It's happened again!! :laugh:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data_prov/200601/January_2006_Provisional_Airport_Statistics.pdf


Terminal passengers Annual Rolling Total to January 2006:
- London Stansted = 22,090,242
- Manchester Chimney = 22,081,969


Manchester's January traffic actually shrank compared to last year!! :laugh:

The provisional stats are not complete yet. It remains to be seen how close London Luton is to overtaking Birmingham to become Britain's 5th busuiest airport and complete Monkey's knavish little plan. In case anyone has forgotten here is "the plan": ;)

1) London Heathrow
2) London Gatwick
3) London Stansted
4) Manchester Chimney
5) London Luton

The first four places are already achieved! :guns1:

This calls for a little celebration!! :happy:

:dance: :dance:
:dance: :dance:
:dance: :dance:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Budget%20Airlines/stn.jpg

Londoner 1: You know what sucks about being a Londoner?

Londoner 2: No, what?

Londoner 1: Nothing!

:)

Something werid is going on. Manchester Chimney has a full 39,000 more flights per year than Stansted Tesco.

Monkey, your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance.

Monkey, don't you just love Jerv's thread " Manchester overtakes Stansted".Yes I do. I love it - but I like mine, "London Stansted overtakes Manchester Chimney", even more!! :laugh:I think some big bad Mancunian has been seeing Monkey's mum.... :badnews:I think it's your turn!! ;) :laugh:Mmm! Fifty countries eh Monkey, really? They say travel broadens the mind but in your case it seems to have left you very insular looking and very ignorant. Had you not travelled so far and wide ? You could have taken a trip to Manchester then you may be a bit better informed about one of Britain's most important cities. Never mind, keep on dreaming about Stansted, it's been overtaken by Manchester which has become the Uk's third largest airport. Love it !Keep dreaming about Manchester and its chimney stack skyline Born in the North. It's been overtaken by London Stansted which has become the UK's third largest airport. Love it!!Earlybird don't let Monkey distract you from the topic, he has a good knack of that when he is proved wrong and he certainly got caught with his pants down regarding Manchester Airport and the passenger figures.

Come on Monkey lets here some more of your wild predictions for Stansted. Lovely !My predictions were fulfilled!! Lovin' it!! :laugh:I didn't "get caught with my pants down" at all. My figures were accurate. It was you that disputed them and you that was proven wrong. I predict that Stansted will soon regain the lead over Manchester and that Luton will soon become the UK's number 5: :)

1) London Heathrow
2) London Gatwick
3) London Stansted
4) Manchester Chimney Stack
5) London LutonAnd wasn't I right!! :guns1:The new CAA figures dispute your findings Monkey, remind me which airport was busiest last month and over the whole year is busier ? See caught with your pants down Monkey and you love it ! I thought you might predict Stansted ahead of Manchester and again next month you will be caught out yet again. Monkey you provide us such amusement please do continue :hahaha:The latest CAA figures support my predictions! London Stansted has in fact overtaken Manchester Chimney just as I said it would all along!! :laugh: Remind me one more time which is the 3rd busiest airport Born in the North? ;) And please continue with your amusing Mancunian failure.... :laugh:Monkey, can you remind me again which airport carries more passengers? Stansted or Manchester?

My mind's gone blank. :laugh:I dunno Kid - why not check the CAA stats? ;) :lol:Oh dear Monkey!

I know the latest figures are a shock!

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/197/1158/640/monkey1.1.jpg

Hope you recover soon!

Best wishes from all the staff at Manchester International Airport!And you jrb? Do you feel as good as I do about today's news? :laugh:How will Monkey react to this latest news ?With delight Born in the North - with delight!! How about you? How are you enjoying the news? ;) :laugh:Monkey, nearly as arrogant as he is ignorant. Extra homework for you tonight Monkey is to learn about the UK's 3rd largest airport- Manchester!No Born in the North you are wrong. Manchester Chimney's down in 4th place and shrinking. :yes:Please Monkey can you furnish us with the CAA figures for October 2005? Your silence on the matter over the past few months has usually been because your Stansted has lost further ground on Manchester? I have heard rumours that Manchester had handled some 800,000 more passengers than Stansted on the rolling year figure and had seen smaller growth than Manchester, figures rumoured were Stansted 5.3% growth and Manchester 6% growth. Please confirm!!!Please Born in the North can you furnish us with the latest CAA figures for January 2006? it seems that Manchester's January total has shrunk since last year and that Stansted has overtaken it again!! Please confirm!!! ;)"Softly, Softly Catch A Monkey". Touched a raw nerve eh Monkey. :) Manchester's growth looked far superior last month, looks like your Stansted bubble has burst?"Softly, Softly Puffs a Chimney". Touched a raw nerve eh Born in the North? :) Stansted's growth looked far suprior last month, Manchester actually shrank, looks like your Manc bubble has burst?Now I have heard it all! You talk a lot of nonsense Monkey.... Cannot wait for your next prediction, are you on drugs Monkey?I was right! I was right! I was right HAHA!!! :lol:I think it's time Monkey was put back in the zoo.....I think it's time you jumped off a bridge....What was the final result for the year?

Has Monkey got egg on his face after all his hollow boasts regarding Stansted overtaking MANCHESTER?

I heard Manchester was well over 22 Million with about 5% growth, please do tell us Monkey?Has Born in the North gotten egg on his face after all his hollow boasts regarding Manchester Chimney staying ahead of STANSTED?

I heard Manchester's January traffic actually shrank compared to last year and it's annual growth drop below Stansted's. Please do tell us Born in the North?

You poor soul :ohno:

Great... more aircraft waking me up in the morning.

Something werid is going on. Manchester Chimney has a full 39,000 more flights per year than Stansted Tesco.Well its true that these are only the CAA's "provisional" stats but.... ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Budget%20Airlines/Stats.jpg

CHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

NYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARR

You poor soul :ohno:It's been emotional.... :cry: :lol: :cry: :lol:

That extra 6% is Chantelle (from Big Brother) and half of essex flying to Spain.

That extra 6% is Chantelle (from Big Brother) and half of essex flying to Spain.

:laugh: - good one andy :)

That extra 6% is Chantelle (from Big Brother) and half of essex flying to Spain.1) London Stansted - more passengers than Manchester Failure
2) London Stansted - more international traffic than Manchester Failure
3) London Stansted - more scheduled traffic than Manchester Failure
4) London Stansted - growing faster than Manchester Failure (Manchester shrank in January)
5) London Stansted - hub of world's fastest growing airline (Manchester hub of none) :yes:

But have no fear! Manchester is one of the busiest "bucket-and-spade" charter airports in the whole world!! :happy:

1) London Stansted - more passengers than Manchester Failure
2) London Stansted - more international traffic than Manchester Failure
3) London Stansted - more scheduled traffic than Manchester Failure
4) London Stansted - growing faster than Manchester Failure
5) London Stansted - hub of world's fastest growing airline (Manchester hub of none) :yes:

But have no fear! Manchester is one of the busiest "bucket-and-spade" charter airports in the whole world!! :happy:
RyanAir. :ohno: Ok if you say so but I wouldnt fly with them if you paid me.

PPIIOWMMM!

Oh I have a good one. Also most of the 6% are the 13 year old pregnant Essex's girl's giving birth on the way home. End up with more little chavs coming off the plane after it lands.

RyanAir. :ohno: Ok if you say so but I wouldnt fly with them if you paid me.Don't forget EasyJet - the world's 2nd fastest growing airline after Ryanair!! I am flying Easyjet to Prague from Stansted next week: :)

London Stansted To Prague
Tuesday 21 February
flight 3627; dep. Tue 21 Feb 18:25
arr. Tue 21 Feb 21:25

Prague To London Stansted
Friday 24 February
flight 3622; dep. Fri 24 Feb 10:55
arr. Fri 24 Feb 11:55

Don't forget EasyJet - the world's 2nd fastest growing airline after Ryanair!! I am flying Easyjet to Prague from Stansted next week: :)

London Stansted To Prague
Tuesday 21 February
flight 3627; dep. Tue 21 Feb 18:25
arr. Tue 21 Feb 21:25

Prague To London Stansted
Friday 24 February
flight 3622; dep. Fri 24 Feb 10:55
arr. Fri 24 Feb 11:55
What do you want a medal for having two of worst airlines at your airport.

^ If they're so bad then why are they so popular and successful? :)

^ If they're so bad then why are they so popular and successful? :)
Because they are cheap. They are like quality save, cheap food and crap services.

Because they are cheap. They are like quality save, cheap food and crap services.I can live with that - especially if it gives be pretty much the same service for an eigth the cost. LCC's are the future for medium distance travel, while the old carriers will dominated long haul.

Guess where this is?

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c109/terryfied/chimneys.jpg

PS It's not Manchester. ;)

Ah,

This would be the ryanair featured on Dispatches then?
The Ryanair where vomit wasn't cleaned up on aircraft.
The Ryanair which failed to carry out required passport checks at the gate.
The Ryanair which allows unscreened personel airside passes.
The Ryanair which left a blank Stansted security pass lying round.
The Ryanair where stewards, responsible for your safety, were so exhuasted they fell asleep on the flight.
The Ryanair where cabin crew are given inaccurate safety training.
The Ryanair where cabin crew are not tested properly.
The Ryanair that demoted a Pilot for refusing to fly because he was exhausted.
The Ryanair that allowed a plane to fly despite a technical problem which meant that slides may not inflate.
The Ryanair that doesn't give its Cabin Crew any emergency simualtions.

What an airline! Wow!

Besides - there are a chunk of new big routes starting in the Spring (HK, daily to Doha, Delta to NY, Abu Dhabi etc). We'll see what happens then!

Personally I'd rather have a quiter airport and have my flights to Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong depart on time then London Chav airport where I can be hearded onto a jet sandwiched between Vicki Pollard and her thirteen screaming kids ;)

^ Even the safety regulator has rubbished the Dispatches documentary. If that's the best they can come up with after 5 months of investigation then it's truly pathetic. And those rubbishing Ryanair's services should explain why it's the punctual major airline in Europe. :yes:

Guess where this is?

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c109/terryfied/chimneys.jpg

PS It's not Manchester. ;)Salford? Is it one of those supposedly exciting "regeneration" projects that you northerners bleat on about so often?? ;)

Note the clothes and black and white film - northerners are a bit backward when it comes to fashion and technology. ;)

Monkey. You amaze me because I have never seen anybody jump on an Airports Bandwagon like that in my life.. :no:

Monkey. You amaze me because I have never seen anybody jump on an Airports Bandwagon like that in my life.. :no:
Talk about obsession! Is it half-term down in the smoke or summat?

I mean, what's he like...?

He really needs to get a grip. :weird:

I don't think Low Cost airlines can have much of a long term future to our travel industry. Oil isn't getting any cheaper and it isn't really going to. It wouldn't surprise me if in a few years the EU cottons on to the fact that most of these carriers fly between different member states and strong arm higher taxes on inter European airfuel in a climate change induced panic. Then as prices rise the business models will become less viable.

I'd actually quite like Stanstead though, if someone hadn't taken the nice building and shovved too many confusingly laid out shops into it. I spent 10 minutes trying to find the toilet there this time last year.

^ Full fare airlines have been hurt far more by high fuel prices than budget airlines. Airlines like Ryanair and EasyJet in Europe, Southwest and JetBlue in the US, and their dozens of immitators worldwide, have been growing right through the oil price rises and recording record profits. Ryanair, perhaps the most aggressive adherent to low cost principles, is the fastest growing and most profitable airline in the world.

Monkey. You amaze me because I have never seen anybody jump on an Airports Bandwagon like that in my life.. :no:Talk about obsession! Is it half-term down in the smoke or summat?

I mean, what's he like...?

He really needs to get a grip. :weird:Bad losers! :baeh3:

LOOOOOOOSEEEERRSS!!!! :laugh:

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Ah,

This would be the ryanair featured on Dispatches then?
The Ryanair where vomit wasn't cleaned up on aircraft.
The Ryanair which failed to carry out required passport checks at the gate.
The Ryanair which allows unscreened personel airside passes.
The Ryanair which left a blank Stansted security pass lying round.
The Ryanair where stewards, responsible for your safety, were so exhuasted they fell asleep on the flight.
The Ryanair where cabin crew are given inaccurate safety training.
The Ryanair where cabin crew are not tested properly.
The Ryanair that demoted a Pilot for refusing to fly because he was exhausted.
The Ryanair that allowed a plane to fly despite a technical problem which meant that slides may not inflate.
The Ryanair that doesn't give its Cabin Crew any emergency simualtions.

What an airline! Wow!

Besides - there are a chunk of new big routes starting in the Spring (HK, daily to Doha, Delta to NY, Abu Dhabi etc). We'll see what happens then!

Personally I'd rather have a quiter airport and have my flights to Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong depart on time then London Chav airport where I can be hearded onto a jet sandwiched between Vicki Pollard and her thirteen screaming kids

:lol:

Did someone mention Manchester Airport?


Manchester Airport to build new chimney stack skyline
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2005/05/26/airport_chimney_stacks.shtml

http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/ContentResources/675.$plit/C_58_ImageGallery_5139_Image.jpg

http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/ContentResources/13.$plit/C_58_ImageGallery_5140_Image.jpg

Manchester Airport today unveiled plans for five 90m tall chimney stacks in a bid to gain worldwide recognition. Developed in partnership with Manchester City Hall, the Manchester Tourism Board, and private sponsors, the chimneys are planned as part of the 2005-2105 "Manchester Lives!" urban regeneration plan.

Commenting on the project, Bob Stack, chairman of the Manchester Airports Group, said, "This is a great day for Manchester. Manchester is a city with an industrial character and soul. Brick chimneys are what we are all about. Chimneys put Manchester on the map and made the city the workshop of the world. Now they have become the symbol of our city. Visitors will arrive from overseas and the first thing they'll see will be brick chimneys."

The decision to build chimneys came after a drawn out selection process sponsored by Boddington's and the Manchester Evening News. Artists and architects were invited to submit plans to be put before a selection committee chaired by Stack.

"There was a fantastic response. The range of proposals was astounding. Many celebrated Manchester’s rich industrial heritage and the committee felt that the popularity of such ideas should be reflected in the final choice."


"Cotton Mill International"

Imaginative proposals included a huge flat cap on the control tower (rejected as a fire risk), an interactive steel furnace "exhibit" in Departures, and one simply involved renaming the airport "Cotton Mill International". Jane Slagheap, author of the latter proposal explained:

"With Liverpool naming their airport after John Lennon we felt it necessary to come up with a name reflecting our own sense of history and identity. Originally we thought of "Liam Gallagher International" after the Oasis frontman. However we soon concluded that this idea, like the band itself, was a somewhat naff copy of Liverpool's, so we kept looking for an original alternative reflecting our own unique identity. I think we got it right. After all what really put Manchester on the map was not Oasis but the cotton mills!"

Though not the winning entry, Jane hopes her shortlisted proposal will be adopted in addition to the new chimneys.

The chimneys themselves will rise 90m above the drab Manchester skyline. The original proposal was for three chimneys at 150m but the CAA ruled that it would infringe airport safety regulations to have such tall structures so close to the runway. The designers, Salford architectural practice Mills & Grimm, were sent back to the drawing board, reducing the height of their chimneys but adding an extra two.

"What we have is the perfect compromise" Mills enthused. "I grew up above the chippy on Vinegar Street, right in the heart of factory land. For me brick chimneys define the Manchester experience and we are thrilled to be giving something back to our city."

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~prow/smokey.jpg

Belching smoke

Grimm emphasised that the chimneys would not be static repetitive museum pieces:

"We studied chimney design across the city, including stacks no longer standing from old photographs. Each chimney will be subtly different whilst still forming a cohesive cluster. We want everything to look right - the stacks will use second-hand blackened brick. We even had the idea of bricking up the control tower as well but eventually dropped that on grounds of cost. The tower is brick anyway, albeit somewhat redder than what we would have preferred."

"….instead of making a static architectural statement we wanted to recall the atmosphere of Manchester itself. To that end we'll have the chimneys belching smoke 24/7 using traditional coal furnaces at the base of each shaft. These days most coal produced in the UK is the highly refined smokeless kind. We will have to import smoking coals from Poland! How times have changed…."

However the plans are not universally popular. The BBC conducted a nationwide poll and message board on the shortlisted proposals. Samantha Snoote from Tunbridge Wells was unimpressed by any of them:

"Why couldn't they have chosen something more elegant? I thought an opera duet to welcome passengers in Arrivals would have been splendid. If they wanted to do something more "Northern" they could have had one of those charming traditional brass bands. That’s the trouble with Northerners, they drink too much beer and don't get enough polenta…."

The chimneys are expected to cost £12.4m of money funded jointly from the National Lottery and Northern Heritage Association. Work will commence next September and the chimneys are due to complete in June 2006.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Something werid is going on. Manchester Chimney has a full 39,000 more flights per year than Stansted Tesco.I blame the poor load factors ex Manchester. The airlines don't find Manchester very profitable. That's why Manchester's large volume of bucket-and-spade charter flight traffic is declining steeply and why the new generation of low cost airlines prefer to expand out of Liverpool instead. :)

Airfix announce new low cost service from stainsted

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Airfix20-20DC3kk.jpg

As the first passengers wait patiently.

http://www.ratemyhat.co.uk/chavs.jpg

Love it

BTW, I've made it personal policy not to use the low cost airlines and low cost airports. The whole experience just isn't worth the megre cost saving when you factor in time and cost of difficult land transfers and crap service. I get a much greater buzz when I travel through the large well kept airports such as MAN than travelling through an airfield such as Leeds or Liverpool.

Planning my next trip to Rekyavik through MAN with Icelandair and another to Thailand through BHX with Emirates.

http://www.ratemyhat.co.uk/chavs.jpg


Never knew Oldham had an airport, think my brother is in that pic.

Salford? Is it one of those supposedly exciting "regeneration" projects that you northerners bleat on about so often?? ;)

It's the London brick company. :)

It's the London brick company. :)

up near Northampton, remember all those chimneys

This is a joke. What the bollocks is wrong with this Monkey chap's head. All i know is that 2 if not 3 of London's airports are nowhere near London. It'll be London Birmingham next. The only reason that "London" Stanstead is so busy is because half of East Anglia use it. Anyway, why do you want all these extra flights screaming over your head, its not like its signalling business and international success for London. Marbella here we come!

