connect.

How do you suggest MAN could implement a better self-connection scheme? I guess they could charge a premium for an insurance based scheme (they put you up in a hotel and purchase new tickets), but how much extra would that cost per ticket?

Insurance would be a nice add on.

My thought was more basic.

It’s currently difficult to discover self connect opportunities. They aren’t really advertised.

I’ll give you a for instance. I have family in New York who want to spend about 3 weeks in the summer in Beijing.

At the time of booking recently, that could be done for about $1900 each via a GDS, or for about $1450 each assembling a self connect with a really decent connection time in Manchester.

As far as I can see a GDS cannot reveal that option even using tools that a travel agent has such as forcing routing codes X=MAN etc.

Warsaw is advertised as a connection point, but Manchester isn’t.

Now, maybe saving that roughly 25% via MAN is worth it to any given traveler and maybe it isn’t, but most people won’t even get to discover it.

It is worth it to my family and it will be to others.

All I am suggesting is that creating better ways of discovering that option could be useful.

I would see it as some IT investment (detailed work but not rocket science) and some marketing (the more complex part). I do think an alliance of similar airports could be useful. It might even create a tool that would help preserve the life and usefulness of some travel agents. People here have also noted various existing services that could be built upon.

I don’t work there but frankly would consider this an interesting project.

It has to be more interesting than “we don’t really have a hub carrier so we can’t do anything”

[SWBKCB]

I only used TCX transatlantic services a few times, but was surprised how many people on the flights were self connecting to/from the rest of Europe.

[Navpi]

No, I believe that MAG are in the clear on this one. I heard that they enquired about use of secure warehouse space which was not available. No "sling your hook" messaging.

Thanks for clarification wasn’t aware they off loaded or picked up freight. I was of the opion it was held on board and it was just a fuel stop.

Shame for Signature as was a good revenue opportunity.

[The96er]

Thanks for clarification wasn’t aware they off loaded or picked up freight. I was of the opion it was held on board and it was just a fuel stop.

Shame for Signature as a good revenue opportunity.


As far as I’m aware, no freight was offloaded. The flight was handled by Signature FBO who lack any heavy Ramp equipment. Menzies were sub-contracted to do the Pushback.

[Navpi]

Indeed I can't imagine what they would off load. Ex colleague from PWK said they were fuel stops.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Indeed I can't imagine what they would off load. Ex colleague from PWK said they were fuel stops.

They unloaded a BMW from the 1st arrival!! Perhaps it needed a service?

[SWBKCB]

They unloaded a BMW from the 1st arrival!! Perhaps it needed a service?

Ha - I was just thinking that if it they are anything like the Saudi Herks, they'll have needed somewhere for the shopping!

[Suzeman]

The system showed a further 8 or so flights, then someone got hold of Barry Scott, and bang they were gone.


Pardon my ignorance, but who is Barry Scott?

[TURIN]

They unloaded a BMW from the 1st arrival!! Perhaps it needed a service?
The indicators need to be checked every 3000 miles. 😁

[Brewster Buffalo]

The indicators need to be checked every 3000 miles. 😁

or the windscreen washer bottle needed topping up...

[Navpi]

Pardon my ignorance, but who is Barry Scott?

I assume a Cilit Bang quote.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Indeed I can't imagine what they would off load. Ex colleague from PWK said they were fuel stops.

They won't want a split-operation whereby MAN gets the fuel stops and PIK gets those flights with onload / offload needs. The selected airport must be able to deal with all eventualities.

[ian_h1]

Insurance would be a nice add on.

My thought was more basic.

It’s currently difficult to discover self connect opportunities. They aren’t really advertised.

I’ll give you a for instance. I have family in New York who want to spend about 3 weeks in the summer in Beijing.

At the time of booking recently, that could be done for about $1900 each via a GDS, or for about $1450 each assembling a self connect with a really decent connection time in Manchester.

As far as I can see a GDS cannot reveal that option even using tools that a travel agent has such as forcing routing codes X=MAN etc.

Warsaw is advertised as a connection point, but Manchester isn’t.

Now, maybe saving that roughly 25% via MAN is worth it to any given traveler and maybe it isn’t, but most people won’t even get to discover it.

It is worth it to my family and it will be to others.

All I am suggesting is that creating better ways of discovering that option could be useful.

I would see it as some IT investment (detailed work but not rocket science) and some marketing (the more complex part). I do think an alliance of similar airports could be useful. It might even create a tool that would help preserve the life and usefulness of some travel agents. People here have also noted various existing services that could be built upon.

I don’t work there but frankly would consider this an interesting project.

It has to be more interesting than “we don’t really have a hub carrier so we can’t do anything”

This has the potential to be a big winner.

There are already several OTA's bundling Self Connection Itineraries with varying levels of included / additional protection cover / Insurance.

There is a particularly big player based in Iceland who partner with airlines and airports to build these itineraries, the airport / airline don't need to do anything different they stay point to point and IF the airport want to add an airside connection if you have no luggage, or fast track if you re-clear security then that is a perk they can choose to fund.

Any delays / misconnects are totally handled by the 3rd party firm and the reviews online give them good feedback.

The benefit of them actually working with the airline is that they have partnerships so for example Jet2, easyJet, Loganair, Virgin, Singapore, Cathay, Air Transat, Icelandair, Emirates and many other. work with this firm, they were also the people behind "Gatwick Connects". Imagine the connection opportunities provided by easy & Jet2 to long haul for example and you can see that this could be a big opportunity for MAN.

The connecting itineraries including protection cover are already distributed through Google Flights, Kayak, Skyscanner etc so are relatively easy to find.

Now add into the speculation that Ryanair have just (in January) quietly removed their own "1 Stop Connections" product from sale, and all references in the T&C's are gone and imagine if they were to partner with this firm to offer connecting itineraries but with no additional cost or changes to their business model and the opportunity for MAG becomes enormous.

[eggc]

Various sources are now publically reporting that China Eastern are starting PVG-MAN 3 weekly using 77W's in June this year :ok:

[SWBKCB]

Aeroroutes reporting that Gulf Air are adding a Friday flight from July, going 5 weekly, Turkish adding late evening 4 times weekly, increasing frequency from 21 to 25 weekly from 19 May and Egyptair going daily for the summer

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

This has the potential to be a big winner.

There are already several OTA's bundling Self Connection Itineraries with varying levels of included / additional protection cover / Insurance.

There is a particularly big player based in Iceland who partner with airlines and airports to build these itineraries, the airport / airline don't need to do anything different they stay point to point and IF the airport want to add an airside connection if you have no luggage, or fast track if you re-clear security then that is a perk they can choose to fund.

Any delays / misconnects are totally handled by the 3rd party firm and the reviews online give them good feedback.

The benefit of them actually working with the airline is that they have partnerships so for example Jet2, easyJet, Loganair, Virgin, Singapore, Cathay, Air Transat, Icelandair, Emirates and many other. work with this firm, they were also the people behind "Gatwick Connects". Imagine the connection opportunities provided by easy & Jet2 to long haul for example and you can see that this could be a big opportunity for MAN.

The connecting itineraries including protection cover are already distributed through Google Flights, Kayak, Skyscanner etc so are relatively easy to find.

Now add into the speculation that Ryanair have just (in January) quietly removed their own "1 Stop Connections" product from sale, and all references in the T&C's are gone and imagine if they were to partner with this firm to offer connecting itineraries but with no additional cost or changes to their business model and the opportunity for MAG becomes enormous.

When you say : "This has the potential to be a big winner.", in what terms?
The potential volume is limited by the competitive disadvantages.
Aren't these super low cost value players? As in who is going to take a connecting flight to get on a Jet2 holiday flight? Who flies to connect to a one stop over Dubai on Emirates rather than fly locally with them or one of the other ME3? From where are you going to do a non STAR connection to Singapore via MAN rather than book via Lufthansa Group over FRA/MUC? No serious long haul traveller would be booking a self connection with Ryanair, I love em but only on point to point short haul with limited bags. The margins here are wafer thin. Gatwick Connects is almost unknown outside of these boards btw.
Saving the pennies on short haul is different from long haul, if you're that price sensitive when flying that far, I'd be worried.

