Manchester: General Airport Discussions & Updates

[User001]

Not a fan in the slightest of Simon Clader, but, a nice thing to read all the same:

When such issues are stripped away, and you look at “real” growth, two airports stand out: Manchester (up 13 per cent) and Gatwick (9 per cent higher). And both of them have made remarkable achievements.

Manchester is now firmly in the top 20 European airports, yet it shares none of the main characteristics of the other 19. It doesn’t serve a capital (London, Paris, Rome etc.), it’s not a hub (Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Istanbul etc.) and it’s not a key inbound destination (Barcelona, Palma). All the more remarkable, then, that it has grown to be a more significant airport than Stockholm, Vienna and Lisbon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...owing-passenger-numbers-flights-a7886056.html

 

[Dobbo]

Good to see points made on here reflected in the national press (hopefully not via plagiarism).

 

[Dobbo]

aaaaaand MAN have picked up on it on twitter...

 

[Coathanger16]

I don't think you will get Coathanger to be supportive of MAN. But your interest lies in BHX, fair enough. I take it you are equally concerned about leakage to Heathrow from BHX.

Whilst yes I am biased in favor of BHX, and I will admit every time MAN gets a new long haul route I wonder "what will this mean for long haul from BHX?", I am by no means unsupportive of MAN nor would I want to see it constrained to aid BHX growth. Whilst clearly there is leaking to LHR as well as MAN, whilst LHR being the size it is, there's not a whole lot BHX can do there. On the other hand, MAN serves another 'regional city' so chances of competing are far better.

 

[Dobbo]

It should be reiterated that MAN serves the cities of Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield as much as it serves Manchester - certainly on long haul.

 

[Seasider]

It should be reiterated that MAN serves the cities of Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield as much as it serves Manchester - certainly on long haul.

But there is no need to, those 3 cities have commercial airports of their own. If the airlines went where their passengers came from, MAN would see a big downturn.

 

[Dobbo]

But there is no need to, those 3 cities have commercial airports of their own. If the airlines went where their passengers came from, MAN would see a big downturn.

That's simply not true.

MAN, although called Manchester Airport, sits pretty much at the centre of gravity between Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Birmingham.

Each of these has (or had) its own airport the airlines are free to use if commercially viable. Many do on the more popular routes (e.g. PMI) because they have sufficient local population.

However, MAN happens to be best located of these for the aforementioned cities - the major English population centres outwith the South East - which is why it has the critical mass to allow the likes of AA, SQ, CX to be commercially viable and why the likes of Jet2, Easyjey, Ryanair have larger presences at MAN than LPL, LBA, BHX, DSA etc.

There are obvious exceptions to this general rule, but that is the gist of it.

It's no criticism or dig, just the geographic reality.

 

[ethanegcc]

Can I just say if airlines went to 'where their passengers came from' e.g. Leeds, Doncaster, Liverpool and Manchester it would dilute the viability of any service at all, further constricting passengers options to fly locally as you seem to advocate.

And if passengers from Doncaster for example refused to use MAN and only used their local airport they'd have just over 20 destinations to choose from!

So I think @Seasider should explain why he supposedly objects to the people of Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield being served by Manchester, which gives them non stop connections to over 200 destinations?

 

[David_itl]

But there is no need to, those 3 cities have commercial airports of their own. If the airlines went where their passengers came from, MAN would see a big downturn.

If the airlines went where their passengers came from, then instead of 1 route being profitable we would end up with 2, 3 or 4 unprofitable routes and leading to NO airline serving the northern region. I cannot see which routes would be rendered profitable. NCL couldn't hack it's Newark link with United. LPL couldn't hack it's Globespan link to New York.

 

[Seasider]

First of all I would like to state that people can use whichever airport they wish.

