Manchester-2
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I admit it really isn't great, wont it in the long run not actually be a major problem, I say this because:
(I am in no way excusing the shoddiness of the situation, just looking at it from a different perspective)
1. Surely learning from pier 1, this wont be allowed to happen on pier 2/3.
2 There's surely going to be enough stands capable of handling the 747's from the existing T2 even whilst the second pier is getting built.
3. When pier 2/3 are built, isn't the likelihood that most VS will park in those two closer to the new lounges leaving pier 1 to Loco's/charters.
4. How many A350's, 747's etc, will be on the ground max at any one time? Wont there be enough stands in pier 2/3 to cope with these if the pier 1 issue can't be sorted? I know that's not the point but it should be manageable right?
(I am in no way excusing the shoddiness of the situation, just looking at it from a different perspective)
1. Surely learning from pier 1, this wont be allowed to happen on pier 2/3.
2 There's surely going to be enough stands capable of handling the 747's from the existing T2 even whilst the second pier is getting built.
3. When pier 2/3 are built, isn't the likelihood that most VS will park in those two closer to the new lounges leaving pier 1 to Loco's/charters.
4. How many A350's, 747's etc, will be on the ground max at any one time? Wont there be enough stands in pier 2/3 to cope with these if the pier 1 issue can't be sorted? I know that's not the point but it should be manageable right?
That timeline probably makes it a non issue unless the A350 is also a problem?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Atlantic Set To Retire Boeing 747s In 2021
That timeline probably makes it a non issue unless the A350 is also a problem?
That timeline probably makes it a non issue unless the A350 is also a problem?
Hopefully they pay more attention on the next phase.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I admit it really isn't great, wont it in the long run not actually be a major problem, I say this because:
(I am in no way excusing the shoddiness of the situation, just looking at it from a different perspective)
1. Surely learning from pier 1, this wont be allowed to happen on pier 2/3.
2 There's surely going to be enough stands capable of handling the 747's from the existing T2 even whilst the second pier is getting built.
3. When pier 2/3 are built, isn't the likelihood that most VS will park in those two closer to the new lounges leaving pier 1 to Loco's/charters.
4. How many A350's, 747's etc, will be on the ground max at any one time? Wont there be enough stands in pier 2/3 to cope with these if the pier 1 issue can't be sorted? I know that's not the point but it should be manageable right?
(I am in no way excusing the shoddiness of the situation, just looking at it from a different perspective)
1. Surely learning from pier 1, this wont be allowed to happen on pier 2/3.
2 There's surely going to be enough stands capable of handling the 747's from the existing T2 even whilst the second pier is getting built.
3. When pier 2/3 are built, isn't the likelihood that most VS will park in those two closer to the new lounges leaving pier 1 to Loco's/charters.
4. How many A350's, 747's etc, will be on the ground max at any one time? Wont there be enough stands in pier 2/3 to cope with these if the pier 1 issue can't be sorted? I know that's not the point but it should be manageable right?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spannersatcx - Having been working off only a mobile for the last few weeks I have missed a couple of important OANs that have been issued, and which make interesting reading, since there is no reference to Stand 104 being able to accept B747
OAN-26a-2019 Issued 29th March 2019
OAN-26b-2019 Issued 5th April 2019
OAN-26a-2019 Issued 29th March 2019
OAN-26b-2019 Issued 5th April 2019
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spannersatcx - Having been working off only a mobile for the last few weeks I have missed a couple of important OANs that have been issued, and which make interesting reading, since there is no reference to Stand 104 being able to accept B747
OAN-26a-2019 Issued 29th March 2019
OAN-26b-2019 Issued 5th April 2019
OAN-26a-2019 Issued 29th March 2019
OAN-26b-2019 Issued 5th April 2019
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the aerial view of the three piers, I am wondering why all three appear to be different in length, particularly why the middle one is rather short? Is the area around it earmarked for walk boarding by LCCs so that investment in an extension of the shed and throwing in another set of airbridges was not worthwhile?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Etihad A380 going to have to park remote? I thought the stand that Emirates use is the only contact stand that is A380 compatible and the Etihad plane will be in at the same time as the 3rd Emirates of the day and I doubt Emirates will be too pleased if they get budged off their stand.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Northern province
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Etihad A380 going to have to park remote? I thought the stand that Emirates use is the only contact stand that is A380 compatible and the Etihad plane will be in at the same time as the 3rd Emirates of the day and I doubt Emirates will be too pleased if they get budged off their stand.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Stansted Airport
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
virginblue,
a MAG presentation I attended last year indicated that it may be extended further in the future. As someone in the audience pointed out, that would involve turning the airside into a secure land-side building site-again, with all the cost/inconvenience that would involve.
Just borrow the money and build it now.
a MAG presentation I attended last year indicated that it may be extended further in the future. As someone in the audience pointed out, that would involve turning the airside into a secure land-side building site-again, with all the cost/inconvenience that would involve.
Just borrow the money and build it now.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the Etihad A380 going to have to park remote? I thought the stand that Emirates use is the only contact stand that is A380 compatible and the Etihad plane will be in at the same time as the 3rd Emirates of the day and I doubt Emirates will be too pleased if they get budged off their stand.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m told the 350 was trialled on 110, the airbridge wouldn’t get to the L2 door without hitting the engine and was 2 feet short of the L1 door. Was supposed to be trialled on 106 today but has been postponed until next week. L2 door is the preferred door so not everyone traipses through the business class section.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facebook rumour alert...!
"Juneyao Air have applied to add MAN as an extension of its new daily PVG-HEL service, although the add on MAN would only be 4 weekly. They use Dreamliners on this route and MAN start from Nov 19."
Make of that what you will...
"Juneyao Air have applied to add MAN as an extension of its new daily PVG-HEL service, although the add on MAN would only be 4 weekly. They use Dreamliners on this route and MAN start from Nov 19."
Make of that what you will...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West UK
Age: 69
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
