Are you suggesting 'not happening' full stop. Or just deferred?
Kuwait Airways
- Thread starter Aceshigh
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Are you suggesting 'not happening' full stop. Or just deferred?
IanFarquharson
Elite-Member
Looks like MAG want this to go via STN not MAN
Kuwait Airways on Wednesday (22MAR17) adjusted planned intermedia stop for Westbound Kuwait City – New York JFK route, which will be in effect from 21APR17. From this date, the 777-300ER will operate via London Stansted, replacing current stop in Shannon.
As a result of the intermediate stop changes, operational schedule will be slightly modified.
KU117 KWI0900 – 1400STN1630 – 1945JFK 77W D
KU118 JFK2145 – 1655+1KWI 77W
The airline does not have local traffic rights for London Stansted – New York JFK sector.
Kuwait Airways on Wednesday (22MAR17) adjusted planned intermedia stop for Westbound Kuwait City – New York JFK route, which will be in effect from 21APR17. From this date, the 777-300ER will operate via London Stansted, replacing current stop in Shannon.
As a result of the intermediate stop changes, operational schedule will be slightly modified.
KU117 KWI0900 – 1400STN1630 – 1945JFK 77W D
KU118 JFK2145 – 1655+1KWI 77W
The airline does not have local traffic rights for London Stansted – New York JFK sector.
Well I hope the rumoured scheduled KWI-MAN flights do go ahead. If they don't, there will be a few questions asked I suspect as to why this transit flight was re-directed to STN. It's not as if MAN's apron is so full in the middle of the afternoon.
Passengers would be trooped off at Manchester re screened and trooped back on. Any one failing screening would be detained in Manchester and returned east ( might well have a nice escorted mini bus ride down to Slough Windsor and Hounslow regional)or more probably via Doha/Dubai or Abu Dhabi same day
The answer is within this statement and is certainly to do with Home Office me thinks.
If passenger fail re-screening it's going to be so much easier to escort/bus them round M25 and deport east same day isn't it?
Same for crew change other way round M25.
It very certain Kuwait would rather get their slots back at Heathrow for KU101/2 they used for so many years.
The answer is within this statement and is certainly to do with Home Office me thinks.
If passenger fail re-screening it's going to be so much easier to escort/bus them round M25 and deport east same day isn't it?
Same for crew change other way round M25.
It very certain Kuwait would rather get their slots back at Heathrow for KU101/2 they used for so many years.
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
- Thread starter
- #48
But on that basis we may as well move PIA as well ?
Infact why not give STN a real leg up and shift one of the 3 Emirates down there or maybe the odd QR or two ?
It's all going in the same pot what does it matter ?
It matters because it was a contribution to cost. Not sure on the landing fee for a 777 but it must have been £5k £15k £25k a year based on a daily flight.
Either Manchester pitched for the flights or Kuwait identified Manchester as it's preferred option.
Simply handing that contribution to cost to STN "on a plate" is totally unacceptable.
Well in my opinion at least !
Infact why not give STN a real leg up and shift one of the 3 Emirates down there or maybe the odd QR or two ?
It's all going in the same pot what does it matter ?
It matters because it was a contribution to cost. Not sure on the landing fee for a 777 but it must have been £5k £15k £25k a year based on a daily flight.
Either Manchester pitched for the flights or Kuwait identified Manchester as it's preferred option.
Simply handing that contribution to cost to STN "on a plate" is totally unacceptable.
Well in my opinion at least !
Last edited:
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
- Thread starter
- #51
Genuine Q.
Could they not simply be held here then put on the next shuttle down to Heathrow with one escort.
I'm pretty sure KU have a daily flight out of LHR.
That seems no more arduous than processing them at STN and the additional staff logistics involved in shuttling them via van / road the 90 odd minutes around to Heathrow to catch that same flight ?
Could they not simply be held here then put on the next shuttle down to Heathrow with one escort.
I'm pretty sure KU have a daily flight out of LHR.
That seems no more arduous than processing them at STN and the additional staff logistics involved in shuttling them via van / road the 90 odd minutes around to Heathrow to catch that same flight ?
Borneobob
Active Member
Maybe the STN move was the idea of MAG as the best option for Kuwait if indeed the issue of returning passengers home the same day was important. Is this the reason they have decided to stop using SNN, and it could be MAG's way of accomadating them until they start services that terminate at MAN.
