MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another consequence of the Airports Commission’s analysis is that growth at regional airports would have to be restricted to allow expanded capacity at Heathrow"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rts-commission
Are we really that dim up here that we would not only allow a possible £12billion taxpayer spend on Heathrow? but at sametime allow some Whitehall xxxxhead suggest we will also need to dismantle your long haul network.
...well you know where you can stick that !
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rts-commission
Are we really that dim up here that we would not only allow a possible £12billion taxpayer spend on Heathrow? but at sametime allow some Whitehall xxxxhead suggest we will also need to dismantle your long haul network.
...well you know where you can stick that !
Now thirty odd years ago may still be too much for you so let's come forward to today. I suggest you read, understand and inwardly digest the following and then, if you can justify it, repeat what you said about Bagso.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...h-east-england
This is not just a Manchester problem, nor an air services problem. It is a major problem for the UK as a unit and with a Cabinet dominated by Home Counties MPs, the rest of the country needs to sit up, take notice and work together to not only divide the wealth more evenly but to share the services and benefits as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...h-east-england
This is not just a Manchester problem, nor an air services problem. It is a major problem for the UK as a unit and with a Cabinet dominated by Home Counties MPs, the rest of the country needs to sit up, take notice and work together to not only divide the wealth more evenly but to share the services and benefits as well.
I absolutely agree that the balance of infrastructure spending is heavily skewed towards the south east, but the reality is the majority of tax revenue comes from the south east as well. To some degree that is why the former Chancellor developed his Northern Powerhouse policy, but at a time of limited scope for public spending on the infrastructure that might stimulate private sector investment and business activity we seem a long way off rebalancing things and very much in a chicken-and-egg situation.
It should also be remembered that private sector contributions towards infrastructure in the north are low in comparison to London and the South East and so it makes an already difficult investment argument that little but harder. I absolutely agree with philbky that the Cabinet is not representative of the Country, but one would hope that recent events have induced a rethink as to what decisions may or may not be in the interests of the nation as a whole.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too am sceptical of pressure groups eg HACAN etc but I am pretty sure in this case they lifted the paragraph directly from the Airport Commission Report. I recall reading it myself when 1st published despite the fact it was buried in the small print.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My recollection was that Davies argued that long haul services from the regions were bad for carbon emissions but a lot more flights from LHR didn't seem to be a problem, but I could be wrong.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but the reality is the majority of tax revenue comes from the south east as well
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now for something completely different ...
Yesterday evening TAS - The Aviation Society hosted a presentation by two senior executives employed on the Manchester TP. These were James Lord (TP Landside & Terminal Infrastructure) and Rory McLoughlin (TP Airside Infrastructure). Each speaker presented for about an hour, between them outlining the latest thinking on the finer details of delivering the TP. Both also accepted a short Q&A session as well.
I had planned to write a fairly thorough review of proceedings, but here is a much better idea.
Some of you will be familiar with the skyscrapercity forum. Its format is broadly similar to this one, but it is populated primarily by architects, construction designers, engineers and enthusiasts of major construction projects. An interest in commercial aviation does not exclude you, but buildings, construction and design of infrastructure are the main angle of discussions on that forum. One of its regular contributors who covers multiple transport construction topics has posted a detailed review of the TP presentation. It covers all aspects of the building design, ambience and functionality in great detail. There is no point in me attempting to duplicate his effort - he picked up on a load of design features which I completely missed anyway. To read his review, google: skyscrapercity ... Manchester Metro Area ... Greater Manchester Transport Projects ... Airport. You're looking for post no. 9643 contributed earlier today by marni1971.
With Marni having covered the building's design features so thoroughly, I will refer only to operational discussion points from a commercial aviation point-of-view. More aligned with the PPRuNe aviation beat. I won't labour details which we already knew ... lots of established detail is available on the mantp dedicated website anyway.
So, some brief facts. The TP project cost is £850M, though planners have allowed for a round number of £1Bn to include inflation and margin for adjustment. The design more than doubles T2 capacity and massively extends the existing structure. Three piers will definitely be built with the option to construct a fourth. Emphasis will be on contact stands (far fewer remote). Hoping to have Pier 1 up and running in 2018 with the main construction done by 2022. Work to upgrade and integrate the existing T2 infrastructure sees the project through to 2025.
STAND AVAILABILITY
As we know, previous discussions on this and other forums have addressed concerns that MAN will end up with insufficient stands to accommodate this airport's unusually heavy demand for overnight parking by based aircraft and nightstopping schedules. Plus, of course, that busy morning arrivals peak which clashes with the above problem upto around 08:00 each day.
The bottom line is that the TP in its present form will not provide additional stands (on paper). But the reality is far more complex than that. Under this new scheme, most stands incorporate great flexibility in terms of size of aircraft which can be accommodated. As a result, there are multiple permutations which see stand pairs able to accommodate 2 x B77W or 3 x A321 for example, according to demand at the time. To simplify things, each new stand centreline will be given its own stand number ... MAG proposes to move away from [number]L/R designations. So MAN will have lots of stand numbers. But one A380 could block off three of these numbered centrelines simultaneously. Therefore, the airport's number of stands available for use is a variable number completely dependent on real-time traffic mix. Rory speculated that based upon a typical traffic mix the new layout would probably accommodate around ten additional parked aircraft over and above the current capacity.
Stand layout will be transformed. The emphasis is to remove bottlenecks and choke-points which afflict contemporary aircraft stands at MAN. Spacing along the piers will allow for two aircraft parked tail-on to each other to be pushed back simultaneously without coming into conflict in most cases. Pushback procedures will be revolutionised. There will no longer be a set pushback procedure published for each individual stand. Instead, aircraft will be allocated one of a selection of aiming points to push back into. This will allow greater flexibility to enable multiple simultaneous pushbacks, reducing potential ground delays. New technology will be embraced in a big way, such that aircraft stands will display the pushback time which which all agencies are working towards to ensure timely departure. Delays can be dynamically entered into the system in real-time such that all parties are constantly updated for maximum efficiency.
Once the technology is fully on line, pilots will no longer need to request pushback from ATC over the R/T. Small and mid-sized airliners will have a three minute 'window' beyond the target pushback time displayed on stand to start their pushback without further verbal approval. Large types [A388 etc.] are likely to be allocated a more generous five minute window. Of course, ATC will be supervising all this and can intervene if necessary, but routine pushback calls will no longer be required under this system.
Dynamic information concerning all these expected pushback times will be shared with European flow control agencies. The top 25 airports in Europe are cooperating on this technology to improve the predictability of traffic flows across Europe's skies. I believe that many more than 25 airports will eventually subscribe to this system, but MAN's size means it is obliged to do so regardless.
TAXIWAYS AND APRON MOVEMENT
MAG is keen to ensure that the new T2 and associated apron layout will exclude intrusion by ground vehicles as much as possible. To this end, a new perimeter road will be provided running all the way round the edge of the T2 apron for approximately 2.5km. All ground vehicles will be required to use this. The terminal building itself will have space for the road to run along the root of the stands, away from aircraft. This solution is a compromise. Vehicles will face some lengthened journeys in terms of distance travelled, but journey times will be more predictable as there will be no conflicts with aircraft movements along the way. The plan does include one possible time-saving route which will allow approved buses only to cut across the apron at a single location.
Taxiway provision for aircraft movements will become unrecognisable from today. MAG is aware that pilot feedback indicates that MAN currently has a very complex and illogical taxiway layout. This has to change.
The aim wherever possible is for MAN to offer dualing of taxiways across the airport. This cannot be provided across the board, as the Terminal 3 structure is too close to 23R/05L to allow for dual taxiways to pass the end of Pier A. But across most of the airport dual taxiways will be provided. All except the very largest aircraft will be able to pass each other using the dual taxiways. Special procedures will be introduced for A380 movements which will not comply, but these are a small proportion of total movements. The A380 will sterilise adjacent sections of taxiway as it manoeuvres.
A new taxiway 'Alpha' will run parallel and to the north of 23R/05L for most of its length. A small kink is necessary passing T3. All taxiways will be renamed, adhering to a much simpler format. Intuitive signage will be provided. Logical routes will be used as much as possible. Main holding points on the apron will be given simple five letter designators. Current thinking is that names will be derived from certain local themes such as well-known airport personalities [GILTO, HAMPO], local bands [SIPLY - Simply Red; ROSES - Stone Roses, etc.], COTON [I think this refers to 'cotton' rather than the legendary former City goalkeeper]. Two points will be named in honour of the GM's two main football teams (so I presume they mean Manchester City and Oldham Athletic?) ;-) Apologies to Bagso / MANFOD!
