Outside Influences

[Aviador]

Not widely reported but the Scottish Parliament left APD unchanged in their budget annoucement last week. It was widely expected that they might have reduced it by 50% but the topic was.....

.....quietly kicked into the long grass !

Was reducing the tax on the agenda in the first place?

This is the thing, reducing APD tax will only force the tax onto something else.

 

[Jerry]

Was reducing the tax on the agenda in the first place?

This is the thing, reducing APD tax will only force the tax onto something else.

I believe the SNP wanted to reduce it but they couldn't get a majority so it looks like it's been quietly shelved.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

When the UK government originally indicated that APD power would be devolved to Scotland - part of a package of sweeteners to try (successfully as it turned out) to prevent Scotland voting for independence in the referendum that was to be held at that time - the Scottish government said it wanted to abolish APD altogether.

They soon realised that this was unaffordable but it remained a long term aspiration. Instead they indicated APD would be reduced by 50% in the first instance. The tax would be renamed Air Departure Tax (ADT) and the Bill for the Air Departure Tax (Scotland) Act 2017 was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 20 June 2017 and received Royal Assent on 25 July 2017.

The Highlands and Islands airports had been exempt from APD (because of the low population density) and for ADT to have a similar exemption the authority of the European Commission has to be sought. Such authority was not secured and the Scottish and UK governments blame each other for the omission.

The Scottish Government has agreed to delay the introduction of ADT until the Highlands and Islands issues have been resolved. In the meantime APD will continue to be the responsibility of HMRC - per Revenue Scotland website.

 

[Aceshigh]

https://news.sky.com/story/flights-...ted-to-hit-most-of-uk-in-coming-days-11238080

A very prudent move by tge national carrier given the "BLIZZARD" conditions prevalent across the UK Monday !

We're any passengers from Manchester affected or was it just those flights where the pre booked load factor was possibly a bit
low ?

 

[Aceshigh]

Just to clarify "Commercial Snow" is very different to "Ordinary Snow" !

 

[Land23R]

Snow yesterday - what snow? Oh a bit in Kent and Sussex possibly. Suspect you got it in one re low loads Aces.

Manchester in the news today for mixed reasons. 60 years since the Munich disaster, a day I remember so well. And 100 years since the Suffragette movement got the vote for (some) women. TM in Manchester to make a speech.

Related to aviation, this story:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/new-city-partnership-boost-ties-14246332

Will it bring direct flights any nearer or just be another Shanghai? Still, good to see Lord Jim still involved.

 

[Aceshigh]

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/be473f75-77f0-4b6d-91e6-6970c89d2655

Appearance of Holland-Kaye before Transport Committee yesterday.

"Growth will be phased in over many years" hang on they told shareholders 3 otherwise ROI will be delayed.

"Cost of a bridge or tunnel will be about same " but they need to write to transport committee with the actual figures. Do they not know the fiigures after all this time or not wishing to disclose in public debate ?

 

[David_itl]

the Evening News on MAN v LHR... https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...nchester-airport-boss-slams-heathrow-14256418

 

[Land23R]

Excellent, but he needs to get that message across to a far wider audience than the M.E.N. Ministers, MPs, Business leaders, Business travellers, local governments, the travel industry etc. many of whom seem hoodwinked by the LHR propaganda.

 

[Jerry]

Excellent, but he needs to get that message across to a far wider audience than the M.E.N. Ministers, MPs, Business leaders, Business travellers, local governments, the travel industry etc. many of whom seem hoodwinked by the LHR propaganda.

But the head of Heathrow is right in a way. Heathrow will always have routes from it that Manchester will never be able to sustain from Africa to South America to the US and routes in which they'll always be able to have much more frequencies on so it does provide benefits to the Manchester area and if you look at new routes and airlines they tend try and go to Heathrow first and when that route is successful many will look at Manchester next as part if their expansion in the UK.

 

[David_itl]

Ike Thomas Cooks daily Seattle services out of Heathtow saw that launch MAN services? Cathay weren't number 1 for MAN-hub-HKG but Emirates was. As for routes, MAN has comfortably more than LHR.

 

[Land23R]

But there are plenty of other connecting hubs to choose from. And that just doesn't apply to MAN. The implied claim that LHR is the only show in town is misleading in my view. LHR isn't the only option if flying to Africa or South America. And I think even Davies admitted that the number of new long haul destinations from a R3 wouldn't be substantial.

The tactic is understandable as LHR will be desperate to try and prove where all their extra passengers (and freight) will come from to justify their expensive R3. But Cowan is absolutely right to call Holland Kaye out and challenge the claims. I would hope some other airport bosses would do the same.

Interesting if Kaye singled out Greater Manchester. I wonder if that was in response to a specific question.

 

[Coathanger16]

Ike Thomas Cooks daily Seattle services out of Heathtow saw that launch MAN services? Cathay weren't number 1 for MAN-hub-HKG but Emirates was. As for routes, MAN has comfortably more than LHR.

I think Jerry's point was that Heathrow 'proved' there was demand from the UK to Seattle. If Heathrow didn't have a regular service to Seattle - a destination that isn't a typical long haul leisure destination (e.g. Caribbean, Vegas, Phuket) - would Thomas Cook have launched a service from Manchester?