This is a joke. What the bollocks is wrong with this Monkey chap's head. All i know is that 2 if not 3 of London's airports are nowhere near London. It'll be London Birmingham next. The only reason that "London" Stanstead is so busy is because half of East Anglia use it. Anyway, why do you want all these extra flights screaming over your head, its not like its signalling business and international success for London. Marbella here we come!

The reason Stanstead is busy is because it connects Eastern Europe with London. I would imagine much of East Anglia does use Stanstead, not unlike half of Northern England uses Manchester.

My mum and dad go all the way from Oldham to Liverpool to catch their flights.

It's the London brick company. :)An aspirational name for a northern chimney builder. ;)

This is a joke. What the bollocks is wrong with this Monkey chap's head. All i know is that 2 if not 3 of London's airports are nowhere near London. It'll be London Birmingham next. The only reason that "London" Stanstead is so busy is because half of East Anglia use it. Anyway, why do you want all these extra flights screaming over your head, its not like its signalling business and international success for London. Marbella here we come!They are all London airports according to the entire travel industry and of course themselves. They have express trains and direct bus links to central London. The population of East Anglia is very low compared ot the London metro poulation at 18 million. :)

The reason Stanstead is busy is because it connects Eastern Europe with London.Not just eastern Europe. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Budget%20Airlines/Stansted_Ryanair.jpg

Not just eastern Europe. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Budget%20Airlines/Stansted_Ryanair.jpg

They are impressive destinations Monkey. :lol:

^ Yes they are. London, Paris, Rome, Barcelona, Florence, Krakow, Venice, Stockholm, Frankfurt, Milan, Vienna, Naples, Berlin etc etc.... most of Europe's finest cities - and at the most accessible prices. :yes:

What impresses you about Manchester's destinations? Is it Doha? That wild party town? That city of your dreams?? Many Mancs seem deeply honoured that Etihad has chosen to feed you into their hub in glamourous Doha. ;)

^ Full fare airlines have been hurt far more by high fuel prices than budget airlines. Airlines like Ryanair and EasyJet in Europe, Southwest and JetBlue in the US, and their dozens of immitators worldwide, have been growing right through the oil price rises and recording record profits. Ryanair, perhaps the most aggressive adherent to low cost principles, is the fastest growing and most profitable airline in the world.

I'm talking medium to long term though. I'm not sure that I'm right, but my theory is that when the costs become steeper and flights become a more expensive part of any holiday then people will revert from regular short city breaks to longer trips. It won't be economical to have a cottage in France or spend every other weekend in another European city. If the budget airlines are no longer as budget then people won't use them as often, profits will fall and they will begin to decline. People will pay more for longer holidays or further destinations, but not for a weekend in Brno. Of course economics could invalidate my psychological analysis of expected behaviours, but we'll see.

I'm talking medium to long term though. I'm not sure that I'm right, but my theory is that when the costs become steeper and flights become a more expensive part of any holiday then people will revert from regular short city breaks to longer trips. It won't be economical to have a cottage in France or spend every other weekend in another European city. If the budget airlines are no longer as budget then people won't use them as often, profits will fall and they will begin to decline. People will pay more for longer holidays or further destinations, but not for a weekend in Brno. Of course economics could invalidate my psychological analysis of expected behaviours, but we'll see.I think you couldn't be more wrong. Budget airlines are kicking arse with full fare airlines on every continent. In America nearly every major legacy carrier has been put into Chapeter 11th bankruptcy protection - partly because of Septmeber 11th and its fallout and partly because of the phenomenal expansion of Southwest and now JetBlue. It doesn't matter where you look. In America, Europe, SE Asia, India, Brazil.... the budget airlines are sweeping all before. At then end of the day if you offer something for much less then you will continue to win passengers. There are no signs that air travel is about to become more expensive but, even if it does, the budget airlines will still have a price advantage over the rest. People have been forecasting doom and gloom for low cost airlines from the outset but they have been proven wrong, month after month, and year after year, by the lard facts of superb profits and load factors (ie percentage bums on seats) that the full fare carriers can only dream about:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=109802

I sense someone with far too much time on their hands....
Of the Stansted destinations you've shown there isn't a single long-haul destination anyway, so why are we even arguing about this? Manchester is clearly the larger and more important airport. I'm very suspicious of this anyway- only a couple of months ago Manchester had opened up a considerable lead over Stansted. I'm going to stop now before I get dragged into such a ridiculous argument.

I sense someone with far too much time on their hands....Yup - business is quiet now.... :)Of the Stansted destinations you've shown there isn't a single long-haul destination anyway, so why are we even arguing about this?But the map doesn't show all routes from Stansted. All it shows are Ryanair destinations from Stansted. And there are long-haul services to New York and Washington DC from Stansted and other non-European cities in Turkey (including Istanbul) and Tel Aviv. EasyJet also has some good destinations from Stansted not offered by Ryanair such as Naples, Prague, Amsterdam, Nice, Geneva, Copenhagen, Munich and Barcelona's main airport (as opposed to Girona). FlyGlobeSpan now offers Athens and Tenerife.Manchester is clearly the larger and more important airport.Clearly Manchester is not larger any more! Manchester is also less important in my view. It isn't a hub for any airline and much of its traffic is bucket-and-spade charter flights. Stansted is the biggest low-cost base in the world - and low-cost airlines are revolutionising the aviation industry worldwide.I'm very suspicious of this anyway- only a couple of months ago Manchester had opened up a considerable lead over Stansted. I'm going to stop now before I get dragged into such a ridiculous argument.What's to be "suspicious" about? The official stats from the CAA? :| And Stansted already overtook Manchester in July last year. It lost the lead again two months later but has been closing that gap for the last two months. The lead may well swing back and forth a couple more times but the long term trend clearly favours Stansted.

Yup - business is quite now.... :)Bt the map doesn't show all routes from Stansted. All it shows are Ryanair destinations from Stansted. And there are long-haul services to New York from Stansted and other non-European cities in Turkey (including Istanbul) and Tel Aviv. EasyJet also has some good destinations from Stansted not offered by Ryanair such as Naples, Prague, Amsterdam, Nice, Geneva, Copenhagen, Munich and Barcelona's main airport (as opposed to Girona).Clearly Manchester is not larger any more! Manchester is also less important in my view. It isn't a hub for any airline and much of its traffic is bucket-and-spade charter flights. Stansted is the biggest low-cost base in the world - and low-cost airlines are revolutionising the aviation industry worldwide.What's to be "suspicious" about? The official stats from the CAA? :| And Stansted already overtook Manchester in July last year. It lost the lead again two months later but has been closing that gap for the last two months. The lead may well swing back and forth a couple more times but the long term trend clearly favours Stansted.
why? what is your problem?

why? what is your problem?Why what? :)

You have the two larger airports already whats the point in having ago at Manchester.
If you wana have a good argument you have just found it because you have been doing this for over a year now, you got banned for a while because of it. Manchester is bigger and better than Stansted anyway and always will be.

Manchester can handle the A380 the worlds biggest airplane. Can Stansted? NO.
Manchester handles 20 plus 747's per week. Does Stansted? NO
Manchester also handles 16 B747's per week. Does Stansted? I think not.
Manchester handles 40,000 more flights than Stansted each year.
Manchester has two runways Stanstad only has one.
Manchester Airport was presented with 'Best UK Airport' Award at the Travel Weekly Globe Awards 2006.
Manchester Airport was named 'Best UK Airport' at the Travel Bulletin Awards 2005.
Holiday Which? named Manchester the best UK airport for 2004.
Travel agents from across Britain voted Manchester 'Best UK Airport' in the prestigious Travel Weekly Globe Awards 2003.
Manchester Airport named 'Best Leisure Airport' in the Travel Trade Gazette British Travel Awards 2002.
Manchester has 95 airlines unlike Stansteds 50.
Manchester serves 190 destinations world wide more than Stansted bascily means we can go to New York and Hong Kong and you can only go to places in Europe.

Stansted even agree that they are the 4th airport.

"Stansted is the fourth busiest airport in the UK. With 50 airlines serving over 170 destinations, and over 21 million passengers passing through the airport, many leading low-cost scheduled airlines have made Stansted their base."
http://www.stanstedairport.com/portal/site/default/menuitem.f9a158caeb4b03d588a5e186c02865a0/

Also I have some bad news for you and Stansted. Manchester Handled more than Stansted, those CAA figures arnt correct. http://www.manairport.co.uk/web.nsf/Content/TrafficStatisticsLiterature

Have a look at that!!! Manchester handled more passengers than Stansted!!! now you must eat yellow snow!!!

You have the two larger airports already whats the point in having ago at Manchester.
If you wana have a good argument you have just found it because you have been doing this for over a year now, you got banned for a while because of it. Manchester is bigger and better than Stansted anyway and always will be.

Manchester can handle the A380 the worlds biggest airplane. Can Stansted? NO.
Manchester handles 20 plus 747's per week. Does Stansted? NO
Manchester also handles 16 B747's per week. Does Stansted? I think not.
Manchester handles 40,000 more flights than Stansted each year.
Manchester has two runways Stanstad only has one.
Manchester Airport was presented with 'Best UK Airport' Award at the Travel Weekly Globe Awards 2006.
Manchester Airport was named 'Best UK Airport' at the Travel Bulletin Awards 2005.
Holiday Which? named Manchester the best UK airport for 2004.
Travel agents from across Britain voted Manchester 'Best UK Airport' in the prestigious Travel Weekly Globe Awards 2003.
Manchester Airport named 'Best Leisure Airport' in the Travel Trade Gazette British Travel Awards 2002.
Manchester has 95 airlines unlike Stansteds 50.
Manchester serves 190 destinations world wide more than Stansted bascily means we can go to New York and Hong Kong and you can only go to places in Europe.

Stansted even agree that they are the 4th airport.

"Stansted is the fourth busiest airport in the UK. With 50 airlines serving over 170 destinations, and over 21 million passengers passing through the airport, many leading low-cost scheduled airlines have made Stansted their base."
http://www.stanstedairport.com/portal/site/default/menuitem.f9a158caeb4b03d588a5e186c02865a0/

Also I have some bad news for you and Stansted. Manchester Handled more than Stansted, those CAA figures arnt correct. http://www.manairport.co.uk/web.nsf/Content/TrafficStatisticsLiterature

Have a look at that!!! Manchester handled more passengers than Stansted!!! now you must eat yellow snow!!!Oh dear.... where do I begin?

Airbus didn't sell a single A380 to a passenger airliner last year. The order book remained stagnant despite a record year for both Boeing and Airbus orders. The demand for A380s is small. And you are wrong about 747s - Stansted does handle 747s on cargo flights. Go and search for photos of them at Airliners.net.

And it doesn't matter that Manchester operates more flights if they are tiny planes. If they are large planes flying half empty then it only goes to show how weak demand is at Manchester compared to Stansted. How else can Stansted handle more passengers with fewer flights? Stansted's planes are either larger or fuller.

And Stansted is not confined to Europe. There are two airlines operating direct flights from Stansted to New York. Services have now extended to Washington DC as well. Stansted serves destinations in America, Asia, and Africa as well as Europe. And there are no non-stop flights from Manchester to Hong Kong. The Cathay service has to stop in Moscow to make it viable. Of course Stansted is primarily a European airport, I do not deny that, but then what's wrong with that? Europe is, collectively, by far our largest trade and business partner, our most popular tourist destination, and source of most inward visitors to Britain. Europe bristles with stunning cities, the gorgeous Mediterranean coast and thousands of islands, the spectacular jagged Alpine peaks, dense forests, Arctic fjords, live volcanoes etc.... all easily accessible from Stansted at the lowest fares. ;)

I have never heard of the any of the awarding bodies for Manchester's accolades. Hardly prestigious are they?

And Manchester doesn't handle more traffic than Stansted. Quite the contrary - Stansted handles more than Manchester. The blurb on Stansted's website is outdated. If you think the CAA's official stats are "wrong" then why don't you call them up and tell them so? ;) :laugh:

And I have never been banned. I was brigged a while ago but that had nothing to do with this debate.

Oh dear.... where do I begin?

Airbus didn't sell a single A380 to a passenger airliner last year. The order book remained stagnant despite a record year for both Boeing and Airbus orders. The demand for A380s is small. And you are wrong about 747s - Stansted does handle 747s on cargo flights. Go and search for photos of them at Airliners.net.

And it doesn't matter that Manchester operates more flights if they are tiny planes. If they are large planes flying half empty then it only goes to show how weak demand is at Manchester compared to Stansted. How else can Stansted handle more passengers with fewer flights? Stansted's planes are either larger or fuller.

And Stansted is not confined to Europe. There are two airlines operating direct flights from Stansted to New York. Services have now extended to Washington DC as well. Stansted serves destinations in America, Asia, and Africa as well as Europe. And there are no non-stop flights from Manchester to Hong Kong. The Cathay service has to stop in Moscow to make it viable. Of course Stansted is primarily a European airport, I do not deny that, but then what's wrong with that? Europe is, collectively, by far our largest trade and business partner, our most popular tourist destination, and source of most inward visitors to Britain. Europe bristles with stunning cities, the gorgeous Mediterranean coast and thousands of islands, the spectacular jagged Alpine peaks, dense forests, Arctic fjords, live volcanoes etc.... all easily accessible from Stansted at the lowest fares. ;)

I have never heard of the any of the awarding bodies for Manchester's accolades. Hardly prestigious are they?

And Manchester doesn't handle more traffic than Stansted. Quite the contrary - Stansted handles more than Manchester. The blurb on Stansted's website is outdated. If you think the CAA's official stats are "wrong" then why don't you call them up and tell them so? ;) :laugh:

And I have never been banned. I was brigged a while ago but that had nothing to do with this debate.
What aload of shite.

^ You're upset Andy. Take a rest.... ;)

^ You're upset Andy. Take a rest.... ;)
Keep going Pinocchio.

You're just a big bully arn't you monkey. ...just, just....get lost you bully

Not just eastern Europe. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Budget%20Airlines/Stansted_Ryanair.jpg

Not just Eastern Europe, just Europe. :lol:

On the other hand, fly from Manchester and see the world.

Destinations, Winter 05/06.:wave:

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/app/Destinations3

Stansted is starting to piss me off. I use easyjet to and from alicante on a regular basis. At peak hours you would expect delays and a little bit of overcrowding when travelling but getting off the plane from alicante yesterday we were delayed at every step of the way. Firstly by stacking for 20 minutes then by the shuttle between the satellites to the terminals only running at 50% capacity despite it being peak arrivals time. Queue's for passport control were back to the shuttle doors. The baggage carousel was 3 persons deep all round and there was way to much luggage on the belts. Then we had another delay as too many people wanted the shuttle bus to the long stay car park. Despite stacking we touched down roughly on schedule but it took and hour and a half to get to the car.
I wouldn't normally be so wound up over such matters but yesterday I was travelling with my 80 year old in laws and it really pissed me off that senior citizens of this age were treated like cattle. Being 3rd or 4th busiest airport isn't what is important. What matters is that the airport that serves your region or city is able to serve it's customers in relative comfort and efficiently, afterall BAA is a private company and we are it's customers. Stansted is supposed to be a modern airport last night it was more like a third world railway station.

Not just Eastern Europe, just Europe. :lol:

On the other hand, fly from Manchester and see the world.Stansted also serves destinations in America, Asia, and Africa. However it is primarily a European airport. Manchester is too - by no means is Manc Chimney a world airport. Compare the intercontinental destinations from Manchester Chimney to London Heathrow and you'll see what I mean. ;)

Manchester is far more of a world airport than Stanstead Chav, so much infact that you now have to compare it to Heathrow. :nuts:

Stansted also serves destinations in America, Asia, and Africa. However it is primarily a European airport. Manchester is too - by no means is Manc Chimney a world airport. Compare the intercontinental destinations from Manchester Chimney to London Heathrow and you'll see what I mean. ;)
That nose just keeps getting bigger!!!

Manchester is far more of a world airport than Stanstead Chav, so much infact that you now have to compare it to Heathrow. :nuts:Manchester Chimney is far more of a bucket-and-spade charter airport to the Costas and Balearics than it is the "intercontinental world airport" that you dream about. What kind of world airport has no scheduled non-stop flights to India, China, Japan, South America, Sub-Saharan Africa etc? Meanwhile Manchester rivals Gatwick as the largest charter flight operator in the UK. 43.4% of Manchester's total traffic was charter traffic in 2004. Manchester's traffic figures are much higher in the summer months precisely because of the summer holiday rush to the Costas.

Manchester Chimney is far more of a bucket-and-spade charter airport to the Costas and Balearics than it is the "intercontinental world airport" that you dream about. What kind of world airport has no scheduled non-stop flights to India, China, Japan, South America, Sub-Saharan Africa etc? Meanwhile Manchester rivals Gatwick as the largest charter flight operator in the UK. 43.4% of Manchester's total traffic was charter traffic in 2004. Manchester's traffic figures are much higher in the summer months precisely because of the summer holiday rush to the Costas.
Your nose is now 6 inches long.

Stansted is starting to piss me off. I use easyjet to and from alicante on a regular basis. At peak hours you would expect delays and a little bit of overcrowding when travelling but getting off the plane from alicante yesterday we were delayed at every step of the way. Firstly by stacking for 20 minutes then by the shuttle between the satellites to the terminals only running at 50% capacity despite it being peak arrivals time. Queue's for passport control were back to the shuttle doors. The baggage carousel was 3 persons deep all round and there was way to much luggage on the belts. Then we had another delay as too many people wanted the shuttle bus to the long stay car park. Despite stacking we touched down roughly on schedule but it took and hour and a half to get to the car.
I wouldn't normally be so wound up over such matters but yesterday I was travelling with my 80 year old in laws and it really pissed me off that senior citizens of this age were treated like cattle. Being 3rd or 4th busiest airport isn't what is important. What matters is that the airport that serves your region or city is able to serve it's customers in relative comfort and efficiently, afterall BAA is a private company and we are it's customers. Stansted is supposed to be a modern airport last night it was more like a third world railway station.


Manchester Airport was last night voted 'Best UK Airport' at the prestigious Travel Weekly Globe Awards 2006.
The airport beat off stiff competition from London Gatwick, Liverpool John
Lennon and Birmingham Airport to win this award.

The Globe Awards are seen as industry standard awards because they are voted for by travel agents, the people who deal with airports and airlines every day of the year.

John Spooner, managing director of the airport, said:

"It means a great deal to us to receive this award from Travel Weekly. They're key players in the travel industry and it's great that they regard Manchester as the best airport in the U.K.

"We invest a huge amount of time and money and our staff give 100% to make sure our passengers receive the very best airport experience."

