Manchester-3
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that the "new" T2 has been officially recognised for the high quality of its architecture. I haven't seen the new terminal myself, but this good publicity could be another step in resetting the reputation of Ringway. After the highly publicised (and completely merited) criticisms of the passenger experience over the last few years, the airport needed to make improvements.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that the "new" T2 has been officially recognised for the high quality of its architecture. I haven't seen the new terminal myself, but this good publicity could be another step in resetting the reputation of Ringway. After the highly publicised (and completely merited) criticisms of the passenger experience over the last few years, the airport needed to make improvements.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we know the capacity across the airport when all WIP is complete ?
I'm sure 45m per annum was mentioned but that was assuming we would increase stand capacity not lose it.
I'm sure 45m per annum was mentioned but that was assuming we would increase stand capacity not lose it.
Last edited by Navpi; 16th Dec 2023 at 11:52.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some and all of the target growth of some years ago was predicated on aircraft size growth ( some happening 737NG to Max and 320NG densified and fewer props and the like).
In the case of the original T2 and indeed T3 the design principles were predicated on short door to kerb and rapid turn round times thereby increasing stand utilisation.
Changed border requirements as a result of “B” and security issues around liquids and perceived terrorist threats has completely disrupted those very dynamics.
Indeed I think the terminal capacity has already been reduced from a notional 55 million downwards
In the case of the original T2 and indeed T3 the design principles were predicated on short door to kerb and rapid turn round times thereby increasing stand utilisation.
Changed border requirements as a result of “B” and security issues around liquids and perceived terrorist threats has completely disrupted those very dynamics.
Indeed I think the terminal capacity has already been reduced from a notional 55 million downwards
Join Date: Mar 2023
Location: GB
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you say, I do think a big chunk of future growth will come through aircraft types rather than new routes - in specific, our 4 largest carriers are inducting bigger types - Jet2 taking the first 321 NEOs this summer as well as more lsd A330s, EasyJet & Ryanair ordering the 321neo and MAX 10 by the ton respectively, and TUI expecting MAX 10.
This will add up
This will add up
I see that the "new" T2 has been officially recognised for the high quality of its architecture. I haven't seen the new terminal myself, but this good publicity could be another step in resetting the reputation of Ringway. After the highly publicised (and completely merited) criticisms of the passenger experience over the last few years, the airport needed to make improvements.
Well at least it will have one of the original chandeliers:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...raced-27192932
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...raced-27192932
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having travelled through the new Terminal 2 three times since July, I have to agree with TURIN. I looks cheap, lino floors and no travelators! A lot of the long haul park at the furthest end which makes for a long trek through something that feels like a mix of a council office and a hospital corridor!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 168 Likes
on
103 Posts
I have to say I am not a regular user of T2, but on one of my in frequent visits I noted shortly after opening that it was rather uninspired and indeed seemed to be short of places to sit and indeed toilet facilities from the queues outside. Externally it looks like a municipal bus station and is not much different from Liverpool in that regard.
The last time I went through talking to a sales person on a perfume concession she said the place was already falling to pieces with failing Air Conditioning / Lifts / Lighting etc. etc. I have not been back through there since July.
Cheers
Mr Mac
The last time I went through talking to a sales person on a perfume concession she said the place was already falling to pieces with failing Air Conditioning / Lifts / Lighting etc. etc. I have not been back through there since July.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least Liverpool has carpet and nice tiling. Indeed, at Manchester T2, they have created more stands and corridors but not enlarged the waiting area or created more seating.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Danunder
Age: 49
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2nd pier is due to open somewhere around Q2 of 2025.
Going forward I expect T3 will use Pier B as it’s already connected to T1 anyway and there aren’t enough stands presently at T3 for all Ryanair aircraft to park overnight.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 168 Likes
on
103 Posts
Chaps 1954
It would be good to know when it will be complete as it does seem to be having a very long build program indeed almost Berlinesque in some regards.
Cheers
Mr Mac
It would be good to know when it will be complete as it does seem to be having a very long build program indeed almost Berlinesque in some regards.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was always a 10 year programme (2015-2025). Phase 2 if I remember rightly didn’t start until March this year and also includes the dual taxiway work, all of this due to for completion during summer 2025, which is certainly not long away, given how quick this year seems to have gone!
