MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
although presumably in three dimensions it will be more difficult than it looks on a plan as the T2 extension will surely be same height as the current pier to allow for work space at ground level, inbound above that and outbound above that. This is much higher than Pier B which doesn't have proper segregation.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Crisis Arises Opportunity!
OK. So Pier B looks like staying. General gloom and despondency abounds. I thought it was my job to be the 'glass half empty' doom-and-gloom-meister on here?
So ... let's just think this through. How could our reprieved Pier B be put to best use in the wider context of a modern reinvented airport complex? What follows here is all conjecture, but since the decision to keep Pier B appears to be an extremely recent one, why not consider the opportunity this represents going forward before the plans are finalised?
Pier B comes with widely-recognised disadvantages. It is not really well-suited to passengers who will be hanging around for a couple of hours. There is limited space for first class and business lounges. Space for retail is limited too. It would ideally need to be used for services whose passengers would pass through the facility pretty quickly.
But Pier B actually offers an airline several major advantages as well. Oh yes, so it does! Every stand on Pier B is linked directly to the airport's underground refuelling infrastructure. Taxy-times from Pier B to Manchester's runway holding points are amongst the shortest on the complex. The stands would lend themselves to rapid turnarounds of, say, 25 minutes? And since there would no longer be a widebody requirement on Pier B, the stands could be reconfigured to accommodate around 16 Boeing 737-800 size aircraft (including the section running to the current Gate 21 area).
But which airline might be persuaded to adopt a facility like that? No business class lounges. No first class lounges. Limited retail - just space for some light catering outlets, a magazine stall and a themed bar. Let's call it 'The Dog and Ducksy' and decorate it with some nice golden harp thingies. Make them look like a 'flying woman' figure fresh from a breast-enlargement op. Very classy. Offer that refreshing glass of J2O (plink, plink, gurgle). Special deals on Guinness. U Nevr Beat D'Irish. You could play piped music ... trumpet fanfares always go down especially well ... interspersed with frequent ads. And why not sell scratchcards to raise funds for Chuldrens' Charidees?
I guess the finished pier would have the ambience of a bright and airy bus terminal with a high throughput of passengers each staying for a relatively brief period of time. Unfortunately, Pier B would not lend itself to the 'Marble Palace' look beloved of many new-build airport facilities ... so glorified bus terminal it would have to be.
So ... suppose we could think of an airline which might be attracted by all this. Perhaps one which bases aircraft at MAN already but which is facing a major squeeze on its expansion because it currently uses an oversubscribed section of the terminal complex. An airline which requires quick-turnaround terminal stands, bus station-style facilities and has no use whatsoever for first class lounges. An airline which is on good terms with MAG and whose management teams know each other well. An airline which doesn't mind using facilities which are less modern and luxurious than the rest of the complex ... as long as that is reflected in the user charges. An airline whose CEO famously hates 'Marble Palace' airport terminals. Such an airline could even be invited to take an active role in planning the refurbishment of Pier B to match its requirements more closely.
And if such an airline did agree to take up residence in Pier B, it could simultaneously resolve a serious congestion issue in another part of the terminal complex. And just imagine if that airline's route profile happened to be the best placed to fill the gaping holes in MAN's network to Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and Regional France. An all round 'win-win' perhaps?
Trouble is, can we think of any familiar Manchester airline which ticks all these boxes? Cathay, Etihad, Emirates? Over to you, MAG!
So ... let's just think this through. How could our reprieved Pier B be put to best use in the wider context of a modern reinvented airport complex? What follows here is all conjecture, but since the decision to keep Pier B appears to be an extremely recent one, why not consider the opportunity this represents going forward before the plans are finalised?
Pier B comes with widely-recognised disadvantages. It is not really well-suited to passengers who will be hanging around for a couple of hours. There is limited space for first class and business lounges. Space for retail is limited too. It would ideally need to be used for services whose passengers would pass through the facility pretty quickly.
But Pier B actually offers an airline several major advantages as well. Oh yes, so it does! Every stand on Pier B is linked directly to the airport's underground refuelling infrastructure. Taxy-times from Pier B to Manchester's runway holding points are amongst the shortest on the complex. The stands would lend themselves to rapid turnarounds of, say, 25 minutes? And since there would no longer be a widebody requirement on Pier B, the stands could be reconfigured to accommodate around 16 Boeing 737-800 size aircraft (including the section running to the current Gate 21 area).
