PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - MANCHESTER 1
Thread: MANCHESTER 1
View Single Post
Old 1st Nov 2015, 22:30
  #3365 (permalink)  
Shed-on-a-Pole
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Manchester: The Airport Which Likes To Say "NO!"

Around 30 years ago, the dynamic management team at Manchester Airport made a bold and courageous decision. Having courteously reasoned for years with Whitehall officials who steadfastly refused to entertain any semblance of common sense, radical action appeared to be the only course of action left open. It was clear that Manchester was not going to secure long-haul carriers such as Singapore Airlines any other way.

And so began one of the most celebrated landmark episodes in Manchester Airport's history. Advertisements appeared in national newspapers. They depicted an office door in a stuffy ministry with a large sign hanging from it. Just three powerful words: DO NOT DISTURB.

This bold campaign finally embarrassed the stuffy Whitehall machine into action. Ministers intervened at the very highest levels. And on 1st April 1986, the reward. The inaugural Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 scheduled service landed at Manchester Airport. On that very same day, 'Manchester Airport PLC' came into existence.

With inflexible Londoncentric government aviation policy dealt a major blow, many more regional long-haul services would be approved in the years which followed. The 'Do Not Disturb' campaign paved the way. Manchester's pro-active, forward-thinking management team was admired throughout the industry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now here is an amazing thing. I've discovered that MAG (successor to MAplc) still has that original "DO NOT DISTURB" sign! And it isn't in the archives either ... they actually use it! Today it hangs on another dusty office door: the one labelled: 'MANCHESTER AIRPORT DIVERSION PLANNING'. Astonishingly, so much dust has gathered on this particular door that some speculate that it hasn't been opened for years.

You see, diversions are something that other airports concern themselves with. Manchester is above all that! An enterprising investigator ("Spirit of Olly") set out to discover more ...

SoO: We completely understand that you can't entertain a diversions 'free-for-all', that just isn't practical. But why do you ban all non-emergency diversions regardless of circumstances?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: If you have just six spare stands available, why not put out an advisory that you can accept up to six diversions only, as other airports do?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: If you are unable to accept widebody divs, why not put out an advisory that you can only accept a specified number of narrowbodies, as other airports do?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: If the airport is unable to accommodate air transport diversions, why ban executive jet diversions as well which a blanket 'NO DIVS' NOTAM ensures by default?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: We understand that the availability of handling agency staff is a significant factor and that their numbers are tight. But if they do have spare capacity because some of their own scheduled flights have been grounded elsewhere, why not let them handle diverted traffic instead?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: We appreciate that you consider it of paramount importance that your regular operation is not jeopardised by post-diversion chaos. But in mid-Winter, when the terminals are operating far below peak levels of demand, why not agree to accept a manageable number of extra flights to the benefit of all concerned?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: We understand that there are limits to the number of passengers you can accommodate hanging around in the terminals at one time. When this becomes an issue, why not continue to accept 'splash-and-dash' diversions only?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: When some of your best airline customers beg you to help out with a couple of their displaced flights, don't you think it would be great PR to "go the extra mile" on their behalf?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: When the ACC's are desperately phoning round airports asking them to help by accepting whatever diversions they can, don't you think it would be jolly decent of MAN to do it's bit for the greater good?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: We do understand the issues thrown up by diversion sessions. Stands, capacity issues, packed terminals, disruption, uncertainty, staffing. But every other major airport in the UK handles its share of the burden ... except for you. And they even make some money into the bargain. Why can't you?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: The blanket-ban 'NO DIVS' NOTAM is such a blunt-instrument! Can't you produce a more finessed document, as other airports do, smoothing the way for MAN to make a sensible controlled contribution to the displaced flights problem?

MAG: "ENOUGH! Just push off or we'll set the Rottweilers on you!!!"

Spirit of Olly: MMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline