Outside Influences

[Aceshigh]

THIS is what frustrates the hell out of Mancheater Avgeeks.

This is well circulated and read by an inflential business audience, completely ignores the success of 14 flights a week!

This is where the Manchester PR machines needs to get with the page.

Should be straight on the phone to the editor.

Get the article updated and fly the Man Airport flag !

Most editors are looking for content all you have to do is feed them !

London airport updates are seemingly for a national audience despite Gatwick being nearer France than most of the UK.

Manchester news for the most part ends up in the cul de sac which is the MEN.

If you don't shout it will happen again and again and again. ...


https://bdaily.co.uk/articles/2017/...north-west&utm_content=advice-opinion-1-title

 

[Dobbo]

As expected, Labour turn against runway three at LHR.

https://www.ft.com/content/a704e8c6-8590-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787

 

[Coathanger16]

As expected, Labour turn against runway three at LHR.

https://www.ft.com/content/a704e8c6-8590-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787

Well the top two are against is for obvious reasons (their constituents are under the flight paths). The question will be if Labour officially goes against LHR 3R, does Corbyn whip his MPs, and will they follow that whip?

 

[Land23R]

Well the top two are against is for obvious reasons (their constituents are under the flight paths). The question will be if Labour officially goes against LHR 3R, does Corbyn whip his MPs, and will they follow that whip?

I can't get behind the paywall so I don't know what the article says on that score. Will some Labour MPs still vote for R3, and how many Tory MPs will vote against or abstain? And aren't the SNP in favour? I doubt a vote will be put unless the PM is confident of winning it, unless of course she doesn't mind too much if the vote is lost!

 

[Coathanger16]

I can't get behind the paywall so I don't know what the article says on that score. Will some Labour MPs still vote for R3, and how many Tory MPs will vote against or abstain? And aren't the SNP in favour? I doubt a vote will be put unless the PM is confident of winning it, unless of course she doesn't mind too much if the vote is lost!

Opponents of expansion claim 60 Tory MPs will vote against LHR, whilst 'official conservative spokesman' says its nowhere near that. Even if 60 Tories vote against, SNP and DUP are likely to vote in favor, so it really depends what Labour does. Assuming all MPs vote (except Sinn Fein), 321 votes would be needed to proceed. Tories (-60), SNP and DUP come to 302, so at least 20 Labour MPs would need to vote in favor to pass it.

Of course, latest speculation from the media is that yet more spending in the SE will sway Northern MPs to vote against it. Certainly the vote isn't as clear cut as it was when the government announced they were supporting LHR expansion.

I don't think Mrs May or Mr Hammond would be too bothered if they lost the vote though...

 

[ethanegcc]

Theresa May was previously against expansion at Heathrow, as her constituency Maidenhead, is just 14miles away from the proposed runway. She seems to have made a decision on airport expansion out of necessity, rather than of full support. With Boris Johnson, Phillip Hammond & Michael Gove all representing constituencies near Heathrow, it's unclear whether they actually support it, and their constituency specific majorities could be slashed if they are thrust into public limelight of being fully supportive. John McDonnell represents Hayes & Harlington (incl. Heathrow), so he will probably be one of the advocators of Labour's against R3 position.

It's a very controversial issue, but a decision needs to be made soon in my opinion.

 

[Dobbo]

Trouble is the south east runway issue won't go away. If they can this they are back to square 1 again - and a different government may come to the same conclusion.

However, they keep getting the implementation wrong and until they do whatever is planned will never get past the drawing board.

 

[Aceshigh]

NO issue with Heathrow as long as they foot the costs associated with its expansion. Given it's not paid any significant corporation tax as long as I can remember AND despite giving billions to shareholders all of whom are foriegn, it will stick in the claw somewhat if Ayling sees this as another "special case", because it's in the SE.

I would add that I have no interest in restricting Heathrow's capacity in order to expand other airports including Manchester.

Manchester has to stand or fall on its ability to market itself as a viable "as well as"
not "an instead of" simply because another market is constrained.

BUT if Heathrow does hoodwink Whitehall into providing £12billion from the taxpayer based on handling 75m pax, 'I'm sure a case could be made for Manchester to secure say £3 billion given its 27m throughout and associated expansion to 55m ?

Or does that not count as we are in the
North ?

