Archive Route Development & Rumours

[Aceshigh]

Just one other point are we being somewhat selective , what about
cargo ?

At the same rate Manchester has lost all pure freight so DSA has gained °and" handsomely.

Ad hoc B747s and MD11s are at least 2/ 3 times a week, has DSA "poached" all that traffic ?

Or is their ability to offer a breath of features re noise, fees etc a more attractive proposition ?

 

[Jerry]

Do they still get afew TUI long-hauls as well?

Orlando, Cancun, Barbados and Jamaica are TUIs long haul from Newcastle.

 

[Coathanger16]

As someone who isn't a Manchester local, this is probably just my perception of what is being said on here and that members don't actually feel this way:

For the 18 months or so that I have been a member I have noticed a certain trend regarding new routes. I have had conversations with other members so I know I am not alone in feeling this.

When there is a gap in the Manchester network, the reaction the majority of the time is that it is a gap that needs to be filled and that there is demand to serve it - take Eastern Europe as an example.

However when there are gaps in other airports networks (both short and long haul), the locals to those airports support the idea of new routes, yet other members often dismiss it with the mantra "if there was demand an airline would serve it" - perhaps I am mistaken, but the majority of the time those members are locals/supporters of MAN.

If no airline is serving LPL to NYC due to lack of demand, why is the same not true for airlines operating MAN to Warsaw for example?

This Manchester supporters say all long-haul should be left to them line doesn't appear to hold substance in reality. Is it perhaps a stick introduced by outsiders to beat the big bad wolf with?

Are you honestly suggesting that no MAN supporter has ever said long haul in the north should be focused at MAN?

Whilst yes aviation is and should be a free market, I think the issue here is that if say LPL, LBA, DSA, etc "go after" an airline that currently operates from MAN, that airline is unlikely to leave MAN for those airports (they may start flights in addition to MAN though with little impact on the MAN operations). On the other hand if MAN "goes after" airlines at those other airports, there is a 'fear' that an airline would "up sticks" and move to MAN. If say Wizz Air were to leave LPL for MAN, it would leave a big gap in LPL's network but only fill a small gap in MAN's. Even if Wizz Air were to only launch flights to MAN in addition to LPL, some feel there's a risk that it could negatively impact on LPL's service which could eventually lead to their withdrawal.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

When there is a gap in the Manchester network, the reaction the majority of the time is that it is a gap that needs to be filled and that there is demand to serve it - take Eastern Europe as an example.

But there is a gap in the market for additional services between MAN and Eastern Europe. It is incumbent upon the airport to encourage carriers to consider filling that gap. The business development team are employed to do that. There's nothing reprehensible or shameful about it. It is good business to plug gaps in the network wherever and whenever possible. Additional scheduled links mean greater employment, increased export opportunities, more commerce, expanded profits and ultimately higher dividends for the shareholders (which includes the councils comprising Greater Manchester). These are all very positive things. MAG should not face criticism for trying to attract incremental business (and neither should competing airports which operate in accordance with a similar business model). It is a fundamental part of their job. Do you expect successful businesses to sit back and say: "let's leave this opportunity for our competitors!" We're talking about the real world here.

"if there was demand an airline would serve it" - perhaps I am mistaken, but the majority of the time those members are locals/supporters of MAN.

Other airports across the North and Midlands frequently announce new services, and good luck to them. LPL-SNN was announced just days ago. Some new services succeed; others fail - I don't recall contributors to the MAN thread monopolising commentary on this? Take a look at the BHX or LBA forums, both far busier than this one - it isn't MAN contributors driving those discussions. By the way, can we avoid the use of this inappropriate word supporter. I will watch football tonight as a supporter. I study the aviation industry from an academic perspective.

If no airline is serving LPL to NYC due to lack of demand, why is the same not true for airlines operating MAN to Warsaw for example?