What I do not agree with is that people should have to use a certain airport for certain services as has been promoted by some members on this forum. Because of lack of numbers, some services will only succeed from one airport in the "North of England", I accept that, but why should it always be MAN? For people living in the M62 corridor from West Yorkshire to Merseyside, MAN may be at the CofG but you can't get round the M60 north of Manchester between 7am and 9am because of Traffic and if there is an accident? say no more. If I use the train, I can get to London quicker than Manchester and I believe TPE is overcrowded most of the time.

So, I hope that you understand why I get irritated by people saying that MAN should be the airport for the North of England. But MAN could become the Airport for Long haul and the UK and European services be supplied from LPL, LBA, DSA, HUY, MME & NCL. I would be interested in members views on that.

 

[Scottie Dog]

The problem with your last suggestion, as I see it, is that Manchester needs a combination of the domestic and European feed to fulfil the longhaul needs. It's definitely a catch-22 situation and I accept your personal viewpoint - as I'm sure do all members of the forum.

 

[ethanegcc]

I understand you are only expressing your view (which of course you are perfectly entitled to) but the potential issues you allude to are commonplace in modern society. You could be travelling half an hour to your local airport and suffer from a road incident/traffic. And whilst I agree with you that the Transpennine Express is often crowded, steps can be taken such as reserving a seat (booking in advance would be advisable anyway) and yes the train might be quicker to London, but where in London? Kings Cross, Saint Pancras, Euston? All of these London terminuses are not convenient to get to Heathrow or Gatwick and it's slightly more than a trifle inconvenient to drag your luggage around central London.

Answering your question, 'why should it always be Manchester?', the simple answer is that Manchester is the largest population centre in the North, arguably the largest business centre and the most major city, centrally located to many of the other cities in the North. Many of the North's airports wouldn't be able to support long-haul services B757s - the only real other option for long-haul is Newcastle.

On your final point, Scottie Dog answers one question but also, aren't you contradicting yourself? Then those people whose local airport is Manchester would say 'why do I have to travel to Leeds/Liverpool/Humberside for all the European flights?', just as you are currently saying but in reverse. It would be very similar to the two-part London hub that was proposed between Gatwick and Heathrow but on a much larger scale. An interesting point, but I don't think it would work.

 

[Aceshigh]

K

Not a fan in the slightest of Simon Clader, but, a nice thing to read all the same:



http://www.independent.co.uk/travel...owing-passenger-numbers-flights-a7886056.html

"Some" of us have been hammering Mr Calder on twitter to the point where the message was FINALLY rammed home, there is life outside London.

Suspect it got to the point where the constant embarrassment of ignoring the largest airport outside London was difficult to ignore !!!

Try it.... "works wonders for the soul " !

 

[Coathanger16]

I must admit I find it rather ironic that members on here are stating that certain long haul routes are not sustainable from the smaller regional airports and that MAN is best placed to serve these, and that people from the likes of Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, etc should use MAN for those long haul routes.

However, when the same argument is applied to LHR and MAN, i.e. certain routes are only sustainable from LHR, and that passengers from Manchester should travel via LHR, there is huge uproar and a declaration of unfairness about being "forced" to travel via LHR.

You can't use the hub argument only when it suits you and dismiss it when it doesn't.

I would like to add at this point that I understand that this is how aviation works (as in how hubs work). As a local to BHX, if I were travelling to the West Coast of the USA, dependent on price, my first option would likely be to fly from BHX with a stop in DUB, AMS or CDG. However, if it were cheaper, I'd be perfectly happy using LHR or MAN and fly direct.

I think the problem is say when BHX has a direct flight to New York, yet people still travel to LHR or MAN. If passengers aren't using existing services, whats the chances of an airline launching new routes? Assuming the price is similar, whose fault is it that people use LHR or MAN when BHX has a direct option available? With the case of United, likely United's fault as I've seen next to no advertising for the route. Travel agents however also play a huge part. I've heard stories of people trying to fly from BHX to Dubai, yet being told by the travel agent that Emirates don't fly to BHX. Absurd or what?!

