Manchester-3

[laviation]

The report from engineering consultant Arup, which modelled four scenarios for the Northern economy with different levels of policy support and growth, ..... found the airport could secure direct flights to 50 new cities including Sydney, Tokyo, Montreal, Mumbai, Riyadh, San Francisco and Cape Town.

It added that 25 new short-haul routes could also be unlocked, with total passenger volumes.... rising to as high as 60m per year..... – compared with their current level of 27m.

[VickersVicount]

Sydney, No way
Tokyo, Doubt it
Montreal, Why Montreal over the other cities?
Mumbai, Maybe
Riyadh, Maybe
San Francisco No Been there done that
Cape Town No

[laviation]

Sydney, No way
Tokyo, Doubt it
Montreal, Why Montreal over the other cities?
Mumbai, Maybe
Riyadh, Maybe
San Francisco No Been there done that
Cape Town No
I'd say RUH/BOM are both a resounding YES, CPT/SFO/TYO very strong 'Maybes' (although TYO dependent on Russia Ukraine !) and YUL a weak maybe.

The market is there for SYD but can't see that in the next decade.

There could be some surprises in store though. The routes team is doing a fantastic job, even with the already announced carriers - it feels like such a breath of fresh air !

[Doors to...]

Jet did operate MAN-BOM, however the demise of Jet put paid to that route and no one picked it up again, Covid etc etc the timings were not good. In my opinion BOM will return not if, but when, AI are taking delivery of their new A350s very quickly now, so this should free up 787/777 for utilisation on other/new routes. Hopefully DEL will not be far behind.

I would think we would see a much needed return of MAN-YVR before a YUL service.

As for other new routes lets see what the following weeks bring. As Iaviation says the routes team at MAN are doing an amazing job, keep up the good work.

[Manchester Exile]

I can't see any takers for a route to Sydney. Qantas have no interest as their European ambitions are limited to LHR, Rome and Paris. The only other Australian airline that could jump in would be Jetstar but I think the route is way too long for them. There is no possibility of BA starting that route out of MAN, and although I have no insider knowledge I can't see Virgin taking it on either.

[OzzyOzBorn]

The timescale referenced in that report is effectively a generation. It will take a LONG time for MAN to more than double it's throughput ... and that is without the (sadly likely) prospect of further damaging wars and financial crises. Anything can happen over 20 years or so ... it is pointless to speculate about which new routes will be operating. And it is quite conceivable that SYD will be within range from MAN for long-haul types by then.

For perspective, cast your mind back 20 years from where we are now. Who guessed that MAN would serve Addis Ababa with frequent widebody flights? Kuwait? Sylhet? Casablanca? Shanghai? Houston? Boa Vista? Sandefjord Torp? Rzeszow? Well done if you guessed them all back then!

[SWBKCB]

Exactly. Lot of water to go under the bridge between now and 2050, so pretty speculative....


Produced by Arup, it states that between now and 2050, the Northern gateway could secure direct flights to 50 new world-leading cities including Sydney, Tokyo, Montreal, Mumbai, Riyadh, San Francisco and Cape Town, driving passenger volumes to as high as 60m a year.

https://mediacentre.manchesterairport.co.uk/political-and-business-leaders-back-report-showing-how-manchester-airport-can-drive-northern-growth-and-a-rebalancing-of-the-economy/

[laviation]

Apart from Sydney, the routes mentioned are not 20 years away. Two or three of them could easily be boxed off within 12 months, while the rest may take a few years.

More prospective routes would be the likes of Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Denver, Nairobi, etc.

If we're talking yearly PAX throughput, well 40 mppa by 2030 is a challenge but is definitely achievable. That'd be a start.

[Mr A Tis]

The airlines know where people connect to and as far as I am aware Bangkok was always top of the list of connecting pax to a destination not served direct. When I used to fly to HKG with Finnair, the Helsinki flights were always full of people connecting onwards to BKK. (For HKG used both CX and AY- but the AY was better as a night flight was preferred over the morning CX-and of course less expensive)
Disappointing to see that Air Transit has not re-instated a seasonal Vancouver. AV8 also used to fly direct to Cape Town with a leased Icelandair 767, unfortunately often needed a fuel stop on the return in Palma- so that probably weakened the viability-then of course AV8 demised.

[chaps1954]

AV8 didn`t last long, was it a season or less.

[Alteagod]

Did AV8 not operate via DUB both ways as well before the Air Berlin started CPT

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Disappointing to see that Air Transit has not re-instated a seasonal Vancouver.
I believe Transat have a number of grounded A321NEOs awaiting engine mods and so they're very tight on aircraft? So the A330s are needed elsewhere.

For perspective, cast your mind back 20 years from where we are now. Who guessed that MAN would serve Addis Ababa with frequent widebody flights? Kuwait? Sylhet? Casablanca? Shanghai? Houston? Boa Vista? Sandefjord Torp? Rzeszow? Well done if you guessed them all back then!
That's a function of
1. Population growth
2. Population change

Contemporary Britain doesn't resemble 2004 in many ways, hence why long haul is more than just a Westbound holiday gig or Australia.

[MANFOD]

I'd say RUH/BOM are both a resounding YES, CPT/SFO/TYO very strong 'Maybes' (although TYO dependent on Russia Ukraine !) and YUL a weak maybe.

The market is there for SYD but can't see that in the next decade.

There could be some surprises in store though. The routes team is doing a fantastic job, even with the already announced carriers - it feels like such a breath of fresh air !

The report only specifically refers to those 7 long haul routes but mentions potentially 50 new destinations. I imagine the reinstatement of cities such as LAX, ORD, BOS and YVR will be high on the shorter term agenda, along with BOM and probably RUH that are listed. As has been said though, 25 years to 2050 is a long time in which anything can happen for better or worse. And as far as MAN is concerned, possible developments at LHR, LGW and other airports can't be ignored.

[SWBKCB]

They'll not have the railway built in 25 years...

[ATNotts]

They'll not have the railway built in 25 years...
It'll likely start off as mainline and wind up as single track running from a station 10 miles from the airport to an industrial estate 10 miles outside Leeds!

Not political points scoring, just observing how infrastructure development is half cocked in UK whatever party runs the show. Been like that since the middle of last century.

[Sotonsean]

AV8 didn`t last long, was it a season or less.

Johannesburg to Manchester was previously operated by the national carrier as well.

Don't forget that South African Airways operated a direct scheduled flight from Johannesburg to Manchester from 1993 till 1996, three times weekly with a Boeing 747-400.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x683/8556940895_d3daa176e5_b_870dd00999a3525d386479d1789e21d289a9 6a4b.jpg

[sportzbar]

Did AV8 not operate via DUB both ways as well before the Air Berlin started CPT
AV8 did indeed operate via Dublin both ways. I had a travel agent friend who was able to get a few of us tickets for just a tenner each return as part of a company incentive to promote the flights. Sure it was only one night in Dublin but also managed to bag a 767....

[OzzyOzBorn]

That's a function of
1. Population growth
2. Population change

Contemporary Britain doesn't resemble 2004 in many ways, hence why long haul is more than just a Westbound holiday gig or Australia.

Agreed, but the point of my post was that similar as yet unknowns apply to projections out to 2050. And we can't presume straight line growth either. It's not just wars and financial crises as I mentioned earlier. We need to account for challenges such as those presented by anti-carbon warriors and eco-zealots. Some of these want a very restrictive flight-cap applied to all the plebs ... if you're not in the top 1%, watch out! Once a CBDC is introduced, they'll be able to cap you at two flights per year (or less!) and prevent you from buying meat etc. They know better than you how your own hard-earned money should be spent. We know that the crazies who want this kind of stuff are heavily represented in Whitehall circles. We saw afew months of green overreach when Boris' new blonde ousted Dominic Cummings from Downing St. There will be more like that to come.

See also: attempt to cap AMS movements; DUB held to ransom by green extremists; cattle herd culls ordered by politicians. Yet cows produce far less noxious gas than politicians. It's just not fair.

Jokes aside, don't under-estimate the challenge that the green agenda will present to airport growth over coming years.

[airhumberside]

Originally Posted by Mr A Tis
Disappointing to see that Air Transit has not re-instated a seasonal Vancouver.
I believe Transat have a number of grounded A321NEOs awaiting engine mods and so they're very tight on aircraft? So the A330s are needed elsewhere.
Air Transat have pulled out of Vancouver (and Western Canada) entirely now. Think long haul went a few years ago, and was latterly down to a YUL-YVR (and YUL-YYC) feeder, but they use Porter instead now for feed. I believe they only do long haul from YYZ, YUL and Quebec City these days

[Navpi]

Given we are boxed in on the periphery I would love to know how we even get to 60m unless we end up with triple 777s to eg the IOM and similar, etc etc etc.
The legacy of the Ice Cream man lives on.

Personally its my belief the report, the r4 interview and the bottom line figures were for an incoming government to chew over. The cities mentioned were for the most part just a list of every international city in the world. That said some have merit and appear to be already on the horizon.

Well done KOT and CW.

[TURIN]

Johannesburg to Manchester was previously operated by the national carrier as well.

Don't forget that South African Airways operated a direct scheduled flight from Johannesburg to Manchester from 1993 till 1996, three times weekly with a Boeing 747-400.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x683/8556940895_d3daa176e5_b_870dd00999a3525d386479d1789e21d289a9 6a4b.jpg
Wasn't it an SP for a while?

[Sotonsean]

Wasn't it an SP for a while?

I believe that the inaugural South African Airways flight from Manchester to Johannesburg via London Heathrow was on the 26 May 1992. The first flight was flown with ZS-SAT, a Boeing 747-300.

When South African Airways started receiving their Boeing 747-400, these started to appear in 1994 when Johannesburg to Manchester was flown nonstop and remained on the route until it ceased in 1996 or 1997.

I'm not certain of South African Airways Boeing 747SP operating on the Johannesburg to Manchester route. The flights were originally via London Heathrow. Although I could be wrong regarding the Boeing 747SP at Manchester but SAA only flew from Cape Town to London Heathrow with this variant. Obviously SAA used their small fleet of Boeing 747SP on other routes within their network at the time.

South African Airways Boeing 747-300/400 were used on Johannesburg to London Heathrow during the same period as the Manchester flights. South African Airways Boeing 747SP operated from Cape Town to London Heathrow.

Although SAA Boeing 747SPs we're regularly seen at Manchester on weather diversions from London Heathrow.

[TURIN]

I definitely remember working on their SPs at MAN. It was regular so more than the odd diversion.

[Manchester Exile]

And it is quite conceivable that SYD will be within range from MAN for long-haul types by then.


