Manchester: General Airport Discussions & Updates
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Use this prefix for new threads for Manchester Airport
To those Dobbo's listed I would add:
Make serious progress into narrowing the North-South divide and the huge disparity between infrastructure spend in London & the SE compared to the rest of the UK.
To get improved inter-city/town co-operation - be it through the NP or other vehicles - to help more firmly establish MAN as the Global Gateway Airport for the North, as well as on other transport projects.
A tall ask I know because of provincial pride.
Make serious progress into narrowing the North-South divide and the huge disparity between infrastructure spend in London & the SE compared to the rest of the UK.
To get improved inter-city/town co-operation - be it through the NP or other vehicles - to help more firmly establish MAN as the Global Gateway Airport for the North, as well as on other transport projects.
A tall ask I know because of provincial pride.
Love the hypocrisy in these types of discussions. Manchester is "good" because it's the centre of the Northern powerhouse which enables the North to reach its potential and draw business and investment in. Heathrow is "bad" because it's the centre of the uk economy thereby handicapping the rest of the uk sucking in business and investment. Essentially the supporters want MAN to be a mini Heathrow. No irony at all.
The broad spectrum of information and lack of direct relevance to the interests of most members of aviation forums combined with the aggressive almost zealous postings got several contributors repeatedly banned from another forum so is probably best left well alone.
The broad spectrum of information and lack of direct relevance to the interests of most members of aviation forums combined with the aggressive almost zealous postings got several contributors repeatedly banned from another forum so is probably best left well alone.
David_itl
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2016
- 2,095
- 193
- 58
Not really. There is 1 choice for principal long haul travel for northern England. Only the braindead expect all Nothern airports to have all the same services. There are literally no more than a handful of long haul routes that could be replicated throughout the region and one of those got canned by United due lack of premium traffic. Can you explain why European legacy carriers are so loathe to add routes to the regionals? Relying on 2 or 3 flights a week from a low cost airline to a European city is hardly going to get the business traffic to stimulate the Northern economy. It's only because there is 20 million people in a 2 hour range that MAN can attract the long haul carriers which can bring in the tourists and business traffic we need. Airline arent going to open up routes to NCL, LBA and MAN and have 33% loads on each. That MAN has a bonus of a railway station to reach more points in the country and a decent set of domestic flights means airlines tend to pick MAN. Should an airline start at another airport we wish them well
I'm always bemused to read the suggestion that contributors should avoid engaging in discussion on a discussion forum. Surely that is the raison d' etre for a forum to exist? And the matter of 'direct relevance' is subjective. Dispersal of handling agency contracts is an example of a subject which doesn't excite me personally, but I fully accept that members should be encouraged to discuss this topic if they so choose. And in turn they should tolerate airport-related topics which are of interest to others but not themselves. Everything works more smoothly if we show tolerance towards other contributors' areas of particular interest, even those which we don't personally share.
Meanwhile, the forum which you cite should not be held up as the example to emulate. The AA&R forum on there has lost its way due to an absence of legitimate oversight. Trolling and name-calling runs rife and remains unchallenged. Meanwhile, the 'mod' who operates anonymously from the shadows liberally bans contributors with whom he personally disagrees on topics of discussion. Quite bizarre. We are now in a General Election environment. LHR R3 is a huge topic in the SE. Yet visit that forum for an insight on the latest and you will find their Heathrow thread down near the bottom of AA&R page three. The last posting on it dates from 3rd April, 24 days ago. Long before the election was called. It displays 94 postings year-to-date (nearly four months) and several of these are nostalgic reminiscences about flight times between London and Scotland. Of course, when the 'mod' bans anybody who disagrees with LHR R3 that is the inevitable outcome. Even their Manchester thread hasn't had a posting of any kind for over six days. The Liverpool thread was also last active six days ago, and five of the last seven postings discuss fees for returning a hire-car without a full tank of fuel.
