Manchester-3
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North West UK
Age: 69
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Rutan. I’m in full agreement. Maybe also much toning down of the current confrontational rhetoric which permeates virtually everything at present. As I have seen posted elsewhere, it isn’t a football match, there don’t have to be winners and losers. Note: that mentality was evident upthread when discussing MAN vs EDI.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re T1
"The plan was never to retain or refurbish T1 in any form- the entire purpose of the transformation programme is to replace T1 which is outdated, this is stated in the original planning application submitted in 2015".
It most certainly WAS -see MEN MAG press statement below
--------------------------------------------------------
"The next of those milestones is arguably the most significant - the extension of Terminal Two, creating a so-called “super terminal” that will be 160% bigger than it is today and larger than Heathrow T5".
The terminal will become Manchester Airport’s new centre of gravity, giving us the ability to handle up to 45m passengers a year.
SOURCE !!!
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/opinion-andrew-cowan-manchester-airport-16072190
-----------------------------------------------
The plan was most definitely to connect T2 to T1 to form a SUPER TERMINAL.
What is going on here !
Why are we accepting this T2 redevelopment without scrutiny?
Was this a vanity project which is now a shadow of the original proposal and quite frankly is falling well short ?
When did we accept meekly that we "may be losing nearly 30% capacity" without a by or leave?
This has somehow morphed into a watered-down down T2 and an empty carbuncle slap bang between T2 and T3.
And lets not blame the C Word, the trends at every other airport in the UK are rocketing.
In 2024 MAN is looking at 3% growth we are still light years from pre C figures.
It's abysmal.
STN is looking at 43m capacity.....!!!!!
Is MAN still at 45m capacity ?
Anyone know ?
"The plan was never to retain or refurbish T1 in any form- the entire purpose of the transformation programme is to replace T1 which is outdated, this is stated in the original planning application submitted in 2015".
It most certainly WAS -see MEN MAG press statement below
--------------------------------------------------------
"The next of those milestones is arguably the most significant - the extension of Terminal Two, creating a so-called “super terminal” that will be 160% bigger than it is today and larger than Heathrow T5".
The terminal will become Manchester Airport’s new centre of gravity, giving us the ability to handle up to 45m passengers a year.
SOURCE !!!
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/opinion-andrew-cowan-manchester-airport-16072190
-----------------------------------------------
The plan was most definitely to connect T2 to T1 to form a SUPER TERMINAL.
What is going on here !
Why are we accepting this T2 redevelopment without scrutiny?
Was this a vanity project which is now a shadow of the original proposal and quite frankly is falling well short ?
When did we accept meekly that we "may be losing nearly 30% capacity" without a by or leave?
This has somehow morphed into a watered-down down T2 and an empty carbuncle slap bang between T2 and T3.
And lets not blame the C Word, the trends at every other airport in the UK are rocketing.
In 2024 MAN is looking at 3% growth we are still light years from pre C figures.
It's abysmal.
STN is looking at 43m capacity.....!!!!!
Is MAN still at 45m capacity ?
Anyone know ?
Last edited by Navpi; 30th Dec 2023 at 20:03.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you have misunderstood what the article meant by “superterminal”. The 160% increase in size is about the extension to T2, not combining it with T1. T1 isn’t mentioned in the article at all.
Such construction programmes morph over time and planned outcomes can change due to many reasons. However, I'd be very surprised if an airport's principal customers - the airlines - are not closely involved with requirements and monitoring progress, if not forcing/agreeing change at certain times. After all, they will be the ones using it.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was merely an example of the implication of a grand plan to make one large terminal.
Yes I appreciate plans can and do change but the inference back in 2012-2015 with images etc of T1 was of one large super terminal. There was little talk that T1 would be mothballed.
I cannot believe that we are going to be left with what will effectively be an empty shell slap bang between T2 and T3.
All the "naysayers" on here are moaning how poor and basic the new T2 is , well IF it's that poor and basic it shouldn't take much to bring T1 up to its standard should it ?
Whilst there will be an airside corridor built between T2 and T3 i also cannot see how this will encourage transfer activity between the two unless that as a concept has been written off given it will primarily be handed over to RYR.
Sorry I still think this has turned into a mess.
Last edited by Navpi; 31st Dec 2023 at 09:54.
Navpi sorry just cannot agree with you no way can you call T2 a mess.One of the main problems is building costs have rocketed in last couple of years and yes Covid has had a huge effect
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navpi sorry just cannot agree with you no way can you call T2 a mess.One of the main problems is building costs have rocketed in last couple of years and yes Covid has had a huge effect
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.