These are two completely different markets and there is no common answer to be reached by comparing them. Each potential new route must be considered on its own merits. LPL to New York may yet work on a B738MAX or an A321LR. We don't know. We do know that FlyGlobespan tried and failed with a B752 some years ago, but another carrier may enjoy better fortune in the future. Although factors such as the underwhelming GBP/USD exchange rate do represent a disincentive in the short term. It is no coincidence that MAN's only new US service this year is a like-for-like replacement, and the US legacies have consolidated their programmes in turn. In contrast, by picking on MAN-WAW you have named arguably the most glaring omission in MAN's entire route network. The route is crying out for capacity (and I do a return trip on the Modlin service approximately once per year). If you'd picked on MAN-Bogota I would have agreed there is no compelling business case. But some routes have strong potential, others don't. WAW is right up there.

Are you honestly suggesting that no MAN supporter has ever said long haul in the north should be focused at MAN?

Long-haul operations from the North are focused on MAN. That is a fact of life. But MAN does not have a monopoly on long-haul services from the North and if you've noted a MAN contributor calling for this please 'out' them and tell us who it was? I don't recall anyone demanding that? Meanwhile, good luck to those airports which do attract a long-haul service ... NCL-DXB has been great for the NE and there is no objection to its success from me.

On the other hand if MAN "goes after" airlines at those other airports, there is a 'fear' that an airline would "up sticks" and move to MAN.

Free market principles come at a price. The strongest proposition wins. MAN lost Air India to BHX. But free market competition is more good than bad. You may have noticed the national desperation to maintain a free market with the EU27? There is good reason for that. However, you may be amongst those people who prefer a protectionist economic model? If so, fair play ... but your view is in the minority in the current political climate.

 

[Scottie Dog]

There are always two sides to any story and I accept that on occasions there will be a difference in opinions.

Good cases have been put by both Aceshigh and EGCC_MAN in support of their claim that Manchester should be able to approach airlines in order to obtain new routes that are not currently served from Manchester, even if they are from other local airports.

The airport's development team will have done their research into the perceived demand for a route before making the approach - no airport worth its salt would want a new route to be a total flop, although there may be some airlines who seem to have other ideas!

If Wizz and Blue Air feel that they are happy with the agreements that they have with their airports in the UK, together with the loads and profits then there is no need for them to accept any other offers from larger airports where there is greater competition.

In the same way we, on these forums, should accept that there will be times when the two competing sides on here will disagree in the approach to be taken.

Feel free to continue to hold healthy debate on the subject, as that is the whole purpose of the forum, however please respect the other persons opinions.

 

[David_itl]

I would suggest that part of what others are decrying as no long-haul anywhere but MAN for northern England is borne out of the suggestion that I made that by an airline adding a route elsewhere may render 1 single current profitable route into 2 loss making routes. If we look at the MAN-New York market last year, it could be said to be an overall "thick" route but in reality it broke down to 3 "thin" routes and a "medium" route: generally speaking, the oneworld connection, the Star Alliance connection, the Skyteam connection (in all but name) and a non-aligned carrier at liberty to tap into point-to-point on a restricted frequency

Going into a bit more depth, we find that oneworld has pulled out of the market out of MAN with it now relying on connections through DUB/LHR/PHL (They couldn't hack the next biggest regional market it BHX either). We have in Star Alliance an airline plodding along with 757s that they are going to be easing out of their fleet and we have to debate whether they will deign to offer widebodied aircraft on the route. For Skyteam, we saw them cutback winter operations but do appear to be here for a long-term period having decided to schedule 747s on the route for summer (but circumstances out of their control have displaced it) and they are the airline that is enhancing the Flybe connecting services. The non-aligned carrier is the one that I would say caught all of us unawares as to how much it capturing the market (with the hint of business class introduction sometime in the future),

And remember, there is a non-aligned carrier that has basically given up at the next biggest regional airport for long-haul where there should have been able to mop up all demand - I would say that had the opportunity to open limited frequency operations effectively based out of New York into any of the other northern airports but didn't. That is the problem the North has. Any alliance airline would question whether it's worth splitting passenger numbers over 2 (or more) northern UK airports and hoping it won't have an overall negative impact. Non-aligned carriers such as Thomas Cook, Primera Air and Norwegian can look at the other northern airports but have decided not to even on a limited frequency basis.