But which airline might be persuaded to adopt a facility like that? No business class lounges. No first class lounges. Limited retail - just space for some light catering outlets, a magazine stall and a themed bar. Let's call it 'The Dog and Ducksy' and decorate it with some nice golden harp thingies. Make them look like a 'flying woman' figure fresh from a breast-enlargement op. Very classy. Offer that refreshing glass of J2O (plink, plink, gurgle). Special deals on Guinness. U Nevr Beat D'Irish. You could play piped music ... trumpet fanfares always go down especially well ... interspersed with frequent ads. And why not sell scratchcards to raise funds for Chuldrens' Charidees?
I guess the finished pier would have the ambience of a bright and airy bus terminal with a high throughput of passengers each staying for a relatively brief period of time. Unfortunately, Pier B would not lend itself to the 'Marble Palace' look beloved of many new-build airport facilities ... so glorified bus terminal it would have to be.
So ... suppose we could think of an airline which might be attracted by all this. Perhaps one which bases aircraft at MAN already but which is facing a major squeeze on its expansion because it currently uses an oversubscribed section of the terminal complex. An airline which requires quick-turnaround terminal stands, bus station-style facilities and has no use whatsoever for first class lounges. An airline which is on good terms with MAG and whose management teams know each other well. An airline which doesn't mind using facilities which are less modern and luxurious than the rest of the complex ... as long as that is reflected in the user charges. An airline whose CEO famously hates 'Marble Palace' airport terminals. Such an airline could even be invited to take an active role in planning the refurbishment of Pier B to match its requirements more closely.
And if such an airline did agree to take up residence in Pier B, it could simultaneously resolve a serious congestion issue in another part of the terminal complex. And just imagine if that airline's route profile happened to be the best placed to fill the gaping holes in MAN's network to Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and Regional France. An all round 'win-win' perhaps?
Trouble is, can we think of any familiar Manchester airline which ticks all these boxes? Cathay, Etihad, Emirates? Over to you, MAG!
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 30th Jul 2015 at 14:00.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Designing a long term infrastructure project on the back of what Ryanair tells you is a high risk strategy indeed.
'Fickle and unpredictable' is a phrase that springs to mind where RYR is concerned. Not a great basis for investment to be fair.
Relations may be good now (which is speculation anyway) but what will it be like in 4 years time? Trouble is with RYR - you never know.
Shed: I don't think anyone has suggested that having a pier in the location of the current Pier B is a bad idea; it's the prospect of a 1961 vintage structure which has already been pfaffed around with a number of times (of course in a cheap-ass way being Manchester) being cheap-assed again.
Additionally it is the bursting of the bubble of hope that existed for the past few weeks. The talk of 'world-class facility' is now being diluted into 'make-do and mend'.
In any case it would surely be cheaper to demolish and re-build a low-cost pier in the same spot than to do another compromised lash up of the kind that has bedeviled T1 for the past 30 years or more.
'Fickle and unpredictable' is a phrase that springs to mind where RYR is concerned. Not a great basis for investment to be fair.
Relations may be good now (which is speculation anyway) but what will it be like in 4 years time? Trouble is with RYR - you never know.
Shed: I don't think anyone has suggested that having a pier in the location of the current Pier B is a bad idea; it's the prospect of a 1961 vintage structure which has already been pfaffed around with a number of times (of course in a cheap-ass way being Manchester) being cheap-assed again.
Additionally it is the bursting of the bubble of hope that existed for the past few weeks. The talk of 'world-class facility' is now being diluted into 'make-do and mend'.
In any case it would surely be cheaper to demolish and re-build a low-cost pier in the same spot than to do another compromised lash up of the kind that has bedeviled T1 for the past 30 years or more.
Last edited by All names taken; 30th Jul 2015 at 16:19. Reason: Grammar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM - A barb from you. Who'd have thought it?
Snobbery? Yes, that would be the same snobbish attitude which has led me to pay for 18 Ryanair flight sectors over the next six weeks alone.
Airlines tailor their offerings according to their business niche. No-frills carriers offer a product which sacrifices some comforts in favour of very low prices. That is a great market strategy. Highly profitable when executed uncompromisingly. Luxuries are superfluous to such an operation. Plush, full-frills terminals are intentionally shunned by the leading no-frills operators. Spending by host airports to create such is very actively discouraged.