No anchor carrier, no wide appeal for connections. But that doesn't stop keen people trying :)

Various sources are now publically reporting that China Eastern are starting PVG-MAN 3 weekly using 77W's in June this year :ok:
That's more like it :DBrilliant news!

[UnderASouthernSky]

Various sources are now publically reporting that China Eastern are starting PVG-MAN 3 weekly using 77W's in June this year :ok:

Is this news based on slots going in, or tickets actually being on sale? Does China Eastern have the permits to operate this route pair?

[The96er]

Assuming the China route comes to fruition, A 77W is a lot of aircraft to start off with. Belly cargo perhaps ?

[Bbtengineer]

When you say : "This has the potential to be a big winner.", in what terms?


I gave you an example and let me please flesh it out a little bit more.

Are we pleased that MAN has a nonstop to PEK?

Do we want that to remain and grow?

In the summer timeframe I was looking to book, nonstop NYC to PEK in RESTRICTED economy on United was close to $10,000.

Yes, you read that right.

So that’s a market for people who just can’t pay it so where do they go next?

The absolute cheapest I could do with an advertised connection was via Warsaw at $1900.

Self connect at MAN was $1450.

At the moment, the $1900 will be discovered, but the $1450 won’t.

I think it is worth trying to exploit that.

It’s just an example.

I have had many other occasions where self connect in Manchester was really worthwhile, including $1350 business TATL then short haul versus $2600 best advertised.

I only discovered any of them because I’m a Manc.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

I gave you an example and let me please flesh it out a little bit more.

Are we pleased that MAN has a nonstop to PEK?

Do we want that to remain and grow?

In the summer timeframe I was looking to book, nonstop NYC to PEK in RESTRICTED economy on United was close to $10,000.

Yes, you read that right.

So that’s a market for people who just can’t pay it so where do they go next?

The absolute cheapest I could do via an advertised connection was via Warsaw at $1900.

Self connect at MAN was $1450.

At the moment, the $1900 will be discovered, but the $1450 won’t.

I think it is worth trying to exploit that.

It’s just an example.

I have had many other occasions where self connect in Manchester was really worthwhile, including $1350 business TATL then short haul versus $2700 best advertised.

I only discovered any of them because I’m a Manc.
No idea where you see a $10K fare in economy for United on NYC-Beijing as they don't serve the route. Sounds like an Air China codeshare out of JFK and fares aren't THAT high so no idea what you're doing. So there's not many in the US going to be self connecting to Hainan off a STAR ALLIANCE United or a Skyteam Virgin flight. Both operators have their own partner airlines in Air China and China Eastern respectively.
Genuine question, what's the TATL / short haul at £1350 you're quoting, what was the route that got you that?

The $1900 connection is market rate for a protected connection that will get you on the next flight if things go amiss, if you don't wanna pay market rate and take your own route, then you're not at the front of the queue for a rerouting in any misconnect. I have done self connecting many times in the US, it's not a big deal for me, but the wider market is wary. There's a chap called patrickz80 elsewhere who promotes that sort of thing for Europe and can't wrap his head around why more people won't do it.

[Bbtengineer]

No idea where you see a $10K fare in economy for United on NYC-Beijing as they don't serve the route. Sounds like an Air China codeshare out of JFK and fares aren't THAT high so no idea what you're doing. So there's not many in the US going to be self connecting to Hainan off a STAR ALLIANCE United or a Skyteam Virgin flight. Both operators have their own partner airlines in Air China and China Eastern respectively.
Genuine question, what's the TATL / short haul at £1350 you're quoting, what was the route that got you that?

The $1900 connection is market rate for a protected connection that will get you on the next flight if things go amiss, if you don't wanna pay market rate and take your own route, then you're not at the front of the queue for a rerouting in any misconnect. I have done self connecting many times in the US, it's not a big deal for me, but the wider market is wary. There's a chap called patrickz80 elsewhere who promotes that sort of thing for Europe and can't wrap his head around why more people won't do it.

It looks like United have pulled the inventory since I searched. That might explain the pricing I saw.

They have been on and off for Newark to Beijing for a while now.

That doesn’t change the argument. Via Warsaw was still advertised and notably more expensive than via Manchester that wasn’t.

Couldn’t care less if it’s Star Alliance or the Rainbow Army. We just want to go where we want to go. I think that’s the audience here.

Agreed that self connect is a choice with pros and cons. I’m just calling to better advertise the option.

The whole point is putting the airport out front rather than the airline, that includes alliances.

It may be a little bit of a mind shift. That passengers are also prospects to be developed, not just airlines.

They have a development team for airlines. Do they have a development team for passengers?

[Navpi]

I see The Virgin cutback MAN ATL has seemingly been missed by many.

5 to just 4 a week. Ouch !

A 25% cut to a mainline business hub destination is massive in my view.

The MEBs have learnt all about certainty of service, "ideally daily", steadily increasing and more will make more....!

The VIR Atlanta a UK originating business class destination now down to 4 a week. One hoped it might be daily summer 24 not going down to 4 a week !

No punters, managed decline , higher yield elsewhere ?
Cause and effect ?

If trends across other airports were down one could understand it but across Europe trends are all up and are buoyant.

DUB 21 daily services this summer and whilst some may be seasonal they are all key destinations not holiday sunspots.

LHR is circa 120, LA is now "hourly" !

Manchester gains an extra Barbados !!!

How can a city with a catchment area of 8m people less than 60 minutes away not fill this type of service. Pre covid MAN had daily services to numerous major hubs admittedly not all at the sametime but you could generally serve and fill Newark, Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago and Philadelphia et al .....all daily.

I did wonder if Virgin dark arts were at work and were somehow diverting pax artificially South but absolutely not.

Checking a date 1st May
Man Atlanta 708
LHR Atlanta 648...so price is not a factor.

Is it landing fees?

Well no again as they have simply moved the aircraft to another route, clearly the yield on that route must be stellar compared to Atlanta.

The competition to ATL would be other hubs, if its price Paris and even Keflavik come into play , where fares come in at £500 but not sure 17 hours and multiple stops warrant a £200 saving.

Thoughts from the Manchester congregation?

[laviation]

The Atlanta cutback is only for the month of January 2025 during shoulder season. It increases back to the winter usual of 5 weekly in February and then daily in April.

[ATNotts]

Its really difficult to see how any English airport outside London can hope to hold on to a decent T/A network as the market is so skewed towards the 'UK Mecca'.

Add to that the UK economy and the fact that the USA is no longer a cheap destination and times are tough.

The MEB are probably different since many are arms of the various governments who see their airlines as 'willy waving' tools, but also because a chunk of their traffic is VFR , and many of their final hub destinations aren't so hard on the wallet.

[AircraftOperations]

Surely a drop from 5 to 4 weekly is a 20% fall and not "25%". Are people purposely trying to paint a worse picture than reality?

[laviation]

Yes, it is - A slight drop in frequency during the lowest of the low season is not unheard of at all. Especially when that aircraft could be making more money during the month flying to Barbados.

Fingers crossed MAN may regain a couple of hub connections in 2025 - nothing firmed up yet though!

[planedrive]

I see The Virgin cutback MAN ATL has seemingly been missed by many.

5 to just 4 a week. Ouch !

A 25% cut to a mainline business hub destination is massive in my view.

The MEBs have learnt all about certainty of service, "ideally daily", steadily increasing and more will make more....!

The VIR Atlanta a UK originating business class destination now down to 4 a week. One hoped it might be daily summer 24 not going down to 4 a week !


Atlanta is daily for summer 24, at least according to the booking engine. Do you have a source for the decrease?

[ATNotts]

20% or 25% isn't the issue, its just iffy maths.

The question at hand is more a case of why. The obvious answer to that specific question is because Virgin feels it can make more money on other routes.