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
- Thread starter
- #53
If it was the idea of MAG it stinks to high heaven.
Where an airline specifies Manchester we want those services run into Manchester and not subject to some group horse trading with an airport 200 miles away.
I should theoretically be overjoyed with Stansted it does after all make a sigificant financial contribution to Greater Manchester shareholders and it's taxpayers through its profits
BUT im not......
To me it remains an anathema with the potential to suck demand away from the North artificially above and beyond Heathrow and Gatwick .
To a lessor extent East Midlands also falls into this misplaced strategy of shuffling the pack. Great on the balance sheet but this hides inconvenience, frequency, access for the Notthen market etc we can ill afford anything thst diminishes this.
We want those flights that want to come here, to actually arrive here , and NOT get diverted to other airports in the group , MAG potentially have form here!
We have a large DHL transit warehouse but almost immediately new services started to support that facility they inexplicably stopped, initially the only daily schedule being a 45 tonne SCANIA truck on a daily 70 mile commute. There is a sense it hasn't fulfilled potential.
Why ?
A shift of aircraft to EMA ?
Do we also recall Cargologicair ?
Remember them, the first of a number of based 747s providing daily cargo flights to the US and Asia direct from the N West. The news swept through the various frieght media and was
"100% nailed on providing a great facility for shippers in the North"
....that was until inexplicably it mysteriously evaporated with the flights "suddenly" arriving not in Manchester but 5 hours away in East Anglia. Was it "more"convenient" to discreetly offer to move it South ?
Supposing Kuwait "like" what happens at Stansted and get a taste the for the place.
Handling is set up , a level of familiarity grows, suddenly MAG say
"hey now you are here , lots of competition in Manchester why not put your terminator into Stansted Our London Airport after all you already operate daily flights"?
MAG must be looking over their shoulder at their shareholders near the Wollongong River who let's be clear only bought into the MAG vision believing they were getting a slice of the action for a 3rd London Airport. The expansion of Manchester whilst not embarrassing must be an unexpected suprise. But whilst it's all well and good what they really want, is a tsunami of long haul into Stansted. Each flight into Manchester is tolerated BUT it pushes any expansion at STN back and I suspect they might be getting itchy feet.
Yes it might be a different market the catchment clearly does not overlap BUT a single aircraft cannot be used twice !
An aircraft deployed to Manchester is one less that can be used to Stansted. ....and vice versa.
I have always been concerned that when, by way of example we got to 3 EK or QR flights there might be the temptation to offer a "lucrative" deal to offer "other group options".
I sincerely hope Kuwait isn't a part of that as it does fit a narrative of trying to entice an MEB into STN albeit with smoke and mirrors. You can bet your bottom Australian Dingo Dollar that MAG are trying to sell this as a pre cursor to flights into London NOT Manchester.
Ok this might be a leap of the imagination but if true , NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
The board at Manchester led by KOT has been magnificent but it must be allowed to function as a commercial enterprise and not force feed traffic to other airports within the group dressed up as a transparent benefit!
And can I remind readers the board are "passing through" in 2, 5 8 years they will have moved on, they do not own our airport, they are simplistically "minding the shop" BUT it's our shop based here, not in East Anglia.
Actions taken now can have far reaching consequences down the line.
And finally suppose there are other unintended consequences?
Suppose KOT becomes irked by the strategy?
Suppose he is annoyed by meddling to the extent he jumps ship ?
I want flights HERE,
I want KOT HERE.
Stansted can support itself, in terms of support from Up North, sorry it can get stuffed !
Sermon over
Where an airline specifies Manchester we want those services run into Manchester and not subject to some group horse trading with an airport 200 miles away.
I should theoretically be overjoyed with Stansted it does after all make a sigificant financial contribution to Greater Manchester shareholders and it's taxpayers through its profits
BUT im not......
To me it remains an anathema with the potential to suck demand away from the North artificially above and beyond Heathrow and Gatwick .
To a lessor extent East Midlands also falls into this misplaced strategy of shuffling the pack. Great on the balance sheet but this hides inconvenience, frequency, access for the Notthen market etc we can ill afford anything thst diminishes this.
