Manchester Airport - General Thread

[Aceshigh]

Interesting article by Simon Calder on the Independent yesterday criticising why Birmingham is failing to meet potential.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/birmingham-airport-bhx-manchester-gatwick-luton-stansted-heathrow-airport-shakespeare-stratford-east-a8156521.html?amp

I have included it here on the Manchester thread as YET AGAIN Manchester is lumped in as a regional UK airport despite handling more traffic than the majority of the EUs capital airports and despite capacity rising to 55m.

Constant comprisons with the likes of Glasgow, Newcastle and of course Birmingham are totally preposterous.

I have of course politely reminded Mr Calder of same

 

[Jerry]

I have included it here on the Manchester thread as YET AGAIN Manchester is lumped in as a regional UK airport despite handling more traffic than the majority of the EUs capital airports and despite capacity rising to 55m

Well what else is it? It's not a capital city airport or a hub airport. I'd say it was a super regional airport as it covers most of the North. It's not in the same league as BHX or GLA but in same league as LGW and STN.

 

[Land23R]

Must admit I thought it was quite a good article with rather a clever ending. Aces has a point though. I suppose the non-London airports could be seen as a sort of pyramid with Manchester at the top and the smaller airports at the base. But 'non-London' isn't really a suitable category as MAN is larger than STN and LTN if they are classed as London airports.

How does MAN's non-European traffic stack up against LGW? Is it the major International or Intercontinental Gateway outside of LHR? I suspect with the BA, VS and Norwegian flights to the US and Caribbean, LGW wins, despite MAN having more flights to the ME (I think).

Not easy to come up with a concise title. I rather like the term 'International Gateway' which the airport use if that can reflect its prominence in some way outside of LHR and probably LGW.

Let us know if you get a response from Calder, Aces.

 

[David_itl]

I've got no qualms about MAN being labelled as a "regional" airport seeing that the airport itself has described itself as that. After all, it is the main airport for the region. Of more interest should be looking at some analysis back in March 2016 by CAPA (https://centreforaviation.com/insig...etwork-begins-to-reflect-its-ambitions-272007) in which it states

"From this evidence alone it appears that there is considerable scope for Birmingham to grow more quickly than Manchester. Manchester's route network in Europe is almost maxed out now, meaning that growth can really only come from frequency increases or gauge increases.
Furthermore, if there are any more delays to the construction of another runway in the south of England (and that possibility should never be written off), Birmingham is without doubt the best-placed airport in the UK to provide alternative short to mid-term capacity solutions that are applicable to all airline categories. Ministers, MPs and civil servants will have taken note of that during the Airports Commission information gathering stages when Birmingham’s lobbying was intense. "

May be we should actually take industry data analysts to task rather than Simon Calder? I wonder if it's worthwhile for someone to actually compile an article and send it to some organisations as the actual growth here for being a non-capital, non-hub, non-tourist magnet is outstanding. Even locally based companies (such as Routesonline) have been reticent in promotional pieces/awards regarding what has happened - remember, in 2010 passenger numbers were "only" 17.76 million so it's 10 million passengers added in the space of 7 years (half of which is from around the last 2 years!).

Birmingham appears to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's proximity to London may mean some airlines go there if unable to secure adequate London slots but do you really want that label as an alternative London airport when there is enough socio-economic activity within the West Midlands (or rather the entire catchment!) for airlines to set up routes there without resort to promotung itself as a London gateway. MAN has evolved itself with it's FlyManchester campaign and on the back of high-tech industries being here - it would be interesting to see how many passengers are still attracted to flying from London given the range of destinations available?

 

[mullion]

I think the airlines down south have answered that question in that STN and LTN are growing well
at I think the cost of BHX

 

[Land23R]

While I don't altogether agree with that CAPA article when it states BHX is best placed to benefit short to medium term if there are further delays to another London runway, I think there is a grain of truth that MAN is more maxed out in terms of Europe. As David says, MAN's growth since 2010 has been very impressive, but it doesn't mean it will continue at the same rate in terms of passenger numbers.

