Manchester-3

[roverman]

I do rather hope that MAG / MAN will use the Covid 19 hiatus as a 'foot on the ball' moment to consider the business model now that specific areas of capacity shortage have gone away, temporarily at least. Rather than going back to the old model of pursuing and stimulating traffic by pricing and volume deals, instead use the opportunity to exist for the time being as a single-runway / single-terminal airport whilst a comprehensive strategy for redeveloping and/or withdrawing core facilties is drawn up.

By the advent of MAN-TP at the middle of the last decade MAN had reached the point where it was throwing down track ahead of the train in the manner of Grommit the dog pursued by the evil penguin. The recently enforced huge drop in demand means that terminal redevelopment (not necessarily expansion) projects which looked very difficult and expensive to deliver when capacity was tight could now be done so far more easily. I was never convinced that encouraging multiple low cost flights to the Mediterrean and to unpronouncable Eastern European cities is really contributing to the economy of the North-West, nor is justifiable environmentally as public concern around this grows. I can see value in a MAN which rebuilds and developes its long haul network to key cities whilst carefully managing domestic and European demand and offer. This would be achieved by pricing the facilities to make a profit on the use of those facilites and put some funds in the kitty for ongoing development and maintenance, not tipping the revenue model towards unsustainable off-shoots such as car parking. We also need to review the funding of local government so as not to assume dividends from assets such as MAN, but that's another topic!

If this means that MAN ends up in 10 years time as a 20 mppa airport with just the one runway (and there are options to configure either one of them as an efficient single runway) and one terminal (the extended and redeveloped T2) then I would consider that a win if its a quality and value for money experience for its users.

[OzzyOzBorn]

A very thoughtful response, Roverman. However, I would respectfully put it to you that neither MAG, nor any other airport operator, can significantly influence the inevitable trends implicit in the evolution of global air passenger travel. Low cost / no-frills is the inevitable future of short-haul, and airports which presume to stand against this tide will be washed away. Even Lufthansa Group has finally buckled and gone BOB. IAG were ahead of them on that one. Whether we welcome this new paradigm or not is immaterial. It simply is so. We might as well reminisce about the halcyon days of the stagecoach. Change happens. MAN in particular should stand acutely aware of this, having served as an industry case-study in the perils of customer selection when they refused to engage with no-frills carriers in the earliest days of that emergent sector. The result was that they catapulted nearby LPL from a 250K ppa minnow to a 5M ppa pain in the side in short order, and ended up firefighting for a decade to recover the ground they lost. And the gamble was an abject failure even viewed from the perspective of protecting legacy short-haul schedules. As Eastern Europe opened up from LPL, MAN lost carriers such as LOT, CSA, Air Baltic, Balkan, TAROM and Estonian Air like dominoes. The customers just shifted down the East Lancs Road. MAN didn't even have the no-frills replacements to show for it. Plus the elephant in the room: BA walked away anyway. It was arguably the single greatest strategic blunder in the history of the airport.

I have the greatest respect for your forum contributions - I know that you have long experience at a very high level of airport management - but I just cannot endorse a strategy which (again) prefers to marginalise the no-frills sector in favour of rapidly contracting legacy carriers which are themselves devolving into the price-led no-frills space at a rate of knots. Not only do I expect established no-frills carriers to be the strongest market participants as we emerge from Covid, but I would also anticipate that the most likely new homes for relatively young parked-up white tail B737's/A320's will be new-entrant no-frills players joining the market with no legacy debts, bargain lease deals and a ready supply of highly-trained labour in a recruiters' dream market. Even long-haul will be forced to gravitate more towards the budget sector than full service (which favours MAN's core customer base if played smartly). And keep in mind that even the established prestige long-haul names routinely carry far more passengers in the cheap seats already, a trend which we can only expect to accelerate.

On the idea of becoming a single runway / single terminal operation for a decade to come, I must again take an opposing view. Firstly, as discussed in my earlier posting, I expect short-haul no-frills to be the prominent resurgent sector of the market. MAN is - and needs to be - at the forefront of this (RYR and EZY are already two of the largest based operators). Jet2 and TUI, whilst offering a more value-added customer proposition, are overwhelmingly leisure-orientated too. MAG would have to be delusional to presume that IAG, Lufthansa Group, Air France / KLM and the like are (in isolation) the key to a prosperous future. And that's if we overlook that their onboard experience is barely distinguishable from the no-frills players already. These groups will need to face off against the Ryanairs and the Wizzairs or fade away. MAN needs to embrace this sector - imperfect as it is - or be left to spectate from the sidelines as competing airports grow around them. The early 2000's revisited - but on steroids.

On the environmental impact issue ... a subject which I don't wish to introduce in depth for the purposes of this discussion ... keep in mind that carriers conveying 195 (B738) or 220 (A321) seats per rotation with consistently high load factors serve the cause of clean air far more efficiently than a high fare generously configured aircraft operating with a 50% load factor. No frills carriers aren't a bad thing. And it is up to the industry as a whole - not an airport group of modest size - to drive the agenda towards industry-wide green propulsion technology. Until that arrives, the best thing we can do in the meantime is to ensure that air seats don't fly empty. The no-frills model is the best gateway to delivering this outcome.

I would suggest a further issue with aspiring to a single-runway operation - quite aside from the obvious. If you have a highly valuable strategic infrastructure asset ready and available why ever would you mothball it at the cost of rejecting incremental business which would profoundly benefit the region? I note your view that services such as those to Eastern European cities are of low value to the economy, but I must again respectfully disagree. These regions have entered a cycle of substantial growth in economic importance, and I contend that it is a good thing that the NW has established rapidly growing expat communities from these countries which will expand cultural links far into the future. And don't be too quick to dismiss no-frills customers as being of economically low value to the region. I recall reading an account of a group of conference delegates exchanging tales of how cheap their air travel to the selected resort complex had been: many had used no-frills carriers and discussed this as a badge of honour. Every one of them had a net worth of multiple millions. We cannot pigeonhole customers by the airline they fly with. Taking even myself as an example, pre-covid I flew Tiger Air (Australia), Singapore Airlines long-haul and Ryanair short-haul just days apart. Judge me how you will - I'm the same person on all of these journeys and my economic value to the airport concessions was broadly similar on each occasion.

Continuing on the theme of single runway / single terminal. The serendipitous good fortune of having one terminal which given modest investment in a refresh will be the very epitome of the ideal no-frills short-haul facility, and another which is a state-of-the-art full service facility with all the trimmings, offers a stunning opportunity which MAN must not waste. An opportunity to embrace both sides of the mainstream air passenger market whilst maintaining a clear distinction between them. Many large airports would dream of such good fortune. And do note that the days of Ryanair and Wizz hiding away at unknown former military airbases located in the sticks are rapidly fading into memory ... carriers such as these are bagging slots at many of the highest profile gateway airports now. MAN could attempt to sidestep this trend, but the industry wouldn't stop for them if they did ... though I speak theoretically, as RYR and EZY are established in size at MAN already. Any attempt to cap their further growth in an environment where Thomas Cook and FlyBe haven't been backfilled (even before accounting for C-19 wounds) would be reprehensible in my view. A new level of negligent arrogance.

One further point on your single runway proposal. I would suggest that the return of air transport movements and passenger volumes will not necessarily transpire in lockstep. At first glance this sounds illogical, but it really isn't. We're seeing early examples of this trend playing out already. HOP! Embraer 170's/190's replacing Air France A321 rotations; KLM Embraer 175's/190's replacing Boeing 737-800's/900's; Lufthansa Regional CRJ900's and Embraer 190's replacing A320/A321's. On long-haul, Qatar B787-8's replace A350-900's; Emirates B777's replace A380's. And at the extremes, Eastern Jetstream 41's have replaced FlyBe Embraer 195's on MAN-NQY. In fact, several former FlyBe routes are defaulting to smaller types. We mustn't disregard the upsurge in executive movements too. This trend in motion sees demand for runway slots coming back much more quickly than passenger numbers. MAN must not look the other way and pretend that this isn't happening. The network carriers will want to protect frequencies and the hub connections they open up; MAN must accommodate this. It would be quite negligent for MAN to close a hard-won full-length runway to wilfully thwart the needs of its airline customers. Where is the upside in wasting arguably the North's primary strategic transport infrastructure enhancement of the last half-century? What kind of message does it send to Whitehall if we can't be bothered to use the world-class infrastructure we actually have? Please no ... don't even think about it.

So whilst I agree with you that the tragedy of C-19 has delivered an unforeseen chance to reorganise the Manchester Airport estate to best prosper from new opportunities offered by the post-virus paradigm, I must very respectfully hope for a quite different outcome than the one which you advocate. But I still hold your contributions to the forum in the highest regard. Your relative absence of late has been noticed; please do post your insights more frequently once again.

[SWBKCB]

Ozzy - agreed "carefully managing domestic and European demand" just means giving it away to competitors, as happened with LPL and LBA years ago. I'd query one point on your analysis -

They can do this with some confidence too, as previous recessions have shown that people DO still take vacations after a downturn - but they often choose to trade down to a lower budget option for a couple of years. Hence cheapie flights to Spain and Turkey come back much stronger than upmarket offerings to Florida and the Caribbean.

Let's not forget that those that are still in full time employment have done well economically this year, a full wage and nothing to spend it on. I've seen reports that the top end of the market is seeing huge interest from those wanting a "holiday of a life time" when they can travel again, having missed out this year.

[southside bobby]

Whilst not gainsaying the eloquence & partial luxury of the postings the future of all airports through their owner/operators will be dictated entirely from the boardroom of surviving operators of airliners given possibly the overwhelming force of C-19...local politics/national politics/international politics,economic tragedy,unemployment & only awaiting in short order the green agenda along with COP26 next year in the UK,the little Scandi girl & a fully signed up compliant PM.

Amid scenarios thus it could be imagined the shareholders in MAG will not be looking for a "masterplan" in the post regarding the MAN estate they will be looking for any return on their investment in the form of dividend in the bank as soon as.

Short termism rules OK within UK corporate culture.

Not so sure any mention of the actual word "employment" in the above ideas/plans but that should be a top priority given within MAG & is more reason to believe & suppose MAG management will show an ankle to all & sundry & cobble up on the ground any plan to accommodate results.

[MANFAN]

Arrived last night from CDG with AF at 9.15pm, on stand 23 and we had the downstairs & upstairs experience. I understand this was to separate arriving & departing passengers but at the moment and at that time of the evening, no flights were departing, be easier to open up the corridor in between! T1 has had it’s day or at least the piers have, time to say au revoir for good!

As for the single runway idea, surely runway 2 needs to be kept serviceable for when runway 1 had it’s monthly scheduled maintenance. Although I do wonder what used to happen years about pre runway 2 when maintenance was required and in the summer flights were arriving 24/7...

[chaps1954]

They used to do same as BHX close airport at night for couple of weeks but not as easy when more flights arrive late in evening ( pre covid )

[MAN777]

I haven't been near MAN for 10 months now.

Whats the state of play with the T2 redevelopment ?

Are works still ongoing & is the closure of T2 being taken as a chance to move on quickly with the revamp of the old T2 without the inconvenience of having passengers around you ?

Ta

[southside bobby]

For some r/w work displaced thresholds come to mind & heavy maint for instance programmed into winter months similar to most single r/w airports without the luxury of a second.

[HKGBOY]

I wouldn’t be too dismissive of MAN ability to regain its premium traffic. Pre COVID all my Cathay flights were full up front, likewise my EK A380s were the same. Even the evening Finnair connecting at Helsinki flights up front were full.
No frills market offer low cost air carriers but not always necessarily low fares. Screwing airports for slots and facilities paying peanuts isn’t always a win win.
T1 is well past its sell by date and as MANFAN says this up down up down fiasco on piers B & C usually on non working escalators is beyond a joke.
ignore the premium market at your peril.
My colleagues usually travel premium economy but at flexible fares that are much higher than business saver tickets. They usually have access to premium check in and luggage but travel mid cabin- but don’t expect to be treated like cattle.
Here in Hong Kong the non working escalators / lifts and security cock ups at MAN were the source of much conversation with the result some always booked via LHR because of the smoother and better facilities there for premium pax.With better premium facilities they could have attracted even more pax than they did. The facilities lost traffic.

[MANFOD]

Excuse me for not quoting the earlier well argued posts by Ozzy and roverman, both of whose contributions on this forum I appreciate. How good also to read respectful debate form those with differing views.

I would just add a few comments on some of the issues: -

On the value of lo-cost / no frills carriers to the NW economy, a couple of things come to mind.
Firstly, a significant number of the flights nowadays are to city destinations. Although the majority of passengers will be outbound from the UK, I suspect the number of Europe originating passengers may not be insignificant; whether it be to attend football matches for the weekend, holidays, general leisure or visiting friends. Hopefully, they will be spending money here that helps the local economies in pubs, restuarants, shops, theatres and the like. Attendees at major conferences often look to cheaper travel, and good air (and rail) connections are important for that market.

Secondly, outbound passengers are not averse to spending money in the bars, cafes and shops at the airport itself, some benefit from which will presumably go the airport's coffers plus rents. Whatever we think about the financial structure of airports and their ownerships, in MAG's case profits enables dividends to be paid, and for MAN, that means the City and 9 local councils as well as the Australian shareholder.

As regards roverman's suggestion of a focus on long haul, personally I would like nothing more to see MAN grow its international network. However, while some routes may be viable from MAN's catchment area alone, some more marginal destinations may rely on a good feeder network, be it domestic or European. So 'managing' domestic & European demand may work against that goal. And further afield, flights from India for example would not only provide a vital link to the NW but could help support services to the US and possibly Canada.

I have to agree with Ozzy that MAN's disdain for the advent of lo-cost airlines in the 90's was a big mistake which helped boost competitor airports and took years to unravel.

As regards Terminals, a question: If T3 could be developed, could the Terminal building itself be extended to provide sufficient extra capacity, including check-in, security and immigration facilities, to enable T1 to be redundant? It occurs to me that if T1 could be demolished and its car park, then either the space created could incorporate additional apron for remote stands, or even in the future a further extension to the south of T2.
I've no idea whether the land available would be sufficient and how costly expanding T3 building would be, so informed views would be appreciated.

[southside bobby]

It appears the example many here need to reflect on perhaps is LHR...

Not too sure there is so much energy as here expended in the commercial office at LHR Ltd on what traffic was & might be but at least for the medium term perhaps...the here & now...today...right now.

They appear exemplar in attitude in comparison but with a huge void to fill & within the imposed strictures & structures are not resting on their laurels.

The amount of temporary (or is it?) slot allocation is quite impressive together with ad hoc & non ad hoc cargo business with commercial visitors ranging from ATR thru the B744F & airlines they have never had to provision for before...though all gratefully received & accepted down West London way.

What would reflect a determination at MAG/MAN to arise from the catastrophic landscape would be a mooted here "grab" of EZY/WZZ/WUK/RYR business...

If MAG want it then to park it should be secondary.

The shareholders should hopefully "influence" the management here.

[roverman]

Thanks to all for the gentlemanly debate. Just to clarify some of my points I wasn't suggesting that MAN pay no attention to domestic and European traffic, just cautioning against the pursuit of target volumes achieved by pricing and deals which lead to multiple carriers serving similar destinations at low yields. 20mppa in 2030 need not be a failure, the measure will be do we have the flights to the key destinations/hubs and the network connectivity which will provide real economic benefit. Travelling back and forth frequently to holiday homes in the Med will not achieve that and I believe it will become increasingly taxed and seen as socially irresponsible. Of course it's important that we have good links in to the hubs and the secondary cities of Europe as well as a decent choice for UK holidaymakers to popular resorts for annual holidays. MAN was built up on package tour flights alongside the flag carriers and that will always be important. Call me naive but I see LIverpool as a complimentary airport, not a competitor. They're 30 miles apart after all. The whole Northern Powerhouse concept is cemented on the idea that the cities / city regions of the North work together, finding out who can do what best. That means setting aside some rivalries and duplication because these only serve to undermine the bigger picture. Liverpool and Hull are our great sea port assets. Manchester has the airport with the facilities and ground transport links best placed to connect the North globally rather than through Heathrow as some would wish. LPL plays a complimentary role in enabling certain very popular leisure services to be facilitated as well as GA and perhaps cargo. It's ok in my mind for MAN to say sometimes 'sorry we can't offer you slots at a bargain rate as it doesn't fit our required return on investment'. LPL with a lower cost base can pick up that traffic, and if it means MAN 'loses' some traffic, then so be it. The North still gets the benefit. On long-haul, the coming of Code C single-aisle aircraft types to 7-8 hour sectors opens the possibility of greater North American service as well as in to Africa and the Middle East. That's exciting.

