Manchester Airport overtakes London Stansted to become the UK's 3rd busiest airport

[WestCoast]

Extracts from this article:

London Stansted, previously Britain's No. 3 airport after Heathrow and London Gatwick -- which BAA sold in 2009 -- slipped to fourth in the rankings following a 2.8 percent decline in passenger numbers to 18 million.

That puts it behind Manchester airport in northern England, where the total rose 6.5 percent to 18.8 million, according to a statement last week. The number of passengers using scheduled airlines there rose almost 14 percent, spurred by services from Gulf carriers Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways Ltd., which are seeking to strip traffic away from BA at Heathrow.

To put it briefly; looking at the passenger figures for 2011, Manchester's traffic rose by 6.5% compared to 2010, while traffic at Stansted declined by 2.8%.

No doubt Manchester Airport Group will be very pleased by this, as they lost this spot in the rankings quite a number of years ago.

 

[WatcherZero]

only 2008 wasnt it that it was ahead of Stansted before, or was it 2006.

 

[Schnellzug]

Time to rename it London Manchester Airport?

 

[WestCoast]

only 2008 wasnt it that it was ahead of Stansted before, or was it 2006.

It was ahead of Stansted in 2005, but was overtaken in 2006. Source: CAA.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Time to rename it London Manchester Airport?

Well, there was talk of Birmingham Airport becoming another airport from the London area with HS2 providing a fast link, maybe they could skip that and go straight to Manchester...

 

[Nym]

Well, Euston - Manchester Airport will be around the 1 hour mark when Stage II of HS2 opens, so will be a comparable journey time as that to Heathrow using the Piccadilly Line

Birmingham Airport Station will be about the same as the fastest current way to Heathrow from Euston. Then it's hoofing it to the actual airport though.

 

[Schnellzug]

Well, there was talk of Birmingham Airport becoming another airport from the London area with HS2 providing a fast link, maybe they could skip that and go straight to Manchester...

Might be just the incentive to construct HS2.1 to Manchester; promote it as a High Speed rail Link to London's third airport

 

[WestCoast]

Might be just the incentive to construct HS2.1 to Manchester; promote it as a High Speed rail Link to London's third airport

Some Londonders won't even go to Stansted, so persuading them to head 200 miles north (no matter how fast it is) will be a challenge. Especially considering that I don't expect the fares on HS2 to be the same price as an Oyster single to Heathrow or rail fare to Gatwick!

Although, this aside, I am glad Manchester has regained this spot. Stansted is such a boring airport. All you see taking off/landing (apart from cargo) is easyJet, Ryanair, easyJet, Ryanair, easyJet, some random Turkish airline, Ryanair, easyJet, Air Berlin, Ryanair, easyJet.

Stansted's only redeeming features are the airy terminal (which unfortuantely has been crammed with shops) and the people mover system out to the easyJet and Air Berlin gates.

 

[trentside]

I'm pleased that Manchester has regained its spot. I find it to be a very efficient, clean and pleasant Airport to travel through.

I've used Manchester many times over the years. In fact it was the starting point for my first ever passenger flight on my own - almost exactly a year ago (ZB518 to Barcelona).

 

[Ivo]

I was a bit surprised to read this thread's title; I had assumed Manchester was ahead anyway - shows what I know.

I agree with this criticism of Stansted:

All you see taking off/landing (apart from cargo) is easyJet, Ryanair, easyJet, Ryanair, easyJet, some random Turkish airline, Ryanair, easyJet, Air Berlin, Ryanair, easyJet.

Manchester has plenty of variety and also shows that there is more to the UK on an international market that London. Maybe everywhere up north does need a direct link to Manchester Airport after all (It is a fair point though; it is so much easier to access than Stansted from locations outside of its primary market, which is a flaw with the latter - the XC route to Birmingham aside, you have London, Cambridge and sod all else.

On a side note, isn't Manchester equipped to handle A380s?

 

[radamfi]

It may come as a surprise to some people, but Manchester has more destinations than Heathrow!

 

[WestCoast]

On a side note, isn't Manchester equipped to handle A380s?

It certainly can - one of the 3 daily services to Dubai is an A380. Heathrow and Manchester are the only airports which see them.

 

[radamfi]

Manchester and Heathrow are worse in the sense that their flightpaths go over heavily populated areas. The flightpaths for Gatwick and Stansted are deliberately located away from most housing so the locals suffer much less from noise.

 

[WestCoast]

Manchester and Heathrow are worse in the sense that their flightpaths go over heavily populated areas. The flightpaths for Gatwick and Stansted are deliberately located away from most housing so the locals suffer much less from noise.