Now compare and contrast with F4A. Very active. Several postings per average day on the Manchester Airport section alone. The Mods on here are flagged up. They do not operate from the shadows. They are accessible and accountable. I have seen NO use of foul language for them to intervene against on here at any point. There is no culture of trolling on F4A. Nobody gets banned because a mod holds a different point-of-view on a topical discussion. All airport-related discussion is welcomed as a matter of course. Nobody says don't discuss [infrastructure / connectivity / handling / finances etc.] "because I find it boring". No culture of: "Write only about topics which interest me!"
Perhaps it would be for the best if you instead suggested to that other forum that they emulate F4A. It would be disastrous if instead this site were to follow the path of self-destruction which they appear to favour over there.
Long live F4A common sense and inclusion!
My thoughts on election priorities? Well, you asked!
Inevitably, discussion of state transport infrastructure investment will likely be very low on the national media agenda. We will be treated to hours of debate about education, the NHS, defence, pensions etc. And BREXIT. Important, certainly, but not to the exclusion of all else.
But for me, distribution of national state-funded infrastructure spend is the issue which exercises me most. Yes, I know. That makes me odd! It has become well-known that London and the SE dominates such investment funding by order of multiples versus the regions. Yet the general public appears largely ignorant of what this means for them in reality. I have been attacked elsewhere for arguing against this inequitable distribution of state resources ... the only explanation is that I must be anti-London? No, I'm not anti-London. But I am pro all the long-neglected UK regions finally seeing their fair share of state funding for their own infrastructure priorities. On the LHR R3 issue, I was an early supporter of the case for a third runway based upon purely operational considerations. That changed abruptly the second that I heard the proposed costings for that project (when the chin hit the floor in shock). No project should be pursued at a cost many times the value of the resulting asset. Particularly when the taxpayer is on the hook for much of the investment required to support the project as well as for underwriting the core privately-funded sum.
Obviously, when we think about NW regional infrastructure initiatives which would require state-investment, attention turns first to our railways and proposals for Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR, formerly HS3) - fair enough. And to the possibility of a transpennine tunnel facilitating travel between Sheffield / South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester / Merseyside / Cheshire. This tunnel proposal is costed at £6Bn. Sounds like a pipe-dream, but it is doable when you pause to consider that another Thames crossing was signed off by HMG for £5Bn just a couple of weeks ago. How many here were even aware of that?
I would actually like to see MAG actively bid for state-funding to enable expansion of Terminal 3 at MAN. Perhaps working in concert with the soon-to-be-elected GM Metro Mayor to this end.
How could this be justified? Well, here is the conundrum. We can argue a case that doubling the capacity of T3 would be of great economic benefit to the region. In Ryanair we have a carrier which would quite happily double its based fleet at MAN were it not capped at nine units due to the physical constraints of the building from which it operates. We also have Vueling who are considering a MAN base but whom would require T3 access. We have Flybe and others packed in there. Some use of non-based aircraft helps but cannot fully accommodate the potential latent demand. The T2 TP is a new-for-old upgrade, not especially capacity accretive. T3 is already artificially capping MAN's progress.
So, why doesn't MAG expand T3? The answer is that MAG is a private company and any business case must stand-up from the financial perspective of MAG in isolation. The land available to accommodate T3 expansion straddles a high-value subterranean utilities hub and is occupied at surface by the airport's most high-yield car park offering (covering an extensive area). In order to expand T3, MAG must pay out the direct construction costs, finance relocation of the utilities hub and forego a substantial proportion of its lucrative car parking income over the long-term. And the payback to MAG would be the fees paid by a typical ULCC (Ultra-Low Cost Carrier), ie. not much, and their cut of additional passenger-spend in the terminal. In other words, the business case for T3 expansion from MAG's perspective is bobbins. They'd make a thumping great loss on the deal. And no private enterprise will sign-up for that.
But now consider the bigger picture. Attracting an extra (say) six million passengers through T3 would be hugely beneficial to the economy of the region. Expanding T3 is a 'no-brainer' viewed from this perspective. But MAG doesn't enjoy the fruits of those benefits ... the money doesn't flow to them. They would suffer a big financial hit so that other sectors (tourism, hospitality, retail, business) can prosper. Why would they do that? Their first duty is to make profits for their shareholders, not to act as a charitable donor for the betterment of the wider NW region.