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: North of Watford Gap
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got back from a 14 day trip to CUN and was pleasently surprised by the efficency of T2. It took 20 mins from getting dropped off to sitting in the departure lounge. Yes its still a bit of a patchwork especially if you are departing from the older gates (we departed and arriced at 204) but I can see the potential.
Coming back this morning was also efficent. we had a 5 min delay to get onto stand (not unusual I know) but once there we cleared a reasonably busy immigration hall in about 10 mins and our luggage was already on the belt.
One thing to note on the downside though, the signage to terminal 2 collections at the arrivals west carpark is poor and neds looking at.
Coming back this morning was also efficent. we had a 5 min delay to get onto stand (not unusual I know) but once there we cleared a reasonably busy immigration hall in about 10 mins and our luggage was already on the belt.
One thing to note on the downside though, the signage to terminal 2 collections at the arrivals west carpark is poor and neds looking at.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having travelled through the new Terminal 2 three times since July, I have to agree with TURIN. I looks cheap, lino floors and no travelators! A lot of the long haul park at the furthest end which makes for a long trek through something that feels like a mix of a council office and a hospital corridor!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With only ALIA to show thus far for 2024 re long haul it crossed my mind whether CW might go after some of his former route development team at LGW who seem to be having a stellar period.
Air India, Air China, China Eastern, Saudia, Lufthansa, Delta, Ethiopian Airlines, Air Mauritius and just last week, China Southern.
These seem to be the result of hard work and graft rather than sitting back and waiting for LHR overspill.
"We need to identify key carriers for our market, have initial conversations, understand cultural requirements and expectations, appreciate and work with the needs and capacity of the airport and our operations, have more conversations – and this is all before we’re even close to signing on the dotted line."
Cedit Stephanie Wear, vice President Aviation Development Team Gatwick.
As CW is ex LGW might there be an opportunity to go after this lady ?
Air India, Air China, China Eastern, Saudia, Lufthansa, Delta, Ethiopian Airlines, Air Mauritius and just last week, China Southern.
These seem to be the result of hard work and graft rather than sitting back and waiting for LHR overspill.
"We need to identify key carriers for our market, have initial conversations, understand cultural requirements and expectations, appreciate and work with the needs and capacity of the airport and our operations, have more conversations – and this is all before we’re even close to signing on the dotted line."
Cedit Stephanie Wear, vice President Aviation Development Team Gatwick.
As CW is ex LGW might there be an opportunity to go after this lady ?
Last edited by Navpi; 25th Dec 2023 at 22:25.
I think we need to give our own routes team some credit. They've had one hand tied behind their back, yet they've still secured an additional based aircraft from each of Ryanair, EasyJet (plus continued shift to larger types), and possibly Jet2. Virgin Atlantic is restoring LAS. For new carriers, we're looking at Luxair, Royal Jordanian, Southwind. Eurowings is adding two routes and Corendon one new Greek route to HER. Hainan, Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific (subject to aircraft availability), EgyptAir, Ethiopian are amongst carriers stepping up frequency. There may be more, and there is still time for meaningful 2024 announcements to come.
MAN has lagged in some areas of rebuilding business, notably Transatlantic and England & Scotland domestic (post-FlyBe).
However, where there has been shortfalls, it isn't clear that the routes team should shoulder the blame for these. The previous CEO kept the routes team on furlough for far too long (in my view). During that time, they couldn't contribute at all ... the chance to secure new business from Transavia and Vueling (how many others?) was forfeited. Also, whilst they were away, enquiries were directed by default to a management figure not accustomed to nurturing relationships with airlines, and the grapevine suggests that some carriers were extremely affronted by the reception they received from MAN at that time. Some would suggest that Edinburgh Airport has much to thank this one less-than-diplomatic individual (and his/her budget) for?
MAN's routes team didn't cause the alleged damage, but it falls to them to pick up the pieces and restore relationships where noses have been put out of joint. We can't blame them if this process takes time. However, they MUST ensure that every enquiry receives at least a courteous and enthusiastic reply. It is alleged that one carrier which recently announced a new schedule at Liverpool had first enquired at MAN and received no response. That can never be allowed to happen. Measures must be put in place to prevent any recurrence of that alleged lapse.
