just to get this thread up and running, five pictures from liverpool on the week of that memorable Champion league victory.

Also Easjyjet have started 3 flights a week to Ibiza, starting july 24th

http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/onur.jpg
http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/greenland.jpg
http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/mng.jpg
http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/ltu.jpg
http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/monarch1.jpg
and of course
http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/cup.jpg
:cheers:

i was on the LTU plane german it was the hostesses weren't half fit and they had that dirty porno accent. They didn't half take the harrasment well haha we were all doin the conga round the plane

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=3403594&postcount=345

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4605929.stm

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=3403594&postcount=345

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4605929.stm


How do they relate? I am pointing to the potential of one airport that competes with another, and to long term possibilities. You point to an already factored-in and well anticipated immediate development at one of those two airports. I don't know what point you are trying to make. Could you spell it out? Hope this isn't yet more stupid city-bashing nonsense, because I've got better things to do that get into that with you.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=3403594&postcount=345

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4605929.stm

Nobby I'm sure you have some intelligent point to make here,please expand a little. :cheers:

The passenger air transport industry is presently near the finalisation of the transitional phase not unlike the passenger point-to-point steamship industry was in the mid to late fifties. If you remember, at that time ports like Liverpool, Southampton, Tilbury, New York, Montreal et al were building and improving infrastructure. Not to mention the shipping companies themselves were building new vessels to carry the expected increase in passengers wanting to emigrate and the increasing affluent middle classes wanting pleasure travel from Europe to the "New World". They didn't forsee the advent of passenger jet transport. The Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 took them all by surprise.

As did the jet age to the steamship company's so is the IT electronic communications technology are doing to the "Full Service" air carriers. It is now widely accepted that the year 1978 was the turning point for the old passenger traffic. Aircraft passenger configuration once made up of 40% first and 60% tourist class started to change to what it is today. On some routes the first/business class has been eliminated altogether. One of those routes is the Toronto-Manchester route flown by Air Canada. That airline offers a combination of ABC and APEX and something they call "Supr-Comfort" class. This is the same service as those ABC & APEX pax down the back but with the comfort of the business class seats.

Of course the implications of the electronic communications revolution are obvious for all to see. Businessmen no longer need to fly trans-ocean in order to consult with colleagues, electronic communications are instantanious. This means that airlines have a reduced capacity for profit, unable to charge grossly infalted fares to thier bisiness clients, they will have to economise by cutting out or charging for onboard services like meals and drinks and by using cheaper facilities at airports. Why pay $50.00 a pax at Manchester when you can have Liverpool for $25.00 dollars a pax? The outcome is plain to see. Rolls Royce type airports will be to costly to operate and maintain, the volkswagon airports will replace them. Liverpool, Luton, Stanstead, Finningly and other LoCo airports are in a good position vis-a-vis the transition from full fare to low cost airlines. IMO.

The passenger air transport industry is presently near the finalisation of the transitional phase not unlike the passenger point-to-point steamship industry was in the mid to late fifties. If you remember, at that time ports like Liverpool, Southampton, Tilbury, New York, Montreal et al were building and improving infrastructure. Not to mention the shipping companies themselves were building new vessels to carry the expected increase in passengers wanting to emigrate and the increasing affluent middle classes wanting pleasure travel from Europe to the "New World". They didn't forsee the advent of passenger jet transport. The Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 took them all by surprise.

As did the jet age to the steamship company's so is the IT electronic communications technology are doing to the "Full Service" air carriers. It is now widely accepted that the year 1978 was the turning point for the old passenger traffic. Aircraft passenger configuration once made up of 40% first and 60% tourist class started to change to what it is today. On some routes the first/business class has been eliminated altogether. One of those routes is the Toronto-Manchester route flown by Air Canada. That airline offers a combination of ABC and APEX and something they call "Supr-Comfort" class. This is the same service as those ABC & APEX pax down the back but with the comfort of the business class seats.

Of course the implications of the electronic communications revolution are obvious for all to see. Businessmen no longer need to fly trans-ocean in order to consult with colleagues, electronic communications are instantanious. This means that airlines have a reduced capacity for profit, unable to charge grossly infalted fares to thier bisiness clients, they will have to economise by cutting out or charging for onboard services like meals and drinks and by using cheaper facilities at airports. Why pay $50.00 a pax at Manchester when you can have Liverpool for $25.00 dollars a pax? The outcome is plain to see. Rolls Royce type airports will be to costly to operate and maintain, the volkswagon airports will replace them. Liverpool, Luton, Stanstead, Finningly and other LoCo airports are in a good position vis-a-vis the transition from full fare to low cost airlines. IMO.

What a pile of trash... which airport has more lo-cost flights with more lo-cost airlines er MANCHESTER! Are you blind!

This myopic slagging of Manchester's success belittles it's contributors..face facts.

What great aviation change is occurring!? Aviatio is expanding but Heathrow ain't going backwards...it's accelerating again....heard of Terminal 5 a multi £B project..... rejoice in success but don't start having daft dreams!

What about the people, in fact the majority of experts, that think the loss of tax concessions (which all airlines currently benefit from) will massively impact on low cost airlines and possibly force the closure of one or more low cost airports like JLA and Stansted? I see this as the more likely scenario to be honest. You'll always get some passengers who want to pay more for a more comfortable flight.

You talk through your fuckin browneye,you're not scouser you're a wool. So piss off.

It's getting lack a tag team.... ask Ryanair who is going to pay for Stansted's expansion.... erm not them! They are considering taking BAA to the courts over landing fees (in association with other airlines) at Stansted AND Heathrow (which will rise to pay for Stansted's expenditure!).

Will get very messy.

Personally i see the established airports maintaing their success.....because they are located where most people get get to, where they live and where the infrastructure is in place....simple economics..However, the industry is growing so everyone will benefit, just more than others!

Personally i see the established airports maintaing their success.....because they are located where most people get get to, where they live and where the infrastructure is in place....simple economics..However, the industry is growing so everyone will benefit, just more than others!

I have no doubt that established airports will adapt (or perish) some will continue being a success, some will not. The parallels to the steamship industry are valid. The Port of New York, for example, foresaw themselves as the logical gateway for any cruise company. After all it had the largest passenger terminal in the world, processing more than two thirds of the European emigrants after WWII and was the gateway to more than 90% of, the then, cruise passenger traffic. Who, in the fifties, would have predicted that Miami, at that time a veritable backwater of shipping, becoming the largest cruise port in the world, handling almost 80% of the worlds cruise passenger traffic and eclipsing the Port of New York? Mickey Arison, that's who.

Mickey Arison saw the demise of the trans-Atlantic passenger liner trade and the ascedentcy of passenger jet travel as a golden oportunity. He purchased the Canadian Pacific liners Empress of Britain and Empress of Canada , converted them to single class vessels flew passengers from the north eastern States and Canada to Miami, and offered 1 week cruises. Two week cruises, with the accompanying price tag, were the norm from New York. Cheap air tickets, because he block-booked seats at charter rates, and one week cruises expanded his market to those who couldn't afford a two week cruise, in effect more than doubling his market. The rest is history.

I am not denigrating any airport but, as usaual Mancs will see "reds under the bed" whenever airports, other than MAN are mentioned and especially if LPL is mentioned. I have seen massive changes in both the steamship and airline industries over the past half century going from almost 100% IFT's and assisted emigrant travel only, to the present, mainly ITC passengers, and the leisure market is still evolving. I have made a very decent living from the leisure travel industry and being able to anticipate many of the changes that have occured. The present trend, of ITC travel, is, in my opinion, set to continue for the forseable future and the LoCo's, airlines and airports, will be the generator of most of the growth. I have little doubt that MAN, LGW, GLA etc. will have recognized this and will try and take advantage of it. However, they are at a disadvantage to the LPL's and Luton's by virtue of the fact that they also have to cater to reg sched carries and to offer the services they require. The rapid transit LoCo airports don't have that burden.

What about the people, in fact the majority of experts, that think the loss of tax concessions (which all airlines currently benefit from) will massively impact on low cost airlines and possibly force the closure of one or more low cost airports like JLA and Stansted? I see this as the more likely scenario to be honest. You'll always get some passengers who want to pay more for a more comfortable flight.

Aren't low cost carries actually hampered at the moment by this flat rate airport tax which is levied at something like £10 a flight? I would say if anything, changes in the tax rules will benefit LJL, not hurt it.

isnt liverpool europes fastest growing airport.

isnt liverpool europes fastest growing airport.

No. It's growing slower than Manchester, Stansted and I think Prestwick too for starters and that's just the UK. There may be others in the UK too but those are the ones that come to mind. MAN has grown by over 1 million passengers in 14 months.

No. It's growing slower than Manchester, Stansted and I think Prestwick too for starters and that's just the UK. There may be others in the UK too but those are the ones that come to mind. MAN has grown by over 1 million passengers in 14 months.
but it is growing thats good.

No. It's growing slower than Manchester, Stansted and I think Prestwick .

Not according to the May, 2005, edition of Airliner magazine. They give LPL's percentage growth as the biggest in the EU and the fastest in t6he UK. Like they say "figures don't lie but liars frigure". :)

but it is growing thats good.

No doubt about it. The growth of JLA is a great thing for Liverpool and for the Region. The more facilities we have up here, the less reason there is for large companies to choose not to locate here.

No doubt about it. The growth of JLA is a great thing for Liverpool and for the Region. The more facilities we have up here, the less reason there is for large companies to choose not to locate here.
that makes sense we need a strong north west.

[RANT MODE]

I'm absolutely sick to death of this.

Fly. Did you ever stop and think Sloyne may have a valid point? I admit we're all entitled to air our opinions, but with a grand entrance like "What a pile of trash", I do wonder what your motives are. And as for Nobby's post, without comment and nothing to do with the topic of JLA, I wonder what his motives were too. Then there's EB...

I've tried so hard to keep out of these spats, but now you're even disgracing the Liverpool forum with a blatantly condescending and aggressive tone. It's completely insulting and lacking in maturity.

"This myopic slagging of Manchester's success"

Give me a break! We're not jealous (then again, I could just be a typical lying scouser), we're just not as interested in Manchester as you'd like to think. We do live in a separate city with its own issues after all. There is no evidence of slagging, none at all. Sloyne was actually making a serious point/theory.

We're very happy with our own success thank you very much, and if you can't appreciate it, if it isn't big enough for Manchester, then I think I speak for all of us when I say kindly EFF OFF!

[/RANT OVER]

its just a discussion but i said a few weeks ago the manchester forumers seem right up their own arse the only city they will comment on is their own very selfish.

Then there's EB...

Would you mind backing this up with something please? I've tried to remain objective in this and I'd like to know what this comment related to.

i have come to realise that earlybird is one of the most intelligent posters there are a lot worse ones.

No doubt about it. The growth of JLA is a great thing for Liverpool and for the Region. The more facilities we have up here, the less reason there is for large companies to choose not to locate here.

And if Manchester based and Liverpool Airport owners, Peel Holdings, are succesful in aquiring the M.D. & H.C.. I can envisage a push to make the Port of Liverpool a cruise terminal rather than just a cruise port of call. If they do, and they give every indication of making a succesful bid, I can see a steady increase of cruise passengers transitting both LPL and MAN. This, surely, would benefit both cities.

I think Liverpool-Manchester is the ideal candidate for a test run of the technology for the proposed maglev line. I think it'd boost both cities hugely as they'd only be a few minute apart.

I think Liverpool-Manchester is the ideal candidate for a test run of the technology for the proposed maglev line. I think it'd boost both cities hugely as they'd only be a few minute apart.
Maglev..... now there's a thing....and why not?

Weren't these two towns connected once by 'the worlds first passenger railway'?
You would never know it today though....... :)

Oooops, wrong link...

my previous post was meant to be

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/...ter/4605929.stm

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=3331813&postcount=275

Specifically...




In the long term, I think Manchester will close for environmental and economic reasons.



My point being, not one person from Liverpool questioned this comment when it was made - well not until people from elsewhere pointed out the stupidity of the comment.

Maybe you scousers need to start to question each other a little more, that way, people from other places would not have to come on here to respond to the ridiculous posts that some of your forumers post, similar to how Manc's slap down EB and Lioners slap down H No1.

Oooops, wrong link...

my previous post was meant to be

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/...ter/4605929.stm

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=3331813&postcount=275

Specifically...




My point being, not one person from Liverpool questioned this comment when it was made - well not until people from elsewhere pointed out the stupidity of the comment.

Maybe you scousers need to start to question each other a little more, that way, people from other places would not have to come on here to respond to the ridiculous posts that some of your forumers post, similar to how Manc's slap down EB and Lioners slap down H No1.

But there is nothing "stupid" about it, and actually it makes no differene which of those two posts you quote from, they still have no relationship to the recent news report you put alongside it. I stand by what I said as outlining an informed and intelligent scenario. It's not the only one, might not even be the most likely, but there are good reasons to believe it could be the best or indeed only option in the long term.

Unfortunately, judging by your posts, you struggle to think very long ahead, and seem to think that things carry on pretty much as they are. If you actually read my posts that you have quoted, and Sloyne's, and with an open and curious mind, you will understand that they are not "stupid". There are step changes and paradigm shifts that shake-up transport periodically, plus altogether unpredictable political and business changes, that upset the best laid plans. Year on year trends don't predict, you need to take a wider and more imaginative and longer-term view to be able to scope out future scenarios. Current predictions based on last few years are fine, for short-medium term planning and investment, but that is not what I was talking about in the posts you have quoted.

Nobby, no disrespect, but I think you are not quite talking the same language as either myself or Sloyne, and you are currently not understanding what we have written. That leads to you getting confused and annoyed, as it seems idiotic to you and contradicts what you believe to be blatantly obvious. I am prepared to show some goodwill here and assume it is just your current inability to understand what I have written that prompts your aggressive and backward looking posts on this JLA 2 thread, rather than some more immature desire to stoke up a spat.

So you stand by the comment...



In the long term, I think Manchester will close...



???

i have come to realise that earlybird is one of the most intelligent posters there are a lot worse ones.

I agree. Earlybird's obsessed but he's not a twat. He also doesn't slag off scousers when the opportunity arises. There are 'worse ones' and I don't just mean Mancs either.

I think Liverpool-Manchester is the ideal candidate for a test run of the technology for the proposed maglev line. I think it'd boost both cities hugely as they'd only be a few minute apart.

Proposed maglev line? Anyone got a link?

I think London to Brighton would be more likely. Or London to Chelmsford, London to Bristol, London to Southampton etc.

Proposed maglev line? Anyone got a link?

I think London to Brighton would be more likely. Or London to Chelmsford, London to Bristol, London to Southampton etc.

By proposed maglev line I meant the cross country line that was proposed a while back. There's a thread in the transport section. I'd have thought it likely that they'd need a test run before investing. Where better than between two large cities to test the benefits rather than on a London commuter line? Also, the distance between Liverpool and Manchester means that the line would be long enough to gauge benefits, yet not so far that costs would become prohibitive for a simple test. It'd also become great publicity for the UK worldwide if the world's first passenger railway line was to be upgraded to maglev.

Personally i see the established airports maintaing their success.....because they are located where most people get get to, where they live and where the infrastructure is in place!

