Manchester Airport - General Thread

[Dobbo]

I'm not aware of this been posted in the Manchester forum but you might find this PDF interesting.

http://www.transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/International-Connectivity-Report_websafe.pdf

Couple of comments on this (it is also in the route rumours page):

1 - very aspirational list, some odd routes, and some obvious missing pieces like ADD and SEA.

2 - looks vaguely realistic from MAN, but slightly nervous comparison of places like LBA wanting HKG (from memory) seem less so.

3 - infrastructure points are crucial. HS2, HS3 and the TP tunnel are crucial to linking the major centres of Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Nottingham and Newcastle to MAN. It needs to be executed properly.

 

[ethanegcc]

General question:
On Wikipedia, the AA ORD route is listed as seasonal. In the coding, someone has put the comment on Aegean ' it only doesn't operate two months a year. Hardly seasonal'. a) that is now untrue anyway but 'seasonal' was taken off.

Given that the ORD route will run up to 8th Jan 2018, and restart as usual on 26th (ish) March, should it be classed as seasonal or not? If anybody has a Wikipedia account, could you give this reason and revert it to year-round if it is in your opinion.

Also, could anyone update the passenger statistics to include 2016?

 

[Land23R]

With a break of 11 or 12 weeks, ORD can't be considered year round can it? I agree that 'seasonal' then covers a wide range with some flights only operating 3 months but others just over 9 months.

 

[ethanegcc]

Yep, I am not sure. I don't think it is 'seasonal' but not year-round either.

 

[ethanegcc]

https://www.silverkris.com/fashion-streets-around-the-world/2/
Manchester features on 'fashion streets of the world'. The street in question is New Cathedral Street.

 

[Dobbo]

Regretfully, I think our aviation minister is all to unaware of the wider UK outside of the south east and is fixated on LHR R3.

Tariq Ahmad was recently quoted as saying people from Manchester wanted to fly from Heathrow. Perhaps something was picked out from what he said, but it is very naïve for an experienced politician to get pulled up on something like this.

 

[Coathanger16]

Regretfully, I think our aviation minister is all to unaware of the wider UK outside of the south east and is fixated on LHR R3.

Tariq Ahmad was recently quoted as saying people from Manchester wanted to fly from Heathrow. Perhaps something was picked out from what he said, but it is very naïve for an experienced politician to get pulled up on something like this.

I think the point he was trying to get across was that despite the wide range of flights that Manchester has, a sizable amount (although less than it used to be) still fly to Heathrow from Manchester to connect onto other flights. Whether or not these passengers "want" to fly via Heathrow isn't the point - the point was those passengers, who live around Manchester, will benefit from Heathrow expansion.

I'm not trying to put down any airport - every airport, whether it be Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester, Birmingham and the rest, deserves the chance to grow and expand if it so wishes to.

The fact is that whilst Manchester has a large and impressive selection of destinations available, many of these have limited frequencies compared to Heathrow. Take Hong Kong for example. Manchester will from this summer have 5 flights per week to Hong Kong. Compare that to Heathrow which has 8 flights per day (56 flights per week). Whilst the majority of people living around Manchester will prefer the convenience of the direct flight from Manchester, some will prefer the flexibility that comes with more frequencies from Heathrow.

I really wish people would stop fixating on the North/South argument. Sure Ministers are focusing their attention on Heathrow at the moment, but Manchester, Birmingham and other regional airports are the ones that have had the greatest success over the last 5 years. Focus on that for a change!

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Coathanger - I think people will stop fixating on North / South once public funding for infrastructure projects is equitably distributed around all regions of the UK. Whilst the SE continues to monopolise this, those in the regions will quite justifiably protest. If they don't, the scandalous status quo continues unchallenged and unreformed.

 

[rutamkrd]

Heathrow at the moment, but Manchester, Birmingham and other regional airports are the ones that have had the greatest success over the last 5 years. Focus on that for a change!

And yet surprisingly Heathrow has added more than 5 million passengers in that time without a single yard of extra concrete !

 

[Dobbo]

The north/south divide is far from unique to the UK. In the UK context, while the government of the day continue to throw a disproportionate amount of money at the South East it will remain a target for legitimate criticism.