For traffic to and from new T2, the aim is to establish a logical North-South flow with as few conflict points as possible. Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid crossing the E-W T3 flow in the area adjacent to the end of Piers A and B. This will have to be actively managed. On the T2 routes, one parallel taxiway will be dedicated to departing aircraft taxying out, the other to arriving aircraft taxying in. These two taxiways will switch over when the runway-in-use config changes from the 23's to the 05's or vv. Smart lighting will be introduced. This can be selected to show unidirectionally or bidirectionally as appropriate. Again embracing new technology, the objective is to provide a largely R/T-free taxying experience with green centrelines and red stop bars replacing verbal exchanges as much as possible. ATC can of course intervene verbally if/when required.
The ultimate hope is that these re-designed pushback and taxying regimes will significantly reduce the incidence of ground delays at MAN in the future.
Note that all of the above changes feature the customary wealth of wonderful and wacky acronyms which come as standard in the field of commercial aviation. Unfortunately, the room was in darkness (for the slideshow) and I couldn't see to write them down. So I can't pretend to be all clever now. Botheration!
THAT HOT TOPIC ...
PIER C ... staying or going?
The charts displayed represent a snapshot of how the apron will look at the conclusion of the prescribed TP period. And what it shows is that the 1974 section of Pier C is still there. The satellite is gone to make way for dual taxiways. On the plan, Pier C shows just three stands on the southern aspect only. The Pier is directly linked to T2 Pier 4 which itself hosts seven stands on the western aspect only. Of course, those Pier 4 stands are likely to follow the flexible model described earlier allowing for use by various aircraft types (more than seven simultaneously dependent on size?).
So, the chart shows a combined Pier 4 / Pier C hosting ten stands accessible from one side only. This layout also provides for the seamless internal (airside) passenger pedestrian access through-route from the easternmost stand of T3 to the westernmost stand of T2.
However, this layout does suggest a potential sub-optimal availability of aircraft stands. So is this the final vision? Well, the explanation was along the following lines. The chart is a snapshot of how the layout looks circa 2025. This is the stage that development will have reached at that point. But it is still considered desirable to demolish the remainder of Pier C and make Pier 4 double-sided beyond this date.
So here is my own personal speculation on this situation - not part of the presentation. We already know that planning approval has been granted for demolition of the bulk of the building we know as T1. This will happen at the end of the TP period. It is also reasonable to presume that some of the most valuable real estate on the airport complex will not be left fallow as a void for the long-term. My guess is that the plans to redevelop this part of the site - not yet drawn up - will look to include a new airside passenger through-route to replace that provided in the interim by Pier C. Thus allowing Pier 4 to become double-sided, and to enable new infrastructure to spring forth from the former T1 site. How that will end up looking is a matter for many fun hours of future PPRuNe conjecture! Perhaps the future T1/T3 remodelling - TP2? - will emerge as MAN's next major infrastructure innovation phase afew years from now.
TERMINAL TECHNOLOGY
Further to Marni's excellent summary of internal terminal modifications, I just wanted to mention one further point. James emphasised that many decisions concerning technology-based innovations will be delayed until the last possible moment. This will allow for the most modern technology solutions to be incorporated in the terminal operation. Areas such as check-in procedures were particularly highlighted as falling into this category.
US PRE-CLEARANCE
There is great enthusiasm to see this introduced, but nothing has been signed off yet. Space has been safeguarded within the plans to allow for the facility if agreed with the US and other authorities. Timescale is very hazy, but maybe 2018/19?
MISCELLANEOUS STUFF
There is growing optimism that the proposed Metrolink extension via T2, crossing over the motorway, and looping round past Wythenshawe Hospital will be progressed earlier than originally envisaged. Land has been safeguarded for this.
MAG is also placing great emphasis on the advantages of the new road layout, including direct motorway access to T2.
ANY PROBLEMS?
Virtually everything discussed above is overwhelmingly positive for MAN going forward. Obviously, there will be construction disruption to be negotiated - a major challenge. But lots of planning is going into minimising the effects of that.
The one outstanding concern I came away with relates to the final number of aircraft stands available by 2025. Potentially, the ability to park just ten more aircraft than today's capacity allows. Notwithstanding the probability of a recession at some point, this number appears insufficient given MAN's heavy dependence on based fleets which overnight at the airport. So I asked about the potential for an apron extension to provide more aircraft stands down the line.