94% of MAN pax are from it's catchment area but less than 17% are from within the geo-political boundries known as Greater Manchester. So, that means that 83% of passengers using MAN are using that airport, not as you state, "because it is located where most people live" but because it is usually the only way, with no alternative. This does not mean it is wrong and, really, the alternative would be to give every municipality it's own airport, impractical, surely. Yes, the infrastructure is in place at MAN but, that doesn't mean that it cannot be put in place elsewhere and is actually being built at other airports like LPL, LBA, EMA, etc.

When MAN was lobbying for R2 one of the arguments/statements being made by Geoff Muirhead was that "There was no market for European/international traffic from LPL and MAN serves the needs of Liverpool pax adequately. And wasn't he wrong? Airline pax, just like any other consumer will, if given the choice, choose to fly from the cheapest most convenient point and that is usually it's local airport.

I reply to the ship ports analogy...

You say that sea ports like New York and Liverpool etc died a death after the advent of air travel in the later half of the 20th centuary, and this could be replicated in the airline industry if the air industry goes through similar changes.

Well... at present MAN is rejecting low cost flights (see the ridiculous slots awarded to EasyJet in the winter, e.g. TFS at 3:30am), MAN, if the market changed such that the current model no longer made money could adapt, in fact it would be in a very good position to as it already has the infrastructure for very high passenger numbers - paid for, therefore, to use your analogy with sea ports, if the industry did change dramatically, MAN could, and will change it's business model, and would no doubt continue to grow.

If the market changed to such an extent that air travel was no longer as atractive as it is today - using the sea port analogy - then why would a little port down the road continue to prosper, when the major one up the road struggled.

When Liverpool's port declined, did this mean that Holyhead's took up all the ports business? I think not.

Finally, for Liverpool to continue to grow, to a similar size to MAN, as it must do if MAN is to close (as proposed earlier), then Liverpool is going to have to do some serious investing in runways etc. Now look at how Stanstead cannot afford it's new runway, it is proposed it be 'subsidised' by Heatrow and Gatwick - now which other airports / companies are going to contribute these costs for Liverpool? None I'd suggest, therefore, prices for the airlines would have to rise - therefore, you end up in a similar situation to Manchester today, i.e. higher numbers, and all paying a bit more.

Could someone else please explain the possible business scenarios that would lead to MAN closing, otherwise, I think I will continue stating that the statement that MAN will close in indead very very stupid (unless you mean when oil runs out - but I don't think you do).

P.S. The reason low cost airlines would be hit hardest by taxing air fuel is because fuel is by far the highest expense for airlines, therefore, it has proposrtionally a higher impact on low fares companies as they have lower margins. Say the price of fuel doubled, then the costs of the low cost carrier would go up - proportionally - a lot more than those for the 'normal' carrier. If we are going to talk very long term, as some suggest, then as oil becomes harder to drill for, and hence more expensive, low costs carriers will find it harder to maintain their position - therefore surely working against the Liverpool model in the very long term.

Nobby, please read this carefully, very carefully, it might dispel your confusion as to what I wrote, at least some of the confusion, I hope.

1/. The Ports of Liverpool, Tilbury, Southampton, New York, Montreal etc. did NOT die. The *POINT-TO-POINT*passenger traffic died. The liners didn't die, they were converted to CRUISE SHIPS and sailed from ports closer to the cruising locals. Ports like Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, San Juan, St. Thomas, Naples, Citivechia, Barcelona, Pirius etc. The introduction of fast jet travel from the North Eastern US and Canada allowed for tripling the market base by giving more people the oportunity to cruise at a greatly lower price than a two week cruise from New York would cost. Remember, cruising is a winter pastime in North America and it would take three days for a ship out of New York to reach warmer climes and three days of the cold and rough North Atlantic when returning to New York. With jet travel North Eastern pax could be in Miami in a little more than 3 hours (as opposed to three days) and already on the doorstep of sub tropical weather, hence the need to only do one week on the cruise ship. Not rocket science to understand that, is it?

2/. In case you haven't noticed, very few people travel first/business class from MAN. In fact most trans Atalantic carriers from/to Manchester offer what is called "Super Comfort Class" which is a slight premium, usually $100.00, to sit in the first class seats. The onboard service is exactly the same as the coach pax receive. The air passenger transport industry has already changed from a point-to-point mainly for business and emigration to a point-to-point vacation transport. Not unlike the excursion trains for soccer matches and excursions to Blackpool from Manchester. Allmost 90% of all air travel is now ABC and APEX pax. Vacationers and mothers and daughters make up the bulk of airline passengers. As for low cost carriers and full service airports, firstly, aircraft on the ground don't make money and the longer it takes a aircraft to turn the less money it makes. The instalation of a airbridge system is as unecessarry for locos as is dedicated passenger lounges for loyalty customers. Airbridges need to be maintained and that takes money and someone has to pay for these fancy fixtures and they only impede a fast turnaround anyway. Todays low cost pax are interested in getting from Chorley and Lancaster to the Costa Lager as soon as possible. Why on earth would they be interested in spending hours in a dedicated airport lounge, no matter how comfy. The day of the full service carrier, although not yet dead, is rapidly drawing to an end and the percentage of people travelling "low cost" are taking an increasing share of the market with "full-serv" carriers taking less and less.

3/. Nowhere did I write that MAN would close although bigger and better located airports have closed, due to a better location being found close by. SeaTac (Seattle Tacoma International Airport is an example. If any airport is to close it will be because there is a very compelling reason for it to do so I hope you now understand, a little better, my theorising.

Sloyne, I don't disagree with anything you have said, in fact MAN is now moving towards the low cost market whilst not losing the benifitss of being home to many full service carriers.

My original point (although messed up by the wrong link) was comments by Liverpolian, saying he thought MAN would close, were simply as stupid as me saying I think Lime Street will close, I added to this by pointing out no one questioned his premise that it was inevitable MAN would close.

The reason I posted yesterday was MAN was in the news as they are expanding at present as the people in charge obviously do not share Liverpolitan's view and are willing to invest serious money on it.

Either way, Sloyne, I have no prblems with anything you have said, I also think low cost will be the way forward, but as MAN already has the infrastructure in place, there is no reason why they won't be able to adapt. My problem lies with the unquestioning of the wild statements made by Liverpolitan.

My problem lies with the unquestioning of the wild statements made by Liverpolitan.

First it was "stupid", now it's "wild" and "unquestioning". Nowhere have I written that it is "inevitable" that MAN will close, that is not my view. My views on this matter are not stupid, or wild, or unquestioning. Nowhere have you even attempted to sustain such a view, let alone done so.

You seem to assume that what succeeds today will succeed tomorrow. History tells us that in business, and in transport, that is not necessarily the case. It's obvious really, but seemingly not to you. Since you can't actually fault my logic (and haven't even attempted to), I think you are just behaving like a silly troll here, and so you will understand that I'm going to generally ignore your nonsense. Please stop trying to spoil threads with your personal attacks.

Nowhere have I written that it is "inevitable" that MAN will close, that is not my view.


Yet in http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=3331813&postcount=275



In the long term, I think Manchester will close for environmental and economic reasons.



So, do you think in the long term MAN will close or not?

Sloyne, I don't disagree with anything you have said, in fact MAN is now moving towards the low cost market whilst not losing the benifitss of being home to many full service carriers.

My original point (although messed up by the wrong link) was comments by Liverpolian, saying he thought MAN would close, were simply as stupid as me saying I think Lime Street will close, I added to this by pointing out no one questioned his premise that it was inevitable MAN would close.

The reason I posted yesterday was MAN was in the news as they are expanding at present as the people in charge obviously do not share Liverpolitan's view and are willing to invest serious money on it.

Either way, Sloyne, I have no prblems with anything you have said, I also think low cost will be the way forward, but as MAN already has the infrastructure in place, there is no reason why they won't be able to adapt. My problem lies with the unquestioning of the wild statements made by Liverpolitan.

Nobby,

From my memory of this discussion, Liverpool forumers did question Liverpolitan's 'Manchester to Close' posting and Liverpolitan went on to admit that he was not being too serious.

Perhaps the question that we should be asking is 'if Manchester Airport were to close, would that be to Liverpool (city)'s advantage?'

The rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester has been going on since the early 19th. century. When Liverpool born William Gladstone addressed a political meeting in Manchester, the Mancunians were appalled to discover that he spoke with a Liverpool accent and said that they would never have voted for him if they had known.

However, in those days, it was probably more a matter of civic pride. Manchester was Cottonopolis and Liverpool was the greatest seaport in the world - both cities relied on each other for their wealth. Nowadays things are different. Liverpool and Manchester compete in the same market, whether it be business, information technology, cultural activities, clubs etc. Therefore, if one city has an advantage, such as a major international airport, that can tip the balance considerably in its favour.

It might seem like cutting off our nose to spite our face, but if Manchester Airport were to close, the prosperity of Liverpool would probably increase even if Liverpool John Lennon failed to attract any of Manchester's business.

I don't seriously expect Manchester to close but you have to understand why it is so important for Liverpudlians to press for more and more international and domestic flights from our own airport.

Martin, I have been back to read the thread again recently, Gareth posted 'are you sure you meant that?", however, several people, including Kung Fuzi seemed to take it all in.

Go back and have a look, about page 12 or 13 of the first thread.

Not until Sir Miles Platting accused Liverpolitan of being in 'Freddie and the Dreamers' was this position questioned. Liverpolitan went on to pursue the same premise that MAN was to close as the thread goes on - no scousers question this for a very long time - why?

Please point me to where he said it was a joke in the 1st thread, otherwise, it looks like post 36 of this thread is contradictary to post 275 in the first thread.

Yet in http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=3331813&postcount=275



So, do you think in the long term MAN will close or not?

Yes, I believe it will, and as I have said, I believe a combination of economics and the environment will be critical inputs to that decision. Ultimately the investment will not be paying off, and it's using up a lot of land that can earn money in other ways. But, I don't think that is a certainty, and it's certainly not inevitable. There are alternative scenarios.

Landlocked airports are sometimes, as Sloyne has explained, replaced by bigger airports that can expand into the sea or estuaries, and that reduce noise and other pollution over densely populated areas. Investing hundreds of millions in runways and terminals in the wrong place is not uncommon, and while it can delay a decision for rational location, ultimatley such facilities are sometimes closed down. Indeed, depending upon ownership, investing too much can lead to financial difficulties if other airports are later allowed to expand and draw away the business.

I've not said whether I think this is a good or a bad thing, incidentally, just that it seems like a reasonable possibility. I have merely expressed an opinion, and it's only mine - I don't quote an official source or claim powers of prophesy. Holding and expressing an opinion, based upon a rational reading of trends and history, is not a crime. Nor is it stupid. Or wild. Or Unquestioning.

Over the next few years I think we're likely to see a very serious question mark placed over the environmental sustainability of all airport and airline growth plans. Its plain that the Government didn't want to tackle that before the election, but either this Government or the next are going to have to start talking to "us" as grown ups about the real environmental costs our choices entail. As someone who loves flying, I hate to admit that I am causing serious damage to the environment, but it's true that I have and I do. I've cut back and no longer fly as much as I did, but not enough, and a lot of people I know haven't even woken up to this issue yet.

So, if I was to say I think Lime Street was going to close in the long term due to the increasing no. of passengers from the airport and the extremely low no. of people who use the station already, would you agree that is a wild and stupid proposition?

So, if I was to say I think Lime Street was going to close in the long term due to the increasing no. of passengers from the airport and the extremely low no. of people who use the station already, would you agree that is a wild and stupid proposition?

What is the wider information feeding this scenario, including any precedents? Even villages and many small towns sustain train stations, whereas quite big cities sometimes don't have major international airports. You need to explain this one more, if you are going to make me take it seriously as a proposition. Currently it sounds fanciful to me, but tell me more.

Nobby,

You may well be right in what you say. I don't fancy trawling through all the old postings - I just seem to remember that Liverpolitan admitted to being a bit tongue in cheek about the whole thing - but then maybe he wasn't - I will leave it to him to confirm or deny.

Anyway, speaking for myself, I have to admit that I didn't post anything critical of Liverpolitan's statement but that does not mean that I agreed with it.

As I said, I find it highly unlikely that Manchester Airport will close. However, there may well be a legitimate reason for questioning whether it's future expansion is a good and sustainable thing.

Manchester, like Liverpool's former Northern Airfield, was a product of the 1930s, when only the very rich and VIPs ever flew. When it first opened, annual passenger numbers would be measured in thousands, rather than millions.

The airport has expanded enormously to cater for modern mass air travel but the location has not changed. The result is that the flight path for landing jets takes it over miles of built up area. The alignment of the second runway means that planes on take off are heading directly over the centre of Knutsford and have to fly special curved routes to avoid it.

Liverpool, by contrast has take offs over the River Mersey and landing routes that largely avoid built up areas. Consequently, the environmental intrusion is far less - something that will be more and more important in years to come.

This point was brought up at the separate enquiries into the two airport development proposals back in the mid 90s. Both airports argued that whilst their expansion plans would necessarily result in increased overflying, this would be offset by reductions in aircraft noise due to improvements in engine design.

The Manchester inspector accepted this argument and made the point that only one small area (Mere) would suffer an effective increase in noise from Manchester's plans. The Liverpool inspector rejected the argument and said that people had a right to expect reductions in aircraft noise.

Personally, I think that the Liverpool inspector got it right. If I buy a television set today, I would be a bit upset if it only received two channels in black and white even if that was perfectly acceptable in the early 60s. However, it did show an inconsistency in the treatment of the two airports expansion plans that might not have been entirely accidental.

Well how's about, in the distant future (what you're talking about) a government decides to do a second Beeching, except this time unless the train line makes money, and will continue to make money, they close all the stations.

Effectively we are left ith the profitable lines, e.g. London, Brum and Manc commuter lines, and the intercities between Manc, Brum, Leeds, Stafford, Crewe and London.

All other lines wil be closed (this kind of thing has happened before).

Everyone from Liverpool will have to travel to Manchester to travel by train to London (which will be a very high speed link by now).

The decision to close certain stations will be taken in about 2020, by which time Lime Street has continued in it's under use compared to other provinsial cities due to the economic problems continued to be being experienced in Merseyside.






Now, I don't think this will happen, in fact I very much doubt it would happen, however, I'd say it is about as likely as your propersition that MAN airport will close.

I'm very confused by the arguement about R2.

Manc was the airport that ran out of capacity, not Liverpool.

Are you suggesting when Liverpool requires a new runway there should be an enquiry that considers MAN getting a 3rd runway instead?

The demand (at the time, and continuing today) was at MAN.

If R2 had not have happened MAN's growth would have been stunted - look at Stanstead, however, would Liverpool be 'that' much bigger? I seriously doubt it.

I wait in anticipation for all scousers to start proclaiming MAN gets a 3rd runway when Liverpool runs out of capacity.

Good post Martin. I have been patient with him today but I realise Nobby is just trolling so I am not reacting to his nonsense further, as it just encourages him. Nobby, in all honesty I doubt you actually have enough of it "up there" to understand some of the arguments, but if you prove me wrong with rational, well argued and objective postings I might try again in the future. But for now it's just hopeless, with just plain silly stuff from you. I have tried.

The fact is that Manchester takes a disproportionate number of passengers in relationship to its effective catchment area. Major expansion at Liverpool could have reduced pressure at Manchester and obviated the need for a second Manchester runway. For a large part of the North West and North Wales, Liverpool is as easy an airport to get to as Manchester.