 

[Coathanger16]

But there is a gap in the market for additional services between MAN and Eastern Europe.

I shall have to take your word for it that there is demand for more services. However I merely used that example, as it had previously been mentioned, to illustrate my point - you could replace Eastern Europe with many other destinations:

Shanghai
Tokyo
Seoul
Bangkok
Delhi
Mumbai
Cape Town

My point still stands. I don't live in Manchester, nor do I work in or around Manchester or the airport so I don't know how much demand there is from MAN and the region to support flights to those destinations. It just seems to be a given that there is the demand to those destinations from MAN but that there isn't from LPL or LBA to the Middle East or LPL,LBA or NCL to N.America - perhaps I missed that previously?

It is incumbent upon the airport to encourage carriers to consider filling that gap. The business development team are employed to do that. There's nothing reprehensible or shameful about it. It is good business to plug gaps in the network wherever and whenever possible. Additional scheduled links mean greater employment, increased export opportunities, more commerce, expanded profits and ultimately higher dividends for the shareholders (which includes the councils comprising Greater Manchester). These are all very positive things. MAG should not face criticism for trying to attract incremental business (and neither should competing airports which operate in accordance with a similar business model). It is a fundamental part of their job. Do you expect successful businesses to sit back and say: "let's leave this opportunity for our competitors!" We're talking about the real world here.

I am all for airports filling gaps in their respective networks. Questioning whether or not there is a gap in MAN's doesn't mean I don't think gaps in MAN's network should be filled.

Take a look at the BHX or LBA forums, both far busier than this one - it isn't MAN contributors driving those discussions.

No it isn't, yet it often feels like its MAN "locals" (what term should we use?) that are the ones to outright dismiss routes to other airports due to "lack of demand". Perhaps as a BHX "local" I do the same to other airports but don't notice as they are not my local airport.

By the way, can we avoid the use of this inappropriate word supporter. I will watch football tonight as a supporter. I study the aviation industry from an academic perspective.

I'm not sure how supporter is "inappropriate" but what word would you like to use? I would say most members on this site are "supporters" of aviation in general, yet each member generally speaking "favors" one airport (typically their local). As a local to BHX I am a "supporter" in the sense that I support the airports growth, but then again I support all airports growth (I will admit I don't follow other airports as keenly as BHX though).

These are two completely different markets and there is no common answer to be reached by comparing them.

Again I used these destinations as examples. You could replace LPL to A, and MAN to B if that helps? My point was that it often feels like an unserved route from LPL (or any other airport) is dismissed due to lack of demand, yet an unserved route from MAN by default has demand for a service.

Long-haul operations from the North are focused on MAN. That is a fact of life. But MAN does not have a monopoly on long-haul services from the North and if you've noted a MAN contributor calling for this please 'out' them and tell us who it was? I don't recall anyone demanding that? Meanwhile, good luck to those airports which do attract a long-haul service ... NCL-DXB has been great for the NE and there is no objection to its success from me.

Perhaps nobody has gone as far as explicitly stating that MAN should have a monopoly, but you have to understand that different people will take what we all say on here differently. As I said before, I have spoken to members on here who have felt that MAN "locals" (or whatever word we use) are often too dismissive of the prospects of long haul from other regional airports - note I'm not accusing anybody on here of anything, just stating that that is the perceived view.

Free market principles come at a price. The strongest proposition wins. MAN lost Air India to BHX. But free market competition is more good than bad. You may have noticed the national desperation to maintain a free market with the EU27? There is good reason for that. However, you may be amongst those people who prefer a protectionist economic model? If so, fair play ... but your view is in the minority in the current political climate.

Just to be clear I'm not against free market principles. As much as I would like MAN to stay away from airlines that currently fly from BHX but not MAN, I know that's not fair as I would want BHX to be approaching airlines at MAN such as Cathay Pacific, Singapore & Hainan. Yes the strongest proposition wins, but that doesn't make it the fairest.

Non-aligned carriers such as Thomas Cook, Primera Air and Norwegian can look at the other northern airports but have decided not to even on a limited frequency basis.

That doesn't necessarily mean that because an airline isn't operating a route that there is no demand. Down at BHX we would do anything for even a weekly service from Thomas Cook to Orlando, yet they don't currently fly it. However just because they aren't flying BHX to Orlando doesn't mean there isn't demand - it is common knowledge that Orlando is one of if not the most under-served destination from BHX. Just in case it needs to be said, last year MAN had more flights to Orlando in one week than BHX did in the whole year. Is anybody really suggesting there is that little demand from BHX?

 

[michael]

Isn't this all a question of 'scale'??
Now I'm not saying MAN is the big bad ogre up the road or over the hill, but let's take Wizz and Blue Air at LPL and DSA, in both cases if those two airlines left those two airports for MAN it would be one hell of a hole in terms of passenger numbers and airline choice. Put those same operators in to MAN with the same frequencies and the increase in passenger numbers and aircraft movements would hardly be noticed. It would almost just be that 'two new carriers' had arrived at MAN offering previously untapped markets. Now then, boot on't other foot so to speak, those two airlines leave LPL and DSA and set up at LBA, just imagine the LBA PR machine, new airlines offering new destinations, a significant increase in passengers through LBA etc etc.
Now I'm not saying that folk from the LPL catchment area would necessarily travel to LBA but you can see where I'm coming from - it purely comes down to scale. Much of the chat on the MAN forum is simply whether a carrier will arrive with a B787, B777, A330, A350 etc, whereas the likes of LBA, LPL are simply whether a carrier will arrive at all. And anything more than a B737 or A320 is a bonus !!

 

[EGCC_MAN]

It just seems to be a given that there is the demand to those destinations from MAN but that there isn't from LPL or LBA to the Middle East or LPL,LBA or NCL to N.America - perhaps I missed that previously?

Well I certainly don't presume sufficient demand between MAN and some named random destination. On the contrary, I'm entirely aware that success in long-haul flying is very difficult to achieve. The short-haul WAW example is different ... it is a market I know well as a frequent visitor to Poland. And I don't make any claims to know potential market size from other airports. There seems to be a straw man argument in play here: "You bounders on the MAN forum always claim XYZ about competing airports!!! So justify it!!!" Problem is, on occasions including this one, MAN contributors have not actually made the claims you allude to. In answer to your comment about whether LPL-NYC could work in an earlier post, my answer was:

LPL to New York may yet work on a B738MAX or an A321LR. We don't know.

But your agenda appears to be to put words in our mouth rather than to take note of what we actually write.

yet it often feels like its MAN "locals" (what term should we use?) that are the ones to outright dismiss routes to other airports due to "lack of demand"

Well I certainly don't do this. Though I'm not a sufficiently frequent visitor to those other forums to vouch for other regulars here.

I'm not sure how supporter is "inappropriate" but what word would you like to use?

Contributor is my preferred choice when referring to other posters on forums. It is courteous, neutral and non-judgmental.

You could replace LPL to A, and MAN to B if that helps?

I refer you once again to my earlier response:

Each potential new route must be considered on its own merits.

Yes the strongest proposition wins, but that doesn't make it the fairest.

Free market competition inevitably produces winners and losers. But heavily-regulated protectionist regimes come with problems of their own. There is no perfect solution.

last year MAN had more flights to Orlando in one week than BHX did in the whole year. Is anybody really suggesting there is that little demand from BHX?

Well I haven't noticed anybody on this forum arguing against the potential for a BHX-MCO service. Have you?

let's take Wizz and Blue Air at LPL and DSA, in both cases if those two airlines left those two airports for MAN it would be one hell of a hole in terms of passenger numbers and airline choice.

The argument put forward in this discussion is that certain popular destinations can support multiple departure airports. Post 1820 addresses this. My own contributions advocate that MAN should work to fill obvious gaps in its own route portfolio. I haven't called for luring a carrier's entire operation away from another airport. Although if that opportunity did present it would be naive to think that any of the airports under discussion wouldn't go for it. However, I consider that to be a most unlikely outcome in the cited cases of Wizz and Blue Air.

