Manchester Happenings (Merged)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ and EK
Hi
I know that EK will at some time bring in the A380 for their DXB service but because of the success on the SQ service to SIN with the 777 will their be a possibility of the service going up to a A380 in maybe 2007 or 2008?
Thanks
Michael
I know that EK will at some time bring in the A380 for their DXB service but because of the success on the SQ service to SIN with the 777 will their be a possibility of the service going up to a A380 in maybe 2007 or 2008?
Thanks
Michael
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380
As I understand it, MAN is already capable of handling the A380.
Peter Hampson - Airfield Manager - advised at a recent meeting that:
a/ The Runway is wide enough - in fact he says we actually have the widest runway in the UK, allowing for hardened shoulders. That is bound to start debate, as I thought that Manston had that title.
b/ There is space for at least 2 A380s - on Terminals 1 and 2.
c/ Taxiway routing would be restricted but they can get in and out - it does help does'nt it!
Let debate recommence.
Peter Hampson - Airfield Manager - advised at a recent meeting that:
a/ The Runway is wide enough - in fact he says we actually have the widest runway in the UK, allowing for hardened shoulders. That is bound to start debate, as I thought that Manston had that title.
b/ There is space for at least 2 A380s - on Terminals 1 and 2.
c/ Taxiway routing would be restricted but they can get in and out - it does help does'nt it!
Let debate recommence.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed this demolition in progress the other day, its actually at the 24R end, a row of quasi- terrace houses, that were immediatly under the finals mixed in with the lighting supports. Used to have a friend living in one years ago, it was awesome for summer evening BBQs.
Cant see the demolition has anything to do with the A380, its probably more to do with possible health and safety litigation and the continual replacement of vortex damaged roof tiles.
Anyone with the facts ?
Cant see the demolition has anything to do with the A380, its probably more to do with possible health and safety litigation and the continual replacement of vortex damaged roof tiles.
Anyone with the facts ?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Houses on Ringway Road
As MAN777 correctly says, the demolition of houses in the 24R approach lights has nothing to do with A380 operations.
Apparently the airport authority, as part of the 2nd runway scheme, undertook to purchase the houses. Removal of the houses will no doubt give an increased performace for 06L departures as there will be less obstacles in the climb-out.
As always I am sure that somebody else will come up with a more detailed answer.
Apparently the airport authority, as part of the 2nd runway scheme, undertook to purchase the houses. Removal of the houses will no doubt give an increased performace for 06L departures as there will be less obstacles in the climb-out.
As always I am sure that somebody else will come up with a more detailed answer.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the purchase decision was taken due to the not infrequent shock damage to these properties. However, it does start to clear the way to extend 06L, allowing a better separation from 06R!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it does start to clear the way to extend 06L, allowing a better separation from 06R!
If 06L/24R were extended across Ringway Road towards Heald Green then it would give a greater TORA / LDA on that runway, (which is already plenty long enough),but this dosen't really do anything seperation wise AFAICS
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I think FOZ means is that there could then be a greater offset between the two runways allowing true, independent and fully dual runway, operations.
If the runway (24R/06L) were to be extended across the road and the 06L threshold were to be displaced by what I suspect would have to be a considerable amount (the precise figure escapes me at the moment but 4,300ft rings a bell), then there would be a chance I suppose that we'd meet some of the ICAO requirements allowing such operations to occur.
But I suspect we'd still come nowhere near close enough to allow dual landings and dual departures to happen, even if you disregarded the problems with the taxiways (i.e. there are none on certain parts of the airfield where there really ought to be some) and the physical lack of lateral space between the two runways.
It may help us (or rather the aerodrome/approach controllers)
out with the go-arounds and give a larger TORA / LDA but beyond that I can't see the benefits. But then, I am rather out of the loop on matters such as this at the moment
If the runway (24R/06L) were to be extended across the road and the 06L threshold were to be displaced by what I suspect would have to be a considerable amount (the precise figure escapes me at the moment but 4,300ft rings a bell), then there would be a chance I suppose that we'd meet some of the ICAO requirements allowing such operations to occur.
But I suspect we'd still come nowhere near close enough to allow dual landings and dual departures to happen, even if you disregarded the problems with the taxiways (i.e. there are none on certain parts of the airfield where there really ought to be some) and the physical lack of lateral space between the two runways.
