MANCHESTER 1
Ooops, yes so it is.
Clear now. All messages appreciated.
Clear now. All messages appreciated.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After months of trying to keep going, Iraqi Airways have finally given up the ghost and pulled MAN flights.
Hardly surprising, but let's hope they return once their issues are resolved and allowed back in EU airspace.
Hardly surprising, but let's hope they return once their issues are resolved and allowed back in EU airspace.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must dig out my Heathrow CEO book of nauseating quotes....
"The UK is closed to China without runway3"
Moving on for those not familiar with Mandarin. ...
this is direct from CAAC website, albeit "simplified".
About Air China Limited subscribe to Shanghai Pudong - Manchester, Shanghai Pudong - Barcelona round-trip passenger flights of publicity
China Civil Aviation Authority ÖйúÃñÓú½¿Õ¾Ö Time: 2
Air China to subscribe to the following routes:
First, since March 2016, opened Shanghai Pudong - Manchester round-trip passenger flights, using the models for the A330-200, 4 classes per week;
Two, from May 2016 onwards , opened
Shanghai Pudong - Barcelona round-trip passenger flights, using the models for the A330-200, 4 classes per week.
If you have any comments, please November 20, 2015 will be written feedback to the Civil Aviation Secretary.
"The UK is closed to China without runway3"
Moving on for those not familiar with Mandarin. ...
this is direct from CAAC website, albeit "simplified". About Air China Limited subscribe to Shanghai Pudong - Manchester, Shanghai Pudong - Barcelona round-trip passenger flights of publicity
China Civil Aviation Authority ÖйúÃñÓú½¿Õ¾Ö Time: 2
Air China to subscribe to the following routes:
First, since March 2016, opened Shanghai Pudong - Manchester round-trip passenger flights, using the models for the A330-200, 4 classes per week;
Two, from May 2016 onwards , opened
Shanghai Pudong - Barcelona round-trip passenger flights, using the models for the A330-200, 4 classes per week.
If you have any comments, please November 20, 2015 will be written feedback to the Civil Aviation Secretary.
Last edited by Bagso; 13th Nov 2015 at 06:52.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DUNNIT!!!
MAN Stats: Moving Annual Total Terminal & Transit Pax: 23,044,027
They've only gone and cracked it already! Is it too early in the day to celebrate with a litre of Vimto?
This was the total reached for the 12 months ending October 31st.
They've only gone and cracked it already! Is it too early in the day to celebrate with a litre of Vimto?
This was the total reached for the 12 months ending October 31st.
Yes and it`s only domestic which is slowing things down, as soon as the
loss of Virgin and 1 BA on London are factored out at end of March that should look
healthier plus all the new services kicking in next year should be pretty good.
Cargo is looking very good and now we have the extra Lufthansa
B777 and DHL should continue to improve
Ian
loss of Virgin and 1 BA on London are factored out at end of March that should look
healthier plus all the new services kicking in next year should be pretty good.
Cargo is looking very good and now we have the extra Lufthansa
B777 and DHL should continue to improve
Ian
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the Transit pax what 'dunnit'! The figure previously quoted was only terminal pax. Never too early to celebrate Shed.
Re Air China to PVG: Found a link which I now can't find which included "subject to government approval". Would this be normal even if covered by the bilateral?
On the subject of the bilateral, I came across this post on another forum:
"Apparently the new bilateral is protected that these new 12 weekly flights can be used for non-London flights only, and are non-transferable. It is designed to promote flights to the UK regions".
Can anyone confirm if this is correct?
Re Air China to PVG: Found a link which I now can't find which included "subject to government approval". Would this be normal even if covered by the bilateral?
On the subject of the bilateral, I came across this post on another forum:
"Apparently the new bilateral is protected that these new 12 weekly flights can be used for non-London flights only, and are non-transferable. It is designed to promote flights to the UK regions".
Can anyone confirm if this is correct?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo is looking very good and now we have the extra Lufthansa
Their B744F is painted up and was crew training at PIK and MME last week. So launch appears close.