I think the crux of the argument is that people want to fly from their local airport. If that airport doesn't have a direct connection to a certain destination, whats the likelihood of an airline launching that route if passengers are travelling to other airports? The best example I can see of this is the ongoing saga of Birmingham and Orlando. Whilst there is a direct flight (sort of) from Birmingham to Orlando (Sanford), it is just once a week and only seasonal. As such, people travel to Manchester and Gatwick for flights to Orlando. Now the arguments been stated before that airlines would have access to these figures and that if there was enough passengers they would launch the route from BHX. But from the airlines perspective, if passengers are "willing" to travel to Manchester/Gatwick, then why should they expend time and resources on launching the new route from BHX. Just because they haven't, doesn't mean its not viable or that demand doesn't exist for it.

I recently traveled long haul and for the first time I used BHX and not LHR. A much more enjoyable experience. 10 minute car journey instead of an hour and a half. Besides check-in, much less people around. And when I arrive back, being able to be home in 10 minutes after I leave the airport. It's easy to see why people prefer to fly from their local airport, and from that recent experience, certainly for long haul at least, I'd advocate for everyone to use their local airport regardless or where their flying to even if it requires a stop somewhere.

 

[ethanegcc]

I've never declared a great unfairness at having to go via LHR. As you state, it's a fact that London is the largest air traffic market in the UK and beyond, so it's going to have more viability with flights. It is also a major hub for BA and the hub and spoke model is how they have built that growth. They do now serve MAN & BHX, with many more flights via joint ventures.

The fact is that Manchester is the next largest airport in the UK for carriers not currently in London and, whilst there are certain caveats e.g. Air India, Manchester has more viability for long-haul and short-haul routes than any other airport does across the North. Local airports can continue to grow e.g. LBA and I often use Leeds myself when flights are cheaper but - in my view - Manchester is best placed to serve as a major long-haul airport for the North and, if you disagree with that, it's absolutely fine.

 

[David_itl]

You do know that there are abundant MAN local passengers flying over other airports to New York rather than use the 4 flights a day that are available at MAN. Maybe you should explain why that is?

Using your "why should they expend time and resources on launching the new route from BHX" regading Orlando, why dd VS start at MAN? Or with such an "obvious" market in BHX-MCO, why didn't TCX approach BHX saying let's work together to provide this link 3 or 4 times a week and we may also be able to squeeze in another service say 2 or 3 times a week to JFK. After all, there's much greater competition at MAN so why not enjoy being the "big shot" at BHX? Why did CX restart MAN? Or any of the other airlines doing long-haul? Or come to that, any airline doing any short-haul route. All are available at LHR and LGW. These stupid airlines, recklessly adding routes at MAN when they have determined they are commercially viable. Oh, there's that phrase "commercially viable". For MAN, despite the 100,000 combined Bombay/Delhi passengers using other airlines, they can't get an airline to connect the dots despite the Indian airports also wanting a link to MAN. May be it's because that although the MAN-India market is bigger than BHX-India, when push came to shove, AI crunched the numbers and decided that BHX-Delhi was a better fit for them and there's strong ties between the Amritsar area and the West Midlands that they can tap into by offering a swifter service than that available from Emirates

If you look at the "wished for" routes that we want MAN to get, how many are truly of the "not in my lifetime" variety? Not that many. The airport would bend over backwards for a scheduled route to South America (Rio de Janiero in particular) but they and us know that even with the rail and airlinks connecting into MAN, there still won't be enough demand to profitably fly there. But you think that any such route should go to NCL "to spread out the load" if a "north of England"-Rio de Janeiro route would somehow become viable. Sorry, you are talking out of your hat. Let's look at this list supplied by @Dobbo in the route development and rumour thread:

