MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So the Manchester Airport station would act as a parkway station for some areas of North Cheshire and South Manchester to access HS2 services as well as providing access to the Airport and Airport City. Of course Higgins is now proposing an HS2 station at Crewe which may reduce some of this demand.
It will be the airport's call whether the station is built as the finance for it will mostly be done locally"
Good point Suzeman about the possible impact of a new HS2 station at Crewe although I'm not clear on how classic trains, including local services, would link into HS2 for connections.
I think you're right about the financing of an airport station too.
If the HS2 station concept does move ahead, it will be interesting to see the method of transportation proposed for transfers to the terminals, which would be a not insignificant extra cost. The other aspect that might have a bearing is that MAN are allegedly planning a complete redevelopment of T1/T3 which would move the new terminal closer to the existing Station as I understand it and presumably would mean a major redesign of road lay-out. Mind you, the expected time scales are very different and terminal development will hopefully be happening some years ahead of any HS2 station.
It will be the airport's call whether the station is built as the finance for it will mostly be done locally"
Good point Suzeman about the possible impact of a new HS2 station at Crewe although I'm not clear on how classic trains, including local services, would link into HS2 for connections.
I think you're right about the financing of an airport station too.
If the HS2 station concept does move ahead, it will be interesting to see the method of transportation proposed for transfers to the terminals, which would be a not insignificant extra cost. The other aspect that might have a bearing is that MAN are allegedly planning a complete redevelopment of T1/T3 which would move the new terminal closer to the existing Station as I understand it and presumably would mean a major redesign of road lay-out. Mind you, the expected time scales are very different and terminal development will hopefully be happening some years ahead of any HS2 station.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS2 / Airport City
A number of active discussion topics on here at the moment, so here goes:
HS2: Whilst the big PR selling point relating to HS2 concerns much faster passenger journey times, this is not the main benefit from the point of view of the rail industry. Capacity is the prize. The current WCML operation is the rail equivalent of today's LHR. If line capacity was available, the WCML would already be handling far more services per day than is currently possible. There is already an identified need for substantial increases in intra-regional and commuter services along the line which simply can't be contemplated based upon capacity as it exists today. And then there is freight: the rail freight industry would love significantly increased access to the line. The advent of HS2 will take the bulk of inter-city passenger demand off the WCML, but be assured that the WCML won't be left under-utilised. The reallocation of paths on the existing WCML is the true unappreciated prize of the HS2 project. This process would be an immense boost to the economy.
Remember too that HS2 is not designed around the needs of Manchester Airport. MAN must fit in with the needs of HS2, not the other way around. It is a big positive that the HS2 planners have agreed to the concept of having a Manchester Airport stop on the line at all - it will slow down overall journey times. It is up to MAG to seize that opportunity and make it work. Yes, it would be brilliant to have a co-located single station for all Manchester Airport services. Sadly, that does not appear to be possible at a realistic cost. MAN must make the best of the deal on offer.
AIRPORT CITY: The apparent inactivity on the Airport City site is all part of the plan. Heavy work on the 9000 space car park adjacent to Ringway Road is scheduled for completion in mid-November. Some minor work will continue on site beyond then (painting bays, signage type stuff), but the heavy plant is expected to leave the site at that point. The car park has been constructed in phases … a good portion of it is already in use. Once the full site is available, MAG will commence preparation work on land which is currently active car park but which is designated to form part of the future Airport City site. This will initially involve installation of drainage, utilities etc. The Airport City project has not been forgotten or abandoned. It just has to await the availability of the alternative car parks before the next visible phase of work can advance.
More comments to follow in a seperate posting.
HS2: Whilst the big PR selling point relating to HS2 concerns much faster passenger journey times, this is not the main benefit from the point of view of the rail industry. Capacity is the prize. The current WCML operation is the rail equivalent of today's LHR. If line capacity was available, the WCML would already be handling far more services per day than is currently possible. There is already an identified need for substantial increases in intra-regional and commuter services along the line which simply can't be contemplated based upon capacity as it exists today. And then there is freight: the rail freight industry would love significantly increased access to the line. The advent of HS2 will take the bulk of inter-city passenger demand off the WCML, but be assured that the WCML won't be left under-utilised. The reallocation of paths on the existing WCML is the true unappreciated prize of the HS2 project. This process would be an immense boost to the economy.
