London Stansted overtakes Manchester as the UK's third busiest airport!!

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird2

Manchester gets more tourism than the South Coast actually. Only London itself beats Manchester for tourism and London has three international airports!

London has five international airports - six if you include Southend.

[pat76]

Originally Posted by maggie

err soo wrong, london 7.5 million, greater london 12 million
against manchester 430,000 greater manchester 2.5 million atleasttry andget your facts right, plus population of nw england is less than 6 million, whereas se england is nearly 30 plus gatwick is also placed very conveniently closeto cities such as brighton and hove portsmouth and the rest of the south coast

london 7.5 million, greater london 12 million - this is news to me
se england is nearly 30 plus - no it's not - it's less than 20

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird2

Manchester serves the North West, Wales, parts of Yorkshire, parts of the West Midlands and some from even further than that. The total population of this area is probably around the 12 million mark. Also, whilst Gatwick is only about 1/3 of London's air capacity, Manchester covers well over 50% of the air capacity of the 12 million area.

Gatwick is less than a quarter of London's total air traffic capacity. And you persist with the erroneous notion that Manchester/NW should have comparable aviation traffic to London relative to population. However that is not realistic. London is the world's largest hub. Even with its large population it still handles more aviation traffic relative to its population that just about anywhere else in Europe. Do I have to repeat yet again that London's aviation traffic is larger than that of the whole of France or Italy and almost comparable to Germany as well? Those are entire countries! Manchester should compare its aviation traffic to the per capita average in Western Europe - not the per capita average of the world's largest aviation hub.

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by maggie

yes but manchester, unlike london and the south coast isnt a major tourist destination, and is barely known outside of the uk and even then its rarely in a positive light,

Why would you say that? Its bollocks. Manchester is extemely well known through out the world. You can go any where you want and say Manchester and they will have heard about it.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by andysimo123

Why would you say that? Its bollocks. Manchester is extemely well known through out the world. You can go any where you want and say Manchester and they will have heard about it.

Maggie hits on a valid point though. The Manc forumers keep going on and on about the size of the local population in Manchester/NW. Whilst sgnificant that's only one side of the coin. The other side is the volume of people that want to come to Manchester from elsewhere. Although Manchester United football club is undoubtedly world famous that has not made Manchester into a popular city break destination. I reckon the average bored German would rather weekend in London, Paris, Barcelona, or Rome - or indeed on Mediterranean beaches or Alpine slopes. If they can fly to places like that for the same price as Manchester then they will not choose to come to Manchester.

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Maggie hits on a valid point though. The Manc forumers keep going on and on about the size of the local population in Manchester/NW. Whilst sgnificant that's only one side of the coin. The other side is the volume of people that want to come to Manchester from elsewhere. Although Manchester United football club is undoubtedly world famous that has not made Manchester into a popular city break destination. I reckon the average bored German would rather weekend in London, Paris, Barcelona, or Rome - or indeed on Mediterranean beaches or Alpine slopes. If they can fly to places like that for the same price as Manchester then they will not choose to come to Manchester.

I couldnt give a shit about population. Have a look at one of my posts down the page. I dont see why everyone's are arguing about it. No ones going to agree. This is about airports, not population.

[kids]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Although Manchester United football club is undoubtedly world famous that has not made Manchester into a popular city break destination. I reckon the average bored German would rather weekend in London, Paris, Barcelona, or Rome - or indeed on Mediterranean beaches or Alpine slopes. If they can fly to places like that for the same price as Manchester then they will not choose to come to Manchester.

if you could only see and hear the amount of tourists we have in manchester, clearly, you havn't moved into the 21st century.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Maggie hits on a valid point though. The Manc forumers keep going on and on about the size of the local population in Manchester/NW. Whilst sgnificant that's only one side of the coin. The other side is the volume of people that want to come to Manchester from elsewhere. Although Manchester United football club is undoubtedly world famous that has not made Manchester into a popular city break destination. I reckon the average bored German would rather weekend in London, Paris, Barcelona, or Rome - or indeed on Mediterranean beaches or Alpine slopes. If they can fly to places like that for the same price as Manchester then they will not choose to come to Manchester.

Plenty of bored Brits go to places like Kaunas, Bratislava, Bilbao, Stuttgart etc If you wander around Manchester ou will see an increasing number of city-breakers, it's not Barcelona but the people do come and in greater numbers all the time.

[Jerv]

Monkey has a good point about your average German, but from experience, I am more specifically concerned with the lack of Asian direct connections. Manchester is very well know in Asia , unashamedly because of Manchester United, but the city attracts many thousands of Asian and overseas students every year. They in turn attract relatives to visit etc. I don't have the figures but I would suggest that Manchester (Including Salford, Trafford, Stockport etc for the petty) has more international students than any other conurbation outside London. It's not just that. Manchester has world class conference, leisure and sporting facilities to attract foriegn visitors. Don't just dissmiss manchester as a non-buisiness city just because it does not compete with London. It (and the wider area) easily competes with comparible European Cities with larger airports such as Munich and Amsterdam.

