Seeing as the LJLA thread is closed I will reply in this new thread. I am a frequent flyer (19 flights since November 2004) and travel to the Liverpool area quite often. I will only use LHR and MAN at a last resort. Flying from Toronto to Manchester via Heathrow is a nightmare. On arrival at Heathrow one has to collect ones baggage then take to the the domestic terminal. I usually walk rather than take the bus, which sometimes takes forever. On arrival at the check-in desk I am assigned a seat and my bags are tagged for MAN. I am then subject to another security screening and, quite often, have to run to catch my flight to MAN. On arrival at MAN I have to purchase abus ticket for the ride, on National Bus, to Norton Street. Contrary to, constantly stated, information on this forum, it is not a hourly bus service or for that matter, train service. I have waited more than three hours at times for a bus to Liverpool. Bus scheds as train or airline scheds are subject to availability of equipment. If, for example, the MAN-Liverpool bus arrives at Manchester bus terminal and the Manchester-Birmingham bus, with a full load, has gone belly-up, then the MAN-Liverpool bus, with a smaller load, will commandered for the Brum route.

Most pax from the Greater Liverpool area will have private means of transport to and from MAN. Unfortunately most overseas visitors will not. I believe this will be a major problem for visitors in 2008. My usual experience between LHR and MAN will deter future visitors, I'm sure. If Henshaw, Storey et al wish to eliminate problems before 2008 they will surely demand a LPL-LHR link.

As a non-motorist who frequently has to travel between the south and north of England, I have a view on this, Sloyne.

Journeys to Liverpool from Manchester Airport by public transport are a nightmare of expense and inconvenience and delay. It's a hell of a walk from some gates to the "near Manchester Airport" train station - and even with the automated walkways (which often don't seem to be working) it's a good 15 minutes, up to 20. You would have to be a jogger and also good at pushing people out of the way to do it in 10 minutes. It's simply too far to really qualify as an "in" airport train station. It's near, I admit.

The service from Manchester Airport to Liverpool is - as "Sir Miles Platting" pointedly revealed on the former thread - infrequent and slow, even with his curious "express that requires a change of train" option. And that is the weekday schedule. Never mind the reality, which includes cancelled and delayed trains, and Sunday services.

Anyway, it's perfectly legitimate for visitors to and from the Liverpool City Region (and beyond) to want the choice of Liverpool for longhaul as well as shorthaul flights. I resent having to use Manchester Airport because of some history of discimination against Speke. I want to use the regional airport for the region I am visiting, ie JLA if I am visiting Liverpool City Region, just as I want to use a London Airport for travel to/from Greater London, or a Barcelona Airport for a visit to Barcelona. Manchester can only ever be an inconvenient second-best for Liverpool bound or based passengers.

I agree with you that it's vital for Liverpool Airport to attract more direct scheduled flights, including a proper London link, before 2008. Liverpool needs direct North America flights, not just Canada (and Zoom should be enticed over to JLA from Manchester) but to the US as well.

I think at some 2200m, the runway at JLA is insufficient for fully loaded long haul destinations. They need to extend it but that won't be easy considering there is a protected natural environment at one end and private property to the other.

The only realistic direct link to london Heathrow is with either BA or BMI and both are very active at Manchester having hubbing operations at terminal 3. I don't think either would move a manchester route to liverpool personally although BMI are rumoured to be reducing activities at MAN.

Stanstead and Luton are real possiblities with Easyjet and Ryanair but neither have long haul routes so you are back to square 1.

The best alternative is to increase train movements from the Manchester airport to liverpool with some express services. They should electrify the line that runs through warrington to do this. Afterall, Liverpool city centre to MAN is only about 30 miles. Compare this to London to LHR-15miles, LGW-25miles, Stanstead-30miles. So I don't think JLA needs to expand anyfurther than a regional-european airport similar to Luton or Stanstead.

Sloynes point is very valid though. From stoke I am very well connected to both MAN and BHX with half hourly direct services to both airports' train stations (I simply cannot see how it takes poli 20 mins to walk from the train station to any arrivals/departures area at MAN). It should be better for liverpool

The best alternative is to increase train movements from the Manchester airport to liverpool with some express services. They should electrify the line that runs through warrington to do this. Afterall, Liverpool city centre to MAN is only about 30 miles. Compare this to London to LHR-15miles, LGW-25miles, Stanstead-30miles. So I don't think JLA needs to expand anyfurther than a regional-european airport similar to Luton or Stanstead.

And the above is NO alternative. The problem is, as I have repeatedly said, "It is not LJLA that is isolated it is Liverpool it's self. Liverpool is the third largest city in England, after London and Birmingham yet it takes visitors longer to get from Heathrow to Liverpool than it does to fly across the ocean. The lack of a connection between LJLA and Heathrow, your nations international air gateway, is a barrier to foriegn visitors. I know for a fact that many of my colleagues here in North America discourage people from visiting Liverpool simply because of the work it entails, for both passenger and travel counsellor. "Why not use Manchester as your northern base"? they ask, "after all Liverpool is practically a suburb of Manchester". And, from my perspective, Liverpool will continue to be regarded as a suburb of Manchester until overseas visitors can fly direct to Liverpool from Heathrow.