That's much sooner than you think. Qantas have ordered some specially-adapted A350-1000's that will do non-stop flights from SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK from mid 2026. Those services were supposed to start in 2025, but there are manufacturing delays at Airbus which have pushed things back by a year.
My understanding is that currently MAN is just out-of-range for non-stop flights - the extra couple of hundred miles past LHR is a stretch too far. As I mentioned in my previous post, Qantas are looking to add non-stop Paris and Rome flights and have stated they have no other European ambitions. But as you say, 2050 is a long time away so a lot can change in that time.

[scrapy]

The difference is around a hundred miles as they flight would likely route over the North Sea, rather than over LHR then turning north, but it's conceivable that 100 miles could be the difference as to whether the route is possible or not.
If the situation in Russia/Ukraine gets sorted, MAN-SYD would actually be slightly shorter than LHR-SYD.

​​

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Wouldn't MAN-SYD would be relatively pricey? The equivalent ULR on the B789 LHR-PER-MEL charges a premium over connecting flights and so in order to justify a dedicated direct A350 out of MAN they'd need to charge accordingly? So Emirates / Qatar via DXB/DOH would still be competitive on volume holiday makers and premium travel price? ULR remains niche due to the operational constraints of the business model?
MAN-BKK for example has a large, high volume market but doesn't see a non stop service.
Be grand to see them back though.

[AircraftOperations]

The difference is around a hundred miles as they flight would likely route over the North Sea, rather than over LHR then turning north, but it's conceivable that 100 miles could be the difference as to whether the route is possible or not.
If the situation in Russia/Ukraine gets sorted, MAN-SYD would actually be slightly shorter than LHR-SYD.

​​

That may be, but the routes from Australasia historically rarely followed the great circle but take a more southerly & longer route to tie in with winds.

[Rutan16]

Question is; are not Qantas still quite happy with the Emirates pact as is ;said they sell more seats on a daily basis across all classes than were ever lifted on a kangaroo tail.

That data alone must be worth a princely amount .

Qantas remain very active in the region .

[Rutan16]

That may be, but the routes from Australasia historically rarely followed the great circle but take a more southerly & longer route to tie in with winds.

North of the Malay// Indonesia gap and after Singapore the traditional routes would have been Northern India, Pakistan , Afghanistan,, Turkmenistan and across Russia and into Europe .
Much now cut off be internecine military strife in Ukraine and the closure of Russia airspace in the resulting sanctions .

The routings east of the Himalayas across China Mongolia.and the steps was favoured also closed off at the Russian frontiers this worked well going north

The Perth flight takes advantage of ETOPs across the middle of the Indian Ocean towards the Gulf .

[Rutan16]

I believe that the inaugural South African Airways flight from Manchester to Johannesburg via London Heathrow was on the 26 May 1992. The first flight was flown with ZS-SAT, a Boeing 747-300.

When South African Airways started receiving their Boeing 747-400, these started to appear in 1984 when Johannesburg to Manchester was flown nonstop and remained on the route until it ceased in 1996 or 1997.

I'm not certain of South African Airways Boeing 747SP operating on the Johannesburg to Manchester route. The flights were originally via London Heathrow. Although I could be wrong regarding the Boeing 747SP at Manchester but SAA only flew from Cape Town to London Heathrow with this variant. Obviously SAA used their small fleet of Boeing 747SP on other routes within their network at the time.

South African Airways Boeing 747-300/400 (tel:747-300/400) were used on Johannesburg to London Heathrow during the same period as the Manchester flights. South African Airways Boeing 747SP operated from Cape Town to London Heathrow.

Although SAA Boeing 747SPs we're regularly seen at Manchester on weather diversions from London Heathrow.

Maybe wrong (old ) but my memory was that the Springbok routed via Paris not London

[roverman]

Maybe wrong (old ) but my memory was that the Springbok routed via Paris not London
That is my recollection, too. It was always CDG never LHR, and the service only lasted 3 or 4 years. The first SAA flight was in 1990. I remember the controversy at the time because Nelson Mandela was still in prison and apartheid still partially in place in South Africa. Manchester City Council were not pleased about SAA, the state airline, using their airport but had to concede that they couldn't refuse them access.743, 744 and SP all appeared on the route at various times.

[DomyDom]

Some news on developments associated with a new rail link to Manchester Airport from the Midlands being put together by Andy Burnham and Andy Street. The idea is that it would link up with a west to east cross country Northern Powerhouse rail.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/new-line-between-handsacre-and-manchester-airport-proposed-to-replace-hs2-phase-2-21-03-2024/

[Sotonsean]

Thanks to the relevant posters for the feedback and corrections regarding my recent post regarding the former South African Airways flights at Manchester during the early nineties.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Maybe wrong (old ) but my memory was that the Springbok routed via Paris not London
You obviously share the same memory as me .... sadly.

[SCFC1EP]

FedEx ATR arrived this morning from Toulouse inline for restart of FedEx ops to Paris CDG next week

First schedule freight service for sometime,along with China Cargo Airlines B777's to start in April,

[SWBKCB]

The second phase will see the original building upgraded with a second security hall and a new-look, extended departure lounge, along with reconfigurations of the airfield to make operations more efficient. Upon completion in 2025, over 70 per cent of all passengers will use the expanded T2, with Terminal 1 then closing.

Now the airport has announced it's entered a crucial stage in the latest phase of work - meaning it will be able to compete with the top European airports. The airfield is being redesigned in a move the airport said would allow 'significantly more aircraft movements'. A new pier at Terminal 2 is also being constructed to increase the capacity of the airport.

"Taken together, the two innovations will help Manchester Airport add more destinations in the future – on top of the 200 we already serve – and provide greater choice and value for our passengers," said a spokesperson. "It already offers more than 200 destinations and the extra capacity and space for more modern planes will let it increase that number."

The changes to the airfield to boost its capacity will allow the world's biggest passenger planes - Airbus A380s - to pass side-by-side as they taxi to and from Terminal 2. The extra pier, the airport said, will almost double the number of aircraft that can operate from the brand-new super-terminal while offering passengers more space while they wait.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/more-flights-to-new-destinations-28868529

[roverman]

Quite a bit of spin in that statement from MAG. Whilst I am a big fan of what's happening at T2, and a regular user of it, we must be careful how we describe characteristics being delivered.

"Doubling the number of aircraft which can be handled at the super terminal" (by building Pier 2) Hmm. It rather depends on where you set the datum. Is that 2016? (when work on TP began), or 2019? (when Pier 1 opened), or now? (when many original stands have been closed to allow construction). In no scenario can I count a doubling of the number of aircraft which can be handled at T2. It also depends on whether you include flights which are bussed out to remote stands, as they were and always will be, in the number being 'handled at the super terminal'. The joys of spin!
Also on the airfield - allowing two A380s to pass each other on the taxiways? That was never envisaged when I worked on the project. There isn't sufficient space between Pier C and the cargo fence line to facilitate two parallel Code F taxiways / taxilanes. Given the low frequency of A380 (ICAO Code F) movements it was accepted that these aircraft will have a dedicated route which temporarily blocks the double-taxiway. The A380 taxiway route had the project name 'Delta Diamond' as it was to be marked out with distinctive diamond paint markings, as used at Washington Dulles for the same purpose.

[Navpi]

I'm struggling as to the actual capacity of T2. Its obviously the future but unless it's extended AGAIN its pax throughput is surely limited. No one seems to know what current pax capacity now is.

LGW has 180 stands
Man 120 ?

any advance.

[roverman]

I'm struggle as to the actual capacity of T2. Its obviously the future but unless it's extended AGAIN its pax throughput is surely limited. No one seems to know what current pax capacity now is.

LGW has 180 stands
Man 120 ?

any advance.
It's anyone's guess. At it's launch back in 2016, T2 was to get 3 new perpendicular piers with a footprint for a 4th, replacing the legacy east and West piers of the 1993 T2. West Pier was demolished and Pier 1 opened in 2019. Somewhere amid the covid pandemic and a change of main contractor this has now been reduced to just 2 new piers plus some legacy stands from the old T2 East Pier, despite an uplift in the original budget of £825M (hopelessly inadequate) to £1.3Bn today. I suspect we are being softened up for an announcement which when un-spun will reveal that T1 is not in fact dead, but will continue as part of T3. This might mean EZY staying friends with Ryanair under one roof. I can't see how moving EZY into a 2-pier T2 will work.

[azz767]

It's anyone's guess. At it's launch back in 2016, T2 was to get 3 new perpendicular piers with a footprint for a 4th, replacing the legacy east and West piers of the 1993 T2. West Pier was demolished and Pier 1 opened in 2019. Somewhere amid the covid pandemic and a change of main contractor this has now been reduced to just 2 new piers plus some legacy stands from the old T2 East Pier, despite an uplift in the original budget of £825 (hopelessly inadequate) to £1.3Bn today. I suspect we are being softened up for an announcement which when un-spun will reveal that T1 is not in fact dead, but will continue as part of T3. This might mean EZY staying friends with Ryanair under one roof. I can't see how moving EZY into a 2-pier T2 will work.

I agree with your point re EZY & RYR in T3. The figure that keeps getting mentioned is 70% of traffic will go through the new T2. RYR alone can’t make up 30% of the total traffic. All the legacy airlines in T1 will want T2 over T3 and that leaves VUE and a couple of domestic flights in T3 which will probably all move to T2.

I think the T1 gates at Pier B will remain and be used for T3 ops for RYR and EZY.

the question then is what happens with Pier C. Does it also keep its stands or does it get knocked down to create space for potential future developments of T2?

The limiting factor at T2 once finished will still be WB contact stands. One will be for EK in the new pier, then you have EY, TK, GF, FI, TS, BG that all use WB aircraft into T1 (not all regularly but it still happens). Before any further growth from current carriers and with potential new/returning carriers I still see T2 being heavily reliant on remote ops.

[TURIN]

Quite a bit of spin in that statement from MAG. Whilst I am a big fan of what's happening at T2, and a regular user of it, we must be careful how we describe characteristics being delivered.


Also on the airfield - allowing two A380s to pass each other on the taxiways? That was never envisaged when I worked on the project. There isn't sufficient space between Pier C and the cargo fence line to facilitate two parallel Code F taxiways / taxilanes. Given the low frequency of A380 (ICAO Code F) movements it was accepted that these aircraft will have a dedicated route which temporarily blocks the double-taxiway. The A380 taxiway route had the project name 'Delta Diamond' as it was to be marked out with distinctive diamond paint markings, as used at Washington Dulles for the same purpose.
Yes, lots of spin, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Regarding the taxiway between pier C and the cargo area, my understanding is that west gate is being demolished and the access road moved to make way for the wider taxiway. SRT are going to lose a bit of their front yard too.

[Navpi]

I should have course have paraphrased my comment regarding the comparison and stands, the point being that LGW seems a reasonable comparator and Chris W came from LGW so is perhaps using LGW as the litmus test ?

The actuality between the two is vastly different.