The Liverpool proposals did not involve a second runway but a realignment of the existing one (mainly to increase space for terminal buildings). The airport would have then been able to expand to about 11 million passengers per annum (earlier proposals involving a second runway built on reclaimed land would have allowed expansion to 40m p.p.a. but these were not taken to public inquiry)

The basic argument was that two autonomous runways would have a much greater capacity than two closely spaced runways (where aircraft movements on one runway are constrained by those on the other).

The second runway inquiry is water under the bridge now. Liverpool at that time had been struggling with around 0.5million p.p.a. for several years whilst Manchester had gone from strength to strength, so the decision in favour of Manchester appeared sensible to many people. Now that Liverpool has increased its passenger throughput by close on tenfold, things are a bit different.

The second runway inquiry is water under the bridge now. Liverpool at that time had been struggling with around 0.5million p.p.a. for several years whilst Manchester had gone from strength to strength, so the decision in favour of Manchester appeared sensible to many people. Now that Liverpool has increased its passenger throughput by close on tenfold, things are a bit different.

I don't personally think this will have made the slightest bit of difference though. Whilst JLA has had some impressive growth recently, MAN has also been going through it's most rapid expansion to date, adding 2 million passengers in a little over two years. The simple fact of the matter is that the Northern Way initiative has the North of England centred around the gateway city of Manchester. As such, Manchester needs to develop a large airport in keeping with those of other gateway cities around the world. Whilst MAN is aiming for 40 million by 2015, the Government is also targetting a throughput of 60 million by 2030, putting the North of England well and truly on the map. This is in the best interests of the whole region.

Is it better to have 4 medium sized airports all flying people to sunny Spain or is it better to have a couple of small regional airports doing that and having one large gateway airport serving all corners of the world? I'd say, for the prosperity of the North, that the latter is the only solution.

So, if I was to say I think Lime Street was going to close in the long term due to the increasing no. of passengers from the airport and the extremely low no. of people who use the station already, would you agree that is a wild and stupid proposition?

Stupid yes, wild no. If Liverpool were to get a Heathrow link it would/should have no bearing on the traffic wanting to go to central London and really Nobby you are either being stupid and/or provocative. I will refrain from identifying which one I think it is.

I don't personally think this will have made the slightest bit of difference though. Whilst JLA has had some impressive growth recently, MAN has also been going through it's most rapid expansion to date, adding 2 million passengers in a little over two years. The simple fact of the matter is that the Northern Way initiative has the North of England centred around the gateway city of Manchester. As such, Manchester needs to develop a large airport in keeping with those of other gateway cities around the world. Whilst MAN is aiming for 40 million by 2015, the Government is also targetting a throughput of 60 million by 2030, putting the North of England well and truly on the map. This is in the best interests of the whole region.

Is it better to have 4 medium sized airports all flying people to sunny Spain or is it better to have a couple of small regional airports doing that and having one large gateway airport serving all corners of the world? I'd say, for the prosperity of the North, that the latter is the only solution.

Earlybird,

I tried a version of this argument with a Mancunian work colleague last week. I pointed out that Liverpool FC's winning of the European Cup was a great event for the North West. His response was 'b-ll-cks!'

I think he had a point.

Whether an airport expands or stagnates should be related to its catchment area and the propensity of people within that area to fly. If the public sector is going to dictate that one airport should be responsible for practically the whole medium and long haul passenger throughput of a region, then they are doing something profoundly undemocratic.

Clearly not every town and village in the North West can sustain its own airport but a city the size of Liverpool can. If all development money is channelled to the expansion of one airport then people from our city will have to travel to Manchester even to do something as basic as fly down to our capital city.

If a businessperson has to fly via Manchester to reach Liverpool, which city do you think they are most likely to invest in?

It's fairly obvious from your many postings that you see Manchester as world capital in waiting and so you probably see nothing wrong with that.

However, my loyalty is to Liverpool not the North West and I cannot see that expansion at Manchester benefits Liverpool.

The rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester has been going on since the early 19th. century. When Liverpool born William Gladstone addressed a political meeting in Manchester, the Mancunians were appalled to discover that he spoke with a Liverpool accent and said that they would never have voted for him if they had known.

Not so! William Ewart Gladstone's accent was decidedly "Lancastrian", closer to Mancunian than the present day Liverpool, or Scouse. The accent we now know as Scouse had not yet been cultivated. Liverpool's present accent or Scouse is a direct result of the influx of immigrants from Ireland during the Potatoe Famine in that country.

Gladstone was born in 1809 and aquired his Lancastrian accent long before the first wave of Irish refugees landed on the Liverpool shore. The first sign of the potatoe blight that afflicted the Irish crop didn't occure until 1846 and the first major influx of Irish refugees into Liverpool, not until 1850. Gladstone's accent was, at the then age of 41, was well and truly in place.

No Martin, William Ewart Gladstone's accent was more Mancunian than present day Scouse. I think present day Scousers would describe his accent as Woolyback. :)

No Martin, William Ewart Gladstone's accent was more Mancunian than present day Scouse. I think present day Scousers would describe his accent as Woolyback. :)

I'm sure they would but that doesn't mean that mid 19c. Mancunians would not be able to distinguish people from Liverpool - maybe more easily than they can today. After all, todays accents are influenced strongly be radio and television and the fact that we all travel around a lot more.

The point of the story was that Gladstone spoke with an accent that identified him as someone from Liverpool, a town that they detested. It was not the accent itself that they objected to.

Yes, I believe it will, and as I have said, I believe a combination of economics and the environment will be critical inputs to that decision. Ultimately the investment will not be paying off, and it's using up a lot of land that can earn money in other ways. But, I don't think that is a certainty, and it's certainly not inevitable. There are alternative scenarios.

Landlocked airports are sometimes, as Sloyne has explained, replaced by bigger airports that can expand into the sea or estuaries, and that reduce noise and other pollution over densely populated areas. Investing hundreds of millions in runways and terminals in the wrong place is not uncommon, and while it can delay a decision for rational location, ultimatley such facilities are sometimes closed down. Indeed, depending upon ownership, investing too much can lead to financial difficulties if other airports are later allowed to expand and draw away the business.

I've not said whether I think this is a good or a bad thing, incidentally, just that it seems like a reasonable possibility. I have merely expressed an opinion, and it's only mine - I don't quote an official source or claim powers of prophesy. Holding and expressing an opinion, based upon a rational reading of trends and history, is not a crime. Nor is it stupid. Or wild. Or Unquestioning.

Over the next few years I think we're likely to see a very serious question mark placed over the environmental sustainability of all airport and airline growth plans. Its plain that the Government didn't want to tackle that before the election, but either this Government or the next are going to have to start talking to "us" as grown ups about the real environmental costs our choices entail. As someone who loves flying, I hate to admit that I am causing serious damage to the environment, but it's true that I have and I do. I've cut back and no longer fly as much as I did, but not enough, and a lot of people I know haven't even woken up to this issue yet.

What a prick ! I have never read so many laughable and poorly thought out comments in one post, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

Liverpolitan, I can only assume that you have come to such a ridiculous conclusion due to either being a six year old child or more likely that you are a scouser with such a big chip on your shoulder regarding Manchester that you become unhinged and mentally unstable at the very mention of the city.

Wake up Liverpolitan, your personal issues regarding Manchester are far more serious than pollution could ever be.

Anyone know what the weather's going to be like tomorrow?

Anyone know what the weather's going to be like tomorrow?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/images/symbols/fiveday_sym/3.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/images/symbols/fiveday_sym/3.gif

Yay! I think I'll go for a walk. :banana:

Darn, you've just reminded me that the beeb has ditched those symbols on their TV forecasts.

The new flashy graphics just don't cut it for me. Those symbols are a national institution! :bash:

The point of the story was that Gladstone spoke with an accent that identified him as someone from Liverpool, a town that they detested. It was not the accent itself that they objected to.

No he didn't Martin, as a contemporary (Lord Palmerston I beleive) once said; "He (Gladstone) had the flat vowel of the Northern Squire". Gladstones accent was as identifiable from that of Manchesters inasmuch as Blackburns accent is from that of Burnley. Not knowing him, Gladstones Mancunian contemporarys would be hard pressed to pin point his linguistic origin, only knowing, if not Mancunian, he was from some place nearby.

On the other hand, the Scouse accent is the most unique accent in all of English, being confined to the city of Liverpool and the towns that face it across the Mersey. Every other accent in English is regional. Scouse owes more to Dublin, 160 miles across the sea than it does to Manchester, 30 miles up the Freeway. The South East English accent is the most prevalent accent in all of English, with variations spoken in Australia, NZ, Southern Africa, the Indian sub-continent and in many places in the US.

Yes I agree, accents are becoming less unique not only with mass media bombardment but also with travel but, it will take Scouse about a century to become truly regional like the Lancashire accent or the Geordie accent, as examples.

Sloyne, why is my propersition (the one I don't believe) that Lime Street will close in the long term any more stupid that the one that says "I think Manchester (airport) will close".

Picture the scenario...

It is 2040, the ultra high speed trains that radiate out of London have been a great success.

As Manchester and Liverpool are so close, and the costs of contruction was very high, it was decided only Manchester would get a station.

To ensure that Liverpool was not totally cut off, the Manc Picc - Warrington - Lime Street was upgraded to Metrolink 5 years ago.

The journey times from Man Picc to Euston are now less that 45mins, and the Metrolink connection from Lime Street to Picc just 40mins, making the journey time from Lime Street to London much faster than the older trains from the start of the centuary could compete with, eventually, all the trains out of Lime Street stopped, and it turned into a Metrolink stop, just outside where the old station used to be.

If you cannot see that the above WILL have in the long term future then I'm afraid you just haven't got "enough of it up there".

After all, the status of transport today is not a good indication of future transport plans, (using the New York sea port analogy).

I take it those who have not questions Liverpolitans accerstion the Manchester WILL close, will also be agreeing with the above statements? If not why not, why is one more stupid than the other?








P.S. No one has explained why the move to low cost would hurt MAN in the long term, why would the airport not be able to adapt? All the infrastructure is in place and paid for.

P.P.S. Ref the environment issues and Knutsford, the Tatton MP - George Osbourne - has been in the media recently saying expansion would be a good thing, as so many of the locals work at the airport, it is going to take a huge amount of changing of opinions for this to become a serious issue - look at Heathrow, considerable more 'environmental impact' there, i.e. planes flying over many more houses, yet that airport is up around 60m passengers a year.

Using your scenario Noblet, a new 'super' station will be built in Warrington, alongside Warringtons new airport with a rapid transit system feeding into and linking with Manchester and Liverpool metros.

As far as airports go Liverpool has what must be an enviable environmental and geographic position, so long as it continues to serve the city and expand its services then I'll be happy.

The day I'm forced to use Manchester carte blanche again to fly or use the railways is the day I organise an independant peoples republic for the great and good.

Toadboy, I agree it is totally ludricous and stupid to suggest my railway theory will actually happen, however, what is the difference between my stupid theory and the one proposed by Liverpolitan?

You're talking about train stations and he was talking about airports?

Sloyne, why is my propersition (the one I don't believe) that Lime Street will close in the long term any more stupid that the one that says "I think Manchester (airport) will close".

I wouldn't know. I have not entered into that particular debate and am at a loss as to why you would want me to answer the question. I do know this; there is not one British politician that would have the balls to sanction a third runway at Manchester nor is there a British politician stupid enough to sanction the transportation isolation of, what is, the nations largest export port. By the way, both Tacoma and Seattle airports closed as did Kai Tac in Hong Kong as did Singapore (old RAF base) in favour of Changi.

The problem Manchester may have as time marches on and new modern airports open is that the whole infrastructure at Manchester is more expensive than for example Liverpool.

All this 'investment' needs paying for with a return and building an airport for BA etc. immidiately increases the cost base.

I was amazed when Manchester got the OK for runway 2 when Liverpool was so under developed, the decision flew in the face of logic and won't even deliver the benefit of having 2 runways. At some point Manchester will cease to be viable in its present format.

Using your scenario Noblet, a new 'super' station will be built in Warrington, alongside Warringtons new airport with a rapid transit system feeding into and linking with Manchester and Liverpool metros.

No, this could never happen. Why? Because both Warrington and Liverpool have smaller catchment areas than Manchester (be it 30 min, 45 min, 1 hr, 2hr or whatever). Catchment area, and so the total number of passengers using the airport, will always be what dictates the growth of an airport.

As far as airports go Liverpool has what must be an enviable environmental and geographic position, so long as it continues to serve the city and expand its services then I'll be happy.[/QUOTE]

Do you not comprehend the fact that Manchester airport, in absolute terms, is growing faster than all but one of the UK's airports? If Liverpool was in an enviable geographic position then MAN wouldn't be the one growing most. The simple fact is that MAN's position is ideal. It's right next to Manchester, the largest city in the north of England (I won't go further for fear Brummies might steal the thread), it's close enough to Liverpool for convenience, it's by the biggest motorway hub in the UK and it's right beside the massive high tech sector in Cheshire. It's also joined to a city with massive railway links.

Basically, if Liverpool's position is "enviable" then Manchester's must be considered the dog's bollocks.

The problem Manchester may have as time marches on and new modern airports open is that the whole infrastructure at Manchester is more expensive than for example Liverpool.

All this 'investment' needs paying for with a return and building an airport for BA etc. immidiately increases the cost base.

I was amazed when Manchester got the OK for runway 2 when Liverpool was so under developed, the decision flew in the face of logic and won't even deliver the benefit of having 2 runways. At some point Manchester will cease to be viable in its present format.

And the problem I see is that Liverpool is going to struggle in the future due to massive underinvestment in the airport. Who in their right mind would choose to come down those stupid stairs from their plane in this day and age? It's awful. With the amount of rain and windy weather in the North West I'd much rather know that I'd be able to get home without ever having to step outside.

Honestly, I'm amazed how bitter so many Liverpudlians are over the second runway. The simple fact is that it was supply and demand. There was the demand for more flights so they supplied a second runway. Why on all this Earth would the Government intervene and say "Manchester Airport [a private company] can't have a new runway because we want it at Liverpool Airport [another private company]" despite the fact the demand was at Manchester, not Liverpool?

I was amazed when Manchester got the OK for runway 2 when Liverpool was so under developed, the decision flew in the face of logic and won't even deliver the benefit of having 2 runways.

A parallel runway system, located as close as MAN's R1 & R2, will only provide a maximum increase in aircraft movements of 50%, and that is at optimum operating conditions. Manchesters R2 is staggered but is to close to R1 to operate "fully" simultanious with R1. Ideally it would have been better to locate it further west and place the terminals in between the runways. The present runway/terminal configuration will provide Manchester with a possible throughput of 35+ million pax per annum. Manchester may well move R2 westward but that, in effect, would be a whole new runway and I don't believe the political will is there nor do I see any politician championing this cause, not with excess runway capacity close by at Castle Donnington, Yeadon, Speke, and Doncaster's new airport at Finningly.

Manchester may well move R2 westward but that, in effect, would be a whole new runway and I don't believe the political will is there nor do I see any politician championing this cause, not with excess runway capacity close by at Castle Donnington, Yeadon, Speke, and Doncaster's new airport at Finningly.
You obviously don't know much about the Northern Way initiative or the Government plans for MAN then. As part of Northern Way Manchester is supposed to become the transport gateway for the North. As such, MAN is planned for an increase to 60million ppa by 2030. This would require R1 or R2 to be moved. It's official DfT and ODPM policy.

Who in their right mind would choose to come down those stupid stairs from their plane in this day and age? It's awful. With the amount of rain and windy weather in the North West I'd much rather know that I'd be able to get home without ever having to step outside.

