They upped the capacity but it's not been doubled as far as I know. The runways are too close together and Runway 2 has no full length taxiway.
btw the Air Canada Rouge loco is, pretty far from cheap!!!
MAN's close parallel runways give you in effect 1.5 runways, not twice the single runway capacity. This is due the need to facilitate crossing of 05L/23R, and the SIDs which mostly follow the same initial routing off 23L. It certainly can't be compared to LHR's wider-spaced runways which can achieve more or less double the single-runway throughput. MAN is also constrained by the northside taxiways which are still set out around the old three-runway WW2 layout.
Yes, but even if you only regard it as half a runway it has substantially increased MAN's capacity at an affordable cost.
I can't help thinking that LGW and STN should have focused on similarly incremental development, rather than persisting with multi-billion pound schemes that their airline customers will never be prepared to pay for.
So the airport chooses not to use the second runway during certain hours when capacity does not demand it. This has the benefit of minimising the environmental effects of the runway so demonstrating its good neighbour policy It also means that NATS employ less controllers than if the runway was open all daytime hours - saving on the contract price.
The second runway has had much more extensive opening hours than at present during its nearly 13 year history. Look at the capacity declarations here
No matter how it is spun, it cannot be suggested that Ringway is operating anywhere near capacity, so it is hardly going to be a priority for extra rwys. Pretty obvious really.
If carriers can be convinced that there is money to be made at Ringway, they will be there. Would love to see it, but this is not the job of the Commission.
So what should the Commission to do? It can't recommend that the government directs carriers to operate to/from Ringway to relieve Heathrow overcrowding. Pax, and therefore carriers, want to use Heathrow.
Directing carriers and routes away from Heathrow was tried in the 1970s and 1980s when Heathrow was declared "full". At that time Gatwick was the recipient airport under the so-called "second force" policy, with longhaul routes from West Africa and South America (and others) transferred from Heathrow to Gatwick and from BOAC to BUA later BCAL. The end result was the failure of BCAL. Virgin survived because it was able to transfer to Heathrow.
Are we
seriously suggesting that the Commission recommends the government to do a U-turn on its free market, open skies and private sector-run aviation industry, and revive the "second force" policy and base it on Ringway this time?
Under our system, it is not possible to
artificially create Heathrow levels of connectivity and premium business at other UK airports. That being the case, what
exactly is Davies supposed to have recommended with reference to Ringway?
Given the remit, clearly, the decision to concentrate on Heathrow and Gatwick was correct. The key words in its terms of reference are "hub", "additional" and "capacity".