The problem for us mere mortals who are not in the 'know' is that we are unsure whether MAN/MAG management have a clear vision of what they want MAN, its terminals and airfield to look like in say 10 years time if it is to handle up to 45m passengers. It's the proverbial chicken and egg in terms of major capital projects - invest too early (if the funds are available) - and it looks extravagant waste if the economy slips and expected growth doesn't materialise; but delay too long and the airport is short of capacity and risks losing potential new business to competitors. Some may argue that is happening to a limited extent.
As regards T1, it's a pity if mothballing an asset for an extended period takes up valuable space at an airport whose footprint, as previously mentioned, is already restricted by land boundaries and other factors.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navpi sorry just cannot agree with you no way can you call T2 a mess.One of the main problems is building costs have rocketed in last couple of years and yes Covid has had a huge effect
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.
BHX and LBA are both having building work problems EDI is also a mess as is LTN, its taken LHR 20 or so years and god knows how much money to get where it is now.
I found security quick and painless, the walk to the gate not overly onerous. Arrival was the usual very quick process (domestic flight) where it was less than 10 minutes from gate to walking out the terminal.
I'd agree - have used Luton a few times over the last year even though it's far from my regular airports and on all occasions, it's been absolutely fine. One of the better ones.
The plan to mothball T1 at Manchester is driven pretty much entirely by the new DFT security rules and the cost of upgrading T1 security to meet the new standards - not to mention the increase in staffing that you need for teh new procedures as well. If you're going to decommission it at some point anyway, it makes absolute sense not to spend millions and millions on an upgrade to a facility which will be in use only for a year or two at most. You put as much throughput as possible through T2, turn T3 into a more lo-co facility and leave T1 exactly where it is, although there is the possibility of using some of the T1 pier stands which are connected through T3.
The plan to mothball T1 at Manchester is driven pretty much entirely by the new DFT security rules and the cost of upgrading T1 security to meet the new standards - not to mention the increase in staffing that you need for teh new procedures as well. If you're going to decommission it at some point anyway, it makes absolute sense not to spend millions and millions on an upgrade to a facility which will be in use only for a year or two at most. You put as much throughput as possible through T2, turn T3 into a more lo-co facility and leave T1 exactly where it is, although there is the possibility of using some of the T1 pier stands which are connected through T3.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 169 Likes
on
104 Posts
Well I still use T1, and indeed prefer it to T2, and I have little faith that the development will be on schedule, and unless there is some serious improvements in the QA/QC on the delivery side that it will be fit for purpose.
Cheers
Mr Mac
Cheers
Mr Mac
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the proverbial chicken and egg in terms of major capital projects - invest too early (if the funds are available) - and it looks extravagant waste if the economy slips and expected growth doesn't materialise; but delay too long and the airport is short of capacity and risks losing potential new business to competitors,
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a project can be done in stages with the flexibility to adjust plans and timing as it progresses, that can be an advantage. This would seem to be what MAN has tried to achieve with the TP, although whether the decision to postpone.Pier 3 on T2 for example with the reduction in contact stands is the right one is certainly open to debate.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the aversion to contact gate provision is a Manchester favourite whereby they either don't work, get partially or wholly dismantled, or as you say taken out of the design completely - something passengers certainly would not choose in this rainy windswept part of the world even if some of the airlines are happy with it. Your point is valid regarding flexibility and timing of major projects, but if in practice this means almost constant works, unreliability, terminal swapping of airlines, de-scoping, and general penny pinching leading to grouchy passengers and airlines who would prefer to go elsewhere then it can only happen when there is at least some slack in the system.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Manchester Airport needs is an airside bus and gate service between the (currently three) terminals running at 10 minute frequencies . It’s hardly a massive investment in the scheme of things . Indeed busing gates already exist do they not . This also needs to be replicated land side between T3 /Bus and Train Station and T2 again not a truly massive expenditure nor revolutionary is it ?
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Manchester Airport needs is an airside bus and gate service between the (currently three) terminals running at 10 minute frequencies . It’s hardly a massive investment in the scheme of things . Indeed busing gates already exist do they not . This also needs to be replicated land side between T3 /Bus and Train Station and T2 again not a truly massive expenditure nor revolutionary is it ?
That said, T1 needs to go and the site redeveloped and repurposed.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"if T3 is going to be exclusively Ryanair, I see little need for it to be physically connected".
Tell me you are JOKING !
I'm unsure what proportion of MAN throughput RYR represents but disconnecting millions of passengers from your global connectivity seems to me to be a madness.
I'm stunned we need all these connections bringing together not decapitatation!
Last edited by Navpi; 1st Jan 2024 at 17:12.
So point to point or spoke to hub it is, and I think they'll have to build accordingly.
That said, does anyone have some stats on volume of pax connecting between terminals at MAN? There'll be a few connecting to long haul on seperate tickets I have no doubt? That would give insight on whether a frequent bus makes sense?