Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?  
User currently offline777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Birmingham has a far bigger population!! Has there been problems expanding BHX or something? I suppose that MAN hasn't had any because they already have another runway.

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGreenjet From Ireland, joined Aug 2001, 956 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1819 times:

I think it's because many people use LHR instead of BHX even though they may live closer in the Birmingham region. Also MAN is serving a large catchment area ,i.e. the north of England and not just Manchester.

User currently offlineVS744 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1812 times:

Because the catchment area around Manchester is better than BHX.

If you think about it, then BHX has East Mids and also the southern side of birmingham can use london airports which are in driving distance of less than 2 hours.

Manchester takes in the entire northwest, and most of northern england, and BHX is badly placed for traffic congestion.

Also, MAN has a lot of domestic flights, whereas BHX is too close to LHR and LGW to justify a flight.



User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

Several reasons:
1. MAN is sufficiently distant from LHR/LGW (~200 miles) that it is more time consuming to commute to London to catch a flight, while BHX is <100 miles from London & arguably on the edge of London's catchment area.
2. BHX may have a larger metropolitan population than MAN but when you include all suburbs (say 50mi radius), greater MAN has a much bigger population.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

Most people in Birmingham aren't rich enough to fly  Big thumbs up

I think all the legitimate reasons have already been said.



User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1783 times:

We forgot the biggest reason of all...who the hell wants to fly to BHX anyway????????? hehehe

Sorry, I'm Canadian but was born in MAN. Hometown pride.

 Smile

Neil/Toronto



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offline757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Over 7 million people live within a 1 hour drive of BHX, but MAN does serve a bigger population. The Government designated MAN gateway status many years ago, this is another reason why it is bigger. BHX was a mere shed until 1984 when the new terminal complex opened.

BHX did not get it's first daily transatlantic flight until 1993, when BA flew 767-300ER's to JFK. BOAC did do a flight with Super VC10's in the 1970's, but it wasn't daily and only about seven people used the service. MAN had many long haul routes under it's belt, even back in 1993.

BHX was starting to attract several long haul carriers by the mid 1990's, but has lost some services thanks to what happened in the USA last month. A particular blow was the loss of the daily AA 767-300 service to Chicago. This was considered a flagship service for BHX and we were all gutted when it was suspended earlier this month. AA had been flying this route since May 1995 and it always had good loads, so I was surprised to see it go. Simple fact is, AA see MAN and LHR as more important destinations.

BHX still has Continental and it's daily Newark service, and despite what happened last month, still has good loads. This flight is used by some ex AA passengers now, so it should hopefully see an upgrade to larger aircraft next year, not that I'm knocking the operating 757 in any way (look at my user name)

The biggest problem BHX has is the shortish main runway. At 2600m in length, it is hardly long enough to sustain long haul services. The local authorities blocked the planning application for an extended runway some years ago, but the airport WILL get an extension to around 3000m one day....It will just take time.

Both BHX and MAN are very nice modern airports, and I think they can survive in their own natural markets without competing with each other too much. People are finally getting sick of flying from London and that is why we have seen an increase in long haul flights from both of the big regional airports over the past few years.

By the way, BHX handled 3 million PAX per annum ten years ago...It handled 8 million PAX last year - not a bad increase at all.


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1746 times:

MAN serves as a British long-haul gateway for the North of England, and to some extent for Scotland also. BHX survives on the pax of Birminham and the Midlands. Other people prefer to fly from London or Manchester.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineBrum A330 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2001, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

No doubt Manchester is bigger but BHX is getting recognition. Once the runway is extended it will give Manchester something to think about.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

I disagree BRUM.

It's more than just runway length. BHX is arguably within the catchment area of the London airports. MAN is the hub of NW English & Northern Wales.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

MAN is already too far ahead of BHX, within 10-20 years MAN will be busier than LGW and become 2nd biggest airport. BHX I think handles about 8M pax a year whilst MAN handles 20M pax.
I also think BHX has EMA to compete with as bmi have a hub there.



