MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roverman,
bit confused with the piers. You say that they will do Pier 1 first with contact gates but if they are numbered from M56 down, Pier 1 is the bussing pier unless the plans are now different to the flythrough on the website?!?
bit confused with the piers. You say that they will do Pier 1 first with contact gates but if they are numbered from M56 down, Pier 1 is the bussing pier unless the plans are now different to the flythrough on the website?!?
Last edited by GavinC; 13th Jun 2016 at 12:28.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gavin,
Most of the public domain fly-throughs and artwork are out of date as soon as released. It's the nature of this type of project - the design and even the concept to some extent are continually refining at least up to the point where a construction contract is signed. The graphics provide an indication of where the design is going at this stage, nothing more.
Current plan is for the terminal building to start this Autumn, together with Pier 1 (opens 2018) and then Pier 4/C (2019). Dedicated bussing gates on Pier 4 Northern side , not on Pier 1, although in theory any gate could be used to bus from if no aircraft on it. Bussing arrangements still under review so may change! TP eventually swings the contact/remote stand ratio firmly in favour of contact, assuming all four piers are built.
Most of the public domain fly-throughs and artwork are out of date as soon as released. It's the nature of this type of project - the design and even the concept to some extent are continually refining at least up to the point where a construction contract is signed. The graphics provide an indication of where the design is going at this stage, nothing more.
Current plan is for the terminal building to start this Autumn, together with Pier 1 (opens 2018) and then Pier 4/C (2019). Dedicated bussing gates on Pier 4 Northern side , not on Pier 1, although in theory any gate could be used to bus from if no aircraft on it. Bussing arrangements still under review so may change! TP eventually swings the contact/remote stand ratio firmly in favour of contact, assuming all four piers are built.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The news that the Air China are "next up" should not be underplayed.
Manchester now has clear 1st mover advantage.
Manchester now has clear 1st mover advantage.
The Chinese Consul-General, based in Manchester, went further than Charlie Cornish in his address. He spoke of the Cathay Pacific Hong Kong service, Hainan starting today, and then specifically mentioned 'Air China to Shanghai' soon / later this year.
One wonders whether loss of face issues were involved in the cancellation of the BHX service after Keyhole went very public very early on? In the case of MAN, these announcements seem to be part of an agreed strategy between the two sides.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, bussing from a state of the art terminal as in Dubai and most other major airports. If you build enough contact gates for your peak demand you'll have a lot of expensive infrastructure standing idle much of the time. And someone, ultimately the passenger, has to pay for it.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remote stands are a fact of life. Not everywhere can throw billions at the infrastructure or is in the same geographical situation as Dubai. Northern European destinations with specific time slots to east and west, not to mention curfews, have major arrival surges which co-incide with short haul and medium haul departures or arrivals with quieter times in between..
Over the last seven years I've used Heathrow T5 to Rio and Houston many times with departures in the lunchtime/early afternoon, not exactly the peak for LHR. On all but one trip we have been bussed to a remote stand to climb steps, sometimes in wind and rain, to board the 777.
Over the last seven years I've used Heathrow T5 to Rio and Houston many times with departures in the lunchtime/early afternoon, not exactly the peak for LHR. On all but one trip we have been bussed to a remote stand to climb steps, sometimes in wind and rain, to board the 777.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gavin,
Most of the public domain fly-throughs and artwork are out of date as soon as released. It's the nature of this type of project - the design and even the concept to some extent are continually refining at least up to the point where a construction contract is signed. The graphics provide an indication of where the design is going at this stage, nothing more.
Current plan is for the terminal building to start this Autumn, together with Pier 1 (opens 2018) and then Pier 4/C (2019). Dedicated bussing gates on Pier 4 Northern side , not on Pier 1, although in theory any gate could be used to bus from if no aircraft on it. Bussing arrangements still under review so may change! TP eventually swings the contact/remote stand ratio firmly in favour of contact, assuming all four piers are built.
Most of the public domain fly-throughs and artwork are out of date as soon as released. It's the nature of this type of project - the design and even the concept to some extent are continually refining at least up to the point where a construction contract is signed. The graphics provide an indication of where the design is going at this stage, nothing more.
Current plan is for the terminal building to start this Autumn, together with Pier 1 (opens 2018) and then Pier 4/C (2019). Dedicated bussing gates on Pier 4 Northern side , not on Pier 1, although in theory any gate could be used to bus from if no aircraft on it. Bussing arrangements still under review so may change! TP eventually swings the contact/remote stand ratio firmly in favour of contact, assuming all four piers are built.
At present it seems to me that MAN is near capacity at peak times. Does anybody have an idea on the following:
a) Present number of Parking positions and how many used for based/NS?
b) How many will be available when phase one starts (pier one and terminal)?
c) ditto for the rest of the phases?
d) In 2025 what will be the total stand count bridge, bus or walk, compared with today?
e) When will the plans for T3 be known and start?
f) Can they construct a LCC terminal south of the runways when the North runs out of space?
If MAN grows at an average of 3.5% and 4 based a/c per year, then by 2025 the pax numbers will be over 32m and additional stands required for 36 a/c. But we need to remember this growth is when there is construction going on and stand growth will be impossible. I hope they have good plans that can take the growth and get the airport standards back where they used to be, still nervous that this is too late, too little and very much too slow.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've crossed swords with the last poster before but at this rate we'll be sending cards...
I totally agree.
Why not abandon "the piers" and just have a massive extention doown to the M56 and then run South parallel to it ?
A significant % of Manchester traffic is for loco /holiday and with Norwegian now wanting a slice of that cake it seems we might be over complicating things since those plans were announced
Fine if we can build 75 stands somewhere but we can't.
By all means keep the first class updates inside the terminal and of course a mechanism for preclearance but there is little point in my view losing all those stands simply to provide a family of four with the all the comforts of a walk in pier when they have just paid £500 all in for Majorca.
Likewise those having a cheap £90 week end away? They just want to get on thru with a back pack not be indulged with "spa standard " facilities.
If those same passengers end up at Liverpool, Leeds Or Birmingham because an airline cannot base aircraft it surely defeats the whole object of the exercise ?
Primarily we needs stands, aircraft and routes and then the best mechanism to service that need BUT CRUCIALLY without compromising it ?
This needs a major re think given last 12 months growth and quick.
I totally agree.
Why not abandon "the piers" and just have a massive extention doown to the M56 and then run South parallel to it ?
A significant % of Manchester traffic is for loco /holiday and with Norwegian now wanting a slice of that cake it seems we might be over complicating things since those plans were announced
Fine if we can build 75 stands somewhere but we can't.
By all means keep the first class updates inside the terminal and of course a mechanism for preclearance but there is little point in my view losing all those stands simply to provide a family of four with the all the comforts of a walk in pier when they have just paid £500 all in for Majorca.
Likewise those having a cheap £90 week end away? They just want to get on thru with a back pack not be indulged with "spa standard " facilities.
If those same passengers end up at Liverpool, Leeds Or Birmingham because an airline cannot base aircraft it surely defeats the whole object of the exercise ?
Primarily we needs stands, aircraft and routes and then the best mechanism to service that need BUT CRUCIALLY without compromising it ?
This needs a major re think given last 12 months growth and quick.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've crossed swords with the last poster before but at this rate we'll be sending cards...
I totally agree.
Why not abandon "the piers" and just have a massive extention doown to the M56 and then run South parallel to it ?
A significant % of Manchester traffic is for loco /holiday and with Norwegian now wanting a slice of that cake it seems we might be over complicating things since those plans were announced
Fine if we can build 75 stands somewhere but we can't.
By all means keep the first class updates inside the terminal and of course a mechanism for preclearance but there is little point in my view losing all those stands simply to provide a family of four with the all the comforts of a walk in pier when they have just paid £500 all in for Majorca.
Likewise those having a cheap £90 week end away? They just want to get on thru with a back pack not be indulged with "spa standard " facilities.
If those same passengers end up at Liverpool, Leeds Or Birmingham because an airline cannot base aircraft it surely defeats the whole object of the exercise ?
Primarily we needs stands, aircraft and routes and then the best mechanism to service that need without compromising it ?
I totally agree.
Why not abandon "the piers" and just have a massive extention doown to the M56 and then run South parallel to it ?
A significant % of Manchester traffic is for loco /holiday and with Norwegian now wanting a slice of that cake it seems we might be over complicating things since those plans were announced
Fine if we can build 75 stands somewhere but we can't.
By all means keep the first class updates inside the terminal and of course a mechanism for preclearance but there is little point in my view losing all those stands simply to provide a family of four with the all the comforts of a walk in pier when they have just paid £500 all in for Majorca.
Likewise those having a cheap £90 week end away? They just want to get on thru with a back pack not be indulged with "spa standard " facilities.
