MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One for mickyman:
Cathay eyes new European and North American points with A350-900
Cathay eyes new European and North American points with A350-900
Some of the European destinations that could open up for the Oneworld
alliance member include Berlin, Dusseldorf, Manchester, and Madrid,
says Slosar. Together with the new points in North America, these will allow
Cathay to offer non-stop services to Hong Kong and then connections to points in Asia.
alliance member include Berlin, Dusseldorf, Manchester, and Madrid,
says Slosar. Together with the new points in North America, these will allow
Cathay to offer non-stop services to Hong Kong and then connections to points in Asia.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX-LHR
Can answer your point about BHX,
yesterday the BA 744 from Delhi went straight in to BHX and was turned around,and back to LHR splash and dash in less than 2 hours.
The BA 767 from Madrid went straight onto a remote and passengers disembarked and it flew back to LHR today A PIA 777 diverted in to and again no issues ..all very smooth operation.
You are right though BHX won't turn anything away now. A complete turn around from when MAN would take loads and BHX turned stuff away few years back, puzzling.
Nigel
Can answer your point about BHX,
yesterday the BA 744 from Delhi went straight in to BHX and was turned around,and back to LHR splash and dash in less than 2 hours.
The BA 767 from Madrid went straight onto a remote and passengers disembarked and it flew back to LHR today A PIA 777 diverted in to and again no issues ..all very smooth operation.
You are right though BHX won't turn anything away now. A complete turn around from when MAN would take loads and BHX turned stuff away few years back, puzzling.
Nigel
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Manchester yesterday refused 3 diverts (BA B744, SQ B77W and CX B77W), due to lack of staff.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the reason that MAN handling agents are less able to take diversions is that although quiet in winter, it is not as quiet as some of the other regional airports mentioned. Thus BHX may have 2 handling staff on duty (I'm assuming there is a minimum level regardless of flights) but no flights for 3 hours, while MAN also has 2 staff but a flight every hour. Add in a bit of managerial caution wanting to avoid penalties for mishandling their own flights, and it makes perfect sense for the MAN handler to decline diversions in that situation, while BHX accept them.
I'm sure if SQ, CX etc were prepared to pay a MAN handling agent to have some people on standby in case a diversion was necessary then a solution would be found, but I can't really seeing that happening.
The final point is that in the old days it took less weather to trigger diversions, and so as well as the cost angle, the likely frequency of diversions also made it more worthwhile to have staff available just in case, as the odds of using them, and getting the extra income from unscheduled visitors was much higher. Weather such as LHR had the other day would have caused 75%+ flights to divert, rather than the handful that did. A beancounter would be more likely to pay for standby staff if the odds were that 200 aircraft would divert to MAN over the course of a winter rather than the 10 that would probably happen now.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would also like to state that Cardiff is another airfield that copes well with diverts.
I have to agree with the posts above that staff are not being paid to sit around just in case something happens as it would simply cost too much. Also when the airfield is quiet there will tend to be less staff on-site to deal with it.
I have seen at Cardiff that dealing with several widebodied diversions is not a huge issue.
I have to agree with the posts above that staff are not being paid to sit around just in case something happens as it would simply cost too much. Also when the airfield is quiet there will tend to be less staff on-site to deal with it.
I have seen at Cardiff that dealing with several widebodied diversions is not a huge issue.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious Pax, I agree the situation regarding the number of a/c that have to divert from the London airports has changed significantly from the 70s, 80s, and even the 90s. I also take your point about minimum staff numbers having to be maintained at smaller regional airports that may therefore have more opportunity to accept diversions. However, that still leaves several questions unresolved:
I agree that BHX, less than half the size of MAN in terms of pax numbers, may have similar staffing levels - although I suspect less handling agent companies. However, LGW is twice the size of MAN, had its own problems on Wednesday afternoon with delayed flights, very poor visibility with slow arrival rates and a/c having to hold before starting approaches. Yet it was happy to accept the SQ and CX diversions.
Mid-afternoon Wednesday is hardly a hive of activity at MAN for arrivals or departures. Was there really no slack in the system or a can-do approach that would have allowed those two important airlines to MAN to have diverted here when they wanted to?
