MANCHESTER 1

[AndyH52]

Have you got a link to this Andy? Is it referring to the total airport stand capacity including remotes when the TP is complete or just this T2 development but presumably with the piers?

Hopefully this link works.
e-Document - 110720-pls-0001.pdf


It's unclear what stands are included / excluded but the suggestion is total existing. The figure of 88 is certainly one that has been quoted by MAG as part of a range of stand capacity which varies by aircraft mix.

Could Manchester have not emphasised it's massive expansion at zero cost to taxpayer. ..

Bagso, I wouldn't shout too loud if the sum total of £1 billion expenditure is a reduction of almost 49,000 sq m of terminal space, one aircraft stand a new multi storey car park.

[viscount702]

One is an increase- a very disappointing one though

[viscount702]

There is actually a decrease in terminal space not an increase as I read it.

[MANFOD]

Thanks Andy. The link worked fine.

Perhaps someone cleverer than I can interpret p14-16 in terms of what is included or not included, and what the current 88 stands refers to. I was under the impression there were just over 100 at present.

I'm also not clear on what has already been approved and therefore not included in the application, and whether or not that affects the figures.

[AndyH52]

There is actually a decrease in terminal space not an increase as I read it

Viscount 702 you are absolutely right. My fault for reading through too quickly! There is a net reduction of some 48,837 sq m, so more of a contraction than an expansion...

[viscount702]

They say they currently have 88 but have permission already for 107. But as part of this work they will only increase the stands by one.

As I read the planning statement the use of T2 long stay and Staff west as part of the apron is already permitted but it won't be used yet but may in the future along with the addition of piers which don't need consent. No idea when that may be.

[MKY661]

I'm sure only Part of T1 is being demolished. I was told that Pier B was staying so maybe a portion of the terminal will stay as well.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

In designing the new terminal interior layout, MAG has been planning around the principle that traditional check-in will continue to be superceded by adoption of technology. Eventually, only fast-bag drops will be required and these need not be allocated by individual carrier. Far less space will be required for this aspect of the airport's operation. We should note also that there is alot more detail to be revealed before we can visualise what the final version of the TP will look like. For one thing, I certainly don't expect the space vacated by T1 demolition to become an unused void. There is lots more to come. With regard to the eventual number of stands, MAG has been briefing that there will be a sufficient increase in the final analysis. On the subject of accommodating growth I was told that provision would be built in: "it wouldn't be worth our while embarking on this project otherwise." I cannot confirm how they plan to achieve this at present, but I don't doubt the sincerity of their intention to accommodate growth in demand. It is common sense to do so.

[LAX_LHR]

Air Blue are coming back.

Made an announcement on their Facebook page and made the advert about the route their 'cover photo'.

[nigel osborne]

Shedonsapole

I think they are going to have to keep some desks for queuing passengers. When we visited T2 at LHR recently despite all the zones and self service stations, many people perhaps 25% were still choosing to queue up with their own luggage to get it done by the old method.

Many of these people were elderly who don't want or understand all this self service stuff. It is interesting for example that my parents are travelling to LHR in a few months both over 80 and are terrified of all the technology and state they will be just queuing up with their bags as normal.

It is hard to believe that all this just equates to 1 extra apron stand although Im sure that many of the others will be flexible and perhaps able to accommodate 1 wide body or 2 A32Os .

I suppose these days £1 billion doesn't buy you that much. JLR are to build a factory in Slovakia for more than that.

I love the look of the new mostly glass piers and Im sure it will be much more efficient than the current terminal.

[Mr A Tis]

I've used self service bag drops in many locations with Air Canada, Delta, Lufthansa & Flybe. For me, only the Flybe one's have ever worked properly without assistance. As the lady at AC manual desk in YVR said...Thank God they never work right, or I wouldn't be here.

I'm sure eventually this kind of thing will work.

It would be great if those that arrive by train could self bag drop at the train station- especially as the station is so remote from the terminals and so far- the connectivity from Station to T3 is abysmal.

[easyflyer83]

Yes, that 100 metre covered walkway is torturous.

[Bagso]

I do wonder if our stand situation is going to meet demand going forward.

I think in S15 best average was 40 departures in and 30 inbound at absolute peak period. I assume we had circa 88 available stands.

With Gatwick now likely to get the nod re their proposals I checked their revised stand availability.

This comes in at a whopping 269 !!!!

Whilst we are a 2 runway airport albeit constrained by crossing limitations should our stand availability pro rata not be much higher ?

If every stand in summer is full, the inability to provide additional space will have a knock on effect in terms of the possible sectors (3?) that a based aircraft could also then operate.

88 does seem a proportionately low figure.

[Una Due Tfc]

Does the 88 stands figure include those currently used for car parking?

If not maybe those extra couple of thousand car spaces would allow the stands currently used as such to return to their original intended purpose?

Just a thought.

[viscount702]

Looking at the NATS charts the maximum number of stands in normal use would be about 132 for T1 T2 T3 and the West Apron. In practice the number will be noticeably less to accommodate larger aircraft.

[BDLBOS]

88 stands is not enough at completion, that is no growth at all. 87, from what I am hearing its not enough now. No space for diversions.

They will lose stands during the building process, so any one who actually runs an airport as an airport will build additional capacity before the start. That means, dare I say it, using the apron for planes and not a car park. I would have started with 107 before I picked up a shovel, then end up with 108 in 2023.

[j636]

So are none of the new piers been built?

[chaps1954]

Do they mean parking stands on terminal or do they include remoye stands as well
j636 Yes but not in the 1st round of building

[AndyH52]

If you think about the stand situation logically, in order to accommodate the new cul-de-sac layout you have to lose all of the current T2 contact stands, the T2 remote stands and a number of the remote stands on the Western Apron. You also lose the stands currently around Pier C of Terminal 1. In return you get (if there are four piers) probably a maximum of 48 Code C stands (i.e. A.320 / B737 size) in the new layout. As pointed out earlier, given the number of Code D aircraft based (B757 /A321 and above) you are probably looking at a much lower number.

I am assuming that the remaining stands on the Western Apron remain unaffected along with T3 and Pier B.

There is also a chance that Stand 100/101 might go too in order to remove any taxiway bottle necks?

[chaps1954]

But not all at once so lets wait and see what is going to happen,
the airport authority know what they are doing so don`t panic.
Texact number and type of stands will be known and a few over to cater
for new services will be allowed for

Ian