LGW has 180 stands and in 2023 handled 41m pax.
Core max movements is I believe circa 55 per hour 6am till 11pm SRO , with maybe a degree of flex at the margins.

In 2024 forecast is 44m , but it also has the possibility of 2 runway operation down the line. I'm unsure whether it can expand terminal or stand capacity ?

Manchester has two runways therefore the greater capacity in terms of movements ? wrong !

I believe MAN has a max 57 movements per hour even on 2 runways (due configuration and absolutely draconian noise abatement which massively reduces movements).

It only has 120 stands but does at least operate on a 24/7 operation, 120 may even be generous when all WIP is complete. In 2024 throughput wiĺl be 29-30m.

The point is that LGW is already hitting a figure 30% higher than Manchester with options. Manchester appears constrained even now by planning decisions made years
ago !

Whilst it may be hot air Chris W, did address a meeting earlier this week re investments and opportunities where a statement was made ...

"with PLANS to fly 60m people by 2050"

He has been quoted as saying LGW is doing 40m on a SRO so the implication is clear, he feels MAN can do more with 2 ?

So what is the grand plan behind that vision ?

When plans were first mooted for T2 expansion back in 2014 T2 definitely morphed into T1. At that time there were 18 domestic airports served with an expectation that we would have one mega terminal which would be quote "ideal for seamless connectivity and transfers" , i recall seeing that quote! I'm sure 45m throughput was mentioned in the same article as well.

I'm struggling how MAN gets much beyond even 35m let alone 45m. Infact I'm insure whether after all this work we will have any more stands than we did 10 years ago.

[lfc84]

Jan 2024 still says T1 is going to be closed

https://mediacentre.manchesterairport.co.uk/manchester-airport-marks-one-year-on-from-the-start-of-the-final-phase-of-its-13bn-transformation/

[Rutan16]

Gatwick has pretty much developed in a linear fashion parallel to the prime runway , has rather few cul-de-sac stands ( just a few round the rotunda on South Terminal ) .

The fact they have not one but two full length parallel taxiways ( one being the temporary runway through never built as such !) , well spaced rapid turn outs several at both ends and hardly any environmental problems lining up off of base leg (just a short section across Tunbridge Wells) , certainly makes it a highly effective operation in every way.
They also fewer sheds
However within its foot print don’t believe there is much of an area the create any more stands in future.

Manchester on the other hand
Has one and half runways , NO true parallel taxiway for either and as for rapid links woefully inadequate , active runway crossing for use of the south runway , terminal area cull-de-sacs and constraints to the west by sheds and even hangers , further limitations on effective development to the East of T3 .

It really is a logistical challenge to get anything close to Gatwick levels of efficiency anytime soon.

[Curious Pax]

Latest aerodrome chart for MAN lists coordinates for 146 stands. For LGW that number is 184. They both include offset stands (eg 112, 112L and 112R) so whether they can all be used at the same time is debatable, but as both lists use the same methodology I guess we can take those numbers. The area where T2 pier 2 is being constructed is currently out of service. I don’t know what the layout once it is completed will be, but using pier 1 as a guide I would think the net gain will be an extra 10 stands.



Looking at pictures from the recent announcements it appears that stands 63-72 will disappear to allow the dual taxiway. It also looks like the satellite from T1 pier C will disappear, but the remainder of the pier, and pier B remains. Although T1 closing was the headline, I would be very surprised if that includes the T1 aircraft parking infrastructure, whether as remote stands for T1 or T3, or accessed via T3.



Finally the pictures show a vacant area where T2 pier 3 (and maybe pier 4) were originally planned which I seem to recall are now planned as remote parking with stands aligned as if the new piers had been built.

[Dct_Mopas]

Jan 2024 still says T1 is going to be closed

https://mediacentre.manchesterairport.co.uk/manchester-airport-marks-one-year-on-from-the-start-of-the-final-phase-of-its-13bn-transformation/

That seems to be the plan. However the stands on T1 pier B are planned to be used - just remotely using busses from T2.

A lot more busses and drivers will be needed if that plan goes through, I can’t imagine the airlines planned for that scenario will be best impressed. Totally at the whim of the airport for on time departures, especially first thing in the morning, and nobody enjoys being crammed into a bus. Passenger & airline satisfaction will be hit.

The other option would be to open pier B from T3. But then T3 doesn’t have the capacity for the extra check in desks and security.

[chaps1954]

Seems to happen many places so can`t see the problem to be honest.

[Rutan16]

That seems to be the plan. However the stands on T1 pier B are planned to be used - just remotely using busses from T2.

A lot more busses and drivers will be needed if that plan goes through, I can’t imagine the airlines planned for that scenario will be best impressed. Totally at the whim of the airport for on time departures, especially first thing in the morning, and nobody enjoys being crammed into a bus. Passenger & airline satisfaction will be hit.

The other option would be to open pier B from T3. But then T3 doesn’t have the capacity for the extra check in desks and security.

Once Pier B is dismantled and a more coherent area created as remotes there is a potential to increase available concrete and potentially create a proper full length taxiway at least for the northern runway and a holding pan for crossing traffic of sorts.

Might help a little in reducing some of the bottlenecks .

IMHO I’d want to complete a full parallel taxiway on the southern runway and change the priority of runway use with the southern runway being for landing in both directions and the northern for departures reducing much of the current crossing traffic.

Caveats Wool Lane closed , Bollin culverted and another bridge would be required . Appreciated not cheap nor environmentally easy .

[MANFOD]

The question of future terminal capacity and gate capacity at MAN seems to be a bit of a conundrum, doesn't it?
From that MAN publication of 31 Jan'24 was this: -
."Once complete, Terminal 2 will become the airport’s main terminal and cater for over 70% of its passengers. It will also allow for the closure of Terminal 1."

How much over 70% is not clear but 70% is the figure azz767 mentioned which at the time surprised me. I expected it to be more.
On present traffic levels, that would mean 21m+ passengers, but how are the other 8-9m going to be processed? Incidentally, was a figure of up to 25m quoted at one stage for handling pax at T2 when the TP was complete?

I would have thought the chances of easyjet with its 20+ based units joining ryanair in T3 (but using stands on pier B) were nil, even if the other sundry carriers currently in T3 move to T2.
So, does anyone know what the maximum annual throughput has been in T3? More importantly, what is the maximum hourly capacity and isn't that already reached at peak period?
If T3 is not feasible for easyjet, apart from moving to T2, the other option, as roverman suggests, is for T1 in whole or in part to remain open for a time. The quote "will also allow for the closure of T1" doesn't necessarily imply immediately. If they are to move to T2, there could be some long walks if flights were departing from stand 10 or 11 on pier B. Travelators anyone?

The other question raised is whether there will be enough contact stands on T2 for wide-bodies? Is it 5 or 6 contact stands on the eastern side of Pier 1?
As I understand it, pier 2, which is now going to be longer than the original planned shorter stub when there was going to be a pier3, will provide maximum flexibility in terms of wide and narrow bodied aircraft. What is the maximum number of wide bodies that could be accommodated at any one time if there were no smaller a/c parked there?
Of course, the demand for wide body contact stands will be spread to a degree but EK; EY; QR; CX; ET, 1 Chinese carrier, plus a couple of the earlier VS arrivals, EI and at least 2 TUI (and maybe Jet2 with A330s) could want contact stands in the same period. SQ are a little later and I don't think GF are wide bodies at present are they? It does look tight, especially if delays occur. And some of those carriers may not be too keen on remote parking.

[TURIN]

I thought there was an interim plan to build a link from the end of T2, stand 201 area, across the IDLEX to pier C/pier B? This would keep T2 linked while T1 was demolished and the new T2 extension built. Has that now been canned?

[Dct_Mopas]

I thought there was an interim plan to build a link from the end of T2, stand 201 area, across the IDLEX to pier C/pier B? This would keep T2 linked while T1 was demolished and the new T2 extension built. Has that now been canned?

T1 apparently won’t now be demolished (apart from pier C) due to costs. Just totally closed and mothballed. The pier B stands will only be used as remote stands using busses from T2.

[Dct_Mopas]

Seems to happen many places so can`t see the problem to be honest.

The problem will be MAN not adequately preparing and no doubt doing things as cheaply as possible. I.e. not having enough resource to effectively bus many many flights to remote stands.

The airport already struggles with just domestic arrivals into T1 which require bussing to the domestic arrivals entrance.

[Rutan16]

Seems to happen many places so can`t see the problem to be honest.

What happens in many places exactly in a comparable airports with upwards of 170,000 annual movements ?

Dublins northern runway is wide spaced 34 has become a taxiway and there are no (or few) traffic conflict zones on the ground .They have a massive potential to increase movements of alloy flying tubes as a result and that’s without building many more concrete pans . There is also now a massive area between the runways to the west occupied by a few farms that is potentially valuable to the DAA if and when more concrete pans are required.

Barcelona similar to Gatwick several parallel taxiways wide separation , plenty of rapid turn off on both main runway the cross runway rarely used other than a taxiway.

Munich purpose built and effective

Milan Malpensa wide spaced and a central full length taxiway from the Terminal 2 allowing access to either runway separate to the terminal 1 traffic; again plenty of rapid turn offs
They even have a passing loop to allow the eastern runway to be accessed for departures from Terminal 1 without crossing the active !

The closest mess of a similar airport and configuration in Europe is probably Copenhagen through even here they have incorporated a significant number of rapid turn offs and traffic separation taxiways including using the rarely used cross wind runway much of the time.

Düsseldorf and Nice do share the active intersection issue however again their outer runways are mainly landing traffic with inner for departing and managing the amount of cross traffic flows and complete with sizeable midfield holding points and again plenty of pesky rapid turnoffs.

Just a sample of comparable airports and the logistical difficulties Manchester has beyond simple terminal capacity and that’s every day .

[TURIN]

T1 apparently won’t now be demolished (apart from pier C) due to costs. Just totally closed and mothballed. The pier B stands will only be used as remote stands using busses from T2.
Wait, what? Pier C is now getting demolished?

[JerseyAero]

'SQ are a little later and I don't think GF are wide bodies at present are they?'

GF operate B789's on the service

[Rutan16]

Wait, what? Pier C is now getting demolished?

Nope my ( as things change willing to be wrong ) understanding the current programme remains removal of the rotunda at the end of pier C . As for pulling down T1 yeah the core terminal removal isn’t budgeted for mid term ( rather like similarly named T1 at Heathrow) however the pier B could be demolished at a reasonable cost at some point caveating of cause the asbestos issues .

Beyond the T2 project without doubt there will need to be a range of future plans for the rest of the estate; cynical me asks does Stansted then become the focus . Well some proposals and money has already been allocated to them has it not .

Completion of T2 and mothballing T1 is certainly not the end game not even in what remains of this decade

[MANFOD]

'SQ are a little later and I don't think GF are wide bodies at present are they?'