I agree Jerv, Liverpool has no need to but should aspire to become a full international airport, failure to do so would show a distinct lack of ambition. However, it's present status as a regional airport is quite sufficient to the needs of the travelling public of the Greater Liverpool and North Wales catchment area, if it had a connection to a airport with an extensive international network and that airport is Heathrow. Regardless of the propoganda eminating from Muirhead and Thompson up the M62, MAN has a very limited international network and is, IMHO, a large regional airport. I believe that the politicians of Greater Liverpool, national and local and the press, are abrogating thier duty to the people by not fighting vigorously for a Heathrow connection. What it will take to get them off the pot I don't know, but until they do, Liverpool will remain a perceived suburb of Manchester in the eyes of many foreigners.

So this is about City Identity and not the practicality of the issue? That's the way it seems. Would it help if they changed the name of Manchester International to "Liverpool large regional airport".

Whilst living in Manchester, I used JLA several times to take advantage of Easyjets routes and I never found that a problem. Why is it a problem to use manchester from Liverpool? Your issue is with Public land transport.

Sloyne, how many international airports do you think a country the size of the UK can sustain?

Principal Urban Areas
Name Adm. A C 2001-04-29
1 London LON 8,278,251
2 Birmingham WML 2,284,093
3 Manchester MAN 2,244,931
4 Leeds WYS 1,499,465
5 Newcastle upon Tyne TYN 879,996
6 Liverpool MER 816,216
7 Nottingham NOT 666,358
8 Sheffield SYS 640,720
9 Bristol BRI 551,066
10 Brighton BAH 461,181
11 Portsmouth PMO 442,252
12 Leicester LEI 441,213
13 Bournemouth BMO 383,713
14 Reading REA 369,804
15 Middlesbrough MID 365,323
16 Stoke-on-Trent STR 362,403
17 Coventry WML 336,452
18 Birkenhead MER 319,675
19 Southampton SHT 304,400
20 Kingston upon Hull KUH 301,416
21 Southend-on-Sea SOS 269,415
22 Preston LAN 264,601
23 Blackpool BLP 261,088

Note, Manchester's population was revised upwards from this by 30,000 in 2002 (the local authority population was raised from 392,000 to 422,000). As you can see, there are four urban areas more in need of a full international airport than Liverpool (I'm counting Birkenhead as part of Liverpool btw), plus I'd have to include Glasgow as Scotland needs one too. When you look at that list it's obvious why Liverpool only has a provincial airport. Because in terms of size it's a third tier city.

As for MAN having a "very limited international network", well here are it's international destinations:

Agadir, Alicante, Almeria, Amsterdam, Antalya, Antigua, Arrecife, Athens, Atlanta, Banjul-Yundum, Barbados, Barcelona, Basle, Belfast City, Belfast Intl, Bergamo, Berlin, Billund, Bodrum, Bordeaux, Boston, Bratislava, Brescia, Brussels, Bucharest, Bucharest, Burgas, Cagliari, Calgary, Calvi, Cancun, Catania, Cayo Coco, Chambery, Chania, Chicago, Cologne, Copenhagen, Corfu, Cork, Dalaman, Damascus, Doha, Dubai, Dublin, Dubrovnik, Dusseldorf, Edinburgh, Ercan, Exeter, Faro, Figari, Frankfurt, Fuerteventura, Funchal, Galway, Geneva, Gerona, Gibraltar, Goa, Gothenburg, Grenoble, Guernsey, Halifax, Hamburg, Hanover, Helsinki, Heraklion, Houston, Hurghada, Ibiza, Innsbruck, Inverness, Islamabad, Isle Of Man, Istanbul, Izmir, Jeddah, Jerez, Jersey, Kalamata, Karachi, Kavala, Kefallinia, Kerry County, Kittila, Knock, Kos, Krakow, Kuala Lumpur, La Romana, Lahore, Larnaca, Las Palmas, Las Vegas, Lisbon, Ljubljana, Londonderry, Lourdes-Tarbes, Luxembourg, Luxor, Lyon, Madrid, Mahon, Malaga, Male, Malta, Manston, Miami, Mikonos, Milan-Mxp, Minsk, Mitilini-Lesbos, Monastir, Montego Bay, Munich, Murcia, Naples, Nassau, New York-Jfk, Newark Liberty, Nice, Olbia, Oporto, Orlando, Oslo, Ottawa, Ovdah, Paderborn, Palma, Paphos, Paris-Cdg, Philadelphia, Pisa, Plovdiv, Plymouth, Porlamar, Port O Spain, Prague, Preveza, Puerto Plata, Pula, Punta Cana, Reus, Rhodes, Riga, Rimini, Rome-Fco, Rovaniemi, Salzburg, Samos, San Francisco, Sanford, Santorini, Shannon, Sharm-El-Sheik, Singapore, Skiathos, Sofia, Split, St Lucia, Stockholm, Stockholm, Taba, Tallinn, Tenerife, Tenerife North, Thessalonika, Toronto, Toulouse, Turin, Valencia, Vancouver, Varadero, Varna, Venice, Verona, Vienna, Volos, Warsaw, Washington, Waterford, Zakynthos and Zurich.

As far as I'm concerned that isn't a "limited" list particularly.

Flying from Toronto to Manchester via Heathrow is a nightmare. On arrival at Heathrow one has to collect ones baggage then take to the the domestic terminal. I usually walk rather than take the bus, which sometimes takes forever. On arrival at the check-in desk I am assigned a seat and my bags are tagged for MAN. I am then subject to another security screening and, quite often, have to run to catch my flight to MAN. On arrival at MAN I have to purchase abus ticket for the ride, on National Bus, to Norton Street. Contrary to, constantly stated, information on this forum, it is not a hourly bus service or for that matter, train service.