"....Sauce for the goose ? "

 

[Coathanger16]

NO issue with Heathrow as long as they foot the costs associated with its expansion. Given it's not paid any significant corporation tax as long as I can remember AND despite giving billions to shareholders all of whom are foriegn, it will stick in the claw somewhat if Ayling sees this as another "special case", because it's in the SE.

I would add that I have no interest in restricting Heathrow's capacity in order to expand other airports including Manchester.

Manchester has to stand or fall on its ability to market itself as a viable "as well as"
not "an instead of" simply because another market is constrained.

BUT if Heathrow does hoodwink Whitehall into providing £12billion from the taxpayer based on handling 75m pax, 'I'm sure a case could be made for Manchester to secure say £3 billion given its 27m throughout and associated expansion to 55m ?

Or does that not count as we are in the
North ?

"....Sauce for the goose ? "

The only issue is that a lot of the proposed surface access improvements will help that area of the SE generally as well i.e. non airport users. For instance, the western rail access scheme would reduce the number of people using Paddington to get to LHR from the west, plus take some cars of the roads between Reading and Heathrow. Yes LHR should pay for part of that because they will benefit, but if government funds the rest, is that helping LHR or the wider SE in general? - therefore should more money go to Manchester Airport, or the 'Northern Powerhouse'.

It looks like some Northern MPs may vote against LHR if it means 'yet more money' being spent in the SE, so government may have to offer more money to the REGIONS in order to get the vote passed.

Although this has been painted as a SE capacity issue, its really about LHR, so the solution needs to involve LHR in some way. Either through expansion or replacement. The option of expanding other airports and spreading out the "load" would only make a difference if each of LGW, STN & LTN were to get a new runway (yes MAN & BHX could play a part here, although to solve LHR's capacity issue, they won't be able to do much compared to the other London airports). Government would likely end up spending more on expanding the other London airports than on expanding LHR.

 

[Scottie Dog]

This thread covers items previously included under the Manchester Airport - General Thread but which related to discussions on Heathrow and the effect that R3 may, or may not, have on the development of Manchester.

 

[Dobbo]

An interesting point made on a dot net. That visitors to "Europe" or the "UK" tend to move around, so usually enter the continent/country via the main port of call (usually LHR) and then move around.

So, tourists could visit the lakes, northern England but still choose to enter the UK via LHR.

I don't know what can be done about this, if anything, but certainly more direct options will assist.

 

[Coathanger16]

An interesting point made on a dot net. That visitors to "Europe" or the "UK" tend to move around, so usually enter the continent/country via the main port of call (usually LHR) and then move around.

So, tourists could visit the lakes, northern England but still choose to enter the UK via LHR.

I don't know what can be done about this, if anything, but certainly more direct options will assist.

Yes visitors more around, but during their visit they still visit London. I'm not sure what more direct options would do to 'help'.

A better way to 'help' the situation would be to encourage more people to visit the Lakes, regional cities, etc with trips in their own right, and not as part of a trip to London. This would be better accomplished through better advertising, rather than more flights/

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Many people from overseas, especially Americans, regard Britain as England and England as London.

I was in the USA in June 1996 when PIRA detonated the huge bomb in the centre of Manchester. I happened to be watching the news channel of one of the major networks (can't remember which) in my hotel when the bomb was the headline story - unusual in the USA where non-USA events are so often relegated in importance.

The headline over the picture showed, 'London Bombing'. The newscaster then went on to say that, 'in the northern English city of Manchester two hundred miles from London a huge bomb has been detonated'.

I don't know how this mindset can be challenged successfully.

 

[Dobbo]

Yes visitors more around, but during their visit they still visit London. I'm not sure what more direct options would do to 'help'.

A better way to 'help' the situation would be to encourage more people to visit the Lakes, regional cities, etc with trips in their own right, and not as part of a trip to London. This would be better accomplished through better advertising, rather than more flights/

Hi Coathanger - yes, although my view is that it will be tough to convince people to take a trip to the UK that excludes London. If that generalisation is broadly accurate, the key for me is to convince overseas tourists to use MAN/BHX/EDI (or wherever) as the point of entry to the UK for a trip that is centred on (for example) the lakes, but also takes in London. I agree that advertising and promoting the virtues of this type of trip is a key building block to achieve this objective - England is more than London!

That being the case, and assuming many tourists would rather fly direct, I think direct flights should make a material difference to this, but is one cog in a much bigger system.