We want those flights that want to come here, to actually arrive here , and NOT get diverted to other airports in the group , MAG potentially have form here!
We have a large DHL transit warehouse but almost immediately new services started to support that facility they inexplicably stopped, initially the only daily schedule being a 45 tonne SCANIA truck on a daily 70 mile commute. There is a sense it hasn't fulfilled potential.
Why ?
A shift of aircraft to EMA ?
Do we also recall Cargologicair ?
Remember them, the first of a number of based 747s providing daily cargo flights to the US and Asia direct from the N West. The news swept through the various frieght media and was
"100% nailed on providing a great facility for shippers in the North"
....that was until inexplicably it mysteriously evaporated with the flights "suddenly" arriving not in Manchester but 5 hours away in East Anglia. Was it "more"convenient" to discreetly offer to move it South ?
Supposing Kuwait "like" what happens at Stansted and get a taste the for the place.
Handling is set up , a level of familiarity grows, suddenly MAG say
"hey now you are here , lots of competition in Manchester why not put your terminator into Stansted Our London Airport after all you already operate daily flights"?
MAG must be looking over their shoulder at their shareholders near the Wollongong River who let's be clear only bought into the MAG vision believing they were getting a slice of the action for a 3rd London Airport. The expansion of Manchester whilst not embarrassing must be an unexpected suprise. But whilst it's all well and good what they really want, is a tsunami of long haul into Stansted. Each flight into Manchester is tolerated BUT it pushes any expansion at STN back and I suspect they might be getting itchy feet.
Yes it might be a different market the catchment clearly does not overlap BUT a single aircraft cannot be used twice !
An aircraft deployed to Manchester is one less that can be used to Stansted. ....and vice versa.
I have always been concerned that when, by way of example we got to 3 EK or QR flights there might be the temptation to offer a "lucrative" deal to offer "other group options".
I sincerely hope Kuwait isn't a part of that as it does fit a narrative of trying to entice an MEB into STN albeit with smoke and mirrors. You can bet your bottom Australian Dingo Dollar that MAG are trying to sell this as a pre cursor to flights into London NOT Manchester.
Ok this might be a leap of the imagination but if true , NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
The board at Manchester led by KOT has been magnificent but it must be allowed to function as a commercial enterprise and not force feed traffic to other airports within the group dressed up as a transparent benefit!
And can I remind readers the board are "passing through" in 2, 5 8 years they will have moved on, they do not own our airport, they are simplistically "minding the shop" BUT it's our shop based here, not in East Anglia.
Actions taken now can have far reaching consequences down the line.
And finally suppose there are other unintended consequences?
Suppose KOT becomes irked by the strategy?
Suppose he is annoyed by meddling to the extent he jumps ship ?
I want flights HERE,
I want KOT HERE.
Stansted can support itself, in terms of support from Up North, sorry it can get stuffed !
Sermon over
Last edited:
David_itl
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2016
- 2,098
- 193
- 58
Enough of this conspiracy rubbish. They applied for slots at both MAN and STN. Thus free to choose exactly which airport suited their purpose more. As for the expected route, do we HAVE to keep trawling up this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rn-tourists-flock-to-manchester-because-it-i/
“We came here because there is not a lot of traffic,” Jazy al-Azme, an 18-year-old business student from Kuwait, told the Times. “It’s easier to shop here - too many people in London. It’s too expensive. Here it is very easy. Here you can walk.”
Six years ago, there were 16,348 passengers from Saudi Arabia, but in 2015 that number had increased to 40,151. The number of passengers from Kuwait jumped from around 3,000 in 2010 to more than 9,000 last year"
Throw in the cargo possibilities through Kuwait having the Eurofighter on order and you can see why not having the potentially temporary transit flight is NOT such a big deal.
As for MAN wanting to move by stealth the ME3 to STN, I have never read such utter detritus. Why WOULD they want to do this? They are serving NORTHERN England with this route. It simply DOES NOT fit in with the stated objective of getting passengers to use the LOCAL services and not traipse their way down to the London area. As long as the group makes money and is paying very healthy dividend, the Australians will be happy. That STN may get an EK service is neither here nor there. There are only so many slots down at LHR/LGW that airlines would be willing to sell. Even if EK were to shift 1 frequency, both QR and EY would then be looking at the situation and think "time to boost our MAN offering again".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rn-tourists-flock-to-manchester-because-it-i/
“We came here because there is not a lot of traffic,” Jazy al-Azme, an 18-year-old business student from Kuwait, told the Times. “It’s easier to shop here - too many people in London. It’s too expensive. Here it is very easy. Here you can walk.”
