Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bhxdtw
Topic Author
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:28 pm

LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:32 am

I started this topic as I know theres been some debate in recent threads as to new routes from both airports...
will BA fly BOS out of MAN ? how about NZ to AKL.. why does BMI want to grow out of LHR instead of MAN ?? all questions asked in recent threads..
so what are the advantages of each and ultimatley where does the future lie ??

Me ?? as you guess Im a diehard BHX fan so im neutral and I personally think more regional airports should have the long haul flights shared between them to ease congestion and give customers more choice..
Id be interested in your ideas..hopefully you wont find the topic too mundane  Smile
(By the way: this isnt intended to spark of any criticisms between North n' South)
 
egmcman
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:55 am

The South East has population density and demographics (income and profession) on its side.

I am not biased I was born in Manchester but have lived in Essex since I was 10.

egmcman
 
trident2e
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:38 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:27 am

Quoting Egmcman (Reply 1):
The South East has population density and demographics (income and profession) on its side

Not true - ONS data shows quarter after quarter that disposable income of people in the North is much greater as a proportion of gross income than of people in the South, primarily due to higher housing and travel costs for you poor Southerners. So, people in the North are actually generally wealthier than people in the South - moving to Essex was a bad move!
 
KennyK
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:08 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:33 am

Unfortunately London is a MASSIVE business centre for domestic and especially international business compared to the rest of the UK combined, it also attracts the vast majority of tourists, so that's why the south east airports are so busy.

The only business for airports in the rest of the UK, especially for long distance flights is mainly holiday flights and some business travel.

I would love to see Manchester become the UKs second hub after Heathrow/Gatwick, passenger numbers are already over 20 Million a year and rising fast and I believe it can happen.

It's been 5 years since I was last at Manchester Airport, I went last week and spent 8 hours at the visitors park. I just couldn't get away, traffic has boomed, no sooner had one aircraft landed than 2 or 3 more could be seen on approach. At one point 8 aircraft were lined up to take off, amazing. The highlights of the day were to see the PIA 747, Emirates 777 and Qatar A330. I missed the BMI A330s but saw many 767s and gaggles of 757s, 737s and A320s.

I'm going back next week, Manchester will never be a Heathrow or Gatwick, but it's going to get damned close, just get Quantas, SIA and a few more big players in.
 
Feroze
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:05 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:51 am

Quoting KennyK (Reply 3):
just get Quantas, SIA and a few more big players in.

KennyK,

SIA already have a daily flight to MAN (5x772 non-stop and 2x744 1stop). I think the stop is ZRH (?)

Regards,

Feroze
 
mainMAN
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:55 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:59 am

Quoting Egmcman (Reply 1):
The South East has population density and demographics (income and profession) on its side.

Demographically, the rest of the UK (England in particular) should catch up with the SE in the next 20 years. Not speculation, and government policies are now in place to TRY and achieve this. The economies of West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester are growing faster than the national average, and hopefully will continue to do so. Early days, but you only have to look at the cranes around M/cr and Leeds to see this.

The South East doesn't actually have greater population density, but you're right that it still has the benefit of greater income levels, business start up rates etc. This is one of the benefits of having our capital city in its midst, in a still highly over-centralised country.



Quoting BHXDTW (Thread starter):
so what are the advantages of each and ultimatley where does the future lie ??

The future lies in having regional economies that perform much better than they have in recent decades; at least growing up to the EU average. When this happens, then MAN and BHX (to a lesser degree GLA and NCL) will be able to support the kind of the services that they hitherto have struggled to attract and sometimes unfortunately keep (that old yields chestnut).

To the detractors of BHX and MAN, it's important for them to realise that these two regional cities are amongst the EU top 10, certainly in terms of size, and increasingly in terms of economic standing. It's not good for Britain to have one wealthy region, and a raft of underperforming post industrial ones, is it? This has started, only just started, to change.

I always thought it was significant that after 9/11, MAN didn't lose one service to the US. London airports did, every other big airport in the EU did, but not MAN. When compared to other similar second tier airports in Europe, like ARN, CPH, BRU etc, the range of services offered is already pretty impressive.

Already, we're told that LH services from both to FRA are full of business pax connecting there all over the world. I can't remember the respective figures, they might have been discussed on a.net, but people do so in significant numbers. Same is true of AF via CDG.