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offline777kicksass From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2000, 668 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1701 times:

Yes, but if there is a identical flight nearer i.e. BHX-Newark on continental, who from the midlands would want a 2 and a half hour drive down Englands dismal Motorways to LGW-Newark?? I think a runway extension ten more flights will draw away many from the pitiful London airports.

UNLESS the bloody government can get their act together at Heathrow and build terminal 5, and build at least one more, hopefully two more runways, Heathrow may win back LGW flights and get rid of that transatlantic-LHR limition erm oh yeah Bermuda 3!?


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 2940 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

I too disagree with you Brum.

BHX will always play second fiddle to the London airports and MAN.

I'm not saying that as petty regional rivalry.

It has already been highlighted that BHX's location is a two-edged sword; unfortunately too close to LHR to ever become a large international airport but close enough to benefit from capacity overspill as the London airports become more and more congested.

For example, the Emirates service benefits from passengers living along the M5 and M40 corridors who would have flown out of LHR in the past.
However, Emirates' own figures show that the BHX service has had no impact whatsoever on the MAN service.

The evidence suggests that passengers living south or west of BHX will use either London airports or BHX, whilst people east of BHX will use EMA or London, and people to the north will choose MAN which has a broader destination base than BHX.

BHX's future is in attracting the carriers who suffer from capacity problems out of LHR, and niche routes/carriers. Uzbek and Tajik are good examples of the latter.

BHX will prosper, but I feel you're wrong to suggest MAN and BHX are in anyway rivals.







So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offline757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

EMA is hardly competition for BHX. It is not as big and the only thing going for it is the longer runway. EMA is a cargo hub though, and I think that is what this particular airport is being developed as.

This seems to be turning into a MAN vs BHX debate. Why? If regional airports want to gain extra traffic, then they should all gang up and take on LHR, not each other.

BHX is 120 miles north of LHR - true. However, is it easy getting to LHR from Birmingham? No, it most certainly is not. The motorway network is a nightmare, and you can forget about the railways as well. Just look at what has happened to poor old Railtrack. So much has been spent on trying to bring our railways up to scratch, it has made Railtrack go into administration.

I do get the feeling off some people that they don't like BHX. Why? Please give me one good reason. Green eyed monster syndrome?

Some of you guys don't know much about the second city airport do you?


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 2940 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

Couldn't agree more.

The problem, as far as I see it, is too many airport managers going through the "My runway's bigger than yours" semantics, instead of sitting down together and seeing how they can plan the future together.




So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

Interesting how bmi chose MAN over BHX for their US services, despite their midlands (ie, pro BHX perhaps?) outlook. Even they see the superiority of MAN as an O+D market.

Although I'm Canadian, I would say that Manchester is a better known city in North American than Birmingham. MAN is definitely seen at the 'second' UK city.






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1638 times:

I have flown out of BHX once and I agree that BHX is indeed a good and friendly airport to fly out of.


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offline757man From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

The problem Birmingham faces in North America is, as someone pointed out in an earlier post, recognition. Birmingham, England gets confused with Birmingham, Alhabama for a start.

Stories of US citizens wanting BHX re-named as 'UK Central' are well known infact.

I doubt if BHX will ever catch up with MAN in terms of passenger numbers, but why should I care anyway? If I compare BHX to what it was like ten years ago, it has developed very, very well. Bigger terminals, more services, enhanced radar services etc, etc. I would never have dreamed of EK flying a daily DXB service out of BHX ten years ago.

When you consider BHX has no resident low cost carriers to thank for a swell in PAX numbers, it is even more remarkable. Same applies to MAN.

Many long haul airlines who expressed an interest in services from BHX turned their backs thanks to the short main runway I mentioned in my earlier post on this thread. You guys wouldn't believe how some local authority representitives seem to hate BHX expanding.

BHX has always done very well with it's impressive range of European scheduled services, and business travellers worship the airport. BA and franchise partner Maersk do a very brisk trade out of Eurohub. In the wake of 11th September, BA will infact cut more services from MAN than BHX. I think airport management want to attract more key European routes due to the downturn in long haul travel.