Apparently Stainsted won the best UK Chav Airport award. :hilarious

^

1) I have never heard of the supposedly "prestigious" Travel Weekly Globe Awards. Have you ever seen "Travel Weekly" on the shelves? It's probably just some trade publication read only by the travel agents themselves (see point 2 below).

2) It's voted by travel agents. The low cost airlines that dominate Stansted never use travel agents. You can only book direct with the airlines. However travel agents do book the charter flights so the award is yet more evidence of Manchester's bucket-and-spade package-deal character. ;)

Stainsted wins best hotel accommodation award.

http://www.sleepinginairports.net/images/airports/stansted.jpg

Ps. it is Stainsted as well.

^

1) I have never heard of the supposedly "prestigious" Travel Weekly Globe Awards. Have you ever seen "Travel Weekly" on the shelves?

2) It's voted by travel agents. The low cost airlines that dominate Stansted never use travel agents. You can only book direct with the airline. However travel agents do book the charter flights - yet more evidence of Manchester's bucket-and-spade package deal character. ;)

You've just confirmed what we always knew. You haven't got a clue what your ON about.

Have a look and learn something Monkey. :)

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Home/Default.aspx

^ It's exactly what I said it was - a trade publication read only by travel agents! :laugh:

Stainsted wins best hotel accommodation award.

http://www.sleepinginairports.net/images/airports/stansted.jpg

Ps. it is Stainsted as well.Thats just given me an excellent idea...the Terminal Club, just like the Mile High Club.

That said, I'd rather stay in London Stansted than at Manchester - its larger, more modern, cleaner, more amenities and just far better.

^ It's exactly what I said it was - a trade publication read only by travel agents! :laugh:

What you mean is the 'travel industry'(1600 guests).

At the end of the day Monkey, Manchester Airport is the best in the country once again. Enf of. :wave:

When Stainsted is mentioned in the same breath, I might start to take it seriously? On second thoughts, hoe could you ever take Stainsted seriously? :)

^ Allow me to quote your article:

"The Globe Awards are seen as industry standard awards because they are voted for by travel agents, the people who deal with airports and airlines every day of the year."

The low cost airlines that dominate Stansted never use travel agents. You can only book direct with the airlines. However travel agents do book the charter flights so the award is yet more evidence of Manchester's bucket-and-spade package-deal character. ;)

Stanstead must be a boring airport if you are a plane spotter,its mainly B737's belonging to the the Ryanair etc.,A day spent at Manchester will guarantee you see nearly every aircraft type in service today.Says alot really about the two. BTW I am not a plane spotter!

Plane Spotters Compare and contrast......

Manchester International Airport (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?&countrysearch=-%20Manchester%20-%20Int.%20%28Ringway%29%20%28MAN%20%2F%20EGCC%29&nr_of_rows=23251&first_this_page=15&page_limit=15&sort_order=photo_id+DESC&nr_pages=1551&engine_version=6.0)

London Chav Airport (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?&countrysearch=-%20London%20-%20Stansted%20%28STN%20%2F%20EGSS%29&nr_of_rows=1454&first_this_page=15&page_limit=15&sort_order=photo_id+DESC&nr_pages=97&engine_version=6.0)

NB - I'm not one of these spotter types!

^^Good link

Liverpool 1 : 0 Manchester

It's the same with budget airlines right? Manchester Chimney's bucket-and-spade charter traffic, which forms huge proportion of the total, is in decline, but the budget airlines prefer to base their expansion in the NW out of Liverpool John Lennon.

I fly to Amsterdam regularly but have stopped using Easyjet at LPL in favour of KLM from MAN its just as cheap and transport connections to the airport are superior. I use the train link

Car convoy leads Stansted protest

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sco/c/cb/Tesco.jpg
BAA wants to boost passenger capacity at Stansted airport

A convoy of family cars, classic and vintage vehicles toured country roads in Essex on Sunday to protest over Stansted Airport expansion plans. The protesters went through villages they say will be swallowed up by 2030 if plans for a second runway go ahead.

The campaigners said they were fighting the expansion on global environmental grounds as well as on local issues.

BAA, which runs the airport, has said its £2.7bn plans were designed to minimise the impact on the environment.

BAA announced a three-month public consultation in December last year.

It is estimated the expansion could more than double passenger numbers at the airport to 50 million each year.

There was a tremendous spirit among the people and this shows their determination to fight all the way to overturn the proposals for expansion

Carol Barbone

Protest organiser Carol Barbone, of the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign, argued "there really is no business case" for expanding the airport.

She labelled Stansted a "low-cost Mecca" for people leaving the country for cheap holidays, adding that the airport does nothing to bring business into Britain.

She was pleased with the turnout of protesters who represented residents of all ages -families, the young and the old.

"About 100 vehicles including classic and vintage cars set out on the protest and many others joined in along the way," she said.

"There was a tremendous spirit among the people and this shows their determination to fight all the way to overturn the proposals for expansion.

'Major asset'

"The protest route was designed to go through four villages that will be decimated by the building of a second runway - Burton End, Broxted, Molehill Green and Bambers Green.

"We also went into outlying villages that will be affected by noise pollution from aircraft, traffic and trains as well as being hit by light pollution and increased urbanisation."

A vintage Rolls Royce driven by a resident led the protest convoy and a solitary police car brought up the rear.

Terry Morgan, head of Stansted Airport, has argued a second runway would be a "major asset" for businesses in London and the east of England.

He said it would meet the demand of millions of leisure and business travellers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/4728886.stm

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/

;)

Wow!

Even Sleepy's getting involved!

Serious stuff indeed. :)

Vacation and city trip travellers are a big business though. I think it's pretty clear that that's the main market for Stansted, and there's nothing bad about it. London is a huge tourist attraction by itself and there's a big market for travelling to the rest of Europe.

Business travellers will go for Heathrow or City airport obviously, but that's not the only kind of traffic that matters.

Wasn't a study conducted into Stansted and that that average traveller was worth had an income of £55,000 or something like that?

Wasn't a study conducted into Stansted and that that average traveller was worth had an income of £55,000 or something like that?
No.

I was partially right:


The average household income for a UK leisure passenger at Heathrow was £55,000. At Gatwick the figure was £49,000, at Luton £50,000 and at Stansted £50,000. At Manchester the figure was £38,000.


UK residents made up only 46 per cent of the passengers at Heathrow, whereas they formed 64 per cent of the passengers at Stansted, 76 per cent at Gatwick, 78 per cent at Luton and 85 per cent at Manchester.


One in three of Manchester’s passengers travelled alone, compared with just over half at the London airports.


http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=14&pagetype=65&applicationid=7&mode=detail&nid=1197

Summary of Manchester International compared to London Stansted:
- Mancunians are poorer
- Stansted is used more by foreign visitors
- Mancunians are larry's

Thats crap. Where are they ment to get the information from. Those figures are unreliable.

I was partially right:


The average household income for a UK leisure passenger at Heathrow was £55,000. At Gatwick the figure was £49,000, at Luton £50,000 and at Stansted £50,000. At Manchester the figure was £38,000.


UK residents made up only 46 per cent of the passengers at Heathrow, whereas they formed 64 per cent of the passengers at Stansted, 76 per cent at Gatwick, 78 per cent at Luton and 85 per cent at Manchester.


One in three of Manchester’s passengers travelled alone, compared with just over half at the London airports.


http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=14&pagetype=65&applicationid=7&mode=detail&nid=1197:laugh:

Thats crap. Where are they ment to get the information from. Those figures are unreliable.Be cool. :)

How are mancunians poorer? It's relative. A cleaner from Brixton can earn as much as a teacher from Rochdale, but who has the better quality of life?

A cleaner from Brixton can earn as much as a teacher from Rochdale,

Can they? Most cleaners in Brixton probably hand over 50% of their minimum wage to a gangmaster who keeps them in a flat with 20 others.

A teacher in Rochdale would start on £20k at least the same as anywhere in the country (except for London where they get £2k more and have to pay £1000 per month extra for equivalent housing).

London is a bit like Latin America in terms of income distribution, a rich elite supported by a virtual slave-underclass performing the menial jobs. :)

http://www.economist.com/images/20060218/CBR961.gif

Londoner 1: You know what sucks about being a Londoner?

Londoner 2: No, what?

Londoner 1: Nothing!

:):yes:

:yes:

Londoner 1 is not a reliable source.

Why the bolllocks are people posting figures of average family income on the forum. I think we all already know that the average southerner earns quite a lot more than the average northener but that's not the point. And anyway as Jonesy points out it appears you lot need that extra just to get by down there. Look at the area in Cheshire surounding the airport and you will see that it has the highest disposable average income in the UK.
And besides is this thread not essentially one about the passenger numbers of each airport with perhaps a side argument concerning the quality of each airport (which Manchester wins by quite a margain). And Monkey, anyone would think that you don't want British regions to be successful. Do you really want the old Britain where the south kept all the affluence and the rest of the country was an embarrasing backward looking wasteland which muses over whippets and clogsand past industrial glories. Lets just be happy that for once in a hundred years or so our regional capitals are flourishing. Or do you not want that? And a successful Manchester airport is primary evidence of just that.

Why the bolllocks are people posting figures of average family income on the forum. The figures show the average incomes of airport users. It is amusing that Stansted's passengers are so much richer given that the Mancs here have belittled them as chavs and talked up Manc airport like it's some global business hub.And besides is this thread not essentially one about the passenger numbers of each airport with perhaps a side argument concerning the quality of each airport (which Manchester wins by quite a margain).No it is about passenger numbers. I also disagree on quality. Stansted Airport has easily the best airport architecture in the UK. It's light, airy, intuitive, and very functional - baggage reclaim, for example, is very fast indeed. Thank Norman Foster. :yes:And Monkey, anyone would think that you don't want British regions to be successful. Do you really want the old Britain where the south kept all the affluence and the rest of the country was an embarrasing backward looking wasteland which muses over whippets and clogsand past industrial glories. Lets just be happy that for once in a hundred years or so our regional capitals are flourishing. Or do you not want that? And a successful Manchester airport is primary evidence of just that.It's bloody obvious that many provincials don't want London to be successful so why should we return the favour? Manc forumers supported Paris against London for the Olympics and spend about half of their forum time whingeing about London-centric media, politicians, business etc despite the sour facts proving that London taxpayers subsidise the regions.

RanjitSingh - They are actually figures for AIRPORT USERS.

Also if quality is anything to go by, Stansted is far superior: its far larger and volumous, more modern and better planned. Stansted's single terminal building alone is larger and more spacious than the ancient Heathrow-like terminals.

I actually like the north, I'd like to see it prosper, but the periphery of London and the other regions are hell bent on using London as a scapegoat for their troubles.

Thats crap. Where are they ment to get the information from. Those figures are unreliable.A case of denying the valid facts? Note also that its the CAA and not say BAA which adds authority and credibility.

Can they? Most cleaners in Brixton probably hand over 50% of their minimum wage to a gangmaster who keeps them in a flat with 20 others.

A teacher in Rochdale would start on £20k at least the same as anywhere in the country (except for London where they get £2k more and have to pay £1000 per month extra for equivalent housing).

London is a bit like Latin America in terms of income distribution, a rich elite supported by a virtual slave-underclass performing the menial jobs. :)

http://www.economist.com/images/20060218/CBR961.gif

So a cleaner in London can't earn 20k? I find that hard to beleive as cleaners in Stoke can earn that.

So a cleaner in London can't earn 20k? I find that hard to beleive as cleaners in Stoke can earn that.

You could earn that but you'd have to put the hours in. Most cleaners nationwide are paid the minimum wage of £5.05 per hour or not much more. To earn £20k you'd have to work 3,960 hours per year or 76 hours per week.

A cleaner working a regular 37 hour week would have to earn over £10 per hour to make £20,000 per year.

You may get some more generous employers but most outsource cleaning work to a few big firms who are notorious for bad pay and conditions. Even the cleaners at the House of Commons are on minimum wage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4246326.stm

In 2004 1 in 7 Londoners was paid less than £5.80 per hour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4400093.stm

Just because average wages are higher in London doesn't mean you'll get more for doing the same job. McDonalds workers, cleaners, bar staff etc are paid crap everywhere. It's just that in London the jobs available are skewed more towards the top end of the market due to the presence of the City, Central Government and Corporate HQs.

That teacher on £20k is also a newly qualified teacher too, after a few years they would be on considerably more while a cleaner would probably still be on £5.05 per hour.

Out of interest, does anyone know how many people fly from Manchester to Heathrow for connecting flights? Surely that could skew the data a bit (the word 'bit' and its ambiguity being important here!)... I mean people aren't going to fly out from Stanstead to Heathrow now are they?

Monkey, are you really so anti north or is it a Manchester thing? Ah I get it now.. you really are anti north and Manchester being the norths most succsesful city is obviously your main target. As for London subsidising everywhere else is bollocks, for example why is almost double spent on public transport per person in London than the regional cities?I haven't got the figures but I will find them later. I really like London it's my capital city after all, but its stuff like this and your attidude is the reason why myself and others are begining to resent it.

Monkey, are you really so anti north or is it a Manchester thing? Ah I get it now.. you really are anti north and Manchester being the norths most succsesful city is obviously your main target. As for London subsidising everywhere else is bollocks, for example why is almost double spent on public transport per person in London than the regional cities?I haven't got the figures but I will find them later. I really like London it's my capital city after all, but its stuff like this and your attidude is the reason why myself and others are begining to resent it.

Whilst it's true public transport in London is subsidised far greater than anywhere else (receiving most of it's money from its own population mind), London does overall handout more than it gets back. In principal as the most successful economic region in the UK that logic is quite right. Though this paper (see link) argues the 'London Deficit' should be readdressed to help improve and spend more on things like public transport within our capital!

http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/docimages/692.pdf

So your argument is flawed (but a common misconception!).... Though I'm not trying to justify, condone or condem any particular attitudeMonkey is apparently accused of showing (I find this thread quite amusing if I'm honest !) .

A case of denying the valid facts? Note also that its the CAA and not say BAA which adds authority and credibility.
They arnt valid facts. Unless they have gone through everyones bank and tax details, which is illegal!! Theres no way they can get those figures.

Take it up with the CAA. The facts stand: people that use Manchester International are larry's, are poorer and less international people use the airport.

Like i sais Nick, WE ALREADY KNOW THEY ARE POORER. Everyone knows the average income is far lower up here. We are not arguing against that and it is NOT THE POINT.

Monkey, are you really so anti north or is it a Manchester thing? Ah I get it now.. you really are anti north and Manchester being the norths most succsesful city is obviously your main target. As for London subsidising everywhere else is bollocks, for example why is almost double spent on public transport per person in London than the regional cities?I haven't got the figures but I will find them later. I really like London it's my capital city after all, but its stuff like this and your attidude is the reason why myself and others are begining to resent it.I am not anti-North. My roots are in the North. My parents are both from County Durham. I love Northern cities like Liverpool and Durham. However I am anti-Manchester because almost the entire city of Manchester, as represented by forumers here, is anti-London (notable exception of Caw). Several Manc forumers supported Paris's Olympic bid against London's merely out of spite. They knew that the IOC has warned that London was Britain's only chance to host to the Olympics but, such was the size of the collective chip on their shoulder, that they preferred to cut off their nose to spite their face. Many Mancs seem to spend the majority of their forum time whingeing about London and the London-centric "conspiracy" of politicians, the media, and even business (eg the resentment felt towards BA as expressed on the other thread). I started these threads because I hated the way the Manc fourmers ganged up on Paul who championed Stansted. They belittled him and Stansted, told him that Stansted would never beat Manchetser, argued with me that low cost airlines were a bubble about to burst. But the thing is Paul and I were dead right and the Mancs (you) were dead wrong. Stansted has overtaken Manchester. Even if Manchester briefly regains the lead over the summer it will still be overtaken permenantly by Stansted in the coming year or so. And budget airlines are certainly not a bubble. In fact the leaders like Ryanair are astonishingly profitable. They have permenantly revolutionised short-haul air travel. The days of glamourous stewardesses sashaying down the aisles dispensing champagne service on flights to cities like Rome and Berlin are long gone. The old style glamour may linger in long-haul first and business classes but short-haul now belongs to the cost cutting accountant and the masses. It's a democratic revolution breaking open what was once available only to the elite. There is no going back.

I am not anti-North. My roots are in the North. My parents are both from County Durham. I love Northern cities like Liverpool and Durham. However I am anti-Manchester because almost the entire city of Manchester, as represented by forumers here, is anti-London (notable exception of Caw). Several Manc forumers supported Paris's Olympic bid against London's merely out of spite. They knew that the IOC has specified that london was Britain's only chance to host to the Olympics but such was the size of the collective chip on their shoulder that they preferred to cut off their nose to spite their face. Many mancs seem to spend the majority of their forum time whingeing about London and the London-centric "conspiracy" of politicians, the media, and even business (eg the resentment felt towards BA as expressed on the other thread). I started these threads because I hated the way the Manc fourmers ganged up on Paul who championed Stansted. They belittled him and Stansted, told him that Stansted would never beat Manchetser, argued with me that low cost airlines were a bubble about to burst. But the thing is Paul and I were dead right and they (you) were dead wrong. Stansted has overtaken Manchester. Even if Manchester briefly regains the lead over the summer it will still be overtaken permenantly by Stansted in the coming year or so. And budget airlines are certainly not a bubble. In fact the leaders like Ryanair are astonishingly profitable. They have permenantly revolutionised short-haul air travel. The days of glamourous stewardesses sashaying down the aisles dispensing champagne service on flights to cities like Rome and Berlin are long gone. The old style glamour may linger in long-haul first and business classes but short-haul now belongs to the cost cutting accountant and the masses. It's a democratic revolution breaking open what was once available only to the elite. There is no going back.

Your motives for trying to belittle Manchester are completely wrong, I for one love London and most of the cities in the UK. Personally I was delighted to see London win the olympics over Paris, I supported the bid all the way. There are some very cynical northerners, it has to be said.

A word Monkey.....it's not just Manchester that thinks London gets all the cream. If you take the trouble to scan the other forums you'll discover that just about all the northern (and midland) cities share the same view.

And before you get pumped up with pompous false pride, it's not because of any sort of jealousy.

......it's mainly because they think London is full of mouthy little pricks like you and nicky taylor.

The way you two boring dullards rant on about some scabby airport stuck somewhere up the M11 in buttfuck suffolkshirewhogivesashit amongst the fucking wurzels ooh arr is laughable for it's entertainment value alone.