Remember too that HS2 is not designed around the needs of Manchester Airport. MAN must fit in with the needs of HS2, not the other way around. It is a big positive that the HS2 planners have agreed to the concept of having a Manchester Airport stop on the line at all - it will slow down overall journey times. It is up to MAG to seize that opportunity and make it work. Yes, it would be brilliant to have a co-located single station for all Manchester Airport services. Sadly, that does not appear to be possible at a realistic cost. MAN must make the best of the deal on offer.
AIRPORT CITY: The apparent inactivity on the Airport City site is all part of the plan. Heavy work on the 9000 space car park adjacent to Ringway Road is scheduled for completion in mid-November. Some minor work will continue on site beyond then (painting bays, signage type stuff), but the heavy plant is expected to leave the site at that point. The car park has been constructed in phases … a good portion of it is already in use. Once the full site is available, MAG will commence preparation work on land which is currently active car park but which is designated to form part of the future Airport City site. This will initially involve installation of drainage, utilities etc. The Airport City project has not been forgotten or abandoned. It just has to await the availability of the alternative car parks before the next visible phase of work can advance.
More comments to follow in a seperate posting.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed
yes can confirm what you are saying about car park, lots of car park are open but still quite a lot going on on Styal Rd side but does look to
coming to an end
Ian
yes can confirm what you are saying about car park, lots of car park are open but still quite a lot going on on Styal Rd side but does look to
coming to an end
Ian
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or that cars are STILL parked where we would hope aircraft s/b
http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.nsf/alldocs/7F544D4F21DBE99680257D660050AB30/$File/ad332014rerturnofstands72to74and85to86toservice.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 stands being returned for aircraft use is good news but let's not forget that there are still 7 stands being used for car parking, which were 217-219 and four east facing remote stands in the 240's and 250's as I recall. Hopefully they too will be returned at some stage in the not too distant future.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not as of tomorrow - stands re-open as stands
http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.nsf/alldocs/7F544D4F21DBE99680257D660050AB30/$File/ad332014rerturnofstands72to74and85to86toservice.pdf
http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.nsf/alldocs/7F544D4F21DBE99680257D660050AB30/$File/ad332014rerturnofstands72to74and85to86toservice.pdf
Without knowing how many of the 9000 are now available for use it does surprise me that on the basis of the various posts here and elsewhere little reduction in parking at the existing car parks and apron seems to have happened except as mentioned above.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some ways, the obvious use for an Airport station would be for business and other users from leafy Cheshire, and possibly North Wales, who could travel to London centre without having to go into Manchester to catch HS2.
As it seems the advent of HS2 would lead to less ordinary fast trains from Stockport, Wilmslow and Macclesfield, a station south of Manchester would be needed. Whether that justifies the particular route for HS2 and a station at the Airport is more debatable.
Don't forget that one of the rationales for HS2 is to get some of the existing trains off the congested WCML southern section to free up capacity there for additional services from places south of Brum into London .
The current WCML operation is the rail equivalent of today's LHR. If line capacity was available, the WCML would already be handling far more services per day than is currently possible. There is already an identified need for substantial increases in intra-regional and commuter services along the line which simply can't be contemplated based upon capacity as it exists today. And then there is freight: the rail freight industry would love significantly increased access to the line. The advent of HS2 will take the bulk of inter-city passenger demand off the WCML, but be assured that the WCML won't be left under-utilised.
The reallocation of paths on the existing WCML is the true unappreciated prize of the HS2 project. This process would be an immense boost to the economy.
Would a Ringway HS2 station suck airline pax from MAN to LHR?
That is $60 question. Can't see that those who currently fly MAN-LHR (on BA and VS (for now)) would bother because they are checked at MAN to the final destination. Taking the HS2 would mean lugging baggage and a change of trains at Old Oak. Why have the hassle?
On the other hand, would a Ringway HS2 station suck airline pax from BHX to MAN bearing in mind that there are no BHX-MAN flights?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T1 / T3 Re-Development Timescale and Interim Investment
And on to the T1/T3 issues.
We have all heard the rumour that a major re-development of the T1/T3 complex is in the offing. There are also suggestions that a major re-development of T2 will be seen first. Either of these projects would be very welcome news. But of course, we all have to speculate on this topic as MAG is keeping the plans in-house until they are good and ready to reveal their proposals to the public. I'm sure we all understand the reasons for this.
However, in the absence of reliable facts we are left to speculate. And one topic I must return to is timescale. Because if the T1/T3 re-development is not imminent then there are certain issues which really need to be addressed in the near term. One of these is how to provide for continued expansion by Ryanair in T3. Growth does not come easily in today's economic climate; MAG must work hard to attract and retain every opportunity for new business. Right now, in my opinion, Ryanair and EasyJet are the most likely sources of significant near-term growth in passenger throughput.
Ryanair currently has seven based B737-800's at MAN T3. There is also a healthy quota of flights visiting MAN from other Ryanair bases.
Some months ago, we discussed on PPRuNe the possibility of upgrading stands 56, 57 and 58 to a standard capable of supporting regular operations by a further three Ryanair B738's. In practice, this would mean connecting these stands to the airport fuel system and providing passenger access to the stands without the need for bus transfers. I suggest that a system of demarcated safe walkways with 'bus-shelter-style' cover linking to T3 around stand 55 would suffice. Whilst this arrangement (similar to the landside walking route currently linking T1 with T3) need not be expensive to construct, installing underground fuel pipelines to the stands probably would be. And hence the suggestion in earlier discussions on this topic that future plans for T1/T3 redevelopment may make near-term investment in 56/57/58 uneconomic.
Only MAG knows the timescale for any redevelopment plans which would affect the utility of 56, 57 & 58. Only they can assess the economic return on investment in those stands at this stage, as only they know whether those stands will even exist afew years from now. But here is the point: if MAG wants expansion from Ryanair - business which the airport sorely needs - reliable availability of those three stands will be key until any T3 redevelopment is completed and online. I'm never keen on taking the "I told you so!" line, but I was deeply impressed by my own accuracy in analysing the problems associated with these stands in our earlier discussions when I actually used stand 57 on Monday.
The flight selected for this honour was FR3234 / RYR24QV to Eindhoven on Monday 27 October. The aircraft rostered for the flight turned out to be Ryanair's newest steed, the factory-fresh B738 EI-FEH delivered to the airline just ten days earlier. This aircraft is fitted with the familiar Ryanair 'banana' interior but looked very smart and well-suited to its role.
The flight had a scheduled departure time of 13:50. Passengers were bussed in batches from gate 52 out to stand 57. This operation proceeded smoothly and all passengers were aboard and seated in good time to meet the STD of 13:50. Everything looked set. Then came the captain's cabin address: unfortunately, this stand is one of the few on the airport which is not connected to the airport's underground fuel supply. We are waiting for a tanker to arrive! And how we waited.
Bear in mind that the tanker was not requested at the STD of 13:50; the request was made some time prior to that. The Shell tanker finally rolled up at 14:55, STD+65 minutes. Refuelling complete, it left the stand at 15:05, STD+75 minutes. RYR24QV pushed back at 15:09, STD+79 minutes. I had already been seated aboard the aircraft for well over 90 minutes by the time it pushed back.
The entire delay … a very lengthy one by Ryanair standards … was attributable to the inability to refuel on stand 57 and the consequent wait for the tanker to attend. Naturally, I overheard many agitated comments from fellow-passengers, invariably blaming "the Ryanair experience" for their plight. It didn't occur to them to consider Shell's role in the episode, or indeed the inadequacy of stand 57 for handling passenger flights by any airline. Right now 56, 57 & 58 are only really suited to remote parking of idle aircraft, and ideally these should then be towed to another gate prior to a passenger flight.
