Manston
Joined: Jan 2001
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 302
From: Clarty Waters, UK
The problem I see with Manston as a passenger airport is that it's too far from London to be marketed as a 'London' airport but close enough that London airports are easily accessible to the population of Kent.
As for being a cargo hub in a Brexit era, not every type of cargo is suitable for air transport.
I wish them well, but my suspicion is that after a year or two the new owners will declare the place unviable for aviation use and try and develop it in different ways......
As for being a cargo hub in a Brexit era, not every type of cargo is suitable for air transport.
I wish them well, but my suspicion is that after a year or two the new owners will declare the place unviable for aviation use and try and develop it in different ways......
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
From: Luxembourg
He probably saw one of the old cargo planes that are still stored/stranded there, or at least there used to be!
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,655
From: Ferrara
"I wish them well, but my suspicion is that after a year or two the new owners will declare the place unviable for aviation use and try and develop it in different ways.."
Most of the cynics on here believe they made that decision years ago and keep the place in their land bank - every so often they talk about reopening but they know that in the long term the Council will fold and it'll be houses as far as the eye can see....... it's worth hundreds of millions IN CASh once it's developed
Most of the cynics on here believe they made that decision years ago and keep the place in their land bank - every so often they talk about reopening but they know that in the long term the Council will fold and it'll be houses as far as the eye can see....... it's worth hundreds of millions IN CASh once it's developed
Manston to Carlisle? Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: London
The saga continues..
I was on the fast train from Stratford International to Ramsgate yesterday.. takes about 1 hour 20 minutes.. so with a bus link to the airport I suppose it is feasible to attract the Low Cost crowd.. train also stops at Ebbsfleet, Ashford and others..
Manston’s runway is long enough and wide enough for 747’s so maybe there is a possibility of it becoming a cargo hub like Leige, but cargo hubs are busiest at night and they are ruling out night flights??
I think they have seen how Southend is busy with EasyJet, Ryanair, Flybe, etc... Southend has the advantage of a railway station at the airport, but has a short runway and not much room to expand.
In the past Manston ran coaches from Bluewater shopping centre to the airport, also the KLM flight to Amsterdam did well..
Will be interesting to watch developments
I was on the fast train from Stratford International to Ramsgate yesterday.. takes about 1 hour 20 minutes.. so with a bus link to the airport I suppose it is feasible to attract the Low Cost crowd.. train also stops at Ebbsfleet, Ashford and others..
Manston’s runway is long enough and wide enough for 747’s so maybe there is a possibility of it becoming a cargo hub like Leige, but cargo hubs are busiest at night and they are ruling out night flights??
I think they have seen how Southend is busy with EasyJet, Ryanair, Flybe, etc... Southend has the advantage of a railway station at the airport, but has a short runway and not much room to expand.
In the past Manston ran coaches from Bluewater shopping centre to the airport, also the KLM flight to Amsterdam did well..
Will be interesting to watch developments
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: In a house
In addition to encouraging regular passenger and cargo operators to use Manston as a destination, it would be useful to consider the use of Manston as a primary diversion airport for the extremely busy and slot constrained London area.
The temporary closure of any of the big 4 London airports puts a significant strain on the remaining resources. The CAA already stipulate Heathrow should not be nominated as a diversion airport for the London area, as it is already at capacity. Gatwick is the second busiest single runway airport in the world and regularly has flow rates imposed to limit traffic flows at peak times of the day. Luton has limited apron capacity at certain times of the day, leaving only Stansted to cope with diversions. Stansted is already very busy with base operators and so cannot handle multiple diversions for long periods.
It would require a national infrastructure policy and a suitable mechanism for funding, but nominating London Manston as a primary diversion airport would have a number of positive benefits:
1. Making Manston the primary diversionary airport for any aircraft with a hijack situation (hopefully relatively rare events nowadays) would allow the high levels of traffic using Stansted to continue uninterrupted. Manston is remote enough to allow the appropriate security services to deal with terrorist incidents away from the major hubs and with minimum disruption to surrounding communities. Kent Police would have to take over any existing activities performed by Essex Police.
2. Airlines using other London airports would be able to nominate London Manston as primary H24 diversionary airport and thereby plan fuel reserves with minimum track miles and eliminate the necessity for holding, thereby reducing required fuel reserves. Terminal facilities and onward ground transport would have to be sufficient for diverted flights. It would provide an environmental benefit from the need to carry and burn less fuel.
3. Aircraft reporting significant or high risk technical emergencies (blown tyre on take-off, undercarriage fault) would be able to divert and avoid blocking the main runways at the other 5 London hub airports. Thereby avoiding any extensive period of closure at the busier airports. Sufficient shared engineering support and ground handling support could be allocated to London Manston in order to clear the runway and move the aircraft to a suitable area for repair. The only downside would be the number of occasions when it would have been preferable to land at the home base airport where the technical fault was not significant, immediate engineering support was locally available and suitable hangar facilities were available had the aircraft landed at its intended destination.