GF operate B789's on the service

Had a feeling I'd got that wrong. Based on figures produced by Scottie Dog and reported on another forum, GF's average LF over the 4 months Oct-Jan was an impressive 96.4%.
.

[SWBKCB]

What happens in many places exactly in a comparable airports with upwards of 170,000 annual movements ?

Dublins northern runway is wide spaced 34 has become a taxiway and there are no (or few) traffic conflict zones on the ground .They have a massive potential to increase movements of alloy flying tubes as a result and that’s without building many more concrete pans . There is also now a massive area between the runways to the west occupied by a few farms that is potentially valuable the DAA if and when more concrete pans are required.

Barcelona similar to Gatwick several parallel taxiways wide separation , plenty of rapid turn off on both main runway the cross runway rarely used other than a taxiway.

Munich purpose built and effective

Milan Malpensa wide spaced and a central full length taxiway from the Terminal 2 allowing access to earthen runway separate to the terminal 1 traffic; again plenty of rapid turn offs
They even have a passing loop to allow the eastern runway to be accessed for departures from Terminal 1 without crossing the active !

The closest mess of a similar airport and configuration in Europe is probably Copenhagen through even here they have incorporated a significant number of rapid turn offs and traffic separation taxiways including using the rarely used cross wind runway much of the time.

Düsseldorf and Nice do share the active intersection issue however again their outer runways are mainly landing traffic with inner for departing and managing the amount of cross traffic flows and complete with sizeable midfield holding points and again plenty of pesky rapid turnoffs.

Just a sample of comparable airports and the logistical difficulties Manchester has beyond simple terminal capacity and that’s every day .

Chaps 1954's comment was in relation to the use of buses to serve remote stands. Are there any comparable airports not using remote stands and buses?

[Rutan16]

Chaps 1954's comment was in relation to the use of buses to serve remote stands. Are there any comparable airports not using remote stands and buses?

I think the busing issue is rather easy to resolve buy a few more !

As for the pulling off of wide bodies between arrivals and departures yeah it’s pretty standard practice even at Heathrow and Frankfurt !

And after the first wave of low cost departures parking off of stand becomes available for much of the rest of the day .

Even BA at T5 uses steps at several stands . That really isn’t the main issues imho , more it’s the structural and logistical aspects of the airport layout we now have . That is constraining effective management of the Terminals more so than pans of concrete for parking imho.

Munich, Barcelona and Milan all have busing gates whilst admittedly Nice is a much smaller airport on throughput .

[Doors to...]

Interesting to read Malaysia Airline are the new sponsors for Man U...makes one wonder.

[Rutan16]

Interesting to read Malaysia Airline are the new sponsors for Man U...makes one wonder.

Prior to the sanctions on Putain’s regime did Aeroflot consider a return to Manchester after their spell of services in the nineties and later freight service
-.No.

That said the MAS directors has talked the talk recently. When and if they return to growth receive a few more Airbii there is potential in the second half of the decade of restoring Manchester through I’d put Amsterdam far ahead of us.

For a mainly Islamic country gambling and big money at that is wagered among wealthy Malays !

[AircraftOperations]

I think the busing issue is rather easy to resolve buy a few more !

Never as easy as that, unfortunately

[The96er]

I think the busing issue is rather easy to resolve buy a few more !

They can barely muster more that 2 buses to meet full wide-body remote arrivals during the quiet winter months. Not uncommon for passengers to be waiting on the steps for over ten minutes waiting for the first bus to return.

[easyflyer83]

Bussing is not automatically a bad thing and many passengers couldn’t care less, no matter what is said on here. However, execution is the key and some airports do it much better than others.

[Rutan16]

Never as easy as that, unfortunately

Yes it is Buses aren’t a fortune in the scheme of things and contract drivers on zero hours won’t break the bank either ! It most certain IS easy .

[Rutan16]

Bussing is not automatically a bad thing and many passengers couldn’t care less, no matter what is said on here. However, execution is the key and some airports do it much better than others.

Agreed many European airports work with buses extensively including Amsterdam and Frankfurt even little Lisbon,

[Rutan16]

Bussing is not automatically a bad thing and many passengers couldn’t care less, no matter what is said on here. However, execution is the key and some airports do it much better than others.

Agreed many European airports work with buses extensively including Amsterdam and Frankfurt even little Lisbon,

[AircraftOperations]

Yes it is Buses aren’t a fortune in the scheme of things and contract drivers on zero hours won’t break the bank either ! It most certain IS easy .

​​​​Attracting drivers isn't always easy. And airfield infrastructure needs to support wider scale remote operations at any airport. You need enough gates that allow bussing in & out, too.

[Navpi]

Agreed many European airports work with buses extensively including Amsterdam and Frankfurt even little Lisbon,

Excellent authoritative sensible debate. Thanks one and all.

If we maximise runway throughput we are constrained by stand availability.

If we maximise terminal throughput we are constrained by runway movements.

C Woodroofe was however bullish..

" if LGW can do that we will do that...."

His record thus far is in my opinion beyond exemplary.

He and indeed KOT appear to have fixed a lot of issues !!!

Questions is which rabbit does he have up his sleeve in terms of options to sweat the assets ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rutan I believe a parallel backtracking taxiway off 23R would be eye watering in terms of cost and not actually move the flow rate to warrant the expenditure?

[Rutan16]

​​​​Attracting drivers isn't always easy. And airfield infrastructure needs to support wider scale remote operations at any airport. You need enough gates that allow bussing in & out, too.

Selwyns and others have drivers often sitting at home . Manchester has a bus terminal in T2 and the old undercroft . It’s isn’t rocket science .

Now if you want to add DBS clearances the backlog of 18 months ago has pretty much been cleared . Its now about 6 weeks tops.

And there are young unemployed folks in Wythenshawe that would jump at even a zero hours contract .

[OzzyOzBorn]

Talking of bussing, I was bussed from ET-AWN / ETH728 to T2 arrivals this morning. I have to say that it was a pretty good experience too. We came out quite close to UK border (I've done the long trek from A12 previously from another carrier). UK Border was quiet, and baggage was already on the carousel when we came through. Nothing wrong with any of that from my perspective. Other passengers seemed quite happy too.

[TURIN]

Yes it is Buses aren’t a fortune in the scheme of things and contract drivers on zero hours won’t break the bank either ! It most certain IS easy .
Here's me thinking that the race to the bottom was complete.
Zero hours contracts? Good grief, it's an international airport with large revenue streams, give people decent contracts and remuneration for goodness sake!
Where are you going to park all these busses? Are we going green so will need charging infrastructure installed for electric vehicles.

[chaps1954]

same as other airports I guess

[Rutan16]

Here's me thinking that the race to the bottom was complete.
Zero hours contracts? Good grief, it's an international airport with large revenue streams, give people decent contracts and remuneration for goodness sake!
Where are you going to park all these busses? Are we going green so will need charging infrastructure installed for electric vehicles.

Do I support Zero Hours contracts absolutely NOT from a political standpoint, however fact is many coaching companies do use them whilst its legal to do so because they often only have work for school runs , hires and things like National Express or Rail substitutions most of the year . BTW Selwyns have a won contract for National Express ( however that’s for another place)

Last point first yes a charging pen with top pantographs ideal,
As for parking you do realise the things have wheels and rotate round the estate , Airport buses are often heavily weighted to standing passengers and indeed bendi/ articulated vehicles are favoured for the very short trips . Not like you need a fleet of hundred is it .

Evening parking take them off of the estate to a shed somewhere in Wythenshawe / Sharston/ or Warrington seems eminently reasonable

[Suzeman]

IMHO I’d want to complete a full parallel taxiway on the southern runway and change the priority of runway use with the southern runway being for landing in both directions and the northern for departures reducing much of the current crossing traffic.

Sadly the configuration you suggest does not fit with ICAO SOIR (Simultaneous Operations on Independent Runways) Mode 4 regulations . This because we had to reduce the width between centre lines below the 760m that would allow this, due to the proximity of the Bollin Valley to the south and therefore stagger the thresholds (which is permitted under the regulations), but you must always land on the nearest threshold to the direction of approach. This is to make the go-around procedures to work safely.

Going any wider than the spacing that exists would have meant filling in the Bollin Valley along some of its length in National Trust land and planning permission would never have been obtained.

The issue of runway crossings was modelled into the capacity assumptions and was discussed at some length at the Public Inquiry.

[Rutan16]

Sadly the configuration you suggest does not fit with ICAO SOIR (Simultaneous Operations on Independent Runways) Mode 4 regulations . This because we had to reduce the width between centre lines below the 760m that would allow this, due to the proximity of the Bollin Valley to the south and therefore stagger the thresholds (which is permitted under the regulations), but you must always land on the nearest threshold to the direction of approach. This is to make the go-around procedures to work safely.

Going any wider than the spacing that exists would have meant filling in the Bollin Valley along some of its length in National Trust land and planning permission would never have been obtained.

The issue of runway crossings was modelled into the capacity assumptions and was discussed at some length at the Public Inquiry.

All well aware and thats specifically why i call it a one and a half runway operation with the associated impact that result in the relatively low per hour flow rate.

Still it remains the the outer runway displacement aside ideally should be the landing strip, indeed demonstrating the point on the 05s traffic flows and ground conflicts virtually disappear

[OzzyOzBorn]

I note that SPD_Travels on 'X' reports that MAN has been unable to accommodate a proposed transit-stop service by Bangladesh Biman since it's arrival would fall within the night quota for movements. Stand availability could be a consideration too.

But this has got me thinking ... again! When were night movements policies last reviewed seriously both nationally, and at MAN specifically? The stated reason given for night movement restrictions is to accommodate the interests of neighbours ... ie. to keep the noise down. But hang on a minute ... I am one of MAN's closest neighbours (and I mean REALLY bloomin' close!) and I cannot EVER recall being asked what my views on noise policies actually are. There just seems to be some invisible busybodies spouting off somewhere, allegedly purporting to "represent" neighbours like me, pushing an agenda of gesture-based restrictions and nimbyism. We neighbours are just presumed to not want planes around ... period. Well, that may be true of some, but very far from all. I don't know anyone in my neighbourhood whose residency here predates the airport. We know the area, we knew what we were moving into. And most of us LOVE IT. No aspirations to move away at all. You would be amazed how many seemingly unlikely neighbours ask me what that 'unusual plane' was which arrived afew hours ago. The airport is a source of interest and employment opportunities for many around here. Quite afew of them are keen avgeeks too!

When I moved here 36 years ago, night movements were BAC 1-11's, Boeing 737-200's, Boeing 727's, VC-10's and Tridents. Noisy beasts. But ALL LONG GONE. And I didn't even mind them back then anyway! But since then, we have generations of new types which are not only vastly quieter, but which also climb out steeply leaving a negligible noise footprint behind at surface. And the airlines' reward for introducing these types? Pretty much nothing ... same draconian noise quotas as before.