And this presents real challenges. Operationally, the logical solution would be to proceed with the extension of T3 to the North and East. But it turns out that this option is surprisingly - perhaps prohibitively - expensive. Apparently, that land under old Ringway Road is not just a utilities pathway but something of a trunk route. Really complex and expensive to move. And on top of that, all the car parking and other services using that land at present would have to be relocated at significant expense / loss of current revenue. Big problem.
Alternatives? Well, the cargo centre could be demolished and relocated making way for new aircraft stands. At considerable expense once again. Not to mention operational disruption.
A third possible location was mentioned as well, but it too presented major challenges. Unfortunately, a departing B738 drowned out the name from my perspective and I didn't like to ask again. Memo to self: remember to bid for that pair of ear-trumpets off e-bay!
One random thought to add here. MAG has entirely self-financed its development projects so far, despite the massive contribution it makes to the health of the economy as a whole and to UK plc in general. Besides paying regular dividends directly to GM local authorities. Yet they must surely have noticed that proposals for Heathrow Runway 3 works just presume allocation of upto £20 Billion (TWENTY BILLION POUNDS!!!!) in public-sector funding to pay for enabling works in the surrounding area. As that particular project relates to London, the usual procedure of clicking the fingers and demanding the cash should suffice as always? Well, perhaps it is time to suggest a little redress here. How about petitioning Sir Humphrey to pay for digging up and relocating the complex web of essential utilities which is apparently preventing the much-needed expansion of MAN T3? Then I'm sure MAG would be happy to pay for the actual apron works itself from in-house resources. Surely an innovation enabling such a fundamentally beneficial strategic development is valuable to UK plc in the same context as comparable enabling works in the SE at LHR or LGW? If the forthcoming LHR/LGW decision does set a precedent of this sort, MAG should be ready to submit their own bid accordingly!
Note that all the above info is provided on a best-endeavour basis. There will be mistakes and omissions in there. I couldn't hear / retain everything which was said over the two hours of presentations. Corrections and additions from other contributors who attended are most welcome.
All good stuff. No doubt much more discussion / clarification to follow.
Thanks to The Aviation Society for organising and staging the event, and of course to the two excellent guest-speakers.
I had planned to write a fairly thorough review of proceedings, but here is a much better idea.
Some of you will be familiar with the skyscrapercity forum. Its format is broadly similar to this one, but it is populated primarily by architects, construction designers, engineers and enthusiasts of major construction projects. An interest in commercial aviation does not exclude you, but buildings, construction and design of infrastructure are the main angle of discussions on that forum. One of its regular contributors who covers multiple transport construction topics has posted a detailed review of the TP presentation. It covers all aspects of the building design, ambience and functionality in great detail. There is no point in me attempting to duplicate his effort - he picked up on a load of design features which I completely missed anyway. To read his review, google: skyscrapercity ... Manchester Metro Area ... Greater Manchester Transport Projects ... Airport. You're looking for post no. 9643 contributed earlier today by marni1971.
With Marni having covered the building's design features so thoroughly, I will refer only to operational discussion points from a commercial aviation point-of-view. More aligned with the PPRuNe aviation beat. I won't labour details which we already knew ... lots of established detail is available on the mantp dedicated website anyway.
So, some brief facts. The TP project cost is £850M, though planners have allowed for a round number of £1Bn to include inflation and margin for adjustment. The design more than doubles T2 capacity and massively extends the existing structure. Three piers will definitely be built with the option to construct a fourth. Emphasis will be on contact stands (far fewer remote). Hoping to have Pier 1 up and running in 2018 with the main construction done by 2022. Work to upgrade and integrate the existing T2 infrastructure sees the project through to 2025.
STAND AVAILABILITY
As we know, previous discussions on this and other forums have addressed concerns that MAN will end up with insufficient stands to accommodate this airport's unusually heavy demand for overnight parking by based aircraft and nightstopping schedules. Plus, of course, that busy morning arrivals peak which clashes with the above problem upto around 08:00 each day.
The bottom line is that the TP in its present form will not provide additional stands (on paper). But the reality is far more complex than that. Under this new scheme, most stands incorporate great flexibility in terms of size of aircraft which can be accommodated. As a result, there are multiple permutations which see stand pairs able to accommodate 2 x B77W or 3 x A321 for example, according to demand at the time. To simplify things, each new stand centreline will be given its own stand number ... MAG proposes to move away from [number]L/R designations. So MAN will have lots of stand numbers. But one A380 could block off three of these numbered centrelines simultaneously. Therefore, the airport's number of stands available for use is a variable number completely dependent on real-time traffic mix. Rory speculated that based upon a typical traffic mix the new layout would probably accommodate around ten additional parked aircraft over and above the current capacity.
Stand layout will be transformed. The emphasis is to remove bottlenecks and choke-points which afflict contemporary aircraft stands at MAN. Spacing along the piers will allow for two aircraft parked tail-on to each other to be pushed back simultaneously without coming into conflict in most cases. Pushback procedures will be revolutionised. There will no longer be a set pushback procedure published for each individual stand. Instead, aircraft will be allocated one of a selection of aiming points to push back into. This will allow greater flexibility to enable multiple simultaneous pushbacks, reducing potential ground delays. New technology will be embraced in a big way, such that aircraft stands will display the pushback time which which all agencies are working towards to ensure timely departure. Delays can be dynamically entered into the system in real-time such that all parties are constantly updated for maximum efficiency.
Once the technology is fully on line, pilots will no longer need to request pushback from ATC over the R/T. Small and mid-sized airliners will have a three minute 'window' beyond the target pushback time displayed on stand to start their pushback without further verbal approval. Large types [A388 etc.] are likely to be allocated a more generous five minute window. Of course, ATC will be supervising all this and can intervene if necessary, but routine pushback calls will no longer be required under this system.
Dynamic information concerning all these expected pushback times will be shared with European flow control agencies. The top 25 airports in Europe are cooperating on this technology to improve the predictability of traffic flows across Europe's skies. I believe that many more than 25 airports will eventually subscribe to this system, but MAN's size means it is obliged to do so regardless.
TAXIWAYS AND APRON MOVEMENT
MAG is keen to ensure that the new T2 and associated apron layout will exclude intrusion by ground vehicles as much as possible. To this end, a new perimeter road will be provided running all the way round the edge of the T2 apron for approximately 2.5km. All ground vehicles will be required to use this. The terminal building itself will have space for the road to run along the root of the stands, away from aircraft. This solution is a compromise. Vehicles will face some lengthened journeys in terms of distance travelled, but journey times will be more predictable as there will be no conflicts with aircraft movements along the way. The plan does include one possible time-saving route which will allow approved buses only to cut across the apron at a single location.
Taxiway provision for aircraft movements will become unrecognisable from today. MAG is aware that pilot feedback indicates that MAN currently has a very complex and illogical taxiway layout. This has to change.
The aim wherever possible is for MAN to offer dualing of taxiways across the airport. This cannot be provided across the board, as the Terminal 3 structure is too close to 23R/05L to allow for dual taxiways to pass the end of Pier A. But across most of the airport dual taxiways will be provided. All except the very largest aircraft will be able to pass each other using the dual taxiways. Special procedures will be introduced for A380 movements which will not comply, but these are a small proportion of total movements. The A380 will sterilise adjacent sections of taxiway as it manoeuvres.
A new taxiway 'Alpha' will run parallel and to the north of 23R/05L for most of its length. A small kink is necessary passing T3. All taxiways will be renamed, adhering to a much simpler format. Intuitive signage will be provided. Logical routes will be used as much as possible. Main holding points on the apron will be given simple five letter designators. Current thinking is that names will be derived from certain local themes such as well-known airport personalities [GILTO, HAMPO], local bands [SIPLY - Simply Red; ROSES - Stone Roses, etc.], COTON [I think this refers to 'cotton' rather than the legendary former City goalkeeper]. Two points will be named in honour of the GM's two main football teams (so I presume they mean Manchester City and Oldham Athletic?) ;-) Apologies to Bagso / MANFOD!
For traffic to and from new T2, the aim is to establish a logical North-South flow with as few conflict points as possible. Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid crossing the E-W T3 flow in the area adjacent to the end of Piers A and B. This will have to be actively managed. On the T2 routes, one parallel taxiway will be dedicated to departing aircraft taxying out, the other to arriving aircraft taxying in. These two taxiways will switch over when the runway-in-use config changes from the 23's to the 05's or vv. Smart lighting will be introduced. This can be selected to show unidirectionally or bidirectionally as appropriate. Again embracing new technology, the objective is to provide a largely R/T-free taxying experience with green centrelines and red stop bars replacing verbal exchanges as much as possible. ATC can of course intervene verbally if/when required.
The ultimate hope is that these re-designed pushback and taxying regimes will significantly reduce the incidence of ground delays at MAN in the future.
Note that all of the above changes feature the customary wealth of wonderful and wacky acronyms which come as standard in the field of commercial aviation. Unfortunately, the room was in darkness (for the slideshow) and I couldn't see to write them down. So I can't pretend to be all clever now. Botheration!
THAT HOT TOPIC ...
PIER C ... staying or going?
The charts displayed represent a snapshot of how the apron will look at the conclusion of the prescribed TP period. And what it shows is that the 1974 section of Pier C is still there. The satellite is gone to make way for dual taxiways. On the plan, Pier C shows just three stands on the southern aspect only. The Pier is directly linked to T2 Pier 4 which itself hosts seven stands on the western aspect only. Of course, those Pier 4 stands are likely to follow the flexible model described earlier allowing for use by various aircraft types (more than seven simultaneously dependent on size?).
So, the chart shows a combined Pier 4 / Pier C hosting ten stands accessible from one side only. This layout also provides for the seamless internal (airside) passenger pedestrian access through-route from the easternmost stand of T3 to the westernmost stand of T2.
However, this layout does suggest a potential sub-optimal availability of aircraft stands. So is this the final vision? Well, the explanation was along the following lines. The chart is a snapshot of how the layout looks circa 2025. This is the stage that development will have reached at that point. But it is still considered desirable to demolish the remainder of Pier C and make Pier 4 double-sided beyond this date.
So here is my own personal speculation on this situation - not part of the presentation. We already know that planning approval has been granted for demolition of the bulk of the building we know as T1. This will happen at the end of the TP period. It is also reasonable to presume that some of the most valuable real estate on the airport complex will not be left fallow as a void for the long-term. My guess is that the plans to redevelop this part of the site - not yet drawn up - will look to include a new airside passenger through-route to replace that provided in the interim by Pier C. Thus allowing Pier 4 to become double-sided, and to enable new infrastructure to spring forth from the former T1 site. How that will end up looking is a matter for many fun hours of future PPRuNe conjecture! Perhaps the future T1/T3 remodelling - TP2? - will emerge as MAN's next major infrastructure innovation phase afew years from now.
TERMINAL TECHNOLOGY
Further to Marni's excellent summary of internal terminal modifications, I just wanted to mention one further point. James emphasised that many decisions concerning technology-based innovations will be delayed until the last possible moment. This will allow for the most modern technology solutions to be incorporated in the terminal operation. Areas such as check-in procedures were particularly highlighted as falling into this category.
US PRE-CLEARANCE
There is great enthusiasm to see this introduced, but nothing has been signed off yet. Space has been safeguarded within the plans to allow for the facility if agreed with the US and other authorities. Timescale is very hazy, but maybe 2018/19?
MISCELLANEOUS STUFF
There is growing optimism that the proposed Metrolink extension via T2, crossing over the motorway, and looping round past Wythenshawe Hospital will be progressed earlier than originally envisaged. Land has been safeguarded for this.
MAG is also placing great emphasis on the advantages of the new road layout, including direct motorway access to T2.
ANY PROBLEMS?
Virtually everything discussed above is overwhelmingly positive for MAN going forward. Obviously, there will be construction disruption to be negotiated - a major challenge. But lots of planning is going into minimising the effects of that.
The one outstanding concern I came away with relates to the final number of aircraft stands available by 2025. Potentially, the ability to park just ten more aircraft than today's capacity allows. Notwithstanding the probability of a recession at some point, this number appears insufficient given MAN's heavy dependence on based fleets which overnight at the airport. So I asked about the potential for an apron extension to provide more aircraft stands down the line.
And this presents real challenges. Operationally, the logical solution would be to proceed with the extension of T3 to the North and East. But it turns out that this option is surprisingly - perhaps prohibitively - expensive. Apparently, that land under old Ringway Road is not just a utilities pathway but something of a trunk route. Really complex and expensive to move. And on top of that, all the car parking and other services using that land at present would have to be relocated at significant expense / loss of current revenue. Big problem.