And this is where state-aid has a role to play. If MAG in conjunction with other interested parties were to put together a funding bid, government investment could take account of the wider benefits of a development such as T3 expansion to economic prosperity across the North. MAG acting in isolation can only consider its direct profit and loss account based on (low) airline charges and passenger-spend combined with loss of existing lucrative revenue streams (car parking). A business-case from Hell. A very different financial proposition to that of the broader regional interest. A substantial element of state-funded assistance invested in a project of this kind enables a private entity such as MAG to offset its own direct losses to provide a facility which will substantially benefit the region beyond. This is where taxpayer-funded state investment has a valid role to play.
Of course, this is just one example amongst many regional infrastructure proposals of merit. But as a start, I would like to see MAG and the new mayor put together a serious bid to submit to HMG for funding assistance at a national level. The SE gets one infrastructure project after another funded by the taxpayer. It's a conveyor belt. They're so well-organised in putting together their business cases and lobbying effectively. We need our new 'Metro Mayors' to bid for our share too.
I know it's a long-shot in London-centric Britain. But surely its worth a try. Taxes aren't paid by Londoners alone. They shouldn't monopolise the payback in national infrastructure terms.
Inevitably, discussion of state transport infrastructure investment will likely be very low on the national media agenda. We will be treated to hours of debate about education, the NHS, defence, pensions etc. And BREXIT. Important, certainly, but not to the exclusion of all else.
But for me, distribution of national state-funded infrastructure spend is the issue which exercises me most. Yes, I know. That makes me odd! It has become well-known that London and the SE dominates such investment funding by order of multiples versus the regions. Yet the general public appears largely ignorant of what this means for them in reality. I have been attacked elsewhere for arguing against this inequitable distribution of state resources ... the only explanation is that I must be anti-London? No, I'm not anti-London. But I am pro all the long-neglected UK regions finally seeing their fair share of state funding for their own infrastructure priorities. On the LHR R3 issue, I was an early supporter of the case for a third runway based upon purely operational considerations. That changed abruptly the second that I heard the proposed costings for that project (when the chin hit the floor in shock). No project should be pursued at a cost many times the value of the resulting asset. Particularly when the taxpayer is on the hook for much of the investment required to support the project as well as for underwriting the core privately-funded sum.
Obviously, when we think about NW regional infrastructure initiatives which would require state-investment, attention turns first to our railways and proposals for Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR, formerly HS3) - fair enough. And to the possibility of a transpennine tunnel facilitating travel between Sheffield / South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester / Merseyside / Cheshire. This tunnel proposal is costed at £6Bn. Sounds like a pipe-dream, but it is doable when you pause to consider that another Thames crossing was signed off by HMG for £5Bn just a couple of weeks ago. How many here were even aware of that?
I would actually like to see MAG actively bid for state-funding to enable expansion of Terminal 3 at MAN. Perhaps working in concert with the soon-to-be-elected GM Metro Mayor to this end.
How could this be justified? Well, here is the conundrum. We can argue a case that doubling the capacity of T3 would be of great economic benefit to the region. In Ryanair we have a carrier which would quite happily double its based fleet at MAN were it not capped at nine units due to the physical constraints of the building from which it operates. We also have Vueling who are considering a MAN base but whom would require T3 access. We have Flybe and others packed in there. Some use of non-based aircraft helps but cannot fully accommodate the potential latent demand. The T2 TP is a new-for-old upgrade, not especially capacity accretive. T3 is already artificially capping MAN's progress.
