Archive Route Development & Rumours

[Dobbo]

Either way, there may be some operational problems that have caused these reductions in services.

I think AA's fleet is smaller next year (more aircraft are leaving the fleet than joining) and that heas clearly caused them to cut their cloth accordingly.

MAN-JFK continues to expand, but the legacy US carriers are coming under increasing pressure.

 

[Land23R]

There's a very good post by Logohu on that other forum citing the inferior product and unreliability of AA in particular as being one of the reasons for the tougher time they are having compared to the growth being experienced by TCX and VS at MAN.

Personally, I don't think all the blame should be laid at Brexit's door, although what's happened to the exchange rate for UK originating passengers is a factor. There are other, more significant, market forces at work in my view that could lead to a re-assessment of the involvement of the US carriers at UK regional airports. That said, United is different from American, and Delta is different again with its Virgin partnership. It should also be remembered that the more routes MAN has direct to various US cities, the less reliance there is on feeding an existing hub. The hub airport needs sufficient demand as a destination in its own right, and in some cases those new cities being served will also act as an alternative transfer point to an existing hub.

 

[User001]

The problem Manchester now has, is that it has made its route development very hard, and let me explain.

We are, whether people like it or not, agree with me or not, a U.K. Regional airport, a provincial city on a small island that is also shared with 2 of the busiest airports in Europe (LHR and LGW).

To have the route network we do, is nothing short of incredible anyway. We are not a worldwide, or even European tourism centre, we have no 'real' business centre to speak of (yes, we have some manufacturing, some pharma, some university etc, but, nothing in major swathes), so, we are predominantly an outbound VFR/Leisure market, and that means growth scope is narrowed some what.

Now, we have built a very large, somewhat abnormally large, USA network. Remember, going back to point 1, we share our island with the largest TATL airport in Europe, so, to have what we now have USA, is incredible, but, as said at the start, this creates problems in itself.

Barring 4-5 routes, we now have the 'obvious' destinations covered. This means any new routes now, need some serious marketing. San Diego, Seattle, Denver are all marginal routes that need a lot of convincing. Tampa, Charlotte and Fort Lauderdale would be competing with nearby served markets, so are you cutting your nose to spite your face and dilute your original served route?

Also, the more 'direct' route you have, the more it takes passengers away from hub routes connecting onwards, so, by reducing an existing routes viability, on a risky new direct route, you could end up loosing 2 routes if not bedded in properly.

We are entering a whole new world of route development at Manchester. Not only because of the econonomy, but, because of the new routes we are now trying to attract. We need to be cautious as well as optimistic, and we certainly cannot count our chickens before they have hatched. And we certainly cant say 'we are lucky not to have seen Summer 17 cuts. It's not even winter 16 yet, and as BHX has just found out, there is still time.

One thing is certain, if Norwegian was to open a MAN base, celebrations would be short lived, as I can assure you now, it would mean someone gets pushed out at the back, so, we need to be very careful what we wish for. The big question is, do MAN actually need Norwegian for long haul? We need to remember, Thomas Cook is ALREADY doing for MAN right now what Norwegian promise to do in the future?

 

[Land23R]

As you will have gathered User001, we are at one on this. PtP (ignoring the debate as to whether MAN is a sort of mini hub!) inevitably leads to less reliance on existing hubs.

For the US market though, I do feel it's unfortunate that we (MAN) still have to rely so heavily on UK originating pax.
I'm not blaming the marketing people for this; it still just seems to be in the American mindset that the UK means London (and to a lesser degree Edinburgh perhaps). I wonder how that split between UK and overseas originating business compares with say the MEB3 and Far East carriers.

Incidentally, I also agree with you about Norwegian.

 

[Land23R]

Ethan, please don't take this personally. We regulars on this thread are all MAN enthusiasts at heart but sometimes we have to tell it as we think it is, and that may mean some caution, concern and being realistic are appropriate.

On the other hand, MAN is punching well above its weight in many ways and that is to be applauded.

 

[Dobbo]

User - I agree, but should point out that for the purposes of long haul services, MAN is well placed for the cities of Leeds, Liverpool, Stoke, Sheffield, Newcastle, the East Midlands and even Birmingham.