There could be some innovative solution to funding, whereby those aircraft operators choosing to nominate London Manston as an alternate airport in the Air Traffic Flight Plan would be required to pay a nominal fee to do so. The airport operator would then have a significant revenue stream with virtually every flight to the London airports nominating London Manston as diversion, so the total fees would be sufficient to provide the necessary diversion facilities and make a profitable return to allow further investment in airport facilities. A significant revenue stream for relatively few aircraft movements. But a win-win situation for both airlines and airport operators alike.
The temporary closure of any of the big 4 London airports puts a significant strain on the remaining resources. The CAA already stipulate Heathrow should not be nominated as a diversion airport for the London area, as it is already at capacity. Gatwick is the second busiest single runway airport in the world and regularly has flow rates imposed to limit traffic flows at peak times of the day. Luton has limited apron capacity at certain times of the day, leaving only Stansted to cope with diversions. Stansted is already very busy with base operators and so cannot handle multiple diversions for long periods.
It would require a national infrastructure policy and a suitable mechanism for funding, but nominating London Manston as a primary diversion airport would have a number of positive benefits:
1. Making Manston the primary diversionary airport for any aircraft with a hijack situation (hopefully relatively rare events nowadays) would allow the high levels of traffic using Stansted to continue uninterrupted. Manston is remote enough to allow the appropriate security services to deal with terrorist incidents away from the major hubs and with minimum disruption to surrounding communities. Kent Police would have to take over any existing activities performed by Essex Police.
2. Airlines using other London airports would be able to nominate London Manston as primary H24 diversionary airport and thereby plan fuel reserves with minimum track miles and eliminate the necessity for holding, thereby reducing required fuel reserves. Terminal facilities and onward ground transport would have to be sufficient for diverted flights. It would provide an environmental benefit from the need to carry and burn less fuel.
3. Aircraft reporting significant or high risk technical emergencies (blown tyre on take-off, undercarriage fault) would be able to divert and avoid blocking the main runways at the other 5 London hub airports. Thereby avoiding any extensive period of closure at the busier airports. Sufficient shared engineering support and ground handling support could be allocated to London Manston in order to clear the runway and move the aircraft to a suitable area for repair. The only downside would be the number of occasions when it would have been preferable to land at the home base airport where the technical fault was not significant, immediate engineering support was locally available and suitable hangar facilities were available had the aircraft landed at its intended destination.
There could be some innovative solution to funding, whereby those aircraft operators choosing to nominate London Manston as an alternate airport in the Air Traffic Flight Plan would be required to pay a nominal fee to do so. The airport operator would then have a significant revenue stream with virtually every flight to the London airports nominating London Manston as diversion, so the total fees would be sufficient to provide the necessary diversion facilities and make a profitable return to allow further investment in airport facilities. A significant revenue stream for relatively few aircraft movements. But a win-win situation for both airlines and airport operators alike.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,720
Likes: 2,085
From: Reading, UK
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: In a house
As far as I am aware, there are currently no fees for nominating a diversion airport in the UK. Airports are open for normal scheduled operations and can accept diversions during these hours subject to capacity.
It was purely a suggestion to fund the operational expense of London Manston (terminal, handling, fire service, ATC and security etc) given there is unlikely to be sufficient revenue from planned aircraft movements alone. A relatively modest flat fee multiplied for most flights to London airports per year should generate a significant amount.
Obviously, if an aircraft did divert and land, it would also pay the more significant landing, parking and handling fees. As would any scheduled movement.
This practise is used in the more remote areas of the world, whereby airport facilities are made available outside of normal operating hours for consideration as ETOPS diversion airports. The airport operator will by prior arrangement extend published operating hours and provide the necessary fire fighting, handling and ATS facilities for a small nominal fee.
In this case, the fee would be an extra cost to the airline but could be offset by the reduction in fuel costs, assuming less distance to divert and elimination of holding requires less fuel to be loaded.
UK airports (such as Durham Tees Valley) often downgrade fire fighting and ATS facilities outside of operating hours for scheduled flight movements. If there is enough demand from airlines to use the airport as a diversion airport outside of operating hours, then it could in certain circumstances generate sufficient additional revenue to extend the hours during which services are provided. Difficult for Durham Tees Valley due to it's location, but probably easier for London Manston being sited near to a major multi-airport hub with 6 London airports supplying traffic.
In 2018, there were 1.1 million aircraft movements to LHR, LGW, STN, LTN, LCY & SEN airports. That's £1.1 million if all flights were charged a £1 fee for using Manston as a primary diversion. £11.8 million if the fee were £10 per flight. Diversion fuel for a flight diverting to Manston from let's say LGW would be less than if it diverted to STN.
It was purely a suggestion to fund the operational expense of London Manston (terminal, handling, fire service, ATC and security etc) given there is unlikely to be sufficient revenue from planned aircraft movements alone. A relatively modest flat fee multiplied for most flights to London airports per year should generate a significant amount.
Obviously, if an aircraft did divert and land, it would also pay the more significant landing, parking and handling fees. As would any scheduled movement.