Also you talk about Dubai as though it is a small city with a massive airport. It is the major UAE city with a metro population in excess of 1million and has an airport massivley subsidised to enhance tourism currently carrying similar numbers of passengers to MAN.

[Monkey]

^ 1 million is tiny. It's obvious that it's not the local population supporting that demand. The UAE government subsidises Emirates to shuttle people to Dubai because it wants Dubai to be a hub. They have ordered something like 50 x A380s and to fill that capacity they will have to offer even lower prices. Many people stopping there are en-route to other parts of Asia or Australasia. They get people flowing through their airport spending their dosh in the duty free malls. Presumably they have worked out that this is worth it but sometimes I wonder about the financial viability of Dubai's grand schemes. Of course they can afford to take commercial gambles because, for now at least, they still have oil to fall back on. I admire their audacity and ambition but I'd like to see their accounts.

[maggie]

Originally Posted by Monkey

London has five international airports - six if you include Southend.

8 if you include kent international and ashford international

[maggie]

Originally Posted by Kids in the riot

if you could only see and hear the amount of tourists we have in manchester, clearly, you havn't moved into the 21st century.

theres a bit of a difference between those who come visit manchester from other parts of the u.k. people going to watch football etc, to those choosing to come from abroad for a holiday there, london has people coming from every corner of the world (as well as residents from) to holiday there. manchester has nothing close to that, it simply doesnt cater from it, even liverpool has more internationally known heritage than manchester

[maggie]

though i must say, just because an airport is massive doesnt make it good, copenhagen is the most award winning airport in europe yet its only the sixe of manmchester, if manchester could revamp to that standard they really would be onto something of global recognition

[Jerv]

How old are you maggie? Just a question, not a snipe.

[nick_taylor]

Originally Posted by Monkey

I admire their audacity and ambition but I'd like to see their accounts.

Me to, but I believe they hope that the expenditure now will pay off in the long run with companies attracted to base there and the flow of tourists. I suspect terrorism and democratic reforms will prove to be obstacles that the UAE will have to overcome.

[EarlyBird]

Originally Posted by Monkey

London has five international airports - six if you include Southend.

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted... I don't consider London City to be an international airport and I think you're pushing it counting Stansted as a London airport, never mind anything further out.

[EarlyBird]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Gatwick is less than a quarter of London's total air traffic capacity. And you persist with the erroneous notion that Manchester/NW should have comparable aviation traffic to London relative to population. However that is not realistic. London is the world's largest hub. Even with its large population it still handles more aviation traffic relative to its population that just about anywhere else in Europe. Do I have to repeat yet again that London's aviation traffic is larger than that of the whole of France or Italy and almost comparable to Germany as well? Those are entire countries! Manchester should compare its aviation traffic to the per capita average in Western Europe - not the per capita average of the world's largest aviation hub.

Stop with this ridiculous line of argument monkey. Why are you saying "don't expect Manchester to beat London per capita" and then proceeding to talk about London being "the world's biggest air hub"? Yes, that may be the case, but it DOES NOT mean London is the largest air hub per capita. In fact it is a long, long, long way from that. Per capita the city of Atlanta blows London out of the water. Why, then, shouldn't Manchester aspire to similar per capita levels?

[EarlyBird]

Originally Posted by maggie

theres a bit of a difference between those who come visit manchester from other parts of the u.k. people going to watch football etc, to those choosing to come from abroad for a holiday there, london has people coming from every corner of the world (as well as residents from) to holiday there. manchester has nothing close to that, it simply doesnt cater from it, even liverpool has more internationally known heritage than manchester

Manchester has 80 million tourist visits every year and is now officially the UK's second largest destination for international tourists. Stop living in the past and try actually visiting the city instead of living on made up concepts that exist only in your head.

[EarlyBird]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Maggie hits on a valid point though. The Manc forumers keep going on and on about the size of the local population in Manchester/NW. Whilst sgnificant that's only one side of the coin. The other side is the volume of people that want to come to Manchester from elsewhere. Although Manchester United football club is undoubtedly world famous that has not made Manchester into a popular city break destination. I reckon the average bored German would rather weekend in London, Paris, Barcelona, or Rome - or indeed on Mediterranean beaches or Alpine slopes. If they can fly to places like that for the same price as Manchester then they will not choose to come to Manchester.

Monkey, it shows how little you know about the world outside London. Maybe you should come to Manchester, walk around the streets, see the tourists, business visitors and the like, then go back home and post on this thread again. It's obvious you know nothing about tourism in Manchester. We are in the top 20 European city break destinations and will probably enter the top 10 within a decade.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird2

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted... I don't consider London City to be an international airport and I think you're pushing it counting Stansted as a London airport, never mind anything further out.

Of course Stansted is a London airport. It's called London Stansted on every travel booking site available and it's a similar distance from central London as Luton or Gatwick airports. The CAA classifies it as one of the six London airports as well. And London City is also most definitely an international airport - more than two thirds (67%) of City's traffic is international. London has at least five (arguably six) international airports - end of story.