[southside bobby]

Still unsure if living in the somewhat distant past or the distant future...

Again the one word missing is employment or retaining employment within the group & airport.

If this at all reflects the thinking within MAG itself then it is a failing project dominated by overthinking & management speak here certainly & much too much graciousness & myopia.

MAG at STN had no problem thank goodness for employment & profit with volume even though many in the forum railed against it.

Volume provides massive income from ancillary provision for airport owners & more employment locally too.

If certain airlines are willing to provide the volume/capacity even in these catastrophic times then get on with it.

Feigned indignation at departures boards with cities not cared for or even pronounce will no longer do.

[Rutan16]

Short clarification on Air India withdrawal some twenty or so years ago was because the GOI instructed them to redeploy their A310 aircraft on Expat flying to the desert region. These aircraft disappeared across Europe in one fell swoop as they compiled with the edicts from above .

[UnderASouthernSky]

Call me naive but I see LIverpool as a complimentary airport, not a competitor.

Do you mean LPL is "free", or "polite"?!

[OzzyOzBorn]

Lots of great comments here. Thanks to those who have shared their thoughts on the topic.

It seems to me that the different viewpoints expressed concerning MAN's best course for the future boil down to differences of philosophy at a fundamental level. Consider the two following statements. Which one would you most closely identify with?

Option One: Manchester Airport is an infrastructure asset whose primary role is to maximise profits accruing to its parent holding company, MAG, and thereby to its shareholders. If the pursuit of this goal means not serving the surrounding region to its fullest potential then so be it. The airport should select its business partners based solely upon the forecast return to bottom line earnings. Group interests take absolute precedence over those of the region served, so selected business opportunities will be switch-sold to other group airports if it benefits MAG corporate profitability. Profits accruing to MAG are absolutely paramount, so there is seen to be no moral obligation to attract and retain skilled jobs via other stakeholders on the campus (eg. aircraft painters, aircraft engineering providers) unless directly swelling MAG profits. Wider social responsibilities are entirely secondary to MAG's financial best interests.

Option Two: Manchester Airport is an infrastructure asset whose primary role is to serve as the preferred link to the rest of the world for businesses and people within its catchment area. The airport's role includes acting as a conduit for attracting overseas visitors and investment to the region, optimising the boost to the regional economy brought by incoming executives and tourists. It should endeavour to deliver an attractive ROI for its shareholders, but within the remit of optimising the facility's contribution to serving the best interests of the regional economy and the Northern Powerhouse Initiative. Positive engagement with all sectors of the market to this end should be the prime objective. No company motivated to work with MAN for the betterment of the region should be dismissed based purely on corporate expediency. Employment opportunities for the area should be optimised, both directly on campus and in the surrounding communities beyond. MAN should strive to be the best it can be in all sectors on behalf of the region it serves.

I fear that there is little chance of reconciling the opinions of those who think in terms of option one with those who identify with option two and vice-versa.

It will come as no surprise that I identify with option two myself. But I have felt for some time that MAG puts its own interests first in many instances with little consideration for the lost opportunity this represents to the region served. Perhaps more could have been done to retain Air Livery on campus? How much urgency has there been to encourage interest expressed by Dublin Aerospace for a maintenance operation which would deliver highly-skilled jobs to the airport? Is there enthusiasm towards working closely with THG to establish a cargo airline at MAN? Why are pure freighter leads routinely switch-sold away? Why has there been an unconcerned shrug when additional based RYR / EZY aircraft were turned away when there was ample opportunity to manage space in readiness for them ahead of time? Many more good decisions have been made than disappointing ones - let me be clear about that. But I aspire to see the pursuit of excellence in all areas of the business and there appears to be a way to go on that. I hope that the mood in MAG Towers is finally shifting towards embracing all new business opportunities as we emerge into the post-covid economy.

Other points arising:

just cautioning against the pursuit of target volumes achieved by pricing and deals which lead to multiple carriers serving similar destinations at low yields.

There is an implicit assumption here that there will continue to be a range of potential airline partners to choose from representing a cross-section of different business models. But the field has been narrowing for some years now and covid is expediting that process. Airlines generally - not just the established no-frills names - are demanding very attractive terms from their airport partners across the board. It really is incumbent upon airport operators to optimise income from ancillary revenue streams, and MAN's pre-covid profit levels (amongst others) show that healthy returns can be made by working with carriers from across the spectrum. Including the rapidly-expanding proportion of the market represented by the LCC's. MAN does not have the luxury of being too choosy about new business. When we're thinking of potential additional based aircraft, the competing offers come from MAD, CDG, BER, MXP, GVA, PMI and many more ... not just the neighbours down the road. It is important for the UK economy as well as the region that MAN should compete with intent to maximise its share of the business on offer.

Travelling back and forth frequently to holiday homes in the Med will not achieve that and I believe it will become increasingly taxed and seen as socially irresponsible.

The whole environmental debate is another contentious can of worms which could fill pages on here. But it's been discussed in depth before, so I'll keep it brief here. I personally don't agree with stigmatising customers travelling by air for leisure. As previously mentioned, they tend to fly on larger aircraft with very high L/F's which is actually a good thing from an environmental perspective. And they are taxed: APD was introduced as a 'green' initiative because fuel could not be taxed directly (and that is a rip-off). But the industry is working towards 'green' propulsion solutions, and MAN has shown support for that very recently by announcing its competition which will reward the first carbon-neutral carrier to serve the airport.

But MAN must not be so naive as to reject airline business under the guise of environmental responsibility in the meantime. If they presume to socially-engineer customer travel habits by intervening to restrict the choice of leisure flights then they're in for a shock. Everyone who wants to fly from this region to Mallorca will still do so. But it will be from LPL if some eco-extremist at MAG presumes to play 'Nanny': the fossil fuels will still be consumed either way. Its just that jobs at MAN would be sacrificed so that some self-important climate zealot in an office can feel virtuous about their role in 'saving the planet'. And don't worry about cars and earning revenues from parking them either: mass-adoption of EV's is well on the way. [There is a debate about how to responsibly source electricity for charging up those too, but let's leave that one alone for now!].

Call me naive but I see LIverpool as a complimentary airport, not a competitor.

I'm not convinced that they reciprocate your view with such public-spirited generosity? Like it or not, they ARE the competition! And they know it. I hope that MAG execs see that too. :-)

LPL with a lower cost base can pick up that traffic, and if it means MAN 'loses' some traffic, then so be it.

LPL will enjoy their share of business wins based on their own proposition, but they should work for them. They should not be 'gifted' business which some at MAG consider to be beneath their dignity. Those are peoples' jobs we're talking about. Including ratepayers of the councils which share ownership of MAG itself.

Short clarification on Air India withdrawal some twenty or so years ago was because the GOI instructed them to redeploy their A310 aircraft on Expat flying to the desert region. These aircraft disappeared across Europe in one fell swoop as they compiled with the edicts from above .


There is a bit more to this. A corrosion issue was identified with the A300 fleet which meant that the A310's were required in a hurry to cover the shortfall. The MAN route was 'suspended', but when capacity did become available again BHX won the nod ahead of a return to MAN.

[MANFOD]

southside bobby makes a good point about employment and job opportunities. They certainly need to be put into the equation along with profits and dividends. Here again, I think volume is important. Large numbers of Ryanair and Easyjet flights may not bring in a fortune in aircraft landing and parking fees but they do mean jobs for handling agents and other providers, and in the bars, restaurants and shops that are available in a busy airport. Car parking requirements from high volume of passengers produce financial benefits and jobs, although I note the environmental concerns from higher use of private cars.
Inbound tourism from those cheaper flights not only help the local economies but is a source of job creation.

So yes, I agree MAN & MAG's responsibility and opportunities encompass far more than simply maximising profits and dividends for its shareholders, although those dividends can of course be spent wisely for the benefit of the local community.

[commit aviation]

Some really interesting points as always from Ozzy and others.

I am not entirely convinced that Options One and Two are unreconcilable. The majority shareholders in MAG are still the local councils and they are interested in protecting those jobs as in many cases they are also their council tax payers and contributors to the local economy. Not forgetting domestic and overseas visitors to the area bringing additional spending power to the north. In more normal times, the airport makes returns for those councils so a sensible balance needs to be struck in protecting the interests of Manchester and the surrounding area whilst allowing the management team to do what they are employed to do.

MAG is very adept at sweating their assets and in the current situation will continue to do so. Those who call for a wholesale rebuild or even a reconfiguration of T1 and T3 are likely to be out of luck for now. Whilst nobody would argue that it is a laudable idea and much needed, there is simply no revenue right now to pay for it. The little money coming in at present should surely be funnelled into keeping the business alive and protecting as many of those jobs as possible for the longer term.

The commercial team for MAG is headed by someone with a background at Ryanair so I would imagine the ability to do deals is within his capability. The LCCs will undoubtedly return quickest along with charter outfits. The decision on slot use for next summer may determine what happens around any immediate long haul return but profitable traffic is unlikely to return for a few more seasons I suspect.

On the environment it is good to see MAG leading the way but I agree it should not be at the expense of commercial traffic. I don’t see it as an issue in that government policy will need to lead on this in the long term whilst airports and airlines will fall in line.

In the short term there is some significant pain (as with the entire aviation industry) and retrenchment but I would suggest both MAG and MAN have a bright future.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

The worry I have about Roverman's key point about volume traffic being, for want of a better term, the "wrong kind of flights" is that it chimes with what the WEF is leading on. The whole "Build Back Better" agenda chorus being shared from Canada to Biden's campaign, to Boris's podium to Australia's posters is that there is a wider agenda seeking an economic re-set and using COVID to save us from ourselves. So basically, the less well off need to be discouraged from travelling so frequently and invoking the green agenda to do so whilst allowing the right kind of people to travel as they have always done, on expenses.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/how-life-could-change-2030/

Many of the plans made for the preCOVID economy are not aligned with post COVID politics. It worries me that many have so easily fallen into agreeing with the "new normal" consensus. It's not called the "Great Reset" for nothing. No one knows what a post COVID aviation industry will be ALLOWED to look like. So any capital investment right now would be brave. Given the unprecedented amount Boris has borrowed, taxes will have to rise and so called green taxes (anti aviation by their intent) are a great way to extort even more money from hard working people to go some way to digging us out of the financial mire.
MAN needs rebuilt from the ground up, T2 rebuild was a great start, the next phase might be more "interesting".

[southside bobby]

From the MAG website describing themselves...

FIRST heading & the FIRST line from that...

"Our mission is to deliver sustainable growth in shareholder value"...

Another elephant in the room not mentioned on here is of course that an equal shareholder in terms of % holding at least along with Manchester City Council (the greater of the group of 10) is the Australian investment fund IFM Investors with 35.5%.

[OzzyOzBorn]

As outlined previously, I am in full agreement with those who opine that any major rebuild investment at MAN is 'off the table' for the foreseeable. My guess is that the T1/T3 complex will serve another twenty years at least in a very recognisable form.

My proposals are for changes which go only slightly beyond essential buildings care and maintenance in terms of overall costs. T1 and T3 are already physically linked together. The T2 TP (we were told) will offer capability for handling domestic flights. So let's move them over there - far better for interlining business anyway. This opens the way for T1 and T3 to be linked together as one facility airside very easily. The link corridor between the two (Southern Front) is already in place, but as a domestic facility must be kept sterile from international passengers. Once that need is removed, it is pretty much just a case of shifting afew barriers and opening doors. No major rebuild required for this particular task.

If I'm right that the T1 car park must come down anyway (life-expired structure) that leaves a large space available adjacent to the existing T1 entrance foyer. My suggestion here is for a cheap extension to accommodate more self check-in kiosks and baggage drops for departures and egates / baggage carousels for arrivals channels. Many will recall the "temporary bussing lounge" which was attached to the T2 structure during the TP extension build-out. This structure was (relatively) cheap to provide, but it was undercover, functional and adequate for the job it was intended for. An extension of this kind for the purposes described above is entirely 'doable' on a tight budget and sufficient for the needs of no-frills carriers. It also introduces the opportunity for operational cost savings, as if it provides sufficient passenger processing capacity it removes the need for the duplicated facilities currently serving standalone T3. Open up that former domestic corridor and all passengers could be processed through the T1 channels to the combined airside gates.

T1/T3 do feature a number of widebody-capable stands. I suspect that most of these are already marked out with L/R centrelines to accommodate two smaller types, but if T1/T3 were to become an overwhelmingly A320/B737 facility, stand layout could be optimised without need for large-scale investment. My post some days ago in which I suggested lobbying Sunak for a handout from the £4Bn regional infrastructure fund was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but - HEY - why not ask the question? There is nothing to lose by putting in an application. Those extra few parking stands would certainly be useful to have, though I personally don't hold out much hope for seeing them in the short-term.

But my suggestion to combine T1/T3 and to build an inexpensive foyer extension on the old car park footprint ought to be easily affordable. And perhaps removing the need for duplicated security and immigration formalities in T3 could repay the cost anyway.

I do think it is fair to presume that major terminal redevelopment is a goner for years to come post-covid. So cheap but practical changes plus some essential maintenance are the way things will need to go. Fortunately, no-frills carriers love that 'bus station' look!

[OzzyOzBorn]

SKIPNESS POST: Desperately searching for a 'LIKE' button! :-)

[Mr A Tis]

Ozzy, if you wanted to expand low co check in on the cheap- you could always re-activate the existing check in desks in The station- along with d-i-y stations.
If 50% ish of easy & Ryanair could check in at the station, then you don't even need extra structures & it's a convenient bonus for the pax. Win win.

[Baltic Skies]

Still charging to drop off and pick up.....I won't be using this airport unless it becomes much more user friendly.

[OzzyOzBorn]

They're all going to do it. They're desperate for funds. Which airport are you going to use, or do you prefer to forego air travel going forward?

Or perhaps you could access the airport by bus / train / tram? No drop-off charge for those.

[Baltic Skies]

I won't be travelling by air for some time.
Rip off charges just discourage me even more.
I can afford it,but choose to boycott airports who exploit a captive market.
Plenty of options to enjoy myself,avoiding being fleeced,plenty of my associates feel the same.

[businessair75]

There is a real obsession among contributors, not just in MAN but elsewhere too, to make fantasy terminal reshuffles. Often these involve nicely boxing and categorising alliances and low cost/legacies/charter etc.

In the real world, this doesn't necessarily make sense. Low cost carriers don't necessarily "love" the bus station look. The "bus station look" was lead by the airports in a bid to woo low cost carriers. The LCC's don't explicitly want that. What they want is efficient turn arounds and infrastructure that support their operation. That is principally why they often (far from always) use steps.....so they can disembark and board faster. Incidentally, many airports don't charge for airbridge use, MAN is one such example.

There is also there mis-perception that the LCC passenger doesn't want much in the way of terminal facilities. That may have been true back at the start of the low cost revolution but it's far from the case in 2020. As someone alluded to earlier in the debate, the airline market has become much more homogenous. In other words, the passenger who uses Vueling to BCN or Norwegian to ARN are often the same passenger who uses SQ to SIN or LH to FRA. Their needs don't tend to change very much, if at all, with their change in carrier. Indeed, one of the reasons easyJet moved from T3 to T1 back in the early 10's was because passengers didn't particularly like the limited retail/leisure experience in T3 which, at the time, were quite limited. I should also mention that the plan is for easyJet to move to T2 in 2022, at least that was the plan pre-pandemic.