Will MAN be celebrating, or has 'someone' persuaded 'em to leave MAN's apron clear for parked cars instead? ;-)
OK, I'll go off and slap me wrist now.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps1954 wrote:
Good point. That drop in domestic pax in October of 24,600 was about 1.2% of the total terminal pax, so it puts the overall growth of 4% in a rather better light. The impact of the falls in Aug and Sep was only about 0.5 and 0.7%. However, we perhaps need to see the CAA stats. for October to see what happened on the non-LHR routes.
Yes and it`s only domestic which is slowing things down, as soon as the loss of Virgin and 1 BA on London are factored out at end of March that should look healthier plus all the new services kicking in next year should be pretty good.
September Heathrow was down 15448
Manchester domestic was down 16446 so this shows that
the loss of those London pax was almost all the loss which
throws up the question did those pax go international
ex MAN or by train or conbination, I suspect the 3rd option
Ian
Manchester domestic was down 16446 so this shows that
the loss of those London pax was almost all the loss which
throws up the question did those pax go international
ex MAN or by train or conbination, I suspect the 3rd option
Ian
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Air China to PVG: Found a link which I now can't find which included "subject to government approval". Would this be normal even if covered by the bilateral?
I wouldn't worry hugely about the 'subject to government approval' line. It's often featured at the bottom of many press releases, notably it appeared on the CX press releases for HKG-MAN/ZRH/DUS etc.
As far as I'm aware, the approvals from the government agencies have been gained for this flight, this application is now more for airlines or service partners to object or ask for amendments.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX. I don't think this particular link, which I've now managed to find, has been posted previously. It doesn't really say anything new but at least it's in English!
Last edited by MANFOD; 13th Nov 2015 at 12:49.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: manchester
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air China
apparently the hainan route will go daily by the end of 2016? If this was to happen this would cause much more rivalry between Cathay, Singapore! The route looks to be selling quite good according to hainan airlines!
Going to be quite interesting to see air China at Manchester if approved though
Going to be quite interesting to see air China at Manchester if approved though
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester Diversion Policy
Whilst the following extract relates to Manchester's Winter Operations Plan for 2015-2016 it does, I feel, give an insight into the reasons why the No Diversion NOTAM has been issued on a number of occasions previously.
Capacity Monitoring
"In order to protect our normal schedule of flights, Airfield Operations will closely monitor the operational capability of UK Airports and determine the number of parking stands available for diversionary aircraft. This assessment will be made at intervals of not less than 12 hours between the months of November and March inclusive.
The ADM will set an “inbound diversion cap” and notify ATC of any capacity limitations. The“cap” is intended to identify the number of inbound aircraft which can be accepted without impacting upon stand allocations plans associated with our normal schedule of flights. In the event of a mass diversion scenario, the ADM and TDM will activate Diversion Control in the CMC.
Further information concerning the procedures for handling excess traffic can be found in the Aerodrome Manual Part 2.
In the event of significant disruption at Manchester Airport and limited availability of parking stands, a decision may be taken not to accept inbound diversions. Such decisions will be promulgated by NOTAM, SMS and Chroma Fusion. Requests from Manchester Airport airline customers to accept inbound diversions and extra flights will be considered on a case-bycase
basis by the CMC, subject to the provision of a Ground Handling service."
Please let's not swamp the forum with individual responses, but accept that this is the reasoning behind the decision and that it is a policy made by the airport in the best interest of the existing customers.
Capacity Monitoring
"In order to protect our normal schedule of flights, Airfield Operations will closely monitor the operational capability of UK Airports and determine the number of parking stands available for diversionary aircraft. This assessment will be made at intervals of not less than 12 hours between the months of November and March inclusive.
The ADM will set an “inbound diversion cap” and notify ATC of any capacity limitations. The“cap” is intended to identify the number of inbound aircraft which can be accepted without impacting upon stand allocations plans associated with our normal schedule of flights. In the event of a mass diversion scenario, the ADM and TDM will activate Diversion Control in the CMC.
Further information concerning the procedures for handling excess traffic can be found in the Aerodrome Manual Part 2.
In the event of significant disruption at Manchester Airport and limited availability of parking stands, a decision may be taken not to accept inbound diversions. Such decisions will be promulgated by NOTAM, SMS and Chroma Fusion. Requests from Manchester Airport airline customers to accept inbound diversions and extra flights will be considered on a case-bycase
basis by the CMC, subject to the provision of a Ground Handling service."
