Manchester Airport - General Thread

[Coathanger16]

It would be embarrassing for the government to fight tooth and nail for LHR over LGW/STN only for EZE to move their operation to LHR from LGW. If that came to pass it would be a national scandal.

To be fair, Heathrow already has BA operating to some holiday destinations, so if easyJet were to start some flights from Heathrow I don't think it would be too bad. Indicative plans suggest easyJet would operate a mix of city and "beach" destinations. As long as there's "enough" new long haul routes started from expansion I don't think it would be a problem.

 

[Dobbo]

The problem with cost benefits of aviation is it is very hard to put a figure on the benefit it provides. If expansion didn't take place would the supposed benefits of expansion still occur as people would likely just travel on an alternate route.

Another point about costs is would ticket prices be forced up due to a lack of capacity? Heathrow may require an increase in charges to pay for expansion, but how does that compare to the impact on cost of tickets at a constrained Heathrow? Its already widely acknowledged that costs are higher at Heathrow now than if Heathrow had spare capacity.

I agree it is tough to pin down benefits, but some of the claims by LHR are quite frankly a little silly.

Ticket prices can be managed by increasing capacity elsewhere at a reasonable price (LGW or otherwise).

 

[Dobbo]

To be fair, Heathrow already has BA operating to some holiday destinations, so if easyJet were to start some flights from Heathrow I don't think it would be too bad. Indicative plans suggest easyJet would operate a mix of city and "beach" destinations. As long as there's "enough" new long haul routes started from expansion I don't think it would be a problem.

I don't agree with this.

If the justification of spending £30bn at LHR over £10bn at LGW is "connectivity" and "unusual long haul routes" how do you think would this be viewed if the net result was EZY and a handful of new and unusual long haul routes. In this scenario you could have achieved the same outcome by spending £20bn less at LGW.

This does link back to the ridiculous cost. If runway 3 were priced at £10bn (or much closer to LGW) you could credibly argue it is worth it. Is it really worth it for the extra £20bn? I don't think so.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Those claimed "economic benefits" attributed to the LHR R3 proposals were spread over 60 years. Convenient, as very few of us will be around to call them out on the dodgy maths by then! Meanwhile, the methodology used in coming up with those figures has been widely-criticised by academics expert in the field. And of course we mustn't forget other other little gems such as the claim that constructing R3 and associated facilities will result in zero additional car journeys attributable to the airport. Are we falling for that one?

The whole debate is very political.

 

[Coathanger16]

I don't agree with this.

If the justification of spending £30bn at LHR over £10bn at LGW is "connectivity" and "unusual long haul routes" how do you think would this be viewed if the net result was EZY and a handful of new and unusual long haul routes. In this scenario you could have achieved the same outcome by spending £20bn less at LGW.

This does link back to the ridiculous cost. If runway 3 were priced at £10bn (or much closer to LGW) you could credibly argue it is worth it. Is it really worth it for the extra £20bn? I don't think so.

I see the point that you're making, but what would people's reaction be if the government said "no easyJet you can't operate from an expanded Heathrow, those slots are just for long haul routes"?

Whilst if a long haul destination became important enough to serve from LHR it could be, I personally find it ridiculous that the only way for that destination to be served is to sacrifice a flight to another destination.

Regardless of how sound you think their plan was, Heathrow Hub claimed to be able to do their scheme for around £12bn - or the first phase for £5bn. Government needs to push Heathrow on where the difference in cost comes from. Whilst I don't personally think the £18bn cost is outrageous (certainly not when compared to the cost of Boris Island), I do believe that the cost can be reduced by cutting unnecessary luxuries.

Those claimed "economic benefits" attributed to the LHR R3 proposals were spread over 60 years. Convenient, as very few of us will be around to call them out on the dodgy maths by then! Meanwhile, the methodology used in coming up with those figures has been widely-criticised by academics expert in the field. And of course we mustn't forget other other little gems such as the claim that constructing R3 and associated facilities will result in zero additional car journeys attributable to the airport. Are we falling for that one?

The whole debate is very political.

I assume the calculated economic benefits of the second runway at Manchester were completely sound - meant to be tongue-in-cheek

To be fair with regards to the "zero additional car journeys" point, Heathrow are screwed whichever way they go. They're not going to get brownie points for saying there will be more car journeys! Although there will almost certainly be more car journeys than at present, the increase can be limited (https://your.heathrow.com/takingbri...loads/2014/09/Transport-Fact-Sheet_FINAL2.pdf).

 

[Dobbo]

I see the point that you're making, but what would people's reaction be if the government said "no easyJet you can't operate from an expanded Heathrow, those slots are just for long haul routes"?

Whilst if a long haul destination became important enough to serve from LHR it could be, I personally find it ridiculous that the only way for that destination to be served is to sacrifice a flight to another destination.

Regardless of how sound you think their plan was, Heathrow Hub claimed to be able to do their scheme for around £12bn - or the first phase for £5bn. Government needs to push Heathrow on where the difference in cost comes from. Whilst I don't personally think the £18bn cost is outrageous (certainly not when compared to the cost of Boris Island), I do believe that the cost can be reduced by cutting unnecessary luxuries.

