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


Old 17th Nov 2015, 21:45
  #3601 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Not sure this is significant but Routes are suggesting Jet may be about to pull Brussels hub.......

I'm not suggesting it comes here but might it free up an aircraft ?
Bagso is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2015, 22:56
  #3602 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
there's absolutely no room at all to park anything.
There are occasions when this will be so, and a common sense case-by-case diversion decision process allows the right decision to be reached at these times. But when an all-encompassing 'NO DIV' NOTAM is slapped on for days at a time there is no scope for using discretion. The stands are not full all day every day. And did you notice whether there was space available for additional executive traffic to park up at Landmark? A catch-all NOTAM excludes everything by default. As mentioned earlier, at a time of high pressure, the ability to offload a couple of executive jets is immensely valuable to a busy ATC sector. A blip on the screen represents broadly similar workload whether it attaches to a Citation or an A380.

I don't understand how MAN's 'nodiv' NOTAM compromises safety? It doesn't at all.
Nobody has suggested that the NOTAM alone will result in a major incident. However, in commercial aviation both for aircraft operators and ATC, the overriding principle is to prevent the proverbial holes in the Swiss cheese from coming into alignment. The objective is to remove as many obstacles as possible which impede the safe operation of active flights. In a mass diversion scenario - which means many aircraft subject to the same adverse conditions simultaneously and several airports below acceptable minima simultaneously - the artificial (as opposed to enforced) non-availability of one of the largest airports in the system is a major thorn in the side.

Taking an example we have already seen once this Winter, consider a situation where the five major airports serving London have IRVR's around 100M at the same time. Many aircraft can land in these conditions but LVP's on the ground mean that arrival gaps must be substantially increased. This means that the holds quickly fill up, and the later aircraft reaching the stacks quickly calculate that fuel will become an issue before they get their turn to make an approach (which they actually could accept based on IRVR minima alone). These aircraft quickly fill up the spare capacity at airports such as Bournemouth and Norwich (presuming these are themselves still available).

As fog thickens in the Midlands and the North, LVP's come into force at other airports too. So the landing rates slow right down as arrival spacing is increased and the stacks gradually fill up. Aircraft can still land at BHX and EMA in our example scenario, but approach delays will build up as aircraft await their turn to make an approach with increased gaps. Some of these aircraft will then need to investigate other possible alternates. MAN is fully functional and within acceptable limits for our aircraft, but the airport has issued a 'NO DIVS' NOTAM and rules itself out. LPL, LBA and DSA now receive the modest number of diversions they can accept before declaring themselves full. But the aircraft keep on coming.

Now ATC and airline company ops are working flat out, not only working the regular traffic and the backlogged traffic, but also trying to secure arrangements with more distant airports to accept diversions. NCL say they can take a couple more, but their IRVR touchdown is now 250M and deteriorating. Some aircraft head for DUB, PIK and AMS. Flow control contributes to calming traffic flows, but the backlog of aircraft in the system still means high workload and the need to organise reroutes, plus increased coordination with adjacent sectors and units. There are no additional staff available to handle all this. The regular staff compliment must cope alone. MAN is at this point the only airport which has refused to accept diverted traffic. They again point to their NOTAM and say don't bother asking. What about a Dash 8 or an executive jet? No. Only if they declare an emergency.

You see, the NOTAM alone is not a safety hazard in itself. But one or several fuel emergencies are a safety hazard. And ATC sector overloads are a safety hazard. The 'NO DIV' NOTAM is arguably the biggest hole in the Swiss cheese. Remove it and the scenario above becomes significantly less likely. Reducing risk is what safety management is all about. When there are several aircraft holding simultaneously, there is one key wildcard factor to bear in mind. If the fifth aircraft in the queue declares a fuel emergency, other pilots can think: "B****r! We're going to get pushed to the back of the queue here! He was behind us! We'd better declare as well!" ATC can then face a domino effect with multiple aircraft declaring in rapid succession. This is when the real problems kick in. Somebody has to land last. Do you want it to be the one your wife and kids are flying on? Welcome to 'squeaky bum time.' And YES, I am aware of an actual scenario in which FIVE fuel emergencies were declared in a cascade effect of the type described. Obviously, I will not be posting specifics on that one.