Six years ago, there were 16,348 passengers from Saudi Arabia, but in 2015 that number had increased to 40,151. The number of passengers from Kuwait jumped from around 3,000 in 2010 to more than 9,000 last year"
Throw in the cargo possibilities through Kuwait having the Eurofighter on order and you can see why not having the potentially temporary transit flight is NOT such a big deal.
As for MAN wanting to move by stealth the ME3 to STN, I have never read such utter detritus. Why WOULD they want to do this? They are serving NORTHERN England with this route. It simply DOES NOT fit in with the stated objective of getting passengers to use the LOCAL services and not traipse their way down to the London area. As long as the group makes money and is paying very healthy dividend, the Australians will be happy. That STN may get an EK service is neither here nor there. There are only so many slots down at LHR/LGW that airlines would be willing to sell. Even if EK were to shift 1 frequency, both QR and EY would then be looking at the situation and think "time to boost our MAN offering again".
Have to agree with David_itl. The reasons for KU going wherever they go are not known and wild speculation like the above is bizarre. Especially, as the proposed move to MAN was only ever revealed by leaks rather than announcements. I'm used to reading these kinds of long winded rants on other sites but not on here.
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
Here here.
The seats offered for sale by Middle Eastern carriers from MAN is the second largest offering in Europe after Heathrow. It continues to grow with Oman and, we think, Kuwait this year.
Suggesting the poster child of the MEB3 (or any of them) want to hop off this particular gravy train is quite frankly silly.
The seats offered for sale by Middle Eastern carriers from MAN is the second largest offering in Europe after Heathrow. It continues to grow with Oman and, we think, Kuwait this year.
Suggesting the poster child of the MEB3 (or any of them) want to hop off this particular gravy train is quite frankly silly.
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
- Thread starter
- #57
Good grief. Well apologies if I offended anyone, its only an opinion and I was only looking for responses!
The evidence I put fwd was factual or did I miss something re DHL Cargologicair ?
In terms of Kuwait they applied for slots at Manchester FIRST! The tech stop, flight times, flt numbers were all in place two weeks before the STN application as indeed was a start date from very well informed sources.
They did not apply for STN until 22nd March!
So what changed in the intervening period ?
Maybe all the rumours were incorrect.
Maybe the Home office angle has substance and changed matters . I have no idea ? Maybe KU were unaware of the STN option, although that seems odd.
I was simply offering an opinion based on what had gone before.
With reference to the MEBS I'm simply suggesting that at 3 a day would you go for 4 OR at Manchester or might you be tempted "If offered a lucrative group deal" to switch that extra flight into STN.
MAG are to put mildly , ultra keen to show STN supports long haul and tempting one of the MEBS would be best placed to support that.
Not sure either is unreasonable given the evidence I put forward re Cargologicair DHL.
The evidence I put fwd was factual or did I miss something re DHL Cargologicair ?
In terms of Kuwait they applied for slots at Manchester FIRST! The tech stop, flight times, flt numbers were all in place two weeks before the STN application as indeed was a start date from very well informed sources.
They did not apply for STN until 22nd March!
So what changed in the intervening period ?
Maybe all the rumours were incorrect.
Maybe the Home office angle has substance and changed matters . I have no idea ? Maybe KU were unaware of the STN option, although that seems odd.
I was simply offering an opinion based on what had gone before.
With reference to the MEBS I'm simply suggesting that at 3 a day would you go for 4 OR at Manchester or might you be tempted "If offered a lucrative group deal" to switch that extra flight into STN.
MAG are to put mildly , ultra keen to show STN supports long haul and tempting one of the MEBS would be best placed to support that.
Not sure either is unreasonable given the evidence I put forward re Cargologicair DHL.