I personally think that we're on the verge on seeing a big development of what's viable and available from big UK airports outside the South East.
 
CV580Freak
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:39 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:03 am

I have always found it strange that the UK's major regional airports have never had more int'l connections.

How many passengers are sucked out of regional airports each year by the likes of KL, AF, LH and even EI ?.

It would seem a good idea to boost int'l flights ex GLA or EDI, MAN, BHX and even STN and BFS. Each of these areas has it's own industry base and large populations.

This in turn would also release those "gold dust" slots at LHR.
One day you are the pigeon, the next the statue ...
 
boysteve
Posts: 890
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:02 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:03 am

Quoting Feroze (Reply 4):
SIA already have a daily flight to MAN (5x772 non-stop and 2x744 1stop). I think the stop is ZRH (?)

Yes, the stop is ZRH

Quoting BHXDTW (Thread starter):
will BA fly BOS out of MAN ? how about NZ to AKL.. why does BMI want to grow out of LHR instead of MAN ??

BA codeshare AA BOS flight out of MAN, this was a new seasonal flight only last year and this year will operate until January 06. There has been talk on other threads about NZ flying from MAN. This would surprise me as EK and SQ are both strong options on the MAN - Oz/NZ routes. As for BMI, its difficult to explain their decisions as they don't appear to make much sense to anyone..............
 
HT
Posts: 5864
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 6:20 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:36 am

Quoting CV580Freak (Reply 6):
It would seem a good idea to boost int'l flights ex GLA or EDI, MAN, BHX and even STN and BFS.

Except for STN, CO flies to the U.S. from all of them ...

LON vs MAN:
London is for me not much more than a touristic destination or a point of entry, while recently I tend to stay outside London.
I´ve only made flights connections through LHR once (on BD) for a flight from HAJ to GLA (and return): And this was not one of my best experiences ...
I´ve never dared to fly intercontinental through LHR, as those changes of terminals is not something I like.
Even worse is the fact, that in case I chose to fly BA, I only could fly into LGW and would have to transfer to LHR for most destinations. With todays connections between these two airports, this is a no-no for me !
(Build a high-speed link from LGW to LHR´s T5 and I might come back ...).


MAN seems to be a much easier to navigate airport for arrivals and departures. And with T1 and T3 being adjacent to eachother, transfers should also be rather easy to do. T2 is a seperate thing, as it seems to cater for point-to-point (leisure) traffic only ...
Unfortunately, for me there are not enough flights to MAN in order tomake onward connections.


While MAN seems to be on a positive path of growth, I do see the future at both LHR & LGW much more negative. With all the slot restrictions, I see a future where both airports (but definitely LHR) cater for O&D-traffic only and most of the connectiing traffic will be squeezed out. Result is either that MAN gets a good hub-and-spoke network (in case BA realizes its chances, as BD seems to be much too confused about what they shall do in the immediate future) or alternatively AMS, CDG and FRA will siphon off even more traffic originating from outside the London area than they do today.
Just my  twocents 
-HT
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
 
David_itl
Posts: 6454
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:39 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:50 am

Quoting BHXDTW (Thread starter):
why does BMI want to grow out of LHR instead of MAN

It's a lot more logical for them to operate out of LHR given that's where the majority of their flying takes place and so would be able to feed their services. MAN would be a useful base for them is the medium to long-term but it would need some realignment of their own strategy for MAN i.e. base a few aircraft at operating mainline services.

Quoting KennyK (Reply 3):
Unfortunately London is a MASSIVE business centre for domestic and especially international business compared to the rest of the UK combined, it also attracts the vast majority of tourists, so that's why the south east airports are so busy.

To help generate more tourists, there should be less promotion of London and more of the other regions so that people can see that there is more to the UK than just London.

But to gain a bigger spread of long-haul routes, MAN has to hope that more airlines will operate long-haul fleets as either exclusively 2 class operation (no first, just business class and premium) or have a sufficienlty large number of aircraft that will enable them to operate to several "second tier" cities with a 2 class operation, with 3 class operation to the major cities only - whether the MAN-JFK service will survive the revamped 763s is open to question.