Do you know that most of T1 at Manchester has to do that? T1 never used to be like that, but in the past two/three years that I've flown in/out of it, you always have to go onto the Apron and then up stairs into the aircraft.

Living in Wigan I find MAN much more convienent via the M6/M56 the motorway hub is definatley a large advantage for MAN, the M56 spur goes all the way to the terminal buildings. I find the facilities there second to none(voted worlds best airport on more than one occasion). I have undersood the point some are making that the current expansion of MAN is not sustainable that may be a valid piont,but to suggest it will close cannot be taken seriously and if it was so could apply to other airports including LPL.One thing is for sure no one reading this forum will be alive if MAN does close! Believe me.

Do you know that most of T1 at Manchester has to do that? T1 never used to be like that, but in the past two/three years that I've flown in/out of it, you always have to go onto the Apron and then up stairs into the aircraft.

That's one of the main components of this new expansion. That's why I brought it up in the first place. New gates being built will mean all planes using proper gates. The simple fact is that right now the airport is over the capacity that the terminal gates can handle.

As part of Northern Way Manchester is supposed to become the transport gateway for the North. As such, MAN is planned for an increase to 60million ppa by 2030.

Can't wait to see this. 60 million pax throughput on a staggered parallel runway system. Toronto has 6 (six) runways, 4 (four) with legal seperation of two or more miles and a brand new terminal, yet, it will only be able accommodate 60 million pax by 2015. Plans are underway for a further terminal expansion on the west side of the airport for future growth, beyond 2015. By-the-way, Toronto's new terminal is bigger than all of Manchester's terminals combined and we still have T3 and the new infield charter terminal, which is as big as Manchester's T2.

Toronto is, admittedly, a true "hub & spoke" operation as opposed to Manchester being a busy regional airport but, the point I am making is that even with a footprint larger than MAN and LPL combined, there are physical limits on aircraft movements. It is pointless pointing to Heathrow and it's constraints because that airport is the UK's international gateway with more international trans-continental flights than all other UK airports combined. There is more interlining done at LHR than probably any other airport in Europe. Even Gatwick, with a single runway operation surpasses MAN in every category including aircraft movements, passenger throughput and interlining. This is not to denigrate MAN but merely to put things in perspective.

And my original assertion was/is that Liverpool (LPL) needs a Heathrow connection to serve it's citizens and, surely, anyone with an ounce of common can see that.

Living in Wigan I find MAN much more convienent via the M6/M56 the motorway hub is definatley a large advantage for MAN, the M56 spur goes all the way to the terminal buildings.

I depends on the time of day, because the M60 can seriously turn into a shocker. I've gone to both JLA and MAN at around 6.30am (obviously clear motorways) from Weaste, Salford, and it only takes around 4 minutes longer to get to JLA.

Can't wait to see this. 60 million pax throughput on a staggered parallel runway system. Toronto has 6 (six) runways, 4 (four) with legal seperation of two or more miles and a brand new terminal, yet, it will only be able accommodate 60 million pax by 2015. Plans are underway for a further terminal expansion on the west side of the airport for future growth, beyond 2015. By-the-way, Toronto's new terminal is bigger than all of Manchester's terminals combined and we still have T3 and the new infield charter terminal, which is as big as Manchester's T2.

As I already told you, the plans for MAN include shifting one of the runways. It also includes building a fourth terminal. The Northern Way plans include JLA and Leeds/Bradford becoming simply small regionals taking passengers to places like Ireland and Spain. MAN is planned to have a massive increase in the number of international destinations. It's on course for this. In the last year it added more new internaitonal flights than at any other time in it's history. The Northern Way initiative includes the Northern region becoming a true economic rival to London so we'd need our own fully fledged international.

I depends on the time of day, because the M60 can seriously turn into a shocker. I've gone to both JLA and MAN at around 6.30am (obviously clear motorways) from Weaste, Salford, and it only takes around 4 minutes longer to get to JLA.
Now that the Thelwall viaduct roadworks are complete the M6/M56 is usually not bad even at peak times ..agree about the M60 but the massive widening scheme around the Carrington Sale stretch should ease that somewhat. When I used LPL for my easyjet flight to Amsterdam last year I got some friends to take me there and had to drive down the speke boulovard then negotaite an industrial estate. It seemed rather a long drive.

And the problem I see is that Liverpool is going to struggle in the future due to massive underinvestment in the airport. Who in their right mind would choose to come down those stupid stairs from their plane in this day and age? It's awful. With the amount of rain and windy weather in the North West I'd much rather know that I'd be able to get home without ever having to step outside.



I have to say that is pretty weak. Who cares if you have to come down a set of steps for 10 seconds when your fare is cheap and your journey home less. LJL is about to buy 4 new buses to shuttle people direct from the terminal to the airplane door. I dare say many people will prefer that to having to navigate through a labyrinth of tunnels to get to their plane.

I have to say that is pretty weak. Who cares if you have to come down a set of steps for 10 seconds when your fare is cheap and your journey home less. LJL is about to buy 4 new buses to shuttle people direct from the terminal to the airplane door. I dare say many people will prefer that to having to navigate through a labyrinth on tunnels to get to their plane.

They don't. That's why Manchester has been voted best airport in the world on a few occasions and JLA hasn't. It's simple fact that passengers prefer the extra comfort of MAN. This lack of investment in making passengers comfortable will hit JLA very hard when the Government starts taxing aviation fuel. When this happens the low-costs will have to raise prices and the smaller price difference won't be worth the lower quality facilities and reduced convenience. How many airports in the North do you think can sustain a full international schedule?

I dare say many people will prefer that to having to navigate through a labyrinth on tunnels to get to their plane.

No, I hate it. Especially when arriving at an airport, because sometimes you have to wait ages for the bloody bus to arrive at you plane, and then at the bigger airports take at least 10 minutes to get you to the terminal building.

If you are a smoker, it's hell!

The Northern Way plans include JLA and Leeds/Bradford becoming simply small regionals taking passengers to places like Ireland and Spain. MAN is planned to have a massive increase in the number of international destinations. It's on course for this. In the last year it added more new internaitonal flights than at any other time in it's history. The Northern Way initiative includes the Northern region becoming a true economic rival to London so we'd need our own fully fledged international.

The Northern Way is dead in the water. In policy terms, Prescott is now pretty much a lame duck in his own department, and he kept policy for the "North" whereas all the exciting and happening policy areas went to Milliband. So don't count on that pernicious little policy living more than another year or two. It couldl never deliver the world domination you appear to believe it could anyway. That was part of its problem, it was hyjacked by a city that only knew how to collaborate through total domination.

The Northern Way is dead in the water. In policy terms, Prescott is now pretty much a lame duck in his own department, and he kept policy for the "North" whereas all the exciting and happening policy areas went to Milliband. So don't count on that pernicious little policy living more than another year or two. It couldl never deliver the world domination you appear to believe it could anyway. That was part of its problem, it was hyjacked by a city that only knew how to collaborate through total domination.

Northern Way is more active now than at any other point in it's history. They've recently announced the boundaries of the Manchester city region (which cover the 3.2 million I said about in another thread that nobody believed) and are due to do the same for the other cities soon. They've begun actively marketing the cities, they were one of the major groups lobbying for the Government to back the expansion of MAN (which they now have). Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it's dead in the water. It's gathering steam.

What you have to remember is that the Manchester city region has twice the number of people the Liverpool city region has and so it's obvious that it's people are going to have more influence over it's direction. Just because you aren't seeing it's effects in Liverpool yet doesn't mean it's ineffective. You start at the core, expanding from there and waiting for the effect to filter down the line.

As for Prescott being a lame duck in his own department, you might wish this was true but it's far from it. Prescott is actually GAINING powers right now, with new responsibilities being added to ODPM. Again, just because Liverpool isn't seeing the effect yet doesn't mean it's ineffective.

Earlybird, you are a silly boy and you don't read or listen. Study which Ministers in ODPM have picked up particular policy briefs since the election. When you have done that I will listen to you on this subject. If you look at the "back on track" thread on the Manchester Forum, you will see that despite the bad habit of some who trawl up my old posts to attack me, no-one bothered to trawl up my devastatingly accurate prediction about the Manchester tram the day after the general election. So I trawled it up myself, in a "see, I was right", kind of way, and even Nobby has been forced to admit on that thread today that I was right. None of the Manc contributors to that thread were able to see how things were going or the likely mechanism whereby the tram could in fact be built.

You know, earlybird, you could learn about policy and also politics if you took just a moment to read and consider other posters here, instead of just instantly reacting with knee-jerk "Manchester is centre of the universe with a population of sixteen billion I read it on a website" childishness.

Please read my posts with respect and if you do not understand them ask me. I will not reply to yours in future if you just post thoughtless nonsense.

They don't. That's why Manchester has been voted best airport in the world on a few occasions and JLA hasn't. It's simple fact that passengers prefer the extra comfort of MAN.

The fact that it has received such a plaudit while Liverpool hasnt does not to me reflect on the quality of the facilites available. Manchester handles 4 times as many passengers so obviously will have more people able to vote for it. LJL has nearly everything you would expect from a major airport - bars, cafes, executive lounges, conference facilites....prayer rooms!
Just what exactly is this extra comfort that you think people are missing out on?

This lack of investment in making passengers comfortable will hit JLA very hard when the Government starts taxing aviation fuel. When this happens the low-costs will have to raise prices and the smaller price difference won't be worth the lower quality facilities and reduced convenience. How many airports in the North do you think can sustain a full international schedule?

There is no evidence either way yet as to what the government will do on taxing aviation fuel yet. Lets therefore wait and see.

You keep on talking about less convenience but to people in many areas this couldnt be less true. Why would/should they want to troop an extra 40 odd miles?

Because Manchester is the major hub now?

Forgive me but that is a circular argument to ensure that just because Manchester swallows up a disproportionate amount of flights at the moment it should remain so forever, irrespective of the potential and latent demand that other airports may have.

The fact that it has received such a plaudit while Liverpool hasnt does not to me reflect on the quality of the facilites available. Manchester handles 4 times as many passengers so obviously will have more people able to vote for it. LJL has nearly everything you would expect from a major airport - bars, cafes, executive lounges, conference facilites....prayer rooms!
Just what exactly is this extra comfort that you think people are missing out on?

My office has prayer rooms. It's a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for them to provide religious facilities. How many on-site 5 star hotels does JLA have? How many flights can you go from the terminal to your business class seat on your 747 flight to NYC in JLA? How many designer clothes shops can you find to while the time away at JLA? Does JLA have a brand new transport interchange where you can arrive in your train/taxi/bus/coach and metrolink eventually and check in without having to move to a new building?

There is no evidence either way yet as to what the government will do on taxing aviation fuel yet. Lets therefore wait and see.

You keep on talking about less convenience but to people in many areas this couldnt be less true. Why would/should they want to troop an extra 40 odd miles?

Because Manchester is the major hub now?

Forgive me but that is a circular argument to ensure that just because Manchester swallows up a disproportionate amount of flights at the moment it should remain so forever, irrespective of the potential and latent demand that other airports may have.
Nor is there any evidence of your Manchester doomsday scenarios that JLA will take Manchester's passengers. This most certainly doesn't seem to be the case right now does it. By your system London should build a new international airport in the East End just because it's closer for many passengers. After all, who would want to travel a few extra kilometres eh? It doesn't work like that. People go to the airport that offers the destinations they want. What we need is an airport that offers all the destinations we could need within a few kilometres travelling, rather than having to travel to one of possibly four airports depending on where you want to go. For example, how many flights to Karachi do you think the North of England could sustain?

Just a few points, LJL a small regional airport serving just Liverpool, I dont think so, anybody using the airport quite regulary nowdays like i do, is hard pushed to hear a scouse accent in the check-in, Irish(north and south), jocks, geordies, brummies and MANCS, somebody forgot to tell them they shouldnt use LJL. The airport is growing all the time, it will never be as big as MAN but as 90% of air travel is to Europe its ideal. Also every passenger using LJL is not using Manchester, I bet MAN airport is ecstatic about that.l

Just a few points, LJL a small regional airport serving just Liverpool, I dont think so, anybody using the airport quite regulary nowdays like i do, is hard pushed to hear a scouse accent in the check-in, Irish(north and south), jocks, geordies, brummies and MANCS, somebody forgot to tell them they shouldnt use LJL.

Doesn't mean they don't live in Liverpool. At work (the IR side, not the IT side) the people on the enquiry desks have to deal with dozens of Polish people every day who can't even speak English. Does that mean that they travel to Manchester from Poland to get tax advice? I think not.

My office has prayer rooms. It's a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for them to provide religious facilities. How many on-site 5 star hotels does JLA have? How many flights can you go from the terminal to your business class seat on your 747 flight to NYC in JLA? How many designer clothes shops can you find to while the time away at JLA? Does JLA have a brand new transport interchange where you can arrive in your train/taxi/bus/coach and metrolink eventually and check in without having to move to a new building?

Again, what your arguments all seem to boil down to is Manchester is much bigger now and therefore that is just inherently right in some way and the way it always should be. I don't accept this for the reasons I have already gave.


Nor is there any evidence of your Manchester doomsday scenarios that JLA will take Manchester's passengers. This most certainly doesn't seem to be the case right now does it. By your system London should build a new international airport in the East End just because it's closer for many passengers. After all, who would want to travel a few extra kilometres eh? It doesn't work like that. People go to the airport that offers the destinations they want. What we need is an airport that offers all the destinations we could need within a few kilometres travelling, rather than having to travel to one of possibly four airports depending on where you want to go. For example, how many flights to Karachi do you think the North of England could sustain?

I think you reveal your true underlying feelings when you talk of "doomsday scenarios." Why would some of the people who use Manchester now who are from Liverpool flying from Liverpool be a doomsday for the Northwest? Liverpool is part of the Northwest isnt it?
Unless of course you think a city of 1.5m people has no right to have a airport proportional to its size. The east end is part of one city - London, with all the intergrated transport infrastructure being part of one conurbation brings, and that city has 4 airports to serve it. Liverpool is NOT Manchester, both cities are seperate entities with 40 odd miles between them.

You using the cover of whats best for the "Northwest" to keep Liverpool under the heel does regional politics a disservice. I actually have a bit of time for the idea of a regional assembly, (better then London diktats in my mind)
but you give it a bad name.

I think others have said it better when they say you're guilty of a ra ra ra Manchester is tops, type atitude.

Doesn't mean they don't live in Liverpool.

Before Jet2 started operating a direct flight from Manchester to Valencia, I would always choose either Monarch from Manchester or EasyJet from Liverpool to get to Barcelona where I could get the train. I always chose the cheaper option. It's not only just about price however, but times. A particular airport might have a particular route, but there is no point for me arriving at Liverpool a 1am in the morning for example. I remember once that happened with an EasyJet flight, cant remember where it was to, but it didn't arrive there until gone midnight, and I needed to get to another city 100 miles away from that airport. :bash:

Again, what your arguments all seem to boil down to is Manchester is much bigger now and therefore that is just inherently right in some way and the way it always should be. I don't accept this for the reasons I have already gave.

No, they boil down to "Manchester has the better facilities right now and will do for the forseeable future, even if the airport stagnates. When low-cost prices rise due to fuel issues, which they most certainly will whether you accept it or not, people will choose the place that offers the most convenience and best facilities. The most convenience you can get is an air hub that offers all the destinations you could need. This is what the people up here need. Why focus on a small provincial airport like JLA when we have a large international airport just down the road?