That is a large economy alwith a significant amount of business.

Faster and more reliable transport links to these places is the key to unlocking the next phase of growth unless a hub operation starts.

 

[Land23R]

User - I agree, but should point out that for the purposes of long haul services, MAN is well placed for the cities of Leeds, Liverpool, Stoke, Sheffield, Newcastle, the East Midlands and even Birmingham.

A fair point Dobbo. There was a post on that other forum by a well known sniper at MAN in which he referred to LPL, MAN, LBA and BHX serving "their local catchments". He's a wind-up merchant and I didn't do him the favour of responding. The fact is that MAN's catchment, especially but not exclusively for long haul services, is far from "local" and even better and faster transport links should, as you say, enable MAN to continue to grow.

That said, there are issues as to just how that will unfold in terms of the US market.

 

[Dobbo]

I've not seen that message in dried fruit. May be on auto ignore?

I agree, LBA, LPL etc. Serve local catchments well - for short haul flying. MAN is the only viable intercontinental gateway to the north of England, and should be developed as such.

Significant industries are getting priced out of London and the South east. As user hinted, a fair amount of that is media, which has exploded in Lancashire, Cumbria and Yorkshire of late. If these trends continue, the demand for long haul air travel and premium passengers at MAN will continue to trend upwards.

You only have to think about the lounge plans for the new T2 to see MANs planning for this.

 

[ethanegcc]

Ethan, please don't take this personally. We regulars on this thread are all MAN enthusiasts at heart but sometimes we have to tell it as we think it is, and that may mean some caution, concern and being realistic are appropriate.

On the other hand, MAN is punching well above its weight in many ways and that is to be applauded.

It is and I don't take your comment personally. I would hope I am and will continue to be a valued contributor to this particular thread, discussing MAN's trials and tribulations and successes which we have had in the plenty in the last couple of years but I will clearly have to 'scale down' the apparent controversiality and the frequency of which I mention 'BHX' in my posts, which from now won't be ever to stop these unnecessary debates.

It is extremely disappointing that AA are scaling down the JFK route, but as is true on OTHER American services that have got the chop, they simply offer an inferior product on their 763 to DL, UA, TCX, VS (maybe not PK!) so cannot compete. We must comfort ourselves with the fact our USA expansion has been fantastic and with the odd bump in the road, we continue to have success. BA should be getting concerned with the VS/DL operation. The importance of the second largest aviation travel market in Britain cannot be underestimated to OW. BA have advocated all of their regional tatl ops to AA, an airline with inferior products and aircraft, that cannot compete with other airline partnerships who put significantly more effort into the regions.

 

[David_itl]

The only reason why BA delegates regional UK to American is the lack of suitable aircraft. The 787s they have are used for the opening up of thin routes out of LHR with some replacing 777s. The 777s are far too premium heavy at the moment for any regional market and we know that the previous incumbent boss of BA indicate that having a small sub-fleet of regional-configured aircraft was sub-optimal use of resources. The 3 class versions of he 777s are currently:

Club World 40 flat bed seats
World Traveller Plus 24 recliner seats
World Traveller 219 standard seats

and
Club World 48 flat bed seats
World Traveller Plus 24 recliner seats
World Traveller 203 standard seats


Even reconfiguring them is going to mean a heap of capacity being added. Perhaps something like 24 for Club World, 32 World Traveller Plus and 272 for World Traveller. Still mean 346 seats... bear in mind that the AA 767s smallest configuration is 209 seats so we are looking at the prospect of effectively 1.5 AA "aircraft sized" routes being added by BA for each reconfigured 777. Then think what routes would they be used for.. can you seem them replacing any current AA route knowing that the passenger numbers are setting the world alight? As for opening up new markets, the potential ones are already covered and secondary routes would see the 777 being far too big.

If anything, BA would probably looking at AA's performance and try to figure a way to help them as being in a joint-venture, it makes more sense for them to get the MAN passengers currently routing via LHR on to the combined AA/BA ops there to actually route non-stop from MAN to AA's hubs and connect in the States instead. This ought to free up capacity on the LHR routes without having to sacrifice a domestic slot pair to boost/introduce services. Having unreliable ops out of the regions is a surefire way to lose out to other airlines.