Did you not realise that Air Transat, Air Canada, BMI, MyTravel, PIA, SAS Scandinavian, SkyService, Thomas Cook and Zoom all fly direct services from Manchester to Toronto and back?

Where do you get the population for Liverpool of 800k and manchester of 2.2. The metropolitan area population for liverpool is around 1.6.

EarlyBird, in answer to your question as to how many "International Airports" the UK needs, my answer is 1 (ONE). And of course you already have that in Heathrow. Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Belfast et al, ad nauseum only need a decent domestic connecting service to that airport. I am saying that a curnubation the size of Greater Liverpool needs a connection to Heathrow. Don't you?

I travel to the Liverpool, from North America, many times a year and I know first hand how difficult it is to reach Liverpool when plussing through London London. Because of these difficulties I know travel via AMS-CDG, DUB or MAD.

Most of those destination are via Heathrow and/or Gatwick and as for the North American destinations, through JFK, EWR and ORD. MAN-YYZ are charter flights. MAN only have a YYZ connection from mid June to late SEptember operated, again, by Air Canada. MAN is a destination airport NOT A HUB. Not one airline uses MAN as a hub. The only true hub in the UK is Heathrow, Gatwick has a limited hub system. But this is not a thread knocking MAN it is a thread promoting an air connection between LPL and LHR. Obviously you don't want that because you are Manchester based. Selfish?

It is puzzling that LPL and LHR do not have a shuttle service between them, you would think that a city the size of Liverpool would merit such a service. However, does the lack of such a service for so long not possibly say something? ie. that the airlines do not think that it will be subscribed to enough to make it profitable?

Did you not realise that Air Transat, Air Canada, BMI, MyTravel, PIA, SAS Scandinavian, SkyService, Thomas Cook and Zoom all fly direct services from Manchester to Toronto and back?


No they don't.
The only direct flights are with Air Transat or Zoom
SAS is via either copenhagen or Stockholm
BMI is via washinghton, Chicago or heathrow as part of the star alliance
PIA is via New York
Air Canada I'm not sure about. I think this is seasonal.
The others are charter flights.

Did you not realise that Air Transat, Air Canada, BMI, MyTravel, PIA, SAS Scandinavian, SkyService, Thomas Cook and Zoom all fly direct services from Manchester to Toronto and back?

Only Air Canada is a sched carrier with rights to carry pax between Canada and the UK. PIA do not have Fifth Freedom Rights on this route. The SAS route is via Copenhagen and the BMI route is via London, Heathrow. Air Transat, MYTravel, SkyService, TC and Zoom are all licenced charter airlines with NO interlining at MAN, bolstering my assertion that MAN is a destination airport.

EarlyBird you are misleading people with your list of destinations served from MAN. I have estimated that over 78% percent of them are via another station, mostly Heathrow and it is easy to check this out by going to the Travelocity web site or if you are a IATA Agent, to the OAG online website. MAN is a very busy charter airport with, after the Heathrow service, charter services accounting for almost 80% percent of MAN's throughput. BUT THIS IS A THREAD PROMOTING A LHR LINK WITH LPL not a MAN promoting thread.

Most of those destination are via Heathrow and/or Gatwick and as for the North American destinations, through JFK, EWR and ORD. MAN-YYZ are charter flights. MAN only have a YYZ connection from mid June to late SEptember operated, again, by Air Canada. MAN is a destination airport NOT A HUB. Not one airline uses MAN as a hub.

1. All the destinations listed by EB are DIRECT SCHEDULED. Fact. I've seen the source and here is one you can check it with (look at the maps)http://www.flightmapping.com/

2.MAN-YYZ has all year daily connection with Zoom and weekend connection with Air Transat. Air Canada is Seasonal.

3. MAN has a hubbing terminal and is used by BA and BMI. Manchester is a Hub for BA with 37 direct destinations from MAN including daily New York services.

However, does the lack of such a service for so long not possibly say something? ie. that the airlines do not think that it will be subscribed to enough to make it profitable?

It says more about the slot system at Heathrow and the need for economise of scale that the consolodation at fewer airports offer. This does nothing for the travelling public, whether that public be in Liverpool or any other place deprived a local link to the nations only hub airport. It is not a case of Liverpool over Manchester but a case of offering equal service to each and every taxpayer. Why should Liverpolitans, with a modern airport, have to travel to another municipality in order to get to the nations only hub airport? I don't think Liverpool people want to usurp Manchesters position as the regions major airport. I do think they want reasonable access to the world that a Heathrow service offers. Don't you?

As I said Sloyne, it puzzles me, Liverpool do deserve a direct link IMO.

3. MAN has a hubbing terminal and is used by BA and BMI. Manchester is a Hub for BA with 37 direct destinations from MAN including daily New York services.

Then why, when I access the Sabre, Amadeus, Gemini, OAG reservation systems they offer me plussing through Heathrow for, every destination I try? This is another figure from the British CAA; 7% percent of MAN arriving/departing pax are from the MAN catchment area. 62% percent of pax arriving/departing through Heathrow are Interlining and onward travellers.

I think the only shuttle services between Heathrow and other English cities are Manchester, Newcastle, Teeside, and Leeds. Am I right in saying that Birmingham doesn't get one?

Could it be that Liverpool is too close to Manchester for the airlines to bother? Birmingham too close to London itself?