Please let's not swamp the forum with individual responses, but accept that this is the reasoning behind the decision and that it is a policy made by the airport in the best interest of the existing customers.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
accept that this is the reasoning behind the decision and that it is a policy made by the airport in the best interest of the existing customers.
We must consider above all the best interests of aircraft already in flight for whom safety is an order of magnitude more serious concern than avoidance of administrative inconvenience on the ground. And the effect on ATC sectors with finite capacity which can quickly overload when by far the largest airport facility for a couple of hundred miles in all directions washes its hands of any responsibility to help out. Note that two Citations represent equal workload as two A380's on an ATC sector. And a light-twin is even more workload, as it takes longer to transit the same airspace. A blanket 'No Divs' policy excludes all non-emergency aircraft regardless of size or other circumstance. A non 'blunt-instrument' proactive case-by-case policy is required instead. Safety of flight must without exception outrank admin concerns next to the cosy ops office coffee machine.
The problem with saying that you'll still accept aircraft which declare a fuel emergency is all very well when there is only one aircraft in the sky. When there are multiple flights affected and the largest airport in the system won't play ball, the risk is one of sector overload and several fuel emergencies arising in quick succession. Remember also that ATC sector workload is not just a function of the number of aircraft on frequency. Consider the spike in workload implied as staff must suddenly coordinate re-routes and re-clearances for multiple affected flights as more and more airports report that they're now full to capacity as well or that their IRVR's have just fallen to 100M touchdown. There are no extra staff to cope with all this.
Come on, Manchester. Nobody is asking for a free-for-all. But take your share of responsibility to the extent which you really can. If you can fit in a Dash 8 but not a B747, take a Dash 8. You could completely exclude all types below a specified size from the NOTAM's coverage. Every other major UK airport pitches in when the going gets tough; Manchester doesn't want to know. Either Manchester is getting it right on this and every other major UK airport is messing up ... or the opposite is true. I wonder which way round the correct answer lies?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn.
Shed if you feel so strongly why don't you write to the airport boss, or your MP or the Daily Mail. This subject gets done to death. It's a complete and utter bore off. The 1970s and 1980s are gone for ever.
If there was so much spare space that diversions could be handled at will, the same people would be slagging the marketing people off for failing to get the business in - or some other whinge.
No room on the apron - a nice problem to have.
IMO MAN is prioritizing its own customers and operators over middle aged plane spotters with giddy memories of the past - quite right too.
Shed if you feel so strongly why don't you write to the airport boss, or your MP or the Daily Mail. This subject gets done to death. It's a complete and utter bore off. The 1970s and 1980s are gone for ever.
If there was so much spare space that diversions could be handled at will, the same people would be slagging the marketing people off for failing to get the business in - or some other whinge.
No room on the apron - a nice problem to have.
IMO MAN is prioritizing its own customers and operators over middle aged plane spotters with giddy memories of the past - quite right too.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the interest of safety, as per your concern Shed, NOTAMs always have the line "except for emergencies". I personally think the NOTAMs are sensible and professional considering the lack of stands, and 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).
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=eggc;9182513]In the interest of safety, as per your concern Shed, NOTAMs always have the line "except for emergencies". I personally think the NOTAMs are sensible and professional considering the lack of stands, and 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).[/QUOTE
Seems a bit odd to me. Diversions pay landing fees parking fees etc. I remember a day many years ago when low fog created havoc in the UK LBA was poking out above it and took loads of diversions. Despite running out of stands very quickly they started parking on a then secondary runway and the last aircraft they took was an Swissair A310 from Manchester which they had to park in the active runways turning loop. Manchester is not short of space there's a 10000ft parking area that was built a few years back they could use if necessary but due to managers not wanting the hassle they choose to just ban anything that's not an emergency. Sad really...
Seems a bit odd to me. Diversions pay landing fees parking fees etc. I remember a day many years ago when low fog created havoc in the UK LBA was poking out above it and took loads of diversions. Despite running out of stands very quickly they started parking on a then secondary runway and the last aircraft they took was an Swissair A310 from Manchester which they had to park in the active runways turning loop. Manchester is not short of space there's a 10000ft parking area that was built a few years back they could use if necessary but due to managers not wanting the hassle they choose to just ban anything that's not an emergency. Sad really...