Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

MANCHESTER 1

Old 1st Nov 2015, 20:02
  #3361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 56
Posts: 3,134
Diversions

Could be a different story in 24 hours as BHX has night closures Monday to Friday for at least 5 weeks due essential works.

CAT 1 on 33 for over a year off and on with still no upgrade date as far as I know, so all airports suffer with issues that restrict their full operation. Having said that BHX have been excellent today handing 4 triples and a 787 as well as biz jets galore. Some of the diversions have even escaped already.

Pete
OltonPete is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2015, 21:19
  #3362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,048
I wonder if this Notam will be dropped if/when all other airports approach the 'no room at the inn' moment and there is available space or perhaps some pilots may mischeviously 'accidentally' declare emergencies as the fog is going to be pretty much widespread tonight. And to cover themselves just put word out in the media beforehand that there may be delays in handling this unexpected extra traffic to avoid bad press.
1st Nov 2015 19:51
Nice thought Ringwayman, but an EZY diverted from LPL to BHX so they didn't consider themselves full. However another 2 LPL flights headed north, along with our own Milan which had tried for BHX where they had an RVR of 400m despite a met vis. of 9km! At least, I assume it was the wx that prevented his landing there.

So, no concessions and no emergencies declared.

Edit: 3 cityflyers diverting from LCY to BHX, although the RVR had dropped to 225m (50m met) on the 21.50 weather.
Interestingly, a flybe to BHX may be diverting - Can't believe he will be allowed here. No, looks like he's heading further north. Maybe our RVR was too low anyway or in view of the notam he probably didn't bother to ask about MAN. An ERJ 175 obviously too big to handle.

Last edited by MANFOD; 1st Nov 2015 at 21:36.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2015, 22:20
  #3363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 169
When MAN has is 75+ based aircraft on the ground plus an A340-600 and an A340-500
which limits large stands doesn`t really leave much space especially
for large aircraft and in no way can they afford to have 5 or so non sched
long haul visits not being able to depart because crew are out of hours
and the numerous long hauls which arrive between 05.00 and 10.00
tomorrow. I fail to see what the problem is, if they were an emergency
they would be accepted, but I remember the huge rows that erupted
when they got too full back in 70s/80s and the poor ground crews took
the flack.

Ian

Last edited by chaps1954; 1st Nov 2015 at 22:53. Reason: extra info
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2015, 22:29
  #3364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: cornwall, uk
Posts: 1,524
It's not like there's a lack of suitable runways/airports in the uk so I really fail to see why it's an issue in all honesty !

Fair enough moan if BA end up diverting to FCO in the event of issues in London but there are other suitable airfields to divert other than MAN.



cs
cornishsimon is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2015, 22:30
  #3365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Manchester: The Airport Which Likes To Say "NO!"

Around 30 years ago, the dynamic management team at Manchester Airport made a bold and courageous decision. Having courteously reasoned for years with Whitehall officials who steadfastly refused to entertain any semblance of common sense, radical action appeared to be the only course of action left open. It was clear that Manchester was not going to secure long-haul carriers such as Singapore Airlines any other way.

And so began one of the most celebrated landmark episodes in Manchester Airport's history. Advertisements appeared in national newspapers. They depicted an office door in a stuffy ministry with a large sign hanging from it. Just three powerful words: DO NOT DISTURB.

This bold campaign finally embarrassed the stuffy Whitehall machine into action. Ministers intervened at the very highest levels. And on 1st April 1986, the reward. The inaugural Singapore Airlines Boeing 747 scheduled service landed at Manchester Airport. On that very same day, 'Manchester Airport PLC' came into existence.

With inflexible Londoncentric government aviation policy dealt a major blow, many more regional long-haul services would be approved in the years which followed. The 'Do Not Disturb' campaign paved the way. Manchester's pro-active, forward-thinking management team was admired throughout the industry.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now here is an amazing thing. I've discovered that MAG (successor to MAplc) still has that original "DO NOT DISTURB" sign! And it isn't in the archives either ... they actually use it! Today it hangs on another dusty office door: the one labelled: 'MANCHESTER AIRPORT DIVERSION PLANNING'. Astonishingly, so much dust has gathered on this particular door that some speculate that it hasn't been opened for years.