Its also worthwhile noting that from MAN certainly, you will find that it is the leisure traveller, often travelling on a LCC, that spend the most in the terminal.

[OzzyOzBorn]

OK. You got me. I have outlined a "fantasy terminal reshuffle"!!! Guilty as charged. But FlyBe 1.0 - a major element of pre-covid T3 - has gone; the very substantial Thomas Cook Airlines operation has gone from T1; and certain visiting operators may not return ... we know of some service withdrawals already. So whether it aligns with our fantasies or not, change is coming in the real world.

The "fantasy" I went with actually arises from a recent rumour (which may or may not be true) that MAG proposed to offer Ryanair and EasyJet exclusive use of T1/T3 ... with the possible addition of Wizzair if they were to feature at MAN as well (they have requested slots). The important thing about a "fantasy reshuffle" is that there should be some logic underpinning it, such that it would offer a good outcome in reality. I would respectfully suggest that moving domestic traffic into T2 alongside the network carriers and operating T1/T3 as dedicated no-frills environment would achieve that. And the good news re T1 is that - despite its age - it is extremely well provisioned with retail and catering space airside.

Given that the post-covid economy makes a new-build facility highly unlikely in the medium term at MAN, T1/T3 will need to be part of the plan - maybe with some inexpensive modifications and TLC as I put forward. There may indeed be a better way than the option I proposed. But if you feel that you can offer us a better plan then please tell us about how you would like to see the campus reorganised (on a very tight budget) to best effect. All positive contributions to discussion welcome.

In T2, there likely is an opportunity to zone alliance carriers close together. If it can be done, why not? Where is the objection? Is a focal point for staffing, transfers and facilities such as lounges a bad thing?

BTW, that comment about the "bus station" is drawn from an interview with Michael O'Leary some years ago when he was objecting to airports building palatial facilities and expecting to pass the cost on to carriers. There is an element of dry humour there as one finds with many of his quotes, but an underlying truth too. Reliable, efficient budget facilities do tick the boxes for carriers in the Ryanair niche.

Finally, it may be the case that EasyJet favoured the retail environment in T1 over that offered in T3. But wasn't the real reason for the move that GB Airways in its Bland Group days was a franchise partner of BA (a T3 carrier) flying under the BA brand and it was appropriate to differentiate the new EasyJet ownership / focus from the carrier's previous heritage? And allow for growth well beyond what the GB model would ever have required?

[easyflyer83]

To be fair, easyJet’s move from T3-T1 was some years after Bland sold GB. In fact, GB was one of the last bastions of international BA at MAN with BACON having been sold the previous year so I doubt it was to differentiate itself from the past. In actual fact, easyJet was offered T2 back then but ultimately Monarch made the move there and easy went to T1.

I get what businessair is saying in that the distinction between low cost/legacy/network has become blurred. For example, even easyJet offers connections, albeit not quite in the traditional sense.

Low cost is probably going to be the future of european short haul so carting them off to one part of the airport for the sake of uniformity might not make sense going forward.

You make good points about how the current crisis may hinder future redevelopment but if things start to resemble normality next summer who knows. What is certain is that T1 cannot continue for decades longer, it’s beyond sprucing up in many parts.

[southside bobby]

With Labour Mayor Joe in Liverpool & Labour Mayor Andy in Manchester & cemented affiliations/camaraderie can in reality any business/traffic grab happen from one airport t`other anyway?

[SWBKCB]

What control does the Mayor of Liverpool have over how the privately operated airport is run? Not sure if the Mayor of Manchester has any role in MAG.

[southside bobby]

"politics dear boy politics"...

[BACsuperVC10]

[SWBKCB

The City of Liverpool has shares in its airport. The Metro Mayor is actually Steve Rotherham. Joe Anderson is Mayor of The City of Liverpool Council. It is important that Liverpool Airport also has a variety of services for the City and the North West in general, if the Northen Powerhouse is to mean anything .

[BACsuperVC10]

With Labour Mayor Joe in Liverpool & Labour Mayor Andy in Manchester & cemented affiliations/camaraderie can in reality any business/traffic grab happen from one airport t`other anyway?

You are suggesting Manchester to grab all of Liverpools business ? Why would that even be a good idea for the NW ?

[southside bobby]

Putting "arguments" out there...

More factors in play than some of the more eloquent discussions on here might suggest.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Carriers such as Ryanair, EasyJet and Wizzair are large Pan-European PLC's with no state ownership involvement. Local city region mayors have no role in dictating to them where they can and cannot operate. Even if they wanted to, it is unlikely that either (Manchester or Liverpool) mayors would wish to risk upsetting Ryanair or EasyJet - amongst the largest operators at both airports concerned. Wizzair does not currently base aircraft at either airport, but does operate a programme of visiting schedules at LPL.

Even in an unusual situation such as that we see at Teesside, the Mayor can offer incentive funds from his / her local budget to help attract new business to an airport. However, it is entirely at the discretion of the airline as to whether they want to take up the terms offered or not.

[brian_dromey]

There was some mention that FR were keen on T3 because of the proximity to the runway, although if I recall Ryanair were a T2 tenant for many years? I suppose what is clear is that the original plans for MAN have changed a little, however much remains the same. The majority of departures are short-haul and concentrated on a few operators, the network airlines form a smaller part of the picture. With flyBe out of the picture, the main overnight/based aircraft are from easyJet, Ryanair, Jet2 & TUI. easyJet and Rayanir do use away based aircraft into MAN, so their pattern should be less prone to peaks and troughs than Jet2 and TUI who don't, typically.

MAN has been unlucky over the years, T3 was built for BA, who never used it as intended, it quickly grew far too small for its current use. I don't think many of us would argue that if it were to become 'the' Ryanair terminal that fewer check-in desks, a better located security area and more retail/seating ares would be ideal. I wonder if the current check-in hall could be used for security and the old flyBe check-in desk area, or the BA check-in be sufficient for Ryanair or Wizz? But if it were reconfigured may airlines might be interested, no cut-de-sac and near the operational runways. What's not to like?

[southside bobby]

OOB...

Rather more politically subtle than upsetting an LCC may suggest.

[SWBKCB]

Perhaps stop being subtle and just explain your point?

[DP.]

OzzyOzBorn

There is obviously this rumour about Ryanair and Easyjet being offered exclusive use of T1/T3, however true it may be, but I just don't see that MAG see the existing T1 building as forming part of the future solution. The next priorities for the TP were going to be the refurb of the existing T2, and the completion of Pier 2. The reality is that there's no money at the moment, but if any does become available, I'd think they'll get far more bang for their buck by advancing the plans that are already in place. My understanding was that the scale of what was proposed for the T2 refurb was fairly substantial - I'd expect to see that scaled back, but some sort of viable solution to have the constituent parts of T2 operate as a single facility to be achieved. T2 (or certainly the new build section) is pretty well set up for bussing passengers now, and as businessair75 mentioned above, it seems that the plan was for EZY (along with the other remaining T1 tenants) to move over to T2 in the next 18 months or so anyway. Probably a (the?) big sticking point of this is that the T2 refurb would've been based on an expansion of retail in that area, which I'd think would be difficult to achieve without the substantial works that were proposed, and thus they'd be losing out on retail revenue by closing T1.

I do see the merit in what you're suggesting but I think that if T1 does survive for the time being then it's very likely to be, more or less, in its existing format, as opposed to with any substantial changes.

[davidjohnson6]

Lockdown ends tomorrow and there is no obvious news of T2 or T3 reopening. Are we likely to see T2 + T3 remain closed until maybe the end of March 2021 ?
Are non-food retail units in T1 reopening tomorrow ?

[Mr A Tis]

Just for info, tomorrows EK17 (Wed 2nd Dec) is showing as an A380.
Nice to see one back.

[Mr Mac]

Mr A Tis
Came back from Far East on one into Europe via DXB. Good to fly in them again, and the bar is open ;) Mr Williams from your neck of the woods will be pleased about that too !

[chaps1954]

6 A380 a week from tomorrow plus 4 777, the slow recovery has started, Aurigny ATR today

[MANFAN]

DP

There were (and still is) many rumours about T2X opening in February, but I don’t know when the testing with “passengers” and staff is due to take place...

T1/T3 ideal for our LCC’s, but please move the legacy airlines over to T2.
I’ve been using T1 recently for the 5.55am KLM flight and it’s not been on time departing once! I don’t know what T3 check in areas are like these days but T1 is completely inadequate. Not to mention the tired and dated Piers B & C!
EZY regularly use pier C gates 23/25/27 shouldn’t be a problem for them, but KL/AF/LH they should be in the new T2X.

[businessair75]

I'm perplexed. Why? easyJet is a big MAN customer and operates far more flights and brings more customers to the airport than KLM. My point being that you don't just treat one of your biggest customers with contempt because you perceive they deserve/want a lower customer experience. By the same token, KLM etc might not want to move to terminal 2 yet for whatever reason. Instead, as an airport, you work with the carriers to best match their needs and requirements. Pre-pandemic, Eurowings moved to T2 and easyJet takes pride of place at the new BER terminal.

[The96er]

I'm perplexed. Why? easyJet is a big MAN customer and operates far more flights and brings more customers to the airport than KLM. By the same token, KLM etc might not want to move to terminal 2 yet for whatever reason.

AF/KL were pencilled in for T2 for Apr 2020. Obviously, things have happened since then, but expect them to move probably for summer21 schedule. AF were only in T3 due to the joint CDG operation with BE and vis a vis KL were required to follow AF due to a common check-in system. Now BE are no more, it makes sense to move to T2. On another note, EI were due to move to T3 with the start of BHD ops and be more aligned with the other IAG operation but did not happen for whatever reason. The proposed new transatlantic ops by EI I believe are to be operated from T1 so unlikely you’ll see a joint IAG ops under one terminal anytime soon.

[businessair75]

Yes, I remember AF/KL moving over to T3 from T2 about 6 years ago when AF canned its night stopper and codeshared on BE. Before that of course, the two used to co-exist in T1 prior to them becoming part of the AFKL group.

My point is though is some seem to like to assume that LCC's can just be told where they are being handled at an airport and will simply accept that. Thats not to say that one of those airlines might settle for the older or more basic terminal if it suits its operational needs but in case of FR & EZY at MAN (and LS too) they are the airports biggest customers. They provide the critical mass and the large numbers of passengers which airports ultimately draw money from directly these days. Those airlines are much sought after by airports right across Europe and as such, they can be demanding customers.

[OzzyOzBorn]

My point is though is some seem to like to assume that LCC's can just be told where they are being handled at an airport and will simply accept that.

You appear to be interpreting the situation as an attack on the integrity of EasyJet as a company. But nobody is suggesting doing anything without their explicit consent. The rumour which has gone around (which may or may not be true) featured the suggestion that EasyJet and Ryanair would be offered exclusive use of T1/T3 (possibly plus Wizz?) with no landing charges for four years. [Or is it actually departure charges at MAN?]. If that were to be true, then it is an outstandingly generous offer which EasyJet would be very wise to consider at a time when money is so tight. And it wouldn't even involve any upheaval: T1 is their home at MAN already (and it works just fine). I've not seen any hint that EasyJet would "be forced to settle for" anything which doesn't meet their expressed approval. But under the terms suggested by the rumour doing the rounds, perhaps a move to T2 would not be accompanied by the attractive financial concession attached to staying put in T1?

If EasyJet prefers to be seen as a prestige carrier and wishes to prioritise this over keeping fixed costs as low as possible, then that is their call. But I would suggest that their recent announcement re baggage policy aligns them firmly alongside Ryanair and Wizzair in the budget no-frills niche. My guess is that they would go with low costs, but maybe you know better? Either way, their MAN operation will do just fine in the familiar T1 environment. Plenty of retail, plenty of catering options, and whilst no showpiece an acceptably functional environment for the task at hand. It works.

[cumbrianboy]

I think it’s a shame they don’t consolidate the IAG operation in terminal 2, IF they can solve the arrival process for CTA flights. I assume, boldly, that T2 has a proper arrival route for CTA which doesn’t involve the bloody bus. The amount of times it takes longer to get from the aircraft out of the customs hall than the actual flight from dublin is ridiculous.

t3 is at capacity already and the departure lounges are unpleasant at the best of times never mind when it’s busy.

with the potential EI USA operation I think a wholesale move to t2 next summer would make a lot more sense for the IAG group.

[MANFAN]

businessair75

I was using EZY as a prime example of how T1 is adequate enough for their operation and even an extended operation. At the same time, as air travel eventually gets busier, other airlines should be transferred to T2 (and T2X) to ensure there is enough space for our LCC's to operate in T1/T3 or potential as one large terminal.
EZY I'm sure are more than happy to continue using Pier B and some of the gates on Pier C, with being closer to the runways...the only downside for me personally is that stupid layout due to it's age which we know dates back to the times when arriving and departing passengers could mix.

I heard the T1 car park has already past it's expired life span, in that case Pier B has far exceeded it's, but unfortunately for the passenger, I can't see any changes until overall T2X and it's Piers are complete.

[cumbrianboy]

Are there any plans anywhere (I’m just interested) as what exactly T2X is?

[The96er]

cumbrianboy

BA have previously asked for a move to T2 along with American Airlines, however, the airport at the time refused due to there being no suitable domestic arrival facilities. IAG's aim going forward at other airports is a common Executive lounge used by all IAG airlines and partner airlines. This would, I assume have to be constructed before any move to T2.

Slots for the EI operation are now showing with flight numbers and times (No destinations yet) in the airport systems. x2 A321neo and x1 A330, however, I have on good authority that EI have asked for pricing from suppliers based on using x2 A330 and x 1 A321neo due to availibility of the neo a/c and the lack of range for one of the proposed routes (suggesting ORD).

[Mr Mac]

Lancaster Bomber
Handy for the BA direct Costa Rica flight at last, though BA not what they were but better than a change in Miami.

[HKGBOY]

I see CX A350 is on its way in for Friday morning.
Is this just a one off - or a resumption of a limited service?

[chaps1954]

It is for students returning home and there are several but hopefully it is getting closer to a resumption of services

[DomyDom]

Ryanair announce Manchester - Bucharest 3 x weekly from March 2021.:D

A long awaited European destination. I've never really understood why we didn't have it previously. Also great news as it looks like things are starting to look up again at MAN.

Apologies if this was picked up previously.

[chaps1954]

DomyDon Hi it was mentioned before but no harm in reminding people

[roverman]

DomyDom

I'm going to be a horrible nerd here, but wasn't there a brief scheduled service by TAROM BAC 1-11 back in the 80s / 90s? Also perhaps a few charters for skiing in the Carpathian mountains. But aside from that it's good to have another EU capital on the departure boards, hopefully for good.

[SWBKCB]

Aer Lingus Slots were added for four long haul based aircraft, this is now reduced to three. One A321 removed leaving one A330-300 and two A321LR’s. Daily departures 1000/1105/1305z with returns 0550/0635 (tel:0550/0635)/0735z eff.01May.

I know a new US-UK air services agreement was signed recently, but haven't seen anything about what is included. EI must be confident on regulatory approval.

[easyflyer83]

I heard that it could possibly be 2 x A330
and 1 x A321neo now.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Numbers and types agree with what I have seen. 2 A321 + 1 A330

[Una Due Tfc]

EI took two new A333s this year and retired 1 A332, and are taking 4 new LRs in 2021 so this MAN expansion is well within the capabilities of the fleet without affecting their existing ops elsewhere. Interesting to watch. If it is only to be 2 LRs in MAN then the aircraft and crews could rotate with the SNN based crews and frames on the ground in BOS and JFK and thus save on ferrying costs between MAN and Irish bases if desired. Since there's no LRs currently due to operate between Ireland and ORD (2 x A333 operate ORD from DUB per day on summer schedule) my guess is that would be the one to suffer.

