MANCHESTER
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 53
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Expanding?
Here's a good one for rumours.
I've just been interviewed for a survey my a bloke from the DfT. The reason, aparently, is because I live under the flightpath of 24R at MAN.
He tells me that MAN have just had planning permission approved for a 4th terminal, which will be built where the Faireys apron (maintenence) is now.
And also that they have applied to build a 3rd runway. What was interesting about this is that according to this bloke it has something to do with the old dissused runway, now part of a taxiway, but a hangover from the triangulation days of the war.
As I work at MAN I find this surprising as I have not heard a peep about any of this from the usual sources. Anybosy know any more???
I've just been interviewed for a survey my a bloke from the DfT. The reason, aparently, is because I live under the flightpath of 24R at MAN.
He tells me that MAN have just had planning permission approved for a 4th terminal, which will be built where the Faireys apron (maintenence) is now.
And also that they have applied to build a 3rd runway. What was interesting about this is that according to this bloke it has something to do with the old dissused runway, now part of a taxiway, but a hangover from the triangulation days of the war.
As I work at MAN I find this surprising as I have not heard a peep about any of this from the usual sources. Anybosy know any more???
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen plans before to extend the terminal buildings in stages starting with a satellite opposite T2 and ending with the western apron being completely enclosed.
A new runway though seems a bit of a non-starter - I cannot see where you'd put it.
A new runway though seems a bit of a non-starter - I cannot see where you'd put it.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lancashire some where
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The western maintenance hangers are on on a ten year lease and now some 8 years into the lease, i heard that they wanted to demolish the hangers and build a 3rd runway parrallel to the M56?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old 'London Airways' hangar won't be missed, as it's stood idle for half its life!!
However I won't be holding my breath on any of the reported development, as other rumours heard recently tell of a tale of very little opportunity for major expansion due to limited funds.
( W.H. Smith & Boots haven't coughed up enough on the retailing side probably!!)
'Growing the business' - yeh right, - I don't think that's been heard of for a while at Manchester, ever since Gill Thompson left!
However I won't be holding my breath on any of the reported development, as other rumours heard recently tell of a tale of very little opportunity for major expansion due to limited funds.
( W.H. Smith & Boots haven't coughed up enough on the retailing side probably!!)
'Growing the business' - yeh right, - I don't think that's been heard of for a while at Manchester, ever since Gill Thompson left!
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne..._be_built.html
Third runway may be built (2002)
PLANS for a fourth terminal and a third runway at Manchester Airport have been unveiled.
http://www.georgeosborne.co.uk/recor...type=news&ID=9
Manchester Airport
27 January 2004
The Government's hidden plans for a massive increase in noise and pollution.
I’m afraid to report that Knustford has just fallen for one of the oldest political tricks in the book – use a red herring to distract people’s attention from your real plans. The red herring is the Government’s talk of a third runway at Manchester Airport, and their real plans are for a massive increase in noise and pollution in the skies over Knutsford. Let me explain.
In 2002 the Government announced that it was thinking about which airports in Britain could expand over the next thirty years. A great big consultation document was produced with all sorts of facts and figures about how millions more people were going to using airplanes in the years to come, and Britain’s airports were not big enough to cope. One of the solutions, they suggested, was a third runway at Manchester Airport. You could almost hear the cry of protest go up in King Street!
For the people of Knutsford, still reeling from the impact on the second runway, it was like a red rag to a bull. Dozens of people wrote to me saying that a third runway would make the noise problem unbearable, increase pollution and swallow up acres of Cheshire countryside. “There must be no third runway”, they demanded, and I took up their fight. I made it clear to the Government that their plans were completely unacceptable and that I would do everything to stop them.
Then, just before this Christmas, the Government announced that it had made a decision. There would be an extra runway at Stansted, possibly an extra runway at Heathrow, but no third runway at Manchester. To use their precise words, they said: “we do not anticipate major runway capacity constraints at Manchester before 2030”. Again, the sigh of relief in King Street was audible. “The town has been saved”, we all exclaimed. “We can relax now”. How wrong we were.
For, now that I’ve thought about it for a couple of weeks, I realise that it was highly unlikely that they were ever going to say ‘yes’ to a third runway. Indeed, Manchester Airport themselves had never asked for one to even be considered. They were happy with the two existing runways, and had no money or need to build a third one. The Government had raised the fear of a third runway only so they could then knock it down. In other words, it was a red herring and it succeeded in distracting our attention from their real plans.
These plans are buried away on page 85 of the Government document called ‘The Future of Air Transport’, which was published last month. They reveal that the Government is happy to see the number of passengers rise from 19 million a year to more than 50 million a year – in other words, a massive increase of more than 150 per cent. That means probably a whole new terminal at the Airport and many many more planes in the skies above Knutsford.