I think you reveal your true underlying feelings when you talk of "doomsday scenarios." Why would some of the people who use Manchester now who are from Liverpool flying from Liverpool be a doomsday for the Northwest? Liverpool is part of the Northwest isnt it?
Unless of course you think a city of 1.5m people has no right to have a airport proportional to its size. The east end is part of one city - London, with all the intergrated transport infrastructure being part of one conurbation brings, and that city has 4 airports to serve it. Liverpool is NOT Manchester, both cities are seperate entities with 40 odd miles between them.

You using the cover of whats best for the "Northwest" to keep Liverpool under the heel does regional politics a disservice. I actually have a bit of time for the idea of a regional assembly, (better then London diktats in my mind)
but you give it a bad name.

I think others have said it better when they say you're guilty of a ra ra ra Manchester is tops, type atitude.

And I think you reveal the fact you can't read. I said MANCHESTER doomsday scenario, i.e. the scenario which a handful of Scousers in this thread are trying to justify that Manchester airport could end up shutting down. The simple fact of the matter is that the city of Manchester is larger. It always has been. It always will be. It's obvious that Manchester is going to have the larger air hub.

I think you are doing your city a disservice by aiming too high. It's airport is never going to rival Manchester's as an air hub. It just won't happen. Everyone, bar a couple of Scousers in this thread, seems to accept this fact. Even your own council does!

The simple fact is that if there is an assembly for us, it will centre around Manchester as nearly 50% of the north west population lives there. Simple really.

Earlybird, you are a silly boy and you don't read or listen. Study which Ministers in ODPM have picked up particular policy briefs since the election. When you have done that I will listen to you on this subject. If you look at the "back on track" thread on the Manchester Forum, you will see that despite the bad habit of some who trawl up my old posts to attack me, no-one bothered to trawl up my devastatingly accurate prediction about the Manchester tram the day after the general election. So I trawled it up myself, in a "see, I was right", kind of way, and even Nobby has been forced to admit on that thread today that I was right. None of the Manc contributors to that thread were able to see how things were going or the likely mechanism whereby the tram could in fact be built.

You know, earlybird, you could learn about policy and also politics if you took just a moment to read and consider other posters here, instead of just instantly reacting with knee-jerk "Manchester is centre of the universe with a population of sixteen billion I read it on a website" childishness.

Please read my posts with respect and if you do not understand them ask me. I will not reply to yours in future if you just post thoughtless nonsense.

Liverpolitan, I'd rather you didn't reply to me. You have no understanding of the matters you discuss, you post complete rubbish and I don't have any respect for your "views". People give you facts, you dismiss them and pick up on a small technicality on which you may or may not have been correct in a sad attempt to make yourself appear right. You are worse than Lee, Leeds No.1 and Citrus-Fruit combined.

Hi folks! :) What've I missed? :?

Earlybird, you are a silly boy and you don't read or listen.

I agree and I will not be replying to any of his childish "My mam has bigger tits than your mam" type postings.

There are only 2 (TWO) five star hotels in the UK outside of London, one is the "Gleneagle" golf resort in Scotland

I have just learned that there is only one *5* Star hotel outside of London and that SAS Liverpool is indeed a *4* Star hotel. The BTA also lists Gleneagle as the only *5* Star lodgings outside of London.

But I bet his mam is worth a poke. :) Sorry but the stairs issue is a piss take. Trying to get to Ringworm from Bootle is a pain in the fecking arse, considerably more inconvenient than walking up and down a flight of stairs...

There are only 2 (TWO) five star hotels in the UK outside of London, one is the "Gleneagle" golf resort in Scotland and the other is the newly opened SAS hotel on Old Hall Street in Liverpool. Consult Frommer's , it list's every *5* Star hotel in the UK and they are the only two it lists outside of London.

Is that why Manchester City centre has the 5 star:

SAS Radisson
The Lowry

with the Beetham Hilton not far off?

No, they boil down to "Manchester has the better facilities right now and will do for the forseeable future, even if the airport stagnates. When low-cost prices rise due to fuel issues, which they most certainly will whether you accept it or not, people will choose the place that offers the most convenience and best facilities. The most convenience you can get is an air hub that offers all the destinations you could need. This is what the people up here need. Why focus on a small provincial airport like JLA when we have a large international airport just down the road?

And I think you reveal the fact you can't read. I said MANCHESTER doomsday scenario, i.e. the scenario which a handful of Scousers in this thread are trying to justify that Manchester airport could end up shutting down. The simple fact of the matter is that the city of Manchester is larger. It always has been. It always will be. It's obvious that Manchester is going to have the larger air hub.

I think you are doing your city a disservice by aiming too high. It's airport is never going to rival Manchester's as an air hub. It just won't happen. Everyone, bar a couple of Scousers in this thread, seems to accept this fact. Even your own council does!

But surely moving passengers from one city to the other would be ok so long as it was in the regions interests? Therefore how could it be a "doomsday" for Manchester? After all, Liverpool could only benefit from Manchesters growth going unchecked according to you.
Oh of course, I forgot! everyone having to march to one central point is the only way to go, even if we in Liverpool get zero jobs and investment out of it.

And please don't put words in my mouth, I have never said that Manchester Airport would close, or that LJL would eclypse it, only that people from Liverpool would rather use Liverpool, and that wherever possible they should be able to. Your one hub argument flies in the face of that. If you think thats ok, so be it. You can shove your "Northwestside" or whatever where the sun don't shine if that is the case.

Is that why Manchester City centre has the 5 star:

SAS Radisson
The Lowry

with the Beetham Hilton not far off?

It is obvious Frommer's Guide to UK hotels 2004/05 is wrong, you should be contacting them, after all, this is the bible that we travel counsellors go by when booking lodgings for our clients. I guess it's a case of Manc forum contributers knowing best. By the way WD, have you ever stayed in a 5 Star hotel? Could you tell the difference between a 4 and 5 star facility?

There are only 2 (TWO) five star hotels in the UK outside of London, one is the "Gleneagle" golf resort in Scotland and the other is the newly opened SAS hotel on Old Hall Street in Liverpool. Consult Frommer's , it list's every *5* Star hotel in the UK and they are the only two it lists outside of London. For Christ sake son, Toronto has more hotel beds than both Liverpool and Manchester combined yet we are waiting for Donald Trump to compleste our first five star hotel.

What a load of rubbish. Radisson Edwardian in Manchester is 5*, as is the Lowry Hotel (the highest rated hotel in the UK) and Great John Street Hotel. We also have the 5* Hilton under construction. I thought it was the Radisson SAS at Manchester Airport that was the 5* but it's the Edwardian in the city centre. Manchester's SAS is 4*, as is Liverpool's.

You need to look before you open your mouth.

It is obvious Frommer's Guide to UK hotels 2004/05 is wrong, you should be contacting them, after all, this is the bible that we travel counsellors go by when booking lodgings for our clients. I guess it's a case of Manc forum contributers knowing best. By the way WD, have you ever stayed in a 5 Star hotel? Could you tell the difference between a 4 and 5 star facility?

http://www.radissonedwardian.com/reservation/hotelSearch.do?city=manchester&country=GB

New 5 star city centre hotel ideal for business and leisure

http://www.thelowryhotel.com/

In addition to being Greater Manchester's first five-star hotel, it is also the first hotel in Manchester to become a member of The Leading Hotels of the World.

I suggest you look for a new career then Sloyne. It's obvious you aren't cut out for it.

It is obvious Frommer's Guide to UK hotels 2004/05 is wrong, you should be contacting them, after all, this is the bible that we travel counsellors go by when booking lodgings for our clients. I guess it's a case of Manc forum contributers knowing best. By the way WD, have you ever stayed in a 5 Star hotel? Could you tell the difference between a 4 and 5 star facility?

Yes it's wrong.

http://www.radissonedwardian.com/manchesteruk_edwardian
http://www.thelowryhotel.com/

Manchester is bigger than Liverpool and always has been,don't be silly. The manchester you're talking about .yes, that includes bolton ,wigan,blackpool ,Carlisle................

A destination that has a limited "first class" air service and were most air carriers offer only "coach" class and "super comfort" class and even reduce service in the winter months rates four 5 star hotels? Me thinks not.

A destination that has a limited "first class" air service and were most air carriers offer only "coach" class and "super comfort" class and even reduce service in the winter months rates four 5 star hotels? Me thinks not.

You obviously don't know anything about the industry you profess to be involved in. As well as three existing ones, we have one under construction (Hilton at Beetham), another one due to start soon (in Eastgate) and a sixth in planning assuming Manchester gets it's casino.

The one in Eastgate might end up a 4* EB, we don't know yet.

Manchester is bigger than Liverpool and always has been,don't be silly. The manchester you're talking about .yes, that includes bolton ,wigan,blackpool ,Carlisle................

But Manchester does have more dog feces on it's sidewalks than any other British city I have visited. :)

The one in Eastgate might end up a 4* EB, we don't know yet.

Not if the rumours I heard of a 5* Hyatt prove correct. Apparently Marriott were eyeing up the Eastlands casino hotel too. :)

But Manchester does have more dog feces on it's sidewalks than any other British city I have visited. :)

"Oh no, I've been proved wrong. Quick, I'd better insult by claiming they have more dog shit than Liverpool."

Liverpolitan tried this one. He was shot down in flames.

But Manchester does have more dog feces on it's sidewalks than any other British city I have visited. :)

Stupid comment!

Stupid comment!

At least Liverpolitan managed to spell it right...

BTW, sloyne, Manchester has 15 4* hotels too. :)

assuming Manchester gets it's casino.

You'll have a long wait there. Blackpool needs it a lot more. Still, I guess they can go screw themselves as well in your glorious regional vision.

You'll have a long wait there. Blackpool needs it a lot more. Still, I guess they can go screw themselves as well in your glorious regional vision.
We'll see... there won't just be one you know.

Manc airport 'always larger' ?:?
Ringworm was an airstrip when liverpool was an intenational airport, so piss off. We've got the historic architecture to back it up, you've got cow bones. Look at 1930's airport pics of Liverpool and compare them with manc. Thanks v.much HM government. Cunts

We'll see... there won't just be one you know.

True, eventually others may get the go ahead. But in the first wave there will only be one in the NW and Blackpool is the right place for it.

True, eventually others may get the go ahead. But in the first wave there will only be one in the NW and Blackpool is the right place for it.

It will be interesting to see how the decision is taken. Given that all the most senior relevant staff in Government Office North West are based in Manchester, I think this is one issue where any advice they offer should be regarded as partial. Of course, on any "regional" assesment a single mega-casino would go to Blackpool, but we have in that made-up "region" a city that now aspires to be and have everything that is going.

but we have in that made-up "region" a city that now aspires to be and have everything that is going.

...and finally the source of your bitterness comes to light Liverpolitan. :) Why SHOULDN'T the city aspire to have everything?

[QUOTE=caw123]Yes it's wrong.
http://www.radissonedwardian.com/manchesteruk_edwardian
QUOTE]

But any establishment can list it's self as whatever it wishes. We have a golf course adjacent to Toronto Pearson Airport that lists it's self as 'Royal Woodbine' but it does not have Royal patronage like 'Royal Montreal' or 'Royal Liverpool'. And even some people on this thread are fond of claiming Manchester as England's second city when everyone knows that both Birmingham and Liverpool have larger populations.

[QUOTE=caw123]Yes it's wrong.
http://www.radissonedwardian.com/manchesteruk_edwardian
QUOTE]

But any establishment can list it's self as whatever it wishes. We have a golf course adjacent to Toronto Pearson Airport that lists it's self as 'Royal Woodbine' but it does not have Royal patronage like 'Royal Montreal' or 'Royal Liverpool'. And even some people on this thread are fond of claiming Manchester as England's second city when everyone knows that both Birmingham and Liverpool have larger populations.

These are official ratings. Try searching on Expedia. As for Liverpool having a larger population... :laugh: The reason Manchester gets more investment is because Manchester's urban area (note, an urban area is what the definition of a city is) is TWICE THE SIZE of Liverpool's, even if you include the other side of the Mersey in your figures. :)

[QUOTE=caw123]Yes it's wrong.
http://www.radissonedwardian.com/manchesteruk_edwardian
QUOTE]

But any establishment can list it's self as whatever it wishes.

Not in the UK, there are laws regarding misleading statements/comments in advertising.

Manc airport 'always larger' ?:?
Ringworm was an airstrip when liverpool was an intenational airport, so piss off. We've got the historic architecture to back it up, you've got cow bones. Look at 1930's airport pics of Liverpool and compare them with manc. Thanks v.much HM government. Cunts

This is definitely one respect in which the state has perverted the laws of the market to the benefit of one group over another. Liverpool's airport developed naturally and was relatively very successful. Didn't it have the longest run way in Europe or something? Not to mention the Art Deco terminal and hangars. But unfortunately it's continued success was hindered by the advantage given to the ringworm- as such, it took over. Disgusting.

The bitterness from the Scousers (and the fake Toronto one) in this thread is really funny! :laugh:

The competitive position of JLA is destined to improve markedly in the next few years. The first major improvement will be this December when Liverpool South Parkway station opens. This will be a halt for train services on the Northern Line of Mersyrail as well as those on the Liverpool to Manchester service and Liverpool to Birmingham service. It will have a frequent bus service to LJLA taking about ten minutes to a stop right outside the terminal.

The effect will be that places as far east as Birchwood and Irlam will be closer in real terms to LJLA than they are to MAN.

Road improvements are also in the offing. Congestion at junction six on the M62, where it joins the A5300 Knowsley Expressway, will be removed by the construction of slip roads.

Whilst the airport does not have a direct motorway link, the present route is dual carriageway all the way from the national motorway network to the airport car park. However, as passenger numbers increase, the point will come where it will become a condition of planning permission for an eastern access route to be developed. This will go straight from the A5300 on a route to the south of the Speke estate, direct to the airport - a road connection as good as Manchester's.

2010 should see Line 3 of Merseytram extended to JLA. In the meantime, the airport link bus provides a regular service to the city centre along relatively uncongested roads.

There is also the second Mersey crossing that, if and when it goes ahead, will make LJLA even more attractive for travellers from Cheshire, South Wirral and North Wales.

The concept of separating Manchester's runways to achieve independent operation is an interesting one. As the runways must retain more or less the same alignment (due to prevailing wind) there appear to be three options. One is to move runway 1 closer to Terminal One - an operation which would probably result in the demolition of part or all of this terminal and would certainly restrict operations. Option 2 is to move runway 2 further away (which would result in the destruction of Styal Country Park and probably Quarry Bank Mill). The third, of course, is to move both. Remember that a separation of some 1300m. is required for autonomous operation.

There is, I suppose, a fourth option, which is to build a completely new runway on the M56 side of the airport. From the airport operations point of view, that is the most attractive option as it removes the need for aircraft to cross a live runway and reduces expensive taxiing distances. However, it does beg the question as to why this option was not pursued for runway 2?

Whilst two autonomous runways at Manchester would greatly increase capacity, don't forget that it would mean a doubling of the landing aircraft noise footprint and large built up areas of south Manchester, currently free of aircraft noise would be suddenly subjected to it. However you try and massage the figures, that would be very difficult thing for the politicians to sell to the electorate.

The solution, of course, is two competing autonomous airports serving the north west and their respective cities. LJLA is ideally placed to serve Liverpool, Merseyside, Warrington, Wigan and many places beyond.

Liverpool is also an excellent airport from the point of view of layout (road access at one side of the terminal, planes at the other), aircraft operations (main passenger apron practically central to the runway - reducing taxiing distances to an absolute minimum), environmental intrusion (take off over water, landing over a river floodplain) and closeness to urban centres (LJLA is closer to Liverpool city centre than MAN is to Manchester and much closer by both rail and road to Manchester than MAN is to Liverpool).

Even the perceived disadvantage of a lack of airbridges is really a failure to understand the economics of low cost airlines. These airlines rely on a swift turnaround for maximum utilisation of aircraft. Airbridges take time to connect and withdraw that eats away at this turnaround time. That is why airbridges are not used on low cost operations, even when they are available at the aircraft stand.

Over the past ten years, LJLA has been by far the fastest growing airport in Britain, with an increase in passengers from 1994 to 2004 of 655%. This year, the addition of both the FlyBe and Ryanair hubs should push our passenger throughput to close to 5 million p.p.a. Still a long way behind Manchester but the days when we carried about one thirtieth of Manchester's passengers are long gone.

But unfortunately it's continued success was hindered by the advantage given to the ringworm- as such, it took over. Disgusting.

When and what advantage was given to Ringway exactly?

I'm not bitter. It just seems somewhat unjust that the state should intervene to give the more slovenly an advantage over the work of genuine entrepreneurs. :laugh:

...and finally the source of your bitterness comes to light Liverpolitan. :) Why SHOULDN'T the city aspire to have everything?

Oh you are such a little twit! Is "Twit" your middle name? The city regions have populations of around 2.5m for Manchester, 2.0m for Liverpool - you can draw the boundaries a number of ways, to get the Manc one up to around 3.0m, and the Liverpool one higher or lower than 2.0m. Some of this depends on where Warrington is placed. Can you please give up on this silly numbers thing?

As regards aspirations, well let me try to explain to you, although I can sense you are already replying, before you have even read what I have to say. A true region is something that people affiliate to, belong to, and feel a sense of ownership of. They can therefore feel a part of their own town or city, and also of their region. It is a bit like an extended family - the region is not your close family, but it is still a part of who you are. Within a real region, different localities will often compete like crazy witn one another, but usually they will also be able to take some pride or pleasure in the success of others, and a sadness in their losses. Towns will generally not compete in "zero sum" competitions within a region, but decide who should represent them. So, if there was a such a thing as the "North West", as you claim there to be, you should be able to take a pride in the role and success of Blackpool as one of Europe's premier recreational and leisure destinations. Indeed, as a "North Westerner" you would want to see it stronger and better.

Instead, you only ever want to see everything going to Manchester, with the rest of your imagined "North West" just a captive population who can provide the critical mass of population that Manchester city centre can't really rely on from Greater Manchester alone. Blackpool can't even have its casino now, because of your greedy obsession with trying to become the new London of the North.

By asking the question you also answer it. Your conception of what it is to be "North Western" is unlikely to appeal to anyone outside of Manchester. As you know, the term and concept is not accepted at all by many in the Liverpool City Region, who have a different regional affiliation that excludes Manchester and the surrounding towns.

The bitterness from the Scousers (and the fake Toronto one) in this thread is really funny! :laugh:

Where is the bitterness?

There has been no bitterness from me.

There has, however, been plenty of "Manchester is tops, Manchester is great, Manchester is the only way to go" from you. Even when there is plentiful evidence that an over-focus on one city (albeit the largest one) will damage many other places within the area.

But Manchester does have more dog feces on it's sidewalks than any other British city I have visited. :)
Oh dear childish slagging match.If thats what you want then LPL's new terminal building looks like a tesco store :)

Liverpool is one of the UK's oldest operational Airport's, first thought of as an idea in 1928 with first scheduled flights commencing in 1930 and an 'official' opening ceremony some 3 years later on 1 July 1933.

Situated some 7 miles South East of Liverpool City Centre and adjacent to the Mersey Estuary, the Airport location was chosen for three reasons:

- Close proximity to the City of Liverpool and surrounding conurbation's.
- Ideal geography of the site for aircraft movements.
- Excellent year round weather record (fog free).

First major construction on site took place in the late 1930's following the growth in passenger traffic through Liverpool, particularly on flights across the Irish Sea, when a dedicated passenger terminal and aircraft hangarage were built.

The Airport played a significant role in the war effort and with military aircraft construction taking place on site at both the Rootes and Lockheed aircraft factories, hard surface runways replaced the grass strips in order to cater for larger and heavier aircraft.

After the war the local Authority did not regain control of Liverpool Airport from the Ministry of Aviation until 1961 following which time the decision was taken to construct the current longer runway on land adjacent to the original Airport, referred to as the Southern Airfield.

The new runway was opened in 1966 and enabled Liverpool to become a 24 hour airport - a situation which has continued to the present day.

Control of the airport transferred to Merseyside County Council from Liverpool Corporation in the mid 1970's and 10 years later to the five Merseyside councils following the abolition of Merseyside County Council. A new modern passenger terminal, adjacent to the runway on the Southern Airfield site, had previously opened in 1986, following the closure of the 1930’s building. This old terminal has recently been renovated and expanded to become the high quality Marriott Liverpool South Hotel, whilst the original hangars have been converted into a David Lloyd Tennis and Leisure centre.

Following the 1986 Airports Act, ownership of the Airport changed again in 1990 as Liverpool became the UK's first local authority owned Airport to move from public sector control to the private sector with British Aerospace acquiring a 76% majority shareholding.

During the mid 1990’s some £4 million was subsequently invested in improving and expanding the terminal with new and larger landside and airside passenger lounges and an expanded arrivals hall to cater for growth in passenger throughput. 47% of such developments was funded through the EC Objective One programme.

The Airport steadily continued to grow its passenger throughput with tour operator Direct Holidays choosing to fly from Liverpool in 1996 bringing a range of value for money Mediterranean charter flights to the Airport for the first time in many years.

Ownership

The most significant event in recent years however was the further change in ownership once again and today Liverpool John Lennon Airport is a wholly owned subsidiary of Peel Holdings Ltd, the North West based property company. Peel acquired a 76% majority shareholding in 1997 from British Aerospace with the remaining shares held by the five Merseyside Local Authorities. On 9 May 2001 Peel Airports (Liverpool) Limited acquired the remaining 24% shareholding.

Airport Business

Since the Peel Group took control of Liverpool John Lennon Airport passenger numbers have quadrupled, with over 2.8 million passengers using Liverpool in 2002 and an estimated 3.2 million forecast in 2003. Liverpool is moving up the league table of U.K. airports and is today one of the fastest growing in Europe.

Regular services currently operate to 14 scheduled and 19 charter holiday destinations. easyjet, the popular low cost carrier who began flights from Liverpool in 1997, signed a 20 year contract with the airport in early 2001 which will see a continued expansion at this second UK base. Similarly, Ryanair have also signed a 10-year agreement with the airport to develop a range of European services from Liverpool . This brings a continued increase in the numbers of passengers using Liverpool from throughout the North West, North Wales, Yorkshire and the Midlands.

In 2001 further major commitments from top tour operators Thomson, MyTravel and JMC were announced as the Airport continued to look to capitalise on the tremendous market potential for local holiday departures with a resulting significant increase in holiday traffic through the Airport in Summer 2002.

The Airport also handles significant volumes of freight and mail (over 30,000 tonnes in 2002). The Royal Mail have operated their night-time hub through Liverpool since 1979 with a sorting office on site, whilst express parcels, newspapers, car parts and general freight movement also combine to provide extremely busy night-time operations. Location, weather record and 24 hour operations have all helped to develop such business.

Where is the bitterness?

There has been no bitterness from me.

There has, however, been plenty of "Manchester is tops, Manchester is great, Manchester is the only way to go" from you. Even when there is plentiful evidence that an over-focus on one city (albeit the largest one) will damage many other places within the area.

The thing is, a lot of people in this thread are directly contradicting research from DfT. Research from dozens of experts in this field. They say that the best bet for a "Northern Way" is for greater focus on MAN. The only reason people from Liverpool don't seem to agree with this is because it's MAN that they chose. If they'd said JLA you'd have been fully backing the research.

No. Questions would still be asked. The real point is why Burtonwood wasn't developed as a joint airport.

Isn't that strange Liverpool folks..... Earlybirds hijacked this thread too!!!!

Adds to our post count. :)

Oh dear childish slagging match.If thats what you want then LPL's new terminal building looks like a tesco store :)

No I don't agree. We established many posts ago that Liverpool looks like a Sainsbury's store (even down to the colour of the logos). And that's a great improvement on the previous KwikSave.

If you want to see great airport architecture just go down the road and see our old Art Deco terminal, now the Marriott Hotel, Liverpool South.

Manc Airport looks like Makro near Kirkby, and it's full of shit and mancs.

The thing is, a lot of people in this thread are directly contradicting research from DfT. Research from dozens of experts in this field. They say that the best bet for a "Northern Way" is for greater focus on MAN. The only reason people from Liverpool don't seem to agree with this is because it's MAN that they chose. If they'd said JLA you'd have been fully backing the research.

But a "Northern Way" priority is research to plug serious gaps in knowledge...there is simply no evidence base to support its current and evolving priorities and strategies, from DfT or anywhere else for that matter. You are completely ignorant about this daft policy you are so obsessed with. It is just a policy shopping list, and the Mancs insisted on Ringway going on the list. Since no-one attaches much weight to the Northern Way, and it doesn't bring significant money, it doesn't really matter. If you are going to attach such weight to quite light policy instruments, you might as well do a bit of basic research and understand what they are about. And, as I have pointed out, its been marginalised in political terms and now expected by many to wither on the vine.

Shouldn't Ringway mean Ringworm??

doh!! forgot Manchester Airport is the biggest and best airport in the land tut tut, which is why people are turning away to use their local airports!!!

But a "Northern Way" priority is research to plug serious gaps in knowledge...there is simply no evidence base to support its current and evolving priorities and strategies, from DfT or anywhere else for that matter.
You're wrong as usual liverpolitan. Do you ever research anything? They financed many recent research programmes, including an airport feasibility study, a motorway network study, a railway study and a cross-investment study. Just because you haven't heard any results recently doesn't mean they haven't been ongoing.

You are completely ignorant about this daft policy you are so obsessed with. It is just a policy shopping list, and the Mancs insisted on Ringway going on the list. Since no-one attaches much weight to the Northern Way, and it doesn't bring significant money, it doesn't really matter. If you are going to attach such weight to quite light policy instruments, you might as well do a bit of basic research and understand what they are about.
You obviously don't even know what it is liverpolitan so why talk about it. You're quite right, it doesn't bring in significant money. IT DOESN'T BRING IN ANY MONEY. It's aim is to bring in private sector and Government funding and guess what... it's working! Why do you think that MAN is being expanded per their plans? Why do you think Liverpool is being focussed on it's cultural aspect rather than other stuff? It's all in line with the Northern Way!

And, as I have pointed out, its been marginalised in political terms and now expected by many to wither on the vine.
And as I pointed out, Northern Way is currently more active than at any other time in it's history. It has the support of NWDA, ODPM, GONW and the Prime Minister himself! What more do you need to prove it's not marginalised?

You really are clueless liverpolitan. Not only clueless but bitter too. Try getting out of your little Toxteth home and try visiting other cities a bit more.

doh!! forgot Manchester Airport is the biggest and best airport in the land tut tut, which is why people are turning away to use their local airports!!!

Which is why Manchester Airport is growing by more than all these airports combined!!!

Did you know that Manchester adds Leeds/Bradford Airport's ENTIRE PAX FIGURES every 3.5 years based on the last 12 months growth figures?

He lives near Gatwick. Homes in Toxteth, on the whole, are far from small, and fuck off. Not that I agree with everything 'Poli says, but you're a frigging irritant. You bag of crabs!

After the war the local Authority did not regain control of Liverpool Airport from the Ministry of Aviation until 1961 following which time the decision was taken to construct the current longer runway on land adjacent to the original Airport, referred to as the Southern Airfield.

Yes, it was that sixteen year period that allowed Manchester to get the better of us. At the start of the Second World War, both Liverpool and Manchester were requisitioned for the war effort. Manchester City Council successfully resisted the requisition with the result that, on the termination of hostilities, they regained control of the airport whilst Liverpool had to wait till 1961.

Being run by civil servants meant that very little investment was carried out. If Liverpool had taken over their airport at the same time as Manchester, a decision would probably have been made to extend the old 08/26 runway on the Northern Airfield over Speke Boulevard - something that would have removed the need for the new 09/27 runway on the other side of Speke Hall. By 1961, the Ford (Jaguar) factory had been developed and a major runway extension was no longer practical.

Another reason was that the council failed to follow through the construction of 09/27 with that of a new terminal on the Southern Airfield. The southern terminal was not constructed until 1986, twenty years after the opening of the runway. The delay was probably due to the fact that Manchester had monopolised north west air travel by 1966 and the construction of 09/27 did not bring about the anticipated increase in air travel. In any event, we had twenty years of aircraft having to taxi some three miles from terminal to runway, which did not make the airport popular.

The current expansion of LJLA did not start with the arrival of EasyJet but with travel operator Direct Holidays setting up operations from Liverpool that broke the cartel of package tour operators using Manchester and forcing Liverpool holidaymakers to trek 35 miles up the M62.

He lives near Gatwick. Homes in Toxteth, on the whole, are far from small and fuck off. Not that I agree with everything 'Poli says, but you're a frigging irritant. You bag of crabs!

:ohno: I pity you, wee man.

I envy you. Pigs in muck think they're in heaven. No wonder you like manc.

Oink fucking oink mate.

Earlybird, this is getting boring, so why don't you take your shit avatar and go back to the kiddies in the Manc forum? :laugh:

:lol:

I apologise to all non Earlybird Mancs reading this thread. My opinion of you lot is generally good, although he does his very best/worst to strain relations. Congrats to Ricky Hatton BTW. I'd love to see him vs. Earlybird. :)

The thing is, a lot of people in this thread are directly contradicting research from DfT. Research from dozens of experts in this field. They say that the best bet for a "Northern Way" is for greater focus on MAN. The only reason people from Liverpool don't seem to agree with this is because it's MAN that they chose. If they'd said JLA you'd have been fully backing the research.

Well I'd like to think I'd be fair minded enough to share the wealth, but who knows? I do know its never crossed my mind for Liverpool to get a megacasino ahead of Blackpool, so perhaps that is something of a guide and I'll let myself off.

Please explain to me EB why I should support a proposal that will hold back the growth of my own airport and deliver very few if any additional jobs or investment to my city just because some report says it is in greater regions interests?
May suggest that a region that defines it interests as such is one that Liverpool would be better steering clear of.
Liverpool is after all a MAJOR city and deserves a little more I think.

The thing is, a lot of people in this thread are directly contradicting research from DfT. Research from dozens of experts in this field. They say that the best bet for a "Northern Way" is for greater focus on MAN. The only reason people from Liverpool don't seem to agree with this is because it's MAN that they chose. If they'd said JLA you'd have been fully backing the research.

We probably would but I doubt that you or the other Manc forummers would be sitting back and nodding in agreement.

You say that we are being bitter about Manchester but all we really want is to allow our city and its airport to achieve its full potential.

