T1 / T3 Re-Development Timescale and Interim Investment
And on to the T1/T3 issues.
We have all heard the rumour that a major re-development of the T1/T3 complex is in the offing. There are also suggestions that a major re-development of T2 will be seen first. Either of these projects would be very welcome news. But of course, we all have to speculate on this topic as MAG is keeping the plans in-house until they are good and ready to reveal their proposals to the public. I'm sure we all understand the reasons for this.
However, in the absence of reliable facts we are left to speculate. And one topic I must return to is timescale. Because if the T1/T3 re-development is not imminent then there are certain issues which really need to be addressed in the near term. One of these is how to provide for continued expansion by Ryanair in T3. Growth does not come easily in today's economic climate; MAG must work hard to attract and retain every opportunity for new business. Right now, in my opinion, Ryanair and EasyJet are the most likely sources of significant near-term growth in passenger throughput.
Ryanair currently has seven based B737-800's at MAN T3. There is also a healthy quota of flights visiting MAN from other Ryanair bases.
Some months ago, we discussed on PPRuNe the possibility of upgrading stands 56, 57 and 58 to a standard capable of supporting regular operations by a further three Ryanair B738's. In practice, this would mean connecting these stands to the airport fuel system and providing passenger access to the stands without the need for bus transfers. I suggest that a system of demarcated safe walkways with 'bus-shelter-style' cover linking to T3 around stand 55 would suffice. Whilst this arrangement (similar to the landside walking route currently linking T1 with T3) need not be expensive to construct, installing underground fuel pipelines to the stands probably would be. And hence the suggestion in earlier discussions on this topic that future plans for T1/T3 redevelopment may make near-term investment in 56/57/58 uneconomic.
Only MAG knows the timescale for any redevelopment plans which would affect the utility of 56, 57 & 58. Only they can assess the economic return on investment in those stands at this stage, as only they know whether those stands will even exist afew years from now. But here is the point: if MAG wants expansion from Ryanair - business which the airport sorely needs - reliable availability of those three stands will be key until any T3 redevelopment is completed and online. I'm never keen on taking the "I told you so!" line, but I was deeply impressed by my own accuracy in analysing the problems associated with these stands in our earlier discussions when I actually used stand 57 on Monday.
The flight selected for this honour was FR3234 / RYR24QV to Eindhoven on Monday 27 October. The aircraft rostered for the flight turned out to be Ryanair's newest steed, the factory-fresh B738 EI-FEH delivered to the airline just ten days earlier. This aircraft is fitted with the familiar Ryanair 'banana' interior but looked very smart and well-suited to its role.
The flight had a scheduled departure time of 13:50. Passengers were bussed in batches from gate 52 out to stand 57. This operation proceeded smoothly and all passengers were aboard and seated in good time to meet the STD of 13:50. Everything looked set. Then came the captain's cabin address: unfortunately, this stand is one of the few on the airport which is not connected to the airport's underground fuel supply. We are waiting for a tanker to arrive! And how we waited.
Bear in mind that the tanker was not requested at the STD of 13:50; the request was made some time prior to that. The Shell tanker finally rolled up at 14:55, STD+65 minutes. Refuelling complete, it left the stand at 15:05, STD+75 minutes. RYR24QV pushed back at 15:09, STD+79 minutes. I had already been seated aboard the aircraft for well over 90 minutes by the time it pushed back.
The entire delay … a very lengthy one by Ryanair standards … was attributable to the inability to refuel on stand 57 and the consequent wait for the tanker to attend. Naturally, I overheard many agitated comments from fellow-passengers, invariably blaming "the Ryanair experience" for their plight. It didn't occur to them to consider Shell's role in the episode, or indeed the inadequacy of stand 57 for handling passenger flights by any airline. Right now 56, 57 & 58 are only really suited to remote parking of idle aircraft, and ideally these should then be towed to another gate prior to a passenger flight.
Now, my point here is not to bash MAG, Shell or Ryanair. I'm not interested in apportioning blame for events on the day. The Shell tanker itself no doubt had to honour other commitments prior to refuelling EI-FEH. In the minutes before this Ryanair flight departed, there were four ad-hoc executive departures (1 x G5, 1 x GLEX, 1 x C56X, 1 x P180); no doubt some of these required the attentions of the lone tanker also. That means a queue.
But the real point is this. That Ryanair flight pushed back 79 minutes late purely because it used stand 57. A clear demonstration, if it was needed, that 56, 57 & 58 are wholly inadequate for servicing active passenger flights even of the no-frills variety. Investment in or replacement of these three stands (as part of a larger redevelopment programme) is urgently required.
Ryanair is a company which MAG needs to woo and keep happy across the whole group at STN, EMA and BOH as well as at MAN itself. They are one of the few channels for significant growth with a high degree of confidence. But if the company is to be persuaded to expand beyond seven frames at MAN, T3 gate capacity must be found to accommodate those aircraft. 56, 57 & 58 are the obvious candidates to accommodate this growth going forward, but right now they are nowhere near fit for purpose. A 79 minute delay for refuelling in servicing flights planned for 25 minute turnarounds is simply unworkable.
Memo to MAG: Only you know the proposed timescale for T1/T3 redevelopment. But if completion is more than 5 years away, you should invest in fuel connections for these three stands right now. If the timescale is shorter, you should consider underwriting a short-term remedy, such as paying Shell to base an extra tanker specifically to service operations from 56, 57 and 58 until redevelopment is complete. Costly yes, but short-term pain for long-term gain applies in this case. Ryanair is one of MAN's best growth prospects. Make sure you can fully accommodate their needs now, not just when the T1/T3 redevelopment is completed some years hence. Those three stands are an asset waiting to happen. But right now they're a liability.
Have Ryanair been on the phone about Monday's Eindhoven flight? I bet somebody got an earfull!
BTW, for those interested, arrival back at MAN T3 aboard Wednesday's FR3235 / RYR45PW [ EI-EKC ] was impeccably handled. Steps quickly in place, no immigration queues, through the whole arrival process within 5 minutes of disembarkation. Full marks for that.