MANCHESTER - 5
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN777, I agree with you in certain respects but bulldozing T1 and starting again simply isn't an option. The only way this could be achieved is by constructing a temporary terminal first or by building a completely new terminal on a different site and then demolishing T1 altogether after that and leaving that site empty. Both are extremely costly and whilst I agree that it would be the only real long term solution to certain problems, the money simply isn't there to undertake a project of that size. The demolition of 'B Pier' in itself will cause an incredible amount of disruption. So much so that the airport will probably have to spend 15m on a link between gate 22 in T1 and gate 202 in T2 just so T1 flights can use T2 whilst 'B Pier' is rebuilt. That in itself will cause minor problems when you consider the walking distance between say the current airside food village in T1 and gate 205 in T2. Anything on a larger scale is just a no go.
GavinC... T2 'West Pier' will be extended so that gates 216-219 will be part of the terminal and connected by airbridges. This scheme has already been given the go ahead and will start shortly. This will allow gates 201-205 to be used by T1 carriers without affecting the T2 operation too much.
GavinC... T2 'West Pier' will be extended so that gates 216-219 will be part of the terminal and connected by airbridges. This scheme has already been given the go ahead and will start shortly. This will allow gates 201-205 to be used by T1 carriers without affecting the T2 operation too much.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much so that the airport will probably have to spend 15m on a link between gate 22 in T1 and gate 202 in T2
This link will help during the projects that FlyZB outlines, but will also benefit the flexibility of terminal allocation later, especially where the peaks of terminal useage are not simultaneous.
Suzeman
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Macclesfield
Age: 53
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GavinC... T2 'West Pier' will be extended so that gates 216-219 will be part of the terminal and connected by airbridges. This scheme has already been given the go ahead and will start shortly. This will allow gates 201-205 to be used by T1 carriers without affecting the T2 operation too much
I also thought that there were plans to build a terminal in the middle along 235 -247 but might be wrong!!
Rumour has it that B pier will be built in 2 halves.
Fuelboy
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suzeman, indeed that is the idea because the T1 morning peak is usually between 6 and 8 whereas the T2 peak is between 9 and 11 when most of the transatlantics arrive and depart. So of course, it could also work the other way and we'll see T2 aircraft using 'C Pier' on T1 rather than having to go remote. Although the creation of 4 new gates (216-219) in the next 2-3 years will remove the need to use the bussing gate 300 as much. I doubt the airport would spend 15million on a link without it having a use after 'B Pier' has been rebuilt and 'C Pier' remodelled but I know for a fact that this is being carefully researched at the minute. There are doubts over how messy it could get if T1 airlines are boarding off T2 stands and vice versa. It would of course create an easier journey between terminals for transfer passengers but MAG won't want to spend 15m on a new link for that reason alone. Interesting times ahead that's for sure.
Fuel Boy when the T2 extension was being talked about, there were plans to build a remote pier at stands 235 - 247 with an underground subway linking the main terminal building with this satellite terminal. Indeed if you look at a recent A to Z map of Manchester, this subway is marked even though it was never constructed. Recently, this remote pier was talked about again with the idea of low cost carriers using the satellite which would have very basic facilities similar to the satellites at STN. But this idea has yet again been shelved and a big project for T3 as a Low Cost terminal is now work in progress instead.
Fuel Boy when the T2 extension was being talked about, there were plans to build a remote pier at stands 235 - 247 with an underground subway linking the main terminal building with this satellite terminal. Indeed if you look at a recent A to Z map of Manchester, this subway is marked even though it was never constructed. Recently, this remote pier was talked about again with the idea of low cost carriers using the satellite which would have very basic facilities similar to the satellites at STN. But this idea has yet again been shelved and a big project for T3 as a Low Cost terminal is now work in progress instead.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyZB
The proposed T3 works that you mention are they the
plans that had Ringway road 'swallowed' up and concreted
over upto the Airport hotel and back to the railway with
stands for low-cost operators being quick turn-around gates
without a pier? (Getting rid of the 'aeroparks' along Ringway
road - ofcourse).