Even the Government admit in their plans that this would have a huge impact on noise and the local environment. They say “we recognise that the location of Manchester Airport already causes large numbers of people to be exposed to aircraft noise nuisance”. On their latest figures, 45,000 people live in area where noise from the airport exceeds 57 decibels. That would rise to 70,000 people if this huge expansion goes ahead. They admit too that air quality would deteriorate and that emissions of nitrogen dioxide would have to be carefully monitored.
However, in the Government’s words, “we do not believe, on balance, that these impacts are so severe that constraints should be imposed on the development of the airport”. In other words, the airport has a carte blanche to more than double in size regardless of the impact on local people of noise and pollution.
I strongly disagree with the Government. I want Manchester Airport to be a success. Many people I represent work at the Airport. I want it to go on being a magnet for jobs and investment that benefits the whole region. But I firmly believe that Airport will only be a success with the support of the local community, and that includes the people of Knutsford. Any expansion of the Airport must, in my view, be accompanied by tough measures to reduce noise and pollution. For example, older, noisier and dirtier planes should be banned. Planes that don’t stick to agreed flight paths must be heavily fined. No additional flight paths, especially the so-called Green Route over the town, should be opened up. Proper compensation should be paid. The rights of local people must be respected. Only then will Manchester Airport have a sustainable and successful future.
Third runway may be built (2002)
PLANS for a fourth terminal and a third runway at Manchester Airport have been unveiled.
http://www.georgeosborne.co.uk/recor...type=news&ID=9
Manchester Airport
27 January 2004
The Government's hidden plans for a massive increase in noise and pollution.
I’m afraid to report that Knustford has just fallen for one of the oldest political tricks in the book – use a red herring to distract people’s attention from your real plans. The red herring is the Government’s talk of a third runway at Manchester Airport, and their real plans are for a massive increase in noise and pollution in the skies over Knutsford. Let me explain.
In 2002 the Government announced that it was thinking about which airports in Britain could expand over the next thirty years. A great big consultation document was produced with all sorts of facts and figures about how millions more people were going to using airplanes in the years to come, and Britain’s airports were not big enough to cope. One of the solutions, they suggested, was a third runway at Manchester Airport. You could almost hear the cry of protest go up in King Street!
For the people of Knutsford, still reeling from the impact on the second runway, it was like a red rag to a bull. Dozens of people wrote to me saying that a third runway would make the noise problem unbearable, increase pollution and swallow up acres of Cheshire countryside. “There must be no third runway”, they demanded, and I took up their fight. I made it clear to the Government that their plans were completely unacceptable and that I would do everything to stop them.
Then, just before this Christmas, the Government announced that it had made a decision. There would be an extra runway at Stansted, possibly an extra runway at Heathrow, but no third runway at Manchester. To use their precise words, they said: “we do not anticipate major runway capacity constraints at Manchester before 2030”. Again, the sigh of relief in King Street was audible. “The town has been saved”, we all exclaimed. “We can relax now”. How wrong we were.
For, now that I’ve thought about it for a couple of weeks, I realise that it was highly unlikely that they were ever going to say ‘yes’ to a third runway. Indeed, Manchester Airport themselves had never asked for one to even be considered. They were happy with the two existing runways, and had no money or need to build a third one. The Government had raised the fear of a third runway only so they could then knock it down. In other words, it was a red herring and it succeeded in distracting our attention from their real plans.
These plans are buried away on page 85 of the Government document called ‘The Future of Air Transport’, which was published last month. They reveal that the Government is happy to see the number of passengers rise from 19 million a year to more than 50 million a year – in other words, a massive increase of more than 150 per cent. That means probably a whole new terminal at the Airport and many many more planes in the skies above Knutsford.
Even the Government admit in their plans that this would have a huge impact on noise and the local environment. They say “we recognise that the location of Manchester Airport already causes large numbers of people to be exposed to aircraft noise nuisance”. On their latest figures, 45,000 people live in area where noise from the airport exceeds 57 decibels. That would rise to 70,000 people if this huge expansion goes ahead. They admit too that air quality would deteriorate and that emissions of nitrogen dioxide would have to be carefully monitored.
However, in the Government’s words, “we do not believe, on balance, that these impacts are so severe that constraints should be imposed on the development of the airport”. In other words, the airport has a carte blanche to more than double in size regardless of the impact on local people of noise and pollution.
I strongly disagree with the Government. I want Manchester Airport to be a success. Many people I represent work at the Airport. I want it to go on being a magnet for jobs and investment that benefits the whole region. But I firmly believe that Airport will only be a success with the support of the local community, and that includes the people of Knutsford. Any expansion of the Airport must, in my view, be accompanied by tough measures to reduce noise and pollution. For example, older, noisier and dirtier planes should be banned. Planes that don’t stick to agreed flight paths must be heavily fined. No additional flight paths, especially the so-called Green Route over the town, should be opened up. Proper compensation should be paid. The rights of local people must be respected. Only then will Manchester Airport have a sustainable and successful future.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Any expansion of the Airport must, in my view, be accompanied by tough measures to reduce noise and pollution."
The same good commuters of Knutsford used to make my life a misery speeding into work in Manchester along Wilmslow Road, and complained endlessly about speed cameras to make them stick to the limits. And I'm sure they never used the airport at all.
I don't have a lot of sympathy.
The same good commuters of Knutsford used to make my life a misery speeding into work in Manchester along Wilmslow Road, and complained endlessly about speed cameras to make them stick to the limits. And I'm sure they never used the airport at all.
I don't have a lot of sympathy.
A year or so ago I was shown some outline plans of how MAN might look in 30 years time. These were purely speculative but included various possible terminals and runways. All these configurations had their advantages and disadvantages ( not least the public outcry/protests) at more development. One idea was to build a runway along the line of the old 10/28. This would start near the threshold of 24L and continue west through the area of the engine test bay towards the M56 motorway. A terminal would be sited where the current maintenance base is. Another terminal site would be to the south of 24L alongside the "remote" fire station.
Looks like one of these might come to fruition?
Looks like one of these might come to fruition?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's some evidence of future plans on the south side. The railway siding is still there from Runway 2 and there is a huge unnecessary roundabout south of the road tunnel, apparently for "traffic-calming", yeah right.....
Good luck, Manchester Airport. Having got this far I can see little need to restrict growth.
Good luck, Manchester Airport. Having got this far I can see little need to restrict growth.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: ON A ROUND THE WORLD MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to the rumours
Here's one for thought that is being bounced around the local area.
When BAe Woodford finally goes which is deemed to be soon, Manchester are going to buy it, move most of the cargo or what it can and the GA flights to Woodford and where the cargo is now turn that to another terminal with a new rumway running alongside the M56.
Just a rumour of course.
When BAe Woodford finally goes which is deemed to be soon, Manchester are going to buy it, move most of the cargo or what it can and the GA flights to Woodford and where the cargo is now turn that to another terminal with a new rumway running alongside the M56.
Just a rumour of course.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression that
when an aircraft used Woodford ILS that then reduced by Manchester by the same number of movements, due to it taking Manchesters airspace
And I have also heard that some equipment to do with Nimrod wing jigs has just been delivered so may not be closing quite as quick as you think
But who knows
G-I-B
when an aircraft used Woodford ILS that then reduced by Manchester by the same number of movements, due to it taking Manchesters airspace
And I have also heard that some equipment to do with Nimrod wing jigs has just been delivered so may not be closing quite as quick as you think
But who knows
G-I-B
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terminal four has been on the cards for years! It's position keeps changing though, I thought it was going over the other side of the second runway. As they are going to move the aviation viewing park over to the far side of runway 2 some time. Perhaps the AVP is the site of T4?. If they knock down the run pen, NEA ,B.A., Monarch and MYT's hangars they will have a huge site. After all what do they need hangars for at an airport?
Rgds Dr.I.
Rgds Dr.I.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near A1 and Wetherby
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Expansion
The airport archivist visited the Yorkshire Air Society on Sunday and told us that unconfirmably Manchester were possibly building or extending the terminal capacitys. However to my knowlage nothing much was talked about a new runway. As someone has said this expansion has been on the cards for a while.
He also told us that the viewing park and cargo hangers were to move to allow for terminal expansion and that the based Concorde's rudder has been damaged by strong winds some months ago.
He also told us that the viewing park and cargo hangers were to move to allow for terminal expansion and that the based Concorde's rudder has been damaged by strong winds some months ago.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem rather strange to knock down three hangars that are only about 10 years old (plus the Citiexpress hangar too?). Unless MYT have decided to relocate to another airport and Monarch decide to stop their very busy business of repairing & maintaining a hell of a lot of aircraft in their hangar they will have to be rebuilt anyway, and if I remember right the Monarch hangar alone was about £7,000,000 to build last time, if the huge MYT/SR Technic hangar was rebuilt I doubt the MAPLC could afford it. It would also show a stupid level of forethought by allowing them to be built in the first place.
It would also mean the new terminal being built right next to the the fuel farm, and I somehow can't see that, maybe that's moving too.
It would also mean the new terminal being built right next to the the fuel farm, and I somehow can't see that, maybe that's moving too.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Concorde had its rudder gag blown out and the rudder was forced hard over. There was no visible damage. Don't forget the rudders were jettisonable anyway!!!!!!!
Rgds Dr.I.
Rgds Dr.I.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde Rudder?
Would that have been be jetisoned AFTER a successful landing , or before the inevitable crash??
Only joking, I know it made few landings, without too much problem, with only half a rudder during its its flying days.
a69.
Only joking, I know it made few landings, without too much problem, with only half a rudder during its its flying days.
a69.