[spannersatcx]

It is for students returning home and there are several but hopefully it is getting closer to a resumption of services
4 flights in Dec and 4 in Jan for students mostly. Don't expect CX to return with any frequency any time soon, suspended indefinately, maybe some adhoc flights in 2021 but that's about it.

[PPRuNeUser0176]

Not aware overly specific info however if I was to make a call it will be just x2 aircraft, possibly both A330 as suggested above to fly JFK and MCO only.

What I did hear on the grapevine BOS was never planned to be daily operation so unless EI have crunched the numbers and come up with something different and think it can work.

[Una Due Tfc]

Well DUB JFK is double daily on 333 and DUB MCO is 6 x weekly so again option of swapping over crews or airframes on the ground in the States.

[PPRuNeUser0176]

Again not an area I know much about but this would have to be under a UK AOC and swaps would depend how they can operate under UK AOC.

They could still face a drawn out challenge in the US for final approval not withstanding the UK-USA agreement and this was referenced in the leaked email.

The agreement for BHD-LHR isn't really clear but Stobart appear to be in the same situation.

[The96er]

EI have approached the Handling agent/service providers for costing based on x2 A330's

[MANFOD]

Can you just clarify this comment please? Are you saying it's only 2 x A330's now and no A321 for which costs have been requested; or were you pointing out it's now 2 x 330's as opposed to just 1 as indicated by the slot applications, and that your earlier post of 2 x A330's and 1 x A321 still stands.

[The96er]

I'm told still x3 aircraft - x2 A330 / x1 A321. Slots in airport chroma system still showing x2 A321 / x1 A330 though.

[MANFOD]

Many thanks for that.

[SealinkBF]

According to Twitter, BA want to fly MAN-LGW.

https://twitter.com/SPD_travels/status/1334428329563262979?s=20

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Already reported in post #54. But better twice than never.I

[mariofly12]

But LGW-MAN is supposed to be loss-making and has no feed traffic, trains provide competitive service etc etc and that's why BA made the decision to cut it..Why would they reinstate a loss-making route?

[OzzyOzBorn]

At a high-intensity single-runway operation like LGW (in normal times the world's busiest single-runway commercial airport), less profitable services occupying valuable runway slots gradually get squeezed out in favour of more profitable replacements. That is what happened to the LGW-MAN route which was accounting for a typical eight slots per day, some of these at lucrative peak times. MAN wasn't specifically a 'bad' route - but increasing demand for slots meant that higher profile choices were eventually given priority. But now COVID-19 has changed everything. Suddenly, LGW has been shorn of a significant proportion of its former scheduled programme. Flights are either duplicated by services from LHR, or otherwise not viable to run at their former frequencies. Some carriers are in financial difficulty and have scaled back. Others have moved services over to LHR. Major operators are unlikely to return straight away at their previous scale of operation when business starts to come back. But valuable slots risk being forfeited under 'use it or lose it' rules if they go unused for too long. So it makes sense for a carrier such as BA to 'slot-sit' some of their slot portfolio with short routes which don't cost too much to run and which may bring in some revenue to help offset operating costs in the meantime. LGW-MAN is perfect for this purpose. It may not be a long-term proposition, but whilst it is offered some will find it useful (including me). I'll certainly make use of it if it does become available again, though I appreciate that the slots will likely be redeployed to a more prestigious service when demand returns sufficiently.

Out of interest, Manchester lost its scheduled services to London City for similar reasons. As the popularity of that airport grew, it's scarce peak runway slots became increasingly valuable, and eventually the MAN service gave way to more profitable replacements.

One more thing. The train is not a great option between MAN and LGW. There used to be a through service from Manchester terminating at Brighton, but I don't think that has run for a while now. So that means train from Manchester to Euston, taxi or tube to one of the other London stations, and a second train down to LGW. It is a slow, expensive and cumbersome journey - especially with luggage. Not a competitive option at all. And flights to LGW aren't useful only for flight connections: a decent stretch of the South Coast and South London will be much easier to access from Manchester for as long as the service lasts.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Not quite, MAN-LCY was axed because the West Coast Mainline improvements were complete. VLM's traffic on LCY-MAN/LPL collapsed overnight and both routes were closed soon afterwards. VLM ended up in bed with CityJet but the LCY glory days were behind them as BA got serious, built up BA CityFlyer from the rash mistakes of BACON (boom boom!) and went onto dominate the local market.

Back on topic, Virgin have resumed MAN ops as of yesterday (Sat) with B787-9 G-VOWS off to Bridgetown as VS077.

[Una Due Tfc]

Virgin and Norwegian have scaled back their ops everywhere including LGW, and I suspect many foreign carriers who operate from both LHR and LGW will concentrate on LHR for a while. New routes / opportunities exist, or at least old opportunities are gone. What is occurring now is the biggest tectonic shift in the industry for decades, possibly ever. Who knows what the new markets will be.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Not quite, MAN-LCY was axed because the West Coast Mainline improvements were complete.

Rail improvements were a factor but not the only one. As I stated, scarce LCY peak-time slots were in demand for more lucrative services. Up until C-19 struck, peak slots at LCY remained a very scarce resource with several potentially viable routes unable to be accommodated.

[Navpi]

Isnt this for feeding traffic to EI Manchester operations now LGW has lost so much long haul ?

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Now that's what I call "thinking outside of the box". Very interesting thought.

[VickersVicount]

OzzyOzBorn

Yet GLA/EDI gained half-empty running extra LCY frequencies?

[ICEHOUSES]

If true I can’t see a LGW-MAN service working/happening, the train takes just over three hours from Manchester including a short tube ride and Gatwick train from Victoria, which is more pleasant than travelling through MAN being shouted at in a queue by security staff etc , travelling on a BA lgw based Airbus with probably miserable crew staffing the aircraft.. No thanks I’d rather catch the train and have more space.

[Navpi]

Oh my, you make it sound like a breeze. LGW -MAN is about 6 hours versus 50 min flying time and an hour check in.
It sounds more like a Manchester agenda than a factual comparison?

[davidjohnson6]

6 hours is a bit much for Gatwick-Manchester. I live in Croydon, 15 mins north of Gatwick by train and travelled by rail this morning to Manchester, with luggage. It took 3h50 by train today, Sunday - ie with trains at least 30 minutes slower than Mon-Sat, from East Croydon station to Manchester Piccadilly. Trains from places like Wilmslow, Macclesfield or Stockport will be 10 or 20 mins faster. A train on Monday from Gatwick to central Manchester should be about 3h30

Anything more than 4h by train from Gatwick train station to central Manchester by rail suggests something going badly wrong. 6h would allow for an additional long lunch in a restaurant en route

[SWBKCB]

Sorry to hear about all the miserable people working in air travel when the train services are filled with such joyous souls! And space on a train - yes, plenty of room for the kids to run around and the nice man opposite to stack his cans of Stella... :eek:

[ICEHOUSES]

Navpi

Well the timetabled trains take around 3 and half hours so maybe you’ve got a problem understanding the U.K. railway system, I would love the LGW-MAN route to be successful so maybe it will be then, I did use it on many occasions in the late 1990s actually as well as using the train service.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

But LGW-MAN is supposed to be loss-making and has no feed traffic, trains provide competitive service etc etc and that's why BA made the decision to cut it..Why would they reinstate a loss-making route?

MAN-LGW was a strange route, to do with revenue being "manipulated" I believe and mainline taking all the profit. 2901 was always full at 0620, mostly US connections. It was never a P2P route. Since BA have retrenched to fortress Heathrow there isn't much hope.

[easyflyer83]

Just last week I did Manchester Piccadilly to LGW by train. Departed Piccadilly at 1315 and arrived at LGW at 1645. It would have been quicker had I not walked from Euston to Oxford Circus before then getting the tube to Victoria. Oh, and I bought a few bits of food in M&S in Victoria before boarding the train for the last leg. It can be done in 3 hours.

MAN-LGW is handy for south coast destinations I guess. I enjoy travelling by train and it can be a very pleasant experience. That said, I think some posters description of the flying experience are over-exaggerated with an underlying agenda and I've experienced far more cheerful, happy and polite crew on BA flights than I have on the trains.

I too had wondered whether the service is aimed at connecting into EI. Otherwise, I'm not sure as to its potential.

[TURIN]

Yeeeeees, all that luggage to get into central Manchester,Is there a long stay car park there to leave the car? Then on to the train, off again at Euston, nice 'walk' with all the luggage to the tube, on and off the tube up and down escalators with half of London barging you out of the way, luggage back on the LGW express and off again, nice long walk to check in, queue up and finally through security.

Alternatively, check in at MAN, luggage too, security, wander up to the gate, nice flight down to LGW, stroll to the departure lounge, board flight to paradise...etc etc.

I get it. If and its a big if, you are travelling light, point to point, MAN to LGW then maybe the train is a good bet. But with a family going on your jollies with all the parafanalia that goes with it, a direct connecting flight is my preference.

[bar none]

Is it true that Virgin's soon to be started Manchester Islamabad service has been refused by the Pakistani authorities?

[brian_dromey]

I suspect that MAN-LGW might be useful for connections, but I think the main reason might be that it will be easy to cancel if BA don’t get summer 21 slot exemptions. Simply rebook the passengers on MAN-LHR and the job is done.

[Mr Mac]

Went out of Manchester yesterday with Jet 2 from the old Pier C. It was like an obstacle course up and down stairs and none working lifts / travelators, ye gods it was not a good experience as a passenger. Not had those issues with LH or Emirates - just a long walk usually with EK.
It is quiet, why can not things be fixed while they have the opportunity. I know ultimately it will be pulled down, but you can not just abandon maintenance until the replacement arrives !!

[The96er]

All expenditure has been cut back to absolutely essential maintenance only.

[OzzyOzBorn]

We all know that MAN-LGW will be a slot-sitter if it happens. We don't need any in-depth business case studies beyond that. A short route which will come close to covering its costs is ideal for the purpose. And when traffic recovers to the extent that a more lucrative route can take its place, that is exactly what we can expect to see happen. But in the meantime - if MAN-LGW is offered - then I intend to make the most of the opportunity.

[Lancaster Bomber]

[bar none

I read the same elsewhere but this was then followed up saying that it wasn't true and the flights are going ahead as planned.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

OzzyOzBorn

That's wholly wrong. The domestics were lucrative and the yields died almost overnight. VLM absolutely did not drop MAN/LPL-LCY for more lucrative European routes, indeed that probably marks the long decline for the airline when that core domestic high frequency market collapsed. I was a local back then.

[Albert Hall]

Skipness 1E has it right. The VLM U.K. domestics died almost overnight with the rail improvements. The subsequent redeployment of capacity onto the likes of EIN and LUX were a reactionary plan that turned into the disaster it was always destined to be.

[BACsuperVC10]

ICEHOUSES

Haven't done for a while, but I think another option is to walk from Euston down to St Pancras and take the Thameslink service to Gatwick, you can avoid the tube then.

[OzzyOzBorn]

That's wholly wrong.

Thankyou for your customary respectful attitude, S1F. Charming as always. Aviation analysts appreciate that a number of factors have to be taken into consideration in matters of route planning. So I'm surprised that you're struggling to comprehend that. My original answer stands. You are free to disagree.

I was a local back then.

Which bit of Ayrshire is local to LCY? Anyway, I seem to recall you using the word "local" as a put-down in the past.

[Navpi]

Can we stop referring to MAN - LGW as MAN - LGW.
it's clear as day its LGW -MAN.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Which bit of Ayrshire is local to LCY?
The London part, specifically E14 at the time being discussed, London has been my pprune location for 15 years and LCY was my local airport.
Sorry but you were flat out wrong on your point, the WCML rebuild had a massive effect at the time on the domestic market and your point about VLM seeking exciting new opportunities elsewhere because of slot scarcity doesn't stand up. The WCML impact on MAN-London was profound, indeed there's no point to point justification for MAN-Central London at all now. Only points collectors chasing status go through that level of Hell on BA now.
MAN-LGW survived longer as it was useful for the South Coast and for feeding BA's long haul but the business model changed at LGW and sun routes took the focus. APD made things less attractive in market and that's not gotten any better since the route was dropped. Classic slot sitter alas, unless BA are going to re-set LGW and refocus.

Can we stop referring to MAN - LGW as MAN - LGW.
it's clear as day its LGW -MAN.
Well it's clearly doomed as it's one way only. :) Doomed I say. Do we think they're going to have a fair crack at helping feed Aer Lingus long haul here? Dare we hope?

[DomyDom]

BACsuperVC10

But doesn't all that take time and expense as well as the hassle of lugging your suitcase (assuming you can fit it on the West Coast lines train) from Manchester to Gatwick. As an able bodied person having done it it's a real slog. A disabled person I can imagine might find this even more challenging.
A connection between MAN and LGW sounds like a great idea in my opinion.

[inOban]

I would have thought that the walk between Euston and St. Pancras is shorter than many a walk within an airport terminal.

[easyflyer83]

Am I right in thinking that the Thameslink is slower by stopping more often though? A southern from Victoria only takes around 35 mins.

[OzzyOzBorn]

OK, Skip. I'd always presume an aviation analyst to enjoy a good grasp of aviation economics. But perhaps over the years you've become more seduced by cheerleading for Heathrow rather than remaining true to rational evaluation of the wider market? I shall address the points you have made against me in turn:

First up, have WCML rail improvements influenced air travel demand between MAN and the London Airports? Absolutely YES. Now show me where I argued to the contrary. Oh, that's right, I never claimed any such thing, did I?

your point about VLM seeking exciting new opportunities elsewhere

My postings have made absolutely no mention of VLM at all, still less discussed their strategic preferences at a company level. So I am "flat out wrong" on a point I never raised at all. You are trying to reinvent the narrative.

indeed there's no point to point justification for MAN-Central London at all now.

Another straw man. I've made no argument one way or the other on this topic. Do you ever read what people actually write before mounting that high horse of yours?

Classic slot sitter alas, unless BA are going to re-set LGW and refocus.


Well at least we can agree on something. I outlined exactly this in posts 76 and 95 on this thread. Though I suspect that your true motive is talk down any potential innovation which is not supportive of LHR's best interests.

Now here are the points I actually did make. As opposed to the ones you wish to plant on me with your alternative narrative.

1) At high-demand single-runway airports where peak-time runway slots are fully-subscribed (such as pre-covid LGW and LCY), less profitable services inevitably get squeezed out in favour of more lucrative opportunities over time (and not necessarily by the same carrier - I never suggested that). This is aviation economics 101. I'd be very wary of anybody claiming to be an aviation analyst who fails to comprehend this.

2) The viability of air services is dependent on a whole range of factors. Numerous contributing influences must be taken into consideration when evaluating whether to back or withdraw from an existing scheduled service. Good aviation analysts understand these complexities.

[BACsuperVC10]

DomyDom

I've not found so, firstly I've got to get to Manchester Airport, I do don't live in Manchester, so that is time and expensive. If I go by train I can get to Runcorn Station in 15 mins, no check in required, no battle to get through security 2hours on the train and I'm in Euston. I have a pull along bag like most people do now, short walk to St Pancras then train to Gatwick, alight there and your right in the terminal. I've done the say for Heathrow too, its easier than flying from Manchester particularly if you don't want terminal 5.

[BACsuperVC10]

easyflyer83

Its a bit slower, but not too bad

[BACsuperVC10]

inOban

And St Pancras is a wonderful station

[Jenny Tails]

OzzyOzBorn

It's still a slot sitting exercise

[OzzyOzBorn]

Correct. And that is exactly what I explained in my first post on this topic - number 76 on this thread - and in all subsequent references.

[DP.]

easyflyer83

Whilst some of the stopping ones are upwards of an hour, there are a number of trains per hour that are a little over 40 minutes. The walk to St Pancras and getting on a train there, as opposed to the Tube to Victoria, would always be my preferred option, unless it was chucking it down outside.