Keep us amused.

Carry on.....

I don't resent London (except British London Airways - Cutting countless routes to be less polycentric, even when they are turning huge profits). I just dislike it, mainly because of it's transport infrastructure (that's why I don't resent all the money being spent on it's PT). There are some great things about it, but it is far from a beautiful city and the urban utopia some people see it as.

I am not anti-North. My roots are in the North. My parents are both from County Durham. I love Northern cities like Liverpool and Durham. However I am anti-Manchester because almost the entire city of Manchester, as represented by forumers here, is anti-London (notable exception of Caw). Several Manc forumers supported Paris's Olympic bid against London's merely out of spite. They knew that the IOC has warned that London was Britain's only chance to host to the Olympics but, such was the size of the collective chip on their shoulder, that they preferred to cut off their nose to spite their face. Many Mancs seem to spend the majority of their forum time whingeing about London and the London-centric "conspiracy" of politicians, the media, and even business (eg the resentment felt towards BA as expressed on the other thread). I started these threads because I hated the way the Manc fourmers ganged up on Paul who championed Stansted. They belittled him and Stansted, told him that Stansted would never beat Manchetser, argued with me that low cost airlines were a bubble about to burst. But the thing is Paul and I were dead right and the Mancs (you) were dead wrong. Stansted has overtaken Manchester. Even if Manchester briefly regains the lead over the summer it will still be overtaken permenantly by Stansted in the coming year or so. And budget airlines are certainly not a bubble. In fact the leaders like Ryanair are astonishingly profitable. They have permenantly revolutionised short-haul air travel. The days of glamourous stewardesses sashaying down the aisles dispensing champagne service on flights to cities like Rome and Berlin are long gone. The old style glamour may linger in long-haul first and business classes but short-haul now belongs to the cost cutting accountant and the masses. It's a democratic revolution breaking open what was once available only to the elite. There is no going back.
I am not anti-London and I never moan about London. Why would I moan about London getting the Olympics? I now have the chance to jump of the train and go and watch some world wide sport nearby instead of going flying off to Germany/Canada or somewhere. The only thing some of us Mancs where moaning about was that some dick in London called Darling had fucked something up that we needed but it looks to have been fixed now. The only other thing is this Stansted thing, now we will fight to the death on that because we know we are right and everyone else knows we are right.

I don't resent London (except British London Airways - Cutting countless routes to be less polycentric, even when they are turning huge profits). I just dislike it, mainly because of it's transport infrastructure (that's why I don't resent all the money being spent on it's PT). There are some great things about it, but it is far from a beautiful city and the urban utopia some people see it as.London is a beautiful city - especially the West End and West London.

^^Not compared to smaller european cities such as Barcelona, Stockholm, Stoke-on-Trent etc.

^ Barcelona has the finest streets in the world along with Paris. However London has far more memorable landmarks and more architectural variety too. Stockholm doesn't have a single really impressive building nor is it particularly grand. Stoke on Trent is great if you like chimneys I suppose.

Anyway must dash.... my EasyJet flight is leaving Stansted for Prague this afternoon. :)

I think it's time one of us enlightened our simian doormat as to the exact whereabouts of these so-called 'London' airports.

With the exception of LHR (I refuse to count London City as it can't really handle stuff much bigger than a Sopwith Camel ). All the rest are Not in London.

I can just imagine first time visitors landing at Stinksted or Gatprick only to discover they've got to travel another 30 odd more miles to their destination.

What a nice start to their 'weekend London getaway'...... :|

Maybe they should rename gatwick airport 'Brighton Gatwick International', seeing as it's slightly nearer central Brighton than central London.
;)

Maybe they should rename gatwick airport 'Brighton Gatwick International', seeing as it's slightly nearer central Brighton than central London.
;)
Yer not wrong, Brighton lad.... :cheers:

And....it does have a better ring to it than Crawley International :)

I am not anti-North. My roots are in the North. My parents are both from County Durham. I love Northern cities like Liverpool and Durham. However I am anti-Manchester because almost the entire city of Manchester, as represented by forumers here, is anti-London (notable exception of Caw). Several Manc forumers supported Paris's Olympic bid against London's merely out of spite. They knew that the IOC has warned that London was Britain's only chance to host to the Olympics but, such was the size of the collective chip on their shoulder, that they preferred to cut off their nose to spite their face. Many Mancs seem to spend the majority of their forum time whingeing about London and the London-centric "conspiracy" of politicians, the media, and even business (eg the resentment felt towards BA as expressed on the other thread). I started these threads because I hated the way the Manc fourmers ganged up on Paul who championed Stansted. They belittled him and Stansted, told him that Stansted would never beat Manchetser, argued with me that low cost airlines were a bubble about to burst. But the thing is Paul and I were dead right and the Mancs (you) were dead wrong. Stansted has overtaken Manchester. Even if Manchester briefly regains the lead over the summer it will still be overtaken permenantly by Stansted in the coming year or so. And budget airlines are certainly not a bubble. In fact the leaders like Ryanair are astonishingly profitable. They have permenantly revolutionised short-haul air travel. The days of glamourous stewardesses sashaying down the aisles dispensing champagne service on flights to cities like Rome and Berlin are long gone. The old style glamour may linger in long-haul first and business classes but short-haul now belongs to the cost cutting accountant and the masses. It's a democratic revolution breaking open what was once available only to the elite. There is no going back.
Monkey, firstly I am not a mancunian as you assume and have no connections with this city apart from living on the very edge of GM,actually closer to Liverpool city centre as the crow flies,but what amazes me about these forums is the amount of anti Manchester stuff that goes on. I visit Liverpool often and Leeds occassionaly buts it's only Manchester thats gives me a real sense of exitement each time I visit partly due to the fact it has most developments going on and there's always something new to see, plus a superb world airport WITHIN ITS CITY BOUNDRY that other northern cities can only dream to have. I suppose their airports may catch up but the sun will be swelling into a red giant by then.Secondly can you blame people up here for not wanting the olympics? The anxiety that money will be diverted to fund the infrastructure is not unfounded ...the scrapping of the Leeds and Liverpool tram systems the Manc metrolink expansion plans the Birmingham new street fiasco ..co- incidence?

London Stansted and London Gatwick unlike Manchester have dedicated express train services. So yes, travel times are around double that of between Manchester International and Manchester Piccadilly...but you fail to mention that London is far larger: around 17x larger. Thats a big difference.

Remember also that because Stansted and Gatwick have dedicated airport express services, it means you don't get average commuters using the same trains like you would in Manchester and the trains are made for airport passengers with their luggage (the Gatwick Express has an entire carriage dedicated to luggage).

Fact of the matter is that Stansted, Gatwick, Luton, etc are London airports because they cater to London and London's surroundings, not to Luton, not to Stansted and not to Crawley. There are countless other cities around the world where the main or secondary airport is located outside the city boundaries....it still makes it that city's airport.

I think it's time one of us enlightened our simian doormat as to the exact whereabouts of these so-called 'London' airports.

With the exception of LHR (I refuse to count London City as it can't really handle stuff much bigger than a Sopwith Camel ). All the rest are Not in London.

I can just imagine first time visitors landing at Stinksted or Gatprick only to discover they've got to travel another 30 odd more miles to their destination.

What a nice start to their 'weekend London getaway'...... :|
That doesn't make much sense... London City is clearly a London airport, even though it's small. It's great at what it's supposed to be: a small airport for environment-friendly planes, close to the city centre.

And Gatwick, Luton and Stansted are a bit further away from the city, but are clearly London airports: look at where all the traffic is going to and coming from! There are good rail connections between the airports and the city as well. Many other big cities have airports much further away.

Oh...and thirdly the growth of the budget airline will be of benefit to Manchester airport as well ...jet2, BMI baby, Rynair all operate there and likely to expand.Also I like to use KLM from MAN to Schipol by online booking... there are some very competetive fares.Manchester will continue to be the norths premier airport regardless of the budget sector always has been always will be . Good luck to Stanstead.

I think it's time one of us enlightened our simian doormat as to the exact whereabouts of these so-called 'London' airports.

With the exception of LHR (I refuse to count London City as it can't really handle stuff much bigger than a Sopwith Camel ). All the rest are Not in London.

I can just imagine first time visitors landing at Stinksted or Gatprick only to discover they've got to travel another 30 odd more miles to their destination.

What a nice start to their 'weekend London getaway'...... :|
That doesn't make much sense... London City is clearly a London airport, even though it's small. It's great at what it's supposed to be: a small airport for environment-friendly planes, close to the city centre.

And Gatwick, Luton and Stansted are a bit further away from the city, but are clearly London airports: look at where all the traffic is going to and coming from! There are good rail connections between the airports and the city as well. Many other big cities have airports much further away.

oscar9 - London and the south in a sense subsidise the north. In other word the amount of money we contribute in taxes, the less we get in return. London is the centre of the UK economy and is at the heart of where greatest growth in the future will take place. You moan about Metrolink, but projects like Crossrail which have yet to actually start have been on the board for over 70 years! Also the reason those systems failed is because central government (not London government - you'd have to be retarded to think they are the same) have U-turned on tram projects all across the country (including the south) and because those projects failed to get higher levels of private backing. I'm all for tram projects, etc...but blaming London for your ills is not the way forward, especially when it has amongst the poorest wards in the entire country, far heavier congestion problems, a greater legacy of underinvestment and when it gets less back than it gives because that flows up north.

The more you moan about London instead of increasing the economy of the north, the more you cripple yourselves and alienate yourselves from Londoners and southerners. Its literally a situation where you're all parasites that leech off our earnings/taxes because instead of working, you spend all the time moaning about London and the south.

Anyway must dash.... my EasyJet flight is leaving Stansted for Prague this afternoon. :)

Yeah, but no doubt you'll waste your time in internet cafes reading this tripe eh kidda. ;)
PS the sex tour continues (at the risk of offending our moral judge, jury and exocutioner - Liverpolitan)!

Its literally a situation where you're all parasites that leech off our earnings/taxes because instead of working, you spend all the time moaning about London and the south.

Not doing yourself any favours with that one Nick.

Do you really think that is the case, that the rest of the country is a burden to London? Do you think that London would be better off as a principality/independant state? Where do you think most of the talent comes from to feed the corporate institutions residing in the capital.

I would much rather see a country with three or four similar sized dissimilar major centres such as in Germany, Japan, USA, China. So when I see the skew gaining momentum with further disparity in transport infrastructure, affordable housing stock and the market driven economic migration to london, I see it as an unhealthy trend for the future of the country.

Not doing yourself any favours with that one Nick.

Do you really think that is the case, that the rest of the country is a burden to London? Do you think that London would be better off as a principality/independant state? Where do you think most of the talent comes from to feed the corporate institutions residing in the capital.

I would much rather see a country with three or four similar sized dissimilar major centres such as in Germany, Japan, USA, China. So when I see the skew gaining momentum with further disparity in transport infrastructure, affordable housing stock and the market driven economic migration to london, I see it as an unhealthy trend for the future of the country.

Thanks for saying that, which is response to a point and an opinion that I personally find deeply offensive. (My family started a firm of solicitors in 1912, serving the North West Business Community, and have employed hundreds upon hundreds of people in that time)

It hasn't always been the case that the South East and London have generated the bulk of wealth in Britain, at least not until the 1960s. With de-industrialisation, the country and economy have become unsustainably centralised, IMO

I'm not entirely sure that economic migration southwards is such a huge issue now. The vast majority of the South East's migrants are not from the UK, and now as many British people move out than move in (more or less).

The more you moan about London instead of increasing the economy of the north, the more you cripple yourselves and alienate yourselves from Londoners and southerners. Its literally a situation where you're all parasites that leech off our earnings/taxes because instead of working, you spend all the time moaning about London and the south.


Nick.

What utter sh***!

You know it is.

Arse. :)

Not doing yourself any favours with that one Nick.

Do you really think that is the case, that the rest of the country is a burden to London? Do you think that London would be better off as a principality/independant state? Where do you think most of the talent comes from to feed the corporate institutions residing in the capital.

I would much rather see a country with three or four similar sized dissimilar major centres such as in Germany, Japan, USA, China. So when I see the skew gaining momentum with further disparity in transport infrastructure, affordable housing stock and the market driven economic migration to london, I see it as an unhealthy trend for the future of the country.I don't see the rest of the country as a burden, but I do see a lot of problems including a slacking in economic activity, hence why the north relies upon the south through 'subsidies'. If the north stood on its own two feet and demanded powers (and accepted them rather than rejecting them) to have more say over their lives then it wouldn't be the case of money flowing up north because you would all be essentially supporting yourself.

You do have to ask yourself though that after decades of money being poured into this northern blackhole....what results have we actually got? Higher productivity? Higher economic growth rates? Higher population rates? You have to understand that this is a two way project: we help you - you help us. It can't be just us helping you.

If London was to become say a country along with the surrounding regions that make up its metro it would be good for London, but bad for the north. Essentially we should all be working and competing together to try and outdo our rivals, namely France, Germany, for investment, jobs and future prosperity which we can use on a whole host of projects for our nation.

Talent to the capital comes from across the world - in our globalised society, jobs are advertised all over the place and applicants come quick and fast.

With your 3/4 cities idea it sounds great if it had happened....but we probably wouldn't be a noticable world country that we are and we would probably be struggling with having any world cities. The reason Britain remains all powerful, economically resilient and dominating is because of London as a major centre for the concentration of global wealth (I'm actually doing my dissertation on this subject), yes the US might have Los Angeles - Chicago - New York....but its a country with a population 5x's ours and far more natural resources and land. Germany lacks a focal centre (when people talk of dominance in Europe: its London and Paris).

With a focused city we can combined the power needed to keep Britain 'in the game'. Yes China might have Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing: but they are all disunified and none will come close to what Britain has for at least 50 years, if ever! We should be proud of what we have achieved: a city that is possibly the greatest (and will continue to be so) for many decades. I suppose the best way to look at it is to see London as a bigger brother looking out for all our interests and helping us along which is essentially pretty true. An interesting thing though is that Italy, Japan and Germany will be the countries that see greater problems in regards to demographics than say Britain and France, this could be explained by the fact that cities like London and Paris are larger magnets for immigration from other countries than Berlin, Rome and Tokyo. These migrants could then disperse to other parts of the country, which they are unlikely to do so in say Japan and Italy thus benefitting our country. They also have higher fertility rates which helps us and is probably the reason why over the next few decades there will be two core powers within Europe: the UK and France. Manchester and other cities will prosper from this more so than Munich, Florence, Kyoto, etc....

The south is indeed leading the country in growth and becoming ever more dominant over the country but this isn't necessarily wrong. If the north had been starved of cash, then yes you could complain, but currently you get more than the south does which is struggling with far greater problems with far less money to handle it all.




jrb - Where exactly is that 'shit'? You get more, we get less, yet we produce more and are growing faster - its not some hidden conspiracy. Shutting yourself from a serious problem as this will only see the decline of the north continue and sometimes you all ought to grow up, take the situation by the horns and make a cohesive effort for Manchester rather than one against London and the south. That way, we both win.

I don't resent London (except British London Airways - Cutting countless routes to be less polycentric, even when they are turning huge profits).You resent BA for not operating more services out of Manchester even though they are making purely business decisions. It's absurd to expect a privatised airline to operate services out of Manchester for the sake of charity! Also note that London Stansted overtook Manchester Chimney without operating a single BA service.

I think it's time one of us enlightened our simian doormat as to the exact whereabouts of these so-called 'London' airports.

With the exception of LHR (I refuse to count London City as it can't really handle stuff much bigger than a Sopwith Camel ). All the rest are Not in London.

I can just imagine first time visitors landing at Stinksted or Gatprick only to discover they've got to travel another 30 odd more miles to their destination.

What a nice start to their 'weekend London getaway'...... :|1) The airports call themselves London Gatwick, London Stansted, and London Luton.

2) The entire travel industry lists them as London airports.

3) The CAA lists them as London airports.

4) The general public calls them London airports.

5) They all have express rail links to central London but nowhere else.


Case dismissed.....

Oh...and thirdly the growth of the budget airline will be of benefit to Manchester airport as well ...jet2, BMI baby, Rynair all operate there and likely to expand.Also I like to use KLM from MAN to Schipol by online booking... there are some very competetive fares.Manchester will continue to be the norths premier airport regardless of the budget sector always has been always will be . Good luck to Stanstead.Bmibaby and Jet2 are small. Ryanair clearly prefers Liverpool.

But manchester is going in the right direction. It is attracting inward investment at a greater rate than it has for a long time. What has happened to de-centralising government and civil services? They havn't even decided on locations yet. And the BBC relocation will, in my opinion never happen.

You say that we need to take the bull by the horns, accept power etc. but it is central government who decides to keep manchester in it's separate authorities, whereas london is homogenous with greater powers. Also, I have never been given the chance to vote on a regional assembly, so you can't aim that one at us.

I would much rather see a country with three or four similar sized dissimilar major centres such as in Germany, Japan, USA, China. China and the USA are vast continental sized countries with huge populations (1.3 billion and 300 million respectively). China has a larger population than the entire western world. Germany has a decentralised history. It was only unified in the 19th century. If it wasn't for the Cold War split Berlin would be much more dominant than it is today. Japan is not decentralised at all. 35 million people live in the Tokyo metropolitan region and about 50 million in the wider Kanto plain (out of around 128 million Japanese in total). In percentage terms that is just as dominant as London is of Britain. Osaka is also a huge city but, given that Japan has a population more than double the size of Britain, or larger than Britain and France combined, this is only to be expected. However even Osaka plays second fiddle to Tokyo in every respect.

jrb - Where exactly is that 'shit'? You get more, we get less, yet we produce more and are growing faster - its not some hidden conspiracy. Shutting yourself from a serious problem as this will only see the decline of the north continue and sometimes you all ought to grow up, take the situation by the horns and make a cohesive effort for Manchester rather than one against London and the south. That way, we both win.

I know this is going wildly off topic - but hey!
Surely the economic gravity of London is to the detriment of everyone - including Londoners. The transport system down there can't cope with the number of people from what I've seen - stupidly high house prices mean lower paid workers in the public sector can't afford housing and so on. The sheer 'weight' of London seems to me to reduce the quality of life there, unless you're very rich.
De-centralise and not only does London become less over-crowded, more affordable etc, but the rest of the country benefits as well.
Having a more harmonised economy makes it easier to manage. For example at the moment do you set interest rates to stop the South overheating or help the North grow?

As for the allegaetion of London bias, it's not the fault of Londoners but London based government.Those top Civil servants / cabinet members will act in thier own interests and that means improving London for themselves and no-where else. (Granted that was a sweeping generalisation!).

As for Nick's point saying 'Other cities should get on with it and stop moaning',
Manchester has done very well picking itself up off the floor - just check out the Manchester devlopments thread! Economically - pre Christmas sales were up 7% on last year here compared with a national 2% rise.
However when central government has a hand in anything it seems to go pearshaped. It feels like were doing our bit - but when it comes the time for London based national government to do something it does bugger all!
On the opposite side of the cion it does seem that London projects get big amounts of central money poured in. The tube gets a large amount of national subsidy - the Metrolink gets nowt.

Interesting discussion though.

China and the USA are vast continental sized countries with huge populations (1.3 billion and 300 million respectively). China has a larger population than the entire western world. Germany has a decentralised history. It was only unified in the 19th century. If it wasn't for the Cold War split Berlin would be much more dominant than it is today. Japan is not decentralised at all. 35 million people live in the Tokyo metropolitan region and about 50 million in the wider Kanto plain (out of around 128 million Japanese in total). In percentage terms that is just as dominant as London is of Britain. Osaka is also a huge city but, given that Japan has a population more than double the size of Britain, or larger than Britain and France combined, this is only to be expected. However even Osaka plays second fiddle to Tokyo in every respect.

OK then Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia. For fuck's sake.

You say that we need to take the bull by the horns, accept power etc. but it is central government who decides to keep manchester in it's separate authorities, whereas london is homogenous with greater powers. Also, I have never been given the chance to vote on a regional assembly, so you can't aim that one at us.No, if Mancunians and others grouped together they would have a chance, its because you all spend your time insulting everyone else that we don't give a toss anymore because you've used the south as a scapegoat for far to long and because you can't be arsed to do any work: a repetitive cycle it could be said.

London is not homogenous with central government....if it was Crossrail would have been funded 70 years ago! London would also have the amount it contributes in taxes spent on London, not less spent. You couldn't be more further from the truth.




Latic: Welcome to a world city - a city that influences the world rather than be influenced by it. You get the same in Paris, New York, Tokyo, etc...

De-centralisation will never happen in our lifetimes because it doesn't make sense for Britain, nor is there any chance that it will succeed.

Far from it, cabinet ministers and the like are from all over the country and have their own heads and constituents to cover. Prescott afterall is northern mega city crazy, Blair is Iraq, Brown: the economy, Darling: nobody.... Crossrail has been on the planning board for decades, if it was London-centric, these projects would have been built long ago. Work has yet to be started also! You moan about Metrolink....but London didn't get adequate funding for donkeys years meaning we are running with some of the most dilapidated infrastructure on the planet. The only reason some projects have come through is because they fund themselves, eg DLR (only profitabe railway in Britain), are paid by others, eg BAA for Heathrow Express and Piccadilly Line Terminal 5 Extensions, come from Londoners themselves or from larger corporate sponsorship. London hardly gets anything from central government, if anything it complicates matters for London, ie PPP of the tube.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of funding for the tube comes from tickets and Londoners.




OK then Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia. For fuck's sake.Countries with bi/tri-polar orientations, but none having a comanding presence. If you want to look at a better comparison look to France - practically same population, but a central hub with spokes radiating out to the periphery. I suspect that you don't want decentralisation because it would be good for Britain, but because it would mean giving Manchester greater status without it having to work to achieve its new status because functions would be offloaded on to Manchester. I suspect that would be folly, damage Manchester, London, the other cities and the wider British economy and society as Britain was not designed in the way that the other countries you list have been over the course of centuries.

double post

No, I want decentralisation. Similar to how Edinburgh and Cardiff benefit where Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds et al do not. That does not affect the economic power of london. You know it's difficult to attract inward investment when the city is so politically isolated.

You keep banging on about crossrail as though the Jubilee line, DLR, Croydon trams, M25 wideneing etc did not happen in the time since manchester got it's metrolink.

Nick, try and get that pickle out of your arse. Decentralization is not about taking goodies away from your beloved Landan.

The practical reasons for decentralization are based on mainly logical and logistical purposes. More simply, to prevent the 'centre' from being buried under it's own effluence and choked to death with it's own polution.

England and the English are one large family living in a small house, so why the fuck should we all be occupying what amounts to the box bedroom instead of spreading throughout the house like civilized people?

For fucks sake try and get the big picture and get one thing straight, the rest of the country isn't work-shy and sponging on the SE. Throughout the industrial age, Landan prospered on the backs of the working people of the manufacturing and mining areas of the north and midlands. you could say that the Southerners were parasites and Landan was synonimous with a large festering sore on the arse of England.

It's time for you to recognize that you are our bitches and it's time to repay us for making you rich..... ;)

No, I want decentralisation. Similar to how Edinburgh and Cardiff benefit where Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds et al do not. That does not affect the economic power of london. You know it's difficult to attract inward investment when the city is so politically isolated.

You keep banging on about crossrail as though the Jubilee line, DLR, Croydon trams, M25 wideneing etc did not happen in the time since manchester got it's metrolink.Edinburgh and Cardiff represent their 'countries'... Manchester does not. Manchester also does not control the north as that could be argued is split between Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester! If anything you want a concentration of power in Manchester above all cities, not decentralisation.

Well actually decentralisation would affect London. There are global reasons as to why it is where it is, take away a few pillars that have been built up over centuries and you get instability.

Excuse me but the DLR has paid pretty much for itself. It cost only a few million to start off with, but now gives dividends back to the tax payer and money is available for future projects. The Metrolink doesn't do this. The Jubilee Line Extension was indeed a problem, but those that took the brunt of the cost were Londoners, not Mancunians. The Croydon Tramlink project has been built....just like Manchester's Metrolink has been built! You talk about the M25 widening....but doesn't Manchester have the largest motorway network in Britain!

Yet you forget one rather big difference: London is FAR larger than Manchester is. You don't expect one city with several times the population to get the same amount of funding or projects over the same time period, thats crazy!




Sir Miles Platting: We are not all living in one box room - its a room that has many double beds with several en-suites.

If you actually did work on the North-South Divide like I have at university you would know that London and the south did not get aid from the north. Infact the reason the north developed is because of the localities and the reason the south developed was because of its localities. History would back me up on this point as the only people that tended to move around back then were 'tramps' who had no locality or preference. Back then there were hardly any flows of capital between the north and south as such capital was concentrated in the urban areas.

If anything the emergence of a global economy, growth of business, financial services and the knowledge economy are the reasons for London's immense rise, not the north. Get your facts straight before actually coming to me moaning about something that you probably have never seriously done studies on. If you want to look at detailed historical records, look no further than the 'Vision of Britain' website that was built by my North-South Divide lecturer.

Nick, I think you are mistaking me for someone who actually gives a shit.

I have many good friends from the Landan area but I honestly haven't heard so much bullshit coming from a person so far up their own arse for a long long time. The scary part is that I think you really believe the crap that you write.

You are fucking priceless Nick........let the hilarity ensue.... :lol:

You talk about the M25 widening....but doesn't Manchester have the largest motorway network in Britain!

Yes well you try driving on the M60, M62, M56 etc at any time other than 2am and you would see why. They are gridlocked because Manchester relies so heavily on its road system (which is very good). There is very little alternative for a city of it's size. Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam etc are all similar sized cities, yet because of the way they receive funding, all have extensive metro systems. None of them turn a profit.

Manchester does need it's Metrolink extension to bring life back into the neglected parts of the city in east manchester and when you pro rata the £400m(?) needed to service 1.5m people against the £7bn (?) needed to give further options to 5m people then it appears to be good value.

I don't want more powers for all the bigger cities of the UK. Just the kind of Local powers that the GLA enjoys in london. Nothing more. As it stands, there can be no grand civic projects in cities like Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool without grants because the populations of the authority's tax base is just too small.

Yes well you try driving on the M60, M62, M56 etc at any time other than 2am and you would see why. They are gridlocked because Manchester relies so heavily on its road system (which is very good). There is very little alternative for a city of it's size. Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam etc are all similar sized cities, yet because of the way they receive funding, all have extensive metro systems. None of them turn a profit.

Manchester does need it's Metrolink extension to bring life back into the neglected parts of the city in east manchester and when you pro rata the £400m(?) needed to service 1.5m people against the £7bn (?) needed to give further options to 5m people then it appears to be good value.

I don't want more powers for all the bigger cities of the UK. Just the kind of Local powers that the GLA enjoys in london. Nothing more. As it stands, there can be no grand civic projects in cities like Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool without grants because the populations of the authority's tax base is just too small.

Metrolink, Metrolink, Metrolink. It's always about the Metrolink. What Metrolink has to do with London's infrastructure spending I dont know. Ken Livingstone is even quoted stating at the GLA "The government should build the Metrolink". Wow, the GLA spent a few moments of it's time supporting an irrelevant cause. The sheer outrage. I demand the end to this northern bias.

Why do I get the impression the endless London based scapegoating will end once everywhere (particularly manchester it seems) gets some sort of extensive metro system (which doesn't automatically make the place more desirable to live in terms of dynamics and vibe).

I think we forget - people move to London for a reason (to achieve something using the available world class talents and resources) and don't stay for their entire lives. What is wrong with one grand city in this country being the hubbub for everything where people can dive in to and out of? The opportunities are there for all, if your frustrated by the lacking of them in Manchester etc. then move. It's not like Londoners don't move to Manchester for a quieter, less expensive life after they grow tired. I don't hear them complaining about how unfair a supposed southern bias is.

As for regional governments : Am I correct in thinking people would happily sacrifice the London subsidy in favour of higher local taxes?

The North East rejected autonomy because of higher taxes. No cash, no gain. Simple.

Nick, I think you are mistaking me for someone who actually gives a shit.

I have many good friends from the Landan area but I honestly haven't heard so much bullshit coming from a person so far up their own arse for a long long time. The scary part is that I think you really believe the crap that you write.

You are fucking priceless Nick........let the hilarity ensue.... :lol:How can you criticise me when I've clearly done work on this subject that doesn't prove your theory right! Fact is: the south gets less back than it contributes and during the industrial revolution and there after growth of Manchester or London was due to a surge in their respective economies from surrounding areas and globalisation.




Yes well you try driving on the M60, M62, M56 etc at any time other than 2am and you would see why. They are gridlocked because Manchester relies so heavily on its road system (which is very good). There is very little alternative for a city of it's size. Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam etc are all similar sized cities, yet because of the way they receive funding, all have extensive metro systems. None of them turn a profit.

Manchester does need it's Metrolink extension to bring life back into the neglected parts of the city in east manchester and when you pro rata the £400m(?) needed to service 1.5m people against the £7bn (?) needed to give further options to 5m people then it appears to be good value.

I don't want more powers for all the bigger cities of the UK. Just the kind of Local powers that the GLA enjoys in london. Nothing more. As it stands, there can be no grand civic projects in cities like Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool without grants because the populations of the authority's tax base is just too small.I take it that you've never been on the M25 then - its the busiest and most congested motorway in Europe! Sometimes it referred to by people within the DfT as the largest car park in the world!

I think you downplay public transport within Manchester, it has a large rail network - much more than other cities on the continent, eg Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam, etc...and this is even though Manchester's density is far lower than these other cities. Essentially density is why metros are built and if you can't get the density, you can't support metros.

Actually I've been a very strong advocate for public transport projects all around Britain and I was disappointed with the DfT's decision to muck around. That said, London has been mucked around as well and the only work that has begun on Crossrail was when an access tunnel to one of the future platforms was built under Moorhouse by private developers not using public money! London is expected to grow by 800,000 in the space of 10 years, but it is TfL which is having to fund the vast majority of works itself by debt.

Crossrail is a project that would affect some 12-18mn people because of its impact across the entire commuter rail and London Underground network. Crossrail's impact on the UK economy would be far more beneficial than Metrolink simply because its so revolutionary. I want other transport projects: but don't shoot down London when it has a far harder time.

The reason London got its powers is because it pushed for them. Manchester, Birmingham, etc have to do the same - London won't do that on behalf of them because it isn't our job to control your destiny.

Of course I have used the M25.

The reason London got its powers is because it pushed for them. Manchester, Birmingham, etc have to do the same - London won't do that on behalf of them because it isn't our job to control your destiny.

err... yes it is. If you hadn't noticed, the central govenment meets in a nice building on the thames.

All this talk of "subsidy" is utterly meaningless unless Nick or whoever can evidence whether the government spends more on the effects of a weak or underperforming economy such as social security per head as compared to measures to improve and grow the economy outside of London. And provide comparative figures for London. This is a complaint about infrastructure after all and a commonly heard complaint surrounding the governments utterly abysmal track record in procuring, funding and delivering the vital public infrastructure needed to support sustained growth in the big cities outside of London.

I think it has been cited a number of times that London has a significantly greater spending per head on its infrastructure than anywhere else. The government has citied a number of areas in the wider Greater London area as so-called 'growth areas' and is increasingly providing the huge sums of public money needed for the essential infrastructure neede to make these areas viable.

There is no reason why the government shouldn't see all our big cities as growth areas given their economic resurgence in recent years and devote the necessary resources to exploit this potential. As has been acknowledged however London is hugely advantaged by virtue of its unified, representative, better empowered and powerful local governmental set up.

The core cities however are pushing for reform and it seems that finally the powers that be in Westminster may be listening... although we will have to wait to find out whether this shambolic government with its (at best) unjoined or at worst contrary policies have the political will to grant the big cities the financial and administrative freedoms necessary to thrive. The cities themselves also need to demonstrate willingness to overcome local differences in order to appear to be a credible and worthwhile incumbent of any new powers granted to them - and to sell it to their local populuses.

City region spending powers urged

Ben Walker, Regeneration & Renewal - 24 February 2006
Decision-making on skills, housing, transport and regeneration spending in Greater Birmingham and Greater Manchester should be handed to elected city-regional mayors with tax-raising powers, a think-tank urged this week.


An Institute for Public Policy Research's Centre for Cities report this week called for a switch in spending powers from England's regional development agencies (RDAs) to elected mayors.

Its recommendation for a London-style city-regional mayor for major conurbations, starting in Birmingham and Manchester, comes amid a rising appetite for reform within the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister and other departments (see Economic Development News, p13).

As well as switching RDA funding, the report also argues for money that comes from regeneration agency English Partnerships and work training agency the Learning and Skills Council to be devolved to a city-regional mayor. "Greater Manchester has three million people. It doesn't need the RDA in its face," said Centre for Cities director Dermot Finch.

The mayors would be in charge of vast areas: from Wigan to Macclesfield in Greater Manchester, and from Wolverhampton to Coventry in Greater Birmingham, the report says. Under the plan, the mayors would be imposed in exchange for the spending freedoms, it says: there would be no referendum on mayoral governance.

"There is no appetite for referenda in Whitehall," said Finch. "City council leaders will say: 'We want the powers, but we don't want the mayors'. We say: 'Whitehall won't give you the powers unless you agree to an elected mayor'."

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors regeneration panel chair Nigel Smith welcomed the findings. "This model has worked well for London," he said. "I would be in favour of something along those lines. If we want to act strategically on regeneration, we need to think strategically - look at what happened before the Greater London Authority when the boroughs tried to set up a (cross-boundary) UDC that is now called London Thames Gateway. They spent ages wittering; they took forever."

An ODPM spokesman said: "The Government is convinced that strong leadership for our cities is essential if they are to achieve their potential economically and socially. We recognise that directly elected mayors are one option for delivering this. We are working closely with Birmingham and Manchester and other core cities and their associated councils, in looking at possible city-region options."

The Mancs expect huge government subsidy to overturn a market that favours London/SE.

What a vacuous respose.

I presume you are ignorant of the government subsidy that will be pumped into Thames Gateway and other 'growth areas' in order to make them viable?

^ Of course it's a vacuous response. I'm a vacuous guy. ;)

I've been thinking about the mono vs polycentric country issue. There are only 2 or 3 significant economically powerfully and populous (+20m) monocentric countries in the world (2 out of the top 10 economies). There are many many economically weak +20m monocentric countries (Mexico, Thailand, Nigeria, Argentina, Kenya, Bhurma, Cuba etc.). Significant? Probably not.

But it does seem to leave us more vunerable to events that effect the economy as a whole, such as terror attacks, regional blackouts, blockades, natural disasters etc. It's the eggs in one basket syndrome.

^ You are right that it's not significant. Britain, France, and Japan are all monocentric and successful. Most polycentric countries are either geographically huge or recently united with no world class cities. Thailand and Mexico are not economically weak. Thailand is consistently one of the most vigorous SE Asian tiger economies (and second largest after Indonesia which has a much larger population) and Mexico is one of the largest economies in the world.

I wouldn't call japan monocentric. The Kobe/Osaka area is hugely important to japan's economy.

Thailand is second largest because it has the second largest population. Per head it is well behind Malaysia and Singapore, and only 3rd/4th because of the hooering trade.

I wouldn't call japan monocentric. The Kobe/Osaka area is hugely important to japan's economy.

Thailand is second largest because it has the second largest population. Per head it is well behind Malaysia and Singapore, and only 3rd/4th because of the hooering trade.Vietnam and the Philippines both have larger populations than Thailand. Singapore is rich because it's a city state with a port on the most strategic straits in the world.

....and Malaysia and Singapore are monocentric too. ;)

err... yes it is. If you hadn't noticed, the central govenment meets in a nice building on the thames.And? The UN Headquarters is in New York...doesn't benefit New York much in getting infrastructure. Infact its far worse over there than in the UK.

Central government is not London government. Central government doesn't look out for London, because London looks out for itself. There are so many projects that are proposed in London, just like Manchester which are waiting for the secure funding.




All this talk of "subsidy" is utterly meaningless unless Nick or whoever can evidence whether the government spends more on the effects of a weak or underperforming economy such as social security per head as compared to measures to improve and grow the economy outside of London. And provide comparative figures for London. This is a complaint about infrastructure after all and a commonly heard complaint surrounding the governments utterly abysmal track record in procuring, funding and delivering the vital public infrastructure needed to support sustained growth in the big cities outside of London.

I think it has been cited a number of times that London has a significantly greater spending per head on its infrastructure than anywhere else. The government has citied a number of areas in the wider Greater London area as so-called 'growth areas' and is increasingly providing the huge sums of public money needed for the essential infrastructure neede to make these areas viable.

There is no reason why the government shouldn't see all our big cities as growth areas given their economic resurgence in recent years and devote the necessary resources to exploit this potential. As has been acknowledged however London is hugely advantaged by virtue of its unified, representative, better empowered and powerful local governmental set up.

