Manchester-2
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expect Scottie Dog can confirm whether they are now in use. The group of 10 stands at the NW perimeter beyond Pier 1 (901-919 odd numbers only) as of a week or so ago were not yet commissioned as I understand it, although to all intents and purposes were complete. Again, any clarification would be appreciated.
To Skip's point, there has been some surprise that given the few movements on R1, R2 hasn't been put to use for temporary parking, or even one or two taxiways unless WIP is already causing taxiway restrictions.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Scottie. If those remote stands were in use, it might enable the airport to handle some of those freight charters which, unlike other airports, MAN are allegedly turning away. It would be interesting to know why the airport decided not to use R2 for temporary parking given that it's likely to be a long time before traffic gets back to a level which justifies its return to operations. Of course, in the past R2 has proved its worth for emergencies and when R1 has been closed for maintenance but I'm not sure how that would apply now.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RW2 for aircraft parking
I would think parking aircraft on RW2 is more trouble than its worth, what happens if you have a closure of RW1 for whatever reason. It would take a long time to shift a row of aircraft. Also carrying out ongoing servicing of the runway surface would be impossible, also long term parking of heavy leaking aircraft may actually cause damage to the runway. And lastly carrying out storage service routines on the aircraft would be difficult as its part of the runway and taxiway system, very few people are permitted or qualified to drive there.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another few points that popped into my head re parking aircraft on 23L
https://www.magairports.com/media/15...et-2019_20.pdf
- As previously mentioned, anybody needing to get to/from the aircraft will need an escort as few are permitted to drive there
- The airport is running on skeleton staff, probably not enough people to tow aircraft over there
- Should the airline go bust, MAG are left with a few expensive lumps of scrap metal taking up the runway. These things can't easily be towed around, look how long it took the TCX A330's to move from the 60's over towards T2
- In the grand scheme of things, MAG don't actually charge a lot for aircraft parking. Barely seems worth the effort for them imo
https://www.magairports.com/media/15...et-2019_20.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that there were enquiries from several airlines, including BA, for additional parking facilities which MAN felt they had to turn down. Then there are all those extra freighters into and out of the UK at present which for whatever reason are going elsewhere. (there have been a few flights with freight only by airlines that are regular MAN customers on scheduled passenger services e.g. EK and I think HU). So there has been a demand for space.
ps thanks 750XL for those comments and the list of charges for aircraft parking.
The explanations offered why RW2 might not be suitable are no doubt valid, but my original point was that the new remote stands could have proved useful were they in use.
ps thanks 750XL for those comments and the list of charges for aircraft parking.
The explanations offered why RW2 might not be suitable are no doubt valid, but my original point was that the new remote stands could have proved useful were they in use.
Last edited by MANFOD; 6th Jun 2020 at 13:52. Reason: response to a recent post
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Uk
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again the topic of freight rears it's head!
Don't forget that MAN is part of MAG where the G stands for Group. If it is a MAG decision then I imagine they have determined that financially freight is best handled through EMA and STN rather than MAN.
However it isn't necessarily an airport decision anyway. It could just as easily be lack of equipment (which would be down to handlers) or airline choice to fly elsewhere.
Don't forget that MAN is part of MAG where the G stands for Group. If it is a MAG decision then I imagine they have determined that financially freight is best handled through EMA and STN rather than MAN.
However it isn't necessarily an airport decision anyway. It could just as easily be lack of equipment (which would be down to handlers) or airline choice to fly elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: manchester
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Air Canada finally purchases Air Transat, then i think we will see the A330's as Air Canada Rogue If they don't purchase Air Transat we will still see Air Transat
It was always a short seasonal operation and if they did go ahead with Air Transat we probably would have had a reduce frequency anyway
Unless Air Canada mainline takes over with B738 max if the future or if Air Canada Rogue gets some A321LR then no I don't think we will see a return in the near future
It was always a short seasonal operation and if they did go ahead with Air Transat we probably would have had a reduce frequency anyway
Unless Air Canada mainline takes over with B738 max if the future or if Air Canada Rogue gets some A321LR then no I don't think we will see a return in the near future
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts