MANCHESTER 1

[Bagso]

Perish the thought that Manchester stops becoming the poor relation of the airport capacity debate and somebody in Whitehall recognises the siginifact part it plays. They might then suggest widening the M56 ?

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by Bagso

Perish the thought that Manchester stops becoming the poor relation of the airport capacity debate and somebody in Whitehall recognises the siginifact part it plays. They might then suggest widening the M56 ?

Bagso

I think schemes such as the A6MARR and SEMMS are the preferred option, giving an alternate route to the airport for those arriving from the East and, eventually, the South.

[AndrewH52]

Perish the thought that Manchester stops becoming the poor relation of the airport capacity debate and somebody in Whitehall recognises the siginifact part it plays. They might then suggest widening the M56 ?

Airport capacity and airport access are two different debates Bagso. In terms of access, surely you should be turning your attention towards Transport for the North rather than Whitehall? They are the ones charged with developing the investment strategies for the strategic local transport network needed for growth in the North, not the DfT. And surely we should be lobbying TfN for improved access to all our ports and airports, not just Manchester?

[Bagso]

Indeed they are and "strategically" Man Airport should be at the centre of all transport strategies. They are inseparable.

Regards funding and "this may come as a bolt from the blue" but it is the Treasury that holds the purse strings.
Tfn simply put forward the wishlist.

Although very welcome, the glacial speed of consent re A6 has been an agony, plus im not sure it will relieve pressure between Airport City South (warehouses ) and the M56 link ?

[AndrewH52]

Indeed they are and "strategically" Man Airport should be at the centre of all transport strategies. They are inseparable.

Regards funding and "this may come as a bolt from the blue" but it is the Treasury that holds the purse strings.
Tfn simply put forward the wishlist.

We'll have to continue to disagree on the first point, I'm afraid. Manchester should be at the centre of TfN's strategies around international connectivity, and despite what you may think it has been reasonably well supported in terms of strategic transport links (I refer you to the earlier debates on public transport use). It is not the be-all-and-end-all in terms of more local transport strategies across the north though.

As for Treasury holding the purse strings, I can reassure you that I am more than well aware of that. I am also well aware that Treasury does not just dole out money to any old project just because someone lobbies for it. They apply very stringent tests and ask for robust and extensive business cases in order to satisfy the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee that money is being allocated appropriately. That in part is why London and the south east has done so well over the years - they have the well oiled machinery to develop those business cases and the willingness to put some money in up front to pay for that initial work. That is where TfN will come and if they merely put forward a "wishlist" then they will be no more successful than the current regime at securing investment.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Shed, history is against you. A parallel taxiway will be built sooner or later. Why? Because that runway will be used more frequently as the airport grows and will eventually have ILS at both ends. History has shown that every restriction the airport has had imposed or imposed on itself has eventually been overturned.

There will also come a time when parallel approaches and take offs will become routine as they are at many airports in the US, for example, with distances between centre lines less than the 1035 metres which has been the UK norm, SFO for instance operating with 750 feet centre line separation in VFR conditions, not to mention its parallel approach, parallel departure system being at 90 degrees to each other.

Thanks for your response, philbky. On this one occasion I struggle to agree with you. Whilst MAG (MA plc) has a long history of developing its infrastructure, the common thread has always been a strong business case suggesting robust ROI going forward. The proposal for a parallel taxiway serving 23L/05R simply doesn't come close to offering that. Indeed, that's why it wasn't built at the outset. In order to offer worthwhile payback to MAG it would need to enable a significant enhancement to the movement capability of 23L/05R. How would it deliver this? You can squeeze maybe a couple of extra hourly movements by tweaking the runway exits, though the layout at the 23L threshold end seems pretty decent already. Other factors restricting movements here do not relate to availability of concrete but to required separations from 23R/05L and to restrictions applied to SID's, most notably the highly-inflexible Knutsford kink (as highlighted by Zooker).

Consider the present situation. Provided that 23L is used for departures and 05R is used for arrivals in dual mode the concrete can cope with a full quota of movements. As mentioned, limits upon this number come from SID restrictions and separation criteria, not from lack of a parallel taxiway. So, aside from some luxury 'nice to have' flexibility in choice of runway-in-use config, what payback would the taxiway bring to MAG? Financially very little indeed, whilst the cost of provision would be quite substantial.

Looking at other infrastructure investment across the airport the standout project at this time is the T2 TP. Just consider how much value MAG is set to deliver by ensuring maximum 'bang for the buck' from its one-billion pound investment. The emphasis is on ROI. Look what MAN will end up with compared with one billion pounds equivalent spend on contemporary projects proposed at London's airports. Every pound invested up here has to make sense. Beyond this first phase of the TP, MAG will need to plan for redeveloping the site of the demolished T1 and to strengthen the resilience of the bottleneck which is T3. There is a pressing need for an apron extension (beyond the TP which is essentially a like-for-like replacement in terms of stand capacity). I don't see a persuasive case for diverting scarce investment funds away from these much-needed terminal and apron enhancements in order to fund a 'luxury' parallel taxiway which brings nothing of consequence to the table.

Even taking on board your suggestion that rules affecting parallel landings / departures could be relaxed at some point in the future, we must remember that MAN is not significantly congested in terms of runway slots. Stand availability, apron space and terminal capacity are the pressing issues at this airport. And it is resolving these which can best deliver tangible ROI.

By the way, I have to highlight that segment of your reference to SFO parallel ops in VFR conditions. This is Manchester we're talking about. MAN can't schedule runway-slots based upon any possibility of VFR conditions prevailing. Manchester must plan and schedule based upon the overwhelming likelihood of its customary layer of 8 Oktas thick grey permacloud which never, ever, ever seems to let up even in the height of Summer. We aren't the rainy city. We're the cloudy city. I'm looking forward to our annual two days of unbroken Summer sunshine. Waiting patiently-ish. Some time before February would be great! :-)

[philbky]

Shed, you make a well reasoned argument and there is no doubt your points about priorities are valid, in the immediate future. My point is that, whilst I won't be around to see it, the airport is likely to continue to expand over the next thirty years and flexible use of the second runway is key to filling the concrete which needs to be poured in the shorter term.

There are access problems with a parallel taxiway but no more so than when both 05s are in use. One solution would be a link from the 23 end of 23L across to the end of 23R. A lot of concrete, but not insurmountable though the green brigade would doubtless protest. The Knutsford kink will eventually become history. It is based on outdated data and eventually pressure from the airlines and airports will win out.

Now I have bad news for you. At least half of Manchester's summer took place last Friday. I was on the mounds with my cameras, got slightly sunburnt and, for the first time in a long time had a visit to MAN when it wasn't wet, cold or both. Saturday morning wasn't bad either. On a serious point though, the SFO parallel runway ops in VFR conditions are not straightforward either. Mists at certain times of the year, delayed readiness to roll and faulty spacings on parallel approaches are regular occurrences but they make it work.

[Una Due Tfc]

Originally Posted by philbky

Shed, you make a well reasoned argument and there is no doubt your points about priorities are valid, in the immediate future. My point is that, whilst I won't be around to see it, the airport is likely to continue to expand over the next thirty years and flexible use of the second runway is key to filling the concrete which needs to be poured in the shorter term.

There are access problems with a parallel taxiway but no more so than when both 05s are in use. One solution would be a link from the 23 end of 23L across to the end of 23R. A lot of concrete, but not insurmountable though the green brigade would doubtless protest. The Knutsford kink will eventually become history. It is based on outdated data and eventually pressure from the airlines and airports will win out.

Now I have bad news for you. At least half of Manchester's summer took place last Friday. I was on the mounds with my cameras, got slightly sunburnt and, for the first time in a long time had a visit to MAN when it wasn't wet, cold or both. Saturday morning wasn't bad either. On a serious point though, the SFO parallel runway ops in VFR conditions are not straightforward either. Mists at certain times of the year, delayed readiness to roll and faulty spacings on parallel approaches are regular occurrences but they make it work.

SFO has parallel thresholds, MAN's displaced ones mean only the further runway could be used for departures, if you get my meaning. A departure passing through the level of an adjacent arrival that close at 50 feet or so would be dodgy to say the least when the arrival's engines are spooled down and it's unable to power out of any vortices. Also crosswinds blowing wake from a departure in front of the arrival would be a factor.

If the UK leaves EASA they'll be able to use LAHSO (EASA airlines banned from accepting LAHSO clearances) which would allow aircraft to taxi across the end of one runway that an aircraft has been cleared to land on to reach the other but not sure that's particularly likely. Plus not many airlines would be permitted to avail, unlike say ORD which benefits the most from LAHSO.

[ZOOKER]

Not sure about the 'Knutsford kink' becoming history. A couple of years ago, an attempt was made by NATS to have the E190 included in the types which were eligible for LISTO departures off 23L/R. Allegedly, it wasn't noise that was the issue, but 'visual intrusion'. The immense size of this a/c was not considered suitable for swooping low over the metropolis of Mobberley.
As much as I, and may others, would like to see the SANBA SIDs confined to history, I can't see it happening anytime soon.

Parallel approaches at EGCC would be interesting too. The 1850m stagger between the runway thresholds, (a requirement due to the 390m centre-line spacing), would mean a/c on the left would be 350' higher than those on the right. Not sure of how this fits in with international standards, but I think most of the airfields where parallel approaches occur have thresholds which are abeam each other. But I'm quite happy to be corrected about this point.

[Bagso]

AndrewH52

Delighted we can have a good robust debate but (there is always a but) I disagree with the litmus test you prefaced re projects and especially projects in London.

I accept total accountability and scrutiny re audit is necessary BUT there is a nagging doubt in my mind whether projects in London are subject to that same forensic scrutiny as they are up here.

Yes of course London is the capital and to a certain degree investment down there will always justify itself but if we are of a mindset based on this criteria the North may as well go to hell in a handcart, I cannot see how we can ever move forward as one nation.

We don't want subsidy, but a recognition that Manchester isn't some desolate outpost but one if not thee most significant driver of economic activity across the North of England and yes "local "transport strategies is indeed tied to its success.

Ask the good people of Humberside, Cumbria and
N Wales where they want connectivity!

As an aside how refreshing that somebody has suggested we have another look at the figures re EDF etc.

Please some scrutiny re LHR rw3.

We had a stupid soundbite from a Tyneside MP Thursday
"Build and be dammed ". This imbecile generated a major headline in the lcoal rag but seemingly has not but a clue
re costs!

...so yes some checks and balances are warmly welcome!

[philbky]

Una and Zooker, some US airports with parallel runways in close proximity with staggered thresholds. For brevity I have given one heading for each group of runways, you can work out the recips!

JFK 4s
PHL 27s and 26
PHX 25s
LAX 24s and 25s
SEA 34s

There are a good few more.

[MANFOD]

AA
The ORD is showing cancelled yet again today, and with it being the busiest time for the year for pax departing the UK, getting them on other flights will surely be a problem. How many cancelled flights is that in June/July?

If AA bother to bring the service back next summer, it might be advisable to revert to an earlier time. Whether it's recurring tech issues, long delays for wherever the a/c arrives from into ORD, or weather problems with the MAN a/c allocated elsewhere, the later departure from ORD for the AA54 gives less flexibility for finding another option.

[rutankrd]

Code:

 with it being the busiest time for the year for pax departing the UK, getting them on other flights will surely be a problem.

As an orphan to a South East Asia services to/from Chicago the use of 788 to Manchester certainly seems attractive for the route planning team however crew time outs late running weather and the regular runway limits in the mid west playing havoc this side of the atlantic !

That said the 763's are due back soon aren't they ?

BTW Sat/Sun flight is almost certainly lowest yielding in the week as few in those pretty bath chairs will be paying high bucks on company expense accounts !

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

few in those pretty bath chairs will be paying high bucks on company expense accounts !

You'd be surprised by how many regular punters are prepared to pay up for a bit of luxury travelling on their holidays these days. It's not just business pax in the sharp end. Leisure passengers don't automatically mean economy class anymore.

[Mr A Tis]

As a regular up front end leisure pax, I can confirm that the majority (in my experience) up front these days are indeed leisure pax.
The gold or platinum card holding business man are often sat in the back.
My friend is a vice president of a global electronics company based in Hong Kong, travelling frequently worldwide. He is now only allowed premium economy travel on business. Company policy.

[Bagso]

And what of transferring inbound pax missing connections!

Very sad to see this former flagship route disintegrate!

[rutankrd]

Code:

 with it being the busiest time for the year for pax departing the UK, getting them on other flights will surely be a problem.

And I said lower yielding because many of the leisured travellers will be travelling up front on variously discounted tickets rather than the full blood fully flexible business tickets , so yield are lower by definition.

Bagso transfers over Manchester again can probably accommodated via the rest of the Oneworld network or even if necessary for those with more flexible fares competitors.

And i am as disappointed as you by the dire performance of AA with this craft to-date - Seems the routes going west of Chicago are also constantly delayed as well !

I have written somewhere not so long ago that frankly United would be a better bet to Chicago these days as AA really have two too many North East/Mid West hubs and Chicago isn't getting to much love.

[Logohu]

That said the 763's are due back soon aren't they ?

Yes briefly, before the route goes back to 757 for the first half of the winter and then disappears altogether as usual for January/March. Although in AA54's case there doesn't seem to be any correlation between aircraft type and service reliability - they are all appalling.

It will be interesting to see if AA bring the route back again next summer. Any "in the know" passengers (those who travel regularly and pay the expensive and flexible fares) will have put AA54/55 on their avoid list a long time ago

Still, at least the BA LHR and Aer Lingus DUB shuttles will be doing brisk business carrying all those disrupted passengers !

[chaps1954]

Makes you wonder how much connecting traffic Singapore will pick up going west coast

Ian

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by chaps1954

Makes you wonder how much connecting traffic Singapore will pick up going west coast

Ian

I think the One World/IAG US strategy from MAN is in need of a rethink, PDQ.

They are coming under pressure from an overtly expansionist DL/VS joint venture, and they seem likely to be joined by the *A, with SQ to IAH one of the first signs of this.

Things do go wrong from time to time, but the present situation is clearly untenable as it can only result in one outcome: failure and the need to withdraw from the market.