Atlanta, Banjul-Yundum, Barbados, , Boston, Calgary, Cancun, Cayo Coco, Damascus, Doha, Dubai, Halifax, Houston, Jeddah, Kuala Lumpur, Lahore, Las Vegas, Luxor, Male, Miami, Montego Bay, Nassau, Ottawa, Philadelphia, Port O Spain, Puerto Plata, Punta Cana, San Francisco, Sanford, Sharm-El-Sheik, St Lucia, Toronto, Vancouver, Varadero, Washington,.

EarlyBird, So far I have checked, on Sabre, all of the above and none have a direct reg sched link with MAN. They all have, however, either limited charter, seasonal sched and/or a connection through another downline connection airport, like Heathrow. One you didn't mention was Tampa (TPA) to Manchester. This is advertised via BA in the Tampa Bay area but further scrutiny reveals that the service actually plusses through London Gatwick. And the Banjul (Bathurst), Gambia service is either via Heathrow, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam or Brussels and most connect again at another African airport like Lagos, Nigeria, Accra, Ghana or Johanesburg, SA.

No they don't.
The only direct flights are with Air Transat or Zoom
SAS is via either copenhagen or Stockholm
BMI is via washinghton, Chicago or heathrow as part of the star alliance
PIA is via New York
Air Canada I'm not sure about. I think this is seasonal.
The others are charter flights.

Do you even know what direct means? Direct means you don't have to change. Non-stop means you don't stop somewhere else on the way. Every one I listed is direct, but not all are non-stop.

Then why, when I access the Sabre, Amadeus, Gemini, OAG reservation systems they offer me plussing through Heathrow for, every destination I try? This is another figure from the British CAA; 7% percent of MAN arriving/departing pax are from the MAN catchment area. 62% percent of pax arriving/departing through Heathrow are Interlining and onward travellers.

I don't know.
Some airlines don't release all tickets to brokers. It doesn't mean the flights don't exist. Try booking direct with BA. There are 9 domestic and 28 non-domestic DIRECT destinations served by BA from MAN. I would consider that a Hub.

Non domestic;
Knock, Shannon, Cork
Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm
Amsterdam, Dusseldorf, Hannover, Berlin, Frankfurt, Stuttgart
Brussels, Paris, Zurich, Geneva, Lyon, Nice, Vienna
Milan, Venice, Bologna, Rome, Pisa
Malta, Madrid, Malaga,
New York.

EarlyBird, So far I have checked, on Sabre, all of the above and none have a direct reg sched link with MAN. They all have, however, either limited charter, seasonal sched and/or a connection through another downline connection airport, like Heathrow. One you didn't mention was Tampa (TPA) to Manchester. This is advertised via BA in the Tampa Bay area but further scrutiny reveals that the service actually plusses through London Gatwick. And the Banjul (Bathurst), Gambia service is either via Heathrow, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam or Brussels and most connect again at another African airport like Lagos, Nigeria, Accra, Ghana or Johanesburg, SA.

As I said, all those are direct destinations, i.e. you never have to change planes. Per Manchester Airport's site, Toronto direct services are:

Air Transat - Scheduled (Terminal 1)
Air Canada - Scheduled (Terminal 1)
BMI - Scheduled (Terminal 1)
MyTravel - Chartered (Terminal 1)
PIA - Scheduled (Terminal 2)
SAS Scandinavian - Scheduled (Terminal 1)
SkyService - Chartered (Terminal 2)
Thomas Cook - Scheduled (Terminal 1)
Zoom - Scheduled (Terminal 2)

Do you even know what direct means? Direct means you don't have to change. Non-stop means you don't stop somewhere else on the way. Every one I listed is direct, but not all are non-stop.

You're just plain wrong. If flying with SAS, I would have to change at copenhagen. How in the name of fuck is this direct? Even if the plane landed to allow people on while I had to remain seated, only in your head would that constitue a direct flight.

You are getting confused between multiple flights with the same airline/alliance, where bags are automatically transferred, and multiple flights where different airlines are used, needing to go landside to re-checkin.

Do you even know what direct means? Direct means you don't have to change. Non-stop means you don't stop somewhere else on the way. Every one I listed is direct, but not all are non-stop.

I think having spent almost 50 years in the business and owning a chain of travel agency's I would know the difference between direct and non-stop. You are comming across as quite the prig. A change of aircraft/terminal/airport is NOT DIRECT. Your list of destinations served direct/non-stop from MAN is thoroughly dishonest. Example; the fastes most direct way to get from MAN to BJL is via Paris and Dakar in Senegal at least two changes. Another one is MAN to POS (Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago) entails a change at London and again, if unable to get the BWIA flight that operates 4 days a week fro Gatwick, at Barbados. The MAN-POS although it says offers "direct service" is actually a connection through London with BD?BA then on to BWIA flight. In fact the fastest way to POS from MAN is via LHR and Toronto on Air Canada. The AC flight connects with the AC 23:00 flight to POS.

You're just plain wrong. If flying with SAS, I would have to change at copenhagen. How in the name of fuck is this direct? Even if the plane landed to allow people on while I had to remain seated, only in your head would that constitue a direct flight.

You are getting confused between multiple flights with the same airline/alliance, where bags are automatically transferred, and multiple flights where different airlines are used, needing to go landside to re-checkin.