On Monday, 28th October, MAN accepted a SQ A380, a TG B747 and an AC A330 at a busy time in the morning. Why was it possible then but apparently out of the question on Wednesday?
Maybe as suggested elsewhere, it depends on which manager / supervisor is on duty and who answers the phone when diversion requests are received. Is that really a satisfactory situation?
Whatever logical reasons can be offered, there is a perception that on some occasions (not always), Manchester Airport does not put itself out to offer a a service to airlines having to divert - in this case two of its own rather important customers.
I agree that BHX, less than half the size of MAN in terms of pax numbers, may have similar staffing levels - although I suspect less handling agent companies. However, LGW is twice the size of MAN, had its own problems on Wednesday afternoon with delayed flights, very poor visibility with slow arrival rates and a/c having to hold before starting approaches. Yet it was happy to accept the SQ and CX diversions.
Mid-afternoon Wednesday is hardly a hive of activity at MAN for arrivals or departures. Was there really no slack in the system or a can-do approach that would have allowed those two important airlines to MAN to have diverted here when they wanted to?
On Monday, 28th October, MAN accepted a SQ A380, a TG B747 and an AC A330 at a busy time in the morning. Why was it possible then but apparently out of the question on Wednesday?
Maybe as suggested elsewhere, it depends on which manager / supervisor is on duty and who answers the phone when diversion requests are received. Is that really a satisfactory situation?
Whatever logical reasons can be offered, there is a perception that on some occasions (not always), Manchester Airport does not put itself out to offer a a service to airlines having to divert - in this case two of its own rather important customers.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANFOD
The difference was we were still on summer schedules and staffing also a lot more parking available during summer as many aircraft are parked up for several days a week plus football charters
Chaps
The difference was we were still on summer schedules and staffing also a lot more parking available during summer as many aircraft are parked up for several days a week plus football charters
Chaps
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Monday, 28th October, MAN accepted a SQ A380, a TG B747 and an AC A330 at a busy time in the morning. Why was it possible then but apparently out of the question on Wednesday?
These are questions best left to Menzies, Servisair and Swissport surely?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they are SOE, and the airlines know that. These divert rejections would have little negative effect on MAN's reputation itself, and if an airline wanted, or did not want, to fly to MAN in the future (thinking CX pax) then their choice would be an economic one, not one based on, or even influenced by, if the airport refused a diversion or two.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN's reputation is getting pretty hammered. Two of the best carriers in the world want to send 2 x 777, but an International Airport like MAN cannot handle them in their quiet period. I think the MAN Management actually need to sort this, they can no longer hide behind the handlers, parking and all the other excuses. The Airport is looking unreliable and headed further into unreliability, with all these friggin excuses. There is a solution, just needs someone at the top to sort. Sadly, Management at MAN has been poor for so long, we all just accept the mediocre. I know the people who work there want to see it go places, they just need the driver.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this is why MAN didn`t want divs
taken of BHX forum
From a Birmingham perspective the most damaging part of this article is the assertion that the passengers were told by the captain that they had to stay on board as Birmingham was overwhelmed by the number of diverted flights and immigration and customs could not cope. With the number of diverted flights totalling three this may or may not be true but for some of us who have suffered with lengthy waits at the hands of immigration at Birmingham it certainly has the ring of authenticity about it.
taken of BHX forum
From a Birmingham perspective the most damaging part of this article is the assertion that the passengers were told by the captain that they had to stay on board as Birmingham was overwhelmed by the number of diverted flights and immigration and customs could not cope. With the number of diverted flights totalling three this may or may not be true but for some of us who have suffered with lengthy waits at the hands of immigration at Birmingham it certainly has the ring of authenticity about it.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps 2011
Re your post;
"Perhaps this is why MAN didn`t want divs
taken of BHX forum
From a Birmingham perspective the most damaging part of this article is the assertion that the passengers were told by the captain that they had to stay on board as Birmingham was overwhelmed by the number of diverted flights and immigration and customs could not cope. With the number of diverted flights totalling three this may or may not be true but for some of us who have suffered with lengthy waits at the hands of immigration at Birmingham it certainly has the ring of authenticity about it."