The next question, is how the decline in transatlantic services can be arrested and turned around. I fear it can't be until money and influence is more equally distributed across the nation rather than disproportionately in London and parts of the Southeast and that isn't going to happen any time soon.

[SWBKCB]

20% or 25% isn't the issue, its just iffy maths.

The question at hand is more a case of why. The obvious answer to that specific question is because Virgin feels it can make more money on other routes.

The next question, is how the decline in transatlantic services can be arrested and turned around. I fear it can't be until money and influence is more equally distributed across the nation rather than disproportionately in London and parts of the Southeast and that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Currently bookable as a daily flight for summer 2024 - maybe we await confirmation of the change before we start rending our clothes?

[laviation]

:ugh:

Atlanta is always five weekly in the winter - absolutely nothing has changed to the Summer 2024 schedules. It’s just a slight decrease for a few weeks in January !!

[eggc]

MAN's TA traffic is mainly UK originating for leisure purposes and with the US now being a very expensive place to visit for Brits I dont see much of a change until that changes. The decline in TA traffic for MAN is more releated to that than aything else, and that is way beyond MAN's control.

[MANFOD]

Atlanta is daily for summer 24, at least according to the booking engine. Do you have a source for the decrease?
I think the decrease on ATL from 5 to 4 x weekly was next winter when BGI increases from 4 to 5..

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

If you want daily MAN-ATL in winter then you need a smaller aircraft, a Delta B763 or an A321N in future. Not an option with Virgin.
Navpi says : "LHR is circa 120, LA is now "hourly" !"
If you continue to frame your own success in tems of another you will go mad, LHR is far enough away to make connecting there a pain and the BA option is awful. LHR-LAX is only 12 daily reflecting the entertainment industry :
AA x 3 BA x 3
VS x 3 DL x1
UA x2
No comparison with MAN, DUB is a fairer proxy.

[laviation]

It does bring up an interesting conversation to be had with Virgin ex MAN.

Where could they feasibly add in the short term?

In my eyes, an extra two A330 could quite nicely do this:

- 2 weekly Tampa in the summer to compliment the existing 12 weekly Orlando

- 4 weekly Delhi, year round

- 4 weekly Mumbai, year round

- 4 weekly Los Angeles, decreases to 2 in the winter.

- Las Vegas extended into the winter months at 2 weekly - using the LAX frequencies

- Two weekly, winter seasonal Montego Bay

- Boston, daily on DL metal 752s. Summer seasonal

These are all realistic goals that can easily be achieved. Do Virgin have the will to do this? The jury is definitely out on that. But, with rumoured impending expansion by EUK, they’ll have to make a move soon.

In time, I’d hope ex TCX destinations like Seattle could be given a second look - three weekly in the summer backed up by DL connections would do just fine.

[Navpi]

:ugh:

Atlanta is always five weekly in the winter - absolutely nothing has changed to the Summer 2024 schedules. It’s just a slight decrease for a few weeks in January !!


A VERY reliable source is SPD who paraphrased another reliable source, but it didn't mention "a few weeks" in January, it was W24 with a possible inference being that then stuck.

However apologies if it is just a few weeks and hurrah if Atlanta is unchanged.

[Navpi]

It does bring up an interesting conversation to be had with Virgin ex MAN.

Where could they feasibly add in the short term?

In my eyes, an extra two A330 could quite nicely do this:

- 2 weekly Tampa in the summer to compliment the existing 12 weekly Orlando

- 4 weekly Delhi, year round

- 4 weekly Mumbai, year round

- 4 weekly Los Angeles, decreases to 2 in the winter.

- Las Vegas extended into the winter months at 2 weekly - using the LAX frequencies

- Two weekly, winter seasonal Montego Bay

- Boston, daily on DL metal 752s. Summer seasonal

These are all realistic goals that can easily be achieved. Do Virgin have the will to do this? The jury is definitely out on that. But, with rumoured impending expansion by EUK, they’ll have to make a move soon.

In time, I’d hope ex TCX destinations like Seattle could be given a second look - three weekly in the summer backed up by DL connections would do just fine.

If they WANTED to they could have done it 1, 2, years ago?

What will change now ?

New metal is really for expansion at LHR, why take a chance on Manchester when the critical mass at LHR means every new route is a winner ?

Its a nice wish list but any airline operating ex MAN would have to have a pretty compelling case to expand up here if there true homebase is elsewhere

VIR seem to be simply shuffling the pack. Vegas is however of course welcome. There SHOULD be a market.

Even talk of EI Imay be misplaced with the two A330.

Is that due to a genuine desire to grow the MAN profile or the cap at DUB ?

There is a caveat that the recent netflix series Fool Me Once which is the number 1 drama in 2024 on that platform has just passed 37m views worldwide.

Its filmed at Arley Hall , Cheshire. Is there not a case for some VisitBritain US Downtonesque promotion.....to haul in those Americans?

[TURIN]

SQ returning to 10 per week.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

SQ returning to 10 per week.
Is that 10 return flights per week!

I assume you mean 5 return per week equals 10??

[rkenyon]

Is that 10 return flights per week!

I assume you mean 5 return per week equals 10??

5 SIN and 5 IAH I think.

[spacedog]

It’s been 5 x week MAN-SIN for ages. Just the anomaly of the MAN-IAH sector either 3 x weekly or 5 x weekly. it would be nice to see the service operate daily.

[Rutan16]

If they WANTED to they could have done it 1, 2, years ago?

What will change now ?

New metal is really for expansion at LHR, why take a chance on Manchester when the critical mass at LHR means every new route is a winner ?

Its a nice wish list but any airline operating ex MAN would have to have a pretty compelling case to expand up here if there true homebase is elsewhere

VIR seem to be simply shuffling the pack. Vegas is however of course welcome. There SHOULD be a market.

Even talk of EI Imay be misplaced with the two A330.

Is that due to a genuine desire to grow the MAN profile or the cap at DUB ?

There is a caveat that the recent netflix series Fool Me Once which is the number 1 drama in 2024 on that platform has just passed 37m views worldwide.

Its filmed at Arley Hall , Cheshire. Is there not a case for some VisitBritain US Downtonesque promotion.....to haul in those Americans?

Again new metal is neutral NOT for any significant expansion at all with current confirmed orders .

By spring 2025 a net increase of 1 A339 and a restoration to the prior COVID fleet of high density capacity in the case of the 350-1000.

[TURIN]

Is that 10 return flights per week!

I assume you mean 5 return per week equals 10??
Back to the same as it was pre covid.

[Bbtengineer]

If you want daily MAN-ATL in winter then you need a smaller aircraft, a Delta B763 or an A321N in future. Not an option with Virgin.
Navpi says : "LHR is circa 120, LA is now "hourly" !"
If you continue to frame your own success in tems of another you will go mad, LHR is far enough away to make connecting there a pain and the BA option is awful. LHR-LAX is only 12 daily reflecting the entertainment industry :
AA x 3 BA x 3
VS x 3 DL x1
UA x2
No comparison with MAN, DUB is a fairer proxy.

It’s interesting to me the assumption here that what they need is smaller aircraft and so what they don’t need is more passengers.

Is there any way to adopt a less defeatist way of thinking?

[chaps1954]

It`s not a defeatist attitude either 5 days week A330 or 7 days a week with a smaller aircraft whixh actually would be more pax.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

It’s interesting to me the assumption here that what they need is smaller aircraft and so what they don’t need is more passengers.

Is there any way to adopt a less defeatist way of thinking?
If you want high end business traffic then daily reliability is a huge benefit. 4-5 days a week is fine for leisure and volume but you're competing with business travellers addicted to BA Exec Club redemptions and points and not offering them the best option to switch to flying direct to the US from MAN.

[ATNotts]

Isn't it really all about whether the airline wants high revenue passengers, in which case the daily service at business friendly times is the answer, or if volume leisure traffic is the goal then lower frequency is acceptable. The clever (supposedly) people within the business's financial department probably know, or believe they know how much front end traffic they could attract operating daily in the low season and made their decisions based on that assumption.