Now, my point here is not to bash MAG, Shell or Ryanair. I'm not interested in apportioning blame for events on the day. The Shell tanker itself no doubt had to honour other commitments prior to refuelling EI-FEH. In the minutes before this Ryanair flight departed, there were four ad-hoc executive departures (1 x G5, 1 x GLEX, 1 x C56X, 1 x P180); no doubt some of these required the attentions of the lone tanker also. That means a queue.
But the real point is this. That Ryanair flight pushed back 79 minutes late purely because it used stand 57. A clear demonstration, if it was needed, that 56, 57 & 58 are wholly inadequate for servicing active passenger flights even of the no-frills variety. Investment in or replacement of these three stands (as part of a larger redevelopment programme) is urgently required.
Ryanair is a company which MAG needs to woo and keep happy across the whole group at STN, EMA and BOH as well as at MAN itself. They are one of the few channels for significant growth with a high degree of confidence. But if the company is to be persuaded to expand beyond seven frames at MAN, T3 gate capacity must be found to accommodate those aircraft. 56, 57 & 58 are the obvious candidates to accommodate this growth going forward, but right now they are nowhere near fit for purpose. A 79 minute delay for refuelling in servicing flights planned for 25 minute turnarounds is simply unworkable.
Memo to MAG: Only you know the proposed timescale for T1/T3 redevelopment. But if completion is more than 5 years away, you should invest in fuel connections for these three stands right now. If the timescale is shorter, you should consider underwriting a short-term remedy, such as paying Shell to base an extra tanker specifically to service operations from 56, 57 and 58 until redevelopment is complete. Costly yes, but short-term pain for long-term gain applies in this case. Ryanair is one of MAN's best growth prospects. Make sure you can fully accommodate their needs now, not just when the T1/T3 redevelopment is completed some years hence. Those three stands are an asset waiting to happen. But right now they're a liability.
Have Ryanair been on the phone about Monday's Eindhoven flight? I bet somebody got an earfull!
BTW, for those interested, arrival back at MAN T3 aboard Wednesday's FR3235 / RYR45PW [ EI-EKC ] was impeccably handled. Steps quickly in place, no immigration queues, through the whole arrival process within 5 minutes of disembarkation. Full marks for that.
We have all heard the rumour that a major re-development of the T1/T3 complex is in the offing. There are also suggestions that a major re-development of T2 will be seen first. Either of these projects would be very welcome news. But of course, we all have to speculate on this topic as MAG is keeping the plans in-house until they are good and ready to reveal their proposals to the public. I'm sure we all understand the reasons for this.
However, in the absence of reliable facts we are left to speculate. And one topic I must return to is timescale. Because if the T1/T3 re-development is not imminent then there are certain issues which really need to be addressed in the near term. One of these is how to provide for continued expansion by Ryanair in T3. Growth does not come easily in today's economic climate; MAG must work hard to attract and retain every opportunity for new business. Right now, in my opinion, Ryanair and EasyJet are the most likely sources of significant near-term growth in passenger throughput.
Ryanair currently has seven based B737-800's at MAN T3. There is also a healthy quota of flights visiting MAN from other Ryanair bases.
Some months ago, we discussed on PPRuNe the possibility of upgrading stands 56, 57 and 58 to a standard capable of supporting regular operations by a further three Ryanair B738's. In practice, this would mean connecting these stands to the airport fuel system and providing passenger access to the stands without the need for bus transfers. I suggest that a system of demarcated safe walkways with 'bus-shelter-style' cover linking to T3 around stand 55 would suffice. Whilst this arrangement (similar to the landside walking route currently linking T1 with T3) need not be expensive to construct, installing underground fuel pipelines to the stands probably would be. And hence the suggestion in earlier discussions on this topic that future plans for T1/T3 redevelopment may make near-term investment in 56/57/58 uneconomic.
Only MAG knows the timescale for any redevelopment plans which would affect the utility of 56, 57 & 58. Only they can assess the economic return on investment in those stands at this stage, as only they know whether those stands will even exist afew years from now. But here is the point: if MAG wants expansion from Ryanair - business which the airport sorely needs - reliable availability of those three stands will be key until any T3 redevelopment is completed and online. I'm never keen on taking the "I told you so!" line, but I was deeply impressed by my own accuracy in analysing the problems associated with these stands in our earlier discussions when I actually used stand 57 on Monday.