Plus don't forget, BHX is still the 3rd busiest UK airport for holiday flights. It will be interesting to see how holiday bookings for 2002 stand given recent events.



User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1609 times:

Just for reference; Top 5 UK airports in terms of charter pax: 1.LGW 2.MAN 3.BHX 4.GLA 5.NCL
Maybe I got LGW and MAN the wrong way but the rest are correct.



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7379 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1591 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm glad to see that someone thinks that AA consider MAN as a more important destination .... they've inaugurated and dropped routes to JFK and DFW despite good loads. (Although for the last summer of the JFK run {1994}, MAN saw their ETOPS-certified 757s). As for our ORD route....they made a big fuss about being granted an addtional summer flights in the late 80s/early 90s to go to ORD for which a certain airline obejected! We had 3 (?) years of double daily ORD in the summer which attracted good loads only for it to be pared back to the all-year daily service.

Ironically, we're going to need the Bermuda II treaty re-negotiated/scrapped before we'll see major improvements in the transatlantic situation for BHX and MAN: MAN have given evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee to the effect that airlines would be less keen to begin services to the regions lest it be taken that they don't want access to London!


With the 2nd runway in place, MAN can now go ahead with expansion of the terminals. I believe that terminal capacity is around 23.5 million at the moment, with Terminals 2 and 3 alleged to be only half-developed at the moment.

Once the recovery in air travel begins, it will be interesting to see how many more "long thin" routes will be introduced throughout the regions; perhaps MAN will get MAN-HKG and MAN-SIN non-stop routes. BHX should be able to get at least 2 or 3 more transatlantic routes.

But the biggest problem would still appear to be is to convince the airlines that the markets are available in the regions; there's around 33 million people within a 2 hour drive of MAN. Then it would be a case of telling a certain airline that it should not "encourage" premium passengers to go on the LHR/LGW routes to long-haul destinations.

David/MAN: 288 and counting


User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

Quote
Stories of US citizens wanting BHX re-named as 'UK Central' are well known infact

Why not rename Birmingham, Alabama instead?  Smile

I live in Crewe, 25 miles from MAN and 60 miles from BHX.
I went to Paris with my wife this year, and flew BA from BHX, as the flight from MAN was £150 more, due to increased airport surcharges.
When returning home, it took 45 minutes from CDG to BHX, then a further 4 hours to get from Birmingham to Crewe by train. (Birmingham and Crewe are both major rail hubs in the UK)
At BHX, it is possible to walk off the plane, and be out of the Eurohub terminal in 10 minutes, collecting your bags from the conveyor belt on the way. It is a really nice airport, but the rail experience makes me think twice in the future.
Craig.


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

Have Delta postponed any plans to start ATL-BHX Daily 763 next year???


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

David,
The decline of AA's MAN-ORD route is mainly due to the success of other carriers operating out of Manchester, so it's really good news for the airport.

Most passengers flying to the US hubs from Manchester are transfering onwards from there, so new service to one hub draws traffic from another.

I remember back in 1992 when MAN was the first European city to receive American MD-11 service, 1992 was of course also the first Summer that AA operated double-daily.

At the time Delta's Atlanta service was in it's infancy, being operated by TriStars, only British Airways and American flew to New York. That was Manchester's full Trans-Atlantic schedule!

Today we have US Airways (A330), Delta (B777), Continental (B777) and bmi (A330) all using their highest capacity aircraft on their hub-flights from Manchester. Plus BA (B767) are still around, Pakistan Airlines (B747) are offering some very cheap capacity into JFK and Virgin (B747) have a strong presence serving Orlando.

All this increased competition has reduced the importance of AA's MAN-ORD flights, both to Manchester and American Airlines, there are now far more Trans-Atlantic options from Manchester.

The market's still there, it's just American doesn't have it to it's self as it once pretty much did.

I have hoped for an American B777 on the route for the last couple of years, as soon as bmi announced they'd be serving MAN-ORD I knew it wouldn't happen. On services from Manchester, American have been largely eclipsed by their competitors.