[CWL757]

Apologies if this has been mentioned and I've missed it, but what aircraft are VS using to MCO for S21? I've heard rumours of 789 and A35K. Also, do we know where the A330s are flying to next summer?

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

From what I have seen it will be A330s.

Hope that helps.

[mufc4evr]

Bluebird 737 freighter just diverted in, unsure why as nothing else is holding or diverting from EMA

[MANFOD]

The met. vis was 500m and although the RVR was >1,000m around that time, they were giving 8 okta cloud at 100ft. I imagine this particular flight was only Cat 1, unless excessive holding was a problem which seems unlikely.

[azz767]

Sioltach Dubh Glas

I would imagine a lot hinges on the success of the vaccine. If it is successful I could see demand picking right back up and them potentially needing the capacity of the A350’s or a double daily A330 (maybe one 200 and one 300) maybe not every day of the week but certainly on a few especially in peak summer. If the vaccine isn’t as successful then I would imagine an A330. It must be difficult to schedule at the minute with the success of the vaccine in the UK and the USA needing to be considered before anything is decided.

I could see it being a really last minute decision with constant changes being made throughout the summer where it may just be pot luck what you end up on with VS, especially on the leisure routes.

[HKGBOY]

I think people possibly are getting ahead of themselves. It is going to take the best part of a year to get substantial vaccine effect. Things are not going to return to “normal” by S21. For instance in Hong Kong they do not expect to roll out vaccines until 2022.

[OzzyOzBorn]

The Florida market will be slow to recover IMO. The US has banned cruises exceeding seven days in duration for Summer 2021, and it is likely that a very reduced number of those will operate. Theme parks are in full social distancing mode which severely limits capacity. And, of course, the USA is struggling with Covid again heading into it's Winter peak, though Florida's southerly latitude may help to keep numbers lower there than in the snowy northern states. Add to all this a contentious political transition too. 2021 long-haul will be a tough market generally. I'd expect budget leisure short-haul to come back much more strongly at first, provided that national entry restrictions, quarantines and kneejerk rule changes are not part of the picture. 'Keep it simple' will be the key to trouble-free leisure travel in 2021.

[DomyDom]

HKGBOY

Not sure that's quite right, certainly as far as Europe, Caribbean islands and many Far Eastern countries/Aus/NZ are concerned. If we assume that the UK/ Europe are vaccinated by the summer and countries and airlines operate a vaccine certificate system I can see things getting significantly better in summer 21. Most of the Caribbean and Australia and New Zealand have a much smaller problem anyway. Yes, the US because of it's size and the way the pandemic has been mismanaged will probably take longer but Biden has made it clear CV19 is a top priority so I think they will not be too far behind.

[HKGBOY]

Again, I appreciate the optimism Dommy. However, simply to manufacture significant vaccine doses and inject twice is no mean feat in high numbers.
HKG is looking at 2022 - so I would not be expecting Cathay back anytime soon in 2021 if this is true: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3112750/coronavirus-hong-kong-infectious-disease-expert?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=share_widget&utm_campaign=3112750&fbclid=IwAR17jl6DCtadqWaaY-iRZJmxVp6Hdp4inJZ0I1aLYD-5nFS9XADYUTfSapg

I do agree with Ozzy though, shorthaul will make some kind of recovery reasonably quickly, but UK-US will not be so easy, for the reasons Ozzy outlined. We don't know what restrictions will be in place and it will require cross border co-operation, which so far hasn't really materialised. This country still hasn't got to grips with any significant airport testing let alone organising some kind of certificate vaccine passport system. I would just err on some kind of caution on the optimism, the fact that Virgin & Aer Lingus have lots of US slots doesn't mean to say they will actually materialise.
I want to get back to HKG ASAP but not being a resident it's not possible. In fact even now they are talking of restricting quotas for returning students who are resident due to a lack of hotels in HKG that have signed up to the quarantine regime. In HKG 14 days stricht confinement is mandatory if you are negative tested at the airport. If you are positive you are shipped off to a remote government facility.

[ATNotts]

OzzyOzBorn

The incoming president is going to have it all on to extricate the US from the Covid-19 crisis caused primarily by Trump's denial and ineptitude. I can't see much improving in the next 3/4 months that is going to kickstart Florida tourism from UK, or elsewhere in Europe. Since for us northern European Florida is, for whatever reason, primarily a summer destination, it'll be 2022 before things get back to something like normal in that market.

[Mr A Tis]

BACF have announced (& bookable) 11 week-end destinations from Southampton for S21. Does that mean no return to MAN for S21? My flights this year to JMK were cancelled even though at the time it was perfectly possible to go to/from there and with no quarantine.

[The96er]

There will be no Cityflyer Ops from MAN or STN for summer 21. Perhaps SOU provided a sweeter deal than M.A.G.

[commit aviation]

Mr A Tis
I have heard that both the MAN and STN programmes have been cancelled for S21.

(There's a link to the article on the Southampton thread - post #35)

[BHX5DME]

Looks like the MAN & STN units are just being redirected to SOU - great news for SOU

[chinapattern]

bar none

I read that they only gave permission for the LHR flights to ISB and LHE.

[Lancaster Bomber]

MAN has permission too and the first flight departs at 1235 tomorrow (10/12) on a 787-9 (G-VOWS).

[BHX5DME]

MAN-ISB starts Thursday according to 'SPD travels' !

[chinapattern]

This was the article, no idea how accurate it is though but as they also state they are using A330s I’ll say not very.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1594253/virgin-atlantic-to-begin-flight-operation-to-pakistan-on-dec-13

[MANFOD]

Well according to MAN departure boards, VS 362 to ISB departs 12.35 from Gate 31 in T1 and passengers told to wait in lounge. So it seems promising!

[MANFOD]

BHX5DME
Re BACF flights S21:

This was the 4th post reiterating this news, so message received and understood! So if your main purpose was to congratulate Southampton, why not just post it on their thread?

I'm reading on SPD Travels that easyjet are proposing to increase capacity on some summer routes that were operated by BACF, which subject to further changes would more than compensate.

[SJL26779]

Does anyone know the reason for TOM104 being diverted back to MAN en route to St. Lucia? G-TUID operated the flight and is currently sat on the ground in MAN

[Lancaster Bomber]

I don't know the reason but it can't have been too serious as it's just taken off again in the past few minutes according to FR24.

[JerseyAero]

Further news posted on SPD Travels on the Aer Lingus plans to operate from MAN to the US:

Aer Lingus has applied to US DOT for rights to start Aer Lingus UK and routes from Manchester to New York, Boston & Orlando. 2 A330 used initially, EI-EDY and EI-ELA to be transferred to UK register, followed by 2 A321N

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

British registered Shamrocks is certain to drive certain parts of my family into a whole new level of rage, I hope this might be a return to MAN getting some TLC from Aer Lingus, they could finally do what BMI failed to do and make a decent go of a long haul operation alongside Virgin.
If it's a new AOC, then the callsign will be interesting....or beige, could go either way. Perhaps even BA will finally launch ORK-BOS on the A321N? #takenittoofar What a time to be alive.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Well we already have one G-registered harp (G-RUKA) with more to come, according to reports. Not a big leap to add shamrocks really? And EI- registered aircraft have been based at UK airports for years too ...

Meanwhile - sacrilege, I know - I hope that Aer Lingus delays the launch of the new base at MAN until Summer '21. I'd expect them to fly alot of fresh air around during February to May which would get things off to a very bad start and undermine the long-term financials of the project. By Summer, there is a much improved chance that the innoculation programme and easing travel restrictions will facilitate a broader range of flying again. Early in the year, I can only foresee a debilitating labyrinth of restrictions and travel bans for discretionary Transatlantic business. Of course, perhaps they will take early season bookings 'just in case' and then consolidate them over DUB closer to the time? That early morning A320 still operates MAN-DUB most days. Connections available. Consolidating onto BA over LHR using the Shuttle would also be an option in the early months, this being a codeshared IAG initiative.

I see that the Canaries have just been cancelled again by HMG ... for the crucial Christmas / New Year trading period too. No light at the end of the tunnel for leisure air travel just yet. Sadly, it looks too soon for Transatlantic to resume in volume.

[BHX5DME]

MAG Stats – November 2020

November Pax

MAN – 166,317 down 90.9%

STN – 160,805 down 91.5%

EMA – 17,136 down 93.2%

12m Rolling Pax

STN – 9,340,917 down 66.8%

MAN – 8,755,690 down 70.2%

EMA – 1,091,665 down 76.8%

Cargo

EMA – 41,613 up 26.45%

STN – 19,810 down 9.4%

MAN – 4,417 Down 54.0%

[Rutan16]

This was the article, no idea how accurate it is though but as they also state they are using A330s I’ll say not very.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1594253/virgin-atlantic-to-begin-flight-operation-to-pakistan-on-dec-13

That print media is a rag and best referred to a government mouth piece . Owned by the Haroon and Jinnah families . Its far from authoritative and critical.
Fact is they and the Pakistan government don’t really want Virgin in their backyard .
The heavy restrictions on PIA have however twisted their arm and Pakistan’s weak economy desperately needs the link.

[The96er]

Rutan16

Let’s be honest, ISB is not a route that Virgin really want to be flying, more of an opportunity to generate cash in these lean times.

[bar none]

The 96er

Who says that Virgin do not really want to fly to ISB. What is the basis of your allegation? The route could prove to be very lucrative.

[OzzyOzBorn]

The MAN-ISB route is an unusually attractive opportunity because PIA are banned from the UK until the issue relating to dishonestly acquired pilots' licences is resolved. Checks are also reportedly being made on maintenance staff and cabin crew qualifications. PIA would fly upto daily on MAN-ISB with 400+ seater B77W aircraft in normal times. They were one of the very few carriers which did maintain MAN operations during the March - May lockdown, and freight is a factor too. It is a high-demand route even in these difficult times and Virgin are sensible to go for it.

[Rutan16]

The96er

Not disputed

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

What's the timeline for MAN-US resuming with VS?

[Rutan16]

Ask President elect Biden or that orange trespasser when they are going to fully open the border

[LFC22]

Just found this in my saved files. Ofcourse the timeframe won't be the same now but are the plans still unaffected?

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x405/thumbnail_screenshot_20190329_210104_instagram_896d71f483573 6da038362093b04b1606f21b5bf_597cae73f80bc3aefdd9c7bdd114a83f 10d6fddb.jpg

[GrahamK]

Thanks to SeanM1997 on Twitter, BA restart MAN-LGW 1 x daily from 28th March.

NEW ROUTE

British Airways - Manchester to London Gatwick. Flights start 28 March 2021

BA2509 MAN 0700-0815 LGW (Mon, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat & Sun)
BA2509 MAN 0710-0825 LGW (Tue)

BA2508 LGW 0945-1055 MAN (Tue, Wed, Thu, Sat & Sun)
BA2508 LGW 0955-1105 MAN (Mon & Fri) https://t.co/vw5v25i39s

[DP.]

LFC22

The eventual scope is really an unknown until it's determined what money is available once the capital investment freeze is lifted, but Pier 2 had been prioritised over Pier 3 prior to the Covid-enforced shutdown.

[Seljuk22]

Not sure if already mentioned:
Starting 26th March SunExpress twice weekly to AYT, plan to go to 4/7 by end of May
https://mediacentre.manchesterairport.co.uk/sunexpress-to-launch-direct-flights-from-manchester-airport-to-antalya/

[GrahamK]

Looks like AA MAN-PHL is gone, no longer bookable.
leaves just LHR and EDI for AA in the UK now

[boredintheairport]

In a similar vein, I noticed a few Ryanair routes dropped off, including Eindhoven, Kiev, Cologne and Prague.

Only ever used Cologne and Eindhoven regularly but the fares of the Eindhoven flight were quite often astronomical. I've seen that flight regularly be €200+ in a normal, non holiday time of year, booking more than 3 weeks in advance.
Cologne was always a bit cheaper, but still busy. No idea about Prague or Kiev.

[Doors to...]

I would think as EI are starting MAN-BOS, JFK, MCO IAG, AA will use these as hubs, probably making PHL surplus to requirements.

[MDS]

GrahamK

MAN-PHL still bookable in July 2021 (although not daily)

[Link Kilo]

Maybe it is, but not for long if this is to be believed:
​​​​​https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1340112179710857216?s=09

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

boredintheairport

Apparently not all Ryanair S21 routes have been loaded yet.

[MANFOD]

boredintheairport

I'm led to understand the summer schedules are not fully loaded yet so we may not know the final picture. Ryanair applied for slots for several additional based aircraft.

[boredintheairport]

Sioltach Dubh Glas

Ah well that makes sense. I was surprised to see the Eindhoven route disappear.

[chinapattern]

Strange times. You can’t fly direct to EWR, ORD, PHL or LAS anymore but you can fly to IAH? (Assuming of course SQ bring it back).

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

GrahamK

Astonishing that United and American don't see a way to make MAN-USA work. I mean American had MAN-ORD/JFK/PHL/CLT at the time of the US merger!

[PDXCWL45]

Possibly not enough USA origin passengers for their liking? Scotland, London and Ireland do get a lot of US visitors.

[boredintheairport]

The Dutch government have banned passenger flights from the UK until the 1st January effective today.

There are conflicting reports as to whether transfer passengers are allowed, or whether direct flights from NL to UK are allowed. Either way, there are widespread cancellations.

Belgium has followed suit and Germany expected to introduce a similar restriction.

Eurostar is to be prohibited as well.

[Squawk 6042]

I read on one news site that KLM would fly passengers into the UK, and return freight only. However, even if that is true, I can see much consolidation of flights. I am booked to fly AMS-MAN on Thursday after travelling overnight from Africa. Am trying to find out what will happen, but no word yet.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/12/the-netherlands-bans-flights-from-uk-to-keep-out-new-coronavirus-strain/

A KLM spokeswoman told DutchNews.nl flights to the UK are going ahead as planned because they have not been banned, but aircraft will return to the Netherlands with freight but no passengers. However, passengers are advised to check their flight status.

[boredintheairport]

Interesting. However I note that one cannot book a ticket in either direction at the moment on the KLM app. easyJet appears to have cancelled all of their services.

[Navpi]

Man in the pub says Etihad are quote, seething.

Wanted a freight flight into Manchester this morning, were offered EMA as Manchester seemingly has no equipment, no staff, no logistics and presumably no ambition.

Were adamant that they were not being palmed off to East Midlands, so are now allegedly going to wait for it, Doncaster.

So Doncaster is now better equipped to handle this flight than the largest airport outside London. It takes a certain kind of magic to pee off one of your best customers?

I really hope the the new CEO Ms Karen Smart and the cargo team read these forums because this is getting absolutely farcical. Its not Karen's fault, I doubt she even gets to know but the mindset has to change.

We are now approaching double figures in terms of Manchester turning away singular cargo revenue and employment opportunities as well as what might have been a pipeline for the future.

[Mr A Tis]

Man in the pub says Etihad....
Wow, you were lucky.
Nice try to relight the cargo debate. MAG has a policy -rightly or wrongly- you really need to get over it.

[Navpi]

Ah sorry i never realised that Doncaster was part of MAG.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Surely an airport the size of Manchester could afford the necessary hi-lo equipment to access the aircraft's maindeck? I wonder how much the loss of fees by the airport must be and whether over a relatively short space of time these would have covered the cost of the equipment?

Okay, it's been another slow day, however things like this do infuriate me.

On that note I'll close by wishing you a happy Christmas - and may Santa bring Manchester the gift of proper freight handling equipped!!

[Downwind_Left]

Wanted a freight flight into Manchester this morning, were offered EMA as Manchester seemingly has no equipment, no staff, no logistics and presumably no ambition.