The core cities however are pushing for reform and it seems that finally the powers that be in Westminster may be listening... although we will have to wait to find out whether this shambolic government with its (at best) unjoined or at worst contrary policies have the political will to grant the big cities the financial and administrative freedoms necessary to thrive. The cities themselves also need to demonstrate willingness to overcome local differences in order to appear to be a credible and worthwhile incumbent of any new powers granted to them - and to sell it to their local populuses.
In a study by the London School of Economics titled London's Place in the UK Economy, 2003 it was discovered that London contributed around £17.45bn more than it recieved. The East, South East and South West fare far worse than London. Between 2001-02, the total contribution by London to the Treasury was 16.5-17.4%, yet it only receieved 14% of public expenditure

Money has for the last few years been 'moving' north without any significant signs of increased efficiency in the north suggesting that sooner or later something will have to be done about this situation.

I get the assumption here that many people think London gets the infrastructure that it gets...but it doesn't. Its taking close to 100 years to get Crossrail going!

Its been said that London has higher infrastructure expenditure per head, but this to my knowledge has not been backed up. Also note should be taken as to the origin of where the money originates from for infrastructue. I suspect you'll find that its probably as much to the rest of the country if you take into account that the infrastructure is paid for by Londoners by taxes and tickets.

Personally work has to be both ways. Yes London has a responsibility to help the regions, but it shouldn't be raped over it. Also the regions and other cities have to work and contribute to helping themselves.

The longer northerners use London as a scapegoat, the longer they continue the decline of the north.




I wouldn't call japan monocentric. The Kobe/Osaka area is hugely important to japan's economy.Japan is monocentric from a global perspective. Domestically Osaka is highly important (as it is to the world)....but Japan is a country with a population double ours. The best comparison is Britain and France: roughly same economy and population.

All this 'moaning' that you think northerners do is not because our cities are stagnating. Quite the opposite as Manchester is really booming, much more so relatively speaking when compared to london (just look at the amount of office space under construction and planned in the Centre of manchester). I think northerners have had it so bad for so long that when we actually start to flourish (sp?), we see that the things that are priority now, are no longer buildings, public squares, shopping, and entertainment, but transport infrastructure.

When we come to london and experience the very good integrated public transport system and compare it to the overcrowded little coverage Metrolink, we feel short changed. This feeling gets even worse with the perceived underspending when relatively compared to the massive london projects like channel tunnel rail link, crossrail, jubilee line extension, Croydon trams, DLR. Not to mention white elephants projects like the Millenium dome.

All this 'moaning' that you think northerners do is not because our cities are stagnating. Quite the opposite as Manchester is really booming, much more so relatively speaking when compared to london (just look at the amount of office space under construction and planned in the Centre of manchester). I think northerners have had it so bad for so long that when we actually start to flourish (sp?), we see that the things that are priority now, are no longer buildings, public squares, shopping, and entertainment, but transport infrastructure.

When we come to london and experience the very good integrated public transport system and compare it to the overcrowded little coverage Metrolink, we feel short changed. This feeling gets even worse with the perceived underspending when relatively compared to the massive london projects like channel tunnel rail link, crossrail, jubilee line extension, Croydon trams, DLR. Not to mention white elephants projects like the Millenium dome.

Tripe. Why not go have a visit to some of London's most deprived wards if you want to see who has had it "so bad" for so long. How about the white working class of London who have been endlessly shitted on since the Victorian ages - be some good old slum clearance to build infrastructure or no choice but to be rehoused in the Elephant and Castle. London's white working class have had it so bad for so long and never get a mention in edgeways and make up a considerable part of its 7+ million population. The North has more public sector worker jobs than anywhere else ensuring Labour stronghold under a supposed 'everyone is richer under us'. In the North East public sector workers count for some insanely high statistics.


Where do you want the CTRL? Manchester? I mean they could put it there I suppose - but the praticality of connecting the UK to Mainland Europe - and Europe to the UKs best connected city.

The Jubilee Line was long over due and built with corruption. It still isn't finished so be prepared to moan some more when money is spent on replacing the signalling to ATO.

Croydon Trams basically replaced an existing railway and was funded BY THE BOROUGH COUNCILS OF SOUTH LONDON not central government.

The DLR, dear lord. Would you rather the docklands went unserved and the place went down the pan completely? Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, Newcastle have all had similar lightrail projects. The ongoing expansion of these hasn't been cancelled indefinately.

The Millenium Dome. It was a waste of money - however it's not like other projects didn't happen across the country. Seems sense to me the government tried to at least bring attention to the city that lines along the meridian that's been so important to ships, trade and our developing in to our modern age.

Nick Taylor - another silly londoner with another vacuous non-response.

You have failed to engage with a single point that I have made. Read my post and try again please.

Firstly I'm not a Londoner, so don't assume something that you don't know about. If you can't even note my location under my avatar, what hope is there in you understanding such a vast issue as the north-south divide!

Secondly I don't think you've read my post as it answers the question whether London subsidies the north as highlighted by yourself and other forumers. It does so to the tune of £17.45 (London School of Economics) and that the south-east, south-west and east are the lowest recipients of public spending per head in the UK. If anyone should be moaning, its the Midlands who are in as just a bad situation as London and the surrounding regions are in.

Thirdly you have failed to point to this so called fact that shows London has significantly more amounts per head spent on infrastructure. I'd also like to see these figures in light of contribution by Londoners and users of the infrastructure.

Fourthly don't use a word like vacuous when that is exactly what your reply is, you only contradict yourself.

Who in the world actually cares about stanstead getting marginally more passengers than Manchester.

It personnally frightens me to death flying into London because every time I look through the window I see planes buzzing over me and under me.

London really should have one huge airport out in the sticks somewhere with an extremely fast train connecting it with my new Euston station at Stonebridge.

Japan is monocentric from a global perspective. Domestically Osaka is highly important (as it is to the world)....but Japan is a country with a population double ours. The best comparison is Britain and France: roughly same economy and population.

I don't understand all this, by monocentric are you saying nearly all economic activity is concentrated at one pole.

Are you saying Tokyo buys more goods and servis=ces than the rest of Japan put Together.

Are you saying the 30 odd million in Kanto generate more economic activity than the other 70 odd million in the rest of Japan.

I'm confused as to what monocentric actually means.

Tripe. Why not go have a visit to some of London's most deprived wards if you want to see who has had it "so bad" for so long. How about the white working class of London who have been endlessly shitted on since the Victorian ages - be some good old slum clearance to build infrastructure or no choice but to be rehoused in the Elephant and Castle. London's white working class have had it so bad for so long and never get a mention in edgeways and make up a considerable part of its 7+ million population. The North has more public sector worker jobs than anywhere else ensuring Labour stronghold under a supposed 'everyone is richer under us'. In the North East public sector workers count for some insanely high statistics.


Where do you want the CTRL? Manchester? I mean they could put it there I suppose - but the praticality of connecting the UK to Mainland Europe - and Europe to the UKs best connected city.

The Jubilee Line was long over due and built with corruption. It still isn't finished so be prepared to moan some more when money is spent on replacing the signalling to ATO.

Croydon Trams basically replaced an existing railway and was funded BY THE BOROUGH COUNCILS OF SOUTH LONDON not central government.

The DLR, dear lord. Would you rather the docklands went unserved and the place went down the pan completely? Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, Newcastle have all had similar lightrail projects. The ongoing expansion of these hasn't been cancelled indefinately.

The Millenium Dome. It was a waste of money - however it's not like other projects didn't happen across the country. Seems sense to me the government tried to at least bring attention to the city that lines along the meridian that's been so important to ships, trade and our developing in to our modern age.

I was actually offering an explaination of why Nick percieves northerners as sponging whingers. It was an olive branch.

What are you trying to justify here? I wasn't attacking those projects, except for the Millenium dome. And it sounds like you hae a chip on your shoulder about your white sarflandan working class bollocks that I don't give a monkey's fuck about.

Secondly I don't think you've read my post as it answers the question whether London subsidies the north as highlighted by yourself and other forumers. It does so to the tune of £17.45 (London School of Economics) and that the south-east, south-west and east are the lowest recipients of public spending per head in the UK. If anyone should be moaning, its the Midlands who are in as just a bad situation as London and the surrounding regions are in.

That is NOT the point I put to you Nick. This is an argument about public infrastructure spending priorities don't forget - a vital component in bringing about sustainable economic growth.


Your point about "subsidy" is meaningless unless you can substantiate it with further information relating to whether this "subsidy" is spent on the effects of a weak or underperforming economy such as social security and so on or on measures to grow the economy such as spending on infrastructure.

You would also need to provide comparative spending ratios for London and the wider South East as compared to regions outside of that. Then we can discuss whether London's substantially higher spending per head is justified in respect of UK-wide priorities.

You see, its an enourmously complicated subject and you are making extremely simplistic point, juvenile almost, in relentlessly referring to the net flow in taxation monies in isolation of the wider picture.

I was actually offering an explaination of why Nick percieves northerners as sponging whingers. It was an olive branch.

What are you trying to justify here? I wasn't attacking those projects, except for the Millenium dome. And it sounds like you hae a chip on your shoulder about your white sarflandan working class bollocks that I don't give a monkey's fuck about.

You said...

I think northerners have had it so bad for so long that when we actually start to flourish (sp?), we see that the things that are priority now, are no longer buildings, public squares, shopping, and entertainment, but transport infrastructure.

I was suggesting you should consider Southerners who have had it so bad for so long and never ever get recognised (oh except in that oh so witty term "chav") for their needs. It makes your argument redundant given that they have access to this infrastructure you so yearn for. The fact you don't give a "monkey's fuck" about other people who happen to live in London shows how grossly self-involved your views are. London infrastructure has never been built to serve anyone's needs except shareholder profit and the affluent classes. Sorry - i tell a lie, buses and there devised routes are designed about the disadvantaged. But everywhere has buses.

People in the North are far too sensitive if you ask me - but it's not their fault. It's regional scapegoating towards London stemming from complacent local authorities pumping out propaganda (lets call it the Manchester Evening News) and the complexity of living in a country with a mega city that subsidises the rest of the country.

Also, as already said, if people in the provinces are envious of London's infrastructure then they could just move here and take full advantage of whatever void they feel missing. Likewise, Londoners move out for whatever XY and Z reason but don't seem to complain about lack of transport infrastructure.

OK. Fair enough. But you can't say that the Public transport infrastructure in the deprived south london suburbs is anywhere near as bad as the provisions for the regions of Birmingham and Manchester.

An interesting comparision (Nick could easilty do this) would be to compare the length of lightrail/underground systems per capita for the CITY REGIONS of London (~8m), Birmingham (~1.5m) and Manchester (~1.4m). A similar thing could be done for Heavy rail and road network.

how much is Crossrail costing again? how much is metrolink asking for again, for the WHOLE network? anyone?

I don't understand all this, by monocentric are you saying nearly all economic activity is concentrated at one pole.

Are you saying Tokyo buys more goods and servis=ces than the rest of Japan put Together.

Are you saying the 30 odd million in Kanto generate more economic activity than the other 70 odd million in the rest of Japan.

I'm confused as to what monocentric actually means.In this context "monocentric" describes a country with one dominant centre. Britain is monocentric because London is a dominant centre. It doesn't matter that the rest if the country combined produces and consumes more. Japan is similarly monocentric as the Tokyo region is as dominant of Japan as London/SE is of Britain and the regions population is proportionately of similar size relative to the country's total. And a small correction of your figures: the Kanto region has a population of ~40 million and Japan ~128 million.

So a market a 40 million is more important than a market of 88 million.

All that 40 million must have twice the spending power of the other 88 million.

So a market a 40 million is more important than a market of 88 million.

All that 40 million must have twice the spending power of the other 88 million.No. You appear not to have understood a damn thing! Allow me to repeat myself - though I will struggle to make myself plainer: In this context "monocentric" describes a country with one dominant centre. Britain is monocentric because London is a dominant centre. It doesn't matter that the rest if the country combined produces and consumes more. Japan is similarly monocentric as the Tokyo region is as dominant of Japan as London/SE is of Britain and the regions population is proportionately of similar size relative to the country's total. And a small correction of your figures: the Kanto region has a population of ~40 million and Japan ~128 million.

All you've said is that Japan is monocentric, you haven't said why.

What is a dominant centre, in what way do Tokyo/London dominate the rest of their countries.

I'm interested, I may learn something, I may disagree but I need it explaining to me.

^ The monocentric country has one city far larger than all the others that accounts for a sizable share of the country's total population. This city dominates the cultural and economic life of the country. It sets the trends and has no remotely equal rivals elsewhere in the country. This is clearly the case with London in Britain and with Tokyo in Japan. No other city in either country comes close to matching the dominant centre.

But London is 8 times the size of the next biggest city, (or 4 times if you look at metros). Is Kanto even twice as large as Kobe/Osaka?

^ The monocentric country has one city far larger than all the others that accounts for a sizable share of the country's total population. This city dominates the cultural and economic life of the country. It sets the trends and has no remotely equal rivals elsewhere in the country. This is clearly the case with London in Britain and with Tokyo in Japan. No other city in either country comes close to matching the dominant centre.

Is that it, London dominates the cultural life of Britain (I can't speak for Tokyo) Is that why every Saturday thousands of Londoners head north to watch their favourite football teams in Manchester and Liverpool and are universally derided for it by their peers. Is that why one of Britain's favourite television programmes is set in an imaginary northern town. Is that why Britain's most famous art's festival takes place in the capital of Scotland. Is that why Britain's biggest tourist attraction is on a windy piece of Lancashire coast. I don't think Britain is as monocentric as you think, yes London is the centre of government, centre of the media, centre of theatre and bigger than any other city in Britain but it is not a setter of trends, they come from all over the country,it is not the home of Britain's favourite sporting institutions (as Tokyo clearly is with the Yomiuri Giants). It is not a centre of learning on a par with Oxford or Cambridge unless of course these are honorary suburbs of London. It is not even a dominant transport hub as most British regions can fly direct to many parts of Europe and then connect with other hub cities such as Amsterdam, Paris and Madrid.

You do the British people a disservice by suggesting we are looking to London for all our needs. Even though I live here and find it the the most interesting and vibrant city in the country that does not mean that it dominates the rest of the country.

A better example would be somewhere like Montevideo or Buenos Aires.

Who in the world actually cares about stanstead getting marginally more passengers than Manchester.

It personnally frightens me to death flying into London because every time I look through the window I see planes buzzing over me and under me.

London really should have one huge airport out in the sticks somewhere with an extremely fast train connecting it with my new Euston station at Stonebridge.That would be even more insane at current technological levels. Without more efficient air traffic control and a massive airport with many A380's. Such an airport now would handle 135mppa. By 2030 that single airport could be expected to handle something like 3-400mppa! With more airports the aviation load is more evenly distributed thus decreasing the chance of an accident. Also if there was an accident, this single airport and thus the entire London air hub would not be shut down.


I don't understand all this, by monocentric are you saying nearly all economic activity is concentrated at one pole.

Are you saying Tokyo buys more goods and servis=ces than the rest of Japan put Together.

Are you saying the 30 odd million in Kanto generate more economic activity than the other 70 odd million in the rest of Japan.

I'm confused as to what monocentric actually means.No, read my post. Note I mentioned Tokyo only on the global scale, just like London, Paris, etc... would be mentioned for their countries: these are command centres of the global economy be it in creativity, aviation, a transnational elite, finance, business, culture, foreign born communities, etc... Domestically, Osaka is without a doubt important and is also important on the global stage, but not to the extent that Tokyo is with its larger foreign connections. I'm doing my dissertation on this :)

Is that it, London dominates the cultural life of Britain (I can't speak for Tokyo) Is that why every Saturday thousands of Londoners head north to watch their favourite football teams in Manchester and Liverpool and are universally derided for it by their peers. Is that why one of Britain's favourite television programmes is set in an imaginary northern town. Is that why Britain's most famous art's festival takes place in the capital of Scotland. Is that why Britain's biggest tourist attraction is on a windy piece of Lancashire coast. I don't think Britain is as monocentric as you think, yes London is the centre of government, centre of the media, centre of theatre and bigger than any other city in Britain but it is not a setter of trends, they come from all over the country,it is not the home of Britain's favourite sporting institutions (as Tokyo clearly is with the Yomiuri Giants). It is not a centre of learning on a par with Oxford or Cambridge unless of course these are honorary suburbs of London. It is not even a dominant transport hub as most British regions can fly direct to many parts of Europe and then connect with other hub cities such as Amsterdam, Paris and Madrid.

You do the British people a disservice by suggesting we are looking to London for all our needs. Even though I live here and find it the the most interesting and vibrant city in the country that does not mean that it dominates the rest of the country.

A better example would be somewhere like Montevideo or Buenos Aires.I never said that the rest of the country looks to London to service their needs. Peasant farmers in the Nile Valley in southern Egypt don't look to Cairo to service their needs despite Egypt being one of the most monocentric countries in the world. It's the same for inhabitants of Krabi in southern Thailand. They don't look to Bangkok to "service their needs". There is government I suppose that really does service their needs in some respect but aside from that the dominance is simply an obviously leading position in many areas of national life. You mention football but London teams like Chelsea and Arsenal have dominated the Premiership in recent years. The spiritual home of English football, and arguably even world football, has always been Wembley in north London. You mention soaps but the most popular programme on British TV is Eastenders set in London. You mention transportation, and specifically aviation, but London airports handle more traffic than the rest of the country combined. I agree that Oxford and Cambridge are the most prestigious universities but there is no requirement that London dominate absolutely everything to prove that Britian is monocentric. All it has to do is be much larger and more important than any of the others and form a sizable chunk of the national total. And of course even with universities it's open to dispute. London University alone is far larger than Oxford and Cambridge combined. I think London has the largest student population of any city in Europe (the world?).

I never said that the rest of the country looks to London to service their needs. Peasant farmers in the Nile Valley in southern Egypt don't look to Cairo to service their needs despite Egypt being one of the most monocentric countries in the world. It's the same for inhabitants of Krabi in southern Thailand. They don't look to Bangkok to "service their needs". There is government I suppose that really does service their needs in some respect but aside from that the dominance is simply an obviously leading position in many areas of national life. You mention football but London teams like Chelsea and Arsenal have dominated the Premiership in recent years. The spiritual home of English football, and arguably even world football, has always been Wembley in north London. You mention soaps but the most popular programme on British TV is Eastenders set in London. You mention transportation, and specifically aviation, but London airports handle more traffic than the rest of the country combined. I agree that Oxford and Cambridge are the most prestigious universities but there is no requirement that London dominate absolutely everything to prove that Britian is monocentric. All it has to do is be much larger and more important than any of the others and form a sizable chunk of the national total. And of course even with universities it's open to dispute. London University alone is far larger than Oxford and Cambridge combined. I think London has the largest student population of any city in Europe (the world?).