The only other Trans-Atlantic carrier that's been somewhat stagnant out of MAN is British Airways, now there's a coincidence, American, partner of BA are under-utilising the airport  Laugh out loud

To be honest, since September 11th Manchester's Trans-Atlantic network has shown how robust it is, while the Asian flights are in tatters. Malaysia's withdrawal because they're retrenching to become a regional player, and the loss of Cathay Pacific due to poor performance of the route (they never advertised it, never took the opportunity to go nonstop, BA wanted to shuttle the pax)

Let's hope things get better soon, or the sight of a lone Air 2000 aircraft at T2 may become more common;

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Colin Abbott



Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Have Delta postponed any plans to start ATL-BHX Daily 763 next year???
-----
No Graham, they haven't, because they were never planning one!

I know where you got that info from, the same website that began talking about the second daily Dubai flights before the first one was introduced, about Delta to Atlanta next Summer and JFK the year after, American staring service to Dallas, and consistently tells us that Continental will upgrade the Newark service.

None of that's particularly likely anytime soon, and that was without the after-effects of September 11th, now it's out of the question.

Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1569 times:

Don't forget the Air Canada 762 & Canada 3000 A330/A310 service from YYZ-MAN. YYZ is a good North American hub for all US cities from MAN.

YYZ also has tons of Mancunian immigrants! Like me!

Neil/Toronto




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
25 757man : Another recent event has highlighted the need for a longer runway at BHX: PIA have recently suspended all BHX flights. Their reason? The A310 aircraft
26 Yyz717 : PIA should not be considered a big loss for BHX. PIA mainly carries ethnic Pakistani traffic...it is hardly a flying option for most BHX-area resident
27 GKirk : Ach surely that rumour should never have been put on the net if it wasnt going to happen. BTW How are loads on the MAN-DXB route just now?? Are they s
28 David_itl : Air Canada are stopping service the YYZ-(MAN-GLA/GLA-MAN) service for the winter but aim to resume in April David/MAN: 287 and counting
29 GKirk : I guess AC are struggling in all area's of plane as the fares that TS and CMM give are pretty much lower than those ooffered by AC.
30 Post contains images BlueShamu330s : GK Delta responded very forcefully to the rumours about starting out of BHX. They stated categorically that they have never even looked into the possi
31 Yyz717 : YYZ-MAN/GLA is largely a leisure market and very heavily summer-seasonal. AC will be back in these markets in April 02 with 4x weekl 762 service to ea
32 757man : Despite the loss of a couple of key long haul services, traffic at BHX seems to be performing quite well. Newcomers such as CSA and SAS have reported
33 GKirk : BHX-NCL was doing very well for Maersk before they handed it over to BRAL.
34 David_itl : From the Manchester Evening News today: US attacks put Ringway in turbulent times PASSENGER numbers at Manchester Airport were up on the year last mo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is AA Cheaper Than BA For The Same Flights? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 22:55:14 by Highpeaklad
PHX Terminal 2 Why Is It Different Than The Others posted Mon Jan 3 2005 21:51:55 by Hamad
Is RDU Bigger Than Ind? posted Tue Oct 12 1999 03:52:53 by ATA757
Why Is The 737-8 Bigger Success Than The 737-4 Was posted Sun Apr 2 2006 13:56:50 by Vfw614
Is The Paris Airshow Bigger Than Farnborough? posted Mon Jul 17 2006 02:14:18 by BOE773
Why Is STN More Popular Than LTN? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 19:25:42 by CRJ900
Why Is One Way More Expensive Than Round Trip? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 14:29:38 by RootsAir
Is The 772 Really Bigger Than The 789? posted Mon Jun 13 2005 20:23:43 by Iberiadc852
Is The Airplane Bigger Than The Pilot? posted Thu Jun 2 2005 18:08:37 by Gopal
Why Nothing Bigger Than MD90 To ORD From ATL posted Thu Apr 14 2005 21:08:35 by Zone1