Were adamant that they were not being palmed off to East Midlands, so are now allegedly going to wait for it, Doncaster

Surely an airport the size of Manchester could afford the necessary hi-lo equipment to access the aircraft's maindeck? I wonder how much the loss of fees by the airport must be and whether over a relatively short space of time these would have covered the cost of the equipment?

The airport does not provide the staff nor any required ground equipment to handle flights, be they passenger or freight. That’s up to the nominated handling agents of each airline, or the airline themselves if they self-handle. They provide the staff, equipment and logistics. Only at the very smallest airports does the airport it’s self provide ground handling staff and equipment.

Given what’s happening it’s no surprise that handling agents have furloughed all but required staff, and not have people sitting around on the off chance there may be an ad-hoc freight movements some point. Maybe they were just lucky Doncaster had some spare capacity due being even quieter than Manchester, and only being able to cut staff numbers so far.

[easyflyer83]

Oh christ, not this again. Not sure whether I can take it. It comes only second to Covid for the feeling of Groundhog Day.

As others have said in the past. EMA is part of MAG and EMA is the part of the groups who’s core competency is cargo/freight.

Etihad being “seething” is an unlikely story. They were offered EMA, infinitely better connected (compared to DSA) but they chose to go to DSA which isn’t as well connected by road as EMA and even further away from MAN which they reportedly first wanted. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

[Lancaster Bomber]

What's a pub? Not been to one of them in months!

[Curious Pax]

Given that Etihad have had regular freight flights on and off to East Midlands over the last couple of years, and therefore presumably have a contractual arrangement with a handler there, and have also done a number of ad hoc flights to Doncaster in the last few months, it doesn’t sound credible that they would suddenly throw a strop about not getting access to MAN this morning if those were the 2 alternatives.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Oh christ, not this again. Not sure whether I can take it. It comes only second to Covid for the feeling of Groundhog Day.


When a known and persistently recurring issue within an organisation goes unaddressed time and again like a festering sore, it is inevitable that mention of it will be a regular occurrence. Perhaps MAG should consider putting right what so often goes wrong. Ineptitude in freight handling and dysfunctional escalators / travellators seem doomed to make regular appearances on here for many seasons yet.

It is disappointing, because MAN has many unsung departments which perform really well and rarely let the side down. Cargo is a very conspicuous exception - perhaps because it appears to be [mis]managed from a remote location within the group. Also allegedly letting the side down is the division responsible for hangar lettings - is that part of MAG Property's remit? Whoever it is, Grade Z- for them.

But set against this, the TP team did an outstanding job of the T2 expansion on a tight budget. The taxiway reorganisation has gone well. Julian Carr's section liaising with airlines for new business has done a great job. Security: instances of failures leading to long delays had come right down well before covid hit. Good progress there. Customer service in the terminals has made great positive strides. Kudos to the departments responsible for these areas.

But it is surely time for 'special measures' for the embarrassingly inept cargo division and those responsible for (allegedly) lamentable bungled hangar lettings. It is very specific areas which are letting down the wider reputation of the business ("the airport which likes to say NO!"). Too many on here rush to make excuses for these failings instead of considering how they could be remedied for the long-term benefit of the business. That is called complacency, and there is no place for it in a successful organisation. Invite those who have failed conspicuously to take a post better suited to their skill level and replace them with a competent fixer to sort things out in problem areas. Conversely, be sure to praise and reward those departments which have been a credit to the organisation and promote executives who have consistently done well. That is the essence of good management.

It is early days for Ms Smart at MAN. Let's hope she is up to delivering on this.

[chaps1954]

May it be a case of no cargo stand available due to reduilding work, also has been stated many times MAG don`t own any equipent like this as it is the job of handing agent

[Navpi]

easyflyer83

In lockdown? Why not take up a hobby.

I suggest a musical instrument, the bassoon maybe.

You are it seems fully equipped, copius amounts of hot air !

[SWBKCB]

Cargo is a very conspicuous exception - perhaps because it appears to be [mis]managed from a remote location within the group.

But it is surely time for 'special measures' for the embarrassingly inept cargo division

Other than the moaning on this thread, any evidence to back those comments up? The group appear to run two of the countries most successful freight operations, which had daily widebody freighter movements prior to Covid-19 whereas MAN had none....

Is the airport/handlers meant to gear up with equipement/staffing for the hope of the odd charter?

[MANFOD]

Why is it wrong to make constructive observations and criticism about certain aspects of the airport's operations? And I'm sure you noted the writer you quote also complemented several other facets of MAN's activities. It just seems rather odd that an airport the size of MAN, or its handling agents, apparently do not have hi-lo equipment on site to enable it to handle freighters when many other UK airports of varying size do.

[SWBKCB]

"But it is surely time for 'special measures' for the embarrassingly inept cargo division" isn't "constructive observations and criticism". The many other UK airports that have the kit need it for the regular widebody freighters they had pre-Covid. Is it so hard to see that MAG operates group policies and priorities?

Julian Carr's section liaising with airlines for new business has done a great job. - not done so well at attracting pax to EMA. Maybe not a group priority

[OzzyOzBorn]

Other than the moaning on this thread, any evidence to back those comments up?

This public forum is not the place for a forensic examination of specific failings, but those within the group have access to the data and timelines they need. Minimum standards are supposed to be in place for handling agencies: who is responsible for setting and arbitrating these standards? Why isn't there a Hi-Lo available on the airport? Someone needs to make darned sure there is. Take some responsibility.

The Hi-Lo issue appears to be kicked around as a classic 'chicken and egg' scenario with one side saying why have the equipment on site when so few freighters use them and the other side saying our freighters can't use the site because there is no equipment available. This is a vicious circle and it needs sorting out. A short glance at MAN's history shows that any notion that there is no demand for decent freight facilities here is abject nonsense. Not a case of 'bring it and they will come', rather 'bring it back cos it attracted loads of business in the past'. The need is proven.

MAN's whole-plane cargo capability is poor not based upon latent demand, but because the airport's proposition has seemingly been subjected to a managed decline by some within the group who didn't have Manchester Airport's best interests in mind. That is a lamentable situation and it needs to be rectified.

I suspect that based upon 2019 (pre-covid) stats, MAN is standalone as probably the busiest major airport in Europe which can't even rustle up a single Hi-Lo. That is absolutely shameful and a betrayal of MAG's responsibility to the NW's regional interests. If the situation isn't rectified, some might be minded to suggest that there is a growing case for a monopolies inquiry into how MAG as a group services the air cargo industry? Is business disproportionately carved up in the interests of MAG profits rather than due service to the customers? Is the NW region's inherent share of the cargo business routinely switch-sold away in the interests of other MAG airports elsewhere in the country? Some difficult questions need to be addressed, especially at this desperate time when every business opportunity is so crucial to employment prospects in the area.

[OzzyOzBorn]

not done so well at attracting pax to EMA. Maybe not a group priority

It appears that you are perhaps better placed to argue on behalf of EMA than some other contributors on the MAN thread. If you believe that constructive criticism is due, why not set it forth? Problems won't be addressed if nobody seems bothered by them.

[Navpi]

100% correct Mr OzBorn

Government policy is supposedly about levelling up although that perhaps is a debate for another forum.

What is not in doubt is the fact that Man Airport is central to the economic prosperity of the North of England.

The inability to provide what is a basic service at most other airports is lamentable, not least given the airports status as the supposed gateway to the North.

What's the mantra again ?

"22m people located within 2 hours".

The cargo page on The Manchester Airport website trumpets "world class facilities", "global connectivity".
Options which apparently are only available if you happen to carry passengers !

The following airports are all pure cargo capable and routinely handle freight on a daily basis from all over the world.

Prestwick
Newcastle
Liverpool
Doncaster
East Midlands
Birmingham
Luton
Stansted
Heathrow
And would you believe even Bournemouth.

Yes even Bournemouth, its not even geographically the centre of Hampshire let alone the UK and yet like Doncaster from a standing start it can seemingly find it economical to provide direct pure freight service providing revenue opportunities and local employment.

If the accounts at MAG are so skewed that pure cargo is a loss making endeavour I would suggest there needs to be a level of retraining.

Are all these airports attracting pure cargo service in order to make a loss?

If the problem is with the handler i would suggest MAG contact one of the agencies at the list above. They appear to be making pure cargo a roaring success !

[SWBKCB]

What has government policy got to do with it??

Newcastle only has a FedEx Atr on a daily basis - no other scheduled freighters and certainly has no widebody main deck capability.

Doncaster from a standing start? Apart from the regular 747F's with fresh produce that have been operating for years.

BOH are bulk loading on to the maindeck of passenger 340's - more to do with Mr Stoddart than any airport masterplan

Most of the others have had main deck freighter operators for years - Manchester hasn't as it has concentrated on belly freight because of the previous space constraints.

[Mr A Tis]

EY9731 B777 due into Doncaster tonight (22nd) 21;30 - 2 hour turnaround and back to Abu Dhabi.
With so many flights now grounded (again) is there a spare stand even if it did/had scheduled into Manchester?

[UnderASouthernSky]

Etihad had a B777F at DSA in October, so it would seem that they might not be unhappy about flying there.

[GrahamK]

SWBKCB

NCL used to have its own in house equipment for main deck cargo, but sold it, to Doncaster

[horatio_b]

Doncaster handled Etihad B777F's on 6th, 8th and 10th of October

[SWBKCB]

GrahamK

Was that not Teesside - can't remember any maindeck widebody freighters (been at least one that was belly cargo only). Anyway, apart from turboprops, pure cargo flights are not regular in NCL.

Also interesting are those airports not mentioned - the likes of Bristol, Edinburgh and Glasgow are probably more similar to Manchester than those listed.

[wools]

It is a few years since I was involved directly in the Freighter business but I believe that only airports with Main Deck loading equipment are
Prestwick, Doncaster, East Midlands, Stansted and Heathrow. Also you need 2 units in case one goes u/s or you have a long/overhanging pallet that may
that may require two units. Cost currently for two units in excess of 600K,.without other ground equipment tail stands etc.,

Bean counters will not authorise expenditure unless proven requirement i.e minimum weekly schedule not a one off flight sometime

I have heard the arguments what comes first the chicken or the egg and speculate to accumulate. Each can be right or wrong.

[TURIN]

Wools.
A voice of reason.

MAN used to have a few scheduled 747s. Air Hong Kong/Dragoair, Air China etc. A few combis too (PIA/BA) They stopped coming to MAN. Therefore equipment no longer required. That is it I'm afraid.

Condolences to the AA staff who have been shown the door. Sad news inded.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Thank you TURIN for your reasoned response.

A question for you or others with the internal knowledge - if handling agents have "spare" unused equipment, at another base, how easy/economical would it be to reposition it to another airport? I appreciate that this is only part of the logistical problem (you need to take into account staffing etc) but it's a starting point to hopefully move the discussion forward without creating bad rhetoric.

Finally can I take this opportunity to wish everyone a very peaceful, if very different, Christmas.

​​​

[wools]

Ground Support Equipment (GSE) from the major world Ground Handling Companies do move their GSE quite often. This is to either meet the requirements at a particular airport/for fleet replacement or for deep maintenance. This often occurs not only with in the UK but also between Ireland and other parts of Europe. (Brexit warning re import duties and taxes notwithstanding perhaps).
Generally there are two main pieces of equipment that are not easy to move around. Main Deck Hi-loaders and some types of towbarless push back tractors both due width. These normally are classed as wide loads and need careful planning and approval from police etc., before moving. Hi-loaders in particular are best not moved around as they are very sensitive to any kind of unusual movement. They can take some time in my experience in the past to settle down after a major road journey.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Therefore equipment no longer required. That is it I'm afraid.

But this is not the full story. A runway is "no longer required" if an airport tells all its airline customers to go away. A terminal is "no longer required" if an airport tells its passengers to go away.

MAG apparently switch-sells MAN's whole-plane cargo leads to EMA and STN. And if they don't go there they're likely to be told they can't come to MAN anyway.

There IS proven demand for whole-plane cargo at MAN. For example, do you recall when CargoLogicAir announced plans to base a B747 freighter at MAN (but then the base "mysteriously" materialised at STN instead)? The airport has to accept the business in order for the support equipment to be required. That is where the real shortfall is, and it isn't good enough. 'The airport which likes to say NO' is saying ...

Earlier this year, THG indicated that they intended to set up a cargo airline at MAN but all has gone quiet with them. Not sure what is happening there. But their products certainly need to reach global markets. As do those associated with many other NW importers / exporters. This is still a manufacturing region.

[TURIN]

I have no knowledge of airlines being told to go away.
Evidence please.

[OzzyOzBorn]

You could start by reading back on this thread and its recent predecessor. The process is known as "switch-selling".

[TURIN]

That is not evidence. It's hearsay.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Well I'm guessing that nobody is about to post privileged documentation on a public forum, so you'll have to make do with outcomes which are there to see for those who care to look.

[Navpi]

Festive Joke.

Another of Manchesters largest customers are now starting regular service to Doncaster.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-12-22/lufthansa-will-airlift-food-to-britain-skirting-port-logjam

Lufthansa 777Fs due 1300

They asked Manchester

"but there was no room at the inn".

Can somone remind me how much the shareholders gave to Manchester to protect jobs and routes. Oh yes £350m
well at least its protecting jobs in South Yorkshire.

It was actually referenced only yesterday in the Strait Times that these flights would be starting to Heathrow, Manchester and Edinburgh. It appears that the cargo manager at Doncaster has proactively hunted down the opportunity.

Top work 👍

[spannersatcx]

At one point CX/KA had 13 747 freighters a week into MAN, when CX acquired KA the KA freighters were absorbed into CX, then down to 7 or 8 freighters a week. Then with the reintroduction of pax fits into MAN with the 777 it was deemed unviable to operate freighters only into MAN as the 777 was capable of carrying tonnes of belly freight. The freighters were redeployed to north and South America. Freighter base at MAN was closed, with 1 or sometimes 2 freighters a week into LHR for large/oversized cargo. The decision had nothing to do with MAG's capability at that time, purely commercial/logistical from the airlines point. Did a few F1 charters out of EMA, and the odd horse movement out of DUB.

[southside bobby]

Regarding the overall picture to point out once again the "shareholders" did not give £350M to Manchester it is provision for ALL three MAG Airports STN/EMA & MAN.

[AndrewH52]

In truth the £260m for MAG will cover the gap in local authority finances caused by non-payment of dividends for the next couple of years.

[JerseyAero]

Looking at the most recent examples on here of cargo flights supposedly being turned away, it seems that even if the airlines were ushered in the direction of EMA, that policy also failed miserably as they ended up at non-MAG airports anyway such as DSA and LPL (in the case of the RAM Cargo flight). So on that basis not only is MAN losing out due to having inadequate resources, MAG lost the business as well!

With the cargo sector booming at present I think highlighting this inability to both handle cargo traffic at MAN and attract cargo business is perfectly valid and questioning the effectiveness of that department has to be something that management at MAG needs to seriously look at as Navpi and Ozzy have argued.

[Navpi]

Many thanks Mr A Tis, yes referenced earlier.

Helmut Torksdorf the Lufthansa comms manager only suggested yesterday that they could operate pure cargo 777F to Heathrow, Edinburgh and Manchester.

Probably perplexed that Manchester is obviously not pure cargo capable despite the clear message on the MAN website that we have 1000 professionals managing this.
It feels more like Pte Godfrey is running the show

"Manchester Airport is a global gateway to the North of England. Manchester Airport currently handles around 100,000 tonnes of import and export freight and mail annually, connecting the North of England to 160 destinations around the world.

Manchester Airport's cargo facility, the World Freight Terminal, is a community of more than 1,000 professionals managing freight-only aircraft as well as consignments that arrive or depart in the holds of passenger aircraft. Having grown to meet the increasing demands on importers and exporters across the country, our 24/7 service operates from 60,000 square metres of warehouse and office space for a comprehensive air cargo support system.

Manchester's largest cargo markets are the Far East, North America and the Middle East, with daily flights connecting to all of these"

[SCFC1EP]

Etihad have five Doncaster flights scheduled in January (4th, 5th, 11th, 18th and 25th), all scheduled to arrive at 2325

Plenty of time for Manchester Airport to have had the logistics in place to handle these flights but no lets turn away one of our main airlines, to a non- MAG group airport

Not that the airport is busy in Jan late at night, OK parking spots may be a little tight with most aircraft lightly to be grounded but surely they can keep 2 or 3 empty stands clear around cargo

[chaps1954]

Its the handling agents that are not interested as the airport owns none of the equipement

[ManchesterUK]

Hello there, does anyone know the name of the company which is currently scrapping the Thomas Cook A330s at Manchester Airport?

Many thanks and wishing everyone a loverly Christmas.

[gonetech]

AJW Group purchased the aircraft for teardown. I think Chevron are involved in the actual teardown work though.

[ManchesterUK]

Thanks Gonetech.

[UnderASouthernSky]

Can't help feeling that these "why is my local airport not getting these cargo flights?" frustrations are sometimes based more upon spotters missing out on registrations rather than genuinely being upset about "lost revenue", "poor PR" or the perceived "impact" on the surrounding region's industry.

[easyflyer83]

Agreed. Always said the same.

[Navpi]

Sorry but I really do have to respond to this "spotter jibe".

This isnt a forum for playground observations.

I have an active interest in Manchester Airport, and indeed politics and its wider impact on the economy , particularly the one covering the North of England. I also run a business based in Cheshire, it's 25 minutes door to door from the warehouse complex at Manchester Airport but when I examine goods in our warehouse they haven't arrived via Manchester they have airways billl's from the forwarder marked East Midlands and London Stansted. Hence my interest.

Having had 3 or so years of the Northern Powerhouse we are currently in quote "levelling up mode" , ho, ho ,ho, we will see whether that bares fruit or is an empty vessel......yet again.

Some actual spades in the ground rather than review after review would be good. I digress.

If we assume there will indeed be Government investment in infrastructure projects across Northern England the vast majority of that would surely be aimed at an area which encompasses the 22m population who reside within 2 hours of Manchester Airport. It is /was the natural long haul and European gateway for manufacturing, distribution , tourism etc. It is at the epicentre of Northern England surrounded by Liverpool, Leeds/Bradford and Sheffield, 3 of the largest cities outside London notwithstanding Manchester/Salford, if there is to be a reset of the UK economy Manchester Airport is absolutely vital in that jigsaw, and that includes the movement of "just in time" parts and materials. Manchester Airport underpins that critical mass in terms of delivery.

Before Covid Manchester had upwards of 600 movements per day with 000s of tonnes of freight carried underbelly, multiple services around the world provided the direct import/export access that companies in the North required. As passengers have evaporated so have the routes and services, direct flights and vital connectivity have disappeared.

30m passengers were in effect providing a vital indirect bonus in terms of masses of cargo capacity carried below deck. Manufacturing, Aerospace, Pharmaceuticals, Textiles still want those goods but with no services how are they sourced ?

The Strait Times is the equivalent of the FT for Singapore, last week with the imposition of restrictions at the Channel Tunnel the Communications Manager at Luthansa was quoted as saying they would maintain cargo flights to Heathrow, Manchester and indeed Edinburgh using 777Fs if need be.

Lets consider Manchester within that equation. It was in my view a given that Lufthansa management had a "perception" that Manchester was the "big airport" for the North, the one with the manpower, capacity, logistics and capability to handle pure frieght on perhaps a daily basis. Sadly I cannot speak German but I suspect there would be hearty laughter if one was to suggest Doncaster was more capable than Manchester and yet 2 days later that is exactly what happened.

Let's be clear Manchester is a major operation for Lufthansa, Manchester has the largest customer base outside London and one of the largest in Europe, is it inconceivable that they would not alight on Manchester as the first port of enquiry for direct cargo flights ?

Maybe they were offered EMA as a standard alternative and refused, maybe the cargo manager at Doncaster monitoring the fact that Etihad and Qatar had also shifted to Doncaster saw an opportunity and picked up the phone.

Whichever way you look at this it is to say the least baffling that three of Manchester's largest customers did not choose what to many outside the perimeter looking on , would be the Norths natural gateway, an airport where you "already" have a sizeable daily operation ?

At the end of 2019 Manchester was full, I understand why at that time MAG were being prudent in sending enquiries to EMA. But we are in a different world, it could be years before 30m is seen again but as the economy picks up, there may well be a necessity for direct airport to airport pure cargo flights and simply diverting those enquiries to EMA is clearly not working.

We don't know if Etihad, Qatar and Lufthansa initially considered Manchester flights, nor do we know if there was an attempt to switch sell to EMA. It might be presumptuous nay pompus to suggest Manchester was even in there thoughts, this is all open to conjecture, but the fact these flights now operate from Doncaster offering up the possibility they didn't even consider Manchester as the first "go to" option is perhaps even more damming is it not ?

Instead they chose another airport outside the group and on that basis the business philosophy is a spectacular fail.
Who within the board is looking at this failure, because a failure it most definitely is.

I cannot believe that those airlines who we count as amongst MANs best , most active , and most loyal customers didn't consider MAN as the 1st choice, its simply not plausible. What did they do stick a pin on a map and say "hey we have multiple service into Manchester, it's our largest base after Heathrow , one of our busiest in Europe but I know, we will go to Doncaster instead ?

It beggars belief.
​
I suspect MAG would say well none of this matters there is no money in cargo, I would disagree. Many passenger airlines have switched mindset in this crisis to pure cargo operation , even though they are not cargo airlines as such.
AA and Korean have even taken out seats to increase cargo uplift. TUI are currently running freight flights between Detroit and Germany. Airlines, the freight forwarders Warehousing and presumably some airports all make good revenue but apparently when it comes to Manchester there is no money in it ? I do wonder if like parking aircraft they base figures on 2019 prices whilst everyone else is charging eye watering premiums and to coin a phrase making a fast buck.

I do wonder if enquiries to Manchester are met with a flat refusal rather than a "ok, let's examine how much can we charge", "how can we make money like everyone else".

Manchester's first obligation is to its shareholders but surely there is also an holistic approach to the wider economy ?

Over the years I have seen numerous lobbying by the airport to MPs and via the press where MAG management have demonstrated how vital the airport is to the lifeblood of the North of England. It's not a two way stretch, you cannot indicate one day how critical you are to the UK economy and whilst at the sametime decapitate a major aspect of the service you provide by either artificially diverting revenue opportunities and employment to another airport in the East Midlands, or in the case of Doncaster failing to compete at all.

We expect competition from Heathrow, but Doncaster ?

Come on Manchester, you are better than this.

[AndrewH52]

Whilst I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with some of the things you say Navpi, you’re argument has at least two flaws in it. Firstly, 600 movements a day maybe, but only a couple of dozen of those will carry underbelly freight. The vast majority of movements are by EZY, RYR, Jet2 and Tui - not a kg of freight between them.

Secondly, you seem to be under the misapprehension that J-I-T freight is flown on a regular basis. It’s not. It only gets flown when something goes wrong with road / rail / sea connections.

Most contributors on this forum would probably want to focus on MAN getting its bread and butter passenger offer right first. And besides, given how much you complain about Heathrow sucking the long haul life blood out of the regions, it’s a bit hypocritical to complain Manchester isn’t doing the same with freight?

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

I'm fully supportive of the main thrust of the argument put forward by Navpi in claiming that the management at MAG needs to start to think about the business being lost to Doncaster as a competitor in the freight world. Yes frightening may not be as profitable as passengers (self loading freight) but it is all part of the overall airline business.

It has been said by another poster that the airport is not responsible for the provision of handing equipment and that this is down to the airline's appointed handling agents. Should the airport not be looking at the contracts for the facilities that these agents are offering and ensure that they provide the correct equipment for the modern day freighters? Could the agents not decide to pool equipment in order to minimise costs - I accept that these loaders do not come cheaply.

I appreciate that there are those who post on here and believe that their word or way of thinking is "the true light" however there are others who, reading their posts also seem to have done a lot of research into the subject being discussed - no matter what that subject might be - and who are able to articulate their posts in such a way as to make for worthy reading. Please let the discussion continue as I'm sure that none of those posts are by " spotters" eager to see a Lufthansa freighter in the ground but rather by members, who are true supporters of the airport itself, and who hate to see the opportunity of business being lost to another airport.

Manchester is the UK's largest airport outside of the London area and serves as the northwest's gateway to the world not just for passengers but also, with the right effort, for freight.

[chaps1954]

Who are you expecting to operate all these cargo flights, cargo has been good over the summer only because of medical supplies as most of the other cargo is in decline except express
parcels, The MAG group has all the parcel operators i:e Fed Ex , UPS,and DHL which are way out of the league for Manchester parking and also night operations, ad hoc flights don`t make a lot on money
and quite aften tie up a parking stand for 24hrs plus and can cost the handlers a lot of money for staff and equipement, plus they have a high chance that the times will vary and tie a stand up for many hours.

[SWBKCB]

Lufthansa: why the focus on freight only a/c, plenty of capacity in the belly of LH's regular flights. Have LH 777F's turned up at anywhere other than DSA - how many flights? Also, nobody's mentioned yet that Doncaster has been feeding fresh produce into the supermarkets supply chains for many years, so they are an obvious choice.

The Northern Powerhouse stuff is just - well. Is DSA not in the north, does EMA not serve the north or does some mythical line say it's not 'north' enough? This point of view looks very odd from any other northern point than Manchester (and you wonder why other cities are suspicious of Manchester dominance of the NP).

The situation is that Manchester's regular widebody freight business dropped to such an extent that it no longer become viable - stands weren't available and the equipment/staffing resource just wasn't justified, especially when there are other airports in the group who were capable of picking up any passing trade. That's clearly group policy, and any critics on the perftrmance of individual teams needs to put up or shut up.

Is there a long term shift in the business reducing pax numbers and increasing the number of widebocy pure freighters? How much money are you prepared to spend on it? If MAN isn't going to be stand constrained for pax business and there is a long term, regular demand for widebody pure freighters, maybe the policy will change and the money will be spent. But otherwise they are better off spending the money on the terminals than chasing the odd, irregular charter.

[Mr A Tis]

The Lufthansa B777 into Doncaster was a one off with fresh foods, due to the channel ports fiasco.
Iceland, Tesco & Lidl have huge regional distribution centres in........... Doncaster !
I guess that is where the food was wanted.

[OzzyOzBorn]

The situation is that Manchester's regular widebody freight business dropped to such an extent that it no longer become viable

We're back to the 'chicken and egg' debate here. If you discourage and turn certain types of business away you can quickly reach the point where you can justify offloading support for that business because it has dropped in importance at the site! When you've turned the business away, you don't need to employ the staff who would have serviced that business under different circumstances. It is very easy to justify such cutbacks to observers who are unaware of the backstory. Of course, I note that your postings often reflect the views of one closely aligned with the specific interests of EMA in particular, so your defence of a status quo which sees MAN's inherent cargo business redirected there is understandable.

critics on the perftrmance of individual teams needs to put up or shut up.

My criticism of MAG has been quite measured. I have praised many areas of the business which have done an outstanding job under difficult circumstances. Sadly, cargo and the agency responsible for hangar lettings have performed poorly, and I see no harm in highlighting that. What is the point of praising a department which has delivered really well if they're then to observe you saying exactly the same of troubled sections which have clearly failed to meet the standards which a successful business should expect?

How much money are you prepared to spend on it?

Well, at an airport on the scale of MAN, I'd be prepared to spend enough to bring in two Hi-Lo's and ensure that sufficient staff are trained to operate them (delegating this to a third party handling agent if preferred). Given that MAN has a large cargo village on site already, costs need only be incurred at the margins. The fixed infrastructure is there. The competence has been there in the past. It's not like starting from scratch.

This discussion reminds me of uncomfortable parallels with a situation which occurred at MAN many years ago. A certain well known 'favourite airline' was minded to focus its prestige long-haul services at LHR. But they didn't want long-haul competitors to thrive at MAN in their absence. So they'd spread the word that long-haul would never be viable at MAN. And when an airline did appear on a route such as HKG, they would suddenly appear on the route as well - with timings very similar to the competing airline. But, in this case, that tactic didn't put off the competitor, so they switched their flights to different days of operation at very short notice. Passengers booked from MAN on the original days of operation were switched to a domestic connecting flight. Requests to change to the new MAN day of operation were refused with inflexible fare rules cited at booked passengers (yes, I recall this from sour first-hand experience). Of course, passenger loads on the new MAN days of operation were lamentable with negligible advance bookings in play. And so the service was withdrawn, because there obviously "wasn't demand for the route", right? Other long-haul routes were intentionally undermined to prove a point too. Well, Manchester Airport management were pretty unimpressed by some of the business practices they were subjected to back then.

Fast-forward to today. And - on cargo, at least - MAG themselves now seemingly operate in this way. Discourage the incumbent business. Switch sell leads away. Deflect enquiries. Say no. Then argue that MAN can't justify supporting that business any more because demand just ain't there in economic volumes. Oh, the irony. What would Sir Gil have said?

Can't help feeling that these "why is my local airport not getting these cargo flights?" frustrations are sometimes based more upon spotters missing out on registrations

Busted! Yes, we've no interest in preserving employment, supporting the region's economy, or optimising the business. We just want more reggies to jot down in our little notebooks. [SIGH ...].

[SWBKCB]

We're back to the 'chicken and egg' debate here. If you discourage and turn certain types of business away you can quickly reach the point where you can justify offloading support for that business because it has dropped in importance at the site!

spannerstcx post #199 gives much of the background as I understand it. Much of the previous MAN freight disappeared into the belly of pax a/c. The only flights that I can think of that might fall into your category are (ironically) the former LH flights. Can't remember why but seem to remember that availability of stands was mentioned as an issue.

Of course, I note that your postings often reflect the views of one closely aligned with the specific interests of EMA in particular, so your defence of a status quo which sees MAN's inherent cargo business redirected there is understandable.

Nope - no connection, born in Broadheath, worked at MAN briefly, had family working at MAN until recently for Caledonian, Thomas Cook, Easyjet that I can remember. No EMA connections! My dislike of the sort of comments below are immaterial of location - any evidence that the teams referred to are doing anything other than group policy?

Cargo is a very conspicuous exception - perhaps because it appears to be [mis]managed from a remote location within the group.

But it is surely time for 'special measures' for the embarrassingly inept cargo division

troubled sections which have clearly failed to meet the standards which a successful business should expect?

And now back to chickens and eggs.

Well, at an airport on the scale of MAN, I'd be prepared to spend enough to bring in two Hi-Lo's and ensure that sufficient staff are trained to operate them (delegating this to a third party handling agent if preferred). Given that MAN has a large cargo village on site already, costs need only be incurred at the margins. The fixed infrastructure is there. The competence has been there in the past. It's not like starting from scratch.

And where would you get the business from - wools post #189 lists those airports with the kit - I'd add in EDI for the UPS 767's. So outside MAG and LHR there are the EDI parcel flights, Air France and Cargolux at PIK (?), 1-3 fresh produce flights a week at DSA and what else - any ad hoc work that's floating around? Where's the business case for the money over and above other priorities, or is it all about prestige?

[seahawks]

It’s all about one poster with an agenda and several on-line identities who insists upon repeating the same arguments repeatedly. I used to work with Ozzy/Shed on the 4th floor of a certain airport building and always respected their aviation knowledge. Time to move on imho.

[southside bobby]

MAG is not just about Manchester Airport which many have never come to terms with...

MAG consists of STN/EMA AND MAN.

[southside bobby]

Post #201...

Quote..."In truth the £260M for MAG will cover the gap in local authority finances caused by non-payment of dividends for the next couple of years"...

Would anyone care to explain !?