David
 
bhxdtw
Topic Author
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:28 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:52 am

well, personally I agree that more international traffic needs to be routed through the regional hubs... I know for a fact that so many people in the birmingham area regret not having many US flights and many were disapointed that AA pulled out..
A while ago there were rumours of DL moving in with an ATL service using 76's obviously rumours are rumours but although there is much business in the London areas, The midlands hold a lot of key business's who would relish the chance not to have to drive to LHR ..
 
KennyK
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:08 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:35 am

Thanks Feroze,

Manchester is even better than I thought and going to get better  bouncy  bouncy  bouncy 
 
egmcman
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 4:54 pm

Quoting Trident2e (Reply 2):
Not true - ONS data shows quarter after quarter that disposable income of people in the North is much greater as a proportion of gross income than of people in the South, primarily due to higher housing and travel costs for you poor Southerners. So, people in the North are actually generally wealthier than people in the South - moving to Essex was a bad move!

I agree and should have said in in terms of disposable income. London as said in previous messages in on of Europes major business centres. As for the latter it was my Dad's job that forced the move and I have no obvious reason to move back to Manchester at the moment.

egmcman
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 6959
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:44 pm

Having had to fly through through Heathrow, Manchester, Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid or Frankfurt for onward connections over the last couple of years, LHR is by far the worst. It is a mess. I would seek out flights from any of the other airports rather than fly through LHR.
 
Pieinthesky
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:30 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:50 pm

Quoting Feroze (Reply 4):
SIA already have a daily flight to MAN (5x772 non-stop and 2x744 1stop). I think the stop is ZRH (?)

SQ announced the closure of both their Manchester and Glasgow Ticket Offices last week. While doing so they said the MAN flights are currently losing money due to the high oil price. Whether that is just bullsh!t to try and cover the reasons for making cutbacks or not remains to be seen.
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:13 pm

LHR is of course a nightmare for connecting flights - something that will hopefully imporve considerably upon completion of T5 and the rejigging of operations at other terminals. However LHR can still rely on being the largest O&D airport in Europe.

And London is the largest O&D city in Europe and one of the largest in the world - both in business, tourism and VFR terms. So in a relatively small country it is no surprise that carriers focus their operations on LHR. That's no disrespect to any other regions of the UK or their airports - it is just a fact.

BHX will always suffer in that it is only an hour and a half drive from there to LHR. Also the city doesn't have enough of the high yield traffic for there ever to be too many scheduled services to non tourist destinations outside Europe. There will certainly be demand for some services (like NYC by CO) but there is a limit. The decision for Gulf Air to use its Gulf Traveller service to BHX possibly suggests that they don't think there is the higher yield premium traffic there to be had.

Also I believe BHX has issues over the length of its runway meaning that it is restricted to what it can operated. Long haul Far east services would have to operate at reduced payload I think. Can anyone confirm this?

As for Manchester.... There is considerably more potential for MAN than BHX. however again there is a limit to that. I know it will improve in time, but MAN is still a relatively low yield market. If there was serious money to be made flying from there, then BA, BD, VS would be operate a good network of long haul flights. But they are not. VS tend to be more astute in this area but even they look only to operate leisure routes from MAN, a la LGW. They'd have opened othe rroutes by now if they thought the market was there.

If you look at other European countires, there is often only one real intercontinental gateway into the country - the exceptions being Italy and Germany. For Italy the reason is that Milan is the economic and financial centre of the country - in the wealthiest region, while Rome is the capital and the biggest tourist draw.

In Germany Munich has grown because partly due to a lack of room to expand in FRA, but importantly because although FRA is the financial centre of Germany, MUC is still in one of the wealthiest regions in Europe (Bavaria) and has a large number of major companies based there. although on the surface MAN could be comparable to MUC, in reality it is really a long way from MUC's level in terms of profile as yet (the city, not the airport).

MAN has potential - most definitely - but it will be a long slow steady build up of new routes, a couple of long haul one year, maybe one or two the next. But ultimately it wil lalways be a secondary airport after LHR, and used for point to point services rather than as a hub - despite its many merits.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
Beany
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:18 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:14 pm

I have nothing against Manchester Airport but its never going to be a big player. For all those dreamers, Qantas won't start service, Air New Zealand won't start service and all the other 'wish list' airlines won't start service - just please wake up and realise that. STN will overtake MAN in terms of passenger numbers soon and combined with all over London airports, 110 million people passed through London last year.

Qantas used to serve MAN but it was via LHR. All they do now is plonk people on the BA shuttle and take them from LHR. The same as CX and all the others. You just have to look at the code-shares on all the BMI and BA shuttles to see that. There is no need or point in operating their own metal to MAN when LHR is so close.

London is a world financial centre, Manchester is not. London is a world tourist destination, Manchester is not. London makes money for airlines, Manchester doesn't to the same extent. How many airlines run First class cabins out of MAN? Not may I suspect.

If BMI had the chance for USA operations from LHR then the A330's would leave Manchester ASAP. They changed the IAD to a 757 when granted India rights out of LHR.

As I say, I have nothing against Manchester and find it a nice, user friendly airport but its never going to be a world player. Don't expect to see NZ744's to Auckland, Qantas 744's To Sydney or a BA service to any global destination ever.

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 5):
always thought it was significant that after 9/11, MAN didn't lose one service to the US. London airports did

LHR must have 40 or 50 flights to the USA every day. MAN must have about 5 or 6. Of course London services would be cut back after 9/11.
A lot of businesses cut back on non essential travel during that period so the premium cabins were emptier. Tourist routes like MCO were less affected.
 
Candid76
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:10 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:46 pm

Let me put a different perspective on this. MAN has in excess of 22 million pax per year passing through nowadays. An increasing proportion of these pax are travelling on low fare/leisure airlines. These are exactly the kind of passengers which make money for the airport - they tend to come by car and spend a fortune on parking, then check in three hours early and spend a fortune in shops and bars. From the airport's point of view, that's absolutely fine, and in terms of passenger throughput, the future is rosy. Business passengers will of course attract airlines seeking high yields. As the economy of MAN's catchment area continues to strengthen then the chance of more long haul links will increase. Having worked at MAN for 14 years I can be quite biased of course, but the fact is that the more revenue generated by the airport, the more it can be developed. Although it is frustrating that new high profile long haul flights aren't coming as fast as we would like them to, the airport is still doing very nicely - so much so that existing facilities are often stretched.

Over time MAN will become more like Munich but will never be LHR for the obvious reasons already mentioned. I always used to compare MAN with Dusseldorf, but I think we're streets ahead nowadays.
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:02 pm

Quoting Candid76 (Reply 17):
Over time MAN will become more like Munich but will never be LHR for the obvious reasons already mentioned. I always used to compare MAN with Dusseldorf, but I think we're streets ahead nowadays.

Oh MAN is streets ahead of DUS these days. I think MUC is far more what MAN should be aiming for. however I'm not sure it will become a hub like MUC - more likely a point to point airport, as I can't see any UK carrier making it a real hub airport
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
HT
Posts: 5864
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 6:20 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:06 pm

Quoting Cornish (Reply 15):
Also I believe BHX has issues over the length of its runway meaning that it is restricted to what it can operated.

BHX´s rwy 15 is 8455 ft long (in direction 33 it´s 8537 ft). At least long enough for EK to operate its B777 to DXB.

Speaking of intercontinental op´s from a short rwy: CO operates its B752 out of BRS to EWR from a 2000m-rwy ...

Re: "Limited O&D @ BHX and MAN": What are EK´s loadfactors on these routes ? I assume no too bad, but yield might be different ...

-HT
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
 
MAAN
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:05 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:12 pm

Quoting Beany (Reply 16):
MAN must have about 5 or 6

I take the point, and a good one it is, but currently MAN is operating at least eleven flights to the US. Of course some of those are due to the season (EUK to SFB for example)
Last flight: DFW-LGW/AA/763. Next flight: MAN-CDG/AF/A319.
 
mainMAN
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:55 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:32 pm

Quoting Beany (Reply 16):
Of course London services would be cut back after 9/11.

Why's that then?
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:40 pm

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 21):
Why's that then?

because it is better where possible to cut frequency on routes you serve multiple times daily when demand is temporarily low than stopping service on a route altogether that you serve. Cutting frequency when demand has dropped means you can still keep your market and regular passengers flying, but perhaps consolidated on to less flights. Get rid of a once a day service to somewhere like MAN and you lose all passengers you previously had, possibly to a rival, making it difficult to get those passengers back in the future.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
Orion737
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:14 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:45 pm

Lets see an improvement in regional and European services from MAN first and then think about long-haul expansion.

BA Citiexpress for example, have too small aircraft, too few European destinations and poor frequencies.