So London doesn't now dominate the economic and cultural life of the Country

No, read my post. Note I mentioned Tokyo only on the global scale, just like London, Paris, etc... would be mentioned for their countries: these are command centres of the global economy be it in creativity, aviation, a transnational elite, finance, business, culture, foreign born communities, etc... Domestically, Osaka is without a doubt important and is also important on the global stage, but not to the extent that Tokyo is with its larger foreign connections. I'm doing my dissertation on this :)

That I can agree with.

I was actually offering an explaination of why Nick percieves northerners as sponging whingers. It was an olive branch.

What are you trying to justify here? I wasn't attacking those projects, except for the Millenium dome. And it sounds like you hae a chip on your shoulder about your white sarflandan working class bollocks that I don't give a monkey's fuck about.Well the north does get subsidies and you all whine about the south. The fact that you continue illustrates my point.




That is NOT the point I put to you Nick. This is an argument about public infrastructure spending priorities don't forget - a vital component in bringing about sustainable economic growth.


Your point about "subsidy" is meaningless unless you can substantiate it with further information relating to whether this "subsidy" is spent on the effects of a weak or underperforming economy such as social security and so on or on measures to grow the economy such as spending on infrastructure.

You would also need to provide comparative spending ratios for London and the wider South East as compared to regions outside of that. Then we can discuss whether London's substantially higher spending per head is justified in respect of UK-wide priorities.

You see, its an enourmously complicated subject and you are making extremely simplistic point, juvenile almost, in relentlessly referring to the net flow in taxation monies in isolation of the wider picture.Actually this was an argument about London Stansted Airport surpassing Manchester International Airport once again. It then went down a tangent of the north being subsidised by the south. I mearly produced a figure that has been calculated that appeases to a few forumers here as to highlighting this general subsidy. So the figure was directed not only at yourself but to a few other forumers here. That said, this subsidy could well indeed be used more on propping up a failing, inefficient northern economy that is bleeding and this would highlight as to why projects like Metrolink fail to get going (but then again this doesn't highlight the same issues in the south) as the money for the north is diverted elsewhere.

That said this is not the south's fault as we are producing funds to get you going, but are failing to do. I could use your argument that because of inefficiency in the northern economy, money is wasted to support it and thus diverting funds from projects like Metrolink.

Now for the third time of asking, where is this source that shows higher infrastructure spending in London than in the regions. Also don't forget to take into account users of this infrastructure and the funders of this infrastructure (ie for London most of this would be within the south and London). Less of this 'vacuous' response!

how much is Crossrail costing again? how much is metrolink asking for again, for the WHOLE network? anyone?

Crossrail is costing around £10bn - best to triple that, and you'll have the final real cost if it's ever built </cynic>. As I understand it will be funded partly by TfL/ppp and the corporation of london. No one else knows where the rest of the money will come from (which ultimately means government will be pressured to pay up).

Metrolink was edging towards £1bn (way over expected costs). The government shouldnt have withdrawn the funding but then again it can't just write blank cheques.

I wouldn't try to compare an overground light rail project in an area of 2.5million with a heavy rail underground project in an area of 18million. There's no logic in doing that particularly when the funding situation for each project is so different. If you do want to go down that route then consider which plan has been on the table for longest ;)

So London doesn't now dominate the economic and cultural life of the CountryYes it does. It doesn't have do dominate in every single field but it certainly dominates in enough areas for Britain to be described as a monocentric country. All this means is that the leading centre is much bigger than all the others - that the leading centre has no serious internal rivals. As I said before, "the dominance is simply an obviously leading position in many areas of national life". Surely anyone can see that this is the case with London and Britain and with many other countries in Europe and around the world. Indeed I think most countries are like this. The exceptions, the polycentric countries, are either geographically vast or recently unified from a collection of smaller countries.

I cannot take your argument seriously, you equate Britain with Egypt.

Clearly nonesense.

^ No I don't "equate" Bratain with Egypt at all. I merely offer them both as examples of monocentric countries - ie countries with a large leading city that stands head-and-shoulders above the other cities in the country and that dominate many areas of national life. That is obviously true of both London and Cairo.

If I ran for Mayor of Manchester do you think I would get a lot of votes? :)

No you would get alot of deadly mail.

So monkeys knavish little plan to have all the top 5 airports classed as London airports in never going to work because Manchester will always be in that list like a fly in his chardonnay :). It would have to be renamed London ringway....hey, the way things are going ;).

^ I don't want to get any airports classed as London airports that are not already classed as London airports by the travelling public, the entire travel industry, the CAA, and of course the airports themselves. And I'm happy for Manchester so sit in 4th place for now as a sop to the provinces. ;)

If I ran for Mayor of Manchester do you think I would get a lot of votes? :)I just came up with a great plan to finally put all this Metrolink/Crossrail funding resentment behind us. Why not have Manchester taxpayers pay for Crossrail and London taxpayers pay for Metrolink? How's that for fair?? This way each city gives the other a gift and everyone is happy. :)

Or how about Manchester taxpayerspay for metrolink and London taxpayers pay for Crossrail. That's why we want decentralisation to bring some local taxraising powers.

Or how about Manchester taxpayerspay for metrolink and London taxpayers pay for Crossrail. That's why we want decentralisation to bring some local taxraising powers.If that were the case we would have had Crossrail long ago. It's all you greedy provincials taking our hard earned cash. :(

Why doesn't the private sector build both.

^^ The private sector is involved in both, with Crossrail having a larger contribution from the private sector than the Metrolink future phases did.

I mean completely, not just contribute.

The private sector can build airports and perhaps roads as well but these days rail is too expensive. It needs to be financed and and co-ordinated by government.

Why the taxpayer, why not a shareholder ?

^ If they could be financed by the shareholder there would be droves of companies offering to build them and begging the government merely to give them permission (as with the aviation industry for example....). The fact that there aren't answers your question.

so neither project is viable ?

so neither project is viable ?Well they're not "commercial" no. Rail projects require government funding these days.

They manage it in Japan, Seibu/Tokyu/Meitetsu/Tobu/Hankyu/Odakyu/Nishitetsu/Kintetsu/Hanshin etc. all manage to build, rebuild and improve.

http://www.meitetsu.jp/english/travel_info/ (http://)

In Japan they privatised systems that had already been built at huge expense to the taxpayer. The private companies have built some lines and stations but they've done that here too. For example BAA upgraded the line that the Heathrow express runs on. Howeveer it's very rare. If you leave it to the private sector almost no new lines will be built and many existing ones will close.

You are thinking of JNR which was split and privatised into JR East, JR West, JR Tokaido, JR Hokaido etc.

These are completely private systems but they do go into partnership with government in so called "third sector" partnerships. New Tokyu trains are built to the same spec. as Tokyo Metro trains and run over the Metro when reaching Tokyo from their own lines.

^ Well you tell me why there aren't private consortiums offering to build Crossrail and Metrolink and dozens of similar schemes? Do you propose complete privatisation of Britain's railways knowing that much (most?) of our rail network would close as a result?

^ Well you tell me why there aren't private consortiums offering to build Crossrail and Metrolink and dozens of similar schemes? Do you propose complete privatisation of Britain's railways knowing that much (most?) of our rail network would close as a result?

Yes, if it can't pay it's own way then it should go, It happens in most other industries I don't see why railways are any different.

It's an inefficient use of public money which could be used on other things.

I disagree. America followed that path and most of their their overly car-oriented cities are unattractive. The free market cannot achieve everything that is valuable. Governments can often play a positive role in improving the lives of the individuals it governs. Education and healthcare are further examples. It it were left to the private sector alone then only the rich would receive an education or healthcare. I think that would be a failure.

I'm not talking about health or education, I'm talking about railways. More freight runs on American private railways than on our own railways. The long distance passenger train died in the USA because of the distances involved. Why take a 12 hour train journey when you can take a one hour plane journey.

The market would be a far better way of deciding transport choices. Remember the biggest state funded project ever was the US Interstate programme. The subsidy the private car owner recieves makes paying a fare price for rail transport unattractive.

If it cost 200 pounds to drive from London to Leeds on a private toll road then a 150 pound railfare suddenly would look cheap.

End all subsidies and pay the market price which reflects fuel and environmental costs.

As for Health I remain undecided but agree with your criticisms of the USA but also remain uncomfortable that our system relies on an army of very cheap and mainly imported labour.

Yes freight rail is still big in the US and distances favour air travel for passengers but what about commuter traffic in the cities? We are talking about Crossrail and Metrolink after all! With the exception of New York City, passenger rail in the rest of the US combined carries fewer passengers than London Underground alone! And private cars are not subsidised at all. The government collects far more in petrol and road taxes than it ever spends on road building and maintenance. And the market price never includes environmental costs. If we follow your path we will end up like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, or Los Angeles - with huge congested freeways and no public transport.

And what's wrong with Filipina nurses? They're much cuter and sweeter than white bitch English nurses! ;)

I'm talking about making rail more commercially viable. I believe road transport to be heavily subsidised, the Manchester area looks like Los Angeles there are that many motorways and dual carriageways. Make them private. Make all new motorways private. It may be then more viable to build public transport systems instead of roads everywhere.

I've just finished working in a hospital the past 14 months, there where no Filipina nurses. Plenty of African nurses though.

But roads are not subsidised at all. The government collects far more in petrol and road taxes than it ever spends on road building and maintenance. If you leave it to the market you get more roads and virtually no trains.

At your hospital you were unfortunate. I believe Filipinas heavily outnumber those from any other foreign country. ;)

The roads don't build themselves, and not all roads are built or maintained by central government. The council tax payer also pays for upkeep of some roads. I would privatise every single piece of road in Britain. Whether the government makes a profit from fuel duties and road tax is of no interest to me, it is still the taxpayer paying for the roads.

BAA now claim Stansted as the UK's third busiest. Check Stansted's "facts and figures" on their website (http://www.stanstedairport.com/portal/site/default/menuitem.13817ede3c5c4d9588a5e186c02865a0/). :)

I think non-stop flights to China from Stansted are unlikely in the immediate term but Oasis Airlines, a long-haul LCC start-up airline in Hong Kong, will launch later this year with direct services to London Gatwick. They were originally looking at Stansted so anything's possible.... :)


Stansted Airport to build stronger links with China

27 February 2006

Stansted Airport’s ambition to secure more long-haul destinations is receiving a boost as Managing Director Terry Morgan heads to China to hold top level talks with Chinese airlines, tour operators and business leaders.

The clear and upbeat message to be delivered is that Stansted is central to the future of aviation in the UK and recognised as the gateway to the East of England’s £90bn economy.

The week long visit, which will support the efforts of Visit Britain in raising the profile of the UK, will involve meetings with leading airlines, including Air China and Grand China, along with discussions with the Guangdong Airport Management Group and the British Embassy in Beijing.

The trip follows a fact finding visit to Stansted and the East of England last year by senior representatives from the Guangzhou Province, who learnt about the exciting business opportunities offered in the region. The airport, Invest East and the East of England Development Agency are actively developing tourism and business links with China to establish a clear and mutually beneficial relationship.

Speaking ahead of his trip Terry Morgan said:

“China has the largest potential market for both business and leisure travel with double digit growth in their economy and 150-million people who can afford to travel.

“Last year the Chinese Government relaxed travel restrictions on its citizens which allows Chinese tourists to go through an easier process when applying for leisure visas to Britain. This will inevitably lead to a large increase in the number flights from China to the UK in the future.

"My visit is an important first step in building relationships that could lead to direct services operating between major cities in China and London Stansted.”

tis true.......

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/Web.nsf/alldocs/B85BF53173CCCC1A8025712A0046C7B8/$File/Traffic+Stats+Feb+06.pdf


still with the growth of scheduled international and domestic Ringway should be handling between 23-24.5million this year.

Tesco Eastern Europe should be beaten by Chimney by June as per usual!

Tesco Eastern Europe should be beaten by Chimney by June as per usual!"By June as per usual"? The only time Manc ever overtook Stansted was last September! Or are you hoping for an early start to the bucket-and-spade season this year? ;)


Meanwhile I note the latest CAA figures show Stansted with 7% growth to Manchester's 1% since the same month last year. Stansted's lead has extending by a considerable margin: :)

London Stansted = 22,191,912
Manchester Chimney = 22,096,026

So London has the 3 largest airports in the UK. Your point being....

So London has the 3 largest airports in the UK. Your point being....Does it need any other point than that? These Stansted vs Manchester threads have been going on for the last two years now. The point is simply competitive.

Is true all good fun..........

Stansted zoomed up from nowhere over the last decade, but baring the odd month of jostling/ Manchester's currently (not for much longer if you look at the growth of the scheduled side) large charter segment... the battle is very close....just a race to see if Gatwick could be caught by who 1st???

Still , would rather leave from a purpose built chimney then a meccano designed supermarket..... kinda Marks& Spencer versus Aldi at the moment!

Lets be honest. It doesn't matter what the airport looks like as long as there is a decent boozer not too far away from the gate and you dont have to walk too far or wait too long. Manchester is very good at this because of it's three small terminals. BHX is usually a bit of a wait at security and LHR is just wank. LGW is fugly but ok and I havn't used london tesco (why would I?)

Stansted zoomed up from nowhere over the last decade, but baring the odd month of jostling/ Manchester's currently (not for much longer if you look at the growth of the scheduled side) large charter segment... the battle is very close....just a race to see if Gatwick could be caught by who 1st???Right now neither of them are catching Gatwick. Gatwick added more new passengers in 2005 than either of the other two. Gatwick has better budget airline presence than Manchester and a stronger long-haul scheduled presence than either of the other two. Like Manchester it has a substantial and declining charter sector but, such is the pressure for runway slots at London/SE airports, that every relinquished charter slot is immediately snapped up by a EasyJet or a long-haul service. In Manchester the long-haul services are struggling for viability (ie Malaysia's departure and the postponement of Cathay's Hong Kong via Moscow service) and the NW's budget traffic is expanding out of Liverpool instead.

North East?
Manchester's long haul services are always expanding. Biman to Dhakar, Ethihad to Abu Dhabi, AA to Miami, ?? to Cape town and a strong rumour of an indian carrier trying to get in at MAN.

Seems to be a stange idea that Manchester is shrinking, scheduled traffic is booming, domestic traffic (feeding long-haul) is booming. Only the charter market is shrinking.

As the charter market continues to shrink to a bottomed out level, the strong growth in the other sectors will really start to show in the overall growth level.

LJL has grown by c1m passengers each of the last 1-2 years whcih is great for the choice offered in the region.

Overall NW air traffic is growing at 2-3m per year, a fantastic growth rate far outstriping Brum,Glasgow, Edinburgh put together....bar the megapolis of London. The growth of the two airports (30 miles apart?) is stunning.

North East?Ooops! Corrected. :)
Manchester's long haul services are always expanding. Biman to Dhakar, Ethihad to Abu Dhabi, AA to Miami, ?? to Cape town and a strong rumour of an indian carrier trying to get in at MAN.Don't get Dakar (Senegal) and Dhaka (Bangladesh) confused. ;)

I know there are some services to the US and the Middle East from Manchester but they are mostly airlines feeding you into their hubs. Mancs are unlikely to be heading fro Abu Dhabi itself. Etihad is copying Emirates. Emirates aims to be the world's largest long-haul airline in the world. To achieve this with such a small domestic population it will need to feed in traffic from places like Manchester and transfer passengers via their hub to their final destinations further east. Miami is an American Airlines hub for the Caribbean as well as being a popular bucket-and-spade destination itself.

Seems to be a stange idea that Manchester is shrinking, scheduled traffic is booming, domestic traffic (feeding long-haul) is booming. Only the charter market is shrinking.

As the charter market continues to shrink to a bottomed out level, the strong growth in the other sectors will really start to show in the overall growth level.Yes but right now Manchester's charter traffic is shrinking at almost the same speed as the scheduled is growing. European scheduled traffic is growing much faster out of Liverpool than Manchester because the LCCs are taking over the European scheduled market and the biggest LCC players are based at Liverpool.

I know there are some services to the US and the Middle East from Manchester but they are mostly airlines feeding you into their hubs. Mancs are unlikely to be heading fro Abu Dhabi itself. Etihad is copying Emirates. Emirates aims to be the world's largest long-haul airline in the world. To achieve this with such a small domestic population it will need to feed in traffic from places like Manchester and transfer passengers via their hub to their final destinations further east. Miami is an American Airlines hub for the Caribbean as well as being a popular bucket-and-spade destination itself.

Whaterver you make of the reasons for these routes existing is besides the point. New long haul routes are starting from manchester at a greater rate than those finishing. The Cathay route via HK is only postponed because of difficulties at the moscow side of things, not because of demand.

^ Yeah but the reasons are relevant. It limits the long haul traffic to places that serve as hubs for places beyond (ie Miami for the Caribbean or the Gulf hubs for Asia and Australasia). There won't be direct flights to, say, Tokyo, because Tokyo cannot serve as a useful hub to anywhere beyond. TheFly says he can see the decline in charter traffic bottoming out but I can see the potential for new long haul routes topping out. And if European scheduled traffic is being taken over by low cost airlines operating from Liverpool then where are the major drivers for future growth at Manchester? There's always the general rise in demand for air travel but no particular advantages for Manchester.

Except Manchester has the all the lo-co airlines (bar 2, ok the biggest!) it needs.

The growth is there.

Why would we be bothered if long-haul bottoms out....bottoms out with Manchester in the Top 50 airports worldwide and top 10 in Europe ahead of many capitals.

Manchester is a roaring success and has been for 40 years, 3times bigger than Brums or Glasgow (before you whine about Brum being closeer to London), similar size cities.

Manchester is growing, don't just pick Jan & Feb 06 growth and claim that is the trend.

Regardless of which if you look at the breakdown of the figures Manchester scheduled traffic is roaring away...lo-cos and long-haul.

Lay off!