The flight selected for this honour was FR3234 / RYR24QV to Eindhoven on Monday 27 October. The aircraft rostered for the flight turned out to be Ryanair's newest steed, the factory-fresh B738 EI-FEH delivered to the airline just ten days earlier. This aircraft is fitted with the familiar Ryanair 'banana' interior but looked very smart and well-suited to its role.
The flight had a scheduled departure time of 13:50. Passengers were bussed in batches from gate 52 out to stand 57. This operation proceeded smoothly and all passengers were aboard and seated in good time to meet the STD of 13:50. Everything looked set. Then came the captain's cabin address: unfortunately, this stand is one of the few on the airport which is not connected to the airport's underground fuel supply. We are waiting for a tanker to arrive! And how we waited.
Bear in mind that the tanker was not requested at the STD of 13:50; the request was made some time prior to that. The Shell tanker finally rolled up at 14:55, STD+65 minutes. Refuelling complete, it left the stand at 15:05, STD+75 minutes. RYR24QV pushed back at 15:09, STD+79 minutes. I had already been seated aboard the aircraft for well over 90 minutes by the time it pushed back.
The entire delay … a very lengthy one by Ryanair standards … was attributable to the inability to refuel on stand 57 and the consequent wait for the tanker to attend. Naturally, I overheard many agitated comments from fellow-passengers, invariably blaming "the Ryanair experience" for their plight. It didn't occur to them to consider Shell's role in the episode, or indeed the inadequacy of stand 57 for handling passenger flights by any airline. Right now 56, 57 & 58 are only really suited to remote parking of idle aircraft, and ideally these should then be towed to another gate prior to a passenger flight.
Now, my point here is not to bash MAG, Shell or Ryanair. I'm not interested in apportioning blame for events on the day. The Shell tanker itself no doubt had to honour other commitments prior to refuelling EI-FEH. In the minutes before this Ryanair flight departed, there were four ad-hoc executive departures (1 x G5, 1 x GLEX, 1 x C56X, 1 x P180); no doubt some of these required the attentions of the lone tanker also. That means a queue.
But the real point is this. That Ryanair flight pushed back 79 minutes late purely because it used stand 57. A clear demonstration, if it was needed, that 56, 57 & 58 are wholly inadequate for servicing active passenger flights even of the no-frills variety. Investment in or replacement of these three stands (as part of a larger redevelopment programme) is urgently required.
Ryanair is a company which MAG needs to woo and keep happy across the whole group at STN, EMA and BOH as well as at MAN itself. They are one of the few channels for significant growth with a high degree of confidence. But if the company is to be persuaded to expand beyond seven frames at MAN, T3 gate capacity must be found to accommodate those aircraft. 56, 57 & 58 are the obvious candidates to accommodate this growth going forward, but right now they are nowhere near fit for purpose. A 79 minute delay for refuelling in servicing flights planned for 25 minute turnarounds is simply unworkable.
Memo to MAG: Only you know the proposed timescale for T1/T3 redevelopment. But if completion is more than 5 years away, you should invest in fuel connections for these three stands right now. If the timescale is shorter, you should consider underwriting a short-term remedy, such as paying Shell to base an extra tanker specifically to service operations from 56, 57 and 58 until redevelopment is complete. Costly yes, but short-term pain for long-term gain applies in this case. Ryanair is one of MAN's best growth prospects. Make sure you can fully accommodate their needs now, not just when the T1/T3 redevelopment is completed some years hence. Those three stands are an asset waiting to happen. But right now they're a liability.
Have Ryanair been on the phone about Monday's Eindhoven flight? I bet somebody got an earfull!
BTW, for those interested, arrival back at MAN T3 aboard Wednesday's FR3235 / RYR45PW [ EI-EKC ] was impeccably handled. Steps quickly in place, no immigration queues, through the whole arrival process within 5 minutes of disembarkation. Full marks for that.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, my point here is not to bash MAG, Shell or Ryanair. I'm not interested in apportioning blame for events on the day. The Shell tanker itself no doubt had to honour other commitments prior to refuelling EI-FEH. In the minutes before this Ryanair flight departed, there were four ad-hoc executive departures (1 x G5, 1 x GLEX, 1 x C56X, 1 x P180); no doubt some of these required the attentions of the lone tanker also. That means a queue.
PS - Soon, once again, Manchester International Airport will have no fuelling cover between 2300-0500. Let's hope no diverts drop in over the winter during these hours hoping for a splash n dash
Wasn't there a big mess caused by this when an AA 777 diverting from Heathrow was told MAN wouldn't take him, then they would, and when he was on finals was told there was no fuel available so he went to DUB instead earlier this year?
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: manchester
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hainan airlines
Hi folks,
All seemed to have gone quite with hainan.. Has anyone heard any further news with what is actually going on as I personally feel they are going to make a announcement just out of the blue...
All seemed to have gone quite with hainan.. Has anyone heard any further news with what is actually going on as I personally feel they are going to make a announcement just out of the blue...
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is there no night cover for fuel when there are scheduled movements between those times. Do contracts to provide services mean nothing these days? Neglectful at best Id say
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed, many thanks for your usual excellent posts, although your experience of the first Ryanair flight to Eindhoven made for sober reading. A couple of questions if I may: Bagso has already asked about pax loads on your two flights which would be of interest to some of us. Secondly, can we assume that no terminal 3 attached stand, suitable for a B738, was available? It didn't strike me as a time of day that would be particularly busy unless there is a wave of RYR flights.
I also agree that EZY and RYR are potentially the two airlines which are likely to provide MAN with significant growth. So far there is little indication of this happening next summer, although RYR will have the new flights to Eindhoven and Shannon, while EZY just has Madeira which starts in February. Of course, it's still early days and things (hopefully) may change. Limited availability of a/c may be the issue for the latter but not the former, while the lack of overnight space at MAN,as has been said before, would suggest growth may have to come in the immediate future from flights originating from other bases.
It may or may not be significant but I see that Ryanair has chosen LTN rather than STN for its twice daily service from its new base at CPH, which given that airline's heavy focus on STN is something of a surprise. Was CPH one of the routes that Easyjet switched from STN to LTN fairly recently?
As regards the lack of fuel facilities between 23.00 and 05.00, I'm afraid I'm not clear what's being said. Is it just the lack of a tanker for those stands that don't have access to the direct fuel supply, or is it lack of staff to do any refuelling? In the case of the AA90 that was going to divert and then was turned away, didn't they find a suitable stand - the original reason for refusal - but then told the pilot there would be a long wait for fuel rather than no fuel? Anyway, I think you'll find that MAN and the handling agents are reluctant to accept any diversions during the night, be it for lack of fuel, stands or staff.
I also agree that EZY and RYR are potentially the two airlines which are likely to provide MAN with significant growth. So far there is little indication of this happening next summer, although RYR will have the new flights to Eindhoven and Shannon, while EZY just has Madeira which starts in February. Of course, it's still early days and things (hopefully) may change. Limited availability of a/c may be the issue for the latter but not the former, while the lack of overnight space at MAN,as has been said before, would suggest growth may have to come in the immediate future from flights originating from other bases.
It may or may not be significant but I see that Ryanair has chosen LTN rather than STN for its twice daily service from its new base at CPH, which given that airline's heavy focus on STN is something of a surprise. Was CPH one of the routes that Easyjet switched from STN to LTN fairly recently?
As regards the lack of fuel facilities between 23.00 and 05.00, I'm afraid I'm not clear what's being said. Is it just the lack of a tanker for those stands that don't have access to the direct fuel supply, or is it lack of staff to do any refuelling? In the case of the AA90 that was going to divert and then was turned away, didn't they find a suitable stand - the original reason for refusal - but then told the pilot there would be a long wait for fuel rather than no fuel? Anyway, I think you'll find that MAN and the handling agents are reluctant to accept any diversions during the night, be it for lack of fuel, stands or staff.