Manchester always seems to want to rule and dominate all its neighbours. Even when Liverpool was at the height of its economic power in the nineteenth century, the city never claimed to be 'Capital of the North'.

There is a world beyond the north of England that Liverpool has played a large part in forming. We want access to this world and so we need our own airport and to be able to determine our own future.

I envy you. Pigs in muck think they're in heaven. No wonder you like manc.

Oink fucking oink mate.

Aren't we the witty comedian. :ohno:

Yes. You are a pleb.

Well I'd like to say I'd be fair minded enough to share the wealth, but who knows? I do know its never crossed my mind for Liverpool to get a megacasino ahead of Blackpool.

But why not Liverpool? In the Caribbean almost every cruise port with a dock will find a casino at the end of that pier. However, I agree, Blackpool is the logical site for a North West English casino. Blackpool is a magnate for tourists and even the venerable US magazine National Geographic ran a feature on it's attractions. This helped boost Blackpool's international profile. Good luck to Blackpool I say.

http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/jetstream.jpg

http://www.sjsfiles.btinternet.co.uk/flm020818c.jpg

http://www.cintec.com/images/marriott1.jpg

http://www.transportmerseyside.org/images/uploads/1090420094.jpg

http://www.nwra.gov.uk/region/nwreview/images/airport2.jpg

http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/lennonstatue.jpg

http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/checkin1.jpg

http://www.englandsnorthwest.com/nwda/ME00064-72.JPG

Long may you live and grow.

(Thanks to the Friends of Liverpool Airport Associaiton www.fola.org.uk)

http://www.fola.org.uk/gfx/checkin1.jpg

That view didn't last long. To increase the size of the retail area, the third floor was extended over the check-in desks. It was a change anticipated at the time of construction but I don't think they expected to do it so soon after the airport opened.

I went on a FoLA walkaround of the new terminal shortly before it opened. We have grown used to it now but it seemed enormous when compared to the former terminal which dated from 1986.

By the way, the former terminal, which had been extended a great deal over the last few years, was not demolished but incorporated into the new structure - although it is very difficult to tell where it was now.

A parallel runway system, located as close as MAN's R1 & R2, will only provide a maximum increase in aircraft movements of 50%, and that is at optimum operating conditions. Manchesters R2 is staggered but is to close to R1 to operate "fully" simultanious with R1. Ideally it would have been better to locate it further west and place the terminals in between the runways. The present runway/terminal configuration will provide Manchester with a possible throughput of 35+ million pax per annum. Manchester may well move R2 westward but that, in effect, would be a whole new runway and I don't believe the political will is there nor do I see any politician championing this cause, not with excess runway capacity close by at Castle Donnington, Yeadon, Speke, and Doncaster's new airport at Finningly.

Long posts, must be factual!

Gatwick's single runway will handle 40m+ Manchester can get to 60m with 2 runways.

Says who?

Erm the CAA.

Why don't you read the reports on airport growth. Liverpool is mentioned. With growth at all the airports.

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=1&pagetype=68&groupid=548

Please read the link. Let's raise the bar of knowledge!

By the way, the former terminal, which had been extended a great deal over the last few years, was not demolished but incorporated into the new structure - although it is very difficult to tell where it was now.

Wasn't this because the DoT refused permission, on the insistance on MAN, for a new terminal to be built at LPL? My understanding was that Peel opted for a extention to circumvent the need for a full scale enquiry which would have saw MAN object neccessetating a lenghty, and costly, delay in LPL's expansion plans.

Erm, Liverpool Council (re Speke) did rather give it all away due to the fact that sea liners were not going to be impacted by air liners.

But at least Liverpool (John Lennon) Airport is within Liverpool.

Unlike Stockport International - Manchester

and

Solihull International - Birmingham.

But I`m sure we are really just splitting hairs rather than actually spitting feathers.

Manchester Airport is not in Stockport.

Erm, Liverpool Council (re Speke) did rather give it all away due to the fact that sea liners were not going to be impacted by air liners.

But at least Liverpool (John Lennon) Airport is within Liverpool.

Unlike Stockport International - Manchester

and

Solihull International - Birmingham.

But I`m sure we are really just splitting hairs rather than actually spitting feathers.
Manchester Airport
Manchester
M90 1QX

Manchester 90 does not exist, you're in fantasy land again.

Manchester 90 does not exist, you're in fantasy land again.

I'm afraid it does exist. Try looking at Royal Mail or even Manchester Airport's own site. Also, try looking at where the airport is in regard to the borders. :)

Ringway was built in Wytheshawe, Cheshire. However, the City's boundaries were shifted in the seventies in order to incorporate the airport in the City of Manchester. This is why, Manchester, which is so constrained by tightly drawn boundaries within its greater urban area, does extend to and beyond the edge of its built area at one point - at the location of the airport.

So, Manchester Airport is a part of the City of Manchester, although it is outside Manchester's urban area.

it exists purely as an address for Manchester airport to include a manchester post code. Is'nt the airport in the borough of trafford.

it exists purely as an address for Manchester airport to include a manchester post code. Is'nt the airport in the borough of trafford.
No, it's in the city of Manchester. :)

No. See above.

So, Manchester Airport is a part of the City of Manchester, although it is outside Manchester's urban area.

And surely the outskirts of the urban area is the best place for it to be.

But why not Liverpool? In the Caribbean almost every cruise port with a dock will find a casino at the end of that pier. However, I agree, Blackpool is the logical site for a North West English casino. Blackpool is a magnate for tourists and even the venerable US magazine National Geographic ran a feature on it's attractions. This helped boost Blackpool's international profile. Good luck to Blackpool I say.

Liverpool certainly has a strong case of a casino. On a site close to the Kings Dock there is, as you say, the potential to cash in on cruise liner traffic.
Machesters proposal all seems to be about making a wealthy football club wealther and little else.

Earlybird, you're obviously passionate about Manchester. But where you lose credibility is when downgrade other cities ,especially Liverpool. You recently said greater liverpool had a popualtion of 800k and manchester 2.2m,which is just not true.

you are boring me earlybird, go back and annoy the people from leeds or elsewhere our forum is above youyr level of pettiness. Honestly how old are you because you act about 3!?

Liverpool certainly has a strong case of a casino. On a site close to the Kings Dock there is, as you say, the potential to cash in on cruise liner traffic.
Machesters proposal all seems to be about making a wealthy football club wealther and little else.
No, it's about regenerating one of the most deprived wards in the UK. As well as a casino the area would be getting an ice rink, a new arena, a new athletics stadium, a swimming pool with beach and wave machine, a snooker hall, a new marina, a five star hotel, a health & fitness centre and hundreds of new apartments. It's by far and away the biggest of all the casino plans and the casino consists of a smaller proprtion of the scheme than for any other too. It would turn one of the UK's most deprived wards into the UK's largest leisure centre, providing over 20,000 full time jobs.

You are thinking of the Old Trafford casino. The main casino proposal is for SportCity.

I wonder if there are any proposals to put up any multi storey car parks outside the main terminal. Those carparks out front are looking rather full these days.

Earlybird, you're obviously passionate about Manchester. But where you lose credibility is when downgrade other cities ,especially Liverpool. You recently said greater liverpool had a popualtion of 800k and manchester 2.2m,which is just not true.

That is taken from the Office of National Statistics. It's a scientific measurement of their urban areas. I also pointed out that it rose to 1.1 million if you included the Wirral over the Mersey, which is where my "twice the size of Liverpool's urban area" came from. It's completely accurate.

No, it's about regenerating one of the most deprived wards in the UK. As well as a casino the area would be getting an ice rink, a new arena, a new athletics stadium, a swimming pool with beach and wave machine, a snooker hall, a new marina, a five star hotel, a health & fitness centre and hundreds of new apartments. It's by far and away the biggest of all the casino plans and the casino consists of a smaller proprtion of the scheme than for any other too. It would turn one of the UK's most deprived wards into the UK's largest leisure centre, providing over 20,000 full time jobs.

Which one are we talking about here? I know about the MUFC ones, are there others or is that the one you're referring to?

Which one are we talking about here? I know about the MUFC ones, are there others or is that the one you're referring to?
Yes, the SportCity casino at Eastlands, the original (and main) Manchester proposal.

Which one are we talking about here? I know about the MUFC ones, are there others or is that the one you're referring to?

The one at SportCity is the main one. The United one was just the old PLC yet again trying to make a fast buck.

^^^^^^^^^^

whats has this got to do with an airport ? ... fuc* off!

That is taken from the Office of National Statistics. It's a scientific measurement of their urban areas. I also pointed out that it rose to 1.1 million if you included the Wirral over the Mersey, which is where my "twice the size of Liverpool's urban area" came from. It's completely accurate.

Merseyside is 1.3m. That to me is Liverpool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool

Gtr Manchester (the fairest comparision) is 2.5m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester

Manchester is much bigger, but Liverpool is not 1.1m and nothing like the 800000 you're trying to say is our size.

If all you are coming into this thread to do is wind people up, kindly sod off!

Merseyside is 1.3m. That to me is Liverpool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool

Gtr Manchester (the fairest comparision) is 2.5m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester

Manchester is much bigger, but Liverpool is not 1.1m and nothing like the 800000 you're trying to say is our size.

If all you are coming into this thread to do is wind people up, kindly sod off!

Quite right, Liverpool is quite rightly around the 1.3 million mark. The urban area, however, is not. It is around 1.1 million (or 800,000 if you count the Mersey as a divide, which I don't). This was measured by the Office of National Statistics based on population density. I was quoting the urban area. You are quoting the extra-urban area.

and you're incuding rochdale, bolton,bury. Greater mnchester, 2.5. The manchester conurbation is about 1.7. Birmingham 2.1 Liverpool 1.2.

Well I'm not going to split hairs with you. As long as we can roughly agree on what I'm saying.

hello airport thread... i am sure this argument has been had on city v's city

Yes. The conurbation is the continuous built up area,ours is 1.2. Man,1.7. Birmingham,the second city.2.1

and you're incuding rochdale, bolton,bury. Greater mnchester, 2.5. The manchester conurbation is about 1.7. Birmingham 2.1 Liverpool 1.2.

No it isn't. Birmingham 2.2 million, Manchester 2.2 million, Liverpool 1.1 million. That's per Office of National Statistics. The difference between Birmingham and Manchester in 2001 was about 6,000 people.

don't start crying now, they are the facts.

hello airport thread... i am sure this argument has been had on city v's city

OK. What do you think is going to happen with this nexus airlines things. Will it ever happen?

How much more do you think they can expand the terminal before they have to build a second one?

Does anyone know when the Wings Leisure Park nearby is going to start contruction?

That should keep us going for a while :D

don't start crying now, they are the facts.

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, that's 2001's figure and Manchester was undercounted by 30,000 (local authority figure was revised from 392,000 to 422,000 in 2002).

My figure for "Liverpool" is Liverpool and Birkenhead, i.e. 1.1 million. :)

You are not understanding, a conurbation is different from an urban area.Go and look at a map.

You are not understanding, a conurbation is different from an urban area.Go and look at a map.
No it isn't. A conurbation IS the urban area.

conurbation
n : an aggregation or continuous network of urban communities

*snip*

How about the rest of the Wirral. There is no open expanse of land to differentiate between it and Birkenhead and therefore I would say it is all part of the one city (Wirralites might not like that mind)

If you include Birkenhead you have to include the rest.

It's a scientific definition. It's based on population density and so an "urban area" continues until the population density drops below a certain level. I included Birkenhead for Liverpool because the reason for the drop in population density is the Mersey. Anywhere outside those two is most definitely NOT in Liverpool's urban area. I personally don't know where the boundary for each urban area ends. The two might well be the same urban area.

It's a scientific definition. It's based on population density and so an "urban area" continues until the population density drops below a certain level. I included Birkenhead for Liverpool because the reason for the drop in population density is the Mersey. Anywhere outside those two is most definitely NOT in Liverpool's urban area. I personally don't know where the boundary for each urban area ends. The two might well be the same urban area.

Its a moot point anyway as I realised Birkenhead on your table and Wirral are almost the same in population anyway.

You've accepted Merseyside is more or less Liverpool and that'll do for me -1.3m

So, Manchester Airport is a part of the City of Manchester, although it is outside Manchester's urban area.

You mean like the Statue of Liberty is actually on the Jersey shore side?

Listen can you please take your pathetic little squabbles to a more approriate thread... last time i checked this one it was a liverpool airport thread. return to the subject matter of F*ck OFF !!!!

are you listening,a conurbation is a "contiguous built up area" manchester' s continous built up area does not include rochdale,wigan and other outer areas

are you listening,a conurbation is a "contiguous built up area" manchester' s continous built up area does not include rochdale,wigan and other outer areas

It includes Rochdale but it doesn't include Wigan. That's why it is only 2.2 million. :ohno: What on earth do you think the "urban area" figures represent? It's the CONTIGUOUS BUILT UP AREA. They are the Government's official conurbation figures!

For Rochdale you'll see it's joined onto Heywood. Heywood is joined onto Bury. Bury is joined onto Whitefield. Whitefield is joined onto Prestwich.

Listen can you please take your pathetic little squabbles to a more approriate thread... last time i checked this one it was a liverpool airport thread. return to the subject matter of F*ck OFF !!!!

No seriously take this boring shit off this thread... it is completely irrelevant. You truly are a complete arsehole earlybird!


:wtf:

They'd have a job extending the runway at liverpool. An area of scientific interest at one end and plenty of private property at the other.

Sloyne, stop relying on your web based tourism aids as they are cleary lacking information. You have spoken more than once condescending others because you beleived your information to be complete and accurate. When you have been proven wrong, I have never seen any acknowledgement, let alone apology from you.

Those population issues are boring. Rochdale and bolton are often included in Manchester's Population, whereas Wilmslow's and glossop's are not. Swings and roundabouts.

They'd have a job extending the runway at liverpool. An area of scientific interest at one end and plenty of private property at the other.



Really?

I heard the next round of euro grants were going to be used to do just that.

The following is taken from page 6 (six) item 4.2 of the Planning Application for a second runway at Manchester Airport presented in July 1993.

It is against this background that the Airport Company has prepared its forcasts and these indicate an increase in traffic to 22 million passengers a year by 2000 and 30 million passengers by 2005.

Dreaming in technicolor I would say or out-and-out lying.

Contrast the above with BAe's submission in Summary of Liverpool Airport's expansion plans. and passenger projections for Liverpool Airport of 4 million by 2005 and 7 million by 2007. These figures can be found on page 9 (nine) paragraph 4 under the heading of PHASED REDEVELOPMENT

A lot closer to the truth, wouldn't you say?

Traffic grew by 30% at LJLA in April. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

I wonder why? :?

People are voting with their feet or should that be 'Wings'. :cheers:

The following is taken from page 6 (six) item 4.2 of the Planning Application for a second runway at Manchester Airport presented in July 1993.

It is against this background that the Airport Company has prepared its forcasts and these indicate an increase in traffic to 22 million passengers a year by 2000 and 30 million passengers by 2005.

Dreaming in technicolor I would say or out-and-out lying.


I don't think you can call a forcast a lie, by it's very nature. Thats like calling the Met office liars when they get the weather wrong.

Passenger numbers are at 22million now and are likely to be around 23million by the end of 2005. They are not correct but it would be harsh to call a forecast made in 1992 an out and out lie when it is only 23% out over 13 years.

