can't get the quote function to work but in response to the quote above, I completely agree that MAN has its work cut out to build a facility for the future. If you look at similarly sized airports or terminal building projects then you often see the common thread of either a dominant carrier such as BA (LHR T5), Emirates (DXB T3), Etihad (AUH Midfield), Qatar (New Doha) who an airport can work closely with and provide for or that you have an airport that caters for specific types of plane, particularly the narrow body jets (KLIA2, STN, Palma de Mallorca).
MAN has to build an airport that caters for high cost to low cost. It needs huge lounges for carriers like EK and EY whilst it needs to minimise the journey time from arrival to gate for business flights on Flybe and BA. It needs to cater for charter and scheduled and airlines such as Virgin who could have only 787s in 10 years but who have orders for A380s still. It wants US pre-clearance too and needs to accommodate pax coming off a Flybe Dash 8 wanting to transfer onto an EY or CX 777 or even now an EK A380. It's not straightforward.
MAN is complex and they've been stung before. T2 was built for wide body charter carriers before that market collapsed. T3 for BA before they pulled out. What now? What do you build when you don't know what the demand will be over the timeframe.
In saying that. I think the plans as they stand are pretty good and the money will hopefully be spent in the right way. Only having two terminals is the way forward for sure as the biggest problems for pax are often at security and certainly at immigration (for me that's the biggest issue). You lose efficiency with three terminals and if it can't be one terminal then it'll have to be two that are fully integrated. It's got to be the way forward.
While I agree it's complex I don't buy that MAN has work cut out because of no major based carrier such as the above. If you flick a few pages back MAG have gone ageist what airlines requested with B pier to save money. Now whether that pays off long term is another question however it doesn't exactly fill you with confidence if you are not listening to customers already.
Is there any better link to the plans the above doesn't show a lot. They should really be looking to design a basic but good pier for loco carriers similar to Pier D in Dublin where FR base ops. Airlines such as 4U, WW, DY, SK, TOM, IB all operate (granted some don't when contract stands are available) but I am sure carriers such as LS, ZB or EZY wouldn't have a problem operating at such a facility.
As for USPC those piers in the link above will be very tight for a USPC facility unless you plan for the screening/security area backing into T2.