Originally Posted by
MAN777
NAVPI
Comparing Bournemouth to MAN is comparing apples and oranges. One is a rambling old site with acres of old taxiways and a tiny operation at the best of times, the other is a very large multi billion site with a worldwide operation that has slowed but will begin to pick up rapidly in the next couple of months.
If you loose a single runway for whatever reason thats it, game over, if you have the luxury of a second runway that can be re opened rapidly that is a major attraction to airlines. Runway 2 at MAN is predominantly of asphalt construction it has a PCN sufficient for all aircraft types, however its very expensive runway surface could be susceptible to asphalt degradation should any fuel or oils leak onto the surface from a stored airliner, that then could becomes an expensive repair bill. The asphalt used on a runway is part of a finely engineered surface that has to cope with the weight, exhaust temperature and thrust of aircraft and provide friction characteristics that allow safe braking and steering at high speed, thats why aprons are usually made of tough thick Concrete that can withstand prolonged weights and leaky old Virgin 747s !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect I think we are once again looking at what we can't do versus what we can and indeed should be doing.
I honestly don't think we are going to need a 2nd runway for months if not years quite frankly..
That's point 1 but if the mindset is wrapping it in kid gloves, given the highly remote chance we may have fuel ingress or need to use it in case of an emergency with 6 movements per day , whilst potentially losing £1m+ revenue we really have lost our way.
Yes traffic will increase in the weeks to come but saving RW2 on a "just in case basis" seems to be taking precautions to the extreme.
The board of MAG whilst mindful of the potential issues MAN777 raises need to be equally aware of striking a balance.
Feight clearly bound for users in the N West needs to be shipped to the N West and not a sprinkling of airports 4 and 5 hours away with resulting delays in delivery.
Yes a balance has to be taken , but in my view there appears (from the outside), to be an appetite to sit back and do nothing.
I will reiterate Manchester, should as others have done be actively encouraging such flights and making sure they play as active a part as is possible not looking at a spreadsheet about " maximising revenue " at other group airports or worse shrugging shoulders and putting the closed sign up..
The number of flights handled by Manchester in respect of PPE is derisory compared to its status as the largest airport outside London and before the crisis one of the largest in Europe.
Gtr Manchester taxpayers are subsidising the airport to the tune of £250m, quite right, over the years they have benefited enormously from millions in dividends, but Manchester should still be maximising EVERY opportunity in every way possible to generate revenue, and might I add, assist its citizens in the broader effort of providing logistical healthcare support.
Instead of leading from the front MANCHESTER appears to be giving the impression they can't be bothered.