Possibly SAS isn't direct, I'm not sure. All I know is that the majority are as I have relatives who fly to Toronto regularly. They fly with Thomas Cook. Either way, the point I was making was regarding Sloyne's claim that he has to check in more than once, transfer his baggage, travel between airports, etc. I was simply pointing out that he doesn't.

I think having spent almost 50 years in the business and owning a chain of travel agency's I would know the difference between direct and non-stop. You are comming across as quite the prig. A change of aircraft/terminal/airport is NOT DIRECT. Your list of destinations served direct/non-stop from MAN is thoroughly dishonest. Example; the fastes most direct way to get from MAN to BJL is via Paris and Dakar in Senegal at least two changes.

If you've spent 50 years in the business I'd have thought you'd have been aware of the fact that not all flights are released to agents! Not one of the flights I listed requires a change. I think it's you who is being dishonest in this. Try reading Manchester Airport's site. They even give a definition of what destinations are included in their destination list!

EarlyBird, So far I have checked, on Sabre, all of the above and none have a direct reg sched link with MAN. They all have, however, either limited charter, seasonal sched and/or a connection through another downline connection airport, like Heathrow. One you didn't mention was Tampa (TPA) to Manchester. This is advertised via BA in the Tampa Bay area but further scrutiny reveals that the service actually plusses through London Gatwick. And the Banjul (Bathurst), Gambia service is either via Heathrow, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam or Brussels and most connect again at another African airport like Lagos, Nigeria, Accra, Ghana or Johanesburg, SA.

The first one I tried on ebookers.com got a direct (no stops,EB) with Delta (ie Atlanta) I suggest you try a better online flight broker.

Price per adult: £ 382
Total incl. of taxes and fees: £ 447.00


Departure
Arrival
Duration
Class
Manchester [MAN]
13 Jun 12:05 Atlanta [ATL]
13 Jun 16:05 09h 00m
Direct Economy
Atlanta [ATL]
20 Jun 20:00 Manchester [MAN]
21 Jun 09:05 08h 05m
Direct Economy
Click for 9 more Delta Air Lines flights on 13 Jun 05

Request Stopovers

As I said Sloyne, it puzzles me, Liverpool do deserve a direct link IMO.

And you call yourself a Manc?

I think the only shuttle services between Heathrow and other English cities are Manchester, Newcastle, Teeside, and Leeds. Am I right in saying that Birmingham doesn't get one?

Could it be that Liverpool is too close to Manchester for the airlines to bother? Birmingham too close to London itself?
Weastdevil's post does more to answer Sloyne's question than anything else up to now. LPL's proximity to MAN and (despite claims to the contrary) the excellent train/bus/motorway links may be the main reason for the lack of a shuttle to the capital.
I don't however, think that this will always be the case. The more that Merseyside grows economically and the aggressive marketing of LPL's owners (ie Peel Holdings--ironically a Manchester-based company :) ) the more likely that it will eventually happen. Even if it's just for the C of C year. If the projected increase in visitors is realised, MAN may not be able to handle all of this traffic. It may be prudent to temporarily equip LPL for long-haul carriers for the same reason. Manchester must not under any circumstances, glean any benefits from the C of C during 2008. :)

Manchester must [B]not under any circumstances, glean any benefits from the C of C during 2008. :)

Why do you think manchester so adamantly backed Liverpool's bid to become European Capital of culture. Of course there will be overspill benefits. The cities are only 30mins apart.

Why do you think manchester so adamantly backed Liverpool's bid to become European Capital of culture. Of course there will be overspill benefits. The cities are only 30mins apart.
I know Jerv, the little :) was my pathetic attempt at irony and not wanting to upset the locals :)

How dare you :) us! Bastards! Damn you all to hell!!!! :rant:

[QUOTE=Jerv] Of course there will be overspill benefits. [QUOTE]

As there is when the Grand National is run and when the British Open Golf Championship is played in the Liverpool City Region. I doubt, though, that Manchester would benefit much from the expected cruise liner visits to Liverpool. Cruise passengers are only usually ashore for 14 hours or less, depending on what the port has to offer and Liverpool has a lot to offer. However, I also think that Liverpool needs to extend it's shopping hours and keep it's museums and gallaries open a little longer to accommodate the cruise pax visitors. THis is double barrelled, the more time ashore, the more money spent.

The cruise visits are a start but I think Liverpool should be aiming at becoming a cruise port, embarking and debarking cruises from/to Liverpool. I well remember when the Shaw Saville & Albion, Cunard, PSNC and Canadian Pacific offered cruises from Liverpool to the Med and Canary Islands. Why not again? This would surely give incentive to Liverpool having a Heathrow connection.

I know Jerv, the little :) was my pathetic attempt at irony and not wanting to upset the locals :)

Miles, was there overspill Liverpool's way from the Commonwealth Games that were held in Manchester? It wasn't covered in Canada very well. Only CBC carried live portions of the games and this only when Canadian athletes were involved. The other stations provided abreviated recorded coverage on thier news broadcasts sports segments. I was expecting at least the same coverage given to the Pan Am games. I understand the games were a success and a credit to Manchester and it's ability to organise.

As for MAN having a "very limited international network", well here are it's international destinations:

Agadir, Alicante, Almeria, Amsterdam, Antalya, Antigua, Arrecife, Athens, Atlanta, Banjul-Yundum, Barbados, Barcelona, Basle, Belfast City, Belfast Intl, Bergamo, Berlin, Billund, Bodrum, Bordeaux, Boston, Bratislava, Brescia, Brussels, Bucharest, Bucharest, Burgas, Cagliari, Calgary, Calvi, Cancun, Catania, Cayo Coco, Chambery, Chania, Chicago, Cologne, Copenhagen, Corfu, Cork, Dalaman, Damascus, Doha, Dubai, Dublin, Dubrovnik, Dusseldorf, Edinburgh, Ercan, Exeter, Faro, Figari, Frankfurt, Fuerteventura, Funchal, Galway, Geneva, Gerona, Gibraltar, Goa, Gothenburg, Grenoble, Guernsey, Halifax, Hamburg, Hanover, Helsinki, Heraklion, Houston, Hurghada, Ibiza, Innsbruck, Inverness, Islamabad, Isle Of Man, Istanbul, Izmir, Jeddah, Jerez, Jersey, Kalamata, Karachi, Kavala, Kefallinia, Kerry County, Kittila, Knock, Kos, Krakow, Kuala Lumpur, La Romana, Lahore, Larnaca, Las Palmas, Las Vegas, Lisbon, Ljubljana, Londonderry, Lourdes-Tarbes, Luxembourg, Luxor, Lyon, Madrid, Mahon, Malaga, Male, Malta, Manston, Miami, Mikonos, Milan-Mxp, Minsk, Mitilini-Lesbos, Monastir, Montego Bay, Munich, Murcia, Naples, Nassau, New York-Jfk, Newark Liberty, Nice, Olbia, Oporto, Orlando, Oslo, Ottawa, Ovdah, Paderborn, Palma, Paphos, Paris-Cdg, Philadelphia, Pisa, Plovdiv, Plymouth, Porlamar, Port O Spain, Prague, Preveza, Puerto Plata, Pula, Punta Cana, Reus, Rhodes, Riga, Rimini, Rome-Fco, Rovaniemi, Salzburg, Samos, San Francisco, Sanford, Santorini, Shannon, Sharm-El-Sheik, Singapore, Skiathos, Sofia, Split, St Lucia, Stockholm, Stockholm, Taba, Tallinn, Tenerife, Tenerife North, Thessalonika, Toronto, Toulouse, Turin, Valencia, Vancouver, Varadero, Varna, Venice, Verona, Vienna, Volos, Warsaw, Washington, Waterford, Zakynthos and Zurich.

As far as I'm concerned that isn't a "limited" list particularly.

No, but it is when compared to the number served from Heathrow and also the frequency of service to each destination. I also assume that several of these destinations will be for package holidays which is not really what Sloyne is talking about. Heathrow is, I believe, exclusively for scheduled services.

Of course, in the normal course of things, having an airport such as Manchester with its range of destinations at less than an hours travelling time from Liverpool should be a major advantage to the city. The problem is that the airport is far closer to Manchester and that, therefore, companies are more likely to choose Manchester as their base.

We could get round the problem by having Manchester renamed Liverpool East (if, we could get Geoff Muirhead to agree) but I doubt that people would be fooled for long.

All we can really do is to keep plugging Liverpool Airport and seek an equitable resolution of the Heathrow slots issue (one that does not rely on a new runway at Heathrow). Liverpool has grown massively in recent years so it is no longer far fetched to consider viable services to the east coast of the USA and Canada.

They held the hub-capping and 100 yard with TV under arm dash events there.
That was a joke but I fear the backlash:)

Seriously though, I would have though tourism would have benefitted as visitors to manchester would surely feel inclined to go over to Liverpool while they are there.

I also assume that several of these destinations will be for package holidays which is not really what Sloyne is talking about.

They are all SCHEDULED DIRECT services. The timetable can be found on the manchester airport website. Charter flights (package holidays) can be chartered to any destination within reason.

I like the idea about Liverpool East airport.

I think that it would be futile for Liverpool to try to compete directly with manchester for long haul destinations. Manchester has 2 Full length Runways (3050m each) with permission and plans in place to expand capaicty to 45million ppa. Liverpool does well in the low cost market and should aspire to Stanstead (similar modern airport with current passenger throughput at 22million ppa).

They held the hub-capping and 100 yard with TV under arm dash events there.
That was a joke but I fear the backlash:)

Seriously though, I would have though tourism would have benefitted as visitors to manchester would surely feel inclined to go over to Liverpool while they are there.

And visitors flying in to Liverpool would try and find time to pop over to Manchester whilst staying in Liverpool, possibly.

[QUOTE=Jerv] Of course there will be overspill benefits. [QUOTE]

As there is when the Grand National is run and when the British Open Golf Championship is played in the Liverpool City Region. I doubt, though, that Manchester would benefit much from the expected cruise liner visits to Liverpool. Cruise passengers are only usually ashore for 14 hours or less, depending on what the port has to offer and Liverpool has a lot to offer. However, I also think that Liverpool needs to extend it's shopping hours and keep it's museums and gallaries open a little longer to accommodate the cruise pax visitors. THis is double barrelled, the more time ashore, the more money spent.

The cruise visits are a start but I think Liverpool should be aiming at becoming a cruise port, embarking and debarking cruises from/to Liverpool. I well remember when the Shaw Saville & Albion, Cunard, PSNC and Canadian Pacific offered cruises from Liverpool to the Med and Canary Islands. Why not again? This would surely give incentive to Liverpool having a Heathrow connection.