Perhaps there are more opportunities at MAN for long haul growth and as a result more feeder services. 5 new long haul routes at varying frequencies might provide say 400,000-500,000 seats a year. But 5 based easyjet a/c over a full year on mainly short haul but some medium haul routes would likely mean 1.5m seats. So maybe it's the type of growth that's just as important as absolute passenger numbers.

The other obvious point is that at present BHX needs more than double the percentage increase of MAN to achieve the same increase in actual passenger numbers.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Probably a case of semantics. A 'regional airport' taken at face value serves its region. Taking that as a starting point and looking at the 2015 CAA passenger survey, the two main London airports are more regional than MAN.

76% of LHR's terminal passengers had origin or final destination in the South East with the figure for LGW even higher at 81%. In contrast only 62% of MAN's terminal passengers had origin or final destination in the North West. This suggests that MAN serves a wider area beyond its region (percentage-wise) than LHR or LGW.

I find the idea slightly peculiar that being classed as a 'London airport' carries some sort of cachet. Are Frankfurt and Munich or Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, JFK described as regional airports in their countries merely because they are not located in or near their capital cities?

EDI and CWL might be aggrieved to be described as regional airports but in truth are they, in practical terms, any different to GLA or BHX or BRS, airports used at times by the respective residents of Scotland and Wales?

As this discussion began because of a press article about BHX being renamed Shakespeare Airport perhaps the bard himself had it right with his, 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet'.

 

[Aviador]

A very interesting article and the same question is asked time and time again on forums like this.

Why do airports such as Liverpool, Leeds Bradford, East Midlands, Doncaster Sheffield and Birmingham seem to struggle to excel into the upper league of regional airports?

Manchester airport has always had the advantage of being sandwiched in the middle of the big three conurbations of the North, Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester. To add to that Sheffield isn't a stones throw away on the opposite side of the Pennines, neither is Birmingham.

From the onset, Manchester airport has been at an advantage. It's not rocket science to think of plonking a new airline service in the centre of the big three conurbations to ensure you achieve the maximum revenue possible. It's no real wonder why Manchester airport is in the Champions League of airports.

What about Birmingham then, where does Birmingham fit into this? Why doesn't it perform as well as many people think it should? It's a very good question.

Birmingham airport seemed to be a late arrival into the low-cost market. The airport arguably fell fowl to the wrong low-cost airline, Bmibaby. Had it been Easyjet or Ryanair that arrived at BHX first the Birmingham story could be entirely different one.

In all honesty though, I do think BHX has made the right changes over the last few years. It's runway extension was never going to be an instant success but it will prove an invaluable asset into the future as airlines look to expand, particularly as London airports reach saturation point.

 

[Aceshigh]

But the difficulty originates with headlines
( see below) like this that get stuck in the mind of the reader when elevated to a national level .......

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-37678406

Such misleading articles were prevalent not that long ago and were pounced upon by leader writers , MPs, columnists etc.

"Is Birmingham the answer to London capacity woes"

There is a dangers such comments resonate with the public and remain in the public pyche.

The comments by these so called experts simply defy real world aviation economics by making the simplistic connection between Birminghams location versus the introduction of HS2.

If ever there was a case of 2+2= 5 this was it!

It was and remains a sideshow but IF the bad news keeps coming in respect of BHX ( and BHX - Doha looks somewhat flaky ), its more than possible that it won't be Manchester that's seen as taking up the baton but more a a "collective failiure" of all regional airports.

This simply put gives succour to those who claim "told you so" in respect of support for Heathrow rw3 !

 

[Aviador]

Hypothetically you could ask the same question about Manchester airport. Which airport do you turn to if Manchester airport was at capacity? An airline is not going to look at an airport 200 miles away, it's going to look at the nearest airports to expand.

 

[Aceshigh]

But possibly not when that airport is connected to 18 domestic points ?

