Archive Route Development & Rumours

[User001]

So, it's Saturday night, little one is in bed and only Xfactor and the likes on the TellyBox, time for an analysis post.

This post looks at USA capacity next summer given its been a large growth area.

Number of destinations: 14

Number of airlines serving MAN-USA: 9 (Thomson, Thomas Cook, Virgin Atlantic, Delta, Jet2, American Airlines, Singapore Airlines, PIA and United)

Aircraft used: B757-200, B747-400, B767-300, B777-300, B777-200LR B787-8, A330-200, A330-300.

Number of weekly flights: 110 (218 rtn flights)

Max number of daily flights: 18 (Fri and Sun sees 18 deps)

Im not sure if this is the best the network has ever been to the USA, but it must be close?

(Map does show Canadian points but map was for a different purpose originally).

 

[David_itl]

you look at the great swathe of the country that's not got a MAN link and think "that's the next bit to target" but just looked at it and all we have is Dallas to the north of Houston and Denver roughly left of middlish USA as big cities.

Seattle may well be take care of by the Vancouver link but the only "regular" demand for that link may be by the odd Jet2 or Monarch crew picking up 738s over the next couple of years or so.

We've also got the prospect of San Diego but that's south of Los Angeles so not addressing the empty space!

 

[User001]

Well, we do have a freight link with Dallas, so, one does wonder, could an airline persuade the cargo forwarder to push the freight below deck and open up a passenger route?

4 weekly AA could serve the market just fine, but again, Thomas Cook doing some weird things lately, so, they could take even more people by surprise?

Denver could be a potential Thomas Cook route of the future as it would be leisure based. Question is, could it be a winter only route for skiers, or a year round link to facilitate the Rocky Mountains a la 'lakes and mountains' package?

 

[Aceshigh]

Superb analysis but the only problem is the fact that it tends to dis tort tge fact that it's possibly only a summer only map.

Of we could persuade TCX to operate year round that would be brilliant.

Plus don't forget LHR LGW decision due in 4 - 6 weeks "if" it's Heathrow it will eradicate long haul not quickly but certainly over the longer period and the absolute irony is we up here will be paying for the privilege!

 

[Dobbo]

I agree there will be uncertainly over LHR, but I think MAN is not in the firing line as much as LGW, STN.

I think there will be a ripple effect of certain services from LGW to LHR followed by the same from STN to LGW.

I don't expect it to be easy, but MAN has a separate market to those airports. I can actually see a scenario where VS and BA shift certain LGW ops to MAN.

The big issue in all of this is the cost. Provided that is dealt with properly and the taxpayer isn't shafted by this it is probably not a big deal.

 

[User001]

Is it a worry that an expanded Heathrow could affect MAN?

Of course it is, but, there are also caveats to this.

1) the new runway if approved, is at least 6-10 years away. There could be appeals, protests, further evidence etc, all of which could add to the time and then the build itself which requires demolition, landfill and so on. If the runway is up and running by 2025, I'll be shocked.

2) in that time, there is plenty of chance for MAN to sure up its own market. MAN has always enjoyed a higher status for a regional airport when it comes to extra flights.
MAN in the grand scheme of things serves its own market. We are now reaching new heights in 'stubbornness' when it comes to using the local airport, especially leisure when people say 'I'm not going to London when a flight is on the doorstep.

3) even if/when the new runway is opened, and if a MAN flight was to be pulled at that time, unless the airline states it's to do with the LHR runway, there wouldn't be any proof that the flight was pulled because of he new runway, or, if it was going to happen anyway?

4) a lot of MAN flights are aimed at the MAN market specifically. For example

-Emirates, Qatar, Etihad et al were all serving MAN long before LHR capacity was an issue
- Thomas Cook is a MAN based leisure airline who have opened up some of our more exotic routes, And would be very unlikely to start LHR flights regardless of runways
-Hainan airlines cannot serve LHR-PEK due to the one airline rule, so, no worries specifically on that front
-Most of our European flights are served by airlines that have been serving MAN for a long time anyway, or by airlines that are unlikely to build up significant LHR ops, so again, little to worry about there.
-Virgin and Cathay could be the only way new to retrench down to LHR if a 3rd runway was built, but, on both airlines, I think the risk is greater to Gatwick, where Virgin could consolidate ops, and Cathay is only serving LGW because it can't get into Heathrow. There is no evidence that Cathay is only serving MAN for the same reason.