[Navpi]

Interesting article in The Times today where passenger throughput is discussed at 40m 45m, 50m

I'm struggling to see what changes could be achieved to get anywhere near those figures.

We are talking a 50% increase on the current 29m to achieve 45m.

Are we relying on 200 seaters becoming 300 on every flight ?

The runway configuration can't really be tweaked and whilst CW would want to see the utilisation he had at LGW I fear he may struggle.

Worth saying that LGW has 200+ stands, as well nearly double that of Manchester.

Its been repeated ad nauseum MAN is totally boxed in.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Isn't it really all about whether the airline wants high revenue passengers, in which case the daily service at business friendly times is the answer, or if volume leisure traffic is the goal then lower frequency is acceptable. The clever (supposedly) people within the business's financial department probably know, or believe they know how much front end traffic they could attract operating daily in the low season and made their decisions based on that assumption.
Yup, exactly that. Some routes fill from the front, some from the back, clever airlines manage both. Look at BA's LGW config and VS' leisure A350. Thomas Cook made West Coast work as it was manly P2P leisure and frequency was secondary. American proved the point that a reliable as clockwork daily service to a US hub on a right sized aircraft would attract business traffic via ORD, but that was a much less competitive world and well before they got into bed with BA. Maybe what's on offer is actually fine for the current market and demand and as I get older I need to look back less fondly?

[JerseyAero]

[QUOTE=Navpi;11597030]Interesting article in The Times today where passenger throughput is discussed at 40m 45m, 50m, I'm struggling to see what changes could be achieved to get anywhere near those figures.

This report claims that MAG has scaled back its target growth due to the cancellation of HS2 North but still aiming at 50M - fully agree that it is difficult to see where the extra capacity is coming from with the current TP plans.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/manchester-airport-cuts-back-growth-target-following-hs2-north-cancellation-13-02-2024/

[Domino2885]

If they want to reach 50 mppa where is the extra space and capacity going to come from? Most articles and plans have T2 at 25 million. That means the capacity of the 2 terminals would have to be 25 million each. The figures aren't adding up and there seems to be no information forthcoming from MAN themselves.

[Navpi]

[QUOTE=Navpi;11597030]Interesting article in The Times today where passenger throughput is discussed at 40m 45m, 50m, I'm struggling to see what changes could be achieved to get anywhere near those figures.

This report claims that MAG has scaled back its target growth due to the cancellation of HS2 North but still aiming at 50M - fully agree that it is difficult to see where the extra capacity is coming from with the current TP plans.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/manchester-airport-cuts-back-growth-target-following-hs2-north-cancellation-13-02-2024/

I'm struggling re 35m let alone 50m.

CW was very bullush last year suggesting that if LGW can do 48m on a single runway, why not Manchester with two !!!!

[chaps1954]

Manchester is only a bit short of 30 Million so 35 M should be no problem as movements wise July 2005 was 22555 compared with July 2023 18147 so plenty to play with, aircraft in general are larger

[OzzyOzBorn]

Runway capacity should not be a problem - although peak periods will be fully subscribed as one would expect. But terminal capacity and apron space presents a much sterner challenge. Expansion, in addition to ongoing new-for-old replacement, is needed.

[Bbtengineer]

Isn't it really all about whether the airline wants high revenue passengers, in which case the daily service at business friendly times is the answer, or if volume leisure traffic is the goal then lower frequency is acceptable. The clever (supposedly) people within the business's financial department probably know, or believe they know how much front end traffic they could attract operating daily in the low season and made their decisions based on that assumption.

I guess I’m trying to challenge this thought process.

That it’s all and only about what the airline wants. That the airport can do nothing.

Turning this on its head, the airline frankly doesn’t care where the passengers came from, just that they did.

I will again ask why Warsaw is advertised as a connection point NYC to PEK but Manchester isn’t.

It’s not because the “connection” cannot be done, it’s because nobody even considers it because it isn’t advertised.

That’s marketing, not airline operations.

This has to be ripe for disruption.

[azz767]

Manchester is only a bit short of 30 Million so 35 M should be no problem as movements wise July 2005 was 22555 compared with July 2023 18147 so plenty to play with, aircraft in general are larger

Movements is all well and good but are all those seats being filled? In 2005 in the charter market alone there was Thomson, first choice, monarch, Thomas cook, my travel, excel and more. Long haul there was US carriers, PIA etc. and you would assume the majority were all full every flight. Now, EZY, RYR and Jet2 can take off not full but because of the add ins they charge can make their money on a 70% full flight.

[easyflyer83]

Movements is all well and good but are all those seats being filled? In 2005 in the charter market alone there was Thomson, first choice, monarch, Thomas cook, my travel, excel and more. Long haul there was US carriers, PIA etc. and you would assume the majority were all full every flight. Now, EZY, RYR and Jet2 can take off not full but because of the add ins they charge can make their money on a 70% full flight.

Typically, the LCC model commands a higher load factor than 70%. Margins are tight.

[GulfTraveller]

30 million, I assume, is passenger numbers, not movements.

As far as LCCs are concerned, easyflyer83 is quite right. They work on a ‘L/F active, yield passive’ basis. So L/Fs are very important to them.

[SWBKCB]

Typically, the LCC model commands a higher load factor than 70%. Margins are tight.

RYR have average load factors across their system around 90%

https://investor.ryanair.com/traffic/

[Navpi]

Runway capacity should not be a problem - although peak periods will be fully subscribed as one would expect. But terminal capacity and apron space presents a much sterner challenge. Expansion, in addition to ongoing new-for-old replacement, is needed.


Indeed CW came from LGW. Ok single runway ops but 200+ stands.

Did no-one in MAG think about the implications of surrounding the airport with car parks ?

[MANFOD]

QUOTE=Navpi;11598374]Indeed CW came from LGW. Ok single runway ops but 200+ stands.

Did no-one in MAG think about the implications of surrounding the airport with car parks ?[/QUOTE]
And didn't they sell off some land for non-aviation related use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn
Runway capacity should not be a problem - although peak periods will be fully subscribed as one would expect. But terminal capacity and apron space presents a much sterner challenge. Expansion, in addition to ongoing new-for-old replacement, is needed.((/quote)

If runway slots are full subscribed at peak periods, isn't the challenge to attract airlines and flights at the quieter times of the day, which presumably would be with non-based a/c for the LCCs or foreign carriers? Based airlines, even if there was room for a couple more a/c for overnight parking, wouldn't want them idle until a runway slot was available after say 09.00, would they, if it caused issues for the rest of the day's scheduling?.
But I agree with Ozzy; the more immediate problem is apron space and terminal capacity.
Incidentally, is there any scope for increasing the max. number of movements when DRO in force?

[Navpi]

QUOTE=Navpi;11598374]Indeed CW came from LGW. Ok single runway ops but 200+ stands.

Did no-one in MAG think about the implications of surrounding the airport with car parks ?
And didn't they sell off some land for non-aviation related use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn
Runway capacity should not be a problem - although peak periods will be fully subscribed as one would expect. But terminal capacity and apron space presents a much sterner challenge. Expansion, in addition to ongoing new-for-old replacement, is needed.((/quote)

If runway slots are full subscribed at peak periods, isn't the challenge to attract airlines and flights at the quieter times of the day, which presumably would be with non-based a/c for the LCCs or foreign carriers? Based airlines, even if there was room for a couple more a/c for overnight parking, wouldn't want them idle until a runway slot was available after say 09.00, would they, if it caused issues for the rest of the day's scheduling?.
But I agree with Ozzy; the more immediate problem is apron space and terminal capacity.
Incidentally, is there any scope for increasing the max. number of movements when DRO in force?[/QUOTE]

The consensus elsewhere is that the new T2 can only do 35m.

If the last 12 month's comes in at say 29m we only need 2/3 good years at 10% growth for that terminal to then be full !!!

​​​​​You can't rely on T3 because it already at bursting point at times and it's not suitable for intercontinental growth.

So what happens then ?


Dublin is a case in point albeit using different criteria.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-airport-global-airlines-threaten-to-pull-flights-in-row-over-passenger-cap/a1931580029.html

[worsley]

Hi,
Can anyone help? does anyone know what's going on with Aer Lingus LH flights. Barbados was cancelled yesterday and MCO has a 4 hour delay. I am due to travel on Sunday to Barbados and is there a bigger problem with their flights.

Thanks in advance.

[MANFOD]

And didn't they sell off some land for non-aviation related use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn
Runway capacity should not be a problem - although peak periods will be fully subscribed as one would expect. But terminal capacity and apron space presents a much sterner challenge. Expansion, in addition to ongoing new-for-old replacement, is needed.((/quote)

If runway slots are full subscribed at peak periods, isn't the challenge to attract airlines and flights at the quieter times of the day, which presumably would be with non-based a/c for the LCCs or foreign carriers? Based airlines, even if there was room for a couple more a/c for overnight parking, wouldn't want them idle until a runway slot was available after say 09.00, would they, if it caused issues for the rest of the day's scheduling?.
But I agree with Ozzy; the more immediate problem is apron space and terminal capacity.
Incidentally, is there any scope for increasing the max. number of movements when DRO in force?

The consensus elsewhere is that the new T2 can only do 35m.

If the last 12 month's comes in at say 29m we only need 2/3 good years at 10% growth for that terminal to then be full !!!

​​​​​You can't rely on T3 because it already at bursting point at times and it's not suitable for intercontinental growth.

So what happens then ?

Dublin is a case in point albeit using different criteria.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-airport-global-airlines-threaten-to-pull-flights-in-row-over-passenger-cap/a1931580029.html[/QUOTE]

How is Terminal capacity calculated? If it's 35m for T2, does it allow for peaks and quieter periods, or assume a steady flow throughout the day which we know doesn't happen?

[Navpi]

The consensus elsewhere is that the new T2 can only do 35m.

If the last 12 month's comes in at say 29m we only need 2/3 good years at 10% growth for that terminal to then be full !!!

​​​​​You can't rely on T3 because it already at bursting point at times and it's not suitable for intercontinental growth.

So what happens then ?

Dublin is a case in point albeit using different criteria.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-airport-global-airlines-threaten-to-pull-flights-in-row-over-passenger-cap/a1931580029.html

How is Terminal capacity calculated? If it's 35m for T2, does it allow for peaks and quieter periods, or assume a steady flow throughout the day which we know doesn't happen?[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile 5th Air India route from LGW whilst their Manchester slots wither on the vine....AGAIN!

[chaps1954]

The slots for departure after 09.00 are filling up rapidly as there are a good number of arrivals from Europe between 07.00 and 11.00 wirh Ryanair and Easyjet of which most are non based aircraft

[DomyDom]

Ryanair launch MAN-REG (Reggio-Calabria) 2 weekly (Wed/Sun) from 28th April.

[TURIN]

Hi,
Can anyone help? does anyone know what's going on with Aer Lingus LH flights. Barbados was cancelled yesterday and MCO has a 4 hour delay. I am due to travel on Sunday to Barbados and is there a bigger problem with their flights.

Thanks in advance.
Aircraft was damaged by ground equipment, probably in MCO. Damage found at MAN by engineers. Crew went out of hours before it was fixed.

[Navpi]

Indian authorities apparently want more passengers on direct flights than the many 000s using hubs like Dubai, Doha.

May be worth them having a word with Air India who by my estimation have applied then withdrawn slot requests for Manchester about 6 times now.


https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/air-india-riyadh-air-bosses-look-to-win-traffic-from-overseas-hubs/157157.article


Talking of more flights the current advertising in New York by VisitManchester the team tasked with "selling Manchester" , is absolutely abysmal. Its tirgid.

I recommend the parish track it down.

Pretty much any image off Instagram would show a world class city reminiscent of lower Manhattan or Shanghai , attractive, vibrant etc.... but what they have come up with is pitiful. Who on earth signed it off and where is the joined up thinking. If you are going to promote Manchester then you have to provide a link to the opportunities re sport, retail, food, nightlife and of course how to get there..

Sincerely hope MAG have had a word considering they have a direct interest.

[Seljuk]

Pegasus will increase SAW to 13 weekly in the summer.

[Doors to...]

Interesting day at MAN today as they see the arrival of their first AMM-MAN-AMM service with RJ.

[chaps1954]

You mean A320 I take which at present is over Slovakia and is due at 13.15

[Doors to...]

Sorry for not being more clear, I say RJ as in Royal Jordanian, not as in the aircraft, it is actually an A320 aircraft.

[Doors to...]

Deleted.

[eggc]

Feb results are out. The busiest February on record. Over 1.9m pax handled with 100% of them clearing security within 15 mins.

Also from SPD X feed...Royal Air Maroc to reintroduce its Casablanca-Manchester flight from 23rd June: AT818 CMN 1255 MAN 1635 AT819 MAN 1735 CMN 2120 Tue/Thu/Sun using B737. On sale soon.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I have to say that the press release announcing the above news is really disappointing. Has anybody proofread it?

Firstly, the release date is given as 03/11/2024. That is just wrong. We're in ENGLAND, not New Hampshire.

Secondly, my pet hate: rounded numbers! READERS CAN UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL FIGURES!!! If the actual number of passengers handled in February was 1,900,000 precisely, then I will come back on here and post a humble apology. However, if the real number was something else, then can you please show your audience some respect and tell us the actual figure? We can't make meaningful historic comparisons with lazy incomplete numbers.

Finally, the press release reveals a new thrice-weekly Boeing 737 schedule to Casablanca with Royal Air Maroc. Great news. So good that it surely deserves a press release of its own?

[laviation]

I believe the RAM announcement was a mistake & let slip too early - surely there will be a proper press release issued when it was supposed to be formally announced!

[TURIN]

I have to say that the press release announcing the above news is really disappointing. Has anybody proofread it?

Firstly, the release date is given as 03/11/2024. That is just wrong. We're in ENGLAND, not New Hampshire.

Secondly, my pet hate: rounded numbers! READERS CAN UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL FIGURES!!! If the actual number of passengers handled in February was 1,900,000 precisely, then I will come back on here and post a humble apology. However, if the real number was something else, then can you please show your audience some respect and tell us the actual figure? We can't make meaningful historic comparisons with lazy incomplete numbers.

Finally, the press release reveals a new thrice-weekly Boeing 737 schedule to Casablanca with Royal Air Maroc. Great news. So good that it surely deserves a press release of its own?
Jesus what a rant! Who p155ed on your chips?

[OzzyOzBorn]

Jesus what a rant! Who p155ed on your chips?

And which of the three points highlighted are without merit?

[TURIN]

And which of the three points highlighted are without merit?
All of them.

[OzzyOzBorn]

All of them.

OK. So the press release headlining the February stats neglected to include the key figure. It was published on 3rd November 2024. And apparently unintentionally outed an unannounced scheduled service. That's all fine?

I thought that precision and attention to detail would matter more to an LAE.

[SWBKCB]

have to say that the press release announcing the above news is really disappointing. Has anybody proofread it?

Firstly, the release date is given as 03/11/2024. That is just wrong. We're in ENGLAND, not New Hampshire.

Secondly, my pet hate: rounded numbers! READERS CAN UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL FIGURES!!! If the actual number of passengers handled in February was 1,900,000 precisely, then I will come back on here and post a humble apology. However, if the real number was something else, then can you please show your audience some respect and tell us the actual figure? We can't make meaningful historic comparisons with lazy incomplete numbers.

Finally, the press release reveals a new thrice-weekly Boeing 737 schedule to Casablanca with Royal Air Maroc. Great news. So good that it surely deserves a press release of its own?

Is the clue not in the term "press release"? Would this market want to know the exact number? BTW, the notice available through the media centre on the website is dated "11 March 2024" and also says "we have a few more announcements up our sleeves."

https://mediacentre.manchesterairport.co.uk/record-breaking-february-for-manchester-airport-fuelled-by-bumper-half-term-getaway/

The full figures normally come out in a MAG press release covering all the group airports

[OzzyOzBorn]

Why would the market NOT want to know the actual number? It's actually easier as well as more informative to write the actual number (nine characters including two commas) than a sentence of waffle quoting a number rounded to the nearest 100,000. Just include the facts. The readers can cope.

[ATNotts]

Why would the market NOT want to know the actual number? It's actually easier as well as more informative to write the actual number (nine characters including two commas) than a sentence of waffle quoting a number rounded to the nearest 100,000. Just include the facts. The readers can cope.

I think you credit your average Reach Group local newspaper journalist with rather more brain cells than they actually possess, and that is the level at which they are likely targeting the release. I'm sure that if a specialist travel or aviation journalist asked the press office they would gladly give them the precise figure.

[SWBKCB]

Depends who 'the market' is - many of these press releases will just be cut and paste into various publications, so they are written for that market not for those who want to crunch the numbers.

[TURIN]

OK. So the press release headlining the February stats neglected to include the key figure. It was published on 3rd November 2024. And apparently unintentionally outed an unannounced scheduled service. That's all fine?

I thought that precision and attention to detail would matter more to an LAE.
I'm sure it does when they're mending aeroplanes, not so much on a bulletin board when someone spits their dummy out over trivial matters.

[BHX5DME]

February 2024

STN – 1,921,201 up 12.2%

MAN – 1,900,336 up 14.2%

EMA – 183,410 up 33.4%

Rolling 12m end 29.02.24

MAN – 28,500,310

STN - 28,299,735

EMA – 4,021,080

[OzzyOzBorn]

I'm sure it does when they're mending aeroplanes, not so much on a bulletin board when someone spits their dummy out over trivial matters.

No dummy spat out here. I highlighted three avoidable deficiencies in the original press release. You deemed that a "rant" - but if you choose to read a post in angry voice mode, that is on you. It wasn't written that way.

Interpretation of what is trivial or not is purely subjective. My view is that a deficiency which has been pointed out can be addressed in next month's press release, such that the issue will not recur. It's called providing positive feedback, and responsible companies value that.

[SWBKCB]

Interpretation of what is trivial or not is purely subjective. My view is that a deficiency which has been pointed out can be addressed in next month's press release, such that the issue will not recur. It's called providing positive feedback, and responsible companies value that.

And I'm sure they are appreciative of you contacting them :ok:

​​​​​​​
"we have a few more announcements up our sleeves."

You can tell it's the Manchester thread - if it was Gatwick there'd be list of 30 airlines by now...

[TURIN]

No dummy spat out here. I highlighted three avoidable deficiencies in the original press release. You deemed that a "rant" - but if you choose to read a post in angry voice mode, that is on you. It wasn't written that way.

Interpretation of what is trivial or not is purely subjective. My view is that a deficiency which has been pointed out can be addressed in next month's press release, such that the issue will not recur. It's called providing positive feedback, and responsible companies value that.
Whatever, dude.
Bet you're great fun at parties.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Life and soul, pal!!! :)

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Ozzy posts a lot of very well-informed responses, and. I am sorry that certain members feel that they have to denigrate his thoughts and comments.

[bobradamus]

they always result in the popcorn coming out 😂

[eggc]

@SPDTravels New route
While subject to final confirmations, Air China cargo intend to run a 2 weekly B77F flight to Manchester:
CA3147 CAN 0445 MAN 1050
CA3148 MAN 1320 PEK 0555+1
Tue and Sun Starts April 2nd 2024 if it goes ahead.
Thanks to Paul Clare for the info.

[TURIN]

eggc thankyou.
I heard about this a few weeks ago but dismissed it as another 'Thai Airways'.
Be good to see this freighter return. Good timing too, should be a few stands free by 11:00hrs.👍

[BHX5DME]

Exact same flights has been show at BHX for months but never turned up, so slots only.

We will see where it turns up !

[JerseyAero]

@SPDTravels New route
While subject to final confirmations, Air China cargo intend to run a 2 weekly B77F flight to Manchester:
CA3147 CAN 0445 MAN 1050
CA3148 MAN 1320 PEK 0555+1
Tue and Sun Starts April 2nd 2024 if it goes ahead.
Thanks to Paul Clare for the info.

I suppose we are back to the point about the airline/handling agent acquiring equipment to load/unload the cargo deck on a wide body freighter at MAN - if this does appear then it won't be very busy just servicing a B777F twice a week. Then the question of whether other cargo operators could be tempted to MAN given that wide body freighters could now be handled?

Anyway, encouraging news if cargo operations do begin again at MAN.

[Curious Pax]

I suppose we are back to the point about the airline/handling agent acquiring equipment to load/unload the cargo deck on a wide body freighter at MAN.

SPD Travels also reports that it is believed that Air China are acquiring the loading equipment.

[JerseyAero]

SPD Travels also reports that it is believed that Air China are acquiring the loading equipment.

Thanks, yes I read that ... I wonder if they would make the equipment available to other cargo operators/handlers, if there was further interest from airlines in commencing operations at MAN ?

[BHX5DME]

Thanks, yes I read that ... I wonder if they would make the equipment available to other cargo operators/handlers, if there was further interest from airlines in commencing operations at MAN ?

Looks like BHX turned these flights away as too busy handling endless B744F's, a third airline operating this Saturday using YR-FSA

[laviation]

Looks like BHX turned these flights away as too busy handling endless B744F's, a third airline operating this Saturday using YR-FSA
Why would BHX turn away Air China because they already handle a couple of B747s a week?

If you look at it from a route development perspective, there is a relationship to be built with Air China and surely the chances of pax ops down the line are increased.

[ATNotts]

Why would BHX turn away Air China because they already handle a couple of B747s a week?

If you look at it from a route development perspective, there is a relationship to be built with Air China and surely the chances of pax ops down the line are increased.
It certainly looks to be a strategic own goal if that is indeed the case.

[laviation]

Fantastic to see Shanghai get over the line!

Juneyao Airlines - Shanghai Pudong to Manchester. Flights start 3 July 2024

HO1661 PVG 0155-0730 MAN (Wed, Fri & Sun)

HO1662 MAN 1040-0550+1 PVG (Wed, Fri & Sun)

Via SeanM on X

[Navpi]

Can't believe BHX turned them away. Its a a bit like a premiership team scouting a player for months who has expressed interest in joining only to end up joining a competitor, only for the original team to then suggest they never had any interest anyway.

[ATNotts]

Can't believe BHX turned them away. Its a a bit like a premiership team scouting a player for months who has expressed interest in joining only to end up joining a competitor, only for the original team to then suggest they never had any interest anyway.
Of course we don't know the facts. Perhaps Air China themselves decided that MAN fits better for them.

I am however somewhat sceptical that the airline would go to the trouble and expense of bringing in its own ground handling equipment for a 2 x weekly flight. It doesn't seem to make economic sense, but since they and all the other Chinese airlines are essentially government franchises I don't suppose economics are top of their priorities.

I looked at the Air China Cargo website this morning and can't see schedules for either BHX or MAN from CAN, but as its cargo there's still time.

[Navpi]

Indeed ATN suggests more flights.

[ATNotts]

Indeed ATN suggests more flights.
It does, and given the current issues with the Red Sea / Suez shipping route, and I suspect the suspension of rail routes from China to Europe via Russia due to a 'special operation' demand must be high at present. Hence the ops from HKG to BHX and increase in all cargo services from China to BOH.

What slightly surprises me is that given MAN doesn't want cargo, and the planned arrival being mid morning when DHL are at their quietest, they haven't been directed to EMA.