 

[Coathanger16]

If that generalisation is broadly accurate, the key for me is to convince overseas tourists to use MAN/BHX/EDI (or wherever) as the point of entry to the UK for a trip that is centred on (for example) the lakes, but also takes in London.

The problem is London has, and will always have, more flights to more destinations than any regional city, so it'll make more sense to enter/exit the UK there.

Perhaps rather than flying into London & visiting somewhere else in the UK, or flying into Manchester and visiting London during your stay, a better marketing strategy would be to fly into say one of Manchester/London, and fly back from the other. This is something that Virgin/Delta or United could certainly do.

I guess the ultimate question is, if you're visiting the UK and part of that visit includes London, why wouldn't you fly to London? As TheLocalYokel pointed out, certainly to Americans, England is London and London is England. I'm not sure how much that can be changed.

That being the case, and assuming many tourists would rather fly direct, I think direct flights should make a material difference to this, but is one cog in a much bigger system.

This is rather a chicken and the egg scenario. More flights would likely help, but airlines aren't going to add more flights unless there are more passengers, who likely won't shift from London unless there are more flights, etc.

Tricky, and at times a frustrating situation we're in. Guess we have to remember that we actually do pretty well. From the 10 busiest airports in each country, only the following have flights to NYC:

UK: Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Stansted, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Glasgow (7)
Germany: Frankfurt, Munich, Dusseldorf, Berlin TXL, Hamburg (5)
Italy: Rome FCO, Milan MXP, Venice, Naples, Palermo (5)
France: Paris CDG, Paris Orly, Nice (3)
Spain: Madrid, Barcelona, Malaga (3)

 

[Aceshigh]

You only have to note the images portrayed on BBC news etc when they cover an increase in the rise of tourism to "The UK ".

It starts and finishes with images of Buckingham Palace, Red London Buses, Nelsons Column etc etc. I haven't got a chip on my shoulder but my goodness is there really another country so wrapped up in its Capital ?

The sooner more journalists move out of London Eg Ch4, The Gaurdian, and see how the South West East Anglia Midlands Yorkshire Wales live and support tourism etc the better.

London Centricism is almost a radicalisation of the British public, it's endemic in Broadcasting House , Whitehall, Westminster etc.

A good start would be a shift of Visit Britain to a provincial City where they might be more open to other influences !

 

[Dobbo]

The problem is London has, and will always have, more flights to more destinations than any regional city, so it'll make more sense to enter/exit the UK there.

Perhaps rather than flying into London & visiting somewhere else in the UK, or flying into Manchester and visiting London during your stay, a better marketing strategy would be to fly into say one of Manchester/London, and fly back from the other. This is something that Virgin/Delta or United could certainly do.

I guess the ultimate question is, if you're visiting the UK and part of that visit includes London, why wouldn't you fly to London? As TheLocalYokel pointed out, certainly to Americans, England is London and London is England. I'm not sure how much that can be changed.

I agree with these issues - and the multistop solution is one I wholeheartedly agree with.

It's not about turning the current situation on its head, it's about redressing the current imbalance a little...

 

[Dobbo]

The sooner more journalists move out of London Eg Ch4, The Gaurdian, and see how the South West East Anglia Midlands Yorkshire Wales live and support tourism etc the better.

London Centricism is almost a radicalisation of the British public, it's endemic in Broadcasting House , Whitehall, Westminster etc.

A good start would be a shift of Visit Britain to a provincial City where they might be more open to other influences !

Although i wouldn't describe it as a radicalisation, you will find very few western examples where the capital city (i.e. Political centre) is also the financial centre, commercial centre, cultural centre and media centre.

France is about the only other example of this. Perhaps its revolutionary history and desire for central control is a legacy of this.

If the UK can move more towards the German and US model without simply "taking" things off London (we will never get close to this in the short to mid term - it is a very long term project) that would be good for the UK as a whole.

 

[Aceshigh]

Maybe "radicalisation" is a strong term but whilst other areas of UK society might be described as "inclusive" the one area which the BBC in particular misses is a very large dose of "regionslism".

It tries but pays lip service.
See also Grayling

Maybe this is somewhat away from Manchester Airport but must have an effect.

 

[Aceshigh]

QANTAS dropping Dubai Heathrow which will leave the market clear for EK although I assume QF will still codeshare.