I know that touching on this subject will draw angry criticism from some quarters, but it really is time to rethink all this nonsense. Firstly, why are inbounds restricted at all? Noise from these wouldn't wake anyone who doesn't have other issues. And for departures, no allowance seems to be made for airlines which have invested in using the newest, quietest types at MAN. Rather than having an indiscriminate night quota, I (as one of THE most directly affected) would much prefer to shift to a regime where newer quieter types are exempted from night noise restrictions altogether, leaving penalties to affect only the older noisier types. Firstly, I don't see any need for noise quotas on arrivals at all. I would propose exemptions for all departing props, A320neo family, B737-MAX family, B787, A350, and later A330 and B777 models amongst others. This incentivises airlines to replace their older models leaving an all-round improved environment at MAN. It could make a real positive difference. Luddite gestures don't deliver that. Along this line of thought, it is interesting that in response to the illogical movements cap impeding expansion at DUB, Michael O' Leary has pledged to base only his older B737-8AS models there. Quite right too ... good for him!

On other matters noise-related, MAN also has historic bans on training flights and military PD's. Why? Supposedly to protect ME and other near neighbours from the 'inconvenience' they allegedly cause. My answer (since they've NEVER actually asked me) is NOT IN MY NAME, thanks very much. I believe that we should SUPPORT our RAF and NATO allies, not ban them. And I have no objection to new pilots learning the finer details of flying into MAN. Put out the welcome signs as far as I'm concerned.

This very close neighbour (and many more like me) welcomes the prospect of MAN maximising business and employment opportunities for the region by attracting airline business to the maximum extent achievable. So let's ditch archaic rules inspired by VC-10's and Tridents and adapt to a world filled with quiet, high climb-rate modern aircraft types. No damaging illogical quotas in my name, please. Incentivise the accelerated adoption of new quieter types using MAN instead. Including B789's of Bangladesh Biman, or any other carrier minded to enhance prosperity for this region. Thanks!

[TURIN]

Wow! Just Wow!
Why didn't you just say "I like to look at aeroplanes and everyone else, regardless of their opinions can go hang?"
I live well away from the airport, over 15 miles away, but I still would not want more night time air traffic.
Even the most modern aircraft are too noisy.
As for Biman, I'd be glad to see the back of them to be honest.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Thanks Turin. Knew I could rely on you for an instant opposing point of view! 😁

Your throwback luddite inclinations reflect a proportion of public opinion, but you are mistaken in citing "everyone else". That's the point! Too many make generalised rash assumptions as you have done.

And the reason I didn't say what you wrote is because that was not my message. Perhaps it is what you wish my message had been?

Why do you dislike Bangladesh Biman?

[eggc]

Well we are not seeing the back of Biman, the transit possibility was an addition to their existing service.

The transit service would have arrived before the first morning departure, a time we are all fully aware that there's not a single stand available. Move it back a bit to 7 or 8am and it would have been fine.

[Navpi]

If it's true that there is no stand availability that is a failiure firmly rooted with previous management. Whichever way you cut this its a missed revenue opportunity.
Ethiopian and now Biman , don't mention Jet2.

[MANFAN]

Wow! Just Wow!
Why didn't you just say "I like to look at aeroplanes and everyone else, regardless of their opinions can go hang?"
I live well away from the airport, over 15 miles away, but I still would not want more night time air traffic.
Even the most modern aircraft are too noisy.
As for Biman, I'd be glad to see the back of them to be honest.

“Even the most modern aircraft are too noisy”.
Is this an early April fools joke?!

How the hell do you work that out!!

[SWBKCB]

“Even the most modern aircraft are too noisy”.
Is this an early April fools joke?!

How the hell do you work that out!!

Live under an airport approach path. I do and can't tell the difference between a 738 and a MAX, or a 320 and a NEO. Yes, people will comment on an 'interesting' aircraft, but that doesn't mean they want a stream of them over their head at 06.00.

[chaps1954]

Turin Please tell me whats wrong with Bangladesh, they operate modern 787s and come in at a respectable time and have a good service level.

[bobradamus]

**reaches for the popcorn** :rolleyes:

[TURIN]

Turin Please tell me whats wrong with Bangladesh, they operate modern 787s and come in at a respectable time and have a good service level.
Remember PIA?
Yeah, that.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Remember PIA?
Yeah, that.

PIA has been banned from European skies by the authorities due to safety concerns. Bangladesh Biman has not, and their B788 operations appear to be operating with good puctuality and few apparent issues. So what is your point?

[Navpi]

Remember PIA?
Yeah, that.

Er it's a different country 😲

[TURIN]

PIA has been banned from European skies by the authorities due to safety concerns. Bangladesh Biman has not, and their B788 operations appear to be operating with good puctuality and few apparent issues. So what is your point?
Appearances can be deceptive.

[TURIN]

Er it's a different country 😲
I'm well aware of that. Look to the history of PIA's demise and the reasons they are banned.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I'm well aware of that. Look to the history of PIA's demise and the reasons they are banned.

What has that got to do with Bangladesh Biman's B787 operations?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Er it's a different country 😲
East Pakistan / West Pakistan? Too soon?

[Mr Mac]

A colleague coming out of Manchester this afternoon said there seemed to be some excitement re BA shuttle with Fire Crew attending and remote stand ? Any ideas on cause of the excitement as it was given increased spacing with other flight holding so I thought maybe break issues.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[Navpi]

Confirmation.

Bangladesh plans to further expand operations to Rome FCO as it will use the airport as a refuelling stop on its services between Dhaka and Toronto YYZ. Currently, the carrier utilises Istanbul IST as its stopover point but has signalled plans to transfer to the Italian capital instead.

Biman Bangladesh Airlines now serves three destinations in Europe with Rome complementing London LHR and Manchester.

[Rutan16]

Confirmation.

Bangladesh plans to further expand operations to Rome FCO as it will use the airport as a refuelling stop on its services between Dhaka and Toronto YYZ. Currently, the carrier utilises Istanbul IST as its stopover point but has signalled plans to transfer to the Italian capital instead.

Biman Bangladesh Airlines now serves three destinations in Europe with Rome complementing London LHR and Manchester.

Just another loss to the British economy then . So so good at poking ourselves in the eye these days

[Navpi]

https://shows.acast.com/green-list-travel-with-simon-calder-and-the-independent/episodes/march-29th-manchester-airport-reaches-for-the-skies

Interesting interview with Simon Calder today.

Main Takes ;

320k pax this week end

Every month busiest since Oct.

Expecting busiest summer ever.

22m within 2 hour drive , catchment doesn't overlap with LHR. (Yes that tag line is back) 😁

11m in 1hr catchment

New security scanning machines this summer.

Loves competition with Liverpool and LBA.

200 destinations

Competing with likes of Copenhagen and Milan for Bangkok service.

Lots of tfr traffic today.

54 of 55 airlines moving to T2. Be interesting to see how that works ?

RYR remain T3

Intrigued he mentioned Bangkok.

As a side note ....
//www.agbi.com/retail/2023/09/middle-east-shoppers-surge-at-bicester-village

CheshireOaks is actually larger, you would think it would be a larger attraction than Bicester but you do wonder if CheshireOaks is geared up for massive foreign tourist influx.

[lfc84]

Ryanair to remain at T3

[Mr Mac]

Navpi
Slightly different shops between those two outlets, all discount but brands differ, with one being a little more expensive.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[Rutan16]

Navpi
Slightly different shops between those two outlets, all discount but brands differ, with one being a little more expensive.

Cheers
Mr Mac

Bicester is the perfect location for the daily tour buses from London to and from Shakespeare land . Functions just like those Turkish tour buses to Cannakale and Ephesus that dump you in Denizli industrial estate carpet warehouses for hours. Drivers and Tour operators receive knock backs for the captive trade generated.

[Mr Mac]

Rutan 16
A quick check on stores confirms the Bicester outlet has higher niche stores and products, or should I say perceived to be for me. For example Breitling Watches and Alexandra McQueen clothing are both very expensive items.

These sort of names attract a number of people especially from Far East and indeed China to shop there. it’s location also helps as you say.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[Navpi]

Rutan 16
A quick check on stores confirms the Bicester outlet has higher niche stores and products, or should I say perceived to be for me. For example Breitling Watches and Alexandra McQueen clothing are both very expensive items.

These sort of names attract a number of people especially from Far East and indeed China to shop there. it’s location also helps as you say.

Cheers
Mr Mac


Maybe the Trafford Centre or Manchester then 😁
Btw both brands are freely available in Selfridges in the City centre and the Trafford centre.

On a theme why not have Chinese students from Manchester University Liverpool, Uni, Chester Uni as hosts working P/T thee places TC, CheshireOaks etc.

Bicester has Chinese signage etc and appears more geared up to the offer and appears more receptive re governance, hosts etc.

Swap medieval Chester or North Wales Castles for William Shakespeare and job done.The Chinese love English Literature.

Last time i went to The Lakes i popped into a couple of locations featuring Beatrix Potter. The World Of Beatrix Potter at Windermere was absolutely rammed with Chinese tourists, i counted 10 coaches in the coach park all with Chinese script in the drivers windscreen, there were 2 more at Hill Top House where she lived further up Windermere. Two more arrived as we left so they were coming and going all the time.

We have a multitude of attractions up here but in my view simply don't have the guile to exploit. No doubt they all came from London.

It needs joined up thinking between the Chinese tour companies and our tourist hotspots plus airlines, MAN airport, coach companies, retail outlets and hoteliers to provide an over arching offer that fully competes with London.

10 years back and before the dreaded C word struck , Wendy Wu Tours (largest agency in China), were going to buy a hotel in Manchester as a Northern transit point for Chinese tourists. The idea was bringing in pax to LHR to see attractions up here and Scotland but then depart from MAN, with same in reverse.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/chinese-entrepreneur-unveils-plans-hotel-7763546

it needs that sort of re invention.

[chaps1954]

It can be done and should be done. There are so many places that need to be pushed like Chatsworth, Lyme Hall etc etc

[ATNotts]

It can be done and should be done. There are so many places that need to be pushed like Chatsworth, Lyme Hall etc etc
Out of curiosity I have just been perusing the Visit Britain website in various European languages (sadly Chinese is beyond me!) and unsurprisingly it is overwhelmingly London centric.

The only way for England outside London to punch to its weight is for the mayors and local authorities to join forces to sell England from Birmingham northwards agressively. Waiting for Visit Britain to do something isn't the answer. Interesting the Yorkshire website is pretty good, proving that it can be done.

[roverman]

Maybe the Trafford Centre or Manchester then 😁
Btw both brands are freely available in Selfridges in the City centre and the Trafford centre.