 

[Coathanger16]

The short-haul WAW example is different

Again I mentioned Eastern Europe as it had been mentioned earlier - the point I'm trying to make isn't about specific routes.

There seems to be a straw man argument in play here: "You bounders on the MAN forum always claim XYZ about competing airports!!! So justify it!!!" Problem is, on occasions including this one, MAN contributors have not actually made the claims you allude to.

But your agenda appears to be to put words in our mouth rather than to take note of what we actually write.

My "agenda" as you so put it is to highlight that what is posted on this forum may not be perceived by everyone as the person who posted it intended it to be perceived. You say MAN contributors haven't made the claims "I allude to", but they have made comments that have been received in a negative way. As I tried to say previously, this isn't just coming from me - I've had others message me privately agreeing.

In answer to your comment about whether LPL-NYC could work in an earlier post, my answer was:

Again LPL to NYC was just an example to highlight my point. It could have been LPL to any destination.

Contributor is my preferred choice when referring to other posters on forums. It is courteous, neutral and non-judgmental.

I shall endeavor to use contributor from now on then. Although I don't personally find supporter to not be courteous, neutral and non-judgmental, I accept that others may do.

I refer you once again to my earlier response: Each potential new route must be considered on its own merits.

Yes I would agree. I'm not suggesting airlines should plough ahead with launching new routes without examining the case for it first. Again the point I've been trying to make (for the past 18 months it seems) is that certain contributors - I'm not accusing you @EGCC_MAN or anybody in particular - whilst not outright dismissing a route, make comments that have suggested that the contributor doesn't believe there is demand for that route. That's not to say that is what that contributor actually believes, but their comment has nevertheless come across as such. As I said in my previous post, the phrase "well if there was demand for that route an airline would be flying it already" comes up time and time again - maybe I'm biased but I mostly recall seeing it on the smaller regional airports threads and never on the MAN threads.

Well I haven't noticed anybody on this forum arguing against the potential for a BHX-MCO service. Have you?

The fact you even asked this shows you have been missing the point I'm trying to make. I mentioned BHX to Orlando as it completely destroys the "if there was demand for that route an airline would be flying it already" argument as everybody knows there is plenty of unserved demand on that route. I never accused anyone of suggesting there wasn't demand for that route.

Once again, my point is that when a potential new route (typically long haul although it has happened for short haul as well) is rumored for a smaller regional airport (LPL, DSA, LBA, NCL, etc) there are certain contributors who aren't "regulars" on those threads who come in with "if there was demand for that route an airline would be flying it already". Yet when a potential new route is rumored for MAN, there seems to be no questioning of whether there is demand for that route.

 

[Silvercity]

Out of interest I just looked up where Wizz fly from in the UK, they have 8 departure points, so it looks like they have quite a good representation over the country. However I looked up both Liverpool and Doncaster to Warsaw, being the North of England departure points.These routes operate both 3 times a week, max 4 in the summer from Doncaster so not even daily. To me this would suggest the demand is not massive. Warsaw is not Paris, its not one of the top weekend break destination. Anyone from the Northwest who has to or wants to go to Warsaw is already doing it, using the LPL flights, and for those who live the other side of the Pennines there is the Doncaster flights. Lets not also forget Wizz have reduced there UK eastern European routes recently.

 

[Scottie Dog]

I don't want to stifle the discussion but the time has come I think where you both agree to 'disagree' - even if, to me, you are both are basically in agreement that airports should be allowed to develop at their own pace.

The same differences now appear to have been restated, although maybe in slightly different versions.

Thank you for the valuable discussions and views.

Scottie Dog

 

[EGCC_MAN]

My "agenda" as you so put it is to highlight that what is posted on this forum may not be perceived by everyone as the person who posted it intended it to be perceived.

If there is any post which puzzles you or your messaging contacts, may I invite you to quote it and challenge it at the time. That way your doubts will be addressed directly by the author in a timely manner. If a reader is left confused by what a contributor has written yet doesn't speak up at the time then it is not the contributor's fault if that reader draws a false impression. A nebulous sweeping statement made long after the fact to the effect that you lot are always claiming XYZ ... really doesn't help anyone. Especially with no specific references to analyse.