Next, MAN's growth in terms of new services and carriers is also at the mercy of terminal capacity. Terminal 3 in particular is at bursting point, and MAG's previous CEO resolutely refused any meaningful investment to address that. Ryanair - along with EasyJet, the two carriers best placed to drive growth at MAN - find themselves with little physical space in which to expand. And this problem was absolutely foreseen. It has been discussed on this very forum for years now. T3 STILL has domestic flights squeezed in there. They should have been shifted to T2 long ago, and failure to do so has already cost MAN heavily in terms of forfeited interline business which has since defaulted to competing airports (probably permanently). Suggestions to open up access from T3 to Pier B to allow Ryanair overflow have been ignored to date. For as long as Ryanair and EasyJet in particular remain strangled by capacity constraints, MAN will be unable to fulfil it's latent growth potential to the extent that business-demand warrants.
But there has been a changing of the guard. Ken O' Toole (a former MAN CEO, and one with an intimatte understanding of the needs of Ryanair and similar) now heads the group. And at MAN specifically we have Chris W who came from LGW with a glowing CV. I think that most would agree that he has made an excellent start at MAN, particularly with his initial focus on improving the passenger experience. Terminal capacity needs to be his focus now. The roadmap to full reopening of legacy T2 is known. But T3 requires urgent intensive care - it is set to lose two further aircraft stands to the new security hall extension. Plans need to be put in place to make best use of the T1 stands post-closure of the terminal core. I would personally advocate for Pier B to be wholly fed from T3 via the southern front corridor, and for Pier C to receive a physical covered link to T2 (unless a so far unannounced new pier is planned over it's footprint). A substantial apron extension on the campus should also be high on the agenda to ensure future capacity resilience.
Finally, I have to mention that which must go unspoken on here. Since the discussion some months ago when it was suggested that MAG had received a "knuckle rap" over the group policy towards whole-plane cargo flights at MAN, it appears from the outside that nothing has changed. MAN has not handled one single widebodied freighter since then, barring those DHL B77F's which pitched up for maintenance work with STS. To my knowledge, MAN has still got no Hi-Lo capability on campus (the busiest airport in Europe which cannot offer this?), and unless anyone can advise differently, it does not appear that any handling agent has been tasked with restoring capability on this. Attention to this issue is sorely needed, and MAG must be prepared to share the initial cost burden with said handling agent partner.
So, as we head into 2024, I suggest that we need to BACK our routes team, not bash them. Where the reality has fallen short of expectation, the issue(s) seem to lie principally with other departments within MAG. Give the routes team a generous budget and an unequivocal mandate to pursue new business. Conduct a charm-offensive tour (featuring CW himself) around prospective Transatlantic partners as a priority. Work with Loganair and others to restore with urgency routes to SOU and EXT in particular. Perhaps SEN too: that route failed due to over-ambitious scheduling and consequent high volume of EU/UK261claims, not due to lack of latent demand. Given contemporary rail issues (set to continue) and the recent axing of HS2, enhanced air capacity from MAN to the London area is sorely needed (and we can't expect more slots at LHR/LGW/LCY for this). Re-approach Air Baltic, who bafflingly launched MAN-RIX in the midst of covid, only to withdraw flights at exactly the time we were all allowed to travel again. And chase up Greek carrier Sky Express, spending a small fortune on TV advertising in a region where they have no product to offer. There are plenty of leads out there for an enthusiastic team to be going after!
My verdict on 2023: a lot more good than bad. T2 in particular is providing a good passenger experience, minor (fixable) cosmetic issues notwithstanding. So far so good, but plenty to focus on in the year to come.
MAN has lagged in some areas of rebuilding business, notably Transatlantic and England & Scotland domestic (post-FlyBe).
However, where there has been shortfalls, it isn't clear that the routes team should shoulder the blame for these. The previous CEO kept the routes team on furlough for far too long (in my view). During that time, they couldn't contribute at all ... the chance to secure new business from Transavia and Vueling (how many others?) was forfeited. Also, whilst they were away, enquiries were directed by default to a management figure not accustomed to nurturing relationships with airlines, and the grapevine suggests that some carriers were extremely affronted by the reception they received from MAN at that time. Some would suggest that Edinburgh Airport has much to thank this one less-than-diplomatic individual (and his/her budget) for?