If those same passengers end up at Liverpool, Leeds Or Birmingham because an airline cannot base aircraft it surely defeats the whole object of the exercise ?
Primarily we needs stands, aircraft and routes and then the best mechanism to service that need without compromising it ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very interesting and it would be great to see the updated plans. Hopefully soon.
I originally understood the proposals for bus stands were to give a kick start of stand capacity before the main building work started so it's very interesting to read that they are possibly not now proposed to happen first.
I would expect further documents to come into the Public Domain quite soon based on those timeframes so looking forward to seeing them.
I originally understood the proposals for bus stands were to give a kick start of stand capacity before the main building work started so it's very interesting to read that they are possibly not now proposed to happen first.
I would expect further documents to come into the Public Domain quite soon based on those timeframes so looking forward to seeing them.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gavin
Building new stands (contact or bussed) over the present car park next to the M56 (what we understand to be "pier 1") always seemed like the most sensible first phase.
When complete, it should give the excess capacity to allow the next part of T2 to be shut down to be competed and so on to completion of the new T2.
Then the issues of T3 can be addressed. Whether that is an extended or new build complex for low cost carriers I don't know. Plainly T3 also needs a kick in capacity from T1 or some new facility. It is woefully lacking at present, and if T1 is to be demolished I don't know what could be done to improve that situation.
Building new stands (contact or bussed) over the present car park next to the M56 (what we understand to be "pier 1") always seemed like the most sensible first phase.
When complete, it should give the excess capacity to allow the next part of T2 to be shut down to be competed and so on to completion of the new T2.
Then the issues of T3 can be addressed. Whether that is an extended or new build complex for low cost carriers I don't know. Plainly T3 also needs a kick in capacity from T1 or some new facility. It is woefully lacking at present, and if T1 is to be demolished I don't know what could be done to improve that situation.
I think some of you seriously underestimate the spending power of leisure and LCC pax. The LCC sector is no longer so niche that it needs a totally separate terminal and its passenger profile varies greatly. Therefore, the facilities such as the retail outlets, and even lounges, are well patronised by passengers travelling on charter and low cost. MAN is still very skewed towards leisure, and increasingly LCC pax, but it's these types that spend in the terminal. They certainly do onboard too. MAN specifically is renowned amongst airlines to be a very lucrative base/station when it comes to onboard sales.... And not just drinks either.
So, when it comes to designing the actual terminal, don't totally disregard the needs of these pax. Often it can be the F and J class and frequent pax who glide through the airport spending little or nothing.
Where provision for the LCC's is required is gates closer to the runway, with infrastructure that supports slick turnarounds.
So, when it comes to designing the actual terminal, don't totally disregard the needs of these pax. Often it can be the F and J class and frequent pax who glide through the airport spending little or nothing.
Where provision for the LCC's is required is gates closer to the runway, with infrastructure that supports slick turnarounds.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If MAN grows at an average of 3.5% and 4 based a/c per year, then by 2025 the pax numbers will be over 32m and additional stands required for 36 a/c. But we need to remember this growth is when there is construction going on and stand growth will be impossible. I hope they have good plans that can take the growth and get the airport standards back where they used to be, still nervous that this is too late, too little and very much too slow.
For that reason I now avoid flying at that time and take mid morning flights where ever possible. At that time, the terminals whilst still busy are far from capacity and are still capable occasionally of offering a pleasant experience.
Fly out in the afternoon and the observer will notice a lot of empty space on the apron. Basing more planes before capacity increases are in place would be folly. Instead MAN needs more away based planes flying in at those non-peak times to fill the gaps as Ryanair currently do.
it should give the excess capacity to allow the next part of T2 to be shut down to be competed
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Names
Quite right - closure would predominantly involve the apron and taxiways. However, I think the existing building is being remodelled internally (I have no idea to what extent) so an element of closure will be unavoidable.
Quite right - closure would predominantly involve the apron and taxiways. However, I think the existing building is being remodelled internally (I have no idea to what extent) so an element of closure will be unavoidable.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is serious remodelling internally. The current departures area is becoming security with the lounges above that and new executive facilities elsewhere.
My guess is that the existing T2 will be closed once the new bit is operational bearing in mind the new bit is larger than the current, this is a gain in capacity. Then we will see the existing bit re-worked internally over the course of maybe a year before the whole thing merges into one.
My guess is that the existing T2 will be closed once the new bit is operational bearing in mind the new bit is larger than the current, this is a gain in capacity. Then we will see the existing bit re-worked internally over the course of maybe a year before the whole thing merges into one.