I mentioned BHX to Orlando as it completely destroys the "if there was demand for that route an airline would be flying it already" argument

You mean the argument which not one contributor on this forum has been making?

As I said in my previous post, the phrase "well if there was demand for that route an airline would be flying it already" comes up time and time again

Another straw man argument, I fear. Again, why would a MAN contributor routinely state this line when it could just as easily be thrown at a vacant route ex-MAN such as that to Warsaw Chopin?

Yet when a potential new route is rumored for MAN, there seems to be no questioning of whether there is demand for that route.

OOPS! Well the following post is a masterstroke of timing then!

Out of interest I just looked up where Wizz fly from in the UK, they have 8 departure points, so it looks like they have quite a good representation over the country. However I looked up both Liverpool and Doncaster to Warsaw, being the North of England departure points.These routes operate both 3 times a week, max 4 in the summer from Doncaster so not even daily. To me this would suggest the demand is not massive. Warsaw is not Paris, its not one of the top weekend break destination. Anyone from the Northwest who has to or wants to go to Warsaw is already doing it, using the LPL flights, and for those who live the other side of the Pennines there is the Doncaster flights. Lets not also forget Wizz have reduced there UK eastern European routes recently.

I agree that comparing a route from MAN to WAW with that to CDG would be wholly inappropriate. The latter is a trunk route serving a huge capital region and Europe's second-busiest superhub airport. But that doesn't mean there is no case for a MAN-WAW schedule in its own right. Greater Manchester has been home to a sizeable Polish community since WW2 at least, not just since the recent wave of migration which has significantly added to the existing numbers. Short-term contract migrant travel has reduced (as you say) largely due to the deterioration of the GBP/EUR exchange rate and improved remuneration for employment back home. But the numbers still remain significant. Warsaw may not be a large market for citybreaks but there is still demand. And we mustn't omit flows relating to business travel and the good range of Eastern Europe connections offered over Chopin.

When I originally mentioned WAW as the most obvious gap in MAN's network, I actually had LOT [Polskie Linie Lotnicze] in mind as the carrier most likely to step up. They applied for slots this summer but subsequently cancelled them, so the route is on their radar. However, if Wizz Air were persuaded to run a schedule I'm sure that would be well received by the market. At present, MAN offers three weekly Ryanair flights to Modlin (WMI) ... they're always chokka ... I know, I use them! Thrice weekly frequency is insufficient for P2P traffic alone, and of course WMI can't offer reliable connections within Poland itself and onwards to neighbouring countries. Note that Ryanair also serves WMI from LPL (4/7), BHX (3/7), EMA (3/7), LBA (2/7) and NCL (2/7), so market size cannot be deduced from examining Wizz Air schedules in isolation. With travel flows this large, a daily MAN-WAW [E190?] schedule is unlikely to present a significant threat to services from these other airports.

SCOTTIE DOG: Thankyou for your post. I'll try to address newly-raised points only. Anything else can be referred back to a specified earlier post.

 

[IanFarquharson]

The simple answer to this is..

How many people from the BHX area have to travel to MAN to get a flight - answer - lots !

How many people from the MAN area have to travel to BHX to get a flight - answer - very few !

I rest my case !

 

[EGCC_MAN]

The simple answer to this is..

How many people from the BHX area have to travel to MAN to get a flight - answer - lots !

How many people from the MAN area have to travel to BHX to get a flight - answer - very few !

I rest my case !

I'm going to follow my own advice on this one:

If there is any post which puzzles you or your messaging contacts, may I invite you to quote it and challenge it at the time. That way your doubts will be addressed directly by the author in a timely manner. If a reader is left confused by what a contributor has written yet doesn't speak up at the time then it is not the contributor's fault if that reader draws a false impression.

What does your statement add to the discussion above?

 

[Scottie Dog]

What has half of this got to do with Route Development and Rumours?

I'm currently on mobile data only, however I have a mind to move most of the latest posts to other parts if this forum.

If your post is moved you will receive a message to explain where it can now be found.