Last edited:
David, you imply that KU applied for slots at both MAN and STN at the same time and decided that STN suited them best. It's strange that nobody as far as I'm aware on any of the forums mentioned the STN slot application at the time although I admit we are sometimes prone to omitting relevant (negative) facts. I know of a quite senior person at MAN who was under the impression that the KU transit flight was coming to MAN as a done deal. In my opinion, the balance of probability is that MAG were complicit in the decision for the flight to go to STN and that the slot application for STN was later. (I see Aceshigh has now stated 22 March. You can't get much more recent than that!)
I certainly interpreted Aceshigh's comment about the ME3 as relating to a situation where EK for example were considering a 4th flight, not a suggestion that some of the existing flights would be encouraged to move south.
Whether we like to accept it or not, it is not unreasonable to think that Ryanair growth at MAN is being constrained by a reluctance for MAG to invest in expanding T3. Is it coincidence that Ryanair are starting to put a few more flights into LPL again, quite aside from growth at EMA and STN? Maybe, maybe not.
There is still no strong evidence to indicate that on completion of the TP, MAN will have significantly more parking stands than at present. MAN cannot expand indefinitely due to land constraints, quite aside from runway slots at peak periods and terminal capacity at T3. There seems to be a general consensus that MAN's initial TP aspirations have been toned down, which would tend to indicate that the budget was firmly fixed and any further funding to meet those aspirations being justified and agreed by shareholders was a non-starter.
To me, there will be situations arising when MAG will have to decide whether it would serve the group better to persuade airlines that certain potential new flights or allocation of based aircraft should go to other group airports, if the airlines were agreeable. But I doubt it would be at the risk of losing the flights altogether.
I certainly interpreted Aceshigh's comment about the ME3 as relating to a situation where EK for example were considering a 4th flight, not a suggestion that some of the existing flights would be encouraged to move south.
Whether we like to accept it or not, it is not unreasonable to think that Ryanair growth at MAN is being constrained by a reluctance for MAG to invest in expanding T3. Is it coincidence that Ryanair are starting to put a few more flights into LPL again, quite aside from growth at EMA and STN? Maybe, maybe not.
There is still no strong evidence to indicate that on completion of the TP, MAN will have significantly more parking stands than at present. MAN cannot expand indefinitely due to land constraints, quite aside from runway slots at peak periods and terminal capacity at T3. There seems to be a general consensus that MAN's initial TP aspirations have been toned down, which would tend to indicate that the budget was firmly fixed and any further funding to meet those aspirations being justified and agreed by shareholders was a non-starter.
To me, there will be situations arising when MAG will have to decide whether it would serve the group better to persuade airlines that certain potential new flights or allocation of based aircraft should go to other group airports, if the airlines were agreeable. But I doubt it would be at the risk of losing the flights altogether.
Last edited:
I'm sure that most regular contributors here are deeply disappointed by the way things have turned out in the case of the proposed Kuwait Airways transit schedule. However, it really isn't helpful to turn on each other with accusations of promoting conspiracy theories. Let us instead examine the facts.
We (as enthusiasts) are inclined to see things from a different perspective than that of a senior MAG executive. Their priorities will sometimes differ from those of an observer who craves the success of one airport in isolation. Like it or not, they have a different agenda ... a group focus. When a large company takes over another brand in the same industry, this is often justified by rhetoric claiming that synergies will be exploited and group costs reduced as a result. Efficiency will be enhanced by specialisation. And that the brands will work together when necessary in the common interests of the wider group.
One familiar example would be Lufthansa Group. Their various brands only compete with each other so far. The public may think of them as separate airlines but the CEO sees a collection of brands representing a single company. Senior management will be prepared to shuffle resources between the inhouse brands if this is seen as beneficial to the group as a whole. Note the highly-contentious process of handing swathes of core Lufthansa short-hauls off to no-frills brand Eurowings and the like. Many observers and employees are appalled (see: strikes), but if senior management see this is best serving the group that is what they will do. Likewise IAG: Vueling and Iberia Express have gained at the expense of the core Iberia brand. Potential exists for swaps between these, British Airways and Aer Lingus as well. Decisions to take from one brand and give to another are often hugely unpopular. But they're seen as strategically justified at boardroom level.