Hong Kong is a great example of the product of this. 56 weekly flights v 5 is a much larger difference than you might expect.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

EGCC_MAN - thank you for pointing out that the real divide is the South East v the rest of the country. Parts of the South (Cornwall for example) are as deprived and lacking in facilities as anywhere in the country.

Bristol hasn't even got electrified railways - merely 40-year old diesel HSTs, and the planned Bristol electrification has been axed to save less than £200 million. Put into the context of the cost of such things as HS2 and Crossrail this is little more than petty cash and it demonstrates that southern cities outside the South East are as inequitably served by government as any city in the North.

Sorry for the rant but the so-called North v South thing does annoy me.

 

[Coathanger16]

Fair points by everyone - I've definitely struck a nerve here. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, just trying to put some perspective out there.

For instance many of you mentioned disproportionate amount of investment in infrastructure in the SE. Even with all that investment pretty much all rail and underground services in the SE are still massively overcrowded - arguably more so than in "the regions".

I try not to generalise but if the regions had as much per capita spending as the SE did then most of their infrastructure problems would be resolved. Compare that to the SE and all the investment and projects (e.g. Crossrail 1 & 2 etc) and they'll still have problems. One thing to point out about Crossrail though - about half the cost was paid for by businesses that would benefit from it being built. Would businesses in the regions be prepared to do a similar thing? I'd like to think so.

No simple solution out there, though I think the best approach would be to let local councils keep more of the revenue they generate from taxes and use that extra income on infrastructure and services in their area.

Interesting topic of conversation and I hope I haven't frustrated anyone too much

 

[ethanegcc]

I completely agree it is not the north/south divide but the South East/Regions divide (not quite the same ring to it though )

Countries such as Italy are the ones who have a north/south divide, with wealth, safety and development in extremely high levels north of Rome and significantly less south. I don't think that the UK divide is as much to do with safety/education etc. but more to do with modernity. Funding is being increased though, which is good.

 

[Dobbo]

Coathanger - not at all.

The problem with the south east bias is throwing ever more disproportionate sums of money at projects to create extra supply/capacity keeps the economic activity in the south east, generates more activity the extra capacity is used up and therefore the calls begin for the next round of investment (and so on).

It would be cheaper and better for the UK as a whole if government money was spent on demand management. Creating the conditions for economic activity to relocate where it can be handled at a much more reasonable cost is the sensible policy decision.

LHR is a good example of this, where it is clearly not sensible to spend £25bn plus on a runway in the most expensive part of the country. It would be far cheaper to increase capacity in a cheaper part of the country (even LGW is substantially cheaper).

Yes businesses did put up a substantial part of the capital cost of crossrail, and LHR is putting up a lot of the capital cost of R3. Ultimately, where the government is underwriting a project it much easier for businesses to contribute because there is certainty.

 

[Dobbo]

TLY - I stand corrected. Henceforth known as the South East v rUK !

 

[EGCC_MAN]

No simple solution out there, though I think the best approach would be to let local councils keep more of the revenue they generate from taxes and use that extra income on infrastructure and services in their area.

We need to be wary of this line of thinking. This argument is used extensively by those who argue that London and the SE deserve far more resources spent on them because it is they who generate a much higher proportion of the tax raised. But this very conveniently overlooks the fact that many corporate entities declare nationally-derived (or globally-derived) profits from a London HQ address and are taxed accordingly. This concentration of business HQ's in London skews the understanding of distribution of economic activity around the UK.

Also, it is a myth that London has a monopoly on overcrowded public transport. A recent survey published in Rail magazine showed that four of the country's top ten overcrowded scheduled rail services were operated by the Transpennine franchise.

 

[Coathanger16]

We need to be wary of this line of thinking. This argument is used extensively by those who argue that London and the SE deserve far more resources spent on them because it is they who generate a much higher proportion of the tax raised. But this very conveniently overlooks the fact that many corporate entities declare nationally-derived (or globally-derived) profits from a London HQ address and are taxed accordingly. This concentration of business HQ's in London skews the understanding of distribution of economic activity around the UK.

Also, it is a myth that London has a monopoly on overcrowded public transport. A recent survey published in Rail magazine showed that four of the country's top ten overcrowded scheduled rail services were operated by the Transpennine franchise.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it councils across the country collect tax from businesses in the area then send most? all? to central government. What I was suggesting was that councils send less money to central government (e.g. if a council currently collects say £100m in taxes and sends £80m to central government thereby keeping £20m themselves, changing it so that they only send £50m to central government and keep £50m to spend as they so choose). Surely this way the amount of spending in certain regions would be more or less in line with how big the economy is in that region.

Your second point - I wasn't suggesting that London did have that monopoly. In reality commuter trains across the country are overcrowded. I wouldn't exactly say that it is a myth that London has a monopoly on overcrowded public transport - its more that there are more lines in London and the SE, hence more will naturally feature on "overcrowded rankings".

LHR is a good example of this, where it is clearly not sensible to spend £25bn plus on a runway in the most expensive part of the country. It would be far cheaper to increase capacity in a cheaper part of the country (even LGW is substantially cheaper).

I'm afraid I'm quite particular when it comes to LHR. Yes airports across the country should be given the chance to expand and connect their regions to the rest of the world, but in my opinion, none of them can come close to emulating what Heathrow does. Certainly not on that scale anyway.

I've said it before on various forums but I'll say it again. Germany has their main hub at Frankfurt - which they have expanded with a 4th runway and now a 3rd terminal, and a secondary hub at Munich - where they've just opened a new satellite pier and have plans for a 3rd runway. The national carrier Lufthansa operates an extensive network from both. Why can't the same happen here with Heathrow and Manchester? I don't want to get into a BA/Regions argument as well, but just focus on the main hub and secondary hub model.

Your point about it not being sensible spending £25bn on a runway at LHR - slots at LHR are exchanged for huge sums of money (often 10's of millions of £) - surely that indicates its attractiveness to airlines? The fact is there is already significant spare capacity across the country (as well as at other London airports). If that capacity exists now and the airlines are still spending 10's of millions on slots at Heathrow, how would investing in regional airports change things? I'm not saying airlines don't want to serve the regions - but if an airline wants to serve London, why would the opt for an expanded Manchester or Birmingham over Heathrow (or any other London airport for that matter)?

Rant over - I'll try not to start another one...

 

[Coathanger16]

Also thanks to whoever moved the posts from the other forum to this one

 

[David_itl]

If that capacity exists now and the airlines are still spending 10's of millions on slots at Heathrow, how would investing in regional airports change things? I'm not saying airlines don't want to serve the regions - but if an airline wants to serve London, why would the opt for an expanded Manchester or Birmingham over Heathrow (or any other London airport for that matter)?

A few years ago, AI's only profitable route into the UK was their service to BHX. Yet the moment they found extra LHR slots they moved lock stock and barrel to there. Sometime airlines are just clueless about the need to fly to LHR at the total expense of looking elsewhere. Even now, MAN has greater demand to India than a number of cities that AI has either started or announced. It's the mindset of airlines that needs to be addressed where only capital cities have the demand.

One day it will dawn upon airlines that they have a mistaken belief that the ME3 harms passengers heading to their home airport. Just got to look at CX's performance where EK was the market leader for MAN-HKG yet despite the 4 soon to be 5 weekly non-stop link, there are record numbers of passengers using EK. Westwards, we have the chickens known as the US3 that do not or will not understand that passing off inferior equipment onto the regions will NOT get premium passengers wanting to repeat book on them out of the regions but out of where the better class of aircraft operate.

 

[Dobbo]

Your point about it not being sensible spending £25bn on a runway at LHR - slots at LHR are exchanged for huge sums of money (often 10's of millions of £) - surely that indicates its attractiveness to airlines?

Firstly, tens of millions (even extrapolated over the vast numbers of slot pairs) does not come close to £25bn plus.

Secondly, they are only valued at that level because of slot constraints. Adding the supply of a third runway destroys that value. Using this as an economic justification you would actually be spending money to destroy value.


The core argument in favour of LHR was connectivity. If it were london capacity they would have chosen LGW, which is better value for money.

I'm not sure about the ins and outs of connectivity, but if you are looking at connecting point A to point C via point B, it doesn't matter whether point B is in the UK, or if in the UK whether it is in the north, south, east or west.

It appears to be a massive spend for a very marginal gain, with a private company taking the most benefit from
The pot.

P.S - interesting discussion - hipe it doesn't get hijacked!