The NOTAM is taken into account during flight planning, as is the additional fuel required for the 'new' altn airport if required
If there is only one adversely affected aircraft in the system that works a treat. But when all aircraft are affected and several airports are unavailable simultaneously (which does happen) neat plans drawn up in an office hours before go out the window. Alternates go below limits too during widespread adverse weather conditions. Remember, ATC loading has to be accounted for as well as the contingency for each one flight considered in isolation.

It's absolutely no different than MAN RVR's being below limits in periods of bad visibility,
By the law of averages, there are times when MAN itself is one of the worst affected airports. When that happens other adjacent airports do step up to the plate and 'go the extra mile' to help out. It would be so, so helpful to ATC and airlines alike if MAN would do it's part for the common cause when the converse is the case. If they can only accept a maximum of five aircraft, fair enough. Accept those five. Every little helps! Nobody is demanding a free-for-all, but please pitch in and do your bit to help out as every other UK airport of size already does.

aircraft from neighbouring airports don't suddenly dropping out of the sky because they can't make MAN.
Invoking sensationalised imagery in this manner is most unhelpful to what is actually a very serious safety debate. The reader is invited to identify this as the scenario under discussion, laugh out loud, and then dismiss the entire debate ... ergo, there isn't really a problem. Safety planning doesn't work like that. Hollywood disaster-movie imagery does not contribute to constructive consideration of the real-world issues here. ATC sector overloads can and do happen from time to time despite all measures taken to avoid them. Aircraft do declare fuel emergencies from time to time despite all best efforts to avoid these. And multiple 'cascade' declarations of fuel emergencies can happen too (for the reasons outlined above). It is incumbent on a safety-led system to defuse factors which could significantly contribute to such incidents arising in the first place. From that perspective, consigning the blunt-instrument 'NO DIVS' NOTAM culture into the dustbin of history would be the single most helpful step forward I can think of at this point.

If the UK values its admirable safety record, then there is no room for complacency to take root. Efforts to keep those holes in the Swiss cheese from coming into alignment must be unrelenting.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2015, 23:34
  #3603 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 178
The parking situation is going to be there every night as the same
number of aircraft are there because they are based and will return at
night or parked up all day, very few stands are vacated over night
or at least all night because DHL/FedEx return very early and
aircraft that go into hangars will be out again early for next days
operations so stands have to be helf for them and then to
add to all this is airfield maintenance which at this time of year can close
whole taxiways or god forbid, aircraft stands and even runways.
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2015, 23:45
  #3604 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: A warm pub
Posts: 1,200
Are you sure you don't work in ATC Shed? Because you have explained the absolute nightmare of multiple airports going into CATIII simultaneously perfectly.

And as for the Beluga, it's only an A300.

Also stating you will accept emergencies in a NOTAM is pointless, as doing otherwise is illegal.

I don't work in the UK, but if SNN, ORK, DUB, NOC, KIR or even BHD and particularly BFS refused to accept diversions EVERY YEAR, because they are using remote stands for car parking.... we would be absolutely livid over here. Eventually some commander is going to div into MAN and stop on the runway, because there's nowhere to park his aircraft
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2015, 23:58
  #3605 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
That fact is widely recognised and accepted, Chaps1954. I for one am entirely aware of overnight space limitations. But a considered case-by-case approach to diversion requests allows for all this. It is not an excuse for an inflexible 'NO DIVS' regime to be imposed for days on end without respite. The NOTAM applies at all hours of the day when it is in force ... those stands are occupied part of the time, not all the time. And what of contingency for accepting executive jet diversions? They don't require a widebody stand on T2. The call is for a considered case-by-case approach which allows essential wiggle-room. As routinely happens at every other major UK airport.