Sloyne, won't they have to keep dredging the f*ck out of the Mersey to maintain a (serious) big ship port at the pier-head? When I shipped out of there in the 60's I'm sure I recall that the then landing-stage was indeed a 'floater'.
It seems that the sea is receding just about all down the NW coast from the Ribble estuary at St.Annes to the Dee. Southport was a couple of miles in the 60's, I heard it is at least 4 miles to the sea now. It can't be much different at Blundellsands can it?
Will the bar eventually become a new island? Don't these big liners require a large draft or are they going to be the small(er) cruise ships?
This is not a wind-up, its a serious question. Can you give me a plausible answer?

They held the hub-capping and 100 yard with TV under arm dash events there.




Hilarious. Here's another.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/default.asp?region=3&force=2&cdrp=140&l1=0&l2=0&l3=0&sub=0&v=24

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/tool/default.asp?region=3&force=39&cdrp=360&l1=0&l2=0&l3=0&sub=0&v=24

I think that it would be futile for Liverpool to try to compete directly with manchester for long haul destinations.

Not futile but certainly unecessary. Liverpool doesn't, (wouldn't) need to become international if it had access to Heathrow. Regardless of provincial town egos Heathrow is Britains international gateway and slots should be provided for the exclusive use of UK provincial cities with airports.

[QUOTE=sloyne][QUOTE=Jerv] Of course there will be overspill benefits.

Sloyne, won't they have to keep dredging the f*ck out of the Mersey to maintain a (serious) big ship port at the pier-head? When I shipped out of there in the 60's I'm sure I recall that the then landing-stage was indeed a 'floater'.
It seems that the sea is receding just about all down the NW coast from the Ribble estuary at St.Annes to the Dee. Southport was a couple of miles in the 60's, I heard it is at least 4 miles to the sea now. It can't be much different at Blundellsands can it?
Will the bar eventually become a new island? Don't these big liners require a large draft or are they going to be the small(er) cruise ships?
This is not a wind-up, its a serious question. Can you give me a plausible answer?

[QUOTE=Sir Miles Platting][QUOTE=sloyne]

Just testing.

I've been unable to post on certain threads. A message comes up saying that the tread is closed.

Thought I'd been barred or something. :cheers:

[QUOTE=sloyne][QUOTE=Jerv] Sloyne, won't they have to keep dredging the f*ck out of the Mersey to maintain a (serious) big ship port at the pier-head?

The new stage is a "floater" and the largest cruise liner afloat today draws no more than 8 metres of water. The ships you sailed aboard Miles were ocean liners and they drew between 10 and 12 metres of water. All of todays cruise liners have flat bottoms. But if they do have to dredge the silt from under the landing stage they can store it with the dog shit collected in Manchester and make a good foundation for another Beetham Tower (ironicly a Liverpool based company) in Manchester. :bash:

[QUOTE=Sir Miles Platting][QUOTE=sloyne]

The new stage is a "floater" and the largest cruise liner afloat today draws no more than 8 metres of water. The ships you sailed aboard Miles were ocean liners and they drew between 10 and 12 metres of water. All of todays cruise liners have flat bottoms. But if they do have to dredge the silt from under the landing stage they can store it with the dog shit collected in Manchester and make a good foundation for another Beetham Tower (ironicly a Liverpool based company) in Manchester. :bash:

Sloyne, what's dog shit got to do with anything?

[QUOTE=sloyne][QUOTE=Sir Miles Platting]

Sloyne, what's dog shit got to do with anything?

Anything you wish it to do with Taff.

The coastline of the North West has been gradually rising since the last ice age when it was squeezed under a massive sheet of ice. I doubt that this long term effect will have much impact on dredging of the Mersey shipping channels. Of course, sea levels are rising so we might have more problems from coastal flooding.

The draught of shipping is more of a problem when it comes to the new post-Panamax container vessels. Liverpool can only accommodate these ships at high tide and with a new shipping berth outside of the enclosed dock system (which is planned). Practically all of the latest cruise liners, including Queen Mary 2 can access the Port of Liverpool.

Liverpool can only accommodate these ships at high tide

As almost every other UK port. There is one port, however, and owned by Peel Holdings that can accommodate post-Panamax ships at all stages of the tide. I believe it is in Scotland. Southampton and Medway Ports have been rejected for expansion to Panamax berths but the Port of Liverpool have been given permission to submit a Harbours revision request. If granted, and because of the invitation, it is almost certain it would be, then the Port of Liverpool can start work on the in-river berth at Royal Seaforth at the mouth of the Mersey.

By the way, it is not so much the draught of the vessels that is the problem with post Panamax ships but rather the beam (width). If box ships keep growing and fuel prices too, I can see a new canal being built across Nicaragua. No locks needed on this one as the route would include a navigation channel across Lake Nicaragua and it is sea level all the way between the Atlantic and Pacific.

Miles, was there overspill Liverpool's way from the Commonwealth Games that were held in Manchester? It wasn't covered in Canada very well. Only CBC carried live portions of the games and this only when Canadian athletes were involved. The other stations provided abreviated recorded coverage on thier news broadcasts sports segments. I was expecting at least the same coverage given to the Pan Am games. I understand the games were a success and a credit to Manchester and it's ability to organise.
The games had excellent coverage in Canada. The CBC had a large crew headed by (one of my customers) Ron MacLean. Sure they obviously gave more air-time to events that involved Canadians, but also daily coverage (live and delayed) to some of the other important events like the marathon (which showed great footage of the city) track and field at the stadium. Apart from the opening and closing ceremonies, one of the highlights was the Triathlon held at the Salford Quays*. Ron MacLean later told me it was one of the best multi-sports events he's ever covered, and they all had the time of their lives in Manchester.
*If somebody had told me that athletes would be swimming in #9 dock when I was shipping out in the 60's.....I'd have pushed 'em in :)

The games had excellent coverage in Canada. The CBC had a large crew headed by (one of my customers) Ron MacLean.