Yes MAN has more routes than Heathrow - a lot to very leisure/holiday oriented destinations that are priced out of Heathrow.

I don't mean this to be offensive but are there any long haul destinations that MAN serves that LHR doesn't that aren't typical long haul leisure destination (e.g. Caribbean, Vegas, Phuket) - I'm asking as I genuinely don't know.

But there are plenty of other connecting hubs to choose from. And that just doesn't apply to MAN. The implied claim that LHR is the only show in town is misleading in my view. LHR isn't the only option if flying to Africa or South America. And I think even Davies admitted that the number of new long haul destinations from a R3 wouldn't be substantial.

You are correct - there is absolutely no need for anyone withing MAN's catchment to connect through LHR, yet passengers still do. It would be naive to suggest that that won't continue if LHR expands. Of course LHR isn't the only option, but they are trying to position themselves as the best option for passengers.

I think in these LHR vs MAN discussions its always best to draw comparisons between the two. I don't mean to antagonize anyone, but there seems to be a general resentment about passengers in MAN's catchment connecting through LHR or when LHR claim its the 'only' way to connect the regions to the world. Flip things around and I know I'm not alone when I say there are posters on here that use the exact same arguments LHR use but instead in relation to MAN being the best/only way to connect northern cities to the world. To highlight this how about a little game of would you rather:

Would you rather:

Passengers from MAN's catchment fly: MAN-LHR-Tokyo or MAN-PEK/HKG-Tokyo

and compare that to, would you rather:

Passengers from Leeds' catchment fly: MAN-SIN or LBA-AMS-SIN

 

[Coathanger16]

I would hope some other airport bosses would do the same.

It's been interesting to see which airports have come out in favour and which have been critical of LHR's expansion plans.

The major opposition is Gatwick, Manchester & Birmingham, whilst most smaller airports in general support expansion. The former may possibly stand to lose out if LHR expands, and whilst the latter may or may not benefit from LHR expanding, they are unlikely to lose out.

 

[Jerry]

Ike Thomas Cooks daily Seattle services out of Heathtow saw that launch MAN services? Cathay weren't number 1 for MAN-hub-HKG but Emirates was. As for routes, MAN has comfortably more than LHR.

Thomas Cook doesn't fly out of Heathrow and there MAN route will be 2 weekly Heathrow is 4 daily.

But there are plenty of other connecting hubs to choose from. And that just doesn't apply to MAN. The implied claim that LHR is the only show in town is misleading in my view. LHR isn't the only option if flying to Africa or South America.

Yes there is and having access to those hubs brings benefits to Manchester and as Heathrow is one of them it brings benefits. Probably not as much Heathrow makes out but it does.

 

[Jerry]

What do people think MAN will lose if Heathrow gets a 3rd runway ?

 

[Jerry]

The major opposition is Gatwick, Manchester & Birmingham, whilst most smaller airports in general support expansion.

I don't see what those airports will actually lose?

 

[Coathanger16]

I don't see what those airports will actually lose?

I don't think its so much that they'd lose out if LHR expands, just that they'll benefit from LHR not expanding.

 

[Aceshigh]

[QUOTE="Jerry, post: What do people think MAN will lose if Heathrow gets its 3rd runway?

Heathrow is earmarked for £12bn min and possibly £18bn in roadrail infastructure.

....what about some equality of funding for infastructure projects in Newcastle Birmingham Liverpool The South West?

What about taxpayer subsidies for a company owned by shareholders abroad.

What about a taxpayer subsidy for a company that has "allegedly " not paid corporation tax in years.

This money cannot be spent twice and the gravytrain of spend in the SE is at eyewatering levels;

Elizabethan Line
Thameslink
BankUndergnd
DLR
Waterloo and now they want another £26bn for Crossrail 2 whilst throwing us the mirage of HS2.

The SE is getting money signed off by Whitehall with gusto whilst the rest of us can go to hell in a hand cart.

 

[Aviador]

In many respects it makes sense for other northern airports to support Heathrow expansion. Manchester airport has been seen to basically mop up all the med routes and clear up the middle easterns, many of which would work perfectly well from some of the other northern airports. When I say northern I include the Scottish airports as the Manchester airport marketing machine is keen to expand it's catchment into those areas. This has been shown in some of the latest airport advertising and sponsorships.

Just as Manchester airport wants a slice of the Heathrow cake, other Northern airports want a slice of the Manchester airport cake. So if you can understand the frustration trying to compete with Heathrow airport then the frustration of other northern areas is similar with regards to Manchester airport, the similarities are there.

One of the problems I see is in Manchester and Heathrow airports quest to capture a wider market, they are treading on the toes of other smaller airports and the wider public who don't necessarily all want to fly from Manchester or Heathrow. There's something wrong if you live in Leeds and have to travel to Manchester to catch a flight to Palma. Likewise, there's something wrong if you have to travel to Heathrow to catch a flight to South Africa.

As I mentioned a week or so ago, and I know this has no bearing on what happens in real life with market forces but if other airports around the north were given a fair crack of the whip with Med and Middle Eastern routes, they would be far more supportive of Manchester airport concentrating on the long haul routes that will only work from Manchester or Heathrow.