MANCHESTER - 5
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stand Closures
Scottie Dog wrote
Anyone explain what is going on at the end of Pier B which closes Stands 12/14 and the South bay stands?
Suzeman
Stands 12/14/56/57/SB1/SB2/SB3 withdrawn from use
Suzeman
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major Construction Work April-December 2008
Suzeman
What an appropriate time to ask the question as I have just found AIP Supplement S 6/2008 which is most enlightening. If I may summate:
Terminal 3 extension - April-October 2008, as previously mentioned. Upon completion of the work all stands will return to normal, with the exception of stands 55 and 56 which are permanently withdrawn.
Construction of new parallel taxiway north of Taxiway Kilo and between Taxiways Delta and Foxtrot. Period of work 14th April-24th December 2008:
Phase A: (14th April-29th August) Stands 12, 14, 15, SB1-SB3 closed.
Taxiway Juliet diverted between J7 and intersection with Taxiway Delta.
Taxiway Delta closed between D3 and D4. Taxiway Bravo closed east of intersection with Taxiway Charlie.
Further night time closures will be advised by NOTAM.
Phase B: (1st September-24th December 2008) Stands 10, 12 and 14 closed.
Stands SB1, SB2, SB3 permanently removed.
Stands 12 and 14 retuned to use in different configurations from present, after works completion.
Taxiway Lima becomes cul-de-sac for duration of works
Routes J9-D5 and D4-D5 closed during nightime works.
For information the grass island between South Bay stands and Taxiway Kilo will be reshaped.
Hope that will be of assistance.
Scottie Dog
What an appropriate time to ask the question as I have just found AIP Supplement S 6/2008 which is most enlightening. If I may summate:
Terminal 3 extension - April-October 2008, as previously mentioned. Upon completion of the work all stands will return to normal, with the exception of stands 55 and 56 which are permanently withdrawn.
Construction of new parallel taxiway north of Taxiway Kilo and between Taxiways Delta and Foxtrot. Period of work 14th April-24th December 2008:
Phase A: (14th April-29th August) Stands 12, 14, 15, SB1-SB3 closed.
Taxiway Juliet diverted between J7 and intersection with Taxiway Delta.
Taxiway Delta closed between D3 and D4. Taxiway Bravo closed east of intersection with Taxiway Charlie.
Further night time closures will be advised by NOTAM.
Phase B: (1st September-24th December 2008) Stands 10, 12 and 14 closed.
Stands SB1, SB2, SB3 permanently removed.
Stands 12 and 14 retuned to use in different configurations from present, after works completion.
Taxiway Lima becomes cul-de-sac for duration of works
Routes J9-D5 and D4-D5 closed during nightime works.
For information the grass island between South Bay stands and Taxiway Kilo will be reshaped.
Hope that will be of assistance.
Scottie Dog
Last edited by Scottie Dog; 13th Apr 2008 at 20:51. Reason: Text error
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Scottie.
Once I looked at the chart, all became clear(er). This must be to do with the airfield taxiway rationalisation talked about by Roverman. And don't I remember somewhere in this thread that Stand 12 was going to be an A380 stand?
By the way, I notice that the overnight closure of 05R/23L has been extended by a week, presumeably because of the inclement weather in the last couple of weeks?
Suzeman
Once I looked at the chart, all became clear(er). This must be to do with the airfield taxiway rationalisation talked about by Roverman. And don't I remember somewhere in this thread that Stand 12 was going to be an A380 stand?
By the way, I notice that the overnight closure of 05R/23L has been extended by a week, presumeably because of the inclement weather in the last couple of weeks?
Suzeman
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somebody please explain to me when SQ is moving back to 5-times weekly on the SIN route? In March they had a L/F of 93.4%!
Other good figures were achieved across the long haul programme including:
DXB 89%
AUH 87%
DOH 72%
EWR 85%
ATL 88%
PHL 48%
There are many other great routes but these are all preliminary and some of the routes carry more PAX. For example, 5660 people went to LAX from MAN last month with US (I think) which will have pumped number up even more.
Other good figures were achieved across the long haul programme including:
DXB 89%
AUH 87%
DOH 72%
EWR 85%
ATL 88%
PHL 48%
There are many other great routes but these are all preliminary and some of the routes carry more PAX. For example, 5660 people went to LAX from MAN last month with US (I think) which will have pumped number up even more.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MUFC_fan
Like many of us I find the SQ decision very strange.
I cannot believe that with load factors like that and the fact that they are fairly consistently high that the flight cannot be profitable. Further business class is regularly full and therefore it is not just the back end that gets the PAX.
People will say that it is not just the number of PAX but the yield. That may be true but when a plane is full both back and front then there is something wrong if it is not profitable provided of course the fares are not heavily discounted. which doesn't seem to be the case.
The fares from MAN are similar to if not slightly higher than those from LHR so why the decision when most airlines would be considering increasing rather than decreasing with that performance and staff at MAN had I believe requested extra flights.
RE PHL you need to add the LAX figures to get the correct load which I think is about 80%
Viscount
Like many of us I find the SQ decision very strange.
I cannot believe that with load factors like that and the fact that they are fairly consistently high that the flight cannot be profitable. Further business class is regularly full and therefore it is not just the back end that gets the PAX.
People will say that it is not just the number of PAX but the yield. That may be true but when a plane is full both back and front then there is something wrong if it is not profitable provided of course the fares are not heavily discounted. which doesn't seem to be the case.
The fares from MAN are similar to if not slightly higher than those from LHR so why the decision when most airlines would be considering increasing rather than decreasing with that performance and staff at MAN had I believe requested extra flights.
RE PHL you need to add the LAX figures to get the correct load which I think is about 80%
Viscount
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PHL
MUFC_fan
"PHL 48%" - late night was it?
only joking.
If you add the 5660 LAX pax to it it looks rather good
I can't read my own writing but it looks like 8526+5660 = 14186
or 228 per flight. Could be a typo in there but it was good anyway.
I think the provisional figures always show the split between
PHL and LAX - I trust it is LAX the flight number goes onto LAX
(not the aircraft) - that is of course if a flight number can
actually go on anywhere
Some of Manchester's European routes were not too bad either.
Pete
"PHL 48%" - late night was it?
only joking.If you add the 5660 LAX pax to it it looks rather good
I can't read my own writing but it looks like 8526+5660 = 14186
or 228 per flight. Could be a typo in there but it was good anyway.
I think the provisional figures always show the split between
PHL and LAX - I trust it is LAX the flight number goes onto LAX
(not the aircraft) - that is of course if a flight number can
actually go on anywhere
Some of Manchester's European routes were not too bad either.
Pete
Last edited by OltonPete; 14th Apr 2008 at 19:36. Reason: added text
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tb10er
Okay, here are the answers to your questions:
Libyan - +46pc with 777 passengers
Saudia - Jeddah - 211 passengers, Riyadh - 896 passengers
Syrian - +3.27pc with 725 passengers.
Nothing about the latter 2 gets me very excited.
I will look at European destinations shortly.
Libyan - +46pc with 777 passengers
Saudia - Jeddah - 211 passengers, Riyadh - 896 passengers
Syrian - +3.27pc with 725 passengers.
Nothing about the latter 2 gets me very excited.
I will look at European destinations shortly.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
March movements synopsis
Just a brief look at some of the European destinations and, bearing in mind that Easter was early this year, it is hard to tell how things are really doing. How will the economic downturn effect the later months?
Top place for percentage increase is Tel Aviv: +244pc and 4200 passengers
Bratislava: +153pc, 7648 passengers
Murcia: +129pc, 12690 passengers
Naples: +124pc, 2471 passengers
Nearer to home
Cork: +91pc, 12838 passengers
Basle: +90pc, 2844 passengers
Shannon: +70pc, 5859 passengers
Waterford: +61pc, 2135 passengers
Paderborn and Toulouse each had an increase of between 51-56pc
Following had increases in the range 40-49pc - Antwerp, Athens, Hamburg, Sofia.
Increases of over 10pc were recorded on numerous other routes and it is especially pleasing to see Helsinki, Geneva and Rotterdam included.
Major declines were Bergamo, Krakow, Barcelona, Warsaw, Stockholm, Brussels, Amsterdam and Luxembourg.
Remember though that these are provisional figures and are subject to adjustment.
Top place for percentage increase is Tel Aviv: +244pc and 4200 passengers
Bratislava: +153pc, 7648 passengers
Murcia: +129pc, 12690 passengers
Naples: +124pc, 2471 passengers
Nearer to home
Cork: +91pc, 12838 passengers
Basle: +90pc, 2844 passengers
Shannon: +70pc, 5859 passengers
Waterford: +61pc, 2135 passengers
Paderborn and Toulouse each had an increase of between 51-56pc
Following had increases in the range 40-49pc - Antwerp, Athens, Hamburg, Sofia.
Increases of over 10pc were recorded on numerous other routes and it is especially pleasing to see Helsinki, Geneva and Rotterdam included.
Major declines were Bergamo, Krakow, Barcelona, Warsaw, Stockholm, Brussels, Amsterdam and Luxembourg.
Remember though that these are provisional figures and are subject to adjustment.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: England
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ and MAN
I am afraid the SQ decision is nothing to do with MAN, it's to do with the requirements of SQ globally and the yield they can get elsewhere.
I fly all over the Asia Pacific region with SQ and all their flights are rammed, and have been for a while. Their India and China routes are filling the flights up at a staggering rate. They are desperately short of birds at the moment, something that is not going to improve in the short to medium term. So unfortunately, they have to nick them from elsewhere, and we have to suffer.
BTW, if someone is regularly being quoted more to fly from MAN than LHR then get a new TA, sharpish.
I fly all over the Asia Pacific region with SQ and all their flights are rammed, and have been for a while. Their India and China routes are filling the flights up at a staggering rate. They are desperately short of birds at the moment, something that is not going to improve in the short to medium term. So unfortunately, they have to nick them from elsewhere, and we have to suffer.
BTW, if someone is regularly being quoted more to fly from MAN than LHR then get a new TA, sharpish.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well surely then the drop in SQ capacity must act as further catalyst for another carrier to move in...be it Air China next year, a NZ service or whoever. or emirates will just add a 9th daily service!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: XUMAT
Age: 61
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ also have a number of aircraft due in for checks, together with the progressive withdrawal of the 747 passenger fleet. Manchester will see the reductions in off-season purely because they need capacity elsewhere in the system.
A380 delays in delivery didn't help their fleet planning either.
A380 delays in delivery didn't help their fleet planning either.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ also have a number of aircraft due in for checks, together with the progressive withdrawal of the 747 passenger fleet. Manchester will see the reductions in off-season purely because they need capacity elsewhere in the system.
A380 delays in delivery didn't help their fleet planning either.
A380 delays in delivery didn't help their fleet planning either.
But I am not expert, but if the A380 (ther replacement, along with the 77W for the SQ 744), why are they withdrawing the 747? Are they on lease or are they owned? Surely if they are owned they can keep them in the fleet and keep them in line with the A380 deliveries?