• Kuwait (Washington?) - will KU get their act together and start this route? It has been widely speculated in the local Kuwait media (and I think name-checked by the airline) so this does seem to be in the pipeline. It would help confidence if Oman's numbers pick up.
• Tehran - will Iran ever open up again?
• Addis Abba - Ethiopian have a strong African network, and are well placed to act as an African hub. Will they get involved at Manchester given their large presence at DUB?
• Cape Town - you can count out SAA, but what about TCX? They have limited charter flights, but as a winter seasonal route, also served by Condor, this fits the blueprint. Assuming VS have struggled with SFO/BOS I don't think we will see them on this route, and their ambitions and presence at MAN has to be in question given the AF/KLM tie up.
• Bombay - who will take this one on. Vistara? Scoot? Jet? Air India? VS? I find it difficult to imagine this will be unserved in two years time, even accounting for the MEB3's vast passenger flows to India.
• Bangkok - TG's to loose, but another one for TCX to consider if not?
• Guangzhou - HU have applied for the route. Will they deliver, and how will it affect PEK?
• Shanghai - I've given up on this. Hainan, Air China - I don't even know who has the rights to the route!
• Seoul - supposedly MAN-ICN is around the critical mass in terms of passengers and cargo to sustain a 3/4x weekly route. Might the next far east route be flown by KE?
• Tokyo - most likely one of the big two from Japan, but can MAN sustain a route which requires high yields all year and typically sees a daily service? Would hurt Finnair's business at MAN, that's for sure.
• Kuala Lumpur - Air Asia X? Malaysian? This remains a popular route, but who can make a non-stop work?

See the analytical mind at work as to why some routes that we want may not occur and how some have the potential to impact other airlines . Not one is saying at least 30 A380s per day is what we demand because we are MAN and don't want to trek to LHR, BHX or wherever. 18 months ago would YOU have forecast that there would be a 5 weekly service at MAN to Houston that's getting around 2000 passengers per month? None of us "locals" would have. Or that we are now name-dropped by Kuwait Aiways for a route.

 

[Land23R]

Coathanger's

Travel agents however also play a huge part. I've heard stories of people trying to fly from BHX to Dubai, yet being told by the travel agent that Emirates don't fly to BHX. Absurd or what?! .

A fair point, and something I gather MAN still suffers from as well. Some of the long haul tour operators don't help either, many of which only refer to flights from LHR when it would be perfectly feasible to fly from MAN, or BHX in some cases. I guess if you rang them up they might be prepared to offer flights from MAN via Dubai or SIN, say, but at a premium.

As far as MAN is concerned to the US, I find it remarkable we have as many flights and as many destinations served direct as we do, given by all accounts there is leakage via LHR, and folk connecting via DUB, KEF and even some hubs in mainland Europe. How significant that leakage is, (and some of it will be due to cheaper fares), would be interesting to know.

 

[Coathanger16]

I don't know if it was directed at me, but I wasn't suggesting that say a "North of England" to S.America (or anywhere else) route should launch from say Newcastle or Liverpool. Clearly Manchester has the greatest appeal in the North plus the best network for passengers to access it by (road, rail & air). I don't know where posters are based, but on the Manchester threads I suspect in relative proximity to Manchester Airport. If that is the case, Manchester's long haul network is very convenient. Just think about it from the other perspective however. Lets say the Northern cities had developed differently and the major northern airport was in Newcastle. I'd be very surprised if you didn't get the slightest bit frustrated if those local to Newcastle continuously pushed for ever more routes from Newcastle and for the population of 'the North' to use Newcastle for as much of their flying as they could.

Using your "why should they expend time and resources on launching the new route from BHX" regading Orlando, why dd VS start at MAN? Or with such an "obvious" market in BHX-MCO, why didn't TCX approach BHX saying let's work together to provide this link 3 or 4 times a week and we may also be able to squeeze in another service say 2 or 3 times a week to JFK. After all, there's much greater competition at MAN so why not enjoy being the "big shot" at BHX? Why did CX restart MAN? Or any of the other airlines doing long-haul? Or come to that, any airline doing any short-haul route. All are available at LHR and LGW. These stupid airlines, recklessly adding routes at MAN when they have determined they are commercially viable. Oh, there's that phrase "commercially viable".