I seem to remember seeing these plans posted on here a while
ago - or it could have been another site?
MM
The proposed T3 works that you mention are they the
plans that had Ringway road 'swallowed' up and concreted
over upto the Airport hotel and back to the railway with
stands for low-cost operators being quick turn-around gates
without a pier? (Getting rid of the 'aeroparks' along Ringway
road - ofcourse).
I seem to remember seeing these plans posted on here a while
ago - or it could have been another site?
MM
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at artists impressions for T2 in the late 80s you will see a link between these two locations. But it was deleted during the "value-engineering" phase...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things are still very up in the air regarding T3 and several ideas are on the table at the minute. This is the reason why I haven't really gone into any detail regarding T3 as yet. What I can tell you, is once the T1 & T2 security and retail developments have been fully completed by Spring next year, the focus will shift completely onto T3. Mickyman, that particular plan you mention is definately one option although they are favouring building a pier now in a cul-de-sac style design. It will indeed mean that the road and car parks will be constructed upon and under that particular plan, a new checkin hall will be built over the approach road and connect onto the current short stay car park. There are several other ideas being tossed around though, so once I have more detail and providing its not top secret, I shall let you all know. T3 is definately where the 'exciting' development will occur from 2010 onwards. Expect to see huge changes and major expansion of this terminal to cater purely for LCC's and nothing else. You will see minor changes in T3 this Summer. International outbound control is moving to the Mezz, where the new domestic outbound is currently located, to create one big area. The current OBC will be closed and converted into an airside seating area.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redevelopment of T1 ? - Dead easy!
Step 1.
Build a new terminal between the rail station and the present T1 Multi-storey carpark, to link with the present T2. (Complete with spectators terrace!!??)
Step2
When this is completed, open it to a grand fanfare, whilst knocking down the old terminal 1, thus creating lots of open area for Apron in front of the new Termial.
Step3
Knock down Olympic house - situated in a ridiculous place, not only blocking development of T3 but causes no end of turbulnece affecting aircraft over the threshold of 23R when the wind is from the NW at 20+ knots!!!
Step4
Build a new "Olympic House" in Leek, roughly half -way between the principle assets of MAG.
Step5
Have a Frankfurt style automatic people mover connecting T2 -T1 -T3, it's not rocket science.
Then and only then will Manchester Airport have developed to how it should have been - it'll only be about 15 - 20 years too late?
Also I reckon it's about time the local councils chipped in with some investment instead of always on the take
Build a new terminal between the rail station and the present T1 Multi-storey carpark, to link with the present T2. (Complete with spectators terrace!!??)
Step2
When this is completed, open it to a grand fanfare, whilst knocking down the old terminal 1, thus creating lots of open area for Apron in front of the new Termial.
Step3
Knock down Olympic house - situated in a ridiculous place, not only blocking development of T3 but causes no end of turbulnece affecting aircraft over the threshold of 23R when the wind is from the NW at 20+ knots!!!
Step4
Build a new "Olympic House" in Leek, roughly half -way between the principle assets of MAG.
Step5
Have a Frankfurt style automatic people mover connecting T2 -T1 -T3, it's not rocket science.
Then and only then will Manchester Airport have developed to how it should have been - it'll only be about 15 - 20 years too late?
Also I reckon it's about time the local councils chipped in with some investment instead of always on the take
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Warrington
Age: 52
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jan08 Traffic Stats
Still down as is the norm this financial year and can be expected until probably April. If Recession actually happens then it may be negative for the whole of 2008.
Total (terminal) 1318121 -0.86%
Total (inc transit) 1346745 -1.88% (mainly the PIA transatlantic reduction)
Freight 12216 +6.95%
As is usual at the moment Scheduled international is up +3.55% and domestic - 8.61% and charter - 4.04% are down
Total (terminal) 1318121 -0.86%
Total (inc transit) 1346745 -1.88% (mainly the PIA transatlantic reduction)
Freight 12216 +6.95%
As is usual at the moment Scheduled international is up +3.55% and domestic - 8.61% and charter - 4.04% are down
Last edited by tigermike; 6th Feb 2008 at 12:17.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stoneybridge
Under the current allowable dual runway rules, how often would this have been used?
Answer- infrequently and only when 23L/05R is being used for all movements. This only happens during planned maintenance or during an emergency.
You are talking of an extra strip of around 100m parallel to the runway. The cost which includes land acquisition, earthworks and the river tunnel would have been very high and disproportionate to its use. It would have had an even greater environmental impact which could have made winning the public enquiry even more difficult.So it was not built.
IF and it is a big IF, the rules for closely spaced parallel runway ops changes to allow mixed mode on both runways, I guess the Airport would look at it again.
FlyZB
In fact, it was originally proposed to put the underground link in when T2 was built so that it would be there ready for the time that a remote pier was constructed in the grass island and no taxiway disruption would take place. In the end it was considered too expensive to have this investment sitting there unused for possibly many years. This turned out to be the right decision as plans for a T2 extension have chopped and changed over the years and plans for a remote pier/satellite have not materialised.
Adola 69
You forgot step 0 which is to acquire a very large sack of money to allow this to be done.
I believe that the shareholders ie local councils did forego their dividends a few years ago, so they could be considered to have invested money in the airport.
Suzeman
....as was the full length taxiway for 23L/05R
Answer- infrequently and only when 23L/05R is being used for all movements. This only happens during planned maintenance or during an emergency.
You are talking of an extra strip of around 100m parallel to the runway. The cost which includes land acquisition, earthworks and the river tunnel would have been very high and disproportionate to its use. It would have had an even greater environmental impact which could have made winning the public enquiry even more difficult.So it was not built.
IF and it is a big IF, the rules for closely spaced parallel runway ops changes to allow mixed mode on both runways, I guess the Airport would look at it again.
FlyZB
when the T2 extension was being talked about, there were plans to build a remote pier at stands 235 - 247 with an underground subway linking the main terminal building with this satellite terminal.
Adola 69
Redevelopment of T1 ? - Dead easy!
Also I reckon it's about time the local councils chipped in with some investment instead of always on the take
Suzeman
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T1 Redevelopment.
You forgot step 0 which is to acquire a very large sack of money to allow this to be done.
Point taken. However during the past four years, T1 has had shed-loads of money thrown at it to accomplish
1) Two re-vamps of retail development Landside.
2) Two re-vamps of retail development Airside.
3) A new security area being completed as we speak.
4) The removal and re usage of the bus terminus outside T1 arrivals.
5) The re-vamp of the international arrivals area, to include a Tax Free shopping outlet, right in the way of folk struggling with trolleys laden with suitcases to try and reach the arrivals meeting area!! (An outlet that I have yet to see used by any travellers!??)
6) Multi-storey car park completey re-furbished surface area.
7) A complete re-roofing of ALL roof areas ( Which doesn't appear to have worked too well looking at the number of "ACME" Buckets there are when it rains)!
Money that could have gone very nicely towards the construction of a new "Sponsored" facility, that wouldn't have needed touching for quite a few years, unless those chaps at the ever helpfull Ministry for "Lets make Air Travel a Pain in the Arse" place anymore requirements on airports to make sure everyone is shrouded in cotton wool.
Still I'm sure the accountants have their sums right and I'm talking a bag of S*** e - as usual!!!???
I'm with you Adola69 on this one.
Plus if they hadn't spent shedloads on EMA, Hurn & Humberside (?) then they would have had more dosh to spend on the core business.
More cobbled together "add ons" means more up & down level changes requiring even more lifts & escalators & walkways. Something that MA seem completely unable to maintain to a satisfactory serviceable level.
I suppose a rooftop swimming pool (ala Singapore) isn't on the cards
Plus if they hadn't spent shedloads on EMA, Hurn & Humberside (?) then they would have had more dosh to spend on the core business.
More cobbled together "add ons" means more up & down level changes requiring even more lifts & escalators & walkways. Something that MA seem completely unable to maintain to a satisfactory serviceable level.
I suppose a rooftop swimming pool (ala Singapore) isn't on the cards