The start of ryanair and flybe services have contributed to the 30% growth. Current airport estimates at the start of the year projected a throughput of 4.5 million passengers for 2005. This figure was based on a 30% increase every month. So if the increases continue.........:cheers:

You'll also have to take into account the increase in passengers due to Everton playing in European competition again this year. :cheers:

Yes Bunnyman good point,let's hope both clubs go far :) this year in Europe.
Imagine the traffic flow out of the airport if LFC and Everton met in the final. :cheers:

Flybe (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/business/news/tm_objectid=15597797%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=flybe%2dbid%2dfor%2dmore%2deuro%2dcity%2dair%2dlinks-name_page.html) hope to buy 26 more aircraft eventually boosting the number of flights from JLA. :cheers:

That'd be ace! I'd like links to Bilbao, Marseilles and a few Eastern Bloc countries where the ale is dirt cheap. :)

I don't think you can call a forcast a lie, by it's very nature. Thats like calling the Met office liars when they get the weather wrong.

But every other source gave correct or very close to the right figures. It was only Manchester whose figures were distorted, in their favour. How can groups as disparate as BAe, MAJAG, CAA, CABE, Liverpool/Leeds/Sheffield/Blackpool/Derby/Birmingham Chambers of Commerce and the CAA be almost spot on with their projections yet Manchester's figures be so inflated, and still are?

But every other source gave correct or very close to the right figures. It was on Manchester whose figures were distorted in their favour. How can groups as disparate as BAe, MAJAG, CAA, CABE, Liverpool/Leeds/Sheffield/Blackpool/Derby/Birmingham Chambers of Commerce and the CAA be almost spot on with their projections yet Manchester's figures so inflated, and still are?


There are 'Lies', 'Dammned Lies' & 'Manchester Statistics' :cheers: :cheers:

Fuck Manchester. I don't give a shit what is happening there any more. Liverpool and its airport are now big enough and strong enough to operate independently and confidently. We'll keep growing at our own pace and bollocks to what others think. :rant:

That'd be ace! I'd like links to Bilbao, Marseilles and a few Eastern Bloc countries where the ale is dirt cheap. :)

Scandinavian countries are a must for the Liverpudlians travelling here weekly,especially now they're Champions of Europe. :)

I'd also like better links to the far flung corners such as Iceland, the Greek islands and London.

Fuck Manchester. I don't give a shit what is happening there any more. Liverpool and its airport are now big enough and strong enough to operate independently and confidently. We'll keep growing at our own pace and bollocks to what others think. :rant:
:applause: :cheers:

Jerv: The following is from the same document, page 8, item 6.4: "The airlines do not view Liverpool as a viable alternative to Manchester as evidence of their reluctance to develope services from there.

And the people who made these statements are still in charge at Manchester.

:applause: :cheers:
Repeat.

Fuck Manchester. I don't give a shit what is happening there any more. Liverpool and its airport are now big enough and strong enough to operate independently and confidently. We'll keep growing at our own pace and bollocks to what others think. :rant:

:cheers:
Repeat

Fuck Manchester. I don't give a shit what is happening there any more. Liverpool and its airport are now big enough and strong enough to operate independently and confidently. We'll keep growing at our own pace and bollocks to what others think. :rant:

Couldn't agree more, Bunnyman :cheers:

Yes Bunnyman good point,let's hope both clubs go far :) this year in Europe.
Imagine the traffic flow out of the airport if LFC and Everton met in the final. :cheers:


Just hope I am not rostered to work for that one, was a nightmare with just Liverpool :cheers:

OK. What do you think is going to happen with this nexus airlines things. Will it ever happen?

How much more do you think they can expand the terminal before they have to build a second one?

Does anyone know when the Wings Leisure Park nearby is going to start contruction?

That should keep us going for a while :D

I believe Nexus to be a school project of some 15 year old.

The terminal is continually expanding at the moment, unfirtunately it is with portacabins just to meet the immeadiate demand. Thoughg a bit more joined up thinking in this regards cant be far off i hope.

Everton could fly out of Hawarden.

Everton could fly out of Hawarden.

I don't know what you mean. :|

the airport just outside chester where the big beluga goes carrying airbus wings!!

Designated regional gateway as part of being the capital of the north....government dic tat.

Also some very sloppy admin in Liverpool.

However as London and Liverpool are the only two known (where is that place?) place known worldwide in the UK......sadly Manchester will have to borrow Zero`s fiddle.

sorry about that.

Jerv: The following is from the same document, page 8, item 6.4: "The airlines do not view Liverpool as a viable alternative to Manchester as evidence of their reluctance to develope services from there.

And the people who made these statements are still in charge at Manchester.

I can't tell anything from one sentence. It is not in context. Which airlines is the report reffering to?
There wasn't the low cost airlines in 1992 that there are now. The charter airlines are not well catered for at JLA. BA and BMI have not operated to any extent from liverpool. That sentence was probably reasonably accurate at the time.

However as London and Liverpool are the only two known (where is that place?) place known worldwide in the UK......sadly Manchester will have to borrow Zero`s fiddle.

You'll find Manchester is as well known or even better known than Liverpool worldwide thanks to Oasis, the "Madchester" scene and Manchester United. That's why we're about to overtake Edinburgh to become the UK's second most popular city for international tourists.

You'll find Manchester is as well known or even better known than Liverpool worldwide thanks to Oasis, the "Madchester" scene and Manchester United. That's why we're about to overtake Edinburgh to become the UK's second most popular city for international tourists.
dont think Oasis are as famous as the beatles and john lennon when they went america they didnt want to know.

Madchester never even left these shores and oasis were rejected by America.

Madchester never even left these shores and oasis were rejected by America.
can someone explain what madchester is?

can someone explain what madchester is?

It was a Manc scene late 80's and the fact that you've never heard of it speaks volumes don't you think.

It was a Manc scene late 80's and the fact that you've never heard of it speaks volumes don't you think.
thats what i thought i am sure people from america havnt heard of it and the rest of the world for that matter.

thats what i thought i am sure people from america havnt heard of it and the rest of the world for that matter.

But you will have heard of some of the bands that came out of it,the stone roses and happy mondays to name but two.

Madchester never even left these shores and oasis were rejected by America.

Oasis sold best in Europe and Asia and outsold the Beatles in the Japanese market. "Madchester" was the most famous UK cultural export of the period, though maybe not under the "Madchester" name.

dont think Oasis are as famous as the beatles and john lennon when they went america they didnt want to know.

You're probably right, overall Oasis won't be as well known as the Beatles. They are well known though. The thing is, Liverpool aren't as well known as Manchester United. In fact, the Old Trafford tour/museum is the most popular single tourist attraction in the UK outside the capitals and alone accounts for more international tourists than the entire city of Liverpool.

But you will have heard of some of the bands that came out of it,the stone roses and happy mondays to name but two.
yeah ian brown is cool but you dont get tourists stood outside the hacienada getting their photo taken the cavern club does.

You're probably right, overall Oasis won't be as well known as the Beatles. They are well known though. The thing is, Liverpool aren't as well known as Manchester United. In fact, the Old Trafford tour/museum is the most popular single tourist attraction in the UK outside the capitals and alone accounts for more international tourists than the entire city of Liverpool.
liverpools museum will be catching up this year with the fifth cup im sure.

By the way them population stats you gave out. Birkenhead urban area 319,000, that's the population of wirral, 6 towns separated by miles of farmland,hardly an urban area.Earlybird you are a spammer.

Liverpool aren't as well known as Manchester United.

Only because United market themselves to everyone better but as proven recently Liverpool are more successful and are now Europes 3rd most successful team behind Madrid and Milan and that's what I'd call biggest.

Only because United market themselves to everyone better but as proven recently Liverpool are more successful and are now Europes 3rd most successful team behind Madrid and Milan and that's what I call biggest.
youre right it dosnt bother me who might be more well known liverpool are the most succesful and you cant take it away from them.

By the way them population stats you gave out. Birkenhead urban area 319,000, that's the population of wirral, 6 towns separated by miles of farmland,hardly an urban area.Earlybird you are a spammer.

It's an urban area because no square kilometre of it goes below the UK Government's population density benchmark. Think what you like, these are official whether you like it or not.

Only because United market themselves to everyone better but as proven recently Liverpool are more successful and are now Europes 3rd most successful team behind Madrid and Milan and that's what I'd call biggest.

Irrelevant when you're talking about the fame of a city. The simple fact is that United are more famous and this in turn helps Manchester.

Irrelevant when you're talking about the fame of a city. The simple fact is that United are more famous and this in turn helps Manchester.

Give me success over fame anyday then. :)

You're obssessed with Liverpool. You're a wool not a scouser.

Give me success over fame anyday then. :)

Success only has benefits for the fans of that club. Fame has benefits from the city as a whole. I'm a City fan so I couldn't care less if United never won another trophy, just as long as they keep the tourists coming.

Success only has benefits for the fans of that club. Fame has benefits from the city as a whole. I'm a City fan so I couldn't care less if United never won another trophy, just as long as they keep the tourists coming.

And don't you think Liverpool's museum doesn't attract tourists.They have a replica for every trophy they've ever won and a couple of originals and Liverpool are very famous also,don't let the biased media let you think otherwise,it's probably just America where United are more famous and let's face it what do they know about soccer. :)

I am not English and do not live in England and I can tell you that Liverpool is a brand that is as known, worldwide, as Coca~Cola, McDonalds, Hard Rock Cafe etc. Because of the Beatles? Yes of course! Whenever Liverpudlians identify themselves the reply is "Ah yes, the Beatles". But although Liverpool is synonamous with the Beatles it is also famous, annualy, for the Grand National Horserace and every four years or so for the British Open Golf Championship played at Royal Birkdale and next year, at Royal Liverpool. Liverpools museums and art galleries are the only ones outside of the four UK capitals as designated "National". The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic is a world famous orchestra with a world reknowned conducter and following. The fact that some of the best playwrights have hailed from Liverpool in the past few decades didn't hurt either. The two soccer teams? I can't comment seeing as North America almost totally ignores soccer. I daresay they are well known among the English emmigrant community as is the Manchester United team.

The two cathedrals, one of them being the worlds largest and last gothic cathedral to be built and the other a ultra modern ediface already copied by a number of archdiocese around the world. And of course, the Pier Head trio of buildings locally known as the "Three Graces" is known worldwide and copied in Shanghai. Who can dispute that the Shanghai Bund, as seen from across the Po, is anything but a mirror image of the Liverpool waterfront. I know that the Walker Gallery is as good as any in Europes outside of the likes of the Prado, Louvre, Hermitage etc. and is the envy of many European capitals. The Mersey Maritime Museum is among the top 5 maritime museums in the world, befitting a port with the historic significance and stature of the Port of Liverpool.

Having said all that I will readilly admit that Liverpools sense of place is more European than it is English. Liverpool seems to have a different culture than other English provincial towns which, in this writers opinion, gives a more cosmopolitan feel to it than any English city outside of London. IMO.

probably just America where United are more famous and let's face it what do they know about soccer. :)

Very little, and the coverage in our press is almost none existant. My local papers ( Tampa Tribune & St.Petes Times in Florida) will carry more due to the fact that Malcolm Glazer owns our Tampa Bay Bucceneers aswell as the Manchester soccer team. Our sports are, in order, Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey. Soccer, i'm afraid is an imigrant sport and reported very sparesly in the mainline press.

Why is everybody responding to the idiot earlybird.
This thread is supposed to be about LJLA.
Earlybirds recent posts have been about anything but. :bash: :cheers:

Oasis sold best in Europe and Asia and outsold the Beatles in the Japanese market. "Madchester" was the most famous UK cultural export of the period, though maybe not under the "Madchester" name.

Seems ironic that the best you could come up with to challenge the musical might (Guiness Capital of Pop) of Liverpool- was a band that blatantly copied The Beatles. And a musical era ("Madchester") that was as shit as it was forgettable. Drabchester seems more appropriate.

LJLA.Fastest growing airport in Europe. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

I am not English and do not live in England and I can tell you that Liverpool is a brand that is as known, worldwide, as Coca~Cola, McDonalds, Hard Rock Cafe etc. Because of the Beatles? Yes of course! Whenever Liverpudlians identify themselves the reply is "Ah yes, the Beatles". But although Liverpool is synonamous with the Beatles it is also famous, annualy, for the Grand National Horserace and every four years or so for the British Open Golf Championship played at Royal Birkdale and next year, at Royal Liverpool. Liverpools museums and art galleries are the only ones outside of the four UK capitals as designated "National". The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic is a world famous orchestra with a world reknowned conducter and following. The fact that some of the best playwrights have hailed from Liverpool in the past few decades didn't hurt either. The two soccer teams? I can't comment seeing as North America almost totally ignores soccer. I daresay they are well known among the English emmigrant community as is the Manchester United team.

The two cathedrals, one of them being the worlds largest and last gothic cathedral to be built and the other a ultra modern ediface already copied by a number of archdiocese around the world. And of course, the Pier Head trio of buildings locally known as the "Three Graces" is known worldwide and copied in Shanghai. Who can dispute that the Shanghai Bund, as seen from across the Po, is anything but a mirror image of the Liverpool waterfront. I know that the Walker Gallery is as good as any in Europes outside of the likes of the Prado, Louvre, Hermitage etc. and is the envy of many European capitals. The Mersey Maritime Museum is among the top 5 maritime museums in the world, befitting a port with the historic significance and stature of the Port of Liverpool.

Having said all that I will readilly admit that Liverpools sense of place is more European than it is English. Liverpool seems to have a different culture than other English provincial towns which, in this writers opinion, gives a more cosmopolitan feel to it than any English city outside of London. IMO.


Not English? I hope I'm not being terribly offensive by guessing that you're a naturalised Canadian national whose early life was and roots are in Liverpool. If you were never English, perhaps it is because you were born in Ireland or Wales and grew up in Liverpool and if so you're being disingenuous. You're statement implies that you are a foreigner purely and simply and therefore can give an unbiassed indication of the knowledge and opinion of Liverpool held by an complete outsider.

I agree with just about everything you say in your post about Liverpool but I'd be surprised if any North Americans without Liverpool connections knew as much about the city as you - even those working in the travel industry such as yourself. The vast majority of Americans know diddly squat about Manchester of course.

And don't you think Liverpool's museum doesn't attract tourists.They have a replica for every trophy they've ever won and a couple of originals and Liverpool are very famous also,don't let the biased media let you think otherwise,it's probably just America where United are more famous and let's face it what do they know about soccer. :)

As I said, Old Trafford's tour/museum attracts more international tourists every year than the entire city of Liverpool, which includes any Liverpool tour/museum. The place where Manchester United are famous is in China. It's estimated there are well over 100 million Chinese already claiming to be Man Utd fans, more than Liverpool's entire fan base. :)

Having said all that I will readilly admit that Liverpools sense of place is more European than it is English. Liverpool seems to have a different culture than other English provincial towns which, in this writers opinion, gives a more cosmopolitan feel to it than any English city outside of London. IMO.

Seeing as "this writer" thought there were only two 5 star hotels outside London I don't think too many people will give much weight to his opinions. You truly don't have the foggiest about any of the things you argue about.

As I said, Old Trafford's tour/museum attracts more international tourists every year than the entire city of Liverpool, which includes any Liverpool tour/museum. The place where Manchester United are famous is in China. It's estimated there are well over 100 million Chinese already claiming to be Man Utd fans, more than Liverpool's entire fan base. :)
Are you counting Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea, Newcastle, all other Prem sides outside Manchester as international visitors. :lol: