MANCHESTER - 9
Didn't mean to knock anybody per se Bagso, I don't even like football! I always thought the only ME carrier that even published it's books was Emirates specifically because they are the only ones making any money
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought the only ME carrier that even published it's books was
Emirates specifically because they are the only ones making any money
Emirates specifically because they are the only ones making any money
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
LH Cargo MD-11 went round off 23R this fine morning. Hardly newsworthy, I know, but anyone know the reason for this. (Might settle a bet)
Job well done I'd say.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw the LH MD11 do a go around while walking the dogs on the southside. Was a good demonstration of how late a go around can be achieved – not 100% sure his mainwheels touched the tarmac, but they got very close if they didn’t. Looked like the usual smooth non-event that these things normally are - especially as the wind seemed fairly benign at the time. However as Roverman points out, erring on the side of caution is probably the best approach (pardon the pun!).
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the MAGWORLD website:
"A six-week programme of night work to construct pavement widening fillets to Taxiways Bravo and Charlie. Working Sunday to Thursday nights only, the work will involve the overnight closure of some local taxiways and other airfield facilities.....The construction of five pavement widening fillets to Code F characteristics at various points along the course of Taxiway Charlie and on Taxiway Bravo towards its junction with Taxiway Delta."
The work will take place between 2nd March and 10th April, subject to weather.
Glad to see that the airport is investing more money on the airfield.
"A six-week programme of night work to construct pavement widening fillets to Taxiways Bravo and Charlie. Working Sunday to Thursday nights only, the work will involve the overnight closure of some local taxiways and other airfield facilities.....The construction of five pavement widening fillets to Code F characteristics at various points along the course of Taxiway Charlie and on Taxiway Bravo towards its junction with Taxiway Delta."
The work will take place between 2nd March and 10th April, subject to weather.
Glad to see that the airport is investing more money on the airfield.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see that the airport is investing more money on the airfield.
In other news,
Libyan Arab are have currently suspended EU ops due to an incident where the Nouvelair Tunisie aircraft lost comms on approach to LHR. There doesn't seem to be a timescale as to when LHR/MAN will be brought back online.
Cathay Pacific cargo look to be running a further reduced schedule this summer, with many weeks having just 1 weekly flight on Mondays. Depressing to think this route used to run at 8 weekly and now struggles to maintain 3 weekly.
One does have to wonder if the cargo market will ever pick up again at MAN. I know the recession hit and all that, but to think we used to have Jett8, Great wall, Air China, Cathay pacific, China airlines, fedex MD11's and Jade cargo were on the cusp of starting.
Now we just have 4 weekly Lufthansa, up to 3 weekly Cathay and a B757/ATR combo on fedex flights. There seems to be a strong rumour that DHL will be running a regular B767 through MAN (let out of the bag at a bigwigs dinner conference a few weeks ago), but apart from that, its pretty quiet on the cargo apron!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ooooooooooooo k
Let the games begin.
LAXLHR and Easyflyer, you have probably seen / heard the same as I have.
Pretty much nails all the complaints about past its sell by date T1, airside connectivity and the airfield all in one go. If they can finance it.
Just don't understand why they are keeping it all under wraps. It would seem to me that it just lets the 'conspiracy theorists / they're trying to hide the truth from us paranoids' have a field day.
All good infrastructure projects (which this undeniably is) should have a healthy public debate surrounding it.
Let the games begin.
LAXLHR and Easyflyer, you have probably seen / heard the same as I have.
Pretty much nails all the complaints about past its sell by date T1, airside connectivity and the airfield all in one go. If they can finance it.
Just don't understand why they are keeping it all under wraps. It would seem to me that it just lets the 'conspiracy theorists / they're trying to hide the truth from us paranoids' have a field day.
All good infrastructure projects (which this undeniably is) should have a healthy public debate surrounding it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. Development.
Without giving away more than you feel able, can any of you say how long the project is expected to take and what disruption / parking stand limitation might be involved in the meantime?
Sounds as if it could be a very interesting development though.
Without giving away more than you feel able, can any of you say how long the project is expected to take and what disruption / parking stand limitation might be involved in the meantime?
Sounds as if it could be a very interesting development though.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they can finance it
Just don't understand why they are keeping it all under wraps. It would seem
to me that it just lets the 'conspiracy theorists / they're trying to hide the
truth from us paranoids' have a field day.
to me that it just lets the 'conspiracy theorists / they're trying to hide the
truth from us paranoids' have a field day.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£450m? From what I understand they will need double that.
But still, what's so overwhelming about a new surface car park and a metro line and the distinctly underwhelming, not actually that much happening Airport City. I went through the airport yesterday - not a single crane on the skyline and very little disruption to speak of through roadworks etc.
These new proposals are simply about the airport bringing itself into the 21st century well within the core boundaries.
What is their problem with getting more stakeholders involved?
When it leaks out anyway - which it surely will - it will only make them look stupid. Imagine the local rags 'The plans they didn't want you to see' They'll have lost before they begin.
But then as others here have stated vociferously, MAN/MAG are tres tres poor at marketing and communication.
But still, what's so overwhelming about a new surface car park and a metro line and the distinctly underwhelming, not actually that much happening Airport City. I went through the airport yesterday - not a single crane on the skyline and very little disruption to speak of through roadworks etc.
These new proposals are simply about the airport bringing itself into the 21st century well within the core boundaries.
What is their problem with getting more stakeholders involved?
When it leaks out anyway - which it surely will - it will only make them look stupid. Imagine the local rags 'The plans they didn't want you to see' They'll have lost before they begin.
But then as others here have stated vociferously, MAN/MAG are tres tres poor at marketing and communication.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main remit of the Davies Commission was a review of UK Airport Capacity, and not UK Aviation Policy as such. It would be extremely difficult for them to conclude there is a shortage of airport capacity outside the SE corner
In actual fact the terms of reference as laid out by Louise Ellman MP were;
1.What should be the objectives of Government policy on aviation?
2.How should we make the best use of existing aviation capacity?
3.What constraints are there on increasing UK aviation capacity?
4.Do we need a step-change in UK aviation capacity? Why?
Whilst 3 and 4 DO refer to capacity constraints in the SE, points 1 and 2 refer to general aviation policy do they not, it seem however that they have been totally lost in the fog of debate on LHR et al !
It could be argued that the Manchester Airport Home Team (as opposed to the Manchester Airport Stansted Away Team), believed at least initially that it WAS very much about policy ! There was much discussion before the committee about London based airlines dominating policy, APD, bilateral and the subsequent impact on Manchester !
However the attendance of the HOME team at the hearings in relation to Manchester and the submission of both written and verbal evidence has proved to be a complete and utter waste of time and energy...at least thus far !
IF it was all about London why bother .....
I would also question what possible value there was having one of the debates in Manchester if the terms of reference related very specifically to a debate about capacity ?
If anything Manchester is now in a worst place politically as at least under the last review it was considered to be a "gateway airport" (although it is questionable as to what that ever meant ).
In this review its position was relegated to merely another "regional" coupled to a pretty damming statement from Davies
"long haul from the regions should be totally dismissed as it is highly damaging to the environment because there is less chance of filling these planes".
...this comment is crucial because it only really effects Manchester and that is where most regional long haul emanates !
Far from looking at options to maximise regional airport growth this comment effectively put a line through it, its the very reason one Northern MP who read the report was so apoplectic, he like me believed Davies failed spectacularly in his remit !
Personally I think MAG also got caught out with a somewhat confused strategy, its turned into a bit of pigs breakfast , they got themselves in a complete bind in terms of what that actual strategy was for both the HOME and subsequently the AWAY team.
Initially much focus was indeed on Manchester (and dare I suggest it UK Aviation Policy) until that is the purchase of Stansted went through, the Manchester contribution stalled and then diminished so quickly you could be forgiven for thinking it was ever part of the initial debate !
Stansted was anointed but things went ary and Davies kicked the option out.
I wonder with a Manchester Airport Terminal revamp being discussed we are seeing another handbrake turn in policy ?
Have MAG considered the implications of Davies and possibly seeing that options at STN are not as rosy as first thought are relooking at Manchester, certainly expansion down there would appear to be linked inexorably to the aspirations of Ryanair ?
Quite what the spokesman for MAG will say at the TAS meeting will be very interesting.
I suspect the evidence that was put before Davies initially re APD and those bilats etc and formed the rump of the MAG submission re MAN will be dusted down and regurgitated to a no doubt receptive audience !
The other MAG evidence re Stansted will I suspect be "how shall we say" quietly dropped.
Suzeman many thanks for the link I have PM'd you.
In actual fact the terms of reference as laid out by Louise Ellman MP were;
1.What should be the objectives of Government policy on aviation?
2.How should we make the best use of existing aviation capacity?
3.What constraints are there on increasing UK aviation capacity?
4.Do we need a step-change in UK aviation capacity? Why?
Whilst 3 and 4 DO refer to capacity constraints in the SE, points 1 and 2 refer to general aviation policy do they not, it seem however that they have been totally lost in the fog of debate on LHR et al !
It could be argued that the Manchester Airport Home Team (as opposed to the Manchester Airport Stansted Away Team), believed at least initially that it WAS very much about policy ! There was much discussion before the committee about London based airlines dominating policy, APD, bilateral and the subsequent impact on Manchester !
However the attendance of the HOME team at the hearings in relation to Manchester and the submission of both written and verbal evidence has proved to be a complete and utter waste of time and energy...at least thus far !
IF it was all about London why bother .....
I would also question what possible value there was having one of the debates in Manchester if the terms of reference related very specifically to a debate about capacity ?
If anything Manchester is now in a worst place politically as at least under the last review it was considered to be a "gateway airport" (although it is questionable as to what that ever meant ).
In this review its position was relegated to merely another "regional" coupled to a pretty damming statement from Davies
"long haul from the regions should be totally dismissed as it is highly damaging to the environment because there is less chance of filling these planes".
...this comment is crucial because it only really effects Manchester and that is where most regional long haul emanates !
Far from looking at options to maximise regional airport growth this comment effectively put a line through it, its the very reason one Northern MP who read the report was so apoplectic, he like me believed Davies failed spectacularly in his remit !
Personally I think MAG also got caught out with a somewhat confused strategy, its turned into a bit of pigs breakfast , they got themselves in a complete bind in terms of what that actual strategy was for both the HOME and subsequently the AWAY team.
Initially much focus was indeed on Manchester (and dare I suggest it UK Aviation Policy) until that is the purchase of Stansted went through, the Manchester contribution stalled and then diminished so quickly you could be forgiven for thinking it was ever part of the initial debate !
Stansted was anointed but things went ary and Davies kicked the option out.
I wonder with a Manchester Airport Terminal revamp being discussed we are seeing another handbrake turn in policy ?
Have MAG considered the implications of Davies and possibly seeing that options at STN are not as rosy as first thought are relooking at Manchester, certainly expansion down there would appear to be linked inexorably to the aspirations of Ryanair ?
Quite what the spokesman for MAG will say at the TAS meeting will be very interesting.
I suspect the evidence that was put before Davies initially re APD and those bilats etc and formed the rump of the MAG submission re MAN will be dusted down and regurgitated to a no doubt receptive audience !
The other MAG evidence re Stansted will I suspect be "how shall we say" quietly dropped.
Suzeman many thanks for the link I have PM'd you.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£450m? From what I understand they will need double that.
But still, what's so overwhelming about a new surface car park and a metro line and the distinctly underwhelming, not actually that much happening Airport City. I went through the airport yesterday - not a single crane on the skyline and very little disruption to speak of through roadworks etc.
When it leaks out anyway - which it surely will - it will only make them look stupid. Imagine the local rags 'The plans they didn't want you to see' They'll have lost before they begin
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£1.2bn doesn't surprise me.
I'm not suggesting 'nothing' is going on. But there are no Airport City lettings yet so not much will happen until then. The other bit of Airport City, the logistics hub, is a few warehouses down by J6 of the M56. No big deal. Most casual observers won't even associate them with MAG.
And no I don't think I'm being over dramatic. I'm just suggesting that's what happens when newspapers get their hands on a story. They will - rightly in my opinion - ask why such an important project is discussed with airline partners before a breath of it is whispered to the locals. They are being naive in thinking that it won't be leaked anyway - and then they are on the back foot.
Furthermore, whilst I understand that MANMAG sees airlines as its customers and not passengers, they would be a little short-sighted in not consulting us too before they nail down their plans.
After all the airlines are only there because of us passengers.
Anyway, on the face of it, it all looks like a massive upgrade to the facilities. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised to see it all realised in the next 10 years though.
I'm not suggesting 'nothing' is going on. But there are no Airport City lettings yet so not much will happen until then. The other bit of Airport City, the logistics hub, is a few warehouses down by J6 of the M56. No big deal. Most casual observers won't even associate them with MAG.
And no I don't think I'm being over dramatic. I'm just suggesting that's what happens when newspapers get their hands on a story. They will - rightly in my opinion - ask why such an important project is discussed with airline partners before a breath of it is whispered to the locals. They are being naive in thinking that it won't be leaked anyway - and then they are on the back foot.
Furthermore, whilst I understand that MANMAG sees airlines as its customers and not passengers, they would be a little short-sighted in not consulting us too before they nail down their plans.
After all the airlines are only there because of us passengers.
Anyway, on the face of it, it all looks like a massive upgrade to the facilities. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised to see it all realised in the next 10 years though.