Outside Influences

[Dobbo]

I think EK is QFs partner for Europe except London (which I assume captures LHR and LGW) because QF fly to London on their own metal.

Whether this indicates further movement away from EK by QF only time will tell. However, the wide range of European routes technically possible from PER and clearly targeted by QF suggests this is likely to be in their thinking.

The codeshare over EK to MAN is one of the largest in Europe and the table I posted yesterday on the CAA thread shows MAN is one of the largest O&D markets to Australia. I don't think this means we'll see QF metal back at MAN any time soon, but it is closer now than it has been for some time.

 

[Dobbo]

This article provides a snapshot of the wide range of businesses in MANs catchment area, and their increasing focus on emerging (non-EU) markets.

https://www.ft.com/content/e9eb7444-8e68-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93

May provide a hit of where MAN's future lies.

 

[User001]

And thus it baffles me that we can have threads talking about 'random stuff' and this one which talks about Heathrow airport etc, yet we are not allowed to have a seperate thread for the single largest construction project Manchester Airprt has ever seen?

I just don't get it.

 

[Aviador]

And thus it baffles me that we can have threads talking about 'random stuff' and this one which talks about Heathrow airport etc, yet we are not allowed to have a seperate thread for the single largest construction project Manchester Airprt has ever seen?

I just don't get it.

You have one and it's aptly named Infrastructure, Construction & Developments.

http://www.forums4airports.com/threads/375/page-27#post-115084

 

[Dobbo]

As expected, Labour turn against runway three at LHR.

https://www.ft.com/content/a704e8c6-8590-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787

North East politicians are misguidedly trying to win the connectivity argument.

It would be cheaper, and would actually guarantee connectivity, for the north east region taxpayers to subsidise flights to (e.g.) CDG, AMS, DXB, FRA than a project that would be an engineering triumph, but a commercial and competitive folly representing the UK's London centric view of the world.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/expanding-heathrow-could-bring-north-13557127

 

[Aceshigh]

Our MPs are on a different planet.

Newcastle already has flights every 2 hours. By any standard that is more than enough connectivity and if profitable will not change.

They also seem oblivious to the outrageous taxpayer spend which could be invested DIRECTLY in NE infastructure. It's their money as well !

Baffling !

 

[Coathanger16]

If that's what those MPs think will help their region most, then that's up to them. If the people of that region aren't happy with that choice, then it's up to them to inform their MPs of their view.

Appreciate the populations and city sizes involved are different, but Newcastle has 6 flights per day, whilst Manchester has 8, Glasgow has 9 and Edinburgh has 16.

I can't help but think if these MPs were supporting something that would improve access to Manchester this wouldn't be an issue. Why should which airport they want better access to make a difference?

 

[EGCC_MAN]

The issue is not what is best for Manchester. It is what is best for NEWCASTLE and the NE. And what is best for them is direct infrastructure investment in their own region, not mythical 'trickledown' from a very poor value upgrade at Heathrow. The sums involved even at the level of publicly-funded support works to make LHR expansion functional would be utterly transformational if spent directly in the NE. Even a quarter of that sum would. When you look at the tables of public infrastructure spend per head, the NE is far and away bottom of the pile at just £5 each ... it would be laughable if it weren't simultaneously so tragic. And it is the lamentable negligence of those same NE MP's which is largely responsible for this. They should be screaming blue murder to secure fair direct investment on behalf of their constituents. Instead, they appear too thick to notice that they're being hoodwinked yet again. Unfortunately, the electorate of the NE will continue to re-elect these halfwits in perpetuity as long as they wear a rosette of the approved colour. Policies and track-record don't seem to matter to the majority. No accountability. So sad.

 

[Jerry]

The sums involved even at the level of publicly-funded support works to make LHR expansion functional would be utterly transformational if spent directly in the NE

Why does everyone assume that the money would be spent in other parts of the country if the LHR R3 went ahead? A lot of people seem to believe that any money spent in the London area is money that is taken away from the regions. The reality is London will always be getting large amount of money spent on it because it is London and transport wise has some unique challenges and it has it's own administration. With the like of Manchester and Birmingham starting to get there own versions then they will be allocated more funding for it's own structural projects and for other places there are things like City deals.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Why does everyone assume that the money would be spent in other parts of the country

I'm not sufficiently naive to believe that it would be, but there is a strong case to argue that it should be. It is all a matter of proportion. People generally accept that London has more expensive infrastructure needs, but £2000+ per head annually in London versus £5 per head in the NE ... come on. Such a gaping disparity cannot be justified either morally or rationally. The scale of unfairness is obscene. And it is not a short term blip either ... it has been this way for over 50 years.

 

[Dobbo]

Unless and until there is some kind of Barnett formula equivalent to peg spending in regional UK to London, this debate will be ongoing.

 

[Coathanger16]

very poor value upgrade at Heathrow. The sums involved even at the level of publicly-funded support works to make LHR expansion functional

Call me naive if you will, but as I understand it the expansion of LHR itself will be with private money. To those who say LHR won't be able to achieve that and the government will end up being forced to pay the rest, may I remind them that over the past 10 years, LHR have invested c. £11bn in upgrading LHR. The third runway, costing £18bn over 11 years (2019 to 2030 - and it very well may take longer), would increase spending from £1.1bn per year to £1.6bn per year.

As for the surface access issue, LHR has committed £1bn, the airports commission estimated £5bn was needed. TfL's £20bn figure included the cost for a new tunneled rail link from LHR to the South West Mainline and all the way to Waterloo (practically a mini Crossrail). Additionally, it included LHR paying for maintenance and upkeep for parts of the M4, M25, Great Western Mainline and South Western Mainline. No wonder that costs £20bn! The question is whether or not that is all needed.

The real problem here is spending in the regions, and I ask posters where they think that extra money will come from. No government is going to reduce the amount spent in London & the SE, so more money will have to be allocated to the transport budget. Where will that come from?

 

[Coathanger16]

The issue is not what is best for Manchester. It is what is best for NEWCASTLE and the NE

My point was if the MPs for those areas thought the best thing for Newcastle and the NE was a multi billion pound project to improve access from Newcastle/NE to Manchester Airport, would people be complaining?

 

[EGCC_MAN]

No government is going to reduce the amount spent in London & the SE

Don't be so sure. We provincials have one vote each, just as Londoners have. We far outnumber them. And public-awareness of the obscene investment disparity is growing. The gap between transport infrastructure spending in London v NE is so extraordinarily large that I'd defy any MP to appear on BBC NE or Tyne-Tees to defend the status quo. In the interests of self-preservation, MP's will have to face up to this issue eventually.

I ask posters where they think that extra money will come from.

It should come from pausing new publicly-funded projects in London to allow other regions to play catch-up for a while. There's nothing unfair about that. London has done extremely well at national taxpayer expense for two generations now.

My point was if the MPs for those areas thought the best thing for Newcastle and the NE was a multi billion pound project to improve access from Newcastle/NE to Manchester Airport, would people be complaining?

Let's keep it real. No multi-billion pound project would be funded for the express purpose of improving feed from the NE to Manchester Airport. The notion is ludicrous. However, it is conceivable that a major upgrade of road / rail infrastructure in the NE would deliver many spin-off economic advantages, improved airport access being one of these. But access to MAN would be a very peripheral consideration in any such undertaking - it would scarcely influence an investment decision at all. The project would stand or fall on far more immediate benefits accruing to access within and around the NE region itself.

may I remind them that over the past 10 years, LHR have invested c. £11bn in upgrading LHR.

They can afford these sums right up to the day they suddenly can't. We live in an era of unprecedented low interest rates. For now. Double or triple the debt, raise interest rates, and crunch-day comes sooner. Remember that even the acknowledged £5Bn required from the public purse is an extraordinarily large sum dwarfing any spending the regions have ever seen. Double, triple or even quadruple that sum drawn from national resources is obscene and scandalous. Fair investment distribution across regional England has to come. I say England because the devolved governments now enjoy at least some discretion to direct their own infrastructure investment.