There is nothing amiss about a company tailoring its customer experience to dovetail seemlessly with an identified market niche. It's great planning. And I admire the proven success of this business model.
Maybe you think MAG should woo the no-frills carriers with a plush new first-class mega-lounge? That would demonstrate they're not snobbish, wouldn't it? It might also show total lack of appreciation for the client's business model in the process, but why let minor details like that get in the way?
Snobbery? Yes, that would be the same snobbish attitude which has led me to pay for 18 Ryanair flight sectors over the next six weeks alone.
Airlines tailor their offerings according to their business niche. No-frills carriers offer a product which sacrifices some comforts in favour of very low prices. That is a great market strategy. Highly profitable when executed uncompromisingly. Luxuries are superfluous to such an operation. Plush, full-frills terminals are intentionally shunned by the leading no-frills operators. Spending by host airports to create such is very actively discouraged.
There is nothing amiss about a company tailoring its customer experience to dovetail seemlessly with an identified market niche. It's great planning. And I admire the proven success of this business model.
Maybe you think MAG should woo the no-frills carriers with a plush new first-class mega-lounge? That would demonstrate they're not snobbish, wouldn't it? It might also show total lack of appreciation for the client's business model in the process, but why let minor details like that get in the way?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mickyman it all depends on how tongue in cheek you take it
All names taken to be honest we don`t know the final plans of
what the interior is going to be like on pier B or infact any part
of the work, all we have seen so far are some computer generated
ideas of what it will be before the final plans were made. OK pier B
will exist but in what form we just don`t know
Ian
All names taken to be honest we don`t know the final plans of
what the interior is going to be like on pier B or infact any part
of the work, all we have seen so far are some computer generated
ideas of what it will be before the final plans were made. OK pier B
will exist but in what form we just don`t know
Ian
I attended a public consulation display today by MAG. The gist I was given,step 1 T2 extends to the west, step 2 - T2 extends to meet up with pier B. Pier C goes but pier B stays as needed for capacity during infrasturcture rejigging- but will be completely rebuilt at some point in time.
When T2 meets Pier B - T1 can be demolished.
T3 remains as stand alone with own check in, & probably- but not definitely a low cost operator facility.
No decisions have yet been made(revealed) on how to shift people from the Western end of T2 to the tip of Pier B or the ongoing method of moving people from The Station to T3.
I hope it all comes to fruition, but as with so many UK projects, compromises and cuts = the less than optimum solution.
I'm sure it will all change again by Christmas. All we can do is wait....
When T2 meets Pier B - T1 can be demolished.
T3 remains as stand alone with own check in, & probably- but not definitely a low cost operator facility.
No decisions have yet been made(revealed) on how to shift people from the Western end of T2 to the tip of Pier B or the ongoing method of moving people from The Station to T3.
I hope it all comes to fruition, but as with so many UK projects, compromises and cuts = the less than optimum solution.
I'm sure it will all change again by Christmas. All we can do is wait....
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pier B Ringway
Shed, are you thinking of pier B exclusively for FR, or for all the no-frills carriers who want the arrangements you describe? Would there be room for all of them?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Names Taken -
I wholly agree with your point concerning the risk of investing with any one specific airline customer in mind. MAN has bitter experience of this having designed a new terminal around the purported requirements of British Airways a couple of decades ago.
But ultimately airports must plan sections of the complex around the different niches of its largest customers, whether that be Jet2 with it's dedicated check-in hall, FlyBe with a domestic hubbing lounge, or facilities designed for EasyJet, Thomas Cook, Monarch, Thomson etc.
The business model adopted by the no-frills players is so widely copied now that I don't believe a dedicated no-frills facility at MAN would be particularly high-risk. Yes, one company could suddenly withdraw. But no-frills is an active marketplace and other carriers would consider taking on a functional business space subject to attractively-pitched fees. Look at the no-frills pier at AMS: it is rammed and other carriers are fighting to get space in there.
Whilst a suitably-motivated Ryanair could justify occupancy of Pier B on its own, I suggest that a dedicated no-frills pier at MAN would never run short of business in their absence. MAN is surrounded by a hinterland densely populated by customers with a love of leisure travel and an addiction to keenly priced airline-tickets. The names of the travel providers may evolve over time, but the core market for the no-frills product is established and growing. The high-end niche is more vulnerable than no-frills.