Now let's look at the case of MAG. MAG is an integrated company too. It's sub-brands include four UK airports: Manchester, London Stansted, East Midlands and Bournemouth. We don't need conspiracy theories to deduce that MAG senior management will reshuffle assets and resources around the group as they see fit to maximise advantage to the whole. Exploiting synergies (as they see it) is considered one of the key advantages of operating a group of brands together rather than a single operation. MAG has already acknowledged that they have used their good relations with airlines serving one of their airports to propose greater collaboration at others in the group. The Jet2 bases at STN and EMA are a good example of this; the Thomas Cook operation at STN is another. FlyBe also worked with MAG to offer scheduled services from all four group airports although BOH and STN didn't work out. And as Aces High says, you can be sure that MAG will be using its strong existing relationship with the MEB3 to promote a STN operation to them. Note that nobody suggested moving an existing MAN service to STN ... but if they were to be considering a frequency enhancement perhaps MAG could be tempted to switch-sell that interest? The idea isn't far-fetched in the commercial reality of the industry.
Now, we will probably never receive any acknowledgment that the Kuwait Airways transit was switch-sold from MAN to STN by MAG. But there is circumstantial evidence to support the idea. And we can see why it would make sense to MAG from a group perspective. They've been promising to attract significant long-haul to STN for a while now and it just hasn't really happened for them. Yes, this is only a transit operation, but it is a PR coup and it looks good. And MAG gets the money anyway. Manchester enthusiasts may abhor this, but MAG HQ will be delighted. And it can be showcased to the Australians as long-haul progress at STN.
We mustn't be naive either. We can fool ourselves that MAG want every last piece of business through the doors at MAN but that simply isn't true. They want to maximise business within the MAG family but prefer to direct the focus. Two prime examples of this spring to mind, although again we will likely never see an acknowledgment that switch-sell did apply. Cargologicair very clearly announced that they planned to set up B747 freighter ops specifically from a MAN-base to serve the North. But they ended up at STN ... an airport which MAG markets as a specialist cargo operation. A centre of excellence for cargo. And MAN does not enjoy similar billing. The Manchester Airport Cargo brochure on the airport website dates back to 2008 and is every bit as out-of-date as it sounds. If you're interested in launching a new freight service to MAN your MAG contacts are the same guys who are responsible for promoting STN and EMA. And they aren't based at MAN. Leads are directed towards MAG's cargo focus airports.
The second notable example dates back around five years ... pre-dating MAG's ownership of STN. One of the two big AN124 operators (either ADB or VDA ... I can't find the original article) announced that they would be using MAN as a regular staging-point on flights crossing the Atlantic. A period of silence followed ... then came very frequent transit visits via MAG sister-airport EMA!
Of course, MAN is a MAG focus airport for other aspects of the air transport business. But not for all-cargo operations. And apparently not for transit flights either. We may not like it, but that is the reality.
Now rest assured that I don't like this situation any more than most readers here. But I do recognise why it happens. It is better to educate ourselves about the machinations of the industry rather than to lash out at each other on forums. MAN will suffer setbacks from time to time, and some of these will be driven by MAG directing certain types of business leads to one of their focus airports. That is the way the business works.
Now of course I'm quite pragmatic about developments such as this. Let the executive responsible be tarred, feathered, slung in the stocks, pelted with rotten eggs and deducted ten years of bonuses. I demand no more than that. Everything in moderation, eh?!!! ;-)
We (as enthusiasts) are inclined to see things from a different perspective than that of a senior MAG executive. Their priorities will sometimes differ from those of an observer who craves the success of one airport in isolation. Like it or not, they have a different agenda ... a group focus. When a large company takes over another brand in the same industry, this is often justified by rhetoric claiming that synergies will be exploited and group costs reduced as a result. Efficiency will be enhanced by specialisation. And that the brands will work together when necessary in the common interests of the wider group.
One familiar example would be Lufthansa Group. Their various brands only compete with each other so far. The public may think of them as separate airlines but the CEO sees a collection of brands representing a single company. Senior management will be prepared to shuffle resources between the inhouse brands if this is seen as beneficial to the group as a whole. Note the highly-contentious process of handing swathes of core Lufthansa short-hauls off to no-frills brand Eurowings and the like. Many observers and employees are appalled (see: strikes), but if senior management see this is best serving the group that is what they will do. Likewise IAG: Vueling and Iberia Express have gained at the expense of the core Iberia brand. Potential exists for swaps between these, British Airways and Aer Lingus as well. Decisions to take from one brand and give to another are often hugely unpopular. But they're seen as strategically justified at boardroom level.