Why is it that wherever I want to holiday, I cant get a flight from Manchester. Love to see a Tangier service, for example. Also like to see GT hop on the Gibraltar route and provide some competition to ZB and free me of their no-frills service.
 
Candid76
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 5:10 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:03 pm

Tangier would seem to me to be an obscure destination - we don't even have flights to Casablanca. However I don't think the European network is that bad at all, and most of the obvious gaps (I'd like to see Moscow) stand a good chance of being filled. For domestic flights, MAN has arguably the best network in the UK.
 
mainMAN
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:55 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:52 pm

Quoting Cornish (Reply 22):
because it is better where possible to cut frequency on routes you serve multiple times daily when demand is temporarily low than stopping service on a route altogether that you serve. Cutting frequency when demand has dropped means you can still keep your market and regular passengers flying, but perhaps consolidated on to less flights. Get rid of a once a day service to somewhere like MAN and you lose all passengers you previously had, possibly to a rival, making it difficult to get those passengers back in the future.

Doesn't really explain Ceveland or San Diego though.

This thread wasn't supposed to start any south v north debate, but that's exactly what we should have expected.

Quoting Beany (Reply 16):
all the other 'wish list' airlines won't start service - just please wake up and realise that.



Comments like this are based on nothing other than bias.....with total disregard for anything anyone else has said.
 
Beany
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:18 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:13 am

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 25):
Doesn't really explain Cleveland or San Diego though.

Cleveland is a summer service only and San Diego was dropped in 2003 and not right after 9/11. BA put the 777's from San Diego onto a route that would make more money than SAN was making.

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 25):
Comments like this are based on nothing other than bias.....with total disregard for anything anyone else has said.

Rubbish. Why aren't Air NZ, Qantas, BA, JAL, SAA all serving MAN with 744's now then? Because the demand isn't there for direct services.
LHR is only 200 miles down the road and its just common sense to 'bus' people down on the shuttle to connect for those who are going to Auckland, Sydney, Tokyo or wherever from MAN.
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 am

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 25):
Doesn't really explain Ceveland or San Diego though.

There were other factors around CLE and SAN though. CLE is still flown by CO but at a lower frequency - CO most likely filter more of the traffic thorugh their EWR hub instead from CLE.

As for SAN - well it's close to LAX for starters, and I think BA arranged a codeshare with another carrier to link up with its existing services - so they kept the option to fly there, but just not non stop on BA metal.

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 25):
This thread wasn't supposed to start any south v north debate, but that's exactly what we should have expected.

I didn't see anyone turning it into a North vs South debate. Some people have very honestly expalined the situation between the two cities and the two markets, but nothing that seems to be 'having a go' against "northerners" or "southerners". I would love to see MAN get more services - indeed more to the regions in general, but I have worked in aviation long enough - in financial and planning areas to know that some markets work better than others, and some don't work at all, no matter how much you would want it to.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
Beany
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:18 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:22 am

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 25):
This thread wasn't supposed to start any south v north debate, but that's exactly what we should have expected.

I am not trying to start one. I like MAN and think its a nice airport. Its just the way of the world though. MAN isn't a hub so it will not attract the big boys in sufficient numbers. Look at various places over the world and the same happens. Its not just MAN.

BA stopped serving Auckland with their own metal as passengers could change onto QF metal either in SYD or LAX and thus it frees up a 744 that BA can use to fly somewhere else. The same reason Qantas stopped serving MAN. Any People travelling with QF to MAN will connect through Frankfurt or Heathrow and thus it saves a QF 744 going to MAN. Thats why the Air NZ MAN story is rubbish. They aren't going to send a 744 half way round the world to somewhere 200 miles away from LHR when passengers can just connect at LHR onto Bmi for the MAN leg.

Airlines can't serve airports through sentiment alone.
 
col
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: LHR Vs MAN

Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:34 am

For connecting MAN is far superior to the mess at LHR. I don't fly BA, so even Term 5 won't change the fiasco which is LHR Connections for me. MAN due to its size and friendlier approach is much better, but it's quality has been declining.

MAN needs more Long Haul, with better feeds. There has been literally zero growth on US capacity this year, yet all planes are full. EK, SQ, MH, QR all seem to be out full, granted the yield position isn't known. Feed more pax from the regions, put Star in one terminal, and hey MAN may become a real hub.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos