MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be great if we could just drop this tedious debate about diversions or no diversions. Like the diversions themselves, it is going nowhere! There is so much that's exciting and positive going on at MAN at the moment which does get talked about, thank God. Every airport has a role, Manchester's is to provide the North of England with a fantastic choice of direct flights to an increasingly worldwide list of destinations. It does so from a relatively small patch of real estate, of which it makes good use. That helps keep fees and charges competitive. The UK has lots of airports - too many one might say, and so there will usually be somewhere for a diverted flight to land, if not so convenient.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MEN is well on the ball these days...this time with the Air China story...
Manchester Airport on brink of securing a direct route to Shanghai amid growing links with China - Manchester Evening News
Manchester Airport on brink of securing a direct route to Shanghai amid growing links with China - Manchester Evening News
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COMPLACENCY. A worrying symptom in an air safety environment.
This subject gets done to death. It's a complete and utter bore off.
If there was so much spare space that diversions could be handled at will,
Shed, NOTAMs always have the line "except for emergencies".
MAN should put first it's own customers / operation before considering diversions that can use other airports that do not have the same constraints MAN does (emergencies excluded).
It would be great if we could just drop this tedious debate about diversions or no diversions. Like the diversions themselves, it is going nowhere!
There is so much that's exciting and positive going on at MAN at the moment which does get talked about,
there will usually be somewhere for a diverted flight to land, if not so convenient.
I have to say that the complacency amongst some contributors on here is quite staggering. I hope that attitude isn't reflected amongst the professionals formulating operational policy behind the scenes at MAN. It seems that the general consensus on this thread is that MAN is indeed the only airport in the UK that is getting it right on this. The ops departments at every other major airport in the UK are obviously getting their priorities hopelessly wrong. DOH ... those incompetent fools running other airports, eh! What are they like?!!!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be great if we could just drop this tedious debate about diversions or no diversions.
It is that time of year and one of these days or nights it really is going to hit the fan regarding diversions. The defensive policy enforced by MAG is less about short term gate availability and more about penny pinching on the human resources that could make better use of capacity. Silly DfT rules on the off-loading passengers and last minute attempts to co-ordinate disparate fragmented and underfunded handling agents are the makings of a ready made farce every time. It is a topic done to death on here because the situation does not appear to be any better organised from one year to the next.
Last edited by dave59; 17th Nov 2015 at 19:01.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an aside, does anybody recall the Transport Select Committee hearing where the spokesperson for Virgin rather pompously scoffed " there was no demand for flights to China from Manchester" (cough)
Now I know we shouldn't be putting up the bunting over Saddams Arch on the T1 approach just yet but with Hong Kong going rather swimmingly and Beijing poss Shanghai to follow ........
Now I know we shouldn't be putting up the bunting over Saddams Arch on the T1 approach just yet but with Hong Kong going rather swimmingly and Beijing poss Shanghai to follow ........
Last edited by Bagso; 17th Nov 2015 at 13:41.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Demand for China
I can see the point of view of Virgin here. Ultimately would they not have operated a point-point service? I would presume so. And if so then they would have to have filled a plane to THAT destination.
The flights to HK and China that we have and will have will all offer onward connections so the flight may only be carrying a smallish number to HK or Beijing for example.
If we look at the flights to AUH and DOH in particular, I know from experience that they tend to carry only very small numbers to those destinations with the majority connecting on.
So the view of Virgin and the view of China based carriers is not the same even though they may be looking at the same origin and destination.
The flights to HK and China that we have and will have will all offer onward connections so the flight may only be carrying a smallish number to HK or Beijing for example.
If we look at the flights to AUH and DOH in particular, I know from experience that they tend to carry only very small numbers to those destinations with the majority connecting on.
So the view of Virgin and the view of China based carriers is not the same even though they may be looking at the same origin and destination.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed
Your obsession with MAN's diversion policy is verging on the psychotic.
You cite 'safety' as the root of your concerns. Can you provide one, just one, example of an aircraft's safety being compromised by the diversion policy of Manchester Airport? No? Didn't think so.
Your scenario of planes falling out of the sky because they have run out of fuel whilst begging Manchester Airport to let them land is delusional and scare-mongering at its worst.
Instead I suspect you hanker for the days of yore when lots of rare planes would descend from the mists to brighten up your school days.
Planes having to divert from their intended destination is a nightmare to all concerned. Stranded passengers are much more likely to be cursing rather than blessing the name of Manchester if they inadvertently end up there.
When steps don't show immediately, when they aren't allowed to disembark, when they get forced to stay on-board for hours, the passengers will lay the blame at the door of the Airport whether it is their fault or not - a situation the airlines are happy to let evolve in order to deflect any blame from their own inadequacies.
It is the worst possible kind of publicity for the airport and the city. That's the reality.
Your obsession with MAN's diversion policy is verging on the psychotic.
You cite 'safety' as the root of your concerns. Can you provide one, just one, example of an aircraft's safety being compromised by the diversion policy of Manchester Airport? No? Didn't think so.
Your scenario of planes falling out of the sky because they have run out of fuel whilst begging Manchester Airport to let them land is delusional and scare-mongering at its worst.
Instead I suspect you hanker for the days of yore when lots of rare planes would descend from the mists to brighten up your school days.
Planes having to divert from their intended destination is a nightmare to all concerned. Stranded passengers are much more likely to be cursing rather than blessing the name of Manchester if they inadvertently end up there.
When steps don't show immediately, when they aren't allowed to disembark, when they get forced to stay on-board for hours, the passengers will lay the blame at the door of the Airport whether it is their fault or not - a situation the airlines are happy to let evolve in order to deflect any blame from their own inadequacies.
It is the worst possible kind of publicity for the airport and the city. That's the reality.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All names taken, if all UK airports had the same enlightened policy you seem to think MAN has......?
You also delight in responding to points that folk haven't made - notably Shed - but which perhaps you would have preferred them to express. All Shed and others, including myself, are asking is whether MAN couldn't be a little more flexible on occasions - a 'can do' but realistic approach, rather than giving the impression 'it might cause us or the agents a bit more work and a few problems so better not.
Incidentally, I'm puzzled by this extract on diversion policy posted by scottie dog. " Requests from Manchester Airport airline customers to accept inbound diversions and extra flights will be considered on a case-by-case
basis by the CMC, subject to the provision of a Ground Handling service."
This follows in the same para and immediately after the reference to a notam about no diversions being accepted. It almost reads as if it's a caveat to the 'no diversions'. Is it really implying that even if the notam has been issued, airlines can still request to divert (as well as in emergency)? Or, more likely, is it a general qualifier to occasions when diversions may be accepted and relates to the earlier para.
You also delight in responding to points that folk haven't made - notably Shed - but which perhaps you would have preferred them to express. All Shed and others, including myself, are asking is whether MAN couldn't be a little more flexible on occasions - a 'can do' but realistic approach, rather than giving the impression 'it might cause us or the agents a bit more work and a few problems so better not.
Incidentally, I'm puzzled by this extract on diversion policy posted by scottie dog. " Requests from Manchester Airport airline customers to accept inbound diversions and extra flights will be considered on a case-by-case
basis by the CMC, subject to the provision of a Ground Handling service."
This follows in the same para and immediately after the reference to a notam about no diversions being accepted. It almost reads as if it's a caveat to the 'no diversions'. Is it really implying that even if the notam has been issued, airlines can still request to divert (as well as in emergency)? Or, more likely, is it a general qualifier to occasions when diversions may be accepted and relates to the earlier para.
Last edited by MANFOD; 17th Nov 2015 at 09:56.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Names Taken,
Your 10:25 posting constitutes a spiteful personal attack which I find disappointing on a professional aviation forum discussing serious issues. Your complaints against me are inventions of your own mind. I will not engage with you on that level. Shame on you.
With regards to privileged information, I'm not posting any on here. You can behave irresponsibly if you want to.
Your 10:25 posting constitutes a spiteful personal attack which I find disappointing on a professional aviation forum discussing serious issues. Your complaints against me are inventions of your own mind. I will not engage with you on that level. Shame on you.
With regards to privileged information, I'm not posting any on here. You can behave irresponsibly if you want to.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aerodrome licence specifically states "The Aerodrome Licence, granted by the CAA, provides for Public Use of the Aerodrome and shall be available to all persons under equal conditions at all times when the aerodrome is
available for the take-off or landing of aircraft." There is a caveat: "Subject to the conditions of the licence nothing shall be taken to confer on any person the right to use the Aerodrome without the consent of the licensee." Presumably the caveat is being used to issue the NOTAMS.
This really is one for the aviation lawyers. The caveat states "subject to the conditions of the licence" but the primary condition is "shall be available to all persons under equal conditions at all times when the aerodrome is
available for the take-off or landing of aircraft."
It seems to me that there are two reasons being given for refusing diversions:
Lack of parking space
Lack of ground handling staff
The former may be a valid reason until one points out the arrangements made for the football finals and the licence makes no mention of parking or ground handling. The latter is an economic decision by franchisees. If their operation leads to the infringement of the licence, the airport should not be complicent in the way they operate.
Any lawyers around?
available for the take-off or landing of aircraft." There is a caveat: "Subject to the conditions of the licence nothing shall be taken to confer on any person the right to use the Aerodrome without the consent of the licensee." Presumably the caveat is being used to issue the NOTAMS.
This really is one for the aviation lawyers. The caveat states "subject to the conditions of the licence" but the primary condition is "shall be available to all persons under equal conditions at all times when the aerodrome is
available for the take-off or landing of aircraft."
It seems to me that there are two reasons being given for refusing diversions:
Lack of parking space
Lack of ground handling staff
The former may be a valid reason until one points out the arrangements made for the football finals and the licence makes no mention of parking or ground handling. The latter is an economic decision by franchisees. If their operation leads to the infringement of the licence, the airport should not be complicent in the way they operate.
Any lawyers around?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily to Beijing
not sure if this will post as a link or not as it doesn't seem to want to let me but here it is anyway.
Manchester ?could get daily flights to Beijing? | Insider Media Ltd
Manchester ?could get daily flights to Beijing? | Insider Media Ltd
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the wind favours MAN. No notam yet. Has someone forgotten to issue it?
A KLM and EIR have just gone round at BHX. Makes the TK decision even more strange. Next stop LHR if he doesn't make BHX?
A KLM and EIR have just gone round at BHX. Makes the TK decision even more strange. Next stop LHR if he doesn't make BHX?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having watched b738 a/c land at DUB with gusts of 56kt but along the runway, MAN has just had 2 go-arounds with the wx giving gusts of only 42kt along our runway. The LS, also a 738, then diverted, to NCL by the looks of it.
Is it wind sheer that seems to give us so many problems?
Strange variations in wx for airports close together. At 19.20 LPL was a gentle 23kt while MAN was giving 30kt with gusts of 47kt.
Is it wind sheer that seems to give us so many problems?
Strange variations in wx for airports close together. At 19.20 LPL was a gentle 23kt while MAN was giving 30kt with gusts of 47kt.
Last edited by MANFOD; 17th Nov 2015 at 18:37.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange variations in wx for airports close together. At 19.20 LPL was a gentle 23kt while MAN was giving 30kt with gusts of 47kt.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No idea if MAN turned any diversions away today or not, but there's absolutely no room at all to park anything. There's even a TCX 76W parked on stand 206 in Terminal 2 (TCX use T1) due to lack of remote parking.
Also there's a Flybe plonked on the currently closed stand 23 in T1 (They usually use T3).
I don't understand how MAN's 'nodiv' NOTAM compromises safety? It doesn't at all. The NOTAM is taken into account during flight planning, as is the additional fuel required for the 'new' altn airport if required
It's absolutely no different than MAN RVR's being below limits in periods of bad visibility, aircraft from neighbouring airports don't suddenly dropping out of the sky because they can't make MAN.
Also there's a Flybe plonked on the currently closed stand 23 in T1 (They usually use T3).
I don't understand how MAN's 'nodiv' NOTAM compromises safety? It doesn't at all. The NOTAM is taken into account during flight planning, as is the additional fuel required for the 'new' altn airport if required
It's absolutely no different than MAN RVR's being below limits in periods of bad visibility, aircraft from neighbouring airports don't suddenly dropping out of the sky because they can't make MAN.