Ryanair does have leverage over MAG. They could throw a strop and suddenly withdraw at some point in the future. But leverage works both ways. MAG owns and operates the airport which controls the vast bulk of Ryanair's access to the lucrative London market. MAG owns the infrastructure at Ryanair's biggest base by far. It is in the interests of both companies to play nicely together. And with former Ryanair executives occupying key posts at MAG, the opportunity to understand respective business needs and pursue mutually-beneficial goals has never been better.
I wholly agree with your point concerning the risk of investing with any one specific airline customer in mind. MAN has bitter experience of this having designed a new terminal around the purported requirements of British Airways a couple of decades ago.
But ultimately airports must plan sections of the complex around the different niches of its largest customers, whether that be Jet2 with it's dedicated check-in hall, FlyBe with a domestic hubbing lounge, or facilities designed for EasyJet, Thomas Cook, Monarch, Thomson etc.
The business model adopted by the no-frills players is so widely copied now that I don't believe a dedicated no-frills facility at MAN would be particularly high-risk. Yes, one company could suddenly withdraw. But no-frills is an active marketplace and other carriers would consider taking on a functional business space subject to attractively-pitched fees. Look at the no-frills pier at AMS: it is rammed and other carriers are fighting to get space in there.
Whilst a suitably-motivated Ryanair could justify occupancy of Pier B on its own, I suggest that a dedicated no-frills pier at MAN would never run short of business in their absence. MAN is surrounded by a hinterland densely populated by customers with a love of leisure travel and an addiction to keenly priced airline-tickets. The names of the travel providers may evolve over time, but the core market for the no-frills product is established and growing. The high-end niche is more vulnerable than no-frills.
Ryanair does have leverage over MAG. They could throw a strop and suddenly withdraw at some point in the future. But leverage works both ways. MAG owns and operates the airport which controls the vast bulk of Ryanair's access to the lucrative London market. MAG owns the infrastructure at Ryanair's biggest base by far. It is in the interests of both companies to play nicely together. And with former Ryanair executives occupying key posts at MAG, the opportunity to understand respective business needs and pursue mutually-beneficial goals has never been better.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed, are you thinking of pier B exclusively for FR, or for all the no-frills carriers who want the arrangements you describe? Would there be room for all of them?
The reason I propose Pier B as ideal for a single-airline operation for Ryanair relates to its exact niche in the marketplace, and MOL's past pronouncements of what his ideal airport operating environment should look like (ie. a glorified bus station). Whilst there are other no-frills carriers in the market, my impression is that only Wizzair of size (not a MAN customer) occupy the ultra-budget niche alongside Ryanair at this point.
My perception of EasyJet is that they have evolved more towards the mid-market space to compete with legacy short-haul for business travel (as well as leisure). FlyBe's model is becoming increasingly dependent on interline travel, and offering connections to codeshared high-end long haul carriers they simply cannot offer an ultra-budget experience. Jet2 has evolved into a leisure player competing directly with Thomson and Thomas Cook; they require an ambience commensurate with the package holiday market. And Monarch ... well, they have always pitched themselves as the 'Waitrose' option for the leisure traveller.
Vueling and Iberia Express are linked with BA and will likely benefit from connecting opportunities over MAN to BCN and MAD. Norwegian Air Shuttle is also pitched more towards the middle market in terms of cabin experience. Germanwings serves a high proportion of business travellers and must accommodate connecting passengers. However, these carriers' MAN operations are not of sufficient size to have facilities custom-designed to their needs anyway. If that changes in the future, great!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but pier B stays as needed for capacity during infrasturcture rejigging- but will be completely rebuilt at some point in time.
Maybe someone can explain how it could be done.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The retention of Pier B was decided partly on grounds of cost but also on grounds of buildability, ie the problems of phasing the development while still keeping the airport operational.
Shed is absolutely right to point out that an airport such as MAN needs a range of different types of facility to meet the needs of its diverse airline base. It's a lesson that still hasn't been learned by many other UK airports.
Shed is absolutely right to point out that an airport such as MAN needs a range of different types of facility to meet the needs of its diverse airline base. It's a lesson that still hasn't been learned by many other UK airports.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 2 DME
Age: 54
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the retention of Pier B is a response to what could otherwise be a chronic shortage of gates post-development. It needsextensive work though or it will let down the whole project.