It may help us (or rather the aerodrome/approach controllers)
out with the go-arounds and give a larger TORA / LDA but beyond that I can't see the benefits. But then, I am rather out of the loop on matters such as this at the moment
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....On the other hand it could be in preperation for the eventual bypass extension (under discussion at the moment with all parties/residents on route and structure) of the M56 across to the A6.
One of the options openly circulated is for a large roundabout or interchange somewhere close by with the bypass then continuing on behind the present road and onto/joining the current Handforth/Bramhall bypass road
One of the options openly circulated is for a large roundabout or interchange somewhere close by with the bypass then continuing on behind the present road and onto/joining the current Handforth/Bramhall bypass road
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany / UK
Age: 44
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must agree with MOM in that one
All these LCC`s now talking about using MAN I cant help feel the larger airline’s must be sat back at the moment enjoying the festive season watching with glee as their competition fight for scraps. And for gods sake 1 million free seats with ??? how many aircraft. so next years on SkyEurope I take it.
All these LCC`s now talking about using MAN I cant help feel the larger airline’s must be sat back at the moment enjoying the festive season watching with glee as their competition fight for scraps. And for gods sake 1 million free seats with ??? how many aircraft. so next years on SkyEurope I take it.
Now let's see if we can return to the topic.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the options openly circulated is for a large roundabout or interchange somewhere close by with the bypass then continuing on behind the present road and onto/joining the current Handforth/Bramhall bypass road
www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=0&lon=0&scale=25000&icon=x
I would say that it's a certainty that the western part of the MAELR will join up to the Western end of the existing bit of road (they already have the bridge in place to let the B5358 go under it. The bit up for discussion is the exact alignment of the bit between there and the airport, the junction layouts and the layout of the Eastern section. There's a site from the planning team here :
http://www.u-to-us.com/semmmsp2/index.htm
Now - with such a good road linking Manchester and Woodford, how about MAPLC buying Woodford and using it to increase capacity further !? It's good to see the planners at least haven't put the new road straight through EGCD's runway
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADVERTISING!
It seems that some people are under the impression that posting airline services is acceptable. Sorry, but it isn't. It is advertising and PPRuNe does not allow it. References are acceptable but not something taken from, or linked to, a website.
If SkyEurope, or anyone else, wishes to place a paid for advertisement on PPRuNe they are more than welcome to apply. The details to do that are on the site's main page of PPRuNe.
This site is free for all to enjoy but not to make blatant or linked advertising. It costs a great deal of money to run and relies on advertising income to keep it going. All the funds to run it is supplied by one man, Danny, and we mods are here to apply his rules and if you feel that you cannot accept them, you are free to choose another site.
You agreed, when you signed up, not to advertise on PPRuNe and we ask you to respect that - or we will always edit or remove such posts. As you have noted it really is that simple.
PPP
If SkyEurope, or anyone else, wishes to place a paid for advertisement on PPRuNe they are more than welcome to apply. The details to do that are on the site's main page of PPRuNe.
This site is free for all to enjoy but not to make blatant or linked advertising. It costs a great deal of money to run and relies on advertising income to keep it going. All the funds to run it is supplied by one man, Danny, and we mods are here to apply his rules and if you feel that you cannot accept them, you are free to choose another site.
You agreed, when you signed up, not to advertise on PPRuNe and we ask you to respect that - or we will always edit or remove such posts. As you have noted it really is that simple.
PPP
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SkyEurope declaration on their website, that they have services to Poland will further put the squeeze on LOT who are having a hard time against SkyEurope, Wizz and easyJet. Who will pay LOT prices with Wizz and SkyEurope now operating from the northwest?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moscow / Hong Kong
I have heard the following said about 'Cathay's Return to Manchester':
The flights will actually be operated by Aeroflot from Manchester to Moscow, using SU aircraft and crew, but codesharing with Cathay Pacific. The onward connection, from Moscow to Hong Kong, will then be operated with the same flight number, but by alternating CX and SU aircraft on different days of the week.
So Manchester may not 'quite' be getting a 'real' direct service to Hong Kong...
Anyone know any more about this?
The flights will actually be operated by Aeroflot from Manchester to Moscow, using SU aircraft and crew, but codesharing with Cathay Pacific. The onward connection, from Moscow to Hong Kong, will then be operated with the same flight number, but by alternating CX and SU aircraft on different days of the week.
So Manchester may not 'quite' be getting a 'real' direct service to Hong Kong...
Anyone know any more about this?