Crikey, support your own airport but have decent, factual points otherwise you look like a hairy arsed version of your avatar. :)

Ooops! Corrected. :)Don't get Dakar (Senegal) and Dhaka (Bangladesh) confused. ;)

I know there are some services to the US and the Middle East from Manchester but they are mostly airlines feeding you into their hubs. Mancs are unlikely to be heading fro Abu Dhabi itself. Etihad is copying Emirates. Emirates aims to be the world's largest long-haul airline in the world. To achieve this with such a small domestic population it will need to feed in traffic from places like Manchester and transfer passengers via their hub to their final destinations further east. Miami is an American Airlines hub for the Caribbean as well as being a popular bucket-and-spade destination itself.

some services!!!

140 weekly flights to the north America!!

Terrible that.

Embarrassing really.

^ Yeah but the reasons are relevant. It limits the long haul traffic to places that serve as hubs for places beyond (ie Miami for the Caribbean or the Gulf hubs for Asia and Australasia). There won't be direct flights to, say, Tokyo, because Tokyo cannot serve as a useful hub to anywhere beyond. TheFly says he can see the decline in charter traffic bottoming out but I can see the potential for new long haul routes topping out. And if European scheduled traffic is being taken over by low cost airlines operating from Liverpool then where are the major drivers for future growth at Manchester? There's always the general rise in demand for air travel but no particular advantages for Manchester.


erm, but Manchester grew by 5% in 2005.

No particular advantages?

Erm 2.6million people
trendy place to be
bars, clubs,theatres, museums
WORLDS most attended concert arena
Lake District
Peak District
Snowdonia
Chester
Manchester!
Manchester United

not forgetting

CHIMNEYS!!!

Oh and before I forget, we have water, in reservoirs up here..so you can drink and water your garden.

Why would anyone want to visit or live up here ey?

London and the South East are just the best!

erm, but Manchester grew by 5% in 2005.

No particular advantages?

Erm 2.6million people
trendy place to be
bars, clubs,theatres, museums
WORLDS most attended concert arena
Lake District
Peak District
Snowdonia
Chester
Manchester!
Manchester United

not forgetting

CHIMNEYS!!!

Oh and before I forget, we have water, in reservoirs up here..so you can drink and water your garden.

Why would anyone want to visit or live up here ey?

London and the South East are just the best!

I'm just going out to water the garden with a hose pipe. Not because I need to, but because I can :okay:

Fly - you're forgetting a few things:

Fastest growing city ecomomy in the UK.
Best destination for business travellers in the UK (According to the Ecomomist).
Third most popular tourist destination in the UK - and growing.
Various world class sports events which we hold on a regular basis.

There's plenty of room for growth.

Come on guys don't get carried away with the boosterism. Liverpool is absorbing most of the low cost growth in the NW. Liverpool's traffic has grown by 34.2% in the last 12 months compared to just 4.6% growth at Manchester. Manchester is growing slower than the national average of UK airports and has recently dropped down into 4th place behind Stansted in the airport rankings.

I am also sceptical that Manchester is the fastest growing city economy in the UK. I reckon London and Leeds are both growing faster.

erm, but Manchester grew by 5% in 2005.

No particular advantages?

Erm 2.6million people
trendy place to be
bars, clubs,theatres, museums
WORLDS most attended concert arena
Lake District
Peak District
Snowdonia
Chester
Manchester!
Manchester United

not forgetting

CHIMNEYS!!!

Oh and before I forget, we have water, in reservoirs up here..so you can drink and water your garden.

Why would anyone want to visit or live up here ey?

London and the South East are just the best!

Monkey! Where's ya water?!

R-e-s-e-r-v-o-i-r :drool:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/86.jpg

Where's yer water gone, wheres yer water gone!

I had a meeting at Scott Tallon Walker Architects last week at their offices in Cromwell place in the FRENCH quater. I'm all for multicultural cities but there HAS to be limits. I counted 423 onions at 5674 berets. Horrible horrible

I'd agree with you if it was French men that you were talking about. ;)

I am also sceptical that Manchester is the fastest growing city economy in the UK. I reckon London and Leeds are both growing faster.
You arnt a really boy, so you wouldnt know that, would you Pinocchio!

Manchester's got two airports, Ringway and John Lennon. So has Liverpool, Ringway and John Lennon.

Which means the North West has 4 airports.

Not bad that.

Fastest growing city ecomomy in the UK.

The City of London alone produced economic growth TWICE that of the national average in the last year. Can you verify that Manchster is the fastest growing economy in the UK and also take in to account whilst you do this that it is a London-subsidised economy at that?

trendy place to be
Yes a vibrant city with the highest suicide rates amongst young trendies of anywhere in the uK.

bars, clubs,theatres, museums
How unique.

WORLDS most attended concert arena
I would suggest a few more are built.

Oh and before I forget, we have water, in reservoirs up here..so you can drink and water your garden.

Surely the demand of water goes hand in hand with the demand placed by the number of those wanting to live in or perhaps FLY TO a particular region?

The City of London alone produced economic growth TWICE that of the national average in the last year. Can you verify that Manchster is the fastest growing economy in the UK and also take in to account whilst you do this that it is a London-subsidised economy at that?



AHEM (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pub/183/TheStateofEnglishCitiesPDF200Kb_id1127183.pdf) . To summarise - Manchester in growing faster than London - and that's from the Office of the Deputy PM.

As for the venues -

We also have:
The Apollo
The Academy
The Academy 2
Old Trafford (LCCC)
City of Manchester Stadium
Opera House
Lowry Centre (2 halls)
Bridgewater Hall.


And that doesn't count the dozens of small venues dotted around the city.

Let's not forget all those lush green open spaces - as opposed to Londons soon to be scorched open spaces ;)

So nah!

Back to planes then......

Come on guys don't get carried away with the boosterism. Liverpool is absorbing most of the low cost growth in the NW. Liverpool's traffic has grown by 34.2% in the last 12 months compared to just 4.6% growth at Manchester. Manchester is growing slower than the national average of UK airports and has recently dropped down into 4th place behind Stansted in the airport rankings.
well liverpool is essentially the north wests version of stanstead, its totally dependant on low cost airlines, it will never get the same international airlines that manchester has, part of the reason manchesters growth may have slowed is that better commuter links via train have been developed. these fast links to the capital etc are far more environmentaly friendly and cost effective, and will boost manchesters economy alot more than a couple of cross country flights, afterall theres 32 trains a day to the capital on the virgin link, and more added with other companies,

this is a quote from a news article on icliverpool news section

'In contrast, the study said, Liverpool was falling behind in business start-ups, which were the best guide to the level of "entrepreneurship" and productivity growth.
A table showed there are just 26 new VAT registrations per 10,000 adults, way below the likes of Leeds (37), Bristol (39) and Manchester (43), let alone London (60)'

what this shows is that whilst manchester may not be growing economically at the same rate as london it is certainly growing faster than other british citiesnews article here (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16851697%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=liverpool%2dmust%2dbe%2da%2d%2dcity%2dof%2dknowledge%2d-name_page.html)

well liverpool is essentially the north wests version of stanstead, its totally dependant on low cost airlines, it will never get the same international airlines that manchester has, part of the reason manchesters growth may have slowed is that better commuter links via train have been developed. these fast links to the capital etc are far more environmentaly friendly and cost effective, and will boost manchesters economy alot more than a couple of cross country flights, afterall theres 32 trains a day to the capital on the virgin link, and more added with other companies,

Thats a good point. 1hr 40mins stoke to Euston nowadays. Thats not bad at all. I bet that has had a big impact on the amount of MAN to LON flights when connections are not involved.

well liverpool is essentially the north wests version of stanstead, its totally dependant on low cost airlines, it will never get the same international airlines that manchester hasYou are aware that Stansted has a higher total and percentage of international traffic than Manchester right?

So? Dublin counts as an interational route. What a meaningless fact. One minute you have a go at bucket and spade flights (international), the next you gloat about Stanshed having more international flights. MAnchester has BY FAR a greater number and percentage of intercontinental flights than stanshed

this is a quote from a news article on icliverpool news section

'In contrast, the study said, Liverpool was falling behind in business start-ups, which were the best guide to the level of "entrepreneurship" and productivity growth.
A table showed there are just 26 new VAT registrations per 10,000 adults, way below the likes of Leeds (37), Bristol (39) and Manchester (43), let alone London (60)'

what this shows is that whilst manchester may not be growing economically at the same rate as london it is certainly growing faster than other british citiesnews article here (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16851697%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=liverpool%2dmust%2dbe%2da%2d%2dcity%2dof%2dknowledge%2d-name_page.html)
I'll be one of those next month. :). It would be nice to see how many of those adults already have a business under VAT registration.

I'll be one of those next month. :). It would be nice to see how many of those adults already have a business under VAT registration.Me too. I already have a business but so far I'm just a sole proprietor. I'm not yet a Limited Company registered with Companies House. I also have to work out whether VAT registration is worth my while. What is your business?

I experienced Stansted for the first time last week - obediently arrived at check-in two hours before the flight, waited in line for ages, went straight to security, waited in line for ages, went straight to the gate and was there with minutes to spare (though the flight was held as there were so many people even later than me!). So yes, Stansted is busy :)

Arriving back last Sunday was worse - after watching an empty belt go round at Baggage Reclaim and then stop, we found out that 70 bags had been left at Turin, including all my snowboarding gear :(

I am also sceptical that Manchester is the fastest growing city economy in the UK. I reckon London and Leeds are both growing faster.

Looking at the figures for long term growth in GVA per head from 1995-2003 in NUTS3 regions from National Statistics, you can see that there is a very varied local picture. For example Greater Manchester South was one of the fastest growing regions while Greater Manchester North was one of the slowest.

NUTS3 region / GVA per head 1995 / GVA per head 2003 / GVA per head growth95-03

Solihull 9957 19474 95.6%
Berkshire 14274 26510 85.7%
Belfast 13371 23632 76.7%
Derby 11248 19831 76.3%
Surrey 12313 21454 74.2%
Hertfordshire 12014 20598 71.4%
Bournemouth and Poole 9179 15435 68.2%
Glasgow City 13227 22231 68.1%
Gloucestershire 10539 17629 67.3%
Inner London - East 12993 21667 66.8%
East Derbyshire 7229 12027 66.4%
Bristol City of 13818 22946 66.1%
Greater Manchester South 11189 18523 65.5%
Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan 11394 18794 64.9%
Oxfordshire 12396 20155 62.6%
North and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire 10683 17328 62.2%
Portsmouth 11216 18163 61.9%
South Nottinghamshire 7209 11590 60.8%
Isle of Wight 6695 10720 60.1%
Southend-on-Sea 8189 13094 59.9%
Liverpool 9153 14619 59.7%
Milton Keynes 14824 23676 59.7%
Tyneside 9416 14993 59.2%
Leeds 12196 19392 59.0%
Northamptonshire 10604 16834 58.8%
Edinburgh, City of 16380 25901 58.1%
East Merseyside 7068 11155 57.8%
Outer Belfast 6800 10718 57.6%
Monmouthshire and Newport 9852 15503 57.4%
Peterborough 11744 18392 56.6%
Outer London -West and North West 12195 19067 56.4%
Eilean Siar (Western Isles) 6987 10911 56.2%
Birmingham 11052 17201 55.6%
Swansea 8704 13507 55.2%
North Lanarkshire 7861 12185 55.0%
Hampshire CC 10170 15731 54.7%
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 6718 10364 54.3%
Halton and Warrington 11951 18406 54.0%
Sunderland 8758 13420 53.2%
Sheffield 9486 14487 52.7%
Warwickshire 10633 16234 52.7%
Cambridgeshire CC 11410 17419 52.7%
Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham 7211 11002 52.6%
Inverness & Nairn and Moray, Badenoch & Strathspey 8637 13156 52.3%
Medway 7095 10807 52.3%
Brighton and Hove 10458 15924 52.3%
Wirral 6368 9653 51.6%
Swindon 16073 24305 51.2%
Essex CC 9054 13684 51.1%
York 12254 18512 51.1%
Leicester 12016 18036 50.1%
Sefton 7176 10742 49.7%
Buckinghamshire CC 12651 18937 49.7%
South Lanarkshire 8680 12990 49.7%
Staffordshire CC 8287 12379 49.4%
Isle of Anglesey 5860 8747 49.3%
North Yorkshire CC 9480 14127 49.0%
Luton 11280 16751 48.5%
Inner London - West 46152 68330 48.1%
Kingston upon Hull, City of 10114 14860 46.9%
West Sussex 11632 17051 46.6%
Southampton 12525 18237 45.6%
Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield 9191 13326 45.0%
Shropshire CC 8540 12345 44.6%
Coventry 11551 16670 44.3%
Bradford 9271 13288 43.3%
Kent CC 9356 13377 43.0%
Caithness & Sutherland and Ross & Cromarty 6924 9872 42.6%
Worcestershire 9397 13366 42.2%
East and West Dunbartonshire and Helensburgh & Lomond 7061 10022 41.9%
Somerset 9188 12997 41.5%
Wiltshire CC 10475 14689 40.2%
Lancashire CC 9788 13707 40.0%
Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and North East Moray 15131 21151 39.8%
North of Northern Ireland 7493 10460 39.6%
Blackpool 8297 11569 39.4%
North Nottinghamshire 8746 12173 39.2%
Cheshire CC 12459 17314 39.0%
Darlington 10952 15173 38.5%
Central Valleys 7580 10486 38.3%
Nottingham 15388 21285 38.3%
South Ayrshire 10011 13847 38.3%
Dorset CC 8412 11627 38.2%
Devon CC 9059 12492 37.9%
East of Northern Ireland 8825 12049 36.5%
Outer London - South 10505 14342 36.5%
Powys 9133 12459 36.4%
East Lothian and Midlothian 7550 10292 36.3%
Gwynedd 8714 11820 35.6%
Clackmannanshire and Fife 8408 11234 33.6%
Suffolk 10642 14214 33.6%
Durham CC 8078 10788 33.5%
Walsall and Wolverhampton 10238 13655 33.4%
Outer London - East and North East 8171 10898 33.4%
Northumberland 8189 10916 33.3%
Leicestershire CC and Rutland 10658 14198 33.2%
Dudley and Sandwell 10185 13488 32.4%
Angus and Dundee City 10440 13811 32.3%
Plymouth 9973 13157 31.9%
West and South of Northern Ireland 7601 9999 31.5%
Dumfries and Galloway 9169 12059 31.5%
Norfolk 9627 12635 31.2%
Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire 10788 14146 31.1%
South Teesside 8486 11078 30.5%
Conwy and Denbighshire 7737 10071 30.2%
Bedfordshire CC 10924 14211 30.1%
Flintshire and Wrexham 11831 15384 30.0%
Perth & Kinross and Stirling 10346 13445 30.0%
East Riding of Yorkshire 9077 11782 29.8%
Lochaber, Skye & Lochalsh and Argyll and the Islands 8125 10520 29.5%
Greater Manchester North 8725 11240 28.8%
Gwent Valleys 7432 9531 28.2%
Herefordshire County of 9743 12481 28.1%
Thurrock 10739 13750 28.0%
North and North East Lincolnshire 11391 14462 27.0%
East Sussex CC 8688 11014 26.8%
Stoke-on-Trent 10333 13083 26.6%
East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire Mainland 8677 10905 25.7%
South and West Derbyshire 10403 13065 25.6%
Telford and Wrekin 12043 15047 24.9%
South West Wales 7768 9659 24.3%
East Cumbria 10435 12933 23.9%
Falkirk 10897 13497 23.9%
Blackburn with Darwen 10341 12636 22.2%
Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot 9186 11094 20.8%
West Cumbria 9504 11437 20.3%
Shetland Islands 10786 12828 18.9%
Scottish Borders 9234 10945 18.5%
Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees 10533 12461 18.3%
Orkney Islands 10311 11950 15.9%
West Lothian 12785 14743 15.3%
Torbay 8871 10208 15.1%

At a NUTS2 level, the SE comes out best. GM grew faster than Outer London, West Yorks and West Mids but not as fast as Inner London, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear or South Yorks.

Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire 13 408 22 657 69.0%
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire 11 673 18 619 59.5%
Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and North Somerset 11 629 18 456 58.7%
Inner London 24 550 38 752 57.8%
Surrey, East and West Sussex 11 232 17 599 56.7%
Merseyside 7 615 11 846 55.6%
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 6 718 10 364 54.3%
Hampshire and Isle of Wight 10 319 15 915 54.2%
Northumberland and Tyne and Wear 9 018 13 768 52.7%
South Yorkshire 8 129 12 405 52.6%
East Wales 10 912 16 446 50.7%
Greater Manchester 10 055 15 144 50.6%
West Yorkshire 10 244 15 387 50.2%
North Yorkshire 10 142 15 185 49.7%
Essex 9 107 13 632 49.7%
South Western Scotland 9 995 14 848 48.6%
Northern Ireland 8 703 12 893 48.1%
West Midlands 10 669 15 790 48.0%
Dorset and Somerset 8 932 13 153 47.3%
Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire 10 899 15 958 46.4%
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire 9 892 14 404 45.6%
Outer London 10 326 14 970 45.0%
Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire 9 960 14 436 44.9%
Kent 9 001 12 973 44.1%
Cheshire 12 298 17 658 43.6%
Shropshire and Staffordshire 9 056 12 770 41.0%
East Anglia 10 546 14 761 40.0%
North Eastern Scotland 15 131 21 151 39.8%
Highlands and Islands 8 178 11 400 39.4%
Eastern Scotland 11 297 15 647 38.5%
Lancashire 9 685 13 389 38.2%
Devon 9 255 12 364 33.6%
East Riding and North Lincolnshire 10 208 13 597 33.2%
Lincolnshire 9 384 12 489 33.1%
West Wales and the Valleys 7 983 10 578 32.5%
Tees Valley and Durham 8 995 11 637 29.4%
Cumbria 9 980 12 217 22.4%

Is that Belfast figure correct?

Is that Belfast figure correct?

I would think so if the others are correct, look further down the list and there's an 'Outer Belfast' which has much lower figures.

Hmm I wonder is thats the city boundary there using or even just a part of the city. I'm just suprised its that high.

well liverpool is essentially the north wests version of stanstead, its totally dependant on low cost airlines, it will never get the same international airlines that manchester has, part of the reason manchesters growth may have slowed is that better commuter links via train have been developed. these fast links to the capital etc are far more environmentaly friendly and cost effective, and will boost manchesters economy alot more than a couple of cross country flights, afterall theres 32 trains a day to the capital on the virgin link, and more added with other companies,

Spot on! Manchester is kind of the NW's Heathrow and Liverpool is the S/sted.
Same with the London route - the train is generally cheaper and quicker.