LHR Runway three has not been sold on the basis of an EZY takeover of terminal 4. If they were barred from moving in I think the reaction would be minimal. It has already been suggested that R3 would have to be one of the least used in Europe for environmental reasons only.

As we agree, LHR need to get a grip on costs and display some joined up thinking. For example, why spend £800m on a car park for a scheme that is supposedly going to generate zero new car journeys? This clearly does not add up. Either slice £800m from the budget and don't build the car park, or acknowledge to obvious that significant extra car journeys are going to be created.

Frankly some of the arguments smack of being desperate attempts by the management of LHR to claim their multi million pound bonus pots for getting this off the ground. I don't blame them for this, but it would be criminal for the government to hitch their cart to a waggon that is doomed to fail.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

I assume the calculated economic benefits of the second runway at Manchester were completely sound - meant to be tongue-in-cheek

The big difference here is that MAplc (as was) bore the whole risk of the project on their own balance sheet. If they'd got it badly wrong, the airport operator would have been left holding the bag. Also, the inflation-adjusted cost of delivering 23L/05R was £261m (inflation-adjusted to today's prices). A failure on this scale would not have sunk the operation. Meanwhile, the LHR proposals exceed Manchester's second runway by 100x more expensive all-in (just think about that!) and the taxpayer will be on the hook for much of that, either directly or via underwriting. And public funds allocated to LHR on this scale cannot be simultaneously deployed to projects of merit elsewhere around the UK. Which means yet another lost decade for public infrastructure investment in the regions. That cannot be allowed to happen again.

 

[ethanegcc]

http://www.newsghana.com.gh/manches...-launch-chinese-film-festival-across-britain/

Hainan is really trumpeting the route with advertisements and festivals, competitions etc.

Considering the LFs for this summer (which were amazing) this much advertising is not exactly necessary so are they gearing up to a big announcement e.g. daily?

 

[Aceshigh]

Some great points and interesting debate !

 

[Coathanger16]

As we agree, LHR need to get a grip on costs and display some joined up thinking. For example, why spend £800m on a car park for a scheme that is supposedly going to generate zero new car journeys? This clearly does not add up. Either slice £800m from the budget and don't build the car park, or acknowledge to obvious that significant extra car journeys are going to be created.

To be fair to Heathrow just have a look of the map of the area where the third runway will go. A sizable proportion of Heathrow's car parking will have to be demolished to make way for the third runway. A new car park is somewhat justified even with supposedly no more car journeys than at present.

 

[Aceshigh]

If rw3 was to open tomorrow which airlines would remain at Gatwick. I suspect zero. There is absolutely no business case for staying at Gatwick IF there is slot availability and landing fees are reasonable. Even at a "premium" would that prevent airlines moving ?

 

[Dobbo]

To be fair to Heathrow just have a look of the map of the area where the third runway will go. A sizable proportion of Heathrow's car parking will have to be demolished to make way for the third runway. A new car park is somewhat justified even with supposedly no more car journeys than at present.

Fair point: I'd love to see what an £800m car park looks like!

The other side of this is the public transport provision presumably underpinning the assertion that car journeys would be in a net neutral position after R3 and T6...

 

[David_itl]

Northern Powerhouse conference 21st/22nd Feb. Tangential interest for MAN:
"It will include interactive sessions with top firms such as Nissan, Yorkshire Bank and Lufthansa, as well as the Confederation of British Industry, Institute of Directors and Federation of Small Businesses. International delegations are expected from India and China."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ern-powerhouse-minister-andrew-percy-12598359

 

[Aceshigh]

Unfortunately the Chairman of Heathrow is also spouting. ...no doubt regarding all the supply chain jobs.

I would rather have 5 % of the subsidy that "might" be given to Heathrow the ROI would I suspect be higher.

Meanwhile more good news.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ester-europes-third-most-influential-12602525

 

[Dobbo]

Surprising but welcome statistic. Long may it continue...

 

[ethanegcc]

Great news for Manchester. Although it may not be a tourist hotspot, it has been influential from the beginning!

 

[ethanegcc]

A report has found the UK's roads are the most congested in Western Europe. London is followed by Manchester in the UK, but Manchester has half the funding for infrastructure. People in Manchester spend, on average, 39 hours in traffic. Congestion charges are being considered.

 

[ethanegcc]

WOW A320 departing.

 

[ethanegcc]

MAN gets a nice mention on anna.aero:
View attachment 4534
Pity we couldn't edge past Barcelona - if we had got Shanghai, Detroit, Stewart, Providence as hoped for we would have done it. For S18, providing BCN doesn't keep bagging Asian routes at the rate it is currently, with the possibilities of Detroit, Shanghai, San Diego, Tampa still there we could do it!

 

[Dobbo]

Filling in some of the gaps in Spain and Central/Eastern Europe would help as well for that stat.

MAN should support slightly more LH routes than you would usually expect because its catchment includes LPL, LBA, DSA, NCL where they have a range of short haul services but limited/no long haul services (NCL of course has some).