On a theme why not have Chinese students from Manchester University Liverpool, Uni, Chester Uni as hosts working P/T thee places TC, CheshireOaks etc.

Bicester has Chinese signage etc and appears more geared up to the offer and appears more receptive re governance, hosts etc.

Swap medieval Chester or North Wales Castles for William Shakespeare and job done.The Chinese love English Literature.

Last time i went to The Lakes i popped into a couple of locations featuring Beatrix Potter. The World Of Beatrix Potter at Windermere was absolutely rammed with Chinese tourists, i counted 10 coaches in the coach park all with Chinese script in the drivers windscreen, there were 2 more at Hill Top House where she lived further up Windermere. Two more arrived as we left so they were coming and going all the time.

We have a multitude of attractions up here but in my view simply don't have the guile to exploit. No doubt they all came from London.

It needs joined up thinking between the Chinese tour companies and our tourist hotspots plus airlines, MAN airport, coach companies, retail outlets and hoteliers to provide an over arching offer that fully competes with London.

10 years back and before the dreaded C word struck , Wendy Wu Tours (largest agency in China), were going to buy a hotel in Manchester as a Northern transit point for Chinese tourists. The idea was bringing in pax to LHR to see attractions up here and Scotland but then depart from MAN, with same in reverse.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/chinese-entrepreneur-unveils-plans-hotel-7763546

it needs that sort of re invention.
It's Japanese tourists who frequent Beatrix Potter attractions. Her books are massive in Japan.

[Navpi]

It's Japanese tourists who frequent Beatrix Potter attractions. Her books are massive in Japan.

These were definitely Chinese, but happy to take Japanese as well 😁 this from a few years back...

Every year more than 70,000 visitors from Japan flock to the Lakes, many because of its links with Beatrix Potter, creator of The Tales Of Peter Rabbit, which are enormously popular in the far east.

[chinapattern]

https://shows.acast.com/green-list-travel-with-simon-calder-and-the-independent/episodes/march-29th-manchester-airport-reaches-for-the-skies

Interesting interview with Simon Calder today.

Main Takes ;

320k pax this week end

Every month busiest since Oct.

Expecting busiest summer ever.

22m within 2 hour drive , catchment doesn't overlap with LHR. (Yes that tag line is back) 😁

11m in 1hr catchment

New security scanning machines this summer.

Loves competition with Liverpool and LBA.

200 destinations

Competing with likes of Copenhagen and Milan for Bangkok service.

Lots of tfr traffic today.

54 of 55 airlines moving to T2. Be interesting to see how that works ?

RYR remain T3

Intrigued he mentioned Bangkok.

As a side note ....
//www.agbi.com/retail/2023/09/middle-east-shoppers-surge-at-bicester-village

CheshireOaks is actually larger, you would think it would be a larger attraction than Bicester but you do wonder if CheshireOaks is geared up for massive foreign tourist influx.

Thai already serve Copenhagen and resume Milan in July.

[Mr A Tis]

Thai has served CPH-BKK for a long time. I flew that route two years ago !!! (It was £1,000 cheaper in business class from CPH over flying from LHR). Cheshire Oaks is rammed everyday- not sure there is capacity there for even more "shoppers".

[OzzyOzBorn]

Is Cheshire Oaks an arboretum? Do they have other species of trees???

[AircraftOperations]

A colleague coming out of Manchester this afternoon said there seemed to be some excitement re BA shuttle with Fire Crew attending and remote stand ? Any ideas on cause of the excitement as it was given increased spacing with other flight holding so I thought maybe break issues.

Cheers
Mr Mac

https://avherald.com/h?article=516c9dfd&opt=0

[Curious Pax]

These were definitely Chinese, but happy to take Japanese as well 😁 this from a few years back...

Every year more than 70,000 visitors from Japan flock to the Lakes, many because of its links with Beatrix Potter, creator of The Tales Of Peter Rabbit, which are enormously popular in the far east.

Definitely popular with the Japanese too. Was there a few years ago standing in a car park outside the shop at the southern end of the Lakeside and Haverthwaite steam railway with our 2 dogs when about 50 Japanese tourists got off the train. Next thing I knew they had surrounded us (at a respectful distance) and were taking pictures of the dogs. Some even got brave enough to come and pretend to pat them (they were still a few feet away)! Seems that a golden retriever and vizsla are unusually big dogs for city dwellers over there!

Sorry - bit of a thread drift there!

[Mr Mac]

AircarftOperation
Thank you for the link, and information.
Cheers
Mr Mac

[S.o.S.]

Curious Pax No need to apologise for such a small amount of drift. But thank you for saying so.

[TURIN]

AircarftOperation
Thank you for the link, and information.
Cheers
Mr Mac
I would take it with a pinch of salt, so many inaccuracies in that article.

[Suzeman]

All well aware and thats specifically why i call it a one and a half runway operation with the associated impact that result in the relatively low per hour flow rate.
Still it remains the the outer runway displacement aside ideally should be the landing strip, indeed demonstrating the point on the 05s traffic flows and ground conflicts virtually disappear

Well if you were aware of all this, why did you not explain that the rules did not permit it, so others who don't have your all-encompassing knowledge could see what the issues were?

One and a half runways is a reasonable description - but where would you have put a second runway to get a doubling of capacity?

What MAN has ended up with is an increase in runway capacity and a reduction of holding delays over the single runway it had before.

I strongly suggest that with any other layout, the planning application would have been rejected and we would still be stuck with a single runway to this day.

[Mr Mac]

Turin
Ok will take your word for it. But if the article was inaccurate what caused the incident ?

Cheers
Mr Mac

[VickersVicount]

Cathay up to 5/wk from Sept

[spannersatcx]

Cathay up to 5/wk from Sept
It's the student run, also in June.

[spacedog]

It's the student run, also in June.
Thought Cathay were supposed to be daily for the summer. Must still be struggling with staff shortages. When is the plan to return to a daily service?

[MANFOD]

Cathay up to 5/wk from Sept

It appears to be June and September only for the student run as spanners mentions. For the lead up to the Christmas period, it's back to 4 x weekly. .

Somewhat strange that Hainan will be operating daily for part of the summer to Beijing, but when it comes to HK, MAN appears to be low down, if not bottom, of the CX pecking order for restoring frequency to the pre-covid level of daily. You do wonder if we'll ever get back to daily..

[Mayfield62]

The Hong Kong Market has fallen through the floor. Cathay has replaced 777-300s with A350-900s on two of the five daily flight (CX was 6 a day from Heathrow pre-covid), BA maintain 2 daily using a 777-200 and a 787-9 (replacing an A380 and a 777-300 pre-covid) and Virgin Atlantic has pulled off the route completely.

[spannersatcx]

The Hong Kong Market has fallen through the floor. Cathay has replaced 777-300s with A350-900s on two of the five daily flight (CX was 6 a day from Heathrow pre-covid), BA maintain 2 daily using a 777-200 and a 787-9 (replacing an A380 and a 777-300 pre-covid) and Virgin Atlantic has pulled off the route completely.

Today's MAN Flt was overbooked, full in and out!

[spannersatcx]

It appears to be June and September only for the student run as spanners mentions. For the lead up to the Christmas period, it's back to 4 x weekly. .

Somewhat strange that Hainan will be operating daily for part of the summer to Beijing, but when it comes to HK, MAN appears to be low down, if not bottom, of the CX pecking order for restoring frequency to the pre-covid level of daily. You do wonder if we'll ever get back to daily..

I'm not sure Man is down the pecking order, although LHR is deemed the centre of the universe! I believe the plan is to be back to 100% capacity by this time next year, there's a multitude of reasons as to why it's not back tp pre covid levels, whether that means MAN is back to daily who knows, I think it will go 5x week first than possible 7x, just have to wait and see I guess. HKG was at least 2 years behind the rest of the world when it came to coming out of covid, still playing catchup!

[MANFOD]

Today's MAN Flt was overbooked, full in and out!

And I understand LFs for the 4 months Oct-Jan averaged 94% so no shortage of passengers on the 4 x weekly flights.

The Hong Kong market may have shrunk to a degree, but I would have thought a fair proportion of those MAN passengers would be flying onwards from HKG, some with a stopover for a few days.
And I guess December and January will have been boosted by students travelling in both directions..

[Mr Mac]

Manfod
There is quite a bit off stuff happening in China currently business wise and a number of companies are leaving and near shoring or moving elsewhere, not huge numbers but growing. Also IT changes have made face to face less necessary in particular with UK companies I find. I am not sure this is a good thing by the way as I find nothing is better than human contact even with language barriers, as human reactions are universal.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[MAN2SIN2BKK2FRA]

Manfod
There is quite a bit off stuff happening in China currently business wise and a number of companies are leaving and near shoring or moving elsewhere, not huge numbers but growing. Also IT changes have made face to face less necessary in particular with UK companies I find. I am not sure this is a good thing by the way as I find nothing is better than human contact even with language barriers, as human reactions are universal.

Cheers
Mr Mac
Hi Mr Mac, I agree with you on this. I work in the electronics industry and 5 of my Chinese suppliers have recently set up facilities elsewhere, 2 have moved to Malaysia, 1 to Thailand, 1 to Vietnam and 1 to Cambodia

[Navpi]

Has there been a change at the top of Virgin ?

Since the heady days when Virgin started at Manchester with the "supposed" double pivot of Heathrow and Manchester they seem to have completely forgotten about us.

There isn't even mention of Las Vegas 😯

I recall someone saying last year they were on a Vigin coach tour between LA and San Franscisco, everyone on the coach was from the North of England !!!

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1041x1717/screenshot_20240407_093531_linkedin_f54cb7143f3411ca07cb966f a9b882014c5e02cc.jpg

[laviation]

Virgin are a total chocolate teapot when it comes to MAN expansion. If MAN got a OW lounge and EIUK customers could use it, they’d be completely blown out of the water.

[Sotonsean]

And just to add, VS last week finally confirmed that they are no longer going ahead with their planned and much delayed Virgin Clubhouse at Manchester Airport.

The Virgin Atlantic route network from Manchester should have been far more substantial than it currently is if everything went to plan prior to covid.

If everything went to plan, the VS route network from Manchester would or could have more than likely consisted of the following destinations.

Atlanta
Barbados
Delhi
Islamabad
Lahore
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Mumbai
New York JFK
Orlando
San Francisco

And possibly Boston and Cape Town at some point.

With the route network consisting of the above destinations then the planned Virgin Clubhouse would have been more viable. But not with the current flights offered by Virgin Atlantic from Manchester.

It's a real shame for Manchester Airport that Virgin Atlantic never really took the opportunity to expand from the airport and make it an alternative hub to their network from London Heathrow.