So in essence, yes, there is a risk that there could be the odd loss, but, I honestly don't think it will be a mass exodus in any way shape or form.

 

[Dobbo]

Is this worth its own thread (perhaps when a decision is made)?

 

[User001]

Potentially could do with a seperate thread if it gets too political, but for now, it is centring around Manchester Route Development (or lack of it whichever the case may be), so, relevant to the thread for now.

 

[Dobbo]

Fair call.

Turning to your post, I don't see the risk with VS and/or CX in the same manner - with the caveat that the market would need to prove its self and be established by that point.

I could see VS consolidating LHR and LGW ops under on roof (as I expect BA to do) as it serves the same South East market. MAN is different scenario and provided the aircraft based here are profitable i doubt they would pull the base.

CX I think would follow the same approach as the MEB3. Target a wider UK market.

I think most of what we will see at LHR would be short haul flying with a smaller long haul expansion by BA. The overseas airlines I think would be new entrants rather than increased frequencies.


Turning to Dallas. I could see AA look at the route if/when JFK, ORD become seasonally stable. The choice then would be new routes, frequencies or larger aircraft. I think there is a good chance new routes is the first option chosen.

 

[Land23R]

Interesting comments as to the possible impact on MAN if R3 at LHR is approved.

My take on it is a question: Would MAN's potential to develop long haul services be affected or not by R3 being approved and being operational in say 15 years, and if so, to what extent?

I've no particular views as to which airlines or routes could be at risk but I think we should divide the issue into two aspects:

MAN has stated there are great opportunities to develop long haul routes over the next 15 years (interesting time frame given that's when R3 allegedly could be operational). So, would existing services and those gained in the meantime be at risk?

The second issue is whether, and to what degree, MAN's ability and potential to grow further its long haul network after R3 became operational would be harmed. Subject to its own land, terminal and runway capacities.

There are many factors that could come into play, but I would mention just a few that occur to me. Others may disagree. In no particular order:-

MAN's traffic for long haul is drawn from quite a wide catchment because of its road, rail and air connections and developing route network. If airports such as Humberside, Teesside, Liverpool were to see air links to LHR with perhaps more frequencies from other UK airports, say LBA, then MAN's business at the margins could be affected.

Airlines tend not to have too many spare a/c to play with. Would LHR be able to offer incentives to carriers that could tempt airlines to switch equipment from MAN - and indeed other regional airports - with the expectation of higher yields from more premium traffic?

When downturns in the economy and financial crisis occur, where would cuts be more likely - frequencies from LHR or daily flights from regional airports?

As others have mentioned, the evolving situation may be very different for Far East, MEB3 and US carriers. TCX is not the same as a CX or SQ. And how would Alliances have developed in the meantime and how would that play a part?

On a positive note, could MAN grow its network sufficiently in those critical 15 years such that, along with the TP, US pre-clearance and good passenger and airline experience, it is seen as an alternative to LHR albeit on a smaller scale, with the potential to continue to grow?

One final thought - if R3 doesn't get approved, which airports have most to gain for long haul? LGW, MAN, STN or BHX?

Sorry it's a bit long.

 

[Aceshigh]

Good read chaps seeing the various viewpoints. Interesting that Routes have seemingly used the pulling of routes from Newcastle Luton and London City as some kind of suggestion that Brexit as a whole has caused UK wide siezmic shifts.

Personally I think all three quotes services were on very shaky ground anyway.

Newcastle was in a degree of trouble this time last year before brexit even existed. The London City series was also said to be in doubt when 1st time punters on the that service caught up. ....and realised it offered no USP re preclearance later on. I'm tempted to say 2 years in, the Luton service was also probably in that stick or twist twilight zone!