Alternatives? Well, the cargo centre could be demolished and relocated making way for new aircraft stands. At considerable expense once again. Not to mention operational disruption.
A third possible location was mentioned as well, but it too presented major challenges. Unfortunately, a departing B738 drowned out the name from my perspective and I didn't like to ask again. Memo to self: remember to bid for that pair of ear-trumpets off e-bay!
One random thought to add here. MAG has entirely self-financed its development projects so far, despite the massive contribution it makes to the health of the economy as a whole and to UK plc in general. Besides paying regular dividends directly to GM local authorities. Yet they must surely have noticed that proposals for Heathrow Runway 3 works just presume allocation of upto £20 Billion (TWENTY BILLION POUNDS!!!!) in public-sector funding to pay for enabling works in the surrounding area. As that particular project relates to London, the usual procedure of clicking the fingers and demanding the cash should suffice as always? Well, perhaps it is time to suggest a little redress here. How about petitioning Sir Humphrey to pay for digging up and relocating the complex web of essential utilities which is apparently preventing the much-needed expansion of MAN T3? Then I'm sure MAG would be happy to pay for the actual apron works itself from in-house resources. Surely an innovation enabling such a fundamentally beneficial strategic development is valuable to UK plc in the same context as comparable enabling works in the SE at LHR or LGW? If the forthcoming LHR/LGW decision does set a precedent of this sort, MAG should be ready to submit their own bid accordingly!
Note that all the above info is provided on a best-endeavour basis. There will be mistakes and omissions in there. I couldn't hear / retain everything which was said over the two hours of presentations. Corrections and additions from other contributors who attended are most welcome.
All good stuff. No doubt much more discussion / clarification to follow.
Thanks to The Aviation Society for organising and staging the event, and of course to the two excellent guest-speakers.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 9th Aug 2016 at 22:17.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks Shed for that excellent write-up. Even those of us who were also present would be hard pressed to have remembered or heard all the details you have mentioned and reported them so clearly.
I like your own idea of asking Sir Humphrey to pay for the complex utilities work required before T3 could be expanded. To get some perspective, have we any idea just how expensive such a project would be? Are we talking millions, tens of millions, a hundred million or more?
I like your own idea of asking Sir Humphrey to pay for the complex utilities work required before T3 could be expanded. To get some perspective, have we any idea just how expensive such a project would be? Are we talking millions, tens of millions, a hundred million or more?
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed, Marni - many thanks to both.
As well as airfield operations, it sounds like the passenger experience will be much improved.
Good to have that flexibility, and I very much hope the USPBC comes to pass. The opportunities from that are tremendous.
As well as airfield operations, it sounds like the passenger experience will be much improved.
Good to have that flexibility, and I very much hope the USPBC comes to pass. The opportunities from that are tremendous.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A day in the life of a MAN-Hub
Some say that MAN can never be a hub without a based hub carrier. Well, let’s take a look at a typical day (today) between 0600 and 1800 and see what has been happening with regard to passengers transferring flights at MAN. My data is from a very reliable source and I offer it here with the following observations:
My data shows simply the number of passengers recorded as ‘transfer’ (at MAN) on various arriving and departing flights, it does not record the particular connections made by passengers.
I have excluded Flybe transfer passengers from the list. Flybe have many transfer passengers, in fact most Flybe flights at MAN have some transfer pax, as many as 30-40%. Many are going onwards with Flybe but many will be joining code share partner’s long-haul services.
I have generally excluded flights with less than 10 transfer pax, there are many such.
Overall I estimate that in the period recorded (0600-1800hrs), about 25% of flights arriving and departing MAN had some transfer pax.
Service Pax transferring at MAN
Hainan arr / dep Beijing 25 / 7
Qatar arr /dep Doha 73 / 0 (am flight)
Etihad arr / dep Abu Dhabi 140 / 8
American arr / dep JFK 14 / 64
Finnair arr / dep Helsinki 16 / 2
BA arr / dep Heathrow 10 / 13
SAS arr /dep Copenhagen 12 / 0
Thomas Cook arr / dep JFK 12 / 0
American arr /dep Philadelphia 3 /48
American arr / dep Chicago 1 / 100
Etihad arr Abu Dhabi 24 / - (evening departure)
United arr / dep Washington 0 / 9
My data shows simply the number of passengers recorded as ‘transfer’ (at MAN) on various arriving and departing flights, it does not record the particular connections made by passengers.