With some exceptions, most of the people living under the flightpaths knew that there would be an issue when they purchased or began renting their houses/flats. Traffic at Manchester has actually declined in terms of passengers in the last 10 years. I accept there will be people that cannot avoid this, however many of the communities around airports benefit immensely from the centre of employment.

Aircraft are becoming quieter as well, so the newer frames are less likely to cause as much disturbance.

Manchester is better than Heathrow for this as the area to the south of the airport is sparsely populated.

It may come as a surprise to some people, but Manchester has more destinations than Heathrow!

I suspect Gatwick and Manchester will offer more destinations than Heathrow because of a greater number of charter services. For example, Thomson and Thomas Cook with their once weekly holiday flights to more obscure places like Puerto Plata, Preveza and Mersa Matruh.

 

[Nym]

On a side note, isn't Manchester equipped to handle A380s?

Yes, it has limited hard stand taxiways from both runways cleared for VLA (Airbus A380, Antanov An225).

There is one airbridge stand to house an A380 at one time, and they're in the process of converting some of the 2xx remote stands between the Cargo Terminal and T2 to hold an additional three VLA (A380-800, A380-900, An225, An124)

This is so that Manchester can be used as a diversionary station or stopover for more than just Emerates, the only airline currently using the A380 stand in T1 (Stand 18 IIRC)

If demand for A380 services increases, I can see a set of remote boarding gates being built between T2 and the Cargo Terminal, with a walkway link to Pier C (Terminal 1) and Terminal Two. With any additional VLA departures using these three remote stands (that still have full ground service facilities as they where built with the expansion of T2 in mind)

And a large number of airlines are now showing intrest in Manchester thanks to the market that has been shown by changing at Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt. VS is putting more flights in soon, and the JFK routes are now all year with American Airlines and Delta Airlines. With 10dpw to Newark. And many more to Philadelphia, Chicago and Atlanta (Georgia).

 

[WestCoast]

And a large number of airlines are now showing intrest in Manchester thanks to the market that has been shown by changing at Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt. VS is putting more flights in soon, and the JFK routes are now all year with American Airlines and Delta Airlines. With 10dpw to Newark. And many more to Philadelphia, Chicago and Atlanta (Georgia).

Those airlines are feeding people into their USA hubs, which makes sense. From the other direction you've got the rich Gulf airlines (Emirates, Etihad and Qatar) with flashy A380s, 777s and A330s and Turkish Airlines with high-frequency services to Istanbul.

They've exploited very large markets like Manchester to India, Pakistan, the Far East and Australia via their hubs in the middle East and apparently Etihad recently announced that Manchester was one of their best performing routes on the network.

So, basically people from Manchester can go anywhere in the world without going via Heathrow.

 

[Nym]

Pretty much, most of the world is one change away from Manchester, and it's a nicer airport to travel through, and closer to more of the UK population by most means of Transport than Heathrow.

It does warrant it's high levels of direct services, will only grow even more.

Next up, stop neglecting Terminal Two and expand it into the Long Stay Car Park, and build the satellite terminal to take VLA, T2 will then one again be the long distance carrier terminal, will need more internal terminal space though, at the moment it's all shops.

 

[radamfi]

I suspect Gatwick and Manchester will offer more destinations than Heathrow because of a greater number of charter services. For example, Thomson and Thomas Cook with their once weekly holiday flights to more obscure places like Puerto Plata, Preveza and Mersa Matruh.

Yes that's the reason. Gatwick occasionally boasts that it has more destinations than any other UK airport.

However it is an interesting statistic and no one at work believed me that Manchester has more destinations than Heathrow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pretty much, most of the world is one change away from Manchester

Which do you prefer: flying from Manchester and changing somewhere like Dubai or travelling to Heathrow and flying direct from there?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe everywhere up north does need a direct link to Manchester Airport after all

A dangerous statement to make on this forum..

I can hear the distant rumblings of dissent from the Don valley beginning to surface as I write.

 

[Nym]

Which do you prefer: flying from Manchester and changing somewhere like Dubai or travelling to Heathrow and flying direct from there?

I'd prefer to fly from Manchester where I'm living at the moment, when I move down to Hampshire, I'll probably fly from Heathrow.

And using Dubai is a bad example, because I won't change planes there or fly to that country or even through that country. It's on my blacklist, as are most Arab countries in the middle east. If I where flying to somewhere like Australia I'd go via Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong or maybe more extreme places, but I won't fly via Dubai or Abu Dhabi...

A better example might be somewhere like Seattle or SFO, where I am now I'd fly from Manchester via Paris, Amsterdam or Atlanta. If I where in Hampshire, I'd either fly via Amsterdam / Paris or go via Heathrow.