Pity there was no focus on Manchester on the basis say of a headline

"Manchester expands to US
......as London Contracts! "

Would that not be more realistic?

Boston Miami Los Angeles etc

 

[Dobbo]

Some interesting chatter on other forums about the expansion from MAN to the USA.

We could see some dramatic moves over the next few years, hope it is sustainable.

 

[User001]

Where is this chatter? Seen a very little snippet on the proon, but nothing else?

 

[Dobbo]

Deftly played! Discussion on dark blue dot net. Nothing particularly ground-breaking, in summary:

• Questions concerning the ability of MAN to support two airlines on MAN-SFO in S17.
• Questions about VS's future plans at MAN, specifically the possibility of LAX and MIA.
• Norwegian, the prospect of their opening a base on similar lines to that announced at BCN earlier this week.
• Discussion concerning BA/AA's possible reaction to the continuing expansion of, in particular VS, at MAN.
• SQ's opening of MAN-IAH.
• UA's troubles.

There were issues about the balance of inbound v outbound demand at MAN. Further issues included the Detroit service. For once, China (Air China have had a bad week haven't they!) was not the main topic of conversation.

 

[Dobbo]

In the context of AA supposedly pulling BHX-JFK, the continued expansion of MAN is intriguing.

 

[Land23R]

Ethan, I think you will find it reported on the AA thread that MAN-JFK is being suspended for a period in the New Year and that PHL frequency is reduced. You mention DL to DTW from MAN being postponed as a casualty of a rethink after Brexit but this may be no different to DL not appearing at BHX as rumoured if that turns out to be the case - ATL or JFK were mooted as the possible BHX route. I wouldn't assume at this stage that MAN is immune from further cuts by UA and AA in the light of the expansion by TCX and VS/DL, Brexit and the fall in the value of sterling. (The significant extra capacity introduced and planned to the US from MAN by TCX and VS was bound to stir things up a bit.)

 

[Brum X]

Ethan, I think you will find it reported on the AA thread that MAN-JFK is being suspended for a period in the New Year and that PHL frequency is reduced. You mention DL to DTW from MAN being postponed as a casualty of a rethink after Brexit but this may be no different to DL not appearing at BHX as rumoured if that turns out to be the case - ATL or JFK were mooted as the possible BHX route. I wouldn't assume at this stage that MAN is immune from further cuts by UA and AA in the light of the expansion by TCX and VS/DL, Brexit and the fall in the value of sterling. (The significant extra capacity introduced and planned to the US from MAN by TCX and VS was bound to stir things up a bit.)

But ethaneggc is always in his MAN bubble. Its only other airports that have problems.

 

[Brum X]

To burst his bubble even more, somebody from the dried fruit forum has mentioned that the MAN-JFK served by AA will go seasonal next October.

Well i dont want this to be a competition of who is going to lose the most, but i do think we all need to be prepared for a bumpy ride ahead in 2017.

 

[ethanegcc]

I am not a member of the dried fruit forum so therefore, I am not aware of the changes and if so we can account this to even more changes mainly by American Airlines (not as in AA, as in UA, AA, DL) , blaming the Brexit situation. I realise there could be further cuts, but what will the PHL frequency be reduced to as this is the first I have heard?

The BHX thread vociferates their successes with the constant naivety that BHX is the 'perfect airport' for everyone in the UK, so yes, while I am posting on the MAN thread, I am in a MAN bubble. I never implied that MAN has no problems and only other airports do as it is quite clear that we most certainly do have problems and I mentioned several other routes blamed as an effect of Brexit cut that were not from BHX. I do not feel that my post was inappropriate in any way or provoked this much anger. Perhaps I should create a dried fruit account, maybe to further irritate people on there?

That's right, welcome to the 'friendly aviation forum'; whenever I put BHX in one of my posts, in a positive light or not, I am inundated with a backlash of aggregated BHX supporters, taking umbrage, well I will not be mentioning BHX in any of my posts as it simply seems to provoke unnecessary anger and debate. Maybe if I changed my username to ethanegbb it would help?

 

[ronnoc1k8]

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