Now let's look at the case of MAG. MAG is an integrated company too. It's sub-brands include four UK airports: Manchester, London Stansted, East Midlands and Bournemouth. We don't need conspiracy theories to deduce that MAG senior management will reshuffle assets and resources around the group as they see fit to maximise advantage to the whole. Exploiting synergies (as they see it) is considered one of the key advantages of operating a group of brands together rather than a single operation. MAG has already acknowledged that they have used their good relations with airlines serving one of their airports to propose greater collaboration at others in the group. The Jet2 bases at STN and EMA are a good example of this; the Thomas Cook operation at STN is another. FlyBe also worked with MAG to offer scheduled services from all four group airports although BOH and STN didn't work out. And as Aces High says, you can be sure that MAG will be using its strong existing relationship with the MEB3 to promote a STN operation to them. Note that nobody suggested moving an existing MAN service to STN ... but if they were to be considering a frequency enhancement perhaps MAG could be tempted to switch-sell that interest? The idea isn't far-fetched in the commercial reality of the industry.
Now, we will probably never receive any acknowledgment that the Kuwait Airways transit was switch-sold from MAN to STN by MAG. But there is circumstantial evidence to support the idea. And we can see why it would make sense to MAG from a group perspective. They've been promising to attract significant long-haul to STN for a while now and it just hasn't really happened for them. Yes, this is only a transit operation, but it is a PR coup and it looks good. And MAG gets the money anyway. Manchester enthusiasts may abhor this, but MAG HQ will be delighted. And it can be showcased to the Australians as long-haul progress at STN.
We mustn't be naive either. We can fool ourselves that MAG want every last piece of business through the doors at MAN but that simply isn't true. They want to maximise business within the MAG family but prefer to direct the focus. Two prime examples of this spring to mind, although again we will likely never see an acknowledgment that switch-sell did apply. Cargologicair very clearly announced that they planned to set up B747 freighter ops specifically from a MAN-base to serve the North. But they ended up at STN ... an airport which MAG markets as a specialist cargo operation. A centre of excellence for cargo. And MAN does not enjoy similar billing. The Manchester Airport Cargo brochure on the airport website dates back to 2008 and is every bit as out-of-date as it sounds. If you're interested in launching a new freight service to MAN your MAG contacts are the same guys who are responsible for promoting STN and EMA. And they aren't based at MAN. Leads are directed towards MAG's cargo focus airports.
The second notable example dates back around five years ... pre-dating MAG's ownership of STN. One of the two big AN124 operators (either ADB or VDA ... I can't find the original article) announced that they would be using MAN as a regular staging-point on flights crossing the Atlantic. A period of silence followed ... then came very frequent transit visits via MAG sister-airport EMA!
Of course, MAN is a MAG focus airport for other aspects of the air transport business. But not for all-cargo operations. And apparently not for transit flights either. We may not like it, but that is the reality.
Now rest assured that I don't like this situation any more than most readers here. But I do recognise why it happens. It is better to educate ourselves about the machinations of the industry rather than to lash out at each other on forums. MAN will suffer setbacks from time to time, and some of these will be driven by MAG directing certain types of business leads to one of their focus airports. That is the way the business works.
Now of course I'm quite pragmatic about developments such as this. Let the executive responsible be tarred, feathered, slung in the stocks, pelted with rotten eggs and deducted ten years of bonuses. I demand no more than that. Everything in moderation, eh?!!! ;-)
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
- Thread starter
- #60
Excellent highly articulate post EGCC Man summarising my own thoughts much more coherently than the clumsy manner in which I tried to express them 🙂
With limitations on footprint and indeed gates at "certain" times ovet the next few years possibly more to follow depending on the business case ?
With limitations on footprint and indeed gates at "certain" times ovet the next few years possibly more to follow depending on the business case ?
Similar threads
Remove Advertisements
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
Trending Hashtags
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 2
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 2
-
#EasyJetWeight: 2
-
#EasyJetRoutesWeight: 1
-
#LoganairWeight: 1
-
#airhorizonteWeight: 1