[Balair]

What slightly surprises me is that given MAN doesn't want cargo, and the planned arrival being mid morning when DHL are at their quietest, they haven't been directed to EMA.[/QUOTE]

Please let’s not open up this “debate” again!

[OzzyOzBorn]

There has been a complete change of management at the top since the 'war on cargo' was front and centre at MAN. In fact, fingers tightly crossed, but the entrenched "just say no" culture appears to be evaporating across the board. Ages since the last 'no divs' NOTAM; hangars returning to constructive use; ad-hoc charters generally accepted.

CW has made an excellent start at MAN specifically, and at group level Ken O' Toole has taken over from Charlie Cornish.

It looks like FedEx are returning to MAN as well. Lufthansa Cargo were reluctant to leave, so perhaps the new team might approach them too?

[Navpi]

Ozzy posts a lot of very well-informed responses, and. I am sorry that certain members feel that they have to denigrate his thoughts and comments.

Indeed , even on this momentus day i suspect even our resident "chuckle brothers" will find something to be miserable about....!

[Rutan16]

MAG Group have already received the threat of prosecution and massive financial penalties for bait and switch under competition laws.The changes at the top mean that an approach by a carrier must be taken seriously .
And all group airports must be seen to act competitively

As for Air China would it not a resumption rather more than a new service

[rkenyon]

Exact same flights has been show at BHX for months but never turned up, so slots only.

Looks like BHX turned these flights away as too busy handling endless B744F's, a third airline operating this Saturday using YR-FSA

There's some weirdos on here :D

[ATNotts]

There's some weirdos on here :D
I wouldn't say weirdos, more a case of telling it as it is.

If capacity on the cargo side at BHX has already been reached due to other new business that has already started operating, however bizarre that seems BHX's loss may be MAN's gain.

[TURIN]

Indeed , even on this momentus day i suspect even our resident "chuckle brothers" will find something to be miserable about....!
What's happened today, I've clearly missed something.

[GrahamK]

As for Air China would it not a resumption rather more than a new service

Think your mixing up Air China with China Airlines

[Rutan16]

Think your mixing up Air China with China Airlines

Nope Air China Cargo served Manchester with 747 freighter scheduled services between 2007 and 2009 .

The List of former Freight operators is pretty long.

Straight off the top of my head

Air China Cargo
China Airlines
Air Hong Kong
Cathay Pacific
Some Singapore Carrier name i forget
Aeroflot
North West Orient
Air Express ( CL-44 !)
Emery ( DC-8)

And back into 70s just about every European flag carrier at stupid o’clock

Sure missed a few !

[MARK9263]

Jett8

FedEx and Lufthansa already mentioned

[Rutan16]

Jett8

FedEx and Lufthansa already mentioned

Yeap thats the Singapore carrier thumbs up 👍

[eye2eye5]

You could add Arrow Air with DC8s to that list.

[MARK9263]

Southern International operating Mexico City via Miami 1992/93

[chaps1954]

Must say I don`t remember Air China only the very odd one in 1997 and 2015.

[Sotonsean]

And surely the Arrow Air DC-8 cargo flights previously seen at Manchester were ad hoc charters rather than a full scheduled cargo service.

I could well be wrong, but I'm not aware of Arrow Air ever previously operating fully fledged cargo flights into the UK, especially on a scheduled basis.

But again, I stand to be corrected.

Of course, passenger flights by Arrow Air DC-8 and DC-10 were regularly seen in the UK and, in particular, at LGW, where the airline flew scheduled flights from Denver and Tampa during the mid 80s.

There must have been loads of ad-hoc cargo flights into Manchester over the years, but I think the topic is regarding fully fledged scheduled cargo flights rather than including ad-hoc cargo movements.

[MARK9263]

Also Cargolux 1996-2004

[spannersatcx]

Nope Air China Cargo served Manchester with 747 freighter scheduled services between 2007 and 2009 .

The List of former Freight operators is pretty long.

Straight off the top of my head

Air China Cargo
China Airlines
Air Hong Kong
Cathay Pacific
Some Singapore Carrier name i forget
Aeroflot
North West Orient
Air Express ( CL-44 !)
Emery ( DC-8)

And back into 70s just about every European flag carrier at stupid o’clock

Sure missed a few !
Greatwall and Dragonair cargo

[Navpi]

Manchester has a conurbation larger than many European cities, its borderline preposterous that there are no pure freight flights.

MAN finally being held to account putting capacity where demand originates not artificial deflection 2 hours away. CW won't what any black marks on the CV.

As has been said since the Ice Cream man was sidelined from day to day operations the improvement in performance across all depts has been significant.

[Capitol 203]

Nope Air China Cargo served Manchester with 747 freighter scheduled services between 2007 and 2009 .

The List of former Freight operators is pretty long.

Straight off the top of my head

Air China Cargo
China Airlines
Air Hong Kong
Cathay Pacific
Some Singapore Carrier name i forget
Aeroflot
North West Orient
Air Express ( CL-44 !)
Emery ( DC-8)

And back into 70s just about every European flag carrier at stupid o’clock

Sure missed a few !For part of the duration, the Emery Worldwide service was flown under contract by Rosenbalm Aviation with DC-8s in Emery c/s. I remember listening to them on my airband as a young youth. Their crews used the shortened "Rosy" callsign which always made me smile. One crew also referred to their allocated stand as a pan, much to the bemusement of Manchester Ground.

I'm pretty sure Transamerica ran a regular cargo operation in their own name with stretched DC-8s but this might have been a precursor to Emery taking the service over with metal in their own colours. I can even remember the inbound callsign Transamerica 668 being used. It was a couple of years earlier than the Rosenbalm operation. I've an old MAN Airport glossy rag somewhere with a Transamerica 8 pictured on one of the 60s stands.

Happy days.

[eye2eye5]

I certainly remember the Rosenbalm flights. I may be incorrect with regards to Arrow Air, I do remember them arriving frequently although it was some time ago!

[laviation]

Must say I don`t remember Air China only the very odd one in 1997 and 2015.

The 2015 visit was by President Xi Jinping, when the Hainan flights were added. George Osbourne was there too. 🤣

[SWBKCB]

Looks like BHX turned these flights away as too busy handling endless B744F's, a third airline operating this Saturday using YR-FSA

Is four in a week an endless flow? Of course there is more to handling freight than getting it on and off the aircraft, so it could be the warehousing/distribution etc is a bottleneck.

Thanks, yes I read that ... I wonder if they would make the equipment available to other cargo operators/handlers, if there was further interest from airlines in commencing operations at MAN ?

Loaders capable of main desck loading can be used for loading containers into the belly as well. It would be surprising if any equipment was solely for the use of Air China, sure the handlers can find plenty of work for it.

[ATNotts]

Is four in a week an endless flow? Of course there is more to handling freight than getting it on and off the aircraft, so it could be the warehousing/distribution etc is a bottleneck.



Loaders capable of main desck loading can be used for loading containers into the belly as well. It would be surprising if any equipment was solely for the use of Air Chine, sure the handlers can find plenty of work for it.
From the BHX discussion on the "Air China affair" it seems the problem is more related to transit shed capacity. I don't know what Magma are carrying, but I would assume its general cargo rather than a single client load (FCL in maritime terminology) so inevitably some shipments will go through the shed faster than others. The concern make be that adding much more business at BHX may screw up existing carriers, particularly the likes of Emirates and Qatar cargo business.

The China all cargo bubble will probably subside when Suez reopens, and both the current BHX and potential Air China MAN operations could end as quickly as they begin.

Both airports need to make the proverbial hay while the sun shines.

[Navpi]

There are multiple daily freight Chinese flights into Stansted which have operated for years, that is in isolation of any issues with the Suez Canal.

A significant proportion of that freight originates and is bound for the North of England as indeed it was 10 years ago.

The demise of MAN flights and the subsequent ten years worth of additional expansion remains freight which was artificially diverted from Manchester. See Also EMA.

By way of example there are 4 today 5 Monday.