So, why doesn't MAG expand T3? The answer is that MAG is a private company and any business case must stand-up from the financial perspective of MAG in isolation. The land available to accommodate T3 expansion straddles a high-value subterranean utilities hub and is occupied at surface by the airport's most high-yield car park offering (covering an extensive area). In order to expand T3, MAG must pay out the direct construction costs, finance relocation of the utilities hub and forego a substantial proportion of its lucrative car parking income over the long-term. And the payback to MAG would be the fees paid by a typical ULCC (Ultra-Low Cost Carrier), ie. not much, and their cut of additional passenger-spend in the terminal. In other words, the business case for T3 expansion from MAG's perspective is bobbins. They'd make a thumping great loss on the deal. And no private enterprise will sign-up for that.
But now consider the bigger picture. Attracting an extra (say) six million passengers through T3 would be hugely beneficial to the economy of the region. Expanding T3 is a 'no-brainer' viewed from this perspective. But MAG doesn't enjoy the fruits of those benefits ... the money doesn't flow to them. They would suffer a big financial hit so that other sectors (tourism, hospitality, retail, business) can prosper. Why would they do that? Their first duty is to make profits for their shareholders, not to act as a charitable donor for the betterment of the wider NW region.
And this is where state-aid has a role to play. If MAG in conjunction with other interested parties were to put together a funding bid, government investment could take account of the wider benefits of a development such as T3 expansion to economic prosperity across the North. MAG acting in isolation can only consider its direct profit and loss account based on (low) airline charges and passenger-spend combined with loss of existing lucrative revenue streams (car parking). A business-case from Hell. A very different financial proposition to that of the broader regional interest. A substantial element of state-funded assistance invested in a project of this kind enables a private entity such as MAG to offset its own direct losses to provide a facility which will substantially benefit the region beyond. This is where taxpayer-funded state investment has a valid role to play.
Of course, this is just one example amongst many regional infrastructure proposals of merit. But as a start, I would like to see MAG and the new mayor put together a serious bid to submit to HMG for funding assistance at a national level. The SE gets one infrastructure project after another funded by the taxpayer. It's a conveyor belt. They're so well-organised in putting together their business cases and lobbying effectively. We need our new 'Metro Mayors' to bid for our share too.
I know it's a long-shot in London-centric Britain. But surely its worth a try. Taxes aren't paid by Londoners alone. They shouldn't monopolise the payback in national infrastructure terms.
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
Focus on "London taxation driving the nation" is an interesting spin off.
Kellogs have the largest cereal manufacturing/distribution centre in Trafford Park 15 minutes from Manchester Airport. Their HQ however is in London so London gets the credit and the money !
Kellogs have the largest cereal manufacturing/distribution centre in Trafford Park 15 minutes from Manchester Airport. Their HQ however is in London so London gets the credit and the money !
Last edited:
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ter-news/council-signs-deal-far-east-12960065
Wasn't sure where to post this but yet more mega investment from far east.
Highly irritated that yet again it's private money over our own government money.
Wasn't sure where to post this but yet more mega investment from far east.
Highly irritated that yet again it's private money over our own government money.
David_itl
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2016
- 2,095
- 193
- 58
The economic impact of Hong Kong and Beijing services
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/daily-direct-flights-china-give-12980107
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/daily-direct-flights-china-give-12980107
David_itl
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2016
- 2,095
- 193
- 58
Slight indulgence of the General Election here... Lib Democrats "would not allow any new runways to be built in the south-east and will instead concentrate on improving Birmingham and Manchester airports, if they win the General Election."
https://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/1727223-lib-dems-promise-no-new-runways-uk
https://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/1727223-lib-dems-promise-no-new-runways-uk
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
Well, it's probably never going to come to pass, but any lack of political unity will cause problems for major projects like R3, HS2 etc.
Of course a Conservative landslide would allow them to drive through their own agenda on any of these issues and ride roughshod over opposition.
Of course a Conservative landslide would allow them to drive through their own agenda on any of these issues and ride roughshod over opposition.
Similar threads
Manchester:
Airport Consultative Committee (MACC) - Minutes
Remove Advertisements
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
Trending Hashtags
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 4
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 3
-
#EasyJetWeight: 2
-
#Jet2Weight: 2
-
#LaCompagnieWeight: 1
-
#REGENWeight: 1