EDIT: Que comments implying I'm racist from ill informed forum members...

 

[WestCoast]

Which do you prefer: flying from Manchester and changing somewhere like Dubai or travelling to Heathrow and flying direct from there?

I would never travel to Heathrow by road/rail to catch a flight....unless it was cheaper of course (which it rarely is, as one-stop flights are generally cheaper on long-haul flights).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And using Dubai is a bad example, because I won't change planes there or fly to that country or even through that country. It's on my blacklist, as are most Arab countries in the middle east.

EDIT: Que comments implying I'm racist from ill informed forum members...

You're not racist, but from what I've heard Dubai is teeming with expats from all over the world, and having flown Etihad you'd be surprised at the some of the people working for the airlines there.

 

[Nym]

You're not racist, but from what I've heard Dubai is teeming with expats from all over the world, and having flown Etihad you'd be surprised at the some of the people working for the airlines there.

Oh I know it is, I know a few people who work for middle eastern carriers, I also know people who have been dismissed by said carrier, arrested and charged with crimes that are illegal under international human rights issues in the UAE...

(As a hint to those who don't know what I'm on about)

 

[WestCoast]

Oh I know it is, I know a few people who work for middle eastern carriers, I also know people who have been dismissed by said carrier, arrested and charged with crimes that are illegal under international human rights issues in the UAE...

Fair enough, but I see that as a hazard of working in a culture like that, and the UAE is seen as 'tolerant' compared to other countries in the region.

Stick to going via Amsterdam...

 

[Nym]

Fair enough, but I see that as a hazard of working in a culture like that, and the UAE is seen as 'tolerant' compared to other countries in the region.

Yeah, but I'd still be lined up in front of a firing squad or hung from the gallows.

 

[WestCoast]

Yeah, but I'd still be lined up in front of a firing squad or hung from the gallows.

Stick to going via Amsterdam then...

 

[Nym]

Stick to going via Amsterdam then...

I intend to, KLM are nice

Chatting up Dutch trolley dollies is nearly as fun as the straight ones at Thomson and BMI...

 

[WestCoast]

I intend to, KLM are nice

I like them, along with Swiss, BA and Lufthansa. I'm less keen on Air France or Iberia. In some ways it's good if people can support the European carriers. My reasoning for this is that they aren't on a level playing field with the Gulf or Far Eastern carriers which often have lower costs (for various reasons which I can sure you can imagine) or are subsidized by governments.

Amsterdam, Munich and Zurich are great airports to transfer in as well. The latter two even offer all passengers free tea and coffee (or at least did when I went through). Can you imagine any UK airport doing that?

 

[Nym]

Just a shame that the latter two are in a silly position to get across the Atlantic, most of the times I've been intending to cross it, I've prices the routes with Delta or Continental.

 

[WestCoast]

Just a shame that the latter two are in a silly position to get across the Atlantic, most of the times I've been intending to cross it, I've prices the routes with Delta or Continental.

True. You wouldn't believe who I'm going on to New York in the summer. I'm going from Blackpool (yes, really!) on Aer Lingus via Dublin. You can even clear US customs in Dublin, it's fantastic. They were much cheaper than going direct with United (CO) or AA from Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes that's the reason. Gatwick occasionally boasts that it has more destinations than any other UK airport.

However it is an interesting statistic and no one at work believed me that Manchester has more destinations than Heathrow.

I believe Frankfurt and Paris CDG both have more destinations than Heathrow, possibly even Amsterdam. It's a simple case of capacity limiting operations, plus some of the destinations at LHR operate at very high frequencies (like 21 flights a day to New York) compared to flights once a week at Gatwick/Manchester.

 

[Schnellzug]

A dangerous statement to make on this forum..

I can hear the distant rumblings of dissent from the Don valley beginning to surface as I write.

Yes! Build up Doncaster, Sheffield, Wakefield Westgate and Leeds Robin Hood International into a worldwide gateway for Yorkshire!

 

[Nym]

True. You wouldn't believe who I'm going on to New York in the summer. I'm going from Blackpool (yes, really!) on Aer Lingus via Dublin. You can even clear US customs in Dublin, it's fantastic. They were much cheaper than going direct with United (CO) or AA from Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I believe Frankfurt and Paris CDG both have more destinations than Heathrow, possibly even Amsterdam. It's a simple case of capacity limiting operations, plus some of the destinations at LHR operate at very high frequencies (like 21 flights a day to New York) compared to flights once a week at Gatwick/Manchester.

Errr, New York has between two and four flights per day from Manchester