I do love a good day out that ends with having to don my modetator hat - please let me return to enjoying F4A as it is intended to be.

 

[Seasider]

I would like to say that I have really enjoyed reading and taking part in this discussion on "Route Developments and Rumours", so I have difficulty in understanding Scottie Dog asking "what has half of this got to do with Route Developments and Rumours."
We have been discussing the relative "merits" of the problem of route development from airports and highlighted the fact that the factors are many and varied.

 

[Silvercity]

If there is any post which puzzles you or your messaging contacts, may I invite you to quote it and challenge it at the time. That way your doubts will be addressed directly by the author in a timely manner. If a reader is left confused by what a contributor has written yet doesn't speak up at the time then it is not the contributor's fault if that reader draws a false impression. A nebulous sweeping statement made long after the fact to the effect that you lot are always claiming XYZ ... really doesn't help anyone. Especially with no specific references to analyse.



You mean the argument which not one contributor on this forum has been making?



Another straw man argument, I fear. Again, why would a MAN contributor routinely state this line when it could just as easily be thrown at a vacant route ex-MAN such as that to Warsaw Chopin?



OOPS! Well the following post is a masterstroke of timing then!



I agree that comparing a route from MAN to WAW with that to CDG would be wholly inappropriate. The latter is a trunk route serving a huge capital region and Europe's second-busiest superhub airport. But that doesn't mean there is no case for a MAN-WAW schedule in its own right. Greater Manchester has been home to a sizeable Polish community since WW2 at least, not just since the recent wave of migration which has significantly added to the existing numbers. Short-term contract migrant travel has reduced (as you say) largely due to the deterioration of the GBP/EUR exchange rate and improved remuneration for employment back home. But the numbers still remain significant. Warsaw may not be a large market for citybreaks but there is still demand. And we mustn't omit flows relating to business travel and the good range of Eastern Europe connections offered over Chopin.

When I originally mentioned WAW as the most obvious gap in MAN's network, I actually had LOT [Polskie Linie Lotnicze] in mind as the carrier most likely to step up. They applied for slots this summer but subsequently cancelled them, so the route is on their radar. However, if Wizz Air were persuaded to run a schedule I'm sure that would be well received by the market. At present, MAN offers three weekly Ryanair flights to Modlin (WMI) ... they're always chokka ... I know, I use them! Thrice weekly frequency is insufficient for P2P traffic alone, and of course WMI can't offer reliable connections within Poland itself and onwards to neighbouring countries. Note that Ryanair also serves WMI from LPL (4/7), BHX (3/7), EMA (3/7), LBA (2/7) and NCL (2/7), so market size cannot be deduced from examining Wizz Air schedules in isolation. With travel flows this large, a daily MAN-WAW [E190?] schedule is unlikely to present a significant threat to services from these other airports.

SCOTTIE DOG: Thankyou for your post. I'll try to address newly-raised points only. Anything else can be referred back to a specified earlier post.

I Know LOT have been expanding their longhaul destinations of late, so they maybe able to offer some new connections. I have actually flown on them quite a few years ago now from Manchester. One of my Polish customers , she wouldn't touch them, but I found them ok.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

I've flown with LOT five times - always fine, pretty good actually. I have two forthcoming flights booked with them, so I hope I haven't jinxed myself now! I use LOT for internal flights within Poland, as only Ryanair currently offer the relevant international sectors. I have used Ryanair domestics in Poland as well (fabulously cheap), but these are currently suspended as part of a political standoff over airport access.

 

[Aceshigh]

Just a reminder that parliament TV iplayer Transport Committee today 1645 will provide a real insight into route development not just at Heathrow but Manchester. One nugget was put fwd by way of example by the EasyJet spokesperson when she suggested that when a new aircraft comes on stream the development teams in each country bid for its use via a cost/profit business model , in the case of EZY she cited APD as an on cost BEFORE we even start on yields ! It might be of use to the debate we have had here on how airports determine who goes where and why, ( .......and possibly why not ).

( One other interesting point was the use of stairs over airbrIidges. It was very telling how much EZY have reisistence to these !)

Take note MAG.