Manchester-2
When a video was made showing MAN's apron as seen from a microlight aircraft - supported by stills taken from the tower on or around the same date - I counted aircraft on view as being in the high eighties. I think it was 88, though I've discarded that piece of paper now. Certainly a number in that ballpark. This included the five TUI MAX's which are away from the main parking area, but not anything which may have been hangared. The number was well below 114. Maybe that was the number recorded on FR24 which miscounts Barton vicinity movements as Manchester arrivals and leaves them in the totals for ages because they aren't subsequently noted as departing again?
With several Thomas Cook and FlyBe aircraft to leave permanently, plus other frames from some solvent carriers such as Virgin, there should be plenty of vacant stands to backfill before long. And ten new stands coming into service to the NW of T2 Pier 1 as well.
With several Thomas Cook and FlyBe aircraft to leave permanently, plus other frames from some solvent carriers such as Virgin, there should be plenty of vacant stands to backfill before long. And ten new stands coming into service to the NW of T2 Pier 1 as well.
There's also a number of stands constantly being loss for taxiway repairs, upgrades, fuel hydrant installation etc.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Danunder
Age: 49
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just available stands that you need for freight, but a stand to fit the aircraft. A stand just freed up by a retiring Flybe Dash 8 will not accommodate an A330F. And certain freighters need tie down points by the nose wheel, which further limits which stands can be used by wide body freighters on a busy airfield - MAN or elsewhere.
It's not just available stands that you need for freight, but a stand to fit the aircraft. A stand just freed up by a retiring Flybe Dash 8 will not accommodate an A330F. And certain freighters need tie down points by the nose wheel, which further limits which stands can be used by wide body freighters on a busy airfield - MAN or elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other major issue is finding a handling agent to do the turnaround. Will they be prepared to invest in all the equipment and staff training for a handful of freighter movements. I havent had much contact with MAN for some time and Im not sure whether the hi-lo’s are even still available ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: manchester
Age: 63
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn’t a main deck hi-lo available at Manchester any more. I spoke to a decision maker from a large HA a fair bit back about this point and it works out the very expensive equipment could be employed far more profitably at a different station with far more freight flights. Who would’ve thought it!
ATNotts
WOW thats quite a reply, thanks for spending time to thoroughly explain your views.
I think its obvious that the big drop in freight carried is because the underbody freight didnt fly because the flights were grounded. The figure is no shock to anybody and the addition of a few daily 747Fs would make little difference to the figures.
As soon as the flights start up the tonnage will rise again.👍
You sound like an office based stats man to me ?
Have you ever actually been airside during a dedicated 747F turnaround ? If you had you would know its not just a case of parking an aircraft for an hour. The dedicated ground equipment and staffing levels required are very different from a passenger flight. Also the staging areas for freight on freight off require a lot of concrete. Establishing all this for a few movements a day is not cost effective, if it was profitable MAG would have continued to support freighter OPs at MAN
MAG is simply keeping its house in order matching trimmed assets to supply most profitable return, it will be interesting to see how the proposed THG operation pans out.
WOW thats quite a reply, thanks for spending time to thoroughly explain your views.
I think its obvious that the big drop in freight carried is because the underbody freight didnt fly because the flights were grounded. The figure is no shock to anybody and the addition of a few daily 747Fs would make little difference to the figures.
As soon as the flights start up the tonnage will rise again.👍
You sound like an office based stats man to me ?
Have you ever actually been airside during a dedicated 747F turnaround ? If you had you would know its not just a case of parking an aircraft for an hour. The dedicated ground equipment and staffing levels required are very different from a passenger flight. Also the staging areas for freight on freight off require a lot of concrete. Establishing all this for a few movements a day is not cost effective, if it was profitable MAG would have continued to support freighter OPs at MAN
MAG is simply keeping its house in order matching trimmed assets to supply most profitable return, it will be interesting to see how the proposed THG operation pans out.
MAG will have made a decision that passengers are their route to maximising profitability at Manchester, although I suspect they might have some moments of self doubt during the last 12 weeks or so. And it may not just be MAG, obviously it's the handling agents that have to be staffed up for cargo handling, and if they've taken a conscious decision not to invest money in cargo handling large scale all cargo operations ain't about to happen. The management at EMA must be pretty happy they puts their eggs into the cargo basket, since passnger flight completely stopped for about 10 weeks.
The management at EMA must be pretty happy they puts their eggs into the cargo basket, since passnger flight completely stopped for about 10 weeks.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Teesside, UK
Age: 33
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn’t a main deck hi-lo available at Manchester any more. I spoke to a decision maker from a large HA a fair bit back about this point and it works out the very expensive equipment could be employed far more profitably at a different station with far more freight flights. Who would’ve thought it!
Lots of negative "can't do" postings. MAN is by far the UK's busiest airport outside London (well, in normal times!) and a vital component of the Northern Powerhouse initiative. If an item of ground handling equipment is required, order it! Or bring back whatever they shipped off to EMA/STN. "There aren't enough cargo flights to justify the expense ..." No, and there won't be for as long as MAG policy is to switch-sell cargo leads away from MAN. Bring back the capability and present a welcoming environment for cargo business. You make the investment first, then the business follows. That's how it works.
My earlier reference to the B747-8F was just for illustrative purposes. There are many other freighter types! MAN certainly did have a B748 capable stand quite recently - whether or not it still is so would depend on changes made in realigning the taxiways. It certainly shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of an airport of MAN's stature to ensure this capability going forward in any case.
Let's have more of the "can do" attitude upon which MAN built its early success. Now it seems to be a list of "well we can't do this because ..." Handling a cargo turnaround isn't rocket science.
My earlier reference to the B747-8F was just for illustrative purposes. There are many other freighter types! MAN certainly did have a B748 capable stand quite recently - whether or not it still is so would depend on changes made in realigning the taxiways. It certainly shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of an airport of MAN's stature to ensure this capability going forward in any case.
Let's have more of the "can do" attitude upon which MAN built its early success. Now it seems to be a list of "well we can't do this because ..." Handling a cargo turnaround isn't rocket science.
Let's have more of the "can do" attitude upon which MAN built its early success. Now it seems to be a list of "well we can't do this because ..." Handling a cargo turnaround isn't rocket science.
But it's not as easy as that, if you're thinking about large freighters. Sure, it won't a problem unloading a "just in time" urgent shipment from a Cessna Caravan, it can be hand balled off. However you can't just put someone off passenger check-in onto a Hi-Lo and expect them to operate it, nor tow around pallet dollies, or drag pallets down the floor of a 747.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fedex self handle their own flights at MAN, the warehouse guys come airside for the load ups/offloads then back into the warehouse for the rest of their shift.
Do you have any idea how much these things cost to purchase? Yet alone maintain. You're not going to get much change out of £1 million. Who in their right mind is going to purchase that, to have it sat gathering dust all year? Perhaps get one ad-hoc charter flight in, that you manage to charge £2000 ground handling for - on a good day.
If an item of ground handling equipment is required, order it!
Who in their right mind is going to purchase that, to have it sat gathering dust all year?
And the UK's largest airport outside London can't afford a £1m piece of equipment. Which they used to have until quite recently? Oh dear ...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Danunder
Age: 49
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by UnderASouthernSky; 24th Jun 2020 at 14:10.