 

[Aviador]

But possibly not when that airport is connected to 18 domestic points ?

Sadly domestic services are in decline from all UK airports and that isn't going to be a selling point in the future. I'm certainly not knocking Manchester airport, it is the envy of other airports in the North and if any of them could emulate what Manchester airport is doing even to the smallest degree they would be seeing phenomenal growth.

One of the things that hasn't been mentioned in the Manchester forum is what happens after the Manchester Airport Transformation Project is completed in respects to airline costs and changes?

The Transformation Project will of course see some of the best airport facilities in the North of England, in fact lets not beat around the bush, probably the best and by a long way.

On the downside to all this is the airport will eventually need to recoup the money it has spent on the project cerca £1bn. If airline charges start to rise to pay for the Transformation Project it could scare some airlines off and potentially hit future growth? I know Jet2 were keen for LBA to expand but they were also very weary of increased charges, to a point that PM was very vocal about it at one point. It could become a very real problem in the future. This could have a positive effect on surrounding regional airports at the detriment of Manchester airport.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

If you scan back through the threads covering the TP initiative both on F4A and other forums, the main takeaway will be the widespread negativity expressed by contributors. They claim that the project cuts too many corners and is being done on the cheap. Too many luxury features they want to see are not there. Features which they want minimised - shopping arcades and the like - are abundant. Aesthetics are not as pleasing as many hoped. There is no 'marble palace' look; no grand wide-open spaces ... every square metre is functional or revenue-enhancing.

Many here will recall that I'm not amongst the critics. The TP cannot be compared with upgrades to airports financed by governments in wealthy states and supported by prestige based flag carriers. The Manchester TP is entirely financed by MAG on commercial terms. And the airport knows its customer base: overwhelmingly price-sensitive leisure-based no frills. Hence the emphasis on providing value-engineered practical facilities which will do an efficient job at the right price. And maximise scope for earnings from revenue streams such as retail, catering, lounges and car parking which will keep fees down for no-frills carriers.

Note too that the TP is phased. Pier 2 is not yet funded. Much-needed work on T1 and T3 is not yet on the drawing board (well not in the public domain, anyway). This will (hopefully) follow in due course, but it does demonstrate that MAG is upgrading with considered caution, not recklessly committing to expenditure beyond its present means. Whilst this approach has attracted the "not good enough" rhetoric with which we are all so familiar, the flip-side is that this will be a cost-controlled facility which will not lumber client carriers with inflated user-charges down the line. Post TP T2 will (hopefully) be pleasant, functional and efficient, but it will not be a marble palace. Passengers who want luxury facilities will pay extra to use them.

Meanwhile, remember that T3 is not included in the scope of the TP. That is the Ryanair and FlyBe base at MAN. Major changes there are years away, and Ryanair and FlyBe as principal users there will no doubt be consulted on future plans for upgrades. I suspect that objections will not come in relation to expanding capacity ... but they would if such plans aspired to marble palace grandeur rather than efficient, functional incremental gate space. I suspect that MAG will keep it simple and stick with the proven formula of attracting revenue from passenger spend rather than from charges levied on the airlines.

Changes at T1 are also many years out, although the aspiration to demolish and incorporate activity into expanded T2 and a remodelled new terminal is no secret. But one thing MAG is very good at is keeping a grip on costs and justifying every penny spent. That's why so many neutrals are upset that MAG are "missing the opportunity" to make a grand architectural statement for the North. But I'm not hearing those complaints from Jet2, EasyJet, Thomas Cook, TUI etc. They know the score. And it means affordable charges for functional state-of-the-art facilities from their perspective.

MAG won't be wasting money on expensive white-elephant initiatives such as a full-length parallel taxiway alongside 23L/05R either. Many neutrals call for this too, but the business case is feeble. The effect on movement capability would be negligible, and the cost of construction very high. These are the type of vanity projects which would result in inflated fees to airlines. MAG has skilfully steered clear of such value-traps so far.