You see, diversions are something that other airports concern themselves with. Manchester is above all that! An enterprising investigator ("Spirit of Olly") set out to discover more ...

SoO: We completely understand that you can't entertain a diversions 'free-for-all', that just isn't practical. But why do you ban all non-emergency diversions regardless of circumstances?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: If you have just six spare stands available, why not put out an advisory that you can accept up to six diversions only, as other airports do?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: If you are unable to accept widebody divs, why not put out an advisory that you can only accept a specified number of narrowbodies, as other airports do?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: If the airport is unable to accommodate air transport diversions, why ban executive jet diversions as well which a blanket 'NO DIVS' NOTAM ensures by default?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: We understand that the availability of handling agency staff is a significant factor and that their numbers are tight. But if they do have spare capacity because some of their own scheduled flights have been grounded elsewhere, why not let them handle diverted traffic instead?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: We appreciate that you consider it of paramount importance that your regular operation is not jeopardised by post-diversion chaos. But in mid-Winter, when the terminals are operating far below peak levels of demand, why not agree to accept a manageable number of extra flights to the benefit of all concerned?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: We understand that there are limits to the number of passengers you can accommodate hanging around in the terminals at one time. When this becomes an issue, why not continue to accept 'splash-and-dash' diversions only?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: When some of your best airline customers beg you to help out with a couple of their displaced flights, don't you think it would be great PR to "go the extra mile" on their behalf?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: When the ACC's are desperately phoning round airports asking them to help by accepting whatever diversions they can, don't you think it would be jolly decent of MAN to do it's bit for the greater good?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: We do understand the issues thrown up by diversion sessions. Stands, capacity issues, packed terminals, disruption, uncertainty, staffing. But every other major airport in the UK handles its share of the burden ... except for you. And they even make some money into the bargain. Why can't you?

MAG: "DO NOT DISTURB."

SoO: The blanket-ban 'NO DIVS' NOTAM is such a blunt-instrument! Can't you produce a more finessed document, as other airports do, smoothing the way for MAN to make a sensible controlled contribution to the displaced flights problem?

MAG: "ENOUGH! Just push off or we'll set the Rottweilers on you!!!"

Spirit of Olly: MMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2015, 22:31
  #3366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,048
Smile

Ian, who mentioned '5 or so' non-scheduled long haul visits? LAX and I were querying why it had to be a blanket policy of no divs, when 2 or 3 smaller a/c could probably be accommodated. I mentioned 2 wide body a/c possibly but merely as an example for being just a wee bit flexible.

However, MAN's policy doesn't seem to be of that view so I think we've exhausted the subject. I don't suppose comments on here will influence them but I'm sure they will appreciate your support.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2015, 22:43
  #3367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
The "gutsy solution" would be for the government to "grow a pair" and approve LHR expansion now.
No, Frank. That would be the "fiscally reckless solution" ...
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2015, 22:50
  #3368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,048
It's not like there's a lack of suitable runways/airports in the uk so I really fail to see why it's an issue in all honesty !
You might get a clue if you read Shed's excellent post that follows yours!

For those who may not realise, Olly was an adopted cat at the airport for several years before moving to a new home. He has since passed away, but his spirit lives on as Shed's post testifies.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2015, 23:03
  #3369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 169
MANFOD
I was just suggesting if that had happened, but as it is 2 extra A340 is
a big deal also we had another as VIR109 was an A340-600 this morning
and I know there are not many A340-600 compliant stands and yesterday we had a B748 div in from STN which was by luck a splash and dash
but if the crew went out of hours thats a minimum of 12 hours

Just seen this on another site
There's currently a Eurocontrol restriction on arrivals at MAN issued at 1809 that the only traffic that will be accepted has to be capable of operating in RVRs of 200m or less. Currently valid to 0600 tomorrow, but that will change one way or another if necessary.