This practise is used in the more remote areas of the world, whereby airport facilities are made available outside of normal operating hours for consideration as ETOPS diversion airports. The airport operator will by prior arrangement extend published operating hours and provide the necessary fire fighting, handling and ATS facilities for a small nominal fee.
In this case, the fee would be an extra cost to the airline but could be offset by the reduction in fuel costs, assuming less distance to divert and elimination of holding requires less fuel to be loaded.
UK airports (such as Durham Tees Valley) often downgrade fire fighting and ATS facilities outside of operating hours for scheduled flight movements. If there is enough demand from airlines to use the airport as a diversion airport outside of operating hours, then it could in certain circumstances generate sufficient additional revenue to extend the hours during which services are provided. Difficult for Durham Tees Valley due to it's location, but probably easier for London Manston being sited near to a major multi-airport hub with 6 London airports supplying traffic.
In 2018, there were 1.1 million aircraft movements to LHR, LGW, STN, LTN, LCY & SEN airports. That's £1.1 million if all flights were charged a £1 fee for using Manston as a primary diversion. £11.8 million if the fee were £10 per flight. Diversion fuel for a flight diverting to Manston from let's say LGW would be less than if it diverted to STN.
Last edited by ExpectmorePayless; 6th July 2019 at 20:49.
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 780
Likes: 78
From: Outer London
For all it’s constraints Southend is in a very different place to Manston. People might critique Southend’s location and accessibility but it is within an hour’s journey by road or rail from a sizeable area of London’s administrative boundary. 45 mins to Stratford on a relatively inexpensive and regular train is a somewhat better proposition than 1h20 on a less frequent and quite expensive HS1 service. Southend’s immediate local catchment is wealthier than Manston’s. Therefore because Southend has attracted EZY, FR and others does not mean Manston can replicate that feat.
To meet the forecast pax figure Manston would require 6 daily Ryanair flights - that’s 2-3 based units. If Manston attracted Ryanair to do 3 weekly to Alicante and 2 weekly to Faro and Tenerife (for example) it would be doing incredibly well.
To meet the forecast pax figure Manston would require 6 daily Ryanair flights - that’s 2-3 based units. If Manston attracted Ryanair to do 3 weekly to Alicante and 2 weekly to Faro and Tenerife (for example) it would be doing incredibly well.
Last edited by AirportPlanner1; 7th July 2019 at 07:44.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,720
Likes: 2,085
From: Reading, UK
As far as I am aware, there are currently no fees for nominating a diversion airport in the UK. Airports are open for normal scheduled operations and can accept diversions during these hours subject to capacity.
It was purely a suggestion to fund the operational expense of London Manston (terminal, handling, fire service, ATC and security etc) given there is unlikely to be sufficient revenue from planned aircraft movements alone. A relatively modest flat fee multiplied for most flights to London airports per year should generate a significant amount.
It was purely a suggestion to fund the operational expense of London Manston (terminal, handling, fire service, ATC and security etc) given there is unlikely to be sufficient revenue from planned aircraft movements alone. A relatively modest flat fee multiplied for most flights to London airports per year should generate a significant amount.
Do I hear the sound of straws being clutched at ?
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: london
With regards to a cargo plane at manston the other week I beleive there was one at lydd recently it transported a rhino to Egypt I think any idea what type of plane .With regards to passenger flights didn't Eu jet in the end use ATRs on domestic routes said they where more economical
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 353
Likes: 172
From: Kent
For all it’s constraints Southend is in a very different place to Manston. People might critique Southend’s location and accessibility but it is within an hour’s journey by road or rail from a sizeable area of London’s administrative boundary. 45 mins to Stratford on a relatively inexpensive and regular train is a somewhat better proposition than 1h20 on a less frequent and quite expensive HS1 service. Southend’s immediate local catchment is wealthier than Manston’s. Therefore because Southend has attracted EZY, FR and others does not mean Manston can replicate that feat
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,245
Likes: 1,655
From: Ferrara
"There is no need to limit it to night flights"
I suspect the locals and the greens will disagree strongly................... nobody wants night flights from their local airfield
I suspect the locals and the greens will disagree strongly................... nobody wants night flights from their local airfield
Joined: Jan 2001
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,073
Likes: 302
From: Clarty Waters, UK
In any case, is there really a market for rail / air freight transfer? My feeling is that the two modes of transport serve quite different freight markets.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: Birchington, Kent, England
Latest update on Manston courtesy of the local newspaper. RSP already spent £15M on pursuing the Development Consent Order (DCO) and the purchase of the Jentex Fuel site.
The figure quoted from DCO documents is that £16,5M has been agreed for the purchase of the airport site.
I can't quote a source, but, it is believed that RSP expect to expend £100M on developing the airport. At the time I attended a presentation by RSP, they stated their intention to have 10 aprons capable of taking 747 sized aircraft, before re-opening.
The figure quoted from DCO documents is that £16,5M has been agreed for the purchase of the airport site.
I can't quote a source, but, it is believed that RSP expect to expend £100M on developing the airport. At the time I attended a presentation by RSP, they stated their intention to have 10 aprons capable of taking 747 sized aircraft, before re-opening.