My expectation is that once the current TP reaches an advanced stage of completion, MAG will seek funding to enable seemless progression onto a future phase of redevelopment. This may involve the addition of Pier 2, and / or the demolition and redevelopment of the T1 footprint, perhaps integrating it with a remodelled T3. All that is a matter for speculation down the line, of course. But my bet is that cost-effective functional development will continue to be the blueprint. No grand statement architecture. But expanded value-intensive facilities which lend themselves to efficient low cost turnarounds by the client carriers concerned. Even Mr O' Leary will approve!

 

[Aceshigh]

I suspect this valid point has been raised as a result of the debate re Heathrow.
As has been said, the cost of the Heathrow expansion is considerably higher than Manchester, somewhere in the region of 6 x that of Manch at circa £6bn in terms of runway and terminal.

If the government refuse to put up all the associated road and rail infastructure costs one presumes they would then fall on HAL, that would be another £12bn or £18bn depending who you believe.

All ifs and buts but HAL could then be exposed to the tune of £18bn or £24bn.
Astonishing!

Of course there will be infastructure changes required at Manchester too, if the government cover HAL they would be obliged to cover Manchester would they not or are we not in the SE so do not count ?

If Whitehall renaged would Manchester fund supporting infastructure on their own possibly , but one assumes this would simply be road access and widening only. Even if MAG did foot the bill it won't equal the "guilt edged " proposals being put forward at Heathrow!

 

[Scottie Dog]

I'm just speed reading the governments "UK Aviation Forecasts 2017" document and have picked out the following 3 references to Manchester that I find to be of interest - comparisons are 2011 to 2016:

The overseas hub airports in the UK aviation model Previous DfT versions of NAPAM had allowed passengers with origins and destinations in the UK to reach their destinations by making transfers at either a UK hub airport (principally Heathrow, Gatwick or Manchester) or routeing via an overseas hub airport (Amsterdam, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt or Dubai). However, while the UK hubs potentially had capacity constraints and shadow costs together with dynamically modelled route networks, the costs of using competing overseas hubs was relatively fixed.

Manchester is the largest non-London airport in terms of passengers and ATMs and has the strongest growth (36%) of the larger airports with it growing particularly strongly in the last year and its share of national passengers at the airports included in the department's model has increased from 8.7% to 9.6%.

At Manchester, Ryanair has replaced Thomsonfly as the top airline in terms of passengers carried, with easyJet replacing Thomas Cook as the second most used. But no airline dominates with Ryanair carrying just 15% of the passengers in 2016.

The documents I'm sure will make good reading for those with a strong interest in graphs and comparison tables - but I'm afraid I find those to be slightly to intense!!

 

[Scottie Dog]

A few more snippets with regards to Summer 2018......

Aegean remain at 3 per week to Athens.
Aer Lingus remain at 5 per day to Dublin.
Air Baltic and Croatian have released any slots previously held.
Eurowings- slightly confusing as they apparently are suppose to be staying at 3 per day to Dusseldorf, however their website as of today, for 9th July, shows 4 flights.

 

[David_itl]

MAN's social media accounts have had a 'small technical hitch' in their throwback Thursday mode... caption is a BOAC Bristol Britannia 747 on diversion in 1963 and the photo is a BOAC 747. Oops...

 

[Scottie Dog]

Eurowings - Dusseldorf confirmed as 3 per day. The website will be updated shortly.

 

[Aceshigh]

MAN's social media accounts have had a 'small technical hitch' in their throwback Thursday mode... caption is a BOAC Bristol Britannia 747 on diversion in 1963 and the photo is a BOAC 747. Oops...

Our "Stacey and Steph" need to sharpen up on their spotting skills

 

[David_itl]

Didn't know about this... SR Technics at MAN so some minor maintenance can be undertaken on A330s and 787s

http://www.independent.com.mt/artic...line-station-at-Manchester-Airport-6736183744