MAN's routes team didn't cause the alleged damage, but it falls to them to pick up the pieces and restore relationships where noses have been put out of joint. We can't blame them if this process takes time. However, they MUST ensure that every enquiry receives at least a courteous and enthusiastic reply. It is alleged that one carrier which recently announced a new schedule at Liverpool had first enquired at MAN and received no response. That can never be allowed to happen. Measures must be put in place to prevent any recurrence of that alleged lapse.
Next, MAN's growth in terms of new services and carriers is also at the mercy of terminal capacity. Terminal 3 in particular is at bursting point, and MAG's previous CEO resolutely refused any meaningful investment to address that. Ryanair - along with EasyJet, the two carriers best placed to drive growth at MAN - find themselves with little physical space in which to expand. And this problem was absolutely foreseen. It has been discussed on this very forum for years now. T3 STILL has domestic flights squeezed in there. They should have been shifted to T2 long ago, and failure to do so has already cost MAN heavily in terms of forfeited interline business which has since defaulted to competing airports (probably permanently). Suggestions to open up access from T3 to Pier B to allow Ryanair overflow have been ignored to date. For as long as Ryanair and EasyJet in particular remain strangled by capacity constraints, MAN will be unable to fulfil it's latent growth potential to the extent that business-demand warrants.
But there has been a changing of the guard. Ken O' Toole (a former MAN CEO, and one with an intimatte understanding of the needs of Ryanair and similar) now heads the group. And at MAN specifically we have Chris W who came from LGW with a glowing CV. I think that most would agree that he has made an excellent start at MAN, particularly with his initial focus on improving the passenger experience. Terminal capacity needs to be his focus now. The roadmap to full reopening of legacy T2 is known. But T3 requires urgent intensive care - it is set to lose two further aircraft stands to the new security hall extension. Plans need to be put in place to make best use of the T1 stands post-closure of the terminal core. I would personally advocate for Pier B to be wholly fed from T3 via the southern front corridor, and for Pier C to receive a physical covered link to T2 (unless a so far unannounced new pier is planned over it's footprint). A substantial apron extension on the campus should also be high on the agenda to ensure future capacity resilience.
Finally, I have to mention that which must go unspoken on here. Since the discussion some months ago when it was suggested that MAG had received a "knuckle rap" over the group policy towards whole-plane cargo flights at MAN, it appears from the outside that nothing has changed. MAN has not handled one single widebodied freighter since then, barring those DHL B77F's which pitched up for maintenance work with STS. To my knowledge, MAN has still got no Hi-Lo capability on campus (the busiest airport in Europe which cannot offer this?), and unless anyone can advise differently, it does not appear that any handling agent has been tasked with restoring capability on this. Attention to this issue is sorely needed, and MAG must be prepared to share the initial cost burden with said handling agent partner.
So, as we head into 2024, I suggest that we need to BACK our routes team, not bash them. Where the reality has fallen short of expectation, the issue(s) seem to lie principally with other departments within MAG. Give the routes team a generous budget and an unequivocal mandate to pursue new business. Conduct a charm-offensive tour (featuring CW himself) around prospective Transatlantic partners as a priority. Work with Loganair and others to restore with urgency routes to SOU and EXT in particular. Perhaps SEN too: that route failed due to over-ambitious scheduling and consequent high volume of EU/UK261claims, not due to lack of latent demand. Given contemporary rail issues (set to continue) and the recent axing of HS2, enhanced air capacity from MAN to the London area is sorely needed (and we can't expect more slots at LHR/LGW/LCY for this). Re-approach Air Baltic, who bafflingly launched MAN-RIX in the midst of covid, only to withdraw flights at exactly the time we were all allowed to travel again. And chase up Greek carrier Sky Express, spending a small fortune on TV advertising in a region where they have no product to offer. There are plenty of leads out there for an enthusiastic team to be going after!
My verdict on 2023: a lot more good than bad. T2 in particular is providing a good passenger experience, minor (fixable) cosmetic issues notwithstanding. So far so good, but plenty to focus on in the year to come.