Let me expand on my point here: why would say Thomas Cook launch BHX-Orlando, when 'Midlanders' currently are "prepared" to travel to Manchester (& Gatwick) for flights to Orlando? Whilst yes it would mean they would have a near monopoly on BHX-Orlando, it would mean people leaving the current services from Manchester/Gatwick to use the new one from BHX. What affect would that have on their yields from those currently served airports? By serving Manchester & Gatwick, an airline can cover most of the country south of the Pennines. That doesn't mean that by serving those 2 airports that there isn't enough demand to fly from other airports in between.

Orlando is of particular frustration to us local to BHX, as I think the following stats show.

During the summer, Manchester has more flights in 1 week than Birmingham does in an entire year.

2016 Passenger Figures
Manchester 543,021
Glasgow 115,335
Stansted 51,184
Newcastle 17,435
Birmingham 17,190

Manchester (January 2017) - 16,319
Birmingham (Jan-Dec 2016) - 17,190

I accept Birmingham won't have as many passengers flying to Orlando as Manchester, but personally I would have thought there's enough demand to handle at least as many passengers to Orlando as Glasgow does if not more. To put the numbers into perspective, it would mean 744 passengers flying Manchester to Orlando every day, whilst Glasgow would be 158, and Birmingham just 24. I appreciate Manchester gets some passengers transferring onto those Orlando flights from other flights, but we 'Brummies' cannot fathom why no airline is looking seriously at Birmingham to Orlando. You can't be suggesting that Birmingham to Orlando isn't a "commercially viable" route?

Let me reiterate. I'm not suggesting new long haul routes should be diverted away from Manchester to other airports. MAN is the natural hub for the North on England and if any airport outside of London were to get a new route to say Tokyo, Rio, Seoul, etc I would be incredibly surprised if it wasn't Manchester. Those that are loyal to Manchester must be aware however that there are other airports out there which 'should' be able to support long haul flights, and that it is not a given right that passengers in the North (or Midlands) should use Manchester for their long haul flying.

 

[Coathanger16]

As far as MAN is concerned to the US, I find it remarkable we have as many flights and as many destinations served direct as we do, given by all accounts there is leakage via LHR, and folk connecting via DUB, KEF and even some hubs in mainland Europe. How significant that leakage is, (and some of it will be due to cheaper fares), would be interesting to know.

Manchester certainly does very well for its size on TATL routes. Saying that, it is rather amusing if not frustrating that whenever an airline launches a new route to N.America, certain members almost immediately jump to "ok, where next?" - certainly when it comes to TCX 😉

 

[1-11days]

As someone who frequented the roof terraces at Manchester in the 70s and still lives close to the airport I am definitely a supporter of Manchester's growth, partly because of the affinity I have to the place but also because it has the best chance amongst our regional airports of providing a counter weight to London airports and so helping to correct the imbalance in our economy. To that end it would obviously be great to see further development of surface access and also feeder routes to help with this end.

For folks who live closer to other airports in the north and the midlands I entirely get that they want to have better developed routes from their nearest airport to make travel easier and promote the local economy.

So yes I think there is an element of Manchester wanting to consolidate traffic to improve the lot of the north in economic terms, although MAG is clearly interested in profits primarily. I guess the hypocrisy is wanting to take a slice of traffic out of the LHR and other hubs, especially where it relates to traffic from MAN catchments, whilst promoting MAN as a hub and so possibly hindering other airports.

That said I think nationally we need to develop a hub outside of London and Manchester is probably best placed. As others have said though it is a free market place and there is much choice of one stop flights from airports across the country, either via the continent, LHR or sometimes MAN. Alongside this there is the welcome growth of non stop options outside of London.