 

[Coathanger16]

Don't be so sure. We provincials have one vote each, just as Londoners have. We far outnumber them. And public-awareness of the obscene investment disparity is growing. The gap between transport infrastructure spending in London v NE is so extraordinarily large that I'd defy any MP to appear on BBC NE or Tyne-Tees to defend the status quo. In the interests of self-preservation, MP's will have to face up to this issue eventually.

I was talking about reducing the funds going to London, not changing the ratio between London and the rest of the UK. The question here is do people want more investment in the regions, or do they want money to be taken away from London/SE and that money be spent in the regions? You're free to your own opinion, but I shall not be supporting the latter. Any move to equalize the ratio of spending between London and the rest of the UK should come from increasing spending in the rest of the country and not from reducing spending in London.

It should come from pausing new publicly-funded projects in London to allow other regions to play catch-up for a while. There's nothing unfair about that. London has done extremely well at national taxpayer expense for two generations now.

Really? So just because the regions have 'suffered' from a lack of investment, your happy for London & the SE to experience the same whilst you catch up? An eye for an eye makes the world blind remember. The answer is NOT to divert funds away from London to the regions, but to increase funding to the regions from elsewhere (not in the country, but from other funding sources - private perhaps or from a 'Northern Powerhouse Transport Tax': £5 per month per person could raise almost half a billion pounds per year for transport investment across the North).

Let's keep it real. No multi-billion pound project would be funded for the express purpose of improving feed from the NE to Manchester Airport. The notion is ludicrous. However, it is conceivable that a major upgrade of road / rail infrastructure in the NE would deliver many spin-off economic advantages, improved airport access being one of these. But access to MAN would be a very peripheral consideration in any such undertaking - it would scarcely influence an investment decision at all. The project would stand or fall on far more immediate benefits accruing to access within and around the NE region itself.

My question was hypothetical to raise a point, but perhaps I should rephrase it. LHR expansion is a multi billion pound project. Improving access from the NE to LHR is not the primary purpose of that project but it is a part nevertheless. If there were a multi billion pound project centered around Manchester airport, and one of the parts of that project was improved access from the NE to Manchester Airport, would you still expect those NE MP's to oppose it as the money is not being spent in their region? Your logic suggests that MPs should oppose any scheme that doesn't directly benefit their region or doesn't include money being spent in their region - nothing would get approved!

I just want to make clear I'm not a Southerner. I'm not from London, nor have I ever lived there. However, after having visited London, Birmingham & Manchester, it is clear that significantly more spending is required in London than is required elsewhere in the country. I haven't traveled into Manchester at peak times, but I have traveled into Birmingham at peak times. The overcrowding that you see in London is on a completely different scale to that seen in Birmingham - the latter can be solved (for now) by adding a few carriages to each train. Overcrowding in London is so extreme that a few carriages won't make much difference. Maybe I'm wrong but the difference between London and the rest of the country, to me anyway, is that investment in transport in London is needed to keep up with demand, whilst investment in transport across the rest of the country is needed not to keep up with demand, but to help those regions grow. Look at the media. When Crossrail was announced, its primary purpose was stated to be about increasing capacity. When projects in the regions are covered by the media, the emphasis is very much more on how that project will help facilitate growth.

I've often been warned on this forum about the use of statistics for passenger numbers from airports, and I'd urge the same caution with all statistics. Yes, spending per capita is greater in London/SE than the rest of the country, but lets take a different, hypothetical look at things. Lets say for example that Manchester and the NE had the best, most efficient transport system in place, and that system meant spending £750 per capita across the North. Now lets say the London transport system wasn't doing great, was overcrowded and often ran late, and that system meant spending £2000 per capita across London. Would it still be fair for the North to demand more investment and that that investment should be made possible by London sacrificing funds? An extreme example I know, but it is made to demonstrate a point. Yes, transport in the North isn't fantastic and it needs more investment, but its not the only place that needs investing in, and that investment shouldn't be made possible by sacrificing investment elsewhere.

 

[Coathanger16]

This has been an interesting discussion but I'm wary that I'm not a local to Manchester, and that this may be drifting off topic from what this thread was intended for.

If that is the case then I apologize and shall leave the discussion there as we each seem to have our own views that look unlikely to be changed.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

The question here is do people want more investment in the regions, or do they want money to be taken away from London/SE and that money be spent in the regions? You're free to your own opinion, but I shall not be supporting the latter.

There is only one pot of money for national state-funded infrastructure investment. That budget does not exist for the exclusive use of London; it is a national asset. My call is for fair distribution across the board, not for gorging one favoured region at the expense of all others. This is not about taking away money from any region. It is about distributing future funding in a fair and equitable manner across all regions.

So just because the regions have 'suffered' from a lack of investment, your happy for London & the SE to experience the same whilst you catch up?

Yes, but there's nothing vindictive about this. Crossrail 1 is close to completion, DLR extensions are online, expensive revamps to London terminal rail stations are complete or well-underway. Many other examples too. So funding for national infrastructure investment projects going forward should address some of the priorities which have been sidelined across regional England before yet another new-build super-project is approved for London.

Your logic suggests that MPs should oppose any scheme that doesn't directly benefit their region or doesn't include money being spent in their region - nothing would get approved!

My home-region isn't the NE. I've never lived there. The NE was the example raised in this specific discussion. Yet I back overdue infrastructure investment there absolutely. My logic clearly backs equitable infrastructure investment across all English regions; nowhere do I suggest sabotaging funding applications from other regions. Not sure where you got that idea from? A fair deal for all regions is my objective.

Lets say for example that Manchester and the NE had the best, most efficient transport system in place

But they clearly don't have this. A hypothetical debate of this kind is futile.

Yes, transport in the North isn't fantastic and it needs more investment, but its not the only place that needs investing in, and that investment shouldn't be made possible by sacrificing investment elsewhere.

There is only one pot of funding for state-sponsored infrastructure investment. It belongs to all of us, not to any one region alone. Not the North, not the Midlands, not London. At the moment there is one super-privileged region and several deprived ones. I support fair distribution of scarce investment funding across all regions, perhaps via a 'Barnett Formula' style solution since nothing else seems to have worked. That doesn't deprive London, and nor would I want it to. But London would get its fair share, not everybody else's share as well. That is where the change would be.

I apologize and shall leave the discussion there as we each seem to have our own views that look unlikely to be changed.

One thing that we can agree on is that we're clearly poles apart on this topic. I agree that we should avoid the temptation to enter a cycle of repetitive circular arguments which risk boring other readers.

 

[Aceshigh]

Growth continued at @Newquay_Airport last month as passenger number jumped 30% with a record 61,000 people passing through the Cornish site.


A further byline suggests the traffic via Manchester was up 38% !

 

[Aceshigh]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-41251537

EasyJet integrates with the "Gatwick Connect" website to allow connectivity onto Norwegian / WestJet .

I have been banging on ad nauseum about how utterly xxxx the Manchester Airport booking option is. In some cases it does not provide the best result or most direct flight.

On my android the "direct tab" is actually hidden IF you scroll up to see the menu: structure top left. I tick the Direct tab BUT ONLY because I know it exists.

And yet here with Gatwick Connects an easy way to connect from a European destinations to Canada/USA etc with a major airline has been provided.

Surely a Manchester University IT graduate could develop a better option than we have at the minute.

And one thorughly tested to give improved results.

Ps
Having just tried alighting on the Book flight page the direct tab isn't even there. Fancy Beijing? You are booked via AMS with KLM !

And here we are wondering why Hainan is dropping to 3 a week.

Why bother with advertising and roadshows if your own website gives a different answer to the message your marketing team wish to convey ?

 

[Scottie Dog]

Growth continued at @Newquay_Airport last month as passenger number jumped 30% with a record 61,000 people passing through the Cornish site.


A further byline suggests the traffic via Manchester was up 38% !

Indeed Aceshigh the increase for July from Manchester to Newquay was 36.496%.