The local authorities themselves put the money in to shore up MAG due to the pandemic & Government failure to develop an Airport/Aviation strategy so is it suggested that the local authorities put the money in then immediately look to take it back then out in the form of dividend?...Cos that ain`t gonna happen... BTW it was made clear at the time of the inward investment that it was for the 3 airports including STN/EMA & not just Manchester Airport.

[MANFOD]

After the cheap jibes about 'spotters', we've had some sensible comments but I do commend the well articulated arguments by navpi, ozzi and Sioltach even if you don't agree with them.

Andrew H52 makes a valid point on the very high proportion of non-freight carrying flights but I would suggest that in a normal summer his 12 flights, mainly long haul carrying cargo in the belly hold, is on the low side even just for inbounds. Then there are the outbound loads.

I can actually understand MAG's policy in normal circumstances of concentrating freight at EMA or STN given MAN's constraints on slots and stands at busy times. However, I do think there should be flexibility to adapt that policy in the sort of situation that has prevailed for the last 9 months when I suspect J-I-T will have applied at times. I don't pretend to know the finances of acquiring or renting the necessary equipment for the airport or handling agent, or moving equipment from another airport, but with the number of passenger flights being relatively low, including those long haul flights that would normally carry cargo below, one would have thought there would be some money to be made from handling pure freight flights.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

There isn't really a huge amount of money to be made from freight other than specialist stuff. Plus it's very difficult finding a profitable PtP route and you need a handling agent willing to take the contract on.. It's not as simple as just sticking a 74F in and offloading it. Don't think AHK was particularly profitable for all concerned, you end up in a situation where as a GHA you are only getting handling fees which aren't much now considering most freight agents use ERTS.

[southside bobby]

MAN slot constrained?...How so with 2 R/W`s...

STN is/was slot constrained but seem to have no problem handing many wide body freighters that MAN appear to anguish about here.

[MANFOD]

Well, two comments on that. Firstly, I did say at busy times. Secondly, slots can be constrained by terminal or stand capacity, not just runway slots. Terminal capacity is not applicable to freighters but apron and stand occupation for longer durations can be, particularly with the TP work going on.

But as I mentioned, perhaps flexibility during the covid crisis might have been an option but the airport presumably assessed financially it wasn't worth it. It's sad in my opinion for the reasons given by others, but it doesn't look as if a change of policy is likely.

[OzzyOzBorn]

OK. I note the frustration from some that the cargo debate has resurfaced again. I did think that a natural hiatus had been reached, and was prepared to leave it there. But new points have been raised by others and so I address them. However, I am puzzled by any suggestion that this debate is one person using multiple identities. That simply isn't so. I actually do know who several of the participants in the discussion are and I'm not aware of any of those posting here under multiple ID's. As for myself, I've made around 170 PPRuNe posts in just over three years all under a single pseudonym. Not overly prolific. There is no agenda to deceive with assorted aliases, so any assumption to the contrary is mistaken. No other names in use by me.

seahawks. I don't recognise you by username. But what I'm about to tell you may surprise - and not in any good way. The poster who did raise the cargo issue with such passion back in April (PPE flights) was indeed a name familiar to fourth floor alumni. That username has abruptly disappeared, but for the worst of reasons. We refer to a good friend taken far before his proper time. Maybe you joined us at the socially-distanced kerbside guard of honour lining his road as the funeral cortege drove by back in July. Funeral itself was family only, in accordance with covid restrictions. Otherwise there would have been hundreds there. I'm sure you will now recognise the person of whom we speak, but if not you can PM me. Either way, he and I agreed on many airport matters and disagreed on afew - but always remained best of friends throughout. And I would remind others here that it is an admirable quality to be able to debate earnestly with mutually respected friends and colleagues without falling out with them over differing opinions. In real life, I never came across anyone who had a bad word for our late colleague. He wanted Manchester Airport to be the best that it could be and I'm totally onboard with him on that.

Am I the person you had in mind when you spoke of "posting with an agenda"? If so, you are quite right. My agenda is the pursuit of positive outcomes for the region generally and Greater Manchester in particular. I want to see a thriving airport supporting thousands of skilled jobs, an upgraded and reinvigorated NW rail network, an expanded Metrolink and seamless coordinated bus and coach network with fully-integrated ticketing. I want to see investment in education and upskilling across the region. I want to see a technology and media sector thriving in the region. World class sports, venues, facilities. I make no apology for urging all those with a role in delivering these things to strive for the best outcomes they can achieve. Positive progress is a good thing. Manchester Airport ticks many boxes in this respect, and where it does so I openly applaud them. But there are shortcomings in a couple of specific areas of the business, and I do urge improvement in these. Though I realise the risk I take by doing so on here. When praising MAG one is called out as a happy clapper / cheerleader; when criticising one is denounced as a "[freight] troll". I have experience on both sides of that divide (dependent on topic), so I'm used to being hit with both forms of abuse! :-)

But yes, MAG's agenda does differ from mine in one essential respect. Their primary agenda is to maximise profit to their group bottom line - the interests of the region are secondary to this in the view of MAG executives. My agenda flips this: I welcome a healthy and profitable MAG, but not at the expense of short-changing their wider responsibilities to the NW regional economy. So I do understand their view. I just happen to disagree with certain elements of it, as do some other regular posters on here. I don't for one moment expect MAG policy to be even remotely influenced by debates on public forums, but that doesn't mean that exchange of ideas should be dismissed by self-appointed objectors on here. It is far better to (respectfully) join a discussion than to post little digs and tell other participants to get lost.

Once again, I didn't start the cargo discussion originally, and I didn't resurrect it more recently. I have responded to others and joined in. I'm prepared to contribute again if new points are raised. If not, the ground is covered. But let's all try to keep it civilised.

Happy New Year from me to all contributors here whether you agree with my points or not. And RIP to the great friend who really did raise the cargo discussion back in April. One who contributed to the success of MAN throughout his career and worked tirelessly for the best interests of the airport throughout his years based at MAN.

[Navpi]

Ex Cargo Clown

In that case EMA is presumably losing money and a drain on MAG resources.

[Downwind_Left]

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what Ex Cargo Clown wrote?
He didn’t say cargo was a massive loss maker and drain on resources, he said there’s not a huge amount of money to be made.

In that respect you also have to consider volumes. STN and EMA both have huge amounts of freight-only traffic from the big operators; DHL, FedEx and UPS. Plus main deck capacity from the likes of Asiana, Cargolux and Qatar etc. Both airports together handed 5 times the amount as Manchester in 2019, and have the volume of freight traffic and spare capacity to make it worthwhile and profitable. The majority of Manchester’s fright traffic has been belly capacity on passenger flights in recent years... modern aircraft such as the A330/350 and B777/787 have so much belly capacity for cargo that the need for dedicated freighter service is much reduced in all but the largest markets.

To put it in perspective, here are the CAA stats for freight traffic for 2019. I’m only reproducing airports handling over 15 000T of freight, figure underneath each tonnage is percentage change vs previous year.

London Heathrow
1 587 486T
-7%

East Midlands
335 948T
+/-0%

London Stansted
224 139T
-1%

London Gatwick
110 358T
-2%

Manchester
108 382T
-5%

London Luton
35 761T
+37%

Birmingham
29 866T
-11%

Belfast International
25 095T
-9%

Edinburgh
19 410T
-5%

Doncaster
17 647T
+148%

So take away points from the above data are as follows;

Freight volumes at STN and EMA are huge in comparison to MAN. And most of theirs is dedicated freight service rather than passenger belly capacity. They have the economies of scale to handle these flights.
Freight across the board was generally declining in volume. A lot of airlines have been in the process of ending their dedicated freighter operations because of depressed yields resulting from increased belly capacity.
Doncaster are clearly going after this market as they have a large and very quiet airfield, with TUI and Wizz Air being the only significant operators
Manchester have been more keen on passenger capacity, and the huge freight potential in the holds of those flights
In the biggest recession aviation has ever seen, no company is going to invest huge sums in equipment and staff training to handle the odd one-off ad hoc freighter flight. It would be the handling agent that would bear that cost. The airport wouldn’t get much other than the landing fee. What would be in it for either Swissport/Menzies Cargo or the Airport? Everyone in aviation is trying to minimise cash burn at the moment. Any spending must be justified for return on investment.
It’s irrational to expect that Manchester and its handling agents should attempt to handle dedicated freighters at all costs.
It’s irrational to assume that all such capacity is desperate to use Manchester, and would only utilise Doncaster or East Midlands (or any other UK airport) because Manchester didn’t want the business.


The truth is Manchester didn’t have the space to handle dedicated freighters on any scale pre-COVID, nor the demand. Now things have changed, it’s not worth the handling agents throwing huge investment at a sector to gain a bit of incremental revenue. If Etihad wanted to operate a daily 777F to Manchester for the next 3 years and were willing to place a contract with a handling agent accordingly I’m sure you’d see a different answer.

[CabinCrewe]

what a lot of fuss about (essentially) nothing

[OzzyOzBorn]

Did you glean this opinion from all the handling agency staff who have been made redundant?

[BHX5DME]

Some snow at MAN this morning meant Virgin went to LHR and Qatar to BHX

[BHX5DME]

Turkish to AYT / DLM now bookable both daily 14:30 & 12:00

Great news for Manchester

[bar none]

Which Airline? Sun Express?

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

If you're referring to the new Turkish flights then, as stated, they are by Turkish Airlines and not Sun Express.

​​

[Playamar2]

Turkish flights are not bookable on their website yet. The AYT flight will probably be Sun Express which is a joint venture with Turkish Airlines. Twice a week from 26th March going up to 4 weekly from 30th May. Happy to be proved wrong with a link to a reliable source.

[The96er]

The message to the Handling agents is that they will be Turkish Airlines.

[BHX5DME]

They are both bookable on Google Flights on Turkish Airlines

[Suzeman]

AFAIK, Sun Express will also operate to MAN in S2021

Info from Sean M @SeanM1997 twitter who seems to be a reliable source

Sun Express - Antalya to Manchester. Flights start 26 March 2021

XQ594 AYT 1425-1725 MAN (Mon & Fri)
XQ595 MAN 1820-0055+1 AYT (Mon & Fri)
Wednesday and Sunday flights added from 30 May 2021

[Mr A Tis]

MAN SNOCLO last couple of hours (still closed). Fortunately not many movements scheduled. 2 Divs to LPL & 1 to BHX so far, with KLM & Etihad giving pax an extended tour of Blackburn.

[TURIN]

what a lot of fuss about (essentially) nothing

Best comment for about a week!



Did you glean this opinion from all the handling agency staff who have been made redundant?

I genuinely have the utmost sympathy for those many thousands who have either lost their jobs or been furloughed for the last year or so (I'm one of them by the way). However, how many staff have lost their jobs at MAN as a direct result of a cut in CARGO ONLY flights? Genuine question, honestly, FedEx is the only one that springs to mind and they are still operating into MAN. Are there others?

Merry Christmas to everyone and lets hope for a prosperous new Year.

From what I can see, it is the massive cuts in scheduled and charter flights that has ruined this industry, not a lack of cargo flights.

[Flightrider]

I've been watching the debate on cargo for the last few days, and one or two recent posts have prompted a response.

Turin, you are absolutely right that it's the massive cuts in scheduled and charter flights that have laid the industry low. However, many airports and airlines struggling as a result have taken to cargo-only flights as a means of offsetting that downturn. I doubt that one very sizeable and well-known UK airline would still be here in December 2020 were it not for the amount of cargo-only operations that it has flown. The point is, I believe, not whether there have been job losses as a result of the alleged MAN/MAG policy towards cargo, but whether jobs put at risk through the passenger side could have been saved if a different approach had been taken on cargo. Reading all of this, it certainly sounds as though there is a case to answer.

If MAG have been directing cargo to EMA, and several cargo operations have politely declined that offer and gone to Liverpool, Doncaster and elsewhere instead, then it is fair for those who wish to see their airport bounce back from this pandemic as quickly as possible to feel somewhat aggrieved. For those whose jobs depend on the airport, they have cause to feel even more aggrieved. In this case, it is a matter for MAG to make decisions and for airlines to react to them. The MAG policy seems misguided and short-sighted to me. A debate on PPruNe won't change that, but I have every sympathy with those who believe they are seeing opportunities pass the airport by and are getting rather upset about the impact on an airport about which they care deeply, and upon which many depend for a living.

[1-11days]

Some good points raised all round on the cargo debate. It does seem that as under floor freight capacity has fallen with the drastic reduction in passenger flights there is a need for it to be replaced with all freight capability at least for a temporary period, maybe one or two years perhaps? In a world where MAN now has more apron and runway space along with cargo facilities it would seem appropriate to reassess their strategy of cross selling to EMA/STN if they are starting to lose traffic out of the MAG group. I suppose it depends partly on how long until MAG think MAN will be apron / slot constrained again and how much revenue they reckon they will lose through leakage to non MAG airports.
As a question to those who know more about yield etc does anyone have any sense of how much our long haul operators get profit from underfloor freight versus the passengers on top, thinking routes like Addis for example? So might we see long haul coming back quicker more because of underfloor freight than due to passenger numbers?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Scottish Airports used to do this as well and it caused no end of grief locally but there was a strategic rationale in managing the limited demand. PIK was long haul and GLA was short haul business and holiday traffic leaving EDI with limited business and very limited holiday flights. The group funneled traffic where they thought best and invested accordingly, when that strategy was challenged in court, GLA got long haul and major investment and PIK was sold off. However the eventual winner in the long run was EDI, but only when it was decoupled from the wider group and sold off to be a direct competitor to GLA. The group had, albeit with understandable intentions, constrained demand at EDI to boost GLA. Once they became effective competitors, traffic which had been growing at EDI exploded. What's in GLA's interests wasn't in EDI's.

There's something similar going in with MAG IMHO.

[mariofly12]

boredintheairport

Add to the chopping list Bologna, Gdansk, Lisbon, Riga and Rzeszow

[Plane mad 134]

Ryanair haven't put the full S21 schedule on sale for MAN yet, I expect these routes will be added when that happens.

[Navpi]

Interesting comments from the Skipmiester, essentially I "think" suggesting that market forces should flourish not artificially be directing demand for one airport to another ?

MAG may well currently suggest EMA is the airport of choice.....

......if they were to jettison EMA to shore up the balance sheet one wonders what the view on cargo would be then?

[SWBKCB]

Wasn't the policy of Scottish Airports due to government policy, or at the very least a hangover from govt policy?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Yes but the spending decisions were taken on a commercial basis from the mid 80s as privatisation loomed. I think the balance between op-cos in a group is a tricky one. Think Air France / KLM or even BA / Iberia or BA /Aer Lingus. At some point you start skewing the market when you co-operate, you become dominant in some ways. Like LHR-DUB/MAD. It's a balancing act as there are good pros for connections and alliances. With MAG, the ability to dictate specialisms within each op-co may bring dividends in the long run, with the occasional lost ad-hoc main deck freight charter a price worth paying, but you'd need to be closer to the financials to know.

[Navpi]

Problem is that everytime MAG try and divert airlines and "revenue" opportunities to EMA it backfires. Yesterday saw two ETIHAD cargo freighters in Doncaster at the sametime.

With SAS moving daily flights into Birmingham, Manchester is now surrounded by airports that can seemingly all make money and provide employment opportunities from freight whilst Manchester's own employees are furloughed or worse have been made redundant.

It seems incomprehensible that the airport that has a World Freight Terminal and trumpets itself as having 22 million customers within 2 hours is now actually surrounded by airports which are grasping these opportunities with aplomb.

Manchester is not even the gateway for Wythenshawe anymore let alone the international Gateway For The North Of England !

[SWBKCB]

DSA and BHX is hardly surrounded, and what do they have that MAN doesn't?

[chaps1954]

At present parking space

[MANFOD]

And the right equipment and staffing presumably!

[Curious Pax]

Navpi

Apart from keeping spotters happy, why would the SAS flights supplying car parts to factories local to Birmingham possibly want to go to MAN?