777kicksass
Topic Author
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2000 9:52 pm

Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:29 am

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.
 
greenjet
Posts: 869
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 9:59 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:34 am

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.
 
VS744
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 9:22 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:35 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:35 am

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.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:59 am

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

I think all the legitimate reasons have already been said.

 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:11 am

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
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
757man
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:59 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:45 am

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.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 4:11 am

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!
 
Brum A330
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:30 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 5:24 am

No doubt Manchester is bigger but BHX is getting recognition. Once the runway is extended it will give Manchester something to think about.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 5:33 am

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.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 5:44 am

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!
 
777kicksass
Topic Author
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2000 9:52 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:50 am

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!?
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:53 am

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... :-(
 
757man
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:59 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:58 am

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?
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 8:15 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Wed Oct 10, 2001 8:28 am

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.



I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 2:15 am

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!
 
757man
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:59 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 2:36 am

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.

 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 4:01 am

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!
 
David_itl
Posts: 5970
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 6:32 am

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
 
Craigy
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 6:24 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 6:59 am

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.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 7:01 am

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 avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 7:04 am

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 avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 7:24 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Thu Oct 11, 2001 7:44 am

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

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
757man
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:59 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:49 am

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 used don't have the range to fly around Afganistan. MAN and LHR get 747 services, so they should be fine - depending on which direction the current conflict will take.

If BHX had a longer runway, we'd still have the PIA flights. They would never have downgraded from a 747-300 to a lowly A310-300 in the first place! A 2600m main runway is just hopeless for any long haul flights that require 747 sized aircraft. This is a big shame, PIA always did very well out of BHX.

RE Delta and an Atlanta service - This is just rumour I'm afraid. I fell for it after reading about elsewhere online, but we won't see DL for a very, very long time at BHX. I doubt if AA will resume ORD services next year either.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:00 am

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 residents.

PIA flies to YYZ with traffic rights to JFK & FRA...but PIA is hardly a viable option for Canadians flying to New York or Frankfurt....with their poor on-time record, & reputation for poor inflight service.

After I heard about the extremely poor maintenance shape the 4 PIA DC-10's were in when Canadian Airlines bought them, I'll never fly PIA anyway.

Neil/Toronto
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 3:10 am

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 still pretty high?
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
David_itl
Posts: 5970
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 3:16 am



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
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 3:23 am

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.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2565
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 3:30 am

GK

Delta responded very forcefully to the rumours about starting out of BHX. They stated categorically that they have never even looked into the possibility of operating out of BHX, nor in the last 2 years at any other UK airport. I don't know about the LGW rotations, but MAN-ATL is remarkably bouyant; for example, last week 2 outbounds were overbooked and went out full.

EK MAN-DXB is also holding up with little change to loads; that's why the 2 class high density 330s are still on the route. Plans still include double daily for next year, although as with all carriers, nothing is definite at the moment.

BA to JFK is operating almost full every day...quite remarkable for a service which is never promoted or advertised.

I'm attending a meeting on Monday which should throw up any further planned changes, and will post any news here  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Shamu
So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 3:47 am

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 each market (down from this summer's daily 762).

C3 and TS operate year-round to MAN and have lower costs....more suited to the VFR market.

Neil/Toronto



I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
757man
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:59 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:04 am

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 good loads and resident Maersk UK seem to be doing well. The latter has just launched a new scheduled service to Gothenburg. Way too early to tell how well this new route will perform. The newish Maersk UK service to Marseille was a poor performer and will be dropped. Personally, I think Gothenburg will do fine.

That's the good thing about Maersk UK. They dare to dip their toes into new markets from BHX every year. Not all the new services work out (Geneva suffered) but their other key routes do well. Milan and Belfast are their best ones.

I won't be too sad to see the back of PIA, but it was nice to see their A310's and 747's brighten up a dull Sunday afternoon at BHX. The Main Terminal was always swamped with passengers and well wishers when a PIA departure was due to go out.

Latest BHX passenger figures for month September 2001:
839,267 (down -0.8% compared with Sep 2000)

Too early to tell the long term impact of September 11th, but scheduled services were down 8% towards the end of September. It will be interesting to see what the October figures will look like.
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:36 am

BHX-NCL was doing very well for Maersk before they handed it over to BRAL.
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
David_itl
Posts: 5970
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: Why Is MAN Bigger Than Bhx?

Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:34 pm


From the Manchester Evening News today:

US attacks put Ringway in turbulent times

PASSENGER numbers at Manchester Airport were up on the year last month despite the havoc wreaked to services by the terror attacks in the United States.
A total of 63,000 more travellers passed through the terminals than in September last year.

However, the 3.05 per cent growth rate was around half that of previous months this year, indicating times are not as good as they would have been.

Bosses, who this year opened a £172m second runway to cope with demand, admit they still have work to do to restore confidence among the public about flying.

Ringway handled 2,111,000 passengers compared with 2,048,000 in September last year.

Charter services enjoyed the biggest rise, by seven per cent from 1,274.000 to 1,191,000, as people took holidays they had booked in advance.

The positive Manchester picture contrasts sharply with figures at BAA, operator of Heathrow and Gatwick and other regional airports.

After last month’s US attacks, passenger numbers were down by 13 per cent at Heathrow and by 6.2 per cent at Gatwick. Cargo tonnage at BAA was down 22.9 per cent during September.

At Manchester, flight cancellations to North America immediately after the New York and Washington outrages caused a fall in long-haul travel.

The number of passengers who flew directly to North America last month fell from 114,885 to 102,154.

Overall, international scheduled passenger figures were only slightly down, from 606,541 to 606,500.

Short-haul European flights enjoyed an upsurge, suggesting people who were planning leisure breaks in the US switched to continental destinations.

On domestic routes, numbers were down by eight per cent from 250,000 to 230,000. Services to London were particularly hit because fewer passengers connected to US-bound flights at Heathrow and Gatwick, and business travel reduced overall. Last year’s figures were high because travellers switched to the air during the fuel crisis.

The airport has suffered a triple blow in recent weeks with announcements by Cathay Pacific, Malaysian Airlines and Air Canada that they have or are ending services to Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Toronto respectively.

However, no flights between Manchester and the US have so far been scrapped, even though several airlines have swung the axe across their networks.

Tim McDermott, Manchester Airport’s head of commercial and aviation development, said: ‘‘There’s a confidence issue that needs to be addressed.

‘‘The network is holding up but we need to work with the airlines because it is a priority to make sure they continue to achieve strong sales.

‘‘We want to help them develop marketing strategies to ensure that people are aware that the choice is still there from Manchester Airport.’’


David/MAN: 286 and counting