With Star Alliance being the largest of the three airline groups, represented at Manchester Airport I wonder if they would consider having a dedicated lounge at some point.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

And just to add, VS last week finally confirmed that they are no longer going ahead with their planned and much delayed Virgin Clubhouse at Manchester Airport.
The Virgin Atlantic route network from Manchester should have been far more substantial than it currently is if everything went to plan prior to covid.

Why do do you think that is? I mean there's a reason they're not going ahead with the Clubhouse, so what would you say it was? A hatred of all things Northern perhaps? A vendetta to do down MAN? Or is there a commerical reason perhaps? Perhaps they're just terribly managed with no idea what they're doing and throwing darts at a route map with their fingers crossed? Or maybe the commercial return just isn't strong enough? There does remain a relative weakness here, and it's not as if Aer Lingus UK have taken much advantage either? If MAN-US longhaul was the goldmine it once was then both airlines would be in proper expansion mode, as these are the good times. A 2nd Virgin hub (proper) at MAN was never gonna fly.

[Sotonsean]

I was just commenting that's all, I wasn't debating it. In the interests of Manchester Airport, that's all.

I must admit Skip, that once I started reading your post and the way in which it was typed, my immediate thought was, has he been having a cheeky Sunday afternoon drink 🍸

FYI...I'm am definitely not a Virgin Atlantic fan, or a Virgin brand fan for that matter. I think a lot of Sir Richard Branson as a person but from personal experience I'm absolutely not a fan of his relative brands, that's for sure.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

I must admit Skip, that once I started reading your post and the way in which it was typed, my immediate thought was, has he been having a cheeky Sunday afternoon drink 🍸
We just need to challenge the group-think that goes on about "fairness" and "deserving". Spend less time paying any attention to marketing fluff and pay attention to what the business does and why. Virgin don't have cash to splash, they need to focus laser like on survival and paying down the debt that's weighing them down. They have no recent history of consistent profitability and decent margins and are struggling now, in the good times where competitors are making hay. That said, a split hub strategy makes no sense, nor does a split London operation IMHO. We're never far from the next recession in aviation and if Virgin are still stuck under a debt mountain, we only need look at Thomas Cook to see what can happen. I agree it's a shame that MAN won't get a Clubhouse, but I can only assume the business case no longer stacks up.

[Navpi]

Hatred, vendetta ?

Colourful language none of which was actually used.

You do have a habit of taking perfectly reasonable comments and anointing them with your own colourful language in order to create a false narrative of what was actually said originally.

No toxicity up here Skip we just want a more level playing field that isn't listing to 45 degrees.

No limousine service from home.
No first class seperate lounge.
Slightly higher fares for the "privilege" of using Manchester
A hotch potch frequency in some instances, eg 4 a week
Limited frequency per day
Limitations of destinations.

....if you don't strive to provide the same offer opportunity as that available from Heathrow you don't succeed.

Our network going East is perfectly acceptable, West less so.

The same applies to freight.

No subsidies but a little bit of of levelling up with the same offer as LHR comes to mind, even IF it's on the margins.

I'm not expecting 126 flights a day to the USA but a bit more than the current meagre offering would be nice.

....And a mention in the PR that demonstrates we are actually STILL a part of the Virgin family would be nice would it not?

[SWBKCB]

No toxicity up here Skip we just want a more level playing field that isn't listing to 45 degrees.

No subsidies but a little bit of of levelling up with the same offer as LHR comes to mind, even IF it's on the margins.

The point that S1E is making is that for commercial organisations, this will only happen if they can make better returns from MAN than they can elsewhere

[Flightrider]

Virgin Atlantic flies to over 30 destinations and has a Clubhouse at precisely five of them. It's got several flights a day through Orlando, through India with shared lounges - exactly as it has at Manchester. If Manchester is a poor relation, then it's in good company alongside Orlando and Delhi and 25 other Virgin destinations worldwide, but I don't see forums here moaning about those.

Manchester has got no god-given right to multiple destinations and frequencies by Virgin Atlantic - it will do what it wants, when it wants, and what it believes will be profitable. This "levelling up" stuff is just nonsense. And if they don't take up the huge opportunity at Manchester that others foresee, then it will be Virgin's loss if Aer Lingus UK expands or United, American, BA, Norse or whomever else comes charging in on a white horse to correct this perceived inequality. The fact that none of them have rather suggests that others take a similar view of the market potential at Manchester as that which Virgin itself has reached. They can't all be wrong.

[laviation]

Virgin Atlantic flies to over 30 destinations and has a Clubhouse at precisely five of them. It's got several flights a day through Orlando, through India with shared lounges - exactly as it has at Manchester. If Manchester is a poor relation, then it's in good company alongside Orlando and Delhi and 25 other Virgin destinations worldwide, but I don't see forums here moaning about those.

Manchester has got no god-given right to multiple destinations and frequencies by Virgin Atlantic - it will do what it wants, when it wants, and what it believes will be profitable. This "levelling up" stuff is just nonsense. And if they don't take up the huge opportunity at Manchester that others foresee, then it will be Virgin's loss if Aer Lingus UK expands or United, American, BA, Norse or whomever else comes charging in on a white horse to correct this perceived inequality. The fact that none of them have rather suggests that others take a similar view of the market potential at Manchester as that which Virgin itself has reached. They can't all be wrong.

Because Delhi, Orlando and the 25 other destinations are outstations. Virgin doesn't call them 'our home in Florida ... our home in India'...

Virgin talk the talk , NO WONDER people choose to go to LHR, when for the same price they can go to the Clubhouse !

Up to 5 daily flights on some days, that’s a decent amount as well as 7 daily KLM, 4 daily AF, and multiple dailies by SAS whose passengers could also make use of the lounge - more than enough

Ignoring the sentiments that have played a part in your post, the idea that MAN shouldn’t come to expect a clubhouse is ridiculous.

Promised since 2019 - 5 years on, we are well within our rights to complain about its non appearance

[Navpi]

Indeed, some people have amnesia or jump in without a forensic knowledge of the subject.

“In order to provide an unrivalled travel experience, Virgin Atlantic will bring its iconic Clubhouse lounge to Manchester for the first time from Spring 2020. Upper Class customers and Gold Card members can take advantage of the exclusive space before their flight, which will include a la carte dining and a full service bar, quiet working spaces and a spa, allowing passengers to relax and rejuvenate before they depart.”

Most would argue the landscape now is the same as it was pre covid ?

My original sentiment however was more about the gushing PR puff piece that focused on expansion in 2024. Manchester is a part of that last time I checked but was omitted from the piece above !

[SWBKCB]

This is the point that is being made - it's not about what has been 'promised' or what MAN 'deserves'. How much would Virgin have to spend on a clubhouse and how much extra income would it generate? Virgin lost £139m last year

[double_barrel]

HELP ON ARRIVAL MANCHESTER?

I arrive in Manchester tomorrow morning from Nairobi via Paris. I have 5 pieces of hold luggage each weighing 32Kg plus carry on, plus wife and a small child in a buggy. On departure from Nairobi we were able to arrange assistance from car park to gate at a modest cost, but I have not been able to find any similar service in Manchester. I don't know how I will manhandle all that stuff through customs and out to the car park where we are being met by a taxi. Is there any way I can get assistance?


Thanks!

[Espada III]

https://royalairportconcierge.com/Airport/man/

https://fastrackvip.com/airports/manchester/

[double_barrel]

https://royalairportconcierge.com/Airport/man/

https://fastrackvip.com/airports/manchester/


I called both, they say meet and greet has been suspended in MAN for the last 2 years! Any other ideas?

[lfc84]

prem air arrivals service is closed https://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/premiair/

i sugest you phone the airport or use chat on their website and ask what's available (if anything)

the handling agents listed on the website below may have a solution if you call them. details below

https://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/help/passenger-guides/luggage/baggage-reclaim/

there's also some links to accessibility info if that is applicable

[Flightrider]

Most would argue the landscape now is the same as it was pre covid ?

The landscape for Virgin in Manchester certainly isn't the same as it was pre-Covid. US West Coast gone. India expansion plans gone. Vegas only now being restored as a summer route. No Delta Boston.

If you have fewer passengers at an airport, you have less need for a huge investment in a Clubhouse. It's business common sense, even though you seem to be expected to to park that outside the door upon entry to this particular PPruNe thread.

And just to add, JFK has a Clubhouse (as do Washington Dulles, Johannesburg and San Francisco) even though they are not bases. If I recall correctly what I once heard, the economics of at least two of those depend on other airlines using the Virgin Atlantic lounge to provide volume and thus revenue to support their operation.

[UnderASouthernSky]

I called both, they say meet and greet has been suspended in MAN for the last 2 years! Any other ideas?

Paying extra for the taxi driver to meet you in arrivals, rather than at the car park, would make it easier for you. Perhaps ask the handling agent at the arrival gate for their help - they (or the airport) sometimes have staff at Baggage Reclaim an. Remember you will also be charged for a trolley.

[laviation]

The landscape for Virgin in Manchester certainly isn't the same as it was pre-Covid. US West Coast gone. India expansion plans gone. Vegas only now being restored as a summer route. No Delta Boston.

If you have fewer passengers at an airport, you have less need for a huge investment in a Clubhouse. It's business common sense, even though you seem to be expected to to park that outside the door upon entry to this particular PPruNe thread.

And just to add, JFK has a Clubhouse (as do Washington Dulles, Johannesburg and San Francisco) even though they are not bases. If I recall correctly what I once heard, the economics of at least two of those depend on other airlines using the Virgin Atlantic lounge to provide volume and thus revenue to support their operation.

Minus 3 LAX, 3 BOS, and a couple of MCO frequencies, the VS operation in Summer 2024 will be exactly the same as in 2019.

[sportzbar]

I'm just gonna throw this out there as an outside observer of the world between 2019 and today. I dont profess to be an expert and have no insider knowledge of the comings and goings of the industry but do follow the news pieces, forums and any other general information that comes about to form my opinion and here it is....

2019 was a very different world to today. Indeed Thomas Cook was thriving (well the airline was anyway) as a Manchester based longhaul airline with plans for expansion. Virgin wanted in on this too and also made great plans with promises of a Club House because they could see a that with extra flights the critical mass would be there to make such a venture possible. Back in 2019 the market going West was there. Sure the Dollar wasn't as it was a few years before but visits to the USA were affordable and profitable.

Then in September 2019 Thomas Cook was sadly taken from us by the collapse of the parent company (caused by bad financial decisions eventually catching up but that's another story). Virgin saw this as an opportunity and doubled down with the promise of extra flights. They just needed the aircraft...

But then in March 2020 (earlier for some countries), the world changed with COVID and national lockdowns. Everything changed. EVERYTHING. The way we work, the way we shop, the way we travel.

Fast forward to today, five years after 2019 and indeed there are signs that Manchester has recovered in passenger numbers to what they were in 2019. But the passengers aren't travelling to the USA in great numbers anymore. It's too expensive. People want more for their money and they are finding it in other places that the USA.