I have excluded Flybe transfer passengers from the list. Flybe have many transfer passengers, in fact most Flybe flights at MAN have some transfer pax, as many as 30-40%. Many are going onwards with Flybe but many will be joining code share partner’s long-haul services.
I have generally excluded flights with less than 10 transfer pax, there are many such.
Overall I estimate that in the period recorded (0600-1800hrs), about 25% of flights arriving and departing MAN had some transfer pax.
Service Pax transferring at MAN
Hainan arr / dep Beijing 25 / 7
Qatar arr /dep Doha 73 / 0 (am flight)
Etihad arr / dep Abu Dhabi 140 / 8
American arr / dep JFK 14 / 64
Finnair arr / dep Helsinki 16 / 2
BA arr / dep Heathrow 10 / 13
SAS arr /dep Copenhagen 12 / 0
Thomas Cook arr / dep JFK 12 / 0
American arr /dep Philadelphia 3 /48
American arr / dep Chicago 1 / 100
Etihad arr Abu Dhabi 24 / - (evening departure)
United arr / dep Washington 0 / 9
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks Shed for that excellent write-up. Even those of us who were also present would be hard pressed to have remembered or heard all the details you have mentioned and reported them so clearly.
I like your own idea of asking Sir Humphrey to pay for the complex utilities work required before T3 could be expanded. To get some perspective, have we any idea just how expensive such a project would be? Are we talking millions, tens of millions, a hundred million or more?
I like your own idea of asking Sir Humphrey to pay for the complex utilities work required before T3 could be expanded. To get some perspective, have we any idea just how expensive such a project would be? Are we talking millions, tens of millions, a hundred million or more?
As for asking Sir Humphrey to pay for the work, provided you are advocating a similar level of direct financial support for all UK airports, then by all means go ahead!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roverman, many thanks for that. Most interesting but can you just clarify in case I'm misunderstanding:
Taking an example - On AA 210/211 JFK, I take it you are saying on arrival at MAN, 14 pax were transferring onto other flights, and that for the departure 64 pax had arrived at MAN on other flights.
But are you saying those numbers excluded any pax connecting onto a flybe flight from MAN or arriving on a flybe flight into MAN?
Edit: AA may not be the best of examples. Which of those airlines do flybe code share with?
Taking an example - On AA 210/211 JFK, I take it you are saying on arrival at MAN, 14 pax were transferring onto other flights, and that for the departure 64 pax had arrived at MAN on other flights.
But are you saying those numbers excluded any pax connecting onto a flybe flight from MAN or arriving on a flybe flight into MAN?
Edit: AA may not be the best of examples. Which of those airlines do flybe code share with?
Last edited by MANFOD; 10th Aug 2016 at 18:05. Reason: second thoughts!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANFOD,
Yes to your first question.
Your second - the figures for say American would include any Flybe passengers, I have just not included data for these passengers (if there be any) on their Flybe sector.
The MAN-transfer volumes on some AA and EY / QR flights are notable, as they are often on CX (who don't fly on Wednesday) and on VS (but not today).
Yes to your first question.
Your second - the figures for say American would include any Flybe passengers, I have just not included data for these passengers (if there be any) on their Flybe sector.
The MAN-transfer volumes on some AA and EY / QR flights are notable, as they are often on CX (who don't fly on Wednesday) and on VS (but not today).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again roverman. Another query I'm afraid!
If say 30 of those 73 pax arriving from Doha were transferring onto the AA to PHL, they would be included in the figure for the departing PHL of 48 as well.
If say 30 of those 73 pax arriving from Doha were transferring onto the AA to PHL, they would be included in the figure for the departing PHL of 48 as well.
AA MAN-ORD is now down-gauged to B767 for the rest of the summer, ACL interim report has confirmed. Disappointing but at least it may now run as I believe the Dreamliner was shared with a Far East route and delays with that often impacted on MAN.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MANFOD
Yes, transfer pax appear twice, on both their inbound and outbound sectors. What I don't know is the connections i.e. who on a certain flight inbound is who on the next flight, if you get my drift. That might be commercially sensitive and not for disclosure here in any case.
Yes, transfer pax appear twice, on both their inbound and outbound sectors. What I don't know is the connections i.e. who on a certain flight inbound is who on the next flight, if you get my drift. That might be commercially sensitive and not for disclosure here in any case.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
