Originally Posted by
Skipness One Foxtrot
BTW if LGW with a similar volume of night stoppers and traffic profile can get by on one runway, so could MAN, with a will. R2 was an remains such a sub-optimal layout depending on wind direction and SID.
So are you suggesting MAN mothball R2?
Remember that when R2 was being planned the traffic profile was very different - many movements by small jets such as the CRJ and E145. Plus the fact that the airlines weren't prepared to accept delays of the same order as at LHR and a lesser extent LGW. In addition, the MAN R1 runway layout (RETs, holding bays etc) was far inferior to that of LGW even after the addition of a RET and the 24 holding bay - really just a passing point - and capacity was becoming severely limited in the peaks.
Not much more could be done to increase it. Airlines were getting hacked off at not being able to get any decent peak runway slots at commercially sensible times and several potential services didn't start as a result, so the Airport started looking at a new runway.
The R2 layout was always sub-optimal, the optimal location to the NW to allow fully independent ops with the terminals in the middle was not sustainable - think public safety zone requiring T2 to be demolished, the proximity of the M56 and not to mention Ashley Girl Guide camp....A fully spaced parallel to the south would have resulted in the destruction of the Bollin Valley as well as having runway crossings, so already sub-optimal. Neither of these options would have been likely to get through the planning process and were hugely expensive. In the end the current R2 configuration was put forward for the planning and inquiry process as it seemed to be a good compromise between the ideal operationally and the environmental factors. It was approved.
The SIDS at MAN are not optimal due to the presence of some very vocal opposition to changes to make things better - and that has always been the case. LGW is not constrained as much with SIDs splitting quickly beyond the runway end.
Anyway MAN already has that extra capacity in the bag for the future. How long until LHR or LGW get an extra runway, especially with the heightened environmental concerns these days?
T3 was originally built as a joint venture between the Airport and BA for a mix of BA domestic, European and long haul flights. In the end BA changed their strategy and walked away. This demonstrates the issue that airports have - airlines can move their aircraft around and change their focus in a short period - airports commit to bricks and mortar which is a long term project.
Penny pinching on the little things kills the customer experience and in a competitive market that’s important. T3 is still a write off, a Hell to be endured, and while I get huge progress is underway, someone keeps dropping balls on the day-to-day.
I do agree that not getting the little things right is important. I'm not defending what I read about in terms of poor customer service; however I wonder how many of MAN's passengers have the luxury of being able to go somewhere else instead bearing in mind all the other things that they take into account when planning a trip? And will they run into similar issues elsewhere now that our lives everywhere are dominated by blinkered bean-counters poring over financial spreadsheets rather than looking at the bigger picture?
I also believe that many modern-day travellers accept lower standards than previous generations; they don't know or expect any better.
It's enough to make you cry sometimes.