I would have thought you are simply putting the flights back where the demand orginates, demand which has been there for years. Must confess I'm hopeful we will see some of that STN traffic diverted back to Manchester.

[SCFC1EP]

So far in 2024 we have had announcements the following new airlines or reinstated airlines

Royal Jordanian Airlines
Royal Air Maroc
Air China Cargo
Luxair
China Eastern
Southwind Airlines

Rumours may return in near future

Fedex
Lufthansa Cargo

[SWBKCB]

Juneyao Airlines mentioned at #3702. Reported elsewhare that Southwind have withdrawn their planned UK operations for this summer?

[laviation]

So far in 2024 we have had announcements the following new airlines or reinstated airlines

Royal Jordanian Airlines
Royal Air Maroc
Air China Cargo
Luxair
China Eastern
Southwind Airlines

Rumours may return in near future

Fedex
Lufthansa Cargo

And more to come!

[AircraftOperations]

So far in 2024 we have had announcements the following new airlines or reinstated airlines

Royal Jordanian Airlines
Royal Air Maroc
Air China Cargo
Luxair
China Eastern
Southwind Airlines

Rumours may return in near future

Fedex
Lufthansa Cargo

How many of the above have actually been officially announced by the airline and/or airports involved? How many are actually bookable?
Seems to me that people seeing applications for slots can be too quick to assume a route is starting.
Sometimes slots can be put in for strategically with no real plan yet to commence on that date, if at all.

[eggc]

How many of the above have actually been officially announced by the airline and/or airports involved? How many are actually bookable?
Seems to me that people seeing applications for slots can be too quick to assume a route is starting.
Sometimes slots can be put in for strategically with no real plan yet to commence on that date, if at all.

Jordanian already flying now. Air China Cargo is now visble on thier website. RAM was conifmed by MAN last week. Luxair conifmred months ago and starts soon. Southwind announced but now not bothering. FedEx also confirmed. Only one not seen anything on is Lufty Cargo. Juneyao not in that list but confirmed by the airline last week also, so these conversations are very much based on confimred rather than applications.
:

[The96er]

So far in 2024 we have had announcements the following new airlines or reinstated airlines

Royal Jordanian Airlines
Royal Air Maroc
Air China Cargo
Luxair
China Eastern
Southwind Airlines

Rumours may return in near future

Fedex
Lufthansa Cargo

Lufthansa cargo have not indicated any intention to return in the short term, there is however another existing operator to MAN who may soon bring in an A321F in addition the their pax ops.

[Navpi]

Lufthansa cargo have not indicated any intention to return in the short term, there is however another existing operator to MAN who may soon bring in an A321F in addition the their pax ops.

Other than LH I'm struggling ?

[Rutan16]

I think it was due to the sleeping Russian partners and owner of Southwind that scuppered their UK and EU expansion objectives.

Given the confirmation of Juneyao start date in July I don’t expect China Eastern to compete. ( Maybe wrong however the one airline one route rule and the fact that Juneyao are within the same sphere of influence as MU would suggest otherwise)

Luxair has been bootable for months
Alia already started at both MAG prime airports
RAM due to open shortly a somewhat accelerated return from them ( maybe down to temporary suspension of Tel Aviv and availability of a freed up 737 ?)

What MAG needs for 2024/5 now must surely be United and or American.

Within Europe what’s really left LOT and or ITA and the ever reliable Air Baltic ( here today gone tomorrow but back next week) and one or other of the former Yugoslav carriers I suppose.

What I would also like to see a restoration of Larnaca year round.

Anything else is incremental now something along the lines of the third Swiss restored, Lyon year round, Nantes on Orange ( Harp service is rubbish ) and a consistent daily flight on Iberia ( Express)

[BHX5DME]

[QUOTE=Rutan16;11617864]I think it was due to the sleeping Russian partners and owner of Southwind that scuppered their UK and EU expansion objectives.

Given the confirmation of Juneyao start date in July I don’t expect China Eastern to compete. ( Maybe wrong however the one airline one route rule and the fact that Juneyao are within the same sphere of influence as MU would suggest otherwise)

I believe Juneyao replaces China Eastern

[Rutan16]

[QUOTE=Rutan16;11617864]I think it was due to the sleeping Russian partners and owner of Southwind that scuppered their UK and EU expansion objectives.

Given the confirmation of Juneyao start date in July I don’t expect China Eastern to compete. ( Maybe wrong however the one airline one route rule and the fact that Juneyao are within the same sphere of influence as MU would suggest otherwise)

I believe Juneyao replaces China Eastern

Isn’t that what I said ; it was one or t’other !

Juneyao are around 25-30% owned by the same Chinese regional “development” and government bodies as are China Eastern anyway.

Remenber the Chinese Aviation industry is little more than a Ponzi scheme, international projection and manipulation of the three alliances is their goal 🤔👍

[laviation]

MU may still happen as it is believed special dispensation has been secured.

[Doors to...]

I also read the same thing, so still puts China Eastern in the game.

[SCFC1EP]

I think it was due to the sleeping Russian partners and owner of Southwind that scuppered their UK and EU expansion objectives.

Given the confirmation of Juneyao start date in July I don’t expect China Eastern to compete. ( Maybe wrong however the one airline one route rule and the fact that Juneyao are within the same sphere of influence as MU would suggest otherwise)

Luxair has been bootable for months
Alia already started at both MAG prime airports
RAM due to open shortly a somewhat accelerated return from them ( maybe down to temporary suspension of Tel Aviv and availability of a freed up 737 ?)

What MAG needs for 2024/5 now must surely be United and or American.

Within Europe what’s really left LOT and or ITA and the ever reliable Air Baltic ( here today gone tomorrow but back next week) and one or other of the former Yugoslav carriers I suppose.

What I would also like to see a restoration of Larnaca year round.

Anything else is incremental now something along the lines of the third Swiss restored, Lyon year round, Nantes on Orange ( Harp service is rubbish ) and a consistent daily flight on Iberia ( Express)

Totally agree MAN needs to attract eastern european airlines

Never understand how we can not make a EMB.175/195 work with LOT to Warsaw daily
Also we should be able to fill a Tarom flight 2-3 a week to Bucarest, not to mention Air Baltic, however russian air space might play into onward connections

[chaps1954]

LOT may well start in next year or so but Air Baltic have tried MAN twice and it failed twice so I tend to doubt it

[OzzyOzBorn]

Air Baltic made the baffling decision to launch MAN-RIX 4 x weekly AFTER covid had taken hold. I had a booking with them but was not allowed to travel due covid restrictions. They refunded me with vouchers. I made five new bookings with them once covid restrictions were finally eased, but I promptly received an email saying four of those bookings were cancelled as the flight was being axed.

The flight I did do turned out to be one of the last on the service. It was full. I despair of decision making like this. What were Air Baltic management thinking?

There is definitely a strong case for giving it a proper go. We’re actually allowed to board the bloomin’ plane now. And Latvia is letting us foreigners in again! SIGH.

[chaps1954]

Of course they were in most days operating for SAS, Swiss and Eurowings during the A220/A320neo problems

[laviation]

Adding on to this, Riga has had a 97% load factor average over the past three months. The demand is there for Air Baltic. Will they return? You’d think so.

[Manchester South]

City AM have a news item today "Manchester airport could add £16.3 bn per year to UK economy..." based on an Arup report + comments by MAG CEO.

[SWBKCB]

Manchester Airports Group chief executive Ken O’Toole said: “Any government serious about rebalancing the country would want all major cities and towns to have fast and easy rail access to the world through their nearest international gateway – and here in the North that is Manchester Airport. That is why it is critical plans for a new east-west high speed network, with the Airport at its heart, are delivered as soon as possible. This report spells out the size of the prize and we look forward to work with business and political partners in the North, as well as whoever goes on to lead the country, to ensure that vision becomes a reality.”

https://www.cityam.com/manchester-airport-could-add-16-3bn-per-year-to-uk-economy-by-2050-report-shows

[inOban]

He was interviewed on R4 Today this morning.