Naughty naughty lol
You fail to mention this was an written by the Daily Mail reporter.
The reality of this diverted flight was that BA could not decide on whether to splash and dash it or offload passengers, thats what caused the delay into the terminal, was listening to pilot-ops conversations on it on my scanner.Nothing at all to do with BHX or other diverted flights.
Apologies for putting this on the MAN thread but the record needed setting straight..don't believe everything printed in the Daily Mail
Nigel
Re your post;
"Perhaps this is why MAN didn`t want divs
taken of BHX forum
From a Birmingham perspective the most damaging part of this article is the assertion that the passengers were told by the captain that they had to stay on board as Birmingham was overwhelmed by the number of diverted flights and immigration and customs could not cope. With the number of diverted flights totalling three this may or may not be true but for some of us who have suffered with lengthy waits at the hands of immigration at Birmingham it certainly has the ring of authenticity about it."
Naughty naughty lol
You fail to mention this was an written by the Daily Mail reporter.
The reality of this diverted flight was that BA could not decide on whether to splash and dash it or offload passengers, thats what caused the delay into the terminal, was listening to pilot-ops conversations on it on my scanner.Nothing at all to do with BHX or other diverted flights.
Apologies for putting this on the MAN thread but the record needed setting straight..don't believe everything printed in the Daily Mail
Nigel
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Nigel and you mean you don`t lol! but it was just really to point out that
it`s not only MAN that gets stick.
It seems to me now that everything is cut back to bare bones as it is where I work
and that is not airport related which is just about OK on a good day but as soon
as something not standard happens everybody is in the preverbial or slated for
not accepting it
Chaps
it`s not only MAN that gets stick.
It seems to me now that everything is cut back to bare bones as it is where I work
and that is not airport related which is just about OK on a good day but as soon
as something not standard happens everybody is in the preverbial or slated for
not accepting it
Chaps
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refused diversions
2 ILS runways, plenty of remote stands, competent ATC. And yet Manchester Airport proves itself inadequate yet again. Best revert to Ringway Airfield, the place is not up to an International label.
Blame their hopeless owners and management.
Blame their hopeless owners and management.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roy Hudd hope you have you the facts right before making comments like that
Remember only a couple of B773 stands available on remote parking and if
they were already in use that pretty well means end game
Chaps
Remember only a couple of B773 stands available on remote parking and if
they were already in use that pretty well means end game
Chaps
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps 2011.
Yes agree think all the airports including MAN and BHX are cut to the bone. BHX main problem at present is that we have 9 stored Ryan Air 737s blocking out a lot of our remotes.
There was no room for any more divs after the ones we took. The day before we did take 12 ,including an LH from LHR and 8 Ryan Air from STN..where they parked them, no idea ?
I am sure that Manchester will sort things out and go back to being a main wide bodied div airport again.
Although as someone else said ,far fewer divert now than a few years ago, and most that morning were able to hold for over an hour in the London stacks,where a few years ago they would have diverted after 30-45 mins.
Nigel
Yes agree think all the airports including MAN and BHX are cut to the bone. BHX main problem at present is that we have 9 stored Ryan Air 737s blocking out a lot of our remotes.
There was no room for any more divs after the ones we took. The day before we did take 12 ,including an LH from LHR and 8 Ryan Air from STN..where they parked them, no idea ?
I am sure that Manchester will sort things out and go back to being a main wide bodied div airport again.
Although as someone else said ,far fewer divert now than a few years ago, and most that morning were able to hold for over an hour in the London stacks,where a few years ago they would have diverted after 30-45 mins.
Nigel
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX main problem at present is that we have 9 stored Ryan Air 737s blocking out a lot of our remotes.
Passengers, crews and aircraft all in the wrong place with the potential for coaching for all and hotels requiered. To be honest, that's a hassle a handling agent will not welcome on any given day. It's easier for a third party handler to refuse a diversion than in house staff. There are of course, no in-house staff nowadays in UK handling outside the major bases of BA and Jet2. (Anyone think of more? )
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 15th Dec 2013 at 03:03.