Maybe that's why the US carriers haven't come back? Manchester has always been an out bound market to the USA. But that market has shrunk now. That's fact.

The biggest market for Virgin has always been the USA. They were set up by Branson to compete with BA on transatlantic and the odd service elsewhere that could make a few quid. In 2019 that odd service was Manchester mainly going west with the odd India service thrown in.

But the reality I see now in 2024, is that Manchester has become even more leisure orientated than it was in 2019 and those passengers are more price sensitive, even taking into account frequent fliers, than the previous clientle.

Virgin are heavily in debt and as a business they should do everything they can to pay down that debt before embarking on what is (in my opinion) a massive risky investment in a Clubhouse at Manchester for a few premium passengers. Perhaps that's the reality and that promise has to be broken.....

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Up to 5 daily flights on some days, that’s a decent amount as well as 7 daily KLM, 4 daily AF, and multiple dailies by SAS whose passengers could also make use of the lounge - more than enough
Ignoring the sentiments that have played a part in your post, the idea that MAN shouldn’t come to expect a clubhouse is ridiculous.
So, why do we all think they're not building a Clubhouse at MAN after all? I suggested that the Finance Team working with the CEO had decided that the numbers didn't stack up given the financial position that the airline remains trapped in. I think the guys with access to the numbers have some very tough decisions to make. So, if you're right, and they should spend a few million quid on a lounge and then charge their partners to use it, if it's THAT easy, what's your explanation as to why they're not doing so? That was why I jokingly suggested "they just hate the North", that's plainly ridiculous, they do not. They seem to do well out of MAN. There's a lot of sentiment on here around "fairness" and "deserving" which in is a classically Northern sentiment, (not a criticism), but it will kill you stone dead in business if you're not careful. Aircraft are THE most mobile off assets and have to be deployed where they get the most bang for their buck.

[EI-BUD]

The landscape for Virgin in Manchester certainly isn't the same as it was pre-Covid. US West Coast gone. India expansion plans gone. Vegas only now being restored as a summer route. No Delta Boston.

If you have fewer passengers at an airport, you have less need for a huge investment in a Clubhouse. It's business common sense, even though you seem to be expected to to park that outside the door upon entry to this particular PPruNe thread.

And just to add, JFK has a Clubhouse (as do Washington Dulles, Johannesburg and San Francisco) even though they are not bases. If I recall correctly what I once heard, the economics of at least two of those depend on other airlines using the Virgin Atlantic lounge to provide volume and thus revenue to support their operation.

Just wait until JetBlue arrive. Then will see. The JFK route will be let's say; hotly contested.

[cavokblues]

Minus 3 LAX, 3 BOS, and a couple of MCO frequencies, the VS operation in Summer 2024 will be exactly the same as in 2019.

Unless I'm reading the numbers wrong, according to ACL, Virgin's seat capacity this summer at Manchester is 605,262. Summer 2019 they had 817,572. So they're still 25% down on their offering 5 years ago.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Perhaps Virgin would be better advised to negotiate a link up with PREMIAIR at Manchester Airport. That should certainly tick the box for a premium pre-flight experience. It should be possible to agree a price point with MAG at which it could be included in the 'Upper Class' tariff, offsetting the limos and Clubhouses included in the ticket price at other larger stations. No new build is needed for this. No direct investment from Virgin. The dedicated Premiair terminal is there awaiting use.

[brian_dromey]

Unless I'm reading the numbers wrong, according to ACL, Virgin's seat capacity this summer at Manchester is 605,262. Summer 2019 they had 817,572. So they're still 25% down on their offering 5 years ago.

They were still operating the 747s with the small Upper Class cabins then? Quite a big capacity difference compared to the A330s, I think?

[cavokblues]

They were still operating the 747s with the small Upper Class cabins then? Quite a big capacity difference compared to the A330s, I think?

Yeah, fair point - movements aren't as down as much as seat capacity.

[OzzyOzBorn]

MAN gets the A350-1000's as well, though the "beachfleet" ones in the leisure-heavy configuration.

[chaps1954]

Two A350-1000 a day at present at least some days

[roverman]

The thing is, us Northerners are canny, we know value for money and we can smell a rip off. I recently flew to Australia and back on SQ out of MAN. Great flights and on-board service. I looked at Premium Economy but it was twice the price of Y class. I didn't even bother looking at Business. Even on a long trip like mine the extra I would pay for the marginal benefit of a premium seat would buy me not just a lot of beer, but another whole holiday. Who in their right mind is going to do that? Airline X may lose out on my bum in their pointy end big seat, but airline Y gets my bum as well, on another flight. So everyone's a winner. Let the southerners pay lots more for their seats, I'll drink their health with a beer on the money I've saved. Savvy Northerners don't need a Clubhouse. There's Wetherspoons!

[AircraftOperations]

The thing is, us Northerners are canny, we know value for money and we can smell a rip off. I recently flew to Australia and back on SQ out of MAN. Great flights and on-board service. I looked at Premium Economy but it was twice the price of Y class. I didn't even bother looking at Business. Even on a long trip like mine the extra I would pay for the marginal benefit of a premium seat would buy me not just a lot of beer, but another whole holiday. Who in their right mind is going to do that? Airline X may lose out on my bum in their pointy end big seat, but airline Y gets my bum as well, on another flight. So everyone's a winner. Let the southerners pay lots more for their seats, I'll drink their health with a beer on the money I've saved. Savvy Northerners don't need a Clubhouse. There's Wetherspoons!

But not eveyone has to pay for their own ticket. Quite often it's their employer. Even in the North.

[sportzbar]

The thing is, us Northerners are canny, we know value for money and we can smell a rip off. I recently flew to Australia and back on SQ out of MAN. Great flights and on-board service. I looked at Premium Economy but it was twice the price of Y class. I didn't even bother looking at Business. Even on a long trip like mine the extra I would pay for the marginal benefit of a premium seat would buy me not just a lot of beer, but another whole holiday. Who in their right mind is going to do that? Airline X may lose out on my bum in their pointy end big seat, but airline Y gets my bum as well, on another flight. So everyone's a winner. Let the southerners pay lots more for their seats, I'll drink their health with a beer on the money I've saved. Savvy Northerners don't need a Clubhouse. There's Wetherspoons!

Yes we can be quite canny like you say, but taking the Singapore example, I was looking at flights next year to Houston to join up with a cruise from Galveston. Most 1 stop flights I was looking at around £600ish in economy. And then I found Singapore were selling premium economy for £1000 return.

Sure it's £400 more but to me, as the flight is part of the holiday and I'm able to adjust my budget to pay this extra then yes I will go premium. Not all Northerners like to save money this way, some of us like to splash out our hard earned cash on little luxuries....

[ATNotts]

But not eveyone has to pay for their own ticket. Quite often it's their employer. Even in the North.
Indeed, however a combination of the post Covid realisation that with Teams and Zoom many meetings can be conducted without the need for an air ticket and the almost obligatory corporate "net zero" policies mean the amount of ɓusiness travel is down and likely won't recover to pre-covid level. As technology develops it may indeed decline further.

[roverman]

Yes, my previous post was a little tongue in cheek but not altogether untrue. Northerners are more likely to be paying for their own air tickets, the funding being more a result of self-employment and entrepreneurialism than government and corporate travel accounts. You only have to take a drive around places like the commuter towns of Cheshire, bordering Manchester and Liverpool, plus parts of those city centres now, to see that there is no shortage of wealth in areas of the North. The people who drive the flashy cars through Alderley Edge will be sitting in the pointy end of aeroplanes, no doubt. I would venture to say that premium travellers being mainly business travellers is no longer true. I think they are just as likely to be baby-boomer leisure travellers with big pensions and property wealth, taking those dream trips abroad. Certainly that was the view of the Emirates staff in MAN a few years back when I was working there.

[Mr Mac]

I’m quite often on EK and Singapore out of Manchester and Business cabin is still full generally, and I have noticed it filling up post Covid.

Teams / Zoom I find are ok for pretty general discussion but more important stuff definitely needs a visit in person we find. As for who my fellow passengers are I would say a mixture of business and high end holidays traffic and indeed there has been the inevitable football players and families occasionally though the only ones I remember was Ferdinand who had family with him and Nanny, who was excellent,

Cheers
Mr Mac

[SWBKCB]

A Manchester Airport spokesperson told the M.E.N.: “Work to replace the travelators on the Skylink is well underway. In several places along the Skylink visitors will see hoardings surrounding the areas where work is already happening with posters explaining what is going on. The project is being delivered in a phased approach to minimise disruption for passengers. The old travellators are being removed and replaced with brand new ones that are being built off-site and then lifted into place. The project will be fully completed next year. In the meantime, we apologise for any inconvenience.”

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-airport-confirm-replacing-feature-29084617

[Mr A Tis]

I stand to be corrected, but they are not all being replaced. Some have been removed completely and only a handful are being replaced. On the plus side, they have fixed the escalators to/from the Metrolink in the station, these have been out of service for about a year.

[azz767]

I know we always want more, but I have to say after the fiasco of the last couple of years, since the changes at leadership level with Ken o’toole and Chris Woodroofe taking up new roles, things seem to be actually getting done at MAN. Yes they could be getting done better or quicker, but at least they’re getting done.

We’re also getting some freight back which is great, and I’m sure more new routes and airlines will follow over the coming months both PAX and freight. I’m just curious to see what the next steps are after pier 2 is built. T1 mothballed yes, and a lot of remote parking and bussing is inevitable but I can’t believe that pier 2 will be the end of the airside redevelopment. I just hope this positive momentum leads to further improvements and opportunity!

[MANFAN]

I stand to be corrected, but they are not all being replaced. Some have been removed completely and only a handful are being replaced. On the plus side, they have fixed the escalators to/from the Metrolink in the station, these have been out of service for about a year.

You are correct in that the current travelator’s between the station and T2 will be replaced between now and summer 2025.
As the skylink will close next year between T1 and the station, obviously these won’t be replaced.

Concerning the station itself, I’m not sure who is responsible but I know it’s not the airport.
For the metrolink side of the station maybe it’s TfGM…?

[TURIN]

Roverman.
Drinking at Spoons isn't savvy, it's self abuse! 😁

[Mr A Tis]

You are correct in that the current travelator’s between the station and T2 will be replaced between now and summer 2025.
As the skylink will close next year between T1 and the station, obviously these won’t be replaced.

Concerning the station itself, I’m not sure who is responsible but I know it’s not the airport.
For the metrolink side of the station maybe it’s TfGM…?

It the airport responsibility, they own the site - it is partially managed by TfGM but they have been clear that MAG is responsible for the infrastructure of the bus side of the station. Not sure of the railways side, I'd guess a combo of Network rail & MAG.