 

[User001]

With the news of Monarch serving Zagreb next summer, we can now tick off Croatia as 'completed', with the 5 major airports served (Zadar, Split, Pula, Dubrovnik and now Zagreb).

 

[ethanegcc]

How many capital cities are served across the world now - off the top of my head:
DUB (EI, FR)
LON (BA)
Paris (U2, FR, BE, AF, VY)
Rome (FR, LS, ZB, VY)
Madrid (IB, FR)
Lisbon (TP, FR, U2, ZB)
Athens (A3, U2)
Zagreb (ZB)
Ljubljana (JP)
Prague (LS, FR, U2)
Helsinki (AY)
Stockholm (SK, DY, ZB)
Copenhagen (SK, U2, DY)
Oslo (SK, DY, not sure but FR?)
Berlin (U2, not sure but FR?)
Luxembourg City (BE)
Brussels (FR, SN)
Rotterdam The Hague (seat of government) (BE)
Amsterdam (official capital) (U2, KL, BE)
Vienna (U2, OS)
Valetta (U2, Air Malta, FR, TCX, TOM)
Warsaw (FR)
Budapest (FR, LS)
Riga (FR)
Abu Dhabi (EY)
Doha (QR)
Beijing (HU)
Singapore (SQ)
Hong Kong (CX) or at least capital of the semi-autonomous region of China that is HK
Washington DC (UA)
Reykjavik (TF)
Islamabad (PK)
Muscat (WY)
Bridgetown (TOM, TCX, VS)
Oranjestad - the airport is Aruba but the airport's address is stated as Oranjestad, the capital and there is only one airport (TOM)

Any more?

 

[Yawner]

Just to be a pain, neither Rotterdam, The Hague or Tel Aviv are capitals Soon to get Cape Town which is a kind of shared capital with Pretoria and Muscat. Few you're missing. Amsterdam Islamabad Bridgetown prob more

The ones lost is a depressing list tho. Moscow Kuala Lumpur Cairo Tripoli Male Tashkent Havana Tunis Sana'a Dhaka

 

[User001]

I don't think Sa'ana was served was it? I know we have had Yemenia serve Manchester, but I think it was Hajj traffic only.

 

[Yawner]

Actually I'm thinking of Algiers

 

[User001]

Ah that makes more sense!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

ethan

Reykjavik
Amsterdam

There is often a bit of confusion about the Netherlands because the Dutch Parliament, seat of government and other major organs of the state are located in The Hague, but according to the Dutch Constitution Amsterdam is the capital city.

I could find no Bucharest route from MAN which is surprising unless I've missed it somewhere.

 

[User001]

Bucharest has remained the elusive route from Manchester. Blue air and Wizz do serve LPL-OTP, which I suppose LPL/MAN go after the same catchment so the North West is served.

It's a shame there is no route, seems ripe for Ryanair or TAROM.

 

[ethanegcc]

ethan

Reykjavik
Amsterdam

There is often a bit of confusion about the Netherlands because the Dutch Parliament, seat of government and other major organs of the state are located in The Hague, but according to the Dutch Constitution Amsterdam is the capital city.

I could find no Bucharest route from MAN which is surprising unless I've missed it somewhere.

Yes, thank you. I had got confused at the Netherlands - I suppose it is a confusing one. It's just a good job we serve both from MAN! And Reykjavik completely slipped my mind - I appreciate it! I agree with User001, that Bucharest would be a great route for FR or Tarom.

Yawner, I am not sure we can class Cape Town as one as it is not the official capital, unlike the Netherlands. The branches of government are held in Pretoria, one in Cape Town, one in Bloemfontein.

I have added Islamabad, Muscat, Oranjestad, Bridgetown. Any more?

Out of the one's lost, I can see Moscow, Cairo, Dhaka and Kuala Lumpur making a return at some point, when is to be found out. The lost list is depressing but do we know what was the peak number of capitals served non-stop from MAN? Obviously at the time of the operation of these routes we didn't have MCT, AUH, IAD, PEK, ZAG etc.

 

[Dobbo]

Madrid is an odd one. Strikes me as being under served compared with AMS, CDG, LHR, DUB, BCN, FRA, MUC...