Ian
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 07:05
  #3370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,048
No mention of a 4th flight yet, but there's still time.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 07:52
  #3371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 169
Well there we go no parking for our own Delta Airlines flight and it`s
only a B757
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 09:00
  #3372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,556
The whole recurring argument does feel like slits a bunch of spotters upset because we aren't getting the 'exotic' big jets from LHR. No offence mind.
easyflyer83 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 09:09
  #3373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Easy flyer,

If that's the only conclusion you can come to regarding diversions, then you clearly haven't read a single post preceding yours.

No offence mind.
LAX_LHR is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 09:23
  #3374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 61
Posts: 143
I've read the posts and completely agree with Easyflyer.

Decisions are made by people who are far closer to the coalface than the contributors to this thread. They are in constant dialogue with the myriad of agencies and partners that make up the operation of the airport and hence are acting with all of the facts in front of them.

Perhaps time to respect those decisions and the people that make them.
North West is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 09:35
  #3375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,048
Well there we go no parking for our own Delta Airlines flight and it`s
only a B757
Fair point Ian. However, if you look back over the months and last year or two, you will have seen plenty of discussion about MAN's decision to convert remote aircraft parking stands into car parking. There were 12 at one stage of which 5 have so far been returned as I understand it. Some of us expressed concern that with MAN growing again, demand for stands would increase and there could be problems if there were significant delays to early morning departures due to bad weather or strikes in Europe for example with no spare parking capacity.

I admit there is a discussion to be had on maximising the use of assets financially in the short term against providing some margin for dealing with issues that may only arise 5% of the time on the airfield and planning for medium term expansion which is likely but cannot be guaranteed. Personally, I'm not convinced MAN got that balance right but no doubt others would disagree.

You may have noticed that many of flybe's early arrivals of non-based a/c were cancelled, so presumably T3 was able to cope.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 09:40
  #3376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Again, no.

Most of the posts on here are not moaning because we wanted to see diverts (I wasn't anywhere near MAN yesterday so nothing to do with wanting to watch the lovely diverts)' but, it was more questioning the reasons why other airports can seemingly accept anything and everything, but MAN didn't even try.

An airport is an airport, the processes are going to be roughly similar from one to another, so, the question wasn't 'we can we not see the lovely diverts', but why could BHX take 15 or so diverts but MAN a big fat zero.

I understand staff and stands blah blah blah, but, the main question is, why the blanket 'no div notam' instead of reviewing case by case?

Like I've said, if all people can take from all the above posts is 'spotters want to see diverts', then you either haven't read the posts, or, you have read the posts and can't be bothered to debate sensibly or, as usual for PPRuNe, people lining up to insult others yet again.
LAX_LHR is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 10:06
  #3377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 47
Posts: 689
LAX, given the known number of based units, plus night stoppers, plus a couple of 340's, plus the winter stoppers...how many stands do you think MAN has spare ?

It was only a week or so ago the conversation was had on here about the number of based units.

Another worry must be if any diverts cannot get out and then the early morning long hauls arriving needing even more stands.

So in a way, taking it your response on above questions would be MAN is nearly full with that lot alone, I can understand the blanket "go elsewhere" in a way.

BUT, that said lets take the winter stoppers, they can go virtually anyway and can be really packed in to the smallest area possible (ie Champions League double parking), that would free up quite a few stands, so despite some understanding with the situation I still think more could be done, but is all that too much hassle just to squeeze in a few diverts, which may not even happen.
eggc is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 10:18
  #3378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,556
I read every post and we have this conversation every year and for some reason I come to the same conclusion. It seems to me like MAN is protecting its own operation. I actually commend them for that.
easyflyer83 is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 10:19
  #3379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,048
Emirates.

This announcement should be made on the 25th anniversary of EK at MAN this November. 4th daily flight should start next May with B77W.
This was posted mid October on post 3114 and there was an earlier one on 26 Sep. (no. 2941) by a different contributor to similar effect.

Can I ask if these were idle speculation, rumour, a logical guess or based on reliable information?
MANFOD is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2015, 10:43
  #3380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: manchester
Posts: 77
Beijing capital airlines

Looks as if HNA group felt a little sad for Birmingham with respects trying to open up a 2x weekly flights between China and Birmingham....

http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/251714/beijing-capital-airlines-seeks-rights-to-serve-birmingham/
sarah19981 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.