MAN expansion to dry up ?

[This Charming Man]

After excellent growth for summer 2004 ,could the lack of runway capacity force traffic away ?

Before 24L/06R the runway capcity was 48 per hour now it's only 59 due to the close proximity of the two runways. MAPlc have been pushing for 63 but the story goes that ATC have said no on safety grounds ? There is no doubt that there is a shortage of slots at MAN with figures that show no slots available between 0600-1000 utc and 15-1900 utc. So whats left ? Well the so called quieter periods are,at times, on a comparised with the summer peaks from 98! FlyBE's expansion into MAN failed due to only securing 6 of the 12 slots required for the planned operation . When Lufthansa announced a new 4th daily Frankfurt service with an arrival time of 0840 ,eybrows were raised, ''where did they get that time from ?'' well it was'nt plain sailing, Lufty had an initial knockback ,they were offered 1055,not good so they contacted Condor, who inturn contacted Thomas Cook UK as they are partners,and in the end TC had juggle some of their own MAN flights around to get Lufty their 0840 !

And the future? The airport wants more longhaul and more lowcost and as a result there will be three meetings with potential new customers but.... will they be waisting their time ?

[cossack]

It would be all well and good to increase the number of slots at peak times, but where would they all park? In the morning with the higher proportion of wide-body traffic at T2, gate space is very much at a premium and gate holds are not uncommon. Splitting of stands and some creative thinking can only go so far in alleviating what has been a chronic problem.
I don't think many airlines would accept regular bussing of pax to remote stands either, unless there was a hefty discount perhaps!

[rutankrd]

Manchester really does NEED a parallel taxiway to 06R so that runway capacity can be optimized AND to add safety and get away from the current built-in bottlenecks to the system !
Also ILS to be installed on 24L.
This way when 24 in use 24L would be for landing 24R for departures and little traffic would need to cross the active and with ground traffic moving in a proper race course loop !
Similarly with 06 the arrangement would be 06R for departures and 06L for arrivals some crossing traffic would need to be accommodated from T3 but this is NOT the prevailing runway layout due to local winds any way.
Just such a traffic split is the way the parallel ruways work at Dusseldorf which handles a similar number of passengers and has LESS parking !
The recent MYT/RYR event might NOT have happened if this runway taxiway combination was adopted !

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

Rutankrd
I don`t quite understand what you are saying, which ever runway you are using for departures or landings 24R/06L will have to be crossed by one of them. perhaps mixed mode might help

With regard to parking there is a big problem in the morning
which I believe may be sorted in time for 2005 with extra stands on T2 at the West end as the terminal was built to allow for an extension to be put on easily

Golf India Bravo

[MAN777]

I think you find for operations using a staggered runway as at MAN, the leading runway is always the landing runway in normal conditions, so therefore 24L landings would not be the norm that is why there is no ILS or parallel taxiway, that was dropped in the design stage to save money and prevent cheshire getting covered in more concrete. !

My thoughts on future developement at MAN would be to complete the parallel taxiway system and then really upset cheshire by building a link taxiway from 06R threshold under the approach of 06L (not to close to interfere with that runway) across Wilmslow road, join up with the nornern taxiway system and to a new terminal 4 built on the demolished cargo centre site. That would remove all the bottlenecks.

While we were at it I would buy Woodford airfield (Brand new 7500ft runway) and install a high speed maglev type system (Like Orlyval in Paris) to shuttle Pax to MAN about 5 mins I reckon.

I may be a dreamer, but it takes money guts and a few upset NIMBYs to get things moving in this country !!!

[Scottie Dog]

I seem to recall - and I have not done a search - that there was talk of additional stands being introduced next to stand 56 (Terminal 3).

Possibly our dear friend Niteflite01 might care to add his words of wisdom?

ps - Cossack, good to see you still giving EGCC input from across the pond!!

[rutankrd]

Apart from the obvious cost savings wasn't there also a matter of a few matches ( sorry trees) that have protection orders on the north side of the second runway.
Its also coz its currently a cul d'sac that no ILS has been installed on 24L.
There have been a few landing on this when 24R has been blocked however.
As i said the parallel taxiway WOULD increase runway capacity substantially as the the crossings could be well beyond the end of 24R/06L cept for some traffic that would want to back track to cross nearer T3 and for T1 eastern stands in which case the network of taxiways between the runways already exist.
Why not up route Knutsford lock stock and barrel and put it where it spiritually belongs (that i'll be just west of Guildford in Surrey then!)
Then we could really expand westwards right up to the M6 !