There really does appear to be a well-entrenched "can't do" culture in this particular area of the MAN operation. That is a cause for great concern.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 07:33
  #3606 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 351

Despite spending what must be hours of your time typing away, you have still not managed to explain to anyone the nature of the problem and just why you are so obsessed with this issue. You have cited safety reasons (the closest you have got to achieving the above) but when asked for evidence you shy away.
When someone dares to challenge you, you throw your toys out of the pram.

It would be helpful to myself and others if you could:
1 Explain in no more than two or three lines what exactly the problem is and
2. Provide evidence to support the fact that it is a problem (rather than supposition).

If you can't put up - then shut up and move on to another subject. You write eloquently and succinctly on other matters but not this one.

I would like to think those that run the airport successfully 365 days of the year 24 hours a day are better at doing this than an armchair expert on the internet.
All names taken is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 08:46
  #3607 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Usually in a bar!
Posts: 108

I am not probing your personal life nor do I want details of exactly where you work but can you tell us if you are even involved in aviation? ATC?
Homo Simpson is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 10:29
  #3608 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
HS - Your posting history indicates that you are ex-MACC. So let's just say there is an excellent chance we have met. ;-)
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 11:11
  #3609 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
As we have little knowledge on any posters background maybe it is somewhat presumptive to suggest Mr Shed is little more than an "armchair expert "?
Bagso is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 11:38
  #3610 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,057
Quite right Bagso. Or cheap jibes about days of yore and brightening up school days.

I'm sure there are a number of folk on here who worked for many years, or are still working, for the Airport, ATC, Handling Agents or with airlines, who have good knowledge and experience of MAN operations.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 11:49
  #3611 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Usually in a bar!
Posts: 108
The question has been answered so its done what was intended.
Homo Simpson is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 14:37
  #3612 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North West UK
Posts: 530
T3 security queues

As a change of topic....

I am a moderately regualr from MAN using either T1 or T3. I have rarely gone through T1 Security when it is anything other than fairly efficient. One snaking line (ignoring Fast Track), an efficient distribution of pasendgers to the various check points and I think rarely has it taken more than ten minutes to get through.

T3 on the other hand is terrible. Immediately forced into one line per check point; I always seem to get shown to the line at the furthest end of the hall and the x-ray machine is always clogged up so that one can be waiting for ten minutes after you have gone through the 'divers gate' to get your hand luggage.

I can't believe it is down to money as various full service airlines use T3 and EZY use T1. So what is going on?
Espada III is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 15:50
  #3613 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
T3 is physically the smallest terminal at MAN, but it sees periods of intense passenger demand coinciding with waves of departures by Ryanair and FlyBe in particular. Air France / KLM, British Airways and American Airlines also contribute to busy periods there.

I have passed through T3 several times this year, predominantly at busy times of day, using services operated by Ryanair, FlyBe, Sun-Air and Air France. And on each occasion I have found that the security process, although faced with very high levels of throughput, was well-organised, friendly and kept moving well. Ten minutes was about the average transit time. This is a vast improvement from a couple of years ago. More noticeably, the inbound queues at UK Border cause considerably fewer delays than they used to. Proactive queue management has been introduced and there has been real effort to maximise use of e-gates for passengers with appropriately chipped passports. This is a huge improvement over previous experiences.

My slowest transit of MAN security this year was a departure through the Jet2 area of T1. This took about 25 minutes, but about half of that was the result of being picked out for a baggage check. Again, this was around 07:00 on a Summer morning, so an extremely busy time. I'll be departing from T2 in the near term, so I will have the opportunity to see how a recent transit of the security process there compares.

I have to say that for speed of security processing, MAN has been up there with the best of my experiences this year. A number of airports overseas have been considerably slower. Most notably an Eastern European airport with a single Dash 8-400 departure all morning through to 12:00. They insisted on thoroughly searching every passenger and all baggage for a domestic flight, not just the few people who triggered the alarm on the x-ray arch. Maybe they felt a need to justify their existence. So volume of passenger throughput is not the only factor in speed of security processing. MAN compares very well in my experience.
Shed-on-a-Pole is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 16:04
  #3614 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Just done MAN-AUH-SIN return and all security was efficient and relativity quick. From experience, the queue, however large, flows at a good rate and one's frustration doesn't build.

Ironically my longest wait was in the T3 fast track! Traveling to SOU and stuck with business class AA pax with everything as hand luggage and a first class pax deciding which of his very expensive toiletries were destined for the bin!
Betablockeruk is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 16:13
  #3615 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,210
From my experience this year, T2 appears to have the worst and most disorganised security queues.
The recent change into 3 lanes of security is also unwelcome change.
There is now "normal", " Fastrack" - this is only available to those who pay extra & then there is " priority"
As a business class passenger on EK recently (T1), the check in staff advised me that Fast track is not available to business class, it is only by paid ticket. He also suggested avoid the priority lane, which I could use for free, as you will be stuck behind wheelchairs and pushchairs. Much quicker to go via the standard channel I was informed.
As a passenger paying premium fares, I was hardly very chuffed at this new money making MAG arrangement.
Surely the aim of the airport should be to process all passengers quickly and efficiently without the need for any priority lines at all ?
As for T3- don't get me started. the fact that the whole terminal is brought to a standstill when a BA shuttle disembarks beggars belief.
Mr A Tis is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 16:28
  #3616 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Pegasus are now selling seats on its once weekly flight to DLM.

It arrives about 0840 and departs at 0920 on Monday. You can also use it via a connection at DLM to get to SAW. No direct flights to SAW showing as yet.
viscount702 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 16:52
  #3617 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,057
PEGASUS, Not a great connection to Istanbul with a 3hr.35min transfer time.

I wonder if that suggests there won't be direct flights between SAW and MAN next year?
MANFOD is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 17:09
  #3618 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
SAW will follow on soon.

Friday's DLM is also bookable via 3rd party sites at the moment
LAX_LHR is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 18:34
  #3619 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
@Mr A Tis
I've had the same experience with regards to the T1 "fast" track. I have complained about it numerous times to both the airline and MAG, I suggest you do the same.
Crazy Voyager is online now  
Old 18th Nov 2015, 23:26
  #3620 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
QR Increase to 16 per week

I think this was rumoured but have not seen an official confirmation - Qatar look to be increasing to 16 per week from 2 May next year.

Schedules in the GDS show two more morning arrivals/departues using 788

QR 022 357 MAN 2 DOH 0900 1805 0 27MAR16 28OCT16 332 7:05
QR 022 16 MAN 2 DOH 0900 1805 0 02MAY16 29OCT16 788 7:05
QR 046 D MAN 2 DOH 1610 0115+1 0 27MAR16 29OCT16 332 7:05
QR 026 1246 MAN 2 DOH 2205 0710+1 0 28MAR16 29OCT16 332 7:05

QR 021 357 DOH MAN 2 0105 0650 0 30MAR16 28OCT16 332 7:45
QR 021 16 DOH MAN 2 0105 0650 0 02MAY16 29OCT16 788 7:45
QR 045 D DOH MAN 2 0700 1245 0 27MAR16 29OCT16 332 7:45
QR 025 1246 DOH MAN 2 1415 1955 0 28MAR16 29OCT16 332 7:40

NB QR22 is the only departure with a smooth connection onto the new SYD service which begins 2 April next year.

Adding the two extra morning departures means decent connections ex MAN to SYD are now possible 5 times a week from May. (Inbound connects well every day).

Last edited by 110Cornets; 18th Nov 2015 at 23:35. Reason: Additional info
110Cornets 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.