I guess it's a matter of perception Miles, I though the coverage was poor.

Is Ron MacLean still alive? The very gaunt looking and stringy Ron MacLean that was once an announcer and news anchor with CBC?

I guess it's a matter of perception Miles, I though the coverage was poor.

Is Ron MacLean still alive? The very gaunt looking and stringy Ron MacLean that was once an announcer and news anchor with CBC?
....now I know you're just being silly, Sloyne.....

Sloyne, they seem worried that JLA will win some traffic from them. I think sooner or later that is bound to happen, as both can't keep growing endlessly just by growing the overall market. Liverpool is well placed in such a competition. And a half dozen 737s a day from JLA to Heathrow or Gatwick will not be popular with Manchester Airport, not just because of the impact on their domestic figures, but because it will filter people through to/from long-haul flights Manchester aspires to provide.

Sloyne, they seem worried that JLA will win some traffic from them.

Of course they are, however, I think, first and foremost, LPL should aspire to securing landing slots at Heathrow. Let MAN have it's "long-haul" charter traffic and "mothers and daughters" scheds, a LHR link is the imperative for Liverpool. The push and pressure must come, first and foremost, from the Greater Liverpool politicians, local press and business's. The lack of a air link between LPL and LHR will, IMO, hurt Liverpool and it's Capital of Culture celebrations. Gatwick, although it has more long haul sched traffic than Manchester, it is still, like Manchester, primarilly a charter airport with the bulk of pax traffic on ABC's and APEX fares. These pax are invariably returning home after visiting relatives abroad or returning ex-pats on visits home. IFT's use LHR and that airport is probably the best airport for connecting and interlining.

I don't think LPL should be trying to compete with MAN and i'm sure that it isn't but, if it continues to be shut out of Heathrow it will be to it's and the city's detriment. But i'm sure that Peel know this.

[QUOTE=Sir Miles Platting][QUOTE=sloyne]

The new stage is a "floater" and the largest cruise liner afloat today draws no more than 8 metres of water. The ships you sailed aboard Miles were ocean liners and they drew between 10 and 12 metres of water. All of todays cruise liners have flat bottoms. But if they do have to dredge the silt from under the landing stage they can store it with the dog shit collected in Manchester and make a good foundation for another Beetham Tower (ironicly a Liverpool based company) in Manchester. :bash:


I like that one Sloyne :cheers:

Sloyne, they seem worried that JLA will win some traffic from them. I think sooner or later that is bound to happen, as both can't keep growing endlessly just by growing the overall market. Liverpool is well placed in such a competition. And a half dozen 737s a day from JLA to Heathrow or Gatwick will not be popular with Manchester Airport, not just because of the impact on their domestic figures, but because it will filter people through to/from long-haul flights Manchester aspires to provide.


Some traffic has already gone JLA's way from manchester. Like I said, I have used JLA a few times even though it is further. But JLA wont ever compete with manchester on long haul scheduled traffic or international transfers.

Does anyone know what is supposed to be happening with this airline that was supposed to be getting set up at LJL?

www.nexusairways.com

That has been on-line seemingly forever, but nothing ever seems to happen.
Is it just pie in the sky do you think?

Some traffic has already gone JLA's way from manchester. Like I said, I have used JLA a few times even though it is further. But JLA wont ever compete with manchester on long haul scheduled traffic or international transfers.

Not so long ago they said that about IT traffic. :cheers:

[QUOTE=sloyne][QUOTE=Sir Miles Platting]


I like that one Sloyne :cheers:

Glad you liked it. It was an attempt at a little T-I-C humorous reply to Mile's post #29 in this thread. Hope it didn't go unoticed by him. :)

I recently complained to JLA about the lack of public transport information on their website. I had been trying to fit in a quick trip, and gave up because I couldn't get the bus times. I didn't expect a response, but look at the letter I got. This is really superb customer service, and let's see if they do as they promise, and get some decent public transport info up on their website. My other complaint about their website is that it's in 'IT Nerd Font', ie techy and tiny......(but like this Forum really). It needs to be a bigger and friendlier font. But I will wait until they put the public transport info up before my next complaint.

"Dear Mr......*****xxxxxxxx

Firstly, I want to apologise to you for not being able to access the
public transport information that you required from our website. It is a
shame that you have chosen to fly to Manchester instead as we have
excellent public transport links to Liverpool city centre and beyond.

However, your criticisms have been taken on board and I will ensure
that our website is changed to include detailed public transport
information, including times of services and how long they take to reach
their destination. The only thing I would say in our defence as to why
times are not put on the website at the moment is that times of services
frequently change and so we would not want to give inaccurate
information to the general public.

In the meantime, if you ever want to fly in or out of Liverpool Airport
again and require public transport information, can I direct you to
http://www.fola.org.uk/travel.html where you will find details of bus
and rail services and times, or ring the Traveline on 0870 608 2 608.
You can also contact me directly if you wish, and I would be happy to
help you.

Apologies again and I hope that you choose Liverpool John Lennon
Airport in the future."